-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roommate Of Man Charged With Shooting Police Says It Was Mistake
('Associated Press' Version Of 'Oregonian' Article
About Portland Marijuana Task Force Warrantless Break-In
Suggests Victim Was Deaf, Didn't Know Assailants Were Police,
And Shot In Self-Defense - Which Would Mean Police Lied
About Smelling Cannabis Plants Being Destroyed In Fireplace)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:48:17 -0800
From: Paul Freedom
Organization: Oregon State Patriots
To: Cannabis Patriots ,
"libnw@circuit.com"
CC: Gun Owners of America
Subject: SHOOTING WAS A MISTAKE, SAYS ROOMMATE!
Roommate of man charged with
shooting police says it was mistake
The Associated Press
02/06/98 4:49 AM Eastern
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- A man accused of killing a policewoman and
wounding two other officers may not have heard police identify themselves
because he is partially deaf and may have mistakenly thought he was being
attacked, his roommate told The Oregonian.
Jeffrey H. Moore said he talked to Steven Dons by telephone for an hour
Thursday. Don is at Adventist Medical Center recovering from wounds suffered
in the Jan. 27 marijuana raid on the house he and Moore shared.
Dons is scheduled to be arraigned today from his hospital bed on a 13-count
indictment of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder and assault.
"He really regrets what he's done," Moore said. "He didn't know who they
were. He made a decision to defend himself."
Dons is accused of shooting and killing Officer Colleen Waibel, 44, the first
woman in the Portland Police Bureau to die in the line of duty.
He also is charged with wounding Officer Kim Keist, who was downgraded
Thursday from fair to serious condition at Legacy Emanuel Hospital after
suffering an infection in her colon, which had been perforated by a
bullet.
"That sets you up for an infection right there," said hospital spokeswoman
Claudia Brown.
Another bullet entered Keist's right shoulder and came to rest near her hip,
where it probably will remain. But doctors expect her to make a full recovery
and she should be able to return to police work if she chooses.
Moore, 44, told The Oregonian that he had no idea there was a 51-plant
marijuana grow operation downstairs in the house he shared with Dons.
He also said a surveillance camera at the front door was not intended for an
ambush, and weapons the police found, including a grenade launcher, all are
legal.
Moore said he knows the names of people Dons believed were trying to kill
him, but he declined to reveal them to the newspaper. He did not say why
someone would want to kill Dons, who Moore says is partially deaf from his
U.S. Air Force service and from target shooting.
Capt. Greg Clark, head of the police bureau's detective division, and James
McIntyre, the Multnomah County deputy district attorney handling the case,
both said they cannot comment on Moore's claims.
"Whatever Mr. Moore has to say, he has to say," McIntyre said. "Our
investigation is continuing."
Moore's ex-wife, Chelle Moore of Las Vegas, said even she knew the
marijuana was there, as she told police after the shooting.
"He's a liar," she said of her ex-husband. "Jeff doesn't want to take
responsibility for anything he's done."
Moore said the marijuana plants police found belonged to Dons and were kept
in a locked room for which he did not have a key. Moore said he thought Dons
had used the room for storage the past two years.
Moore said he occasionally smoked marijuana with Dons but he didn't have any
reason to believe Dons was a drug dealer.
"Yeah, he had friends over who did some things we do, but I never saw that,"
Moore said.
Moore said the guns found in the house were used for protection and target
shooting, and half were his, including a Polytech M-14 semiautomatic rifle, one
of two SKS semiautomatic rifles, one of two shotguns and two handguns.
Moore said he and Dons have been friends for 14 years.
"I don't approve of what he's done," Moore said. "He's not the most perfect
person around, but he's basically a good man."
David R. Anderson covers the Portland Police Bureau
for The Oregonian's Crime, Justice, and Public Safety
Team. He can be reached by phone at 503-294-7633,
by fax at 503-294-5009, by e-mail at
davidanderson@news.oregonian.com or by
mail at 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, Oregon 97201
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Roommate Of Man Charged With Shooting Police Says It Was Mistake
('Oregonian' Version)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 15:33:33 -0800
From: Paul Freedom
Organization: Oregon State Patriots
To: Cannabis Patriots ,
"libnw@circuit.com"
CC: Gun Owners of America
Subject: UPDATE!-SHOOTING A MISTAKE
The Oregonian
February 6, 1998
Roommate calls police shooting a
mistake
Steven Dons, described as a "good man," didn't realize
those outside his door were officers and ''regrets'' the
tragedy, his friend says
By David R. Anderson
of The Oregonian staff
The man accused of murdering a Portland police officer
mistakenly thought that officers storming his home were
people who might be trying to kill him, his roommate said
Thursday.
Steven Douglas Dons admitted to Jeffrey H. Moore during an
hourlong telephone conversation Thursday that he shot at police,
Moore said.
"He didn't know who they were," Moore said. "He made a
decision to defend himself.
"He said he made a decision and stuck to it. He really
regrets what he's done."
Moore said he knows the names of the people Dons
thought were trying to kill him, but he would not reveal them
to The Oregonian and would not say why someone would
want to kill Dons. Dons is partially deaf from his service in
the U.S. Air Force and from target shooting, Moore said.
He said that explains why Dons never heard police
identifying themselves before breaking down his front door.
Dons is scheduled to be arraigned this morning from his
hospital bed at Adventist Medical Center on a 13-count
indictment of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated
murder and assault.
He is accused of shooting and killing Portland police Officer
Colleen Waibel, 44, during a drug raid Jan. 27 at his home,
2612 S.E. 111th Ave. Two other officers were injured in
the shootout, which also left Dons with a bullet in his chest.
Moore, 44, said in a telephone interview from his office at
Mt. Hood Community College, where he is a computer
network specialist, that he had no idea about a 51-plant
marijuana grow operation police found in a downstairs
room of the house he rented. He said a surveillance camera
at the front door was not intended for an ambush, and the
weapons police found, including a device that appears to be
a grenade launcher, are all legal.
Capt. Greg Clark, head of the Portland Police Bureau's
Detective Division, and James McIntyre, the Multnomah
County deputy district attorney handling the case, said they
could not comment on Moore's claims.
"Whatever Mr. Moore has to say, he has to say,'' McIntyre
said. "Our investigation is continuing."
Moore's ex-wife, Chelle Moore of Las Vegas, said even
she knew the marijuana was there and told police that after
the shooting.
"He's a liar," she said Thursday of her ex-husband. "Jeff
doesn't want to take responsibility for anything he's done."
Moore said he does not have an attorney and doesn't think
he'll be charged with a crime.
"I'm not guilty of anything," he said. "Why would I be
charged?"
He said the marijuana plants that police found belonged to
Dons and were kept in a locked room for which he did not
have a key. Moore said he thought Dons had used the room
for storage the past two years.
Moore said he occasionally smoked marijuana with Dons
and that an inhaling device police found for cocaine or
methamphetamine might belong to Dons. But Moore said he
didn't have any reason to think Dons was a drug dealer.
"Yeah, he had friends over who did some things we do, but
I never saw that," Moore said.
Moore said the guns police found in the house were for
protection and target shooting. Moore and Dons liked to go
to a regulated outdoor shooting range in Vancouver, Wash.,
or to the hills around Estacada.
"Every weapon in the house was perfectly legal," Moore
said.
When Dons lived in Las Vegas, he probably had 40 or 50
weapons, Moore said.
"He was a hobbyist," Moore said.
As for a device police think is a grenade launcher, Moore
said it is a 37mm flare launcher.
Moore said half the guns were his -- a Polytech M14
semiautomatic rifle, one of two SKS semiautomatic rifles,
one of two shotguns and both handguns.
Police found a surveillance camera next to the front door
behind reflective glass. Moore said he and Dons used the
camera to see to the end of their driveway without having to
go to the front door. It was not aimed at people standing at
the door, Moore said. It was a coincidence that the monitor
was in Dons' bedroom the morning of the shooting, Moore
said.
Moore said the media have unfairly portrayed his friend of
14 years. Dons is a good man who worked hard at
whatever he did, Moore said.
"I don't approve of what he's done," Moore said. "He's not
the most perfect person around, but he's basically a good
man."
Moore also disputed reports that Dons dislikes women.
Dons is divorced and came to Portland four years ago
because he was having problems with a girlfriend.
"He doesn't hate women; he just doesn't have a lot of use
for them," Moore said.
Dons does have a problem with authority and law
enforcement, Moore said. That goes back to his
experiences in Las Vegas, where Dons was harassed by
police, Moore said. Dons was convicted of two counts of
obstructing a police officer and single counts of resisting
arrest, resisting a police officer, battery with a deadly
weapon, using a deadly weapon in the commission of a
crime, and being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm.
But Moore said that none of the convictions were felonies.
Dons has lived in Portland for four years, and police said
that he has no criminal convictions during that time.
During the holidays, Moore's two young children visited him
from Las Vegas. One day when he came home, he did find
that Dons had handcuffed his 7-year-old son to a chair,
Moore said. But after questioning, Moore became
convinced that it was a game. After all, he said, his son was
quietly eating soup with his free hand and wasn't
complaining.
Moore said that Dons had a "childhood you wouldn't wish
on your worst enemy." Dons was routinely beaten by his
parents as a young boy, Moore said. Dons' mother, for
example, slammed his crib across the room and broke his
leg, Moore said. And Dons' father was beyond strict.
"His father practiced wall-to-wall counseling," Moore said.
As to reports that Dons threw rocks at other children as a
youngster, Moore said it was a defense against gangs.
"He never started anything as far as I know," Moore said,
"but he was in a position to end it."
David R. Anderson covers the Portland Police Bureau
for The Oregonian's Crime, Justice & Public Safety
Team. He can be reached by phone at 294-7663, by fax
at 294-5009, by email at
davidanderson@news.oregonian.com or by mail 1320
S.W. Broadway, Portland 97201.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
International Conference On Marihuana For Medicine (Media Awareness Project
Draws Attention To Conference At New York University Medical Center
March 20-21 Co-Chaired By Notorious Anti-Cannabis Zealot Gabriel H. Nahas)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:20:11 -0500
To: roi@legalize.org, ukcia-l@sorted.org, usa@legalize.org, mape@legalize.org,
DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU, medmj@drcnet.org, drctalk@drcnet.org,
mattalk@islandnet.com, maptalk@mapinc.org, hemp-talk@hemp.net,
november-l@NOVEMBER.ORG, update@adca.org.au, israel@legalize.org,
norway@legalize.org, sweden@legalize.org, france@legalize.org
From: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Subject: International Conference on Marihuana for Medicine
[Richard Lake of Media Awareness Project writes:]
In a response to my inquiry, based on a newshawk tip from Michael Krawitz
(Miguet@NOVEMBER.ORG) who wrote "Professor Nahas has slipped many fast ones
past our side, Please help me avert this one." I sent a message to
Professor Gabriel Nahas about his conference, and received the following
reply:
> Subject: RE: International Conference on Marihuana and Medicine Date:
> Thu, 05 Feb 1998 13:39:47 -0400
> From: nahasg01@mchip00.med.nyu.edu (Gabriel G. Nahas)
> To: rlake@utoledo.edu
>
> For additional information about the "Marihuana and Medicine Conference",
>Please see our own website at www.marijuana-research.com/nahas/ or call the
> NYU Post Graduate Medical Center at 212-263-5295.
From the website listed above we find that the:
NYU School of Medicine, Post-Graduate Medical School, PRESENTS AN
International Conference on Marihuana for Medicine [at the] NYU Medical
Center, NYU College of Medicine Friday and Saturday, March 20-21, 1998
CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRMEN: Gabriel Nahas, Robert Cancro, Nicholas Pace and Stig
Agurell
While the announcement goes on to sound like this will be an honest
evaluation, one need only click the link at the bottom of the page, and a
link on the next page to get to:
http://www.marijuana-research.com/nahas/nyu14.htm
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997
Marijuana Is the Wrong Medicine
BY GABRIEL G. NAHAS, KENNETH SUTIN, WILLIAM M. MANGER AND GEORGE HYMAN
Looks like the pet 'researchers' of the Drug War lobby will be, again,
rolling out their 'research' that seems to have a hard time with peer
review. Or at least so I read all over the internet. What do I know?
Has anyone seen any items in the press on this? If so, please email me a
copy at editor@mapinc.org along with the source and contact information for
the publication. Thank you.
Richard Lake
Senior Editor; MAPnews, MAPnews-Digest and DrugNews-Digest
email: rlake@MAPinc.org
http://www.DrugSense.org/drugnews/
For subscription information see:
http://www.MAPinc.org/lists/
Quick sign up for DrugNews-Digest, Focus Alerts or Newsletter:
http://www.DrugSense.org/hurry.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Nahas's Crusade, Or, The Art Of Disinformation (List Subscriber
Posts URL And Excerpts From Michka's October 1993 Denunciation Of Nahas
In France's 'Maintenant')
From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: Mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Re: NAHAS QUOTED! Tom again..LethHerald
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 13:57:40 -0800
Here's something I squirreled away from Usenet awhile back ...
On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Eric Johnson wrote:
Nahas has been the most debunked anti-pot
activist in history. His name is mud in most circles. I couldn't possibly
fit even half the information about him in a post, but I'll attempt to get
you started. A good place to read about him is
http://www.paranoia.com/drugs/marijuana/facts/nahas-crusade. Here are some
pieces of that page, reprinted from:
Professor Nahas's Crusade.. or the Art of Disinformation
by Michka, "Maintenant", October 1993
Professor Nahas is not your average scientist: even before he
began his research, he knew what the outcome would be. His
first research project, during the Fifties at Columbia University
in the United States, was set up to, in his own words,"prove the
very great danger of marijuana in all fields of biology." The key
word here is "prove". Not study, but prove.
Moreover, Professor Nahas declares openly: "I am an enemy
of cannabis and I will use all means possible to fight against
cannabis". And indeed, in this fight, all means are acceptable.
The war against cannabis, presented as a war for public health,
is in fact something entirely different: it is a war for values
which dare not rear their heads in the light of day. So much so
that, the debate, if there ever is a debate, is skewed: the crux of
the matter is never touched upon.
[...]
How could the public at large know that as early as 1975,
Columbia University called a press conference to disassociate
itself publicly from Gabriel Nahas's research on marijuana?
Without carrying out an enquiry, how is one to know that many
of the studies on which Professor Nahas bases his theories have
been discredited in the United States and elsewhere for
methodological errors so serious that they smack of fraud?
There are plenty of examples. We shall limit ourselves to a
single case to illustrate how seemingly scientific studies are used
to popularize notions that are not in the least rational. It should
be noted that the experiment in question and others like it are still
mentioned by Nahas and his followers as proof that cannabis
causes irreversible brain damage.
For this experiment, gas masks were placed on the faces of
some unfortunate laboratory monkeys so that they would be
forced to breathe in cannabis smoke. After exposure, the
animals were put down and it was discovered that they had
suffered brain damage. This could have been the end of the
story. But what happened next is quite edifying:
Independent researchers, intrigued by these results which did
not coincide with the bulk of research in the field, endeavored
for many years to know just which procedure was used for the
experiment. Thus, they learned that for five minutes, the
monkeys were only permitted to breathe in the cannabis smoke
equivalent to that given off by sixty three joints! Under such
conditions, the animals had infact died from asphyxiation.
In another study, also mentioned to demonstrate that cannabis
causes brain damage, laboratory rats were injected with pure
THC, at doses corresponding to twelve hundred times the doses
ingested by a cannabis smoker! If these experiments demonstrate
anything at all, it is the remarkable absence of cannabis toxicity:
the same dose of any of our legal drugs, nicotine, alcohol, or
even caffeine, is immediately lethal to any animal on the
receiving end of such an injection.
[...]
So this is how Gabriel Nahas and his National Alliance
against Drug Addiction manipulate science. And this is how the
public at large is duped. And this is how our politicians spread
the good word. At this rate, the information campaigns promised
by Balladur will probably be as woefully inadequate as usual.
Unless these successive blunders inspire our politicians to be
more circumspect and take more care in choosing their
consultants. Gabriel Nahas and his cohorts have been poisoning
the debate for forty years; the time has come to acknowledge this
and treat the French people as adults.
[End quoting]
I encourage you to do more research on your own, especially before quoting
a source as an authority when you know next to nothing about him/her.
***
Mishta Ecks - Mr-X@iRC EFnet
insane at netset dot com http://www.netset.com/~insane
PGP Key @ MIT Key Server - Key Fingerprint Follows
E5AE 6F83 9020 6C9A 3359 5437 ADCE 1BD5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Camarena Case Witness Recants Allegations, US Says ('Los Angeles Times'
Says Hector Cervantes Santos Is Now Recanting His Earlier Recantation
Regarding 1985 Torture-Slaying In Mexico Of DEA Agent)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 21:53:47 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Camarena Case Witness Recants Allegations, U.S. Says
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Fax: 213-237-4712
Pubdate: February 6, 1998
Author: David Rosenzweig, Times Staff Writer
Man who implicated suspects in the murder of DEA agent later claimed he had
been pressured by federal prosecutors. But now he contends he was coerced
to make those charges, court papers say.
CAMARENA CASE WITNESS RECANTS ALLEGATIONS, U.S. SAYS
A government witness who claimed that federal prosecutors in Los Angeles
pressured him to falsely implicate suspects in the 1985 kidnapping and
murder of U.S. drug agent Enrique Camarena has recanted his allegations
against the prosecutors, the U.S. attorney's office said in a document
filed in federal court Thursday. In a videotaped interview with the Drug
Enforcement Administration officials in Guadalajara last month, the witness
reportedly said he was plied with money to lie about the prosecutors and
was later beaten and held captive in Mexico to ensure his cooperation.
The witness, Hector Cervantes Santos, also said he was forced to repeat his
account of prosecutorial misconduct in an interview with a Times reporter
and was coached on how to beat a polygraph examination, the U.S. attorney's
office said.
Cervantes' claim of prosecutorial misconduct is at the heart of a motion
for a new trial being sought by Ruben Zuno Arce, now serving a life term
for Camarena's torture-murder in Mexico. Reached for comment, Zuno's
lawyer, Edward Medvene, said, "From everything I know, these most recent
statements of Cervantes are false."
Chief Assistant U.S. Atty. Richard E. Drooyan said Cervantes came to the
DEA office in Guadalajara voluntarily Jan. 18 and, during a videotaped
interview of more than an hour, disavowed statements he had made to the
defense. The government plans to play the tape during a hearing before U.S.
District Judge Edward Rafeedie on March 2 to consider Zuno's motion.
The government summary of the taped interview said Cervantes alleged that
he was coerced to lie about the prosecution by agents of Zuno and Manuel
Bartlett Diaz, currently governor of Puebla state. Bartlett, once the
second-highest Mexican official, was identified by Cervantes during the
trial as being present in a drug lord's home where Camarena was tortured.
Bartlett was not charged but has been trying to clear his name. Bartlett's
attorney said Thursday that Cervantes' latest recantation shows that he
lacks credibility.
Zuno, the brother-in-law of former Mexican President Luis Echeverria, was
convicted in a Los Angeles federal court trial in 1990 after Cervantes
placed him and two other defendants at meetings held by Mexican drug
dealers to plot Camarena's abduction. Cervantes worked at that time as a
security guard at a drug cartel member's home. Zuno's conviction was
overturned on appeal, but he was convicted again in 1992 without Cervantes
being called as a witness. Instead, the government relied on the testimony
of two other drug cartel security guards.
Last summer, after he was rejected for entry into the federal witness
protection program and after quarreling with the DEA over financial
support, Cervantes surfaced as a witness for the defense.
The Times undertook its own examination of the Camarena case, interviewing
Cervantes and scores of witnesses in the United States and in Mexico. The
paper reported last October that new evidence raised questions about the
integrity of the DEA investigation and the testimony of prosecution
witnesses.
In their summary of Cervantes' recent interview with the DEA, federal
prosecutors gave this account: Cervantes said that after his falling out
with the DEA last year, he met in Los Angeles with representatives of Zuno
and Bartlett who told him he had been betrayed by the drug agency. He said
they also gave him $6,000 or $7,000. He said he was put up at a downtown
Los Angeles hotel for about two weeks and "met with a polygraph examiner
for five days, eight to 10 hours a day." He said the representatives of
Zuno and Bartlett told him they would "make sure that . . . [the polygraph]
comes out fine." He said they also instructed him to "close his mind into a
blank" while taking the test and he would pass. Cervantes did submit to a
polygraph test administered by a reputable examiner at the behest of
Bartlett's American lawyer--and reports said he passed.
In July, Cervantes said, he was taken to Tijuana and was met by Alberto
Espinoza, "a representative of Bartlett" who escorted him to Puebla for a
meeting with Bartlett in the state Capitol. "Bartlett said he wanted
Cervantes to speak to the press, and Cervantes said he did not want to do
that," the government document said.
"Bartlett then told him that they were going to 'soften him up.' "
Cervantes told the DEA he was taken to a room in the Capitol basement,
blindfolded, stripped, doused with cold water and beaten over several days.
He said he was taken to another location where the beatings continued until
he became ill and "agreed to do whatever he was told."
After being freed and returned to his family, the document said, Cervantes
met for an interview with a Times reporter and "as instructed, he falsely
told the reporter that he had been coached to lie in the earlier trial."
In October, the government document said, Cervantes was ordered by
Bartlett's agent to fly to Mexico City with his family--and when he
arrived, he was taken into custody and ordered to sign some papers that he
never read. Afterward, he said, he and his family were taken to a military
base and he was beaten and held incommunicado until mid-December, when he
bribed his way out and returned to Guadalajara, hiding until he showed up
at the DEA office there last month.
After reviewing the government's declaration Thursday, Los Angeles attorney
Michael J. Lightfoot, who represents Bartlett, said that "the conduct
attributed to Gov. Bartlett, his attorneys and his agents is ludicrous.
Gov. Bartlett has never met Cervantes.
"Only recently, Cervantes has given us documents which he says are in a
government representative's handwriting, scripting his false testimony in
the 1990 trial. At a minimum, this information confirms the incredibility
of this witness and is particularly troubling because there are several
individuals who are presently serving life sentences on the basis of his
testimony."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement Veteran To Head Customs Service ('Los Angeles Times' Says
Clinton Will Appoint Raymond W. Kelly, Ex-Marine,
Former New York Police Commissioner, Who Will Step Down
From Treasury Department Post - Replaces Samuel H. Banks, Acting Commissioner Since
George Weise's Resignation In October)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:10:42 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Law Enforcement Veteran to Head Customs Service
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield and Bartman (zorcher@ix.netcom.com)
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com
Pubdate: 6 Feb 1998
Author: Jack Nelson, Chief Washington Correspondent
LAW ENFORCEMENT VETERAN TO HEAD CUSTOMS SERVICE
Choice of Raymond Kelly is seen as a clear signal that the administration
aims to toughen the agency's drug-fighting efforts.
WASHINGTON--Raymond W. Kelly, a straight-talking ex-Marine and former New
York police commissioner, is stepping down as the Treasury Department's
undersecretary for enforcement to assume direct control of one of six
agencies under his command: the troubled U.S. Customs Service.
Explaining why he accepted the lower-ranking post, Kelly said: "I just
wanted to get back into an operational mode, and Customs is a great agency
with an important mission."
He acknowledged that Customs has experienced some serious problems, some of
which Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) spotlighted in a speech on the
Senate floor Thursday.
Feinstein said she was surprised by an article in The Times earlier this
week reporting that the amount of cocaine seized at commercial ports of
entry along the U.S.-Mexico border plummeted 84% in 1997, compared with the
year before. This has forced Customs officials, who oversee the ports, to
develop a new drug-fighting strategy and left them concerned about a
backlash in Congress.
And last fall, Customs officials acknowledged in testimony to a
congressional committee that a wide disparity existed between resources
devoted to the East and West coasts, leaving the Los Angeles area
vulnerable to international crime.
Data provided the committee by Customs showed the agency has placed about
twice as many special agents in its New York and Miami offices as it has in
Los Angeles, where 167 people are assigned to the investigative unit. Even
though it covers the largest metropolitan area of the agency's field
offices, the Los Angeles unit ranks seventh in size.
Kelly said Thursday: "We're on the way to addressing some of [the
problems], and I'm excited about joining the agency."
Kelly's appointment is widely seen as a clear signal that the
administration aims to toughen Customs' drug-enforcement efforts.
Although the White House has not officially announced Kelly's appointment,
other sources confirmed it after Feinstein, in her Senate speech, mentioned
that she had urged the appointment of a law enforcement veteran as the new
Customs commissioner and that President Clinton planned to name Kelly.
Kelly will replace Samuel H. Banks, who has been acting commissioner since
October, when George Weise resigned.
Kelly's boss as undersecretary will be James E. Johnson, who has been
serving under him as assistant secretary for enforcement.
A combat veteran of the Vietnam War, Kelly rose through the ranks of the
New York City Police Department, serving in every rank and 25 commands
before becoming commissioner in October 1992. Recognized as New York
state's law enforcement official of the year in 1993, he helped lead the
successful investigation of that year's bombing at the World Trade Center.
He retired as commissioner in January 1994.
Feinstein said she was "heartened" by Kelly's appointment, calling him "a
straight shooter" with an exemplary background. She expressed hope he would
concentrate the Customs Service's efforts on its mission to intercept drugs
being smuggled into the United States.
With an annual budget of about $2.1 billion, the Customs Service, in
addition to its core mission of inspecting cargo and interdicting illegal
drugs, shares responsibility for combating international money-laundering
and arms-smuggling.
Feinstein told the Senate the Southwest border "is still, without question,
ground zero in U.S. drug-interdiction efforts, with more than 70% of the
cocaine and other narcotics entering this country across the 2,000-mile
stretch of border between our county and
Mexico."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMR Initiative (Text Of Washington, DC, Medical Marijuana Ballot Initiative
Being Sponsored By Americans For Medical Rights)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:15:45 EST
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: David Borden
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: AMR initiative
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHORT TITLE -- "Medical Use of Marijuana Initiative of 1998"
SUMMARY
This Initiative, if passed, permits the medical use of
marijuana by patients suffering from certain debilitating conditions
including cancer, glaucoma and AIDS. This Initiative would:
- Permit eligible patients to possess, use and cultivate
marijuana in limited quantities, exclusively for medical purposes, without
criminal penalty;
- Limit eligibility to patients who have been advised by a
licensed physician that marijuana use might be of medical benefit;
- Establish certain restrictions, limitations and
prohibitions with respect to the authorized medical use of marijuana;
- Require the Director of the Department of Health to
propose a plan providing for the distribution of marijuana to qualified
patients.
LEGISLATIVE TEXT
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
That this Act, which may be cited as the "Medical Use of Marijuana
Initiative of 1998," amends Title 33 of the District of Columbia Code by
adding a new chapter to read:
Chapter 11. Medical Use of Marijuana by Persons Suffering from
Debilitating Medical Conditions.
33-1101. Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the term:
(1) "Debilitating medical condition" means:
(a) cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), or acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS), or treatment for cancer or HIV/AIDS;
(b) a chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition,
or treatment for such conditions, which produces, for a specific patient,
one or more of the following, and for which, in the professional opinion of
the patient's physician, such condition or conditions or debilitating
side-effects of treatment may be alleviated by the medical use of
marijuana: cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those
that are characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle
spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis; or
(c) any other medical condition, or treatment for such
condition, approved by the Director pursuant to 33-1107 of this chapter.
(2) "Director" means the Director of the District of Columbia
Department of Health, or such employees of the Department of Health as the
Director may designate in writing as authorized to carry out the Director's
duties under this chapter.
(3) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation,
use, and/or transportation of marijuana and/or paraphernalia related to the
administration of such marijuana to alleviate the symptoms or effects of a
patient's debilitating medical condition, which may be authorized only
after a diagnosis of the patient's debilitating medical condition by a
physician and in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
(4) "Parent" means a custodial mother or father of a patient under
the age of eighteen years, any other person having custody of a patient
under the age of eighteen years, or any person serving as the legal
guardian for a patient under the age of eighteen years.
(5) "Patient" means a person who has a debilitating medical
condition.
(6) "Physician" means a doctor of medicine who maintains, in good
standing, a license to practice medicine and to distribute, dispense,
conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled substance in
the course of professional practice or research in the District of
Columbia.
(7) "Primary care-giver" means one person, other than the patient
and the patient's physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has
been designated by the patient as having significant responsibility for
managing the well-being of that patient. No more than one primary
care-giver may be designated by a patient at any point in time absent a
showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that more than one primary
care-giver is required, in the circumstances of that particular patient, to
effectuate the purposes of this chapter. Any written designation or
appointment, signed by the patient, shall be prima facie evidence that the
person has been so designated.
(8) "Marijuana" means the plant genus Cannabis as set out with
specificity in 33-501(3)(A) of this Title.
(9) "Written documentation" means, for the purposes of this
chapter, a statement signed by a patient's physician or authentic copies of
the patient's pertinent medical records.
33-1102. Privileged Medical Use of Marijuana Under Certain Specified
Circumstances.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in 33-1105 of this chapter, and
notwithstanding any other provision of this Title, any patient or primary
care-giver charged with a violation of District of Columbia law related to
the patient's medical use of marijuana may raise as an affirmative defense
to such charge that such medical use is authorized by this chapter, and
such affirmative defense shall be presumed to be valid where the evidence
shows that:
(1) the patient was diagnosed by a physician as having a
debilitating medical condition;
(2) the patient was advised by his or her physician, in the
context of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient
might benefit from the medical use of marijuana in connection with a
debilitating medical condition; and
(3) the patient and his or her primary care-giver were
collectively in possession of amounts of marijuana only as permitted under
this chapter.
(b) No physician shall be subject to arrest or prosecution under
District of Columbia law, penalized in any manner, or denied any right or
privilege, for:
(1) Advising a patient, whom the physician has diagnosed as
having a debilitating medical condition, about the risks and benefits of
medical use of marijuana or that he or she might benefit from the medical
use of marijuana, provided that such advice is based upon the physician's
assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition
made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship; or
(2) Providing a patient with written documentation, based
upon the physician's assessment of the patient's medical history and
current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide
physician-patient relationship, stating that the patient has a debilitating
medical condition and might benefit from the medical use of marijuana.
(c) In any proceeding in which rights or defenses created by this
chapter are asserted, a physician called as a witness shall be permitted to
testify before a judge, in camera. Such testimony, when introduced in a
public proceeding, if the physician witness so requests, shall have
redacted the name of the physician and the court shall maintain the name
and identifying characteristics of the physician under seal.
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person, including
a patient or primary care-giver, shall be entitled to the protection of
this chapter for his or her acquisition, possession, cultivation, use,
sale, distribution, and/or transportation of marijuana for any use other
than medical use.
(e) Any property interest that is possessed, owned, or used in
connection with the medical use of marijuana, or acts incidental to such
use, shall not be harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed while in the
possession of District of Columbia law enforcement officials where such
property has been seized in connection with the claimed medical use of
marijuana. Any such property interest shall not be forfeited under any
provision of law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a
sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense or entry of a plea
of guilty to such offense. Marijuana and paraphernalia seized by District
of Columbia law enforcement officials from a patient or primary care-giver
in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana shall be returned
immediately upon the determination by the prosecuting attorney or his or
her designee, or a court, that the patient or primary care-giver is
entitled to the protections provided by this chapter as may be evidenced,
for example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges, or
acquittal.
33-1103. Duties of the Director, Department of Health.
The Director of the District of Columbia Department of Health
shall, no later than June 1, 1999, develop and submit to the Council of the
District of Columbia a plan providing for the regulated, safe, reliable and
affordable distribution of marijuana to patients eligible to engage in the
medical use of marijuana pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(a) Such plan shall provide for the organization and operation, by
residents of the District of Columbia, of not-for-profit corporations
engaged solely in the acquisition, cultivation, and distribution of
marijuana exclusively for the medical use of patients in accordance with
the provisions of this chapter. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of
this section, such corporations shall comply with all laws and regulations
applicable to, and shall enjoy the same tax status as, other not-for-profit
corporations operating in the District of Columbia.
(b) Such plan shall specifically provide for the safe and
affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients enrolled in Medicaid
or a Ryan White CARE Act-funded program who are in medical need and who
qualify for the medical use of marijuana pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter.
(c) Such plan shall expressly provide that the District of Columbia
Controlled Substances Act's prohibition of the possession, or of the
manufacture, distribution, cultivation, or possession with intent to
manufacture, distribute, or cultivate marijuana, shall not apply to any
not-for-profit corporation organized for the purposes of this section.
(d) The District of Columbia Department of Health may determine and
levy reasonable fees to pay for any and all administrative costs incurred,
or reasonably expected to be incurred, pursuant to the discharge of the
Director's responsibilities under this chapter.
33-1104. Authorized Quantities of Marijuana for Medical Use.
(a) A patient using marijuana for medical purposes according to the
provisions of this chapter, or his or her primary care-giver, may
collectively possess or transport, at any point in time, no more marijuana
than is necessary under the circumstances to assure the uninterrupted
availability of such marijuana for the purpose of reliably alleviating that
patient's debilitating medical condition for a period corresponding to the
anticipated course of treatment, or for 60 days, whichever is less.
(b) The exemption for cultivation, under this chapter, shall apply
only to marijuana specifically grown to provide a medical supply reasonably
calculated to minimize, for a period corresponding to the anticipated
course of treatment, or for 60 days, whichever is less, the possibility of
treatment interruption, and shall not apply to any marijuana grown for any
other purpose.
33-1105. Prohibitions, Restrictions and Limitations Respecting the
Medical Use of Marijuana.
(a) No patient in lawful possession of marijuana pursuant to this
chapter shall:
(1) engage in the medical use of marijuana in any way that
endangers the health or well-being of another person; or
(2) engage in the medical use of marijuana in plain view
of, or in a place open to, the general public.
(b) The medical use of marijuana pursuant to this chapter shall not
be a defense to any crime of violence, the crime of operating a motor
vehicle while impaired or intoxicated, or a crime involving danger to
another person or to the public, nor shall such use negate the mens rea for
any offense.
(c) No private health insurance provider shall be required to be
liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana.
(d) Nothing in this chapter shall require any accommodation of any
medical use of marijuana:
(1) by any employer;
(2) on or within any school grounds;
(3) at or within any recreation or youth center; or
(4) on any school bus.
33-1106. Medical Use of Marijuana by a Minor.
No patient under eighteen years of age shall use marijuana for
medical purposes pursuant to this chapter unless:
(a) Two physicians have concurred in a diagnosis that the patient
has a debilitating medical condition;
(b) One physician referred to in subsection (a) has explained the
possible risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana to the patient and
the patient's parent(s), as defined in this chapter, residing in the
District of Columbia, and the physician has provided the patient and/or the
patient's parent(s) with the advice required under this chapter;
(c) Each of the patient's parents, as defined in this chapter, who
resides in the District of Columbia, consents to the patient's use of
marijuana for medical purposes;
(d) One of the patient's parents agrees to serve as the patient's
primary caregiver;
(e) the patient and the primary care-giver collectively possess
amounts of marijuana no greater than those specified in 33-1104(a) of this
chapter; and
(f) the primary care-giver controls the acquisition of such
marijuana and the dosage and frequency of its use by the patient.
33-1107. Addition of Debilitating Medical Conditions.
Not later than June 1, 1999, the District of Columbia Department of
Health shall promulgate rules of administration governing the manner in
which the Director may consider adding debilitating medical conditions to
the list set out in 33-1101 of this chapter. Such rules shall provide the
means by which, after June 1, 1999, the Director shall accept for
consideration petitions submitted by physicians or patients to add
debilitating medical conditions to those included in 33-1101 and shall
include provisions for public notice of, and an opportunity to comment in a
public hearing upon, such petitions. The Director shall, after hearing,
approve or deny such petitions within one hundred eighty days of
submission. The denial of such a petition shall be considered a final
agency action, subject to judicial review.
33-1108. Certification by the Mayor.
Within 30 days of the certification of this chapter by ballot
initiative, the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall deliver a copy of
this initiative to the President and the Congress to express the sense of
the people of the District of Columbia that the federal government must
develop a system authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes by
patients with debilitating medical conditions.
33-1109. Severability.
If any provision of this initiative measure, or the application
thereof to any person or under any circumstance is held invalid by a court
of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications of the measure which can be given effect without
the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of
this measure are severable.
33-1110. Effective Date.
This act shall take effect immediately following the 30-day
Congressional review as provided in 602(1) of the District of Columbia
Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, 87 Stat. 813, approved
December 24, 1973 and codified at D.C. Code 1-233(c)(1).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT UP Initiative, I-59 (Text Of Washington, DC, Medical Marijuana
Ballot Initiative Being Sponsored By Local ACT UP Activists, AIDS Patients)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:16:14 EST
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: David Borden
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: ACTUP initiative (I-59)
INITIATIVE MEASURE #59
"LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR
MEDICAL TREATMENT INITIATIVE OF 1997"
SUMMARY STATEMENT
This initiative, if passed, permits seriously ill individuals to legally use
marijuana for medical treatment when recommended by a licensed physician.
This Initiative would:
* Allow marijuana to aid in treatment of HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasm,
cancer therapy, and other serious illnesses
* Legalize, for medical purposes, possession, use, cultivation, and
distribution of marijuana for illnesses which marijuana has a medical
benefit
* Require the Commissioner of Public Health to propose to the DC Council a
plan providing for the distribution of marijuana to qualified patients
enrolled in approved programs.
Use of marijuana without a physician's recommendation would be prohibited.
LEGISLATIVE TEXT
BE IT ENACTED BY THE ELECTORS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, that this act
may be cited as the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative of 1997."
Sec. 2 All seriously ill individuals have the right to obtain and use
marijuana for medical purposes when a licensed physician has found the use
of marijuana to be medically necessary and has recommended the use of
marijuana for the treatment (or to mitigate the side effects of other
treatments such as chemotherapy, including the use of AZT, protease
inhibitors, etc., radiotherapy, etc.) or diseases and conditions associated
with HIV and AIDS, glaucoma, muscle spasm, cancer and other serious or
chronic illnesses for which the recommending physician reasonably believes
that marijuana has demonstrated utility.
Sec. 3 Medical patients who use, and their primary caregivers who obtain for
such patients, marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a
licensed physician do not violate the District of Columbia Uniform
Controlled Substances Act of 1981, effective August 5, 1981 (DC Law 4-29;
DC Code 33-501 et seq.) ("Controlled Substances Act"), as amended and in so
far as they comply with this act, are not subject to criminal prosecution
or sanction.
Sec. 4 (a) Use of marijuana under the authority of this act shall not be a
defense to any crime of violence, the crime of operating a motor vehicle
while impaired or intoxicated, or a crime involving danger to another
person or to the public, nor shall such use negate the mens rea for any
offense.
(b) Whoever distributes marijuana cultivated, distributed or intended to be
distributed or used pursuant to this act to any person not entitled to
possess or distribute marijuana under this act shall be guilty of crime and
subject to the penalty set forth in section 401(a)(2)(D) of the Controlled
Substances Act (DC Code 33 541(a)(2)(D).
Sec. 5 Notwithstanding any other law, no physician shall be punished, or
denied any right, privilege or registration for recommending, while acting
in the course of his or her professional practice, the use of marijuana for
medical purposes. In any proceeding in which rights or defenses created by
this act are asserted, a physician called as a witness shall be permitted
to testify before a judge, in camera. Such testimony, when introduced in a
public proceeding, if the physician witness so requests, shall have
redacted the name of the physician and the court shall maintain the name
and identifying characteristics of the physician under seal.
Sec. 6 (a) Any District law prohibiting the possession of marijuana or
cultivation of marijuana shall not apply to a medical patient, or to a
medical patient's primary caregivers, when a medical or primary caregiver
possesses or cultivates marijuana for the medical purposes of the patient
upon the written or oral recommendation of a licensed physician. The
exemption for cultivation, shall apply only to marijuana specifically grown
to provide a medical supply for a patient, and not to any marijuana grown
for any other purpose. In determining a quantity of marijuana that
constitutes a medical supply, this act shall be interpreted to assure that
any medical patient protected by the act shall have access to a sufficient
quantity of marijuana to assure that they can maintain their medical supply
without any interruption in their treatment or depletion of their medical
supply of marijuana.
(b) The prohibition in the Controlled Substances Act against the
manufacture, distribution, cultivation, or possession with intent to
manufacture, distribute, or cultivate, or against possession, of marijuana
shall not apply to a nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to this act.
Sec 7. A medical patient may designate or appoint a licensed health care
practitioner, parent, sibling, child, or other close relative, domestic
partner, case manager/worker, or best friend to serve as a primary
caregiver for the purposes of this act. A designation under this act need
not be in writing; however, any written designation or appointment shall be
prima facie evidence that a person has been so designated. A patient may
designate not more than four persons at any one time to serve as a primary
caregiver for the purposes of this act. For the purposes of this
subsection, the term 'best friend' means a close friend who is feeding,
nursing, bathing, or otherwise caring for the medical patient while the
medical patient is in a weakened condition.
Sec. 8 Residents of the District of Columbia may organize and operate
not-for-profit corporations for the purpose of cultivating, purchasing, and
distributing marijuana exclusively for the medical use of medical patients
who are authorized by this act to obtain and use marijuana for medical
purposes. Such corporations shall comply with the District's nonprofit
corporation laws. Fees and licenses shall be collected by the Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs ("DCRA") in the same manner as other
not-for-profit corporations operating in the District of Columbia. The
Director of DCRA shall issues such corporations exemptions from the sales
tax, use tax, income tax, and other taxes of the District of Columbia in
the same manner as other nonprofit corporations.
Sec. 9 The exemption from prosecution for distribution of marijuana under
this act shall not apply to the distribution of marijuana to any person
under 18 years of age unless that person is an emancipated minor, or a
parent or legal guardian of the minor has signed a written statement that
such parent or legal guardian understands:
(i) the medical condition of the minor,
(ii) the potential benefits and potential adverse effects of the use of
marijuana generally and in the case of the minor, and
(iii) consents to the use of marijuana for the treatment of the minor's
medical condition.
Violation of this section shall be subject to the penalties of the
Controlled Substances Act.
Sec. 10 (a) The Commissioner of Public Health of the District of Columbia
must develop a plan, and submit it, within 90 days of the approval of this
act, to the Council of the District of Columbia to provide for the safe and
affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients enrolled in Medicaid
or a Ryan White CARE Act funded program who are in medical need, who desire
to add marijuana to their health care regimen and whose licensed physician
reasonably believes that marijuana would be beneficial to their patient.
(b) Within 30 days of the certification of the passage of this act by the
people of the District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia
shall deliver a copy of this act to the President and the Congress to
express the sense of the people of the District of Columbia that the
Federal government must develop a system to distribute marijuana to
patients who need it for medical purposes.
Sec. 11. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any
person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect
other provisions or applications of the measure which can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the
provisions of this measure are severable.
Sec. 12. This act shall take effect after the 30-day Congressional review
as provided in section 602(c)(1) of the District of Columbia
Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, approved December 24,
1973 (87 Stat. 813; DC Code 1-233(c)(1).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMR's Colorado Initiative (Most Recent Available Text Of Medical Marijuana
Ballot Measure Being Sponsored By Americans For Medical Rights)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 00:48:30 EST
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: AMMO
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: AMR's Colorado initiative
Proposed Colorado Medical Marijuana Initiative for the 1998 Ballot
Concerning the Medical Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditions
- Written under the guidance of Americans for Medical Rights
- AMR has indicated that this is their "model" text to be used in other
states and the District of Columbia. Then AMR revised the DC language to
eliminate:
- limits on cultivation and possession
- a registry system for identifying patients
The Colorado init. maintains a two ounce/three plant limit and a registry
system estimated to cost the state $400,000 in the first year.
***
Text of Proposed Initiative as filed with the Colorado Legislative Council on
November 14, 1997 (there have been some minor changes since this version
was submitted - we do not have a scanner and AMR has refused to provide
us with an email copy of the most current version.)
Electronic version provided by the Colorado Hemp Initiative Project
(CO-HIP apologizes in advance for any typographical errors)
***
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado,
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
AMENDING ARTICLE XVIII,
ADDING A NEW SECTION TO READ:
Section 14. Medical marijuana for persons suffering from debilitating
medical conditions.
(1) As used in this section, these terms are defined as follows.
(a) "Debilitating medical condition" means:
(I) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency
virus, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for such
conditions;
(II) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition, or
treatment for such conditions, which produces, for a specific patient, one
or more of the following, and for which, in the professional opinion of the
patient's physician, such condition or conditions reasonably may be
alleviated by the medical use of marijuana: cachexia; severe pain; severe
nausea; seizures, including those that are characteristic of epilepsy; or
persistent muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of
multiple sclerosis; or
(III) Any other medical condition, or treatment for such condition,
approved by the state health agency, pursuing to its rule making authority
or its approval of any petition submitted by a patient or physician as
provided in this section.
(b) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, production, use,
or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia related to the
administration of such marijuana to address the symptoms or effects of a
patient's debilitating medical condition, which may be authorized only
after a diagnosis of the patient's debilitating medical condition by a
physician or physicians, as provided by this section.
(c) "Parent" means a custodial mother or father of a patient under the
age of eighteen years, any person having custody of a patient under the age
of eighteen years, or any person serving as a legal guardian for a patient
under the age of eighteen years.
(d) "Patient" means a person who has a debilitating medical condition.
(e) "Physician" means a doctor of medicine who maintains, in good
standing, a license to practice medicine issued by the state of Colorado.
(f) "Primary care-giver" means a person, other than the patient and
the patient's physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has
significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has
a debilitating medical condition.
(g) "Registry identification card" means that document, issued by the
state health agency, which identifies a patient authorized to engage in the
medical use of marijuana and such patient's primary care-giver, if any has
been designated.
(h) "State health agency" means that public health related entity of
state government designated by the governor to establish and maintain a
confidential registry of persons authorized to engage in the medical use of
marijuana and enact rules to administer this program.
(i) "Usable form of marijuana" means the seeds, leaves, buds, and
flowers of the plant (genus) cannabis, and any mixture or preparation
thereof, which are appropriate for medical use as provided in this section,
but excludes the plant's stalks, stems, and roots.
(j) "Written documentation" means a statement signed by a patient's
physician or copies of the patient's pertinent medical records.
(2) (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (5), (6), and (8)
of this section, a patient or primary care-giver charged with violation of
the state's criminal laws related to the patient's medical use of
marijuana will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to
such allegation where:
(I) The patient was previously diagnosed by a physician as having a
debilitating medical condition;
(II) The patient was advised by his or her physician, in the context
of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient might
benefit from the medical use of marijuana in connection with a debilitating
medical condition; and
(III) The patient and his or her primary care-giver were collectively
in possession of amounts of marijuana only as permitted under this section.
This affirmative defense shall not exclude the assertion of any other
defense where a patient or primary care-giver is charged with a violation
of state law related to the patient's medical use of marijuana.
(b) Effective June 1, 1999, it shall be an exception from the state's
criminal laws for any patient or primary care-giver in lawful possession of
a registry identification card to engage or assist in the medical use of
marijuana, except as otherwise provided in subsections (5) and (8) of this
section.
(c) It shall be an exception from the state's criminal laws for any
physician to:
(I) Advise a patient whom the physician has diagnosed as having a
debilitating medical condition, about the risks and benefits of medical use
of marijuana or that he or she might benefit from the medical use of
marijuana, provided that such advice is based upon the physician's
contemporaneous assessment of the patient's medical history and current
medical condition and a bona fide physician-patient relationship; or
(II) Provide a patient with written documentation, based upon the
physician's contemporaneous assessment of the patient's medical history and
current medical condition and a bona fide physician-patient relationship,
stating that the patient has a debilitating medical condition and might
benefit from the medical use of marijuana.
No physician shall be denied any rights or privileges for the acts
authorized by this subsection.
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person, including a
patient or primary care-giver, shall be entitled to the protection of this
section for his or her acquisition, possession, manufacture, production,
use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of
marijuana for any use other than medical use.
(e) Any property interest that is possessed, owned, or used in
connection with the medical use of marijuana, or acts incidental to such
use, shall not be harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed while in the
possession of state or local law enforcement officials where such property
has been seized in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana.
Any such property interest shall not be forfeited under any provision of
state law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence
imposed after conviction of a criminal offense or entry of a plea of guilty
to such offense. Marijuana and paraphernalia seized by state or local law
enforcement officials from a patient or primary care-giver in connection
with the claimed medical use of marijuana shall be returned immediately
upon the determination by the district attorney or his designee that the
patient or primary care-giver is entitled to the protection contained in
this section as may be evidenced, for example, by a decision not to
prosecute, the dismissal of charges, or acquittal.
(3) The state health agency shall create and maintain a confidential
registry of patients who have applied for and are entitled to receive a
registry identification card according to the criteria set forth in this
subsection, effective June 1, 1999.
(a) No person shall be permitted to gain access to any information
about patients in the state health agency's confidential registry, or any
information otherwise maintained by the state health agency about
physicians and primary care-givers, except for authorized employees of the
state health agency in the course of their official duties and authorized
employees of state or local law enforcement agencies which have stopped or
arrested a person who claims to be engaged in the medical use of marijuana
and in possession of a registry identification or its functional
equivalent, pursuant to paragraph (e) below. Authorized employees of state
or local law enforcement agencies shall be granted access to the
information contained within the state health agency's confidential
registry only for the purpose of verifying that an individual who has
presented a registry identification card to a state or local law
enforcement official is lawfully in possession of such card.
(b) In order to be placed on the state's confidential registry for the
medical use of marijuana, a patient must reside in Colorado and submit the
completed application form adopted by the state health agency, including
the following information, to the state health agency:
(I) The original or a copy of written documentation stating that the
patient has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and the
physician's conclusion that the patient might benefit from the medical use
of marijuana;
(II) The name, address, date of birth, and social security number of
the patient;
(III) The name, address, and telephone number of the patient's
physician; and
(IV) The name and address of the patient's primary care-giver, if one
is designated at the time of application.
(c) Within thirty days of receiving the information referred to in
subparagraph (3)(b)(I)-(IV), the state health agency shall verify medical
information contained in the patient's written documentation. The agency
shall notify the applicant that his or her application for a registry
identification card has been denied if the agency's review of such
documentation discloses that: the information required pursuant to
subparagraph (3) (b) of this section has not been provided or has been
falsified; the documentation fails to state that the patient has a
debilitating medical condition specified in this section or by state health
agency rule; or the physician does not have a license to practice medicine
issued by the state of Colorado. Otherwise, not more than five
days after verifying such information, the state health agency shall issue
one serially numbered registry identification card to the patient, stating:
(I) The patient's name, address, date of birth, and social security
number;
(II) That the patient's name has been certified to the state health
agency as a person who has a debilitating medical condition, whereby the
patient may address such condition with the medical use of marijuana;
(III) The dates of issuance of the registry identification and the
date of expiration of such card which shall be one year from the date of
issuance; and
(IV) The name and address of the patient's primary care-giver, if any
is designated at the time of application.
(d) Except for patients applying pursuant to subsection (6) of this
section, where the state health agency fails to issue a registry
identification card within thirty-five days of receipt of an
application or verbal or written notice of denial of such application, the
patient's application for such card will be deemed to have been approved.
Receipt shall be deemed to have occurred upon delivery to the state health
agency, or deposit in the United States mails. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, no application shall be deemed received prior to June 1, 1999. A
patient who is questioned by any state or local law enforcement official
about his or her medical use of marijuana shall provide a copy of the
application submitted to the state health agency, which shall be accorded
the same legal effect as a registry identification card, until such time as
the patient receives notice that the application has been denied.
(e) A patient whose application has been denied by the state health
agency may not reapply during the six months following the date of the
denial and may not use an application for a registry identification card as
provided in paragraph (3) (d) of this section. The denial of a registry
identification card shall be considered a final agency action. Only the
patient whose application has been denied shall have standing to contest
the agency action.
(f) When there has been a change in the name, address, physician, or
primary care-giver of a patient who has qualified for a registry
identification card, that patient must notify the state health agency of
any such change within ten days. A patient who has not designated a
primary care-giver at the time of application to the state health agency
may do so in writing at any time during the effective period of the
registry identification card, and the primary care-giver may act
in this capacity after such designation. To maintain an effective registry
identification card, a patient must annually resubmit, at least 30 days
prior to the expiration date stated on the registry
identification card, updated written documentation to the state health
agency, as well as the name and address of the patient's primary
care-giver, if any is designated at such time.
(g) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies
shall immediately notify the state health agency when any person in
possession of a registry identification card has been determined by a court
of law to have willfully violated the provisions of this section or its
implementing legislation, or has pled guilty to such offense.
(h) A patient who no longer has a debilitating medical condition
shall return his or her registry identification card to the state health
agency within twenty-four hours of receiving such diagnosis by his or her
physician.
(i) The state health agency may determine and levy reasonable fees to
pay for any direct or indirect administrative costs associated with its
role in this program.
(4) (a) A patient may engage in the medical use of marijuana, with no more
marijuana than is medically necessary to address a debilitating medical
condition. A patient's medical use of marijuana, within the following
limits, is lawful:
(I) No more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana; and
(II) No more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being
mature, flowering plants that are producing a usable form of marijuana.
(b) For quantities of marijuana in excess of these amounts, a patient or
his or her primary care-giver may raise as an affirmative defense to
charges of violation of state law that such greater amounts were medically
necessary to address the patient's debilitating medical
condition.
(5) (a) No patient shall:
(I) Engage in the medical use of marijuana in a way that endangers
the health or well-being of any person; or
(II) Engage in the medical use of marijuana in plain view of, or in
a place open to, the general public; or
(b) In addition to any other penalties provided by law, the state
health agency shall revoke for a period of one year the registry
identification card of any patient found to have willfully
violated the provisions of this section or the implementing legislation
adopted by the general assembly.
(6) Notwithstanding subparagraph (2)(a) and (3) (d) of this section, no
patient under eighteen years of age shall engage in the medical use of
marijuana unless:
(a) Two physicians have diagnosed the patient as having a debilitating
medical condition;
(b) One of the physicians referred to in paragraph (6) (a) has
explained the possible risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana to
the patient and each of the patient's parents residing in Colorado.
(c) The physicians referred to in paragraph (6) (b) has provided the
patient with the written documentation, specified in subparagraph (3)(b)(I);
(d) Each of the patient's parents residing in Colorado, consent in
writing to the state health agency to permit the patient to engage in the
medical use of marijuana;
(e) A parent residing in Colorado consents in writing to serve as a
patient's primary care-giver;
(f) A parent serving as a primary care-giver completes and submits an
application for a registry identification card as provided in subparagraph
(3) (b) of this section and the written consent referred to in paragraph
(6) (d) to the state health agency;
(g) The state health agency approves the patient's application and
transmits the patient's registry identification card to the parent
designated as a primary care-giver;
(h) The patient and the primary care-giver collectively possess
amounts of marijuana no greater than those specified in subparagraph
(4)(a)(I) and (II); and
(i) The primary care-giver controls the acquisition of such marijuana
and the dosage and frequency of its use by the patient.
(7) Not later than March 1, 1999, the governor shall designate, by
executive order, the state health agency as defined in paragraph (1)(g) of
this section.
(8) Not later than April 30, 1999, the General Assembly shall define such
terms and enact such legislation as may be necessary for implementation of
this section, as well as determine and
enact criminal penalties for:
(a) Fraudulent representation of a medical condition by a patient to
a physician, state health agency, or state or local law enforcement
official for the purpose of falsely obtaining a registry identification
card or avoiding arrest and prosecution;
(b) Fraudulent use or theft of any person's registry identification
card to acquire, possess, cultivate, use, sell, distribute, or transport
marijuana, including but not limited to cards that are required to be
returned where patients is no longer diagnosed as having a debilitating
medical condition,;
(c) Fraudulent production or counterfeiting of, or tampering with,
one or more registry identification cards; or
(d) Breach of confidentiality of information provided to or by the
state health agency.
(9) Not later than June 1, 1999, the state health agency shall develop and
make available to residents of Colorado an application form for persons
seeking to be listed on the confidential registry of patients. By such
date, the state health agency shall also enact rules of administration,
including but not limited to rules governing the establishment and
confidentiality of the registry, the verification of medical information,
the issuance and form of registry identification cards, communications with
law enforcement officials about registry identification cards that have
been suspended where a patient is no longer diagnosed as having a
debilitating medical condition, and the manner in which the agency may
consider adding debilitating medical conditions to the list provided in
this section. Beginning June 1, 1999, the state health agency shall accept
for physician or patient initiated petitions to add debilitating medical
conditions to the list provided in this section and, after such hearing as
the state health agency deems appropriate, shall approve or deny such
petitions within one hundred eighty days of submission. The decision to
approve or deny a petition shall be considered a final agency action.
(10) (a) No governmental, private, or any other health insurance provider
shall be required to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the
medical use of marijuana.
(b) Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate
the medical use of marijuana in any work place.
(11) Unless otherwise provided by this section, all provisions of this
section shall become effective upon proclamation of the governor, pursuant
to article V, section (1) (4).
***
Americans for Medical Rights contacts:
1) Dave Fratello
626 Santa Monica Blvd. #41
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 394-2952
Fax: (310) 451-7494
<104730.1000@compuserve.com>
2) Bill Zimmerman
Americans for Medical Rights
626 Santa Monica Blvd. #41
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 394-2952
Fax: (310) 451-7494
<76322.1165@compuserve.com>
Coloradans for Medical Rights:
1) Marty Chilcutt
1085 Lafayette St. #805
Denver, CO 80218
2) Marshall F. Stiles, III
1350 Fairfax Street
Denver, CO 80220
***
Portland NORML notes - The text of the Colorado Compassionate Therapeutic
Cannabis Act, a competing medical-marijuana initiative filed January 30 by
Colorado Citizens for Compassionate Cannabis, is included in that day's
edition of the Portland NORML daily news.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Distractions And Border Militarization Escalate
('Universal Press Syndicate' Essay About US Military's Construction
Along Mexican Border Of 240 Miles Of Roadway, 12 Helicopter Pads
And 50 High-Tech Lights Suggests 'Weak Leaders Use Force To Show Strength')
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 14:05:52 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake
Subject: MN: US: Wire: Military Distractions And Border Militarization
Escalate
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Kevin Zeese
Source: Universal Press Syndicate
Pubdate: February 6, 1998
Authors: Patrisia Gonzales And Roberto Rodriguez *
Column Of The Americas
MILITARY DISTRACTIONS AND BORDER MILITARIZATION ESCALATE
LAREDO, TEXAS -- Thousands of trucks line up daily on the highway leading
into Mexico, causing an eyesore, unbearable noise, fumes and even fatal
accidents.
There's little money to alleviate the NAFTA-related congestion, but there's
plenty for the "Joint Task Force Six" project, which calls for the
construction of 240 miles of roadway, 12 helicopter launch pads and 50
high-tech lights nearby. Its purpose is to create a greater presence for
the U.S. Border Patrol and to involve the U.S. military in combating the
drug war. This truly looks like occupied territory.
And at the Las Cruces, N.M., border checkpoint, the U.S. Border Patrol
tallies "alien removals," narcotics and their monetary "value". Their
slogan, "America's Front line: Fighting the War on Drugs," apparently
targets hard-working migrants in that war.
To wage a genuine drug war, perhaps the U.S. government should commence it
by patrolling the nation's largest financial institutions, which often
serve as conduits for drug money.
There's seemingly no money in these God-forsaken borderlands, but mention
the Border Patrol or a military conflict and there's suddenly plenty for
these costly endeavors. And much like a border threat, there is also
nothing like a military conflict (Iraq, this time) to bolster our country's
military spending.
Sadly, the militarization of the border is nothing new. Forts and bases
have been here since the Mexican-American War. What's happening now is
simply a technological upgrade.
As a result of the joint project, the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund in San Antonio has filed a lawsuit to stop its
construction, pending a full environmental study. MALDEF believes that the
project could threaten several endangered species, the environment and
several archeological sites, and that it could also lead to an increased
violation of the rights (illegal search and seizure) of area Mexican
Americans.
Meanwhile, Republicans want to dismantle the inept Immigration and
Naturalization Service. Standing in the way is the Clinton administration,
which has pumped so much money into this agency that there are now more
border patrol officers than FBI agents nationally. And there are more on
the way for this nonproductive sector of big government.
Without commies to pick on, illegal aliens make for good scapegoates,
because, contrary to what former Calif. Congressman Bob Dornan continues to
insist upon (in defiance of the GOP), they don't vote. And if those
scapegoats aren't enough, Sadaam Hussein or Arab terrorists will suffice.
Recently, an abortion clinic was bombed in Alabama, a crime the government
rightfully denounced. Yet, the bombers seem to be emulating our
government's example. Have a problem? Bomb the hell out of them! That's
what gang members tell the two of us. They simply settle their differences
the way governments settle theirs: through force.
Weak leaders use force to show "strength." They overcompensate. Ronald
Reagan, the tough guy on the silver screen, thought strength was
overrunning tiny nations such as Grenada. And now, enter a beleaguered
Clinton and we have ourselves another Iraq "crisis."
Weak leaders, at best, send mixed messages. Violence is wrong, our leaders
tells us, yet most remained silent as Karla Faye Tucker of Texas was
executed. At the same time, Clinton argued his case for using the United
Nations -- a body that was created as an instrument of peace -- as a cover
to unilaterally bomb Iraq.
Diversions always work nicely, especially when an inquisitor -- without a
proper job description -- is shadowing Clinton's every move. The lessons we
learn from all this are that morality and redemption are no longer part of
our vocabulary. The real problem in this country is the brown hordes, and
everything can be solved through the erection of walls, or through
violence. And through all this, we all point fingers at each other because
while there's money for more $2 billion B-2 bombers, there is not enough
money to educate us all.
Meanwhile, the fumes on the border are nauseating.
* Both writers are authors of Gonzales/Rodriguez: Uncut & Uncensored (ISBN
0-918520-22-3 UC Berkeley, Ethnic Studies Library, Publications Unit.
Rodriguez is the author of Justice: A Question of Race (Cloth ISBN
0-927534-69-X paper ISBN 0-927534-68-1 Bilingual Review Press) and the
antibook, The X in La Raza II. They can be reached at PO BOX 7905, Albq NM
87194-7904, 505-247-3888 or XColumn@aol.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Global Days Against The Drug War (US Events Scheduled June 6-8
In New York, San Francisco, Dallas)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 13:35:25 EST
Reply-To: ai256@chebucto.ns.ca
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Chris Donald (ai256@chebucto.ns.ca)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!! (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 09:57:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Uzondu Jibuike (ucj@vcn.bc.ca)
Subject: The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!! (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 07:42:08 EST
From: Louis Roggeveen (stony@idnet.xs4all.nl)
Subject: The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!!
***
The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!!
June 6, 7, 8
Events in
New York, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Tel Aviv,
Stockholm, Brussels, Dallas, Colville, Tallinn, ...
As you probably know, the United Nations will hold the first-ever
Special Session of the General Assembly on Drugs, from June 8th
to June 10th 1998 in New York.
This session was originally conceived as a critical examination
of worldwide anti-drug policy. The focus of this session has
now been narrowed. According to the new guidelines, only the
extension of existing policies will be open for discussion. The
United Nations aims to escalate current drug repression tactics
in a catastrophic quest towards a 'drug free' society. In terms
of crime, economic and financial damage, social and personal
harm, this policy is turning into a worldwide crisis!
It is of great importance that alternatives proposals are heard
at the onset of this UN session. A clear statement must be made
that what is needed is not escalated repression, but reform
policies aimed at reducing the damage currently done.
To this aim, a number of organisations have recently united to
form the "Global Coalition for Alternatives to the Drug War".
This coalition has declared Saturday June 6th, Sunday June 7th,
and Monday June 8th, to be the "1998 Global Days against the
Drug War". This event will feature demonstrations, discussion
forums, seminars, publications, press conferences, street
parties, concerts, and other types of events, in many places
at the same time.
You can help make the 1998 Global Days against the Drug War a
success! Please join one of the participating organisations,
and help plan the 1998 Global Days against the Drug War. Make
sure your city is part of this event! See contact info below.
Organisations will plan their own version of the 1998 Global
Days against the Drug War, under their own identity and name.
Early spring of 1998 we will issue press releases with the names
of all the groups and organisations that have joined the coalition.
To join the coalition please visit the web site at
http://www.legalize.org. Organisations wishing to join the
coalition can also contact us at: alliance@legalize.org.
With best regards,
The Coalition for Alternatives to the Drug War.
This coalition currently consists of the Drug Reform
Coordination Network (DRCNet), the National Organisation for
Reformulation of Marihuana Laws (NORML), the November
Coalition, Transnational Radical Party (TRP), Common Sense for
Drug Policy, the Legalize! Initiative, the Media Awareness
Project (MAP), HANF! Magazine, and many other organisations.
The 1998 Global Days against the Drug War !!!
June 6, 7, 8
http://www.legalize.org.
***
Please forward everywhere
***
pr@legalize.org is our list for discussion of public relations
issues. See the agenda of current issues at legalize.org/global/coord/
It is stressed that contributions to this list must be on-topic and
to the point. Off-topic matters should be dealt with in private.
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to majordomo@legalize.org,
with unsubscribe pr as text of the message.
***
E-mail! stony@idnet.xs4all.nl Homepage! http://www.xs4all.nl/~humito/
If I am online ftp://idnet.xs4all.nl/pub/ http://idnet.xs4all.nl/
On-line only saterday 21:00-01:00 Dutch Time |BBS de Verdeler |
Fidonet 2:286/301.0 Louis Roggeveen 24 houre on-line |31-(0)10-2400309|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
High Time We Close The Door On Age Of Entrapment (Op-Ed
In 'Houston Chronicle' Recounts Recent Case Of Chicago Jury
That Acquitted Alderman In FBI Sting After He Said 'Yes' Once
But 'No' 17 Times)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:10:52 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: OPED: High time we close the door on age of entrapment
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Art Smart
Source: Houston Chronicle
Contact: viewpoints@chron.com
Website: http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/
Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998
Author: Alan Ehrenhalt
HIGH TIME WE CLOSE THE DOOR ON AGE OF ENTRAPMENT
A few weeks ago in Chicago, an alderman named Rafael Frias was acquitted of
bribery. The jury's verdict surprised many of those who had followed the
trial: Frias had been caught accepting cash from a crooked waste-hauler in
exchange for help in winning approval for a rock-crushing site in Frias'
neighborhood.
It was all on tape. The rock-crushing deal was a scam created by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney in Chicago.
The hauler, John Christopher, was working as an FBI informer.
To most of the people who read about it, the indictment was one more
depressingly familiar token of the moral climate of Chicago public life.
But the jurors, having heard all the evidence, decided it was something
else: a case of inexcusable law-enforcement excess. They heard the tape of
the money changing hands, but they also heard Frias, obviously troubled,
trying to extricate himself from the mess and refusing any more money, only
to have the undercover agents try to force it on him over and over again.
At one point, Christopher pulled $500 out of his pocket and started waving
it at Frias.
"Do you want this or not?" he asked.
No, Frias said, "that's not what I'm looking for."
This happened 17 times. The informer never managed to coax Frias into
making a second misstep.
"He kept saying no, no, he didn't want it," one of the jurors explained
after the trial, "but they kept coming after him. And that, really, is
entrapment."
I don't suppose Bill Clinton has ever heard of Rafael Frias, and I
certainly wouldn't argue that their situations are similar. Nobody has
tricked the president into doing anything. It is the presumed witness
against him, Monica Lewinsky, who has been the victim of entrapment.
But in a peculiar way, the two cases have something in common. The alderman
of the 12th Ward and the leader of the Free World have both become enmeshed
in a 1990s law-enforcement culture whose underlying premise is that, in the
investigation of public officials, all the rules are suspended. Any tactic
of deception is permissible, as long as a judge somewhere will allow it.
When it comes to the investigation of public officials, we are living in an
age of entrapment. We have been living in it for the better part of two
decades. Whatever may be its contributions to justice in individual cases,
it is not doing the country as a whole any good. Perhaps it is time to
think about a moratorium.
In 1980, the FBI began the current era with the use of ersatz Arab sheiks
and hidden tape recorders in the Abscam investigation that resulted in the
conviction of seven members of Congress. In the ensuing years, similar
sting operations with exotic names like Boptrot, Azscam, Greylord and Lost
Trust have brought down elected officials at every level of government --
mayors, city managers, county commissioners, state legislators and state
senators.
I have no doubt that in the vast majority of these cases, the departure of
the ensnared has raised the overall moral quality of the institutions in
which they served.
But the game is not worth the rules. In their zeal against public
corruption, agents and prosecutors have grown comfortable using tactics
that violate most Americans' instinctive sense of fair play.
Sometimes they violate simple common sense. Few of us would profess any
desire to live in a society where the government, on the basis of
undocumented allegations by known criminals, went around testing its
citizens to determine their propensity to commit manufactured crimes. Or in
a society where a prosecutor, hired to investigate one set of allegations,
is given carte blanche to look into just about any character weaknesses
that happen to interest him.
Fortunately, most of us do not have to live under those rules. We have
chosen in the past 20 years to apply them to only one class of people: the
people we elect to public office.
We have done that, I suppose, out of a well-meaning societal belief that
these officials shouldn't just be morally equivalent to the rest of us,
they should be better than we are.
They are entrusted with the public welfare, and in return they should be
held to the loftiest possible standard of conduct, not the standard of
ordinary human weakness. If upholding the highest standard requires some
deceptive tactics that we would never want used on private citizens, then
so be it.
That's the theory. The reality, as we are learning in education, is that
higher standards don't necessarily guarantee higher performance.
We have representative government in this country, not only in the sense
that the people we elect mirror our preferences and values, but also in the
sense that they mirror our personal frailties. Exposing those frailties
with a hidden tape recorder does nothing in the end to improve the quality
of government's performance and, no matter how many politicians it
humiliates, it does not strengthen public confidence in government. It
corrodes it.
Recapturing healthy democracy in this country will require, among other
things, a public recognition that the government is not an alien force and
its officials are not alien creatures. They do not deserve special
privileges or special treatment, but neither do they deserve to be
subjected to an intrusiveness that would be considered manifestly unjust if
applied to the rest of us in private life.
In the absence of compelling evidence of misconduct, they should be left
alone to do their jobs, and then held accountable at election time.
I know this isn't what most reporters or syndicated columnists believe, or
what the federal judiciary believes. But it is what the jury in the Chicago
bribery case believed, and I think it is part of what the poll numbers on
President Clinton are trying to tell us.
Ehrenhalt is the Washington-based executive editor of Governing magazine
and the author, most recently, of The Lost City: The Forgotten Virtues of
Community in America.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
University Sees Little Change In Substance Use ('Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'
Says $120,000 Cardinal Stritch University Spent To Reduce
Wisconsin Students' Use Of Alcohol Only Made Consumption Less Visible)
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 18:18:22 -0500
From: "R. Lake"
Subject: MN: US WI: University sees little change in substance use
To: DrugSense News Service
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: "Frank S. World"
Pubdate: Fri, 06 Feb 1998
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Author: Neil D. Rosenberg of the Journal Sentinel
Contact: jsedit@onwis.com
Fax: (414) 224-8280
Website: http://www.jsonline.com/
UNIVERSITY SEES LITTLE CHANGE IN SUBSTANCE USE
Yet Cardinal Stritch finds fewer behavior problems related to alcohol, drugs
An intensive, $120,000 campaign to reform Cardinal Stritch University
students' attitudes about alcohol and drug had little effect, but
drastically reduced instances of public misconduct linked to such use.
School officials discussed their efforts to control inappropriate alcohol
and drug usage among students in an interview Thursday before a daylong
seminar at the school on college drug and alcohol use.
As a result of the campaign, binge drinking at the school declined from 31%
to 29% -- not a statistically significant drop. Students were surveyed in
1994 and 1996. Binge drinking is defined as consuming five or more drinks on
one occasion.
The 1996 binge rate of 29% at Cardinal Strich is higher than the 12.9% binge
drinking rate for all adults in Wisconsin -- the highest of any state in the
country. However, the school's rate is considerably better than the national
college student binge drinking rate of 41%.
Among other survey findings: underage drinking declined from 60% to 56%, and
drinking by any student in a 30-day period was 70% in 1994 and 69% in 1996.
Marijuana users totaled 11% in 1996 vs. 8% in 1994.
But whereas in 1994, 45% of students reported alcohol or drug-related
problems -- such as trouble with police, fighting, arrest for drunk driving,
or taking sexual advantage of someone -- those problems dropped to 29% in
1996.
And serious personal problems such as suicidal feelings, being hurt or
injured, missing classes, poor test results, trying unsuccessfully to stop
such usage or having been sexually assaulted, declined from 31% to 17%.
Despite the improvements, Carol Ott, director of counseling/health services,
and Robert M. Abene, dean of students, acknowledged that much remains to be
done.
As the executive summary of the two-year project stated: "When over 20% of
the faculty and staff still respond in a positive manner to acceptance of
'an occasional drunk,' there is still educational work that needs to be
done."
"Unfortunately because of the influence of the alcohol industry and with the
national and Wisconsin media promoting this alcohol use, alcohol and other
drug prevention continues to be a challenge," the report states.
The summary noted some of the school's accomplishments in recent years.
Among them:
• Establishing a volunteer segment in student orientation. Service and
volunteering are emphasized throughout the school year. Participation in
such activities has increased from 17% of students to 23%.
• More strictly enforcing drinking rules by Residence Hall supervisors
(those 21 and older can have alcohol in their rooms). In 1994, there were
only two write-ups for alcohol violations. The next year, there were 15; the
year after that, 52.
• Keeping school officials better informed of any misbehavior by students in
the community by working with Glendale and Fox Point police.
• Replacing an end-of-the-year party, which often resulted in alcohol
misuse, with an alcohol- and drug-free carnival; and establishing additional
events, such as a winter olympics.
• Establishing an alcohol- and drug-free coffeehouse in the Residence Hall.
• Developing a mentoring program for student athletes, who exhibited the
highest level of drug and alcohol use.
• Offering more intramural and fieldhouse activities in an effort to keep
more students on campus during the weekends.
• Students organizing a chapter of BACCHUS, an organization that fights
alcohol and drug misuse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco Firms Targeted Blacks, Documents Show ('Los Angeles Times'
Article About Documents Released Thursday By US Representative John Conyers Jr.
Of Michigan)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 16:27:20 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)
Subject: MN: US: Tobacco Firms Targeted Blacks, Documents Show
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Pubdate: February 6, 1998
Author: Henry Weinstein, Alissa J. Rubin, Times Staff Writers
TOBACCO FIRMS TARGETED BLACKS, DOCUMENTS SHOW
WASHINGTON--Damaging information about the tobacco industry was disclosed
here Thursday as a congressman released documents detailing the industry's
attempts to specifically target African Americans, in particular African
American youths.
Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), who released the material, said: "These
documents make clear that the tobacco industry was targeting blacks,
including black teenagers, at the same time the industry knew that tobacco
was addictive and caused lung cancer and other smoking-related disease."
For example, a 1973 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. marketing profile included a
study of black smokers ages 14 to 20. A 1973 Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. document on blacks said that the bulk of sales increases in the
company's Kool brand was among 16- to 25-year-olds.
"At the present rate, smokers in the 16- to 25-year age group will soon be
three times as important to Kool as a prospect in any other broad age
category."
A 1978 Lorillard Tobacco Co. research study noted that the success of its
Newport brand had been "fantastic during the past few years." While the
study said the brand was being purchased by black people of all ages, it
emphasized that "the base of our business is the high school student."
Thursday's disclosures come on the heels of the release of a cache of RJR
marketing documents in mid-January that provided the broadest picture to
date of industry targeting of teenagers. And in the last two weeks,
attorneys representing Minnesota in its massive case against the industry
have introduced in court several dozen internal industry documents
providing new details about how the industry knew years ago about both the
health hazards and addictiveness of its products.
Attorneys in Minnesota are also anxiously awaiting a judicial ruling on
whether they can obtain 240,000 more documents that the industry is trying
to keep secret, on top of the 33 million pages of company documents that
the state has gathered. Much of it is still under seal but is expected to
emerge during the trial.
Conyers noted that lung cancer accounts for 25% of all cancer cases in
African American males, compared to 14% of all cancer cases in the general
population. Moreover, he said that from 1950 to 1985, the occurrence of
lung cancer increased 220% among black men, compared to 86% among white
men.
"Now, we know that part of the blame lays squarely at the feet of the
tobacco industry."
The veteran congressman released the documents as the House Judiciary
Committee held a hearing on the proposed $368.5-billion national tobacco
settlement.
"Unfortunately, eight months after the settlement was announced, we still
don't have a complete picture of the extent to which these marketing
tactics were executed and the degree they were utilized by other members of
the tobacco industry," Conyers said. "That is why I am today calling for
the complete release of all incriminating industry documents. Until this
information is disclosed, Congress cannot intelligently determine whether
the proposed civil liability relief [the industry seeks] is appropriate or
ascertain the necessary amount of funds and smoking relief programs which
needed to be provided in the black community to counteract the pervasive
marketing of cigarettes they have faced."
At the hearing, the Clinton administration, tipping its hand for the first
time on a key aspect of the mammoth settlement now under consideration in
Congress, said it could accept special legal protections for tobacco
companies. David Ogden, a counselor to Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, told the
committee that limits on liability for the companies may be the price of
securing the tobacco industry's agreement to scale back its marketing and
advertising and finance anti-smoking programs.
"If there is agreement on a comprehensive bill . . . then reasonable
provisions modifying the civil liability of the tobacco industry would not
be a deal-breaker," Ogden said.
Ogden made clear, however, that the legal protections for the industry must
be narrowed considerably from those that were part of the settlement
reached last year between the tobacco companies and the 40 states that had
sued them. He repeatedly emphasized that restricting liability is not the
administration's preference, and at the end of the day, many lawmakers and
experts were still confused about exactly what the administration will
accept.
Special legal protection for the tobacco industry is the linchpin of the
proposed settlement. The industry agreed to drast