Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:34:11 -0700
Subject:NYTimes: Canada: There's A Funny Smell In The Air Up TOC

Pubdate: Sun, 21 Jul 2002
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2002 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Section: Week in Review
Author: Clifford Krauss
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mjcn.htm (Cannabis - Canada)

CANADA: THERE'S A FUNNY SMELL IN THE AIR

THE big scoop in the Canadian news media last week came when a reporter
asked Justice Minister Martin Cauchon if he had ever smoked marijuana.

"But of course," replied Mr. Cauchon, Canada's top law enforcement officer.
"I'm 39 years old." Smiling, he was quick to add that he had given it up.

On the other end of Parliament Hill in Ottawa, another group of dogged
reporters couldn't help but ask Prime Minister Jean Chretien if he had ever
smoked the stuff.

"When I was young the word mari-uh, did not exist," the 68-year-old Mr.
Chretien said. "I learned about the word long after that. It was too late
for me to try it." A reporter was quick to interject: "It's never too late,
prime minister."

All the banter about marijuana use comes at a time when Canadians are
talking about decriminalizing pot smoking. It seems only natural that now
that Britain decided last week to make possession of a small amount of
marijuana a ticketing offense, that its liberal former colony would soon
follow suit. Pot smoking is pervasive in Canada, after all, especially in
British Columbia, which is also a major production source of marijuana sold
in the United States. Marijuana use is so prevalent in Vancouver that the
city has been compared to Amsterdam as a pot-smoker's paradise.

The House of Commons is not currently in session. But Mr. Cauchon has
suggested that the country should rethink laws that make marijuana illegal
and crowd court calendars with pot-smoking cases.

The Toronto Star agreed in an editorial last week, saying: "Marijuana
remains a vice, like drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes. It would be
better handled through public education, not by giving people criminal
records."

Still, Canadian opinion makers are wondering what the Americans will say.
With relations with the Bush administration already on edge over increased
American tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber, some Canadians think
Washington could retaliate against any softening of Canadian anti-pot laws
by tightening the border.

"Would softer pot laws stir wrath of U.S.?" asked the headline of an
article in The Globe and Mail, a prominent national newspaper. "The
neighbors are likely to yell," came the answer, "but not everybody thinks
that's the end of the world."
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Ariel

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:48:38 -0700
Subject:CA: Pot Ruling to Have Little Local Impact Up TOC

Newshawk: Plylar For Co. State Congress (http://www.plylar.org)
Pubdate: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
Source: Press Democrat, The (CA)
Copyright: 2002 The Press Democrat
Contact: letters@pressdemo.com
Website: http://www.pressdemo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348
Author: Mary Callahan
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)

POT RULING TO HAVE LITTLE LOCAL IMPACT

Sonoma County Already Recognizes Rights Of Medical Marijuana Users

A state Supreme Court ruling hailed as a victory for medical marijuana
patients will have limited impact in Sonoma County, where local authorities
already recognize the right of such people to use the drug, officials and
advocates said.

And because it fails to address inconsistencies in how counties handle such
cases and has no bearing on federal authorities, who don't recognize any
medical right, it leaves unresolved two of the state law's major obstacles.

Thursday's unanimous ruling protecting patients from prosecution if they
have a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana will be felt most strongly
in conservative counties, where authorities still arrest and prosecute
patients with regularity, officials and advocates said.

Sonoma County no longer prosecutes individuals who appear to have a viable
medical claim. The turnabout came after acquittals in two high-profile
cases involving more than 100 plants, District Attorney Mike Mullins said.

Under subsequent countywide guidelines, patients with physician approval
may have up to 99 plants or 3 pounds of dried marijuana. In neighboring
Mendocino County, patients may have 25 plants or 2 pounds.

"This ruling backs up the admirable work that this county has already
done," said Mary Pat Jacobs, a spokeswoman for the Sonoma County Alliance
for Medical Marijuana. "Our district attorney and local law enforcement,
and the Sonoma County Peer Review: Congratulations to them for being ahead
of the curve here."

District Attorney-elect Stephan Passalacqua noted that the diabetic man
whose case prompted the state high court decision would never have been
tried here.

But the ruling would streamline any cases that do go to court, averting
trials by allowing judges to hear about medical need beforehand, Mullins said.

It also eases the burden on defendants, requiring they merely raise
reasonable doubt that the pot in their possession was not intended for
legitimate medical use.

Mendocino County District Attorney Norman Vroman said prosecutors also may
shy away from filing cases they might otherwise have pursued because the
shifting burden makes it harder to prove someone is growing large
quantities of pot under bogus medical claims.

"It doesn't give us as much as we asked for," said Alliance spokeswoman
Jacobs, who was among many advocates hoping for a stronger ruling barring
authorities from arresting and charging patients in the first place. "But
now it looks like they are starting to look toward the bar to prosecution."

The ruling arose from a 1997 case in which a blind and seriously ill
Tuolumne County diabetic named Myron Mower was tried for growing marijuana
that his physician recommended to control nausea and help maintain his weight.

While Tuolumne County policy would have allowed him three plants, Mower had
31, the court ruling says.

His attorneys appealed his conviction, claiming he was completely immune to
arrest and prosecution under the 1996 state initiative giving Californians
the right to use medicinal marijuana.

The California Supreme Court ruled that while he did not have complete
immunity, he did have the right to present his medical claim at a pretrial
hearing and seek a dismissal of charges.

The court also said that while authorities believed Mower was growing more
marijuana than was required to meet his medical needs, Mower need only
raise reasonable doubt about the truth of that assertion to go free.

The ruling moves patients beyond the point where they only were guaranteed
a right to raise a medical defense at trial. So "it is seen as progress,"
said another Alliance spokesman, Doc Knapp.

But it fails to address the larger problems associated with the
compassionate use law.

There are still no statewide guidelines governing its use. Attorney General
Bill Lockyer has refused to set limits on how much an individual or
caregiver may possess or grow for medical use, so there is no consistency
in how counties handle such cases.

In any case, patients in even the most permissive counties are still
subject to arrest and prosecution by federal authorities.

Federal prosecutors are mounting cases against two key members of the Aiko
Compassion Center in Santa Rosa, for instance. The West College Avenue
dispensary was closed after it was raided by federal authorities in late May.

"You're still taking your chances with the feds," Mullins said.

Jacobs said the Alliance recommends no one grow more than 99 plants because
of federal rules. Under federal law, anyone growing 100 plants or more can
be imprisoned for five to 10 years. With 99 plants or fewer, one may only
get probation, she said.

Overall, said Vroman, the ruling "is just a further step down the line to
totally legalizing it (marijuana), and I just wish they'd do it and get it
over with. It would save everybody a lot of trouble."
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:57:31 -0700
Subject:Canada: The Pot Thickens Up TOC

Newshawk: Join CMAP (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/lists.htm)
Source: Sudbury Star (CN ON)
Date: July 21, 2002
Website: http://www.thesudburystar.com
Address: 33 MacKenzie St., Sudbury, Ont., P3C 4Y1
Contact: letters@thesudburystar.com
Copyright: 2002 The Sudbury Star
Forum: http://www.thesudburystar.com/feedback/index.htm
Fax: (705) 674-6834

                             EDITORIAL

OUR OPINION It=B9s time for the federal government to decriminalize
recreational marijuana use

The pot thickens

Canada=B9s marijuana laws don=B9t work. The country=B9s police chiefs said=
 so
years ago. More recently so did the Senate=B9s legal affairs committee and=
 so
do millions of Canadians who every day continue to blaze a trail and flout
the law through their recreational use of marijuana.

Now federal Justice  Minister Martin Cauchon is gingerly adding his voice to
the growing number  of credible sources who think Canada=B9s laws must be
reworked. Cauchon is toying with decriminalizing marijuana use by making
possession of small  amounts of cannabis a ticketing offence, much like a
traffic violation.

To his credit, Cauchon has avoided jumping to conclusions about exactly what
new federal legislation should do with marijuana, but he has clearly
indicated that he finds the current law unacceptable. As it now stands,
simple possession of marijuana is a criminal offence, punishable by
imprisonment.

Believing this to be too harsh, the government is considering some form of
decriminalization, though possession would still be illegal. Presumably,
growing marijuana for commercial purposes in homes would remain illegal, as
would trafficking marijuana.

Cauchon=B9s suggestion follows on the heels of Great Britain, which last=
 week
became the latest European country to relax its possession laws.

There, police would arrest marijuana users only if they caused public
problems or threatened to harm children. Other countries, such as the
Netherlands, have gone even further in liberalizing marijuana laws. There
are strong, well-known arguments for making reforms here. When the Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee recommended in 1996 to change the
law, it reported an estimated 3 million Canadians were using marijuana and
hashish. That, they said, was strong proof the punitive approach had failed.

Research in the United States suggests that relaxed laws haven=B9t had much
effect on marijuana use or the long-held contention that it eventually leads
to the use of harder drugs. The 11 states that issue tickets for possession
show no higher use than states that maintain tough laws.

As for the contention that smoking pot will lead to hard drugs, the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police believe they could actually do a better job
on cracking down on more dangerous drugs and on traffickers if they could
free up resources now used to enforce discredited marijuana laws. While
police in Sudbury and elsewhere move to crack down on harder drugs and
the growth of organized crime that is often behind it, there is little to
indicate that simple marijuana possession poses a similar danger.

The real debate in the months ahead should not be about whether to go ahead
and reform the laws, or even the principle of decriminalization, but rather
the details of these reforms. Marijuana remains a vice, like drinking
alcohol or smoking cigarettes. It would be better handled through public
education and societal norms than police crackdowns and giving people
criminal records.

What do you think? Send us your opinion in a Letter to the Editor at 33
MacKenzie St., Sudbury, P3C 4Y1, or fax it to 674-6834 or email it to
letters@thesudburystar.com

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:27:55 -0700
Subject:CA: High Court Protects Medical Pot Use Up TOC

Newshawk: ekomp@earthlink.net
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
Source: Press Democrat, The (CA)
Copyright: 2002 The Press Democrat
Contact: letters@pressdemo.com
Website: http://www.pressdemo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348
Author: Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times

HIGH COURT PROTECTS MEDICAL POT USE

Fewer prosecutions expected after state Supreme Court's ruling

(SIDEBAR) MEDICAL POT LAW EVOLVES -Medical pot users can still be arrested,
but evidence of a doctor's approval can get the charges dismissed -Case may
still be tried if amount of pot is considered large or doctor's approval is
questionable

SAN FRANCISCO - Ailling Californians who use or grow marijuana with a
physician's approval are protected by state law from prosecution, the state
Supreme Court unanimously decided Thursday.

In its first review of the medical marijuana initiative, which was approved
by voters in 1996, the court said medical users who are arrested may have
the charges dismissed without a trial if a doctor has approved use of the
drug. The ruling overturns the felony conviction of a blind diabetic who
was arrested after police spotted 31 marijuana plants growing in the front
yard of his home in Twain Harte, in Tuolumne County.

"The possession and cultivation of marijuana is no more criminal--so long
as its conditions are satisfied--than the possession and acquisition of any
prescription drug with a physician's prescription," Chief Justice Ronald M.
George wrote for the court.

Until Thursday, all major rulings on Proposition 215, the state's medical
marijuana law, have been made by federal courts and based on federal law.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case on the California initiative, ruled that
there is no medical exception for the use of marijuana under federal law.

But individual users and growers in California are generally prosecuted in
state courts, which are required to follow Thursday's ruling.

Gerald Uelmen, a University of Santa Clara law professor who argued the
case for defendant Myron Carlyle Mower, said the decision will reduce
prosecutions throughout the state.

Dozens of Californians have been arrested on marijuana charges despite
claims of medical need, he said.

"It is a wonderful victory for patients," Uelmen said.

He said he hoped the ruling will discourage police from arresting those who
grow marijuana and have a doctor's note recommending its use.

Ann Brick, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which also
argued for Mower, praised the court for being "quite protective of the
rights of medical marijuana patients."

"The court is making very clear that it understands the people of
California wanted to confer real protection to the medical users of
marijuana, and this decision helps make that possible," Brick said.

The state attorney general's office, which represented Tuolumne County
prosecutors in the appeal, said it was reviewing the decision.

California is one of nine states with medical marijuana laws. The decision
was the first by a state high court on such a law, Uelmen said. Under
Thursday's ruling, a grower or user can present evidence of a physician's
approval, such as a note on a prescription pad, to a judge to have the
charges dismissed. If the amount of marijuana involved was considered large
or the doctor's approval questionable, the defendant might still face a
trial to determine whether the marijuana was purely for the defendant's
medical use.

But the ruling also made it easier for such defendants to win if a case
goes to court. Under the court's ruling, the defendant does not have to
prove that the marijuana is solely for medical use. If there is any
reasonable doubt about the marijuana's use, the defendant wins.

The court overturned the conviction fo Mower, 40, because jurors at his
trial were instructed that he had to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence, not a mere reasonable doubt, that he had the marijuana for his
personal medical use.

Mower, who has had diabetes since he was 8, had testified that the 31
plants would supply him with five pounds of marijuana in a year and
estimated his consumption at eight grams a day.

An expert witness for the defense testified that the plants would yield
4.35 pounds a year, but an expert for the prosecution countered that the
plants would produce 31 to 62 pounds.

Mower, who said he cannot maintain his weight without using marijuana, had
been sentenced to five years' probation for growing the plants.

"I have a doctor who completely agrees with me that I need to have this,"
Mower said. "I have nausea all the time and wasting syndrome. "And if I
smoke a little, I am in the kitchen looking for something to eat and drink."

The issue in Mower's case was the relatively large number of plants he was
growing. A Tuolumne County police policy says medical users can have only
three plants.

Mower said he hopes to return to court and ask a judge to permit him to
grow more than three plants, which are "not anywhere near enough."

He said he needs to smoke about six or seven marijuana cigarettes a day and
has been forced to buy from an illicit dealer.

Counties around the state have different policies about how many plants a
medical user may grow. The permitted amounts range from three plants to 99.
Thursday's ruling did not address these varying policies.

Law enforcement policies in Sonoma County allow medical marijuana users to
have up to 99 plants or three pounds of processed pot, while Mendocino
County allows up to 25 plants or two pounds.

For users who are not advised to smoke marijuana for medical reasons,
possession of less than an ounce in California is a misdemeanor punishable
by a $100 fine. Cultivation is a felony.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:29:27 -0700
Subject:AR: Pot Charges Dismissed Up TOC

Newshawk: M & M Family
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
Source: Times Record News (TX)
Copyright: 2002 The E.W. Scripps Co.
Contact: wilsonc@wtr.com
Website: http://www.trnonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/995
Author: John T. Anderson

POT CHARGES DISMISSED

Two men who were charged and later pleaded guilty to hauling 1,300 pounds
of marijuana had their cases dismissed Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Robert Dawson signed the order of dismissal after
federal prosecutors of U.S. District Court in Fort Smith filed a motion to
dismiss the indictment against Andrew Belcher and Garfield Walters, both of
Maryland.

Belcher and Walters entered guilty pleas after being arrested at a weigh
station in Crawford County on Feb. 8, 2001. Those pleas were conditioned on
the outcome of the men's claim that they were the victim of an illegal
search by Sgt. Tim Culver of the Arkansas Highway Police.

Dawson ruled the search legal. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned that ruling in May. Prosecutors sought a rehearing by the
appeals court and were turned down.

Fort Smith attorney Shannon Blatt, who represented Walters, said the two
could be released from a federal prison in Maryland today. She said she
contacted the prison Thursday and federal agents would become involved in
releasing the two men today. Belcher was represented by Little Rock
attorney John Wesley Hall Jr.

"These guys are going to be released," Blatt said. "It is good to know
there are proper procedures to follow and a defendant's rights are not
violated. We can't have police officers violating citizens' constitutional
rights by performing illegal searches."

The search began after Culver became suspicious of the two men's story
about where they had last unloaded their tractor-trailer rig and called a
drug dog on the scene. The dog "hit" on the truck, according to officers,
and the drugs were found inside.

Attorneys representing the two stated the evidence was illegally found
because the search came as a result of suspicions based on Culver's request
to review the truck's bill of lading.

"The statute ... permits officers to ask for and inspect bills of lading
only 'upon reasonable belief that any motor vehicle is being operated in
violation' of Arkansas's regulations," the appeals court order stated.
"(S)ergeant Culver had no legal justification for asking for bills of
lading because he had no grounds for believing that the truck was not in
compliance with Arkansas regulations. His request therefore violated the
terms of the regulatory statute."
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:29:59 -0700
Subject:NC: 20 Years Of Marijuana Flyovers Called Useful, Safe Up TOC

Newshawk: M & M Family
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
Source: Charlotte Observer (NC)
Copyright: 2002 The Charlotte Observer
Contact: opinion@charlotteobserver.com
Website: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/78
Author: Robert F. Moore

20 YEARS OF MARIJUANA FLYOVERS CALLED USEFUL, SAFE

Perched in helicopters or small airplanes, pilots and trained spotters have
searched fields in North Carolina for more than 20 years looking for marijuana.

The flights have resulted in the seizure of more than 82,000 marijuana
plants so far this year, according to the N.C. State Bureau of
Investigation. Last year there were about 90,000, which ranked fifth in the
country.

The counterdrug efforts in 2000 -- the most recent year available -- shut
down more than 530 marijuana growing operations and also resulted in
seizures worth more than $108,200,000, records show.

Federal and state officials said the missions are effective and safe. But
Wednesday afternoon in Chowan County -- about 240 miles northeast of
Charlotte -- three lawmen died when their single-engine plane nose-dived
into a cotton field, witnesses told investigators.

"These low-altitude missions are safer than general aviation," said Don
Edwards, commander of the N.C. Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, which owned
the plane. "These guys gave their lives to keep drugs off the street."

Killed in the crash were: Charlotte-Mecklenburg police Sgt. Anthony Scott
Futrell; Chowan County Sheriff's Deputy Richard Edward Ashley Jr.; and
Boone police Maj. Robert Kennedy. They were on an off-duty assignment with
the N.C. Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Air
Force.

Officials say Futrell, an experienced pilot, was likely flying at at least
500 feet -- the minimum altitude over sparsely populated areas, according
to federal regulations. Kennedy, a trained spotter, was looking for
marijuana, possibly with binoculars, a digital camera or a slow-motion
video recorder.

Chowan County Sheriff Fred Spruill said they, along with a two-person crew
flying about 3 miles away, were doing aerial surveillance of the entire county.

"I've flown on some of the missions myself," he said. "It's safe. I never
thought twice about it."

A spokeswoman with the national headquarters of the Civil Air Patrol said
the agency had 1.54 accidents per 100,000 miles flown in 2001. The rate is
five times safer than all other types of aviation combined, she said.

Before Wednesday, the agency had not reported a death during a counterdrug
mission since two volunteers died in Oregon in 1999.

National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday the low-altitude and
low-speed flights give the pilot little room for error.

The N.C. Wing of the Civil Air Patrol has been conducting reconnaissance
flights at the request of state, local and federal law enforcement since
1986, officials said. Similar flyovers are also conducted by the N.C.
Highway Patrol aviation unit, the N.C. National Guard and the State Bureau
of Investigation.

Most of the illegal marijuana plants found in the last two years have been
in the less populated central N.C. counties, officials. The tricky flight
patterns make the N.C. mountains the hardest area in which to detect
marijuana plants, officials say.

Spotters can generally detect marijuana from the air based on its
distinctive look, officials say. July and August are the peak months for
reconnaissance because the plants are at or near maturity and easier to see.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:30:49 -0700
Subject:CA: Editorial: Pot Decision Up TOC

Newshawk: Plylar For Co. State Congress (http://www.plylar.org)
Pubdate: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
Source: Press Democrat, The (CA)
Copyright: 2002 The Press Democrat
Contact: letters@pressdemo.com
Website: http://www.pressdemo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348

POT DECISION

Ruling Offers Glimmer Of Hope To Users Of Medicinal Marijuana

The state Supreme Court provided some welcome relief for sick people
Thursday with its unanimous ruling in support of medicinal marijuana.

It's been six years since voters approved Proposition 215, an initiative
that legalized the use of medical pot for those who have a doctor's
prescription. But given the contradictions that exist between state and
federal law on pot use, little progress has been made since then in getting
medical marijuana into the hands of those who need it most.

The ruling tosses out the conviction of a blind diabetic man from Tuolumne
County who was found to have 31 marijuana plants growing in his front yard.
Although the man had a prescription, he was convicted of a felony.

The ruling still leaves great ambiguity over the issue of medical
marijuana. The federal government has stubbornly refused to grant any
exception for such use and continues to rank marijuana among the nation's
most addictive drugs.

But state courts are required to abide by this Supreme Court ruling, which
means many of those suffering from glaucoma, AIDS or other afflictions who
rely on medical marijuana won't be forced to make a choice of life or jail
- -- at least for the time being.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:31:15 -0700
Subject:IL: Editorial: Pot Vote Up In Smoke Up TOC

Newshawk: Plylar For Co. State Congress (http://www.plylar.org)
Pubdate: Sat, 20 Jul 2002
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 2002 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact: ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/82

POT VOTE UP IN SMOKE

Can you have too much democracy? Congress seems to think so, at least for
District of Columbia residents who want to vote on an issue that enflames a
lot of passions these days: medicinal marijuana.

Seven states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington) have voted in the past six years to legalize the medicinal use
of marijuana when approved by a doctor. But Congress has beaten back
similar efforts in the district to the point of overturning a vote that
took place in 1998.

Congress does not have to listen to what the district thinks before
deciding for itself what the district needs. The federal city has no
senator or congressman, except for a single House delegate who cannot vote
on the House floor.

So, when the district voted overwhelmingly in 1998 to legalize the
medicinal use of marijuana, Congress passed an amendment sponsored by Rep.
Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican, to the district's annual appropriations
bill to block funding from any local initiative on the issue, including
counting the 1998 votes.

Federal courts later released the vote count and ruled Barr's amendment
unconstitutional, but not before anti-pot congressmen passed a new
amendment that completely overturned the 1998 vote.

So advocates are trying again. The district-based Marijuana Policy Project
submitted new signatures recently to put the measure on this November's
ballot and Rep. Barr has vowed a new challenge.

This time, Congress should at least pay district voters the courtesy of
finding out what they want to do before preventing them from doing it. It
may be within Congress' legal power to block the district's voters from
voting, but that does not make it the right thing to do.

It is important to hear what the public has to say on timely issues,
particularly when public opinion has shifted dramatically. A national Zogby
poll released in June found that 63 percent of registered voters nationwide
said Congress should stop interfering with the district's medical marijuana
initiative, while only 24 percent wanted Congress to block the measure.

Marijuana does not appear to concern people as much as it used to. Great
Britain, with the highest rates of cannabis use in Europe, has announced
that Her Majesty's government will no longer arrest private users of
marijuana in small amounts.

The controlled, medicinal use of marijuana, as proposed in the District of
Columbia, is hardly a threat to anyone.

More frightening are politicians who stand in the way of anyone's right to
vote on issues of great public concern.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:33:30 -0700
Subject: Canada: Court Gives Medical Pot Crusader A Break

Newshawk: Join CMAP (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/lists.htm)
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
Source: Oak Bay News (CN BC)
Copyright: 2002 Oak Bay News
Contact: oakbaynews@vinewsgroup.com
Website: http://www.oakbaynews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1346
Authors: Tarina White

COURT GIVES MEDICAL POT CRUSADER A BREAK

A jubilant Phillipe Lucas departed Victoria provincial court July 5, after
being given a complete discharge on charges of marijuana trafficking and
possession.

Lucas is the founder and director of the Vancouver Island Compassion
Society (VICS), a registered non-profit society that has been supplying
medical marijuana to 230 members who suffer from a variety of medical
ailments since October, 1999.

The charges of drug trafficking and possession were laid against Lucas in
November 2000, following a police bust at VICS' then offices on Bowker
Avenue in Oak Bay. The VICS is still in operation, but has since moved its
headquarters to an undisclosed location on the edge of the downtown area.

Following an 18-month-long trial, Judge Robert Higinbotham decided to rule
in favour of Lucas because: his actions were life-enhancing and for the
good of society; he frankly acknowledged his legal culpability; he has
contributed to the knowledge base surrounding the use of medicinal
marijuana; he committed the offence with the knowledge and `tacit approval'
of the police; he did not operate in competition with the federal Ministry
of Health; he chose to commit the offence in a manner that provided
accountability; and he took steps to ensure there was no redistribution of
marijuana by members.

`I find that while there is no doubt that Mr. Lucas offended against the
law by providing marijuana to others, his actions were intended to
ameliorate the suffering of others,' Higinbotham said in his ruling.

Crown Counsel Lori McMorran had appealed to Higinbotham to fine Lucas and
sentence him to a period of probation, on the grounds that his actions were
of a commercial nature and placed the community at risk.

Higinbotham refuted this, stating that Lucas' business was not truly
commercial.

`Profit was not the motive,' said Higinbotham about why he denied her
appeal. `Nor can she sustain the argument that the community was put at risk.'

If Lucas re-offends, said Higginbotham, he will have to argue his case
again and noted that a discharge may be `difficult to attain in the
future'. It is for this reason, he added, that this `thorny issue' must be
resolved quickly =8B either by Parliament or the Supreme Court of Canada.

The maximum penalty for Lucas' charges, if he'd been convicted, is
imprisonment for five years less a day.

Outside court, Lucas commented that he was `extremely relieved and pleased'
with Higinbotham's ruling.

`I think that anything else would have been a real breach of justice,' he said.

Lucas, who recently married, said he will continue his work with the VICS
and is also considering running in the next Victoria municipal election for
the Green Party.

`This ruling allows us to start our lives,' he said.

Through tears of joy and relief, his wife Mary Lucas said, `We're happy
that the judgement seems to be in line with public opinion on this matter.'

Lucas' lawyer John Conroy said the ruling will set a precedent for similar
cases.

`I see this ruling as a message to police and government that the courts
are not going to punish people who do things to reduce harm to others,' he
said.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 00:34:39 -0700
Subject: UK: Cannabis Cafe Chains To Open In Britain

Newshawk: JimmyG
Pubdate: Sun, 21 Jul 2002
Source: Sunday Telegraph (UK)
Copyright: Telegraph Group Limited 2002
Contact: stnews@telegraph.co.uk
Website: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/437
Authors: David Bamber and Rajeev Syal

CANNABIS CAFE CHAINS TO OPEN IN BRITAIN

Two Dutch cannabis cafe chains plan to open up to 50 ventures in Britain in
a full-frontal assault on the police's ability to enforce drug laws.

Following the announcement by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, that
cannabis will be downgraded from a class B to a class C drug next year, the
firms - The Bulldog and Dutch Experience - are planning to open cafes in an
attempt to force acceptance of the drug.

The cafes would be illegal even under the new classification. The owners
point out, however, that their businesses are also technically illegal in
Amsterdam, but their success has forced a change in policy which allows
them to operate freely.

The backers believe that in Britain, too, the police will be so overwhelmed
by the number of ventures - and their popularity - that they would be
forced to allow them to remain open.

The two chains, which between them run 20 cafes in Holland, are both
planning to launch in Britain. In addition, a string of independent cafes
is also likely to open within the next year.

While police are adamant that they will not allow cannabis to be sold over
the counter, websites for the two businesses already boast of their UK
expansion plans.

One British man who is interested in running a Dutch-style coffee shop
under franchise, said: "As long as these shops do not provoke the police, I
think they will eventually accept them."

He said: "Even in Holland they are technically illegal, but they are
allowed to operate unhindered."

Many Dutch cannabis cafes started by allowing cannabis to be smoked and
gradually progressed to selling the drug. It is likely the British cafes
will at first also limit themselves to providing premises for cannabis to
be smoked and will not sell the substance.

Under Mr Blunkett's proposals, personal possession of cannabis will be made
a non-arrestable offence, although dealing would attract a prison sentence
of up to 14 years.

Among the sites being looked at by the Dutch chains and independent
businessmen are premises in Bournemouth, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Cumbria, Liverpool, Chester, Bath, Rhyl, Milton Keynes, Braintree,
Brighton, Taunton, and Lambeth in London.

The movement to open a chain of shops in Britain has taken its inspiration
from the independent Dutch Experience in Stockport, Britain's first
cannabis cafe, which opened in September. It has been raided by police
three times but is still open and attracts around 200 people a day.

Willie Wortel's Sinsemilla, a cannabis cafe in the Dutch town of Haarlem,
has already begun to offer British would-be cafe entrepreneurs a course in
running such a venture.

Twenty people paid ?575 each for a five-day course in May. Jeff Ditchfield,
who attended the course, has sold his transport business in Rhyl, north
Wales, and bought a cafe in the town which he hopes to open soon.

David Crane, the director of an internet company for seven years, is in the
process of raising ?250,000 for an "upmarket" cafe in Hoxton, east London.

As well as Stockport, there have been several other abortive attempts to
open cannabis cafes.

In Dorset, police arrested four men in April after they allegedly opened a
cannabis cafe, called The Dutch Experience 2, in a warehouse in
Bournemouth. The cafe remains open and sells teas, coffees and cannabis
paraphernalia.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Alex

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:57:23 -0700
Subject: Canada: Put that in your pipe and smoke it

Newshawk: CannabisLink.ca (http://cannabislink.ca)
Pubdate: Monday, July 21, 2002
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Website: http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Contact: letters@globeandmail.ca
Author: David MacFarlane

CHEAPSEATS

Put that in your pipe and smoke it

By DAVID MACFARLANE

I see that the marijuana debate is back. And in the nick of time. I wasn't
looking forward to the Anglican Church on single-sex marriages, were you?
And the Liberal leadership thing is already getting extremely tedious. I
hear that Allan Rock gave a speech on the subject the other day. Be still my
heart.

Perhaps you've noticed that in the marijuana debate, things have loosened up
considerably since the last time we all got together and did nothing about
our -- how shall I put this? -- barking-mad marijuana laws. Now everything's
much more liberal. Oh yes. I'm amazed how far we've come. Now, people will
tell you quite openly that they know somebody who knows somebody who smokes
pot now and then. Mostly then. Or, more astonishingly still, people will
come right out and say that they themselves smoked it once in 1973, on a
double-dare, but look: You only have to consider what people wore in those
days, to say nothing of the outrages they committed against their hair, to
realize that nobody had the brains they were born with in 1973, so you can
hardly hold a little pot-smoking against, oh, let's take Martin Cauchon, the
federal Minister of Justice, as an example.

The problem as I perceive it -- from a purely journalistic point of view --
is that it's difficult to find anybody who has recently used marijuana. And
who isn't a snowboarder. I must say, this seems at odds with perceived
reality. Our corner grocery store, for instance, is four or five hours from
the nearest chair-lift. And yet it sees fit to stock vast quantities of
rolling papers when, so far as I can ascertain, the last person who rolled
his own cigarettes was Woody Guthrie. As well, I am frequently struck with
the fact that I don't know a soul who smokes tobacco any more, and yet
whenever I go to a party, half the people there seem to feel the need to
step out onto the deck for a few minutes, for some reason. In February.

No doubt these mysteries will be cleared up by an Angus Reid poll someday.
Until then, we are all left a bit in the dark. In terms of reportage, I
mean -- if I could put it that way.

If, that is, you don't mind my parting company with the English language by
doing so.

All of which is why I've decided to take matters into my own hands and light
up what is known in the seething criminal underworld of half the population
of Canada as a reefer, or a joint. It is my intention to smoke it while
writing a column in The Globe and Mail. This could be a first. But I doubt
it.

Procuring the illegal substance turned out to be surprisingly easy. Taking
care to use a land line, I phoned a friend who once mentioned that he knew
somebody who knew somebody who smoked pot now and then.

As it happened, the somebody who was known by the somebody my friend knows
(you with me?) happened to have left some pot by accident at my friend's
house while undergoing a recent stint of palliative care. Short-term memory
loss, don't you know. He always forgets his bifocals, too.
Anyway, my friend, by sheer good luck, was able to oblige me. Did I want
Ontario hydroponic, Quebec biker dope, or some B.C. bud?

So here goes.

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

Hmm. That's interesting. And all this time I thought what I've been smelling
at night on every street in the Annex was skunk.

The first thing I have to report is that I feel no effects of the banned
substance whatsoever. If you don't count the past five minutes of coughing
as an effect. Some light-headedness perhaps, an extremely dry throat, and an
aching in my lungs -- more or less the same as going outdoors in Toronto in
July, as a matter of fact. But other than that, nothing.

But wait. Wait. I am dimly aware of some kind of sensation. Hang on. It's a
bit vague. A bit difficult to describe. But it's coming into focus. Yes,
there it is. Yes. I have it now.

Having subjected myself to the inherent risks of a controlled substance, I
can report to you that what I feel as a result of smoking an illegally
obtained marijuana cigarette is an irresistible urge to abandon my children,
knock over a Seven-Eleven, and smoke some crack.

I'd appreciate it if you'd explain to any Republican house-guests with whom
you're sharing the paper this morning that I'm just joking.

Okay. So far, so good. No firearms in sight. No briefcases full of unmarked
bills. So now what?

Surprisingly, I feel no urge to listen to old Iron Butterfly albums or to
eat an economy-size feedbag of salt and vinegar potato chips. Nor do I think
I can fly -- although if the air gets any thicker this summer I might be
tempted to give it a try. What I want to do, curiously enough, is read the
newspaper. Weird, huh?

I guess the heroin addiction and prostitution come later.

 From The Globe and Mail: " 'We're not talking about making marijuana legal,
we're talking about moving ahead with what we call decriminalization,' Mr.
Cauchon said. . . . 'The question we have to ask is if the system we have in
place is efficient.

'We want to make sure it will still be illegal. But do we have to keep it
criminal?' "

Um. Right.

Give me a sec, will you?

I'm just going to roll another one of these before I read that again. It
might help.

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:02:55 -0700
Subject: Canada: Of Course I Inhaled- So What?

Newshawk: CannabisLink.ca (http://cannabislink.ca)
Pubdate: Sun, 21 Jul 2002
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2002, The Globe and Mail Company
Contact: letters@globeandmail.ca
Website: http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Lysiane Gagnon

OF COURSE I INHALED. SO WHAT?

Yes, of course, I did, and I inhaled, too. Not very often, though. For some
reason, marijuana didn't agree with me. During the pot-filled parties of
the '70s, I would occasionally take a puff from a passing joint -- more to
avoid standing out than for pleasure. I never rolled a joint in my life. I
wouldn't even know how to do it.

So it's kind of weird to think that I came very close to being jailed for
owning pot. The story came back to my mind last week, when Justice Minister
Martin Cauchon said he might decriminalize marijuana possession.

Some 25 years ago, an acquaintance to whom I had done a favor gave me some
of her home-grown pot as a gift. It weighed maybe 80 grams. I politely
thanked her and put the plastic pouch in my tote bag, intending to pass it
on to someone who really liked the stuff. Then I completely forgot about it.

The following day, I left for the airport with my then-boyfriend to visit
his brother in Boston. I was in a feisty mood. When we got to customs, I
chided the officer for asking too many questions. Risky behaviour, indeed
- -- because an angry customs officer can do anything, including search your
bags. Mercifully, this didn't happen.

We got to Boston. As we were driving out of the airport in my boyfriend's
brother's car, I rummaged through my bag for my lipstick and hairbrush --
and found the pot I had forgotten about.

"Hey," I exclaimed joyfully, "look what I have for you! Marijuana from
Quebec!" My boyfriend turned to me with a horrified look. "What? You had
this in your bag when we crossed the border? And you were foolish enough to
argue with the customs agent?"

Only then did I realize the trouble I could have been in if the pouch of
pot had been discovered.

I later told the story to Serge Menard, then one of Quebec's top criminal
defence lawyers. (He later went into politics and is currently Quebec's
Minister of Transport.)

"You would have received a frantic call from me if I had been caught," I
told him, still laughing at the story, "but I'm sure you would have got me
out of jail in no time at all."

He didn't laugh. "It would have been very serious, Lysiane. Even with a
devoted lawyer, you could have spent quite a few years in jail. Can you
imagine this? Your parents' despair? Your career ruined? You in a jail
cell, forced to watch TV for hours on end with prostitutes and child
murderers?"

I protested. "Listen, I don't like pot, I never rolled a joint in my life,
this is exactly why I forgot I had pot in my bag! So why on earth would I
have been found guilty?"

"It wouldn't have mattered a bit," he said. "Criminals always have alibis."

"But I would have had witnesses! All my friends could have testified that I
never was a pot smoker!"

"All criminals have witnesses," Mr. Menard said.

Needless to say, I can't disagree with the idea of removing possession of
marijuana from the Criminal Code, even though it would undoubtedly put a
wedge in our relations with the United States. Ideally, a higher degree of
tolerance north of the border would have a positive influence on our
neighbours, whose repressive policies are responsible for thousands of
young people spending years in prison for simple possession of small
amounts of soft drugs. Jail being the best school for crime, this system
transforms pot smokers into hardened criminals.

Practically everyone I know smoked pot once, some still do, and none of
them evolved from pot to harder drugs. As for me, I'd rather have a glass
of wine.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Ariel

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 18:55:18 -0700
Subject: NM: Johnson Talks Drugs On TV

Newshawk: Plylar For Co. State Congress (http://www.plylar.org)
Pubdate: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
Source: Albuquerque Tribune (NM)
Copyright: 2002 The Albuquerque Tribune
Contact: letters@abqtrib.com
Website: http://www.abqtrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/11
Author: Delaney Hall

JOHNSON TALKS DRUGS ON TV

The governor clashed with the DEA chief on the Donahue show.

Gov. Gary Johnson, whose advocacy for drug decriminalization has earned him
national attention, met U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency Director Asa
Hutchinson on one of the first broadcasts of the newly revived Phil Donahue
Show Wednesday night.

Johnson joined Donahue through a satellite broadcast from the second floor
of the state Capitol, while Hutchinson beamed in from Washington, D.C.
Donahue's show, broadcast on MSNBC, originates from a studio in New Jersey.

The long-distance format didn't prevent Johnson and Hutchinson from going
head-to-head on issues of drug decriminalization.

Johnson defended the position he has taken for nearly three years,
advocating the decriminalization of illegal drugs. He criticized the
longstanding war on drugs, calling it a "miserable failure" and contending
that it does more harm than good.

As expected, Hutchinson defended the war on drugs, using his array of
statistics: "In the last 20 years, drug use has been reduced by 50
percent," he said.

Johnson began the talk by emphasizing that he doesn't advocate drug use but
favors the regulation of drugs currently deemed illegal.

"What I want to say," he said in his opening comments, "is, don't do drugs.
You're looking at someone who hasn't even had a drink in 15 years - I've
dedicated myself to physical fitness."

"However," he continued, "the war on drugs has been a miserable failure:
1.6 million Americans are jailed each year for drug-related reasons, half
of those people for marijuana and 90 percent of those people for possession
alone."

Hutchinson countered, saying, "It's really a myth of the decade that we're
locking up the user. We do not put people in jail for small amounts of
drugs; that's not the priority of the federal government."

Donahue stepped in to add that because of policies like mandatory
sentencing, most users and other people connected loosely with dealers end
up doing time.

Donahue's on-air example of that was Kemba Smith, another guest on the
show. Smith, who carried money for her boyfriend, a drug-dealer, was
sentenced to almost 25 years in prison. She had served six years of her
sentence when she was pardoned by President Clinton.

At the cost of $24,000 a year to house Smith in prison,
decriminalization-advocates argue, this form of punishment for a minor
crime is costly. Johnson said that money could be diverted to fund
treatment instead of paying to keep offenders in prison. Johnson argued
that Smith's example and many others point to the ineffectiveness and
inefficiency of the war on drugs.

"We need to look at this as a health problem," he said, "not as a legal
problem - we need to reduce death, disease, and crime, while providing more
education. We need to put money into treatment."

Johnson cited a recent New Mexico example: "Let me tell you about Maryanne
Velazquez, who from the age of 14 to 40 was addicted to Tylenol with
codeine. She wrote herself over 150 prescriptions during that time. In
1998, she was sentenced to 25 years. That's more than the sentence for rape
or second-degree murder. That's more than two times the sentence for
killing somebody with your car when you're under the influence."

Johnson last month commuted Velazquez's sentence; she had served six years.

Johnson stood firmly by his position that anyone who does drugs and then
hurts someone else as a result should be jailed. "If you do drugs, and then
get behind the wheel of your car, then absolutely, you should be put behind
bars," he said.

It's an issue of harming yourself or harming others, Johnson said.

"Eighty million Americans do illegal drugs," he said. "Right now, 50
percent of the money spent on law enforcement and 50 percent of money spent
on courts go toward drug enforcement," he said.

That money should go to more productive areas like treatment and
rehabilitation, Johnson argued.

Donahue's new show began Monday. During the first week his guests have
included a U.N. weapons inspector with experience in Iraq, the sister of a
CIA agent killed in Afghanistan, Ted Williams' daughter, and the only
senator who voted against an anti-terrorism bill that suspended some civil
rights.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth

------------------------------
End of Restore-Digest V2002 #143
********************************