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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 117 July 26 1999

National Journal: Stop mandatory minimum sentences

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

*

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: National Journal (US)
Contact: [email protected]

*

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

THANK GOD FOR MAXINE WATERS (NO, REALLY)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

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

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

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

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

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

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

DrugSense DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 116, July 19, 1999

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Please Copy All Letters to:

[email protected] (Auburn Journal)

[email protected] (Placer Cnty Board)

[email protected] (Placer County Sheriff)

Board of Supervisors

175 Fulweiler Ave., Auburn, CA 95603

Phone: 530-889-4010

Fax: 530-889-4009

E-mail: [email protected]

Placer County Board of Supervisors

* Supervisor Bill Santucci, District 1 (Roseville)

* Supervisor Robert Weygandt, District 2 (Lincoln)

* Supervisor Harriet White, District 3 (Auburn)

* Supervisor Jim Williams, District 4 (Loomis)

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

* Placer county Sheriff Bonner

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

EXTRA CREDIT

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

[email protected] (San Francisco Chronicle)

[email protected] (San Francisco Examiner)

[email protected] (Oakland Tribune)

[email protected] (San Jose Mercury-News)

[email protected] (Los Angeles Times)

[email protected] (Sacrmento Bee)

[email protected] (San Diego Union-Tribune)

Weeklies

[email protected] (Sacramento News & Review)

[email protected] (Bay Guardian)

Tahoe Regional Newspapers [email protected] (Auburn Journal)

Smaller Dailies

[email protected] (Bakersfield Californian)

[email protected] (San Mateo Co Times)

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

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

THE KUBBY CASE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

SAMPLE LETTER (Sent)

Dear Auburn Journal

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

=========

Dear: Placer County Board of Supervisors

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

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

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

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

How do you sleep at night?

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

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

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 115 July 8,1999

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

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the MAPTalk
list if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to:

[email protected]

Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others can learn from
your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

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

CONTACT INFO

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

PRISONS ARE NOT ENOUGH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEAM OF HOPE FOR COLOMBIA

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

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

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

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

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

Pastrana deserves this chance.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

To the Editor:

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

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

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

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

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone number

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

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts

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

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

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

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

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 114 July 2, 1999

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

*

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

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

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

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

http://www.cbs.com/

http://www.fox.com/

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

EXTRA CREDIT but IMPORTANT!

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

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

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

* Supervisor Bill Santucci, District 1 (Roseville)

* Supervisor Robert Weygandt, District 2 (Lincoln)

* Supervisor Harriet White, District 3 (Auburn)

* Supervisor Jim Williams, District 4 (Loomis)

* Supervisor Rex Bloomfield, District 5 (Meadow Vista)

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

=

SAMPLE LETTER (To Placer County Board of Supervisors:)

Dear Board Members,

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

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

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

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

UPDATE

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

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

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

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

http://www.kubby.com/

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

Dear ( CBS )

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

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

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

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

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

———————————————————————–

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone number

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

———————————————————————–

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts

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

Prepared by Mark Greer DrugSense FOCUS Alert Specialist

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999
Subject: McCaffrey’s Attempt At An Offensive Makes Great Target!

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #113 Tuesday June 29, 1999

McCaffrey’s Attempt At An Offensive Makes Great Target!

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 #113

Well, McCzar has finally done it; he’s been goaded (probably by the
press response to last week’s hearings, plus the Geraldo NBC special)
into attempting the impossible: a reasoned defense of the need for
prohibition. This is a heaven-sent opportunity to slay the dragon
intellectually-once and for all. We can never convince the
doctrinaire zanies, but we can persuade reasonable people to consign
prohibitionists to the same intellectual pigeon-hole as creationists;
McC’s just made the classic mistake the French made at Dien Bien Phu-
putting all his eggs in a single basket.

It’s as full of holes as Swiss cheese; it’s central flaw is citing the
fact that drugs may be both addictive and harmful as an imperative for
creation of an additionally harmful and destructive criminal market.

As for his claims that America’s policy has had some success over the
years; mere citation of just some random details of its record is
enough to hoot that one right off the stage. This op-ed should provoke
the immediate & best efforts of as many letter-writers as possible.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

*

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

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

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

*

Pubdate: Tue, 29 June 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: Barry R. McCaffrey
Note: The writer is director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

DON’T LEGALIZE THOSE DRUGS
By Barry McCaffrey

Three-quarters of the U.S. population opposes the legalization of
psychoactive drugs such as heroin, cocaine, LSD, methamphetamine, and
marijuana. Therefore, the term “drug legalization” has rightfully
acquired pejorative connotations. Many supporters of this position
have adopted the label “harm reduction” to soften the impact of an
unpopular proposal that, if passed, would encourage greater
availability and use of drugs — especially among children. The
euphemism of “harm reduction” implies that legalizing dangerous
substances would reduce the harm these substances cause. In fact,
condoning drugs would increase their use and hence their harm.

Drug use imposes an unacceptable risk of harm on the user and others.
The evidence supporting this viewpoint is chilling:

Substance abuse wrecks families. A survey of state child-welfare
agencies found substance abuse to be one of the top two problems
exhibited by 81 percent of families reported for child maltreatment.
Researchers estimate that chemical dependence is present in at least
half of the families involved in the child welfare system. One study
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed
that non-drug users who live in households where drugs are used are 11
times more likely to be killed than individuals from drug-free households.

Drug-dependent individuals are responsible for a disproportionate
percentage of our nation’s violent and income-generating crimes such
as robbery, burglary or theft. National Institute of Justice surveys
consistently find that between one-half and three-quarters of all
arrestees have drugs in their system at the time of arrest. In 1997, a
third of state prisoners and about one in five federal prisoners said
they had committed the crimes that led to incarceration while under
the influence of drugs.

Injection-drug users place themselves at great risk. A University of
Pennsylvania study of Philadelphia injection-drug users found that
four times as many addicts died from overdose, homicide, heart
disease, renal failure and liver disease as did from causes associated
with HIV disease. Dr. James Curtis, director of addiction services at
Harlem Hospital Center, explains: “It is false, misleading and
unethical to give addicts the idea that they can be intravenous drug
abusers without suffering serious self-injury.”

Clearly, drugs themselves harm users. A significant percentage of all
current drug users are addicted to illegal substances. Addiction is a
brain disease that changes a person’s neurochemistry. For 4 million
chronically addicted people, drug use is not a choice and hence has
little to do with personal liberty. Removing the threat of criminal
sanctions would eliminate the possibility of forced treatment and
condemn countless addicts to miserable lives.

One argument given for drug legalization by harm-reduction advocates
is that the “war against drugs has been lost.” Aside from the fact
that this is not a war, much progress has been made. Current drug
policies are reducing drug use and its consequences. Drug use in this
country has declined by half since 1979. The number of current users
dropped from 25 million in 1979 to 13 million in 1996. The decrease in
current use of cocaine has been even more dramatic.

This is not to say that drug policies cannot be improved. The 1999
National Drug Control Strategy is implementing important changes. The
strategy’s number one goal is prevention. In the past four years, the
administration increased spending on prevention by 55 percent while
spending on treatment rose 25 percent. The strategy calls for more
treatment in the criminal justice system to break the cycle of drugs
and crime.

At root, the debate over drug legalization boils down to a question of
risk. Studies show that the more a product is available and
legitimized, the greater will be its use. If drugs were legalized, the
cost to the individual and society would grow astronomically. Removing
the criminal status associated with drug use and sale would not make
such activity less criminal when drug abuse wrecks young lives. It is
criminal that more money is spent on illegal drugs than on art or
higher education; it is criminal that crack babies are born addicted
and in pain; it is criminal that thousands of adolescents lose their
health and the freedom to create a bright future.

Harm-reduction advocates tolerate drug use because they consider it
part of the human condition that will always be with us. Many other
perennial problems such as racism, theft and aggression cannot be
extinguished entirely, but we still resist their damage and
criminalize the practices. No one argues that we should legalize these
activities to make them more sanitary or provide tax revenues.

On a judicial level, the question of drug legalization comes down to
whether we should legalize destructive behavior. With respect to the
individual, society at large and the environment, American
jurisprudence has run in the opposite direction. Americans have
decided that people do not have a right to ride motorcycles without
wearing helmets, drive cars without using seat belts, pollute the
environment at will, or endanger the self and others by refusing
vaccination or similar life-saving health measures. In general, our
laws indicate that self-destructive activity should not be permitted
or condoned. Drug consumption damages the brain, which in turn
produces other forms of destructive behavior. U.S. law does not grant
people the right to destroy themselves or others. Addictive drugs were
criminalized because they are harmful; they are not harmful because
they were criminalized.

The writer is director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Editors:

Drug czar Barry McCaffrey observes that despite the “pejorative
connotations” attached to the term “drug legalization”, one-quarter of
Americans– or 68.1 million citizens-would favor legalization. Of
course, reform advocates don’t want “legalization” as commonly
understood; we desire a regulated market like the liquor and tobacco
markets, not an unregulated free-for-all. Unfortunately, the dangers
of a completely uncontrolled market are exactly what current drug
policies deliver most effectively.

McCaffrey claims that drugs are illegal because they are harmful, not
vice versa. This claim runs counter to every lesson America learned
from alcohol Prohibition. During that “Noble Experiment”, deaths from
poisoned liquor skyrocketed, cities were controlled by bootlegger
gangs, and children had equal access to liquor (because dealers never
ask for ID). The parallels to our Drug War are hard to miss;
consider, especially, the fact that kids can generally get
(unregulated) marijuana more easily than (regulated) alcohol.

Prohibition was well-intentioned, but law enforcement is the wrong
tool for solving a social and health problem. Regulated markets and
treatment on demand are significantly more effective.

Keith Sanders

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

Prepared by “Tom O’Connell” ([email protected]) and Keith Sanders
([email protected]) DrugSense FOCUS Alert Specialists

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

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

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

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

NOTICE:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.

REMINDER:

Please help us help reform. Send any news articles you find on any
drug related issue to [email protected]

=
NOW YOU CAN DONATE TO DRUGSENSE ONLINE AND IT’S TAX DEDUCTIBLE

DrugSense provides many services to at no charge BUT THEY ARE NOT FREE
TO PRODUCE.

We incur many costs in creating our many and varied services. If you
are able to help by contributing to the DrugSense effort visit our
convenient donation web site at http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm

* Just DO It!!

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999
Subject: FOCUS Alert – Asset Forfeiture Bill Passes! Write A Letter

U.S. House Takes A Step Away From Drug War With Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 112 Asset Forfeiture Bill Passes! Huge Victory
for Individual Liberty and Freedom

Since they were adopted in the 1980s, asset forfeiture laws have
threatened every citizen. The laws gave police the power to take
property from people who were merely accused of drug crimes; no
convictions were necessary. As law enforcement officials raked in easy
money, horror stories about innocent people losing cash, cars and
homes have multiplied. Some of the stories and other information about
asset forfeiture abuses have been documented at

http://www.fear.org

while an excellent series of reports on how state law enforcement has
taken advantage from the Kansas City Star is available at

http://www.kcstar.com/projects/drugforfeit/index.html

Even the U.S. House of Representatives felt uncomfortable about these
policies. Last week, by a huge margin, the house voted in favor bill
that offers sweeping and meaningful reforms to asset forfeiture
practices. As the nation waits for a response from the U.S. Senate,
please write a letter to your local newspapers, and other publications
around the country, thanking House members for this important action.
You may also want to write directly to your federal legislators to
express the need for reform.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

*

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

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

EXTRA CREDIT part 1 –

Write your local newspapers, or other newspapers around the country
encouraging the reform of asset forfeiture laws.

Need an Email address for your local paper? Email addresses for nearly
every paper of any size can be found at:

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

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

EXTRA CREDIT part 2 –

Write your federal legislators to remind them of the importance of
this issue. To find contact information for your senator of
congressman, use the links below.

NOTE: The Senate in particular needs to be encouraged to pass this
legislation.

For the Senate:

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

For the House:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

*

Pubdate: June 25, 1999
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/
Copyright: 1999 Chicago Tribune Comany
Author: Mike Dorning,

HOUSE OVERWHELMINGLY BACKS MEASURE TO LIMIT SEIZURE LAWS

WASHINGTON — Responding to reported abuses of federal laws permitting
authorities to seize property suspected of use in crimes, the House
voted overwhelmingly Thursday to make it easier for citizens not
convicted of crimes to recover property taken from them.

The seizure of private property has become an increasingly popular
weapon in fighting crime–and in generating revenue to fund law
enforcement–since Congress expanded police power to seize assets
during the 1980s as part of the war on drugs.

The annual flow of cash, vehicles, houses, airplanes and other assets
to the Justice Department has surged from $27 million in 1985 to $449
million last year.

Critics assert that weak protection for property owners has allowed
that weapon to be misused. A property owner need not be charged with a
crime before his property is taken and, once police seize the
property, the owner bears the burden of proving it was not used in
law-breaking activities.

“They don’t have to convict you. They don’t even have to charge you
with a crime, but they’ve got your property,” said House Judiciary
Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.).

He called the current law “a throwback to the days of the Soviet
Union, where justice was the justice of the government and the citizen
didn’t have a chance.”

The legislation, which does not affect confiscation from people
convicted of crimes, was propelled to a 375-48 approval in the House
by an unusual alliance of conservative constitutionalists and liberal
civil libertarians.

The lead sponsors include some of the fiercest antagonists from the
presidential impeachment battle, including Hyde, conservative Rep. Bob
Barr (R-Ga.), archliberal Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. John
Conyers (D-Mich.), President Clinton’s top defender on the Judiciary
Committee.

The measure still must pass the Senate and faces opposition from
police organizations, as well as the Justice Department.

The bill approved Thursday would shift the burden of proof in seizure
cases to require the government to present “clear and convincing”
evidence that property was used for an illegal purpose.

Currently, authorities can seize assets if they have “probable cause”
to believe the assets were used in breaking the law. That is the same
standard of evidence police use to stop and frisk people and the
lowest threshold in criminal law.

Hyde said the low standard of evidence is especially troubling because
local police agencies are allowed to keep up to 80 percent of the
value of confiscated property for their own use.

“It’s like the speed trap along the rural highway . . . You don’t have
a great chance at equal justice,” Hyde said.

Under the measure, indigent people would be entitled to free legal
representation in proceedings to reclaim their property.

A current requirement that property owners first post a bond worth 10
percent of the property taken from them before they can file a
challenge would be dropped. And citizens would be able to regain use
of their property during the court proceedings, if they showed that
they otherwise faced a hardship.

Hyde said the lopsided House vote should help as the measure moves to
the Senate because “it shows there is strength. It is not a bizarre,
off-the-wall idea.”

Law-enforcement officials consider vigorous asset seizures a crucial
way to discourage the drug trade because it attacks narcotics dealers’
motive for entering the business: money.

“Yes, there have been high-profile cases where mistakes were made,”
said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International
Association of Chiefs of Police. “But these are things that would lead
to frivolous lawsuits and burden the court system.”

Myron Marlin, spokesman for the Justice Department, conceded the law
should be changed so property owners no longer must bear the burden of
proving their innocence.

But the department advocates allowing the government to prevail in
asset-seizure cases by meeting a lower standard of proof: the
preponderance of evidence, which means it only must make a better
case–however slight–than the property owner. That is the standard
used in civil lawsuits.

The House defeated a proposed amendment that included that lower
standard.

A Justice Department official involved in enforcement said the tougher
“clear and convincing” standard in the bill would make it especially
hard to seize assets in cases involving suspected money-laundering.

“The whole point of money-laundering is to make it difficult to
establish a connection with the crime,” the official said.

News media reports and congressional hearings uncovered a series of
apparent abuses of existing seizure law.

In one case detailed in congressional testimony, a nursery owner had
$9,000 cash confiscated from him in a Nashville airport after he paid
cash for an airline ticket to Houston, thus triggering suspicions he
was a drug courier.

Drug-sniffing dogs suggested there were traces of narcotics on the
money. The nursery owner, Willie Jones, never was charged with a
crime; it took two years of legal wrangling for him to regain the cash.

The Justice Department’s Marlin said that more than 80 percent of
federal asset seizures are related to an arrest, although not
necessarily of the property owner.

In about two-fifths of the cases, the property is suspected of being
used in the drug trade. But the federal government also makes wide use
of the laws in seizing property related to the smuggling of illegal
immigrants, money-laundering and other white-collar crimes, Marlin
said.

Hyde said in the floor debate that he was inspired to propose the
legislation after reading a 1993 column by the Tribune’s Steve Chapman
describing abuses of the seizure law.

“I must tell you I couldn’t believe it. I thought over 200 years ago
we had worked out what due process meant, what equality under the law
meant,” Hyde said.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Henry Hyde and all the co-sponsors and supporters of the asset
forfeiture reform bill passed in the U.S. House deserve our thanks.

As they are currently applied, asset forfeiture procedures amount to a
license to steal for law enforcement officials. The protections
offered by the Hyde bill are a crucial step towards safeguarding every
citizen from the horrible abuses documented by Hyde and journalists
around the nation.

Just as important, the bill shows that it is possible to move away
from “get-tough-at-all-costs” anti-drug policies that have done much
more harm than good.

I look forward to the U.S. Senate backing asset forfeiture reform, and
perhaps even a thoughtful reevaluation by federal legislators of the
entire war on drugs.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

Please help us help reform. Send any news articles you find on any
drug related issue to [email protected]

See http://www.mapinc.org/hawk.htm for details

=
NOW YOU CAN DONATE TO DRUGSENSE ONLINE AND IT’S TAX DEDUCTIBLE

DrugSense provides many services to at no charge BUT THEY ARE NOT FREE
TO PRODUCE.

We incur many costs in creating our many and varied services. If you
are able to help by contributing to the DrugSense effort visit our
convenient donation web site at http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm

* Just DO It!!

Amnesty International Takes a stand against the Drug War!

The following effort created by The November Coalition takes less than a minute to sign on to.

Just DO it!

Dear Friends:

(PLEASE DISSEMINATE WIDELY ON EMAIL LISTS AND NEWSLETTERS)

As many of you know, Amnesty International has finally taken on the prison-industrial complex in the United States in their Rights for All campaign. A core segment of their message in each of their reports has been how the war on drugs contributes to the human rights abuses of prisoners.

These are courageous steps for AI to take, both because attacking the US as a human rights abuser can alienate its US members and because any dissension of the drug war encourages ideological opponents to attack AI’s work.

Amnesty’s support for prison-reform and their message about the impact of the drug war is important, because AI’s message is heard and promoted throughout the social-justice community. (High school civics classes regularly engage in Amnesty International campaigns). However, if domestic criticism is heavy enough, and there is little vocal support for AI’s work, there is a chance that they will simply stop working on US issues.

In order to let Amnesty know that their work is valuable and supported, the November Coalition is organizing a campaign to acknowledge Amnesty’s good work. Please visit our site at: http://www.november.org/ai/

Fill out the form and add whatever comments you would like. Hard copies of the letters of support will be printed at the November Coalition’s headquarters and mailed to Amnesty International’s director of campaigns.

If you would like to read the on-line versions of Amnesty’s excellent documentation of human rights abuses within the US prison system, please visit: http://www.amnesty-usa.org/rightsforall/index.html

Best regards, Paul Lewin

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
Subject: Debate Over Alcohol Ads Reveals Hypocrisy Of War On Drugs

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 110 June 11, 1999

DEBATE OVER ALCOHOL ADS REVEALS HYPOCRISY OF WAR ON DRUGS

In another recent scheme to rid the world of drugs, federal officials
announced they would spend $2 billion of taxpayer funds to place
anti-drug advertisements from the Partnership for a Drug-Free America
in various media outlets. These PDFA ads have never targeted alcohol
use, and now more people are asking why.

In one sense, it’s a good question, even if it has a simple answer. As
an op-ed piece from the San Francisco Chronicle notes (below), alcohol
is more widely used by young people (and adults) than illegal drugs.
Alcohol causes much more death and destruction than illegal drugs. So
wouldn’t it make sense to target alcohol too? Not if you are the
Partnership for a (Partially) Drug-Free America. The people who
volunteer their time to make the PDFA’s anti-drug ads made their real
living by creating advertisements for the alcohol industry. The fact
that many major alcohol manufacturers have contributed financially to
the PDFA in the past might have an impact as well.

While it’s important that the distinctions between good (legal) and
bad (illegal) drugs be exposed as arbitrary and irrational, the
question as to whether the PDFA should be used to fight teen alcohol
use presumes the PDFA advertisements are effective at stopping illegal
drug use. Many experts believe they are not, since they sell hysteria
and suspicion, not effective solutions. Please write a letter to the
San Francisco Chronicle or to your own newspaper showing how every
player in this drug war mini-drama is attempting only to protect their
own interests, even if those interests have nothing to do with making
America “drug-free.”

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

So…

Just DO it

*

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

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

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

EXTRA CREDIT –

Write to your own local newspaper to say that the Partnership for a
Drug-Free America is a farce, since it doesn’t consider alcohol a drug
from which America needs to be freed, and because its scare tactics
are unproven and counterproductive. If your newspaper runs PDFA ads,
this action is especially encouraged.

Need an Email address for your local paper? Email addresses for nearly
every paper of any size can be found at:

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

*

US CA: OPED: Drug War Isn’t On Target URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n610.a06.html

Newshawk: Frank S. World
Pubdate: Tue, 08 Jun 1999
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 1999 San Francisco Chronicle
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/
Author: Diana Conti

DRUG WAR ISN’T ON TARGET

Alcohol Lobby Derails Any Efforts To Dissuade Teens

In His War Against Drugs, General Barry McCaffrey is outgunned by the
political influence of special interest money that diverts attention
from the gateway to teen drug problems, the drug most used and abused
by adolescents — alcohol. McCaffrey has repeatedly gone on record
saying that alcohol is the primary drug abused in this country and he
has lamented his inability to make alcohol the centerpiece of his
current $195 million anti-drug media campaign.

Coming to his rescue, U.S. Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard, D–
Calif., Frank Wolf, R-Va., have authored an amendment to the Treasury,
Postal Service and Government Appropriations bill that would add
alcohol to the media campaign. McCaffrey’s lament apparently wasn’t
sincere. When the Roybal-Allard Wolf amendment was announced, the
drug czar and the White House came out in opposition to alcohol being
included in the campaign to unsell drugs to America’s youth. The
reason: the powerful alcohol and advertising lobbies.

The two major opponents of the Roybal- Allard/Wolf amendment are the
politically influential and well-connected National Beer Wholesalers
Association and the San Francisco-based Wine Institute.

Another opponent is the Partnership for a Drug Free America, a
nonprofit organization comprised primarily of advertising
professionals. Many of them work for the very ad firms that produce
the alcohol advertising that the drug czar’s media campaign would
counterbalance, if it included alcohol counter-ads.

The partnership, which was founded on alcohol, tobacco and
pharmaceutical money, provides volunteers to produce the current ads
on illegal drug use by teens. It claims that it would not be
productive to produce a campaign that includes alcohol because alcohol
is “deeply ingrained in our culture” and “alcohol use is widely
glamorized in movies, television and music.” And, the alcohol
industry spends as much as $3 billion a year putting positive alcohol
messages in front of kids’ faces. The partnership’s position mirrors
that of beer companies who hypocritically claim their ads have no
effect on underage drinking. Its position conveniently ignores how
effectively tobacco counter-ads have worked using hard-hitting
messages that expose the tobacco industry and debunk its advertising
images.

It’s predictable that the National Beer Wholesalers Association would
oppose public health efforts to counteract youth-oriented beer ads
that glorify alcohol. Wine ads on the other hand are, for the most
part, responsible and not inviting to children. The Wine Institute’s
opposition is strange and unnecessary.

Alcohol is a leading cause of death among young people. Thirty
percent of twelfth graders report hazardous drinking, and youth who
start drinking before age 15 are four times more likely to become
addicted than those who begin at 21. Every day on average, 11,318
kids try alcohol for the first time, compared with 6,488 for
marijuana; 2,786 for cocaine; and 386 for heroin.

Our children will be the losers if corporate lobbies continue to
undermine efforts to protect their health and safety. Lawmakers
should just say no to special interests and make the well-being of the
next generation their top priority.

The first step should be to pass legislation that allows the war on
teen drug use to combat its biggest enemy — alcohol.

Diana Conti is executive director of The Marin Institute for the
Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in San Rafael.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

I applaud Diana Conti’s expose of the hypocrisy of the war on drugs
(“Drug War Isn’t On Target,” June 8). The leaders of the drug war
rarely focus on alcohol even though it is used and abused more widely
than all illegal drugs put together.

Since Conti displays the insight to see why this is happening, I’m
surprised that she still seems to believe that ads from the
Partnership For a Drug-Free America are the answer to any drug
problems, especially alcohol problems. Far from being an answer, the
PDFA’s scare strategies are counterproductive. The PDFA ads repeatedly
suggest that drugs are everywhere, and if you’re on drugs, you’re lost
and hopeless. The PDFA attempts to further marginalize people who are
already marginalized. Creating ads like that for alcohol will look
particularly absurd to kids who have seen thousands of typical beer
ads: fun-loving, good-looking, sport-playing hipsters living life to
the fullest.

It’s time we take a new approach to drug policy in general. It should
start, as Conti suggests, with a focus on the drugs that do the most
damage, not the ones that do the least damage. After that, maybe we
can try to reduce the hype (both negative and positive) that surrounds
every drug. Anyone who wants a free and truthful America needs to
recognize “drug-free America” as a dangerous illusion.

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.