|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(formerly The Week Online with DRCNet) Issue #357, 10/8/04
"Raising Awareness of the Consequences of Drug Prohibition" Phillip S. Smith, Editor
subscribe for FREE now! ---- make a donation ---- search
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Editorial:
A Tragedy in the Capital
David Borden, Executive Director, [email protected], 10/8/04
But Magbie didn't use the gun on anyone. And now I've learned it wasn't even his. Things went haywire immediately after Magbie entered custody. He wound up getting sent back and forth between the jail and the hospital. His mother was not allowed to bring him his ventilator in jail, for two days. By the time the jail finally agreed to it, it was too late. I don't believe that any of the officials involved in this debacle wanted what happened to happen. Some combination of incompetence and/or overloading of the system and/or poorly crafted regulations or procedures all combined to end Jonathan Magbie's life. But that doesn't mean there's no one to blame. Surely Judge Retchin shares the blame. According to the Washington Post article, she is known for harsh sentences. In a nation with two million prisoners, whose incarceration rate has been criticized by prominent human rights organizations, such an impulse is part of the problem. The attitude that drove her to send a helpless, wheelchair-bound young man, who had hurt no one, to jail, is a barbaric one that our society desperately needs to leave behind. And knowing how dangerous the jails can be, even for the healthy and strong, it was especially reckless. If she didn't understand that, it is to her discredit. Others are to blame too. Why did the hospital send Magbie back to the jail and refuse to take him back? Where did the miscommunications take place in the court and jail? The more basic truth, though, is that gulags breed carelessness and error. It is too late to save Jonathan Magbie -- the decision-makers who needed to do that didn't try hard enough. But this sad episode must not be allowed to go gently into the night. Magbie and his family deserve a full accounting, and a reflection on the sad state of criminal justice in this country is long overdue. Let it start here.
2. Medical Marijuana
Activists Besiege HHS, Demand Rescheduling
Medical marijuana activists from around the country converged on Washington, DC, over the weekend for actions culminating in a demonstration with civil disobedience and 14 arrests at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Organized by Americans for Safe Access, or ASA (http://www.safeaccessnow.org), the Tuesday demonstration followed on the heels of the delivery of a petition demanding that HHS make use of the most accurate scientific information about the medicinal uses of marijuana to reschedule the herb as a substance with recognized medical uses. Chanting "Truth and Evidence, Cannabis is Medicine" and "Schedule I to Schedule III, Cannabis is Helping Me," around one hundred people listened to testimonials from patients before unfurling a 600-foot banner with over 7,000 names of doctors who had signed onto a statement promulgated by the Marijuana Policy Project supporting medical marijuana. Along the border of the banner was repeated the phrase, "Accepted Medical Value."
"We had patients from California, Washington, Oregon, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Maryland, and Rhode Island," said Sherer. "It was beautiful. Only about a hundred patients could make it, but they represent close to 10,000 others organized in patient groups in those states. This is a message to whatever administration is in power come January that we are not going away." What ASA and the patients want is for HHS to adhere to the requirements of the federal Data Quality Act, which mandates that information used and disseminated by government agencies meet standards for "quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information," as the ASA petition notes. Instead of using accurate, up-to-date information about the medical efficacy of marijuana, ASA charged, "HHS repeatedly misstates the scientific evidence and ignores numerous reports and studies demonstrating the medical utility of marijuana and its constituent compounds." ASA has highlighted HHS's 2001 determination that "marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" as violating the Data Quality Act by ignoring numerous studies attesting to the herb's numerous medicinal uses. That determination came as HHS reviewed a 1995 petition to reschedule marijuana, a petition it rejected. ASA and the patients are seeking specific changes in the HHS determination of marijuana's medical uses. Where HHS found that "there have been no studies that have scientifically assessed the efficacy of marijuana for any medical condition," ASA requests that HHS replace this statement with the following statement: "Adequate and well-recognized studies show the efficacy of marijuana in the treatment of nausea, loss of appetite, pain and spasticity." Where HHS found that "it is not clear there is a consensus" regarding the medicinal uses of marijuana, ASA requests that it be replaced with: "There is substantial consensus among experts in the relevant disciplines that marijuana is effective in treating nausea, loss of appetite, pain and spasticity. It is accepted as medicine by qualified experts." And most critically, where HHS holds that marijuana "has no accepted medical use...," ASA asks that that statement be replaced with: "Marijuana has a currently accepted use in treatment in the United States." "HHS has 60 days to respond," said ASA field manager Stacey Swimme. "We expect them to ignore it, but after 60 days we will have the opportunity to take them to court," she told DRCNet. "We want them to change their policy to say they recognize that cannabis does have medical and therapeutic efficacy and that they recommend to the DEA that it reschedule marijuana to Schedule III. The DEA must accept the HHS recommendation," Swimme added. "HHS can recommend to the DEA at any time that it reschedule marijuana," said Swimme. "If they wished, they could create a panel to review the most recent research that indeed shows cannabis is safe and effective. That's what we want them to do."
3. Drug Policy
and the Presidential Election -- Introduction
Drug War Chronicle this week runs a feature overview of drug policy and the presidential election campaigns. We begin with a look at the drug policy records and platforms of major party candidates President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry (https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/357/electionI.shtml), followed by a discussion of drug policy and the presidential election among drug reformers from across the political spectrum (https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/357/electionII.shtml). We then move on to an interview with independent candidate Ralph Nader (https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/357/electionIII.shtml). Finally, we reprint our earlier interview with Libertarian Party nominee Michael Badnarik (https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/357/electionIV.shtml), in order to present the full set of articles all together. We have not covered the Green Party, whose presidential candidate David Cobb has been largely overshadowed by the Nader candidacy, but which also holds progressive positions on drug policy issues. See the Green Party platform on social justice issues at http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/socjustice.html#1001998 online. For the record: DRCNet is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization which does not endorse candidates; and Drug War Chronicle is a reporting venue in which we seek to provide complete and accurate information. The information in this election feature is provided purely for educational purposes, with no electoral agenda, and has been compiled objectively to the best of our ability.
4. Bush and
Kerry on Drugs: Past Records and Platform Planks
As part of a set of articles covering drug policy in the presidential campaign, we here examine the respective records of President George W. Bush and his challenger, Democratic Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. While both independent candidate Ralph Nader and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Badnarik have responded to interview requests, we did not bother to seek interviews with either Kerry or Bush because it seemed too unlikely that either would grant one. And since neither the Kerry nor the Bush campaigns responded to DRCNet requests for comment this week, we will have to rely on their platform positions and their records to examine where they stand on drug policy. When President Bush came to office in January 2001, some drug reformers dared to hope he would be amenable to change, especially given his campaign comments suggesting he would rethink mandatory minimum sentencing and that medical marijuana could perhaps be handled as a states' rights issue. But as president, George W. Bush has reverted to the tough "law and order" politics on which he has based his political career. With a few exceptions, however, President Bush has not radically deepened the war on drugs, but has instead largely adopted the course of his predecessors, both Republican and Democrat. Instead of adopting broad changes, for better or for worse, the Bush administration has tweaked its drug policy to emphasize what it has identified as the issues of the day.
Neither the Bush campaign (http://www.georgewbush.com) nor the Republican Party platform (http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf) have much to say about drug policy, or even criminal justice policy, for that matter. While the Bush campaign sounds a bit soft and fuzzy, with its talk of treatment and compassion, the party platform is hard-edged. After citing the administration's "progress" in reducing teen drug use, the platform warns that to continue this progress, "We must ensure that jail time is used as an effective deterrent to drug use and support the continued funding of grants to assist schools in drug testing." The Bush administration has an actual record in office, while challenger John Kerry's performance must be assessed by examining what he has done in the past. California NORML head Dale Gieringer examined Kerry's voting record in the Senate and found it decidedly mixed:
In the movie "Traffic," the drug czar character played by actor Michael Douglas begged loudly for someone in charge of drug policy to "think outside the box." It appears there is no danger of that happening with either of these candidates.
5. The Election
II: Drug Reformers on Kerry and Bush, Nader and Badnarik
The presidential election is now less than a month away. With the US waging hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the threat of terrorist attacks looming over everything, few issues other than war and terror are getting any play at all. The state of the economy and concerns about the health care system appear to be the primary domestic issues, while drug policy is not even on the radar. The major party candidates have not broached the topic on their own and their challengers on the left and the right who do articulate radically sensible drug policies struggle to be heard. While many argue that the drug reform community skews toward the progressive side of the political spectrum, it is by no means monolithic. In addition to social justice-minded progressives, who presumably are mostly supporting Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry, the movement also contains a healthy measure of libertarians, many though not all of whose natural sympathies lie closer to incumbent President George W. Bush. As usual, the drug reform community faces the questions: Do you support the candidate who best represents your views as a reformer -- presumably Libertarian Gary Badnarik or independent Ralph Nader -- despite knowing neither has a chance of winning? Or are the differences between Bush and Kerry on drug policy sufficient to support one of them instead? This week, DRCNet spoke with a variety of drug reform advocates about drug policy and the presidential campaign. Bear in mind that many of them are constrained by their nonprofit tax status from endorsing a political candidate. Most saw no sign that either Bush or Kerry would break with drug war orthodoxy, but most also saw little reason to vote for third party candidates. Interestingly, the degree of difference people saw between Kerry and Bush on drug policy generally appeared to correlate with their positions on the ideological spectrum. "There is not much difference between Bush and Kerry that I'm aware of," said David Boaz, executive vice-president of the libertarian Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org). "As far as I know, both candidates support drug laws as they are. I certainly haven't heard Kerry criticizing the administration on it." "There is absolutely no difference between them," concurred Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of Reason magazine and a self-described small-L libertarian. "Kerry has always been a drug hawk," he said, pointing to Kerry's choice of former Assistant Secretary of State Rand Beers, a key architect of Plan Columbia, as an example. "Which is not to say that Bush is good. With both Democrats and Republicans, there is a real commitment to keeping control of all aspects of drug policy at the federal level. That's why under both Janet Reno and John Ashcroft you had the Dept. of Justice attacking legal medical marijuana in California and elsewhere." But Janet Reno only sicced the Justice Department's civil division on the medical marijuana movement, while John Ashcroft unleashed a campaign of criminal investigations and arrests, pointed out Dale Gieringer, head of California NORML (http://www.canorml.org). That racheting-up of repression has been typical of the Bush administration's approach, he said. "This is the first time in many years that I can see a discernible difference between the major party candidates regarding marijuana and drug policy," said Gieringer. "Clinton was terrible on drug policy, and Gore never repudiated that. In 2000, Bush made encouraging comments about states' rights and marijuana, but once in office, Bush's record has been as bad as any we've seen. When John Ashcroft raided and closed the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center two weeks after 9/11, I knew this administration was a worse threat to our welfare and safety than Saddam Hussein would ever be. From a drug reform perspective, we could not do worse than Bush," he told DRCNet. "We've seen what the Bush administration considers compassion toward medical marijuana," agreed Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access (http://www.safeaccessnow.org), the California-based medical marijuana defense group. Sherer said that during ASA's conversations with the Kerry campaign, the group had extracted a promise to put a moratorium on raids. "All we can do is see if he lives up to his promise," she said. The Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org) has been reaching out to both parties on drug reform, but DPA's Bill Piper also saw clear differences between Bush and Kerry. "Look at mandatory minimum sentences, medical marijuana, and needle exchange," said Piper. "Kerry has actually voted against mandatory minimums and he has supported greater access to sterile syringes. The Senate hasn't dealt with medical marijuana, but Kerry did sign a letter along with Sen. Kennedy urging the DEA to allow medical marijuana research to go forward at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst." But Kerry's record isn't all sweetness and light, Piper added. "He has a history of talking tough on drugs and crime, and he has been totally supportive of the Latin American drug war. He's been awful on a host of civil liberties issues, but on his voting record and his rhetoric, on drug policy he is clearly better than Bush. How he will govern as president, however, remains to be seen." But even a do-nothing Kerry would be better than Bush, Piper suggested. "Even if Kerry turns out like Bill Clinton, who did nothing of substance on drug policy, the fact that he would not be actively working against us would be helpful. It is hard to imagine that Kerry would appoint such ardent drug warriors and ideologues like John Ashcroft and John Walters." For Keith Stroup, the soon-to-retire long-time head of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (http://www.norml.org), the differences between Bush and Kerry are clear and stark. "Without question, as you can see from the information we have on our web site, it is clear that Bush is the ultimate drug warrior," Stroup argued. "Kerry, on the other hand, has a relatively soft position. He talks about how when he was a prosecutor they would exercise discretion and not prosecute simple marijuana possession cases. I wish he would clearly say he supported medical marijuana, but marijuana smokers will be in much better shape under a Kerry presidency," said Stroup. "Nobody is talking about drug policy so far, and I don't expect it to happen, but Kerry's record does have a few bright spots," said Gieringer. "He has voted against mandatory minimum sentences, he has voted against the death penalty for 'drug kingpins.' I spoke with him, and the one thing he said without any prompting is that there are far too many people in prison for drug offenses and that mandatory minimums have to go. He doesn't say that on the hustings, though." For all the nuanced discussion about drug policy differences between Bush and Kerry, everyone DRCNet spoke with agreed that neither breaks with the prohibitionist paradigm. But candidates who are very strong on drug policy, meaning Libertarian Michael Badnarik and independent Ralph Nader aren't getting much respect in an election that many are calling critical for the nation's future. "Realistically, the next president will be either Bush or Kerry," said Cato's Boaz. "If you are a single issue voter, you probably want to try to determine which of the majors is less bad on this issue. It would be good if the media paid more attention to minor candidates, but as long as election laws are set up to sustain the two party system, the media correctly understand that third parties face an insuperable barrier," he argued. "If you're looking to be a purist," said NORML's Stroup, "Ralph Nader is very clear and good on drug policy, but the problem is that he is just not a serious candidate." Reflecting the anybody-but-Bush attitude rampant in broad swathes of the American polity, Stroup warned that "the impact of voting for Nader may allow Bush to win. If I were just voting on the best marijuana position, it would be either Nader or the Libertarians. But because of the importance of this election and because I think Kerry's position is as supportive as we can expect from a major party candidate, I suspect I will be voting for John Kerry." "The Libertarians, the Greens, and Ralph Nader are all better on all of our issues than either Kerry or Bush," said DPA's Piper. "If they were elected president they probably would follow through on their campaign promises. But they aren't going to win." Still, he argued, minor candidates are worthy of consideration. "The more votes they get, the more helpful for drug policy reform, because they send a message to the major parties." While both Nader and Libertarian nominee Badnarik have strong drug policy platforms, drug reform voters determined to cast a protest vote should note the differences between them, said Reason editor Gillespie. "There are significant differences between their general drug policies," he pointed out. "Badnarik is very much for legalization, while Nader is much more interested in medicalizing drug use. While Nader's position is better than what we have, it's not as good as Badnarik's. If you are going to vote based on the drug issue and you believe human beings have the right to control their own bodies and ingest what they wish, Badnarik is your candidate."
6. The Election
III: DRCNet Interview: Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph
Nader
As part of a package of articles this week covering drug policy in the presidential election campaign, we present an interview with Ralph Nader (http://www.votenader.org), the controversial independent progressive candidate. (He has also won the nomination of the Reform Party, enabling him to get on the ballot in seven states.) Nader has a lengthy history as a consumer advocate, bursting onto the national scene with the 1963 publication of "Unsafe At Any Speed," a devastating account of safety problems with the Chevrolet Corvair. Since then, he has spawned numerous consumer advocacy organizations and authored numerous books, most recently "Crashing the Party," about the Green Party and electoral reform. Nader also ran as the Green Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, garnering 1% of the popular vote in 1996 and 2.75% in the hotly disputed 2000 contest between Democratic Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. While the Greens did not offer Nader the nomination this year, his independent candidacy is consistently polling at between 1% and 2%, and he is on the ballot in at least 26 states at this writing, including some key battleground states. Nader's candidacy is highly
controversial among progressives, including a broad swathe of drug reformers,
who fear that a vote for Nader is a vote for George Bush. We asked
him about that; see below. This interview was conducted by e-mail
over a period of weeks. We received final responses Monday.
7. The Election
IV: DRCNet Interview: Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Party Presidential
Candidate (repeat)
This interview initially ran in Drug War Chronicle two weeks ago, 8/24/04. We are running it again in order to present all of our presidential election-related coverage together. The Libertarian Party (LP) has for years been a staunch advocate of ending drug prohibition, a plank to which it adheres to this day. In the party's current position statement on drug policy, it says bluntly, "Drugs should be legal. Individuals have the right to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies, so long as they take responsibility for their actions." While the LP advocates drug legalization as part of a comprehensive and consistent anti-statist approach -- party planks also include ending welfare programs, protecting gun-owners' rights, opposing foreign wars and the war in Iraq in particular, opposing the Patriot Act and any other infringements on civil liberties and free speech, and opposing government regulations that interfere with free enterprise, such as minimum wages -- it has never caught hold with the voting public. In the last 20 years, the LP presidential candidate has never done better than second among the minority parties or important independents -- typically Nader and/or Greens on the progressive left or the Reform Party on the populist right have come in third, except in 1988, when Ron Paul (now a Republican congressman from Texas) beat out Lenora Fulani and the New Alliance Party. Except for businessman Harry Browne in 1996, no LP presidential candidate has since equaled Paul's showing with 0.5% of the popular vote. Browne, who ran again in 2000, saw his total decline to 0.36%. Carrying the Libertarian
Party banner in this year's election is Michael Badnarik, a computer consultant
and constitutional scholar living in Austin, Texas. Badnarik was
"turned off" from politics and pursuing his professional career until his
study of the Constitution led him to the Libertarian Party, according to
his biography. He ran for the Texas House of Representatives in 2000
and 2002 before successfully claiming the LP presidential nomination earlier
this year. Badnarik answered DRCNet questions via e-mail as he flitted
around the county campaigning this week.
8. Newsbrief:
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Critical Federal Sentencing Cases
The fall-out from the Supreme Court's explosive June ruling in Blakely v. Washington, which threatens to invalidate the 17-year-old federal sentencing structure, came back to the Court Monday as the nine justices heard oral arguments in two cases seeking to apply the Blakely decision to the federal sentencing system. In Blakely, the Supreme Court held that longer prison sentences for criminal defendants must be based on facts found by a jury -- not the presiding judge. But the federal sentencing system does just that: It relies on juries only to find guilt or innocence, but allows judges to increase sentences based on findings of fact never presented to, or even rejected by, the jury. The Monday hearing was an emergency expedited appeal, accepted by the Supreme Court after the federal system fell into chaos in the wake of the Blakely decision. Some federal judges around the country did not wait for the Supreme Court, but instead began using Blakely to hand out lesser sentences. Others handed out dual sentences, one based on Blakely, one not. Others have deferred sentencing until the issue is settled. At immediate issue are the prison sentences of the more than 60,000 people sentenced in the federal courts each year, the majority of them drug offenders. Under the old rules, drug offenders could see their sentences increased if judges found the amount of drugs involved exceeded certain benchmarks. According to the US Sentencing Commission, judges have boosted sentences in that fashion in 44% of all federal cases in 2002. While the justices expressed concern over how juries might handle the complicated fact-finding necessary to impose sentences and how the federal justice system could re-jigger itself to fit with Blakely, observers believe the Supreme Court will indeed rule the current federal sentencing system unconstitutional. "It seems almost a certainty that Blakely will be applied to the federal guidelines," Douglas Berman, a professor of law at Ohio State University told the Wall Street Journal. "There was nothing said that suggested that any of the justices in the Blakely majority thought otherwise." "The guidelines as we know them are very likely to be found unconstitutional," agreed Frank Bowman, an Indiana University law professor who testified in Congress about the sentencing dilemma. "The big question is what they do about that, whether or not the guidelines have to be struck down completely, whether they can be applied in part, whether they become advisory." "Major change is coming one way or another," said Ron Weich, a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "There is enough opinion that the system is broken... there will be major reform. A very salutary effect of Blakely has been to air a lot of frustrations with the system that has now burst into public view."
9. Newsbrief:
Needle Exchange Bill Passes New Jersey Assembly
Needle exchange finally appears to be on the fast track in New Jersey. Just weeks after departing Gov. Scott McGreevey signaled his approval of needle exchange program (NEP) legislation, a bill that would permit Garden State cities to operate such programs has been approved by two committees and was passed by New Jersey Assembly in a Thursday afternoon vote. It picked up $10 million in funding for drug treatment earlier in the week when it was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. "Needle exchange programs have been proven to be an effective deterrent to the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases," Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Roberts (D-Camden), who cosponsored the measure, told his colleagues. "New Jersey is alarmingly behind the curve of the vast majority of other states that have looked at the data and embraced needle-exchange strategies." Along with neighboring Delaware, New Jersey is one of only two states that neither have NEPS nor allow for the sale of syringes without a prescription. The issue of NEPs has been festering for years in New Jersey, ever since then-Gov. Christine Whitman blocked legislation in the early 1990s. It finally came to a head earlier this year when the municipalities of Atlantic City and Camden voted to authorize NEPs in defiance of local prosecutors and the state attorney general, who successfully argued state law did not authorize such programs. But it was the impending departure of Gov. McGreevey under a cloud of scandal that cleared the way. Without reelection worries, a McGreevey spokesperson told DRCNet last month, the governor could concentrate on "good policy, not good politics." Now, it is on to the New Jersey Senate. To read the bill, A3256, "The Bloodborne Disease Harm Reduction Act" online, go to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us and type in the bill number.
10. Newsbrief:
Protests Rise over Award as Thai Prime Minister Prepares for New Round
of Drug War
Led by the human rights advocacy group Human Rights Watch, more than 50 organizations have called for Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to be stripped of the "International Forgiveness Award" granted in September by an Italian group, the Istituzione Perdonanza Celestiniana. The Italian group granted Thaksin the award in recognition of the Thai government's official position that drug users are "patients, not criminals." But while Thaksin talks the talk, he doesn't walk the walk. Last year, Thaksin presided over a murderous four-month campaign to suppress drug use in Thailand, resulting in the killings of at least 2,275 drug suspects, according to human rights observers. While official ire was directed at drug traffickers, drug users have been among the victims. They have also reported beatings, arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention at the hands of Royal Thai Police, according to Human Rights Watch and local human rights organizations. Some have been forced to sign false confessions, while others have dropped out of treatment programs or gone into hiding out of fear of arrest of murder. And last weekend, Thaksin was at it again, promising a new round in the anti-drug campaign that was supposed to make Thailand "drug free" by the end of last year. The next round would feature "brutal measures" against drug traffickers, the prime minister said Sunday. "Drug traffickers and dealers are heartless and wicked. All of them must be sent to meet the guardian of hell, so there will not be any drugs in the country." "These latest developments mark a new low in Thai drug policy," said Brad Adams, executive director of the Human Rights Watch Asia Division. "Thaksin's approach to drug addiction merits disgust and condemnation, not forgiveness." Thaksin has consistently resorted to violent rhetoric to stoke the war against drug users and traffickers. Just before last year's orgy of violence, Thaksin said, "Because drug traders are ruthless to our children, so being ruthless back to them is not a bad thing." Wan Muhamad Nor Matha, the interior minister at the time, said of drug traffickers, "They will be put behind bars or even vanish without a trace. Who cares? They are destroying our country." In August 2003, Thaksin ordered a "shoot to kill" policy against people suspected of smuggling methamphetamines into Thailand from neighboring Burma. Thai Prime Minister Thaksin sounds like a man who needs forgiveness, not a mean to be awarded a prize for forgiving drug users or dealers. Read the letter of protest to the Istituzione Perdonanza Celestiniana and see the list of signatories at http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/04/thaila9441.htm online. For more information on human rights in Thailand, visit http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=thaila online. For more information on HIV/AIDS and human rights, visit http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=hivaids&document_limit=0,2 online.
11. Newsbrief:
Bolivia's Chapare Cocaleros Sign Historic Agreement with Government
At a Sunday meeting, representatives of the Bolivian government and coca growers (cocaleros) in the Chapare region signed an agreement permitting approximately 8,000 acres (3,200 hectares) of coca to be grown in the region this year. According to a report from the Andean Information Network (http://www.ain.org.bo), cocaleros in exchange agreed to voluntarily eradicate another 7,500 acres by the end of the year. Cocaleros also accepted coca eradication in two national parks in the area. The accord comes after weeks of rising tensions in the zone that have left at least one cocalero dead and 30 wounded, along with at least seven wounded among Bolivian security forces, AIN reported. After nearly a year of quiet in the Chapare, conflict arose anew when cocaleros clashed with the Joint Task Force, the Bolivian government's combined police-military eradication unit. At a September 12 meeting, cocaleros voted to renew vigils around eradication camps and coca fields slated for eradication in an effort to block further destruction of their crops. The Sunday accord should at least temporarily put a damper on further conflict in the Chapare. In the agreement, cocaleros agreed to end their vigils and work with the Joint Task Force to eliminate crops whose eradication has been agreed upon. In return, in addition to being allowed to grow coca this year, cocaleros won concessions from the government to improve alternative development programs and an agreement that a study of legal coca markets will be carried out within a year and will be used to determine future coca policy. According to AIN, the agreement represents a "dramatic departure" from the "zero coca" option of totally suppressing production in the Chapare. AIN credits not only cocaleros and the Bolivian government, but also the US government, which has historically placed coca eradication at the crown of its Bolivia policy. The US Embassy did not reject the accord outright, instead emphasizing its eradication component, AIN noted approvingly: "This more strategic stance is in stark contrast to past blanket opposition to permitted coca production in the Chapare region, which had generated escalating levels of recurring conflict."
12. Newsbrief:
DEA Pulls Prescription Pain Medicine FAQs Without Explanation
In a so-far unexplained move, the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Diversion Control Program has removed a set of frequently asked questions and responses designed to ease doctors' fears of persecution by the agency for prescribing opioid pain relievers (https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/350/guidelines.shtml). In a quiet notice posted Wednesday, the agency announced that "the document contained misstatements and has therefore been removed from the DEA web site." It is unclear what the DEA found wrong with the FAQ list. The FAQ, which was released in August, was a consensus statement produced by experts from the DEA, the University of Wisconsin Pain and Policy Studies Group, and Last Acts (http://www.lastacts.org), a national coalition of consumer and professional organizations working to improve end-of-life care through the use of palliative medicine and pain management techniques. The document was controversial within the pain activist community, some advocates from which felt it would further entrench a system in which law enforcers rather than doctors set medical standards. That debate may now be moot. In its brief, terse statement, the agency said, "DEA wishes to emphasize that the document was not approved as an official statement of the agency and did not and does not have the force and effect of law." Does this mean the DEA thinks it was too easy on physicians or too harsh? We don't know, but we will inquire and report next week.
13. Newsbrief:
Hemp Crops in Western Australia Stymied By Licensing Requirements
Since March, it has been legal to grow industrial hemp in the Australian state of Western Australia. The state's Industrial Hemp Act came into effect on March 19 (https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/330/westernau.shtml), but no one is growing hemp because state authorities are refusing to grant licenses to potential hemp growers who have cannabis-related criminal records, the Perth Sunday Times reported this week. The six-month-old law allows for the cultivation and processing of industrial hemp with a THC level of less than 0.35%. The low THC level mandate will guarantee that no one will enjoy psychoactive effects by ingesting the hemp in any manner. According to the Sunday Times, Perth businessman Kim Hough, the proprietor of Hemp Resources, was poised to begin industrial hemp production, but his plans were halted when the Department of Agriculture rejected Hemp Resources' license application. Registrar of Hemp Mark Holland told the newspaper the application was rejected because two of Hemp Resources' directors and an associate had criminal convictions. Under the Industrial Hemp Act, applicants with "serious" drug offenses cannot be granted a license. The convictions of the Hemp Resources people were "minor cannabis-related offenses," the Sunday Times reported. But Holland did not use the "serious" drug offense clause; instead, he rejected the application because Houghton and his crew "are not of good character and repute." "The opportunities for misuse of that license (by Hemp Resources) are obvious," Holland wrote in rejecting the application. "Its grant would provide a cover for a person seeking to grow and sell cannabis, other than industrial hemp." But, as Hough pointed out to the Sunday Times, Holland was merely displaying his lack of knowledge about cannabis. "Hemp and cannabis don't grow together like that. If there are any marijuana growers in the region, they're not going to like us because we'll be pollinating their plants with very low-THC hemp pollen which will ruin their cannabis crops." Hough should know. He has admitted growing cannabis -- both the hemp and the recreational cultivars -- which, along with the cannabis offenses, make him suspect in the eyes of the Registrar of Hemp. Ironically, people like Hough, who because of their interest in cannabis have propelled the legalization of industrial hemp and know the most about cultivating industrial hemp, are being shut out. Hough said it was absurd to let minor pot convictions block a legitimate, potentially profitable business. "We're putting together one of the most important agricultural projects in this state's history and we've been crippled," he said. "We can take it elsewhere, but it will cost this state millions of dollars in export earnings, revenue and jobs." The Registrar of Hemp reported that he has granted only two licenses -- both to the Department of Agriculture for research purposes. When the hemp bill passed in March, Western Australian Green Party legislator Christine Sharpe told DRCNet passing the bill was only the beginning; that without government support, the industry would never get off the ground. At this point, it appears that the government of Western Australia is more interesting in obstructing than supporting the potential agricultural goldmine.
14. Newsbrief:
Atlanta Cops Use Forfeited Funds to Buy Bigger Guns
It's Christmas in October for the Atlanta Police Department. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the department is spending more than $545,000 in funds seized from drug suspects to replace its long-time workhorse pistol, the 9mm Smith & Wesson, with the more deadly 40-caliber Smith & Wesson. The Atlanta police, along with the Gwinnett and DeKalb County sheriff's departments are among the last police forces in Georgia to switch to the 40-caliber weapon, the newspaper reported. The department is switching to the new weapon because it kills better. The "heavier bullet" in the 40-caliber "tends to penetrate deeper into the body to impact the organs deep in the body. This whole thing is about terminal ballistics," state firearms trainer Ernie Tobin told the Journal-Constitution. But, he added, there was "nothing wrong" with the old 9mm, calling it "an adequate pistol." Atlanta police don't see that much combat. According to the department, the force's 1,530 officers discharged their weapons a total of 34 times lat year, including seven incidents where people were shot. During that same period, 17 officers were either "shot or shot at," police said. The cops were happy with their new toys, said Lt. Judy Smith, an assistant zone commander. "We hope [the equipment upgrade] will really help morale," Smith said, quickly noting that new equipment almost always provides a boost in job attitude. But for some Atlanta police, it was a case of "give 'em a new gun and they want an armored personnel carrier." Bud Watson, head of the Police Benevolent Association, told the newspaper the new guns were "a step in the right direction." But the department shouldn't stop there, Watson said. The police union would also like "some other equipment upgrades. I think certain units need more sophisticated, more appropriate weapons to perform their jobs. SWAT, fugitive and narcotics units would be safer."
15. Newsbrief:
No Asset Forfeiture for Misdemeanor Drug Charges, Tennessee Says
For years, Tennessee law enforcement officers routinely seized the vehicles and other property of people possessing even small amounts of drugs. But a July 9 opinion by Attorney General Paul Summers has put a stop to that practice, and the law enforcement establishment is grumbling, the Knoxville News-Sentinel reported. In his July opinion, Summers found that "the mere presence of a misdemeanor amount of a controlled substance cannot trigger the seizure of a vehicle," nor can a forfeiture action start with "simple possession of a small amount of drugs or drug paraphernalia." That opinion prompted Joe Bartlett, the attorney who runs the asset forfeiture program for the state Department of Safety, to complain to the News-Sentinel that it would cause an increase in low-level drug use. "I think we're going the wrong way," Bartlett said. "You're going to see a lot more use of misdemeanor amounts because their property won't be at risk." While some big city police departments said the ban on seizing vehicles for misdemeanor drug cases would not make much difference because most of their seizures came in felony cases, one small town law man said the move would result in lesser drug fund revenues for small departments. "That's going to definitely cut into it quite a bit," said Alcoa Assistant Police Chief Ken Beeler. One defense attorney contacted by the News-Sentinel said he feared law enforcement would try to get around the ban by charging people with felonies when they previously would have charged them with misdemeanors. "They could charge it as a felony and let everyone sort it out when they get to court," Ken Irvine said. But by then, he added, the property could have already been forfeited in a civil procedure.
16. Newsbrief:
Texas DA Says Doctors Must Turn In Drug-Using Pregnant Women
Citing a Texas statute passed last year that classifies fetuses as individuals, one Texas district attorney is threatening to prosecute doctors if they fail to tell authorities about illegal drug use by pregnant women. Rebecca King, district attorney for Potter and Armstrong counties in the Texas panhandle, sent a letter to Potter County physicians in September 2003, just after the law passed, warning them that they must "report a pregnant woman who is using or has used illegal narcotics during her pregnancy," according to the Dallas Morning News. She told the Morning News last week that she would prosecute doctors who failed to rat out their patients. King has already prosecuted two pregnant women under the law, she said. But health care providers, women's rights groups, and even the anti-abortion group that pushed for the legislation and the legislator who sponsored it say King's interpretation of the law is not just wrong but also potentially damaging. State Sen. Ray Allen (R-Grand Prairie), the author of the bill, has asked Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for an opinion clarifying the law's intent. That opinion is expected in January. Dr. Moss Hampton, an Amarillo obstetrician and gynecologist who has practiced for 20 years, told the Morning News King's stance threatens the doctor-patient relationship. "I think it's a sticky wicket and it puts us in a very precarious position," said Moss, a member of the Texas Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' executive council. "In confidentiality the patient tells us a lot of things they expect us not to tell anyone else. It puts a little more distrust into the system." But King argued that laws protecting doctor-patient confidentiality must yield to the imperatives of protecting unborn children. "You don't have a privacy act when you break the law. I'm doing this because I believe the law mandates it," she said. "When you enlist secret police then you are intentionally, deliberately and devastatingly undermining the very relationship needed to produce healthy children," said attorney Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org). "This interpretation of the law demonstrates absolute disregard for maternal and fetal health by frightening women away from getting the health care they need during pregnancy." King scoffed at that argument. "It is a minimal percentage of women who have any prenatal care who we are looking at here," she said. But the Texas Medical Association is among the organizations asking Attorney General Abbott to support Sen. Allen's contention that King is overreaching. So is Texas Right to Life, the state's largest anti-abortion organization. "Her interpretation is incomplete and erroneous," spokeswoman Stacey Emick told the Morning News. "When legislators work hard to spell something out, it's surprising to see someone take that and not accurately interpret the law."
17. Newsbrief:
Another Killer Cop Walks Free
Former Louisville police detective McKenzie Mattingly, 31, was acquitted of murder charges in the January 3rd killing of black Louisville teenager Michael Newby. Working an undercover drug buy operation, Mattingly shot Newby, 19, three times in the back as Newby attempted to flee after the pair scuffled. Newby was the seventh black man killed by police since 1998, and protests over his death led to violent clashes between police and demonstrators five days after he was shot. Detective Mattingly became the first police officer charged in any of those killings. Louisville Police Chief Robert White also fired Mattingly from the force, charging that he had violated departmental policies in the killing. During the trial, Mattingly testified that he feared for his life after he and Newby struggled over his service weapon and that he thought he had been shot. He hadn't. Witnesses agreed that Mattingly and Newby had scuffled and that Newby was trying to flee when he was shot. Newby was found to be carrying a pistol after he was shot, but according to police testimony, neither Mattingly nor his partner, Detective Matthew Thomerson, knew Newby was armed when Mattingly shot him. Thomerson testified that "at no point did I see a weapon or see him (Newby) make an aggressive movement other than when he was down on the ground and probably [sic] already been shot." Louisville prosecutors undercut their own case by telling the jury during closing arguments that it should not find Mattingly guilty of murder, but instead convict him of a lesser charge, begging the question of why Commonwealth's Attorney David Stengel charged Mattingly with murder if he did not intend to seek a conviction. "I do not think that is what he is guilty of," assistant prosecutor Scott Davis told the jury. After eight hours of deliberations, jurors returned with a partial verdict of not guilty on the murder charge and hopelessly deadlocked on a lesser charge of wanton endangerment. Prosecutors have not announced whether they will seek a retrial on that count. Newby's shooting sparked weeks of protests in Louisville, many led by the Rev. Louis Coleman, a civil rights activist who has led protests over the killing of other black men by police in the city. "It's business as usual," Coleman told the Louiville Courier-Journal. "The message is clear. The police can act with impunity," Newby friend Philip Bailey, a university student, told the newspaper after the verdict was announced. "There are murderers out here," said Newby's stepfather, Jerry Bouggess, as he left the courthouse. See our earlier coverage at: https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/319/threeshots.shtml 18. Newsbrief:
This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories
Drug prohibition-related law enforcement corruption continues apace. This week's cases range from the silly to the subversive, with "good cops gone bad" breaking out all over the place. Without further ado: * When a cop smokes dope, that's not necessarily corruption, just hypocrisy. When he smokes dope in the office, that's not necessarily corruption, either, just stupidity. But when he sits in his office and smokes dope that he stole from his own evidence room, that's hypocrisy, stupidity, and corruption. And that's what Weatherly, Pennsylvania, Police Chief Brian Cara found himself contemplating Wednesday. Cara was freed on his own recognizance, after being charged with possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, obstruction of justice, and attempted obstruction of justice. According to prosecutors quoted by the Associated Press, a grand jury had been hearing evidence for more than a year about strange goings-on with Chief Cara. Police officers reported that sealed evidence envelopes containing cocaine had been opened and resealed, with the cocaine having mysteriously disappeared. Two of Cara's officers told the grand jury Cara told them missing drugs could have exploded while inside the evidence locker. Police officers also reported smelling marijuana smoke inside the police department on numerous occasions, and that drugs and paraphernalia missing from the evidence locker had been spotted in Cara's desk. In August, state drug agents installed a hidden video camera. They watched Cara smoke pot on duty nine times in one day and on numerous other occasions on succeeding days. The camera recorded Cara filling a pipe with marijuana and sticking it in his breast pocket before going out on control. When they raided Cara's office on August 4, they found his pipe and stash. Dude, you are so busted! * Two Newark, New Jersey, police officers were indicted October 1 in an ongoing investigation of corruption in the Newark Police Department. They are among six Newark cops named last week by a fellow officer as he pleaded guilty to working with them over a two-year period to enrich themselves by stealing from alleged drug dealers, the New York Times reported. Officers Lawrence Furlow, 44, and Darius Smith, 33, face numerous charges of conspiracy, official misconduct, and theft. Furlow faces 25 years in prison, while Smith faces 30 years. Both have been suspended from the force. They were named by former officer Tyrone Dudley during his guilty plea September 23. Dudley told the court Furlow, Smith, and other officers robbed drug dealers, planted drugs on innocent parties, lied to obtain search warrants, and lied in official reports to cover up their thefts. The activity took place from December 2002 to March 2004. Such thefts under official color took place at least a dozen times, prosecutors said. In one case detailed by Dudley, the thieving cops went to a Newark apartment building where they knew a drug seller was in business. They grabbed a man who knew the drug dealer, planted heroin on him, then threatened to arrest him if he did not help them get into the dealer's apartment, investigators said. When the dealer opened his door, the cops rushed in and seized money and drugs, which they did not report. They later claimed they had probable cause to enter the apartment because they had seen drugs in plain view when the dealer opened the door. Two drug cases have been dropped so far because of the scandal, said Essex County prosecutors, and more could follow. * A Tennessee drug task force member was arrested October 1 and charged with felony theft after being accused of ripping off task force funds. Cpl. Jeff Tabor of the Sullivan County Sheriff's Department and the 2nd Judicial Drug Task Force had admitted to taking $888.61 out of the task force drug buy fund for personal use, the Johnson City Press reported. He approached his superiors in a bid to pay back the money, but instead was suspended in September and then arrested and charged last week. * In Baltimore, two detectives were suspended and placed under departmental investigation for perjury after searching a suspect's car without a search warrant and lying about when they obtained one. Detectives Clarence Grear and Kevin Jones were suspended August 20, after a complaint by Antoine Collins, whose car was searched. In a report written the day after the search, Grear wrote that the car was searched on July 20, after a warrant had been procured. But the Baltimore Sun investigated and found the car had been towed by police the day before and searched immediately. Baltimore prosecutors have dismissed some cases where Grear and Jones are key witnesses and are postponing others in an effort to find other witnesses who could salvage the prosecutions. If the investigation shows that Grear and Jones are lying about the search warrant, their credibility in every case in which they have been involved will be challenged, defense attorneys and prosecutors told the Sun.
19. This Week
in History
October 8, 1932: The Uniform State Narcotics Act is passed, endorsed by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics as an alternative to Federal laws. By 1937 every State prohibits marijuana use. October 12, 1984: The passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act establishes the first Federal "mandatory minimum" sentencing guidelines, eliminating most judicial discretion in handing down prison terms. Over the following two years drug sentences increase by 71% nationwide. October 13, 1999: In a series of raids named "Operation Millennium," law enforcement in Mexico, Colombia, and Ecuador arrest 31 persons for drug trafficking, including Fabio Ochoa. Ochoa is indicted in a Ft. Lauderdale court for importing cocaine into the US, which requests his extradition in December. October 13, 1999: New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is quoted in the Boston Globe saying, "Make drugs a controlled substance like alcohol. Legalize it, control it, regulate it, tax it. If you legalize it, we might actually have a healthier society." October 14, 1970: President Nixon spearheads the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), legislation establishing today's "schedules" as a means of classifying drugs by their medical value and potential for abuse. October 14, 2003: At Emory University Law School, former President Jimmy Carter says, "All three of my boys smoked pot. I knew it. But I also knew if one was caught he would never go to prison. But if any of my [black] neighbors got caught, they would go to prison for ten, twelve years. No law school has had the temerity to look at what is fundamentally wrong with our legal system, which discriminates against the poor."
20. Administrative
Assistant: Part-Time Job Opportunity at DRCNet
DRCNet is seeking a part-time Administrative Assistant to work with the Executive and Associate Directors and the Member Coordinator. The Administrative Assistant will assist with all manner of clerical and administrative tasks. Applicants should be experienced in using e-mail, Microsoft Word and Excel, filing, and other typical office duties, and must have a high level of accuracy and attention to detail. The ability to deal competently on the phone on issues such as billing and ordering of supplies and other items is a plus, as is enthusiasm for the cause of drug policy reform. Applicants should be able to work in the office 10-20 hours per week, between the hours of 10:00am and 6:00pm, preferably including some hours on all or most weekdays. Within those constraints, we will show flexibility and work with the right applicant to find a mutually workable schedule. College students are encouraged to apply. The job will last from now through the end of the year, and is likely to be renewed in 2005 as well. Starting pay is $10/hour, negotiable for the right candidate. To apply, please send a cover letter and resume via e-mail, fax, or mail to: David Guard, Associate Director, DRCNet, 1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20009, fax: (202) 293-8344, e-mail: [email protected].
21. The Reformer's
Calendar
October 8, 9:00am-1:00pm or 2:00-6:00pm, Chicago, IL, Harm Reduction in Violent Relationships, presented by the Chicago Harm Reduction Training Collaborative. Registration $30, discounts available for multiple event signups. At the Bridgeview Bank Building, 4753 N. Broadway, contact Shira Hassan at (773) 728-0127 or visit http://www.anypositivechange.org for further information.
October 14-15, 8:00am, Cordoba, Argentina, "Sixth National Harm Reduction and Drug Policy Days." Sponsored by the Argentine Harm Reduction Association (ARDA), at the Auditoria de Radio Nacional, Av. General Paz 293. For further information, e-mail [email protected].
October 15, 9:00am-1:00pm, Chicago, IL, Harm Reduction 101, presented by the Chicago Harm Reduction Training Collaborative. Registration $30, discounts available for multiple event signups. At the Bridgeview Bank Building, 4753 N. Broadway, contact Shira Hassan at (773) 728-0127 or visit http://www.anypositivechange.org for further information.
October 15, 2:00-6:00pm, Chicago, IL, Harm Reduction 102, presented by the Chicago Harm Reduction Training Collaborative. Registration $30, discounts available for multiple event signups. At the Bridgeview Bank Building, 4753 N. Broadway, contact Shira Hassan at (773) 728-0127 or visit http://www.anypositivechange.org for further information.
October 17, 2:00pm, Atlanta, GA, Benefit for Georgians Opposed to Prohibition, featuring music, speakers, food, more. At SWITCH International Artist Guild, 845 Memorial Drive, admission $10, call (404) 522-2267 or visit http://www.goplobby.org for info.
October 19, 6:30-9:30pm, Washington, DC, PreventionWorks! 6th Anniversary Celebration/Fundraiser supporting harm reduction in the capital. At HR57, 1610 14th St. NW, contact (202) 588-5580 or [email protected] or visit http://www.preventionworksdc.org for further information.
October 21, 9:00pm-4:00am, New York, NY, book party for "Under the Influence: The Disinformation Guide to Drugs," edited by Preston Peet of DrugWar.com. At Uncle Ming's, 225 Avenue B, 2nd Floor (between 13th and 14th Sts.), featuring music by Peet and DJ Ness, admission free. Visit http://www.drugwar.com/utireleaseparty.shtm for further information.
October 23, 10:00am-2:00pm, New Haven, CT, "The War on Drugs: Changing Policies?" Panel and debate, sponsored by People Against Injustice. At New Haven Public Library, Community Room, 133 Elm Street, contact Barbara Fair at (203) 503-3290 or e-mail [email protected] for further information.
October 23, 2:00-10:00pm, Atlanta, GA, "The 11th Annual Great Atlanta Pot Festival", cannabis reform event sponsored by the Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition. At Piedmont Park, for further information visit http://www.worldcamp.org or contact (404) 522-2267 or [email protected].
October 26, 7:00pm, Burlington, VT, Forum with the Vermont Cannabis Coalition, with Peter Christ of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. At the Unitarian Universalist Society of Burlington, 162 Pearl St., visit http://www.VtCannabisCoalition.org or call (802) 496-2387 for further information.
October 29, 2:00-6:00pm, Chicago, IL, Harm Reduction and the Sex Trade, presented by the Chicago Harm Reduction Training Collaborative. Registration $30, discounts available for multiple event signups. At the Bridgeview Bank Building, 4753 N. Broadway, contact Shira Hassan at (773) 728-0127 or visit http://www.anypositivechange.org for further information.
November 5, 9:00am-1:00pm, Chicago, IL, Safer Injection, presented by the Chicago Harm Reduction Training Collaborative. Registration $30, discounts available for multiple event signups. At the Bridgeview Bank Building, 4753 N. Broadway, contact Shira Hassan at (773) 728-0127 or visit http://www.anypositivechange.org for further information.
November 5, 2:00-6:00pm, Chicago, IL, Legal Rights, presented by the Chicago Harm Reduction Training Collaborative. Registration $30, discounts available for multiple event signups. At the Bridgeview Bank Building, 4753 N. Broadway, contact Shira Hassan at (773) 728-0127 or visit http://www.anypositivechange.org for further information.
November 11-14, New Orleans, LA, "Working Under Fire: Drug User Health and Justice 2004," 5th National Harm Reduction Conference. Sponsored by the Harm Reduction Coalition, at the New Orleans Astor Crowne Plaza, contact Paula Santiago at (212) 213-6376 x15 or visit http://www.harmreduction.org/conference/5thnatlconf.pdf for further information.
November 18-21, College Park, MD, Students for Sensible Drug Policy national conference. Details to be announced, visit http://www.ssdp.org to check for updates.
November 27, Portland, OR, "Oregon Medical Cannabis Awards 2004," Seminar & Trade Show 10:00am-4:00pm, Awards Banquet & Entertainment 6:30-10:00pm. At the Red Lion Hotel, Portland Convention Center, sponsored by Oregon NORML, visit http://www.ornorml.org or contact (503) 239-6110 or [email protected] for further information.
December 3, full day, Chicago, IL, Opiate Overdose Intervention, presented by the Chicago Harm Reduction Training Collaborative. Registration $30, discounts available for multiple event signups. At the Bridgeview Bank Building, 4753 N. Broadway, contact Shira Hassan at (773) 728-0127 or visit http://www.anypositivechange.org for further information.
March 10-12, 2005, Silver Spring, MD, Families Against Mandatory Minimums National Conference. Details to be announced, visit http://www.famm.org or contact (202) 822-6700 or [email protected] for updates.
April 30, 2005 (date tentative), 11:00am-3:00pm, Washington, DC, "America's in Pain!" 2nd Annual National Pain Rally. At the US Capitol Reflecting Pool, visit http://www.AmericanPainInstitute.org for further information.
If you like what you see here
and want to get these bulletins by e-mail, please fill out our quick
signup form at https://stopthedrugwar.org/WOLSignup.shtml.
PERMISSION to reprint or
redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle is hereby
granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and,
where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your
publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks
payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for
materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we
request notification for our records, including physical copies where
material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network,
P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202)
293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank
you.
Articles of a purely
educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet
Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
