-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pothole Awaits Attorney General In Drive For Governor ('Washington Post'
Update On California Gubernatorial Race Suggests Candidate Dan Lungren,
The Republican Attorney General And Anti-Medical Marijuana Zealot,
Will Have A Hard Time Winning A State Where Voters Have Already Endorsed
Medical Marijuana)
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 18:36:45 -0500
From: "R. Lake"
Subject: MN: US CA: Pothole Awaits Attorney General in Drive for Governor
To: DrugSense News Service
Organization: DrugSense
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Source: The Washington Post
Author: William Claiborne, Washington Post Staff Writer
Pubdate: Friday, 6 Mar 1998
Contact: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
POTHOLE AWAITS ATTORNEY GENERAL IN DRIVE FOR GOVERNOR
California's Lungren Can Legally Close Political Foe's Campaign
Office-Marijuana Club
LOS ANGELES-State Attorney General Dan Lungren, the front-running Republican
candidate for California governor, has a marijuana problem. Actually, two
marijuana problems.
Backed by a new court ruling barring sale of medicinal marijuana -- even
though California voters approved its use by the ill in a 1996 referendum --
Lungren has vowed to shut down nearly two dozen "cannabis clubs" still
providing patients with the pain-easing drug.
But in some liberal Northern California counties, including San Francisco,
Santa Cruz and Mendocino, local police and prosecutors are all for the
cannabis clubs, and they have shown little enthusiasm for helping Lungren
close them. In Mendocino County, local officials even debated whether to use
a vacant lot next to a police station to grow marijuana for distribution to
sick people. And in San Francisco, a lawyer in the City Attorney's Office
sued the federal Drug Enforcement Administration to prevent it from
punishing physicians who recommend marijuana for medical use.
On top of that, the founder of San Francisco's thriving Cannabis
Cultivators' Club, Dennis Peron, is Lungren's opponent in the Republican
primary election in June. He takes glee in pointing out that if the attorney
general jails him for disobeying the court order, people might think there
was a political motive lurking somewhere. Since Peron's campaign
headquarters and his psychedelically decorated, marijuana smoke-filled
emporium are one and the same, Lungren could find himself in the position of
having shut down his opponent's campaign office.
"I feel sorry for him. He just doesn't want to accept feedback from the
people. He just wants to close my campaign headquarters like some South
American dictator," said Peron, who says that for years he has been the
marijuana supplier of choice for many San Francisco homosexuals seeking
relief from the symptoms of AIDS.
Lungren shut down Peron's club for five months in 1996, before the state
referendum allowed it to reopen. He has frequently said he thinks Peron must
have been smoking too much of his own product when he entered the Republican
primary in the first place. But the attorney general, through a spokesman,
declined to comment directly on Peron's allegation about closing his
campaign office.
"He won't touch that one," said Rob Stutzman, Lungren's press secretary.
But Stutzman said: "The attorney general has a court order to enforce the
law, and Mr. Peron is breaking the law by distributing marijuana from that
address. If his campaign headquarters is there, he'd probably be well
advised to relocate his political operation."
On Feb. 25, the state Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that,
despite the 1996 ballot initiative, cannabis clubs cannot sell or give away
marijuana to ill people because the clubs are not "primary caregivers" as
defined in the new law. The next day, a San Francisco Superior Court judge
issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Peron from selling or giving
away marijuana, after which Lungren said he would enforce the injunction.
In deft semantic footwork, Peron immediately announced he is no longer
selling marijuana, but seeking "remuneration" for fertilizer, labor costs
and fluorescent lighting that go into producing marijuana in the basement of
his five-story cannabis club a few blocks from San Francisco City Hall. A
new sign went over the club's marijuana bar proclaiming it a "Remuneration
Station."
"We don't sell marijuana. We accept reimbursement for cultivating it, as the
law says we can do," Peron said, referring to a state Court of Appeals
ruling that a bona fide caregiver may seek reimbursement for expenses in
providing marijuana to a patient.
While no accurate statistics on medical marijuana use are available, backers
of the ballot initiative estimate that about 10,000 patients, with diseases
ranging from AIDS and cancer to glaucoma and arthritis, buy the drug to
reduce pain and control nausea.
Lungren argues that the ballot initiative, which was drafted by Peron,
allows for only three things: a doctor to recommend marijuana, a patient to
use it with a doctor's recommendation, and a primary caregiver to provide it
if the patient is unable to obtain it. The voters did not intend, and the
law still does not allow, commercial enterprises to distribute marijuana,
even in return for remuneration of costs, Lungren insists.
Matt Ross, another Lungren spokesmen, said the Feb. 25 court ruling applies
not only to Peron's club but to other clubs as well. "We will advise
district attorneys and law enforcement officials of each county of that,"
Ross said. When asked what the attorney general will do if local authorities
balk at closing the clubs, he said, "I can't get into that. But I can tell
you that we will ensure that the [court] order is enforced."
In politically conservative areas of Southern California, like Orange and
Ventura counties, local authorities wasted little time, in spite of the
ballot initiative, in shutting down cannabis clubs and even jailing their
employees. But some areas of Northern California are a different matter.
"We're all together on wanting to make [medical marijuana] work in San
Francisco. Eighty percent of the people voted for it," said District
Attorney Terence Hallinan, a self-described "Old Prog" who long has
advocated decriminalizing marijuana.
The Oakland and Santa Cruz city councils unanimously passed resolutions
defending local cannabis clubs. The resolutions condemned a lawsuit brought
last month by the U.S. Justice Department and the DEA against six San
Francisco Bay area clubs seeking to close them for violating federal laws
against cultivating, possessing and distributing marijuana. A hearing on the
case was set for March 24.
What disturbs some cannabis club operators is that Peron appears to have
backed Lungren into a corner and forced him to try to shut down clubs that
operate more discreetly than the flamboyant San Francisco Cannabis
Cultivators' Club and with the tacit approval of the local authorities.
"These clubs don't claim they are protected legally," said David Fratello,
spokesman for Americans for Medical Rights, sponsor of the 1996 ballot
initiative. "They have sought to negotiate nonenforcement arrangements with
their local law enforcement agencies because they think it's worthwhile for
them to be above ground."
Fratello said Peron's situation is different because the 1996 state
narcotics raid closed his club and he needed to reopen, even if it meant
going head-to-head with the attorney general. But he said the federal civil
lawsuit brought by the U.S. attorney for Northern California, Michael
Yamaguchi, on behalf of the DEA and Attorney General Janet Reno is more
threatening because it could lead to an end to above-ground distribution
even in local jurisdictions where the authorities resist Lungren's attempts
to close the clubs.
(c) Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Would Beef Up Drug-Testing Laws ('Des Moines Register' Gives Details
On Iowa Urine Testing Legislation Awaiting Governor's Expected Signature -
Rehab For Those Testing Positive For Alcohol,
Pink Slips For Other Substances)
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 14:55:08 -0500
From: "R. Lake"
Subject: MN: US IA: Bill would Beef Up Drug-Testing Laws
To: DrugSense News Service
Organization: The Media Awareness Project of DrugSense
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Carl E. Olsen http://www.commonlink.com/~olsen/
Source: The Des Moines Register
Author: Lynn Hicks
Pubdate: Friday, March 6, 1998
Contact: letters@news.dmreg.com
Webform: http://www.dmregister.com/letter.html
Website: http://www.dmregister.com/
BILL WOULD BEEF UP DRUG-TESTING LAWS
Workers groups say it gives employers too much power, but advocates say it's
long overdue.
Highlights of Drug-Testing Bill
Testing
Bill allows testing of urine or another sample from the human body except
blood - revealing the presence of alcohol and other drugs.
Employers may conduct:
Unannounced testing of...
ALL employees at a particular site.
EMPLOYEES in safety-sensitive jobs.
They may also test...
DURING and after completion of substance abuse rehabilitiation.
WHEN there's reasonable suspicion of substance abuse.
PROSPECTIVE employees.
AFTER certain types of accidents.
Treatment
The bill provides rehabilitation only if:
THE employee tests positive for alcohol, and the concentration is between
.04 and .10;
EMPLOYER has more than 50 employees;
EMPLOYEE has worked for employer for 12 of the last 18 months; COSTS are
paid by a benefit plan or employee's insurance. If there is none, the costs
will be split equally, except the employer shall pay no more than $2,000.
Disciplinary actions
If an employee fails a test (and the positive test is confirmed), or if an
employee refuses to take a test, an employer may:
REQUIRE the employee to enroll in an employer-provided or approved
rehabilitation program.
SUSPEND employee, with or without pay.
TERMINATE employment.
AFTER A test for alcohol or other drugs, an employer may suspend an employee
pending the outcome of the test. If the test is not confirmed positive, the
employer shall reinstate the employee with back pay and 18 percent interest.
False positives
The employer is protected from liability unless the employer knew or clearly
should have known a false positive test result was in error and ignored the
correct test result.
SOURCE: House Resolution 299
A new drug-testing bill approved Wednesday night by the Iowa Legislature
would give Iowa employers a new tool chest of choices.
They could randomly test their workers for drugs and alcohol, forcing
employees to provide a sample every day if employers wanted. They could
test if they have a reasonable suspicion that a worker is under the
influence. They could require workers to get treatment after a confirmed
positive drug test, or they could fire them.
Supporters say workers have options, too: They can choose to get off and
stay off drugs and help create a safer, more productive workplace.
"I hope this bill will encourage people to step forward and ask their
employers, 'Would you help me with my problem?,'" said James Aipperspach,
president of the Iowa Association of Business and Industry. Most employers
won't just throw away valuable workers, especially with low unemployment, he
said.
Employer's Weapon?
Critics worry that employers will wield their new tools as weapons.
Businesses would have more power than the police, opponents complain, and
could use their new powers to harass shop-floor activists and other
perceived troublemakers.
"It's an absolute attack on worker privacy," said Mark L. Smith, president
of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO.
Businesses must make decisions if Gov. Terry Branstad signs the bill into
law, as he is expected to do. The bill won final legislative approval
Wednesday night when the House of Representatives passed it on a 53-46
vote. The law would go into effect 30 days after signing.
The bill doesn't force employers to do testing. And it only applies to
private-sector workers; governmental bodies cannot randomly test their
workers unless there is an overriding safety factor.
Companies Waiting
Some of Iowa's largest employers - including Deere & Co. and Maytag Corp. -
support the changes but say they need to study the bill before deciding
whether they will begin random testing or make other changes in their
policies.
Sen. Steve King, R-Kiron, who managed the bill in debate, expects random
testing will be popular with small employers such as himself, the owner of a
construction company. The bill would free businesses with fewer than 50
employees from rehabilitating workers who test positive for drugs or
alcohol.
Where Laws Collide
The bill also would ease restrictions on pre-employment testing, another
popular issue with employers.
But King expects most employers to make only subtle changes in their
drug-testing policies. "Not very many businesses are licking their chops
and ready to jump into this," he said.
Doug Horstman, Maytag's vice president of governmental affairs, agreed. The
Newton appliance maker needs to take a careful look at the bill, he said,
but he doesn't expect the company to begin "a huge campaign of testing."
Maytag does some testing now, especially after accidents, Horstman said. He
said the company will continue to rehabilitate employees who test positive
for drug use, even though the new bill doesn't require it.
Like Maytag, most of the bill's backers say the current law jeopardizes the
safety of workers. The 11-year-old law generally limits testing to a few
specific instances in which workers are given advance notice. An employer
must have probable cause - basically, observing the worker take drugs or
alcohol - before ordering an unannounced test. One-time proof of drug use
might not result in firing, and the employer must pay the costs of
evaluation and treatment not covered by insurance.
A High Priority
Those restrictions have caused many employers to avoid testing at all.
Changing the law has been a high priority for the manufacturing and
construction industries and others whose employees work around heavy
machinery.
Some largely white-collar employers, such as the Principal Financial Group,
also supported the bill. But Principal does not test workers and has no
plans to change its policy, said spokeswoman Sara Opie.
One employer who did not support the bill was Sen. Tom Flynn, D-Epworth, who
owns a concrete business in Dubuque and must randomly test his truck drivers
according to federal law. He supports much of the bill's provisions. And
allowing random testing and lowering the individual-testing standard to
reasonable suspicion would help create a safer workplace, he said.
Bill Goes Too Far
But Flynn says the bill goes too far in allowing unlimited testing. "This
provides a tool for the unscrupulous employer to be able to harass workers,"
he said.
King, who owns a construction company, said that if an employer tested all
workers every day, they would drive away their best workers. He said he has
promised to revisit the bill next year if reports of harassment arise.
He emphasized that the bill provides ample protections for employee rights.
Employers must have a written policy, cannot test blood and must meet other
requirements that are not in current law. "It's the most employee-friendly
bill in the country," he said.
Opponents envision nightmare scenarios. While the bill says employers must
collect samples "with regard for the privacy with the individual," it also
says that employers shall try to make sure that the sample isn't
contaminated.
That means supervisors must observe workers giving samples, critics say, and
nothing would prevent managers from observing workers of the opposite sex
urinate. Democrats brought up the case of a 15-year-old Des Moines girl who
had to give a urine sample as part of her probation. A male medical
technologist observed her giving a sample at the Polk County Health
Department last year, the teen complained. She later committed suicide; no
reason was disclosed.
In Wednesday night's House debate, Rep. Keith Weigel, D-New Hampton,
introduced an amendment that would have protected minors from being observed
by a member of the opposite sex. "It could be anyone's daughter or
granddaughter being watched," Weigel said. "It's just not right."
The amendment was rejected. If the bill becomes law, Democrats will try to
address that and other flaws" next year, Weigel said.
King called the complaint "absurd." Sexual harassment laws would prevent
such an event from happening, he said.
The bill also has many wondering about compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. For instance, if
substance abuse fits the definition of a serious health condition, could
employers fire a worker?
For all the questions it raises, the bill could also provide some answers.
Supporters and opponents disagree whether a drug problem exists in the
workplace. If it becomes law, the bill would require a laboratory doing
business for an employer to file an annual report to the state showing the
number of tests conducted, the number of positive and negative test results
and the types of drugs found.
With reports of methamphetamine invading Iowa, "this bill is coming at the
right time," Horstman said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Officers Say Ruling Hurts Drug Efforts (Lengthy 'Dallas Morning News' Article
About Americans Who Travel To Mexico To Purchase Over-The-Counter Drugs
Available Only By Prescription, Or Not At All In United States,
Notes A Decision By The 4th Court Of Appeals In San Antonio
Has Affirmed Citizens' Right To Bring Such Drugs Back To United States
For Personal Use, Which Rather Ticks Off The Drug Warriors)
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 07:24:03 -0500
To: DrugSense News Service
From: Richard Lake
Subject: MN: US TX: Officers Say Ruling Hurts Drug Efforts
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Newshawk: Bartman
Source: Dallas Morning News
Contact: letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com
Website: http://www.dallasnews.com
Pubdate: 06 Feb 98
Author: Scott Parks, Dallas Morning News
OFFICERS SAY RULING HURTS DRUG EFFORTS
Law officers say a recent state appeals court decision is hurting their
efforts to curb the abuse of addictive prescription drugs flowing into
Texas from Mexico.
The decision by the 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio overturned the 1996
conviction of Dianne B. Wright, a North Texas woman who got prescriptions
for tranquilizers and diet pills in Nuevo Laredo and brought the drugs into
Texas.
Lynn Ellison, a district attorney in South Texas, said the appeals court
decision has provided legal cover to those who would buy drugs at Mexican
pharmacies and use them to get high or make money.
"It's set up a situation where these . . . [people] are going down there
and getting 100 to 300 pills and on their way back, they pull out a copy of
a news story about the 4th Court's opinion and shake it in the face of the
highway patrol," Mr. Ellison said.
Ms. Wright, a 45-year-old grandmother who lives in the Sherman-Denison
area, said she obtained her diet pills to lose weight and got the Valium to
combat anxiety about a new job in a new city.
"I thought I was following all the laws," she said. "I never knew I was
breaking any state law."
Ms. Wright said she and her son went across the border on Oct. 18, 1995, to
go shopping in Nuevo Laredo. She said she met with a Mexican doctor,
obtained her prescriptions and filled them at a Mexican pharmacy.
On her way back into Texas, Ms. Wright said she showed the written
prescriptions and the drugs to U.S. Customs officers at the international
bridge. She told them the drugs were for personal use. Customs officers
waved her into the United States, saying she met requirements of federal law.
But state troopers, local law officers and district attorneys in South
Texas were reading a state law that seemed to say something different.
Ms. Wright and her son were driving north on Interstate 35 when they were
stopped for speeding in Frio County, a rural area about 50 miles north of
Laredo. The Frio County Sheriff's Department found the pharmaceuticals and
charged her with felony drug possession punishable by up to 10 years in
prison.
The Texas Controlled Substances Act, law officers said, made Ms. Wright's
drugs illegal in Texas because they were not prescribed by a physician
licensed in the United States and authorized by the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration to dispense narcotics.
"You have no idea what this nightmare has been like," Ms. Wright said.
"I've spent more than $5,000 and made nine trips to Frio County in the last
two years."
Mr. Ellison, the Frio County district attorney, said abuse of
pharmaceutical drugs from Mexico has been a problem in South Texas for many
years, but he acknowledged that Ms. Wright did not fit the profile of
wayward young Americans who run across the border to obtain psychoactive
drugs to get high.
"The vast majority of them are young, not ill in any way, with enough
personal resources to see a doctor in the U.S.," he said. "They go into
Mexico and get the stuff for purposes of abuse."
Johnny Hatcher, a high-ranking drug enforcement officer in the Texas
Department of Public Safety, said his office has no statistics on how many
people get arrested under circumstances similar to those that landed Ms.
Wright in trouble.
But he said the appeals court decision in her case has taken away one tool
to fight drug abuse.
"It's a mistake to just say, 'Bring it on.' " he said.
Mr. Ellison's office prosecuted Ms. Wright under the Texas law. A jury
convicted her and handed down a two-year probationary sentence. She
appealed the conviction to the 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio.
Associate Justice Catherine Stone, in overturning the conviction, said Frio
County law officers gave the state law an absurd interpretation that also
could be used against foreign tourists.
"Any foreign visitor to our state traveling with personal medication would
be subject to felony prosecution for illegal possession of controlled
substances," she wrote.
The justices said Ms. Wright possessed her drugs in accord with federal law
and that using a contrary state law to arrest people makes no sense.
"It is simply too far beyond reasoned analysis - much less a system of
justice - to attribute to the Texas Legislature the intent to criminalize
possession that is lawful under federal law," Justice Sarah B. Duncan wrote
in a concurring opinion.
In a second concurring opinion, Justice Tom Rickhoff said he hoped the
court's decision put an end to "this pernicious side skirmish in the war on
drugs."
But the Wright case is not over.
Mr. Ellison has asked the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest
criminal appeals court in Texas, to review the 4th Court's decision, find
it in error and reinstate Ms. Wright's conviction.
The 4th Court erred when it ignored the state law's wording that requires
prescriptions to be dispensed by U.S.-licensed doctors, Mr. Ellison said.
"What they held is that prosecutors ought to have enough sense to realize
when the law ought to say something even though it doesn't really say it,"
he said. "The law says what it says."
Thomas F. Lee, the district attorney in Del Rio, another Texas border town,
said the appeals court decision in the Wright case has ended similar
prosecutions in his district.
"I know most of them are kids going across [the border] to get drugs and
get high," he said. "I guarantee you they get anything they want for $40.
The Legislature is going to have to do something about this practice."
Drug abuse experts throughout the Southwest say powerful stimulants and
narcotic depressants are too easily obtainable in Mexican border pharmacies
from Brownville, Texas, to San Diego, Calif.
The problem, they said, is clear: How do you prosecute drug offenders and
still protect legitimate medical patients?
Dr. Marv Shepherd, a pharmacy professor at the University of Texas, said he
once believed that the vast majority of Americans seeking prescription
drugs in Mexico were older people looking for cheap prices on medicines for
high blood pressure, ulcers, diabetes and other ailments.
A careful study revealed otherwise, he said.
Dr. Shepherd reviewed 5,624 customs declaration forms at the Laredo border
crossing between July 1994 and June 1995. Each form contained information
about drug products purchased by U.S. residents.
The study dealt only with prescription drugs, not substances such as
cocaine and marijuana.
Dr. Shepherd found that 14 of the top 15 prescription drugs brought into
the United States at Laredo during that one-year period were "controlled
substances" - opiate-based narcotics such as Neopercodan or stimulants such
as Ritalin.
Rohypnol, the so-called date rape drug, ranked high on the list. The
federal government has banned importation of Rohypnol since Dr. Shepherd's
1994-95 study.
The study showed that almost 70 percent of the people bringing prescription
drugs back into the United States had bought Valium, a popular tranquilizer
that many illegal drug abusers take to get high.
Dr. Shepherd estimated that 11,000 Valium tablets a day, or about 4 million
a year, came into the United States at the Laredo port of entry during the
12 months covered by the study.
The study did not involve any of the other 25 border-crossing points on the
Texas-Mexico border.
The median age of men filing the drug-related customs declarations was 24,
meaning half were younger and half were older. The median age for women was
34.
"These findings do not support the assumption that the majority of people
who purchase pharmaceutical products in Mexico and declare the products at
the U.S. Customs port of entry are elderly," Dr. Shepherd reported.
"Young people are stretching these federal rules beyond belief," he said.
"There is no doubt in my mind."
Drug abuse experts say Dr. Shepherd's study provides a definitive look at
the Mexican prescription drug problem. Even so, they say it doesn't reveal
the true dimensions because it didn't deal with pharmaceuticals smuggled
across the border and never reported on customs declaration forms.
Mr. Hatcher, the state drug enforcement officer, said the federal Food and
Drug Administration's ban on importation of Rohypnol and most anabolic
steroids might point the way to one solution.
"I've always wondered why the FDA hasn't banned some of these other drugs
from coming in," he said.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals could reverse the 4th Court in the
Wright case. And the Legislature could amend state drug laws to give police
officers more tools to combat abuse of Mexican pharmaceuticals, Mr. Hatcher
said.
"Peace officers are caught in the middle of this," he said. "Everybody from
every state in the union will be coming through Texas with these drugs. I
just don't think that is the intent of the federal government."
Ms. Wright said her arrest was a mistake that she is determined to correct
in court.
"I've still got a dark cloud hanging over my head," she said. "I preached
to my kids about the evils of drugs, and now I've become a convicted drug
person for no reason."
(c) 1998 The Dallas Morning News
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week Online With DRCNet, Issue Number 32 (News Summary For Activists,
From The Drug Reform Coordination Network - Original Articles Include -
Violent Week In Giuliani's New York Drug War; Federal Agent Cleared In Shooting
Of Candy Bar-Holding Teen - Plus - An Interview With Robert Godosky,
The Teen's Attorney; Professor's Penn State Pot Protest Continues;
California Inmates Get Ruling, But No Justice, In Sexual Assault Case;
French Artists, Intellectuals Sign Petition Challenging Drug Laws;
Irish Priest Urges Legalization; Quote Of The Week -
Who's The Most 'Silly Son-Of-A-Bitch' In Colorado Politics?
And Editorial, A Real Live Shooting War In America, By Adam J. Smith)
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 15:18:51 EST
Originator: drc-natl@drcnet.org
Sender: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet manager@drcnet.org
To: Multiple recipients of list drc-natl@drcnet.org
Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #32
THE WEEK ONLINE WITH DRCNet, ISSUE #32-- MARCH 6, 1998
-- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --
(To sign off this list, mailto:listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:drcnet@drcnet.org for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.)
DRCNet's free online subscriber list has soared over the
4,500 mark, but we still need 100 new paying members by
March 31 to reach our goal -- as well as continued support
from our current members. Please sign up today! Copies of
Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts are still available, free
with donations of $30 or more to DRCNet! Sign-on online at
http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html, or mail to DRCNet, 2000
P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036.
NOTE: State alerts for Virginia, Colorado and California
were distributed on 2/26 and 3/4. If you are from one of
these states but didn't receive the alert, please write us
at drcnet@drcnet.org with your request to be added to the
state distribution. The Colorado and California alerts are
still active, so please visit
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-4-1.html (Colorado) or
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-4-2.html (California).
Our 2/26 Virginia alert can be viewed at
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-26.html, but the bill
with which we were most concerned, Seeds and Stems, seems to
be defeated for this year. Congratulations to Lennice
Werth, Roy Scherer, Michael Crawitz and all other Virginia
activists for their terrific work year after year! And many
thanks to those of you on this list who helped out.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. LEGISLATORS BLAST MEXICO CERTIFICATION -- RESOLUTIONS TO
OVERTURN INTRODUCED IN BOTH HOUSES
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#certification
2. U.S. HOUSE PANEL APPROVES RESOLUTION AGAINST MEDICAL
MARIJUANA (from NORML Weekly News)
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#ushouse
3. NEWT GINGRICH CALLS FOR LIFETIME BAN OF DRUG-USING
ATHLETES WHO REFUSE TO SNITCH
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#gingrichagain
4. VIOLENT WEEK IN GIULIANI'S NEW YORK DRUG WAR
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#giuliani
5. MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE FILED IN WASHINGTON STATE
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#washington
6. FEDERAL AGENT CLEARED IN SHOOTING OF CANDY BAR-HOLDING
TEEN: PLUS -- AN INTERVIEW WITH ROBERT GODOSKY, THE
TEEN'S ATTORNEY
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#candybar
7. PROFESSOR'S PENN STATE POT PROTEST CONTINUES
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#heicklen
8. CALIFORNIA INMATES GET RULING -- BUT NO JUSTICE -- IN
SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#prisonrape
9. INDUSTRIAL HEMP LEGALIZED IN CANADA!
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#hempcanada
10. FRENCH ARTISTS, INTELLECTUALS SIGN PETITION CHALLENGING
DRUG LAWS
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#france
11. IRISH PRIEST URGES LEGALIZATION
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#ireland
12. QUOTE OF THE WEEK: Who's the most "silly son-of-a-
bitch" in Colorado politics?
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#quote
13. EDITORIAL: A real live shooting war in America.
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-6.html#editorial
***
1. LEGISLATORS BLAST MEXICO CERTIFICATION -- RESOLUTIONS TO
OVERTURN INTRODUCED IN BOTH HOUSES
In what is shaping up as a replay of a battle fought one
year ago, legislators in both the House and the Senate have
introduced resolutions aimed at overturning the Clinton
administration's certification of Mexico as a cooperative
partner in the Drug War. Last year's attempt to overturn
certification in the House swept through committee with a
vote of 27-5, and was stopped only after the President
secured new promises of Mexican cooperation. The Washington
Post reports that administration officials view the prospect
of a reversal this year as "extremely unlikely" as they are
confident that there are insufficient votes in the Senate to
overturn a presidential veto, if it comes to that.
But that hasn't stopped legislators from both sides of the
aisle from trying. On Tuesday (3/3), Senators Paul
Coverdell (R-GA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced that
body's resolution. Coverdell explained his opposition by
stating that "by almost any objective standard, Mexico has
clearly failed to satisfy the legal criteria required for
certification." Feinstein cited "gaping holes" in Mexico's
Drug War efforts, including "endemic corruption."
All of this complicates matters for President Clinton, who
is scheduled to attend a Western Hemispheric Summit next
month. On the agenda will be increasing levels of
hemispheric cooperation in the prosecution of the drug war.
Many Latin American leaders have complained in recent years
about the certification process, pointing out that there is
much hypocrisy inherent in the largest drug consumer in the
world passing unilateral judgment on countries who are
bearing much of the brunt of America's drug war.
***
2. U.S. HOUSE PANEL APPROVES RESOLUTION AGAINST MEDICAL
MARIJUANA
(Reprinted with permission of the NORML Foundation,
http://www.norml.org/)
March 5, 1998, Washington, DC: A coalition of Republicans
on the House Judiciary Committee approved a "sense of the
House of Representatives" resolution on Wednesday stating
that "marijuana is a dangerous and addictive drug and should
not be legalized for medical use." House Resolution 372 --
introduced by Crime Subcommittee chair Bill McCollum (R-
Fla.) -- was approved by a voice vote despite efforts by
several Democrats to kill or amend the measure.
"Medical marijuana is a public health issue," said Rep.
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), who vigorously argued against the
bill. "[It] is not part of the 'War on Drugs.'" Also
speaking in opposition to the measure were Rep. John Conyers
(D-MI), ranking Democrat on the committee, and Reps. William
Delahunt (D-MA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA),
Martin Meehan (D-MA), and Melvin Watt (D-NC).
Before passing the resolution, Republicans rejected an
amendment offered by Rep. Conyers that stated "States have
the primary responsibility for protecting the health and
safety of their citizens, and the Federal Government should
not interfere with any state's policy (as expressed in a
legislative enactment or referendum) which authorizes
persons with AIDS or cancer to pursue, upon the
recommendation of a licensed physician, a course of
treatment for such illness that includes the use of
marijuana."
Republicans also rejected an amendment proposed by Rep.
Martin Meehan (D-MA) calling on the House of Representatives
to "consider this issue... deserving of further study."
Republicans argued that any lifting of the legal ban
prohibiting marijuana, even for medical purposes, would send
mixed and potentially dangerous messages to the American
public about drug use. Rep. McCollum -- who sponsored
legislation to permit the legal use of medical marijuana in
1981 and 1983 -- further charged that it would be
"counterproductive" for Congress to encourage medical
marijuana research or request the Food and Drug
Administration to review the drug's prohibitive status.
"[I] do not want to go on record supporting another study
[on medical marijuana,]" McCollum said. "[Congress] must
send a clear message [that] ... marijuana is a highly
addictive Schedule I drug ... with no likelihood of FDA
approval." Rep. McCollum also said that he no longer
supports the stance he took in the 1980s when he urged the
federal government to make marijuana legal as a medicine.
"The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are willing to
ignore the science and deny an effective medication to
seriously ill patients in order to advance their political
agenda," charged NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup,
Esq. For example, Stroup noted that Rep. James Rogan (R-
Calif.) voted for the resolution despite declaring that he
observed a seriously ill family member successfully use
marijuana as a medicine. Two Democrats who opposed the
resolution also gave personal testimonials of a friend or
family member's battle with terminal illness. One
representative also admitted that her friend found
therapeutic relief from marijuana.
"Republicans apparently are not willing to let scientific
evidence, compassion, or common sense get in the way of
arresting and jailing marijuana smokers -- even those who
are seriously or terminally ill," Stroup said.
The resolution now goes for consideration before the full
House. For more information or a copy of House Res. 372,
please contact either Keith Stroup or Paul Armentano of
NORML at (202) 483-5500.
***
3. NEWT GINGRICH CALLS FOR LIFETIME BAN OF DRUG-USING
ATHLETES WHO REFUSE TO SNITCH
Speaking at a news conference on Thursday, Feb. 26, House
Speaker Newt Gingrich called upon all sports leagues and
associations to ban for one year any athlete who tests
positive for drugs, with the added proviso that they be
forced to reveal where they got the drugs, or be banned for
life. Brian McIntyre, spokesman for the National Basketball
Association, told the L.A. Times, "We thank the speaker for
his thoughts, but as it relates to the NBA, we think that
this is an issue that is best addressed solely by the NBA
and its players." The various professional sports leagues,
of course, negotiate their drug policies within the
framework of collective bargaining agreements between the
leagues and the players unions.
***
4. VIOLENT WEEK IN GIULIANI'S DRUG WAR
In New York City, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's new "zero-
tolerance" Drug War claimed the life of one suspect and
nearly claimed the life of a cop in a "buy and bust"
operation in Brooklyn. Also, police acting on an anonymous
tip kicked in the door of the wrong apartment in the Bronx
and fired over 30 shots. Fortunately, no one was injured.
Police taking part in a "buy and bust" operation, which
netted a single $20 vial of crack-cocaine, walked into a
narrow hallway where one suspect was confronted. In the
ensuing struggle, apparently over the officer's gun, the
suspect was killed, and the officer, 13 year-veteran Sgt.
Dexter Brown, was shot in the lower back by a bullet from
the gun of a backup officer. Brown's life was saved by his
bulletproof vest. He was hospitalized but is expected to
recover fully. Mayor Giuliani told the Daily News that it
was an "'excellent job' by officers exposed to 'tremendous
danger'".
In the Bronx, 44 year-old Ellis Elliot was asleep in his
bedroom at 8:15 Friday morning (2/27), when he heard his
door being kicked in. Assuming that he was being robbed,
Elliot grabbed his (unlicensed) gun and fired once in the
direction of his bedroom door. That shot was answered by a
barrage, possibly as many as 30 shots from the police.
After the barrage, Elliot told The New York Post, the police
finally identified themselves, at which time Elliot came out
with his hands up. At that point, he was cuffed and, still
naked, dragged from his apartment through the new hole in
his front door and into the street. Elliot told the Post
that while he was being cuffed and dragged from his home,
police cursed at him, called him "nigger", and refused to
let him put on clothes. When police finally went back into
the house to retrieve clothes for Mr. Elliot, officers
brought out pants and a blouse belonging to Elliot's
girlfriend. Elliot was forced to wear the woman's clothing
to jail.
Elliot, who has no criminal record, is being charged with
possession of his unlicensed firearm. The New York City
Police Department has indicated that it will reimburse the
building's owner for the damage to the apartment.
The Week Online called the New York City Police and spoke to
a representative in their press office. That office
indicated that the police, out of the Bronx Narcotics Unit,
were executing a search warrant at the time of their entry,
but could not confirm what exactly was being searched for.
We then asked whether it was standard procedure to execute
warrants at an hour (8:15 am) when it was likely that any
children in a given home would be awake and preparing for
school, the press rep responded, "er, no. I mean, you
execute it when you think... when you do. I mean, did this
guy have kids?" (Editor -- He might just as easily have had
kids, since they broke down the door of the wrong
apartment.)
***
5. MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE FILED IN WASHINGTON STATE
Add Washington to the list of states trying to pass a
medicinal marijuana initiative in 1998. Dr. Rob Killian of
Tacoma, who led the fight for a failed drug policy reform
initiative (I-685) in 1997 is also spearheading this
campaign. The 1997 initiative, however, was quite broad,
modeled after Arizona's successful Prop. 200. This time,
the language is straight medical marijuana, protecting
medical users, as well as recommending physicians from
prosecution, and its supporters have no doubt that it will
get on the ballot, and pass.
Tim Killian of Washington Citizens for Medical Rights told
The Week Online, "A lot of people, especially those outside
of the state, view the defeat of 685 as a setback. On the
contrary, that campaign, for an initiative which went well
beyond marijuana, gave us an opportunity to raise the level
of discussion about drug policy issues in general around the
state. A lot of people who opposed 685 were, for the first
time, able to discuss and to learn about the issue of
medical marijuana in a rational and intelligent forum. Many
legislators and even a lot of editorial boards around the
state went on record saying that they could support a
narrowly drawn medical marijuana initiative, but opposed the
more broadly written text of 685. Well, this time we have
narrowed the focus of our efforts to encompass only medical
marijuana, and the legal protection of doctors and patients,
and we're expecting the support of a lot of people who
probably wouldn't have been on our side had it not been for
the 685 experience."
NOTE: Washington Citizens for Medical Rights is looking for
volunteers, as well as contributions. If you are
interested, and would like to help, you can contact them at
(206) 781-7716, or e-mail to cdpr@eventure.com, or send
checks (made payable to Washington Citizens for Medical
Rights) to P.O. Box 2346, Seattle, WA 98111.
***
6. FEDERAL AGENT CLEARED IN SHOOTING OF CANDY BAR-HOLDING
TEEN
U.S. Deputy Marshall William Cannon was cleared by a Queens,
NY grand jury this week (3/4) in the shooting of 17 year-old
high school student Andre Burgess. Burgess, captain of the
soccer team at Hillcrest High School, was walking through
his own neighborhood on 138th street in Laurelton, Queens
(an officially determined "high-intensity drug trafficking
area") on November 6 of last year, when an unmarked car
carrying four federal agents rolled through. Cannon, who
reportedly mistook a silver-wrappered Three Musketeers candy
bar for a gun, jumped from the car and shot the teen once in
the back of the leg.
According to Burgess, Cannon did not identify himself and
gave the teen no time to react. "I turned to see what was
up," Burgess told the New York Daily News at the time, "and
boom, I'm hit, and I fell to the ground." Burgess was then
handcuffed while lying on the ground, bleeding, until an
ambulance arrived. Internal investigations by the U.S.
Marshals Service and Dept. of Justice are still ongoing.
IN REPORTING ON THE BURGESS CASE, THE WEEK ONLINE SPOKE WITH
ANDRE BURGESS' ATTORNEY, ROBERT GODOSKY.
WOL: Andre Burgess is a 17 year-old African American kid
living in a black neighborhood. What is your take on the
significance of that fact in light of what happened?
RG: Well, what I'd like to think, and perhaps it's na‹ve,
but what I'd like to believe is that Agent Cannon simply had
a quick trigger. My gut tells me, however, that with
officers working in poor, predominantly minority
neighborhoods, where they're pressing down on drug
trafficking, there's an underlying reaction that the people
there are all suspect.
Also, you need to ask yourself whether this type of behavior
by law enforcement is acceptable in those areas, where it
clearly wouldn't be in an area like Wall Street, although
there are certainly a lot of drugs there as well. We're not
running street sweeps on Wall Street. But a black kid in
Laurelton, Queens, in his own neighborhood, is holding a
candy bar, and he gets shot by an officer of the law. But
if our investigation does reveal that there was a racial
bias in this particular case, by this particular officer,
I've told Andre that we'll pursue that.
WOL: Is it safe to assume that you're disappointed in the
Grand Jury for failing to indict?
RG: What we're really disappointed in is Richard Brown's
(Queens D.A.) inability to get an indictment. It's easy for
the D.A. to lay the blame on the grand jury, but the D.A.
has a lot of control over what goes on in that process.
They couldn't even get a reckless endangerment charge?
C'mon. They simply didn't want an indictment... they didn't
even try. And now we're sitting here listening to the D.A.
talk about how this was an "unfortunate occurrence"? Every
shooting is an unfortunate occurrence. Was there any
reasonable justification for Agent Cannon's actions? No.
The guidelines that he used in deciding to fire his weapon
were not objectively reasonable by the standards of any law
enforcement agent anywhere.
Andre was unarmed, shot in the back of the leg. He was
doing nothing wrong. And Agent Cannon didn't even identify
himself. That is certainly both unwarranted and
unreasonable. The failure to indict here sends a message to
any law enforcement agent working in Queens, perhaps
especially in poor, minority neighborhoods in Queens, that
it is okay to shoot first and ask questions later.
WOL: What were the Federal Marshals doing in the area in
the first place?
RG: Well, according to the Marshals' office, they were
looking for a suspect on a warrant from 1982. Andre was two
years old in 1982, so they certainly couldn't have mistaken
him for the guy they were after.
WOL: The Justice Department is still investigating the
case. Being that it is a federal investigation of a federal
officer, are you concerned that the outcome could be the
same as the local investigation?
RG: Well, of course you have something of an inherent
conflict, with the Justice Department charged with upholding
the civil rights of citizens, and, in this case, a federal
officer being investigated. Zachary Carter is the U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District, and it's his role to
proceed zealously in this matter. If necessary, we could
ask for a special prosecutor, but I doubt that enough of a
conflict would be found here to justify such an appointment.
If justice isn't done on the criminal side, we'll be left to
seek compensation in a civil case. People complain all the
time about the civil process, but often it turns out to be
the only avenue for an individual to get some measure of
justice.
WOL: And how is Andre, both physically and emotionally?
RG: Well, physically, he's recovering. He's still
undergoing physical therapy, but he's determined to try to
resume his soccer career next year at the college level.
Andre was extraordinarily lucky. The bullet entered the
back of his thigh and exited the front, all without hitting
either the bone or the artery.
Emotionally, this has been horrifying for him. That
neighborhood is his home. With everything that he might
already have to worry about there, is it right that he
should now be afraid that he'll be shot at by an officer of
the law? This is a good kid. Captain of his soccer team,
headed for college. His mom's an extremely hard-working
woman. Andre's only crime is that he lived in the wrong
neighborhood. In our societal quest to crack down on these
communities, are citizens now less entitled to the service
and protection of the police based on where they live?
***
7. PROFESSOR'S PENN STATE POT PROTEST CONTINUES
- Alex Morgan for DRCNet
(NOTE: Coverage of this story on 2/20 was also courtesy of
Alex Morgan. The editors regret the omission of that
byline.)
Penn State Professor Emeritus Julian Heicklen resumed his
campaign of civil disobedience Thursday (3/5) by smoking
marijuana with several supporters at the university's Main
Gate. Heicklen and four other protesters have been charged
with various drug offenses stemming from the Feb. 12
"Smokeout." Heicklen had refrained from smoking during the
past two Thursday protests, but resumed yesterday to protest
the slow pace that the cases are moving through the Centre
County Judicial system. "I'm already being denied a fair,
impartial and speedy trial, and I haven't even gotten into
court yet," he told a crowd of about a hundred supporters.
This was the seventh consecutive protest held at noon on
Thursday. However, unlike previous protests, neither the
Penn State nor State College Police were present when the
joints were being smoked.
The crowd cheered and applauded when Heicklen lit the joint
and passed it to Diane Fornbacher, a local writer and
marijuana activist. They were joined by Alan Gordon, a Penn
State alumni who has publicly planted marijuana seeds and
turned himself in for marijuana offenses numerous times in
Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Georgia. Gordon was cited
with Heicklen on Feb. 12 and plans to use a medicinal
marijuana defense, while the Professor plans to persuade a
jury to nullify the marijuana laws as an unreasonable
intrusion of government power into the lives of responsible
adults.
Co-defendants Ken Keltner and Jennifer Corbett were
introduced to the crowd but declined to smoke, citing advice
of their lawyer in a civil suit Keltner has filed against
the State College Area School District for suspending him as
a result of his arrest at the Feb 12. protest.
While smoking the joint, Heicklen talked about personal
freedom and civil rights and contrasted the harm supposedly
done by marijuana with the violence and disorder associated
with College Football, an economic boon and cultural icon
for this Big Ten College community.
"Football's primary purpose is to glorify violence... it's a
highly criminogenic activity leading to student riots,
public drunkenness, gambling and ticket scalping... football
has corrupted this community."
Heicklen said that while he has nothing personally against
football, it is hypocritical for the community to
"...glorify football as a religion" while condemning
marijuana as a dangerous drug.
He said that two-thirds of those going to prison are
sentenced for non-violent crimes, while half are for non-
violent drug offenses. "...I'm ashamed of it and I mean to
change it."
Penn State student and Libertarian Charles Miller said that
while the number of drug felons has increased so has the
number of unsolved car thefts and burglaries, "...not only
are they putting the wrong people in jail, they're leaving
the wrong people on the street."
At 12:50 PM the Penn State Police finally showed up but no
one was smoking. When asked by The Week Online why they
weren't present at the start of the protest, an officer
replied that they weren't aware of it until someone called
911.
Heicklen was quoted Wednesday in the Daily Collegian as
saying that he would be smoking a joint at the Thursday
rally to protest the corruption of the court system. Given
that Heicklen had to cross the street into the town of State
College on Feb. 12 in order to be arrested, it would seem
that the University is reluctant to confront the issues
being raised by the Professor.
In response to questions about his future plans, Heicklen
said, "I'll keep smoking... I'm moving this thing out of the
courts and into the streets."
There won't be a rally next week due to Spring Break but the
protests will resume on March 19.
This past week Heicklen was the focus of major stories by
the local CBS affiliate WJAC of Johnstown/Altoona and the
Centre Daily Times of State College, and his actions were
applauded by the Board of Editorial Opinion of the Daily
Collegian, an independent publication of the students
of Penn State University.
As of right now the Preliminary Hearing schedule for the
five protesters arrested for assorted drug charges at the
Feb. 12 protest is as follows:
* March 11- Alan Gordon
* March 18- Professor Julian Heicklen
* March 25- Jennifer Corbett, Ken Keltner and Andrew Burke.
All dates are subject to change.
***
8. CALIFORNIA INMATES GET RULING -- BUT NO JUSTICE -- IN
SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE
- Barrington Daltrey for DRCNet
The war on drugs continues to exact its toll on the humanity
of our system of justice, the civil rights of individuals,
and on taxpayers' pocketbooks. On March 3, 1998, Judge
Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court in
San Francisco was presented a settlement of a civil rights
suit against the United States Bureau of Prisons brought by
three women prisoners, two of whom are in federal prison on
drug charges.
According to their lawyers, Michael Bien and Geri Lynn
Green, the three were victims of sexual assault and rape
while housed in the J-2 Segregated Housing Unit of the
otherwise all male Federal Detention Center in Dublin,
California. The attacks occurred in the fall of 1995.
"We are incarcerating people at alarming rates," said Green,
"The prison systems are not set up to handle the huge
increases. Even in women's prisons, men staff the units.
They read the prisoner's mail and listen to all phone calls.
There exists no safe and secure method of reporting abuse,
meanwhile there has been a steady erosion of prisoners'
access to the courts, legal representation, and the press.
These attacks and the resulting retaliation occurred because
we have a prison system that is accountable to no one. The
prison system thrives on cover-ups and retaliation, breeding
malfeasance and misfeasance by prison personnel without
redress."
The settlement requires changes in operating procedures at
federal prisons throughout the country, and the women will
share in $500,000 in damages to be paid by the federal
government.
The attacks reportedly occurred repeatedly late at night,
when a correctional officer would open the women's cell
doors, giving access to male inmates. When two of the women
got word out to the regional director requesting help, they
received no assistance. Instead, word of one victim's under
oath identification of the correctional officer and an
attacker was leaked to the male inmates, and subsequently
her door was again opened. Three men entered, handcuffing
her, brutally beating her and sexually assaulting her. The
attackers made clear this attack was retribution for her
reports to authorities.
Despite polygraph tests validating the victims' statements,
the U.S. Attorney's Office sat on the case for two years and
refused to bring it before a grand jury. Ultimately the
case was closed without action being brought against the
correctional officer or anyone else for the violent crimes,
the cover-ups, the acts of retaliation or the obstruction of
justice.
Enforcement of even the civil settlement will be difficult.
"In 1996, a new federal law was passed which greatly
restricts the power of the federal courts to protect
prisoners from serious violations of their Constitutional
rights, such as the rape and sexual assault of my clients,"
said Bien. "Because of this law, plaintiffs will not be
able to enforce the settlement of this case by seeking
relief from Judge Henderson. There is no reason that the
operation of the federal prison system should be beyond the
scrutiny of the federal courts. The law is bad policy and
is unconstitutional."
***
9. INDUSTRIAL HEMP LEGALIZED IN CANADA!
Beginning this spring, for the first time since World War
II, the cultivation of industrial hemp will be legal in
Canada. Health Canada will regulate the crop, with a limit
of 0.3 per cent THC in seed samples, and a minimum of four
hectares. The decision follows several years of debate over
the issue during which pressure on the government mounted in
the form of farmers who were eager for a new crop.
Senator Laura Milne, a Liberal member who had pushed for an
end to the prohibition, told the Ottawa Citizen, "I am
delighted that the matter is going ahead. This is an
opportunity for Canadian farmers, unmatched in this
century." While precious little hemp has been grown in
Canada in recent years, there is expected to be a ready
market. The U.S. currently imports about $100 million worth
of the crop from countries, such as China, where cultivation
is legal. The news will be particularly welcome up north,
where the promise of a crop with a short growing season and
a quick turnaround is important.
Some, however, were still unsatisfied with the ruling,
claiming that the proposed regulations are too restrictive.
Ron Schnider, of West Hemp Enterprises Inc., called the 0.3%
THC limit too low. "I think it's actually the THC that
protects it from pests, ironically enough" he told the
Citizen. Brian Taylor, Mayor of Grand Forks, B.C., told The
Citizen that one problem was that "limiting growing to a
minimum of four hectares... eliminates a lot of small
farmers."
***
10. FRENCH ARTISTS, INTELLECTUALS SIGN PETITION CHALLENGING
DRUG LAWS
Last Thursday, Feb. 26, a group of over 100 French artists
and intellectuals presented a petition declaring that "At
one moment or other in my life, I have consumed stupefying
drugs. I know that in admitting publicly that I am a drug
user, I can be prosecuted. This is a risk I am ready to
take." In France, the very act of admitting the use of
drugs is prosecutable as an incitement to others.
According to the Independent on Sunday, the signatories hope
to draw attention to the "hypocrisies and inconsistencies of
government policy and the application of the French anti-
drugs law." France's new Socialist government is already
beginning the process of public debate in an effort to raise
awareness among the population of the need to reform
France's historically harsh drug laws.
***
11. IRISH PRIEST URGES LEGALIZATION
The Irish Independent (2/27) reported that Father Gerry
Raftery of the Franciscan Justice Office told the Irish
National Crime Forum that "if limited legalization (heroin
prescription) was considered and if the drugs issue was
redefined as a health issue rather than a criminal matter a
number of positive effects would ensue." Father Raftery
told the Forum that up to 60% of property crime in Dublin
was drug-related and that there are as many as 10,000 IV
drug users in the Dublin area. The goal of the 35-member
Forum is to create a "white paper" which would then serve as
a model for criminal justice policy in Ireland for the next
several decades.
***
12. QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"Steve Curtis is a silly son-of-a-bitch... It's totally
stupid that he does this."
Colorado Republican State Senator and rancher Dave
Wattenberg, commenting on threats by the state Republican
Party Chairman, Steve Curtis, indicating that any Republican
voting in favor of a pending needle-exchange bill would face
party-financed opposition in their next primary.
(You heard it here first! DRCNet reported on Curtis' threat
last week, before the major media picked it up.
(http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/2-27.html#colorado) Also
please read our urgent Colorado action alert at
http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/3-4-1.html if you haven't
already.)
***
13. EDITORIAL
Last Week, a federal grand jury elected not to indict Marine
Cpl. Clemente Banuelos in the 5/20/97 shooting death of 18
year-old high school student Esequiel Hernandez near
Redford, Texas along the Mexican Border. This week, a
Queens, NY grand jury elected not to indict U.S. Marshal
William Cannon in the non-fatal shooting of 17 year-old high
school student Andre Burgess in Laurelton, Queens. On
Friday (2/27) on Sheridan Avenue in The Bronx, New York,
police kicked in the door of the wrong apartment at 8:15 am,
eliciting a single gunshot from the frightened resident.
That shot was immediately answered by up to 30 rounds of
fire by the officers. And in Brooklyn last week, a cop was
shot in the lower back by another officer during a struggle
with a suspect after a buy and bust operation -- which
netted a single $20 bag of cocaine -- went bad.
In case you hadn't noticed -- and if you are white and
middle class perhaps you haven't -- the Drug War is an
actual, honest-to-God shooting war, being prosecuted by all
levels of the government against the people of the United
States. This is a war on poor folks, on black folks, on
Latino folks, and on kids. This is a war which has turned
the U.S. into the world's pre-eminent incarcerator, claimed
thousands of innocent lives, turned law enforcement agencies
into occupying armies, and opened up domestic fronts for our
military forces, all while failing spectacularly to reduce
the availability of drugs, any drugs, on our streets, any
streets, from coast to coast, or anywhere in-between.
The act of war, the actual prosecution of a real live war,
which is what's happening in poor communities across this
country, alters the mindset of those whose job it once was
to serve and protect. A door, the wrong door, is kicked in
at 8:15 am by a trained narcotics squad. No thought is
given to the fact that in apartments all over the country,
at 8:15 in the morning, school-aged children are up and
about, at kitchen tables and in hallways, in bathrooms and
bedrooms. Did it occur to anyone that kicking in a door at
8:15 am might pose an unnecessary risk to innocent children
in the apartment? In the apartment next door? Or directly
upstairs or below? Of course not. This is war. And these
communities are war zones. And the people who live in them
are all suspect. Just like in Vietnam. Just ask any cop
assigned to a "high intensity drug trafficking area".
The folly or believing that we will somehow create a drug-
free society if we just arrest enough people, if we just
arrest the right people, leads to the shooting of an officer
in Brooklyn for a $20 crack bust. Is it the cop's fault
that he has been deemed fodder in the war? Obviously not.
But although a mayor will show up at the hospital, the cop
is fodder, and nothing more. And for what? With cocaine
and heroin at all-time high purity levels and all-time low
prices, it is certainly not for "drug control". The only
gain shown for all of the cops shot is political. Because
even arresting the dealer who sold that cop $20 worth of
blow, and even arresting his dealer, and his dealer's
dealer, and the guy who brings the stuff into the country,
and the guy who sells it to him, isn't going to reduce the
availability of drugs on our streets. Never has. Never
will.
One might take issue with the decisions of two separate
grand juries in refusing to indict either Cpl. Banuelos or
Agent Cannon. Perhaps one or both of these individuals are
blameworthy. Or perhaps not. And one might question the
training or the tactics of the narcotics squad that kicked
in the wrong door, or the squad that got themselves into a
struggle with a suspect in a narrow stairwell. But in each
case, one would be missing the larger, and far more
important question. That is: 'When?' When, after how many
shootings, after how many busts gone bad, after how many
wrong apartments, after how many dead cops, after how many
shot kids, after how many prison cells, after how many
communities destroyed, after how many years? When will we
seek a truce? Quiet the rhetoric? Calm the hysteria?
When will we end the madness that is a war, a real live
shooting war, on our own citizens? In looking over the
landscape and the carnage of this ruinous battlefield that
was once our great nation, one has to ask: When will we ever
learn?
Adam J. Smith
Associate Director
***
DRCNet
***
JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/
REFORMER'S CALENDAR http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
DRCNet HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org/
STOP THE DRUG WAR SITE http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to 1998 Daily News index for March 5-11