-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORML Weekly News (Canadian Government Health Agency
Calls For Decriminalizing Marijuana; French Government Report
Says Marijuana Poses Less Dangers Than Alcohol; Military Judge
To Rule On Third Hemp Seed Oil Case In Seven Months)
From: NORMLFNDTN@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:14:38 EDT
Subject: NORML WPR 6/18/98 (II)
The NORML Foundation Weekly Press Release
1001 Connecticut Ave., NW
Ste. 710
Washington, DC 20036
202-483-8751 (p)
202-483-0057 (f)
www.norml.org
normlfndtn@aol.com
June 18, 1998
***
Canadian Government Health Agency Calls For Decriminalizing Marijuana
June 18, 1998, Toronto, Ontario: The simple possession of marijuana
should no longer be a criminal offense, concluded a recently released
Canadian government report.
"The available evidence indicates that removal of jail as a sentencing
option would lead to considerable cost savings without leading to
increases in rates of cannabis use," determined researchers at the
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse (CCSA) National Working Group on
Addictions Policy. The CCSA report, "Cannabis Control in Canada: Options
Regarding Possession," further advises the government to replace current
federal law criminalizing the possession of marijuana with a "fine only"
option.
"The civil violation option offers the best opportunity to achieve the
most appropriate balance between the need to reduce the harms associated
with cannabis use and the need to restrain the cost and harms involved in
attempts to control use," researchers concluded. "It would remove
cannabis possession from the criminal law, preclude imprisonment due to
failure to pay fines, and eliminate the criminal record consequences of a
conviction."
The new policy would remain consistent with Canada's international
treaty obligations to discourage marijuana possession, and mimic the laws
of ten U.S. states that have decriminalized offenses involving the simple
possession of marijuana. The report noted that criminalizing marijuana
seemed to have little effect on an individual's decision to use the drug.
"The enforcement of current law against cannabis possession has a very
limited deterrent effect," the authors stated. "Cannabis use remains
high despite a high level of law enforcement and there is no clear
relationship between changes in enforcement and levels of illicit drug
use over the past several decades."
Finally, the study found that Canadians strongly supported
decriminalizing marijuana. "The vast majority of Canadians no longer
favor jail sentences for simple possession of cannabis," researchers
declared.
Despite funding the CCSA policy paper, the Canadian government remains
hesitant of any proposal to relax the country's marijuana laws. "Moving
too swiftly to liberalize the use of marijuana may result in an inability
to control problematic use in the future," stated Health Department
officials in a memo obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.
"Virtually every federally commissioned report ever examining the
issue of marijuana and the law recommends decriminalization," said Allen
St. Pierre, Executive Director of The NORML Foundation. "It is time for
governments to begin implementing the recommendations of the very
commissions they appoint."
The CCSA was created by Parliament in 1988 to promote debate on
substance abuse issues and to support organizations involved in drug
prevention and treatment.
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in Canada, with
possession accounting for about half of the estimated 60,000 drug
offenses recorded annually. By comparison, American law enforcement
arrested almost 550,000 individuals for possession of personal amounts of
marijuana in 1996.
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul
Armentano of The NORML Foundation @ (202) 483-8751. The CCSA report is
available from The NORML Foundation upon request or on-line at:
http://www.ccsa.ca/canfinal2.htm.
***
French Government Report Says Marijuana Poses Less Dangers Than Alcohol
June 18, 1998, Paris, France: Smoking marijuana poses less of a
threat to public health than the regular consumption of alcohol,
determined a French government commissioned report Tuesday.
"The report again shows that the basis [for policies prohibiting
marijuana] is totally wrong," spokesman for the Greens party announced in
a prepared statement. The party is calling for a federal review of the
nation's drug policies.
Marijuana has low toxicity, little addictive power, and poses only a
minor threat to social behavior, researchers at the French medical
institute INSERM concluded. The report identified alcohol, heroin, and
cocaine as the drugs most dangerous to health. Tobacco, psychotropic
drugs, tranquilizers, and hallucinogens were placed in a second, less
harmful group. Marijuana was classified in a third category of
substances defined as posing relatively little danger.
"This federally commissioned report concludes, just as the World
Health Organization did earlier this year, that marijuana smoking does
less harm to public health than drink and cigarettes," said Allen St.
Pierre, Executive Director of The NORML Foundation.
Junior Health Minister Bernard Kouchner said that the report's
findings would not encourage the federal government to consider
decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana. He called the report
"toxicologically correct but politically wrong."
Kouchner's office paid for the INSERM study.
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul
Armentano of The NORML Foundation @ (202) 483-8751.
***
Military Judge To Rule On Third Hemp Seed Oil Case In Seven Months
June 18, 1998, New Orleans, LA: A military administrative law judge
will rule shortly on whether to acquit a Coast Guard engineer of charges
that he smoked marijuana after hearing evidence that the consumption of
legal hemp oil may cause and individual to test positive for the drug on
a urine test. The case marks the third time in seven months that a
military serviceman has raised the "hemp oil defense" to challenge a
positive drug test.
Both prior rulings found in favor of the defendants.
Christopher Dresser, 38, said that the regular consumption of a hemp
seed oil nutritional supplement caused him to test positive for marijuana
on a November drug test. He denies that he smoked marijuana.
"There is little doubt that the ingestion of some legal hemp oil
products will cause one to test positive on a urine test shortly after
consumption," explained NORML Publications Director Paul Armentano. A
series of studies conducted this past summer and reported in the Journal
of Analytical Toxicology indicated that regular users of the oil may test
positive for low levels of THC. Those studies, along with two recent
acquittals of military officers, prompted some within the drug testing
industry to call on Congress to amend federal law to prohibit the
possession and sale of hemp products.
Tulane University Law Professor Julian Murray, a former federal
prosecutor who testified during the hearing, said that a government ban
on the oil would eliminate the confusion on drug tests.
NORML board member Don Wirtshafter, Esq. of The Ohio Hempery, who has
followed this issue closely, criticized any forced regulation on the
American hemp industry based upon concern from drug testing companies.
"This is not a health issue," he said. "To me the onus is on the drug
testing industry and the employers. They are the ones putting out a
faulty product that is not able to differentiate between the legal
consumption of hemp products and the illegal consumption of drugs."
Hemp health products, such as hemp seed oil, are sold commercially in
nutrition stores across the nation and consumed for their high
concentrations of amino and fatty acids.
For more information, please contact either Paul Armentano or Allen
St. Pierre of The NORML Foundation @ (202) 483-8751. Don Wirtshafter may
be contacted @ (740) 662-4367.
- END -
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Agents Seize 1,000 High-Grade Plants, Make Four Arrests ('The Modesto BeeŽ
Covers The Bust Of A Marijuana Greenhouse In South Modesto
Disguised As A Welding Shop - Police Say One Of The Suspects
Sold 2.2 Pounds Of Cocaine And A Pound Of Marijuana To Undercover Agents)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:28:15 -0800
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US CA: Agents Seize 1,000
High-Grade Plants, Make 4 Arrests
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project
http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Pubdate: Thu, 18 Jun 1998
Source: Modesto Bee
Contact: http://www.modbee.com/man/help/contact.html
Website: http://www.modbee.com/frontpage/index/0,1112,,00.html
Author: Jeff Jardine and Daryl Farnsworth Bee staff writers
AGENTS SEIZE 1,000 HIGH-GRADE PLANTS, MAKE 4 ARRESTS
Drug agents filled a U-Haul van with more than 1,000 marijuana plants,
$20,000 in specialized lighting and watering equipment, and 41/2 pounds of
ready-to-sell drugs seized Wednesday from a facility in south Modesto.
The marijuana greenhouse had been disguised as a welding shop.
The plants, at maturity, could have produced at least $5 million worth of
packaged marijuana, said Art Longoria, an agent with the state Bureau of
Narcotics Enforcement.
Agents began investigating a statewide money-laundering scheme six months
ago and it led them to Modesto, said Sgt. Doug Leo of the Stanislaus Drug
Enforcement Agency.
Four people were arrested Wednesday and two suspects remain at large, Leo
said. One of the suspects sold 2.2 pounds of cocaine and a pound of
marijuana to undercover agents during the investigation, Leo said.
"Through surveillance, they determined the other players who were involved
and came up with the other locations," he said.
Search warrants were issued for 10 local sites -- four addresses in
Modesto, four in Turlock and one each in Ceres and Oakdale.
At 8 a.m. Wednesday, agents raided portions of a commercial building at 509
Winmoore Way, south of Hatch Road. They seized 1,042 high-grade marijuana
plants, the finished product and expensive cultivation equipment from two
neighboring rental spaces. The spaces were rented as a welding shop by one
of the suspects still at large, Leo said.
Utility bills provided one of the signs of illegal activity, Leo said.
Instead of being in the predictable $400 to $500 range each month, "one
month it was $1,000 and another it was $1,500."
The building contained four 40-by-10-foot tables holding marijuana plants.
The plants averaged about 16 inches tall and were growing under a
water-cooled halogen lighting system, Longoria said.
"They had everything you'd need for a successful indoor grow and, as you
can see, they had a successful indoor grow," Leo said.
The plants, which produce a high-quality seedless grade of marijuana known
as sinsemilla, are believed to have been imported from Amsterdam, the
Netherlands, Longoria said.
Marijuana typically has a street value of $600 to $800 per pound, he said.
Sinsemilla, however, sells for about $5,000 per pound. He estimated that
each plant would have produced at least a pound of finished marijuana. He
said the $5 million estimate is conservative, because some of the plants
would have produced more than a pound each.
It was the one of the larger indoor marijuana busts on record, Leo said.
The four people arrested on cultivation and conspiracy charges were: Bryan
Joseph Packnit, 27, and his wife, Melissa Packnit, 22, both of Turlock;
Guilherme Bettencourt DeSousa, 29, of Modesto; and Paul Alan Dompeling, 24,
of Turlock.
Wednesday afternoon, the agents went to 657 Armstrong Way in Oakdale. In
Suite B, they reported finding similar equipment and evidence of a
marijuana harvest, but no plants. The suite had been rented by Dompeling as
a dairy equipment repair shop but contained no dairy equipment, Leo said.
Tuesday, Stanislaus drug agents seized a ready-to-cook drug lab -- capable
of producing about $1.2 million of street-value methamphetamine -- in
Empire, Leo said.
Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Department crews, routinely following up on a
May 13 fire at 5200 South Ave., came upon the lab and notified the county
drug agency. The lab was inside one of two World War II-era Army barracks
at a labor camp.
Agents said they found flasks and materials used in the production of
methamphetamine.
Jose Gonzalez Aguilar, 49, who owns the property, was booked on
manufacturing and other charges.
Agents said cleanup costs at the Empire site would exceed $25,000.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixteen Sentenced In Idaho's Top Pot Bust ('The Oregonian'
Says Illegal Immigrants From Mexico Who Planted The Biggest Marijuana Crop
Ever Discovered In Idaho Relocated There To Avoid Paying A Bribe
Of $10 Per Plant)
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:38:41 -0700
From: Paul Freedom (nepal@teleport.com)
Organization: Oregon Libertarian Patriots
To: Cannabis Patriots (cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com)
Subject: CanPat - 16 SENTENCED IN IDAHO'S TOP POT BUST!
Sender: owner-cannabis-patriots-l@teleport.com
Profits cutting bribes in Mexico prompted the growers to
transplant their crop near the Oregon border, authorities say.
by Stephen Stuebner
special writer
The Oregonian
6-18-98
- transcribed by Paul Freedom--
BOISE---Illegal immigrants from Mexico planted the largest
marijuana groves discovered in Idaho to avoid paying high bribes
in Mexico, officials with the U.S. Attorney's office said Wednesday.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Kim Lindquist, who summarized the initial
outcome of the largest marijuana bust in Idaho's history, said the
growers confessed that they moved their operations into Idaho to
avoid paying $1,000 per 100 plants to Mexican authorities.
They called the bribe fees "mordida" in Spanish, or "the bite."
"They started to feel it in their pocketbook, so they moved their
operations to California and Idaho, where the only risk was getting
caught," Lindquist said. "It's a good indication of how we're affected
in Idaho by the narcotics trade below the border."
The Mexican growers set up a dozen well-hidden marijuana groves
in the thick underbrush in the foothills of southwest Idaho, some of them
just a few miles from Ontario, Oregon., and grew high-quality sinsemilla
(seedless) pot, he said.
Last summer, federal and state authorities seized 114,000 marijuana
plants with an estimated worth of $26 million in groves stretching from
the foothills of Weiser, Idaho, to Emmett, Idaho. Eighteen men---all
illegal immigrants from Mexico, except for one Idaho resident---were
indicted on federal felony charges of cultivating marijuana.
Sixteen of the men have been sentenced in federal or state court in
Idaho, some to 10 years of more. The only Idaho resident, Roberto
Sandoval, 42, of Caldwell, fled from the United States after he was
indicted and is still at large, Lindquist said. Another defendant, Juan
Jesus Campos, 42, has been transported to Amarillo, Texas, to face
drug trafficking charges.
Fearing that "snitching" on growers who fled to Mexico after the
big bust in Idaho might endanger their families back home, 11
defendants pleaded not guilty and are not cooperating with authorities,
Lindquist said.
That forced the U.S. Attorney's office to prosecute each defendant
one at a time. All of the cases, except for one, resulted in convictions.
Five defendants who did cooperate received lighter sentences of 30
months or less. Their testimony was invaluable in convicting the other
defendants and in providing insight into how they managed the groves
and marketed the pot, Lindquist said.
Lindquist said he was amazed that the defendants did not cooperate
and reduce their sentences by 80 percent.
"It takes my breath away," he said. " They are worried that if they
cooperate, their families would be harmed. It shows you how serious
of a business it is."
So far only two of the crew bosses who managed the operations
and sold at least a portion of the crop have been convicted, Lindquist
said. Crew boss Silvino Campos,26, of Nampa received the harshest
sentence, about 22 years and a $1,000 fine. At Campos' sentencing
hearing, the U.S. Attorney's office presented testimony that he tried to
hire a to transport marijuana to another party for $10,000, according
to federal and state drug enforcement authorities.
Alfredo Sandoval was the other crew boss who was sentenced,
Lindquist said. Sandoval received 16 years and a $1,000 fine.
During trial, Lindquist said the growers indicated that they selected
the remote foothills terrain in southwest Idaho because it resembled a
setting in Florencia, Mexico. The other wise tiny foothills have tiny seeps
and creeks that flow under thick brush, which provides excellent camouflage.
The growers removed some of the brush to make space for marijuana plants,
but kept some trees in place for cover and shade.
Growers testified they made about $1,000 a week or $5,000 a month to
grow pot in Idaho. The pot was sold in Idaho, Oregon, California and elsewhere
by crew bosses and others, Lindquist said.
It took three years before an anonymous source tipped off local authorities
that drugs were being grown in the thickets.
Others defendants and their sentences were: Gonzala Sandoval, 18, Caldwell,
Idaho, 11 years in jail, $1,000 fine; Rodrigo Sandoval, 22, Callwell, 11 years in
jail, $1,000 fine; Juan Francisco Ramirez, 26, Caldwell, 15-plus years in jail,
$1,000 fine; Rafael Gonzales, 24, Caldwell, 10 years in jail, $1,000 fine; Roberto
Cortez, 30, Caldwell, 10 years in jail, $1,000 fine; Jose Garcia, 29, Nampa,
Idaho, 10 years in jail, $1,000 fine; Oscar Correa, 26, Nampa, 11-plus years
in jail, $1,000 fine; Rubin Correa, 24, Parma, Idaho, 10 years in jail, $1,000
fine; Jesus Villa, 40, Mexico, 18 months in jail; Pascal Correa, 21, 30 months
in jail; Isaias Flores, 20, Caldwell, 30 months in jail.
Todocio Valdez and Roberto Valdez pleaded guilty to drug charges in Gem
County , Idaho, and were sentenced in state court.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
State Association Opposes Use Of Medical Marijuana
(According To 'The Las Vegas Review-Journal,' Larry Matheis,
Executive Director Of The Nevada Medical Association,
Says The Group Opposes The Use Of Marijuana For Medical Reasons
Until There Is Scientific Evidence It Helps Patients)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 10:04:21 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: medmj@drcnet.org
Originator: medmj@drcnet.org
Sender: medmj@drcnet.org
From: adbryan@onramp.net
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: ART: State association opposes use of medical marijuana
6-18-98
Las Vegas Review-Journal
http://www.lvrj.com
letters@lvrj.com
***
Thursday, June 18, 1998
State association opposes use of medical marijuana
As advocates push for a ballot item, one official questions if there's
enough proof of marijuana's benefits.
By Ed Vogel
Donrey Capital Bureau
CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Medical Association opposes the use of
marijuana for medical reasons until there is scientific evidence it
helps patients.
Larry Matheis, executive director of the association, said
Wednesday there are prescription drugs available now that alleviate the
medical problems that marijuana is said to improve.
Americans for Medical Rights filed petitions Tuesday signed by
70,155 Nevadans who want to vote in November to allow doctors to
prescribe marijuana for sick people.
"We obviously can't support the proposal," Matheis said. "There
simply are better prescription drugs available."
But the medical rights organization believes marijuana can help
people with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and other
ailments, and handle nausea, vomiting, chemotherapy and appetite loss.
Matheis, however, questions whether there is enough evidence of
marijuana's benefits.
"There may be valid uses for marijuana, but there also are better
alternatives already available," he added.
Pharmaceutical companies even have developed a synthetic
prescription drug, Marinol, that contains the active ingredient in
marijuana.
Nonetheless, Portland, Ore., physician Rick Bayer said some
patients are unable to use the available prescription drugs,
particularly because they are taken orally.
"If patients have nausea and are vomiting, they can't use
Marinol," said Bayer, who is pushing for a marijuana initiative to
appear on Oregon's ballot this year. "They must inhale their medication.
For them, marijuana may be the best medication. We don't think these
patients should be rounded and put in jail."
Bayer said the opposition to medical marijuana largely comes from
pharmaceutical companies, such as Roxane Laboratories, the manufacturer
of Marinol.
By smoking marijuana, patients also can control the dosage they
receive, something they cannot do with the current prescription drugs,
according to Bayer.
"Patients don't want to get high," he said. "They want to take as
little as possible."
Within the next couple of weeks, Secretary of State Dean Heller
will determine if Americans for Medical Rights gathered enough valid
signatures to place the proposal on the Nov. 3 ballot. County election
workers first must count the signatures and then do sample checks to
determine if enough are valid.
The proposition needs at least 46,764 valid signatures to qualify.
A minimum number of signatures must be found valid in all of the 13
Nevada counties where they were gathered.
The proposal would require approval of voters this November and
again in the year 2000 before doctors could prescribe marijuana.
Matheis said during the election campaign season the Medical
Association will serve as an information resource on marijuana. Doctors
will be available to express their views.
He added that Nevada doctors passed a resolution that called for
scientific studies to determine whether marijuana should be used for
medical reasons. Before such tests are completed, he said the doctors
would oppose the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Bayer, on the other hand, said several tests have shown that
marijuana is a more effective drug for nausea and chemotherapy for some
patients.
"You should look at it from the patient standpoint," he said. "He
can't tolerate the first three drugs you gave him. It would make sense
to have further choices available."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
About Peter Wilson (A List Subscriber Asks You To Write A Letter
In Support Of The Arizona Cannabis Activist - Sentencing July 6
In Phoenix)
Subj: About Peter Wilson
From: Jim Rosenfield (jnr@insightweb.com)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 15:31:09 -0700
Fellow freedom fighter needs our help
We need to help our fellow freedom fighter Peter Wilson by
writing a letter to the sentencing judge.
Ask your sympathetic friends to come out of the closet for the sake of Human
Rights. Stand up and say hell yes I use cannabis and I am your doctor,
judge, bus driver, garbage collector your brother and your sister.
Pete's court date for sentencing is July 6th, 8:45 a.m. before
Judge David Cole, Superior Court, Maricopa county.
You might like to see Brenda Kershenbaum's Letter to Maricopa County
Probation Department on behalf of Richard M. Davis
http://hempmuseum.org/ltrtoprobation.htm
write to :
Judge David Cole
Superior Court
East Court Bld, 5th Floor
201 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone No. (602) 506-5808
***
Here is what one hempster had to say about this situation:
LIE WHEN YOU ARE CALLED FOR JURY DUTY! My case was lost when the judge
weeded out any prospective jurors who truthfully said they would have
problems convicting someone on marijuana charges. THIS IS WAR! Deception
is appropriate game. Get on the jury.
If any freedom fighters get called for jury duty, do what you must to stay
on the jury. Honesty might get you thrown off the jury.
***
My name is Peter Wilson. You may have heard or read something about me
selling pot with a license(http://wise-up.com/HTML/taxrules.html )
issued by the state of Arizona.
http://www.ecolution.com/azjudge.html
http://hempmuseum.org/images/jpeg/barclay1.jpg
http://hempmuseum.org/images/jpeg/barclay2.jpg
http://hempmuseum.org/images/jpeg/wallstreetrd1.jpg
This is my side of the story, as briefly as I can tell it.
I came to offer my fellow human beings peace instead of war. For this,
the mercenaries of the Drug War decided to crucify me. They tried to
take 20 years of my life. The thought of peace to those who make their
living off the War on Drugs was so frightening, they did everything in
their power to put me behind bars for 20 years, NO WAY OUT, so that the
public would never hear from this man of reason again.
They came this close (thumb and forefinger held near) to succeeding. It
was the most terrifying experience in my life. I am still in shock,
knees shaky, stomach churning, emotionally in tatters, wondering why in
the world I risked everything to bring a message of peace to a people in
love with war. Here is how it began:
In early 1990, a drunk threatened to take my life for asking him (in a
somewhat intimidating manner) to turn down his blaring music at 3 in the
morning. He was deadly serious, in a drunken rage and ready to kill me.
I took a few steps back, and thought about my wife trying to raise my
two young kids without me. As I tried to picture such a future, I saw a
black cloud. It would not be good.
As I contemplated being dead instead of alive, I heard God whisper to
me, "Son, I want you to work to end the Drug War." I admit that up to
that point, I had been somewhat skeptical about the idea of God, and
felt like I had no real mission in life except to have fun. But I
realized that the rest of my life was a gift, and that God wanted me to
do something useful with what was left of it.
I found out that Bill Green had just formed AZ4NORML, an Arizona chapter
of NORML. I immediately joined and became an active supporter. In 1992,
Bill decided to try to get a voter initiative on the ballot to legalize
mj. He did a computer search on every law in AZ that mentioned mj or
cannabis. There are about 40 such laws. We held a meeting at his house,
and read every one, deciding which ones we wanted to change for the
initiative. Among them was a tax law, requiring all cannabis dealers to
become licensed by the state, and to pay a tax of $10 per ounce on all
pot sold.
Signature gathering was all voluntary, and by the July '94 deadline, we
were still about 100,000 signatures short of having enough to get the
initiative on the ballot. About a month earlier, the US Supreme court
had declared that drug taxes were double jeopardy, and that states could
not collect taxes on drug dealers after prosecuting them. It seemed to
me that if I paid the tax first, then that should remove me from the
jeopardy of prosecution. I bought a Cannabis & Controlled Substance
Dealer's License from the state, and began selling pot for the first
time.
In February of '94, I realized my wife had Alzheimer's disease. She
would be dying, but I didn't know when (she passed on in June of '96).
She had always been argumentative, somewhat difficult to live with, but
the disease made matters much worse. By the summer of '95, she had
become so violent, I ended up calling the police. They came and arrested
her, and charged her with domestic violence. A month later, I called the
police again. She decided she didn't want to go to jail again, and tried
to turn the tables by telling them I was selling pot, and showed them an
ounce packaged for sale.
They asked me about it, and I explained that I was licensed by the state
to sell it. I showed them my license and the tax stamps. After some
discussion, they gave me the pot back and left. Four days later,
however, the narcotics unit of the Phoenix PD showed up at my door to
arrest me. They seized about 1/2 ounce of pot, and enough stamps for a
couple of pounds, and my license. They charged me with possession and
paraphernalia.
At the preliminary hearing, attorney Michael Waltz (working for free)
made an offer of proof. Justice of the Peace John Barclays agreed with
us, writing, "It would appear that...the legislature intended it to be
lawful to posses marijuana..." My point exactly. Licenses are required
for activities that are otherwise prohibited (hunting, fishing,
driving...operating nuclear power plants). I renewed my license, and
went back to selling.
At AZ4NORML, our thinking was to keep the victory a secret among
ourselves. Other people would become licensed and collecting tax for the
state, too. We thought if we could get a bunch of dealers collecting a
bunch of tax for the state, the people might just take a look at it, and
say, Why not? At one point, about 150 people had bought licenses.
It didn't stay secret for long. County attorney Richard Romley was
incensed. He instructed the cops to arrest anyone with a license anyway.
No one ever called the Department of Revenue to tell them to stop
selling licenses and stamps. Several Californians (Richard Davis and
Craig Ruben among them) http://hempmuseum.org/richd.htm bought licenses
and created a media spectacle by selling pot openly at Super Bowl XXX,
held in Tempe, AZ. Davis sold to an undercover cop twice and got
arrested. Selling from the back of his traveling Hemp Museum, Davis was
an easy target.
The '96 legislature considered repealing the license and tax, but
decided not to. Then George Soros and the Drug Policy Foundation
bank-rolled prop 200, an initiative to allow doctors to prescribe mj and
controlled substances for serious medical conditions, and to release
people from prison doing time for simple possession. The initiative
passed by a landslide. The Drug War mercenaries were furious. The
mercenaries refused to follow this new law, also. They immediately
announced that doctors who prescribed mj under prop 200 would be
arrested under federal law. And besides, there was no legal source, even
if someone did get a prescription.
Yours truly immediately responded by announcing the contrary: there was
already a legal source of mj--licensed cannabis dealers! This
announcement made the front page of the Arizona Republic, Arizona's
largest circulation daily. This was the last straw for the Drug War
mercenaries. They circled for the kill.
They sent an undercover cop to buy from me...twice. Then, just to make
sure, they sent two bounty-hunters to my home, and after they left, the
bounty-hunters reported back to the pigs that they had seen me bagging
up pot with my son, Lyle, who was 11 at the time. Nice lie. If a jury
believed that (and they almost did), Peter Wilson would be locked up for
20 years, NO WAY OUT. The mercenaries returned with a warrant, and in
addition to finding the expected pot, confiscated a magic mushroom
garden that I had growing in my living room.
At this point, the story gets pretty complicated. The state knew that if
I were allowed to tell my side of the story in court, a jury would
acquit me. So they used the 20-year mandatory minimum as a figurative
gun-to-the-head to scare me into plea bargaining, which would have
quashed the tax-and-license defense forever. And, they delayed the trial
over and over, so that any prospective jurors who might have read about
me or seen me on TV would forget.
The judge, the prosecutor and the cops were all working together to
railroad me. My own high-priced lawyer, Charles McNulty (a NORML
referral) pretended there was no conspiracy; the frame up was
business-as-usual for him, and a very lucrative business at that. All
four players in the courtroom--the judge, the prosecutor, the cop and my
own attorney--had an unspoken agreement to do whatever it takes to keep
the easy money of the Drug War coming. They operate on a simple
principle: tell the truth as often as possible, but lie whenever
necessary to keep the easy money coming in. To the inexperienced, it
looks like they are telling the truth all the time.
There was no way out. I had as much chance as a steer being led to the
slaughter house.
I fretted and fretted over how to get out of this situation that had no
way out. As a court hearing on January 30th, 1998 approached, I was
unable to sleep for days on end. Then, about 3 a.m. on the 30th, a most
extraordinary thing happened. God, who had sent me down this path so
many years before, stopped time for me, opened up the heavens, and took
me aside on "the other side" for a good long conference. God "revealed"
an extraordinary array of concepts. Overall, he is pretty fed up with
the behavior of humans, and disappointed that so few people believe in
or take seriously The One that created us.
Later on, I wrote down much of the conversation. If you are curious
about what God said, e-mail me (phoenix029@aol.com), and I'll send you a
copy. If you do not believe in God and just want to trash it, do not
bother. Some of it conflicts with "standard" religious doctrine; all I
can say in defense of it is that it is as accurate as God wants it to
be. Highlights include: God's plans for humans; a simplified set of
rules he wants us to live by; some changes in the way he wants us to
treat the earth we live on, and the animals we eat; his opinion on how
government ought to be run.
Anyway, back to the story: judge Alan Kamin ended up ruling that I could
say nothing in my defense in court. I could not mention tax or license,
medicinal or religious use of pot or magic mushrooms. Kamin ruled in the
state's favor on every pre-trial motion. After questioning the bounty
hunters, my lawyer opined that a jury would believe them, therefore I
should plea-bargain. I realized I would have to cross-examine them
myself, in order to beat the charge of involving a minor (the 20-year
mandatory), in order to preserve a basis for an appeal. I ended up
representing myself at trial.
People think I must have been crazy to have represented myself. Maybe
they are right. I know the law, and how to cross-examine, but the courts
do not follow the law, and they do not allow you to question your
accusers. You cannot even talk about the law in a court of law. Lawyers
know this; they make no protest, because the lawlessness of the courts
is their bread-and-butter. If judges upheld the law, most lawyers, drug
lawyers especially, would have no jobs. Its enough to drive you crazy.
At the trial, presided over by judge David Cole, I asked the prospective
jurors if any of them considered themselves to be "brave." Not one hand
went up. I had a sinking feeling right then: no one here but sheep.
Stripped of all defenses, the outcome was basically a foregone
conclusion. The jury was laughing in the jury room as they convicted me
on 8 felony counts of mj possession and sale, and 1 felony count of
"manufacturing" dangerous drugs (growing magic mushrooms). Then they
went quiet, and deliberated for nearly 3 hours on the count of involving
a minor, which they finally acquitted me of. That was June 2.
The next day, while in the court office to pick up a copy of my
conviction paper, I overheard judge Cole say to judge Kamin on the
phone, "I was relieved...and so was Ms. Sanders (the prosecuting
attorney)." Yes! Their jobs at the slaughterhouse are all safe!
As I await sentencing (July 6th), I contemplate my role in life. With 9
felony convictions, by career as an engineer is probably gutted for
good. The state is going to ask for a good, long sentence, so I probably
will spend some time behind bars. On July 4th, people all over the
nation will celebrate living in "the land of the free and the home of
the brave." I cannot join them.
I came to offer the people an alternative to War: taxation and
regulation. The mercenaries tried to kill the messenger. I am still
alive, but feeling beat to a pulp, and I certainly learned my lesson: do
not try to talk peace to a nation that loves war.
Peter Wilson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
McCaffrey Warns Senate Committee Of Legalization ('The New York Times'
Says General Barry McCaffrey, The US Drug Czar, Has Stopped Ignoring
Advocates Of Harm Reduction Policies And Begun A Campaign Against Them
With Written Testimony To The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee -
'Through A Slick Misinformation Campaign,' He Said, 'These Individuals
Perpetuate A Fraud On The American People, A Fraud So Devious
That Even Some Of The Nation's Most Respectable Newspapers
And Sophisticated Media Are Capable Of Echoing Their Falsehoods' -
His Assertion Prompted The Judiciary Committee's Ranking Democrat,
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. Of Delaware, To Propose Hearings
Into The Issue Of 'Legalizing' Drugs)
From: ttrippet@mail.sorosny.org
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 98 12:32:05 EST
To: TLC__ACTIVIST_at_osi-ny@mail.sorosny.org, tlc-activist@soros.org,
Subject: NYT: McCaffrey Warns Senate Committee of Legalization
Sender: owner-tlc-activist@soros.org
From Today's New York Times
Letters to the Editor Information Follows
McCAFFREY WARNS SENATE COMMITTEE OF LEGALIZATION
Drug Policy Official Warns Panel of Effort to Legalize Drugs
By CHRISTOPHER S. WREN
Thursday, June 18, 1998
Page A29
WASHINGTON, June 17 -- The White House's top drug policy official
today accused critics of the nation's zero-tolerance drug laws of
pursuing an agenda to legalize drugs from marijuana to heroin and
cocaine.
In written testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
the official, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, asserted, "There is a carefully
camouflaged, exorbitantly funded, well-heeled elitist group whose
ultimate goal is to legalize drug use in the United States."
While General McCaffrey named no names, he was clearly referring to a
coalition of advocacy groups that argues that the global war on drugs
has cost society more than drug abuse itself. Some of those advocates
attracted attention last week with an open letter to the United
Nations Secretary General as the General Assembly opened a three-day
special session on drugs.
The letter -- whose 500 signers included the former Secretary General
Javier Perez de Cuellar, former Secretary of State George P. Shultz
and two former Senators, Alan Cranston and Claiborne Pell -- argued
that by focusing on punishing drug users, the United States and other
countries had helped create a worldwide criminal black market that
wrecked national economies and democratic governments.
The letter's signers also included George Soros, the billionaire
investor and philanthropist, who has spent as much as $20 million
supporting research and advocacy groups working to change Americans'
views on how to deal with drug use. Mr. Soros said in an interview
last week that he hoped that it would foster an open discussion of the
issue.
But General McCaffrey, the Clinton Administration's director of
national drug policy, said the critics were disguising their true
purpose because Americans overwhelmingly opposed legalizing drugs.
"Through a slick misinformation campaign," he said, "these individuals
perpetuate a fraud on the American people, a fraud so devious that
even some of the nation's most respectable newspapers and
sophisticated media are capable of echoing their falsehoods."
His assertion prompted the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat,
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, to propose hearings into the
issue of legalizing drugs.
"Let's expose it for the fraud that it is," Senator Biden said.
Mr. Soros could not be reached today because he was traveling in
Sweden. But one of the most prominent advocates of less punitive
approaches to drug use, Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith
Center, a drug policy institute in New York supported by Mr. Soros,
called the general's criticism "an attempt to smear what's a very
responsible approach to dealing with drug abuse in our society."
At the core of the disagreement is the concept of harm reduction,
which to advocates like Mr. Nadelmann, means finding ways short of
abstinence to reduce the harm that drug abusers cause themselves and
society. Needle exchange, in which addicts are given clean needles to
try to stem the spread of AIDS, is a prominent example.
Kevin Zeese, president of Common Sense for Drug Policy, a group in
Falls Church, Va., that also wants drug laws changed, said, "The
reason why there is an upsurge of people advocating reform is because
the current policy is not making for a safer or healthier society,"
But General McCaffrey called harm reduction "a hijacked concept that
has become a euphemism for drug legalization."
"It's become a cover story for people who would lower the barriers to
drug use," he said.
Mr. Nadelmann responded, "The majority of harm reduction advocates
oppose drug legalization, and that includes George Soros."
Until today, General McCaffrey had ignored the advocacy groups'
lobbying, and so his sharp attack was a change in strategy.
After testifying, he said he was suggesting a debate about
legalization, not a witch hunt.
"It's a legitimate subject of debate in our society if you do it
openly," said General McCaffrey, who is retired from the Army.
He predicted that the notion would be "rejected resoundingly" once
Americans discovered what was involved.
Mr. Nadelmann said: "I would welcome the opportunity to debate him
anytime or anyplace. His trying to equate all forms of harm reduction
with a free market approach to drug legalization is both false and
duplicitous."
But Mark A. R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University
of California at Los Angeles who follows drug issues, expressed concern
that such a debate would detract from the more crucial task of finding
ways to make the current anti-drug strategies work more effectively.
***
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR INFORMATION:
Letters must include the writer's name, address and telephone number.
Those selected my be shortened for space reasons (ie. the shorter the
better). Fax letters to 212-556-3622 or send by email to
letters@nytimes.com, or by regular mail to Letters to the Editor, The
New York Times, 229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036. I recommend
by email or fax before noon on Friday, June 19.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Biden Calls For Hearings On Drug Legalization (Commentary
From List Subscribers About Today's 'New York Times' Article
And Yesterday's Press Release From Senator Biden's Web Site)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 15:32:49 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: rgivens@sirius.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: R Givens (rgivens@sirius.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Senator Biden Calls For Hearings On Drug Legalization
Well, troops our labors are bearing fruit. It's a sign of desperation when
a narcomaniac like Senator Biden feels compelled to call for Senate
hearings to defend drug prohibition in the face of our withering criticism.
Biden better be careful because a man can get himself incinerated playing
around with number nine napaalm like this. One little slip and he could end
up exposing "the myths and dangers" of prohibition.
We should encourage this dog and pony show because no matter how they try
to stage manage things a lot of ugly facts about prohibition are sure to
emerge. This is sure to be a lose-lose deal for the narcs, no matter how
they play it.
We should demand that Biden drag these outspoken "legalizers" in front of
the Committee and expose them for the world to see (C-Span). Ask them the
hard questions and .....
We know what'll happen if they dare to give any of our big guns a platform
to "defend their myths about drugs" from and we should urge Biden forward
into the attack. Kinda like encouraging General Custer to attack those
pesky Indians at the Little Bighorn.
Yes sireee a good old fashioned Senate hearing about drug prohibition is
just the thing....... No matter how they script it, we'll beat them flat.
R Givens
***
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 15:56:18 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: aal@inetarena.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Anti-Prohibition Lg
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Senator Biden is p*ssed off at the drug reformers
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998, Kelly T. Conlon wrote:
> from http://www.senate.gov/~biden/
> ---------------------------------
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
> June 17, 1998
>
>Biden Calls for Expanded D.A.R.E. Programs
>
> WASHINGTON -- Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., today proposed expanding
> D.A.R.E. to include education and prevention programs for eighth graders.
[snip]
> "I remain convinced that drug legalization would be a disaster. But,
> today, many powerful voices in our society are supporting a variety of
> legalization policies. They say, Let's save money and trouble and just
> legalize drugs.' So I am suggesting that we on the Senate Judiciary
> Committee take a hard, unblinking look at drug legalization. I think it
> unfortunate that we must, but I believe it necessary," Biden said.
>
It's about time! But of course "unblinking" probably means eyes closed...
This should be interesting...
Floyd.
***
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 15:22:25 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: RKSTROUP@aol.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: (RKSTROUP@aol.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Legalization Hearings
Dear Colleagues:
FYI, NORML today sent this letter to Sen. Biden.
Keith Stroup
***
June 18, 1998
Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
221 Russell SOB
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Biden:
I was pleased to read that you are considering scheduling hearings on the
legalization of drugs. While I recognize you do not support legalization,
I commend you for your willingness to allow this policy debate to occur.
Surely, in a free country, we have nothing to fear from a healthy debate
over drug policies.
Should such a hearing be scheduled, I would request the opportunity to
testify regarding the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. As
you may know, NORML is a public-interest lobby that has been advocating
the legalization of marijuana since 1970. We strongly oppose the use of
marijuana, as well as legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, by
adolescents. But the current policy of arresting adults for marijuana
smoking is a misguided policy which causes enormous harm to the lives,
careers and families of the more than 500,000 marijuana smokers arrested
each year in this country. Furthermore, enforcing prohibition extends
government into areas of our private lives that are inappropriate.
Marijuana smokers in this country are no different from their non-smoking
peers, except for their marijuana use. Like most Americans, they are
responsible citizens who work hard, raise families, contribute to their
communities, and want a safe, crime-free neighborhood in which to live.
They are not part of the crime problem and should not be treated like
criminals.
I hope you will permit us to testify if hearings are held on this
important subject.
Regards,
R. Keith Stroup, Esq.
Executive Director
***
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 21:43:55 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: dreaming@avana.net
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Gary Metzendorf
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: Senator Biden is p*ssed off at the drug reformers
Hello Kelly T. Conlon, on 18-Jun-98 13:46:35, you said,
>from http://www.senate.gov/~biden/
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>June 17, 1998
>
>Biden Calls for Expanded D.A.R.E. Programs
>
>WASHINGTON -- Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., today proposed expanding
>D.A.R.E. to include education and prevention programs for eighth graders.
snippage of S.O.S. re: DARE --
>Biden also called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on
>drug legalization in order to "expose the myths and dangers of
>legalization."
>"I remain convinced that drug legalization would be a disaster. But,
>today, many powerful voices in our society are supporting a variety of
>legalization policies. They say, Let's save money and trouble and just
>legalize drugs.' So I am suggesting that we on the Senate Judiciary
>Committee take a hard, unblinking look at drug legalization. I think it
>unfortunate that we must, but I believe it necessary," Biden said.
If I understand political speak, this looks like a tentative wet finger in
the wind to see which way the wind is blowing. These are interesting times to
be alive compadres.
Gary M.
***
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:41:02 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: schaffer@smartlink.net
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: "Cliff Schaffer" (schaffer@smartlink.net)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: RE: Senator Biden is p*ssed off at the drug reformers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: drctalk@drcnet.org [mailto:drctalk@drcnet.org]On Behalf Of Kelly
> T. Conlon
>
> Biden also called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on
> drug legalization in order to "expose the myths and dangers of
> legalization."
>
> "I remain convinced that drug legalization would be a disaster. But,
> today, many powerful voices in our society are supporting a variety of
> legalization policies. They say, Let's save money and trouble and just
> legalize drugs.' So I am suggesting that we on the Senate Judiciary
> Committee take a hard, unblinking look at drug legalization. I think it
> unfortunate that we must, but I believe it necessary," Biden said.
Uuuuuh, gee, Senator Biden. I recall a few years ago we sent you the
Resolution for a Federal Commission on Drug Policy, asking for an open and
honest investigation of the evidence so you could publicly and firmly refute
all those nasty legalization people. You didn't sign it. Have you changed
your mind?
***
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 21:54:46 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: rumba2@earthlink.net
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Scott Dykstra (rumba2@earthlink.net)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Re: Senator Biden is p*ssed off at the drug reformers
Organization: Citizens Against the Drug War
> If I understand political speak, this looks like a tenative wet finger in
> the wind to see which way the wind is blowing. These are interesting times to
> be alive compadres.
>
> Gary M.
I equally, strongly agree Gary. Do you think they'll bite at the
opportunity to save their own ass by admitting another approach is
needed? (regulation) or will they just dismiss it altogether. After
all, the prisons, probation, courts, cops, judges, DEA, FBI, CIA and
customs agents stand to lose thousands, not to mention the BEER
companies......and pills whores.
Like I've said before, if those impotent, sexually starved Americans who
cannot achieve a physical requirement without Viagra, they should try
smoking some cannabis. Works for thousands......
I've noticed that a lot more of my friends are becoming chronic alkies
because they can no longer smoke cannabis. People say, "why not just do
nothing at all"? Because we WANT TO smoke, or drink or
masturbate....it's our right.
The puritanical mind-set makes me want to gag....
Scott Dykstra
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9584/
***
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 17:54:16 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: gsutliff@dnai.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Gerald Sutliff (gsutliff@dnai.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Re: Senator Biden is p*ssed off at the drug reformers
>Biden also called on the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on
>drug legalization in order to "expose the myths and dangers of
>legalization."
>
>"I remain convinced that drug legalization would be a disaster. But,
>today, many powerful voices in our society are supporting a variety of
>legalization policies. They say, Let's save money and trouble and just
>legalize drugs.' So I am suggesting that we on the Senate Judiciary
>Committee take a hard, unblinking look at drug legalization. I think it
>unfortunate that we must, but I believe it necessary," Biden said.
Dear Talkers,
The good senator is certainly ascribing a lot of power to a handful of
truth tellers. Maybe he, we and the Internet are on to something.
(;~)]
vty, jerry sutliff
***
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 15:42:48 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: tom.barrus@denver.cahners.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Tom Barrus (tom.barrus@denver.cahners.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: LTE Re: McCaffrey warns Senate Committee of Legalization
1998-Jun-18
Editor:
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey warned the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee:
"There is a carefully camouflaged, exorbitantly funded, well-heeled elitist
group whose ultimate goal is to legalize drug use in the United States."
He also said:
"Through a slick misinformation campaign, these individuals perpetuate a
fraud on the American people, a fraud so devious that even some of the
nation's most respectable newspapers and sophisticated media are
capable of echoing their falsehoods."
This exorbitantly funded, well-heeled elitist group is actually the federal
government of the United States. It is the government that is running a
"slick misinformation campaign" and is perpetuating "a fraud on the
American people".
Drug use is already "legalized" in the United States. Actually, this "legal"
drug use is the unlawful exemption of tobacco & alcohol (the drugs
which account for the most disease & death of any drug) from our drug
"laws", particularly the Controlled Substances Act.
If Gen. McCaffrey had any respect for the rule of law or the Constitution,
he would be demanding that tobacco & alcohol both be classified as
controlled substances.
Has McCaffrey ever demanded that Congress uphold the Constitution's
guarantee of the "equal protection of the laws" by applying the drug
laws to all drugs, including tobacco & alcohol?
No.
We need to expose the government's so-called "war on drugs" for the
fraud that it is.
Tom Barrus, R.Ph., MBA
President, American Federation for Legal Consistency
P.O. Box 10732
Golden, CO [80401]
(303) 499-4648
Tom.Barrus@denver.cahners.com
***
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 22:30:30 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: amr@lainet.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Dave Fratello (amr@lainet.com)
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: "Legalization" hearings of 1988
The suggestion by drug czar McCaffrey and Sen. Biden that now is the time
to hold congressional hearings on drug legalization proves that history
repeats itself.
In 1988, the (now defunct) House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and
Control also held a couple days' worth of hearings on legalization. (And
produced a fat report compiling anti-legalization rhetoric.)
The context then was ongoing debate on the election-year drug war bill
(father of mandatory sentencing, or at least its worst escalation) and the
then-"recent" emergence of credible voices in favor of reform, decrim, and
legalization. (Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke had made the biggest splash
that year in calling for a debate on decriminalization.)
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY, and a familiar character in this) called the
hearings for the same reason Biden and McCaffrey now want to do the same --
to use the forum to attack, belittle, and explode all the arguments and
people against the drug war. Though many prominent critics were invited in
'88, many others were not, and while people could submit written testimony,
I've never heard anyone call the hearings themselves fair or open to
inquiry.
It was a quickie hatchet job of a hearing meant to discredit the critics
and move on to escalating the drug war. And that's what our reps did move
on to do...
True, the situations then and now are different, and the opportunity is not
insignificant. But congressional hearings that might be called in open
hostility to our issues don't sound like a promising chance to change minds
on the Hill.
Indeed, reformers may even be missing a key point of the hearings -- they
might not really be about reformers and the drug war at all, but about
Republicans vs. Democrats in an election year. Two months ago Newt Gingrich
brought all the hard-right Republicans he could to the Capitol steps to
announce an election-year commitment to escalating the drug war.
Center-right Democrats like Biden and Clinton's general McCaffrey need a
counter to that -- more, it seems, than they need to hear out drug policy
reform issues and craft a new policy...
-- dave fratello
***
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 18:18:48 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: Phillizy@aol.com
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
Subject: Re: "Legalization" hearings of 1988
In a message dated 98-06-20 10:59:36 EDT, alive wrote:
>I think these hearings would be a great step in the right direction.
>Politics being the glacial change of our world, the R vs. D confrontation
>of who is "toughest" on drugs would be a great dog and pony show.
>
>Even if no reformers are invited to speak, the news will carry the rest of
>the story.
The House had a medical marijuana hearing earlier this year. Professor
Grinspoon testified, and so did Peron; several flunkies from the loyal
opposition testified, as well: a panel of about five witnesses, as I recall.
It was a Republican show start-to-finish. Democrats took a walk, never asked
a question.
Congressman Barr held forth as prime inquisitor and ultimate drug warrior,
mainly trying to discredit Grinspoon. This tactic backfired on Barr, as
Grinspoon literally buried the loyal opposition with his experience and
expertise. Barr backed off on Grinspoon and Peron, and spent the rest of his
time tossing softball questions to the drug war flunkies on the panel.
The Democrats plainly wanted no part of this dog and pony show. They were
having second thoughts about the drug war, and thinking the voters might be
having second thoughts, as well. They may be getting ready to jump ship, and
leave the GOPers swinging in the wind with both nicotine and marijuana.
Lizy
***
From: Rgbakan@aol.com
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 15:14:41 EDT
To: hemp-talk@hemp.net, november-l@november.org, drctalk@drcnet.org
Subject: HT: Fwd: : Senator Biden is p*ssed off - a plan to reply
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net
From: Rgbakan@aol.com
Return-path: (Rgbakan@aol.com)
To: conlonkt@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA
Subject: : Senator Biden is p*ssed off - a plan to reply
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 15:13:10 EDT
A plan for Biden - and all other congresspersons -
The truth about DARE.- it doesn't work. We need to assemble a very credible and
well documented portfolio - might go along way to change the discussion. Our contention
is basically "it just isn't working" -- starting with DARE is right on message.
[Portland NORML notes - Well, how timely. Go to Portland NORML's new archive
full of information about DARE at: http://www.pdxnorml.org/dare_index.html
It also has a prominent link to DRCNet's similarly large archive on DARE.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1988 Drug Legalization Hearings - Review (Jon Gettman, Former Director
Of NORML, Recounts Some Of What Transpired The Last Time Congress
Supposedly Examined US Drug Policy - No Reformers Need Have Applied
For Time At The Podium)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:16:09 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: Gettman_J@mediasoft.net
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: Jon Gettman (Gettman_J@mediasoft.net)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: 1988 Drug Legalization Hearings - Review
I know a little bit about the 1988 Congressional Hearings on Drug
Legalization. As NORML's National Director at the time I helped prepare
NORML's testimony and monitored the hearings first hand. I also studied
the hearings while working on my masters degree.
Here is one way to characterize the case presented by advocates of the war
on drugs: Four elements are the basis for all governmental programs related
to drug abuse issues -- the danger of certain drugs, the obstinateness of
casual users, the moral dangers caused by drug abuse, and the resulting
need for extreme measures.
The following three tables (see below) provide examples of typical comments
of the time. Some are not from the 1988 hearings, but most are and all are
followed by citations.
The full transcript of the 1988 hearings comprises two volumes and should
be available in many university and state libraries around the country, as
are most congressional hearings. The full citation for the hearings is
contained in the citations below.
While it remains to be seen whether or not the US Senate will schedule new
hearings on this subject, a review of the prior hearings can be useful.
For example. Advocates of the war on drugs testified in support of then
current policies, and predicted that these policies would produce positive
results. Have they? Advocates of reform argued that current policies
would perpetuate and magnify certain costs? Have they?
Also, the existence of the heated debate reflected in 1988 Congressional
testimony contradicts the claim that no one cared about drug legalization
until George Soros began to provide financial support for some drug policy
reform organizations.
These comments of mine, and the excerpts below, in no way summarize the
1988 hearings nor the positions of either side. But I think they will
provide a useful introduction to the 1988 hearings. Only comments in
support of the drug war are provided below. Some of them contain familiar
rhetoric and hyperbole, however many of them reflect concerns that still
ring true today. Reformers must be prepared to address these concerns.
Many are, that's not the point. It's a dynamic challenge.
Jon Gettman
***
Table 1.
Fundamental Drug War Generalizations on Dangerous Drugs.
"The drug kingpins are continuing to cash in on our nation's seemingly
insatiable appetite for deadly drugs." Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, U.S.
Congress (i)
"Making drugs more affordable and more readily available cannot be anything
but detrimental to our society." Hon. Tom Lewis, U.S. Congress (ii)
"These drugs take away the God-given gift of human potential. They poison
and destroy the body, the mind, and the soul. When even one more citizen
falls prey to the addiction of these substances, we all suffer as a
society." Hon. Solomon Ortiz, U.S. Congress (iii)
"And do you know what happens to a person who seeks treatment and can't get
treatment for three and a half months? That person is going to turn to
crime." Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Congress (iv)
"Studies have found that more exposure and curiosity leads to more usage,
which in turn leads to more and greater addictions. And that is a fact."
Hon. Kweisi Mfume, U.S. Congress (v)
"Everybody knows that crack is now the drug of choice. And Everybody knows
that it induces violent behavior." Hon. Edward I. Koch, mayor, New York
City (vi)
"Drugs themselves, not drug laws, as you have heard so many times, causes
the most damage to society." Hon. John Lawn, Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration (vii)
"But most simply, drugs are illegal because they are bad. They are bad for
our society. They are bad for the user. they are bad for those around the
users and for our communities." Arthur C. Eads, chairman of the board,
National District Attorneys Association (viii)
"Drug abusers are driven, self-destructive and out of control. Abuse
lowers self-esteem, erodes character, and prompts behavior that is
anti-social, often violent, frequently criminal, and manifests in almost
absolute indifference to the impact on others." Mitchell Rosenthal, M.D.,
president, Phoenix House (ix)
"(D)rug abusers are irresponsible, self-destructive, and anti-social
people, not all of them perhaps, but too many. They go out of control,
give way to violence. They do not rob and steal and mug only to buy drugs."
Mitchell Rosenthal, M.D., president, Phoenix House (x)
i Gilman, Benjamin (1988) opening statement in "Legalization of Illicit
Drugs:Impact and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives
(GPO, 1988), p.3.
ii Lewis, Tom (1988) opening statement in "Legalization of Illicit
Drugs:Impact and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives
(GPO, 1988), p. 8.
iii Ortiz, Solomon (1988) opening statement in "Legalization of Illicit
Drugs:Impact and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives
(GPO, 1988), p. 9.
iv Cardin, Benjamin (1988) opening statement in "Legalization of Illicit
Drugs: Impact and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives
(GPO, 1988), p. 23.
v Mfume, Kweisi (1988) opening statement in "Legalization of Illicit
Drugs: Impact and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives
(GPO, 1988), p. 24.
vi Koch, Edward (1988) testimony in "Legalization of Illicit Drugs: Impact
and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee on Narcotics
Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives (GPO, 1988), p. 57.
vii Lawn, John (1988) testimony in "Legalization of Illicit Drugs: Impact
and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee on Narcotics
Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives (GPO, 1988), p. 70.
viii Eads, Arthur (1988) testimony in "Legalization of Illicit Drugs: Impact
and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee on Narcotics
Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives (GPO, 1988), p. 73.
ix Rosenthal, Mitchell (1988) testimony in "Legalization of Illicit
Drugs: Impact and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives
(GPO, 1988), p. 108.
x Rosenthal, Mitchell (1988) pg 109.
Table 2.
Drug War Generalizations
Illegal Drug Use as a Moral Danger
"And cocaine abuse rapidly diminishes the ability to function normally, to
hold a job, to keep up with school work, or to sustain responsible social,
sexual, or family relationships." Mitchell Rosenthal, president, Phoenix
House, NY (i)
"It reinforces what we have long known: drug addiction is a chronically
relapsing disorder, and the sad lesson of addiction is that once you to
decide to (sic) start using drugs, it is very difficult to get off drugs."
National Drug Control Strategy (ii)
"These heavy users are at the heart of the drug problem that we read about
in our newspapers and see on television: open-air drug markets, crack
houses, drug-exposed infants, abused and neglected children, gang violence,
decaying neighborhoods, and drive-by shootings." National Drug Control
Strategy (iii)
"Drug dealers often go after public housing because the residents are a
"captive population." National Drug Control Strategy (iv)
"It is reasonable to assume that many drug users in the workplace are, in
fact, addicted and not just casual users." National Drug Control Strateg (yv)
"The accentuated risk of multiple health problems associated with drug and
alcohol use include(s) AIDS, tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted
diseases." National Drug Control Strategy (vi)
"It has been suggested that drug and especially crack addiction in pregnant
women is a time bomb that has not yet exploded. Some experts have painted
a dim picture of our society 20 - 30 years from now when we begin to pay
for the fallout of the current drug epidemic in terms of social, medical,
and human costs." National Drug Control Strategy (vii)
"We know the effects of the underground black market drug economy . . .We
know the direct relationship of individuals to organized crime to problems
in schools and truancy and youth, suicides, shootings, robberies, murders,
traffic fatalities, addicted babies, the spread of AIDS, and countless
other public policy difficulties and personal tragedies." Hon. Michael
Oxley, Member of Congress (viii)
"Drugs are diabolical and destructive, not only to the human system, but to
a democratic way of life." Jerald Vaughn, executive director, International
Association of Chiefs of Police (ix)
i Rosenthal, Mitchell (1988) p. 108.
ii National Drug Control Strategy (1992) pg. 4.
iii ibid, p. 6.
iv ibid p. 38.
v ibid, p. 48.
vi ibid, p. 66.
vii ibid, p. 67.
viii Oxley, Michael (1988) opening statement in "Legalization of Illicit
Drugs: Impact and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives
(GPO, 1988), p. 6.
ix Vaughn, Jerald (1988) testimony in "Legalization of Illicit Drugs: Impact
and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee on Narcotics
Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives (GPO, 1988), p. 76.
Table 3.
Drug War Generalizations
Extreme Measures
"Researchers have found that the threat of criminal justice sanctions
motivate offenders to enter treatment." National Drug Control Strategy (i)
"In general, a network of drug trafficking organizations consists of three
levels. The first, core organizations . . .(they) depend on a variety of
secondary organizations . . .disrupting the secondary organizations is key
to disrupting the entire network . . .Finally, local organizations
distribute the drugs within a localized area." National Drug Control
Strategy (ii)
"Prohibition in the 20's dramatically decreased average consumption levels
of alcohol. Now average consumption is back to pre-prohibition levels.
This historic perspective clearly illustrates a very important point,
greater availability results in greater use and greater abuse." John Lawn,
administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration (iii)
"We cannot cure drug abusers who are not in treatment. And what brings
them in are disincentives. That is why enforcement at the street level is
so important. That is why the current climate in the country, growing
intolerance for drug use and strong employer drug policies, makes victory
over drugs a realistic expectation." Mitchell Rosenthal, president, Phoenix
House, NY (iv)
"Although individuals are responsible for their choices, actions can be
taken to encourage them to make the right choices." National Drug Control
Strategy (v)
"Experience shows that treatment can work if a drug user remains in
treatment for a sufficient period." National Drug Control Strategyvi
"Recent history has taught us, however, that any relaxation of vigilance
brings the risk of a marked increase in drug use." National Drug Control
Strategy (vii)
"There is evidence that people with addictive disorders often value their
jobs more highly than their families or other social support networks.
Faced with the threat of job loss, the addicted employee is more likely to
seek treatment." National Drug Control Strategy (viii)
"Drug treatment and criminal justice are allies in the fight against drug
use and appropriate actions by the criminal justice system can foster
treatment effectiveness." National Drug Control Strategy (ix)
"The presence of drugs on our streets and in neighborhoods is the result of
a long and complex process, carefully controlled by networks of drug
trafficking organizations." National Drug Control Strategy (x)
"Experience has shown that the drug trade is most susceptible to disruption
at its organizational "center of gravity," the traffickers' home country
base of operations." National Drug Control Strategy (xi)
"The principal interdiction objective is to identify and target those
elements of the drug smuggling process that are of highest value to
trafficking organizations." (xii)
"We have hardly declared war against drugs in this country." Hon. Charles
Rangel, U.S. Congress (xiii)
"The policies that we have developed over the years can work if we, in
fact, make the commitments that are needed to make them work. We haven't
done that yet. We have not committed the resources, and we have not made
the commitments as a society that we need." Hon. William J. Hughes, U. S.
Congress (xiv)
"We will be able to turn the tide on drugs as we seek new and preventive
treatment methods coupled with tough laws on drug use and drug
trafficking." Hon. Kwiesi Mfume, U. S. Congress (xv)
"What do you think will happen when the imprimatur of lawfulness,
acceptability is there? Well, people will say, "Listen, if the Government
now says it is okay, it can't be all that bad." Edward Koch, mayor, New
York Cit (yxvi)
"Illegal drugs kill fewer, only because fewer people use them. Keeping
them illegal holds down use." Sue Rusche, National Drug Information Center
(xvii)
i National Drug Control Strategy, (1992) p. 70
ii ibid, p. 79.
iii Lawn, John (1988) p. 70.
iv Rosenthal, Mitchell (1988) p. 109.
v National Drug Control Strategy, (1992) pg. 3.
vi ibid, p. 73.
vii ibid, p. 34.
viii ibid, pp. 48 -49.
ix ibid, p. 70.
x ibid p. 79.
xi ibid, p. 80.
xii ibid, p. 99
xiii Rangel, Charles (1988) opening statement in "Legalization of Illicit
Drugs:Impact and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives
(GPO, 1988), p. 1.
xiv Hughes, William (1988) opening statement in "Legalization of Illicit
Drugs:Impact and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee
on Narcotics Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives
(GPO, 1988), p. 10.
xv Mfume, Kweisi (1988) p. 25.
xvi Koch, Edward (1988) p. 59.
xvii Rusche, Sue (1988) testimony in "Legalization of Illicit Drugs:Impact
and Feasibility, Part I", Hearings before the Select Committee on Narcotics
Abuse and Control, United States House of Representatives (GPO, 1988), p.
112..
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What Can I Do? (Medical Marijuana Activist And Best-Selling Author
Peter McWilliams Urges Each And Every Drug Policy Reform Sympathizer
To Set Up A Web Site To Balance US Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey's Goal
Of Spending Taxpayer Money To Create 'As Many Sites As Possible'
Promoting Fear, Misinformation And Intolerance)
***
[Portland NORML notes: The ensuing item seems to err in saying General
McCaffrey's speech took place June 12, two days after the United Nations
Special Session on the drug war adjourned on June 10. McCaffrey actually
spoke to the United Nations on June 9. In any case, a link below will take you
to the text of the actual McCaffrey speech McWilliams quotes from.]
***
From: "Peter McWilliams" (peter@mcwilliams.com)
To: "Peter McWilliams" (peter@mcwilliams.com)
Subject: What can I do?
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 20:03:09 +0100
What can I do?
People often e-mail me, asking, "What can I do to help?" I have not had a
very clear answer - until now, thanks to the prompting of our very own Drug
Czar.
Barry McCaffrey announced on June 12, 1998, his plan for drug warriors to
dominate the Internet by adding a massive number of web sites, all spewing
the party line that "marijuana is not a medicine," "marijuana is more
harmful that alcohol or tobacco," "we can have a drug-free America," and "we're
doing all this for the children."
One of the federal government's four Internet goals announced by McCaffrey
is "Reach target audiences through as many sites as possible." This plan is
not just a random trickle in the War on Drugs, but its new Drug War main
stream. "As stated in the U.S. 1998 National Drug Control Strategy,"
McCaffrey said before the United Nations, "our principal drug-control goal
is to educate our sixty eight [sic] million children about illegal drugs and
enable them to reject such drugs."
The four avenues McCaffrey outlined: advertising (spending $1 billion in tax
dollars on ads over the next five years), making nice with the entertainment
media "Involve industry leaders and creators of entertainment programming,"
"build and maintain ongoing relationships with regional, national, and
international media developing the news," and the Internet.
How many sites could "as many sites as possible" be? Let's consider the
potential. With sites selling for, say, $100 per year and the federal
government spending $17 billion a year on drug control, that's a potential
170 million sites. If the states throw in their 17 billion Drug War dollars,
that's 340 million sites. This is the extreme, of course. Most of the $34
billion gets spent on locking people up, and they're not about to stop doing
that. But even if they spend only $1 billion on it, as they are with the
advertising prong of the agenda, that's still 10 million sites. Imagine
looking up "MEDICAL MARIJUANA" or "DRUGS" on the Internet and having to wade
through the static of 10 million deceptive sites.
We must respond (and the word is respond-we're not starting this) with as
many separate sites about drug reform as possible.
If you want to do something, please start a separate homepage devoted to
drug reform. Whether your personal cause is medical marijuana, the reform of
marijuana laws, or bringing peace to the entire War on Drugs, please
establish a separate site based on your beliefs. Start with your personal
statement on the subject. Then link to all the drug reform sites you find to
be truthful and informative.
This is not a battle of us Vs. them. It is a battle of truth Vs. lies.
(McCaffrey's complete Internet plan follows this letter. His full speech is
at: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/speeches/ungass2.html )
Other important activities, I think, include writing letters to editors,
educating reporters who repeat Drug War propaganda verbatim (most can be
reached by phone), and calling into radio and television talk shows.
Communicating with people one-on-one, the people with whom we share our
lives, is essential. Once one sees the light-that the biggest problem is
prohibition, not drugs-it's hard to turn back. We need more lights lit, and
that's best done one at a time.
Finally, if you can afford it, donate money. McCaffrey testified before
Congress on June 18, 1998: "There is a carefully camouflaged, exorbitantly
funded, well-heeled elitist group whose ultimate goal is to legalize drug
use in the United States."
Hardly.
The drug reform movement, and the medical marijuana moment in particular, is
horrendously underfunded. Unlike the federal government that has unlimited
funding and no workable ideas, the reform movement has lots of workable
ideas, but little funding to implement them. Every dollar donated to a drug
reform group or to a defense fund is an investment in our freedom. I know
that sounds like a U.S. Savings Bonds commercial, but it's true. We
sometimes forget what freedom costs. Thomas Jefferson laid it out at the
close of the Declaration of Independence: "we mutually pledge to each other
our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
Who can follow Jefferson?
Take good care.
Enjoy,
Peter McWilliams
MCCAFREY'S "INTERNET" PLANS, JUNE 12, 1998, BEFORE THE UNITED NATION:
During the past five years, the use of Internet and other new interactive
media has grown at a tremendous rate. For many of us, the Internet has
become an important source of information and entertainment. It can be an
effective way to reach target audiences, and information retrieval by users
can be measured in unprecedented ways. It also provides a powerful tool for
coordinating activity and building collaboration. As many as eighty million
Americans are likely to be "on line" by the end of this year; approximately
half will use the Internet daily. Similarly, more than a third of
adolescents currently use on-line services while 90 percent will have
Internet access through schools by 1999. ONDCP's has four principles for
dealing with interactive media.
a. Generate Web information with which young people will interact.
Recognize that young people use the Internet as a "social medium."
b. Offer transactional opportunities to users who are frequently in the
"action mode" when on-line.
c. Reach target audiences through as many sites as possible.
d.. Extend the reach of the campaign beyond advertising by integrating
mainstream youth Web sites and other digital media such as CD-ROM.
Full speech at:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/speeches/ungass2.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fear And Loathing At City Hall (Columnist James McKinnon In Victoria,
British Columbia's 'Monday Magazine' Finds Hypocrisy In The Victoria
City Council's Decision To Yank The Business Licence Of Ian Hunter's
Sacred Herb Hemp Store After Hunter Was Found Guilty Of Engaging
In Several Acts Of Civil Disobedience Against Canadian Pot Prohibition)
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 02:39:05 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: Canada: Fear And Loathing At City Hall
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Alan Randell
Pubdate: June 18-24, 1998
Source: Monday Magazine (Victoria, BC, Canada)
Contact: editorial@monday.com
Author: James McKinnon
FEAR AND LOATHING AT CITY HALL
In Victoria, civil disobedience is bad business
Edge Wise by James McKinnon
Chief of police Doug Richardson looked like he could use a quadruple whiskey.
He wasn't the only one. Each city councillor's face was a mask of discomfort
as they gathered last Thursday to address a most unseemly matter. MARIJUANA.
Gripping the podium, Richardson began pressing his case that city hall
should refuse to renew Ian Hunter's business licence.
Hunter's crisp white suit could not conceal his crimes, after all. He'd been
convicted for openly growing pot and selling marijuana seeds as an act of
civil disobedience, and for having traces of magic mushrooms in the office
of his Johnson Street hemp shop, Sacred Herb. Furthermore, one of his
employees had sold pot to an undercover cop.
Though the courts had not linked Hunter or his shop to the larger crime, the
courts had still found him to be a heinous nogoodnik. For disgusting the
morals of good people everywhere, he had been served a fine of...$500.
With the charges laid before them, several councillors looked as though
they'd never exhaled. A contemptuous flexing of jowls began - perhaps
explained by the fact that they were about to take a bong hit of Grade A
hypocrisy.
It wasn't going to be easy to condemn Hunter. Even those few bureaucrats
whose minds are unaffected by the '60s "experience" could not recall even
one other business licence being brought before council for any comparable
reason. Restaurants with poor food-safety records had never suffered similar
persecution; nor had grocery stores caught selling cigarettes to kids, nor
vendors of questionable meats. In fact, Hunter had to be found even more
shocking to community standards than prostitutes who are legally welcome to
buy a business licence, even though their business can't be practised
without a crime being committed.
To nix Hunter's business licence, then, he had to be declared more than an
exception. He had to be proven a freakish aberration, like a circus clown
with a smack habit, or a John Denver tribute band.
But hypocrisy is a dangerous drug - like a barbiturate stirred into Mexican
brandy - and its addicts get shirty when they're jonesing for a fix.
When the defence had been heard - including the usual ululations comparing
dope-head persecution to blacks' struggle for civil rights - the councillors
promptly made to shut out the public and hang Hunter in private.
Eyes cool as a yeti's, councillor David McLean declared the debate should be
public. Councillor Bob Friedland agreed. With no one to enable his penchant
for secrecy, mayor Bob Cross lurched forward, his jaw sweating as he scanned
the public gallery.
"There may be acid-crazed hippies out there," his eyes seemed to say. "Who
knows how they'll respond when the hammer comes down? In my neighbourhood in
Metchosin, we know how to keep the granolas out of the garden. I'd give my
right wing for a barrel full of buckshot!"
Then each councillor stood to speak his or her piece.
"Guilty," deadpanned McLean, Helen Hughes, Jane Lunt, Chris Coleman, Bea
Holland and, later, Cross. Civil disobedience or not, Hunter's cannabis
crimes were linked to his shop. He was not Chamber of Commerce material.
But in the midst of the lynching stood Geoff Young, the city's most
unpredictable beancounter.
"We are being asked to impose a remedy which is far, far greater - that is
Mr. Hunter's livelihood and his ability to operate in this city - than the
one the courts provide," he said.
With the city manager and solicitor squirming in their seats, Young
continued his heresy. The court's small fine seemed out of whack with the
effort the police put into snooping around Hunter's business licence, he
noted. What if every business was just as thoroughly investigated? Surely a
few tightly rolled joints, a mysterious mushroom or two would turn up in the
desks of even respectable citizens.
I felt a hallucinatory lightness, the momentary sense that Victoria might
make it through this witch-hunt without becoming a laughing-stock.
But then the vote came down. Only Young, Friedland, and Pamela Madoff voted
to support Hunter's freedom to do business. The Sacred Herb will be shut down.
Stumbling home, I found this city had once again sapped me the optimism that
comes with tolerance. I needed a pick-me-up. Perhaps a cuppa of traditional
opium tea?
Ahhh.
Much better.
What's that noise? Sirens? Have they come at last for my business licence?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Girls Will Be . . . Boys - And It's Not A Pretty Sight ('The Toronto Star'
Says A New Report By An Alliance Of 77 US Universities Shows Girls
Are Behaving More Like Boys, Having Virtually Caught Up In Math
Performance, But They Are Now Smoking, Drinking And Using Drugs
As Often As Boys Their Age)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 09:43:47 -0400
To: mattalk@islandnet.com
From: Dave Haans
Subject: TorStar: Girls will be . . . boys - and it's not a pretty sight
Newshawk: Dave Haans
Source: The Toronto Star
Pubdate: Thursday, June 18, 1998
Page: A1
Website: http://www.thestar.ca
Contact: LetterToEd@thestar.ca
Authors: Barbara Vobejda and Linda Perlstein
Girls will be . . . boys - and it's not a pretty sight
So says a new report by 77 U.S. universities
By Barbara Vobejda and Linda Perlstein
Special to The Star
A generation after a great rethinking of gender roles and the forces that
classify children by their sex, the results are in: girls are behaving more
like boys - and it isn't always a pretty picture.
Girls have virtually caught up with boys in math performance and have
closed the gap considerably in science. But they are now smoking, drinking
and using drugs as often as boys their age. And though they're not nearly
as violent as boys, girls are increasingly more likely to find their way
into trouble with the law.
A status report released yesterday by an alliance of 77 university and
other research centres describes young females in the United States as a
population stepping out of many traditional stereotypes that have defined
girls for generations. And that, it is becoming clear, can be both good and
bad.
``Adolescent girls are getting more of a sense of entitlement in healthy
ways and feeling bolder, but some may be acting this out in ways that are
not so healthy,'' said Lynn Phillips, author of The Girls Report, which
compiled the most recent research on girls from hundreds of academic and
government sources. ``There are ways we want girls to catch up with boys,
but there are also ways we want boys to catch up with girls.''
Some of the progress girls have made comes from public policies and private
efforts - to enhance math, science and sports programs for girls, for
example. But more subtle social pressures have also had an effect, pushing
girls to follow the less desirable patterns set by boys in other ways.
While 13 per cent of Grade 8 girls reported smoking in 1991, the report
shows, that figure increased to 21 per cent in 1996, a faster increase than
that for boys. And nearly 17 per cent of Grade 8 girls used marijuana in
1996, compared with just over 5 per cent in 1991.
In its report, the National Council for Research on Women also found:
* While girls are still less likely than boys to be arrested for violent
crimes, the rate at which they are being arrested for these crimes
increased faster than that for boys between 1986 and 1995.
* Girls participate in a wider range of sports and exercise more than ever
before, but they still lag far behind boys. And a U.S. federal study found
that the percentage of senior high school girls participating in sports
declined from 46 per cent in 1980 to 41 per cent a decade later, while male
participation remained even at 63 per cent.
* After years of concern about girls trailing boys in math performance, a
1996 test administered by the U.S. education department found no
significant differences between average scores for Grade 8 and 12 girls and
boys.
* In science, girls perform about as well as boys until Grade 12, when
boys' average scores pull ahead and more boys excel in science.
Although much of what the new report documents are the problems that face
girls, it also challenges many popular stereotypes. It questions, for
example, the notion that adolescent girls are doomed to go through a period
of low self-esteem or that the teen years are inevitably filled with anger
and stress.
It also makes clear that, despite their convergence with boys on some
measures, in many important ways, girls remain very different.
They are twice as likely to be depressed as boys, for example. And a U.S.
federal survey of high school students found that 34 per cent of girls see
themselves as overweight, compared with 22 per cent of boys. Nearly two out
of three of the girls were attempting to lose weight.
Racial differences among girls are important in many instances. African
American girls, for example, have more positive perceptions of their own
bodies than do white and Hispanic girls.
And black girls are significantly less likely to smoke than girls of other
races or African American boys.
They also found that girls are frequently the victims of violent crime. It
cited studies estimating that between one-third and one-fourth of girls are
sexually victimized by the time they finish high school. That includes a
range of experiences from rape to sexual harassment.
And nearly two-thirds of rape victims are under 17, the report said.
THE WASHINGTON POST
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Hero Returns Home To New Zealand (A Press Release From The New Zealand
Government Featuring A Statement By Customs Minister Tuariki Delamere
About His Speech At The Recent United Nations Special Assembly
To Expand The Global Drug War - Plus Commentary)
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 04:46:18 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: A hero returns home to New Zealand
Fellow drug policy activists/scholars,
Surfing the local press-release wire a short while ago I came across this
release from New Zealand Associate Minister of Health, Hon John Tuariki
Delamere, who spoke at the recent UNGASS on behalf of New Zealand. As I
understand from someone who attended the symposium (Dr John Marks, a new
trustee of the NZ Drug Policy Forum Trust), Mr Delamere was the ONLY
delegate to UNGASS who referred to the failure of the war on drugs or who
used the word "hypocrisy" in the appropriate way. Mr Delamere deserves a
tremendous amount of credit for his bold statements, carrying as they did
the light of truth and rationality into the very belly of the beast.
In speaking out against the war on drugs Mr Delamere (who is also Customs
Minister) is noticeably out of step with the current NZ coalition
government, of which he is a front-bencher. The Coalition is ruled by
arch-prohibitionist Prime Minister Jenny Shipley; Associate PM Winston
Peters, head of the New Zealand First party (to which Delamere belongs), has
ducked the issue since coming to power (mostly by saying "we have more
important things to worry about"), but not long before the election in 1996
he called for a public referendum on cannabis law reform. The other
Associate Minister of Health, Roger Sowry, BTW, is quite close-minded on the
issue of cannabis law reform (he's agin' it), but to his credit he did not
raise any noticeable objection to Delamere's speech, which he surely
previewed. I don't know if Ms Shipley previewed the speech; I would guess not.
Anyway, since hearing the news of Mr Delamere's speech I wondered if he
would be forced to dissemble to some extent upon returning into the
anti-reform fold, but from his press release (below) it seems not. Indeed,
he appears to be wearing his recent statements as a badge of honour, as well
he should.
As an interesting footnote, the new head of the NZ Drug Foundation, Sally
Jackman, upon hearing the news of Mr Delamere's statements immediately sent
letters supportive of Delamere to the editors of the newspapers that ran the
story of Delamere's speech (like the Dominion's story, 'Delamere denounces
drug hypocrisy'), including all the majors except the (Wgtn) Evening Post,
whose editor, Suzanne Carty, is another arch-prohibitionist. (See my recent
LTE to the EP, posted separately.) I doubt the previous NZDF director would
have done this. Ms Jackman (whom I have had the pleasure of meeting a
couple of times) was at the outset of her recent appointment a novice in the
field of drug policy, but she has quickly figured out what the issues are
and where truth and rationality reside. It is my hope that she will be able
to lead the Foundation into a position of greater influence in advocating
for drug law reform.
This is all by way of prelude to the following press release. In a
nutshell, it provides a further ray of hope that New Zealand might (as in my
fondest dream) help lead the world out of the deadly and insane
international war on drugs.
David Hadorn, M.D.
Director, NZ Drug Policy Forum Trust
***
Hon Tuariki Delamere: Column on Drugs
Thursday, 18 June 1998, 9:48 am
Press Release: New Zealand Government
One of the occupational hazards of being a politician is having people
constantly attack you for being dishonest.
So it was a real pleasure for me personally after addressing the
United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Drugs
recently, to be approached by delegates from several countries,
congratulating New Zealand on having the courage and integrity to
speak out plainly and honestly on dealing with the world drug trade.
Speaking for New Zealand, I told the UN that we were helping ease
the problems of drug abuse through a methadone programme and a
needle exchange scheme. A few quotes:
I believe that our efforts to strike a balance between supply control,
demand reduction, and the management of drug problems have
helped us to reduce significantly the harm associated with illicit drugs
in New Zealand.
For example, there has been a steady increase in the number of
people seeking treatment in methadone programmes.
We have significantly increased the number of people receiving
methadone over the last three years. Many of these people have not
only reduced their illicit drug use and needle-sharing, but have
stabilised their family and working lives, reduced their involvement in
criminal activity, and generally improved their health status.
We consider that the introduction of a needle exchange programme a
decade ago has also helped to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS
amongst injecting drug users.
New Zealand's infection rate of less than 1% is one of the lowest in
the world.
We are only now beginning to understand just how important this
relatively simple and inexpensive programme has been in terms of
helping to protect the public health of all New Zealanders.
I note that there are those who vehemently oppose methadone or
needle exchange programmes. For me, the answer ?well, it works?
seems to be the best response to these critics, who I suspect would
have us blindly march down the road towards a "war on drugs" a
philosophy which many consider hasn't worked.
A further point I was keen to emphasise was the question of being
honest with our young people about the dangers of drugs.
As the speech said:
.....if we are going to stand a chance in convincing our young people
about the risks of drug use, we need to address the hypocrisy that
young people see when adults, even politicians, occasionally openly
and legally abuse alcohol, then turn around and condemn youth for
using marijuana. This sort of hypocrisy makes young people switch
off, and you can't really blame them.
Now, these sentiments seem like plain commonsense to me, but it
was remarkable to see so many other speakers at the UN deliver
grand sounding speeches, but with little content. New Zealand's
contribution really stood out and it was pleasing to have that
acknowledged.
The abuse of drugs is a true destroyer of our families and our
communities. Every practical step we can take towards ending that
abuse is another step on the path towards a better life for all New
Zealanders.
The message from the UN was: honesty and action, not empty
grandstanding and hyprocritical moralising, are the keys to success in
fighting the illicit drug plague.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking Cure On Trial (Version In Britain's 'Financial Times')
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: "MN" (mapnews@mapinc.org)
Subject: MN: UK: Smoking Cure On Trial
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 17:22:05 -0500
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: webbooks@paston.co.uk (CLCIA)
Pubdate: Thu, 18 Jun 1998
Source: Financial Times
Contact: letters.editor@ft.com
Web site: http://www.FT.com
Author: Vanessa Houlder
SMOKING CURE ON TRIAL
Vanessa Houlder on a research programme that could lead to a currently
illegal drug being cleared for medicinal use.
Rarely has a new research programme caused such a stir. When last week the
UK Government gave the go-ahead to a cannabis farm that would grow plants
for the first large-scale clinical trials of the drug, it seemed to signal
an important change in attitude.
There is now the political will to approve cannabis as a drug, in the view
of Geoffrey Guy, the pharmaceutical entrepreneur behind the initiative. Four
years ago, his request to conduct a similar programme received a frosty
response.
The government's opposition to legalising the drug is unchanged. But its
willingness to approve research into its medical applications reflects
mounting pressure from doctors who are convinced of its potential benefits.
For example:
* Earlier this month, an independent study commissioned by the Department
of Health found "good evidence" that cannabinoids - the active constituents
of cannabis - reduce nausea in patients taking chemotherapy. The review,
conducted by Dr Philip Robson of Warneford Hospital in Oxford, found that
cannabinoids may be effective in relieving muscle spasms, pain, anxiety,
insomnia, certain forms of epilepsy, glaucoma and asthma. It would be
"irrational" not to ex-lore he therapeutic uses of cannabis further through
properly-controlled human research, it said.
* Last year both the British Medical Association and the US Institutes of
Health issued reports which recommended more research. Potential uses
include treating AIDS patients with wasting disease, in treating glaucoma,
the eye disease, and for relieving pain and spasms in multiple sclerosis.
* Last week, the royal Society and the Academy of Medical Science jointly
submitted a report to the House of Lords enquiry into the use of cannabis,
which found it may be clinically effective in some medical conditions.
One point is repeatedly made in these studies. As the Royal Society puts
it: "It is suggested that the issues of clinical use of cannabis should be
uncoupled from the issue of recreational use."
In recent years, the legal and moral issues surrounding cannabis have tended
to obscure its medical benefits. But at one time, cannabis was highly
respectable. It was prescribed for Queen Victoria by her personal
physician, who once described it as "one of the most valuable medicines we
possess." It continued to be prescribed in tincture form by doctors in the
UK until the 1970's.
Its withdrawal from medical use stemmed partly from the development of
synthetic drugs and partly from amoral backlash against the relaxed
attitude to drugs in the 1960's. In 1971, the UK Misuse of Drugs Act listed
it as a Schedule 1 drug with no therapeutic benefits.
The moral objections to using cannabis as a medicine remain. In the US,
anti-drug lobbyists are deeply sceptical about attempts to legalise the
medical use of cannabis, such as the successful campaign in California in
1996. They are concerned that allowing the medical use of cannabis will
open up a free-for-all and that, in particular, it will encourage
experimentation by teenagers.
Another argument repeatedly put forward by anti-drugs campaigners is that
THC (a chemical known as Tetrahydrocannabinol or Marinol that is one of the
active ingredients) is already available for specific conditions, such as
the nausea associated with chemotherapy.
"If pot is such a wonderful medicine, why haven't more doctors prescribed
Marinol, the real 'medical marijuana'?" asks Barry McCaffrey, the head of
the US government's anti-drugs campaign. "The argument that his chemical
needs to be smoked, exposing patients to carcinogenic agents that damage the
lungs, doesn't make sense."
The question of whether cannabinoids can help patients more safely and
efficiently than cannabis goes to the heart of this debate. The problem
with available cannabinoids such as Marinol is that patients often say that
they get a slower and less effective response than from smoking herbal
cannabis. Scientists believe that extracting a single cannabinoid does not
replicate the effect of the whole cannabis plant, which contains more than
400 chemical compounds and over 60 cannabinoids.
When it comes to judging the safety of cannabis-based drugs, much depends on
how they are administered. Three times as much tar is inhaled from a joint
containing only herbal cannabis than an ordinary cigarette, according to the
BMA. People who suffer life-long conditions such as multiple sclerosis need
to know more about potential long-term health risks, such as lung cancer,
emphysema and bronchitis.
This means that finding other methods of administering cannabis-based
drugs - such as aerosols or skin patches - is a priority for researchers,
such as GW Pharmaceuticals, the company that was granted a research licence
by the Home Office last week.
The success of this research project, or others like it, would doubtless be
welcomed by anti-drug campaigners, as well as by patients. But research
takes time. And meanwhile, thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens will
resort to illegal cannabis to alleviate symptoms that are poorly controlled
by existing drugs.
The debate about the medical use of cannabis is now moving on to the issue
of whether these patients should have to worry about the law. Some strands
of medical opinion already believe they should not. As Dr Robson, the
author of the Department of Health report puts it, prescribing
"compassionate reefers" to certain patients is justified on existing
evidence.
to 1998 Daily News index for June 18-24