Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999
Subject: Newsweek International: Drug User More Convincing Than

DrugSense FOCUS Alert Tuesday November 2, 1999

Newsweek International: Drug User More Convincing Than Prohibitionist

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

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert Tuesday November 2, 1999

Newsweek International offers an interesting overview of European drug
policy this week with an article and two perspectives from opposing
sides of the subject. Pino Arlacchi, executive director of the U.N.
0ffice for Drug Control, attempts to defend prohibition, while Mat
Southwell, Network Coordinator for the National Drug Users Network,
makes a compelling case for tolerance. Set side by side, it’s easy to
see who makes more sense. Both perspective pieces are below, while the
main article can be found at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1160/a10.html

International drug czar Arlacchi not only admits his hypocrisy and
ignorance, he revels in it: “Advocates of legalization often argue
that alcohol and tobacco cause more harm to society–higher death
rates, higher medical costs–than outlawed drugs. This is correct.
But so what? Research has shown that, out of the 100 million U.S.
alcohol consumers, 15 percent suffer long-term consequences. Heroin,
unlike tobacco and alcohol, causes long-term consequences–as
addiction–for almost all the people who use it.”

In contrast, Mat Southwell looks at the situation as a human, not a
bureaucrat protecting his job. He issues a call for drug users to
stand up for themselves, while honestly assessing the problem: “The
stigma associated with being a public drug user is so great that many
break cover only when compelled to do so, by health, social or legal
problems. When we are asked to speak, it is often to play out
scripted roles, as victims or villains, repenting of our past
indiscretions. Politicians and the media wish to portray us only as
hopeless, lost and in need of redemption.”

Please write to Newsweek International to expose the deception of
Arlacchi, or to congratulate the magazine for sharing the refreshing
viewpoint of Southwell.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Newsweek International

Contact: [email protected]

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

Pubdate: Mon, 01 Nov 1999
Source: Newsweek International
Copyright: 1999 Newsweek, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/int/
Author: Pino Arlacchi
Note: Arlacchi is executive director of the U.N. Office for Drug Control
and Crime Prevention.
Also: Newsweek publishes both a US and an International edition. The
contents of the two editions is not identical. We request that newshawks
be careful about identifying the source edition, as the contacts for each
is not the same.
Related: This article was published beside the “Europeans Just Say ‘Maybe'”
article at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1160/a10.html

THE CASE AGAINST LEGALIZATION

The U.N.’s Drug Czar On Supply And Demand

Legalization? the member states of the united nations vote “No.”
Making all controlled substances readily available is a risk society
clearly wants to avoid. Instead, as expressed in the three U.N.
conventions on controlling drugs, we should insist that our
governments pursue a balanced strategy on drugs, giving attention to
both supply and demand. This approach was soundly endorsed by the
U.N. General Assembly last year in its Special Session on drugs.
Still, the legalization debate continues. Let’s examine the arguments.

First, the medical argument. No one disagrees that many controlled
substances have legitimate and completely legal medical applications.
But there are various degrees of control, based on the degree of risk
involved. In an ideal world, the risk would be determined on
scientific grounds. In the real world, cultural and political factors
also matter. The U.N. conventions reflect that; they can be amended
in response to a consensus shift concerning the appropriate degree of
control over given substances.

Proponents of legalization cite the link between drugs and crime.
It’s true that short-term crime rates would fall if illegal drug
markets disappeared. But the big-time criminals would quickly regroup
and find other sources of profits–as they are already doing by
expanding into corruption, extortion and trafficking in human beings.
On the other hand, legalization would certainly increase the rate of
abuse. After the introduction of legal opium into China, more than
one quarter of the adult male population smoked it. These days, the
easy availability and cheap price of heroin–made from opium produced
mainly in neighboring Afghanistan–has given Pakistan one of the
world’s highest heroin-addiction rates. The same problem is occurring
in Iran, where there are now 1 million addicts–about the same number
as in Western Europe.

Advocates of legalization often argue that alcohol and tobacco cause
more harm to society–higher death rates, higher medical costs–than
outlawed drugs. This is correct. But so what? Research has shown
that, out of the 100 million U.S. alcohol consumers, 15 percent
suffer long-term consequences. Heroin, unlike tobacco and alcohol,
causes long-term consequences–as addiction–for almost all the people
who use it.

Until recently, most drug-control efforts concentrated on eliminating
the supply, by hitting the trafficking routes and the source of raw
materials. Today, policymakers unanimously believe that supply and
demand must be addressed. There are signs that this may be working.
In Europe, for example, heroin-use rates are static, and the average
age of addicts is steadily increasing. In the United States, there
has been a strong decrease of cocaine addiction. The next generation
may be getting the message.

Pubdate: Mon, 01 Nov 1999
Source: Newsweek International
Copyright: 1999 Newsweek, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/int/
Author: Mat Southwell
Note: Southwell is the Network Coordinator for the National Drug Users
Network and a founding member of the Dance Drugs Alliance. Also: This is
one of three articles from this issue of Newsweek
International that also included:
“Europeans Just Say ‘Maybe'” :
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1160/a10.html and “The Case Against
Legalization”:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1174/a05.html

HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THE WORLD’S DRUG USERS

Fed Up With Being Stigmatized And Persecuted

It is understandable that drug use provokes fear and uncertainty. It
is absolutely right that we hold an informed and rational debate about
it. But the voices of drug users are rarely heard. Prohibition drives
us, the drug users, underground.

The stigma associated with being a public drug user is so great that
many break cover only when compelled to do so, by health, social or
legal problems. When we are asked to speak, it is often to play out
scripted roles, as victims or villains, repenting of our past
indiscretions. Politicians and the media wish to portray us only as
hopeless, lost and in need of redemption.

Frankly, we’ve had enough. There’s a small but growing movement of
users who are no longer willing to sit back and have our human rights
infringed and our culture denigrated. For many of us, drug use is a
dynamic and exciting social activity and forms a key part of our
culture. As such, drug use is clearly protected by the United Nations
Charter on Human Rights.

Some may argue that drug-related risks are self-inflicted. However,
we would not oppose the acute treatment and rehabilitation of those
injured while playing sports. Many sports in fact carry higher
statistical risks of death and injury than many forms of
drug-taking.

When a dance-drug user takes ecstasy, he’s statistically 700 times
less likely to die than a parachute jumper. This is despite the fact
that prohibition escalates and enhances the potential health and
social risks of drug use. Where drug users face difficulties, they
would be better managed in a climate free of judgment and punishment.

Mainstream culture borrows freely from drug culture. In fact, many
dance-drug takers feel that their culture has been repackaged by Tony
Blair as the “Cool Britannia” product. The vibrant, 24-hour cities
promoted by New Labour are the centers of dance-drugs culture. Yet
New Labour’s leaders instinctively scapegoat drug users.

Many dance-drug users languish in British prisons for up to five
years, for buying the equivalent of a round of drinks. In Chemical
Britannia, the drug culture creates significant wealth for both
illicit and legitimate businesses, while expecting the consumers to
live with a constant fear of exposure and discrimination.

The move toward routine use of drug screening by the government and
companies threatens our rights to drive and to be employed, despite
the fact that a period of intoxication may have taken place more than
a month prior to the test.

This singles us out for persecution. Of course, with rights come
responsibilities. As drug users, we must engage in a dialogue about
how to manage and effectively regulate drug-taking. However, the
refusal to recognize the cultural significance of drug-taking only
serves to reinforce and widen the gap between the chemical
generation–and those who smoked but never inhaled.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

In his article of Nov. 1, “The Case Against Legalization”, Pino
Arlacchi, the executive director of the U.N. Office for Drug Control
and Crime Prevention, conceded that, “crime rates would fall if
illegal drug markets disappeared,” but countered, “big-time criminals
would quickly regroup and find other sources of profits.”

Am I to understand that the perpetual war on drugs is a make-work
project for unimaginative crooks? If this is the case, then the drug
war has been a resounding success. In addition to making big-time
criminals deliriously wealthy, it creates lucrative entry-level jobs
for unskilled youth and keeps police officers, lawyers, judges, prison
guards, coroners and Pino Arlacchi gainfully employed.

Matthew M. Elrod

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

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999
Subject: Boston Globe Tells Peter McWilliams Story Without Compromising

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #133 October 26, 1999

Boston Globe Tells Peter McWilliams Story Without Compromising

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

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

Often when the mainstream press covers the issue of medical marijuana,
reporters seem to feel obligated to present the prohibitionist
contention that medical marijuana is a “hoax.” The Boston Globe
shattered that mold this week with a remarkable story (below) about
Peter McWilliams, the heroic author and activist who is being denied
the medical marijuana that helped him cope with AIDS and cancer. (To
learn more about Peter and his trial visit his websites
http://www.petertrial.com and http://www.mcwilliams.com)

Peter hasn’t been allowed to use the medicine he swears by for more
than a year, and the author of the Globe story shows the harsh
consequences. No where in the story does anyone question whether
marijuana is really medicine; it is a given. The spokesman for the
U.S. attorneys office prosecuting Peter argues callously that Peter’s
life is less important that federal laws. “It doesn’t matter if they
say, `I’m doing this to save my life.’ It’s illegal to manufacture or
cultivate marijuana under federal law,” according to the spokesman.

Please write a letter to the Boston Globe congratulating the paper on
this excellent piece, and also to protest the cruelty and injustice
that Peter is suffering.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

Just DO it!

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: [email protected]

***************************************************************************
Pubdate: Sat, 23 Oct 1999
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 1999 Globe Newspaper Company.
Page: Front Page
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378
Feedback: http://extranet1.globe.com/LettersEditor/
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Author: Lynda Gorov, Globe Staff
Cited: Peter McWilliams:
http://www.petertrial.com/ http://www.mcwilliams.com/

US PROSECUTES CANCER PATIENT OVER MARIJUANA

By now, vomiting is second nature to Peter McWilliams. He has no
shame about it. Sometimes he even sees the humor in it.

McWilliams, 50, still laughs about the time he leaned over a trash can
at a political convention, lost his lunch in front of strangers, then
casually wiped his mouth with a cocktail napkin before continuing the
conversation. The other day, at his home high in the Hollywood Hills,
he simply shrugged when he returned from retching in the bathroom.

”You get used to vomiting,” he said. ”You get used to anything, I
suppose. But it’s insane that anyone has to go through this.”

McWilliams, who has AIDS and cancer that is in remission, said he and
his doctor know the solution to his suffering: medical marijuana. He
said he knows from experience that it helps him keep down the powerful
drugs he needs to survive and the food he needs to keep up his
strength. Without it, the book publisher and best-selling author
fears he will die.

But for more than a year, McWilliams has been barred from smoking
marijuana while he awaits trial on a variety of marijuana-related
charges. He says he was growing it for his own consumption, and had
not used it for more than 20 years until he became ill. Federal
prosecutors charge that he was conspiring to sell it along with his
codefendants, all of them users of medical marijuana.

Either way, McWilliams’s situation underscores the ongoing conflict
between the state and federal governments over the use of marijuana by
patients with AIDS, cancer, or chronic pain – despite some medical
studies and much anecdotal evidence showing its palliative benefits.

California voters became the first to approve medical marijuana for
patients with a doctor’s approval in November 1996 – the same year
McWilliams discovered a lump in his neck and learned he had
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and AIDS. Washington followed last fall, and
several states are considering similar measures. But the federal
government maintains that the sale or distribution of marijuana
remains illegal under all circumstances.

”The laws against medical marijuana are crazy in the first place,”
said state Senator John Vasconcellos, a Democrat who has led the
charge to legalize medical marijuana and keep it legal in California.
”But to say that people who are dying of cancer and AIDS can’t
relieve their pain is awful. By denying Peter McWilliams the right to
smoke marijuana while he’s out on [$250,000] bail, they’re denying him
life.”

McWilliams’s trial is still a month away. For now, he is mostly
confined to his home, relying on friends to bring him the milk he
gulps by the glassful and the honey-roasted peanuts he eats by the
fistful because they do not make him nauseated.

Unable to work, McWilliams finds his Prelude Press bordering on
bankruptcy. Unable to walk even short distances, he uses a wheelchair
for court appearances. The other day, his face dripping sweat, he
nodded off in the hallway while inside the courtroom where his hearing
was being postponed.

Of the first time he smoked marijuana after chemotherapy, McWilliams
said, ”I had this epiphany: ‘Oh my God, this stuff really works.’
Then I got mad, furious, thinking about all the millions of cancer
patients who this could be helping.”

Repeatedly turned down by a federal judge who says he cannot authorize
someone to break the law, McWilliams now hopes a federal appellate
court, which recently ruled that seriously ill people should be
allowed to use medical marijuana, will give him access to the only
drug that he has found to keep his nausea under control. Other
defendants in federal marijuana cases are expected to mount similar
appeals based on the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

To federal prosecutors, however, McWilliams’s case has nothing to do
with medical marijuana and everything to do with a drug ring,
regardless of why the defendants were growing the plants or who was
using them. McWilliams is accused of masterminding the plot, in part
because of the $120,000 that McWilliams says he paid codefendant Todd
McCormick, a medical marijuana patient and researcher, to write two
books on the subject. If convicted, they could face life in prison.

”We all admit to what we’ve done,” said McWilliams, who previously
bought marijuana on the black market or at the cannabis clubs that had
sprung up around California after the passage of the law known as
Proposition 215.

”We all grew marijuana; we all used marijuana,” he continued. ”The
300 plants I had were my own personal stash … Todd was studying
which strains work best for which types of illnesses. I mean all his
plants were labeled.”

But federal prosecutors say that is no defense. In fact, they do not
want the defendants to be able to introduce a medical-necessity
defense, discuss the benefits of marijuana, or even mention
Proposition 215 to jurors. Both sides are scheduled to argue their
positions next week before US District Court Judge George King.

”The way that I characterize this case is that it involves a
conspiracy to conduct a commercial marijuana-growing operation
involving more than 6,000 plants at four separate growing sites,”
said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the US Attorney’s Office in Los
Angeles, which is handling the case. ”It doesn’t matter where they
were going to sell it. It doesn’t matter if they say, `I’m doing this
to save my life.’ It’s illegal to manufacture or cultivate marijuana
under federal law.”

If prosecutors succeed in keeping those issues out of court,
McWilliams’s attorney, Thomas Bollanco, said the defendants may as
well head straight to prison. Without medical necessity, they have no
case.

”We’re going to be left unable to answer to the charges because we
can only answer with what’s true, and what’s true is that these guys
were motivated by their medical needs and Prop 215,” said Bollanco,
who recently lost a federal jury trial in Sacramento in which the
judge refused to allow a medical necessity defense.

Yet even on a state level, the answer to the medical marijuana debate
remains murky. Lacking clear-cut guidelines, law enforcement
officials in some jurisdictions actively pursue arrests, others tend
to look the other way. Last year, a task force including advocates
and opponents worked to craft a compromise. This year, the resulting
bill was tabled. Faced with federal opposition, California Governor
Gray Davis has resisted giving it his approval.

But California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, unlike his predecessor,
appears to favor the voters’ decision to allow the use of medical
marijuana, although he has called Prop 215 poorly written and open to
too much interpretation. This month, he urged US Attorney General
Janet Reno to let the appellate court ruling stand.

Possibly turned off by the number of marijuana plants involved – or by
McWilliams’ admitted eccentricities – few have rallied around his case
and some have turned against him. He insisted he is hurt but not
angry or surprised by his isolation. After his arrest, McWilliams
spent almost a month in jail until he could raise the money to post
bail.

”I am the representative of all the sick people and what they are
doing to me is only the worst case right now, but there will be
others,” McWilliams said. ”I am living on borrowed time anyway. I
owe this part of my life to luck and modern medical science. But I
can’t imagine what the rest of it will be like if they won’t let me
use medical marijuana.”

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Dear editor,

Thank you for Lynda Gorov’s informative article about medical
marijuana patient and federal criminal defendant Peter McWilliams.

I first became aware of this heroic figure on July 4, 1998 when I was
awakened by a speech he was giving on C-Span, addressing the
Libertarian Party in Washington, D.C. As a medical marijuana patient
myself, having used it to prevent epileptic seizures since 1980, I was
overjoyed to see somebody wave a joint around in front of the C-Span
cameras.

It wasn’t difficult to contact Peter. That same day I performed a
simple keyword search of his name on the Internet, quickly found his
websites and his e-mail address and heard back from him before
bedtime. That was only a few weeks before his bust.

After his bust, I purchased a copy his best-selling book, “Ain’t
Nobody’s Business if You Do” and was not disappointed by the hype. It
is a wake-up call alerting us of the extreme extent to which our
desire to live “safely” has endangered our liberty.

As an outspoken member of a conscientiously-dissenting minority, Peter
McWilliams is the victim of political persecution. He is a victim of
a tyrannical majority which our Founding Fathers anticipated when they
conceived the Bill of Rights.

Larry A. Stevens

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999
Subject: Renee Boje Case Could Bring Scrutiny To American Policy

Rene Boje Case Could Bring Scrutiny To American Marijuana Policy

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

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #132 October 20, 1999

Renee Boje Case Could Bring Scrutiny To American Marijuana Policy

American marijuana laws are about to go on trial in Canada thanks to
the efforts of a woman who is fighting extradition from the U.S.
neighbor. Renee Boje’s trouble with the law stems from the same
federal “conspiracy” charges that have been used to persecute
outspoken medical marijuana activists Peter McWilliams and Todd
McCormick. Renee faces a mandatory sentence of ten years to life in
prison, so she hopes to remain in Canada to protect her rights as a
human being.

While Renee’s role in the story has gotten some coverage in Canada,
the American media is now picking up on it. This week the Christian
Science Monitor published an article (below) that used Renee Boje’s
fight to stay in Canada as a focal point to explore contrasting
attitudes toward marijuana in the two nations.

While the CSM story (below) summarizes Renee’s case, more details are
available at her website http://thecompassionclub.org/renee from the
MAP news archive at http://www.mapinc.org/renee.htm and
from a High Times website article at
http://www.hightimes.com/ht/new/9910/reneebtrial.html

It is absurd that the federal government would use all its
considerable resources to extradite someone who didn’t deserve to be
arrested in the first place. Please write a letter to the Christian
Science Monitor to protest this attack on a woman who hurt no one, and
to further highlight the cruel absurdity of American 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 MAPTalk
list if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to
[email protected] Your letter will then be forwarded to the list with
so others can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Christian Science Monitor

Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

Visit Renee’s website and learn how to offer moral/financial support:
http://thecompassionclub.org/renee/support.html

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

Canada and US In Drug Debate
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1138.a09.html
Newshawk: http://thecompassionclub.org/renee/
Pubdate: Tue, 19 Oct 1999
Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Copyright: 1999 The Christian Science Publishing Society.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: One Norway Street, Boston, MA 02115
Fax: (617) 450-2031
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/
Forum: http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/vox/p-vox.html
Author: Ruth Walker Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

CANADA AND US IN DRUG DEBATE

A US woman seeks political asylum in Canada, claiming persecution in
marijuana case.

By Ruth Walker Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor

A US woman wanted in California for conspiring to sell marijuana is
fighting extradition from Canada on the grounds that she is a
political refugee – from the war on drugs.

Her belief in the medicinal value of marijuana makes her in effect a
member of a persecuted group, her lawyer argues.

This case is more than an unprecedented legal gambit. It also
illustrates the contradictory laws and enduring sensitivity of
marijuana as a public issue in the United States and Canada.

It’s been nearly three years since Golden State voters approved a new
law allowing medicinal use of cannabis. But questions about how sick
people are to be supplied with their newly legal medicine remain to be
resolved, and US federal authorities remain adamant in their
opposition to state laws such as California’s Proposition 215, the
Compassionate Use Act. Prosecutions for distribution of marijuana continue.

And so Renee Boje, arrested in 1997 in the Bel Air, Calif., home of
Todd McCormick, a high-profile advocate of medicinal marijuana, has
been charged with conspiracy to distribute the drug, an offense
carrying a sentence of 10 years to life. She faces an extradition
hearing Nov. 1 in Vancouver.

“She’s caught in the cross-fire of the war on drugs,” says Maury
Mason, her spokesman, in Roberts Creek, British Columbia.

Political Factor

A US official requesting anonymity calls the use of the term
“political asylum” by Ms. Boje’s advocates “an artificial way of
casting the discussion,” but acknowledges, “There’s always a major
political element in a drug case.”

But Boje’s lawyer, John Conroy, of Abbotsford, British Columbia,
insists, “It’s not a stretch to say that it’s a political issue.” The
severity of the sentence she faces if convicted indicates an “unjust
and oppressive” justice system, Mr. Conroy argues. He suggests that
the charge she would face if the case were playing out in Canada would
be “aiding and abetting cultivation” of the drug – with a maximum
sentence of seven years.

Mr. Mason, a former media director for the environmental group
Greenpeace, says the campaign on Boje’s behalf has two purposes, “One,
to get her off, and two, to send a message to the US: Take a look at
your own drug policy.”

But the Boje case is unfolding at a time when Canada is going through
its own struggle over the issue of medical marijuana. Currently,
those wishing to use the drug legally for medicinal purposes – to
alleviate pain or control side effects from other drugs – must apply
to the federal health minister in Ottawa. Getting permission has been
widely deemed cumbersome and bureaucratic, a process in which he has
broad, if not complete, discretion. This month 14 applications were
approved – bringing the total of legal marijuana smokers to 16 across
Canada.

But at the same time, federal lawyers have been in court in Toronto,
seeking to overturn a provincial court’s ruling allowing an individual
diagnosed as epileptic to smoke marijuana legally to control what are
described as life-threatening seizures. In 1997, an Ontario court
gave Terry Parker permission to smoke marijuana free of prosecution.
But Ottawa lawyers are arguing that this permission usurps federal
authority; Mr. Parker should make application to the health minister
like the others.

On both sides of the border, legal supply of the drug is an
issue.

“People didn’t pass Proposition 215 with the thought of sick people
having to go downtown to a dark alley to buy their medicine,” says
Rand Martin, chief of staff for California State Sen. John
Vasconcellos. The senator has introduced legislation to set up a
registry of people with legal permission for medicinal marijuana. If
the system is implemented, a police officer would be able to check on
someone’s marijuana status as easily as he could check on outstanding
parking tickets.

Yet people allowed to use medicinal marijuana are often too ill to
grow their own. And because marijuana is a plant and not a
manufactured product like aspirin, there’s not an obvious role for
pharmaceutical companies to play, observes Eugene Oscapella, an Ottawa
lawyer and a founding member of the Canadian Drug Policy Foundation.

But if restrictions on medicinal marijuana were relaxed as fully as
advocates would like, marijuana could be as widely used, he suggests,
as an over-the-counter painkiller.

Buyers’ Clubs

It is in this void that “buyers’ clubs” have developed, such as the
Compassion Club of Vancouver, a registered charity set up to supply
seriously ill people with marijuana. In Canada these clubs have
generally worked out a modus vivendi with the police.

In California, activists in such organizations have been prosecuted.
Boje, a graphic artist, says she was working with Mr. McCormick to
establish a buyers’ club in southern California when she was arrested.
She has insisted that because of the new law and because McCormick
had prescriptions for marijuana, their activities were legal.
Pretrial motions in McCormick’s trial were to begin yesterday in California.

Conroy expects to lose the Nov. 1 hearing but to appeal to Canada’s
federal justice minister. Boje “is in fear of what will be done to
her” if she goes to a US prison. Amnesty International released a
report earlier this year about human rights violations against women
in prison, which attracted widespread attention here. The levels of
abuse reported are a reason to consider the American justice system
“unjust and oppressive,” according to Conroy.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Thank you for focusing on the plight of Renee Boje (“Canada and US In
Drug Debate,” Oct. 19). Her story illustrates the U.S. government’s
obsession with destroying anyone barely connected with challenges to
marijuana policy.

Renee Boje hurt no one. She presents no threat to any individual. Yet,
she faces 10 years to life in prison along with extradition
proceedings. Who benefits from such vindictiveness? Certainly not the
U.S. public, who will see hundreds of thousands of their tax dollars
wasted if Renee is extradited, tried and incarcerated. In return, the
public gets nothing in the way of increased safety or security.

U.S. government officials may believe they benefit by crushing dissent
toward marijuana policy, but this case is so outrageous, they are
likely to leave many Americans shocked. The prison system, always
hungry for more raw material to facilitate expansion, will be the only
big winner.

This latest display of the U.S. government’s manic compulsion to crush
anything that stands as a challenge to its cruel policies regarding
marijuana should be a wake up call to all Americans. Renee Boje stood
at the periphery of a situation that seemed to be supported by the
people of California. The federal government’s reaction shows its goal
is not to protect the people, but to scare them into submission.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999
Subject: Is Congress More Concerned With Posturing Than Democracy?

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #131 October13, 1999

Washington Post: Is Congress More Concerned With Posturing Than Democracy?

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

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #131 October13, 1999

While it used to be easy for politicians to take a “zero tolerance”
stand on any illegal drug issue, now their constituents are making
such simple-minded moves much tougher. A recent report from the
Washington Post (below) indicates that many members of congress aren’t
sure whether to kill Washington D.C.’s medical marijuana initiative,
I-59. The measure was passed overwhelmingly by D.C. voters last year,
but the official results of the vote have only recently been
announced, thanks to congressional moves to keep the results a secret.

Now that the world knows how people in the District of Columbia voted,
some in the U.S. Congress want to nullify that vote. Please write a
letter to the Post to express amazement that any elected official
would favor a “tough-on-drugs” stance over supporting the will of the
people. Please also contact your own congressional representatives to
urge them not to kill I-59 by using the links below.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

Just DO it!

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

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

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

EXTRA CREDIT

Send a fax or email to your congressional representatives. Two
organizations are offering sample letters that can be faxed to your
congress persons via the Internet for free.

The Marijuana Policy Project’s version is at:

http://www.mpp.org/i59/

NORML’s version is at:

http://www.norml.org/laws/dc_initiative.shtml

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

Pubdate: Sun, 10 October 1999
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: Spencer S. Hsu, Washington Post Staff Writer

NATIONAL AGENDAS COLOR D.C. MARIJUANA DEBATE

When 65 percent of Arizona’s voters passed a referendum in 1996
legalizing the medical use of marijuana, U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
hit the stump. Over the next two years, the freshman senator argued to
state lawmakers, Congress and local reporters that undoing the state’s
drug laws would betray Arizona children and his own law-and-order values.

State legislators sent the measure back to the ballot last
November–where voters passed it again. Kyl and other opponents could
only console themselves that the margin of approval had narrowed to 57
percent.

Now, members of Congress who believe easing state laws on marijuana
would subvert the nation’s war on drugs have a new target: the
District of Columbia’s medical marijuana initiative. For them, this
is a chance to act on their conviction without riling constituents
back home–though some lawmakers seem to be keeping a low profile on
the issue.

Georgia Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R) and Ohio Sen. George V.
Voinovich (R) recently introduced legislation to overturn the D.C.
referendum, which won 69 percent of the vote last fall. Although
Congress has clear authority to oversee the District, members whose
states have passed similar initiatives appear wary of undoing a
decision endorsed by their own constituents.

Nevada Sens. Harry M. Reid (D) and Richard H. Bryan (D) are hedging
questions on the subject. Reid opposed a Nevada initiative passed
last fall, but his spokesman, asked how the lawmaker would vote on the
D.C. initiative, replied, “I’m not sure it’s so simple.” A spokesman
for Bryan responded, “I’m not sure he’s taken a position on that.”
Nevada voters will face the issue again this fall, since all
referendum proposals must be approved twice to become law.

Kyl, who faces a reelection bid next fall, said in 1996 that he was
“embarrassed” by the Arizona vote, but explained later that he was
talking about the margin of defeat, not voters’ judgment. His
spokesman declined to say how Kyl would vote on the District’s
initiative, saying, “It sounds like nothing is pressing until the D.C.
Council acts.”

The District’s Initiative 59 would change city drug laws to allow the
possession, use, cultivation and distribution of marijuana if
recommended by a physician for serious illness. Only six
states–Alaska, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and
Washington–have passed similar legislation, and most of their
congressional representatives have stayed out of the home-state fray,
letting governors and local lawmakers shoulder the debate.

If a vote is taken, it could force Democrats and Republicans to choose
between standing with the majority of their constituents back home or
ignoring similar sentiments by District voters in order to enforce
tough drug laws.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example, has opposed
California’s medical marijuana initiative, calling such measures
dangerous and ridden with loopholes. But Feinstein, who also faces a
reelection bid in 2000, said she is sensitive to the needs of
terminally ill patients and will examine the District’s measure before
making a decision.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) would not say how he would vote. He released
a statement explaining that despite his personal “reservations” about
Oregon’s medical marijuana law, “the people of my state have spoken,
and I intend to honor their will.”

The House voted 310 to 93 a year ago to approve a non-binding
resolution opposing state efforts to allow medical use of marijuana.
But Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), who introduced a companion
resolution, also has not indicated how he will vote on the D.C.
measure, his spokeswoman said.

By law, Congress can negate the District initiative within 30 business
days, once the D.C. financial control board reviews and forwards it.
Congress could also kill the marijuana measure by denying funding.

“It’s a twofold rationale” in Congress for overturning the D.C.
initiative, said Marshall Wittman, director of congressional relations
for the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There is Congress’s clear,
constitutional prerogative over issues concerning the District, but
also many believe in Congress that the District should serve as a
model to the rest of the country.”

Supporters of medical marijuana laws say the drug can alleviate
symptoms of AIDS, cancer and other illnesses. Opponents, including
the White House’s national drug policy office, cite a lack of
conclusive findings about marijuana’s efficacy and current research
into treatment alternatives.

Those who back the D.C. measure decry congressional intervention,
claiming “hypocrisy” by members who protest federal intrusion in their
home states but interfere elsewhere.

“The Republicans, the party of states’ rights, are only for states’
rights when they agree with what a state or the District of Columbia
is doing,” said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.), who has battled
congressional efforts to undo Oregon’s law permitting
physician-assisted suicide. To Congress, the District is a “sandbox.”

“They can use it for experiments and indulge in things they might want
to do to voters at home, but here they can do with impunity,” he said.

For now, the congressional fight against the D.C. measure is being
led by those whose constituents have not endorsed similar initiatives.
And even for past critics of D.C. statehood and management, the
issue is touchy.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), whose district strongly supported
California’s marijuana referendum, voted against the non-binding
resolution opposing medical marijuana. An aide hinted that his vote
on the D.C. measure would similarly factor in constituent views.

“If he’s faced with this vote on the House floor,” a spokesman said,
“he will look very closely at how conservative Orange County voted on
the California measure.”

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

While drug war mentality seems to run deep in the U.S. Congress, the
idea that our representatives would simply overturn the will of the
people by voiding I-59, Washington D.C.’s medical marijuana
initiative, is astonishing (“National Agendas Color D.C. Marijuana
Debate,” Oct. 10). It was bad enough that Congress tried to hide the
results of the election, but now that we all know it passed
overwhelmingly, it is time for elected officials at the national level
to rake a moment to think about how they got where they are.

Instead of calculating political costs and benefits, I suggest that
each member of Congress dust off their copies of The Declaration of
Independence. “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed…” If I-59 was a radical
departure from sentiments of other voters around the nation, maybe
Georgia Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R) and Ohio Sen. George V.
Voinovich (R) might be justified in their attempt to kill the measure.
But medical marijuana initiatives have passed easily in every state
where they have been introduced.

The voters of Washington D.C. are in touch with other voters around
the country. Barr and Voinovich are not. If their efforts to stamp out
democracy are supported by a majority of the Congress, maybe it’s time
for the people to take a cue from The Declaration of Independence,
since Barr, Voinovich and congressmen who share their contempt for
voters feel entitled enough to stand above the document.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999
Subject: DEA Tries To Kill North American Hemp Industry

DrugSense FOCUS Alert, #130, Fri, 08 Oct 1999

U.S. farmers have been prohibited from growing industrial hemp for
decades, ever since marijuana was outlawed. In that time Americans have
still used hemp products but they have been forced to import hemp from
other countries. One hemp product that has been imported is hemp seed,
which is used as bird food, and to produce other goods, like hemp seed
oil.

While the American government has been too dumb to see how American
farmers are being hurt by these polices, the Canadian government has
taken a more enlightened position by issuing permits to some farmers to
grow the crop. The Canadian farmers were just about to reap the
benefits and illustrate idiocy of the U.S. position, when, suddenly,
the DEA confiscated a huge shipment of Canadian hemp seed before it
crossed into the U.S.

This action is a crushing blow to the hemp industry, and it is a
blatant violation of the law. The hemp industry explains the situation
further at http://www.hempembargo.com

The issue has raised some media attention, like the article from the
New York Times below. Please write a letter to the Times and/or other
papers that have carried to story to protest this absurd and illegal
action.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

Write to other newspapers that have covered this story.

To find other stories on the issue go to:

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

EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT

Write to your elected representatives to protest. Sample letters can be
found at http://www.hempembargo.com

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

Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 1999 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://www10.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Christopher S. Wren
Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1074.a07.html
MAP: Topical News Shortcut: http://www.mapinc.org/hemp.htm

BIRD FOOD IS A CASUALTY OF THE U.S. WAR ON DRUGS

What do 40,000 pounds of birdseed have in common with America’s war on
drugs? Nothing, says Jean Laprise, an Ontario farmer who shipped the
birdseed to his American customers only to have it seized when it
crossed the U.S.-Canadian border.

Everything, say the U.S. government and its critics, but for altogether
different reasons.

The birdseed, nearly 20 tons of it, has been locked in a Detroit
warehouse since Aug. 9, when it was impounded by the United States
Customs Service. The reason: the seed consists of sterilized seeds
processed from industrial hemp.

Laprise has found himself mired in one of the more bizarre episodes of
Washington’s campaign to curb illicit drug use. Hemp and marijuana are
different varieties of the same plant species, Cannabis sativa, though
the government rarely distinguishes between them.

“They say it’s a tractor trailer full of drugs,” Laprise said. “We say
it’s a tractor trailer full of birdseed.”

But while smoking marijuana delivers a psychoactive high, smoking hemp
gives only a headache. Tetrahydrocannabinol, known as THC, the
psychoactive component in marijuana, usually varies between 4 and 20
percent of a leaf. Industrial hemp has a THC below 1 percent.

The birdseed seized in Detroit had a THC content of barely .0014
percent, which wouldn’t give a bird a buzz.

John Roulac, the president of Nutiva, a company in Sebastapol, Calif.,
that buys hemp seeds from Laprise’s operation for food products, said
that seeds themselves have no THC, and whatever gets detected comes
from contact with leaves of the hemp plant.

Roulac said the amount of THC was “like an olive pit in a railroad
boxcar.”

Laprise, whose company, Kenex Ltd., grows and processes hemp with the
approval of the Canadian government, said that “all of our other
products have no detectable level of THC. The only shipment with any
detectable amount was the birdseed, and it was really nothing.”

Though the U.S. government today views hemp with suspicion, it was
historically an agricultural staple used in everything from ropes and
sails to clothing and the first American flag supposedly sewn by Betsy
Ross. It has been virtually illegal since 1937.

Last year, Canada declared hemp a legitimate crop and has granted
growers’ licenses for 35,000 acres. Britain, France and Germany also
have commercial hemp industries. Hawaii, North Dakota and Minnesota
passed laws approving hemp this year as a crop for hard-pressed farmers.

Kenex’s customers, who snap up Laprise’s hemp seeds and fibers for
everything from food for animals and people to beauty products and
horse bedding, have been outraged by the seizure in Detroit.

“What in the heck are they doing arresting birdseed?” said Anita
Roddick, the British founder of the Body Shop, whose organic hair- and
skin-care products have used hemp oil produced by Laprise.

“It’s so Monty Pythonesque,” Ms. Roddick said, alluding to the antic
comedians who mocked life’s absurdities. “They’re chasing around bloody
birdseed. It’s making the D.E.A. look stupid.”

Federal law enforcement officials defended the seizure. D.E.A.
spokesman Terry Parham said, “Our understanding is there is no legal
way for hemp seed to have come in that contains any quantity of THC.”
He explained that no product containing THC could be imported except by
a company registered with the D.E.A., and that no companies are
registered.

Drug-policy critics like Ethan Nadelmann, the president of the
Lindesmith Center, a New York group that advocates a more liberal drug
policy, reacted to the birdseed seizure with glee, contending that it
shows how dumb the war on drugs can get.

Laprise said the Customs Service also ordered him to recall his earlier
exports to the United States of hemp oil, horse bedding, animal feed
and granola bars, or face more than $500,000 in fines. He cannot
comply, he said, because the products have been used or consumed.

Meanwhile, a report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture assessing the
potential of hemp growing has made the rounds of the federal
government. The report’s beige cover is stamped “Classified.”

“I can’t figure out why they classified this,” said a government
official who let a reporter take a peek. The study said there was a
limited niche market for hemp products, like Laprise’s birdseed.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Observing the absurdities of drug law enforcement can sometimes be
darkly amusing, like watching a cartoon filled with black humor. Of
course, it is tragic that real people are hurt, like the hemp
businesses on the verge of bankruptcy thanks to the whims of the Drug
Enforcement Agency (“Bird Food Is a Casualty of the U.S. War on Drugs,”
Oct. 3).

The DEA appears to be suffering from Wile E. Coyote Syndrome (the
uncontrollable desire to destroy innocent creatures through the use of
birdseed). I can only hope the officials responsible for this travesty
suddenly find their careers plummeting into a deep ravine, leaving no
trace but a small puff of dust.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone number

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

————————————————————————

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts

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

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999
Subject: Medical MJ: Going After The Insurance Industry

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 128 September 26, 1999

Medical MJ: Going after the Insurance Industry

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

——- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE ——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 128 September 26, 1999

Medical MJ: Going after the Insurance Industry

Here’s a great project that takes just minutes and will have a huge
impact on implementing medical marijuana laws and helping patients.

You don’t even have to address the email. Just hit the link below, and
tell all those decision making corporate executives at State Farm
Corporate Headquarters what you think about them standing behind the
valid policy claims of their clients for medical marijuana destroyed
by police:

–Tell them how unnecessary claims are going to increase because of
police misconduct.

–Tell them that the 5.3 million Californians who voted for medical
marijuana will be voting again on this issue when they buy insurance
and this time they’ll be voting with their checkbooks.

With YOUR help, the Insurance Industry will do what politicians have
failed to do and make sure that medical marijuana laws are followed by
police.

Right now, Steve Kubby is trying to get State Farm Insurance to pay on
his claim for a six month supply of medicine that was destroyed. You
can help Steve and pave the way for other patients by communicating
your thoughts about this issue directly to State Farm’s Corporate
Offices at: http://www.statefarm.com/email.htm.

A copy of Steve’s letter to State Farm is enclosed below. Thanks for
your effort and support.

SEND A MESSAGE TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

E-mail: http://www.statefarm.com/email.htm

Phone: Public relations, Josh Youngrick 661-663-2771

Letters: Edward B. Rust Jr.
Chairman and CEO
State Farm Insurance
One State Farm Plaza
Bloomington, IL 61710

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

COPY OF STEVE KUBBY’S LETTER TO STATE FARM

September 22, 1999

Mark Morrison, Claim Representative
State Farm Insurance Company
P.O. Box 10199
Truckee, CA 96162

RE: Claim Number: 05-A683-370

Dear Mr. Morrison,

According to your letter of August 18, 1999, I am not entitled to
compensation for the medical marijuana that was stolen from me and
destroyed. However, on September 7, 1999, the San Francisco Examiner
published an article saying that insurance companies, including State
Farm ARE paying compensation in cases such as mine.

I am a legal medical marijuana patient who can provide medical
documentation that I have a life and death necessity for medical
marijuana, as documented by the University of Southern California
Medical Center.

I also meet the standards of a recent decision by the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, which found that patients who have exhausted all
other medical remedies should be legally immune from marijuana laws,
including federal laws.

Medical marijuana is now the law under the Compassionate Use Act of
1996 and the medical marijuana which was stolen from me and destroyed
was my legal property. Just because the local police failed to obey
California’s new Compassionate Use Act, is no excuse for you and State
Farm to evade your responsibilities to your policy holders, ESPECIALLY
if they are cancer patients, such as myself.

What happened to me is no different than if someone stole a patient’s
insulin and nearly killed them as a result. My life-saving medicine
was destroyed and I expect State Farm to compensate me.

Incidentally, the United States government provides each of its eight
medical marijuana patients with seven pounds per year. My 3.5 pounds
may seem excessive to you, but it represented a six month supply of
the only medicine that has kept me alive.

Although I had 200 plants destroyed, I am willing to make a quick
settlement for the total amount of medicine stolen at the time, 3.5
pounds, which I estimate to be worth $21,000. Otherwise, I will
expect $500 per plant or $100,000.

As someone who played a key role in the passage of the Compassionate
Use Act, I intend to see that State Farm provides full compensation to
documented patients when their medical marijuana is destroyed.

State Farm has a responsibility to honor the newly recognized legal
rights of medical marijuana patients. You can begin by immediately
honoring our claim for real losses which I have suffered and to which
I am entitled and that our claim for $21,000 be paid promptly.

My family and I deserve to be promptly and fully protected by the
policy we purchased from State Farm. I look forward to your
cooperation on this matter, but I will take further action if this
claim is not completely resolved by October 21, 1999.

Sincerely,

s/Steve Kubby

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

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to

Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999
Subject: 60 Minutes: Secret Colombian Drug War Could Evolve Into New

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #128 September 27,1999

60 Minutes: Secret Colombian Drug War Could Evolve Into New Vietnam

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

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #128 September 27,1999

It’s common to think of the “war on drugs” as more of a metaphor than
a real war, but for the people of Colombia it is terribly real.
Colombia has long been a major producer and exporter of cocaine. Now
many U.S. leaders say that fact should make Colombia a target for
military intervention.

Actually, as 60 Minutes II revealed last week, the U.S. has been
orchestrating a covert war in the country since 1992. Representatives
of the U.S. military and other agencies have advised Colombians during
hundreds of commando raids against what was once Colombia’s biggest
drug cartel. These American military leaders claim the raids were
successful since the head of the cartel was eventually killed. But
drugs continue to flow through Colombia unimpeded.

Now some in Washington want war on an even larger scale. About $1
billion in additional U.S. military aid has been proposed for
Colombia. Supporters of the plan present the situation in Colombia as
an easy-to-understand fight between “good” government forces and “bad”
rebels financed by drug money. However, a closer look at the country
shows something infinitely more complex: the Colombian Army has ties
to paramilitary squads that kill because of politics, not drugs; much
of the U.S. aid sent to fight drugs has been used to decimate enemies
of the government; and even the DEA questions how much involvement
major rebel groups have with drug cartels.

History should remind us that mixing heavy U.S. fire power into the
ambiguous motives and allegiances of a civil war fought in jungle
terrain is a recipe for disaster. Please write a letter to 60 Minutes
II to say that America could do much more to solve drug problems by
overhauling its own counterproductive policies at home than by adding
to the violence in Colombia.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: 60 Minutes II
Contact: [email protected]

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

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1053.a08.html

Pubdate: Tue, 21 Sep 1999
Source: 60 Minutes II
Copyright: 1999 Burrelle’s Information Services CBS News Transcripts
Contact: [email protected]
Mail: [email protected]
Feedback: http://209.3.209.3/prd1/now/feedback?p_whonetwork
Note: Video from this is currently available at:
http://www.cbs.com/flat/story_187452.html

AMERICA’S SECRET WAR

United States Trains Commandos To Fight In The War On Drugs In Colombia

DAN RATHER, co-host: The United States is on the verge of a dramatic
escalation in a war that you probably know nothing about. The
proposal is to spend at least another $ 1 billion to fight an army of
old-line Marxist guerrillas in Colombia who now have gone into the
drug trade. The president of Colombia is in Washington this week to
push for the whole amount. This may sound like the start of a new
war, but it’s actually only the latest battle in a secret war America
has been fighting in Colombia for most of the ’90s, a war that was
started to take out Colombia’s drug lords and a war fought by secret
warriors trained by the United States.

(Footage of commandos; helicopter; Major Gil Macklin and commandos;
Rather exiting plane)

RATHER: (Voiceover) They’re called Copes commandos, a small US-trained
strike force of deadly warriors. Since 1992, they have been fighting
America’s secret war on drugs in the jungles of Colombia. And one of
the men who trained them in the art of killing is former US Marine
Major Gil Macklin. We met up with him in Colombia recently to meet
America’s secret allies and to learn details of a mission about which
he has never spoken publicly before.

When we say Copes, in brief, what are we talking about?

Maj. MACKLIN: The Copes are the–the direct action forces of the
Colombian National Police. They’re like the Delta Force. Their
skills are honed on a regular basis to go at a moment’s notice, to do
anything at any time.

(Footage of commandos; vintage footage of Pablo Escobar and others on
motorcycles; Escobar and others on boat; Escobar and others on beach;
assassination of presidential candidate; aftermath of bombed plane;
footage of Ambassador Morris Busby)

RATHER: (Voiceover) But to understand the significance of the Copes
today, we have to go back to the early ’90s, to when the United States
started backing them for one mission and one mission alone: to take
down the Colombian drug lords, wipe out the cartels. And chief among
their targets was this man, Pablo Escobar. It was widely reported
that he was killed in 1993, but details of how he was killed have
never been revealed. Escobar was a larger-than-life character,
colorful, ruthless and seemingly unstoppable. Eighty percent of the
cocaine consumed in America came from him. His assassins murdered
anyone who got in his way, even taking out a presidential candidate at
a nationally televised rally. But when he reportedly ordered the
bombing of this Avianca passenger plane with five Americans on board,
Escobar’s reign of terror suddenly hit home. Morris Busby was the US
ambassador to Colombia.

Now that bombing was an Escobar bombing to do what?

Ambassador MORRIS BUSBY (Colombia): As near as we were ever able to
piece together, it was a bombing to kill one particular individual on
the airplane.

RATHER: That Escobar wanted taken out?

Amb. BUSBY: Yes. And so they killed everybody else on the
airplane.

RATHER: But who would kill 120-some-odd people to get one
person?

Amb. BUSBY: A monster.

(Vintage footage of George Bush exiting plane; footage of Busby; US
Embassy; vintage footage of Macklin and commandos; Jesuit mission;
commandos)

RATHER: (Voiceover) President Bush was so outraged, he ordered the
beginning of a secret war to take Escobar down. And Ambassador Busby
was the man he chose to do it. A former Navy SEAL, Morris Busby, like
Major Macklin, has never spoken publicly about his role in the secret
war. It all began when he turned the US Embassy into a war command
and dispatched Macklin, among others, to start forming the small army
that is now known as the Copes commandos. Macklin and a team of
Marine trainers set up shop at this ancient Jesuit mission at the foot
of the Andes. Their job was to find a few good men, young,
uncorrupted and prepared to die for their country.

Maj. MACKLIN: At the tip of the spear were these young farm boys from
the valleys, the hills, the mountains and jungles of Colombia who came
from nothing.

(Footage of commandos training)

RATHER: (Voiceover) Once he assembled enough men, Macklin gave them a
crash course in the dark arts of killing–day and night, the kind of
training only Special Forces do, exercises like this one: shooting
live ammunition inches from each other’s heads.

Maj. MACKLIN: See this guy here? He’s very dead.

(Footage of commandos training)

RATHER: (Voiceover) Macklin taught them his philosophy, kill or be
killed, and he taught them how to fight, to take down the drug lords
by surprise, to take them at a time and a place when they would least
expect it.

Maj. MACKLIN: (Voiceover) These men kill without compunction and die
without complaint. There is–there is one solution, and their solution
is to accomplish the mission and come out in one piece.

RATHER: Marines are trained to kill people and break things. Is that
what you trained these Copes commandos to do?

Maj. MACKLIN: Yes.

(Footage of commandos; ambulance; fires; General Rosso Jose Serrano
and commandos)

RATHER: (Voiceover) It’s a chilling idea: Americans training killers
with ski masks. But that’s exactly what Gil Macklin set out to do.
And back in 1992, with Colombia being terrorized by the drug lords,
the stakes were never higher. Macklin trained them, and this
Colombian police commander was chosen to take them into battle. At a
time when thousands of cops were on cartel payrolls, General Rosso
Jose Serrano was considered to be incorruptible. And for him and his
120 commandos, all of them devout Catholics, the mission against the
drug lords was a moral crusade.

General ROSSO JOSE SERRANO: (Through Translator) We know that God is
going to protect us and help us. We with faith have been able to move
mountains.

(Footage of Serrano and commandos; Air Force airplane)

RATHER: (Voiceover) They may have relied on their faith that God was
watching over them, but they also believed in something else:
high-tech weaponry that Ambassador Busby delivered courtesy of the
most powerful war machine on Earth.

Amb. BUSBY: We spared nothing in trying to use all of the
intelligence we could find on a worldwide basis to pass to the
Colombians to try and find him.

RATHER: And your assets? DEA, CIA, FBI, Special Forces, Delta
Forces?

Amb. BUSBY: All of the above.

RATHER: Has there been any other occasion which you know of in which
the United States said right from the top, ‘This is what we’re going
to do, and we’re going to commit whatever assets are necessary to do
it, and we’re going to have the determination and the staying power
that it takes to get it done’?

Amb. BUSBY: I can’t think of anything that–that we went into that we
stayed with the way we stayed with this. We never wavered.

(Vintage footage of commandos; dead soldiers; helicopter; gunners on
helicopter)

RATHER: (Voiceover) In the summer and fall of 1992, the mission began
and they moved systematically. To get to Escobar, the Copes had to
first eliminate each and every one of his lieutenants. These are the
pictures of what they left behind, dead and injured soldiers of the
drug cartels. The search for Escobar, spanning a period of a year and
a half, was one of the most intense manhunts ever mounted.

Amb. BUSBY: Well, the strategy that was followed was strip away his
lieutenants, strip away all of his money, go after his infrastructure,
take down everything that protects him. And that was done on a very
systematic and organized basis.

RATHER: Now we’re not talking about one or two or three raids here,
are we? Or are we?

Maj. MACKLIN: No. We’re talking about a whole series of raids that
were conducted to take out the–the central nervous system of the cartels.

RATHER: We’re talking about tens of raids, dozens of raids, hundreds
of raids?

Maj. MACKLIN: Hundreds.

RATHER: And what were they up against?

Maj. MACKLIN: The best that money could buy. Escobar reportedly
hired some of the best mercenaries in the world–British, Israeli,
Russian.

RATHER: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Working for Pablo Escobar were
some of the best special operations people who were British and Israeli?

Maj. MACKLIN: Exactly.

(Vintage footage of commandos in vehicles)

RATHER: (Voiceover) But the Copes gradually eliminated those
surrounding Escobar, nearly 100 lieutenants in his private army.

Maj. MACKLIN: (Voiceover) In the dead of night, they’d come like
darkness, and they’d bust through a door or a window or go through the
roof. And they’d capture these arrogant, narcissistic animals, the
drug lords, and they’d bring them to justice. And that’s what they
did.

(Vintage footage of funeral)

RATHER: (Voiceover) The Copes took heavy casualties themselves, many
of them killed by Escobar’s hit men.

Maj. MACKLIN: (Voiceover) The price they paid in flesh and blood is
tremendous; it’s enormous. If we lose two cops who get killed in the
US Capitol, like we did last summer, Washington ground to a halt.
They lose two cops before breakfast every morning.

(Vintage footage of commandos; footage of Rather and Busby at scene of
showdown)

RATHER: (Voiceover) It took two years from the time they began
training for American intelligence to finally corner Escobar. We went
with Ambassador Busby back to the scene of the final showdown.

BUSBY: In the final moments, what happened was that Pablo Escobar was
talking on a phone to his son, and he was standing at one of these
windows and the police van rolled up the street here; they–they were
monitoring the conversation. And he said to his son, ‘There’s
something wrong. I have to go.’

(Footage of roof of building; vintage footage of Escobar’s body;
footage of commandos throwing Macklin into pond)

RATHER: (Voiceover) Escobar tried to escape up the stairs. He got as
far as the roof. That’s where the commandos gunned him down. For Gil
Macklin and his Copes commandos, it will always be remembered as their
finest hour. But it was a triumph that could only be shared in
private. Of the 120 Copes he trained, half of them died in action.
As Macklin sees it, they died fighting America’s war.

Maj. MACKLIN: Copes!

RATHER: But the American public didn’t know about this.

Maj. MACKLIN: No.

RATHER: Have any second thoughts about that? Secret operation
overseas, training young men to break and enter and kill and…

Maj. MACKLIN: None whatsoever. Not now. I just wish we’d done
more.

RATHER: I think most Americans think we always lose in the drug wars.
In fact, the record shows that if we don’t always lose, we lose nearly
all the time.

Amb. BUSBY: But that’s not true. That’s not true. We scored a great
success here.

RATHER: But it’s hard to talk about success when today more drugs are
coming into America from Colombia than ever before. The sad truth
about the drug war is that getting rid of one enemy seems only to
bring on another even more menacing one. After Pablo Escobar came the
drug lords of the Cali cartel. And the man who led the Copes
commandos, General Serrano, became a national hero when he wiped them
out. But by the time we met up with him last month, he was facing yet
another enemy.

(Footage of Rather and Serrano in vehicle with security vehicles;
guerrillas)

RATHER: (Voiceover) When we travel with the general through Colombia
today, this is how he moves, escorted by an army of security. He is a
living symbol of the war against the drug trade in his own country and
a lot of people would like to see him dead, especially his new
enemies. They are armed guerrillas. Led by old-style Marxists, the
guerrillas began moving into the drug trade after the urban cartels
were taken out. And today drug money has transformed that guerrilla
army as it pursues its age-old war against the government of Colombia,
according to US drug czar General Barry McCaffrey.

General BARRY McCAFFREY (Drug Czar): These insurgent forces are fueled
by massive amounts of money that produce shiny new uniforms, planes,
helicopters and more automatic weapons in their battalions than in the
Colombian army.

Representative DAN BURTON (Republican, Indiana): A blind person could
have seen there’s a problem.

(Footage of Dan Burton at House of Representatives; McCaffrey;
guerrillas)

RATHER: (Voiceover) For two years now, Republican congressmen like Dan
Burton have been accusing McCaffrey and the Clinton administration of
ignoring the mounting threat posed by Colombia’s narcoguerrillas.
Last month the drug czar joined this chorus, saying that he, too, is
alarmed and now wants the US to intervene with $ 1 billion to counter
this new and growing enemy in America’s war on drugs.

What’s the single most important thing for Americans to
know?

Gen. McCAFFREY: The Colombians are involved in a situation of
incredible violence. The situation’s veering out of control, and we
need to step in and stand with the forces of democracy in Colombia.

(Footage of Capitol; guerrillas; commandos)

RATHER: (Voiceover) The $ 1 billion McCaffrey wants would inevitably
put the United States into the position of taking on a full-scale
guerrilla army, and that’s an escalation many in Washington don’t
want. Whether we choose to ante up or not, the Copes commandos have
already started to move in on key guerrilla positions. For them, the
war on drugs never ends.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

The report on the secret war in Colombia (Sept. 21) was quite
disturbing. The fact that the Cali cartel was destroyed but the drug
trade remains active should indicate escalating violence in the region
isn’t going to stop any drugs from coming to the United States.

Recent history shows how drug traffickers thrive on the chaos of civil
war. Further U.S. intervention might put some current traffickers out
of business, but they would quickly be replaced by more traffickers,
leaving an increasingly fragmented drug trade that would even be
harder to fight. As the battle intensifies, drug-running just becomes
more profitable and more attractive to desperate people.

And when increased military aid fails to stem the flow of drugs or
bring more order to Colombia, U.S. troops can’t be far behind. And
there’s no reason to believe those troops will be any more successful
at eradicating drugs. Increased militarization won’t make the drug
trade die, but many Colombian citizens and American soldiers can
expect to lose their lives in the fight.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999
Subject: Veteran Cop Explains How Drug War Causes Police Corruption

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 127 September 23, 1999

LA Times: Veteran Cop Explains How Drug War Causes Police Corruption

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

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 127 September 23, 1999

LA Times: Veteran Cop Explains How Drug War Causes Police Corruption

While drug policy reformers sometimes blame law enforcement for drug
war damage, it is important to remember that the drug war is bad for
police as well. In the wake of a huge corruption scandal in the Los
Angeles Police Department, former police chief Joseph McNamara
explained why this week in an excellent column for the Los Angeles
Times. After researching the connection between the drug war and cops
gone bad, McNamara came to a disturbing conclusion.

“Studying the nation’s police forces, I was stunned to discover that
the old-type corruption uncovered when cops occasionally were caught
taking payoffs from gangsters had been replaced by something
considerably more ominous. Throughout the country, small groups of
cops were the gangsters,” McNamara writes in the piece.

This is bad for the public, or course, but it’s also bad for the
majority of cops who haven’t been corrupted. The good cops lose their
credibility with citizens. They may also become demoralized. Please
write a letter to the LA Times to thank McNamara for demonstrating how
the country is reaping another bitter harvest sown with seeds from the
drug war.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

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

Pubdate: Tue, 21 Sep 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: [email protected]
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
Author: Joseph D. McNamara
Note: Retired Police Chief of San Jose, Joe McNamara is a Research Fellow
at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His Forthcoming Book Is
“Gangster Cops: the Hidden Cost of America’s War on Drugs.”

PERSPECTIVE ON POLICE

When Cops Become the Gangsters

The war on drugs has spawned an ominous form of corruption: protector
becoming the criminal.

It may not be much comfort to Police Chief Bernard C. Parks and the
people of Los Angeles during the current corruption scandal, but the
pattern of small gangs of cops committing predatory crimes has
occurred in almost every large city in the nation and in a great many
less populated areas as well.

Six years after retiring from 35 years in policing, I began research
for a book on police administration. Studying the nation’s police
forces, I was stunned to discover that the old-type corruption
uncovered when cops occasionally were caught taking payoffs from
gangsters had been replaced by something considerably more ominous.
Throughout the country, small groups of cops were the gangsters.

The lure of fortunes to be made in illegal drugs has led to thousands
of police felonies: armed robbery, kidnapping, stealing drugs, selling
drugs, perjury, framing people and even some murders. These police
crimes were committed on duty, often while the cop gangsters were
wearing their uniforms, the symbol of safety to the people they were
supposed to be protecting.

Of course, only a small percentage of American police officers are
recidivist felons. Sadly, however, these predatory criminals are
protected by a code of silence. Otherwise honest officers who knew or
suspected what was going on did not report the crooks, and at times
even lied rather than testify against other cops.

A code of silence is not unique to police. It exists in the White
House, among students, doctors, lawyers, business executives and other
groups. Indeed, even as children, our parents and peers admonish us
not to tattle. Basic human characteristics of loyalty, trust and
security are involved. These motivations are even more intense in
police work. If cops make an error of judgment, they or someone else
may be killed, or they can be sent to jail for using too much force.
And even the most ethical officers fear being falsely accused of
brutality or other crimes and of being railroaded to prison because
their chiefs or mayors will not support them in politically volatile
cases.

Furthermore, the code of silence is strengthened because many cops
chafe under the pressure from superiors to make petty arrests for
drugs. State and local police made approximately 1.4 million drug
possession arrests last year. Very few took place with search
warrants, although the 4th Amendment, with few exceptions, requires
the police to obtain a judicial warrant to search people or their
homes. It is so common for police to lie about how they obtained drug
evidence that the term “testilying” has replaced “testifying” in
police jargon. Ambitious politicians and police brass calling for
more arrests condemn the code of silence while ignoring widespread
police perjury in drug cases. It is not surprising that many cops
feel that the only one they can really trust is another cop.

Nevertheless, it is perverse when those sworn to enforce the law
instead shelter predatory criminals who happen to carry a badge.
Minorities tend to be the victims of the most grievous police crimes.
The current Los Angeles police shooting scandal, like the thousands of
cop crimes elsewhere, does immeasurable damage to the credibility of
the criminal justice system. Mayors and police chiefs usually assure
their citizens that there are only a few rotten apples when these
scandals are publicized. Yet the number and similarity of police
gangster crimes nationally indicate a crisis in American policing.

Official corruption will be a major problem as long as we cling to the
present drug policies. The code of silence cannot be totally
eliminated. But the harm to good cops and to society can be reduced if
politicians abandon their demagogic calls for a police war against
drugs. Police officers who are true partners with the community in
reducing crime will be far more likely to report thugs on the force
than cops who think they’re part of a warring occupation army.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Thanks to Joseph McNamara for explaining how the drug war causes
police corruption (“Perspective on Police,” Sept. 21). Others may say
that there will always be a few bad apples in any large group. It’s
impossible to deny that police, like members of any other profession,
are subject to corruption even under the best circumstances. Likewise,
there are police who are immune from corruption under the worst
circumstances. But, it is grossly myopic to say that the incidents
recently uncovered in Los Angeles are just about a handful of bad cops.

There is a common thread running through these incidents, and others
around the nation: the obscene profits made possible by drug
prohibition. That is the invitation to corruption, just as it was
during alcohol prohibition during the 1920s. No matter how many honest
cops there are, drug prohibition offers the lure of easy money to
those teetering on the edge. Add that to the despair of knowing that
efforts against illegal drug sellers will never really put a dent in
the trade and you’ve got a recipe to make more bad cops.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999
Subject: LA Times Prints A Great Introduction To Reform By Ethan

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 126 September 20, 1999

LA Times Prints A Great Introduction to Reform by Ethan
Nadelmann

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

*****

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
*****

LA Times Prints A Great Introduction to Reform by Ethan
Nadelmann

The problems created by drug prohibition are intertwined in such a
complex way that it is sometimes difficult to look at the whole
situation without getting caught up in the details. With the
cooperation of the Los Angeles Times, prominent drug policy reform
advocate Ethan Nadelmann presented a nice overview of the need for
reform this week.

Nadelmann’s points are convincing in themselves, but they have added
power in the LA Times now as the newspaper uncovers a huge scandal in
the LA Police Department. Allegations of corruption in the department
are at least partly related to drug policy. To read more about the
scandal see:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1021.a02.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1018.a08.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1021.a01.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1019.a01.html

Please write a letter to the Times thanking them for printing
Nadelmann’s oped, and also to remind editors that they don’t have to
dig too deep into many societal problems to find a connection between
the problems and counterproductive drug 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 MAPTalk
list if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to
[email protected] Your letter will then be forwarded to the list with
so others can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

Note: The LA Times circulation is 1.5 million.
A published LTE in the Times that is five column inches long (about 200 words)
represents an advertising value of $3,000 on behalf of reform.

Ethan’s article below had an ad value of $29,592 See
http://www.mapinc.org/lte/value.htm for an explanation of how to
calculate the ad value of your published letters.

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

Pubdate: Sun, 19 Sep 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: [email protected]
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
Author: Ethan A. Nadelmann
Note: Ethan A. Nadelmann Is Director of the Lindesmith Center, a Drug
Policy Institute With Offices in New York and San Francisco
http://www.lindesmith.org/

PERSPECTIVE ON LEGALIZING DRUGS

Don’t Get Carried Away

There Must Be A New Approach That Is Grounded Not In Ignorance Or Fear But
In Common Sense.

“So you want to legalize drugs, right?” That’s the first question I’m
typically asked when I start talking about drug policy reform. My
short answer is, marijuana, maybe. But I’m not suggesting we make
heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine available the way we do alcohol and
cigarettes.

What am I recommending? Here’s the long answer:

Drop the “zero tolerance” rhetoric and policies and the illusory goal
of a drug-free society. Accept that drug use is here to stay, and
that we have no choice but to learn to live with drugs so they cause
the least possible harm and the greatest possible benefit.

More specifically, I’m recommending:

* that responsible doctors be allowed and encouraged to prescribe
whatever drugs work best, notwithstanding the feared and demonized
status of some drugs in the eyes of the ignorant and the law;

* that people not be incarcerated for possessing small amounts of any
drug for personal use. But also that people who put their fellow
citizens at risk by driving while impaired be treated strictly and
punished accordingly;

* that employers reject drug-testing programs that reveal little about
whether people are impaired in the workplace but much about what they
may have consumed over the weekend;

* that those who sell drugs to other adults not be treated by our
criminal laws as the moral equivalents of violent and other predatory
criminals;

* that marijuana be decriminalized, taxed and regulated, even as we
step up our efforts to provide honest and effective drug education
rather than feel-good programs like DARE;

* that top priority be given to public health policies proved to
reduce the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with
injection drug use and heroin addiction–in other words, expanded
methadone maintenance treatment, heroin maintenance trials, ready
access to sterile syringes and other harm-reduction policies that have
proved effective abroad and that can work just as well here.

These beliefs, these statements of principles and objectives,
represent a call for a fundamentally different drug policy. It’s not
legalization, but it’s also not simply a matter of spending more on
treatment and prevention and less on interdiction and
enforcement.

Some call it “harm reduction”–an approach that aims to reduce the
negative consequences of both drug use and drug prohibition,
acknowledging that both will likely persist for the foreseeable future.

Most “drug legalizers” aren’t really drug legalizers at all. A
legalizer, as most Americans apparently understand the term, is
someone who believes that heroin, cocaine and most or all other drugs
should be available over the counter, like alcohol or cigarettes.

That’s not what I’m fighting for, nor is it the ultimate aim of
philanthropist and financier George Soros, who has played a leading
role in funding drug policy reform efforts. Nor is it the aim of the
great majority of people who devote their time, money and energies to
ending the drug war.

This is not to say there is no such thing as a “legalizer.” Milton
Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, and Thomas Szasz, the
famed libertarian psychiatrist, have argued that total drug
legalization is the only rational and ethical way to deal with drugs
in our society. Most libertarians and many others agree with them.
Szasz and others have even opposed the medical marijuana ballot
initiatives, arguing that they retard the repeal of drug
prohibition.

Friedman, Szasz and I agree on many points, among them that U.S. drug
prohibition, like alcohol Prohibition decades ago, generates
extraordinary harms. It, not drugs per se, is responsible for
creating vast underground markets, criminalizing millions of otherwise
law-abiding citizens, corrupting both governments and societies at
large, empowering organized criminals, increasing predatory crime,
spreading disease, curtailing personal freedom, disparaging science
and honest inquiry and legitimizing public policies that are both
extraordinary and insidious in their racially disproportionate
consequences.

But I’m not ready to advocate for over-the-counter sale of heroin and
cocaine, and not just because that’s not a politically palatable
argument in 1999. I’m not convinced that outright legalization is the
optimal alternative.

The fact is, there is no drug legalization movement in America. What
there is a nascent political and social movement for drug policy
reform. It consists of the growing number of citizens who have been
victimized, in one way or another, by the drug war, and who now
believe that our current drug policies are doing more harm than good.

Most members of this “movement” barely perceive themselves as such, in
part because their horizons only extend to one or two domains in which
the harms of the drug war are readily apparent to them.

It might be the judge who is required by inflexible, mandatory minimum
sentencing laws to send a drug addict, or small-time dealer, or
dealer’s girlfriend, or Third World drug courier, to prison for longer
than many rapists and murderers serve. Or it might be the corrections
officer who recalls the days when prisons housed “real” criminals, not
the petty, nonviolent offenders who fill jails and prisons these days.
Or the addict in recovery–employed, law-abiding, a worthy citizen in
every respect–who must travel 50 or 100 miles each day to pick up her
methadone, i.e., her medicine, because current laws do not allow
methadone prescriptions to be filled at a local pharmacy.

Or the nurse in the oncology or AIDS unit obliged to look the other
way while a patient wracked with pain or nausea smokes her forbidden
medicine. Both know, from their own experience, that smoked marijuana
works better than anything else for many sick people.

Or the teacher or counselor warned by school authorities not to speak
so frankly about drug use with his students lest he violate federal
regulations prohibiting anything other than “just say no” bromides.

Or the doctor who fears to prescribe medically appropriate doses of
opiate analgesics to a patient in pain because any variations from the
norm bring unfriendly scrutiny from government agents and state
medical boards.

Or the employee with an outstanding record who fails a drug test on
Monday morning because she shared a joint with her husband over the
weekend–and is fired. Or the struggling farmer in North Dakota who
wonders why farmers in Canada and dozens of other countries can plant
hemp, but he cannot. Or the political conservative who abhors the
extraordinary powers of police and prosecutors to seize private
property from citizens who have not been convicted of violating any
laws and who worries about the corruption inherent in letting law
enforcement agencies keep what they seize.

Or the African American citizen repeatedly stopped by police for
“driving while black” or even “walking while black,” never mind
“running while black.”

Some are victims of the drug war, and some are drug policy reformers,
but most of them don’t know it yet. The ones who know they’re drug
policy reformers are the ones who connect the dots–the ones who see
and understand the panoply of ways in which our prohibitionist
policies are doing more harm than good.

We may not agree on which aspect of prohibition is most
pernicious–the generation of crime, the corruption, the underground
market, the spread of disease, the loss of freedom, the burgeoning
prisons or the lies and hypocrisies, and we certainly don’t agree on
the optimal solutions, but we all regard our current policy of
punitive drug prohibition as a fundamental evil both within our
borders and beyond.

Most drug policy reformers I know don’t want crack or methamphetamine
sold in 7-Elevens–to quote one of the more pernicious accusations
hurled by federal drug czar Barry McCaffrey. What we’re talking about
is a new approach grounded not in the fear, ignorance, prejudice and
vested pecuniary and institutional interests that drive current
policies, but rather one grounded in common sense, science, public
health and human rights.

That’s true drug policy reform.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Bravo to the Times for printing Ethan Nadelmann’s fine Op-Ed (Sunday,
19 September) “Perspective On Legalizing Drugs.”

As other more prominent headlines point to police corruption, I hope
readers see the connection between the LAPD scandal and Nadelmann’s
insights. It is, after all, drug money that fuels the gangs, and the
drug war that corrupts the police. Los Angeles is far from the first
city to have such a scandal.

But the last great corruption scandal for the LA police was in 1933,
during that prohibition. By 1931 it was an accepted fact that the
upper and middle classes were drinking in large numbers in quite frank
disregard of the declared policy of the Volstead Act. Have we learned
nothing from history?

Just as then, today a growing number of citizens are recognizing the
errors of the current enforcement based prohibition – and the damage
being done. As then, today the people are well ahead of the our
elected officials in saying “There must be a better way.”

Politicians shouting “legalizer” does not make it so.

Richard Lake

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