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

Defendant In Pot Trial Testifies (The Long Beach Press-Telegram
says Marvin Chavez, a medical marijuana patient and founder of the the Orange
County Patient Doctor Nurse Support Group, took the stand in his trafficking
trial Monday and told jurors that his activities were part of a mission
of mercy for those needing the drug for severe pain. Undercover detective
Hector Rios admitted he was lying when he said Chavez had asked
for a donation when the defendant provided medicinal marijuana Jan. 8.)

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:38:58 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Us Ca: Mmj: Defendant In Pot Trial Testifies
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: FilmMakerZ
Pubdate: Tue, 17 Nov 1998
Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA)
Copyright: 1998 Press-Telegram.
Contact: crutch@ptconnect.infi.net
Website: http://www.ptconnect.com/
Author: Joe Segura

DEFENDANT IN POT TRIAL TESTIFIES

Court: Medicinal Marijuana Advocate Tells Jurors He Was On A Mission Of Mercy.

WESTMINSTER - Medicinal-marijuana advocate Marvin Chavez took the
stand Monday and told jurors that his activities were part of a
mission of mercy for those needing the drug for severe pain.

Chavez is facing nine felony charges of drug sales and one drugs-
transportation count. He maintains providing marijuana for medicinal
uses is legal under Prop. 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act of
1996.

Chavez took the stand late Monday afternoon, and he's expected to
complete his statements today.

He was repeatedly blocked Monday from explaining how he started the
Orange County Patient-Doctor-Nurse Support Group.

Judge Thomas Borris has ruled that Prop. 215 cannot be used as a
defense.

However, Chavez was allowed to say that he thinks he was entrapped
into providing undercover detectives the medicinal marijuana.

Chavez said that he insisted on a doctor's recommendation as part of a
screening process.

He also said that money was never a necessary ingredient of a
transaction.

Often, he said, many of the members of the co-op were on fixed incomes
and unable to pay.

Chavez said, however, that donations -- generally about $20 -- were
welcomed to meet the expenses of the co-op, including producing
literature, paying for telephone and beeper costs, logo buttons,
copying costs.

"It was to keep the organization alive," he said during questioning by
defense attorney Jim Silva of Venice.

Earlier in the day, Jack Shachter, another member of the co-op,
testified how he worked with Chavez to provide a service to seriously
or terminally ill patients. However, since he's facing his own trial
on drug-sale charges, Shachter declined to comment on whether he
actually provided anyone with medicinal marijuana, citing the Fifth
Amendment against self-incrimination, as recommended by his attorney,
Public Defender Claudia Gaona.

Detective Hector Rios said Chavez had asked for a donation when the
defendant provided medicinal marijuana Jan. 8.

Under Silva's cross-examination, Rios backed off that statement.

"I was wrong," he said.

Co-counsels Silva and J. David Nick also locked horns with Deputy
District Attorney Carl Armbrust over the potential testimony of an
Orange County Sheriff's forensic staffer's about the medicinal
marijuana manicured of its seeds and stems.

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

The Chavez Trial (A staff editorial in The Orange County Register
says the most interesting comment during Marvin Chavez's trial
came from Hector Rios, an investigator with the District Attorney's Office.
Asked by defense attorney James Silva if he had studied the new
medical-marijuana law, Proposition 215, now section 11362.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code, before joining the undercover investigation of Mr.
Chavez, Mr. Rios said he hadn't and the to this day he has no idea what the
medical-marijuana law says in any detail.)

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 05:00:16 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: The Chavez Trial
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W. Black
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Copyright: 1998 The Orange County Register
Pubdate: 17 Nov 98

THE CHAVEZ TRIAL

Perhaps the most interesting comment during Marvin Chavez's trial on 10
marijuana sales-related charges, which continued Monday in the West County
court in Westminster, came from Hector Rios, an investigator with the
District Attorney's Office. He had posed as the cousin of Joseph Morales,
another D.A. investigator, as the two tried to obtain marijuana from Mr.
Chavez in an undercover operation. Asked by defense attorney James Silve if
he had studied the new medical-marijuana law (Prop. 215 or Health and
Safety Sec. 11362.5) before joining the undercover investigation of Mr.
Chavez, Mr. Rios said he hadn't and the to this day he has no idea what the
medical-marijuana law is in any detail.

Can this be true? Two years after Prop. 215's passage, have local
investigators who do undercover drug-law work not been briefed or been
instructed to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the new law so
they won't waste their time and the taxpayers' money investigating people
who, under the law, have a legal right to possess, use and cultivate
marijuana? If so, this would be a disturbing neglect of law enforcement's
duty to obey and find a way to follow a new law.

The Chavez trial opened on Monday with testimony from Jack Shachter, an
associate of Mr. Chavez, appearing as a defense witness. Mr. Shachter
appeared despite concerns from his own attorney since he faces criminal
charges himself. His public defender, Claudia Gaona, sat next to him in the
witness stand and raised concerns about some questions, but the testimony
concluded without Mr. Shachter invoking his right not to incriminate himself.

Mr. Shachter testified that after Mr. Chavez was arrested and released in
January, district attorney investigator Joseph Moreno, still posing as
Victor Flores, a patient with severe and chronic back pain, contacted him
(Mr. Moreno he would have to verify his status as a member of the Orange
County Patient Doctor Nurse Support Group,k then later told him he could
not furnish marijuana because he didn't have an "medicine," as both called it.

Mr. Shachter said he also had several contacts with David Reyes of the
Garden Grove Police Department, posing as Al Pena, a nephew of
Flore/Moreno. Finally, he told Pena/Reyes not to call him again until he
received a caregiver card from Mr. Chavez. On cross-examination, Deputy
District Attorney Carl Armbrust questioned why Mr. Chavez had told
investigator Moreno to call Mr. Shachter at a time when Mr. Shachter was
not distributing marijuana and he tried to get Mr. Shachter to specify that
at a different time Mr. Schachter had distributed marijuana, but the
questions were not allowed.

Mr. Rios then took the stand, explained how he had posed as Mr.
Flores/Moreno's cousin and obtained marijuana from Mr. Chavez. The
prosecution played a tape of the meeting, The prosecution stressed that
money as well as marijuana changed hands while the defense stressed that
the money offering was characterized as a donation. After seeing a
transcript of an earlier meeting Mr. Rios conceded that it could be
characterized as something other than a sale.

The afternoon began (with the jury not present) with a discussion about
separating seeds and stems. Last week the defense established that a
criminalist who had weighed some marijuana seized from Mr. Chavez had
included seeds and stems, and argued that under the law, such
non-pychoactive parts of the plant should not be included as marijuana. On
Friday the prosecution instructed another criminalist to separate the seeds
and stems from another batch of marijuana seized from Mr. Chavez, weigh
the remainder and then analyze it. He said it was marijuana and weighed
35.9 grams.

Judge Thomas Borris finally allowed the testimony and said the defense
could present its own expert witness. The issue is important because under
California law, possession, transportation, etc. of less than one ounce
(28.5 grams) of marijuana is a misdemeanor, while possession of more than
an ounce is a felony.

Marvin Chavez himself then took the stand and his lawyers led him through a
description of his own medical problems, a cursory description of how the
"cannabis co-op," also called the Orange County Doctor Patient Nurse
Support Group, operated and how he dealt with the undercover investigators.

Mr. Chavez's testimony should be finished tomorrow, followed by
cross-examination, then perhaps one more defense witness. Unless further
delays occur (don't bet against it) closing arguments take place in the
afternoon and then the case, which could help determine how Prop. 215 will
be implemented, will be in the jury's hands.

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

The Drug War Isn't About Combating Use (Los Angeles Times columnist
Robert Scheer says the drug warriors' recent battle against medical-marijuana
initiatives was motivated by the fact that, without the war on marijuana,
the budget for the war on drugs would be much smaller.)

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:35:11 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: The Drug War Isn't About Combating Use
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Pubdate: 17 November 1998
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Fax: 213-237-4712
Copyright: 1998 Los Angeles Times.
Author: ROBERT SCHEER, a Times Contributing Editor

THE DRUG WAR ISN'T ABOUT COMBATING USE

Crusaders fight medicinal marijuana to help justify the cause's
bloated budget.

If there is one stunning bit of stupidity that instantly garners
bipartisan support, it's the failed war on drugs. Virtually all
politicians march in lock-step to do battle with unmitigated fervor
against each and every banned drug as if they were all created equal
in destructive potency and anti-social impulse.

Nowhere is the simplistic arrogance that underwrites national drug
policy more blatant than in the continual denigration of voters in the
states that dare dissent from official policy. In 1996, it was the
electorate of California and Arizona that begged to differ and, by
voting in favor of the limited legalized use of medical marijuana,
incurred the blistering wrath of the anti-drug crusaders.

To hear the uproar in official circles, you would have thought
marijuana, even in small quantities and prescribed by doctors for AIDS
and chemotherapy patients, was demon rum itself, and that the ghosts
of the temperance society ladies had risen from their graves to smash
open the doors of the cannabis clubs.

But the hysteria failed. Despite police harassment, the nonstop
fulminations of President Clinton's drug czar Barry McCaffrey and a
massive advertising campaign against medical marijuana, the electorate
has remained sane.

In this last election, voters in Nevada, Oregon, Alaska and Washington
joined California and Arizona in approving patient use of marijuana.
In Arizona and Oregon, voters moved beyond medical marijuana use,
opting for serious steps in the direction of decriminalizing
possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Exit polls show that voters in the nation's capital similarly voted
for legal use of medical marijuana, but in one of the more egregious
violations of the spirit of representative government, Congress
approved a ban to even count the D.C. vote on this measure. The fight
to prevent the vote count was led by ultra-right wing Rep. Bob Barr
(R-Ga.), who perfectly embodies the contradictions inherent in his
ideological obsessions. Barr has been the most vociferous opponent of
gun control legislation and even gutted an anti-terrorist bill to tag
explosives material on the grounds that it would be an unwarranted
extension of government power. But locking folks up for smoking weed
is his favorite cause.

He's not alone. Marijuana remains the scourge of the
$11-billion-a-year anti-drug bureaucracy not because of any
documentable antisocial impact but simply because that's where it gets
the big numbers of drug users to justify the bloated budgets.

According to the latest FBI statistics, 545,396 Americans were
arrested in 1996 for possessing marijuana, a substance that, if legal,
would prove no more dangerous to society than the vodka martini one
occasionally sips. That doesn't mean it's good to abuse any
mood-altering drug, but rather that a national policy which turns the
relatively benign use of marijuana into a highly profitable and
socially disruptive criminal activity is absurd.

But don't try to tell the politicians that, or they'll tear your head
off. Just look at the smear job McCaffrey has done on
financier/philanthropist George Soros and other businessmen for daring
to help finance recent state ballot initiatives that present voters
with a drug policy choice.

McCaffrey thundered recently that the folks putting up money for these
campaigns are "a carefully camouflaged, exorbitantly funded,
well-heeled elitist group whose ultimate goal is to legalize drug use
in the United States." Interesting that McCaffrey was silent on the
far larger amounts of tobacco industry money that poured into
California to challenge a ballot initiative to increase the tax on
tobacco products and divert it to education. It is invidious to
pretend that the drugs now classified as legal are less harmful than
those whose use is branded as a crime.

Drug abuse, both of legal and illegal drugs, is a medical problem
requiring treatment by health professionals, not cops. What makes the
war on drugs so nutty is that it's more about maintaining the coercive
power of anti-drug bureaucrats than treating those who suffer from
serious drug abuse.

The voters have been vilified as naive, but that appellation belongs
to a war-on-drugs crusade that has filled our jails while leaving
illegal drugs more plentiful and cheaper. It drives the anti-drug
bureaucracy mad that voters in six states have now voted to ever so
slightly challenge its total grip on the awesome power of government,
but it bodes well for our representative system of government.

- - - Robert Scheer Is a Times Contributing Editor

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

Arrests Soar in Crackdown on Marijuana (The New York Times
says New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's "zero tolerance" policies
have led to a record number of arrests on marijuana charges. Law enforcement
officials project that at the current pace, the New York City Police
Department could chalk up eight times the number of arrests this year from
just six years ago. "We are asking the Legislature for an increase of 23
judges citywide to address the larger caseloads," said Mai Yee, a
spokesperson for the Office of Court Administration. No word on how many
new jails will be needed, or how many real criminals are freed to make room
for pot smokers. Plus - Giuliani quotes.)

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:14:12 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NY: Arrests Soar In Crackdown On Marijuana
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Copyright: 1998 The New York Times Company
Section: Metro, Page B1
Pubdate: 17 November 1998
Author: Kevin Flynn

ARRESTS SOAR IN CRACKDOWN ON MARIJUANA

NEW YORK -- Arrests on marijuana charges here have jumped to a record level
this year, driven by the Giuliani administration's "zero tolerance"
approach that has police officers pursuing anyone found possessing, selling
or smoking even small amounts of marijuana.

Law enforcement officials project that at the current pace, the New York
City Police Department could arrest as many as 40,000 people by the end of
the year on charges of possessing or selling marijuana. That would be eight
times the number of arrests just six years ago.

The soaring tally is the result of routine sweeps by plainclothes police
details through known drug-dealing locations and unprecedented undercover
efforts in which officers pose as street-corner "smoke sellers" to catch
marijuana buyers, officials said.

The initiatives, part of a continuing assault on misdemeanor crimes that
police officials credit for curtailing more serious offenses, have already
led to the arrest of 31,330 people on marijuana charges this year. The vast
majority of those arrested -- 80 percent -- were accused of possessing, not
selling, the drug.

The surge in arrests is a drastic departure from the days, not so long ago,
when smoking a marijuana cigarette in public often drew no more than an
angry glare from a police officer.

"I don't think there is more marijuana on the street today," said Jack
Ryan, chief assistant district attorney in Queens. "There is probably less.
But you don't have a situation anymore where you can smoke a joint on the
subway and, if you do get caught, the cop just says, 'Throw it away."'

Most of those arrested today are held for arraignment and may spend 16, 24,
even 36 hours in custody before being released, in sharp contrast to the
past, when those arrested on low-level possession charges were often given
a summons and released. Some critics called the tougher handling of
marijuana offenders Draconian and inefficient.

"It is a waste of resources, a colossal waste," said Gerald Lefcourt, a
criminal defense lawyer who serves on a legal committee for NORML, a
national organization that advocates the reform of marijuana laws. "Most of
the people who are arrested for marijuana are no threat to anybody."

The increasing number of arrests in New York is part of a national trend by
law enforcement agencies to curb marijuana use, which the federal
government contends -- and some scientists deny -- is a greater health
threat than previously believed. Nationally, the number of marijuana
arrests has nearly doubled since 1992.

National surveys indicate that marijuana use is up, but the increase is not
nearly as steep as the surge in arrests. According to a University of
Michigan study last year, half of the high-school seniors surveyed said
they had tried the drug, up from a third who said they had used it six
years ago.

In New York, the increase in arrests grew out of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's
pledge last year to make the fight on drugs, including marijuana, a major
goal of his second term. The city's efforts have been particularly visible
in Washington Square Park in Greenwich Village. The park once resembled a
farmer's market for marijuana sales, but now has its own police command
post and is monitored by closed-circuit cameras.

"The community in general is tired of walking through the park and being
hassled by having someone yelling 'Smoke, smoke' at them," said Arthur
Strickler, district manager of Community Board 2 in the Village.

So far this year, marijuana arrests have surpassed the 27,264 people
arrested in all of 1997 -- itself a record-setting year, police said. "We
have changed the traditional strategy," said Chief Martin O'Boyle,
commander of the Organized Crime Control Bureau, which oversees drug
enforcement efforts. He said officers now concentrate more on sting
operations against buyers and less on having undercover officers buy from
marijuana dealers, who even when caught do little jail time. "Now we try to
discourage the customers."

Although the arrest numbers are way up, those charged with misdemeanor
possession of marijuana do not face more severe penalties. First offenders
caught with as much as several ounces of the drug -- which sells for
roughly $125 per ounce depending on the strength -- are eligible for a
probation program known as adjournment contemplating dismissal, in which
charges are dismissed if a defendant stays out of trouble for a set period
of time.

During the last six months, for example, the Manhattan district attorney's
office said that 4,866 defendants were arraigned in Criminal Court on
charges of possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. Some 63 percent of
those cases were adjourned contemplating dismissal at arraignment,
according to Barbara Thompson, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's
office.

But by the time the defendants were arraigned, several criminal defense
lawyers said, their clients had already spent a half day or more in
custody, being fingerprinted, strip-searched and checked for possible
outstanding arrest warrants.

"We call that doing your jail time up front," said Tony Elitcher, a staff
lawyer with the Legal Aid Society's criminal defense division. "You are
doing your sentence before you ever get in front of the judge."

Even if the amount of marijuana involved is miniscule, police officials
said, the warrant and fingerprint checks made on those arrested often turn
up people sought for more serious offenses.

Also, said O'Boyle: "We should not be in a position of determining who we
arrest for breaking the law. We have to treat all of these folks equally."

Court officials said that channeling everyone accused of misdemeanor
offenses, such as marijuana possession, through the booking system has put
a strain on the Criminal Court, although they said more efficient
procedures have prevented the system from becoming overloaded.

"However, we are asking the Legislature for an increase of 23 judges
citywide to address the larger caseloads," said Mai Yee, a spokesperson for
the Office of Court Administration.

***

From: ARTISTpres@aol.com
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 07:17:58 EST
To: pdxnorml@pdxnorml.org
Subject: Giuliani Quotes: resource for media and activists

Giuliani quotes
Compiled By Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics)

"I take a different view of someone comparing me to Adolf Hitler
than when someone calls me a jerk." Mayor Giuliani, N.Y. Daily
News 10/25/1998

"Freedom," Giuliani argued, "is about authority. Freedom is about
the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful
authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you
do it." Taking Liberties / Courts, critics fault Rudy on free
speech, public access New York Newsday 4/20/98

"I don't regard associations of my people that support me as
fascists as a light matter ....But it's ultimately the results that
matter." -NY TIMES 6/24/98

"You don't have to be too polite about somebody who's taking
advantage and trampling on the rights of other people". 11/5/98
Mayor Giuliani during his call-in show on News Radio 88;
Channel 2 News on 11/6/98 also: NY POST 11/7/98

"We'll say it simply: Just because people don't like Rudy Giuliani
doesn't give them license to compare him to Adolf Hitler. The
Hitler analogy is something that seems to amuse many people in
this city. Cutesy stories have been written and published in the
past week about an art installation on Madison Avenue called No
York in which the mayor is depicted with a Hitler moustache. This
image was first bandied about by an obnoxious twerp who claims
to represent a group called A.R.T.I.S.T. - but which really ought to
be called M.O.R.O.N. - who is outraged that the mayor attempted
to enforce plainly written statutes regarding sidewalk clutter in
front of the Metropolitan Museum. For this, the twerp (whose
name we shall never again use because he deserves no more public
mention) imagines that Rudy Giuliani deserves comparison with
the personification of evil in this century...As the New York Times'
gleeful seizure of the "bunker" story indicates, you don't have to be
a cabbie, a vendor or a M.O.R.O.N. to issue forth such repulsive
opinions. -NY Post Editorial 6/16/98

"In satire and protest, the Mayor of the City of New York is again
being likened to some of the vilest figures in history. But this time
Rudolph W. Giuliani is learning to accept it.... Deputy Mayor
Randy M. Mastro goes so far as to detect a touch of flattery in the
Giuliani-as-Dictator analogies." NY TIMES 6/24/98 "Hudson
Hitler? Midtown Mussolini? Giuliani Grins and Bears It"

"Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is now bracing for a whole other order
of urban treachery and cataclysm by building a $15.1 million
emergency control center for his administration...bullet-proofed,
hardened to withstand bombs and hurricanes, and equipped with
food and beds for at least 30 members of his inner circle."
-NY Times 6/13/98 Giuliani's $15.1 Million 'Emergency
Control Center

"With only 30 beds, who stays and who goes? Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani, who one day could face such a decision, said he had not
made up his mind. "People admitted would depend on the nature of
the emergency," he said. "It has nothing to do with my family." "He
has made arrangements for his wife and children to come into this
bunker with food and water for days," complained former Mayor
Ed Koch. "What are the other people in this town supposed to
do?"-Newsday 6/14/98

"The city is working to meet any potential terrorist threat of germ
warfare", Mayor Giuliani said yesterday. "It's the reason why I
established a new agency in the city, quietly, because I didn't want
to frighten people or alarm them." -Daily News 11/9/98 Rudy
Praises City's Moves Vs. Threat of Germ Warfare

"...the current mayor thinks he's a dictator and does not have
sufficient respect, not only for other branches of government, but
also for the citizenry and its opportunities to speak out and be
heard" -Eliot Spitzer N.Y. Post 10/15/98

"Giuliani said Spitzer's remarks should disqualify him from
holding office. "I think his remarks are insulting to a lot of Jewish
people, for the overstated use of the Hitler and Nazi phraseology,
and I'm really surprised that he would engage in that kind of
language", the mayor fumed."
N.Y. Post 10/15/98 "Hitler Remark Sparks Pol Feud"

"Giuliani also lashed out yesterday at a reporter who asked him
whether there was a difference between Spitzer's comments and
those of Police Commissioner Howard Safir, who called former
Nation of Islam spokesman Khallid Muhammad a "black Hitler"
after the Million Youth March last month. Giuliani replied,
"There's a difference between Khallid Muhammad and me, and if
you can't figure it out, you probably shouldn't be in the journalistic
profession."10/19/1998 Newsday 10/19/98

"Mayor Giuliani vows to have cops with hammers and chisels pry
the medallions right off the hood of any cab in the demonstration."
NEWS RADIO 88 5/21/98

"City officials declared total victory. "We've moved to stop the
terrorists from carrying out their act," Police Commissioner
Howard Safir said. "I was sending them a message," a feisty Mayor
Giuliani crowed. "The message is: You don't get to close down the
city of New York. Just don't get to do it". "They know that we
broke their strike - destroyed it, really. Nobody showed up today -
and that didn't happen just because we allowed business to go on
as usual. That happened because we had a plan to stop them from
doing it." NY Post 5/22/98 Taxi Protest

"When a couple of protesting drivers gathered on the corner of
Murray Street and Broadway on the edge of City Hall to talk with
reporters, police officers whisked them across the street, where,
about five minutes later, other officers told them to keep walking --
which they did, shaking their heads. "This is what it has been like
all day," muttered Kuljeet Singh, 28, as he headed down
Broadway. " NY Times 5/22/98 Taxi protest

"Addressing the recruits for the first time, Mayor Giuliani said,
"Today, you take the first step toward becoming New York City
Police Officers - members of the finest, best trained, best
equipped, most restrained and most professional police force in the
nation...The Department's CPR program will teach you that
courtesy, professionalism and respect must be at the root of every
interaction you have with the public. And you must also remember
that your allegiance to the law must supersede your allegiance to
your fellow officers no matter how close those bonds may
become...In the oath of office you took today, you swore to uphold
the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New
York..It means from this day forward you will take on tremendous
responsibilities to enable the people of the City to live freely and
independently.-7/3/98 Giuliani Press Release #315-98 'Giuliani
and Commissioner Safir Welcome 800 New Recruits to the
N.Y.P.D.'

"The Big Apple is plagued with killer cops and abusive prison
guards Amnesty International says in a report today. Police officers
have beaten and shot unresisting suspects; they have misused
batons, chemical sprays and electro-shock weapons, the report
says. Police said they couldn't comment on the report, which
outlines numerous cases in New York where it says unarmed
civilians have been assaulted and even killed by cops. The
overwhelming majority of victims ... are members of racial or
ethnic minorities, the report says. - N.Y. Post 10/6/98
"Amnesty International Chews Up Big Apple"

"What brings this tendency into focus this week is an attack on the
Mayor by the Rev. Calvin Butts, a prominent Baptist minister from
Harlem. Mr. Butts labeled Mr. Giuliani a "racist" and accused him
of not liking black people and of instituting policies that have not
only devastated minorities but are moving New York "toward a
fascist state." NY TIMES Editorial 5/22/98

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who visited the area after the
collapse, said that the city also intended to find out whether
homeless people were living under the Boardwalk. "We can't have
people coming back and living here illegally, which they don't have
a right to do," Giuliani said. NY TIMES 5/26/98

"Facing a combative audience at a town hall meeting at Bishop
Laughlin High School...Giuliani seemed to draw energy from
biting questions about the city university, police conduct towards
minorities and workfare. Amid numerous interruptions and
catcalls, Giuliani lectured the audience that workfare was one of
his greatest accomplishments.....Minutes earlier, when a heckler
screamed, "Everybody's angry at you" Giuliani responded
unexpectedly; "That's actually truer than you realize. Everybody is
angry at me. That's why I'm a good mayor."
NY Post 5/20/98 "Rudy to hecklers: Workfares my gem"

" The Commissioner of the city's Human Resources Administration
apologized yesterday for making an errant remark during a
television interview that was construed by some viewers as
anti-Semitic. During a televised discussion of the city's
welfare-to-work program, the Commissioner, Jason A. Turner,
said, "Work makes you free." NYTIMES 6/27/98

"As the arts capital of the world. New York City is proud to give
our children the opportunity to nurture a future in the arts...New
York City, which is blessed with boundless treasures of art and
culture, and is filled with millions of the most talented and creative
people on the planet, should have the best arts education in the
world." From Giuliani press release: Giuliani Declares May
18-22, 1998 Arts Education Week
"An exhibition of paintings is not as communicative as speech,
literature or live entertainment, and the artists' constitutional
interest is thus minimal." -Giuliani appeal brief against street
artists having First Amendment protection, Giuliani v
Lederman et al and Giuliani v Bery et al, filed with the U.S.
Supreme Court 2/24/97.

"Elizabeth Freedman, an attorney speaking on behalf of the N.Y.C.
Corporation Counsel's office [Mayor Giuliani's lawyers],
explained the City's anti-art position. "Visual art...does not express
ideas", Ms. Friedman said, "and as such is not entitled to First
Amendment protection." 2/24/97 radio interview WNYC's
syndicated business news show, "Marketplace"

"An exhibit of the mayor's photographs opened today at a
downtown Manhattan gallery, displaying 23 of his color and
black-and-white pictures taken over the last two years. Panning the
exhibit altogether were the sidewalk protesters, who are fighting a
city requirement that they need permits to sell artwork in parks and
in front of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. "Since his first day in
office, Giuliani has been waging a war on artists and artists' rights,"
said painter and printmaker Robert Lederman. "He's doing this
show purely to change his image, posing as an artist in the arts
capital of the world." 5/9/98 Washington Post
	
"Mayor Rudolph W. Guiliani pledged Thursday that the city would
contribute $65 million over the next three years to help pay for a
major expansion project at the Museum of Modern Art...Facing its
huge price tag, trustees from the museum's expansion committee,
including David Rockefeller, the real estate developer Jerry Speyer
and Donald Marron, the chairman of PaineWebber Inc.,
approached City Hall. Mr. Rockefeller, whose mother, Abby
Aldrich Rockefeller, was a founder of the Modern, said the city
money was "the financial cornerstone" of the expansion. Of the
remaining $585 million the museum must raise, he said that about
$200 million had been pledged by "the family and trustees." Then
he quickly added a qualifier: "When I say family, I mean the
museum family, not my family."
NY TIMES 4/24/98 MOMA to Get $65 Million for Expansion

"It's wonderful to be here with you to celebrate the greatest legal
system in the world and to spread an understanding of and
appreciation for our legal heritage to people throughout New
York," the Mayor said. "There are thousands of subtle ways that
we interact with the law every day. Whether it is better law
enforcement that has helped make the City a safer place or civil
rights protections or the Bill of Rights, we learn valuable lessons,
and help shape the system through our participation. Today, we
celebrate the law and celebrate our freedom," the Mayor continued.
"As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1816, 'The most sacred of the duties
of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its
citizens,' we recognize that law affects everyone and is the
foundation of our civil and moral society. It is in this spirit that I
proclaim today, "Law Day 1998" and honor the celebration of
freedom." Giuliani Press Release, -Mayor Giuliani Proclaims
5/1/98 as Law Day

"A defense attorney at the federal corruption trial of Assemblyman
Dov Hikind yesterday charged that the Brooklyn Democrat's
prosecution was "politically motivated" and was instigated by
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and a top aide...attorney Benjamin
Brafman said he had received information that Giuliani and one of
his key advisers had prompted the investigation of Hikind and the
Council of Jewish Organizations of Borough Park because they
felt the two had become "too powerful." -NEWSDAY 6/30/98
Defense Claims Mayor Sought Hikind Charges

"I don't get offended any longer when people call me crazy,"
Giuliani said at a news conference, responding to the attack from
one doctor. "But I wonder about a doctor running a methadone
program who, when a mayor raises the idea that we should end
methadone, which is a way of keeping people dependent, describes
my idea as crazy." -NYTIMES 7/22/98 Giuliani's Drive Against
Methadone Called Unlikely to Prevail

[A few hours after ordering newspapers confiscated in front of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, Mayor Giuliani began a Presidential
Campaign trip in Milwaukee Wisconsin, and made the following
comments:] "Giuliani said the core of his programs give people
"freedom" from such things as welfare dependency and fear of
crime. When crime was high, he added, "New Yorkers . . . had the
same feeling of oppression that someone would have in a
totalitarian government."-N.Y. Daily News 8/26/98

"A dictator who oppresses people is someone who should be
ostracized by the United States," Giuliani told leaders of the Cuban
American National Foundation, which calls itself the country's
leading anti-Castro group."
-Isle Visit for Rudy Daily News 10/2/98

"The Mayor's unnecessary and unconscionable war on the weak
and the poor and the black and the brown continues. Let the
cleansing begin." "Cleansing CUNY" -NY Times 5/28/98

"Mayor Rudolph Giuliani...proposed cutting the library budget by
$15 million -- even while trumpeting a $2 billion budget surplus --
and asked the libraries to make up some of the shortfall through
private fund-raising. Librarians say this is the first time the city has
asked the system to raise money for basic operating expenses."
-NY TIMES 5/20/98 Editorial: Hacking Away at the Libraries

"One of the things I enjoy most about being Mayor is visiting
school children, reading with them and hearing about what they
want to be when they grow up," the Mayor said.10/13/98 Giuliani
Press Release #476-98 "Mayor Giuliani Helps announce
Debut of the Children's Book "Day In The Life Of A Mayor"

"Die-hard Yankee fan Mayor Giuliani yesterday said he would let
his son, Andrew, skip school to attend today's ticker-tape parade
and suggested other children should do the same because they
could learn something from baseball." Daily News 10/23/98

"Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has a propensity to keep arguing even
when the law and good sense go against him. This has been
particularly true in cases involving the release of information. For
nearly two years his administration has refused to hand over
relevant police files to the Public Advocate, Mark Green" 11/10/98
NY Times Editorial

"I've covered eight mayors," said Gabe Pressman, the veteran
television reporter and president of the New York Press Club.
"This has been the most difficult administration for getting
information." Typically, Giuliani's response when others ask that
they be allowed to do their job is to brand them enemies, "stupid,"
"jerky" or "intellectually dishonest."

NY Times 4/7/98 NYC: Once Again, the Mayor Hogs the Ball
"Forest City Ratner, a major New York developer...spent more on
lobbying the municipal government last year than any other
business group, according to a study released Thursday. The
company spent $382,385 on lobbying, which included hiring five
of the top 10 lobbyists in the city to influence decisions relating to
several real estate projects in the five boroughs. The figure
accounted for 3.4 percent of all the money spent on lobbying in the
city last year, and it far surpassed the $181,842 spent by Merrill
Lynch, which ranked second. Among other groups that spent a lot
of money lobbying last year was Reuters, the British information
services company, which recorded $143,224 in lobbying fees. Last
November, Reuters got a $26 million tax break to build a
headquarters on a parcel at 42nd Street and Seventh Avenue in
Times Square. NY TIMES 5/15/98

"For the second time in two years, The New York Post has
received large tax breaks and other subsidies from city and state
officials after threatening to move some of its operations out of
New York City. Officials have granted the newspaper $24.4
million in incentives to build a new printing plant on 17 acres at a
rail yard in the South Bronx." NYTIMES 7/21/98

"Mayor Rudolph Giuliani yesterday opened a self-promoting
extravaganza known as the New York City Police Department's
second annual spring COMPSTAT conference. This year's
conference, at the Marriot Marquis hotel, got off to a better start
than last year's, when the mayor barred COMPSTAT's founder,
ex-police commissioner Bill Bratton. Meanwhile in the ballroom,
each visitor found upon his seat a copy of Sunday's Parade
magazine, which featured on its cover a picture of the mayor and
Police Commissioner Howard Safir standing beneath the Brooklyn
Bridge with the caption "They've made big changes that are making
the city safer." Somehow in the picture, Giuliani, who stands 5
feet, 9 inches, appears taller than Safir, who is 6-foot-3."
NEWSDAY 5/12/1998

"With crime rates dropping at record rates, former Police
Commissioner William Bratton said it's time to cut as many as
3,300 cops and stop making them chase "after petty obscure
offenses...Cops have to be careful," Bratton told this week's edition
of New York magazine, "that they don't move from working on
things that drive people crazy ... to things in which the benefits are
far less tangible and have the risk of alienating people and making
them feel like Big Brother is upon us." -NYPOST 7/13/98

"Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani appointed Robert M. Harding as his
budget director yesterday, choosing to fill a critical position with a
lawyer with strong political skills but little experience in fiscal
matters and who is the son of one of Giuliani's closest political
allies...Harding, 40, has little experience with municipal budgets
compared with his predecessors, and his selection surprised many
fiscal experts, government officials and government watchdog
groups. Several critics dismissed the appointment as a payoff to
Harding's father, Raymond B. Harding, the leader of the Liberal
Party, who has supported and advised Giuliani since 1989."
NYTIMES 7/8/98 Mayor Places An Ally's Son in Budget Post

"A Queens precinct commander says he will punish cops who don't
make enough arrests by denying them days off, even in an
emergency, The Post has learned...Although the Police Department
denies there are arrest quotas in any of the precincts, the memo
proves that cops who don't bring in enough bad guys face
repercussions. "The pressure from the department to meet these
numbers has surpassed the pressure that the officer encounters
while on patrol," said Patrolmen's Benevolent Association official
Daniel Tirelli. "Unfortunately, these pressures are not just in the
110th Precinct, they're in all precincts throughout the city."
-NY POST 6/11/98

"Kenneth Starr and Rudolph Giuliani worked together at the
Reagan Justice Department. And they also have this in common:
both pranced around in drag for variety shows. "Ken's a good
friend," says Mr. Giuliani." -NY Times 3/1/98

"Even though there is generally no expectation of privacy in a
public space, most people expect freedom from government
monitoring when they eat lunch on a park bench or stroll down a
street. The growing use of police video monitors in New York City
may threaten the free and anonymous nature of public space."
1/3/98 NY Times Editorial: Police Cameras in the Park

"If the mayor says no, then there is a minimum 40% chance the
true answer is yes, on any topic. That is the state of the mayor's
credibility on matters of importance, a reputation he has earned in
three years of saying any blessed thing he wishes were true. Now, a
magazine article has said that he destroyed his marriage over a
personal relationship with a press aide. "The best thing that can be
done with this article as far as I'm concerned is it could be thrown
it in the trash," said Mayor Giuliani yesterday...He is 53. She is 32.
They spend every moment together, nearly 18 to 20 public hours
on some days. He shopped for dresses with her one Sunday
afternoon. They turn up at building collapses at 1 in the morning,
and at private parties at 10 in the evening. In denying the Vanity
Fair magazine story, Giuliani says he didn't have sex with
Lategano. But sex would only make this relationship less weird.
Lategano - whose resume doesn't get much deeper than sneaker
saleswoman and campaign worker - now runs the biggest city in
the country with Giuliani. You cannot get a streetlight fixed unless
it is good for the mayor's image." 7/5/97 Daily News

"The [unions] structure has contributed to corruption, these critics
say, by discouraging executive board members from questioning
how the union is run and by engendering a management style
characterized by skimpy financial oversight little questioning and
a lot of looking the other way...District Council 37 is one of the
city's biggest, most powerful unions and, under Hill, is known for
being close to Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and for negotiating
contracts that set the pattern for all city workers. "-Critics
Contend Power Structure Bred Corruption in City Union NY
Times 11/9/98

"Marcus Aurelius is one of two great Roman symbols, representing
the universality and history of Rome. As emperor, he was noted for
his humanitarian philosophy and his sensitivity to the Empire's
poor". -6/3/98 Giuliani Press Release #251 "Giuliani accepts
statue of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius from Mayor of
Rome"

"Federal officials say New York City's new welfare policies may
improperly deprive thousands of poor people of access to food and
medical assistance, and they have begun reviewing the public
assistance programs to determine whether they violate Federal
law...The inquiry focuses on the city's application procedures and
marks the first time Federal authorities have questioned Mayor
Rudolph W. Giuliani's new welfare policies, which discourage the
needy from applying for public assistance in an effort to push them
to rely on themselves, not government. " -U.S. Inquiry Asks if
City Deprives Poor N.Y. Times 11/8/98

"There is emerging a new New York that is increasingly
authoritarian and repressive,". New York Civil Liberty Union's
executive director, Norman Siegel. "-NY Times 7/5/98

"A Federal judge in Manhattan ruled Monday that a city policy
banning large groups from holding news conferences or rallies on
the steps of City Hall was unconstitutional, saying that the Mayor
used it selectively to allow groups like the Young Republicans to
gather there, while blocking an AIDS advocacy group that had
been critical of him." Judge Says Ban on Big Rallies at City
Hall is Unconstitutional" -NYTIMES 7/21/98

"You pay for it, you've got it" hasn't yet become the city's motto,
but we are making steady progress in that direction. Over the last
four years, New York has sold off its public radio station, tried to
sell its hospitals, ceded to business improvement districts the
upkeep of large swaths of Manhattan and handed over Central Park
to be run by a group of private citizens. Now, it is introducing
Rent-a-Cop. For $27 an hour, plus handling charges, it is possible
to put an order in with the city's Police Department for a uniformed
officer -- complete with bulletproof vest and the power of arrest --
to keep the peace at your private affair. To sweeten the deal, the
city will even pick up liability costs: if your rented officer happens
to apply excessive force or wrench his back, taxpayers will pick up
the tab. " -NYTIMES 6/29/98 Rent-a-Cop Program -- the Best
Protection Money Can Buy

`Increasingly, you see Mayor Giuliani handling dissent in a
mean-spirited, bullying, autocratic fashion, and increasingly using
the police as a private mayoral army to target those who disagree
with him,'' said civil rights lawyer and activist Ron Kuby."
-AP 4/30/98 "Giuliani Under Fire in New York"

"At today's rally, which attracted about 400 vendors, street artists,
and a smattering of taxi drivers, the mayor was described as:
"Crueliani," "Jailiani," and "Stalag Gholiani". Many of the
protesting street artists have had their artwork confiscated this year
by police after they displayed it without a permit in front of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art on Fifth Avenue. Lederman said
police have confiscated his paintings of the mayor on more than 30
occasions. He said there is one that particularly attracts the
confiscatory enthusiasm of the cops: "It says 'Giuliani Equals
Police State." -Washington Post 6/4/98 "Mayor's on a Roll
Vendors Aren't Buying"

"For as long as 15 years, New York City police officers from the
precinct responsible for eradicating much of the tawdriness from
Times Square frequented a neighborhood brothel -- in uniform and
while on duty -- for free sex, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and police
officials acknowledged Friday." -Police Said to Have Made Deal
With Prostitutes -NY Times 7/18/98

Employees of some topless clubs have said they hope to stay in
business by clothing dancers in bikinis or T-shirts. But Giuliani
declared that efforts to "just get around" the law's intent would fail,
since nudity was "only one of many criteria" that would be
considered. NYTIMES 7/20/98 -End Is Near, Mayor Tells New
York Sex Shops

"They're not only going to have to get around things, they're going
to have to reform themselves and change the essential nature of the
kind of operation that they are," Giuliani said". -NY Post 7/20/98
-Porn Shops Reach Date of XXXpiration

Giuliani said yesterday that the crackdown would be even more
aggressive. "A club may be violating this new zoning law . . . but it
may also be violating health codes, building codes, fire codes and
other things," he said. "So this is our opportunity to look at this
whole group of laws to make sure that they're in compliance."
Penalties for violations could be severe. "In some cases, it's fines,"
Giuliani said. "In some cases, it's putting them out of business."
-Daily News 7/22/98 City, Rudy Zones In On Sex Shops

"The Giuliani administration has granted a record $666.7 million
in tax abatements, the lion's share of which went to businesses
locating in Times Square." -8/25/98Village Voice "Porn Free"

"Thanks to Mayor Giuliani's quality-of-life program, New Yorkers
no longer have to step over quite so many vagrants in order to
enjoy the greenery of New York's parks or the aesthetic stimulation
of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Unfortunately, thanks to
Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Lucy Billings, they might now
find themselves navigating their way around hordes of
self-described "artists" who think it's appropriate to liken
politicians they oppose to Hitler." NY Post Editorial 8/20/98
"Free Speech or Free Exhibition Space?"

"The rules for food vendors will also affect street artists. Robert
Lederman, a leader of the artists who has called for Mr. Giuliani's
impreachment, said he was alarmed by all of the solutions being
considered by the Council. Each, he asserted, would lead to the
replacement of today's vendors with well-financed companies that
could afford to buy the newly rationed right to sell on the
sidewalk. "For the past 100 years, vendors have been poor
immigrants who were struggling to establish themselves", Mr.
Lederman said. "Anybody could get their start on the street. Now
we're headed toward the privitization of public space".
NY Times June 26, 1998-Mayor Abandons Plan to Ban
Sidewalk Vendors

``We're sick and tired of Rudy Giuliani's police state,'' said street
artist Robert Lederman, addressing the protesters with a bullhorn.
``He's taking away the rights of vendors and giving them to
corporations.'' Giuliani said that although booksellers enjoy First
Amendment protection, it ``doesn't extend to unlimited protection.
If the city deems that a particular street is overcrowded, then that
affects all vendors,'' he said." -N.Y. Street Vendors Protest
-Associated Press 6/3/98

"As he continued to accuse City Council leaders of fiscal
waywardness, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani yesterday defended his
decision toforgive $594,000 in back rent...owed by one of his top
campaign contributors...Zachary Fisher, a real estate magnate who
is the museum's chairman and chief benefactor. Fisher donated
generously to Giuliani's past two bids for mayor."
Newsday 10/8/98 Mayor Defends Deal on Intrepid

"The parades have been rare in recent decades, with only 11 in the
city since 1970. But the ticker-tape parade on Monday will be the
third in just the last month. The Mayor was jubilant in announcing
the event for the astronauts. "This is wonderful," he said. "I think
the more ticker-tape parades I can have during the time that I'm
Mayor, the more great memories I'm going to have later on."
-NY Times 11/13/98 Glenn Is Set to Repeat Another Journey
in Ticker-Tape Parade Up Broadway

"The mayor defended rejecting applications for parade permits by
other groups, including the activist group Housing Works to mark
World AIDS Day. "Obviously, you can't grant everyone's request",
he said. "If the city were to grant permits to everyone who wants to
have a parade, all the city would do is have parades".
-NY Post 11/13/98

Motorists who cause gridlock are simply uncivil, Giuliani said.
"When you block the intersection, you're basically saying, 'I don't
care about anybody else, I just care about myself,' " the mayor
said." -"Rudy's Road Rules" Daily News 11/13/98

"Nearly 10 percent of the city's 1,100 public schools is now
officially designated as failing, more than at any time in the last
decade. All but four of the schools on the state list are in New
York City." -NY Times 11/14/98 "State Adds to List of Failing
City Schools, Making Total of 97"

"Nearly five years after a crucial deal lured the Walt Disney
Company to 42d Street and jump-started the revival of Times
Square, a coalition of Broadway interests is struggling to carry the
economic gains to the heart of the theater district.The issue's
tangled beginnings go back to January 1994, when the city and
state offered low-interest loans of almost $30 million to the Walt
Disney Company to renovate and take over the decrepit New
Amsterdam Theater on 42d Street."-The Broadway Theater Still
Awaits Windfall Build on Thin AirNew York Times 11/12/98

Robert Lederman, President of A.R.T.I.S.T.
(Artists' Response To Illegal State Tactics) (718) 369-2111
e mail ARTISTpres@aol.com
http://www.openair.org/alerts/artist/nyc.html

[Note: All quotes used here in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107. This material is distributed without profit or payment
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only.]

***



***

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

Experts say hundreds of thousands of cases hinge on ruling (The Dallas
Morning News notes lawyers for Sonya Singleton on Tuesday will ask
a federal appeals court in Denver to rule that prosecutors who offer leniency
in exchange for testimony against others are guilty of bribery. If the court
agrees, legal experts say it could throw the war on some drugs into immediate
upheaval. Hundreds of thousands of cases could be dismissed, and law
enforcement could be stripped of its most powerful investigative tool.
Singleton's chances of winning are good, according to analysts. Since July,
four separate federal courts, including a Denver appeals court, have ruled
that it is illegal for paid informants to testify during a trial.)

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 14:41:54 -0500
To: cheechwz@mindspring.com (A H Clements)
From: cheechwz@mindspring.com (A H Clements)
Subject: HT: fwd: hundreds of thousands of criminal cases hinge on ruling
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net

Forwarded from Tom M (tom@november.org)

ALERT!

This needs to be everywhere. The AP Wire and most national newspapers seem
to be silent, but if this decision stands, especially all the way to the
Supreme Court, the prosecutorial end of the Drug War is effectively over.
The feds are gonna fight this tooth and nail, for sure, so we need to make
as much noise as possible. Peace. Tom.

ALERT!

***

The Dallas Morning News
11/17/98
By Mark Curriden / The Dallas Morning News

Experts say hundreds of thousands of cases hinge on ruling

WICHITA, Kan. - Sonya Singleton's name may soon go down in legal history -
right beside Ernesto Miranda, Dred Scott and Jane Roe as people whose
battles in the courts dramatically changed American society.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Ms. Singleton will ask a federal appeals court in
Denver to make a decision that legal experts say could throw the criminal
justice system into immediate upheaval. Hundreds of thousands of cases
could be dismissed, and law enforcement could be stripped of its most
powerful investigative tool.

The issue is whether prosecutors are committing bribery when they use
witnesses who have been paid money or given reduced prison sentences in
return for testifying in criminal trials.

Ms. Singleton's chances of winning are good, according to analysts. Since
July, four separate federal courts, including a Denver appeals court, have
ruled that it is illegal for paid informants to testify during a trial.

U.S. Justice Department officials are so worried about losing the case that
they are already lobbying Congress for legislation that would protect
federal prosecutors from bribery charges and allow the government to
continue its use of witnesses who have been rewarded.

Prosecutors say a decision in Ms. Singleton's favor would jeopardize the
convictions - all of which remain on appeal - of Timothy McVeigh, Terry
Nichols, Manuel Noriega and those involved in the World Trade Center
bombing.

"Law enforcement should be extremely nervous about this case," said Ron
Carlson, a law professor at the University of Georgia and an expert on
criminal law. "Not since the Miranda decision in 1966 forced police to read
suspects their rights to remain silent and access to a lawyer have we seen
a case with such far-reaching and explosive potential."

Getting nervous

Authorities in Dallas are also nervous about the possible ramifications of
the Singleton litigation. And they should be.

More than 86 percent of a sampling of federal criminal cases in Dallas and
Fort Worth between 1995 and 1997 involved the use of informants and
co-conspirators who received deals from prosecutors in return for
testimony, according to a review of nearly 300 cases by The Dallas Morning
News.

Some of the informants were paid thousands of dollars for their
cooperation. Most received a reduction in the amount of time they would
serve in prison for their crimes. The cases mostly involved drug offenses,
illegal-gun charges and various white-collar conspiracies.

"If this case stands, law enforcement would be seriously hampered in our
ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes," said U.S. Attorney
Paul Coggins of Dallas. "This case makes every prosecutor, every judge,
every defense attorney co-conspirators in a federal bribery case. I don't
think that can be allowed to stand."

The case began last year when Wichita police and federal agents arrested
dozens of people they alleged were involved in a conspiracy to launder
money and distribute cocaine. Among those arrested was Sonya Singleton, a
25-year-old mother of two. Prosecutors said she helped wire some of the
drug money between Kansas and California - a charge Ms. Singleton denied.

During her trial, the only witness able to identify Ms. Singleton as part
of the conspiracy was Napolean Douglas, a convicted cocaine dealer who had
cut a deal with prosecutors. Officials agreed to reduce Mr. Douglas' prison
sentence from 15 years to five years in return for his cooperation. Ms.
Singleton was found guilty and sentenced to four years in a Texas federal
prison.

Buying witnesses

But on appeal earlier this year, John Van Wachtel, Ms. Singleton's lawyer,
argued that the prosecutors' deal with Mr. Douglas violated federal bribery
laws, which prohibit "whoever" from giving, offering or promising "anything
of value" to a witness in exchange for testimony. The law doesn't exempt
prosecutors, he said.

"They bought this witness, offered him the most precious commodity known to
man - freedom," said Mr. Wachtel. "With the deal he got, he was going to
tell the government anything they wanted to hear, even if that meant
lying."

In July, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Denver unanimously agreed, reversing Ms. Singleton's conviction on the
ground that the leniency deal with Mr. Douglas was illegal.

"Promising something of value to secure truthful testimony is as much
prohibited as buying perjured testimony," the three judges said in their
opinion. "If justice is perverted when a criminal defendant seeks to buy
testimony from a witness, it is no less perverted when the government does
so."

The decision rocked the criminal justice system. Texas Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers president Kent Schaffer praised it as "one of the
most enlightened opinions" in decades. Justice Department attorneys said it
"caused chaos and significant disruptions" in their practices. Most judges
were stunned.

"If you read the 10th Circuit opinion, it's well-reasoned and easily
supported by federal law," said a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. "But the
results would be catastrophic. What do you do as a judge in a situation
like that - follow the law or try to devise a way around it?"

Ten days after the decision, the full 12-member 10th Circuit Court agreed
to review the decision. Only three additional judges are needed to join the
three judges from the original panel to uphold the panel's decision. Both
sides agree an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is certain.

The original ruling was only enforceable in the 10th Circuit, which
includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But in
the four months since the decision, federal trial judges in Florida,
Louisiana and Tennessee have cited the 10th Circuit opinion in refusing to
allow informant testimony.

Wait-and-see mode

Meanwhile, at least a dozen judges in other states have either delayed
making such decisions until the full 10th Circuit rules, or have simply
rejected the 10th Circuit's reasoning. Judges in nearly every state report
lawyers filing "Singleton motions" in their respective cases to have
informant testimony thrown out.

The U.S. Justice Department argues that the 10th Circuit's decision "would
cripple law enforcement" and "lead to absurd results." Prosecutors say
Congress never intended for the bribery laws to apply to the deals they
make with informants.

"I would eat my hat if this case is not reversed," said Susan Klein, a law
professor at the University of Texas and a former federal prosecutor. "This
would eliminate the prime tool law enforcement has in combating crime, and
that is the ability to reach down into a criminal operation and catch a
low-level fish and cut them a deal in return for their cooperation.

"The system depends upon this, and I can't imagine the courts putting tens
of thousands of investigations, trials and convictions in jeopardy over
this."

However, defense lawyers and many judges argue that the system's reliance
on informants has undermined public confidence in the court system. They
say the Singleton case offers an opportunity for the courts and Congress to
make necessary improvements.

Too often, said San Antonio criminal defense attorney Gerald Goldstein,
authorities rely exclusively on paid informants and
co-defendants-turned-informants and have no corroborating evidence to
support the informant's testimony.

"Every day, there are people being sent to prison for many years solely
based on the word of career criminals who are manipulating the criminal
justice system as informants," said Terry Hart, a former federal prosecutor
in Dallas. "The best thing about this case is that it should make all of us
rethink the use of informants and dealmaking for the sake of fairness and
justice."

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

Court to decide legality of rewarding informants
(The Dallas Morning News version)

From: "Bob Owen@W.H.E.N." (when@olywa.net)
To: "_Drug Policy --" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: Are rewarded informants illegally bribed?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 18:31:02 -0800
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net

Court to decide legality of rewarding informants

11/17/98
By Mark Curriden / The Dallas Morning News

Experts say hundreds of thousands of cases hinge on ruling

WICHITA, Kan. - Sonya Singleton's name may soon go down in legal history -
right beside Ernesto Miranda, Dred Scott and Jane Roe as people whose
battles in the courts dramatically changed American society.

On Tuesday, lawyers for Ms. Singleton will ask a federal appeals court in
Denver to make a decision that legal experts say could throw the criminal
justice system into immediate upheaval. Hundreds of thousands of cases could
be dismissed, and law enforcement could be stripped of its most powerful
investigative tool.

The issue is whether prosecutors are committing bribery when they use
witnesses who have been paid money or given reduced prison sentences in
return for testifying in criminal trials.

Ms. Singleton's chances of winning are good, according to analysts. Since
July, four separate federal courts, including a Denver appeals court, have
ruled that it is illegal for paid informants to testify during a trial.

U.S. Justice Department officials are so worried about losing the case that
they are already lobbying Congress for legislation that would protect
federal prosecutors from bribery charges and allow the government to
continue its use of witnesses who have been rewarded.

Prosecutors say a decision in Ms. Singleton's favor would jeopardize the
convictions - all of which remain on appeal - of Timothy McVeigh, Terry
Nichols, Manuel Noriega and those involved in the World Trade Center
bombing.

"Law enforcement should be extremely nervous about this case," said Ron
Carlson, a law professor at the University of Georgia and an expert on
criminal law. "Not since the Miranda decision in 1966 forced police to read
suspects their rights to remain silent and access to a lawyer have we seen a
case with such far-reaching and explosive potential."

Getting nervous

Authorities in Dallas are also nervous about the possible ramifications of
the Singleton litigation. And they should be.

More than 86 percent of a sampling of federal criminal cases in Dallas and
Fort Worth between 1995 and 1997 involved the use of informants and
co-conspirators who received deals from prosecutors in return for testimony,
according to a review of nearly 300 cases by The Dallas Morning News.

Some of the informants were paid thousands of dollars for their cooperation.
Most received a reduction in the amount of time they would serve in prison
for their crimes. The cases mostly involved drug offenses, illegal-gun
charges and various white-collar conspiracies.

"If this case stands, law enforcement would be seriously hampered in our
ability to investigate and prosecute serious crimes," said U.S. Attorney
Paul Coggins of Dallas. "This case makes every prosecutor, every judge,
every defense attorney co-conspirators in a federal bribery case. I don't
think that can be allowed to stand."

The case began last year when Wichita police and federal agents arrested
dozens of people they alleged were involved in a conspiracy to launder money
and distribute cocaine. Among those arrested was Sonya Singleton, a
25-year-old mother of two. Prosecutors said she helped wire some of the drug
money between Kansas and California - a charge Ms. Singleton denied.

During her trial, the only witness able to identify Ms. Singleton as part of
the conspiracy was Napolean Douglas, a convicted cocaine dealer who had cut
a deal with prosecutors. Officials agreed to reduce Mr. Douglas' prison
sentence from 15 years to five years in return for his cooperation. Ms.
Singleton was found guilty and sentenced to four years in a Texas federal
prison.

Buying witnesses

But on appeal earlier this year, John Van Wachtel, Ms. Singleton's lawyer,
argued that the prosecutors' deal with Mr. Douglas violated federal bribery
laws, which prohibit "whoever" from giving, offering or promising "anything
of value" to a witness in exchange for testimony. The law doesn't exempt
prosecutors, he said.

"They bought this witness, offered him the most precious commodity known to
man - freedom," said Mr. Wachtel. "With the deal he got, he was going to
tell the government anything they wanted to hear, even if that meant lying."

In July, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Denver unanimously agreed, reversing Ms. Singleton's conviction on the
ground that the leniency deal with Mr. Douglas was illegal.

"Promising something of value to secure truthful testimony is as much
prohibited as buying perjured testimony," the three judges said in their
opinion. "If justice is perverted when a criminal defendant seeks to buy
testimony from a witness, it is no less perverted when the government does
so."

The decision rocked the criminal justice system. Texas Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers president Kent Schaffer praised it as "one of the
most enlightened opinions" in decades. Justice Department attorneys said it
"caused chaos and significant disruptions" in their practices. Most judges
were stunned.

"If you read the 10th Circuit opinion, it's well-reasoned and easily
supported by federal law," said a judge on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. "But the
results would be catastrophic. What do you do as a judge in a situation like
that - follow the law or try to devise a way around it?"

Ten days after the decision, the full 12-member 10th Circuit Court agreed to
review the decision. Only three additional judges are needed to join the
three judges from the original panel to uphold the panel's decision. Both
sides agree an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is certain.

The original ruling was only enforceable in the 10th Circuit, which includes
Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. But in the four
months since the decision, federal trial judges in Florida, Louisiana and
Tennessee have cited the 10th Circuit opinion in refusing to allow informant
testimony.

Wait-and-see mode

Meanwhile, at least a dozen judges in other states have either delayed
making such decisions until the full 10th Circuit rules, or have simply
rejected the 10th Circuit's reasoning. Judges in nearly every state report
lawyers filing "Singleton motions" in their respective cases to have
informant testimony thrown out.

The U.S. Justice Department argues that the 10th Circuit's decision "would
cripple law enforcement" and "lead to absurd results." Prosecutors say
Congress never intended for the bribery laws to apply to the deals they make
with informants.

"I would eat my hat if this case is not reversed," said Susan Klein, a law
professor at the University of Texas and a former federal prosecutor. "This
would eliminate the prime tool law enforcement has in combating crime, and
that is the ability to reach down into a criminal operation and catch a
low-level fish and cut them a deal in return for their cooperation.

"The system depends upon this, and I can't imagine the courts putting tens
of thousands of investigations, trials and convictions in jeopardy over
this."

However, defense lawyers and many judges argue that the system's reliance on
informants has undermined public confidence in the court system. They say
the Singleton case offers an opportunity for the courts and Congress to make
necessary improvements.

Too often, said San Antonio criminal defense attorney Gerald Goldstein,
authorities rely exclusively on paid informants and
co-defendants-turned-informants and have no corroborating evidence to
support the informant's testimony.

"Every day, there are people being sent to prison for many years solely
based on the word of career criminals who are manipulating the criminal
justice system as informants," said Terry Hart, a former federal prosecutor
in Dallas. "The best thing about this case is that it should make all of us
rethink the use of informants and dealmaking for the sake of fairness and
justice."

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

Family Of Mexican Slain By Texas Police Files Suit (Reuters says family
and friends of Pedro Oregon Navarro, an illegal Mexican immigrant shot
and killed by police during a botched drug bust, sued the city of Houston
Tuesday, seeking unspecified damages.)

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 17:13:06 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US TX: WIRE: Family Of Mexican Slain By Texas Police Files Suit
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: hadorn@dnai.com (David Hadorn)
Pubdate: Tue, 17 Nov 1998
Source: Wire: Reuters
Copyright: 1998 Reuters Limited.
Author: Jeff Franks

FAMILY OF MEXICAN SLAIN BY TEXAS POLICE FILES SUIT

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Family and friends of an illegal Mexican immigrant
shot and killed by police during a botched drug bust sued the city of
Houston Tuesday.

The suit seeks unspecified damages in the death of Pedro Oregon
Navarro, who was shot 12 times -- nine times in the back -- when six
police officers burst into his Houston apartment without a warrant in
search of drugs on July 12.

``We are making allegations against the city of Houston that policies
and practices have failed... particularly in the recruiting, hiring
and training of officers,'' attorney Richard Mithoff told a news conference.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, also names the now-fired
police officers as defendants.

They entered Oregon's apartment without a legal warrant after an
informant, drunk and on cocaine, told them he bought drugs there.

One of the officers apparently fired his gun accidentally, wounding
another officer in the shoulder. Apparently thinking the shot came
from Oregon, police opened fire with 33 rounds.

A search of the apartment found no drugs and an autopsy found no trace
of any in Oregon's body. His friends said the 22-year-old landscaper
from the Mexican state of Michoacan did not drink, smoke or use drugs.

Houston Police Chief C.O. Bradford fired the officers involved, saying
the incident was an ``egregious'' case of official misconduct. But a
Harris County grand jury indicted only one of them on a misdemeanor
trespassing charge.

The grand jury's decision triggered loud protests from Oregon's family
and others. FBI Director Louis Freeh visited the family last week and
promised a thorough investigation.

Oregon came to the United States illegally eight years ago. His
mother, brother and sister live here now, along with two children he
had with two different women.

Mithoff previously offered $35 million to settle the case but got no
response from the city.

``This family came to this country to seek a better way of life, to
seek justice and... I intend to see that this country does not fail
them,'' he said.

Redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior
written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or
delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

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

Random Drug Testing Comes Home (The New York Times recounts the experiences
of Sunny Cloud, an insurance saleswoman and single mother in Marietta,
Georgia, whose discovery that her son smoked cannabis led her to distribute
the first at-home urine-testing kit for worried parents. Last month, the Food
and Drug Administration approved the latest of these kits, the QuickScreen
at Home Drug Test made by Phamatech, a San Diego manufacturer.)

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 18:12:45 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Random Drug Testing Comes Home
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski and Dick Evans
Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Copyright: 1998 The New York Times Company
Pubdate: 17 Nov 1998
Section: Health & Fitness, Page F7
Author: Sheryl Gay Stolberg

RANDOM DRUG TESTING COMES HOME

On a weekday afternoon in 1992, Sunny Cloud, an insurance saleswoman and
single mother in Marietta, Ga., dropped by her home unexpectedly and found
her 16-year-old son, Ron, smoking marijuana. Stunned, Ms. Cloud hustled the
boy off to the nearest hospital emergency room, where she asked doctors to
screen his urine.

"I was scared," she said recently, "and I didn't know what else to do."

The procedure was expensive, and embarrassing. So Ms. Cloud, still
suspicious of her son, decided to do her own drug tests, sending him into
the family bathroom in boxer shorts with instructions to come out with a
cup full of urine that she could ship to a local laboratory for analysis.

That is how Ms. Cloud began a cottage industry: the home drug testing
business. As more teen-agers experiment with illicit drugs, a small but
growing roster of companies, including Parents Alert, founded by Ms. Cloud
in 1994, are marketing drug testing kits to parents.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration approved the latest of these
kits, the QuickScreen at Home Drug Test made by Phamatech, a San Diego
manufacturer of diagnostic tests. The company bills its product as the
first to give parents a result at home.

Phamatech says that when the kit hits drug stores in December, screening
for marijuana, cocaine, LSD or heroin will be as simple as taking a home
pregnancy test.

But while advocates of the kits describe them as lifelines for parents
struggling to keep their teen-agers away from illicit drugs, critics warn
that the tests will turn parents into detectives, undermining the fragile
trust essential in guiding children through the tumultuous teen-age years.

"If parents want the illusion of control, then I think they should scamper
out and buy this kit and use it," said Dr. Daniel H. Gottlieb, a family
therapist in suburban Philadelphia and an adviser to the Federal Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. "On the other hand, if
they want a good relationship with their child, they need to talk to their
child to find out what is going on in that child's life."

Teen-age use of illicit drugs has risen steadily over the past six years,
according to Monitoring the Future, a study by the University of Michigan
that has examined drug abuse among high school seniors every year since 1975.

Among the graduating class of 1992, 27.1 percent had used an illegal drug
in the year before the survey; by last year, the figure had jumped to 42.4
percent. In 1997, Nearly half of 12th graders had tried marijuana by the
time they graduated; 8.7 percent had tried cocaine; 13.6 percent had tried
LSD and 2.1 percent had tried heroin.

But those figures, while alarming, do not mean that drug dependency is
rampant among teen-agers. Dr. David T. Feinberg, a child psychiatrist and
expert in addiction at the University of California at Los Angeles,
estimates that 5 percent of American teen-agers are addicted to drugs.

Parents, he said, need to be able to tell dependency from the "normal
experimentation," that is part of the rite of passage to adulthood, a
distinction a drug test cannot make.

"Parents should not be performing medical tests on their kids," Feinberg
said. Nor, he added, should pediatricians. "The way to determine if a kid
has a drug problem is the way to determine if a kid has any problem, first
by taking a history, then a physical," Feinberg said.

Moreover, Feinberg says, the tests do not always tell the truth. Eating a
poppy seed bagel can render a urine test positive; so, too, can taking
certain over-the-counter cold remedies.

The new test marketed by Phamatech cautions parents that while a negative
result is proof that a child is not using drugs, a positive result is not
conclusive and must be confirmed by a laboratory.

"Some people have said, 'Don't you think this is like Big Brother watching
you?"' asked Carl Mongiovi, Phamatech's director of operations and
regulatory affairs. "Neither myself nor my company is interested in getting
into the family unit, telling people how to do things. But parents seem to
need some help."

Mongiovi and other proponents of the tests, including officials at the
National Parents' Resource In Drug Education, a nonprofit group based in
Atlanta, say talking with young people about drugs is hardly as easy as
Feinberg and others suggest. They argue that when parents have suspicions
that a child is using drugs, testing may be a good way -- in some cases,
the only way -- to start a truthful dialogue.

"Many parents that I have talked to feel that it is hard for them to
discuss this with their adolescents," said Dr. Herbert Kleber, medical
director of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University. "These tests can help deal with that issue, if they
are used as part of the communication between parent and child. If they are
used as a club, they are going to cause harm."

The kits come in various forms. Ms. Cloud's version, the Parents Alert Home
Drug Test Service, sells for $44.95 and includes a urine collection bottle,
a prepaid courier package to send to the lab and the toll-free number of a
drug counselor.

She says the counseling is essential. "A drug test is just a tool," she
said. "It gives you information. What most people don't know is what to do
with the information."

Phamatech's test is designed to eliminate the laboratory, as much as
possible. The company says its kit, which will cost between $25 and $35,
will tell parents in about 10 minutes if their children are free of drugs.
It is already used by employers.

For those who do not like the idea of urine tests, there is an at-home hair
analysis kit, marketed by the Psychemedics Corp., a biotechnology company
in Cambridge, Mass. Psychemedics bills the product as "designed for parents
concerned about drug abuse." The hair test costs $59.95, and has the
advantage of surprise: A parent can take a snip of hair while a child is
sleeping.

It is difficult to determine how many of these kits are sold each year;
most of the companies involved will not divulge sales figures. But Ken
Adams, the owner of Parents Home Drug Testing, a company that is doing a
brisk business selling unlicensed tests over the Internet, says he sells
1,000 kits a month.

Dr. Bruce Burlington, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological
Health at the FDA, said several companies have requested approval for tests
similar to Phamatech's.

Although Adams says his company operates in a "gray area," Bruce Burlington
of the FDA says the food and drug agency considers the sale of unlicensed
tests illegal. "We are in the process right now of weighing what actions we
should take," he said.

The companies marketing these tests advocate that parents set up a "family
drug policy." "Start when they are 11 or 12," Adams suggested. "Say that
part of the family drug policy is that there is going to be random drug
testing. That doesn't mean I don't love you and I don't trust you. It means
that this thing is too serious to take a chance."

Adams and Ms. Cloud both argue that the at-home tests can give adolescents
an easy out -- "a good excuse to say no to peer pressure," in Ms. Cloud's
words. Her son, Ron, now a 22-year-old junior at the University of Georgia,
agrees. He said he smoked his first marijuana cigarette in the eighth
grade, and by 10th grade he was smoking marijuana and taking LSD regularly.

"His grades slipped," Ms. Cloud said. "He started getting belligerent."
Cloud said that he stopped using drugs several years ago, after some "major
spiritual revelations" that began four years ago, when he was a senior in
high school. He said he had attended a concert by the heavy metal group
Nine Inch Nails, had taken LSD and "was pretty far out there."

"I felt like I was going into the depths of hell," he said. After the
concert, he went home and woke up his mother. "I told her I was sorry for
the torture I was putting her through." Subsequently, he said, he turned to
religion.

Although he initially resented the drug tests his mother forced him to
take, Cloud said that they did "play a role in putting me down a good path."

"I knew that I couldn't go out and get crazy."

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

More Anti-Medical Marijuana Research Propaganda (A bulletin
from the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies
says an opinion piece in today's New York Times by Jim McDonough
of the White House drug czar's office makes several factual
misrepresentations of Dr. Donald Abrams' medical marijuana study.)

Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 15:19:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Uzondu Jibuike (ucj@vcn.bc.ca)
To: Uzondu Jibuike (ucj@vcn.bc.ca)
Subject: More Anti-Medical Marijuana Research Propaganda (fwd: MAPS:)

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 12:38:01 EST
From: RickMAPS@aol.com
Subject: MAPS: Medical Marijuana Research

To All:

More anti-medical marijuana propaganda. The Drug Czar's office
misrepresented Dr. Donald Abrams' medical marijuana study in today's New
York Times. Donald is incensed and is planning to write a letter to the
editor and is calling the Drug Czar's office.

The article was in the Science Section, page D9. Jim McDonough, Director
of Strategy for the White House Office Drug Control Office, wrote an
opinion piece (he can't claim to have been misquoted!) in which he said,
"... Dr. Donald Abrams at UC San Francisco, who is conducting the only
accepted study, has to recruit subjects for a double blind study. But the
only thing participants can take while battling AIDS or cancer is
marijuana. Naturally, participants' willingness is limited. In one study
that compared marijuana to Marinol- the active ingredient in the marijuana
plant- patients preferred Marinol...."

First, Donald has already enrolled about 17 people in his study. He has
more than enough volunteers but is limited to testing them in two hospital
rooms equipped with special filters for the marijuana smoke. Second, the
study is limited to AIDS patients and does not include cancer patients.
Third, the study is testing for the interaction of marijuana, Marinol or
placebo with a protease inhibitor. Patients are getting the latest AIDS
treatment and are not restricted only to marijuana. Fourth, no studies in
AIDS patients have ever been done before so there is no evidence
whatesover that AIDS patients before Marinol to marijuana. As far as I
know, all the studies that compared marijuana to Marinol where in cancer
patients and were conducted about 15 years ago. In most studies, more
patients preferred marijuana than Marinol. One study in which more
patients preferred Marinol was in lung cancer patients, who you would
naturally think wouldn't want to smoke anything.

There are also other falsehoods and misleading statements in Jim
McDonough's brief article, but you get the point.

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

Justices considering drug search legalities (The Houston Chronicle
says the US Supreme Court on Monday delved into the constitutionality
of the war on some drugs by agreeing to decide whether police need a warrant
before searching a car suspected of having been used in a cocaine deal.
The case, from Florida, questions the extent to which police may examine
the automobiles they impound while investigating illegal drug activity.
While courts have upheld the right of police to seize the vehicles,
a question remains whether officers may then search them without first
getting a judge's permission.)

From: adbryan@ONRAMP.NET
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 06:07:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: ART: Justices considering drug search legalities
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Cc: editor@mapinc.org
Reply-To: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

From the 11-17-98 Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com
viewpoints@chron.com

Justices considering drug search legalities

High court to decide if police need warrants
By STEVE LASH
Copyright 1998 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday delved into the
constitutionality of the war on drugs by agreeing to decide whether
police need a warrant before searching a car suspected of having been
used in a cocaine deal.

The case, from Florida, questions the extent to which police may examine
the automobiles they impound while investigating illegal drug activity.
While courts have upheld the right of police to seize the vehicles, a
question remains whether officers may then search them without first
getting a judge's permission.

In other action, the justices let stand a lower court decision that
struck down a Cincinnati ordinance limiting campaign expenditures in
City Council elections. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the
ordinance ran afoul of the Supreme Court's 1976 ruling in Buckley vs.
Valeo that generally held campaign funding limits to be an
unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

In the Florida case, the justices will review whether police violated
the Fourth Amendment when they conducted a warrantless search of
Tyvessel White's automobile and found cocaine in an ashtray. White, who
had been arrested on an unrelated charge, was subsequently charged with
drug possession.

At his trial, White asked that the cocaine evidence be thrown out
because the police lacked a warrant when they searched his vehicle.
Police, believing the car had been used several months earlier to
deliver illegal drugs, seized the automobile after arresting White.

The trial judge permitted the warrantless search, and White was
convicted. A Florida appeals court upheld the conviction, saying the
police did not need a warrant to search the car because they had
probable cause to believe the vehicle had been used to facilitate a drug
deal.

However, the Florida Supreme Court reversed, saying the police needed a
warrant before searching a car seized under the state Contraband
Forfeiture Act, which allows law enforcement to impound cars.

In his successful request that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the state's
appeal, Florida Attorney General Robert Butterworth noted the local
federal appeals court had ruled that police do not need a warrant before
searching an impounded vehicle. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
based its ruling on Supreme Court decisions that police must be allowed
to conduct quick, warrantless searches of automobiles because cars can
be driven away in the time it would take to get approval.

Butterworth said the Florida Supreme Court decision creates the
"inherently anomalous situation" that state police need a warrant before
searching a car but that the same automobile seized for identical
reasons by federal officers may be searched without a warrant. "Such a
result cannot be permitted to stand." he added.

David Gauldin, an assistant public defender representing White, urged
the justices not to disturb the Florida Supreme Court's decision. He
said the need for police to search automobiles quickly only applies to
situations on the open road. Officers, after seizing a car, have plenty
of time to get a warrant before conducting a search, Gauldin argued.

In the campaign funding case, council members urged the Supreme Court to
hear their appeal and overturn the 6th Circuit's decision. They argued
the $140,000 limit Cincinnati places on campaign expenses removes the
"pervasive public perception" that money has corrupted local elections
and politicians.

However, John Kruse, an unsuccessful candidate for council, urged the
justices to let the 6th Circuit's decision stand. Political candidates
have a First Amendment right to spend as much as they want on their
campaigns, argued Kruse, who was joined in the case by his campaign
committee and two financial contributors to Cincinnati City Council
campaigns.

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

NPR poll on marijuana through Friday (A list subscriber urges you
to vote on a "legalization" poll sponsored on the web by National
Public Radio.)

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:33:59 -0500
Reply-To: chaseng@MINDSPRING.COM
Sender: Drug Policy Forum of Texas (DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU)
From: chaseng@MINDSPRING.COM
Subject: NPR poll on MJ thru Friday
To: DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU

Perhaps you already know. Full legalization is winning.I found this in
NYTimes this AM online.

John Chase

Marketplace, a radio feature on National Public Radio,
is conducting an online poll on medicinal marijuana.
Cast your vote at:

http://features.yahoo.com/finance/survey/

Results will be talleyed for the end of the week so act now!

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

Study finds side-effects to new anti-depressants (According to
a Canadian Press article in The Halifax Daily News, a review published
in the Canadian Medical Association Journal today says antidepressants such
as Prozac, hailed since the 1980s for having no unpleasant side-effects,
can actually cause everything from nausea and insomnia to anorexia, diarrhea,
nervousness, anxiety, and agitation. Researchers found that the newer drugs
called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are no safer or more effective
than other drugs used for treating people with severe depression.)

From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Study finds side-effects to new anti-depressants
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 08:52:08 -0800
Lines: 63
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Halifax Daily News (Canada)
Contact: letterstoeditor@hfxnews.southam.ca
Pubdate: Tuesday, November 17, 1998

Study finds side-effects to new anti-depressants

OTTAWA (CP) - Antidepressants hailed since the 1980s for having no
unpleasant side-effects can actually cause anything from nausea and
insomnia to anorexia.

In a review published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal
today, researchers report widely used antidepressants such as Prozac
can also cause diarrhea, nervousness, anxiety, and agitation.

The review, conducted by the Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health
Technology Assessment, supports anecdotal evidence of side-effects
patients have reported for years.

In a wider set of studies, the researchers found the newer drugs,
called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs, are no safer
or more effective than other drugs used for treating people with
severe depression.

That knowledge could change the way doctors and psychiatrists decide
what kind of drug to prescribe.

There's been a dramatic increase in the prescription of SSRIs over the
years because doctors felt they were safer than the older tricyclic
antidepressants, or TCAs, which produced side-effects such as
dizziness and blurred vision.

Dr. Evelinda Trindade, the lead public-health researcher for the
review, is hoping the findings help foster a discussion on alternative
therapies for people who suffer from major depression.

"(Patients) should have maybe access not only to a pill, but to a
social worker or a psychologist to see the ways of getting out of a
problem that is overwhelming them."

When SSRIs were developed, clinical trial results showed patients were
more likely to stay on them because of fewer side-effects.

But Trindade's review of results from 84 clinical trials showed all
antidepressants had some side-effects. Patients were not significantly
less likely to stop taking an SSRI drug than a TCA one, the review
also discovered.

Dr. Nicolaas Otten, director of pharmaceutical assessments at the
health-assessment office, said doctors will have to change the way
they think of SSRIs to be able to give patients the most appropriate
treatment.

The review is likely to make scientists think twice about the how to
interpret results of clinical trials that are normally conducted to
assess the effectiveness of a drug.

The majority of the clinical studies considered in this analysis are
short, between four and 12 weeks, said Otten.

In 1994-1995, the Canadian National Population Health Survey found an
estimated 6.9 per cent, or about 1.7 million Canadians, older than 12
had experienced symptoms of depression in the last two months.

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

Give A Second Chance, Says Minister (The Times, in Britain, says government
guidelines to be published tomorrow will tell educators that children who
experiment with drugs should not be expelled from school automatically,
despite some parents' desire for zero tolerance. The new guidelines, produced
in consultation with Keith Hellawell, the government's drugs czar, aim
to reduce expulsions, which have doubled in the past five years to more
than 12,000 a year in state schools.)

Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 19:49:51 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: Give A Second Chance, Says Minister
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: QC000NKH@macpo.ssd.loral.com (VanDeVooren, Craig)
Pubdate: Tue, 17 Nov 1998
Source: Times, The (UK)
Copyright: 1998 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Contact: letters@the-times.co.uk
Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/
Author: John O'Leary, Education Correspondent

GIVE A SECOND CHANCE, SAYS MINISTER

Don't Expel Drug Takers, Schools Told

CHILDREN who experiment with drugs should not be expelled from school
automatically, teachers will be told in government guidelines to be published
tomorrow.

Estelle Morris, the School Standards Minister, told independent school
headmistresses yesterday that she understood parents' desire for "zero
tolerance" , but it was often better to give a second chance to lessen
the risk of children sliding into regular usage.

In a speech to the Girls' Schools Association in Glasgow, Ms Morris
said drug takers' welfare must be balanced against the need for
punishment and the protection of the wider school community. Dealers
would normally be expelled, but many head teachers would take a
different view of "someone found with cannabis in their pockets".

The remarks were condemned immediately by a head teachers' leader.
John Dunford, general secretary of the Secondary Heads Association,
said the authority of head teachers would be undermined. "Any kind of
pressure on heads in this direction is unwelcome. There is a need to
give a very strong message to children. It is difficult enough to keep
schools out of the drugs scene," he said.

David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head
Teachers, said the advice would receive a mixed reception in schools.

The guidelines on drug education, produced in consultation with Keith
Hellawell, the Government's "drugs czar", will aim to reduce
expulsions, which have doubled in the past five years to more than
12,000 a year in state schools. They will advocate specialist
education from the age of five and use of a wider range of punishments
for drug offences.

However, Ms Morris ruled out random testing of drugtaking pupils at
state schools as a condition of continued attendance. Many independent
schools - no figures for expulsions were available - test pupils
involved with drugs, with parents' agreement, but ministers believe
legal difficulties would prove insurmountable in the state system.

Ms Morris emphasised that schools would remain free to expel even for
possession. They will still be expected to report drug takers to
police, although most such cases now result only in a caution. She
added: "There has got to be a bottom line in drug education that
taking drugs is harmful and wrong. That has always got to be the basic
message."

Ms Morris added: "Drugs are a crime but they are also a welfare
problem." Automatic expulsion could deprive children of support they
needed to break a cycle of dependency. Once young people had been
found taking drugs, it was usually too late to "sit them down and tell
them not to do it".

The guidelines will form part of the Government's effort to reduce
exclusions by a third by 2002.

Mr Dunford said head teachers would feel trapped between parents
wanting a hard line on drugs and local authorities anxious to meet
targets.

Ms Morris, who was promoted in the summer reshuffle after serving as
deputy to Stephen Byers as School Standards Minister, was seen as one
of the unsung successes of the Government's first year. She had
increased her majority in her Birmingham Yardley constituency at the
last election. She was formerly a teacher at Sydney Stringer
Comprehensive School in Coventry, and told the headmistresses that
although she was single and not a parent, she could imagine the
anxieties felt by families over drugs.

Newspapers' standard terms and conditions. To inquire about a licence
to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website.

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

[End]