Drug Policy News: July 20, 2001
England poised to Re-Legalize Marijuana
Britons relaxing attitude to cannabis, says poll
Libertarian Supporter Poll The Drug War as a signature issue?
Nobel Laureate Rips US Drug Policy
Mass. Court Upholds Man's Conviction
Students Convicted of Minor Drug Offences Losing Out on School Aid
Mikuriya makes Drug Policy recommendations when honored by Republicans
DEA nominee silent on medical marijuana (01/07/18)
Carlos Lehder Free in Government Ruse?
Good Morning Columbia
Bush Administration Like a Sharp Stick In Your Eye
England poised to Re-Legalize Marijuana
Blair Govt dismisses call to legalize cannabis:
Calls by the former deputy leader of the Conservative Party in Britain to
legalise cannabis appear to have turned political tradition in the United
Kingdom on its head. The proposal has been greeted more warmly by
Conservative politicians than the ruling Blair Labor Government. The former
Tory deputy leader, Peter Lilley, describes current laws in Britain against
the possession of marijuana as unenforceable and indefensible, and he has
urged its legalization.
"Public opinion is way ahead of where the politicians have been and its time
we broke the taboo on discussing this subject," Mr Lilley said.
His call has sparked an active debate amongst contenders for the
Conservative Party leadership, with some not exactly ruling out the idea.
But the spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair says the drug is dangerous
and hallucinogenic, and the Government's position will remain unchanged.
Saturday 7 July, 2001 11:48am AEST
Britons relaxing attitude to cannabis, says poll
By Michael Holden
LONDON, July 8 (Reuters) - A poll published on Sunday said a growing number of Britons were in favour of cannabis being legalised, two days after a senior member of the opposition Conservative Party stirred up controversy by calling for Britain's drug laws to be relaxed.
An NOP poll for the Independent on Sunday newspaper reported that 37 percent of Britons wanted the drug legalised with 51 percent opposed.
That compares with a similar poll in 1996 when 66 percent of those polled were against legalising cannabis, and just 26 percent in favour, the paper said.
Support for change was greatest amongst 16 to 34-year olds with 45 percent wanting legalisation and only 43 percent opposing.
The poll comes two days after Peter Lilley, a right-winger who served in the cabinets of former Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Major, said cannabis should be legalised and sold in special outlets.
Lilley said Britain's current laws, which classify cannabis as a class B drug with a possible five year jail term for those caught in possesion of it, had failed.
"Nearly half of young people try cannabis and more than a million people flout the law every month," he said.
His views ignited huge debate amongst politicians and the media, although Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has ruled out any immediate changes to current laws.
However, London's Metropolitan police force, with the backing of the Home Office, recently announced it was launching a pilot scheme in the Lambeth area whereby offenders caught with the drug would be given no more than a verbal warning. If successful, the practice could become more widespread.
The issue has dominated the media and it made the fromt pages of three of Britain's leading Sunday newspapers.
Two former home secretaries (Interior Ministers), now members of Britain's second chamber the House of Lords, had come out in support of decriminalising the drug, The Sunday Times reported.
Students Convicted of Minor Drug Offences Losing Out on School Aid
By ARLENE LEVINSON
.c The Associated Press
A ban on giving federal aid to college students with drug convictions could mean more than 34,000 people will be denied loans and grants in the coming school year - more than triple those turned away in 2000-01.
The increase reflects a clarification in the U.S. Education Department's aid application, which screens for people with drug records. But the change has brought louder protests against the law: Even the measure's author says enforcement has been taken too far.
U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, an Indiana Republican, intended the aid ban to apply only to college students already getting loans or grants when convicted, an aide said.
Instead, education officials in the Clinton administration and now under President Bush are denying aid to people with previous drug convictions. Souder is trying to get them to change their enforcement efforts to match his intent, said Angela Flood, Souder's chief of staff.
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has introduced a bill seeking the law's repeal. Repeal is also the aim of the fledgling Students for Sensible Drug Policy and its 140 campus chapters.
Higher education leaders are protesting, too.
The law is ``fundamentally flawed,'' and amounts to ``double punishment'' - and bias - against low-and middle-income students who must undergo screening while their wealthier peers do not, the head of the American Council on Education wrote in May to U.S. Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark. Hutchinson is Bush's nominee to run the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The council is ``concerned that this provision will prove to be an insurmountable obstacle to far too many students, causing many of them to abandon their hope of a college education,'' Stanley Ikenberry wrote on behalf of 13 groups, including the nation's major associations of colleges and universities.
The education agency is only doing what Congress asked, said Lindsey Kozberg, Education Department spokeswoman.
``Consistent with the department's overall position, we seek applications from students that are complete and accurate, so we can provide aid to as many eligible students as possible,'' she said.
The law, approved in 1998, bars federal grants, work-study money and U.S.-backed and subsidized student loans to anyone convicted of selling or possessing drugs.
For a first drug-possession offense, ineligibility lasts a year after conviction; for a second offense, two years. More convictions bar aid indefinitely.
The law is tougher on traffickers. A single drug sale conviction means aid ineligibility for two years; more than that and the ban is indefinite. Aid can be restored if a student undergoes drug rehabilitation.
Enforcement starts when an applicant fills out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA. Question 35 on the 2001-02 aid form: ``Have you ever been convicted of possessing or selling illegal drugs?''
A ``yes'' brings a second form in the mail, asking for details to determine if the aid ban applies in this case.
Those who fail to answer question 35 are asked again. If they still don't answer, aid is automatically denied.
Phrasing on last year's form confused people: ``If you have never been convicted of any illegal drug offense, enter '1' in the box.''
Even after a follow-up letter, 279,098 people left the box blank. Federal officials blamed their flawed question, and granted aid to those who didn't answer. After consulting with focus groups, they changed the question to make it clearer.
A total of 9,548 people were still denied aid in the 2000-01 cycle, but they were the applicants who admitted to having drug convictions.
This year, the government expects 10 million aid applications. Among 6.8 million so far, 34,096 will likely be denied student aid, officials said.
While 21,993 disclosed a drug conviction making them ineligible, another 12,103 failed to answer the drug question.
Unknown is how many the law scares off.
``Many people will not apply because they're not eligible, or they think they're not eligible,'' said Corye Barbour, lobbyist at the United States Student Association. ``We don't have any way to estimate them.''
One is Todd Howard, a 32-year-old store clerk in Louisville, Ky.
With a high school diploma and some computer training, he's eager to advance. But the $15,000 he needs for a two-year college program is out of reach. So is a federal student loan.
Howard said he has two misdemeanor convictions for marijuana possession, one from 1996, the second this month. Howard said he has quit using the drug, and feels it's irrelevant to his college plans.
``Ask me if I pay my loans back,'' he said. ``Ask me if I would finish the course. Ask me if I would go out and try to get a job once I finish the courses.''
He'll wait two years to become eligible for aid. It would be wrong to enter rehab just to get the money. ``I don't think it's right,'' Howard said.
On the Net:
Government questionnaire for would-be students with drug convictions:
http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw0102/q35pdf.htm
Students for sensible drug policy: http://www.ssdp.org
AP-NY-07-14-01 1622EDT
Mikuriya makes Drug Policy recommendations when honored by Republicans (Medical MJ Update)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -July 12, 2001
The National Republican Congressional Committee has given Tod Mikuriya,MD,
a "National Leadership Award." A gilt-sealed certificate names him
Honorary Co-Chairman of the NRCC's Physician's Advisory Board.
Mikuriya, 67, is a dignified Berkeley psychiatrist who has devoted his
career to studying the medical uses of cannabis, Since the passage of Prop
215, he has recommended the herb for some 5,000 patients with diverse
disorders.
"This award is a welcome antidote to being dissed by district attorneys
and harassed by the California Medical Board," Mikuriya said today.
Mikuriya has sent the Republicans his "grateful acceptance," along with a
program he intends to promote. Recommended steps include:
* Repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which is unscientific and
harmful to health policy.
* Transfer drug policy to the Surgeon General to substitute medical
management for punitive and prohibitive enforcement solutions.
* Re-deploy DEA to EPA to prevent of chemical terrorism and pesticide
poisoning
* Prohibit direct advertisement of all prescription drugs.
* Restore medicinal cannabis to availability with definitions in the U.S.
Pharmacopoeia for composition and potency.
* Hold hearings on covert human drug testing by intelligence agencies and
corporations.
* Review the scientific legitimacy of drug testing as an indicator of
fitness for duty.
Copies of Mikuriya's award and acceptance letter may be viewed on
www.mikuriya.com
DEA nominee silent on medical marijuana (01/07/18)
07/18/2001 Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Rep. Asa Hutchinson, President Bush's pick to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration, declined Tuesday to commit the agency to vigorously enforcing the federal ban on medical marijuana.
The question came up during the Arkansas Republican's confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Supreme Court ruled in May that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal had no exception for medical uses.
"Do you think the federal government should make it a priority to prosecute people who are distributing marijuana to ill people?" asked committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Mr. Hutchinson said he personally opposed the use of marijuana for medical purposes but wouldn't say going after medical marijuana dealers would be a priority for the DEA.
"I think as far as enforcement policy, that's something I'm going to work with the attorney general on and develop an appropriate policy," he said.
"In other words, you can't take a position today," Mr. Leahy said.
Mr. Hutchinson, a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Speaker's Task Force for a Drug Free America, was nominated by Mr. Bush to lead the DEA in May. A vote on his nomination by the full committee will come later, officials said.
Mr. Hutchinson called the battle against drug use "a noble purpose worthy of a great crusade."
"I will bring my heart to this great crusade," he said. "My heart will reflect a passion for the law, a compassion for those families struggling with this nightmare and devotion to helping young people act upon the strength and not the weaknesses of their character."
On other issues, Mr. Hutchinson said:
* Laws requiring mandatory minimum sentences have helped reduce violent crimes, but he would support having Congress take another look at them.
* Federal funding should continue to help Colombia fight drug smugglers. "I believe it is a risk we have to take to support a very old democracy," he said.
* Racial profiling would become a thing of the past for the DEA. "It's important that the federal agencies set an example for the states," he said.
_____________________________
From: Brian Downing Quig <quig@dcia.com>
Organization: PRIMARY RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Subject: Asa Hutchinson hearing date set If we can not block this nomination there is little reason to believe we can be successful in any other anti drug war initiative.We should have protesters with with signs on the senate steps. Dana Beal can always get a few hundred of these when needed.
If we can not block this one it should be obvious that our feeble voices are inadequate to over come the nightly tidal wave of TV lies.
CARLOS LEHDER FREE IN GOV'T RUSE?
From: "Mike Ruppert" mruppert@copvcia.com
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 06:47:19 -0700
To: "From The Wilderness" <mruppert@copvcia.com>
Subject: Subscriber Bulletin 01-08 -- CARLOS LEHDER FREE IN GOV'T RUSE?-
WIFE ON TAPE SAYS YES - LINKS TO AIG, ADFA, GOLDMAN SACHS
CARLOS LEHDER FREE IN GOV'T RUSE?- WIFE ON TAPE SAYS YES
LINKS TO AIG, ADFA, GOLDMAN SACHS - MONEY LAUNDERING
HOSTAGES - A Special Multi-Part Investigation by FROM THE WILDERNESS
FTW (July 9, 2001) -- Thousands of Americans are serving sentences of fromtwenty years to life in prison for drug crimes that often involve noseizures of drugs. Meanwhile, shocking new evidence -- including a taperecording of a conversation including his reported wife -- and what may beofficial U.S. government documents, indicate that Carlos Lehder, co-founderof the Medellin Cartel -- who is supposed to be serving 55 non-paroleableyears in prison - is a free man. What's more, documents that the U.S.government has apparent trouble refuting, show that Lehder is an employee ofthe U.S. Treasury while his wife has told a veteran DEA Agent that Lehderhas been selling drugs to Russia for the CIA. Ask yourself why a man who wasreported to be worth $3 billion in 1987 was allowed to keep his assets aftersecret discussions with then Vice President George Bush.
Read Part I of this special series and view the support documents online atwww.copvcia.com. In a story with more twists than a pretzel, learn that Mrs.Lehder worked until recently for the insurance giant AIG in San Franciscojust before resigning weeks ago and going to Cuba. Read about her "goodfriend," fugitive financier Robert Vesco and learn of her connections to1996 stories about CIA involvement in the drug trade in Los Angeles. See thestatements of a decorated, veteran DEA agent who has talked to Mrs. CoralLehder and who is absolutely convinced that a man characterized as "vicious"by his former prosecutor is "out of jail" and living the life of luxury,reportedly with government protection.
As the U.S. stands poised for a so-called drug war in Colombia, read thefirst part of this shocking series now and judge the evidence for yourself.In subsequent parts of this investigation you will learn of the officialinvestigations in New York, Delaware and Pennsylvania that focused on Mrs.Lehder's employer, AIG, and the mysterious Barbados Company, CoralReinsurance. You will see the drug money connections to the ArkansasDevelopment Financial Authority (ADFA) and learn of the Medellin Cartel'slinks to infamous Mena Airport and legendary smuggler Barry Seal.
PART I of this Special Series is online NOW at www.copvcia.com.
Mike Ruppert
Publisher/Editor
>From The Wilderness
www.copvcia.com
GOOD MORNING, COLOMBIA
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:06:54 -0500
From: Arianna Huffington <arianna@overthrowthegov.com
Subject: Arianna's Latest Column
For more than a year, critics of our government's drug war aid package toColombia (now hovering at $2 billion) have been warning of the mission creepthat threatens to embed us ever deeper in that country's 4-decade-old civilwar.
Well, the slippery slope just got greased.
The House of Representatives is about to vote on the $15.2 billion ForeignOperations Spending Bill. Buried amidst the appropriations for manyworthwhile projects such as the Peace Corps and international HIV/AIDSrelief is a legislative land mine. The booby trap comes in the form of acouple of innocuous-sounding lines that could lead to a massive escalationof American involvement in Colombia's unwinnable war.
Contained in the section of the bill earmarking $676 million for"counterdrug activities" in the region are the following eye-glazingprovisions: "These funds are in addition to amounts otherwise available forsuch purposes and are available without regard to section 3204(b)(1)(B) ofPublic Law 106-246: Provided further, that section 482(b) of the ForeignAssistance Act of 1961 shall not apply to funds appropriated under thisheading."
Got that? I didn't think so. Legislative gobbledygook doesn't get anygookier. But once the meaningless numbers and letters are decoded, and thestatutory dots connected, the ominous significance of those provisionsbecomes all-too-clear. If approved, they make possible the unlimited buildupof "mercenaries" and the removal of any constraints on the kinds of weaponsthey can use.
Under current law, the number of U.S. military personnel that can bedeployed in Colombia is limited to 500, and they are prohibited fromengaging in combat. But as politicians discovered long ago, there are twoparts to every law: the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.
As regards Colombia, our government chose the latter, carrying out a classicend run around the prohibition by funding a war conducted by mercenaries --hundreds of American citizens working for private military contractors likeDynCorp, Airscan and Military Professional Resources Inc.
At the moment, the number of these mercenaries is capped at 300. But thefirst new provision, if it becomes law, does away with this restriction. Theother provision removes language that says "weapons or ammunition" can onlybe provided for "defensive purposes" while engaged in narcotics-relatedactivities. It's a deadly cocktail: unlimited private forces armed withunlimited weapons.
Congress has always zealously guarded its rights under the War Powers Act.But unless its members catch on, they could approve a privatized Gulf ofTonkin Resolution without even realizing it's hidden in the giant ForeignOperations Bill. And once the dogs of war are unleashed, they're awfullyhard to round up again -- just ask Bob McNamara.
This ongoing and furtive escalation directly contradicts the government'sassurances that, as assistant secretary of state Rand Beers put it lastweek, "Plan Colombia is a plan for peace."
"From the beginning," he wrote in an op-ed, "we have stated that there is nomilitary solution to Colombia's problems." Then why, pray, the need foroffensive weaponry and unrestricted numbers of mercenaries?
To make matters worse, a new investigation by the Center for PublicIntegrity reveals that U.S. anti-drug money spent on Latin America is being"funneled through corrupt military, paramilitary and intelligenceorganizations and ends up violating basic human rights."
Those who scoff at the idea that our drug-fighting efforts in Colombia couldlead to America becoming embroiled in a massive counter-insurgency warshould take a look at a new study by the RAND Corporation, which wascommissioned by the U.S. Air Force.
The study calls on the United States to drop the phony "counter-narcoticsonly" pretense and directly assist the Colombian government in its battleagainst leftist rebels: "The United States is the only realistic source ofmilitary assistance on the scale needed to redress the currently unfavorablebalance of power."
There is still the chance that Congress will refuse to go along with thestatutory trickery that will make such large-scale "military assistance" alltoo likely. Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., areconsidering an amendment to eliminate the new provisions before the ForeignOperations Bill comes to a vote.
Turning an army of heavily armed mercenaries loose in the middle of a bloodycivil war is more than a misguided policy -- it's utter insanity. It'simperative that our lawmakers defuse these provisions in the bill beforethey blow up in our faces, and the cliche of "another Vietnam" becomes asorry Colombian reality.
Bush Administration Like a Sharp Stick In Your Eye
From: DdC <dendecannabist@yahoo.com>
Subject: [SC MJ March] Bush Administration Like a Sharp Stick In Your Eye
Bush Administration Like a Sharp Stick In Your Eye
Published on Tuesday, July 10, 2001 in Newsday
How the 'Ethical' Administration Lies About Contra War
by Marie Cocco
JOSEPH Towle recites the death toll from memory.In El Salvador, 60,000 or 70,000. In Guatemala, 200,000. "Some of them,my parishioners," the priest said.
And of course, some 40,000 to 50,000 in Nicaragua, the epicenter.
Towle spent a quarter-century as a missionary in Latin America, some ofit during the time when the United States closed its eyes to themurders of nuns and priests and even bishops, and the rivers ran with
blood. It was the policy of the United States in the 1980s to supportany government that lined up against Communists and leftists of all stripes, even if those governments were profoundly murderous. And
especially if they helped the United States stage its secret wars and sundry anti-Communist plots.
This they obligingly did, in return for the usual emoluments: dollars and benign blindness toward such unpleasantness as mass graves and murdered clergy.
Towle is not obviously angry when he recalls this time. He has the gentle way of a religious man.
He seems, more than anything, baffled by President George W. Bush's decision to resurrect these ghosts by nominating to positions of rank and prestige - and, yes, high honor - people who helped perpetrate the
bloody deceit.
"I don't think they have much imagination," said Towle of the current president and his men.
Democrats on Capitol Hill relish hearings on the nominations of Otto Reich, nominated to be assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere, and John Negroponte to be United Nations ambassador. Each
was present at the creation - that is, they were posted in key diplomatic jobs and participated, more or less, in that breathtakingly corrupt enterprise that was the U.S.-backed war against Nicaragua's leftist government. The bill of particulars reads like a Graham Greene novel. The Democrats will doubtless serialize it.
More revealing, though, is the appointment of a man who will not be required to raise his right hand and swear to tell the truth for the cameras.
Elliott Abrams, who was Oliver North's colleague and co-conspirator in the the Reagan administration's illegal contra war, is back at the White House.
He works at the National Security Council, where his job is to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. The appointment was made with a straight face.
The post does not require Senate approval. All it takes is a president willing to appoint a convicted criminal and unrepentant liar to high public office.
The point is to perpetuate the myth that the whole Iran-contra scandal was not scandalous at all but merely a partisan skirmish at the twilight of the Cold War in which the forces of virtue - that is, the Reaganites - stood against the nettlesome nagging of lefty Democrats.
In fact, the contra effort entangled the U.S. government with international gun-runners, drug traffickers and money launderers. It involved illegal activity on three continents. Abrams helped secretly raise money from rich and friendly foreigners. He was a key figure in the cover-up, lying repeatedly to Congress.
He eventually satisfied felony charges with pleas to two misdemeanors and was pardoned by the first President Bush just before he left office.
There are pardons, and there are pardons. The president this latest Bush replaced is still under investigation even for pardons he refused to grant.
But the new president Bush is busy restoring honor and dignity to the White House. The Restoration Administration has as its ethical premise that anything done by the good men and women who it knows to be good men and women (that is, loyal to the Bush family) obviously have unquestionable credentials and unassailable virtue.
"The best person for the job," is how several Bush spokesmen described the president's reason for restoring Abrams.
In truth, the return of the rogues is a sharp stick in the eye of everyone - political opponents, foreign diplomats, scholars, even nuns and priests - who saw the Central America of the 1980s and discerned neither moral triumph nor political success. It is an attempt to rewrite history. Like all such conceits, it eventually will fail.
