-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORML Weekly Press Release (Alaska legislature limits voter-approved medical
marijuana law; Illinois adopts legislation to study hemp production;
Australian Medical Association endorses medical marijuana trials,
decriminalization for personal use; Marijuana-like drugs could treat
schizophrenia, study suggests)
From: NORMLFNDTN@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 17:29:11 EDT
Subject: NORML WPR 5/20/99 (II)
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
NORML Weekly Press Release
1001 Connecticut Ave., NW
Ste. 710
Washington, DC 20036
202-483-8751 (p)
202-483-0057 (f)
www.norml.org
foundation@norml.org
May 20, 1999
***
Alaska Legislature Limits Voter-Approved Medical Marijuana Law
May 20, 1999, Juneau, Alaska: The Legislature approved a measure
this week limiting legal protections for medical marijuana patients. The
bill, S.B. 94, amends provisions of a November initiative that legalized
the use of medical marijuana under a physician's supervision.
Alaskans for Medical Rights spokesman David Finkelstein called the
revised law unnecessary, but conceded it will still protect many bona
fide medical marijuana patients from state prosecution. "While we
opposed the involvement of the Legislature in the initiative process, the
final version of S.B. 94 will still work for patients," he said.
Finkelstein noted that grassroots opposition to the Senate bill persuaded
legislators to eliminate some of its most restrictive provisions.
Senate Bill 94 removes legal protections for medical marijuana
patients who refuse to register with the state health department, or who
possess greater amounts of marijuana than authorized by state law. The
state's present medical marijuana law, approved by 58 percent of voters,
affords a legal defense to non-registered patients and those who can
demonstrate adequate need to possess large quantities of medical
marijuana.
The Department of Health and Social Services will approve regulations
next month to begin licensing qualified medical marijuana patients.
Senate Bill 94 includes a $58,000 appropriation to fund the confidential
patient registry program.
Provisions requiring physicians to certify that "there are no other
legal treatments that can be tolerated by the patient that are as
effective" as marijuana, and limiting the types of diseases that
marijuana may legally treat, were eliminated from S.B. 94. The bill also
includes language allowing nurse practitioners and physician's assistants
to legally recommend marijuana to a patient.
Governor Tony Knowles (D) is expected to sign the bill shortly.
For more information, please contact either R. Keith Stroup, Esq. of
NORML @ (202) 483-5500 or David Finkelstein of Alaskans for Medical
Rights @ (907) 277-2567. To download a copy of S.B. 94, please visit:
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis21.htm.
***
Illinois Adopts Legislation To Study Hemp Production
May 20, 1999, Springfield, IL: The Illinois House approved a
resolution yesterday allowing university researchers to study the
economic viability of industrial hemp. The Senate had already approved a
similar resolution, S.R. 49, on March 23, 1999.
"Hemp is a profitable economic crop in Western Europe and Canada,"
NORML Executive Director R. Keith Stroup, Esq. said. "There is no doubt
that this study will find it potentially profitable for Illinois farmers
as well."
House Resolution 168 authorizes a 13-member task force to investigate
hemp's economic potential as a cash crop, and identify legal obstacles to
production. The committee will report its findings to the Legislature by
January 1, 2000.
A handful of Legislatures have approved state-sponsored hemp research
studies since 1996. The most recent study, prepared by North Dakota
State University, estimates that hemp could yield profits as high as $141
per acre to farmers. North Dakota became the first state to legalize
domestic hemp production last month.
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre of The NORML
Foundation @ (202) 483-8751 or NORML board member Don Wirtshafter of The
Ohio Hempery @ (740) 662-4367. To download a copy of the Illinois
resolutions, please visit: http://www.legis.state.il.us/.
***
Australian Medical Association Endorses Medical Marijuana Trials,
Decriminalization For Personal Use
May 20, 1999, Sidney, New South Wales: The government should make
marijuana available as a medicine to seriously ill patients, and remove
criminal penalties for the possession of small amounts of marijuana, the
Australian Medical Association (AMA) declared recently. They said that
drugs should be treated as a health issue, not as a criminal matter.
"The Australian Medical Association is the latest group to join a
worldwide coalition of health organizations calling for legal access to
medical marijuana and an end to prohibition," NORML Foundation Executive
Director Allen St. Pierre said.
The AMA's position statement regarding decriminalization states,
"Prison sentences are ... inappropriate for offenses related to the use,
or possession for personal use, of small amounts of cannabis."
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre or Paul
Armentano of The NORML Foundation @ (202) 483-8751. To view a listing of
health organizations supporting access to medical marijuana, please
visit: http://www.norml.org/medical/mjorgs.html. To read the AMA's
position statement, please visit: http://domino.ama.com.au.
***
Marijuana-Like Drugs Could Treat Schizophrenia, Study Suggests
May 20, 1999, Irvine, CA: A marijuana-like chemical produced
naturally in the brain appears in higher levels in schizophrenics, a
recent study of ten mentally ill patients revealed. Researchers at the
University of California, Irvine, speculated that the body may be
producing higher amounts of the chemical, called anandamide, to fight the
disease, the Orange County Register reported.
"Our findings of high levels of anandamide in these patients does
indicate that [it] plays an important role in the development of the
disease," Daniele Piomelli, an associate professor of pharmacology at
UCI, said. He noted that "many schizophrenics smoke marijuana and claim
it eases some of their symptoms."
Previous research at UCI found that the brain's nerve cells use
anandamide to modify the effects of the neurotransmitter dopamine, which
is responsible for stimulating movement and other behavior. Scientists
believe that excessive dopamine production causes some symptoms of
schizophrenia, which affects one percent of the population. Current
medication for schizophrenia block dopamine production, but are not
always effective and have side effects.
"The idea is to develop novel medicines that use marijuana as a
model," Piomelli said. "We want to activate some of the cannabinoid
receptors in the brain without producing the high. ... By understanding
how the anandamide system works similarly to marijuana, we can explore
ways to treat [schizophrenia and other] diseases more effectively."
Piomelli's said he hopes to expand his study to 200 patients, but
warned that anandamide's effects on schizophrenia are still not well
understood.
His findings will appear in next month's issue of the journal, Neuroreport.
For more information, please contact Drs. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard
Medical School @ (617) 277-3621 or John P. Morgan of the City University
of New York (CUNY) Medical School @ (212) 650-8255.
- END -
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill would privatize state's new prison (The Oregonian says a group of
Republican state senators led by Eileen Qutub, R-Beaverton, who call the
Oregon Department of Corrections a monopoly, is pushing SB 1247, which would
require the next men's medium-security prison be built and operated by a
private company. The Republican majority probably will allow the bill to
clear both houses, but it faces strong resistance from Gov. John "Prisons"
Kitzhaber and from labor unions representing the state's corrections
employees.)
Newshawk: Portland NORML (http://www.pdxnorml.org/)
Pubdate: Thu, May 20, 1999
Source: Oregonian, The (OR)
Copyright: 1999 The Oregonian
Contact: letters@news.oregonian.com
Address: 1320 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201
Fax: 503-294-4193
Website: http://www.oregonlive.com/
Forum: http://forums.oregonlive.com/
Author: Michelle Roberts, the Oregonian
Bill would privatize state's new prison
* Advocates say the legislation would create competition and hold the
current corrections system more accountable
Calling the Oregon Department of Corrections a monopoly, a group of
Republican senators is pushing a bill that would require the next men's
medium-security prison be built and operated by a private company.
Sen. Eileen Qutub, R-Beaverton, the bill's chief sponsor, said privatization
is needed to hold the Department of Corrections more accountable and to
create competition in a prison system bruised by a construction audit
released in March.
The audit flagged more than $4 million in questionable payments made to
contractors during the expansion of the Snake River Correctional Institution
in Eastern Oregon.
"There have been some audits that say the Department of Corrections needs
lessons in contracting," Qutub said. "This isn't to say the DOC is bad, but
I think they would find more efficiencies if they had more competition."
But opponents of Senate Bill 1247 have attacked the idea, saying private
prisons are unsafe for communities and for inmates because efficiency -- not
safety -- is their primary goal.
"I think it's bad public policy," said Rep. JoAnn Bowman, D-Portland.
"Whenever we start developing a profit motive for corrections, we're headed
down a bad path."
Senate Bill 1247 passed 4-0 in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, but
the panel's three Democrats were absent for the vote.
Lawmakers said the Republican majority probably will allow the bill to clear
both houses, but it faces strong resistance from Gov. John Kitzhaber and
from labor unions representing the state's corrections employees.
"Our corrections workers do an extremely good job, and we think they do it
in a cost-effective way," said Steve Marks, the governor's chief aide on
prison issues. "We wouldn't be excited about doing anything that would
threaten that good working relationship."
Qutub said she was sold on the idea of private prisons when she learned they
cost up to 25 percent less to operate than their state-run counterparts.
She also cited a study that showed privately constructed facilities took
less than half of the time to build for only 60 percent of the cost. The
report was released by the Reason Public Policy Institute, a Los
Angeles-based research center that promotes privatization.
"This study cinched it for me," Qutub said. "And I think we can accrue more
savings by ridding ourselves of a monopoly."
Mary Botkin, a union representative for the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, said private prisons can operate at a lower
cost because they skimp on training and wages for their corrections officers
and support personnel.
She said prison privatization would drive down wages for Oregon corrections
employees, creating hardships for those who live in rural communities that
depend on family-wage jobs.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Neil Bryant, R-Bend, said wages
between state and private prison employees are comparable, but acknowledged
that private employees probably would receive fewer fringe benefits.
The nation's 120 private prisons, spread across 27 states, house about
120,000 inmates at all security levels. Oregon has shipped inmates out of
state in the past to ease crowding at state facilities, but stopped the
practice earlier this year.
Opponents of private prisons have been quick to point to allegations of
abuse and mismanagement.
"It makes me very nervous to put another person's liberty in the hands of a
company that has a duty to shareholders for a profit," said Alison Hardy, a
staff attorney for the Oregon Law Center.
And last week, a group of Oregon corrections workers calling themselves the
Concerned Oregon Citizens Alliance took out a newspaper advertisement
condemning private prisons and SB1247.
"Don't let the politicians sell Oregon's Public Prison System to the lowest
bidder," the advertisement stated. It urged readers to call their senators
directly to oppose the bill and warned that "private prison firms have
placed thousands of lives at risk in other states."
The corrections workers' ad cited violent prison riots at private facilities
in Ohio and brutality against inmates in Texas, and claimed that "inmates
were returned to Oregon pregnant."
The incidents in Texas and Ohio occurred, but corrections officials said no
women prisoners were returned to Oregon pregnant.
Two women inmates complained of sexual abuse by prison employees at a
private prison in Arizona, said corrections spokeswoman Perrin Damon, but
the department could not substantiate those allegations. Rather, the
department confirmed sexual misconduct by inmates and prison employees, she
said.
Department of Corrections Director David S. Cook said he isn't offended by
legislators' attempts make the department more accountable.
"I agree with that concept, and raising the standards of all involved. Our
experience (with private prisons) has been generally OK," he said, "but with
enough negative experiences to sour us on the belief that a private company
would deliver what they would commit to."
You can reach Michelle Roberts at 503-294-5041 or by e-mail at
Michelleroberts@news.oregonian.com.
***
Senate Bill 1247
The issue: Would require the next medium-security men's prison in Oregon be
built and operated by a private company.
The status: Approved 4-0 by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The players: Supporters: Sen. Eileen Qutub, R-Beaverton, 986-1704; Sen. Neil
Bryant, R-Bend, 986-1727. Opponents, Mary Botkin, American Federation of
State, County & Municipal Employees, 239-9858.
What's next: Sent to the Joint Ways and Means Committee for hearing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Breakthrough Against Schizophrenia? (A staff editorial in the Orange County
Register finds potentially profound possibilities in the recently reported
research of Daniele Poimelli at the University of California in Irvine, who
discovered dramatically elevated levels of anandamide in the cerebrospinal
fluid of schizophrenia patients. The higher levels could mean the body
produces extra anandamide to cope with or to mediate excess dopamine
production. Mr. Piomelli and his team discovered some time ago that
anandamide "puts the brakes" on dopamine in the brain, and researchers have
long believed that excessive dopamine activity is associated with
schizophrenia. While the newspaper notes some patients report symptomatic
relief from smoking marijuana, it conveys Mr. Piomelli's warning that "it is
not uncommon" for schizophrenics who begin smoking marijuana to "continue in
a heavy binge-like fashion until a psychotic episode comes on."
Unfortunately, neither the newspaper nor Mr. Piomelli note psychotic episodes
are symptomatic of the disease, not cannabis use, which may alleviate
other symptoms for such patients. Neither says what proportion of
schizophrenics who use cannabis experiences such a syndrome, nor do they seem
to realize that patients who find cannabis effective at preventing psychotic
episodes won't be showing up in clinical settings.)
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 13:09:51 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: A Breakthrough Against Schizophrenia?
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John W.Black
Pubdate: Thurs, 20 May 1999
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Copyright: 1999 The Orange County Register
Contact: letters@link.freedom.com
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
A BREAKTHROUGH AGAINST SCHIZOPHRENIA?
It would be a mistake, as Daniele Poimelli, one of the principal researchers
in this work at the University of California, Irvine, reminded us Wednesday,
to read too much into this preliminary finding or to expect a miracle cure.
But the discovery of elevated levels of anandamide, a chemical produced in
the body that acts in a fashion similar to cannabis, in the cerebrospinal
fluid of schizophrenic patients could point the way toward more effective
and less dangerous treatments for schizophrenia and other mental disorders.
We're dealing with hypotheses here, and as Mr. Piomelli was quick to remind
us, in science most hypotheses turn out to be false or at least to require
substantial refinement. But here's why this research is so interesting.
In 1988, as the recent Institute of Medicine report on medical marijuana
pointed out, researchers discovered cannabinoid receptors in the human
brain - proteins that naturally bind to cannabinoids like THC, the
best-understood active ingredient in marijuana. In 1992 researchers
discovered anandamides - a naturally occurring substance produced in the
body (thus endogenous) that acts on cannabinoid receptors in a similar way
to THC.
It is believed that anandamide and the cannabinoid receptors are involved in
pain control, motion control and the immune system, but research is in its
infancy. Mr. Piomelli and his team at UC Irvine discovered some time ago
that anandamide "puts the brakes" on dopamine in the brain. Researchers have
long believed that excessive dopamine activity is associated with
schizophrenia.
So Mr. Piomelli's team studied 10 schizophrenic patients against a control
group and found dramatically elevated levels of anandamide. That could mean
the body has produced extra anandamide to cope with or to mediate excess
dopamine production. The implication is that if a drug could inject
anandamide or stimulate anandamide production it might be more effective
than dopamine blocking drugs used for 40 years to treat schizophrenia. Some
current treatments have horrendous side effects as well.
Whether that research pans out or not, the research now points to the
endogenous cannabinoid system as a hopeful locus of treatment not only for
schizophrenia but for other forms of psychosis.
That doesn't mean schizophrenics should start smoking marijuana. In fact,
while some patients report symptomatic relief from smoking, Mr. Piomelli
warns that it is not uncommon for schizophrenics who begin smoking marijuana
to continue in a heavy binge-like fashion until a psychotic episode comes
on.
But marijuana-like compounds, or perhaps compounds found in marijuana, could
eventually be a key to more effective treatment for schizophrenia. "The
idea," as Mr. Piomelli put it, "is to develop novel medicines that use
marijuana as a model - without the side effects. We want to activate some of
the cannabinoid receptors in the brain without producing the high, the loss
of memory and the lack of motor coordination."
This research highlights the importance of changing the legal status of
marijuana as quickly as possible. California and five other states have
passed laws allowing the use of marijuana by patients with a doctor's
recommendation.
But at the federal level, marijuana remains - inappropriately and probably
illegally - on Schedule I, reserved for uniquely dangerous drugs with no
known medical uses.
Only the federal government can legally supply the plant for medical
research projects, and it has done so only rarely.
As the Institute of Medicine report and the UC Irvine studies suggest,
cannabis has medical potential. Further research could help a variety of
very ill people.
***
[Portland NORML would suggest the use of the phrase "binge-like" is
prejudicial. Even if a patient felt like he or she had to smoke pot all
day long in order to stay sane, staying sane is the opposite of engaging
in "binge-like" behavior. "Binge-like" behavior may be annoying, but
probably preferable to the antics of a schizophrenic experiencing a psychotic
episode. Are people hooked up to a dialysis machine all day long "binging"?
It may be that research will ultimately lead to new medications that are
better than marijuana and benefit a much larger proportion of patients. But
the implication of this article, that cannabis is contraindicated for all
schizophrenia patients, just re-states the drug-warrior party line about
medical marijuana - that the herb is bad but drugs derived from it or
synthesized from it may be good. For more details, see "Psychoses, Adverse
Reactions, and Personality Deterioration," Chapter 10 in the book,
"Marihuana Reconsidered," by Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard Medical School.]
***
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 23:41:49 -0600 (MDT)
From: bryan krumm (krummb@unm.edu)
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Re: CA: Editorial: A Breakthrough Against Schizophrenia?
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
Having worked in psychiatric medicine for the last 10 years, I have have
spoken with numerous persons who suffer from schizophrenia who obtain
releif from their symptoms by using marijuana. However, it appears to be a
double edge sword because I have been told by some that marijuana can
sometimes exacerbate their symptoms, particularly with strong strains of
marijuana. Cannabidiol has been been shown to possess antipsychotic
properties and it is believed that schizophrenia may be related, at least
in part, to a dysfunction of the endogenous cannabinoid system. My best
guess is that overstimulation of CB1 receptors leads to many of the
symptoms seen in schizophrenia and smoking marijuana that is higher in CB2
receptor agonists, such as cannabidiol, which acts as an antagonist at the
CB1 receptor, helps decrease the stimulation of CB1 receptors and thus
leads to decreased symptoms.
Bryan
***
Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 07:01:38 -0700
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Arthur Livermore (alive@pacifier.com)
Subject: Re: FW: Australia: LTE: Drug Report Very Dangerous
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org
There are many unanswered questions about the etiology of schizophrenia.
During the 1970's, Dr. Janice R. Stevens and I studied the neurophysiology
of schizophrenia. When a psychiatrist dogmatically denies the utility of
cannabis in the management of schizophrenia, I know that they have simply
expressed their belief. When they say they are "appalled" that anyone
diagnosed with schizophrenia would use marijuana to treat their illness, I
know that they are unwilling to discuss the science rationally.
I hope psychiatrists will listen to reason instead of fanning the flames of
drug war hysteria.
Sincerely,
Arthur Livermore
At 04:26 PM 5/23/99 +1000, Ken Russell wrote:
>Pubdate: Fri, 21 May 1999
>Source: Age, The (Australia)
>Author: Dr David Grounds
>
>DRUG REPORT VERY DANGEROUS
[Snipped to avoid duplication. Please follow link. - ed.]
Arthur Livermore, Director
Falcon Cove Biology Laboratory
44500 Tide Avenue
Arch Cape, OR 97102
503-436-1882
alive@pacifier.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
George W. Bush Jr. Lashes Out At Parody Website (A news release, apparently
from RTMARK, a group that specializes in calling attention to corporate
subversion of the U.S. political process, recounts the efforts of the
probable Republican presidential candidate to shut down a rogue web site
maintained by RTMARK and Zack Exley that parodies Bush's official web site
and discusses his alleged past cocaine use. Exley, a computer consultant to
the Boston financial sector who describes himself as "a Christian who
loathes hypocrisy," is incensed that "Bush won't deny he used cocaine, yet
hundreds of thousands of people are serving very long sentences for
equivalent or lesser crimes, including many in Texas," where Bush is
governor. "Clinton just got away with perjury while a hundred people are in
jail for that crime. Do we want our children to learn that a crime is only a
crime if you don't have power?" In a case that may set a disturbing legal
precedent in the area of free speech on the internet, Bush filed a complaint
May 3 with the Federal Elections Commission, asserting that Exley violated
the law by not registering as a political committee, citing gwbush.com's
"fair market value" as evidence that Exley has exceeded the $1,000 threshold
that defines a political committee under election law.)
From: "David Crockett Williams" (gear2000@lightspeed.net)
To: "CIA-Drugs List" (Cia-drugs@onelist.com),
"InTheShadows" (intheshadows@onelist.com),
"CTRL" (CTRL@LISTSERV.AOL.COM),
"Friends of Free Cannabis" (friends@freecannabis.org),
"Drug Policy Foundation list" (dpfca@drugsense.org),
"South Central egroup" (south-central@egroups.com),
"BayAreaActivistList" (bay_area_activist@onelist.com),
"FoodNotBombs List" (fnb-l@tao.ca)
Subject: DPFCA: Fw: GEORGE W. BUSH JR. LASHES OUT AT PARODY WEBSITE
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:07:44 -0700
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
Give 'em heck! Fax and phone numbers for comments to Bush's attorney listed
below. Bush refuses to acknowledge his cocaine use. With proper promotion
this could have far reaching effects towards ending the drug war but I bet
it
wasn't crack. I am forwarding this separately to my partial list of
national and Bay area media. Please forward to relevant lists that you may
be on that are not shown above.
-----Original Message-----
Date: Thursday, May 20, 1999 8:06 AM
Subject: GEORGE W. BUSH JR. LASHES OUT AT PARODY WEBSITE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 20, 1999
GEORGE W. BUSH JR. LASHES OUT AT PARODY WEBSITE
Bush learns about internet a moment too late
Contact: Ray Thomas (mailto:bushinfo@rtmark.com)
Zack Exley (mailto:zackexley@yahoo.com)
Bush attorney Benjamin Ginsberg
(202-457-6405, fax 202-457-6315)
URLs: http://www.gwbush.com/, http://rtmark.com/gwbush.com,
http://www.georgewbush.com
Bush letter to F.E.C., etc.: http://rtmark.com/bush.html
Each week, thousands of people seeking information on probable Republican
presidential candidate George W. Bush, Jr. type "gwbush" into their web
browsers and end up at http://www.gwbush.com/.
Bush has tried hard for weeks to shut down the rogue site, which parodies Bush's
official http://www.georgewbush.com/ and discusses his past cocaine use, as
well as parodying U.S. politics in general. Bush's legal efforts began April
14 with a cease-and-desist letter claiming that gwbush.com violated copyright
laws. Shortly thereafter, on May 10, Time Magazine reported that the Bush
campaign had just purchased sixty additional domain names, including
bushbites.com and bushsux.org, in an apparent attempt at damage control.
Bush's most recent effort is a complaint filed with the Federal Election
Commission that may have widespread implications for free speech on the
internet.
gwbush.com is owned by Zack Exley, a Boston computer consultant. Most of the
content on the website was provided by RTMARK, a group that specializes in
calling attention to corporate subversion of the U.S. political and electoral
process. gwbush.com is listed as an unofficial Bush campaign site in Yahoo!
and elsewhere.
Bush's latest legal effort against gwbush.com, a complaint filed May 3 with
the Federal Elections Commission, asserts that Exley has violated election
laws by not registering as a political committee, and urges that the site's
"fair market value" puts the endeavor well over the $1000 threshold that
defines a political committee under election law. (At one point, Bush's
counsel had asked Exley at what price he would sell his domains, which also
include gwbush.org and gbush.org; Exley quoted $350,000.)
The F.E.C. case may set a legal precedent in the area of internet speech in
electoral campaigns. One F.E.C. employee, who preferred not to be
identified, said the commission has recently established a "special inquiry
committee" to discuss possible regulation of sites such as gwbush.com.
"George W. Bush Jr. apparently thinks small-time folk should have to register
with the government before exercising free speech on the internet," said Rita
Mae Rakoczi, a lawyer and RTMARK representative. "The implications of such a
precedent could be quite serious."
RTMARK and Mr. Exley represent the unlikely kind of collaboration the
internet makes possible. Mr. Exley is a computer consultant to the Boston
financial sector, and describes himself as "a Christian who loathes
hypocrisy." RTMARK is primarily devoted to anti-corporate activism, and
counts the very companies that Mr. Exley works for as some of its targets.
By reserving the domain names, Exley initially hoped to sell them back to the
Bush camp for a small profit. That changed, however, when he read news
articles that discussed Bush's refusal to deny past cocaine use. His interest
in the matter has since escalated into something of a crusade. "Bush won't
deny he used cocaine, yet hundreds of thousands of people are serving very
long sentences for equivalent or lesser crimes, including many in Texas
[where Bush is governor]. Clinton just got away with perjury while a hundred
people are in jail for that crime. Do we want our children to learn that a
crime is only a crime if you don't have power?"
Exley first invited RTMARK to provide content for gwbush.com after hearing
about their "franchise" program, in which the group provides a tailor-made
thematic website to anyone with an appropriate domain. According to RTMARK
spokesperson Ray Thomas, "Bush himself was originally a secondary issue for
us. We just wanted to use gwbush.com as a platform to make various points
about how corporations have subverted and sabotaged the political and
electoral process, and hoped it could illustrate the low level to which
campaigning has sunk. The more Bush has tried to get in our way, however, the
more we've chosen to make the site a direct attack on his 'stealth'
presidential campaign, and the worse that makes it for Bush." (RTMARK's first
version of gwbush.com is now archived at http://rtmark.com/gwbush.com/.)
While the controversy surrounding http://www.gwbush.com/ represents the first
time RTMARK has been drawn into political conflict, clumsy legal actions are
nothing new to RTMARK. In April of last year, for example, Geffen and BMG
Music wrote RTMARK and Illegal Art letters demanding they cease distribution
of Deconstructing Beck, a CD of music made entirely from samples of Beck
recordings. Those letters (posted at http://rtmark.com/lawletters.html)
helped RTMARK draw widespread attention to issues of fair use and copyright
law with what had begun as an obscure release with a very limited audience.
The full text of the Bush lawyer's letter to the F.E.C., his cease-and-desist
letter, and other materials can be found at http://rtmark.com/bush.html. The
pages of http://www.gwbush.com/ that deal specifically with Bush's cocaine
use can be found at http://www.gwbush.com/bushpramnesty.html and
http://www.gwbush.com/bushq3.html. For more on Bush's domain-name buying
frenzy, see http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/990513/bn8.html.
RTMARK (http://rtmark.com/) uses its limited liability as a corporation to
sponsor the sabotage of mass-produced products. One of RTMARK's ultimate aims
is to eliminate the principle of limited liability. Occasionally, as with
http://www.gwbush.com/, RTMARK participates in advocacy directly related to
issues of corporate abuses of the political process.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fighting the drug war (The Dallas Morning News says the American Drivers
Association, a national truck drivers' group based in Longview, Texas, with
86,000 members, has begun a billboard campaign advising I-20 motorists
headed into East Texas from Louisiana to "just say no" when police officers
ask to search their cars and trucks for drugs. J.D. Davis of the association
said Texas police conducted an estimated 110,000 vehicle searches in 1998.
About 1,000 of those searches, or less than 1 percent, yielded illegal drugs,
he said. "It's clear the vast majority of these searches occur when the
officer doesn't like your looks or you might argue about the traffic
violation," he said. The goal, said Davis, is to place a billboard on every
Texas interstate by year's end.)
From: Swftl@aol.com
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 15:55:21 EDT
Subject: [cp] Fwd: Just Say ' No! '
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 13:32:45 -0500
Reply-To: John Wallace (JWallace@KARTA.COM)
Sender: Drug Policy Forum of Texas (DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU)
From: John Wallace (JWallace@KARTA.COM)
Subject: Just Say No!
Comments: To: dpft-l@tamu.edu
To: DPFT-L@TAMU.EDU
from today's Dallas Morning News
05/20/99
Fighting the drug war
Truckers association urges travelers to reject officers' requests to search
vehicles
By Scott Parks
The Dallas Morning News
A national truck drivers association has begun a billboard campaign
advisingI-20 travelers headed into East Texas from Louisiana to "just say
no" when police officers ask to search their cars and trucks for drugs.
An association spokesman said the campaign was inspired by a West Texas
lawyer who erected a similar billboard last year when an Abilene-based
drugtask force began searching vehicles during traffic stops.
J.D. Davis, founding director of the American Drivers Association
inLongview, said the billboard was put up two weeks ago along Interstate
20.Westbound travelers can't miss the brightly colored sign that says,
"Justsay no to Vehicle Searches. Protecting your rights. American
DriversAssociation."
The message includes the association's phone number. Callers are advised
totape-record their traffic-stop encounters and to refuse officers' request
tosearch their vehicles. Mr. Davis said he began the campaign after several
association memberscomplained about state troopers searching their trucks
for no apparentreason during traffic stops.
"We believe these are retaliatory searches, and they're done because
someonedoesn't just say 'yes sir' and 'no sir' or they have the audacity to
tellthe officer they don't believe they were speeding," said Mr. Davis,
whosegroup counts 86,000 members.
"Our members are like most people," he said. "They don't know they have
aconstitutional right to say no when an officer asks to search."
Mike Cox, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety in
Austin,declined to comment on the campaign.
"We don't want to accuse anybody of meddling," he said. "It's anybody'sright
to put their opinion on a sign."
Mr. Cox said a trooper needs one of two things to search a vehicle for
drugsduring a routine traffic stop: the driver's permission or probable
cause tobelieve a crime is being committed.
"Our troopers are highly trained, and they won't do anything contrary to
thelaw or DPS policy," Mr. Cox said. "A person always has the ability to say
noto a search if the officer doesn't have probable cause."
Mr. Cox said state troopers have made an impressive number of drug
bustsduring roadside traffic stops. Last year, troopers confiscated 21 tons
ofmarijuana and 2,600 pounds of cocaine during traffic stops on
Texashighways, Mr. Cox said.
"That translates into $48 million worth of illegal drugs taken off
thestreets," he said. "We think we are doing good things for Texas and
thenation in general."
Mr. Davis said truckers support drug enforcement, but many doubt
thatroadside searches are an effective tool. He said Texas police
agenciesconducted an estimated 110,000 vehicle searches in 1998. About 1,000
ofthose searches, or less than 1 percent, yielded illegal drugs, he said.
"It's clear the vast majority of these searches occur when the
officerdoesn't like your looks or you might argue about the traffic
violation," hes aid.
Mr. Davis said he believes state troopers should advise motorists they
areentitled under the Fourth Amendment to refuse a search request, but
legalexperts say officers have no such obligation.
Ted Wilson, a criminal law expert in Houston, said officers who lackprobable
cause cannot legally pressure a travelers into a consensual searchby
threatening to detain them while they get a warrant from a magistrate.
"The law says you cannot coerce someone into allowing a search," he
said."Once the officer [without probable cause] is told no, it's over."
Mr. Davis said association members and volunteer lawyers are financing
the"just say no" campaign. He said the next billboard will go up on
Interstate45 between Houston and Dallas. The goal, he said, is to place the
message onevery Texas interstate by year's end.
Pat Barber, a West Texas lawyer, erected the first "just say no"
billboardlast summer on his Mitchell County ranch adjacent to I-20.
Two weeks after Mr. Barber's billboard went up, the Texas Department
ofTransportation accused him of violating state and federal sign regulations.
He responded by suing the state agency for attempting to violate his
freedomof speech. The lawsuit is pending in state district court in Austin.
Mr. Davis read about Mr. Barber and latched onto the billboard campaign.
"We're always looking for ways to educate our members, and this was
amarvelous way to get the word out," he said.
Mr. Barber said he's happy he inspired the campaign.
"I just don't believe people want a Third World police state," he said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
How The Media Muzzles The Marijuana Message (Hartford Advocate columnist
Michael Marciano says MTV refuses to discuss its policy of censoring
marijuana-related imagery in its music videos. On the TV screen, rap star
Snoop Doggy Dogg sits in the driver's seat, toting a bottle wrapped in a
paper bag. As the song's lyrics go, the rapper is "rolling down the street,
smokin' Indo, sippin' on gin and juice," - or at least that's what he says on
the CD. On TV, the word "Indo", aka Indonesian weed, has been deleted. Yes,
Snoop and his buddies can drink and drive on MTV, but what they're smoking is
as taboo as a naked crotch shot. There are hundreds of instances in which MTV
has enforced a policy of censoring marijuana references. Guns, gangsters and
prostitutes are still acceptable, of course.)
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:51:18 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CT: How The Media Muzzles The Marijuana Message
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Mike Gogulski
Pubdate: 20 May 1999
Source: Hartford Advocate (CT)
Copyright: 1999 New Mass. Media, Inc.
Contact: editor@hartfordadvocate.com
Website: http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/
Author: Michael Marciano
HOW THE MEDIA MUZZLES THE MARIJUANA MESSAGE
On the TV screen, rap star Snoop Doggy Dogg sits in the driver's seat,
toting a bottle wrapped in a paper bag. As the song's lyrics go, the rapper
is "rolling down the street, smokin' Indo, sippin' on gin and juice," -- or
at least that's what he says on the CD. On TV, the word "Indo", aka
Indonesian weed, has been deleted from the track -- this as members of
Snoop's entourage pass cups around the car for alcohol refills.
Yes, Snoop and his buddies can drink and drive on MTV, but what they're
smoking is as taboo as a naked crotch shot. And this censorship is just one
of hundreds of instances in which MTV has enforced a policy -- which
includes blurring out any images of pot leaves and requiring artists to
submit censored tracks -- to exclude any and all marijuana references. Guns,
gangsters and prostitutes are still acceptable, of course.
Although contacted numerous times over the past several weeks, MTV has
refused to discuss its policy to censor weed-related imagery. A spokesman
for the network could only say last week that MTV does not show "drug use"
of any kind, but could offer no explanation for the fact that Snoop's
drinking and driving doesn't seem to pose a problem for the network.
The censorship of "Gin and Juice" is just one of many examples of MTV's
drug-related hypocrisy. Ostensibly a barometer of musical and youth culture,
the Viacom-owned network considers something as benign as a pot leaf logo on
a hat or shirt off limits, but when Spring Break rolls around, images of
college kids abusing alcohol and stumbling in the streets are commonplace on
the boob tube channel.
"I think it is unfortunate," says Steven Duke, a professor of law at Yale
University and recognized expert on drug policy. "Presumably many of these
college kids are underage, and in that case you can't distinguish between a
legal and an illegal drug -- both alcohol and marijuana are illegal if
you're under 21. And as for drugs there is no doubt that alcohol is a more
damaging drug than marijuana."
Ironically, MTV's anti-marijuana policy violates one of the key values --
i.e. freedom of expression -- associated with the popular music it promotes.
"MTV is a private organization, so I don't think it's a case of government
censorship," says Duke. "Basically one of the reasons alcohol and tobacco get
treated that way is because the industry is domestic and powerful. In other
words, when you're a broadcaster and you go against the alcohol or tobacco
lobbyists, you're risking losing a lot of money. The alcohol industry in
particular supports the ad campaigns against marijuana because they realize
that they're in competition. There's a clear competition between alcohol and
marijuana."
Duke says the networks are caught between a rock and a hard place. "If you
say anything about marijuana being an acceptable drug or depict normal
people enjoying marijuana, you're going to get the government down on your
head," he says. "There's no real point -- unless you want to go on a crusade
-- in saying anything positive about marijuana."
But MTV's choice to censor rather than just ignore pot images and lyrics
may, ironically, call more attention to pot, rather than veil it. "I suppose
one of the things that censorship might accomplish is to make it more
interesting to young people," says Lynn Zimmer, an associate professor of
sociology at Queens College in New York. "If someone cares enough about
something to censor it, it must be important. And I think for kids who know
that's what's happening, it may actually give a bit more glamour to
marijuana. It is interesting that the issues of demonization and
glorification seem to go together."
Not that the popular media's perpetuation of marijuana disinformation is
anything new, Zimmer adds. "In my class today I showed some of the Reefer
Madness clips from the 1930s, and the students thought they were pretty
amusing," she says. "Not many people believe any more that marijuana causes
crime and insanity. So the myths change with the times. They almost never go
away, and they certainly haven't done any good. It certainly hasn't stopped
marijuana use."
Michael Marciano
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pot Politics (An insightful and well-researched article in the Hartford
Advocate about the drug-policy-reform movement in the United States says
there are now more than 400 reform groups, about 350 of which were
established in the last decade in response to the government's escalating war
on some drug users. Some view the myriad agendas and lack of unity as
necessary, others as depleting the movement's strength and focus. The drug
policy reform movement didn't start out as a mix of pot smokers and policy
wonks. It started as a coalition of doctors and lawyers. Abolitionists,
women's suffragists, and Gandhi's satyagrahi were even more divided than drug
policy reformers, but accomplished more. According to Nora Callahan of
Washington state, the founder of the November Coalition, which advocates for
the families of drug-war prisoners, when she talks to her brother in jail, he
says prisoners find hope in the very fact that so many people are challenging
drug policies from so many different angles. "It's a huge brick wall, should
we be barreling into the same spot?" Callahan asks, "Or should it come down
brick by brick?")
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:51:19 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CT: Pot Politics
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Mike Gogulski
Pubdate: 20 May 1999
Source: Hartford Advocate (CT)
Copyright: 1999 New Mass. Media, Inc.
Contact: editor@hartfordadvocate.com
Website: http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/
Author: Ken Krayeske
POT POLITICS
Or "Dude, Where's The Grassroots Party At?"
Will Disjointed Drug Reformers Burn Themselves Out?
The hundreds of groups that form the drug policy reform movement nationwide
seem to have taken their political cues from Monty Python's Life of Brian.
While the organized resistance to America's official war on drugs is not a
comedy set in Christ's Jerusalem, a look inside the movement reveals
reformers doing exactly what makes Life of Brian so hilarious: adopting
acronyms, holding meetings, bickering over trivialities and espousing
conflicting political stances while the enemy runs roughshod.
Yes, Connecticut's drug reform movement certainly has its equivalents of the
Popular People's Front, People's Front of Judea and Popular People's Front
of Judea:
Three years ago Cliff Thornton left his $70,000 a year job in middle
management at the phone company to start Efficacy, a non-profit organization
dedicated to ending the war on drugs. He and his wife, Maggie, work out of
their Windsor home full-time, telling anyone who will listen that rather
than enforcing antiquated and unjust prohibitions, the common sense answer is
legalization and regulation of marijuana, and the medicalization of hard
substances such as cocaine and heroin.
Mike Gogulski of Hamden juggles his 9-to-5 job at a computer firm with his
passion for stopping the madness of prohibition. Gogulski considered joining
Efficacy, but instead in January, he and a few others formed the Connecticut
Cannabis Policy Forum. Their mission is to remove all penalties for
marijuana consumption by adults in Connecticut.
Former state legislator and four-time mayor Bill Collins of Norwalk sparked
up A Better Way in 1994 to lobby for legislative change in drug policy. In
1995, he pushed for the Connecticut Law Revision Commission's landmark study
that eventually concluded the solution was harm reduction: that is, treating
substance use as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice problem.
Jelani Lawson, who serves on the New Haven Board of Alderman, runs the
Connecticut Drug Policy Leadership Council in his spare time. The council
formed in 1997 to rally support for the Law Revision Commission report.
And over at Western Connecticut State University, the Nutmeg State's oldest
drug policy reform group carries the banner for NORML, the National
Organization for the Reformation of Marijuana Laws.
These groups represent only a few of the leaves of the plant of protest that
keeps growing both in Connecticut and nationwide. Across the U.S., there are
more than 400 drug policy reform organizations that include think tanks,
political parties and non-profit education centers, according to Aaron
Wilson, who works for the Partnership for Responsible Drug Information.
About 350 of these have formed in the last decade.
They have formed to respond to the government's escalating war on drugs and
users. According to FBI statistics, arrests for possession of marijuana
alone have soared since 1992, the year before Bill Clinton assumed the
presidency. That year, 342,000 people were arrested. By 1997, that number
had jumped to 695,000. Clinton's regime has arrested 2.8 million smokers to
date, more than presidents Nixon, Reagan or Bush. Data shows that 87 percent
of those arrested were for simple possession of less than an ounce or marijuana.
While the generals in the drug war would point to these figures as proof
that the battle is being won, increasing numbers of people from divergent
parts of society are reaching an entirely different conclusion. In recent
years conservatives from William Buckley to cops such as former New Haven
Police Chief Nicholas Pastore have come out in favor of some kind of
legalization.
Their reasons are myriad. One arrest for even a minor marijuana-related
indiscretion can throw a life into turmoil. The government can invoke asset
forfeiture laws and seize property, including houses, cars and bank
accounts. Accused users are left broke, unable to afford legitimate counsel.
The Department of Children and Families can use an arrest as grounds to
declare an unfit family, and break up the family unit.
The burden on the criminal justice system prevents cops, courts, and jails
from putting their resources into ending truly violent crime. Thanks in part
to an overburdened jail system filled with minor drug-related offenders, a
murderer can spend less time behind bars than someone convicted of crack
cocaine possession. Housing a prisoner costs at least $25,000 annually.
Connecticut alone has about 16,653 men and women serving time, about 23.8
percent of whom are in for non-violent drug offenses. The ancillary
expenses, such as health care for the prisoner with AIDS or tuberculosis,
add up as well.
Even for those not arrested, the war's tentacles stretch into virtually
every facet of life -- whether it is random drug testing in the workplace,
the fear of being pulled over on the highway for driving while black, or the
ineffective Drug Abuse Resistance Education, which increasing numbers of
studies indicate wastes valuable classroom time and possibly goads students
into experimenting.
Yet in 5,000 years of use, marijuana has never been credibly linked with a
death. The Office of National Drug Control Policy figures that illegal drugs
cause an estimated 9,300 deaths annually, as compared to the 430,000
estimated deaths from cigarette smoking. Yet drug czar Barry McCaffrey, who
runs the Office of National Drug Control Policy, has a record $17.8 billion
budget for 1999. Throw in the state and local police funding, and Adam Smith
of DRCNet -- the Drug Reform Coalition Network, estimates national spending
for fighting drugs is $50 billion a year.
If strength in numbers were all it takes, the battle against questionable
drug policy might have had a larger policy impact by now. But toppling the
governmental Goliath has proved no easy feat for this band of stoners, suits
and grassroots activists.
Efforts could be further along, however, if groups were more united. The
more than 400 reform groups have almost just as many agendas. Missions range
from wanting to legalize pot only to legalizing cocaine and heroin, to
providing clean needles, to shortening the sentences of drug offenders.
Some say this diversity adds strength because everyone picks at different
areas of the problem. "Never in the history of the drug policy movement have
there been this many people who have stayed in this long," Thornton says.
"The word is that it had to be a multi-pronged attack."
Others get angry about all the johnny-come-latelys. "Sometimes I get pissed
when there are more and more groups," says Denny Lane, who instituted the
pro-pot Vermont Grassroots Party in 1994. "We should just stick together and
strengthen what we have."
And others insist the diversity and the apparent working at cross purposes
is exactly what is necessary for success. Take Ethan Nadelmann, director of
the Lindesmith Center in New York City. The Open Society Institute,
bankrolled by Greek billionaire George Soros, finances Nadelmann's think
tank, which distributes money to local reform groups such as Efficacy.
The movement needs numbers of community groups, Nadelmann says. "Playing
ball locally is what is most important in any democracy." Plus, small sizes
can confront issues immediately as they spring up, he says.
Still, Nadelmann recognizes how growth paradoxically can create weaknesses.
"Any one issue on drug policy reform moves forward by disassociating itself
from other issues," he says. The West coast medical marijuana initiatives
passed by distancing themselves from decriminalization. The industrial hemp
law recently approved in North Dakota separated itself from recreational use.
Needle exchangers won't pull for methadone the same way people against
mandatory minimum sentencing laws disavow legalization. "That paradox may be
fading, but it slows things down," Nadelmann says. That contradiction is
vital, maintains Chuck Thomas of the D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project. "If
you lump the issues together, you lose supporters for any of the particular
issues that might have done well on their own merits," he says.
Despite the various factions, some inroads have been made. On the West
Coast, in the last four years, five states -- California, Arizona, Nevada,
Oregon and Washington -- have voted to make marijuana legal for medical
purposes. In Connecticut, legislative changes have produced cutting edge
treatment programs that attempt to shift the burden off of the criminal
justice system.
Still, it's a conundrum, Gogulski of the Connecticut Cannabis Police Forum
agrees. "Everybody is pulling in different directions at the same puzzles,"
he says. "We are all trying to undo the same knot, and we are all pulling at
different strings."
Nadelmann, Thomas and others take comfort in history. Abolitionists, women's
suffragists, and Gandhi's Indian satyagrahi were even more divided than the
pro-drug movement, but accomplished more. "When my friends and colleagues
bemoan the growing elements of conflict within this movement, my response is
'Get real,'" Nadelmann says. "Our level of internal conflict is in all
likelihood less than that in the gay rights movement or the civil rights
movement." Indeed, he predicts that as the voices against prohibition grow
louder, internal struggles will worsen.
Vermont activist Lane doubts that more division within the movement is even
possible. To date he has spent almost every penny he has to work for legal
herb. Running the Grassroots Party from his mountain top cabin, 45 minutes
southeast of Burlington, Lane recently ended a six-year drought of living
without a car or running water. He's also been under DEA surveillance since
1972.
Lane dreams of writing a book titled The Nuances of Bickering and Infighting
Among Freedom Fighting Hemp Activists. Chapter outlines to date would
feature egos, agendas and personality clashes. "Too many people want to be
chiefs and there are not enough Indians." There's no money except from
Soros, Lane says, and that money isn't going to the grassroots types. It's
going to the suits.
Lane would like Soros to spend money on a central printer for the movement
and a central counsel. Along that line, the American Civil Liberties Union
just assigned New Haven attorney Graham Boyd to work on legalization issues
in court, full-time. Boyd is fighting two cases now. But it's not the pack
of lawyers Lane envisions.
Otherwise, he says, "We get a lot accomplished with a little money." Indeed,
his leadership elevated the Grassroots gang to major party status, alongside
Vermont's Republicans and Democrats.
While Lane chose the name Grassroots Party for solidarity with the
semi-successful Minnesota Grassroots Party, he figures a common name for all
these drug reform groups could lend credibility. But Lane then deals with
heads calling him at 3 a.m. asking, "Dude, where's the grassroots party at?"
Connecting the burners and book-benders is one of the movement's biggest
challenges, agrees Steve Hager, editor-in-chief of High Times. "There has to
be an event that galvanizes everybody and unifies all of the separate
issues," he says. "We haven't had the spark that transforms the millions of
cannabis users into cannabis activists."
The May 1 Million Marijuana March tried, rallying about 200,000 people in
about 30 cities around the world. The biggest gatherings were in London, New
York, San Francisco, Seattle, Montreal and Chicago, says organizer Dana
Beal. He wanted a million joints "a'light" in one day, he says, and he
thinks it may have happened. "It was the first time we've ever had a
worldwide coordinated protest," says Beal. "It was successful, but one
always wishes it was more successful."
Even so, it wasn't the galvanizing moment that, say, the 1963 March on
Washington and Rev. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech was for the
civil rights movement. "If it is a true coalition, then it builds on
consensus. It is very hard to do that with the stoners," says Hager. "It is
like trying to herd a bunch of kittens to focus and unify," says.
The drug policy reform movement didn't start out as a mix of pot smokers and
policy wonks. It started, unbelievably, as a coalition of doctors and lawyers.
In 1951, a Yale educated lawyer named Rufus King, who had been a clerk for a
U.S. senator in Washington, began criticizing the Boggs Act -- the first of
the federal mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws. By 1957, King had built
a coalition between the American Medical Association and the American Bar
Association to restore the Bill of Rights.
King, now 82 and still living in Washington, says that the current laws
prevent doctors from prescribing drugs that could be of use to patients:
"Doctors should be up on their hind legs in outrage," says King. The doctors
were the first on board. As early as 1937, the AMA testified in favor of
medical marijuana before Congress. But based on the testimony of Harry
Anslinger, the head of the Treasury department's Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs, the feds outlawed all usage. Anslinger, who held onto that
post for 32 years, crushed the AMA-ABA committee by scaring away sources of
funding. King continued to work, lobbying elected officials and writing
books, but by the mid-1970s, he dropped out in disgust.
The splintering began in the 1960s, when beat poet Allen Ginsberg and
friends gave birth to Legalize Marijuana, or LeMar, in San Francisco in the
late 1960s. That faded and in 1970, NORML opened shop in Washington, D.C. In
southern California, a group of heads called Amorphia formed to free the
weed, and by then, the internecine bickering had begun.
NORML was the best and strongest of the litter in the early years. It had
better political connections and scored a grant from the Playboy Foundation.
According to Keith Stroup, the founder of NORML, tensions rose when Amorphia
-- which sold rolling papers to finance its activities -- told Playboy that
NORML was full of middle-class sell-outs.
"We were openly fighting, trying to undermine their efforts, and they were
doing it to us," says Stroup. "Fortunately, before it became public, cooler
heads said we were on the same side." The leader of Amorphia became NORML's
West Coast boss, and its business manager moved to D.C. to keep NORML's books.
The union grew and pulled enough weight to convince President Jimmy Carter
to consider decriminalization of pot. That momentum crashed in 1978 after
NORML founder Stroup and White House aides were caught partying together
with narcotics. Stroup resigned, only to return in 1994.
Now, in his second tour as the head of the organization, Stroup says he has
noticed a drop in quarreling. "I don't want to suggest there's perfect
harmony," he says. "There are still a limited number of funders, and we
still have the problem of more than one organization approaching the same
person for what is the same work."
Attorney King, then retired from the full-time practice of law, also
returned to the fold. In 1986 his friend Arnold Trebach invited him to the
advisory board of the infant Drug Policy Foundation, another think tank. Ira
Glasser, the head of the ACLU, is also on the board.
King resigned last week at the annual DPF conference in Bethseda, Maryland.
Once again, he says, he was disillusioned at the slow pace of change and the
fractured movement.
Last week's DPF conference -- attended by leaders like East Haven's Lawlor
and the Lindesmith's Nadelmann -- was held to hash out ideas, plans and
programs for cooperation. But Hamden activist Gogulski sat through sessions
including a panel discussion about what direction the reform movement takes
from next, and says the conference never really got around to dealing with
it. "With the exception of one out of the six speakers, that question wasn't
addressed," he says. Only Deborah Small, from the Lindesmith Center,
addressed the idea of compromise over pursuing ideology.
The differences between the stoners and the suits are magnified by the fight
over funding, especially when miscommunication and competition leads similar
groups to approach the same foundations for money. Compared to the $50
billion war chest held by the temperance folks, the opposition is poor. "The
overall funding for the [drug reform]movement, if you had to pin me down, in
1999, I would say it is probably $6 or $7 million," says Smith of DRCNet.
"The issue has grown faster than the funding," he adds. "The comedy is when
the drug czar stands again and again to warn about the well-funded,
well-organized legalization cabal. I'm not sure which is funnier, the
well-funded or well-organized part."
Given the combination of fiscal woes and conflicting goals, some suggest
choosing a central spokesman for the cause might be the ans-wer. "If you
have a charismatic leader and that person becomes the messiah for the
movement, it can help unify people," High Times' Hager says.
He envisions a leader like legendary hempster Jack Herer, the author of The
Emperor Wears No Clothes, a groundbreaking book on the "conspiracy" to keep
hemp illegal; or Dennis Peron, who fronted the campaign to pass California's
ballot proposition 215 in 1996, which was financed by Soros. "Those two
would be the closest, but they are not national figures, and they are not
taken seriously by the media," he says. "Back in the 1960s, it was easy for
Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman to get national attention. Now it is relatively
impossible to get national attention," Hager concludes. Even California's
Peter McWilliams, an AIDS patient unable to attain marijuana despite the
referendum, can't get national press, and his book, Ain't Nobody's Business
If You Do is a New York Times bestseller.
Attorney King wants a well-known African-American, someone like Charles
Rangel, the eight-term Democratic congressman from Harlem, to step forward.
Rangel chairs the select committee on substance abuse. "He was a real hawk.
I've got Charlie eating out of my hand now," King says. "He put in a bill to
equalize cocaine crack penalties."
Kevin Zeese, a 20-year veteran who once headed NORML but now runs Common
Sense for Drug Policy, another D.C. think tank, thinks the model to look to
is that of the early years of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.
"Under a unifying force, the civil rights movement became more effective;
then they really started to see changes in the laws. They really started to
see national legislation passed," Zeese says. "I'm not sure it would have
been achieved without coalition."
That's why he started the Alliance of Reform Organizations, which uses the
Internet to engage national leaders from Efficacy to the ACLU in regular
e-mail strategizing sessions.
Zeese acknowledges, however, that the analogy with the civil rights movement
may not be a fair one. The civil rights movement had millions of supporters,
while at most, the total memberships of NRG and ARO adds up to 550,000 --
and that includes the 300,000 members of the ACLU, who may be lukewarm,
personally, when it comes to legalizing drugs. "The difference makes the
need for us being unified even more important," he says.
Maybe the unity won't happen until there are more people, Gogulski of the
Connecticut Cannabis Policy Forum postulates. "Maybe we have to get to 1,000
groups before it starts to happen all by itself," he says. "I hope not."
Perhaps looking outside the movement for support will help. Zeese has formed
an even broader cooperative called The National Coalition for Effective Drug
Policies. He pens various missives to Congress and to President Clinton, and
has attracted dozens of signatories, such as the Evangelical Lutheran
Church, the Children's Defense Fund, Family Watch, NOW and FAMM, which
stands for Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a group that objects to
federally mandated, stiff penalties for illegal drug and gun use.
The problem is that these groups are only interested in supporting their
particular cause. For instance, FAMM only approves of Zeese's prose when it
concerns mandatory minimums. Julie Stewart, a native of Washington state,
set up FAMM after her brother was arrested for growing marijuana in 1990.
FAMM, based in Washington, D.C., began in 1991 at the onset of his five-year
term.
"Our purpose is to restore judicial discretion to judges," she says, noting
that the group is against cookie cutter sentencing for guns as well. "This
is not a drug issue for us; this is a justice issue."
The inability of activists to find an amicable aim doesn't surprise Nora
Callahan of Washington state. Callahan joined FAMM in 1994 while her brother
was in the can on cocaine conspiracy charges. He's been in since 1989 and at
this point, has 14 years left.
But because FAMM doesn't go far enough in criticizing drug policy, she
parted on good terms in 1997 and, yes, she established her own group too --
the November Coalition.
"We go a little further in criticizing drug policy," Callahan claims.
It is, she admits, a little bit like Python's Life of Brian, she says. "We
laugh about it all the time," Callahan says. They rehearse the skit in the
offices. "'Are you the Coalition of November?' 'No, we're the November
Coalition. Fuck off.'"
And she knows that disunity won't free her brother.
Ironically enough, when she talks to her brother in jail, he says prisoners
find hope in the very fact that so many people are challenging drug reform
from so many different angles. "I've thought about strategy. Should we all
do the same thing? It's a huge brick wall, should we be barreling into the
same spot?" Callahan asks, "Or should it come down brick by brick?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In Switch, Democrats Won't Act on Pataki Plan to Ease Drug Laws (The New York
Times says New York state's Democratic legislative leadership plans to shelve
Gov. George Pataki's proposal to scale back the Rockefeller-era
mandatory-minimumm sentencing guidelines for drug offenders. Assembly Speaker
Sheldon Silver appears unwilling to support any such effort this year out of
concern that Democrats might be portrayed as soft on crime in the next
election, especially in relatively conservative upstate districts and in the
suburbs of New York City.)
Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 11:32:20 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NY: In Switch, Democrats Won't Act on Pataki Plan to Ease
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nathan Riley
Pubdate: Thu, 20 May 1999
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 1999 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://www10.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Raymond Hernandez
IN SWITCH, DEMOCRATS WON'T ACT ON PATAKI PLAN TO EASE DRUG LAWS
ALBANY, N.Y. -- Concerned about appearing soft on crime in the next
election, the Democratic legislative leadership plans to shelve Gov. George
Pataki's proposal to scale back New York's strict drug laws and appears
unwilling to support other such efforts this year.
The Democratic position marks a significant turnabout in the Capitol, where
the party has for years led the crusade against the state's Rockefeller-era
drug laws, only to be accused of coddling criminals by Republicans, who had
previously blocked attempts to change the laws.
The Democrats, who control the Assembly, said they believed that any bid to
weaken the drug laws, among the most stringent in the nation, could backfire
on Democratic lawmakers from more conservative districts, mostly upstate and
in the suburbs of New York City, where crime is a potent issue.
The move is part of an overall strategy by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver
to solidify the Democratic majority's moderate credentials.
In recent years, Silver has defied liberal Democrats, many of whom, like
himself, are from New York City, by staking out conservative positions on
issues like crime and welfare, hoping to defuse political attacks by
Republicans. More recently, he brushed aside the protests of New York City
lawmakers and backed the repeal of a city tax on people who commute to work
there.
Silver on Wednesday declined to comment on the drug laws. But Patricia
Lynch, his spokeswoman, said he had no plans to take up the governor's or
any other proposals to overhaul the laws this year because doing so could
place some of his members on the defensive in the 2000 elections.
"At this time, there are no plans by the Assembly leadership to address the
governor's proposal," Ms. Lynch said.
The speaker's stance makes it highly unlikely that any revisions to the drug
laws will occur this year, despite mounting criticism that the laws have
caused New York's prison population to swell with nonviolent, often
first-time, drug offenders who have been subjected to tough mandatory
sentences. The Republicans in the state Senate had indicated that they would
support the governor's proposal.
The Democratic reversal has also further alienated many liberals in the
party who viewed the proposal by the governor, a Republican, as a rare
opening to finally enact some changes to the drug laws after a generation.
"I am trying to convince my own house that this is a unique time," said
Jeffrion Aubry, a Democratic assemblyman from Queens who wants to lessen the
law's sentencing guidelines. "But it's an uphill battle because they're
afraid of the perception that they are being soft on crime."
The position staked out by the speaker even caught a spokesman for the
governor off guard. "That's bizarre," said the spokesman, Michael McKeon,
when asked for a response. He then chided Democrats in the Assembly for
continually refusing to act on criminal justice proposals advanced by the
governor. "They're not doing anything on criminal justice issues, no matter
what it is," he said.
Aides to Silver say that his main criminal justice initiative for the
legislative session is a measure to ban assault weapons and place safety
locks on firearms.
Silver's position on the drug laws has widespread support among suburban and
upstate Democrats who have no great appetite for scaling them back. Naomi
Matusow, a Democratic assemblywoman from Westchester County, expressed deep
misgivings about rushing to overhaul the laws, given the dangers posed by
many drug offenders.
"We're dealing with potentially dangerous situations," she said. "Throwing
out the existing laws seems to me to be very precipitous."
The laws, which were adopted in 1973 under Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, force
judges to comply with rigid sentencing guidelines that require long prison
terms, even for relatively minor drug offenses like possessing a small
quantity of narcotics. For example, a person who is convicted of selling
more than two ounces of cocaine, heroin or other controlled substances -- or
possessing more than four ounces -- must be sentenced to a minimum of 15
years in prison.
The laws have remained largely in place since their enactment, despite
mounting criticism and repeated attempts, mostly by Democrats, to revise
them. The critics have charged, among other things, that the laws have
clogged the state's prisons with drug offenders, many of them nonviolent
addicts, who might be better served in treatment programs or other cheaper
alternatives to prison.
Last year alone, 9,063 people were sent to state prison for drug offenses.
That brought the total number of people serving state prison terms for
nonviolent drug crimes to slightly more than 22,000, or roughly a third of
the total state prison population of 70,000, according to the Correctional
Association of New York, a prison
watchdog group.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Zogby New York Poll (The Media Awareness Project forwards a press release
from the Zogby web site, together with a news release from the Lindemsith
Center, showing that a new poll of New York state residents reveals about 2-1
support for politicians who would act to reform the state's Rockefeller-era
mandatory-minimum sentencing guidelines for drug offenders. The survey also
reveals nearly three of every four likely New York state voters say anyone
charged with simple possession of illegal drugs should receive treatment
instead of a prison sentence.)
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999 09:23:07 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NY: The Zogby New York Poll
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Richard Lake
Pubdate: Thu, 20 May 1999
Source: Zogby New York
Website: http://www.zogby.com/
Note: Below is the press release from the Zogby website, followed by
additional information released by The Lindesmith Center.
VOTERS WOULD SUPPORT LEGISLATORS WHO FAVOR REDUCED DRUG SENTENCING;
SUCH LEGISLATORS NOT LABELED "SOFT ON DRUGS," ZOGBY POLL SHOWS
State legislators could generate votes by supporting reductions in
sentencing for illegal drug offenders, a Zogby New York survey reveals.
A survey of 700 likely voters throughout New York State shows that a
majority (50.7%) said they would be more likely to vote for state
legislators who favor reducing some sentences and giving judges
greater discretion to decide appropriate penalties for drug offenders.
At the same time, a combined 25.1% say they would be less likely to
vote for such legislators while 21.4% said such a position would make
no difference on how they voted.
The survey was conducted April 26 through April 28, 1999 and has a
margin of sampling error of +/- 3.8%.
An overall majority of the respondents (63.9%) said they don't
consider a legislator who supports reducing prison terms for drug
offenders "soft on drugs," while 31.1% of those surveyed say that
anyone who votes to reduce prison terms for drug offenders is indeed
"soft on drugs."
Support for a legislator who favors drug sentencing reform was
particularly strong in New York City (56.9%) and Upstate New York (51.2%).
The survey also revealed that nearly three of every four likely New
York State voters say anyone charged with simple possession of illegal
drugs should receive treatment instead of a prison sentence.
When asked: "Which comes closer to your own opinion (regarding simple
drug possession) jail/prison or treatment?" 73.8% of those surveyed
chose treatment, with 18.9% choosing jail or prison.
In specific subgroups, treatment was favored by a similar
three-fourths of the respondents from New York City and Upstate New
York, along with African-Americans, Hispanics, most age groups and
income levels, union workers, females and those who live in other
large state cities. Meanwhile the largest support among subgroups for
jail or prison terms came from 25% of the respondents who live in
suburbs and 27.3% of the respondents who identify themselves as Republican.
Statistics from the Correctional Association of New York show there
currently are more than 22,300 drug offenders in New York State
prisons and nearly 60% of all women inmates in New York State were
incarcerated for drug offenses. Statistics also show the state's
annual cost of incarcerating drug offenders is over $715 million a
year.
Further information about the survey on drug offender sentencing is
also available by contacting the Lindesmith Center at (212) 548-0383,
or the Center's website at www.lindesmith.org
Zogby International Press Release
***
[From The Lindesmith Center]
RE: Results for Zogby New York
The survey of 700 voters throughout New York State was conducted Monday,
April 26 through Wednesday, April 28, 1999. All calls were made from Zogby
International headquarters in Utica, New York. The poll has a margin of
sampling error of +/- 3.8%. Error margins are higher for sub-groups.
FINALLY, A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.
23. New York's drug laws are among the toughest in the country. There are
now thousands of men and women in New York's prisons serving long sentences
for drug possession or selling small amounts of drugs. If your state
legislator were to vote in favor of a bill to reduce some sentences, and
give judges greater discretion to decide appropriate penalties, would this
make you much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, or
much less likely, to vote for him or her, or would it make no difference?
Much more likely 29.1
Somewhat more likely 21.2
Somewhat less likely 8.6
Much less likely 16.5
No difference 21.5
Not sure 2.8
Nearly 30 percent of respondents favor granting legislators and judges
greater latitude in determining penalties and sentences for drug offenders.
The strongest support comes from New York City (33%) and those who live in
large cities in general, the 50-64 age group, and college graduates.
Republicans (22.7%), the 50-64 age group and the $50-64,999 income group
were much less likely to support legislators or judges who want to reduce
penalties on drug offenders.
More than one-third (37.8%) of those in the 18-29 age bracket,
African-Americans, and the $15-$24,999 income level say it would make no
difference.
24. Many state legislatures believe that New York's drug laws are too
strict, and result in many non-violent drug offenders serving prison
sentences longer than violent criminals. But legislators also fear being
labeled "soft on drugs" if they vote for legislation to reduce prison terms
for non-violent drug offenders. Do you think anyone who votes for reducing
prison terms for drug offenders is "soft on drugs?"
Yes 31.1
No 63.9
Not sure 5.0
A majority in every sub-group, except Hispanics, would not label a
legislator "soft" if he/she reduced prison terms. Hispanics were
evenly-divided (49.5% say no and 48.7% say yes). Those most in approval
were college graduates (71.2%) and those in the $75,000 income bracket
(79.2%).
Catholics (37%), 50-64 year-olds, and non-union workers (32.6%) were most
opposed to reducing prison terms for drug offenders.
25. Some people think anyone caught in possession of illegal drugs should
be sent to jail or prison. Others think it makes little sense to imprison
people for simple drug possession and they should receive treatment
instead. Which comes closer to your own opinion jail or prison, or treatment?
Jail or prison 18.9
Treatment 73.8
Not sure 7.2
Treatment is favored by three-quarters (76.8%) of respondents in New York
City, African-Americans, Hispanics, most age groups and income levels,
union workers, females, and those who live in large cities. The strongest
support for treatment (82.8%) comes from those in the less than $15,000
income bracket.
One-quarter of Republicans (27.3%) and suburbanites prefer jail terms.
26. Methadone (meth-ah-done) is a medication that, when properly
administered, can eliminate cravings for heroin and block its effects.
Methadone treatment is only administered through special clinics. Do you
agree or disagree that people addicted to heroin should be able to receive
methadone treatment at ordinary doctors' and health clinic offices as well?
Agree 60.0
Disagree 30.4
Not sure 9.7
By a better than 8% margin, more Upstaters than suburbanites (64.8%-52.4%)
and Democrats than Republicans (64.2%-52.1%) agree there should be
additional methadone treatment facilities. African-Americans are closely
divided (48.9% agree-43% disagree), as are Hispanics (57.6%-37.4%).
There is very strong agreement from Jewish respondents (71.5%) and those in
the $75,000 income bracket (72.9%).
27. Would you favor or oppose a policy that allows New York physicians to
prescribe marijuana for medical purposes to seriously and terminally ill
patients, to alleviate symptoms of disease and the side effects associated
with treatments.
Favor 80.2
Oppose 16.3
Not sure 3.5
Overall, four in five (80.2%) favor a "policy that allows New York
physicians to prescribe" marijuana for medical reasons to patients, while
16.3% are opposed and 3.5% are not sure.
Independents (86.2%) are more likely than Democrats (80.8%) or Republicans
(75.9%) to favor such a policy and whites (82.1%) and Hispanics (82.5%) are
significantly more likely to favor the medical use of marijuana than are
African Americans (64.2%). Support for the measure increases with income
and decreases with age.
to the 1999 Daily News index for May 14-20