Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999
Subject: Is Support For The War On Drugs A Brain Disease?

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 122 August 29,1999
Washington Post: Is Support For The War On Drugs A Brain Disease?

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 122 August 29,1999
Washington Post: Is Support For The War On Drugs A Brain Disease?

It has become increasingly common for commentators to admit the
punitive strategies of the war on drugs have failed. Sadly, instead of
acknowledging that a “drug-free America” is merely a fantasy of
repression, they imagine the nation can really rid itself of drugs
through treatment.

An editor at the Washington Post entered similar territory this week.
While it’s always good to hear a condemnation of law enforcement-based
drug policy, the faith that treatment will triumph over drugs raises
troubling questions. For example: Is there a distinction between
illegal “brain disease” and legal “brain disease”? If addiction is a
“brain disease,” how much tinkering are researchers willing to do on
our brains as a preventative measure? Is it more desirable to be
locked in a state prison or a state treatment facility?

Drug users who think they will benefit from treatment certainly should
get it. But the idea that drug use will simply disappear thanks to
treatment is, at the very least, naive. (For a great deal more on this
topic, see Stanton Peele’s website at http://www.peele.net and in
particular his review of the book “The Fix” at http://www.peele.net/lib/massing.html
)

Please write a letter to the Washington Post expressing encouragement
over the call to move away from punitive drug strategies, but also
expressing caution about viewing treatment as the ultimate weapon in
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 MAPTalk
list 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: Washington Post (DC)

Contact: Feedback:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

NOTE: there is no direct Email address for sending your letter to the
Washington Post We recommend you compose your letter off-line and
paste it into the window provided at the URL above.

*

Pubdate: Fri, 27 Aug 1999
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: Stephen S. Rosenfeld

IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO CUT OFF DRUGS

No public policy argument is so familiar and fatiguing, yet so central
and urgent, as the decades-long battle over whether to focus more on
the supply end of our illicit-drug problem or on the demand end.

I got into the issue 30 years ago partly in response to a call by
now-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), then working for President
Richard Nixon to stanch the flow of illegal drugs at the “source.” The
State Department’s traditional indifference to engagement in gritty
law enforcement seemed to Moynihan, and in turn to me, as outdated and
dangerous. He had a role in the Nixon administration’s experiment
with supply interdiction: It produced what he now acknowledges to be
“at most a brief success” in closing down the “French Connection,”
while “opium and heroin production merely moved elsewhere.”

This is pretty much the story of supply interdiction since then.
Prodigies of law enforcement are overwhelmed by the ease with which
traffickers can meet a seemingly insatiable American demand. Moynihan
confronted the political reality behind policy as a U.S. senator in
1988 while working to focus new drug legislation on users. Some 60
percent of the money was to be earmarked for demand reduction, 40 for
supply reduction.

But, Moynihan now relates, “as the bill made its way through House and
Senate deliberations and quasi-conference committee negotiations, its
emphasis shifted incrementally from demand reduction to supply
reduction and, especially, to law enforcement. I suppose this was
inevitable. Fear of crime far outstripped concern for addicts. And
just a few weeks away from the 1988 elections. . . . The deal was
a 60-40 ratio in favor of demand reduction; in the end it was the
other way around. Now the ratio is about two-to-one the other way.”

This episode and much else shaped the conclusions he presented at a
Yale conference on the century of American experience with heroin.
“While the science of drug abuse and addiction holds great therapeutic
promise,” he said, “the politics are self-defeating, punitive and
vainglorious.”

What? The science of drug abuse and addiction holds great therapeutic
promise? An emphasis on cutting down the demand for illegal drugs, on
focusing on users rather than producers and traffickers, appeals to
many of us who are frustrated by the shortfalls of law enforcement and
troubled by the foreign-policy complications of a supply-oriented
strategy. Up to now, however, there don’t appear to have been the
research breakthroughs that would make a treatment-oriented policy a
medically, economically and politically feasible alternative to
sending in the cops.

I am not a student of the science, but let me cite Moynihan and one of
his gurus:

Moynihan: “Ours surely is the great age of discovery in the field of
neuroscience. We are exploring the brain, not least with respect to the
effect of drugs. . . . I think it safe to assume that we may never win
a ‘war’ against drugs. Perhaps the closest we can come, through scientific
research, will be to identify ‘pre-exposure’ vulnerability in the
population and develop some sort of active or passive immunization. We’re
making progress. . . . Supply interdiction doesn’t work, although
absent it things could be even worse. We spend twice as much on it as we
do on biomedical research. But the latter moves.”

Alan Leshner, director, National Institute on Drug Abuse: “If we know that
criminals are drug addicted, it is no longer reasonable to simply
incarcerate them. If they have a brain disease, imprisoning them without
treatment is futile. If they are left untreated, their recidivism rates to
both crime and drug use are frighteningly high; however, if addicted
criminals are treated while in prison, both types of recidivism can be
reduced dramatically. . . .

“Understanding addiction as a brain disease explains in part why
historic policy strategies focusing solely on the social or criminal
justice aspects of drug use and addiction have been unsuccessful.
They are missing at least half of the issue. If the brain is the core
of the problem, attending to the brain needs to be a core part of the
solution.”

Moynihan: “The outcome of narcotics prohibition over the past century has
been to concentrate drug abuse and addiction principally among an urban
underclass most don’t know and for whom there is currently little public
understanding or sympathy. So Congress and the public continue to fixate
on supply interdiction and harsher sentences (without treatment) as the
‘solution’ to our drug problems, and adamantly refuse to acknowledge what
Dr. Leshner and others now know and are telling us.”

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

I read Stephen S. Rosenfeld’s comments on drug strategy with interest,
but they offered little comfort to me. While Rosenfeld is completely
correct to describe the inability of punitive policies to end drug
problems, his hope that treatment will serve as a magic bullet in the
drug war is misguided.

There’s no doubt treatment is less expensive than incarceration, and
it may be more effective in addressing drug problems, but that’s a
long stretch from being a final solution. As addiction researchers
like Stanton Peele have pointed out for years, more people end drug
use on their own than through treatment programs. And while it’s true
that the federal drug budget has favored interdiction over treatment
and prevention, the amount of money being spent on treatment has still
risen dramatically in recent years.

Rosenfeld and others may see treatment research only in a positive
context, but there can be a dark side. Let us not forget that
psychiatry was used as a weapon against those who disagreed with state
policies in the former Soviet Union. Will it also be used against
those who don’t respect the U.S. government determinations about which
drugs are “good” (like alcohol) and which drugs are “bad” (like marijuana)?

Rosenfeld quotes NIDA director Alan Leshner’s statements about “brain
disease” being at the root of drug use. Perhaps Leshner would be
better serving the nation by looking into the possibility that “brain
disease” among legislators is responsible for so many years of
punitive anti-drug policies. These policies have caused more damage
than drugs themselves. If science can make such politicians act more
responsibly, I’d have a lot more faith in its ability to solve all
other drug problems.

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999
Subject: G.W. Bush’s Problem Represents Opportunity For Reformers

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #121 August 24. 1999

Bush’s Problem Represents Opportunity for Reformers

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #121 August 24. 1999 Bush’s Problem Represents
Opportunity for Reformers

U.S. presidential candidate George W. Bush has been taking heat from
the press in recent days over his refusal to flatly confirm or deny
whether he has ever used illegal drugs. Whether individual reformers
support Bush or another candidate in the presidential race, this issue
offers a great opportunity for us to get our message out.

With the Bush controversy, we can play both sides of the field.
Reformers have a chance to promote drug law change regardless of how
someone suggests Bush should respond.

When someone says Bush should just admit the truth, we can agree and
point out:

1. Bush’s hypocrisy for supporting zero tolerance for everyone else
even though it appears he was fortunate enough to avoid serious punishment.

2. The fact that drug use is overblown as a personal failing – here is
this guy who allegedly did use illegal drugs, but not only is he a
popular governor, he’s running for president.

When other people say Bush should refuse to elaborate, we can agree
and say:

1. Drug use is a personal matter, while noting that it’s a shame GWB
doesn’t hold that standard for everyone else.

2. The consequences for drug use allegations are too severe, and while
taking a lot of heat from the press is hardly equal to having property
confiscated, as a country we really need to analyze our priorities and
criteria for judging other people.

Whatever position someone takes, we can suggest they are correct and
that they must agree drug policy reform is in order. On the other
hand, the professional drug warriors (with the exception of Bush’s
presidential opponents) have been wise to stay fairly quiet on this
issue, since the whole episode illustrates the complete moral and
intellectual bankruptcy of American drug policy.

The story has been covered everywhere, so we have a wide variety of
targets. Please write a letter to your local newspaper or any of
several newspapers across the nation to show that any way you slice
the Bush-drug question, it’s a wake-up call for drug policy reform.

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 MAPTalk
list 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

We are doing this Focus Alert a bit differently. There are a wide
assortment of articles on the Bush dilemma (57 at this writing).Pick
any you like they have all been sorted for you at:

http://www.mapinc.org/bush.htm

Then write an LTE to that paper using the Email address provided on
the article.

Alternately since nearly every newspaper in the country has done at
least one article on this topic you can look up your local or favorite
papers Email address(es) at our media Email web page

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

then send your letter to as many as you like.

NOTE: If sending your LTE to multiple papers send a separate copy to
each one. CC’s or BCC’s are not looked on with favor in the print
media and you will lower your chances of publication significantly if
you fail to follow this procedure.

SAMPLE LETTER

Due to the diverse ways to approach this topic we decided to leave
this Focus Alert wide open without a sample LTE and let your
imagination be your guide as to what you want to cover.

Here we have posted some ideas (Duplicates of the ones
above)

When someone says Bush should just admit the truth, we can agree and
point out:

1. Bush’s hypocrisy for supporting zero tolerance for everyone else
even though it appears he was fortunate enough to avoid serious punishment.

2. The fact that drug use is overblown as a personal failing – here is
this guy who allegedly did use illegal drugs, but not only is he a
popular governor, he’s running for president.

When other people say Bush should refuse to elaborate, we can agree
and say:

1. Drug use is a personal matter, while noting that it’s a shame GWB
doesn’t hold that standard for everyone else.

2. The consequences for drug use allegations are too severe, and while
taking a lot of heat from the press is hardly equal to having property
confiscated, as a country we really need to analyze our priorities and
criteria for judging other people.

Whatever position someone takes, we can suggest they are correct and
that they must agree drug policy reform is in order. On the other
hand, the professional drug warriors (with the exception of Bush’s
presidential opponents) have been wise to stay fairly quiet on this
issue, since the whole episode illustrates the complete moral and
intellectual bankruptcy of American drug policy.

The story has been covered everywhere, so we have a wide variety of
targets. Please write a letter to your local newspaper or any of
several newspapers across the nation to show that any way you slice
the Bush-drug question, it’s a wake-up call for drug policy reform.

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

—————————————————————————-

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

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999
Subject: New Mexico Governor Stands By Call For Drug Reform

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #120 August 18, 1999

New Mexico Governor Stands By Call For Drug Reform
A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN THE MAKING?

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #120 August 18, 1999

New Mexico Governor Stands By Call For Drug Reform
A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN THE MAKING?

Last month, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson surprised many around the
country by suggesting that it is time for the nation to reevaluate its
drug policies. He raised the possibility of decriminalizing drugs.
Naturally he found little immediate support from mainstream
politicians, Republican or Democrat.

Since he first made his statements the press seems to be growing more
interested, especially as it appears Johnson has no plans to back away
from his position. Last week, the AP placed a story on the wires about
Johnson; this week he appeared on MSNBC and the Albuquerque Tribune
offered a respectful profile (below).

Please write a letter to the Tribune, other New Mexico papers, or your
own local newspaper to show support for Johnson’s brave common sense
and to encourage other politicians to come out of the closet regarding
the need for reform.

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 MAPTalk
list 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: Albuquerque Tribune (NM)
Contact: [email protected]

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

EXTRA CREDIT #1

Write other New Mexico newspapers, or your own local newspapers to
express appreciation for Johnson’s stand and to remind other
high-level politicians that the ice has been broken and it’s time for
them to join a serious debate.

NOTE: All NM papers have carried stories about Gov. Johnson’s courageous stand.
To review any or all of the recent articles and/or published LTEs on Governor
Johnson See:
http://www.mapinc.org/johnson.htm

Some other New Mexico newspapers:

[email protected] (Albuquerque Journal)

[email protected] (Las Cruces Sun-News)

To find other email addresses for other newspapers search
at:

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

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

EXTRA CREDIT #2

Governor Johnson is undoubtedly taking some tremendous heat from drug
warriors for his courageous stand. He is the highest profile
politician in the nation calling for a national debate on drug policy.
He needs PLENTY of encouragement.

Please consider calling his office to voice your opinion or faxing a
copy of your letter to him.

CALL GOVERNOR JOHNSON’S OFFICE (505) 827 3000

FAX GOVERNOR JOHNSON (505) 827 3026

NOTE Gov. Johnson’s home web page can be viewed at
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/

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

Pubdate: Tue, 17 Aug 1999
Source: Albuquerque Tribune (NM)
Copyright: 1999 The Albuquerque Tribune.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.abqtrib.com/
Author: Ollie Reed Jr., Tribune reporter

NEW MEXICO GOV JOHNSON TODAY

Governor in spotlight, but he’s on stage alone Drug-use, voucher
issues get Gary Johnson national media attention but little political
support.

Gov. Gary Johnson — grim-faced and intent, jaw muscles tensed —
leaned slightly forward in the chair in KOB-TV’s Albuquerque studio
and stared at the television monitor a few feet away.

The governor was zeroed in on the Monday morning edition of “Hot
Wire,” a national MSNBC cable news program. In just minutes, he would
appear on the show live to talk about his controversial call for
national consideration of decriminalizing marijuana use.

In the background, KOB newsroom personnel quietly went about Monday
morning’s business. And just across the room, a couple of the
governor’s aids chatted with each other and with reporters, trying not
to sound apprehensive about the fast-approaching interview.

But the governor was alone in front of the monitor, watching MSNBC
staffers do stories on students returning to Colorado’s Columbine High
School as he awaited his turn in the spotlight.

Alone is a feeling he’s becoming accustomed to. And it’s a condition
the “Hot Wire” anchor alluded to as he introduced Johnson.

“The Republican governor says too much money is being spent to fight a
war that the country is losing. And he says the answer may lie in
decriminalizing drugs, and that stand has him at odds with fellow
Republicans.”

Ten minutes later, after the interview, after Johnson had told a
national television audience he doesn’t believe people should go to
jail for using marijuana, the governor conceded he is breaking new
political ground and exploring possibilities others fear to tackle.

“I feel out on a limb,” the governor said. “I think this is something
that needs to be said and no one else is saying it.”

In recent months, the governor’s positions on drugs and on school
vouchers have made him something of a hot topic in the media.

In April, The Economist, a respected magazine of ideas and opinions,
did a piece about Johnson and school vouchers that the magazine titled
“America’s Boldest Governor.”

He has been interviewed by the Dallas Morning News, discussed in Wall
Street Journal editorials and is expecting a visit today from The New
York Times.

Johnson said he believes there isn’t another governor, member of the
U.S. House of Representatives or a U.S. senator talking about
decriminalizing drug use as a way to refocus the war against illegal
drugs.

Certainly, he said, he has received no support from any high-profile
political figures.

But that didn’t keep Johnson from coming out swinging in Monday’s TV
interview, a session he started by asking a question himself.

“How much money does our government spend each year on incarceration,
on enforcements and on courts?” he asked.

The anchor didn’t know, but the governor thought he
did.

“Well, we’re spending about $50 billion a year,” he said, “and I would
argue that about half the resources that we spend when it comes to
incarcerations, enforcements and courts are spent on illegal
drug-related crime.”

Before the anchor could jump in, Johnson hastened to point out he was
not condoning drug use just because he thought money used to enforce
drug-use laws could be better spent in other ways.

“Drugs are an incredibly bad choice,” the governor said. “Don’t do
drugs.”

The anchor acknowledged that Johnson, a nationally ranked triathlete,
abstains from drugs and alcohol now, but he asked the governor if it
were true that he had admitted smoking marijuana while in college and
using cocaine about three times.

“Right,” said Johnson, who disclosed his past drug use during the 1994
campaign before he was first elected governor.

But then he muddied the answer by adding, “That’s my point. We’re
doing drugs. Under the right set of circumstances . . . I, along
with tens of millions of others — we’re behind bars.”

Later, Johnson spokeswoman Diane Kinderwater said the governor did not
mean he was still using drugs or that he had ever been in jail for
using them.

She said Johnson simply meant that if everyone who ever used illegal
drugs had been imprisoned, there would be millions and millions of
people behind bars.

Still, Johnson told the television audience that some 700,000 people
had been arrested in this country on marijuana-related charges, and he
thinks that’s a waste of law-enforcement energies and public money.

“We are sending people to jail today for selling even small amounts of
drugs, including marijuana,” he said.

After Monday’s interview, the governor said the public would be better
served if some portion of the billions spent fighting drugs was used
for programs to prevent drug use or to help people kick the drug habit.

He added the money could be used to fund a strong anti-drug
advertising campaign.

The governor, who is planning forums on drug-use policy later this
summer, admitted that a lot of fellow Republicans disagree with his
views on drugs, but he said a lot of them are willing to talk about
the issue.

John Dendahl, chairman of New Mexico’s Republican Party, supported
that assessment.

“In the main, the governor is getting a fair hearing,” Dendahl said.
“There are some people coming out of the woodwork in support of
decriminalization. He’s getting kudos from them — and some of them
are Republicans.”

Dendahl, who did not see the governor’s TV interview on Monday, said
the state’s Republican executive committee did send a letter to the
governor opposing decriminalization just to make sure that Johnson’s
stand was not the last word on drug enforcement or decriminalization
in New Mexico.

Johnson said he’s not worried about what his views on
decriminalization might do to his political future in New Mexico,
because he’s not planning one.

“There is no future,” the two-term governor said. “This is it. This
is the last public office I’m going to hold.

“And I’m raising the issues that need to be raised. This is good
politics. This is the job I was hired to do.”

The governor said that if nothing else, his stand has pushed the issue
of decriminalizing drug use into the national forum.

“I am hearing a lot of support from the media,” he said. “This is an
excuse for the media to write about something that needs writing about.”

One thing is for sure: The governor of New Mexico is being taken more
seriously now than he was on his only other appearance on MSNBC.

That was in July 1997 in Roswell, and the subject was the supposed
crash 50 years earlier of an alien spacecraft in New Mexico.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Governor Gary Johnson is right to provoke a debate on drug policies in
America. By consistently taking a punitive approach to illegal drug
use we have aggravated problems, not relieved them.

Johnson feels free to acknowledge this fact, perhaps because he
doesn’t plan to run for office again. If other politicians were more
honest, they would admit the same thing. Certainly they have enough
information to understand that the whole war on drugs has been an
exercise in failure, with drugs and their sellers gaining power, while
individual Americans have been losing their civil liberties. Most
politicians pretend not to understand the real issues in the way
Johnson understands them because they see such a discussion as risky.
However, the risk the drug war poses to the country is much greater
than the value of any single politician’s career. And I suspect as
more politicians offer views like Johnson, they will find broad
support among the public.

Sooner or later we must turn away from zero-tolerance, tough-on-drugs
policies. I hope it happens before we approach the level of complete
self-destruction. Thanks to truly brave leaders like Governor Johnson,
we at least have a chance of making the change sooner rather than later.

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 resources to help you in your letter writing efforts:

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999
Subject: Chicago Tribune: Zero Tolerance For DARE

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 119 August 12, 1999

Chicago Tribune: Zero tolerance for DARE

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 119 August 12, 1999

Yet another study finding the DARE program useless was published last
week (see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n797.a09.html).
Predictably, the press offered sporadic coverage and DARE officials
sobbed about the dark forces working against them.

Studies indicating the failure of DARE to have any long term impact on
drug use are common now. Perhaps that’s why relatively few newspapers
reported the latest results. The study apparently did make a deep
impression at the Chicago Tribune, though. Trib editorialists called
for the end of DARE. No equivocations about improving it, no
acknowledgement of any positive benefits, just an outright
condemnation. As the editorial states: “What a waste!”

Please write a letter to the Tribune to thank the newspaper for its
keen insight. You might also want to mention that the failure of DARE
to achieve its stated goal is a good reason to remove the program from
classrooms, but it is far from the only reason.

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 MAPTalk
list 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: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

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

Pubdate: Aug 11, 1999
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/
Copyright: 1999 Chicago Tribune Comany

IT’S TIME TO SHOW D.A.R.E. THE DOOR

Year after year, about 80 percent of the elementary school districts
in the country allocate resources and classroom time for a curriculum
that simply doesn’t work, and few of them seem to care.

A recent study at the University of Kentucky is only the latest in an
impressive body of research showing that D.A.R.E., a popular anti-drug
program, does virtually nothing to keep kids off drugs. Yet thousands
of schools each year put their pupils–some as early as first
grade–through it.

D.A.R.E., which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education, is taught
by local police officers, who go into the schools to give kids
information about drugs, tobacco and alcohol abuse and, in theory, to
help them develop the skills necessary to resist peer pressure to
experiment with those substances. The program, which includes lessons
on self-esteem, assertiveness and stress management, uses everything
from free T-shirts to “graduation” certificates to a trendy Web site
in order to appeal to youngsters.

And if success were measured in the number of T-shirts given away or
certificates handed out, D.A.R.E. would indeed be successful. But it’s
not.

The Kentucky study, published this month in the Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, found that kids from the D.A.R.E. program
used drugs in high school at about the same rate as their peers. An
earlier study by the University of Illinois at Chicago had come to the
same conclusion.

Why don’t schools show D.A.R.E. the door? Maybe because it isn’t
costing them much–funding comes from local sources and from federal
grants–and it makes teachers and administrators feel they’re doing
something to address a very real problem.

What a waste! There’s got to be a better way to educate young people
about the hazards of substance abuse, but as long as a high-profile
pseudo-solution is available, there’s little incentive to find out
what might really work. And that’s the sad part–especially for the
kids this program ought to be helping.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Editors:

Congratulations on taking a stand against D.A.R.E., the police P.R.
tool that masquerades as a drug education program in classrooms nationwide.

I recently moved to California from Rochester NY, where I grew up, and
where I was compelled to take part in the D.A.R.E. program in
elementary school. I can assure you that D.A.R.E. is everything its
critics make it out to be– a simplistic propaganda program that’s
supposed to “scare kids straight”, but which in reality just insults
the intelligence of the children it targets. Fortunately for my
high-school-aged brother, Rochester schools have since dropped the
program.

D.A.R.E. force-feeds lies and propaganda to our kids about relatively
benign drugs like marijuana, equating recreational pot use with
hard-core heroin addiction. When kids find out that they’ve been lied
to about pot, they make the perfectly reasonable conclusion that
everything else was a lie, too– so why not go ahead and try heroin or
speed? (Little wonder that some studies show D.A.R.E. graduates to be
more likely to use drugs than kids who didn’t go through the program.)
Even if they don’t come to that unfortunate conclusion, children’s
respect for educators and police is permanently damaged.

School officials see little reason to discard D.A.R.E., since it’s
basically free– funded largely by (unconstitutionally seized) drug
forfeiture assets. Still, one might hope that our children’s
educations would be shaped by factors beyond pure economics.

Keith Sanders

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999
Subject: California “Law Enforcement” Ignores Prop. 215 AGAIN

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 118 August 6, 1999

California “Law Enforcement” Ignores Prop. 215 AGAIN

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 118 August 6, 1999

A sadly familiar story in California was replayed again last month as
another group of medical marijuana users had their medicine taken from
them by police. This time it happened in San Diego, and two of the
providers/users were jailed overnight for exercising a right granted
by the citizens of California.

While this is mean-spirited and cruel, it is also darkly ironic, as
the chief of police in San Diego recently suggested that police are
wasting their time by investigating many routine burglary reports. He
said those police efforts would be better spent arresting illegal drug
users (see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n777.a02.html ).

If police resources are being poorly used by investigating crimes with
legitimate victims, it’s time to analyze the costs and benefits of
harassing law-abiding citizens and confiscating their medication.
Please write a letter to the San Diego Union protesting this outrage.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

=Just DO it!=

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 MAPTalk
list 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 Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

Send your letter or a separate letter to the mayor of San
Diego

Susan Golding Mayor City of San Diego 202 C St. San Diego, CA 92101

E-mail: [email protected]

***

Pubdate: Wed, 28 July 1999
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/
Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebX
Author: Mark Sauer, Staff Writer
Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n792.a06.html

GROUP QUESTIONS SEIZURE OF MARIJUANA

As Michael Bartelmo moved forward to address the San Diego City
Council yesterday, all that could be heard in the hushed chamber was
the whir of his electric wheelchair.

Left a quadriplegic by an auto accident when he was 17, Bartelmo, 35,
spoke “on behalf of sick people who belong to Shelter From The Storm,”
an agricultural cooperative in Hillcrest.

“Our garden was raided by police officers,” Bartelmo said. “What we
want to know is, why this happened. We were following the law. I
don’t understand why we’re being singled out.”

The garden consisted of marijuana plants. The law in question is
Proposition 215, the medical-marijuana initiative passed
overwhelmingly by California voters in 1996 and the source of great
confusion ever since.

Bartelmo, backed by a dozen other “Shelter People” who use marijuana
daily to help cope with pain, contended that while his group was
following guidelines set by the state Attorney General’s Office, San
Diego police were not.

Acting on “a complaint from a citizen,” police visited the Fifth
Avenue cooperative July 6 and encountered its founder, Steve
McWilliams, who is on probation after entering a plea bargain earlier
this year on a marijuana cultivation charge. He is allowed to use
marijuana for chronic pain, but not distribute it.

McWilliams said he invited the officers to inspect the marijuana
plants, which were tagged with the names of about a dozen shelter
members. Each member had a doctor’s letter on file authorizing use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes, McWilliams said.

Those letters are now in police possession, along with about 300 pot
plants – — more than half of which were not viable — and a variety
of high-intensity lights and other growing equipment, McWilliams said.

“Another member and I were arrested, taken downtown, strip-searched
and forced to spend a night in jail until we made $3,000 bail,” he
said. “It’s like we had no doctors’ letters, like Prop. 215 didn’t
exist.”

Group members are “trying our darndest to follow the law,” Bartelmo
told the council.

“But we can’t if police officers, the City Council or others in
authority won’t tell us what the law is,” Bartelmo said.

McWilliams said that officers went against the Proposition 215
guidelines by confiscating the plants instead of merely photographing
them and taking a sample. No charges have been filed against
McWilliams or other shelter members.

Lt. Carl Black of the San Diego Police Street Narcotics Team said in
an interview that he could not comment specifically on McWilliams’
case, but said the murky nature of Proposition 215 “puts us between a
rock and a hard place.”

“We have to make a judgment call on how many people are involved and
how many plants they’re growing,” Black said.

Particularly galling to the shelter members is that a few blocks away
in Hillcrest, the California Alternative Medical Center is buying
marijuana in bulk and selling it in small quantities to patients with
a doctor’s letter on file.

While insisting he does not want to see California Alternative Medical
Center shut down, McWilliams questioned how the it is allowed to
profit by selling marijuana while shelter members are prevented from
growing it for their own use.

Black said he could not comment on that issue other than to say his
officers are aware of the center’s storefront operation.

Deputy District Attorney Michael Running Sr. said in an interview
that he had heard of California Alternative Medical Center, “but I
haven’t been there, haven’t talked to those people.”

As for McWilliams, Running said he will study the facts and
circumstances before deciding if charges will be filed. He said he
may wait for new Proposition 215 guidelines that the state Legislature
soon could issue.

City Councilman George Stevens described confiscation of the group’s
plants as “an urgent situation,” and asked the city manager and city
attorney to report back with a clarification from San Diego police
regarding medical marijuana within 30 days.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

I was upset to learn another group of medical marijuana users in
California was left without medication after another vindictive raid
by law enforcement officers.

I’m not from California, but where I live police are directed to
enforce laws, not make them up as they go along. Even if medical
marijuana use were still illegal in the state, stopping such use would
seem to be a very low priority for police. The people associated with
Shelter From the Storm hurt no one and present no risk to other
citizens. Their existence may offend the sensibilities of certain law
enforcement officials, but that is no reason to persecute them.

The story is even more mind-boggling after hearing the San Diego
police chief suggest it is a waste of police time to investigate
certain burglary reports. If police have the resources to bust
society’s most defenseless without cause, certainly they have the
resources to investigate crimes with actual victims.

These incidents should serve as a startling reminder that the war on
drugs is really a war on all Americans. People like members of Shelter
From the Storm may bear the brunt of the attack, but when drug crimes
become the main focus of police activity, anyone who really suffers at
the hands of a criminal must be prepared to be treated merely as a
minor inconvenience to law enforcement.

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999
Subject: National Journal – Mandatory Drug Sentences

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 117 July 26 1999

National Journal: Stop mandatory minimum sentences

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 117 July 26 1999
National Journal: Stop mandatory minimum sentences

While most people reading this already understand the terrible
repercussions of mandatory drug sentences, most politicians either
don’t get it, or don’t want to get it. However, increased attention to
this issue may force them to at least take a harder look at the damage
mandatory minimums cause.

This week the National Journal focused a bright spotlight on the
problem as journalist Stuart Taylor called for the abolition of
mandatory drug sentences. He rightly chastised politicians of all
stripes who have pushed the laws, writing that such legislation has
“been driven through Congress by a bipartisan stampede in every
election year since 1986, as Democrats … have vied with Republicans
in a game of phony-tough one-upmanship, with Presidents Reagan, Bush,
and Clinton eagerly jumping onto the bandwagon.”

Please write to the National Journal to thank Taylor for stating the
case against mandatory minimums so honestly and forcefully, but also
to remind editors that several other aspects of the drug war can’t
stand up under such careful scrutiny.

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 MAPTalk
list 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: National Journal (US)
Contact: [email protected]

*

Pubdate: Sun, 17 July 1999
Source: National Journal (US)
Copyright: 1999 The National Journal, Inc.
Section: Opening Argument; Vol. 31, No. 29
Contact: [email protected]
FAX: (202) 833-8069
Mail: 1501 M St., NW #300, Washington, DC 20005
Website: http://www.nationaljournal.com/
Author: Stuart Taylor Jr.
Note: Stuart Taylor Jr. is a senior writer for National Journal magazine,
where “Opening Argument” appears.

THANK GOD FOR MAXINE WATERS (NO, REALLY)

Almost Everyone On Capitol Hill Is Too Terrified To Talk Sense About Drug
Sentencing.

A striking bipartisan consensus has emerged in the House of
Representatives on the need to fix one aspect of the “war” against
drugs that has ravaged the lives and liberties of millions of
Americans over the past 25 years.

This consensus was reflected in the June 24 vote, 375-48, to reform
the Draconian laws authorizing prosecutors and police to confiscate
and forfeit money and property suspected of involvement in drug
dealing and certain other crimes–and to keep the seized assets, in
many cases, even after the owners have been exonerated of all charges.

But when it comes to an even more noxious product of the drug war–the
barbaric federal and state sentencing laws that have helped triple
since 1980 the number of incarcerated Americans, to almost 1.9
million–only 25 of Congress’s 535 members have gotten it right so
far.

They are Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and the 24 others (mostly
Congressional Black Caucus members) she has lined up to co-sponsor a
bill to abolish the federal laws that establish mandatory minimum
sentences for drug offenses.

These legally irrational, morally bankrupt statutes, together with
their counterparts in the states, have led to the long-term
incarceration of small-time, nonviolent offenders by the hundreds of
thousands. They have been driven through Congress by a bipartisan
stampede in every election year since 1986, as Democrats (including
some of those Black Caucus members) have vied with Republicans in a
game of phony-tough one-upmanship, with Presidents Reagan, Bush, and
Clinton eagerly jumping onto the bandwagon.

Vice President Gore signaled his intention to be part of the problem,
not the solution, in a July 12 speech proposing still more mandatory
sentences (“tougher penalties”) for all kinds of crimes, along with
various (more heavily publicized) gun controls.

Congress has pretty well exhausted the possibilities for cooking up
new drug mandatory minimums: five years without parole for five grams
(one-fifth of an ounce) of crack; 10 years for two ounces; twice as
long for a second drug offense (even if the first was a single
marijuana cigarette); five more years for selling (or giving) drugs to
anyone under 21 (even if the defendant is 18); and dozens more. So
Gore had to reach beyond vowing (yet again) to “crack down on drugs.”
In order to come up with new ways of stripping judges of their
traditional sentencing discretion, he proposed mandatory minimums for
crimes committed “in front of a child” or “against the elderly.”

It’s a testament to the prevalence of political cowardice that almost
everyone in Congress, excepting Black Caucus members like Waters–a
militant liberal with a safe seat whose inner-city black and Hispanic
constituents have borne the brunt of the drug war’s excesses–is too
terrified (or too ill-informed) to talk sense about drug sentencing.

There is certainly little disagreement among the experts that
mandatory drug sentences have had little impact on either the drug
trade or violent crime, while leading to cruelly excessive
imprisonment for many small-time, nonviolent drug couriers and the
like. That is the view of even the most tough-on-crime
Reagan-appointed judges and the most hard-line academic advocates of
long-term imprisonment of violent felons, notably professor John J.
DiIulio Jr. of the University of Pennsylvania, a self-described
“crime-control conservative.”

Nevertheless, many Republican politicians–while outraged by abuses of
the forfeiture laws, which affect property rights– still champion
outrageous prison sentences for nonviolent offenders, a huge
proportion of whom are black, Hispanic, and poor. Meanwhile, many
Democratic politicians join in or stand mute, their sense of outrage
deadened by fear of saying anything that could be demagogued as “soft
on crime.”

But the sudden bipartisan swing against the forfeiture laws may give
some basis for hope that drug war hysteria is receding, and that
federal and state legislators alike will come to appreciate the need
to repeal the mandatory drug sentencing laws. These laws have
devastated the lives and families of too many people who are not
killers, not rapists, not robbers, and not dangerous.

People like Bobby Lee Sothen, a 23-year-old, small-time marijuana
grower from West Virginia, who last year got five years in federal
prison. And like Nicole Richardson, a 19-year-old college freshman
from Mobile, Ala., who got 10 years in 1992 for telling an undercover
federal agent posing as an LSD buyer where to find her boyfriend to
make a payment. And like Monica Clyburn, a Florida welfare mother
with a history of drug abuse, three small children, and a baby on the
way, who got 15 years for filling out some federal forms while helping
her boyfriend peddle his .22-caliber pistol at a pawnshop. (See NJ,
8/15/98, p. 1906.)

It is difficult to overstate how dramatically the long-term
imprisonment of nonviolent as well as violent offenders has soared in
this country since 1970–thanks largely to state statutes such as New
York’s Rockefeller Drug Law and California’s “three strikes” law as
well as the federal mandatory minimums– or how deeply this has harmed
our system of justice and our inner-city communities:

* The rate of imprisonment in the United States has more than
quadrupled over the past 30 years, from about 100 of every 10,000
people to about 450.

* In recent years, as many as 77 per cent of the people entering
prisons and jails were sentenced for nonviolent offenses, according to
a study by the Justice Policy Institute.

* The federal, state, and local governments spent six times as much on
prisons and jails in 1997 ($ 31 billion) as in 1978 ($ 5 billion).

* We are locking up eight times as large a percentage of black people,
and more than three times as large a percentage of Hispanics, as of
whites. More than 70 percent of all new prison admissions are members
of racial minorities. And almost half of all young black men from
Washington, D.C. (to pick one big city), are in prison, on parole, on
probation, on bail, or wanted by police.

* Federal judges spanning the ideological spectrum, stripped of their
traditional discretion to fit the punishment to the crime and the
criminal, have for more than a decade bitterly denounced the mandatory
sentencing laws as engines of grotesque injustice.

What is there to be said in favor of mandatory minimum sentences? Not
much–at least, not in the federal system, in which prosecutors can
now appeal any unduly lenient sentences handed down by the relatively
small number of soft-headed judges.

Many prosecutors argue that they can use their virtually unchecked de
facto sentencing power to pressure small fish to finger bigger fish in
the hope of being rewarded with reduced prison time.

There is some truth in this. But even so, the prosecutors’ leverage
does not seem to have had much real impact on crime. After years of
filling prisons with small fish, law enforcement officials still find
most kingpins out of reach, and the drug trade flourishing. And as
critics of the late, unlamented independent-counsel statute have come
to appreciate, unchecked prosecutorial power is prone to abuse,
injurious to liberty, and more likely to undermine than to promote
respect for law.

Principled liberals should not need to be told this. And now comes
John DiIulio, in the May 17 National Review, to point out that “there
is a conservative crime-control case to be made for repealing all
mandatory-minimum laws now.” While stressing that he still wants to
“incarcerate the really bad guys,” DiIulio asserts that mandatory drug
sentences can get in the way of that goal, and that “the pendulum has
now swung too far away from traditional judicial discretion” in sentencing.

In short, Maxine Waters is right. And then-Rep. George Bush was
right–and wiser than he was to be as President–in 1970, when he
joined in repealing the mandatory drug sentences then on the books,
and said that letting judges fit sentences to crimes “will result in
better justice.”

Now, 29 years later, there’s evidence that many voters may be ahead of
the politicians in seeing the excesses of the prison binge. A
referendum in Arizona last year required that many first-time and
second-time drug offenders be sent to treatment programs rather than
prison.

Perhaps the time is ripe for principled conservatives like House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde–who united to reform the
forfeiture laws with Democrats such as John Conyers Jr. of Michigan
and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, only months after brawling over
impeachment–to form another bipartisan coalition. The goal should be
to abolish mandatory drug sentences, once and for all.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

I applaud Stuart Taylor for exposing the injustice and impracticality
of mandatory minimum sentences and forfeiture laws as applied to
nonviolent drug offenders. For too long, too many politicians have
been hooked on harsh anti-drug rhetoric, so hooked that are oblivious
to the unintended consequences of “tough” legislation.

At one time any government that authorized itself to arbitrarily
confiscate private property without so much as a hearing would have
been called undemocratic – and a government that incarcerated huge
segments of particular populations for failing to conform to cultural
expectations would have been called totalitarian. But for roughly two
decades most national leaders have told us such practices define the
American way.

Taylor is correct to call for the abolition of mandatory drug
sentences, but that is only the beginning of changes needed to stop
the drug war’s collateral damage. As the nation continues to wage war
on itself, the supposed enemy grows steadfastly in potency,
availability and profitability.

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999
Subject: The Trial of Steve & Michele Kubby Begins Tomorrow

The Trial of Steve & Michele Kubby Begins Tomorrow, Tuesday,July 20,
1999! They Need Your Support

DrugSense DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 116, July 19, 1999

On January 19, 1999 Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Steve Kubby
and his wife Michele were arrested in a dramatic day-time raid staged
by a multi agency “task force” representing local law enforcement
agencies from several adjoining counties in Eastern California and
Western Nevada.

It was subsequently learned that the arrest culminated over six months
of extraordinary and invasive surveillance initiated on the basis of
nothing more than an anonymous letter.

The immediate post-arrest treatment of the Kubby’s, their subsequent
ordeal and the decision of Placer County officials to try them on
felony charges of growing Cannabis for sales is generally well covered
by a rich collection of media reports available through links at
http://www.kubby.com/.

This case shapes up as a defining moment, not only for ‘medical
marijuana’ legislation in California, but for the ongoing battle the
federal government is waging to preserve marijuana prohibition as the
engine driving an ever-expanding “war on drugs.” As such, this FOCUS
ALERT is perhaps the most important call to action MAP will issue all
year.

The relatively untold story is that since early 1997, many local law
enforcement agencies in California has been waging an intensive
campaign against medical Cannabis; one characterized not just by their
complete unwillingness to accept the law, but by their willingness to
employ questionable-if not downright illegal efforts to subvert it.

The arrest and subsequent treatment of the Kubby’s illustrates this as
well as any of the less publicized cases. Everyone is urged to
familiarize themselves with the important details of this case and to
inundate appropriate targets with large volumes of mail, e-mail and
faxes demanding media coverage and fair treatment; not only for the
Kubby’s, but for all medical users and growers in California.

To the extent possible, we should also interweave the governor’s
craven refusal to support even the timid recommendations of his
Attorney General and Senator Vasconcellos’ blue ribbon panel.

Listed below are important media e-mail addresses. It should be noted
that Bay Area papers have been conspicuous by their absence from the
list of papers covering the case. Letters to them should be pointed in
asking why they have failed to notice it thus far, despite their
generally good record in covering other pertinent medical Cannabis
developments.

The editorials written by the Orange County Register are a good model
for what all the major dailies should be saying about this case.

Key points: 1) An enormous and intrusive investigation was launched by
an anonymous tip 2) The Kubby’s never made any secret of the fact that
they were growing Cannabis (in compliance with CA law). The sole issue
here is the number of plants. 3) No evidence to support the charge of
sales was introduced at pre-trial hearings. 4) The arrest has been
destructive and potentially harmful; there is unimpeachable medical
opinion that the behavior of the police and prosecutor has already
recklessly endangered Steve’s life; they have exhibited no
acknowledgement of that fact-let alone regret or an apology. 4) They
have also severely injured the Kubby’s financially by retaining their
computer hard drives and essentially forcing them out of business. 5)
Refusal of the law & motion judge to grant (relatively routine)
motions allowing a delay or compelling return of the computer hard
drive before the trial is both unusual and highly suspicious.

(These points-and more- are well covered by an (as usual) excellent
Orange County Register editorial which was just received- and which
I’ve pasted below.

GET BUSY AND WRITE!! KEEP ON WRITING!! WE _ARE_ MAKING A DIFFERENCE!

*

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 MAPTalk
list 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 Copy All Letters to:

[email protected] (Auburn Journal)

[email protected] (Placer Cnty Board)

[email protected] (Placer County Sheriff)

Board of Supervisors

175 Fulweiler Ave., Auburn, CA 95603

Phone: 530-889-4010

Fax: 530-889-4009

E-mail: [email protected]

Placer County Board of Supervisors

* Supervisor Bill Santucci, District 1 (Roseville)

* Supervisor Robert Weygandt, District 2 (Lincoln)

* Supervisor Harriet White, District 3 (Auburn)

* Supervisor Jim Williams, District 4 (Loomis)

* Supervisor Rex Bloomfield, District 5 (Meadow Vista) and

* Placer county Sheriff Bonner

Send Your Letters to Orange County Register: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

Additionally send your letter to any of the papers below you would
like to include: (for best results do NOT BCC: send separate letters
to each address) Major Daily Newspapers

[email protected] (San Francisco Chronicle)

[email protected] (San Francisco Examiner)

[email protected] (Oakland Tribune)

[email protected] (San Jose Mercury-News)

[email protected] (Los Angeles Times)

[email protected] (Sacrmento Bee)

[email protected] (San Diego Union-Tribune)

Weeklies

[email protected] (Sacramento News & Review)

[email protected] (Bay Guardian)

Tahoe Regional Newspapers [email protected] (Auburn Journal)

Smaller Dailies

[email protected] (Bakersfield Californian)

[email protected] (San Mateo Co Times)

Subject: MN: US CA: Editorial: MMJ: The Kubby Case

Newshawk: John W. Black
Pubdate: Mon, 19 July 1999
Source: Orange County Register (CA)
Copyright: 1999 The Orange County Register
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Author: Alan Bock
Note: The Kubby Files are online at http://www.kubby.com/

THE KUBBY CASE

Following a remarkable ruling by Placer County Judge Robert McElheny,
the trial of Steve ana Michele Kubby, two medical marijuana patients,
on charges of cultivating marijuana with intent to sell, just might
get under way this week.

The couple had their home in Tahoe City raided Jan. 19 and all the
plants they were growing, along with their computer, books, numerous
personal possessions and the $200 cash they had in their wallets at
the time, were confiscated.

Steve Kubby, you may recall, was the Libertarian Party candidate for
governor last year and a key proponent of Proposition 215, the
medical-marijuana initiative passed by voters in 1996.

Both Kubby’s are patients with written recommendations from physicians
to use marijuana medicinally – Steve for adrenal cancer and Michele
for irritable bowel syndrome.

The couple, who have been living in Orange County since shortly after
their arrest, had made no secret of the fact that they were growing
marijuana for their own medical use in the basement of a rented home
in Tahoe.

The couple ran an online outdoor sports and adventure magazine and the
computer was the source of the livelihood.

After it was confiscated they had to declare bankruptcy. They had
requested and the court had ordered that the prosecution at least
return the information contained on the computer (including all their
financial records for the last 15 years).

Although the court issued an order early in March, the information
wasn’t furnished (in the form of two CDs) until last week.

Mr. Kubby’s attorney, Dale E. Woods, told us that didn’t give him
enough time to study the contents of the CDs thoroughly enough.

“Mr. Kubby will be cross-examined about individual transactions from
years ago that nobody can be expected to remember in detail,” Mr. Wood
told us. “Getting the records one week before trial is not enough time
to prepare a defense.”

Meantime, based on some of the information on the CD and in details of
some charges, Mr. Kubby is suspicious that somebody might have
tampered with the computer’s hard drive.

His attorneys asked Judge Robert McElheny to order the prosecution to
return the computer to them last week.

He refused to do so. Mr Kubby has challenged the prosecution to return
the computer so an independent expert can check the hard drive for
tampering – or drop the charges. That seems unlikely to happen.

Michele Kubby’s attorney, Joe Farina of Sacramento, told us he has a
delay. He has to handle a court-assigned case in Sacramento the same
day – Tuesday – the Kubby trial is scheduled to begin in Auburn. Under
most circumstances that should be grounds for a routine continuance of
the case. But very little about this case seems to be routine.

It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Placer County prosecutors
brought this case and continue to play hardball essentially to
frustrate the will of the voters and to discourage and harass medical
marijuana patients.

They have decided to re-try a dentist and his wife whose situation was
similar to that of the Kubby’s – physician-certified patients who were
growing their own marijuana in their own home but had “too many”
plants to suit the police – even though they got a hung jury the first
time.

It is high time for police and prosecutors in Placer County and
elsewhere in California to recognize that Prop. 215 – now Section
11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code – is the law in California.
State and local law enforcement agents are not supposed to arrest
physician-certified patients for use or cultivation of marijuana –
period. What federal authorities do might be a different matter, but
state and local officials have an obligation to follow California law.

Will they get the message if a Placer County jury acquits the Kubby’s?
We’ll be following this case closely.

*

SAMPLE LETTER (Sent)

Dear Auburn Journal

I sent the letter and article below to the following people today.
Feel free to print my letter if you like.

=========

Dear: Placer County Board of Supervisors

I suppose I could reiterate what so many others have said so well
about how deplorable you are beginning to look to throughout not only
Placer county but the state and even the nation regarding the
intransigent and inexcusable treatment of Steve and Michele Kubby but
an article in the Orange County Register (below) that went out today
to well over half a million California residents says it all too well.
This is but one of more than 100 news articles that have been
published around the nation on this case (not to mention broadcast
media coverage.)

How on earth people in your position can continue to ignore California
law simply boggles my mind.

I’ll not try to convince you further. You know the facts and you know
you are wrong and it’s not long until the next elections.

I have no respect for those who have no respect for individual
liberty, the Constitution, the law, and what is plainly and obviously
the right thing to do.

How do you sleep at night?

Mark Greer
PO Box 651
Porterville,
CA 93258
800 266-5759

Mark Greer is the Executive Director of DrugSense an Internet based
non profit corporation dedicated to the dissemination of truth and
accuracy on all drug policy related matters. http://www.drugsense.org/

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999
Subject: Los Angeles Times “Double Play” – Write Away

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 115 July 8,1999

La Times Recognizes Symptoms Of Drug War But Refuses To Attack The Disease

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 115 July 8,1999 Los Angeles Times “Double Play”

While many more people are starting to realize that the war on drugs
is the foundation of a number of national and international problems,
others seem to imagine such problems can be solved without ending the
drug war. Two editorials published on the same day in the Los Angeles
Times demonstrate how editors there understand certain aspects of drug
war devastation, but they still refuse to see the big picture.

Editorialists for the Times urge California leaders to address the
crisis in prison overcrowding and joins the chorus singing praises for
forced treatment as an alternative to imprisoning nonviolent drug
offenders. In a separate piece, the Times writes that U.S. leaders
should take a more sensible position on the civil war in Colombia by
supporting a peace initiative, not an infusion of more arms. Both of
these positions appear to be reasonable, but without challenging the
larger drug war itself they offer little chance for true change.

The Times overlooks the fact that if drug sales were regulated, the
State of California would not only avoid interfering in the lives of
those nonviolent drug offenders, but they would also eliminate the
violence (and potential inmates) orbiting around black markets. And in
suggesting that the Colombian government “build communities based on a
fair standard of living,” the Times ignores the huge sums of money
drug prohibition brings to rebel groups in the nation through black
markets. Please write a letter to the Times informing editors they
have missed the forest for the trees: The longer the drug war rages,
the longer the problems lamented in these editorials will intensify.

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 MAPTalk
list if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to:

[email protected]

Your letter will then be forwarded to the list 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: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: [email protected]
Pubdate: Wed, 7 July 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: [email protected]
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/

PRISONS ARE NOT ENOUGH

On July 4 Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill authorizing the construction
of a mammoth, 2,248-bed maximum security prison just north of
Bakersfield. The bill, he said, would “help to ensure that California
remains a state that demands safety for its citizens and justice from
its criminals.” However, just building new prisons has little
correlation with public safety and does nothing to reduce the
astronomical costs of incarcerating its 160,000 prisoners.

Prisons don’t lock up most offenders and throw away the key. Even
with the three strikes law increasing many sentences, the state’s
prisons release about 90,000 people each year into California
communities with virtually no follow up, one reason why roughly two
thirds of state inmates paroled this year are likely to return to prison.

Today, the Assembly Appropriations Committee considers a bill that
would aid both safety and justice. The measure, by Sen. Richard
Polanco (D Los Angeles), would require the state Department of
Corrections to conduct a public study of cost effective alternatives
to prison building. Taxpayers currently pay $21,000 a year to
imprison each of California’s 59,000 nonviolent drug offenders. Most
of these drug offenders are addicts who receive no intensive substance
abuse treatment in prison and tend to commit crimes again, cycling in
and out of prison for decades. Polanco’s bill would require the state
Corrections Department to study alternatives used in other states,
like requiring the offenders to get into treatment, get jobs and pay
part of their salaries back to the state to fund the drug treatment
programs they attend.

Next week, the Assembly Public Safety Committee will consider a
related bill that would prod the Corrections Department to think more
creatively. The bill, authored by Sen. John Vasconcellos (D Santa
Clara), would revise the state’s penal code to declare that the
purpose of prisons is “prevention, rehabilitation and punishment.” Two
decades ago, the state removed the term “rehabilitation” from its
penal code, making punishment the sole official purpose of its
prisons. If prisoners are to reenter society, punishment alone is not
enough.

Despite a near tripling in the number of state prisons since 1980,
California prisons are overcrowded again, and voters have rejected
bond measures that would have kept the prison building boom rolling.
An exploration of ways to serve justice with fewer new cells is a
sensible public safety policy.

Pubdate: Wed, 7 July 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: [email protected]
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/

=====================================================================

BEAM OF HOPE FOR COLOMBIA

Almost a year ago, in the steamy jungles of southern Colombia, then
President-elect Andres Pastrana surprised his countrymen by posing for
a photo with Manuel “Sureshot” Marulanda, commander of the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the hemisphere’s oldest and
largest guerrilla force. Pastrana’s brave and bold move was meant to
demonstrate his intention to end the 35-year-old civil war that has
taken more than 35,000 Colombian lives.

Today, representatives of the government and the insurgents will begin
negotiations to achieve a peace that could pave the way toward
resolving the country’s many problems.

The U.S. government should support these negotiations with diplomacy
and other resources. Achieving peace will not be easy. The drug
traffickers, the paramilitaries and others have profited from the
absence of the rule of law in Colombia. They will resist any
diminution of their power. The Clinton administration has been a
staunch supporter of Pastrana’s peace initiative, and it’s in
Washington’s interest to help where it can without pushing.

A negotiated peace in Colombia offers America a long term answer to a
big part of the drug menace. But this view is not universally shared
in Washington. A small but powerful group of conservative
Republicans, including Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman (N.Y.), Rep. Dan
Burton (Ind.) and Sen. Jesse Helms (N.C.), believes it knows what’s
best for Colombia. Helms and company have placed their bets on a
continued militarized antidrug policy despite its evident failure.

Even after Colombian police crushed the Medellin and Cali drug
cartels, the trade continues, now pursued by smaller groups that are
harder to crack than the cartels. Colombia does not need more guns
from America. Instead Colombia’s leadership must reach out to the
deprived in the jungles and the highlands and offer them an
opportunity to build communities based on a fair standard of living.

Pastrana deserves this chance.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

To the Editor:

I read with great interest the editorials “Prisons Aren’t Enough,” and
“Beam of Hope for Colombia.” The headlines hinted at two separate
indictments of the drug war on the same page of the influential LA
Times. Instead, the actual texts offered half-hearted calls to modify
approaches to problems caused by drug prohibition. The suggested
changes do not address the larger unintended consequences of the drug
war.

The need to reduce prison populations was recognized. Sadly, instead
of simply taking a huge percentage of the prison population out of the
picture by regulating drug sales and eliminating the black market, the
Times jumped on the coerced treatment bandwagon. Using the power of
the state to force an individual who has harmed no one into treatment
may be a small improvement over using the power of the state to force
an individual who has harmed no one into prison, but it’s the same
basic principle, and it offers similar pitfalls. What sort of
facilities will be used for treatment and who will pay to build them?
How will relapses be addressed? With the threat of prison perhaps?
Will treatment professionals form a union which rivals the power of
prison guards in California?

Turning attention to Colombia, the Times argued that the U.S. should
spend less energy intensifying the civil war with more weapons
shipments and more energy on a peace initiative. While it’s true that
more arms won’t lead to a settlement between rebels and the
government, drug profits are a complex element of the conflict. The
idea that the Colombian government could resolve the situation simply
by giving economic incentives to supporters of the rebels is
questionable at best. Can economic incentives offered by the Colombian
government be more attractive than economic incentives offered by drug
cartels?

It’s impossible to ignore the symptoms of the war on drugs any longer.
Uncoordinated and partially effective remedies for each symptom may
offer some temporary relief, but a real cure can only be found in the
surgical removal of the rampant disease that is 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

Prepared by Steve Young ([email protected]) Focus Alert
Specialist

Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999
Subject: Steve Kubby To Be Featured On Inside Edition Friday July 2,

Steve Kubby to be Featured on Inside Edition Friday July 2, 1999

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 114 July 2, 1999

Former candidate for Governor of California and medical marijuana
activist Steve Kubby will have his fascinating and hair raising story
told this Friday July 2nd on the nationally syndicated program “Inside
Edition.” http://www.inside-edition.com/

NOTE you can find local listing info for your area at:
http://www.inside-edition.com/index11.htm

It is an all too common tale of a lack of respect for the law and for
individual liberty by the very people we charge with upholding the
law. It’s all there. Sinister surveillance techniques, property
confiscation, intimidation, obfuscation, and inaccurate portrayal of
facts to paint a misleading picture of the Kubby’s

After you see the program please visit the web sights below and write
a letter to CBS, FOX, and/or Inside Edition expressing your views and
using the contact info provided below.

This case could well be precedent setting and will come to trial soon.
Your support is greatly needed for these brave victims of a policy
gone mad.

You may also want to send a copy or a second letter to the Placer
County Board of Supervisors, the placer county Sheriff and the local
paper the Auburn Journal. The Kubby’s are applying significant
pressure on local officials the DA etc. and you letters for all over
the country make a BIG impact on this small community. Contact info is
provided below.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do So… Just DO it

*

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 MAPTalk
list 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

Send a thank you or your comments to CBS HQ [email protected]

You can send an indirect thank you to ‘Inside Edition’ via the shows
host Deborah Norville at a letter submission form that can be found
at: http://www.dnorville.com/feedback.htm

You can also find the email address of most local CBS or FOX
affiliates. We strongly encourage CCing your letter to affiliates.

http://www.cbs.com/

http://www.fox.com/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXTRA CREDIT but IMPORTANT!

Please send your letters of outrage regarding the Kubby’s casre to the
Auburn Journal (the local paper for Placer County) Auburn Journal
[email protected]

We also ask that send a CC of your letter or send a 2nd letter of
protest to the Placer county Board of Supervisors

Board of Supervisors
175 Fulweiler Ave.,
Auburn, CA 95603
Phone 530-889-4010
Fax 530-889-4009
E-mail [email protected]

* Supervisor Bill Santucci, District 1 (Roseville)

* Supervisor Robert Weygandt, District 2 (Lincoln)

* Supervisor Harriet White, District 3 (Auburn)

* Supervisor Jim Williams, District 4 (Loomis)

* Supervisor Rex Bloomfield, District 5 (Meadow Vista)

You may also want to CC the Placer county Sheriff Edward Bonner at
Main Office – 11500 “A” Avenue, Auburn – (530) 889-7800
[email protected]

=

SAMPLE LETTER (To Placer County Board of Supervisors:)

Dear Board Members,

I am writing to urge you to pass a resolution in support of Steve and
Michelle Kubby, who have been wrongfully prosecuted by the Placer
County District Attorney’s office.

Steve and Michelle and their family are decent people who do not
deserve to be harassed and targeted for their use of marijuana as medicine.

As political dissidents who are prominent members of the Libertarian
Party, they are also the “canaries in the coal mine” in our democracy.
Tyranny does not occur overnight; there are warning signs. When the
human rights of those who disagree with government policies are
abused, we should all be on guard.

Please do your part to support America’s continued existence as a free
nation by passing a board resolution supporting the Kubby’s and
condemning the illegal and outrageous treatment they have received at
the hands of the law.

UPDATE

(Laguna Beach) Jury selection in Placer County is schedule to begin
in Auburn on July 20 in the medical marijuana case against the former
Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate and his wife. Steve and
Michele Kubby face multiple charges stemming from their January arrest
for growing and cultivating their own medicine.

On Friday (July 2) the nationally syndicated tabloid news program
“Inside Edition” is scheduled to run a feature story on the Kubby case.

Over the July 4 holiday weekend, both Kubby’s are available in
Southern California for interviews and talk show appearances by
calling 949-584–9435.

The Kubby case has generated more than 100 news stories since the two
were arrested at their Olympic Valley home five months ago.
Transcripts and additional information can be found at their Internet
site:

http://www.kubby.com/

SAMPLE LETTER (sent to CBS FOX and/or Inside Edition)

Dear ( CBS )

I just watched an unbelievable episode of ‘Inside Edition’ on the
story of Steve and Michele Kubby. My sincere thanks for airing it and
I can only hope that all of America was watching.

It is beyond my comprehension that in “The Land of the Free” a sick
person whose life depends on a certain medicine could be investigated,
indicted, and be facing a long prison sentence for attempting to save
his own life.

These are not crooks or criminals they are freedom loving Americans.
Steve Kubby was a candidate for the Governor of California in last
years elections, is a dedicated family man, and an exceptional American.

That the medicine that keeps Kubby alive happens to be cannabis
instead of heart medication or insulin makes no difference whatsoever.
The arbitrary outlawing of the drug does not override the fact that it
is unquestionably the only drug that keeps him alive. To deny this
medication is a death sentence on an innocent man. It is hard to
imagine a more sinister objective. It is unconscionable that our law
enforcement agencies and district attorneys, the very people we charge
with enforcing the law, are the ones breaking it.

I, for one, am sick to death of a vicious overbearing, vindictive, and
amoral federal and local government ignoring California law, teaming
up on the innocent, and steam rolling anyone who has the gumption to
act in their own best interests instead of following the ludicrous,
expensive and failed federal drug policies foisted on an a largely
uninformed public by DC bureaucrats with little or no integrity,
knowledge, or honor on the subject.

———————————————————————–

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 station 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 – Letter Writers Style Guide – and MUCH more
in the way of Writers Resources See http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

Prepared by Mark Greer DrugSense FOCUS Alert Specialist