Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000
Subject: Stop The Violence By Stopping The Drug War

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 166 Thursday March 23, 2000
Stop The Violence By Stopping The Drug War

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 166 Thursday March 23, 2000

The horrors of the drug war don’t seem to have much impact on
reporters on the business beat. They often seem to assume that the
drug war represents “business as usual,” but this week a business
columnist at the Dallas Morning News decided otherwise.

After visiting San Diego, Scott Burns (in a column below) determined
that the terrible violence plaguing Mexican towns on the U.S.-Mexico
border is caused by drug prohibition. He also arrived at the obvious
solution that seems so difficult for elected officials to understand:
End the drug war.

“Have the guts, as a nation, to realize that we are awash in substance
abuse and that the legality or illegality of substances ranging from
alcohol and prescription tranquilizers to cocaine and heroin are
transitory social conventions that allow criminals to make fortunes,
cost the lives of substance abusers and inflict agony on their loved
ones. Do that and we can enjoy a magnificent decline in the domestic
crime rate,” Burns wrote.

Please write a letter to the Dallas Morning News to let editors and
readers know that Burns is on the right track.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)
Contact: [email protected]

***************************************************************************

ARTICLE

Pubdate: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)
Copyright: 2000 The Dallas Morning News
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Box 655237, Dallas, Texas 75265
Fax: (972) 263-0456
Feedback: http://dmnweb.dallasnews.com/letters/
Website: http://www.dallasnews.com/
Forum: http://forums.dallasnews.com:81/webx
Author: Scott Burns, DMN Business Columnist

Drugs Cast Shadow On Border Cities

SAN DIEGO — It’s easy to think of San Diego as a sports dreamland.
On the ride from Yuma, I passed huge sand dunes where dune buggies
were cavorting, a mountain peak circled by strangely out-of-scale
hawks that turned out to be hang gliders and parasails, a gigantic
skating park and finally San Diego Bay itself, stately with sails,
busy with small fishing boats. If you want to be active and outdoors,
this city has got to be one of the great places in America to live.

But a dark shadow looms over San Diego and reaches into every corner
of America. It is from Tijuana and drugs. In the first two months of
the year, according to news reports, 70 people have been killed in
Tijuana, presumed victims in drug turf battles.

TV news is interrupted on the day of my arrival by an announcement
that Tijuana Police Chief Alfredo de la Torre Marquez was shot to
death on his way to work. Ambushed by assassins with automatic
weapons, his vehicle was hit by at least 100 shots. Fifty-three
bullets were found in his body.

Murder isn’t unique to Tijuana. It is increasing along the entire
border. In Juarez, Mayor Gustavo Elizondo has successfully petitioned
the government of Mexico to rename the major drug cartels after their
leaders instead of the city in which they operate. Overnight, the
“Juarez Cartel,” disappears from public reporting.

Not surprisingly, the mayor was concerned with the image of his city
after November’s highly publicized search for mass graves. While 100
to 300 bodies were sought, “only” nine were found. Since 1993, over
200 people have disappeared in Juarez. Why is this happening?

Drugs. Only the incredible money in illegal drugs can explain the
rising level of violence along the border.

Skeptical?

Then consider this. Just west of Del Rio, after riding over the
Amistad Reservoir Bridge, a single Border Patrol agent, Alex Lopez,
stopped me. Mr. Lopez is part of a Special Response Team in the area.
Officer Lopez was alone in a region that resembles the surface of the
moon.

I commented that he had a tough job.

“Not so bad.” He answered. “It gets exciting sometimes.”

I asked how it was exciting.

“This is a major area for drug smuggling. A lot of stuff comes
through here, and we’re here to stop it.”

It’s a tough job. You can understand by looking at a map. The
U.S.-Mexico border is 2,000 miles long. Large areas of Texas, New
Mexico and Arizona — like the area between Del Rio and Langtry — are
virtually devoid of population. It is easy to cross the river and
meet waiting transportation. And if you want to operate big time,
you’ve got thousands of square miles of empty land in Texas to scrape
out a airstrip.

Now consider the economics of heroin in the Sierra Madre. According
to Edwin Bustillos and Alan Weisman in The Late Great Mexican Border,
an acre of land can support about 44,000 poppy bulbs, which can
produce at least 13,200 grams of opium gum. That, in turn, will
refine down about 1,320 grams of pure heroin that is valued at $80 to
$500 a gram in the United States.

So do the math.

Depending on productivity and price, an acre of dirt in the Sierra
Madre can produce a heroin crop worth from $105,600 to $2.2 million.
That’s a lot more than can be earned from raising cattle, hunting
exotic game, farming pecan groves, citrus groves — or even renting RV
spaces. What we’re talking about here is the ultimate crop, the crop
that displaces (or corrupts) everything.

While most of the border area struggles to leapfrog from a subsistence
agricultural and mining economy to an industrial economy — one where
manufactured homes displace farmland in McAllen and RVs replace orange
groves in Yuma — the crop that beats industrialization cold is
heroin. It is an irresistible force.

Our “war on drugs” is a Vietnam: Whatever we spend to turn the entire
2,000-mile border into an American version of the Great Wall of China, it
will not be enough to stop the movement of drugs across the border or
reduce the carnage on both sides.

What to do?

Something radical: eliminate the profit in illegal drug
traffic.

Decriminalize the production, distribution and use of drugs.
Disembowel criminal levels of profitability. Have normal levels of
profitability by conventional companies that produce and distribute
high-quality, low-cost drugs. Use taxes on drugs to support drug
treatment programs for people who want to recover.

Have the guts, as a nation, to realize that we are awash in substance
abuse and that the legality or illegality of substances ranging from
alcohol and prescription tranquilizers to cocaine and heroin are
transitory social conventions that allow criminals to make fortunes,
cost the lives of substance abusers and inflict agony on their loved
ones. Do that and we can enjoy a magnificent decline in the domestic
crime rate. We can build treatment centers instead of prisons. We
might even restore millions of Americans who live in the shadow world
of drugs.

I did not think this way when I left Dallas and headed for Brownsville
on Feb. 5. I was convinced it was the only solution by the time I
left San Diego.

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

I applaud Scott Burns for looking at the facts about drug prohibition
(“Drugs Cast Shadow On Border Cities,” March 21). Like anyone who
attempts to analyze the realities of the drug war honestly, Burns came
to an obvious conclusion: The only way to stop the violence
surrounding the illegal drug market is to eliminate the astonishing
profits made possible by prohibition.

It is well past time to end the current version of prohibition.
Alcohol prohibition was lifted in the 1930s in part because people got
sick of the black market violence. The same thing will happen
eventually with drug prohibition. The question is how many more bodies
are we going to allow to pile up before a majority demands that this
madness stop? As the recent assassination of the Tijuana chief of
police illustrates, anyone can become a fatality in the drug war.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000
Subject: Colombia Aid Can Only Make Drug War Disaster Worse

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 165 Saturday March 18, 2000

Colombia Aid Can Only Make Drug War Disaster Worse

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

Write a Letter – Make a Difference ——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 165 Saturday March 18, 2000

A few editorialists and columnists have come out against congressional
plans to send $1.6 billion to Colombia, but few have done so with the
clarity of Arianna Huffington. The money is supposed to be used to
fight the drug war, but Huffington showed how the Colombian aid plan
is really a very destructive form of corporate welfare.

In a column from this week appearing in at least three newspapers,
Huffington also illustrated the perversity of current priorities in
the drug war.

Please write a letter to one or all of the newspapers – San Francisco
Examiner, Chicago Sun-Times, or Washington Times – where the column
ran. Remind editors and readers that the plan to send more than a
billion dollars to Colombia, like most plans in the drug war, will
cause a great deal of trouble. Benefits will go only to those who
already profit from the drug war.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

The Washington Times also ran Huffington’s column under the headline
“Latest Priority In The Drug War” (URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n370/a07.html),
while the Chicago Sun-Times ran the story under the headline “Drug War
Comes At High Price” (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n367/a08.html)
on March 15. Please also send your letter to one or both.

Source: Washington Times (DC)
Contact: [email protected]

Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

***************************************************************************

ARTICLE

Pubdate: Wed, 15 Mar 2000
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 2000 San Francisco Examiner
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Forum: http://examiner.com/cgi-bin/WebX
Page: A 19
Author: Arianna Huffington

MISGUIDED? $1 .7 BILLION FOR COLOMBIA IS NUTS

We’re about to spend $1.7 billion to escalate the drug war in
Colombia, while here at home we have 3.6 million addicts not receiving
the treatment they need.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives will vote on an emergency
aid package initiated by the White House and enthusiastically backed
by the House Republican leadership. It’s a product of the drug war’s
perverse priorities and another example of the disturbing link between
campaign cash and public policy.

Let’s start with the cash spread around to help grease the wheels for
the aid bonanza. The Colombian government hired Vernon Jordan’s old
law firm — Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, which he has since
left – to stump for it on The Hill.

Indeed, when the House Appropriations Committee met last week to
consider the White House proposal, a member of the committee, Rep.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. D-Ill, noticed that an Akin, Gump lobbyist was in
attendance. He must have gone away happy. The committee not only
approved the president’s $1.2 billion request but added another $500
million.

The Colombians have other powerful allies in Washington. Most
persistent has been a collection of multinational corporations with
operations in Colombia — including Occidental Petroleum, BP Amoco
and Enron — that has been lobbying both Congress and the
administration for a big-buck package that would serve their business
interests there.

And speaking of business interests, more than $400 million of the aid
will be spent on the purchase of 63 helicopters manufactured by two
U.S. firms — Sikorsky Aircraft, a subsidiary of United Technology
and Bell Helicopter Textron.

In the last two election cycles, Textron and its employees donated
close to a million dollars to both Republicans and Democrats, and
United Technologies gave more than $700,000.

“It’s business for us, and we are as aggressive as anybody,” one Bell
Helicopter lobbyist told Legal Times, “I’m just trying, to sell
helicopters,”

Underscoring the incestuous relationship between commerce and drug
policy, Tom Umberg the architect of the administration’s Colombian
initiative, is moving from the White House Office of Drug Control
Policy to the law firm of Morrison & Foster to represent Colombia and
other Latin American countries on trade issues.

Colombia is in the midst of a protracted three-way civil war, pitting
the Colombian army, which has one of the worst human-rights records in
the Western Hemisphere, against leftist rebels and right-wing
paramilitary groups, both largely funded by the drug trade.

The army will receive the largest share of the U.S. money, prompting
senior defense officials to express privately their fear that our
military’s expanding role in fighting the war on drugs could draw the
United States into another Vietnam.

Maybe that’s why the Clinton administration decided to introduce the
Colombian aid as part of a larger emergency-spending package, The
potentially controversial measure is bundled with proposals only a
coldhearted misanthrope would oppose.

Along with the money for Colombia, the bill includes $2.2 billion for
relief from natural disasters such as Hurricane Floyd and $854 million
for military health care.

It’s an old legislative ploy designed to squelch debate and force
politicians to vote for wasteful — or even terrible — measures
just because they don’t want to be painted as being against God,
country and disaster relief.

Jackson is one of the members who will nevertheless vote against the
bill.

“It’s absurd,” he told me. “There wasn’t even any language added
tying the aid to human-rights concerns. And (Rep.) Nancy Pelosi’s
(D.-San Francisco) amendment to spend equivalent amounts of money on
the demand side was defeated during the Appropriations Committee
mark-up — even though treatment has been proven to be 23 times more
cost-effective than eradication of crops and 11 times more
cost-effective than interdiction.”

The cost of the helicopters alone would provide treatment for almost
200,000 substance user’s or drug-prevention services for more than 4
million Americans.

When Richard Nixon — hardly one to be accused of being soft on crime
— declared a war on drugs in 1971, he directed more than 60 percent
of the funds into treatment. Now, we’re down to 18 percent. This
despite the fact that drug czar Barry McCaffrey’s budget is expected
to rise to a proposed $19.2 billion next year.

Since 1980, the emphasis has turned to interdiction, crop eradication,
border surveillance and punishment.

It’s been a misguided use of resources. But putting $1.7 billion into
Colombia, in the middle of a civil war, is more than misguided —
it’s nuts. And if it’s not voted down in the House on Thursday, it
needs to be stopped in the Senate.

Arianna Huffington’s e-mail address is [email protected] Her
new book, “How to Overthrow the Government,” is published by
Harper-Collins.

MAP posted-by: Don Beck

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

Arianna Huffington correctly describes plans for $1.6 billion in
alleged drug war aid to Colombia as “nuts.” The aid package will not
make drugs disappear from either the U.S. or Colombia. But the average
American will experience no benefits – we’re just along to foot the
bill. Undesirable as that is, it doesn’t begin to describe the
situation for most people in Colombia, where an influx of war related
resources can only result in intensified violence.

The aid plan is attractive only to a few corporate profiteers and
government officials in both countries. They appear ready to use more
force to achieve their goals, whether those goals have anything to do
with stopping drugs or not.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:04:15 -0800
Subject: TIME MAGAZINE – Ecstasy- Have YOU Written a Letter this Week?

***************************************************************************

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 164 Sunday March 12, 2000

Time Magazine Exposes The Futility Of Ecstasy Ban

***************************************************************************

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

NOTE: Time Magazine has a circulation of more than 4 MILLION READERS. A 5
inch letter published in this magazine is equivalent to buying an ad on
behalf of drug policy reform worth MORE THAN $12,000!!

***************************************************************************

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 164 Sunday March 12, 2000

In a recent article, Time Magazine exposes that the US has encountered a
striking upsurge in popularity of the rave drug ecstasy, despite its
15-year old worldwide ban instigated by the DEA in 1985. This provides yet
another case study for the utter futility of the efforts to contain
recreational drug use with prohibitionist measures.

Please use this opportunity to point out to the editors and readers of Time
Magazine the necessity to find less harmful approaches to addressing the
drug problem.

Here are some arguments that may serve as departure points for your letter
to the editors:

(1) Even though ecstasy was banned in the US in 1985 and in the consecutive
year, under US influence, in most European countries, this did not curb the
growth of the drug’s popularity which peaked in Europe in the 1990s and
now, with a delay of about ten years, in North America. This shows that
drug usage patterns are largely independent of interdiction and law
enforcement.

(2) The article mentions that the drug marketing efforts of racketeers have
helped popularize the drug. This suggests that criminalization is not just
fruitless but actually counterproductive. There are many more indications
for the ill effects of drug prohibition. For example, emergency room
admissions associated with intoxications from GHB, a club drug also
mentioned in the article, were never reported before the FDA banned its
sale in 1991 but have skyrocketed since then.

(3) The article mentions that the purity and potency of ecstasy pills vary
widely and that the drug is often mixed with other ingredients. The
potential harm to the drug user who cannot judge what is inside the pill
is, again, the result of criminalization.

(4) Ecstasy is almost as cheap and exactly as easy to produce as meth (the
process is the same, only the precursor chemicals are harder to come by).
If setting up a drug lab costs nearly nothing and every kitchen chemist can
synthesize the drug, ever so many lab busts will not put a lid on the
supply side. To cut the demand, on the other hand, police would have to
purge every campus in the US of ravers, which is as scary and ludicrous as
it is impossible.

(5) The article mentions the scientific dispute about possible brain damage
due to MDMA use and says that the ban issued by the DEA resulted from the
initial findings. In fact, in 1985, the year of the ban, appeared the first
report about the destruction of brain nerve terminals in rats exposed to
ecstasy. In comparison, some anti-obesity drugs, such as Meridia and Redux,
have been known from the early 1990s to effect similar kinds of brain cell
alterations, but this never resulted in the revocation of these drugs
(Redux was pulled from the market in 1997 only after reports of heart valve
damage). Similarly, antidepressants such as Prozac and Zoloft are known to
alter the function of the very same brain nerve terminals that are
allegedly damaged by MDMA. A recent study by Jefferson Medical College in
Philadelphia found that the changes effected by these antidepressants are
similar to those observed with MDMA. How can the eagerness to ban MDMA be
justified in comparison with the lack of concern with regard to
prescription drugs?

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID
( Letter, Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent letter
list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy
directly to [email protected] Your letter will then be forwarded to the
list with so others can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow
suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our impact
and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Source: Time Magazine (US)
Contact: [email protected]

Note: Always include your address and telephone number.

***************************************************************************

ARTICLE

US: It’s All The Rave
Newshawk: Tom O’Connell
Pubdate: Mon, 13 Mar 2000
Source: Time Magazine (US)
Copyright: 2000 Time Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: Time Magazine Letters, Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, NY,
NY 10020
Fax: (212) 522-8949
Website: http://www.time.com/
Author: John Cloud
Bookmarks: For ecstasy items http://www.mapinc.org/mdma.htm
For: rave items http://www.mapinc.org/raves.htm

IT’S ALL THE RAVE

SUDDENLY PEOPLE ALL OVER THE country are talking about “ecstasy” as if it
were something other than what an eight-year-old feels at Disney
World. Occasionally the trickle from the fringe to the heartland turns
into a slipstream, and that seems to have happened with the heart-pulsing,
mildly psychedelic drug called ecstasy.

To get a sense of just how far and fast “e” has moved into American
communities in the past year or so, talk to Mark Bradford, a junior at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

“I came to college in the fall of ’97,” says Bradford, 21, “and I didn’t
even know the word had another meaning.” It’s not shocking that young Mark
moved from suburban St. Louis to find drugs on a big campus. But it’s a
little surprising where he encountered ecstasy, a drug first used in the
1970s by a small group of avant-garde psychotherapists — at frat houses.

As president of the university’s Interfraternity Council, Bradford has
found himself in meetings with police to discuss frat boys’ growing
appetite for a drug today usually associated with teen ravers, gay men and
what’s left of America’s aging hippies, “It’s everywhere now,” says
Bradford, who doesn’t touch the stuff.

Law enforcers are coming across gigantic stashes of ecstasy in places where
it was rarely seen. E comes as tablets or capsules, and since December,
Ohio authorities have seized 25,000 pills in Columbus and 200 more in rural
Lorain County. In January some 30 people were arrested in New Orleans for
distributing the drug. Two weeks ago in Providence, R.I., a seven-month
investigation into ecstasy dealing ended with the arrest of 23. In bigger
cities, the trade has exploded. In December the U.S. Customs Service
discovered 100 lbs. of ecstasy shipped from France to the FedEx
headquarters in Memphis. The agents followed the drug’s intended trail to
L.A. and found a staggering 1.2 million tablets, worth $30 million.

And in an elaborate sting last summer, customs agents and the Drug
Enforcement Administration helped dismantle a far-flung ecstasy empire run
by a Canadian based in Amsterdam who allegedly claimed he could sell
100,000 hits of ecstasy in Miami – in 48 hours.

The mastermind was using pious looking Hasidic Jews as couriers. (Israeli
organized crime dominates the global trade, according to the
U.S. government.)

The busts have had little effect.

Nationwide, customs officers have already seized more ecstasy this fiscal
year (nearly 3.3 million hits) than in all of last year; in 1997, they
seized just 400,000 hits. In a 1998 survey, 8% of high school seniors said
they had tried e, up from 5.8% the year before.

In New York City, according to another survey, 1 in 4 adolescents has tried
ecstasy. So much e is coming into the U.S. that the Customs Service has
created a special ecstasy command center and is training 13 more dogs to
sniff out the drug.

But it took a seizure in Phoenix two weeks ago to generate e’s first big
press coverage in years.

That bust snared Salvatore Gravano, the notorious Mob hit man turned
government snitch.

Like the Hasidim, Gravano is a rather curious newcomer to the ecstasy
culture.

You wouldn’t think someone nicknamed “Sammy the Bull” would be peddling the
so-called hug drug. But simple reasons lie behind the drug’s popularity
among sellers and users.

E is cheap to make, easy to distribute and consume–no dirty syringes or
passe coke spoons needed, thanks–and it has a reputation for being
fun. E’s euphoria may be chemically manufactured, but it feels no less
real to users.

It’s called the hug drug because it engenders gooey, rather gauche
expressions of empathy from users.

Last week students at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff reminisced
about melting into “cuddle puddles,” groups of students who massage and
embrace on the dance floor. The skin feels tremblingly alive when
caressed. “Feathers, toys, lotions, anything,” gurgles “Katrina,” 23, a
student at N.A.U. “A guy touching your skin with a cold drink. It’s
delicious.”

Though often cut with other drugs, ecstasy pills are at least intended to
be a substance called MDMA (and known only to chemists as
methylenedioxymethamphetamine). MDMA is pharmacologically related to
amphetamine and mescaline, but it doesn’t produce the nervy, wired feeling
that typically accompanies speed or the confusion of a purer psychedelic
like LSD. It doesn’t generate addictive cravings. Treatment admissions
for drugs of its type still account for less than 1% of the total,
according to Dr. Blanche Frank of the New York State office of alcohol and
substance abuse.

In fact, e’s popularity is largely due to its lack of noticeable downsides.

It’s possible to overdose on ecstasy, but even police agree that the drug
isn’t like heroin or crack in terms of short-term dangers.

Most problems are attributable to dehydration among novices who don’t drink
water.

However, another club drug, GHB – which is also known as “Liquid X” though
it’s chemically unrelated to ecstasy – can easily cause coma and death.

MDMA was first synthesized in 1912, but the big experiments with it didn’t
begin until the 1970s, when a group of psychologists rediscovered it as a
tool for therapy.

By the early ’80s, the drug – still perfectly legal – was sold openly in
bars and clubs.

But at the time a scientific debate had begun – and continues today about
whether MDMA can cause long-term brain damage.

In 1985, on the basis of preliminary data about its harmfulness, the DEA
used its discretionary power to outlaw MDMA. A group of therapists sued,
but after a three-year court battle, the DEA won the right to ban the drug
permanently.

So why is it upon us again?

Partly because the debate about MDMA’s harmfulness has never been resolved.

Johns Hopkins neurologist George Ricaurte has concluded in several animal
studies and one human study that MDMA can damage a particular group of the
brain’s nerve cells. But he wants more research.

Last week Ricaurte said his work has never shown that the damage to the
affected cells has any visible effect on “the vast majority of people who
have experimented with MDMA.” The debate has now found its way onto the
Web, where the old therapist crowd behind MDMA has become active.

The sites are populated mostly by young users, however, kids who blindly
praise the drug (“Sammy the Bull rules,” wrote one last week).

But the most important reason for e’s quick and recent spread into places
like Denver and Sacramento is that professional criminals have almost
completely assumed control of its trade.

The life of a typical tablet found in the U.S. begins somewhere along the
Dutch-Belgian border, a quiet region of pig farmers.

The setting is rural but not far from the Brussels airport.

Manufacturers convert abandoned barns or garden sheds into e factories,
which can be filthy. “They’ve been mixing chemicals in dirty cans I
wouldn’t even use for garbage,” says Charles De Winter, director of the
drug section of Belgium’s national police force.

These mills aren’t mom-and-pop setups, at least not anymore.

“We’re seeing more and more hardened criminals,” says Cees van Doorn, a
Dutch organized-crime specialist. They are drawn by the profits. After
setup the marginal cost of each pill is maybe 10 cents . It’s sold in New
York City clubs for $30,

U.S. Customs commissioner Raymond Kelly says professional criminals in
this country have brought better management and marketing to the ecstasy
trade.

Mobsters have the distribution networks to move millions of pills.

And most pills now come with a catchy brand name-like the “Candy Canes”
taken in Flagstaff (red and white capsules) or tablets stamped with
corporate logos.

Users can ask dealers for a good brand by name. Last year’s “Mitsubishis,”
for instance, were hugely popular because they seemed to have an extra kick
of speed.

This winter’s “AOLS,” however, were duds.

What is the future of ecstasy?

Officials in the Low Countries are cracking down on e factories but warn
that production is cropping up in central Europe and Spain. For good
reason: Americans are in love with ecstasy. “New York used to be a meat
and-potatoes drug town – heroin, coke and pot,” says John Silbering, a
former narcotics prosecutor who works for the Tunnel, a big New York City
nightclub. “Today we no longer find coke or heroin among the young. It’s
always ecstasy.”

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

To the Editors of Time Magazine:

In “It’s all the Rave” (March 13 issue) John Cloud addressed the recent
upsurge of MDMA (ecstasy) use in the US.

Ecstasy was banned in the North America and in Europe in the mid-80s, just
at around the time that the rave movement started in Britain. The
rave/ecstasy rage then spilled over to continental Europe where it had its
heyday in the early 1990s. That the US and Canada now experience the same
mania with ten years delay, calls into question the effectiveness of
criminalizing ecstasy, as the phenomenon spread regardless and
independently of the almost simultaneous worldwide ban of the drug.

The article notes that criminal organizations attracted by the illicit drug
trade have assumed control of the distribution and marketing of ecstasy. As
a consequence and to no surprise, teenagers nowadays can generally obtain
ecstasy and other illegal drugs easier than alcohol. This means that
criminalization is not only vain but rather achieves the exact opposite of
protecting young people from the exposure to drugs.

When alcohol prohibition ended in 1933, this did not create a nation of
deranged alcoholics, but it helped to tear down crime syndicates and to
establish effective controls such as age limits on alcohol sales. It is in
society’s interest that young people get not exposed to drugs of
uncontrolled origin and quality. The popular wisdom of combining law
enforcement with drug treatment will hardly help to achieve this. For law
enforcement only tends to aggravate problems and treatment is both
fruitless and ethically questionable where it is not requested by the drug
user.

Eric Ernst

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her
work.
—————————————————————————-

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

Prepared by Eric Ernst
Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000
Subject: Presidential Candidates Fail Drug Policy Test

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 163 Tuesday March 7, 2000

Presidential Candidates Fail Drug Policy Test

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

NOTE: an exceptional press release has been sent out on this topic
including a letter signed by scores of organizations nationwide
including the ACLU and the YWCA.

The URLs below flesh out this important story and provide a copy of
the original press release, the open the letter to all presidential
candidates, and the ten questions developed by the NCEDP to be posed
to our candidates.

Original Press Release http://www.csdp.org/ncedp/release.htm

Open Letter to Presidential Candidates http://www.csdp.org/ncedp/letter.htm

Ten Questions for Our Presidential Candidates http://www.csdp.org/ncedp/question.htm

——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #163 Tuesday March 7, 2000

Anyone looking for different approaches to drug policy issues from the
major candidates for U.S. president must be sorely disappointed.
Variations on the messages and drug policy ideas of John McCain,
George Bush, Al Gore and Bill Bradley are microscopic, even though
more citizens seem to want change.

This week the Boston Globe analyzed the drug policy positions of the
four major candidates and found, basically, business as usual. All the
candidates are standing by the traditional idea of drug prohibition,
even though each of them have had personal experiences that challenge
basic notions about the drug war. Gore and Bradley admit to using
marijuana, while Bush won’t completely deny using illegal drugs and
McCain saw his wife’s substance abuse problem addressed with
compassion, not punishment. However, they all still seem to think
prohibition and punishment is the best policy for the rest of us.

Please write a letter to the Boston Globe to say that basic drug
policy reform is a very important issue that all the candidates need
to confront with real honesty, not more toughness.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Source: Boston Globe
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

The Chicago Tribune also did an Oped on the same subject. Please
consider writing them a letter or sending a copy of your Boston Globe
LTE to them.

A RECORD POLITICIANS AREN’T TALKING ABOUT http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n177/a02.html

Source: Chicago Tribune
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT #2

Write any paper in the nation on the subject of drug policy in the
presidential debates. Find the email address for sending LTEs to these
papers at http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

***************************************************************************
ARTICLE

US: Apart From Personal Use, A Key Issue Stays Away
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n321.a04.html
NewsHawk: FoM http://www.cannabisnews.com/
Pubdate: Sun, 05 Mar 2000
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378
Feedback: http://extranet.globe.com/LettersEditor/default.asp
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Author: John Donnelly, Globe Staff
Cited: Common Sense for Drug Policy http://www.csdp.org/
Note: Check the new “We Can Connect You With the Right Reform Group” page at:
http://www.csdp.org/active.htm

Bookmark: Find the MAP archived items on Bush and Gore at:
http://www.mapinc.org/bush.htm and http://www.mapinc.org/gore.htm

APART FROM PERSONAL USE, A KEY ISSUE STAYS AWAY

The war on drugs, which is likely to get another huge boost in funds,
seems to be missing in action in the presidential campaign.

The candidates’ silence on drug policy, analysts say, may be
attributable to the lack of easy solutions. Or it may stem from a
widely shared belief that any position even hinting at reducing
penalties for drug use would be political suicide.

The only headlines involving drugs in the presidential race have been
whether the candidates themselves used them – not the uses of the
budget, which has jumped from $13.5 billion in 1996 to a proposed
$18.9 billion this year, and which includes a plan to fight drugs in
Colombia.

Former senator Bill Bradley and Vice President Al Gore both have
admitted to using marijuana in their younger years, and Governor
George W. Bush of Texas is still trailed by unsubstantiated
allegations of cocaine use.

And while Senator John McCain says he never used illicit drugs, his
wife, Cindy, has admitted she once stole prescription drugs from the
charity she directed.

Such talk is a major change from eight years ago, when Bill Clinton,
then a candidate, said he had smoked marijuana but had not inhaled.

“People can now actually speak frankly about their past marijuana use,
and it doesn’t damage them at all,” said Michael Massing, author of
”The Fix,” a history of the war on drugs. ”You would think that
would lead to more rational discussion about drug policy, but it hasn’t.”

Massing said the refusal to discuss lesser penalties ”is baffling in
many ways because Americans have become more tolerant on most issues.
This campaign is encouraging to the fact that anyone seen as imposing
a narrow moral view has been rejected – except on the drug issue.”

Reacting to the issue’s obscurity, a 36-group coalition, including the
Young Women’s Christian Association, the American Civil Liberties
Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, has called on candidates to answer 10 questions on drug policy.

The questions cover the candidates’ stance on a $1.6 billion Colombian
aid bill; whether they support the means the United States uses to
fight drugs, with one-third of the budget going toward treatment and
prevention and two-thirds toward law enforcement and supply
interdiction; and whether the United States should ”continue to rely
so heavily on incarceration as a solution to drug problems.”

More than 1.5 million people a year are arrested for drug offenses.
In federal prisons, 60 percent of the inmates are sentenced for
drug-related crimes, the overwhelming majority for low-level offenses.

”The drug war is the biggest head-in-the-sand issue in American
policy, and we hope the candidates face up to it,” said Kevin B.
Zeese, president of Common Sense for Drug Policy, a nonprofit group
based in Falls Church, Va. ”It’s always been safe to do more of the
same, but now more of the same is getting to be absurdly expensive.

”It’s almost a $20-billion-a-year project,” Zeese said. ”We’re
only spending $600 million a year on after-school programs. We say
we’re fighting the drug war to save our kids; I say we’re fighting it
to rob our kids.”

The silence on the issue does not result from lack of knowledge. In
an unusual move, a White House official said, the US drug-policy
coordinator, Barry R. McCaffrey, told President Clinton last year
that he planned to be available to all campaigns.

McCaffrey has conferred with Gore, and he met Bush for two hours in
Texas. McCaffrey has had a relationship with the Bush family dating to
the Gulf War, when Bush’s father was president and McCaffrey was a
general in the Army.

Of the four major candidates, McCain has expressed the most hawkish
positions on drug policy. He wants to increase penalties for selling
drugs, supports the death penalty for drug kingpins, favors tightening
security to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and wants to
restrict availability of methadone for heroin addicts.

In a policy address last month, he said the Clinton administration was
”AWOL on the war on drugs” and he would push for more money and
military assistance to drug-supplying nations such as Colombia.

Bush has said little on the issue. A campaign spokesman, Scott
McClellan, said yesterday that the governor favors the Colombian
military package ”to make sure their military is well-trained and
well-equipped to fight the drug traffickers.”

As governor, Bush favored tougher laws for drug offenders, including
signing legislation that allows judicial discretion to sentence
first-time offenders possessing less than one gram of cocaine to a
maximum of 180 days in jail. (Previously, first-offenders received
automatic probation.) Bush also is a strong supporter of faith-based
initiatives to fight addictions.

Bradley and Gore offer different solutions.

Breaking slightly with Clinton administration policy, Gore said he
supports giving doctors greater flexibility to prescribe marijuana to
relieve patients’ pain. Otherwise, Gore closely adheres to the
framework of current policy.

Gore said he would push for ”tougher drug penalties and
enforcement,” would increase drug interdiction efforts, would expand
drug courts and would institute a $2 billion national media campaign
targeted at preventing youth from using drugs. He is supportive of
the Colombian plan.

Bradley wants to spend more money on drug treatment. He says that
”the more effective way to deal with the drug problem is to tackle
the demand side at home rather than at the supply side,” said a
campaign spokesman, Josh Galper.

As for the Colombian plan, Bradley would ”give limited assistance,”
Galper said. ”The important thing for him is that the effort is not
turned into a US war.”

Bob Weiner, spokesman for McCaffrey, said he believed drug policy has
been a non-issue because there was little disagreement with current
policy. ”We’ve worked hard to have this not be a political
football,” he said.

But Thomas J. Umberg, one of the architects of the Colombian aid plan
as deputy director of supply reduction in McCaffrey’s office, who
recently left to rejoin his old law firm in Washington, said he was
surprised about the lack of debate.

In polling done by his former office, he said, it was found that ”the
drug issue is one of very high interest among voters, but people’s
views were that we should do everything. We should interdict, do
prevention, do treatment, lock up criminals for a long period of time.”

The conclusions could squelch debate, he said, or it could encourage
candidates to make choices.

”There are some large issues before policy makers now,” Umberg said.
”What is our international role in drug control? What should the
federal government do about treatment? What about prevention? And how
about state initiatives concerning decriminalization? You would think
there’s enough to talk about.”

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER

To the Editor of the Boston Globe,

I believe drug policy reform is one of the most important issues
facing the country today, so I was pleased to see the Boston Globe’s
story on the attitudes of presidential candidates (“Apart From
Personal Use, A Key Issue Stays Away,” March 5). While it’s nice to
see the media coverage, it’s very disappointing to learn that the four
major contenders for the presidency are so unwilling to challenge the
drug war. More citizens have been able to see that our current system
of prohibition is a cruel failure. This has been clearly demonstrated
whenever state medical marijuana initiatives are placed before voters.

The public is trying to send the candidates a message on this issue,
yet all candidates remain committed to ignoring the message. It’s
enough to make one wonder whose interests Bradley, Bush, Gore and
McCain are really considering. Do they care more about the law
enforcement institutions and drug testing companies that profit from
this multi-billion fraud, or the average people who are being
demonized and punished by drug war profiteers?

When I weigh the evidence, the answer leads me away from voting for
either Republicans or Democrats in the presidential election, as it
did in 1996.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000
Subject: Detroit News Shows How DARE Fails Kids

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 162 March 1, 2000

Detroit News Shows How DARE Fails Kids

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 162 March 1, 2000

The Detroit News ran several articles on the DARE program this week.
Like others who have attempted to take an objective look at the widely
used “drug education” program, editorialists at the newspaper
concluded that the DARE program doesn’t have any measurable effect on
drug use. The editorial also notes that DARE “may even be making
matters worse.” (See the editorial and links to other articles from
the series below.)

While the series of articles contains the standard apologies from DARE
supporters who like the program because it makes them feel good, the
scope of the series allows some critics of DARE to have their say
without being contradicted. In particular, the article “Some Schools
Opt Out Of Program” (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n282/a04.html)
gives school administrators a chance to say why they dropped the
program without having to respond to criticism from DARE supporters.

Please write a letter to the Detroit News to thank for the series and
to express support for the conclusion that DARE has failed kids.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Source: Detroit News (MI)
Contact: [email protected]

***************************************************************************
ARTICLE

US MI: Editorial: Drugs: Dare to be Honest
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a05.html
Newshawk: MAP – Making a Difference with Your Help
Pubdate: Tue, 29 Feb 2000
Source: Detroit News (MI)
Copyright: 2000, The Detroit News
Contact: [email protected]
Feedback: http://data.detnews.com:8081/feedback/
Website: http://www.detnews.com/

~~~~~

Index for the D.A.R.E. FAILING OUR KIDS series: Sun, 27 Feb
2000:

D.A.R.E. Doesn’t Work http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n281/a04.html

DARE Wary Of Outside Reviews http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n281/a02.html

Some Schools Opt Out Of Program http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n282/a04.html

Officers Become School Favorites http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n281/a06.html

Officers Hope To Make A Difference http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n292/a02.html

Analysis Tracks Students’ Drug Use http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n292/a03.html

Mon, 28 Feb 2000:

DARE’s Clout Smothers Other Drug Programs http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n292/a04.html

Raves Thrive As Teen Drug Havens http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a04.html

Parents Struggle When Discussing Drugs With Teens http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n292/a05.html

Tips For Parents http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a03.html

Parents’ Anti-Drug Resource Guide [many website links]
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a02.html

Tue, 29 Feb 2000:

Editorial: Drugs: Dare to be Honest
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a05.html

Readers: Cops Key to DARE Success, Failure
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a06.html

~~~~~

DRUGS: DARE TO BE HONEST

A two-part series by The Detroit News reported that DARE, the
multibillion-dollar, nationwide drug prevention program, is making no
difference in lowering teenage drug or alcohol use in Metro Detroit .
It may even be making matters worse. These findings confirm at least
a dozen previous national studies.

It may be time for schools to return responsibility for the matter to
families — where it properly belongs.

The News’ investigation, based on surveys by Western Michigan
University of eighth, 10th and 12th graders in Metro Detroit every two
years, found that kids who have undergone the program are just as
likely to use drugs as those who have not. Although some schools in
recent years have dropped DARE, which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance
Education, the program is still offered in 70 of the 88 area
districts. Yet, according to The News, 60 percent of Detroit area
seniors admit to trying drugs, compared with 55 percent nationally.

Despite mounting evidence about DARE’s ineffectiveness, the program,
in which uniformed police officers teach fifth and sixth graders how
to resist peer pressure, remains hugely popular. Indeed, the federal
government alone spends $2 billion annually on the program – with
local grants, local fund raisers and donations pouring in millions
more. More than $2 million is spent on the program in Metro Detroit.

Although DARE has used this money to preach drug abstinence for a
quarter of a century, drug use in America has gone up in recent years:
A University of Michigan study two years ago found that marijuana use
among eighth graders tripled between 1991 to 1996. Similarly, other
studies have found a slight increase in drug use among suburban kids
who have taken DARE.

It is difficult to definitively link this increase with DARE. But the
program relies on scare scenarios and blanket proscription to drive
home the danger of drug use. Yet, researchers speculate, when
children discover these exaggerations, they abandon all caution,
creating a “boomerang” effect.

Whatever the cause of the observed increase, it is clear that the
program does not provide a life-time inoculation against drug abuse.
Some of DARE’s critics suggest replacing the program with its message
of zero tolerance with others that emphasize how to deal with the
consequences of drug use, such as an overdose. This sounds realistic,
but may have the perverse effect of encouraging drug use by discussing
ways to make it safe.

Drug and alcohol use is a complicated matter that simply is not
amenable to a full and nuanced exploration in the classroom. It may
be time to bring parents and families back into the equation and
encourage them to design their own specific message for their own
kids: Lulling them into a false sense of security with feel-good
programs is a disservice to all.

Our View

Mounting evidence that DARE, the drug-abuse prevention program, is
ineffective ought to cause area schools to rethink their commitment to
it.

Opposing View

DARE is widely popular anti-drug school program that ought to be
continued.

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER

To the Editor of the Detroit News,

Thank you for the series exploring the failure of DARE. The editorial
“Drugs: DARE to be Honest,” was particularly insightful when it discussed
the “boomerang” effect of DARE. When young people realize that DARE
officers and others have been exaggerating the dangers of marijuana, they
naturally wonder whether warnings about more destructive drugs are
exaggerated as well.

Of course, this problem is not unique to DARE. It plagues the whole
big, dumb, destructive war on drugs. Anti-drug crusaders don’t want
honesty. They are offended by objective analysis, like that offered by
the Detroit News. These crusaders may be successful at fooling
themselves, but they aren’t fooling many of the kids they are
supposedly trying to save. And in the process, these young people are
learning troubling lessons, not only about drugs, but about the nature
of authority. When I was young, I was taught that honesty is the best
policy. Will the drug warriors who blindly support DARE ever learn
that lesson for themselves?

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000
Subject: Even Readers Digest Sees Need For Forfeiture Reform

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 161 February 23, 2000

Even Readers Digest Sees Need For Forfeiture Reform

WHILE WE HOPE ALL MAP VOLUNTEERS WRITE AT LEAST ONE LETTER A WEEK, EVEN IF
YOU ONLY WRITE ONE LETTER TO THE EDITOR A _YEAR_ THIS SHOULD PROBABLY BE
THE ONE!

NOTE: Reader’s Digest circulation is _16.2 MILLION_. A _ forty word_
letter printed in this publication has an ad value for reform of
nearly $10,000. Your letters to this publication, given its historic
strongly pro drug war stance, have a tremendous potential influence
whether they get published or not. Keep them short and punchy but by
all means please WRITE AWAY!

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 161 February 23, 2000

A couple of things are going on in asset forfeiture reform right now
that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. First, the U.S.
Senate is expected to vote on legislation regarding forfeiture reform
as early as this week. The U.S. House has already approved reform
legislation.

Perhaps harder to believe, the unrepentant prohibitionists at Readers
Digest published a pretty good article on asset forfeiture reform in
their latest issue. If there was one thing media watchers thought they
could count on, surely Readers Digest’s hostility toward any subject
related to drug policy reform would be included. The tide could be
turning on this issue in front of our eyes.

In order to keep the momentum going, please write some letters to
Readers Digest and both of your U.S. senators today. Contacting your
senators has been made very easy by http://www.forfeiture.org.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Source: Reader’s Digest (US)
Contact: [email protected]

NOTE: This address goes directly to the RD Executive Editor. This is
the first time this address has ever been given out to our letter
writing volunteers. Please be courteous and supportive.

FAX (914) 238 4559 (verified)

Mailing address (verified)

Reader’s Digest
Reader’s Digest Rd
Pleasantville
NY 10570-7000
914-238-1000 (HQ)

NOTE: Please consider augmenting your effort by sending your letter
via Email, fax, and perhaps even S-mail or a personal phone call.

EXTRA CREDIT

Call or fax your senators to express support for reform, or quickly
send prepared email messages at http://www.forfeiture.org.

***************************************************************************
ARTICLE

US: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n233/a02.html
Newshawk: MAP – Making a Difference With Your Help
Pubdate: Wed, 01 Mar 2000
Source: Reader’s Digest (US)
Copyright: 2000 Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Box 235, Pleasantville, NY 10570-0235
Feedback: http://www.readersdigest.com/custserv/TalkEditor/letter_to.asp
Website: http://www.readersdigest.com/
Forum: http://www.readersdigest.com/scripts/webx.cgi
Author: Randy Fitzgerald
Bookmark: Asset Forfeiture items: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm
See: Forfeiture Endangers American Rights: http://www.fear.org/
Act: New Forfeiture Site Encourages Letters to Congress:
http://www.forfeiture.org/

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT

Asset Forfeiture Laws Were Meant To Combat Drug Crimes.

Instead They Have Become A Means To Trample Your Rights

FIVE DAYS before Christmas 1995, Cheryl Sanders of Long Beach, Calif.,
was driving on Interstate 10 in Sulphur, La., when she was stopped by
three police officers. They told her she had been speeding. But
instead of giving Sanders a ticket, they handcuffed her and took her
to a local jail, where she was made to disrobe and submit to a search.
No drugs were found on her or in her car, nor did she have a criminal
record.

“You’re free to go now,” a policeman told Sanders. “But we’re keeping
your car.”

Under Louisiana’s civil asset forfeiture law in 1995, police could
seize vehicles on little more than suspicion that the owner was a drug
dealer. Sulphur police said that the trunk of Sanders’s Lincoln Town
Car contained a 2 1/2-inch-deep compartment under a false bottom
capable of concealing narcotics.

Sanders, who had purchased the car used only six months earlier,
didn’t know what they were talking about. She hired an attorney, and
after seven months a judge ruled that the city had to return her
property since the police seizure lacked probable cause. By then she
had to sell the car to pay her legal bills.

“They stole my car,” Sanders complains. “It was highway
robbery.”

Sanders is one of countless citizens who feel the same way about a
series of controversial laws enacted as part of the war on drugs. In
1984 Congress authorized federal law enforcement agencies to seize any
property purchased with drug money or used to facilitate the drug trade.

Many states then enacted their own versions of the statute to allow
local prosecutors and police agencies to grab a person’s money or
property based on the belief that a drug connection is more probable
than not. Critics charge that these laws allow the seizure of assets
on virtually anything more than mere suspicion of a link.

In criminal law you’re presumed innocent until proven guilty. But
under most civil asset-forfeiture statutes the burden of proof falls
on individuals to prove in court that their property is free of any
involvement with illegal drug activity. Even to challenge a seizure
under federal law, the owner must post a bond of ten percent of the
property’s value or $5000, whichever is less.

Driving Away Business

WITH THIS SORT OF POWER at the government’s disposal, excesses and
abuses are inevitable. An episode involving the Red Carpet Inn in
southwest Houston is a case in point.

On February 17, 1998, Acting U.S. Attorney James DeAtley announced
that the government was going to seize the property in response to
drug activity that the owners were “facilitating by not taking steps
to prevent.” Jason Brice was stunned. To prevent criminal activity by
guests and visitors, the co-owner and manager of the Red Carpet Inn
had signed a trespass affidavit with the Houston Police Department,
giving officers the right to patrol the grounds and question patrons.
He also hired night security guards, required guests to show driver’s
licenses to obtain a room, and installed video cameras in the parking
lot.

Then the Houston police and city attorney’s office wanted the Red
Carpet Inn to raise its room rates from $29 a night, a move they
believed would keep out drug users. Brice resisted, arguing that he
had to keep rates down in this low-income area to compete with the six
other hotels and motels located nearby.

According to Brice, the police presence on his property intimidated
innocent customers. “It scared them and began to drive away our
business.” He withdrew the trespass agreement, which had given police
free rein on his property. Three weeks later U.S. Attorney DeAtley
filed a lawsuit seeking forfeiture of the motel. The complaint
alleged that the operators “had knowledge that the Defendant Property
was being used to facilitate drug transactions and consented to the
use of the property to facilitate the illegal activity.”

Brice was particularly enraged that the government cited “32 calls for
police service (that) resulted in narcotics or currency being seized”
during 1996 and 1997. By his count he and his security guards
themselves had initiated many of these calls.

After months of wrangling, the government dropped its suit, in return
for Brice’s agreeing to make some minor security improvements to the
motel. Meanwhile, his business had incurred $60,000 in legal fees.

In a blistering editorial, the Houston Chronicle accused the U.S.
Attorney of overstepping his bounds. “Good people should not have to
fear property seizure because they operate businesses in high-crime
areas.”

“No Credible Evidence’

ACTUALLY, NO PROPERTY is safe from highhanded asset forfeitures. In
1990 the U.S. Attorney’s Office grabbed a house in Ft. Lauderdale,
Fla., because, they claimed, cocaine had been offloaded from a boat
onto the property by three men who were subsequently arrested for drug
trafficking. The house’s owner, George Gerhardt (who had already died
of cancer), allegedly knew one of the three defendants.

During a one-day nonjury trial before a federal judge on October 26,
1992, the government’s flimsy case evaporated. The cocaine defendant
who had been acquainted with Gerhardt testified that Gerhardt had no
knowledge that drugs were unloaded at his house; he was not even in
the country at the time. Other witnesses testified that Gerhardt
detested drugs and drug users.

The government brought two informants from prison to testify. One
claimed to have once met someone he knew as George, whom he described
as five feet, six inches tall, overweight, gray-haired and in his 60s.
Gerhardt was five feet, ten inches tall, slender, blond-haired and 47
years old at the time of the alleged meeting.

In a strongly worded judgment, U.S. District Judge James Paine
ordered the government to relinquish the house for distribution to
Gerhardt’s heirs. “Gerhardt was an innocent owner,” wrote the judge.
“No credible evidence” to suggest otherwise had been produced.

Lack of credible evidence figured in another egregious
asset-forfeiture case involving Billy Munnerlyn and his wife, Karon,
who operated an air charter service. One day Billy flew a businessman
from Little Rock, Ark., to Ontario, Calif. The passenger was a
convicted drug trafficker Munnerlyn had never met. Nevertheless,
Munnerlyn was arrested, as was his passenger. A search of the
passenger’s possessions turned up $2.8 million in cash.

Munnerlyn was released a few days later, and criminal charges against
him were dropped. But the government kept his $500,000 jet and his
$8500 charter fee, based on suspicion that they were linked to a drug
transaction.

Munnerlyn’s home and office were searched, the DEA’s application for a
warrant stating that such a search could reveal evidence of his
involvement in drug trafficking “in the form of personal and business
records.” Nevertheless, Munnerlyn was subject thereafter to no further
criminal proceedings. But the government didn’t return his plane.

Munnerlyn fought the seizure in court for two years, until a federal
jury ruled in his favor. The judge set aside the verdict and ordered
a new trial, so the government refused to release his plane. Broke
and bitter, he eventually reached a settlement in which he paid $7000
for the jet’s return and agreed to allow the government to keep the
original $8500 charter fee.

Burden of Proof

AS EXPERIENCE. with this powerful tool has grown, even some law
enforcement officials have become uneasy. Says Steven Kessler, former
head of the asset-forfeiture unit at the Bronx, N.Y., district
attorney’s office, “The focus is no longer on combating crime. It’s
on fund-raising.”

Joseph McNamara would certainly agree. During his 15 years as police
chief of San Jose, Calif., he felt the pressure firsthand. One day he
saw a proposed budget that included no funds for police equipment.
When McNamara questioned this, his boss, the city manager, replied
half in jest, “You guys seized $4 million last year. I expect you to
do better this year.”

With such perverse incentives in place, McNamara believes many of the
nation’s police agencies have become addicted to asset forfeiture,
with serious consequences for our system of law. “When cops are put
under pressure to produce revenue, bad things happen,” he says.

And bad things do happen. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported this
past summer that the sheriff in St. Francis County privately sold
seized cars to himself and others at prices at or below appraised
values. (Such sales were legal at the time.)

House Judiciary Committee chairman Henry Hyde (R., Ill.) has led a
bipartisan effort to reform the federal civil asset-forfeiture law.
His bill would shift the burden of proof to government agencies before
assets can be seized. It would also eliminate the requirement that
property owners file a bond to challenge any seizure, allow judges to
order property released pending the disposition of forfeiture cases
and give individuals more time to contest seizures in court.

“It is obvious that something needs to be done about civil forfeiture
run amok,” Hyde says, and Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D., Mich.),
ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, agrees. “The civil
asset-forfeiture law,” he says, “contradicts fundamental principles of
traditional American jurisprudence.” With both Democrats and
Republicans, liberals and conservatives, lining up in support, the
bill passed by an overwhelming 375 to 48.

Nevertheless, the Clinton Administration claims the Hyde bill would
undermine law enforcement and favors a narrower reform. Meanwhile, no
action was expected in the Senate until early this year.

Roger Pilon, a constitutional scholar with Washington’s Cato
Institute, believes strongly that overhaul of the asset-forfeiture law
is needed to safeguard the nation’s constitutional protections against
unreasonable search and seizure. “Forfeiture has a place in law
enforcement,” he says. “But like every tool it must spring from
principles of justice if it is to service justice.”

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER

To the Editor of Readers Digest,

Thank you for reporting some of the terrible things that have happened
as a result of asset forfeiture policies in the United States (“Guilty
Until Proven Innocent,” March 1). It is plain to see current
forfeiture laws cause much injustice. I hope your article will help
persuade Congress to reform the laws.

Such legislation would improve our society, but it is important to
remember that these nightmares were made possible by the never-ending
war on drugs. Examined as a whole, the damage from asset forfeiture is
merely one of many problems created by prohibition. Prison populations
are exploding, the judicial system is overwhelmed, law enforcement is
being corrupted, students and employees endure the discomfort of drug
tests, and addiction problems worsen, all because we are told America
needs to wipe out drugs. I look forward to investigations into the
devastation caused by these other issues coming soon in your
publication.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000
Subject: The New Yorker Explains Why Drug Policy Reform Must Happen

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 161 February 16, 2000

The New Yorker Explains Why Drug Policy Reform Must Happen

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 161 February 16, 2000

Last week The New Yorker Magazine published a “Comment” piece that
offered a nice summary of the state of drug policy in America. Using
recent allegations that Vice-President Al Gore was a regular pot
smoker as a launching pad, the piece is subtitled “Gore’s Greatest
Bong Hits.” Author Henrik Hertzberg shifts quickly to a much broader
commentary on the drug war itself, flatly calling it a twenty-year
“failure.” He then describes that failure in lucid and compelling
prose, starting with ONDCP’s own “Fact Sheet” and moving effortlessly
from falling street prices for heroin and cocaine to rising
enforcement budgets and prison rolls.

The piece is remarkable, though as friends at DRCNet have noted
(http://www.drcnet.org/wol/124.html#newsweek), the author doesn’t
properly credit DRCNet as the original source of the story. Regardless
of that omission, this is an important piece. The reasons why it is
important are analyzed more at length in Tom O’Connell’s feature
article in DrugSense Weekly (http://www.drugsense.org/dsw/2000/ds00.n136.html#sec1).
Please write a letter to the New Yorker to offer applause for a very
straight-forward analysis of the failure of the drug war.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

If not YOU who? If not NOW when?

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Source: New Yorker Magazine (NY)
Contact: [email protected]

***************************************************************************
ARTICLE

US: Gore’s Greatest Bong Hits
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n154/a09.html
Newshawk: Kevin Fansler
Pubdate: Feb 2000
Source: New Yorker Magazine (NY)
Copyright: The Conde Nast Publications Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 4 Times Square New York, NY 10036
Feedback: http://www.newyorker.com/editors.html
Website: http://www.newyorker.com/
Author: Henrik Hertzberg

GORE’S GREATEST BONG HITS

A WEEK or so ago the latest chapter in the continuing saga of Al Gore’
s flaming youth erupted, as so many such stories do nowadays, from the
subterranean depths where book publishing, journalism, and the
Internet flow together. A new biography, full of purportedly
titillating revelations, is set for publication a few months hence (in
this case by Houghton Mifflin); a big magazine (in this case Newsweek,
where the book’s author, Bill Turque, works) buys the first serial
rights; the magazine’s editors, worried about the credibility of a
source, develop qualms; an Internet reporter (in this case Jake
Tapper, of Salon) gets a tip; and the gist makes its way via the
tabloids to the mainstream papers (initially as a business section
“media” story) and the TV political gab shows, where, at this moment,
it contentedly bubbles and pops.

The story, in brief, is that John Warnecke, a former friend of Gore’s,
says that in the early seventies, when the two were neighbors and cub
reporters at the Nashville Tennessean, they smoked marijuana together
many, many times-more often, arguably, than the “rare and infrequent”
pot use to which the Vice-President has long admitted. The tale is
not especially scandalous, but it is irresistible, and not just on
account of the comic picture it conjures up of the profoundly unwild
and uncrazy Gore as an enthusiastic doper-a big stiff with a big
spliff. What gives the tale piquancy, even an element of tragic
dignity, is the apparent texture of the relationship between the two
men, who, like Prince Hal and Falstaff, were once as close as brothers
and then drifted far apart when their destinies diverged. Both had
grown up in the bosom of the Washington elite: Albert Gore, Sr., was a
prominent Senator, while Warnecke’s father, John Carl Warnecke, was a
famous architect and was so close to Jacqueline Kennedy that she chose
him to design her husband’s grave site. But young Gore’s life took
him on a path to Congress, the Senate, and the Vice Presidency, while
young Warnecke’s led to alcoholism, depression, and obscurity. The
two have not spoken, Warnecke says, since 1988, when Gore called him
to ask him not to talk to the press about their pot smoking.

At the level of national government, discussion of drug policy has
been dormant since the nineteen eighties ushered in the crack
epidemic, just say no, three strikes and you’re out, and the prison
boom. The Clinton Administration, the first to be run by people who
grew up with soft drugs, chose to surrender to the reigning orthodoxy
Yet the failure of the twenty year “drug war” has never been more
apparent. The most damning evidence can be found in the most recent
“Fact Sheet” handed out by the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy-the same office that is currently in hot water for
offering television networks millions in financial incentives to
insert anti drug “messages” into entertainment programs. The surest
measure of the success of drug interdiction and enforcement is price:
if drugs are made harder to come by, the price must increase.
According to the “Fact Sheet,” however, the average price of a gram of
pure cocaine dropped from around $300 in 1981 to around $100 in 1997;
for heroin, the price fell from $3,500 to $1,100. Only marijuana has
gotten more expensive, but its potency has more than kept pace.
Interdiction has functioned mainly as a protectionist and R. & D.
program for the burgeoning domestic marijuana industry whose product,
once the equivalent of iceberg lettuce, is now more akin to arugula.
The nickel bag is long gone, but not the nickel high.

Meanwhile, federal spending on drug control has gone from around $1.5
billion to around $16 billion, mostly for interdiction and criminal
justice. State and local spending has likewise multiplied, bringing
the combined annual bill to something in the neighborhood of $40
billion. The prison population, which fifteen years ago was under
three quarters of a million, will cross the two million mark sometime
this month. Drug convictions account for the great bulk of that
increase. The average drug offender in a federal prison serves more
time than does the average rapist, burglar, or mugger. This costly
jihad has scared off some casual users, but it has done nothing to
reduce the number of hard core addicts.

These facts have not much intruded themselves upon the current
political campaign. Below the Presidential and would be Presidential
level, though, there are modest signs of popular discontent with the
drug policy status quo. The voters of eight states, from California
to Maine, have passed initiatives approving the medical use of
marijuana. There is growing interest in practical alternatives to the
regime of punitive prohibition, particularly the approach known as
“harm reduction”- which, in the words of Ethan Nadelmann, of the
George Soros funded Lindesmith Center, “aims to reduce the negative
consequences of both drug use and drug prohibition, acknowledging that
both will likely persist for the foreseeable future.” Even a few
politicians have begun to call for fundamental reform, including
Congressman Tom Campbell, the probable Republican nominee in this
year’s California Senate race, and Governor Gary Johnson, of New
Mexico, also a Republican, who has undertaken a sustained rhetorical
crusade against what he regards as the folly of the drug war.

With varying degrees of candor, three of the four plausible
Presidential candidates have admitted to (Gore and Bill Bradley) or
alluded to (George W. Bush) past drug use. The fourth, John McCain,
says he has never done drugs, but, as he said not long ago, he was
already a prisoner of war when pot became popular in the military
(“Also, remember my age: sixty three,” he added apologetically.) Gore
has taken the usual baby boom politician’s boilerplate-admitting one
or two episodes of unenjoyable “experimentation”-a useful step
further: for some years, he was an occasional (by his own account) or
regular (by Warnecke’s) marijuana user. During those years, he served
in the Army in Vietnam, studied divinity and law, worked as a
newspaper reporter, and prepared to run for Congress. Whatever the
effect marijuana had on him (and he did, after all, once suggest
putting a TV camera in orbit, aiming it straight down, and
broadcasting a picture of the earth twenty four hours a day on cable),
his ability to function as a productive citizen does not appear to
have been impaired.

One day, perhaps, an actual or potential President will acknowledge
that there are meaningful distinctions to be drawn among different
drugs and different ways of using and abusing them; and that there is
something morally askew in a criminal justice system that treats
adults who sell drugs to other adults (let alone adults who merely
grow marijuana plants) as harshly as it does violent, predatory
criminals. That day can hardly come too soon, though when it does a
great change may have already begun. “I wouldn’t be doing this if I
didn’t think this was a Berlin Wall-type situation,” Governor Johnson,
of New Mexico, told an interviewer recently, explaining why he is
willing to brave the indignation of the drug warriors. “You’re going
to get a critical mass here, and all of a sudden it’s just going to
topple.”

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER

To the Editor of The New Yorker,

Thanks to Henrik Hertzberg for his comments on the drug war (“Gore’s
Greatest Bong Hits,” Feb. 7). The hypocrisy and failure of the drug
war become obvious to anyone willing to take an honest look. I agree
with New Mexico Governor’s Gary Johnson and others who contend the
disaster may soon buckle under its own weight. I don’t believe,
though, we should sit around and wait for such an event. Lives are
being destroyed every day. Well-armed drug gangs and anti-drug forces
try to determine who can be more ruthless in the battle – so focused
on each other they display little concern for average citizens caught
in the crossfire.

It may be easy to assess the failure of the drug war, but it’s harder
to stand up and speak out against it. Witness, for example, the snide
smears Johnson has faced not only from political opponents, but from
appointed bureaucrats like “drug czar” Barry McCaffrey. If the drug
war is allowed to escalate further because challenges to it are
inadequate, many more of us will be casualties before it ends.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2000
Subject: Drug Case Reveals That Prosecutors Bribe Witnesses

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #160 February 9, 2000

Drug Case Reveals That Prosecutors Habitually Bribe Witnesses

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE – WRITE A LETTER – MAKE A DIFFERENCE! ——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #160 February 9, 2000

To offer big rewards for jailing high-profile criminals appeals to the
fearful public, yet it corrupts the justice system and undermines the
right to a fair trial, as the case of Juan Garcia Abrego shows. FBI
prosecutor Peter Hanna offered star witness Carlos Resendez $2 million
from the reward chest for false testimony against Abrego. One wonders
who of the three is the bad guy in this game. We could get all of them
to go about more useful activities by simply ending drug prohibition
which fuels such corrupt schemes with endless funds and thereby
destroys all justice.

Please write a letter to the Houston Chronicle and express your
concern about this egregious miscarriage of justice. Contact info and
details below.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)

Contact: [email protected]

Address: Viewpoints Editor, P.O. Box 4260 Houston, Texas 77210-4260

Fax: (713) 220-3575

Forum: http://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.html

***************************************************************************

Newshawk: Art Smart ([email protected])
Pubdate: Tue, 08 Feb 2000
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Copyright: 2000 Houston Chronicle
Page: 1
Author: Deborah Tedford

FED PAYOFF TO WITNESS CLAIMED IN DRUG CASE

A receipt for a $1 million cashier’s check paid to the star witness
against drug kingpin Juan Garcia Abrego may bolster defense claims
that U.S. prosecutors paid for false testimony to win a conviction.

The check was one of two purchased March 13, 1998, by FBI agent Peter
Hanna, according to documents subpoenaed from NationsBank (now Bank of
America) by attorneys for Garcia Abrego.

Michael Pancer and Kent Schaffer have asked U.S. District Judge Ewing
Werlein for a hearing on grounds that prosecutors encouraged Carlos
Resendez to give false testimony and hid crucial evidence about their
pretrial financial agreements.

The allegations are based on statements by Resendez and Mexican
attorney Raquenel Villanueva Fraustro, who said she brokered a deal
with U.S. prosecutors in which Resendez agreed to lie for millions of
dollars from the U.S. government.

Prosecutors have not directly addressed the allegations. However, in
court documents filed last month they referred to a newspaper article
that quoted Villanueva as saying the United States reneged on a deal
to pay Resendez $2 million for his testimony against the head of the
notorious Gulf Cartel.

In 150 pages of briefs and exhibits, the prosecutors never said if
Resendez was paid a reward. Instead, they attacked defense attorneys
for offering only hearsay evidence of the alleged perjury and misconduct.

Schaffer said the checks, which will be filed in court documents later
this month, are evidence of a payoff. “The check answers one of the
main questions: whether the payment was made or not,” Schaffer said.

The $1 million check bought by Hanna was made payable to Carlos
Resendez on March 16, 1998.

One of two witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the cartel’s
inner-workings, Resendez was a former commander in the Mexican state
police and a boyhood friend and a 30-year confidant of Garcia Abrego.

In the 1996 trial, he testified that he was promised no money for his
testimony, but sources say he now says U.S. agents promised him $2
million to testify as the government’s star witness.

Schaffer said Resendez had backed out of the deal because prosecutors
“stiffed him out of $1 million and he’s mad.”

Resendez now says his testimony was replete with lies — all
sanctioned by prosecutors.

Schaffer said Resendez has contradicted his trial testimony on at
least two points. He now says:

* It was his former mistress, Noema Quintanilla, not he, who arranged
for Garcia Abrego’s arrest.

* He lied when he testified he was not promised any money by the U.S.
government for his testimony.

The second cashier’s check bought by Hanna may lend credence to
Resendez’s claims. Hanna bought a $250,000 cashier’s check payable to
Quintanilla. Both checks were purchased at the same time from the
branch at 700 Louisiana in Houston.

Although Hanna’s name and FBI number are handwritten on the checks’
receipt, the typewritten name on the checks is Peter Hanlon.

The agent’s last name could simply be misspelled, Schaffer said, but
“I think Mr. Hanna didn’t want his name on a check for $1 million made
out to a government witness.”

Indicted here in 1993, Garcia Abrego was convicted of 22 counts of
drug trafficking, conspiracy, money laundering and operating a
continuing criminal enterprise.

The only drug trafficker ever placed on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list,
Garcia Abrego was responsible for smuggling more than 396,000 pounds
of cocaine and 46,000 pounds of marijuana across the border from
1980-96, authorities said.

Most came through the Matamoros-Brownsville corridor and were shipped
to Houston and cities in New York, California, Florida, Illinois and
New Jersey, more than 80 government witnesses said.

Public officials on both sides of the border often received expensive
gifts and bribes from Garcia Abrego’s organization, testimony revealed.

In January 1997, Garcia Abrego was sentenced to 11 concurrent life
sentences.

Resendez testified that he helped arrange drug deals and was aware of
murder plots and bribes to top Mexican government officials.

He also testified that “they” told him the United States was offering
a $2 million reward for information leading to Garcia Abrego’s arrest
and conviction, but that he was promised nothing except “security” for
himself and his family.

Jeff Pokorak, acting director of the Center for Legal and Social
Justice at St. Mary’s University law school in San Antonio, said the
practice of prosecutors paying for testimony is a threat to justice.

“The prosecution often feels they need to secure the testimony of
pretty reprehensible people, which is all right,” he said. “But the
horrible thing is to pay them. I don’t see how it’s reasonable to
believe that wouldn’t color one’s testimony. All you have to do is
tell a lie — or their version of the truth — for the person
protecting you.”

Pokorak said the payments are often in the guise of “rewards” and
often paid during the appeals process to protect the conviction.

The cashier’s checks to Resendez and Quintanilla were purchased within
six weeks of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmation of
Garcia Abrego’s conviction.

Prosecutors maintained in court documents that if Resendez were paid
after the trial, defense attorneys were not entitled to that
information.

But Pokorak said that’s not true.

“A deal isn’t just the delivery — it’s the wink and the nudge to the
witness before they get the benefit,” he said. “Was there some hint
that Mr. Resendez would get this windfall? That’s the violation.”

Michael Ramsey, one of Garcia Abrego’s trial lawyers, said, “Where the
honor about the United States has been challenged, no judge is more
willing to get to the bottom of it than Ewing Werlein.”

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

To the editors of the Houston Chronicle:

As shocking as it is that the FBI paid at least $1 million to a
witness to elicit false testimony, it is hardly surprising to see this
happen. Such practice is certainly to be condemned — but is it so
vastly different from offering lenience and plea bargains to convicts
who turn others in, a practice that has become so common that nobody
seems to raise an eyebrow over it anymore?

It is no accident that such unsavory practices have become commonplace
in courtroom cases dealing with the trade in illicit drugs. It is high
time to consider if lavish funding for undercover operations and
overstuffed reward chests yields more of a return on investment than
corrupting law enforcement and perverting justice. If going on
unquestioned, the War on Drugs is about to turn into a nightmare for
freedom and democracy.

Eric Ernst, New York

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

Prepared by Eric Ernst Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000
Subject: Help Keep Peter McWilliams Out Of Prison..And Alive!

—–

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 159 Feb. 2, 2000

Help Keep Peter McWilliams out of Prison…and Alive!

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 159 Feb. 2, 2000

NOTE: This Focus Alert was written in large part by Peter McWilliams.
The sample letter below was written by Mark Greer. —

Please help keep me out of federal prison by writing a letter to the
judge

My name is Peter McWilliams. I am a cancer survivor living with AIDS.
I was arrested in July 1998 on federal medical marijuana charges, even
though I live in California, a state that approved medical marijuana
use in 1996.

In November 1999, the federal prosecutors successfully obtained an
order prohibiting me from mentioning to the jury that I have AIDS,
that marijuana is medicine, that the federal government supplies eight
patients with medical marijuana each month, or that California has a
law permitting the very act that I was accused of violating.

As I never denied my medical marijuana cultivation, that left me with
no defense whatsoever. To avoid an almost certain guilty verdict and a
ten-year mandatory-minimum sentence, I pled guilty to a lesser charge.
(The whole story is at www.petertrial.com) My sentencing for this
charge will be on March 27, 2000. The deadline for turning in letters
of support is February 20, 2000.

Would you please take the time to send a letter, or a fax, or even an
e-mail, to the judge on my behalf? It would make all the difference in
my world.

The letter need not be long or eloquent. One sentence is
sufficient.

The judge can sentence me to 0 to 5 years. The federal sentencing
guidelines place my recommended (but not mandatory) sentence in the
5-year range. It is probably unavoidable that I get a sentenced to
some time — perhaps the full five years.

What I am asking the judge — and what I am asking you to ask the
judge — is that I be able to serve my sentence under “home
detention,” also known as “electronic monitoring.” (An electronic
transmitter would be permanently fastened to my ankle and my
whereabouts would be monitored 24 hours a day. I would not be able to
leave my home except for medical or court appointments. As I live in
Los Angeles, this will allow me to write my books, including Galileo
LA.)

In writing the Judge King, please observe these commonsense
guidelines:

1. Please be respectful. The judge owes me, or you, nothing. You are
asking for a favor. When Judge King was asked to allow me to use
medical marijuana while out on bail, he said to the attorneys on both
sides, in a voice trembling with compassion, “I am struggling mightily
with this. Please, struggle with me.” Alas, there was nothing in
federal law that permitted him to allow me to break federal law, even
to save my life, but I believed the sincerity of his struggle.
Personally, I don’t want judges rewriting law as they see fit. Judge
King is a good judge upholding a bad law. My sentence, however, is at
his discretion. I believe he will be fair, that he will read the
letter you send, and he will be moved by your heartfelt request. I
believe we owe courtesy to the King.

2. Please focus on my health (www.petertrial.com/undetectable.htm) and
my contributions to society (through my books www.mcwilliams.com/books)
as reasons why I should receive home detention or electronic
monitoring (the term can be used interchangeably). The legal arguments
will be made by my attorney.

3. If you know me, please say so, and state any positive character
traits you may have noticed wafting by from time to time. (This letter
is not written under oath, so you will not be arrested for perjury.)

4. If you have read any of my books, please say so. If they helped you,
please say how. (Exception: Please do not mention “Ain’t Nobody’s Business
if You Do.” See 5.)

5. Please do not give your opinion of the War on Drugs (unless you’re
in favor of it), how the government treated me in this case (unless
you approve), your views on medical marijuana (unless you’re against
it), or anything else critical of the status quo. Save those remarks,
however well-reasoned and accurate, for letters-to-the-editor. Such
comments may be counterproductive in a letter to a federal judge.

6. If you can, please keep the letter to one page, and no longer than
two.

Actual letters (those things made popular in the last millennium,
printed on paper, put into envelopes, and sent through the Post
Office) are best. Typed is better, but handwritten is fine. Please use
the most impressive letterhead to which you have legitimate access.
(Your business stationery is better than your personal stationery, for
example.) If you don’t have stationery, you can create a letterhead
on any word processor in about two minutes.

Finally, please circulate this request as widely as you can — post it
on bulletin boards, send it to receptive people on your e-mail list,
send it out in newsletters, put it on your web page. Kindly use your
creativity, but, please, no spamming.

If you cannot post the entire message of this missive, the online
address of this request is www.petertrial.com/letters.htm.

Thank you from the bottom of my weary but very grateful
heart.

Enjoy.

Peter McWilliams [email protected]

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

***************************************************************************

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

**************************************************************************

CONTACT INFO

Please address the letters to:

“The Honorable George H. King”

and begin the letter:

“Dear Judge King,”

Please mail the letters TO ME at:

Peter McWilliams
8165 Mannix Drive
Los Angeles, California 90046

If you know you’re probably not going to get around to writing a
letter (and I know just how you feel — I don’t know where to find an
envelope any more, much less a stamp — please send a fax (signed, on
letterhead, if possible, but if not, that’s fine) to:

323-650-1541

If you think you might not get around to sending a fax, please send an
e-mail. Please write at the bottom of the e-mail “You have my
permission to reformat this letter, print it, and sign my name at the
bottom.” Your name will be signed for you, next to which will be the
initials of the person signing it. Please include your complete
mailing address.

The e-mail address is [email protected]

******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

DrugSense
PO Box 651 Porterville,
CA 93259
(800) 266-5759

February 2, 2000

Dear Judge King:

I have followed and admired Peter McWilliams for many years. His books
have informed and educated millions. If you would take the time to
read Peter’s book “Life 101” (available in print and on the Internet
at http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/life1/ ) it would quickly
become immediately obvious that he is not only no threat to society
but a tremendous asset.

Sometime this month the Land of the Free will attain the dubious
distinction of incarcerating prisoner number 2 million. How did we
come to be the very best at putting our people behind bars and the
very worst at confusing who should be there and who should not?
Including Peter McWilliams in that group will accomplish nothing
positive and much that is negative for our country not the least of
which will be yet another $25,000 per year incarceration expense
levied on our citizens.

As you know Peter has serious health problems. Incarcerating him for
any period of time would be akin to a death sentence. It is hard to
believe that he deserves this regardless of the charges against him.
If he must serve time I believe that it is in Peter’s interest, the
best interest of our society, and in the interest of justice and
reasonable adjudication that he be allowed home monitoring as opposed
to incarceration.

As a tax payer and a lover of freedom and our Constitution I
respectfully request that you allow Peter his freedom for the time he
has left on this earth.

Sincerely,

Mark Greer Executive Director [email protected] http//www.mapinc.org
http//www.drugsense.org

*******************************************************************************

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

****************************************************************************

Prepared by Peter McWilliams [email protected] Focus Alert
Specialist