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

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000
Subject: Laguna Beach Police Ignore Law, Threaten SWAT Raids

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 158 January 31, 2000

Laguna Beach Police Refuse to Uphold Prop. 215, Threaten SWAT
Raids

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

——- Make Writing At Least One Letter a Week Your Commitment to
Reform

Together we ARE making a difference

——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 158 January 31, 2000

Prop 215 co-author Anna T. Boyce, R.N. will join Steve and Michele
Kubby for an emergency meeting with Laguna Beach Mayor Kathleen
Blackburn at 4:30 PM on today. Several other patients will also be
attending, to lodge a protest against the threats made by the Laguna
Beach Police Department that they will order a SWAT raid on any
citizen who attempt to grow even one medical marijuana plant.

Andy Kinnon, Regional Director for AMMA arranged the emergency meeting
with Mayor Blackburn specifically to discuss threats and civil rights
violations made against Steve Kubby by the Laguna Beach Police
Department. The AMMA group is currently considering taking the LBPD
to the Orange County Grand Jury for felony violations of the
Compassionate Use Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Unruh Act, and
especially the Bane Act which provides enhanced penalties where an
officer of the law threatens a disabled person who is attempting to
exercise rights granted by the state.

AMMA also calling for an investigation of the Laguna Beach Police
Department for violating their oath of office to uphold the law,
violating the California Constitution and endangering the public safety.

It would be very helpful if you could fax a letter sometime this week,
on your official stationary, to Mayor Blackburn, explaining your
frustrations about this issue and urging the implementation of the
Compassionate Use Act. Please make the point that there is no reason
to vote anymore if the laws that we pass are so blatantly ignored by
police.

The Laguna Beach City Council Fax is (949) 497-0771. The Laguna Beach Home
Page: http://www.scag.org/homepages/laguna_beach/frmain01.htm

As an alternative to faxing, you can transmit your fax or statement to
Steve Kubby ([email protected]) via e-mail and he will deliver it to the
Laguna Beach Mayor.

Laguna Beach is just a small city and we are a national organization.
Let’s focus our total resources on forcing the police to obey the new
medical marijuana law. After all, if police are successful in gutting
Prop. 215, then we’ll face the same problems everywhere else, even if
a federal medical marijuana law were to pass.

This is the battle that we must win and we need to make our voices
heard loud and clear in Laguna Beach California. Please do what you
can to help pave the way for this historic effort to finally force the
police to accept the will of the voters who passed the Compassionate
Use Act.

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

Contact: The Laguna Beach City Council Fax is (949) 497-0771

Please write a letter to Mayor Kathleen Blackburn in response to the
article about police threatening a SWAT raid on any who attempts to
exercise their legal right to cultivate medical marijuana, even if it
is just one plant.

You can also e-mail to Steve Kubby ([email protected]) who will print up
your letter and send it on to the Mayor.

EXTRA CREDIT

Two grand juries are currently deciding if they want to investigate
AMMA’s civil rights complaints and what priority their complaint will
have with other important cases. PLEASE send a letter today to the
two people listed below and tell them that why this issue is
personally important to you and to the future of our country:

Placer County Grand Jury
Nancy Gregoi, Foreman
11490 C Avenue
Auburn, CA 95603
Fax (530) 889-7447
Voice (530) 889-7469

Orange County Grand Jury c/o Carol Duensing ([email protected])
700 Civic Center Dr. West, Room A100 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Voice (714)
834-3320

In addition, PLEASE send a letter today to:

Bill Jones Secretary of State Sacramento, CA 95814 916-657-2166 fax
916- 653-3214 http://www.ss.ca.gov/

AMMA’s carefully documented civil rights complaints are posted for
public inspection at:

Orange County: http://www.kubby.com/ComplaintGrandJury.OC.html
Placer County: http://www.kubby.com/Complaint.Grand.Placer.html
Sec of State: http://www.kubby.com/Complaint.SecState.html
Attorney General: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/AMMA/petition.html

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

Top Story: Steve Kubby¹s Interview With A Nark
Posted by Richard Cowan on 2000-01-29 19:21:36
US: OPED: The Dark Side of Sgt. Sunshine
URL: http://www.marijuananews.com/
Source: http://www.kubby.com/AMMA.html
Posted January 29, 2000

(MarijuanaNews note: I think that Steve Kubby¹s interview with a nark
shows, as Steve says, “a prime example of what the drug war ideology
has done to our police.” This is by no means a unique phenomenon. This
is an international ideology that has corrupted law enforcement around
the world. Even prohibitionists should be disturbed by the refusal of
the police to obey the law. This is a danger to everyone.)

1/28/00

SPECIAL REPORT: THE DARK SIDE OF SGT. SUNSHINE

I spoke today to Sgt. Bob Rahaeuser, Head of Narcotics for Laguna
Beach.

The super-friendly Sgt. Rahaeuser, immediately suggested we use first
names and came across like the nicest person you could ever speak to
— until we came to the subject of medical marijuana.

That’s when “Bob” went back to a very stern Sgt. Rahaeuser, who told
me that he considers marijuana an addictive and dangerous drug. I
asked about their arrest policy, now that the Compassionate Use Act
was the law. Sgt. Rahaeuser explained that he will arrest anyone for
any amount of marijuana over an ounce. Furthermore, he told me that if
he had ANY reason to suspect if someone had just one plant, he would
have a SWAT team raid them immediately.

I explained that even under Dan Lungren’s guidelines, patients were
allowed two plants, but Sgt. Rahaeuser was firm and said, “Dan Lungren
would never say any such thing.” I offered to send Sgt. Rayhouser a
copy of Lungren’s “Peace Officer Guidelines,” but Sgt. Rayhouser
refused my offer.

Then Sgt. Rahaeuser offered me some advice, “marijuana is addictive
and leads to heroin.” I pointed out to Sgt. Rahaeuser that the Drug
Czar’s own IOM report said that there is no evidence to support either
of those assertions. Sgt. Rahaeuser discounted my claims, telling me
that it went against his 26 years of professional experience.

I explained to Sgt. Rahaeuser that the Compassionate Use Act was the
law, that it has not been successfully challenged and that he had an
obligation to uphold the law, regardless of his feelings. Sgt.
Rahaeuser disagreed and said that it was only a law if the courts said
it was a law and they aren’t saying that. I pointed out to Sgt.
Rahaeuser that rights not defended are soon lost and he responded that
“any attempt to test the Laguna Beach Police Department will be met
with a (SWAT) raid.”

After thanking Sgt. Rahaeuser for his frankness, I explained my
medical condition and my documented life-and-death requirement for
medical marijuana. Sgt. Rahaeuser expressed his concern for my health,
but told me he was “glad” I had been arrested for attempting to assert
those rights before, since “there was not possible way to justify
growing so many plants.”

Once again I thanked Sgt. Rahaeuser for his clarifying the position of
the Laguna Beach Police Department.

Call me “Bob,” said the once again warm and friendly Sgt. Rahaeuser,
“and I hope you feel better…really I do!”

Postscript: Sgt. Rahaeuser is a prime example of what the drug war ideology
has done to our police. The fact is that Sgt. Rahaeuser, an otherwise honest
and dedicated police officer, has clearly demonstrated his contempt for
those he is supposed to serve and for his oath of office. Furthermore, Sgt.
Rahaeuser’s blind allegiance to his zero tolerance ideology makes it
impossible for him to tolerate any implementing of the Compassionate Use
Act. So zealous is Sgt. Rahaeuser’s blind obedience to his drug war
mentality that he refuses to believe his own copy of Dan Lungren’s “Peace
Officer Guidelines,” which says:

“One marijuana plant produces approximately one pound of bulk
marijuana. One pound will make approximately 1,000 cigarettes.
Therefore, one can argue that MORE THAN TWO PLANTS would be
cultivation or more than necessary for personal medical use.”
[emphasis added]

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent to Mayor Kathleen Blackburn)

January 30, 2000

Kathleen Blackburn, Mayor
Laguna Beach, CA

Dear Mayor Blackburn:

I have been requested by Steve Kubby to write to you on behalf of his
efforts to facilitate implementation of The Compassionate Use Act,
California law11362.5 which was enacted to carry out the mandate of
Proposition 215, originally passed in November, 1996.

It has been very well documented that despite the clearly stated
intentions of both the proposition and the statute, California
patients and their caregivers have continued to be harassed and
arrested by law enforcement officials who happen to disagree with the
law. This illegal and reprehensible conduct has been facilitated by
the fact that, although the valid medical uses of marijuana have been
affirmed by the Institute of Medicine and validated by 55 to 60
percent of voters in those states where it has appeared on the ballot,
the concept is not “politically correct” in the eyes of most elected
politicians.

This situation has led to 11362.5 remaining an orphan bereft of the
usual enabling legislation at state level; this in turn has allowed
individual sheriffs to engage in a travesty of justice and arrest
bona-fide patients on suspicion of “sales” for wildly varying numbers
of plants- plus other ploys too numerous to mention. Mr. Kubby,
himself is facing felony prosecution in another county under
circumstances which can only be described as disgraceful.

My purpose is not to plead that case here; only to urge you to apply
the principles of fairness and humanity to patients in Laguna Beach
who meet the criteria of California law. This requires you to take
steps to protect them as the statute intended; you must not tolerate
the illegal and inhumane tactics at least one of your policeman is on
record as claiming to be the “policy’ of Laguna Beach toward users of
medical marijuana.

Sincerely,

Tom O’Connell MD

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

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

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
[email protected]

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
Subject: Political Attitudes Regarding Cannabis Changing In UK

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 157 January 30, 2000

Political Attitudes Regarding Cannabis Changing In UK

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

——- Make Writing At Least One Letter a Week Your Commitment to
Reform

Together we ARE making a difference

——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 157 January 30, 2000

The battle to change marijuana laws in Britain continues to gain
momentum, especially after the government’s new head of anti-drug
efforts Mo Mowlam admitted she smoked marijuana while she was a student.

The oped piece below from The Times of London offers an interesting
look at the forces that seem to be driving the push toward a more
reasonable cannabis policy. Earlier in the week another newspaper, the
Daily Mail, published a story about an area police force that has not
only admitted that the government’s drug war is a failure, but also
suggested the legalization of drugs as a viable alternative (see
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n115/a07.html).

As the Times oped notes, if politicians say they don’t have enough
evidence to soften drug laws, they haven’t been looking very hard.
Please write letters to either paper to offer support for changes in
marijuana policy.

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: Times, The (UK)

Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

Please write a letter to the Daily Mail in response to the article
about police admitting the failure of the war on drugs
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n115/a07.html.

Source: Daily Mail (UK)
Contact: [email protected]

Please note: Newshawks in the UK inform us that the Daily Mail
generally prints shorter letters, while The Times is more inclined to
print longer letters.

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

UK: OPED: A New Political Generation Is Ending The Cannabis Taboo
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n131.a04.html
Newshawk: Eric Ernst
Pubdate: Fri, 28 Jan 2000
Source: Times, The (UK)
Copyright: 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd
Contact: [email protected]
Address: PO Box 496, London E1 9XN, United Kingdom
Fax: +44-(0)171-782 5046
Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/
Author: Mary Ann Sieghart
Bookmark: MAP’s shortcut to UK items:
http://www.mapinc.org/uk.htm

A NEW POLITICAL GENERATION IS ENDING THE CANNABIS TABOO
You’re Only As Old As Your Reefer

What I like about Labour’s attitude to drugs is that they say one
thing and do another. They say they are acting tough, when in fact
they are focusing more on treatment than punishment. Mo Mowlam says
she tried cannabis and disliked it, when we all know that, like most
fun-loving people of her generation, she must have enjoyed her toke or
three.

Attitudes to drugs – and cannabis in particular – are cast along
generational lines. The last Government was made up of politicians
brought up in the 1950s, for whom it was a scary, alien substance. I
can no more imagine John Major smoking dope than I can imagine Mo
Mowlam hating it. It was not just because they were Tories that they
opposed any relaxation in the laws. I find that my liberal views are
shared with more younger Conservative MPs than older Labour ones.

The cusp comes round about 50 years of age. Dr Mowlam, who turned 50
last year, is one of the oldest ageing hippies in the Cabinet. Jack
Straw, a visceral anti-legaliser, is on the wrong side of 50. So are
David Blunkett, another social conservative, and John Prescott. Only
Clare Short jumps the age barrier, by calling for a debate on
legalisation from the other side of 50.

The other factor is political ambition. Those who knew from their
early youth that they wanted to run the country might well have been
more circumspect. No surprise, then, that Jack Straw addressed his
first political meeting at 13, or that William Hague was staider than
staid at Oxford. Tony Blair, meanwhile, had no interest in politics
at university but grew his hair and played lead guitar in The Ugly
Rumours.

Whether he inhaled or not, I have no idea. But I am sure that he does
not share Mr Straw’s instinctive antipathy to liberalising laws on
cannabis. He merely worries about what Middle England might think. If
he has pressed Dr Mowlam to tone down her enthusiasm for legalising
marijuana for medical use, it is not because he thinks such a policy
is intrinsically wicked, but because it could be caricatured by the
Daily Mail. And that, as we know, is a critical test for government
policy.

You might have thought that an administration led by a Mick Jagger
wannabe (age 46) would be more sympathetic to legalisation. With the
critical exception of the Home Secretary, it is – but it still
believes that it cannot be seen to be. I get the odd nod and a wink
about this being “something for the second term”. But the first term
is still dominated by the desire to prove what they are not.

Mr Blair has had to show that he is not soft on defence, not a high
tax-and-spender, not in the pocket of the unions – and not an
irresponsible dopehead. But the position for his generation, both
here and in America, is becoming unsustainable. They think they have
to claim either that they smoked and did not inhale (Clinton); that
they did not smoke but if they had, they would have inhaled (Blair);
or that they did inhale but they did not like it (Mowlam). When will
a politician admit not only that they smoked but that it was fun?

You can see these people not so much inching as millimetring their way
towards a more sensible policy. Dr Mowlam thinks cannabis should be
allowed for the terminally ill – only they, it seems, will not be
gripped by reefer madness. The Liberal Democrats think they are brave
in calling for a royal commission, though many of them privately would
be happy to legalise.

What they all want is the cover of respectability. And that is
arriving. The Police Foundation report on cannabis is imminent, and
likely to call for a softening in the law. Cleveland’s chief police
officers this week backed legalisation and a royal commission.

Actually the cover has been there all along. In 1970 Richard Nixon
appointed a commission to study the health effects, legal status and
social impact of cannabis use. To his horror, it concluded that the
drug should be decriminalised. A decade later, the US National
Academy of Sciences studied the health effects and also recommended
decriminalisation. The Lancet agrees, and was confident enough to
declare recently that “the smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not
harmful to health”.

It is demographics that will soon make such a policy politically
palatable. A senior Liberal Democrat told me last week that drug
legalisation, along with housing, was the main subject broached by his
young constituents. As the 1960s generation takes power, in
Westminster and elsewhere, the taboo will dissolve.

Already The Mirror has backed liberalisation of drug laws. A reader
phone-in by The Sun found 70 per cent thought Dr Mowlam was not wrong
to smoke dope. Its white van men say variously that MPs should take
more drugs to improve their policies; that legalisation would cut out
the dealers; and that cannabis is good because it is cheaper than
alcohol. The Daily Mail may be edited by a man with unreconstructed
views, but his proprietor is a 32-year-old whose attitude to marijuana
is, I imagine, more liberal than that of his father.

Cannabis smoking is following the same political trajectory, 40 years
on, as homosexuality. Lots of people do it; fewer and fewer think
that it should be illegal; and politicians are behind the curve, the
last people to “come out”. We shrugged our shoulders when Nick Brown
said he was gay. If Mo Mowlam showed her famous candour by conceding
that cannabis was pretty harmless fun, I suspect the reaction, to Mr
Blair’s surprise, would be much the same.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent to The Times)

Sir,

Thank you for publishing Mary Ann Sieghart’s thoughtful analysis of
annabis laws (“A New Political Generation Is Ending The Cannabis
Taboo,” Jan. 28). It is well past time to reconsider current cannabis
laws, and getting tougher is no solution at all.

As a resident of the United States, I can clearly see how my country’s
war against marijuana not only fails to curb the popularity of the
drug, but also causes numerous unintended consequences. Over the past
few years, about 700,000 Americans have been arrested annually on
cannabis charges. Not only does this waste police and judicial
resources, it makes criminals out of a wide segment of the population
who are otherwise productive members of society.

Compare the situation here with the situation in the Netherlands where
personal use of cannabis is no longer considered an issue for law
enforcement. Dutch young people are less likely to be cannabis users
than American young people. At the same time, fewer Dutch youths have
started using heroin in the time since cannabis laws were liberalized,
while here in the U.S. throughout the 1990s the number of teenage
heroin users has increased.

Examined side by side, it should be easy for the British government to
see which nation’s policy offers a more sensible model.

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: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
Subject: Arizona Republic Catalogs Failures Of Drug War

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #156 January 24, 2000

Arizona Republic Catalogs Failures Of Drug War

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

Make Writing At Least One Letter a Week Your Commitment to
Reform

Together we ARE making a difference —

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 156 January 24, 2000

The Arizona Republic featured more than a dozen articles on the drug
war last week. The series started off with an unavoidable premise: The
drug war has failed.

In the introduction to the series, reporters get to the heart of the
matter. “The truth is inescapable: The fight against narcotics, which
costs Americans nearly $18 billion a year, is the nation’s most failed
police action since Vietnam.” Throughout the week, the series
demonstrated how astonishing profits help the drug war to corrupt
society at many levels. Links to all the articles are available below.

Unfortunately, the series stopped short of supporting a real solution
to the problems, and advocates of serious reform were offered very
little space to air their views. Instead, the wishy-washy implication
of the series conclusion is that more access to treatment and the use
of drug courts will help solve the problem. While that may be better
than no changes at all, the series demonstrated repeatedly how black
market money is as big a lure as drugs themselves for some who get
tangled up in that world.

Please write a letter to the Arizona Republic thanking the paper for
reporting the failures of the drug war, but also to remind that more
than a little tweaking is needed. It’s time for a complete overhaul.

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: Arizona Republic (AZ)
Contact: [email protected]

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

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n103.a01.html
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Sun, 16 Jan 2000
Source: Arizona Republic (AZ)
Copyright: 2000 The Arizona Republic
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 200 E. Van Buren St., Phoenix, AZ 85004
Website: http://www.azcentral.com/news/
Forum: http://www.azcentral.com/pni-bin/WebX?azc

THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC’S A LOSING DRUG WAR SERIES INDEX

About this series:

During a seven-month investigation, Arizona Republic reporters spoke
to dozens of drug officers, smugglers, counselors and residents on the
Mexican border. The conclusion: We’re losing the war on drugs.

Day 1: Sunday, 16 Jan 2000

Introduction: A Losing Drug War
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n061/a08.html

A Lost Cause?

Questions Trump Answers In War On Drugs http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n062/a04.html

More People, More Technology, More Danger http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n062/a03.html

Day 2: Monday, 17 Jan 2000

The Drug Pipeline

State Is Pipeline For Illegal Drugs http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n064/a07.html

Eyes From Above Help In Flight http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n099/a01.html

U.S. Customs Official Lives For The Thrill Of The Chase
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n068/a06.html

Day 3: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2000

Traffickers’ Tricks

A Contest Of Wits At US Border http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n071/a03.html

Smugglers Often Betray Themselves http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n099/a02.html

Day 4: Wednesday, 19 Jan 2000

Old-Time Methods

Old-Time Methods Have Place In Fight http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n095/a01.html

Narcs Lie In Wait, Watching The Night For ‘Contrabandistas’
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n095/a02.html

Drug War Lost, Tucson Attorney Says http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n101/a01.html

Day 5: Thursday, 20 Jan 2000

Two Go Bad

Chance Led To Side Job As Arizona Drug Runner http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n099/a04.html

Day 6: Friday, 21 Jan 2000

Phoenix Sting

One Phoenix Sting Paid Off For Cops http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n093/a01.html

Day 7: Saturday, 22 Jan 2000

Rehab

Aid Money Targets Certain Demographic Groups http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n098/a10.html

Everything’s Different http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n095/a08.html

Day 8: Sunday, 23 Jan 2000

Conclusion: Solutions

Putting Years Of Drug Use Behind, With Help http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n102/a02.html

Rebuilding Broken Families http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n101/a06.html

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

To the Editor of the Arizona Republic:

I applaud the Arizona Republic for exposing the failure of the war on
drugs in its week long series. It is well past time to acknowledge not
only that the drug war doesn’t work, but that it causes more problems
than it solves.

That being said, I was very disappointed when I reached the conclusion
of the series, which implied that more access to treatment and drug
courts are going to improve the situation. While I agree those who
think they need treatment should get it, there’s a lot more going on
here. To paraphrase a famous line about misconceptions: It’s the black
market economy, stupid.

Pardon my rudeness, but the clues are glaring for those willing to
see. One of the last stories, “Putting Years Of Drug Use Behind, With
Help,” seemed to suggest that drug courts saved a young drug dealer.
But the dealer himself clearly explained why demand reduction is not a
final solution. “I think I was more addicted to selling the drugs than
to taking them,” the young man confessed.

Many more people (including the governor of the state directly to your
east) are realizing that the drug war is beyond fixing, and that it’s
time for radical change. It’s a shame your series did not give them
more space to air their views. Putting another bandage on top of the
corrosive disease of the drug war will only allow its damage to fester
deeper in society.

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: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
Subject: Senator Hatch On C-Span Saturday AM Please Email Or Call In!

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

Presidential candidate Senator Orrin Hatch will be taking calls on
C-Span’s Saturday Journal From 9-10 AM Eastern Time this Saturday AM.
Hatch is the co-author of The Hatch/Feinstein Methamphetamine
Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 which could easily destroy all forms of
Internet activism on drug policy on the Internet if implemented. Below
is a wealth of information on the bill and its background. It has
already UNANIMOUSLY passed the senate. Hatch is also one of the most
ardent drug war hawks in the Senate.

The bill reads as follows “It shall be unlawful for any person– (A)
to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or
to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in
part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, with the
intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for,
or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime.”

This is a mind boggling concept in the land of the free. To me this
sort of censorship sounds eerily like the plots in the classic books
“Fahrenheit 451” in which book burning was mandated by the government
or “1984” in which the government censored talk and even thought
heavily and eliminated individual rights “for our own good.”

Please call in, email or fax C-span to challenge Hatch on this
egregious attack on the first amendment.

C-SPAN
400 North Capitol St. NW
Suite 650
Washington DC 20001

Telephone E-Mail [email protected]

Call these numbers from 9-10 AM ET Saturday:

Washington Journal: Democrats (202) 624-1111
Washington Journal: Republicans (202) 624-1115
Washington Journal: Others (202) 737-6734
Washington Journal: FAX (202) 393-3346
Washington journal: Email [email protected]

Front Desk (202) 737-3220
Hotline Schediling info 202 628 2205 – 4
Jobs Line (202) 626-7983
Viewer Services: (202) 626-7963 – 0

Smashing Meth or Trashing Rights?

Consider these statements:

A: “If you must smoke marijuana, filter the smoke with a water pipe
and don’t even think of driving afterwards.” B: “If you ever do shoot
up heroin, don’t use dirty needles. Clean them with bleach or find a
syringe exchange program.”

I think these statements are good advice. But if U.S. Senators Orrin
Hatch and Dianne Feinstein have their way, it will soon be a felony to
publish these statements in any book, newspaper, magazine, web site,
or even to utter them or link to a web site containing them. The
Hatch/Feinstein Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 makes
these statements illegal because they “pertain” to an act that
violates federal controlled-substance laws.

Here’s the censorship language of the Hatch/Feinstein bill (S.486):
“It shall be unlawful for any person– (A) to teach or demonstrate the
manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means
information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use
of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching,
demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an
activity that constitutes a Federal crime.”

My opening statements “teach” people how to “use” criminalized drugs
in a way that reduces potential harmfulness. They are nonetheless
information that, if heeded at all, would be used “for … an activity
that constitutes a Federal crime,” namely the use of marijuana or
heroin. (Don’t believe for a minute that the “intent” aspect
clarifies anything: the “intent” of suspects in federal crimes is
exactly what the prosecutor says it is. Period.)

The penalty for my heinous utterances: 10 years in federal
prison.

You’re probably thinking “Surely they didn’t mean that. This is a
clamp-down on methamphetamine, isn’t it?” But a law is a very literal
beast. The implications of S.486 are as broad as its language is
vague. It clearly violates the face-value meaning of the First
Amendment — guaranteed free speech.

Anyone who thinks the feds would use common sense and restraint when
enforcing this law hasn’t been watching the Drug War for the past 20
years. These are the same drug warriors who just paid $1 million in an
out-of-court settlement with the family of Donald Scott, who was shot
to death in a “dry” (no drugs found) raid on Scott’s California ranch
in 1992. Purportedly, the feds, fearing the publicity about corrupt
drug cops in LA’s Rampart precinct, thought jurors might be persuaded
that enforcers really were trying to grab Scott’s property under
federal drug forfeiture laws, as the suit had alleged. On another
front, drug-warring federal prosecutors are notorious for using
mandatory sentencing laws to jail the lowest-level participants in
drug cases for the longest possible terms, based on heresay evidence
and wide-reaching conspiracy laws (see the PBS documentary “Snitch”).
A study of drug case law reveals that people can be jailed on drug
crimes through a head spinning array of legal technicalities (often
convoluted, illogical, and unfair). Prosecutors essentially have the
power of accuser, judge, and jury, all rolled into one, and can
effectively jail whomsoever they please. Many use their power to seek
high political offices.

Would S.486 be used benignly? Tell me another.

In states that have passed compassionate-use referendums, S. 486 would
facilitate federal prosecution of doctors who tell patients about
medical marijuana. These are among the more obvious applications of
this bill. The larger implication concerns citizens who are now
legally protesting the Drug War or conducting now-legal programs that
are at odds with abstinence-enforcement ideology.

Given the vague and inclusive interpretation of federal conspiracy
laws, almost any information about criminalized drugs and any dissent
against existing drug laws could be construed by federal enforcers as
furthering federal drug crimes. In Congressional hearings last
summer, drug czar Barry McCaffrey specifically accused two national
drug reform organizations, MAP (the Media Awareness Project) and the
Drug Policy Foundation (DPF), of distributing information to support
the manufacture of criminalized drugs. Of course, McCaffrey was lying
about this.

Check it out at the Media Awareness Project (MAP) http://www.mapinc.org
and The Drug Policy Foundation http://www.dpf.org

MAP posts worldwide news related to criminalized drugs, drug policy,
etc. Both groups organize activism to end the War on Drugs policy.
Neither of them advocate drug use or offer instructions about drug
manufacture. However, in the light of the 33,000 press articles
clipped by MAP, the government’s Drug War does not look good. And
activists are running scared about S.486.

Based on McCaffrey’s statements of last summer, MAP and other drug
policy leaders fear that enforcers, armed with the Hatch/Feinstein
bill, would shut down their web sites, effectively silencing dissent
against the Drug War and squelching public debate about drug policy.
They fear selective enforcement of S.486 such that any anti-Drug-War
web site could be shut down directly or indirectly because Internet
service providers, fearing prosecution, would refuse to host such sites.

In remarks about the bill, Sen. Feinstein emphasized her intent to
censor communications about drugs on the Internet. Whether Hatch and
Feinstein know it or not, S.486 neatly fulfills the wishes of UN drug
czar Pino Arlacchi, whose global drug-war organization recommended, in
a 1997 publication, that governments should curtail civil liberties in
their pursuit of strict drug-abstinence enforcement.

Other implications: books about criminalized drugs could be withdrawn
from Barnes-and-Noble’s shelves; certain magazines would be shut down
(no more High Times). Information about industrial hemp cultivation
would be outlawed. Drug treatment and intervention programs that
deviate from strict abstinence doctrine or help non-abstainers
(concerning harm reduction, needle exchange, methadone maintenance, or
medical marijuana) could be prosecuted – because their communications,
like my opening statements, pertain to activities that are federal
crimes.

S.486 seems to be a bald-faced violation of the First Amendment. But
the opinion of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who never saw a
draconian drug law he didn’t like, is harder to predict.

This is an extremely dangerous law, not only for drug policy and
reform, but concerning freedom of speech generally in the United
States. If dissent about this issue can be silenced, all dissent can
be silenced.

If S.486 becomes law, American speech rights become subject to the
whim of the badge-bearing guys who smash down doors carrying
submachine guns and yelling “Freeze!” like they did to Donald Scott.
No matter what you think of drugs, if you love freedom, you should
hate this bill.

-30-

The Media Awareness Project (MAP) Inc. is a Project of DrugSense a
501(c)3 non profit educational organization dedicated to accurate
information and reporting on drug and drug policy related matters.

Additional resources

Drug War Facts http://www.csdp.org/factbook/

Searchable archive of more than 30,000 articles on drug policy matters
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/

The Media Awareness Project (MAP) Inc. Home page http://www.mapinc.org

DrugSense Home Page http://www.drugsense.org

Free Weekly Email newsletter on important drug policy developments
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

Contact Information

The individuals below may be contacted for further information
regarding this release.

Mark Greer
Executive Director DrugSense (MAP Inc.)
PO Box 651 Porterville, CA 93258
(800) 266 5759
[email protected]
http://www.mapinc.org
http://www.drugsense.org

Paul Bischke
[email protected]
[email protected]

Tom O’Connell M.D.
195 Warren Rd.
San Mateo CA 94401
650 348 6841
[email protected]

Kevin Zeese
Common Sense For Drug Policy
3619 Tall Wood Terrace
Falls Church VA 22041
(703) 354 5694 703-354-5695 (fax)
[email protected]
http://www.csdp.org/

Kendra Wright
Family Watch
703-354-5694

Family Watch® International: Standing for the Family Worldwide

Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000
Subject: ONDCPPDFA Accused Of Propaganda And Influence Peddling

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 154 January 15, 2000

ONDCP/PDFA Accused of Propaganda and Influence Peddling

— Make Writing At Least One Letter a Week Your Commitment to
Reform

Together we ARE making a difference —

The tax-funded anti-drug propaganda campaign sponsored by the Office
of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America is being closely scrutinized in the wake of a story first
published by the online journal Salon (see http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/index.html).

The story concerns ONDCP/PDFA efforts to place anti-drug messages not
only in TV advertisements, but into television programs themselves.
The networks were not only rewarded with ads (and ad money) for
working anti-drug messages into programming, the networks actually got
federal money without running ads (thus leaving the ad space open for
other paying advertisers) if the anti-drug messages were deemed
effective enough. Also, the narcs were allowed review and suggest
changes for scripts before the shows were actually produced.

Variations of the Salon story have been prominently featured
throughout major media organizations ever since the story broke. While
most of the stories (like the one from the Washington Post below)
focus on the questionable ethics of such an arrangement, the damage
from the propaganda is much worse. By allowing the drug warriors even
more access to spread their poisonous messages, the networks have
attempted to push the debate about drug policy away from reason.
Please write a letter to the Washington Post or any other major
newspaper to protest this latest attempt to escalate 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: Washington Post (DC)
Contact: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

Note: For best results write your letter off line so you can spell check
etc. then paste it into the LTE window at the address above.

EXTRA CREDIT –

Send a copy of your letter to other major newspapers in the US. Please
don’t use the CC or the BCC function; send each as a separate message.

Source: The New York Times
Contact: [email protected]

Source: USA Today
Contact: [email protected]

Source: Chicago Tribune
Contact: [email protected]

Source: Wall Street Journal
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT

Send a copy of your letter to your own local newspaper or any other
newspaper around the country. This is a huge story that has been
covered almost everywhere.

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

Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Section: Front Page
Copyright: 2000 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: Howard Kurtz and Sharon Waxman Washington Post Staff Writers
Note: Waxman reported from Los Angeles.
See: The Salon article at:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n043.a09.html

WHITE HOUSE, NETWORKS CUT ANTI-DRUG DEAL

Ad Credits Given For ‘Proper Message’

The White House, in quiet collaboration with the six major broadcast
television networks, has reviewed the scripts of such popular shows as
“ER,” “Chicago Hope” and “Beverly Hills, 90210” and made suggestions
on at least two dozen programs to help them convey an aggressively
anti-drug message.

In exchange for their cooperation, a White House official confirmed
yesterday, the networks were freed from obligations to provide $22
million in public-service advertising over the past two years,
allowing them to sell the lucrative time to corporate
advertisers.

Alan Levitt, who runs the program in the White House drug czar’s
office, said his office reviews television scripts “to see if they’re
on strategy or not” by portraying youth drug use in a negative light.
If so, the networks are given credits that enable them to sell more
air time to commercial advertisers rather than donating it for
anti-drug and other messages.

The arrangement, first reported by the online magazine Salon, drew
swift criticism. “If the public begins to believe that a message is
only being put forward because of financial remuneration, there’s
strong chance of undermining the value of all our messages,” said John
Wells, executive producer of “ER.”

Wells, who said he had been unaware of the cooperation with the White
House, said the effort “implies that the programs you’re watching can
be influenced by those kinds of financial incentives, and that’s
simply not the case.”

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the nonprofit Media Access
Project, said: “The idea of the government attempting to influence
public opinion covertly is reprehensible beyond words. It’s one thing
to appropriate money to buy ads, another thing to spend the money to
influence the public subliminally. And it’s monstrously selfish and
irresponsible on the part of the broadcasters.”

Some network executives said their companies submitted scripts for
review in advance, while others said the White House examined shows
after they aired. But all those interviewed yesterday said they never
allowed the government to dictate the programs’ content.

Robert Weiner, spokesman for the drug control office, said the
advertising credits are granted for a prime-time program “which is a
very positive statement and has the proper message on drugs and is
accurate. There’s nothing wrong with that. They’ve given us positive
programs. If you’ve got a good ‘ER,’ that’s certainly as important as
an ad.”

The unusual financial arrangement stems from a 1997 law in which
Congress approved $1 billion for anti-drug advertising over five
years; this year’s allotment is $185 million. Networks that agree to
participate are legally required to provide a dollar-for-dollar match
for each spot purchased by the government by carrying public-service
ads by nonprofit groups working with the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy, or ONDCP.

After some networks balked, drug control officials worked out a
compromise. They said they would credit the networks for each
entertainment program with what they viewed as the proper message – up
to three 30-second spots per show – enabling network executives to
sell that time to corporate advertisers instead of using it for
public-service ads.

For example, Levitt praised as “wonderful” a 1998 episode of ABC’s
“Home Improvement” in which the parents (played by Tim Allen and
Patricia Richardson) confronted their oldest son about smoking
marijuana, despite their own past drug use, after discovering a bag of
pot in the back yard.

The White House has worked with more than 100 shows, which may feature
such themes as “parents in denial” or “peer refusal skills,” Levitt
said. He said the office’s experts reviewed scripts in advance in
perhaps 50 cases, and that in two dozen instances a network asked for
the administration’s input. The contacts are generally with sales
executives, not writers and producers, Levitt said, and each network
can receive credit for up to 15 percent of its commitment for
public-service ads.

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), chairman of the House subcommittee that
oversees the White House drug office, said: “I’m not going to be
wringing my hands over the fact that we’re getting some positive
messages out.” He said that “the networks were willing to have some
consultations on scripts. … If they feel they’re being
strong-armed by ONDCP, they can walk away at any time.”

Several network executives confirmed the government’s financial
incentives but said they knew of no scripts that had been changed as a
result.

Julie Hoover, an ABC vice president, said the network aired more
public-service announcements than was required and therefore did not
benefit from the advertising credits. Hoover said ABC has sent the
drug czar’s office tapes of shows with anti-drug messages – including
“The Practice,” “Home Improvement” and “Sports Night” – only after the
programs had already aired.

Rosalyn Weinman, NBC’s executive vice president of broadcast content
policy, said in a statement that the network “never ceded control to
the ONDCP or any department of the government. At no time did NBC
turn over scripts for approval from the ONDCP.” An NBC spokeswoman
explained that the network sent the White House scripts with
drug-related plots for review before being aired, “but we didn’t take
input from them, absolutely not.”

The spokeswoman would not confirm or deny Salon’s report that NBC
redeemed $1.4 million worth of ad time in exchange for several “ER”
episodes that dealt with drug abuse.

A CBS spokesman said the network had been able to recoup advertising
time for anti-drug plot lines on such hit shows as “Touched by an
Angel,” “Cosby” and “Chicago Hope.” But, he added, “the notion that a
Hollywood producer would change a script for the government is
ludicrous. … All the shows we’ve put on were going to go on
anyway. So I don’t know what the problem is.”

But producers at one CBS program, “Chicago Hope,” resuscitated a
script with a strong anti-drug theme because of a suggestion from a
television executive. John Tinker, executive producer of “Chicago
Hope,” said he reworked a script that had been put aside after getting
a call from Mark Stroman, then of 20th Century Fox Television,
co-owner of the show, who requested a drug-related script. That show,
broadcast last year, featured young partygoers who suffered a
drug-induced death, a rape, a car accident and a broken nose.

While he didn’t revise the plot because of the request, Tinker said,
“I do feel manipulated. It’s not so much this particular instance in
which we seem to have been unwittingly involved. … I would have
liked to be told. If the president wants us to talk about drugs –
could I be told? I’d like to be told.”

In one instance, White House officials said, CBS received advertising
credit for a “Cosby” episode in which Bill Cosby ended the show, in
character, by appealing to viewers to call a toll-free number for
information about drug abuse.

Fox spokesman Tom Tyrer said the network did not redeem advertising
credits for two shows – a “Beverly Hills, 90210” episode in which a
character descends into addiction and an “America’s Most Wanted”
segment in which White House drug policy direct Barry McCaffrey was
interviewed. Tyrer said the producers were aware of the government
program but that no scripts were changed.

WB said in a statement that the network redeemed advertising credits
after consulting with the White House on scripts for “Smart Guy” and
“Wayans Brothers,” but said it often talked to outside organizations
in preparing programs.

Other cooperating programs, the Salon article said, include “Promised
Land” on CBS; “The Drew Carey Show,” “Sabrina the Teenage Witch,” “Boy
Meets World,” “Sports Night” and “General Hospital” on ABC; “Trinity”
and “Providence” on NBC; and WB’s “7th Heaven.”

“This has all been above-board,” said Weiner, the White House
spokesman. “We’re very proud of the accomplishments of the campaign.
… We plead guilty to using every lawful means to save America’s
children.”

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

To the Editor of the Washington Post:

I was glad to see some of the mischief caused by the federally-funded
anti-drug media campaign finally exposed (“WHITE HOUSE, NETWORKS CUT
ANTI-DRUG DEAL,” Jan. 14). Many have rightly questioned the ethics of
secret government payoffs to television networks that worked anti-drug
propaganda into programming. However, more basic questions need to be
asked about the media campaign’s relationship to other drug policy
issues.

Why, for example, does the Clinton administration want to shell out
more than $1.3 billion to the Colombian government to escalate the
civil war there? To fight illegal drugs, the administration tells us.
And why do we have to fight drugs? Because everyone knows that they
are inherently evil. And how do we know for ourselves? Because on TV,
only the bad people use and sell illegal drugs, and if any good people
get involved with drugs, terrible things happen to them.

The real goals of the anti-drug propaganda campaign have little to do
with keeping kids (or anyone else) away from drugs. The campaign is
designed to cause hysteria, and that hysteria is harnessed to justify
any number of evils, from scaling back civil liberties to turning the
prison system into a tightly packed gulag.

If those people who engineer the drug war didn’t constantly promote
fear and hate as the only proper responses to illegal drugs, maybe we
could look at the situation more realistically to find an approach
that doesn’t cause more harm than good.

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: Thu, 13 Jan 2000
Subject: Medical Marijuana Users Speak Out In Washington Post

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #153 January 13, 2000

Medical Marijuana Users Speak Out In Washington Post

—
MAKE WRITING AT LEAST ONE LETTER A WEEK A NEW YEARS RESOLUTION! —

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

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #153 January 13, 2000

“Pain or Prison,” an oped piece written by three medical marijuana
patients and published in the Washington Post needs little
introduction. The trio makes their case clearly and
convincingly.

What’s remarkable about the piece is that it was printed in the Post,
a newspaper which has offered little support for medical marijuana in
the past. Please write a letter to the newspaper to applaud editors
for highlighting these important viewpoints. Please also suggest that
far from being controversial, the question of medical marijuana has a
simple answer, as long as the issue is studied with a little
compassion and common sense.

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 (sent [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: Washington Post (DC)
Contact: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

Note: For best results write your letter off line so you can spell check
etc. then paste it into the LTE window at the address above.

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

Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2000 The Washington Post Company
Page: A19
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Authors: Greg Scott, Barbara Douglass and Jim Harden
Note: Greg Scott lives in Florida, Barbara Douglas in Iowa and Jim Harden
in Virginia.
Also: The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) worked with these three
patients to write and submit this in early December, when the federal
government’s new medical marijuana research guidelines formally took
effect. Had MPP paid for an advertisement this size, it would have cost
$7,800. http://www.mpp.org/

PAIN OR PRISON?

Last March the three of us received our 15 minutes of fame. The National
Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine (IOM) featured our medical case
histories in its landmark report, “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the
Science Base.” IOM included us as three living examples to illustrate its
conclusion that “there are some limited circumstances in which we recommend
smoking marijuana for medical uses.”

One of us, Greg, smokes marijuana to treat nausea and appetite loss
caused by AIDS. Barbara uses it to treat pain and muscle spasms
caused by multiple sclerosis. Jim needs it to treat nausea from liver
disease and the pain and spasms caused by reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

Each of us has experienced tremendous suffering. We know what it’s
like to be overcome by nausea so severe that one has to leave the
dinner table to vomit. We’ve felt pain more agonizing than we’d ever
imagined possible. We’ve been unable to walk, whether from muscle
spasms or from being literally on our deathbeds.

Marijuana has helped us. It is not a cure, but it greatly reduces our
suffering, permits us to move around and enables us to eat.

There is one major difference among us: Barbara is one of eight
patients in the entire nation who have permission to use medicinal
marijuana through a federal “compassionate use” program, which has
been closed to all new applicants since 1992. Greg and Jim are not so
fortunate – we risk spending a year in federal prison every time we
light a marijuana cigarette.

IOM recognized that we – and countless others like us – should not be
punished for using marijuana to alleviate suffering. The report
recommended that the federal government open a compassionate-use
program to give seriously ill people immediate legal access to the
substance.

IOM’s findings gave us hope. Soon, we thought, the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) would change federal policy so that
thousands of patients nationwide would be able to stop worrying about
being arrested.

But we were mistaken. HHS’s new medicinal marijuana research
guidelines took effect last month, and to our shock, they explicitly
rejected IOM’s recommendation to allow individual patients to apply
for permission to use medicinal marijuana.

When the federal government commissioned the IOM report in 1997, the
stated purpose was to receive guidance on what to do about medicinal
marijuana. Was it too much to expect the HHS would implement IOM’s
recommendations?

Moreover, HHS’s new research guidelines place a much greater burden on
medicinal marijuana researchers than on drug companies that develop
and study newly synthesized pharmaceuticals. It is simply too
difficult for researchers to conduct the kinds of studies needed to
obtain FDA approval of marijuana as a prescription medicine.

This isn’t just our opinion. A statement urging HHS to modify its new
guidelines was signed by a range of organizations including the AIDS
Action Council, the National Association of People With AIDS, the
California Pharmacists Association and the National Black Police
Association. The coalition argues that “many of the new guidelines
would still be too cumbersome to enable research to move forward as
expeditiously as possible” and that patients who are already using
medicinal marijuana should not have to live in fear of being arrested.

We hope HHS takes heed. Our lives depend on it.

Greg Scott lives in Florida, Barbara Douglas in Iowa and Jim Harden in
Virginia.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

To the Editor of the Washington Post:

Thank you for printing “Pain or Prison” (Jan. 12), written by three
medical marijuana patients. The title sums up the utterly cruel (and
utterly absurd) position in which marijuana prohibition places people
like the authors. Why should anyone be forced to face such a horrible
choice?

The authors, citing the federal government’s own study, demolish the
myth that marijuana can’t be medicine. So why are the vast majority of
Americans who find relief with marijuana denied legal access? The drug
warriors tell us that medical marijuana patients must suffer so a
“mixed message” won’t be sent to young people. If, the drug warriors
reason, young people realize that marijuana can have some positive
applications, their little minds will be so confused they will become
unable to just say no. Aside from the insulting view of our children’s
intellectual capabilities, this view places a crushing burden on the
youngsters.

It’s been many years since my youth, but if I realized then that sick
people were being persecuted and denied appropriate medicine on the
pretext that I was being protected somehow, I would have felt awful.
It might have even been enough to drive me to drugs.

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