NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF
MARIJUANA LAWS
1001 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW
SUITE 1010
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
TEL 202-483-5500 * FAX 202-483-0057
E-MAIL natlnorml@aol.com
Internet http://www.norml.org/
... a weekly service for the media on news items related to Marijuana Prohibition.
June 27, 1996
American Medical Association Shelves Report
Drafted By NORML Board Member
'Harm Reduction' Placed On Back Burner For Now
June 24, 1996, Washington, D.C.: A
report drafted by NORML board member and New York Medical
School Professor John P. Morgan, M.D. for the American Medical
Association has been put on hold after objections were raised by
several prominent medical groups regarding the paper's
content. Specifically, certain doctors were uncomfortable
with Morgan's recommendations that marijuana be legalized and
that "use, possession and low- level sales of all
psycho-active drugs should be a subject of police action only
when these activities are associated with a disruption of public
order."
Dr. John Ambre, director of the AMA's Office of Medical
Information Services, told reporters that he recruited Morgan to
draft a report for the AMA, but would not divulge any information regarding
the paper's contents or prospects.
Morgan said that he was contacted by the AMA's House of Delegates
requesting a report on the subject of "harm reduction"
-- a policy commonly defined as helping drug users minimize the dangers
to themselves without mandating that they stop using drugs.
"It struck most of us that the biggest harm reduction we
could see would be to stop putting people in jail [for drug
use,]" Morgan explained. Morgan was assisted by fellow NORML
board member Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D. of Queens College in New York,
and Ethan Nadelmann, Ph.D. of the Lindesmith Center.
Although Morgan maintains that the reaction within the AMA to his
proposals was largely favorable, the issue of harm reduction was
absent from the association's agenda during it's annual meeting
in Chicago.
Mark Stuart, a spokesman for the AMA told reporters that he
expected a revised version of the report to be submitted at the
organization's interim meeting in December.
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre of NORML
@ (202) 483-5500.
Canadian Marijuana Reform Debate Yields Few Results
June 24, 1996, Ottawa, Canada:
Ongoing debates regarding the possibility of marijuana decriminalization
in Canada yielded few tangible results as the Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended no
significant changes be made to the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act (bill C-8). This legislation is intended to
replace the Narcotic Control Act and, according to many Canadian
activists, will greatly expand the reach of Canada's illicit drug
laws. Bill C-8 will become law when an Order in Council is
passed later this year.
The Senate Committee's recommendation shocked many who noted that
several of its members had publicly stated that they supported
the decriminalization of marijuana. In attempt to explain
the Senate's last minute flip-flop, Committee Chair Senator
Sharon Carstairs told the Montreal Gazette that the
committee members were serious about decriminalization, but felt
that such a recommendation would be politically futile at this
point. "The majority of the Senators -- and I was with
them -- felt all the evidence indicated decriminalization for
simple possession [of marijuana] is the way we should be
going," she reaffirmed. However, Carstairs said that
many committee members believed such a proposal would violate
several international treaties that Canada has signed and would
have been struck down by the House of Commons.
If there is to be any relief for the cannabis community after the
latest round of political debate, it may come by way of an
approved amendment by Liberal Senator Lorna Milne that exempts "mature
hemp stock" from the definition of marijuana. Although
hemp industry proponents note that the passage of the amendment
does little to open the door to allow for the widespread cultivation
of hemp for commercial purposes, it does remove some of the
regulatory restraints (e.g., licensing) that are currently in
place regarding hemp fiber and products. "For Canada
to develop hemp as an agricultural crop, the mature hemp stalk
and the valuable fibre (sic) acquired from it must be free from
over-regulation," Milne explained. "Without the
amendment, the stalks, fibre (sic) and fibre (sic) products
derived from them such as paper, would continue to be treated as though
they were narcotic substances, simply due to the definition of
the bill."
A staff member for Senator Milne informed NORML that he
believes the Canadian government intends to draft a proposal to
allow farmers to grow hemp for commercial purposes, but many
Canadian activists feel that such legislation is still a long way
off. Currently, tests plots of industrial hemp are grown in
Canada under strict regulation for research purposes.
For more information on bill C-8, please contact Dana Larsen
of Cannabis Canada @ (800) 330-HEMP or visit the website of the
Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy @: http://fox.nstn.ca/~eoscapel/cfdp/cfdp.html.
For more information regarding the status of industrial hemp in
Canada, please contact the office of Senator Lorna Milne @ (613) 947-7695
or Ruth Shamai of The Natural Order @ (416) 656-2067. Shamai may
be contacted via e-mail @: randr@interlog.com.
Supreme Court Upholds Civil Forfeiture In Drug Cases
June 24, 1996, Washington, D.C.: The
United States Supreme Court ruled that the government may both
prosecute individuals on drug charges for criminal violations and
seize their property without violating constitutional protections
against double jeopardy.
Writing the decision for the court, Justice William Rehnquist
wrote that, "We hold that these ... civil forfeitures are
neither punishment nor criminal for the purposes of double
jeopardy." Rather, Rehnquist defined forfeitures as
remedial civil sanctions. Ironically, the high court has
ruled in earlier cases that fines and tax stamps on illicit drugs
may, in some circumstances, constitute punishment under the law
and are applicable to double jeopardy.
The court further maintained that Congress had intended
forfeiture to be a civil act and noted that, "Requiring the
forfeiture of property ... ensures that [owners] will not permit
that property to be used for illegal purposes." The
opinion added that the court has a long history of upholding forfeiture
as constitutional, although many of the cases cited involved
either contraband (e.g., unlicensed firearms, pirated goods,
etc.) or property that was integrally involved in the commission of
a crime. This latter point led lone dissenting Justice John
Paul Stevens to write, "There is simply no rational basis
for characterizing the seizure of [a] ... home as anything other
than punishment for [a] crime. The house was neither
proceeds nor contraband and its value had no relation to the government's
authority to seize it."
"During oral arguments [during which I was present,] several
justices found the government's argument intellectually
incoherent," explained NORML Legal Committee Member
Jeffrey Steinborn. "In the opinion, they accept the
government's theory. [Therefore,] we can expect the Supreme
Court to continue to indulge the government and we can expect the
government to indulge in runaway forfeiture."
According to government statistics, the Justice Department
collected nearly $550 million in assets from civil forfeiture in
1994. Approximately $235 million went directly to state and
local law enforcement agencies.
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre
of NORML @ (202) 483-5500 or F.E.A.R.
(Forfeiture Endangers American Rights) @ (415) 388-8128. F.E.A.R. may
be contacted on the Internet @: http://www.fear.org/
Federal Government Unveils New Plan To Target Drug Use Among Adolescents
June 24, 1996, Washington, D.C.: The
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in cooperation
with the National Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), unveiled a
new campaign to warn adolescents of the dangers of tobacco,
alcohol, and illicit drugs. Entitled "Reality
Check," the campaign is being launched primarily in response
to recent evidence of rising teen marijuana use.
"Today, too many teenagers think marijuana won't harm their
health or ruin their lives," HHS Secretary Donna Shalala
told the crowd at the 100th Annual National PTA Convention in Washington,
D.C. "We want to help [parents] send a clear message
to their children that drugs are illegal, dangerous and
wrong."
At the focus of the campaign are two publications that explain to
parents the best way to speak with their children about illicit
substances and encourage them to remain drug free. One section of the
booklet Keeping Youth Drug Free even advises parents how
to answer questions from their children regarding their past use
of marijuana. "Many people my age ... tried marijuana,
... but we didn't know as much about it as we do now," the
pamphlet recommends parents explain. "I tried it [a]
couple times because friends of mine were doing it. And
then I stopped because I decided it just wasn't a good thing to
do."
"As long as the federal government continues to lump the
alleged dangers of marijuana alongside the harm caused by other
illicit drugs such as crack and heroin, any campaign hoping to 'educate'
children about the risks of using marijuana will be only
minimally effective," stated NORML Deputy Director
Allen St. Pierre. NORML maintains that cannabis
consumption should be limited to adults only.
For a free copy of the "Reality Check" kit, please
call SAMSHA Center for Substance Abuse Prevention @ (800)
767-0117.
California High Court Rules
That Judges Are Not Mandated To Impose 'Three Strikes' Law
June 20, 1996, San Francisco, CA: In
a ruling that may affect an estimated 16,000 inmates, the
California Supreme Court decided that judges are not required to
impose mandatory prison sentences of 25 years to life on repeat
offenders if they feel such a sentence is overly cruel. The unanimous
decision, which has drawn praise from many civil libertarians and
harsh criticism from Governor Pete Wilson, is retroactive and
could potentially reduce the sentences of individuals who were
given stiffer prison terms under the 1994 "three
strikes" law.
"The mindless and inexorable demand for a life sentence for
minor offenses has become a bit more mindful," said Vincent
Schiraldi, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and
Criminal Justice.
"Because this decision was unanimous and from a conservative
court, other courts [across the nation] may look to this opinion
as challenges arise to their own laws," added Eric Sterling
of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.
The court's decision stemmed from a San Diego case in which a
repeat offender was charged with possessing a small amount of
cocaine. Feeling that the mandatory sentence was an unfit punishment
for the crime, the judge moved to strike the defendant's previous
convictions so he could plea bargain. The prosecutor in the
case objected, maintaining that under the "three
strikes" legislation, the judge lacked the right.
The ruling maintained that denying judges their traditional
discretion over sentencing violates the separation of powers
guaranteed in the state Constitution. The court asserted
that their decision did not spell the end of "three
strikes" law, but merely returned the customary power of
judicial discretion back to the judges.
Following the court's decision, Gov. Wilson -- an ardent
proponent of mandatory sentencing -- pledged to find a way to
bypass the court's ruling with either a referendum or by
introducing similar legislation. However, legal scholars
believe that the court will strike these measures down as well.
"Those who repeatedly assault our citizens ... must pay a
sever price for their crimes," Wilson said. "I
intend to keep faith with the people of California who have every
right to demand protection against career criminals and
predators."
For more information, please contact Julie Stewart of Families
Against Mandatory Minimums @ (202) 457-5790 or Eric Sterling of
the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation @ (202) 835- 9075.
Florida To Adopt Standards Regarding Hair Testing
June 1996, Tallahassee, FL: A bill
(SB 518) amending drug testing laws to specifically establish
standards and procedures regarding the use of hair specimens in
drug testing has become law in Florida. The measure passed
without the governor's signature and makes Florida the first state
in the nation to explicitly address and endorse the use of hair
samples to test for illegal drug use.
Proponents of the measure argue that the testing procedure offers
significant advantages over urinalysis. Specifically,
backers of the procedure maintain that hair testing gives
employers a longer window of detection -- commonly allowing
employers to determine drug use that took place several months
earlier. Proponents also maintain that hair tests are much
more difficult to beat than is urinalysis.
However, critics of the use of hair specimens in drug testing
assert that the procedure has major flaws. For one, recent
studies indicate that the hair of African-American males may
collect nearly eight times as much drugs as either female
African-Americans or Caucasians. These findings indicate
the potential for racial and sexual bias in hair testing, critics
warn. In addition, hair testing remains a new technology
that many feel is still in need of further scientific evaluation.
"Hair analysis for the presence of drugs is unproven [and]
unsupported by scientific literature or controlled trials," said
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spokeswoman Sharon Snider in a
1995 Providence Journal interview.
Despite the procedures recent recognition in Florida, hair
testing on a national basis has yet to receive the same level of
technical and legal acceptance that has been accorded to
urinalysis drug testing and many courts will not accept the
findings of hair testing alone as a positive indication of drug
use.
For more information on hair testing, please contact Allen St.
Pierre of NORML @ (202) 483-5500.
Canadians Nationwide Set To Celebrate Cannabis Day On July 1
June 19, 1996, Vancouver, Canada:
Canadian marijuana reform activists across the nation will be
celebrating Cannabis Day on July 1. In Vancouver, rally
organizers are promoting a parade and will be setting up a
variety of exhibits about marijuana and industrial hemp.
There will also be live music and speakers including Dr.
Alexander Sumach, Canadian author Chris Bennet, and Elvy Musikka,
one of the eight American patients who legally receives marijuana
as a medicine from the federal government.
Coinciding rallies will also be held in other cities across
Canada, including Victoria, Nanaimo, Edmonton, and Thunder
Bay. A "virtual rally" is also scheduled to take
place on the Internet at the Hemp BC website located at: http://www.hempbc.com/.
For more information, please contact David Malmo-Levine of
Hemp BC @ (604) 669-9069.
-END-
MORE THAN 10 MILLION MARIJUANA ARRESTS SINCE 1965 ... ANOTHER EVERY 65 SECONDS!