TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. No Bark, Strong Bite: The Drug War and Elections 2000
2. Follow That Story: "Riders" Take a Fall in Oakland Police Scandal
3. Follow That Story: Police Shooter Indicted in Tennessee "Wrong Address" Killing
4. US Commission on Civil Rights Report to Urge Crackdown on Police Abuses
5. Drug Czar's Public Affairs Director Thrown Off Microphone At Campus Politically Correct Appearance
6. Follow That Story: Tattered Cover Bookstore Will Appeal Court Order to Open Records in Drug Investigation
7. Newsbriefs: Federal Judges in San Diego Swamped by Drug War, Immigrant Arrests
8. The Reformer's Calendar

(visit the Week Online archives)

1. No Bark, Strong Bite: The Drug War and Elections 2000

(this article commissioned by Alternet, http://www.alternet.org)

Last week, in our pre-election issue, DRCNet described drug policy in the 2000 elections as "The Dog That Didn't Bark" -- a once inflammatory campaign issue that both major party candidates almost completely avoided (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/158.html).

Yet a set of mostly successful ballot initiatives around the country have enacted profound changes in some states' drug policies. And if only by historical accident, drug war opponents have become key swing voters on both sides of the political divide in this year's presidential election.

This dog might not have barked, but in some expected and unexpected ways, it did bite.

DRUG WAR AND ITS OPPONENTS SWING FLORIDA VOTE

As this issue of The Week Online goes to press, Gov. George W. Bush holds a tenuous 327-vote lead over Vice President Al Gore in the final pivot state of Florida -- about 0.01% of the state's total vote. Three days after Election Day, "Too Close to Call" is the headline flashing across TV news networks around the dial.

327 is less than half the size of DRCNet's readership in the state of Florida.

Drug reform organizations did not stake out positions in this year's elections, and their memberships are spread across at least four national political parties: Democrat, Republican, Libertarian and Green.

The Libertarians and Greens, however, have strong pro-reform drug policy planks, and they both received enough votes to play a significant role in the outcome of the election, even if the Republican-Democrat split had been less ludicrously close. Libertarian candidate Harry Browne received 18,856 Florida votes, almost 58 times the current 327-vote split. The LP places a strong emphasis on its opposition to drug prohibition, and many of its voters support them for that very reason. Green candidate Ralph Nader, the leading figure in this year's third-party insurgency, received 96,837 Florida votes, 296 times the current split. Nader also opposes the drug war, albeit with less emphasis and ideological clarity than Browne. Some voters chose the Green Party for that reason.

Libertarian and Green voters may not have all moved the totals in the same direction. It is conventional wisdom that many Greens represented votes that would otherwise have gone Democratic. Libertarian voters, however, are drawn from both Republican and Democratic camps, but probably more from Republican. The central point still holds: Mainstream politicians ignore the views of drug reformers at their peril. The same arguments, of course, could be made for other causes as well. Reportedly, Florida medical marijuana patients -- who were highly disappointed in Al Gore after he retracted a previously favorable position on their issue -- are claiming that their outreach work to thousands of Floridians swayed the vote.

Much more complex, and divisive, than whether or not drug reformers had a measurable impact on the election outcome, is the question of how best to direct future potential impact to catalyze social change. Some reformers advocate voting third party, some single issue, while others are working actively within the major parties to change things, or feel that the stakes are too high to abandon one party or the other, despite their uniform failure on drug policy.

The drug war took a bite this election in another, more tragic way, this one affecting the Gore candidacy almost exclusively. An article by Bruce Shapiro in Salon.com pointed out that more than one third of African American men in Florida have permanently lost the right to vote because of past convictions, under the state's felony disenfranchisement law. A substantial percentage were caught up in the system as a result of drug laws (http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/09/nation/). More than 90% of African Americans voted for Al Gore this election. While it is not known what the voting turnout would have been among those disenfranchised were they able to vote, only a modest percentage would have been needed to turn the vote Democratic, given the closeness of the Florida race.

VICTORIES, SOME DISAPPOINTMENTS

While the nation continues to read tea leaves in Florida, members of the drug policy reform movement are nearly unanimous in declaring the elections an overall victory for the movement.

Of eight initiatives on state ballots, six passed. The only defeats came in Alaska, where a very loosely written marijuana legalization initiative went down with 40% of the vote, and in Massachusetts, where an envelope-pushing asset forfeiture and sentencing reform initiative sponsored by Campaign for New Drug Policies (CNDP) 53-47%.

In post-election conversations, various reformers also pointed to victories in Congress, where some noted drug warriors were sent packing.

"We were disappointed in Alaska," NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup told DRCNet, "but we are cheered by the fact that Reps. Bill McCollum (R-FL) and James Rogan (R-CA) and Sen. John Ashcroft (R-M)) all lost. McCollum was the worst," said Stroup, "absolutely terrible. Good riddance."

Stroup was part of a chorus of critics of the Alaska's initiative's language, which included an amnesty for marijuana offenders currently behind bars and a study of possible reparations for those harmed by marijuana prosecutions.

"That was the most badly-written initiative ever," said Stroup, "but we felt we had to support it. And the fact that even written as it was, 40% of voters approved it, makes me really optimistic that we can go back in two years and get it done."

In addition to the amnesty and reparations provisions, Stroup also pointed to lack of clarity in how marijuana would be distributed and the fact that it allowed 18-year-olds to legally partake.

"Nobody knows how distribution would have worked," said Stroup. "And Alaska has a recent history of controversy over teen alcohol use, so even though it may make sense to legalize consumption by 18-year-olds, it was something that dragged the vote down."

Doug McVay of Common Sense for Drug Policy (CSDP) agreed that the initiative was flawed, but also was heartened by the results. "I entered the movement with the Oregon decriminalization initiative in 1986," he told DRCNet. "We only got 27% of the vote. If this initiative, worded as it was, could get 40%, that's progress."

Stroup told DRCNet that NORML would continue to work with Alaska reformers to get a revised legalization initiative on the ballot in 2002. "We think we can win with a properly worded initiative then," he said.

But it was Campaign for New Drug Policies and Americans for Medical Rights, with their local organizations and deep-pocketed troika of funders, who could justly claim the most success. CNDP-supported initiatives won in California, Oregon and Utah, and AMR medical marijuana initiatives won handily in Colorado and Nevada. The only AMR-supported initiative to lose was the asset forfeiture and sentencing reform effort in Massachusetts.

In a conference call with reporters Thursday afternoon, AMR and CNDP's Bill Zimmerman said the initiative victories represented "a turning point" for the drug reform movement.

In the same call, Lindesmith Center/Drug Policy Foundation Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann concurred. "Since 1996, we have won 17 of 19 drug reform initiatives. The momentum is clearly on our side."

"We're also seeing a turn around among elected officials," Nadelmann continued. "Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Jesse Jackson a decade ago were real drug warriors, now they have turned around. And we have Maxine Waters and John Conyers who are moving ahead on the issue."

Nadelmann also singled out New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson as examples of elected officials now moving ahead on drug policy reform. "Johnson has toned down his rhetoric," Nadelmann said, "and is moving ahead on the ground, while Anderson has thrown DARE out of town and is now looking at instituting harm reduction measures in Salt Lake."

NORML's Stroup agreed. "From 1977, when Nebraska decriminalized possession, until 1996, we couldn't win anything," he told DRCNet. "That trend has been almost completely reversed since California's Proposition 215 in 1996."

Zimmerman told the conference call that the Prop. 36 win was a victory of taxpayers, treatment providers, and medical professionals over police and prison guards' unions and drug court supporters.

Zimmerman talked up the widely touted savings that the state will accrue and the fact that some 24,000 people arrested for drug possession will avoid prison each year.

But in an indication of a split in the movement, some offered only half-hearted congratulations. For CSDP's McVay, "Prop. 36 was half a victory. It will keep people out of prison, and I'm for that," he told DRCNet, "but it also calls for coerced treatment, which means people are still being arrested, and I'm not for that."

(Technically, what Prop. 36 does is allow drug defendants to opt for treatment in lieu of incarceration. Prop. 36 also provides improved drug process rights to individuals undergoing court-ordered treatment. McVay's characterization is valid, however; Prop. 36 is a good beginning for reformers, not a final policy goal of the movement.)

McVay also viewed the California victory as more of a taxpayer revolt than an indication that voters want to be compassionate with addicts.

Nadelmann and Zimmerman told the reporters that the Massachusetts measure most likely lost because of its provision that would have allowed low-level dealers as well as drug possessors to opt for treatment.

"That is where the opposition attacked us with their ads," said Nadelmann. "It shows there is no sympathy for drug dealers."

In response to a DRCNet question about why AMR and Lindesmith/DPF did not support marijuana legalization initiatives, Zimmerman had a blunt response. "They can't win," he said, "we don't want to waste our time."

Indeed, the Alaska initiative and other failed legalization attempts all failed to meet criteria laid out by Zimmerman for garnering his organization's support. "We've got to have polling showing 60% support for an initiative before we will go with it," he said.

"We haven't seen that anywhere," he added.

Nadelmann, however, held out something of an olive branch to marijuana legalizers. "Our big funders are often portrayed as legalizers in the media," said Nadelmann, "but two out of three are not. They may come around on marijuana legalization, though."

As for the future, Zimmerman and Nadelmann professed to have no firm plans yet. "It's two days after the election," said Zimmerman, "and we will be concentrating on ensuring that the initiatives that passed will be implemented."

Nadelmann, however, told the conference call that he hoped that state legislatures and governors would now follow the leads of voters and of politicians such as Hawaii Gov. Benjamin Cayetano, who signed the nation's first legislatively-crafted medical marijuana bill.

Dave Fratello of the Campaign for a Sensible Drug Policy, the AMR-linked group behind California's Prop. 36 gave the Associated Press a hint of what may be to come.

"Michigan and Ohio are probably the places where you have the largest number of people affected, and you would send the loudest message. And they have the initiative process."

The biggest disappointment for many drug reformers was the failure of the Democratic party to win a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. Though reformers are disenchanted with the top Democratic leadership, such a win for the Democrats would have placed John Conyers in the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Conyers has one of the best voting records on drug policy and criminal justice in the House, and has shown growing passion and support for ending the drug war. A Conyers chairmanship could be an historical turning point in US drug policy, which now will have to wait at least two more years.

INITIATIVE ROUNDUP

Last week, DRCNet endorsed the following initiatives. Here is how they fared:

ALASKA: Marijuana Legalization
failed: 39.56% in favor, 60.44% opposed

Ballot Measure #5 would have done away with civil and criminal penalties for persons 18 years or older who use marijuana or other hemp products. It would also have granted amnesties to persons previously convicted of marijuana crimes, and established a panel to study the question of reparations for those harmed by marijuana prohibition. DRCNet had no position on the panel but supported Measure #5 because of its other provisions.

CALIFORNIA: Sentencing Reform
passed: 60.8% in favor, 39.2% opposed

Proposition 36 will require that those convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses for the first or second time be offered rehabilitation programs instead of state prison.

DRCNet's endorsement last week of Prop. 36, and of Massachusetts Question 8, contained a minor inaccuracy on a fine point of the law. The initiatives technically don't require coerced treatment, but require that treatment be offered to drug offenders who would otherwise have no choice but incarceration -- essentially coerced treatment, but not exactly. DRCNet considers any criminal punishment for simple drug use to be inappropriate, but endorsed Prop. 36 as a politically realistic step in the right direction.

MENDOCINO COUNTY, CA: Marijuana Decriminalization
passed: 58% in favor, 42% opposed

Mendocino County Measure G will allow adults to grow 25 plants apiece, but not for sale. The measure further directs the county sheriff and prosecutor to make marijuana crimes their last priority and directs county officials to seek an end to state and federal marijuana laws.

This measure is partially symbolic, since state and local law enforcement can still prosecute marijuana crimes, but will relieve some law enforcement pressure and help to fuel debate.

COLORADO: Medical Marijuana
passed: 54% in favor, 46% opposed

Amendment 20 provides for legal medical marijuana use by patients with serious illnesses. Following the Americans for Medical Rights (AMR) template, the measure sets low limits of the quantity of marijuana and limits approved uses to certain illnesses or symptoms specified in the initiative or added later by the state.

DRCNet did not endorse the measure's limits on quantity and conditions which qualify, but supported Amendment 20 because current Colorado has offers no such protections, and some
protection for medical marijuana patients is better than none.

MASSACHUSETTS: Sentencing and Asset Forfeiture Reform
failed: 47% in favor, 53% opposed

Question 8 would have diverted nonviolent drug offenders from prison to drug treatment at their request. It would also direct forfeited proceeds to a drug treatment trust fund and would require the civil equivalent of a guilty verdict before allowing property to be forfeited, instead of the easier-to-obtain probable cause rulings that suffice currently.

Other provisions, which ultimately led to the initiative's defeat, would have provided the treatment option to those arrested for low-level drug dealing as well as those arrested for simple possession.

DRCNet endorsed Question 8, with the same qualification as stated above for California Prop. 36.

NEVADA: Medical Marijuana
passed: 65% in favor, 35% opposed

Question 9 was the required second round of popular voting to approve this initiative. When DRCNet endorsed this measure last week, we mistakenly wrote that "the measure sets low limits on the quantity of marijuana..." In fact, according to CSDP's Fratello, any limits will be determined by the legislature.

OREGON: Asset Forfeiture Reform
passed: 66% in favor, 34% opposed

Ballot Measure 3 will hold the state government to stricter standards of proof that property was the proceeds of crime or used to commit a crime. It also bars forfeiture unless the owner of the property is first convicted of a crime involving the seized property. Law enforcement would be restricted to claiming no more than 25% of seized assets.

UTAH: Asset Forfeiture Reform
passed: 68.9% in favor, 31.1% opposed

Initiative B will hold the state government to stricter standards of proof that property was the proceeds of crime or used to commit a crime. It also bars forfeiture unless the owner of the property is first convicted of a crime involving the seized property. Profits from seized assets will be deposited in the school fund.

CANDIDATE ROUNDUP

DRCNet does not make endorsements in races for elective office, but we herewith provide you with selected results from races where either drug reformers or their foes were up for election:

CALIFORNIA: US Senate
Republican Congressman Tom Campbell ran on a strong drug reform platform, but could not overcome the well funded, long time incumbent, Diane Feinstein. Campbell lost 56%-36%. Libertarian and Green Party candidates picked up 5% of the vote. Reformers have at least temporarily lost one of their few Republican allies in Congress (district 15).

CALIFORNIA: 27th Congressional District
Republican drug warrior Jim Rogan lost his seat to challenger Adam Schiff. Rogan, who had supported medical marijuana in the California legislature, earned drug reformers' scorn by switching his position immediately upon being elected to Congress. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Rogan went so far as to support an amendment opposing even research on medical marijuana.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Activists Rob Kampia and Matt Mercurio's "Stop the Drug War" campaign for US Delegate (DC's non-voting Congressional representative) and at-large City Council garnered 4,378 votes (Kampia) and 5,477 (Mercurio), under the auspices of the Libertarian Party. While falling short, this first time, of the 7,500 votes needed to secure major party status and eliminate future signature gathering requirements, the campaign garnered substantial media coverage and raised awareness of the issue in the shadow of the federal government.

FLORIDA: US Senate
Drug war zealot Republican Rep. Bill McCollum ran for the seat vacated by retiring Republican Connie Mack. He was defeated by Democrat Bill Nelson, 51%-46%.

KENTUCKY: 6th Congressional District
Drug warrior Republican Ernie Fletcher fended off Democratic challenger Scotty Baesler and insurgent Reform Party candidate Gatewood Galbraith, who ran on a pro-gun, pro-marijuana platform. The vote favored Fletcher, 51%-35%-12%.

MISSOURI: US Senate
Incumbent Republican drug warrior John Ashcroft lost to the late Gov. Mel Carnahan, 50%-48%. It is anticipated that the acting governor will appoint Gov. Carnahan's widow to the seat, to serve until another election is held two years from now.

2. Follow That Story: "Riders" Take a Fall in Oakland Police Scandal

The Week Online reported two weeks ago that Oakland Police Chief Richard Ward had recommended that four Oakland police officers known as "The Riders" be fired for numerous acts of brutality and official misconduct (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/157.html#oakland).

Since then, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office has charged the four with 63 criminal charges, including 49 felonies, stemming from the criminal tactics they used on their late-night patrols in West Oakland. The charges include conspiracy to obstruct justice, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, filing false police reports, and making false arrests.

The Riders face from nine to more than twenty years in prison if convicted of all charges.

The criminal charges are not the only problem facing the four officers and the Oakland criminal justice system. Although they are now on paid administrative leave, the city of Oakland intends to fire them once their appeals are concluded. The FBI has opened an investigation into possible civil rights violations by the four. And a man who says the Riders framed him in a drug bust has filed the first of what could be many civil rights lawsuits naming the four and/or the Oakland Police Department.

Alameda County DA Tom Orloff, meanwhile, told the Los Angeles Times on November 3rd that his office had dismissed 23 cases -- mostly for drug possession -- in which the officers were involved.

The scandal broke after a rookie officer working with the Riders -- Frank Vasquez, 43; Jude Siapno, 32; Clarence Mabanag, 35; and Matthew Horning, 28 -- complained to his superiors in July. Officer Keith Batt, 23, saw Mabanag order another rookie to write a false report saying a suspect had tried to toss away rocks of crack. That, on top of prior similar incidents, convinced Batt to go to department higher-ups.

In the Alameda County criminal case, the DA's office alleges that Mabanag told Batts not be a "snitch" and the Rider's ringleader Frank Vasquez threatened to physically harm Batts if he talked. Batts has since left the force.

In one incident in the criminal case, according to court documents, the Riders falsely arrested a man for discarding drugs and drinking in public, then handcuffed him, drove him to a different part of the city, and beat him severely. Vasquez and Mabanag then attempted to intimidate the man when a supervisor asked him about his injuries.

In another incident, two weeks earlier, Vasquez and Mabanag falsely arrested and assaulted a 16-year-old boy.

Eight victims were involved in the incidents.

One of them, 19-year-old Rodney Mack of Oakland, has now filed the first civil rights lawsuit against the Riders and their immediate supervisor, Sgt. Jerry Hayter.

In the lawsuit filed in US District Court, Mack alleges that the Riders stopped him on July 3rd near 10th and Center Streets in West Oakland, then planted rocks of crack cocaine on him and falsely arrested him for possession with intent to distribute.

Mack was jailed for five weeks. The DA's Office dismissed the charges in September as its investigation of the Riders got underway.

Mack's attorney told the San Francisco Chronicle Mack was framed. "I can categorically say that the drugs were planted on him," said Berkeley attorney Jim Chanin. "There was no cocaine."

The false arrest of Mack resulted in criminal charges after Officer Batt told superiors he saw Mabanag order rookie Rider Hewitt to write a false report stating he had seen Mack throw down 17 rocks of crack.

The charges cover only a three-week period from mid-June to early July, a period which matches the time Batt was assigned to their unit.

Police Chief Richard Word, who has recommended the four be fired, deplored the corrosive effect of the Riders scandal on community relations.

"Reducing crime, fear, and disorder means nothing if by doing so you lose community confidence, trust, and support," Chief Ward told the Times.

3. Follow That Story: Police Shooter Indicted in Tennessee "Wrong Address" Killing

Last month, the Week Online ran a feature piece on the ever-growing number of people killed by police enforcing the drug laws (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/156.html#policeshootings). The killing of 64-year-old John Adams in Lebanon, Tennessee, was one of the cases highlighted. Adams was shot to death in his living room after he allegedly fired a shotgun at the armed, masked, and unidentified intruders who broke down his front door on the night of October 4th.

The police had the wrong house. Their search warrant was for the address next door, but contained a description of the Adams' house instead of the actual target. Relatives and friends told the Daily Tennessean the couple thought they were victims of a home invasion robbery when the 10:00pm raid commenced.

In most of the cases mentioned in the original article, the bottom line was "the police shooter was cleared of any wrongdoing by [the local] grand jury." Not this time.

A local grand jury has indicted raid planner Steve Nokes, head of the department's narcotics unit, on felony charges of reckless homicide, evidence tampering, and aggravated perjury in the case. Prosecutors said Nokes was responsible for sending the raiders to the wrong house and that he lied on the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant for the raid. Nokes had surveilled the targeted house and was present during the raid.

Nokes has already been fired from the Lebanon Police Department. The three officers who actually conducted the raid, two of whom shot Adams, remain on the force on paid administrative leave. Another who surveilled the house with Nokes is on unpaid leave.

Adams was black, while Nokes and two out of three of the other officers involved were white, a fact that has heightened racial tensions in the town. Lebanon Mayor Don Fox has appointed a citizens' review board to investigate the killing, but local chapters of civil rights and civil liberties groups including the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union and the League of United Latin-American Citizens, have joined together to monitor and challenge the board's mandate and make up.

4. US Commission on Civil Rights Report to Urge Crackdown on Police Abuses

The US Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR -- http://www.usccr.gov), an independent executive branch agency mandated to investigate civil rights violations, will soon issue a report on police misconduct that concludes that police brutality and abuse of power remain intractable problems in the United States.

The commission, headed by Mary Frances Berry, approved the report's findings on November 4th by a 5-1 vote.

A USCCR spokeswoman told DRCNet the full report will be released "in a couple of months, not a couple of weeks."

In the meantime, DRCNet has obtained a draft copy of the report's executive summary, which lauds big city police forces for reducing crime, but concludes that "these improvements come at a terrible price."

The commission singled out New York City and Los Angeles, saying that while they managed to reduce crime, they "have not developed into world class police forces, however, due to lingering concerns over the number and type of police misconduct charges they must address."

The report is the latest to follow in the footsteps of the commission's groundbreaking 1981 report on police abuse, "Who Will Guard the Guardians?" The USCCR continues to be active, holding hearings in cities across the country and issuing reports on police departments where it finds problems.

In the executive summary draft, the commission sketches a set of guidelines and objectives designed to remedy police misconduct. Among them:

• Measures to end the practice of racial profiling by police need to be given "the highest priority." Congress should provide the Department of Justice with sufficient funding to collect national statistics on the practice.
• Diversity in police forces remains lacking. Many police forces "have been unable to accomplish or sustain diversity." The commission called for "creative strategies" to increase diversity.
• Reforms are needed in police training. "Effective training must incorporate contemporary issues such as cultural sensitivity, use of force, racial profiling, and community policing into the basic crime prevention methods."
• Both internal and external controls over police must be strengthened. Finding problems with the internal regulation of police misconduct, the commission will recommend oversight go to civilian review boards with subpoena power and disciplinary power regarding investigations of police abuses. The commission will also call for the increased use of federal monitors to oversee problem forces, as is currently the case in Los Angeles.
• Congress should amend the US criminal code to remove the requirement that federal prosecutors prosecuting police misconduct under the civil rights statutes prove the officers acted with "specific intent" to violate someone's civil rights.

5. Drug Czar's Public Affairs Director Thrown Off Microphone At Campus Politically Correct Appearance

As the Office of National Drug Control Policy Director ("Drug Czar") Barry McCaffrey prepares to leave office, one of his key staffers may be losing not only his job, but his mind. Bob Weiner, sometime ONDCP press secretary and currently Director of Public Affairs, made quite a scene at a George Washington University appearance of the popular TV show Politically Incorrect last week. The event included host Bill Maher and other celebrity guests, but was held only for the campus audience at the DC school, not broadcast.

Brian Gralnick, co-National Director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (http://www.ssdp.org), was chosen as the student participant in Maher's panel. Just prior to the show, Gralnick noticed a student backstage holding a card reading "Executive Office of the President," which he recognized from an encounter with Weiner at a previous event. The student was surprised when Gralnick asked her if it was Bob Weiner's business card.

Knowing Weiner was in the audience, Gralnick decided to call him out. On stage, Gralnick explained to the audience that "The Director of Public Affairs of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, who is in this audience, accused me of being high on illegal drugs when we were on this same stage a month ago, and it's a shame people resort to personal attacks when discussing drug policy."

Gralnick told DRCNet, "He then started yelling from the crowd, from his seat, 'that's not true, that's not true.'" Host Bill Maher told Weiner that if he wanted to ask a question, he should go to the microphone.

Weiner ran to the microphone and said, "That's not what I said," at which point Gralnick broke in with: "I'll clarify: You said, 'Your eyes look kind of hazy. You're probably on drugs right now.'"

Weiner responded, "You can't take a joke?", and proceeded not to ask a question, as Maher had invited him, but to rattle off statistics along the lines of why the war on drugs isn't being lost as Students for Sensible Drug Policy claims. A staffer from the production company managing the Politically Incorrect campus tour, and a student helping with the event, took the microphone from him.

Many reformers have had encounters with Bob Weiner. DRCNet Executive Director David Borden recounts, "I've had two phone conversations with him. He hung up on me both times. I'm not a rude person, but he kept avoiding the questions and I kept asking them."

According to Dave Fratello of Americans for Medical Rights, "Based on feedback I've gotten from reporters, Weiner's reputation with the media is of being very ill-tempered and impatient."

"I remember one radio debate," said Fratello, "where the subject was medical marijuana, and Weiner insisted on a format where I would speak for half of the time, after which he would speak for half the time. He was unwilling to debate me directly."

"Unknown to Weiner, however, the host kept me on the line through his presentation, and at a certain point I broke in to correct one of his points," Fratello continued. "Weiner started screaming at me, saying I'd had my time. Then he started attacking the station and the host -- all live on the air."

Chuck Thomas of the Marijuana Policy Project told DRCNet, "There were a few reporters I spoke with who were about to call McCaffrey's office, and wanted to know if there were a few questions that would be good to ask. I suggested they ask ONDCP, should patients be arrested for medical marijuana? Then, if they try to circumvent the question, to ask it again."

"On at least two of those occasions," Thomas continued, "the reporters -- both of them from well known publications -- told me later that they spoke with Bob Weiner and that he became argumentative and started screaming at them and accusing them of being on drugs."

"Now I make a point of specifically telling reporters to ask for Bob Weiner by name," concluded Thomas.

6. Follow That Story: Tattered Cover Bookstore Will Appeal Court Order to Open Records in Drug Investigation

Two weeks ago, the Week Online reported that a judge had ordered Denver's Tattered Cover bookstore to honor a search warrant demanding that the store turn over records of a customer book purchase (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/157.html#bookstore). The police hoped to discover which of six residents at a trailer where a meth lab was found ordered books on methamphetamine manufacture from the bookstore.

At the time, Tattered Cover owner Joyce Meskins and her attorneys had not decided to appeal. They had to weigh the possibility of losing a partial victory in the limitations the judge placed on the warrant's scope, Chris Finan of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) told DRCNet.

On November 2nd Meskins and her attorney, backed by a powerful array of booksellers' and librarians' associations as well as civil liberties groups, announced she will appeal the ruling.

In a press release from the ABFFE, Meskins said, "If we turn over this information, our customers will start wondering if we will ever do the same to them. It will undermine their confidence that we will do everything we can to protect the privacy of their purchase and make them afraid to buy controversial titles. That would be a tragedy for us, for them, and for free speech."

She also expressed concern that police are using a book's contents to determine a suspect. "Reading a book is not a crime," she said.

Her attorney, Dan Recht, told the Denver Post they plan to bypass the state appeals court by asking the Colorado Supreme Court to hear the case. The state high court has long been considered a friend of free expression.

Recht called the ruling a "slippery slope" which would set a legal precedent for government snooping into people's reading habits, and he criticized police for overreaching in the name of fighting drugs.

"There have been significant infringements to civil liberties over the past decade, and those are due to a disturbing degree to the war on drugs," he told the Post.

The ABFFE has filed an amicus brief in the case, supported by the American Library Association, the Association of American Book Publishers, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, the National Coalition Against Censorship, and the PEN American Center.

The Tattered Cover cause has also drawn editorial support from the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post. The News urged the bookstore to appeal the October ruling.

7. Newsbriefs: Federal Judges in San Diego Swamped by Drug War, Immigrant Arrests

Just weeks after state prosecutors in Texas border counties began refusing to prosecute drug cases developed by federal agents (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/153.html#texasdasagain), another sign that that the border drug war is creating gridlock in the criminal justice system has appeared at the opposite end of the border.

US District Court judges in San Diego declared a "judicial emergency" last week after Congress refused to appropriate funds for more judges. The US Judicial Conference, which represents federal courts nationwide, had recommended that eight new federal judgeships be created for the San Diego district.

According to Chief Judge Marilyn Huff, the court's caseload has doubled in the past five years as a result of a massive law enforcement buildup on the border. She told the Los Angeles Times some 1,400 new FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, and Customs Service positions had been filled in the district in that period.

The district court had been barely held together by bailing wire and chewing gum. Huff told the Times the court had been relying on retired judges, but two died in the last year, a third was hurt in a car accident, and a fourth, 86, was no longer able to serve.

"We are in bad shape, with no light at the end of the tunnel," she told the Times.

Under the "judicial emergency," the court will curtail some procedures, such as oral arguments in civil cases and presentence investigations in criminal cases.

The San Diego US Attorney's Office told the times it has already begun sending some cases to San Diego and Imperial County prosecutors to be tried in state courts. It is precisely that tactic that resulted in the Texas border DAs' rebellion as the costs of prosecuting federal cases and jailing those convicted ate into local budgets.

Mario Conte of the Federal Defenders service, which represents indigent defendants, blamed a criminal justice that is out of whack. "It's very simple," he told the Times, "Congress loves to add prosecutors and [law enforcement] agents, but neglects to add judges, defense attorneys, and marshals, and then they wonder why there is a problem."

8. The Reformer's Calendar

(Please submit listings of events related to drug policy and related areas to [email protected].)

November 3-4, Chicago, IL, Conference on US Policy & Human Rights in Colombia: Where do we go from here? At DePaul University, sponsored by various organizations concerned with Latin America, human rights and peace. For information contact Colombia Bulletin at (773) 489-1255 or e-mail [email protected].

November 4, Philadelphia, PA, noon, "Liberty Protest: Unity to End the Drug War," at the Liberty Bell, featuring professor Julian Heicklen and other speakers. For information, contact Diane Fornbacher at (215) 633-9812 or [email protected].

November 11, Charlotte, NC, Families Against Mandatory Minimums Regional Workshop, location to be determined. Call (202) 822-6700 for information or to register.

November 16-19, San Francisco, CA, "Committing to Conscience: Building a Unified Strategy to End the Death Penalty," largest annual gathering of Death Penalty opponents. Call Death Penalty Focus at (888) 2-ABOLISH or visit http://www.ncadp.org/ctc.html for further information.

November 19, Richmond, VA, 4:20pm, Anti-Drug War Benefit, supporting DRCNet, organized by Virginians Against Drug Violence. Admission $3, at the Cary Street Cafe, 2631 W. Cary St. Scheduled performers include Publik Animalz, Neptune, Parkland Charlie and Mark Fitzgerald. 21-or-over for admission, outdoor facilities for those under 21.

December 2, New Haven, CT, 9:30am-6:30pm, First Conference on Drug Policy and the Prison Overcrowding Crisis in Connecticut. At Yale University, Lindsley Chittenden room 101, 203, 204 and 205, open to the public. For further information, contact Luke Bronin at [email protected] or Adam Hurter at (860) 285-8831 or [email protected].

January 13, 2001, St. Petersburg, FL, Families Against Mandatory Minimums Regional Workshop, location to be determined. Call (202) 822-6700 for information or to register.

March 9-11, 2001, New York, NY, Critical Resistance: Beyond the Prison Industrial Complex. Northeast regional conference, following on the large national gathering in 1998, to focus on the impacts of the prison industrial complex in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Washington, DC. Visit http://www.criticalresistance.org for further information, or call (212) 561-0912 or e-mail [email protected].

April 1-5, 2001, New Delhi, India, 12th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm. Sponsored by the International Harm Reduction Coalition, for information visit http://ihrc-india2001.org on the web, e-mail [email protected], call 91-11-6237417-18, fax 91-11-6217493 or write to Showtime Events Pvt. Ltd., S-567, Greater Kailash - II, New Delhi 110 048, India.

April 25-28, Minneapolis, MN, North American Syringe Exchange Convention. Sponsored by the North American Syringe Exchange Network, for further information call (253) 272-4857, e-mail [email protected] or visit http://www.nasen.org on the web. At the Marriott City Center Hotel, 30 South Seventh Street.

Editorials will return next week.

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]