The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #120 -- Jan. 9, 1999 A Publication of the Drug Reform Coordination Network -------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE -------- (To sign off this list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line signoff drc-natl in the body of the message, or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. To subscribe to this list, visit <http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html>.) This issue can be also be read on our web site at <http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html>. ================ TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Message to our Readers http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#message 2. U.S. Accused of Mistreating Jailed Colombians http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#jailed 3. Infrared Thermal Imaging Deemed Unconstitutional Search by Pennsylvania State Supreme Court http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#infrared 4. House to Take Up Anti-Meth Bill -- Penalties Increased, Internet Freedoms Restricted http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#methbill 5. Appeals Court Agrees: Drug Tests for Louisiana Officials Unconstitutional http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#louisiana 6. Jesse Ventura Applauds Gov. Johnson's Legalization Stance http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#ventura 7. ALERT: New Hampshire Drug Policy Election Activism Opportunities http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#alert ================ 1. Message to our Readers http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#message Dear DRCNet supporter: If you are reading this, then your and DRCNet's respective Internet service providers have successfully weathered the Y2K transition. We hope that everyone had a healthy, safe and restful holiday and a happy start to the new year. As we stand on the precipice of the 21st century (yes, we know, technically it doesn't begin until '01), much is changing on the drug war front, both in the United States and around the world. Here at DRCNet, we are committed to keeping you up to date on the status of the war and the growing efforts in the name of peace and sanity. We are committed, too, to providing you with situational and ongoing opportunities to be part of the solution. Over the coming months, DRCNet will continue in our efforts to overturn the drug provision of the Higher Education Act of 1998, scheduled to go into effect on July 1. (See http://www.raiseyourvoice.com for more info.) We will continue to provide guidance and support to Students for Sensible Drug Policy. We will be launching a web site and Internet campaign to bring attention to the murderous comments of Judge Judy ("give 'em dirty needles and let them die") Sheindlin and to pressure her sponsors to disassociate themselves from her show. (An action alert will appear in your mailbox next week.) We will soon have web pages up for several states across the country, and adding more fast, allowing reform supporters to e-mail or fax their state legislators on the hot drug policy reform issues in their own states. We are also working to build The Week Online into the premier news source on issues of drug policy and reform. Toward this end, we are adding reporters to cover specific issues and regions, and will soon complete a redesign of our online version. Our syndicated radio show, DRCNN, will be re-launched in the spring, and we hope to have it aired on stations across the country. We also hope to add more audio and video components to our site and to our coverage of the issues at hand. This, of course, is just a partial list of the work, projects and campaigns that the Drug Reform Coordination Network has planned for the coming year. DRCNet's primary goal this year will be to build our subscriber base to a level of major political and social impact. For this, we need your help. Use our materials, forward the alerts to friends, family and colleagues. Talk about the issues with others and urge them to become part of the solution to the problems of criminal markets, corruption, skyrocketing prison populations and costs, easy access for children to dangerous substances, the spread of HIV and other blood-borne pathogens and the diminution of our Constitutional rights. Lastly, if you can, consider supporting this work by contributing to DRCNet (non-deductible) or to the DRCNet Foundation (deductible). Our on-line focus allows us to do a lot of good on a very small budget, but it does cost money to keep our doors open and our small staff fed and clothed. You can donate by credit card through our registration form at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html or call us at (202) 293-8340 -- or just send a check to: DRCNet, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 210, Washington, DC 20036. Whether or not you can donate at this time, we thank you for your interest and participation in this important and growing movement. Together, we will usher in a century of peace and freedom. Happy New Year. ================ 2. U.S. Accused of Mistreating Jailed Colombians http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#jailed Five Colombian legislators, having just completed a two week tour of U.S. penal institutions which house nearly 5,000 Colombians, announced that the inmates are receiving inadequate medical care and that many are detained for longer periods than those to which they have been sentenced, held in detention centers for up to six months awaiting deportation to Colombia. The group plans to issue a full report on their findings later in January. Rep. Benjamin Higuita, spokesman for the group, said that 95% of the Colombian inmates were sentenced for drug offenses. More than half of all Colombians incarcerated abroad are in the U.S. The announcement comes at a time when Colombian President Andres Pastrana is under political pressure at home for his acquiescence to American demands to re-institute the practice of extraditing Colombian nationals wanted by the United States. Extradition is highly unpopular among Colombians, as it evokes a time of intense violence in that nation's history. Under pressure from the U.S. government, Colombian authorities attempted from 1989 through parto extradite a group of high-level drug traffickers -- self- dubbed "Los Extraditables," to the U.S. The traffickers responded by launching a wave of assassinations, murdering several hundred politicians, judges and bystanders. The Constitutional Assembly in 1991 prohibited extradition, but various measures have subsequently brought it back, according to Coletta Youngers, Senior Associate at the Washington Office on Latin America. "The issue of extradition has already been controversial in Bogota," Youngers told the Week Online. "Public opinion has traditionally been opposed to extradition, and the visit reflects the intense feelings that Colombians have on this issue." Youngers doubts, however, that the visit will change the Pastrana administration's policies, which reflect continuing U.S. pressure. ================ 3. Infrared Thermal Imaging Deemed Unconstitutional Search by Pennsylvania State Supreme Court http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#infrared (courtesy NORML Foundation, http://www.norml.org) Erie County, PA: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld an appellate court ruling that the warrantless use of an infrared thermal imagining device, used to detect marijuana growing in a home, violates the constitutional rights of the homeowner under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the 2-1 decision, Judge Stephen A. Zappala, writing for the majority, contrasted the differences between the use of thermal imaging devices and the use of drug-sniffing dogs, which the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be legal without a warrant. Zappala wrote, "The thermal imaging device, unlike the trained drug dog, does not have the ability to distinguish between legal and illegal activities occurring within the home based upon the amount of heat detected. In this respect, [use of the thermal imager] is the very antithesis of a dog sniff because the trained narcotics dog alerts only in the presence of contraband whereas the thermal imager indiscriminately registers all sources of heat." The case began in April 1994 when an informant told the Erie County Mobile Drug Task Force that Gregory Gindlesperger was growing marijuana at his home using artificial heat lamps. A thermal imaging device was then used to scan Gindlesperger's home, which indicated an unexplained heat source in the basement that was not consistent with a furnace or other home heating sources. These results were then used to obtain a search warrant for the house and Gindlesperger was subsequently arrested for cultivating 21 plants. The trial court rejected the defendant's motion to exclude the evidence and found him guilty. The case was appealed and the appellant court sided with the defendant, saying the use of the device was a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "We applaud the court's decision," said Tom Dean, Esq., NORML Foundation Litigation Director. "High-tech surveillance by overzealous police officers is perhaps the greatest threat to personal security that we will face in this new century." The decision can be read online at: http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/index/SupremeArchieve/121999.cfm ================ 4. House to Take Up Anti-Meth Bill -- Penalties Increased, Internet Freedoms Restricted http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#methbill (from the Drug Policy Foundation's Network News, http://www.dpf.org) When Congress reconvenes on Jan. 24, the House of Representatives is expected to debate S.486, the DEFEAT Meth Act, which passed in the Senate by a voice vote on Nov. 19. Sponsored by John Ashcroft (R-MO), the measure would stiffen penalties for illegal production of both amphetamine and methamphetamine, prohibit the posting of drug recipes on the Internet, and increase funding for law enforcement. The bill directs the Federal Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for amphetamine so that they are comparable to those for methamphetamine. S. 486 would increase penalties if an offense involving either drug created a "substantial risk of harm to human life" or the environment. The measure would ban any drug "recipes" or drug paraphernalia from being posted, sold, or advertised on the Internet -- this includes phone numbers or addresses posted for drug purchases. In addition, the bill would make it illegal to provide any information online about any Schedule I controlled substance, and would hold Internet service providers liable for not removing a site that includes information about any Schedule I controlled substance. S. 486 would provide additional funding for federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations. The legislation would authorize $30 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); $25 million per year for law enforcement in "high-intensity trafficking areas;" and $25 million per year for prevention, interdiction, and studies of the law's effectiveness. Treatment Provision Included A substitute amendment was added from other drug legislation (S. 324) which was designed to increase the availability of treatment. The measure would establish a program that would allow qualified doctors to prescribe federally regulated, anti-addiction drugs without an additional DEA registration, providing that certain conditions are met. These conditions include certification of the doctor's license and experience; the capacity to refer patients to counseling; and a limit of 20 patients in an office setting. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services would be in charge of the program and could add to these conditions as appropriate. The attorney general would be allowed to terminate a doctor's DEA registration if the conditions are violated, and the program would be terminated after three years if the secretary and attorney general determine that it is not effective. DPF opposes S. 486 because of its increased criminal penalties, its infringement on freedom of speech, and its disproportionate appropriation of resources to law enforcement over prevention and treatment. DPF recommends you contact your Representative and urge them to oppose S. 486 when it comes before the House. ================ 5. Appeals Court Agrees: Drug Tests for Louisiana Officials Unconstitutional http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#louisiana Are Louisiana politicians on drugs? Inquiring minds would like to know. The state's new draconian drug testing law requires all people who have anything to do with the state government, including elected state officials, to submit to random drug testing. The problem is that the Supreme Court has already has already ruled conclusively that such drug testing is unconstitutional. A lawyer representing New Orleans Rep. Arthur Morrell, William Rittenberg, opposed the law and was victorious last week when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier decision by Federal Judge Eldon Fallon which said the law violated Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search and seizure. While this same amendment is routinely suspended in cases where there is a public interest in maintaining mandatory drug tests, in this case two explanations were cited as reasons for upholding the Constitution. First, that there is no evidence of widespread drug use among Louisiana politicians, and second, the law failed to demonstrate how politicians on drugs threaten public safety. Supporters of the law, which include Louisiana Governor Mike Foster, want to take it to the Supreme Court. Graham Boyd, who spearheads drug policy for the American Civil Liberties Union, said proponents of the law are wasting their time. There is "zero chance the Supreme Court will hear the case," he said, because of its similarity to a case two years ago in which the Court already decided against such a law. In 1997, the Court ruled eight-to-one in the case of Chandler vs. Miller that it was unconstitutional for the state of Georgia require all candidates for public office to submit to random drug testing. Chief Justice William Rehnquist provided the only dissenting vote, reasoning that because politicians automatically give up their right to privacy when they run for office, "submitting to a drug test is no big deal." Boyd said the doomed effort to enforce the law is a transparently political exercise by Louisiana politicians who want to be able to say, "If it weren't for the courts and the ACLU, the law would work." The Louisiana drug testing package also includes drug tests for drivers licenses, college scholarships and welfare benefits, making it the most sweeping set of drug testing laws in the nation. None of these controversial proposals has been implemented yet. ================ 6. Jesse Ventura Applauds Gov. Johnson's Legalization Stance http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#ventura In an interview with Minnesota Public Radio last week (12/28), Governor Jesse Ventura voiced support for New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson's call for an end to the drug war. Ventura, who ran as a member of the Reform Party, has previously spoken of his support for the legalization of marijuana, but has not been as outspoken on drug policy issues as his Republican colleague. "I'm very pleased that Governor Johnson of New Mexico has come out very strongly in support of stopping the war on drugs and going after it a different way," Ventura told MPR. "Prohibition doesn't mean something's going to go away." ================ 7. ALERT: New Hampshire Drug Policy Election Activism Opportunities http://www.drcnet.org/wol/120.html#alert This alert was sent to DRCNet subscribers who have signed up with us as from New Hampshire. If you are from New Hampshire and didn't receive it, or are from another state but wish to receive New Hampshire alerts in addition to your own state's, please mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to let us know. The effort described in it is part of an ongoing campaign, organized by a member of our board, attorney Richard Evans, to keep drug policy reform issues in the election season media coverage. To stay in the loop and always find out about more such opportunities, please mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] to get the alerts from him directly. Remember, it was audience members asking questions just like these that led to a national news story about Al Gore supporting and then backing off from medical marijuana (see http://www.drcnet.org/wol/119.html#goreonmedmj). You could create the next story! ---------- Two important opportunities are coming up to influence the course of the drug war by stimulating debate, in the New Hampshire primary, over the wisdom and efficacy of current U.S. drug policy. Your help is needed! We need to let the candidates, and the media, know that this issue cannot be ignored. 1. On Sunday, January 9, at St. Anselm's College in Manchester, during the day, there will be a "Youth Forum" featuring all or nearly all the Presidential candidates, who will be taking questions from the audience. Call (603) 641- 7175. If you get a recording, please leave your name and phone number. This is a great opportunity for college students and young people to gain direct access to the candidates and challenge them on our issue. We don't have more details at this time, but will post them when we are able to get them. 2. On Thursday, January 27, the New Hampshire AARP is sponsoring an event featuring all the candidates at the Nashua Sheraton Hotel, 11 Tara Blvd. To attend, and ask a question of the candidates, you must be "registered." The event starts with coffee, etc., at 8:30 AM; candidates are expected to come by from 10:00 to 3 PM. Lunch will be provided. No charge. To register, call (603) 644-4972. If you get voice mail, leave your name and number, etc. Please be persistent. There are limited seats available and are on a first come first serve basis. Please call NOW and reserve your ticket, before the space fills up. Below are some questions that you may want to consider asking of the candidates. Please ask any drug-war related question that you're comfortable with. We're not trying to trap anybody or elicit any particular answer; rather, we hope to demonstrate to the candidates and the media that this is an important issue and must not be ignored in the campaign. List of possible questions: (These questions relate to the longest war in our nation's history, the drug war, which was declared by President Nixon in 1973. The war has been escalated by every President since, but we seem to be no closer to victory. Despite valiant efforts by law enforcement and harsh mandatory sentences, illegal drugs remain generally available to people who want them.) * As you know, seven states and the District of Columbia have voted to stop arresting people who use medical marijuana, which the Clinton Administration has vigorously opposed. My question is: would you maintain the federal hostility toward states that so vote, OR, would you cease the federal interference, and leave that decision up to the states? * Do you have a plan to win the drug war? If so, under your plan how many more people will have to be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned to achieve victory? (This is not an essay question.) * Here in New Hampshire, people believe strongly in personal liberty. Do you believe that the government has the right to take away someone's freedom or property in the name of protecting their health? * The government's own research shows that tobacco is highly addictive and kills about half a million people a year. The research also shows that marijuana is non- addictive and has never caused a single death through its pharmacological effects. As President, would you defend the right of people to use cigarettes, and continue to arrest people for marijuana? * As President, would you take the United States to war in Colombia in the name of fighting drugs? What if a U.S. military plane were shot down by narcoguerillas: what reprisals would you take? * Do you support the use of biological weapons in the domestic drug war, specifically the use of the mutated fungus (fusarium oxysporum) that has been proposed to combat outdoor marijuana cultivation in Florida? * Since 1970, tobacco use in this country has been cut in half and not a single smoker has been arrested. Why, then, is it necessary to arrest marijuana smokers? * On November first, the Australian Minister of Health, Mr. Thwaites, announced that Australia would soon decriminalize the possession of small quantities of marijuana by adults. If you were President, would you try to stop them from doing so, or would you leave that decision entirely up to the Australians? * "Why does society persecute those with some kinds of addiction, while putting up with others that are far more widespread, dangerous and expensive?" (Bernard Kouchner, French Health Minister, The Economist, June 26, 1999) (or) * "Why do we arrest people for using some drugs, and tax them for using other drugs?" (David Naughton, Manchester Union-Leader, November 12, 1999) * In the last 100 years, there have been about two dozen major studies of drug policy by governments and major institutions around the world. Can you name any of them and tell us what they said? * Do you believe that the severity of punishments for drugs should be proportional to the harmfulness of the drug itself, that is, should more harmful drugs carry harsher penalties and less harmful drugs lesser penalties? If so, how to you reconcile the illegality of marijuana with the legality of tobacco and alcohol? * As President, would you maintain the blockade against the emergence of a domestic hemp industry? ================ Editorials will return next week. ----------------------------------------------------------- DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to 2000 P St., NW, Suite 210, Washington, DC 20036, or made by credit card at <http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html>. Donations to the Drug Reform Coordination Network are not tax-deductible. Deductible contributions supporting our educational work can be made by check to the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax- exempt organization, same address. PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of The Week Online 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: Drug Reform Coordination Network, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 210, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you. Articles of a purely educational nature in The Week Online appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted. *********************************************************** DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet *********************************************************** JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/ DRCNET HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org/ GATEWAY TO REFORM PAGE http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/
