(visit last week's Week Online)

or check out The Week Online archives

1. SWEEP!!!

Election Day 1998 turned into a stunning sweep for advocates of drug policy reform as voters in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and Washington, DC rejected the extremist rhetoric of national officials.  While many of the newly passed laws still face uncertain futures in the face of federal law and congressional disapproval, the impact of the votes is sure to be dramatic.

In Oregon, a medical marijuana initiative passed while a bill which would have enhanced penalties for personal possession of marijuana was soundly defeated.  In Alaska and Washington State, medical marijuana initiatives won handily.  In Nevada, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana.  That amendment will be on the ballot again in 2000 as voters must approve constitutional measures in consecutive elections.  In Colorado, an on-again off-again initiative was ruled invalid by a state appeals court just days before the election, after two disputed counts by the Secretary of State's office found petition signatures insufficient to qualify for the ballot (see below); but voters registered their support nonetheless, giving the initiative nearly 60% of the vote.  The following several articles discuss some of the more complex votes and situations surrounding this year's drug policy votes, and additional info is available on our web site at http://www.drcnet.org/election98/.
 

2. District of Columbia:  Silencing the Voice of the Voters

In Washington, DC, a last-minute addition to the DC Appropriations Bill, submitted by Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), forbade the use of district monies for the certification, not the counting, as erroneously reported in the Washington Post this week, of the medical marijuana vote.  The initiative was a grass-roots effort with strong backing and support by ACTUP DC and the Marijuana Policy Project.

On Tuesday (Election Day) the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics issued a release which said that "under pressure and mandate from Congress," they would not release the results of the vote on I-59.  "While the votes on Initiative Measure 59 will be counted," it said, "the Board has been instructed by Congress that the DC Appropriations Act, 1999, prevents the Board from making the results of the tabulation available to the public."

Ken McGhie, Counsel to the Board, told The Week Online, "Over the past week, there have been concerns, expressed by the Congress, as to whether or not the Board could count and announce the results in light of the Barr Amendment.  The Board and the Corporation Council decided that they could justify counting the ballots, since they were already printed with I-59 on them among the other races, and the computer was already programmed to count everything on the ballot.  But we were concerned that announcing the result would be viewed as an attempt to defy the will of Congress.  We felt it would be more prudent to wait for some direction from the court."

The Board, McGhie said, would file a motion for declaratory judgement later this week, along with a request for expedited consideration.

When asked if he knew of any precedent for the results of an American election being kept from the people on orders from the Congress, McGhie siad "none that I've been able to find."

The ACLU announced that in addition to the lawsuit filed this week to get the results of the election certified, they would be filing a Freedom of Information Act request to get the results of the election released to the public.

Exit polling, conducted by Americans for Medical Rights, found that 69% of voters cast ballots in favor of the initiative.

Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU, National Capital District, told The Week Online that the ACLU had already filed suit to force the certification of the vote on First Amendment grounds.  "Our position is that while the Constitution puts the District under Congressional control, and the Congress could, for example, tell the district that they cannot use voter initiatives at all, they cannot pick and choose which are okay and which are not.  The Barr amendment said that District monies could not be used for an initiative which would lower penalties for marijuana, but it doesn't say, for example, that the district cannot certify an initiative to increase penalties for marijuana.  That's like saying, 'you can vote for a Republican, but not a Democrat.'  Congress cannot pass laws, in the District or anywhere else, that violate the First Amendment."

On the day after the election, the ACLU also filed a Freedom of Information Act request to have the results of the vote released to the public.  "There are several statutory defenses to such a request, for instance the government is not required to release personal files, or details of an ongoing criminal investigation," Spitzer said.  "But we are confident that the results of a public election will not fit under any of those exceptions.  Assuming that is so, they have ten days to release the information.  But we have also reminded them that they are free to release the information sooner, and we're hoping that they will do so."

Alice Miller of the DC Board of Elections and Ethics told The Week Online, "We were stuck between a rock and a hard place, to tell you the truth.  On the one hand, it's the Board's responsibility to announce and certify the results of elections, but on the other, there was the Barr amendment, which seemed to override that responsibility.  Right now, we're just waiting for some direction from the federal court as to what we should do."
 

3. Arizona:  Restoring the Will of the Voters

In Arizona, voters reinstated a proposition that was gutted by the legislature after it was first approved at the ballot box in 1996.  Originally Proposition 200, the initiative gave physicians the right to prescribe any drug, as long as they could show a second opinion and some medical evidence that it would benefit patients.  Prop. 200 also eliminated jail sentences for persons convicted of first-time non-violent drug offenses.

After the legislature gutted the new law, The People Have Spoken, a group dedicated to preserving the reforms that Arizonans had voted for, gathered over 200,000 signatures to put the legislature's changes on the ballot in '98.  These changes to Prop. 200 were rejected this week, thus restoring the broadest reform measure in the nation to its original terms.  A companion initiative, 105, was also passed this week.  Prop. 105 mandates that the legislature now needs a 3/4 majority in order to make changes to voter-approved initiatives.
 

4. Colorado:  Ballot Status Uncertain, Voters Certain

A state court ruling just days before the election eliminated Colorado's medical marijuana initiative from the ballot.  However, as the ballots had already been printed, many voters pulled the lever anyway.  CBS News reported on election night that 59% of voters approved the measure, although the issue was locked out in certain districts, thereby making an official count impossible.

There is an ongoing appeal in Colorado regarding alleged mismanagement of both signature counts by the Secretary of State, leading to the disqualification of the initiative.  If proponents can show that the measure was wrongfully disqualified, it would then automatically be placed on the ballot in 2000, and it's possible that damages could be awarded.  The Week Online will keep you up to date as this story progresses.
 

5. Oregon Perspective

Bear Wilner

The election of 1996 was the most important in the history of US drug policy reform to date. We must continue to give credit to the tremendously revitalizing impact of the passages of California's Proposition 215 and Arizona's Proposition 200.  Yes, they built on decades of activism and countless hours of hard work, but their demonstration of massive popular support for change was what dealt the deathblow to so many years of Drug War status quo.

Still, hard beset as they were by federal and state officials hostile to any weakening of the prohibitionist edifice, California's and Arizona's new situations were close to succumbing in recent months.  Now, with the universal ballot-box victory of the reform legislative positions that were up for a vote and with the election of a number of more reform-minded candidates across the nation, California and Arizona will never again be forced to stand alone on this issue.  I am deeply proud to be able to announce that the state of Oregon has joined the rest of the US jurisdictions that have signaled their intent to begin moving toward a new approach to drug law -- and not a moment too soon.

Final results have been delayed by the count of many hundred thousand absentee ballots, but it is clear that Oregonians rejected Measure 57, which would have recriminalized the possession of under an ounce of cannabis, by an even larger margin than they passed Measure 67, which will allow severely ill Oregonians and their caretakers to grow and possess cannabis in order to alleviate their symptoms.  Even a last-minute infusion of money could not salvage the poorly run anti-reform campaigns; this election was about decency, not dollars, and voters were acting on a real understanding of the issues at stake.  Nevertheless, the same governor and essentially the same state legislature will continue in office with the new year.  For that reason, Oregon reformers must continue to work, to organize, and to remain vigilant against any tampering with the people's will.

The state's largest newspaper, the Portland Oregonian, which had printed a blistering anti-67 editorial as well as voicing support for 57, has begun urging lawmakers to tinker in the guts of the medical-cannabis legislation even before it has gone into full effect.  With its editorial board expressing their fear of "the prospect of a plague of pony-tailed doctors prescribing reefer for the blues," the Oregonian's language is a far cry from the kind of balanced journalism to be found in Phoenix's normally quite conservative Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com) two days after the election.  Oregon activists were expecting this sort of sore-loser response, though, and had already begun planning their campaign in support of the newly approved Oregon Medical Marijuana Act well in advance of November 3rd.  The sorts of extra-constitutional legerdemain that the likes of outgoing California Attorney General Dan Lungren loved to practice in response to the people's mandates are not foreseen as having much impact here in fiercely independent-minded Oregon.

6. Report Finds Injection-Related AIDS Ravaging African American and Latino Communities -- Police Presence a Factor in Disease's Disproportionate Impact

A report released last weekend by the Dogwood Center, Health Emergency 1999, found that injection-related AIDS and other diseases have continued to take an enormous toll in the African American and Latino communities.  Further, Health Emergency found that the likelihood of an African American or Latino injection drug user is several times more likely to catch HIV/AIDS than a white injection drug user -- illustrating how drug enforcement drives up the spread of HIV by encouraging users in heavily policed communities to dispose of syringes quickly to avoid discovery and arrest.  In all cases, the risk of catching HIV or other deadly diseases from a shared syringe is several times greater than the likelihood of dying from an overdose.

Health Emergency 99 was introduced by former US Surgeon General Dr. Joycelyn Elders, at the US Conference on AIDS in Dallas last weekend.  The full text of the report can be found online at http://www.drcnet.org/healthemergency/.

7. Supreme Court Hears Car Search Case

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week (11/3) in the case of a Patrick Knowles, whose car was searched by officers in Iowa, against his wishes, incident to a speeding ticket.  Officer Ronald Cook, who conducted the search, testified at trial that other than speeding he had no reason to suspect Knowles of illegal activity.

The search, however, turned up a pipe and a small amount of marijuana, and Knowles was arrested.

The Iowa Supreme Court found that Iowa law allows for a search in any instance where the officer could have made an arrest, and state law allows for an arrest in the case of speeding.  The US Supreme Court, however, ruled in 1973 that police can search people upon arrest, citing a need to disarm the arrestee and preserve evidence.

At argument, the Justices seemed wary of allowing such a broad interpretation of the right to search.  At one point, Justice Scalia asked the attorney for the state of Iowa whether an officer could stop someone, arrest them, search them and then release them.  When the attorney answered in the affirmative, Scalia responded "Wow."

Justice Kennedy noted that while an officer is permitted to conduct a search incident to an arrest, "you want to turn it around and have an arrest incident to a search.  It seems to me that would be an abuse of authority."

A decision on the case is not expected until early next year.

8. DRCNet Launching STOPTHEDRUGWAR.ORG Web Site

This afternoon, DRCNet will be launching the first sections of what will be a unique, major new reform web site.  The stopthedrugwar.org web site will be more than a DRCNet web site, but a gateway to both the issues and the movement, designed to inform people about the consequences of current drug policy, while connecting them with the groups that are working in their areas of interest and other resources and opportunities for involvement.

When fully developed, stopthedrugwar.org will point visitors to organizations and resources in their states as well as in their issues.  Today we are presenting the first of our issue overviews, giving readers an introduction to topics such as chronic pain, drug-related AIDS, medical marijuana, kids in the drug war, and more, and ask for your feedback.  Check it out at http://www.stopthedrugwar.org and let us know what you think.

We anticipate that stopthedrugwar.org will become our principal means for promoting DRCNet and bringing new people into the movement.  You can help!  Stick a link or banner on your web site, write about it in your newsletter, put a bumper sticker on your car or other visible locations.  (Bumper stickers sent free to all making donations, and upon request to those who have made donations in the past or who can't afford to donate.  E-mail your requests to [email protected] -- normally we just send one, but if you have a use for more, tell us what you will be doing with them, and we'll consider your request.)

Note that stopthedrugwar.org will not supersede our current web sites, drcnet.org and druglibrary.org, but will play a new and different role.  Stopthedrugwar.org is being built as a "gateway to the movement"; drcnet.org will continue to be "DRCNet Central" while druglibrary.org will continue to be "Information Central".

9. DRCNet Launches New "Activism" Online Discussion Group

The drug policy reform movement is on the fringes no more.  So now, more than ever, it is time to DO SOMETHING!  Toward this end, DRCNet proudly announces DRC-Action.  DRC-Action is an open email discussion list for people who need or want to share support and ideas on WHAT TO DO to begin having a real impact through realistic strategies.  The focus of the list will be primarily on local and statewide action, with an eye toward educating and involving key players and constituencies in the struggle to end the war.

The list will not be moderated, but in the interest of making it as productive as possible, DRCNet will be quick to remind those who clutter participants' boxes with non-action related materials or posts.  DRCNet will also be inviting several movement professionals and effective activists from various parts of the country to participate and to lend their ideas and expertise, and we believe that the resulting discussion will be both interesting and useful for all involved.

So, if you've been waiting for some guidance, ideas or a support system to help you to make concrete and meaningful progress, please subscribe to DRC-Action today.  The movement, and your country, needs you now!  See you there.

To subscribe, send e-mail to [email protected] with the words: "subscribe drc-action your name" in the body (not the subject) of the message.  (Leave out the quotes and substitute your own name where it says "your name".)  You will receive a confirmation message if you have successfully joined.  The address for posting is [email protected], and only subscribers will be able to post.

10. High School Honor Student Expelled for Sipping Sangria at Internship Party

Jennifer Coonce, 17, a National Honor Society member, has been suspended for ten days, and barred from her high school campus for the remainder of her senior year, for taking two sips of sangria at a party in the offices of a design firm for whom Coonce had just begun interning.  She will take classes from home over an independent teleconference system to complete her high school degree, and will lose both her Honor Society membership and her advanced placement credit, as the necessary classes are not offered through the teleconference program.

Ironically, it was Coonce's mother who alerted the school to the fact that her daughter had sipped the wine out of concern that the company, Interiors by Terry D, a design firm, had inappropriately offered the wine to her daughter at a going-away party for another employee.

11. EDITORIAL:  Message Sent

In the hours and days after the election, the mainstream media was, predictably, teeming with analysis and debate, provided by the usual voices, on what, exactly, it all meant.  Democrats, to be sure, bucked both Clinton's lack of self control and the historical trends by gaining, rather than losing seats in the house in the sixth year of their president's administration.  And Republicans had accomplished what they had not done in seventy years, keeping control of both houses for three straight election cycles.

Was the election a referendum on impeachment?  On the religious right?  Was it the Democrats' ability to get out the African American vote?  Was it Social Security?  Health care?  The Budget?

Over and over, on op-ed pages, radio talk shows, and on a dozen or more 24-hour news and political TV stations, the debate roared:  What were the voters saying?  What was the trend?  What did it all mean?

The pundits and prognosticators, bought and paid for by the corporate media, are very comfortable discussing politics around the edges.  They are good at debating the often meager differences between the major parties, offering their opinions on the well-rehearsed theatrics that pass for political dialogue, and making predictions based on polls made up of questions devoid of nuance or context asked of the small percentage of voters who will still take the time to speak to a pollster.

But present the "experts" with the unfamiliar, with a scenario that does not fit into their experience, confront the editors, the anchors, the talking heads with a sign of change so dramatic that it portends a seismic shift in the political reality, and you've lost them.  Unable to make it fit, they will chalk it up as an anomaly and move on to more comfortable material.

On Election Day 1998, every single ballot measure that would reform an element of our nation's drug policy passed, and passed comfortably.  In each case, the usual band of drug warriors, including, most significantly, the federal government itself --  and a majority of both political parties -- were vehemently opposed.  Yet in each case the voters ignored them.  Whether it was medical marijuana, decriminalization of personal, recreational marijuana use, or an end to jail time for non-violent possession of any drug, the voters supported reform.

In assessing the media's silence on this trend, one should note that is not as if the drug war is an unimportant or inexpensive issue.  Tens of billions of tax dollars are spent year after year, while hundreds of thousands of Americans are forced into a broken justice system.  Civil liberties are eroded, institutions and entire governments are corrupted, global criminal enterprises are enriched and empowered and the nation's children are confronted with a black market that is more than eager to have them as customers.

Neither was it the case that a single initiative, stealthily ushered onto a ballot, passed under the noses of an unsuspecting public.  Initiatives passed in places as diverse as Arizona, Oregon and the District of Columbia, often after fierce debate and much media coverage.  In addition, California's voters rejected Dan Lungren, widely known as the state's staunchest opponent of patients' access to medical marijuana, in his race for governor.  And in Minnesota, the voters shocked the experts by selecting Jesse Ventura as their governor, a Reform Party candidate who has publicly stated that the drug war doesn't work.

And yet, in the nation's media, a puzzled silence.  Not a word about the implications for the drug war, certainly our most disastrous and destructive domestic policy.  A policy, it bears repeating, that both major parties have fallen over themselves to support.  Not a word about what the results tell us about voters' confidence in their leaders on this issue, after their leaders ridiculed the reforms and warned of dire consequences in the event of their passage.  Not a word about what all of this means for the future earnings of pharmaceutical companies and the prison industry and all the other big political contributors who reap enormous profits from the prosecution of various elements of the war.  Not a word about the singular clear trend to come out of the election of 1998.

Those Americans who were watching with their own, rather than the pundits' eyes, however, could scarcely have missed it.  Election '98 was a sweep in the most resounding sense of the word.  It showed clearly that the people no longer trust their government, not either party, on the vital issue of the Drug War.  It was a stunning refutation of the status quo.

The experts in the mainstream media, for all their air time and all their knowledge and experience, missed the boat on the only clear message that was sent from the voters to the politicos in Election '98.  Perhaps they will get it next time, in 2000, when the victories keep coming and it is the drug warriors themselves, and not just their policies, that suffer ignominious defeat.  But they will likely be left only to analyze in the aftermath, as they have already shown that they are too blind to predict the demise of this ignoble war.

The results, collectively, indicate in no uncertain terms that the movement has begun in earnest.  That movement represents, perhaps, far too substantive a change to be acknowledged or even comprehended by a media elite beholden to the status quo.  Voters, in 1998, sent a message of freedom and of personal dignity, of their rejection of absurd and alarmist rhetoric and of their confidence in the judgment of individuals over the judgment of the state.  And as clear as that message was, it was predictably unfamiliar to the sorry group of Washington apologists assigned to explain our political reality to us.  But ignoring the signs does not change their meaning.  Nor can it alter the course of events that they portend.

Adam J. Smith
Associate Director

12. A Message from DRCNet to You

The exciting events of the past week have filled reformers with energy and hope.  Over the next few weeks, we at DRCNet, and our colleagues at other drug reform groups, will be charting plans for how to best apply our efforts at this historic juncture, how to most powerfully move forward from the Victory of '98 -- how to bring sanity to this important social issue that touches so many different aspects of our lives.  We hope soon to announce an "action plan" -- hopefully a plan involving many reform groups acting in coalition -- so keep reading The Week Online and DRCNet action alerts, to make sure you are informed and can be part of this historic movement for change.  Our time is here, now, and you are a part of the answer.

Your enthusiasm during DRCNet's lifetime is what has made the organization thrive.  But though we wish it weren't the case, your support through financial contributions is an important part of what has made the organization actually exist.  You might not have realized just how important member support is to this organization, but the following explanation will explain very specifically how your support is irreplaceable and necessary to the effort.

DRCNet, in the legal sense, is made up of two different parts -- the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) educational organization, and the Drug Reform Coordination Network, a 501(c)(4) organization that is free to do educational work, but which exists to allow us to do more grassroots lobbying than the DRCNet Foundation as a 501(c)(3) can do.  Most of our funding comes in the form of grants and major tax-deductible gifts to the Foundation, 95% of the expenditures of which must go to strictly educational activities or work that supports those activities.  And indeed most of our work, including the writing of most of the articles in The Week Online and on our web site, is educational.

But what this means that our crucial legislative action alerts -- and the larger grassroots political projects that we are contemplating for the near future -- must be financed and carried out by the Network instead.  And the Network's principal source of income is the many small and mid-size contributions made by members of DRCNet.

In a real way, then, we are dependent on hundreds or thousands of you sending in small or large contributions -- be they as low as $5 or $10 or as high as $100 or more -- to make our legislative work possible.  Without your continuing support, that important part of our work could not continue.  And without the support of many of you who have not yet contributed membership dues, that work will not be able to expand to meet the phenomenal opportunities created by the victories of Election '98.

DRCNet readers are busy people, perhaps never more so than when reading their e-mail!  But if you want to see this movement grow to meet the challenge of the times, please take a moment to visit our member registration/donation form at https://www.drcnet.org/cgi-shl/drcreg.cgi (encryption protected, recommended for credit card donations), or
http://www.drcnet.org/cgi-shl/drcreg.cgi (no encryption, fill it out and print it out to send in by mail) -- or just send your check or money to: DRCNet, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036.  Consider becoming a monthly credit card donor!  THOSE DONATING $35 OR MORE WILL RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF SHATTERED LIVES: PORTRAIT'S FROM AMERICA'S DRUG WAR -- see http://www.drcnet.org/rapid/1998/9-14.html for more information.  Note that contributions to DRCNet are not tax-deductible.  (If you prefer to make a tax-deductible contribution, please send a check or money order made payable to the DRCNet Foundation, at the same mailing address.)

Another way to support the organization financially, without actually having to part with any money yourself, is to enroll in the eyegive online fundraising program.  Just go to http://www.eyegive.com/html/ssi.cfm?CID=1060 to enroll with DRCNet as your recipient non-profit (or to read more about eyegive).  DRCNet will immediately earn $2 just for you signing up, and you can earn us $50, $100 or more, just by visiting the eyegive home page at http://www.eyegive.com on a regular basis for just a few seconds each time.

We hope you'll do both, however, for the following three reasons.  One is that when a member sends us a check or a credit card donation, we can then count that person as a member, and the number of paying members we have supporting us is an important measure that we present to our funders on a monthly basis.  The more of you join, the more confidence they will have to invest in DRCNet, providing the backing needed to do outreach in the form of mailings, promotion of stopthedrugwar.org, and more, building the movement to something much larger than that which we know the today.  The second reason is that if we know who you are and where you are, we will be able to alert you if there is a special way that you can advance the effort in your community, Congressional District or state.  The third reason is that the eyegive earnings come to after three months (which they need for their auditing purposes), but we have opportunities at DRCNet that need a little bit more money right now.  Two students who have interned for us already and done great work are waiting to know if we can hire them part-time for certain important projects that will contribute greatly to the movement's objectives.  They'll do a little bit as volunteers anyway, but having to take classes and work other jobs means their time for DRCNet is limited.  Your support with a donation today will help us bring these bright young people on board and will be a very efficient use of funds to achieve results.

Thank you for being a part of DRCNet.  Whether you are able to contribute at this time or not, we are glad to have you on our list.  And stay tuned -- there's been good news this week, but the best is yet to come!

David Borden
Executive Director

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.

Out from the Shadows HEA Drug Provision Drug War Chronicle Perry Fund DRCNet en Español Speakeasy Blogs About Us Home Why Legalization? NJ Racial Profiling Archive Subscribe Donate DRCNet em Português Latest News Drug Library Search special friends links: SSDP - Flex Your Rights - IAL - Drug War Facts StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) 1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009 Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 [email protected]