Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:11:23 -0700
Subject:Santa Cruz Mayor
In NYT: Why I'm Fighting Federal Drug Laws From City Hall Up TOC

Pubdate: Sat, 21 Sep 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
Author: Christopher Krohn
Note: Christopher Krohn, a Democrat, is mayor of Santa Cruz, Calif.
Cited: Wo/Man's Alliance of Medical Marijuana http://www.wamm.org/
Pictures: of the event http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/eventpics.htm
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Corral

WHY I'M FIGHTING FEDERAL DRUG LAWS FROM CITY HALL

SANTA CRUZ, Calif.

How did I, a mayor of a small town in California, wind up in a tug of
war with the Drug Enforcement Agency?

This week, I stood in front of Santa Cruz's city hall as a local group
that provides medical marijuana went about its weekly task of
distributing the drug to the sick and dying.

My story begins on the morning of Sept. 5 when approximately 30 men,
dressed in military fatigues and carrying automatic weapons, descended
on a small cooperative farm run by the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical
Marijuana in northern Santa Cruz County, about 65 miles south of San
Francisco. They were pulling up organically grown marijuana plants.

When the Santa Cruz County sheriff's office learned what was going on,
it was at a loss to explain who the intruders were or what type of
response was in order. I didn't hear about the raid until 10 a.m.,
when I was called by members of the collective. I then telephoned the
Santa Cruz police chief and other local officials. The chief hadn't
heard anything either.

Later it became clear that the D.E.A. was making a raid. Agents
collected more than 130 plants and arrested the founders of the
medical marijuana collective, Valerie and Mike Corral. The Corrals
were taken to a federal detention center in San Jose, but no charges
were filed and they were subsequently released.

The D.E.A. was right to release them. But the Corrals shouldn't have
been there in the first place. They had not been breaking the law.
They were growing marijuana specifically for people who had been
legally prescribed the substance to help them with chronic pain
brought on by cancer, diabetes and other illnesses.

These weren't new laws, either. Residents in Santa Cruz County had
voted in 1992 to legalize the use of medical marijuana. In 1996,
Californians approved Proposition 215, a statewide measure to allow
the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Two years ago our city
council passed an ordinance to make it easier to grow and distribute
medical marijuana under the new law.

Before the morning raid, Santa Cruz had a good relationship with drug
enforcement officials. Santa Cruz, like many communities, has a
problem with illegal drugs, most notably heroin and methamphetamine.
In the last 15 months, the D.E.A. has conducted two operations here;
working with the sheriff's office and the Santa Cruz Police
Department, the agency has caught hundreds of drug dealers and users.
According to our police chief, "the D.E.A. did an excellent job" in
these operations.

That was not the case on Sept. 5. The D.E.A. came to town unannounced
and under cover of darkness.

I'm worried that the agency is going to be coming to other towns, too.
Since 1996, eight other states - Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada,
Arizona, Hawaii, Colorado and Maine - have passed laws allowing for
the use of medical marijuana. At the same time, the Department of
Justice has made it clear that it opposes the use of marijuana under
any circumstances.

Clearly, state law and federal law are on a collision course. I would
not be surprised if there are more raids.

And if there are more raids, more mayors and elected officials will
find themselves doing what we did here this week: standing with people
like the Corrals as they deliver medical marijuana to patients who are
using the drug on the advice of a physician.

The government is fighting a losing battle. In the states where
medical marijuana has been on the ballot, it has received overwhelming
approval from voters. Canada and Great Britain recently approved the
medical use of marijuana and plan to have the government grow and
distribute it.

As medical costs skyrocket, medical marijuana is a cost-effective way
to treat people with chronic pain. Most of all, making medical
marijuana available is an act of common sense and compassion. The
Corrals' collective lost 40 members this year; many of them left this
world with Ms. Corral holding their hand.

I'm hopeful that this week's events will prompt the federal government
to begin working with state and local governments to determine how far
it can go in regulating activity that has been approved by the states
and that has negligible effects on interstate commerce. There's
legislation in Congress, supported by a bipartisan coalition, that
would allow all states to approve medical marijuana, thus eliminating
any conflict with federal law. To me, that makes sense. But until it
passes, I'm standing with the Corrals.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:12:18 -0700
Subject:France: High Times For Home-Grown Cannabis Up TOC

Newshawk: Peter Webster http://www.psychedelic-library.org/
Pubdate: Sept 19, 2002
Source: Guardian Weekly, The (U.K.)
Copyright: Guardian Publications 2001
Contact: weekly.letters@guardian.co.uk
Address: 75 Farringdon Road London U.K EC1M 3HQ
Fax: 44-171-242-0985
Website: http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/GWeekly/
Page: 27
Author: Alexandre Garcia

Le Monde / Guardian Weekly

HIGH TIMES FOR HOME-GROWN CANNABIS

Cultivation and consumption of the plant in France have soared in recent years

In France the secret growing of Cannabis sativa , which existed on only a 
small scale a few years ago, is booming. More than 50 shops around the 
country now sell the equipment required for this new form of "gardening", 
whose practitioners, according to Ananda, a specialised wholesaler, number 
tens of thousands.

The craze for home-grown cannabis is also evident from the proliferation of 
books, magazines and websites devoted to the subject, as well as from the 
increase in the number of events that aim to promote the plant's legal and 
industrial form, hemp, which contains almost no psychoactive substances. 
This has already given its name to a trade show, the Salon Europeen du 
Chanvre, which has been held in Paris for the past two years, to a line of 
mass-market cosmetics, and to a folkloric festival in Montjean-sur-Loire, 
western France.

Over five days in mid-August, and for the seventh consecutive year, this 
capital of hemp celebrated the virtues of a plant that "symbolises the 
Loire Valley" and, in its psychoactive form, is now smoked by 7 million 
people in France, of whom 3.3 million are regular consumers (the country 
has 44 million alcohol drinkers and 16 million tobacco smokers). The head 
of the interior ministry's anti-drugs department, Michel Bouchet, is 
concerned about the "marketing" of cannabis, which he believes is 
responsible for the "steady increase" in the number of illegal plantations.

At a time when the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, has said he opposes 
any decriminalisation of the use of drugs and disputes the very notion of 
"soft drugs", the number of cannabis plants seized by police has never been 
so high. In 1990, 48 police swoops resulted in 1,591 plants being destroyed 
whereas in 2001, 41,000 plants were confiscated in the course of 681 
interventions.

"One can reasonably estimate that, below a line running from Brest to 
Mulhouse, there's a cannabis grower in every little village," says Francis 
Caballero, a lawyer specialising in drugs legislation. The law currently 
regards cannabis growing as the production of narcotics, which is a serious 
crime. But it is systematically redefined as a minor offence by the courts.

It is because they want to avoid getting into trouble with the law that an 
increasing number of cannabis consumers have started to grow their own. The 
equipment for growing cannabis (a complete kit costs about $500) is 
discreetly sold by 50 or so garden centres, and is also a money-spinner for 
half a dozen specialised stores in Paris, Lyon, Montpellier, Toulouse and 
Rennes.

Since the publication in 1990 of Jean-Pierre Galland's Fumee Clandestine 
(Secret Smoke), which sold 60,000 copies, cannabis growing techniques have 
been the subject of a series of best-selling books. One recent book, Ed 
Rosenthal's Culture En Placard (Growing In The Cupboard), sold 20,000 copies.

Cannabis seeds, the sale of which is prohibited, are more difficult to come 
by. Customers who do not want to go to the trouble of a trip to Amsterdam 
can get hold of seeds for "competition cage-birds", which range in price 
from $3 to $150 per seed, depending on quality. There is a note on each 
packet indicating that they must not be planted.

"This is a market niche that is booming; there is no need for advertising," 
says Kshoo, manager of the Mauvaise Graine (Bad Seed) shop in Montpellier 
(annual turnover: $100,000) and co-founder of the Cannabis Information and 
Research Collective. "We want people to legalise cannabis by growing it 
themselves, since it's still prohibited and the politicians aren't doing 
anything except crack down harder. So we've organised ourselves."

According to Kshoo, clandestine cannabis growing rarely leads to 
large-scale trading.
For the past five years Franck has been growing cannabis in his kitchen 
garden behind his isolated little house in the Deux-Sevres departement . 
"It's good, 100% organic grass," he says proudly, pointing at half a dozen 
large pots of cannabis standing next to rows of tomatoes, potatoes and 
French beans. Over the years, he says, he tried every different growing 
technique before opting for "organic open-air growing in earthenware flower 
pots". According to Franck this method produces cannabis that has a flavour 
and psychoactive effect not found in any variety available on the market. 
His crop costs him a mere $180 a year.

Cannabis growing takes up a huge amount of time, according to Franck: "You 
can't go on holiday, and you have to keep watering, regularly trim the 
leaves and make sure there's no rot or insects." Then there is the fear of 
being denounced or having one's crop stolen, which happens often in the 
countryside.

Cannabis grown in cupboards can satisfy the needs of only a small number of 
friends, says Franck. They are all fed up with pushers and the poor quality 
of Moroccan hashish, which is always spun out with paraffin, medical 
products or waste lubricating oil.

But to judge from the 5,000 sodium lamps sold annually by cooperative 
stores alone, and allowing for the fact that each plantation is tended by 
up to four people, there must be at least 100,000 cannabis growers in 
France, according to Eric Chapel, president of the Paka association. Paka 
runs a specialist shop opposite a police station in Montreuil, on the 
outskirts of Paris.

French output now seems to have increased to the point where it can satisfy 
the needs of more than half the national market. "There are even some 
French people who go to Holland to sell their produce," says Chapel. "The 
Dutch only produce industrial-quality cannabis for export. When it comes to 
top-quality grass, anyone can market the stuff." August 14

The Guardian Weekly 19-9-2002, page 27
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:13:12 -0700
Subject:NV: Dope Vote Lights Up Las Vegas Up TOC

Newshawk: Vote Yes on Question 9: www.nrle.org
Pubdate: Sun, 22 Sep 2002
Source: Sunday Herald, The (UK)
Copyright: 2002 Sunday Herald
Contact: editor@sundayherald.com
Website: http://www.sundayherald.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/873
Author: Timothy Pratt
Cited: Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement ( www.nrle.org )
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project ( www.mpp.org )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/findUKP162 (Nevadans for Responsible Law
Enforcement)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/findUKP163 (Question 9 (NV))

DOPE VOTE LIGHTS UP LAS VEGAS

Through a thickening haze of arguments, Nevada voters do battle to legalise
pot for private use. Timothy Pratt reports from Las Vegas

As the fall elections draw near in this non-presidential year, an unlikely
battleground in America's war on drugs has appeared in the middle of the
desert, like a shifting mirage -- Las Vegas. Home to 1.4 million of
Nevada's two million residents, the city's greater metropolitan area has
the chance, come November 5, to vote on what would be the most far-reaching
reform to America's drug laws since marijuana was made illegal in 1937.

'A lot is at stake here,' said Krissy Oechslin, spokeswoman for the
Washington-based Marijuana Policy Project, the organisation putting up more
than $1 million to mount Nevada's campaign. 'People are looking at this to
see if the reform of marijuana laws is possible nationwide.'

Arguing that the police are too busy chasing reefer when they could be
chasing robbers, a group, calling itself Nevadans For Responsible Law
Enforcement, convinced more than 100,000 of the state's citizens to place a
question on the ballot that would legalise possession of less than three
ounces of marijuana and earn the state taxes from its regulated sale to
adults over 21.

The number of signatures gained in July's 100!F heat broke records in the
quick-growing state's political history, said Billy Rogers, director of the
campaign. Early polls showed a near-even split. Then, in a move that caught
observers by surprise, the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
(NCOPS), the state's law enforcement organisation, announced its support
for the initiative.

'Violent crime is on the rise and terrorism remains a real threat,' said
Andy Anderson, the organisation's president. Our priorities have changed
and, with our limited resources, so should our laws.'

In a matter of days, police accused Anderson of misinterpreting the will of
his members. NCOPS reversed its position and Anderson resigned. By this
time question nine had attracted national attention from the media and the
federal government.

Nevada has already seen reform of the marijuana laws. By popular vote in
2000, it one of nine states where it is legal for patients with a doctor's
prescription to use the drug for medical purposes and, in the process,
reduced penalties for possession of less than an ounce. But these laws have
pitted the feds against these states, as buying and selling marijuana
remains illegal. It came to a head last week when federal Drug Enforcement
Administration officials raided a California farm that grows marijuana for
the ill. They were answered by a city hall smoke-in of the sick, joined by
the local mayor and officials (who didn't light up).

On Tuesday, the nation's so-called drug tsar, John Walters, announced he
would visit Nevada on October 9 and 10 to lobby against question nine. 'I
am going into every state that has a ballot initiative and working with
people in community coalitions,' Walters, director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, told a Las Vegas newspaper.

This, said Oechslin, may be the campaign's biggest obstacle. 'We're going
up against the federal government, which has unlimited money to uphold drug
policy,' she said. Last week Walters's office launched the latest
instalment of a five-year-old anti-drug advertising campaign which costs
taxpayers $180m a year.

Allen St Pierre, executive director of the National Organisation for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws -- the nation's oldest and largest such group,
founded in 1970 -- said the feds might have left the state alone if the
measure only sought decriminalisation, but will pull out all the stops to
prevent Nevada from regulating marijuana sales.

'I just don't think the idea of the state distributing marijuana will
withstand federal pressure,' he said. At the same time, he said Nevada was
as good a place as any to try. 'If you were to choose where to do this,
Nevada is the right place. It enjoys a reputation for vice, tourism and,
what is described in Washington, as Western libertarianism.'

The epicentre of vice -- at least in the minds of nearly 40 million
tourists yearly -- is the several miles of casinos known as the Strip. At
its September meeting, the State Board of Health's chairman, Joey
Villaflor, explained why he was against question nine. 'Can you imagine --
the Strip would be flooded with marijuana!'

To Rogers this is the biggest obstacle facing the initiative -- 'the lies
of the opposition'. The measure clearly states that marijuana smoking would
still be illegal in public, including the Strip's casinos. 'This is about
what people do in the privacy of their own homes,' he said.

In the end, it is the state's voters who must peer through the thickening
haze of arguments. If a majority approves the question, it must get a yes
vote again in 2004 to become law. Anecdotally it appears that more
college-aged Nevadans are registering to vote than ever before -- perhaps
to send out the message they want to light up and be left alone.

'A group of orange-haired kids with piercings everywhere came in and wanted
to register people just to vote for this question,' said Larry Lomax,
registrar with the Clark County board of elections.

'It's definitely going to be interesting,' said St Pierre. But he admits he
is not optimistic. 'I think, given a straight-up, non-politicised vote, up
to 58% of voters would support this. But the truth is, this issue is
over-politicised to the extent few issues are in this country.'
__________________________________________________________________________
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, 23 Sep 2002 10:39:27 -0700
Subject:NYTimes: South Dakota To Vote On Extending Jury Rights Up TOC

Title: South Dakota To Vote On Extending Jury Rights
Author: Adam Liptak
Source: New York Times
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Pubdate: Saturday, September 21, 2002

In November, voters in South Dakota will decide whether to give tax
protesters, medical marijuana users and other criminal defendants a new
right. A proposed constitutional amendment would allow defendants there to
concede their guilt but nonetheless argue for acquittal on the grounds
that the law under which they were charged is misguided or draconian.

The South Dakota initiative, known as Amendment A, is the next step in a
centuries-old debate about the role of juries in deciding not just the
facts of a case but also the wisdom of the law in question. The shorthand
term for the complex subject is jury nullification.

Proponents of the amendment say it is a necessary countermeasure.

"I'm concerned with the increasing criminalization of more and more
behavior, of things that merely annoy other people," said Bob Newland, the
Libertarian candidate for attorney general of South Dakota and the chief
proponent of Amendment A.

Among recent misguided prosecutions in South Dakota, Mr. Newland said,
were those of a man convicted of cruelty to animals for using his cane to
fend off an attacking dog, and parents convicted of child pornography
after taking pictures of their toddler in the tub. He said these people
were guilty under the letter of the law but should have been able to argue
to the jury that the laws in question made no sense.

The initiative's chances of passage are hard to assess. Some 34,000 people
signed petitions to place it on the ballot, which is more than 10 percent
of the people who voted in the last statewide election.

Robert E. Hayes, the president of the South Dakota Bar Association, which
opposes the initiative, said it could appeal to voters.

"Jury duty is taken pretty seriously here," Mr. Hayes said, "and there is
some sense that juries are fundamental, citizen-level government
organizations, so we want to empower them more."

Mr. Newland has allies across the ideological spectrum. In South Dakota,
much of his support comes from the libertarian right, including opponents
of gun control. Elsewhere, some liberal academics say nullification may be
a sort of civil right.

"I would observe that they are strange bedfellows - pro-marijuana,
pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-environment," said Andrew D. Leipold, a
professor at the University of Illinois College of Law who has written
about jury nullification. "This cuts very widely across many political
groups. They are a very interesting collection of people who believe
philosophically in the power of juries, plus a lot of single-issue
people."

Mr. Newland said South Dakota was "the center of the universe for the
informed jury movement now," adding, "Everybody is watching what is
happening here."

Earlier efforts to pass jury nullification laws in Oklahoma and Arizona
failed. Similar legislation is pending in Alaska.

Lawyers say the case that prompted Amendment A was that of Matthew
Ducheneaux, who was convicted in Sioux Falls last month of marijuana
possession. Mr. Ducheneaux, 38, who had been caught smoking at a jazz
festival in 2000, said he used marijuana to alleviate the leg spasms that
have tortured him since he became a quadriplegic after an automobile
accident.

Mr. Ducheneaux, whose five-day sentence was suspended, was forbidden to
argue to the jury that the law under which he was charged was unwise.

The jury in the case was troubled by the prosecution, said Chris Moran,
Mr. Ducheneaux's lawyer. "All of them conclusively said afterward that
they didn't want to find him guilty."

The prosecutor in the case, Matthew Theophilus, sounded relieved to have
won. "I've never seen a defendant more sympathetic than Matthew
Ducheneaux," he said. "Did I want to prosecute Matthew Ducheneaux? No. Did
I have to? Yes."

Mr. Theophilus opposes Amendment A. "It's basically saying that the law
should apply to one person one day and not to another person another day,"
he said. "They're trying to use Amendment A as an end run around the
legislatures, as an end run around democracy."

Mr. Ducheneaux emphasized the medicinal power of marijuana. "It's instant
relief for everything," he said. "It even stimulates the mind for
thinking."

All he asked, he said, was to be able to make these arguments in court.

"I think they're violating my constitutional right of making my defense
and proving my case," Mr. Ducheneaux said. He is appealing his sentence,
which requires him to abstain from marijuana for a year.

The proposed amendment would add a few words to a list of familiar rights
in the South Dakota Constitution, and its opponents say it is artfully
drafted to appear innocuous. The amendment would allow defendants "to
argue the merits, validity and applicability of the law, including the
sentencing laws."

Opponents of the amendment, which include most of the establishment bar in
South Dakota, say it is antidemocratic in allowing a small group of people
to decide the wisdom of a law.

Mr. Newland said a more general approach was unrealistic, given the
hundreds of new laws enacted each year.

"One option is to go to the Legislature and argue for the repeal of a
single bad law," he said. "The other option is to allow people to argue
during the defense portion of the trial that the law in question is
flawed, misapplied, or that `yes, I did this, but if you convict me I'm
going to jail for a long, long time.' "

Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor in Washington who is now a
professor at George Washington University Law School, supports the
initiative. He said no one disputes the idea that juries have the
practical power to nullify laws in given prosecutions, because their
deliberations are secret and unreviewable.

"I have always thought that the current state of the law is perverse,"
Professor Butler said. "It's sort of like a secret power. To the extent
these initiatives tell juries about a power they have, I'm in favor of
them."

In his academic writing, Professor Butler has encouraged jury
nullification in some drug possession cases as a sort of protest against
what he says are draconian drug laws that disproportionately affect
African-American men. He says he has mixed feelings about drug
distribution cases and opposes nullification in cases involving violent
crime.

Professor Leipold of the University of Illinois said creating a right to
jury nullification while hoping it will be applied sensibly was wishful
thinking.

"It's like giving someone a credit card with no limit on it and saying,
`Be very careful how you spend it,' " he said.

In colonial times and in the early days of the Republic, American juries
played a more active role in interpreting and applying the law. In the
libel trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735, for instance, Mr. Zenger
conceded that he had printed defamatory matter, which under the law at the
time required conviction. His lawyer urged the jury to interpret the law
to allow proof of truth as a defense. Mr. Zenger was acquitted.

Professor Leipold said it was a mistake to draw too many lessons from the
Zenger case. "All we do is look back on the cool cases," he said. "We
don't look back at the cases where juries refused to convict the killers
of Native Americans."

Indeed, said David A. Pepper, who has written on the history of jury
nullification, the American experience with the phenomenon has been
decidedly mixed. Juries have acquitted people who harbored fugitive slaves
and members of mobs that lynched black men. They have gone easy on people
prosecuted on alcohol charges during Prohibition and on men accused of
domestic violence.

More recently, courts have been almost uniformly hostile to nullification
arguments.

"We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule
of law, jury nullification is desirable or that courts may permit it to
occur when it is within their authority to prevent," Judge Jose A.
Cabranes of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York,
wrote in 1997.

The lawyers in Mr. Ducheneaux's case have mixed feelings about it.

"I think there is some merit to his defense," Mr. Theophilus, the
prosecutor, said, referring to the defendant's argument that he had a
medical need for marijuana.

Mr. Moran, who represented Mr. Ducheneaux, says he is not sure how he
feels about Amendment A.

"It could be very beneficial in some cases," he said. "But what sort of
can of worms does it open?"

Copyright The New York Times Company.


____________________________________________________
All articles come from MAP at http://www.mapinc.org.
To unsubscribe, email hempcast-unsubscribe@hemp.net.------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:49:02 -0700
Subject:CA: DEA are the Friends of Meth Up TOC

Source: Sacramento Bee
Editorial: Friends of meth?
Medical pot raids help drug traffickers
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Saturday, September 21, 2002

Some wit once defined a fanatic as a person who redoubles his effort just 
as he loses sight of his objective. That wit must have been thinking of 
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Drug Enforcement Administrator Asa 
Hutchinson.

Their objective is supposed to be chasing drug traffickers who sell 
dangerous drugs such as methamphetamines and heroin to children. Instead, 
they are raiding plots that supply medical marijuana to grandmothers with 
cancer under the terms of California's Proposition 215.

The state's growing anger over Ashcroft's fanaticism crystallized this 
month after DEA agents raided a medical marijuana cooperative in Santa Cruz 
that operates responsibly with the support of local officials and police. 
Santa Cruz city officials gathered the other day with doctors, lawyers and 
patients to openly distribute medical marijuana in defiance of federal 
officials.

And they are right to be angry. As California Attorney General Bill Lockyer 
spelled out in a recent letter to Ashcroft and Hutchinson, the raids, 
conducted without consulting local and state authorities, are doubly 
outrageous.

For one thing, they are unethical abuses of law enforcement power. Lockyer 
points out that the raids are being conducted without any expectation that 
the targets can or will be successfully prosecuted. There's not a jury 
anywhere in California that would convict someone operating a medical 
marijuana cooperative that state authorities have sanctioned under 
Proposition 215. The raids are punishment being meted out without 
conviction or trial.

Even more important, every hour a federal agent spends chasing medical 
marijuana is an hour not available to California's more serious drug 
problems. Medical marijuana, Lockyer correctly noted, "represents little 
danger to the public and is certainly not a concern that would warrant 
diverting scarce federal resources away from the fight against domestic 
methamphetamine production, heroin distribution or international terrorism."

Every time Ashcroft and the DEA go after medical marijuana users, life gets 
a little easier on traffickers in methamphetamines and heroin. That's 
something even a fanatic should be able to understand. 

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:54:01 -0700
Subject: CA: Diana Griego Erwin tragic truth of medical marijuana patients

From Dale Gieringer canorml@igc.org :

By Diana Griego Erwin -- Sacremento Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PDT Sunday, September 22, 2002

Tess Williams of Elk Grove wept when she saw her sister holding a
sign in the crowd of protesters standing outside Santa Cruz's City
Hall last week.

"It just is so unlike her," Williams said. Her sister, a soccer mom,
PTA secretary "and always the more quiet and elegant of us two,"
isn't the sign-waving type.

Or, wasn't.

"I hid behind this tall, bearded fellow ... hoping she wouldn't see
me crying," Williams said. "I wanted to be there for her. The last
thing I wanted to do was wimp out."

Yet the best-laid plans often fail us; life refuses to be as neat as that.

So it's been for Williams' sister, who lives with her husband and two
children in the Bay Area. She also uses medicinal marijuana to manage
the pain as she dies of cancer. It wasn't supposed to be this way.

Six months ago, Williams took her sister to their favorite San
Francisco restaurant for lunch to celebrate what seemed to be the
latter woman's successful battle with cancer. Two weeks later, the
extended family was crushed to learn the cancer was back -- and had
spread.

"All she wants now is to live the last of her life with dignity and
to spend it with friends and family, especially her kids," Williams
said. "If that means using marijuana to manage the pain, so be it."

Her desire for dignity is what brought Williams and her sister out to
Tuesday's rally, which was called to protest federal drug agents'
stepped-up crackdown on medicinal-marijuana clubs and patients
certified to use the otherwise illegal drug under a doctor's care for
documented medical purposes.

Voters made medical marijuana legal in California in 1996, but its
use remains illegal under federal law, sparking ugly rifts between
officials in California and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Which is why Williams' sister doesn't want to be named in this
column. Life in her household is crazy enough.

"You know, if it was just me, I'd stand up for this, but I'm just
too, too tired," the 36-year-old woman said. "This whole thing has
been confusing and awful enough for my children without me getting
arrested, too."

Tuesday's rally made the national news, but with that stereotypical
"only in California" twist outsiders have a tough time resisting.

As in: Ha-ha. There's those California potheads again, pretending to
be sick so they can toke up. What's wrong with 'em? A stubbed toe?

But Tuesday's rally wasn't about drug use. It was about quality of
life and end-of-life issues. That, and the dying.

Williams wishes all the naysayers and disbelievers had shown up.
"Their hearts and minds would have been changed." They would have
seen that no one there was faking a terminal illness or debilitating
condition just to score a little marijuana for weekend parties.

"We're talking sick, sick people," she said. "People who are pale and
emaciated."

At one point during the rally, Williams stood next to a man who
looked like a skeleton wearing a Hawaiian shirt. When she commented
about something a speaker said, he turned to her, looked in her eyes
and smiled.

"Something about him reminded me of my sister," she said. "And then I
realized it was the eyes. His eyes looked so, so tired. There's just
so little light there. . . . How uncompassionate are people that they
would accuse these terminally ill people of being fakers; that
government agents would raid their homes and handcuff them?"

Because they can't cry about everything, she and her sister sometimes
laugh about the irony of the situation. Two years ago, the dying
woman was the PTA official who organized the local Red Ribbon Week
anti-drug campaign in her children's school.

"I guess you never know where life might take you," Williams said.


- -- 
- ----
Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858  // canorml@igc.org
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:56:01 -0700
Subject: HT: KFC - Munchies lead to arrest!

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020923_468.html

KFC Employee Arrested After Customer Gets Marijuana With His Chicken
The Associated Press
Sept. 23 - MILL VALLEY, Calif.

A Mill Valley KFC restaurant employee was arrested after a customer 
received a little something extra with his chicken dinner.

This customer received two bags of marijuana Friday, instead of the extra 
biscuits he had requested.

The customer gave the marijuana back to the employee, got his extra 
biscuits and called police.

Police arrested Carlos Ayala, 26, of Vallejo, shortly after the customer 
complained about the pot.

Marin County Sheriff's deputies said they found Ayala with a small amount 
of marijuana, a handgun and about $500 in his possession.

Ayala often worked the drive-up window at the restaurant and authorities 
say he may have been selling the marijuana to customers who used the right 
secret word as a code.

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 13:16:34 -0700
Subject: DC civil disobedience [fwd]

via Richard Lake:
 >From:   cmulligan@drugpolicy.org (Christopher Mulligan)

Friends,

I have just returned from a somber, yet inspirational gathering of 
dedicated individuals in DC.  At 12:00 pm this afternoon, both Chuck Thomas 
(UU's for Drug Policy Reform) and Dough McVey (CSDP) bravely handcuffed 
themselves to the gates of the Whitehouse in protest of the recent and 
ongoing raids of cannabis buyer's cooperatives in California.  I would 
estimate that there were about 35-50 protesters chanting and holding signs 
in support of the action.  We also had an enormous banner printed up that 
said "Pardon Bryan Epis: Stop arresting medical marijuana patients." There 
were several journalists, and probably 6 film crews, including CNN. So, 
hopefully the action will receive the publicity it deserves.

I was surprised at how much time they actually gave us to communicate our 
message before making arrests.  I was anticipating the proceedings to be 
much more rapid.

All in all, the police were very considerate, giving us 3 warnings to 
remove and vacate before placing the two gentlemen cuffed to the gates 
under arrest.  Chuck, who immediately fell limp after his cuffs were cut, 
was politely carried upright by two officers.  Many of the officers were 
understanding and thanked us for being polite and organized.  As mentioned, 
they let us stay for quite a while, almost seeming to be interested in what 
we were saying and doing.

Being that I have never participated in an act of civil disobedience such 
as this, I found it to be quite inspiring and useful in getting our message 
across.  Now, I do not think that we should all go out and get ourselves 
arrested in the name of medical marijuana, but those who stood up to 
protest the actions of the DEA today are certainly now on my list of 
heroes.  As NORML supporters and affiliates we should all do our part to 
make sure that these actions do not go unnoticed.

For all of you out there who do not have the opportunity to participate in 
protests such as this, please make sure that you do something to contribute 
to the actions that are going on around the country.  Knowing that there 
are people out there who are willing to go to jail for patients who need 
marijuana only makes me want to work harder and faster to help achieve the 
changes we desire.

In solidarity with Sacramento,
Christopher S. Mulligan
NORML
chrism@norml.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:18:04 -0700
Subject: NV: Legalizing Marijuana: Five Major Sticking Points

Newshawk: Libertarians 1 - Drug Warriors 0 - http://www.plylar.org
Pubdate: Sun, 22 Sep 2002
Source: Las Vegas Sun (NV)
Webpage:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/lv-other/2002/sep/20/514016887.html
Copyright: 2002 Las Vegas Sun, Inc
Contact: letters@lasvegassun.com
Website: http://www.lasvegassun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/234
Author: Steve Kanigher
Cited: Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement http://www.nrle.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?162 (Nevadans for Responsible Law
Enforcement)

LEGALIZING MARIJUANA: FIVE MAJOR STICKING POINTS

Question 9 on the November general election ballot asks Nevadans
whether they want to amend the state constitution to legalize
possession by adults of up to 3 ounces of marijuana for private use.

There are five major areas of disagreement between proponents and
opponents regarding the initiative and its potential impacts.

1. Does it cover only marijuana or does it also legalize hashish and
other by-products?

Question 9 defines marijuana as a plant "of the genus Cannabis or its
product." Proponents interpret that to mean only the leafy substance
or residue, such as that left in a pipe. Opponents interpret "its
product" to include hashish, which they say contains 10 times the
amount of THC found in marijuana.

Billy Rogers, brought in by the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington
to run the Question 9 campaign, said the intent of the initiative was
to cover only marijuana.

"It doesn't say hashish and hashish is not covered by this," Rogers
said. "It's clear that it's talking about the plant. If there is any
question about this, the Legislature has the authority under this
initiative to determine what a 'product' is."

Webster's Dictionary defines hashish as the concentrated resin from
the flowering tops of the female hemp plant, known as Cannabis sativa.
Hashish can be smoked, chewed or drunk for its intoxicating effect,
according to the dictionary.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Gary Booker, head of the vehicular
crimes unit, said he believes hashish would be legal under Question 9
and that three ounces would be enough to last a year.

"Question 9 says marijuana and its products and hashish is a product,"
Booker said. "The active ingredients are so high that someone who uses
hashish would be high as a kite."

Question 9 opponents point to federal studies that show that teenagers
who smoke marijuana are many times as likely to move onto harder drugs
as adults than if they don't smoke marijuana. A federal study released
last month ranked Nevada as tied for seventh in the nation with an
estimated 7 percent of youths aged 12 to 17 who tried marijuana for
the first time in 1999 or 2000.

"There are allegedly 3,000 new marijuana smokers per day in this
country and three-quarters are under age 18," Metro narcotics
detective Todd Raybuck said. "Youths who smoke marijuana are 85 times
more likely to use cocaine than nonsmokers."

But Rogers said he doesn't buy the "gateway drug" argument. He said 80
million Americans have tried marijuana and that there are an estimated
11 million current marijuana smokers, including 110,000 to 150,000 in
Nevada.

"Don't you think that if their argument was the case that there would
be 80 million cocaine and heroin addicts?" Rogers said. "Their
argument is insulting to the 80 million people who have tried
marijuana. There's no doubt addiction is a problem in this country but
for people to say that marijuana is the cause of addiction to cocaine
and heroin ignores the complexities of addiction and ignores the
struggles of people who go through addiction."

2. Does the initiative nullify existing penalties for motorists caught
driving under the influence of marijuana?

The initiative directs the Legislature to establish penalties for
users of marijuana who were "driving dangerously." Proponents say this
provision would ensure that motorists under the influence of marijuana
would be penalized for such driving. But opponents say that phrase is
vague and would exclude some motorists who would be convicted of DUI
under existing laws.

Booker said "driving dangerously" leaves too much for interpretation
and cannot be enforced.

"There is no definition for 'driving dangerously' in Nevada law," he
said.

Under current law, motorists can be charged with driving under the
influence even if they were stopped by police for other reasons, such
as a malfunctioning taillight. But Booker said that if a motorist
under the influence of marijuana is stopped for reasons other than
"driving dangerously," it is possible under Question 9 that he would
not be cited for DUI.

His concern is that marijuana-related DUIs are on the rise -- he said
they make up as much as 20 percent of all DUIs in Clark County -- and
that three of the most publicized DUI fatality cases he has worked in
the past two years involved motorists who had marijuana in their system.

He said those cases included Jessica Williams, who was sentenced to 18
to 48 years in prison for killing six teenagers along Interstate 15;
Juanita Kim McDonald, who was sentenced to four to 20 years in prison
for killing a pedestrian and injuring four others along the Las Vegas
Strip, and John Simbrat, who was charged with the Aug. 9 traffic death
of Las Vegas Sun Vice President and Associate Editor Sandy Thompson on
Interstate 215.

"Marijuana is more insidious than alcohol in that you cannot see the
symptoms," Booker said. "It has a hallucinogenic effect whereas
alcohol affects motor skills. With marijuana you think the road is
going left when it is going straight. With alcohol you know it is
going straight but you just can't stay on it.

"My fear with Question 9 is that our DUI rate would go right through
the roof."

Rogers said his organization takes DUIs seriously and supports severe
punishment for such drivers.

"Under our initiative you're allowed to smoke in the privacy of your
home," Rogers said. "If you walk out and drive a car and kill a
person, you will go to prison and you should go to prison for a long
time. This initiative would do nothing to prevent Gary Booker from
putting someone in prison for a long time if they're found guilty."

But Rogers took offense that Question 9 foes are using the Simbrat
case and others to attack marijuana use.

"It's shameful that opponents would take a tragedy and try to exploit
it for political purposes," Rogers said. "If they were sincere, why
not try to ban the sale of alcohol?"

Another concern Booker has is the provision of the initiative stating
that "any statute or regulation inconsistent with this section is null
and void after Jan. 1, 2005." Booker said he believes that would
eliminate Nevada's current marijuana DUI law, which is triggered by 2
nanograms of marijuana per milliliter in the blood or 5 nanograms of
the by-products known as metabolites.

Rogers disagreed, armed with a legal opinion from Las Vegas attorney
JoNell Thomas who concluded that existing DUI laws would not be
nullified by Question 9. Thomas informed Rogers that "the plain
language of the ballot question makes it clear that the Legislature
must punish those who drive under the influence of marijuana."

"It is absurd to suggest we want people to drive under the influence
of marijuana," Rogers said. "That goes beyond the scope of what this
does."

While Rogers insisted that Question 9 would not change existing
marijuana DUI laws, he said wasn't convinced that someone would still
be "under the influence" of marijuana based on the quantities in the
blood that trigger Nevada's existing law.

"At 2 nanograms you're talking about someone who smoked 30 days ago or
15 days ago and it would still be in their system but they certainly
wouldn't be under the influence," he said.

3. Does Question 9 give users of medical marijuana new benefits or,
rather, does it discriminate against those Nevadans?

Question 9 proponents state in fliers that the initiative would give
seriously ill people "easy access" to medical marijuana. But foes say
that is misleading because qualified Nevadans already have that access.

"I don't think people understand that," said Sandy Heverly of Las
Vegas, STOP DUI executive director. "They've been purposely deceived
by this group that it will help people for medicinal purposes but we
already legalized that two years ago."

As of last week, 211 Nevadans were registered through the state
Agriculture Division to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. The law
allows those registered to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and
own three mature marijuana plants and four immature plants.

Question 9 foes say the initiative would discriminate against medical
marijuana patients because they would still have to register with the
state, whereas all other adults would be able to possess marijuana
without registration. But Rogers said the difference is that medical
marijuana patients will still be allowed to grow plants -- and
therefore register with the state for that reason -- whereas all other
adults would be prohibited from growing plants.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, a consultant to
Rogers, said another advantage of Question 9 -- and one of the main
reasons she supports the initiative -- is that it is designed to allow
the state to sell marijuana to qualified patients at below retail
prices. She said that provision would help low-income patients who now
find growing their own plants cost-prohibitive.

"This reduces the difficulty of having to grow it," Giunchigliani
said. "They are expensive to grow and some people are having to access
it illegally. It could cost a lot of money to obtain the equipment
such as the lights and the seeds as well. What we want to do is fix
the problem for the medically needy."

4. Do police spend too much time making arrests in relatively trivial
marijuana possession cases? Conversely, is Question 9 enforceable if
it becomes law?

Proponents of Question 9 say police spend too much time arresting
individuals for marijuana offenses and could better use their
resources elsewhere. Opponents say the amount of time police spend on
marijuana arrests is exaggerated.

A bone of contention is the argument from proponents that 3,742 people
were arrested in Nevada for "small amounts" of marijuana in 2000,
according to FBI statistics.

"We estimate that law enforcement officers were off the street for
10,000 hours arresting people for small amounts of marijuana," Rogers
said. "There is no argument officers could have spent more time on the
street protecting us from violent criminals."

Rogers' statistics contrast greatly with Raybuck's, who said that the
FBI figures also included individuals who were arrested for other
crimes. Raybuck said that Metro booked into jail only 50 people in the
first half of this year on a sole charge of possession of marijuana of
any amount. He said he didn't have available the latest number of
arrests for multiple crimes that included marijuana among the charges,
nor the number of citations issued under the new misdemeanor
possession law.

"It looks like they've got something to hide," Rogers
said.

But Raybuck said he wouldn't be surprised if the new misdemeanor
possession law reduced the number of marijuana arrests, since all the
arrests cited by Rogers for 2000 would have been felonies.

Booker also said that Metro often won't bother to even issue citations
for marijuana possession if, for instance, police respond to a
domestic dispute and happen to spot a few marijuana cigarettes in the
residence. In those cases, Booker said police often will either
confiscate the marijuana or have the individual flush it down the toilet.

"We're not spending a lot of resources on this," Booker said of
marijuana arrests. "That's a lie."

The intent of Question 9 is to restrict use of marijuana to one's
private residence, Rogers said. He said the initiative would allow
people to possess marijuana in most public places -- including in
their car or while walking home from a store where they purchased
marijuana. Possession at schools, jails and prisons would be banned,
he said.

But Raybuck said the initiative would be difficult to enforce for an
officer driving along the street.

"How do you tell if someone is smoking a marijuana cigarette or a
regular cigarette?" Raybuck said. "What type of harassment complaints
will we face if we stop someone with a lit piece of paper in their
mouth and it turns out to be a regular cigarette?"

5. Will Question 9 eliminate the black market in marijuana, or will it
actually make it more likely that a black market will thrive?

Question 9 proponents say the marijuana initiative will reduce, if not
eliminate, the black market because licensed retailers will be able to
sell marijuana cheaper than the estimated $100 to $700 per ounce that
is now fetched illegally. Opponents say the black market will continue
to thrive to peddle to children.

Rogers pointed to the end of Prohibition, which legalized alcohol and
put bootleggers out of business. He said the same should happen to the
illicit marijuana trade.

"In a regulated marketplace, where anyone who sells marijuana to a
minor would go to prison, the availability of marijuana for children
and the use of marijuana by children will decrease," Rogers said.

He cited a Columbia University study that found that it was three
times as easy for children to score marijuana than to obtain beer. He
attributed that to laws over the past 20 years that have cracked down
on underage drinking.

"You have strong enforcement and underage use of beer and alcohol went
down," he said.

But Raybuck painted the opposite picture. He said that children who
see adults smoking marijuana at home are more likely to want to
imitate that habit. And that, in turn, will keep the black market thriving.

"We know that a lot of young people don't want to wait to be adults to
engage in activities meant for adults," Raybuck said. "It would lead
to more drug use among children and more crime in Nevada. If the
majority of new users are underage and can't purchase marijuana
legally, the black market would still exist to supply that demand.

"Legal sellers would have to register with the state and pay taxes.
They would also have overhead for employees and utility bills. If you
sell on the black market, you don't have to pay taxes or overhead. So
what incentive is there to go into legal business when you can still
sell it on the black market?"
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake------------------------------
End of Restore-Digest V2002 #200
********************************