Back to Map

Maptalk-Digest Tuesday, December 30 1997 Volume 97 : Number 558

SENT: S.F. Official calls for easing curbs on methadone
    From: Dave Haans <> (by way of "MAPnews Sr. Editor" <>)
Gene Tinelli. M.D., Ph.D re:Taking on the Drug Wars
    From: 
SENT:LTE: Dailymail -- 'Why we Have to Fight the Legalizers'
    From:  (Joel W. Johnson)
SENT:LTE: SF Examiner -- The Down and Out
    From:  (Joel W. Johnson)
Try again--Gene Tinelli. M.D., Ph.D re:Taking on the Drug Wars
    From: 
sent to Sun Sentinel
    From: bryan krumm <>
Re: HAWK: Re: Disclaimer suggestion..
    From: "MAPnews Sr. Editor" <>
Joel makes the big TIME magazine (and Ooops!)
    From: "MAPnews Sr. Editor" <>
Sent to Sun Sentinel re Driscoll
    From: Alan Mason <>
Imler joins the AMR assault---  Peron's Tactics Anger Many in Medical Marij
    From: 


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subj: SENT: S.F. Official calls for easing curbs on methadone
From: Dave Haans <> (by way of "MAPnews Sr. Editor" <>)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:44:37 -0500

To the editor,

In your article, "S.F. Official calls for easing curbs on methadone"
(December 26, 1997), Rev. Arnold G. Townsend suggests that methodone will
not solve the problem
of heroin addiction "because if they can't get methadone, they'll go back
to another drug."

Well, even child can figure out the solution to this problem -- ensure that
medically ill people receive their medication for as long as they need it.
It's rather simple, really.

Dave Haans
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Contact Info:

[snip]
- --
Dave Haans
Graduate Student, University of Toronto
WWW:  http://www.chass.utoronto.ca:8080/~haans/

------------------------------

Subj: Gene Tinelli. M.D., Ph.D re:Taking on the Drug Wars
From: 
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:08:35 -0600 (CST)

These message boards/discussion forums could really be to our benefit.
Y
... mail sending aborted by user ....

------------------------------

Subj: SENT:LTE: Dailymail -- 'Why we Have to Fight the Legalizers'
From:  (Joel W. Johnson)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 15:31:19 -0800

RE:  WHY WE HAVE TO FIGHT THE LEGALISERS
PUB:  Friday, December 26, 1997

To the Editor:

Dr. Anthony Daniels' editorial "Why We Have to Fight the Legalizers" did an
excellent job of supporting his position to maintain prohibition, but,
nevertheless, the good doctor's conclusions are still wrong.

Dr. Daniels suggests that a father would feel "dread," "shame and
embarassment" for having a son arrested on drug charges.  Supposedly, he
claims we should feel this because our youth doesn't follow in the
footsteps for which we would like.  However, we should feel the shame and
embarrassment because our own policy allows and perpetuates this action.

Needless to say, if there were a regulated system of drug distribution our
youth would not be dealing drugs.  Likewise, it is only our policy of
prohibition that facilitates the availability of drugs to teenagers -- ask
any teenager if it is easier to get drugs from a friend, or alcohol from a
store, and you will see what I mean.  Even more shocking, it is our own
policy that toys with the rebelliousness that is so characteristic of
teenage life.

Moreover, we already have proof that the doctor's suggestions don't work.
Prohibition is a collosal failure that only causes more problems than it is
intended to solve.  Eliminate it and we can rid ourselves of the dealers,
guns, violence and temptation that follows.

Fortunately, it is not the doctors fault that he does not know better -- he
seems to truly have good intentions.  However, he sees the problems with
drugs and mistakely blames the drugs themselves.

I hope that in the future he will come to understand that drug abuse is an
unavoidable evil, but we certainly do have the capacity to eliminate so
many of the tangential drug problems that are caused directly by our
short-sighted policy.

Sincerely,

Joel W. Johnson
(contact info)

------------------------------

Subj: SENT:LTE: SF Examiner -- The Down and Out
From:  (Joel W. Johnson)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 15:31:27 -0800

RE: THE DOWN AND OUT: CRACK ADDICTS BUY PITY AND SELL HELLO
Pub: Sunday December 28, 1997

To the Editor:

Donna Lane's editorial "The Down and Out" (December 28) was a heartfelt
account of the reality of our drug problem.  It clearly displayed that our
"Drug War" policy is completely out of context with the problem it is
intended to solve; instead of police, prisons and prohibition we need
education, housing and treatment.

Not only do our wartime tactics prevent us from helping people who are
"down and out," they further prevent them from getting back up.  While
insisting that our drug problem needs to be fought and not helped, we
refuse to allow the housing and treatment that can actually solve the drug
abuse problem.  Rather, our policy dictates to have them arrested.

When will we understand that only when we wage a war for education, or
against poverty and homelessness will we finally be capable of putting a
dent in drug abuse?   Likewise, only a different drug policy would finally
eliminate the black market that necessitates guns, violence, corruption and
frightenly toys with our teenagers whose very existence is synonymous with
rebellion from our established social guidelines.

Like the humane Donna Lane, we need to view our drug problem with
compassion, not blame and hatred.  Only then will we be able to minimize
the damage done by drugs to our society.

Sincerely,

Joel W. Johnson

------------------------------

Subj: Try again--Gene Tinelli. M.D., Ph.D re:Taking on the Drug Wars
From: 
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 19:19:37 -0600 (CST)

Don't ask me what happened with the last attempt, cuz I ain't
got no clue.  This might get posted again in the morning when
I check my mail at the office. That's OK, though, because the
post from Dr. Tinelli is REAL GOOD.
- ------------------

A little message for those participating on the various forums.
Always keep in mind that there are a large number of people who
read these forums, but do not actively participate. These are
the people you want to reach. There is no way to know who these
people are, but you can bet that some of them are monitored by
politicians' staffers. Be as informative as possible and keep in
mind that you will rarely change a drug warrior's position, and
even if you did, the ego thing would keep them from admitting it.

Following is a recent post from the Sun-Sentinal message board.
http://sun-sentinel.com/news/drugfeedback.htm

It's from Gene Tinelli. M.D., Ph.D 
Department of Psychiatry Health Science Center State University of New 
York (it is unformatted)
- -----------------------------

Re: Taking on the Drug Wars

I read with interest the Sun-Sentinal¹s series on drugs. As an addiction 
psychiatrist, I am incredulous that it took your staff six months to 
assemble one of the most biased and distorted ³overviews² of drugs I¹ve 
ever read. The limits on my time make it impossible to challenge most of 
your series, however, I will comment on the goals of your series: ³. . . 
to make the war on drugs more effective and to better protect America¹s 
children from the ravages of illegal narcotics². The most recent and 
potent article on the ³effectiveness² of our war on drugs was published 
in the most respected news weekly in the world (³Mexico¹s Drugs Menace: 
Poison across the Rio Grande², The Economist, pp. 36-38, Nov. 15, 1997). 
They point out that anyone familiar with history and systems theory 
should know that cracking down on one area of drug supply inevitably 
leads to another drug supply area becoming prominent. Now, instead of 
Columbia, it is Mexico, and, for a whole host of reasons, that puts both 
America¹s and Mexico²s societies and governments in dire jeopardy. With 
a 2000 mile border, tens of thousands unemployed Mexicans (ironically 
former smugglers of electronic equipment until NAFTA¹s tariff reductions 
kicked in and knocked the profit out of smuggling), and drugs 
traffickers regularly producing twice as much as they expect to sell to 
make up for losses, there is no way to stop this toxic plague of 
corruption from ruining us unless we end our drug prohibition. The facts 
bear them out. The U.S. has spent nearly $300 billion since the early 
80¹s to stem the flow of drugs and our own State Department says this 
had ³no discernible impact on either price of availability². We can 
never be more effective unless we end this prohibition and start 
sensiblbly regulating drugs (which is all that the term ³legalization² 
means). You correctly make protecting our youth a priority but since we 
can¹t stop the supply, how can we reduce the demand, especially in those 
youth. Threatening them with urine screens will not stop them. I was on 
active duty as a Navy Commander and military psychiatrist in February, 
1981, when the U.S. Armed Forces instituted their mandatory random urine 
drug screen policy. Drug use, abuse and addiction not only continued but 
actually became worse in some areas because drugs that would persist in 
the urine long after the intoxicant effects wore off (i.e., marijuana) 
were replaced by drugs that were quickly excreted or could not be 
effectively tested (i.e., alcohol and LSD). By the way, in your 
proposals, there was no mention of how we could protect our children 
from substances that are not ³illegal narcotics², such as alcohol, 
tobacco, gambling, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. I¹m sure you get 
my point. Education could be the answer except the biggest and most 
expensive programs, the D.A.R.E. and California DATE programs, have been 
shown to be ineffective. Since your six months of analysis apparently 
missed a few pieces of data that could have enabled you to make more 
effective proposals. For example, In September 1994, the Research 
Triangle Institute in North Carolina completed a project sponsored by 
the National Institute of Justice which analyzed eight of the top 
studies of DARE. The researchers concluded that the program had only a 
short-term effect on reducing drug use, and that several other 
interaction-based drug education programs were more effective in 
preventing drug use (Susan Ennett, Nancy Tobler, Christopher Ringwalt, 
Robert Flewelling, "How Effective is Drug Abuse Education? A 
Meta-Analysis of Project DARE Outcome Evaluations,² American Journal of 
Public Health, September 1994). In 1996, University of Kentucky 
researcher Richard Clayton published a five-year evaluation of the 
effectiveness of DARE. Using data from 31 elementary schools, Clayton 
found that any results from DARE were short-term. There are "limited 
effects of the program upon drug use, greater efficacy with respect to 
attitudes, social skills and knowledge, but a general tendency for 
curriculum effects to decay over time." Bill Alden, deputy director of 
DARE America, has responded to such criticism by saying, "There's a 
natural erosion that takes place² and that the program cannot "inoculate 
children for life² (Richard Clayton. Anna Cattarello, Bryan Johnstone, 
³The Effectiveness of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (Project DARE): 
5-Year Follow-up Results.² Preventive Medicine,, 1, 307, 1996; Robert 
Greene, "Drug Education not saving kids, U.S. report admits," Charlotte 
Observer, February; 5, 1997, p. 4A). In February 1997, the Research 
Triangle Institute completed a four-year study sponsored by the 
Department of Education. The study, which tracked 10,000 fifth and sixth 
graders from 1991 to 1995, found programs other than DARE to be more 
successful in preventing drug use and promoting anti-drug attitudes 
among students. The report recommends that DARE increase emphasis on 
role-playing and decrease emphasis on self-esteem and establishing 
negative attitudes toward drugs (E. Suyapa Silvia and Judy Thorne, 
"School Based Drug Prevention Programs: A Longitudinal Study in Selected 
School Districts,² Research Triangle Institute (Chapel Hill, NC), 
February 1997). A study published in March 1997 found the 
drug-prevention scheme in California schools to be unsuccessful in 
reaching students. The Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Education programs 
(DATE) primarily consisted of the DARE program plus Red Ribbon Weeks, 
Life Skills, etc. The research, which combined by quantitative and 
qualitative methods, included in-depth interviews with 400 educators, 
administrators, parents, and counselors, included in-depth interviews 
with 40 focus groups, and included surveys to over 5000 
randomly-selected students, grades 7-12. This study showed that nearly 
70% of the students felt that the program had little or no effect on 
them and children and adolescents wanted more complete information and 
an identifiable referent relationship with educators (Joel Brown, Marian 
D'Emidio-Caston, and John Pollard, "Students and Substances: Social 
Power in Drug Education,² Educational Evaluation and Policy analysis, 
19, 65-92, Spring 1997). The researchers stated ³None of us advocate 
programs which advocate adolescent substance use. However, at its 
essence, today¹s drug education imparts values to children that run 
counter to those found in a well-informed, free, open society. By almost 
any examination, the evidence suggests that the cultural values we find 
in our California Prevention programs - the values of indoctrination, 
censorship, punishment, stigmatization, and exclusion - do not 
contribute to a successful, healthy democracy² If you want to protect 
our children via effective education, I suggest you read Taking Drugs 
Seriously: A Parient¹s Guide to Young People¹s Drug Use , Julian Cohen 
and James Kay (available through Parents Drugs Education, c/o 
Healthwise, 9 Slater St. Liverpool L1 4BW, United Kingdom). Finally, I 
most comment on your occasional views of marijuana. They are all 
incorrect. If you want accuracy instead of lies, I suggest you read 
Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, 
Lynn Zimmer, Ph.D. and John Morgan, M.D., Lindesmith Center, 1997 
(available through Bookworld Services, Sarasota FL, (800) 444-2524). 
Not only can you become much more educated on the subject, you can 
support the Florida economy by purchasing this book from a local 
publisher. I hoped I¹ve saved you considerable time so you don¹t have to 
spend another six months doing enough research to publish an accurate 
³overview, analysis, and specific proposals². Your bias and ignorance in 
the series was astounding and a well-researched overview would go along 
way to correct your recent propaganda. 

Gene Tinelli. M.D., Ph.D 
Department of Psychiatry Health Science Center State University of New 
York Syracuse, NY 13203 
Work/voice mail - (315) 476-7461x3420 
email: 

------------------------------

Subj: sent to Sun Sentinel
From: bryan krumm <>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 18:49:07 -0700 (MST)

Dear Editor,
     I find James Driscoll's recent editorials about the "War on 
Drugs" both ludicrous and appalling. His circular logic and warped
thinking are indicative of the myths, misconceptions, and lies
which have been used to perpetuate this war against our own people.
This "War" has destroyed countless thousands of lives. This "War" eats
away at the fundamental rights granted us by the Constitution, among
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This "War" 
has created a very lucrative job market for both "Drug Warriors"
and drug dealers at the expense of the American people. This "War"
is used as a smokescreen to hide the real problems which face the
American people among which are poverty, illiteracy, unemployment
and hopelessness.
     The "War on Drugs" will never be won through prohibition. Bill
Clinton has steadily increased spending for the "War"; $16 billion
has been earmarked for 1998. More people are arrested for drugs
now than in any other time in history; there were over 640,000       
arrests in 1996 for marijuana alone and over 85% of these arrests
were for possession. The United States, "the land of the free", has
the highest incarceration rate in the world. Yet in spite of this
drug use continues to increase and drugs are more available to
more people than ever before. 
     Mr. Driscoll recommends using "the nations best researchers
in drug prevention" to instill their teachings in community anti-
drug coalitions across the state. Over the last century, every
major scientific study of drug policy has consistently found that
prohibition is not effective at deterring drug use they have all
recommended that drug use be decriminalized. The opinions of
"scientific" experts have consistently been ignored. Meanwhile,
the opinions of organizations like DARE and The Partnership
for a Drug Free America are taken as gospel truth. It should
be pointed out that research shows that DARE is highly 
ineffective, breeds disrespect for the police, and DARE
graduates are more likely to use drugs than children who
have not been exposed to DARE. Also, the PDFA admitted to
ABC reporters "we feel the dangers of marijuana are so great,
that it is better to lie to the American public, to protect
them, than tell them the truth; this came out after they ran
a commercial depicting the brain wave pattern of a 14 year old
on marijuana which turned out to be of an adult in a deep coma.
Perhaps these are the "experts" Mr. Driscoll has referred to.
     As for children not being able to learn if their brains are 
crippled by drugs, the "War on Drugs" is far more damaging to
to them. Money is continually funnelled away from educational
programs while "Drug Warriors" prosper. Children have lost their
parents to incarceration and lost their homes to forfeiture. They
are placed in foster care and are often seperated from their
siblings as well. In schools and on the streets, children are
terrorized by the violence created by this "War". Children
become easy targets for drug dealers who thrive on the lucrative
black market created by this "War".
     If we truly want to stop the harm created by drug use, it
would be much more effective to use education, treatment, and
tolerance. Anti-drug zealots are leading our great nation into
a cess-pool of fascism. It is time to take back our country and
turn it once again into the land of the free and home of the 
brave rather than the land of incarceration and home of the
cowering masses it has become.
                            Bryan A. Krumm RN
                            New Mexicans for Compassionate Use
                            17 Tina Rd.
                            Edgewood, N.M. 87015
                            (505) 286-1325

------------------------------

Subj: Re: HAWK: Re: Disclaimer suggestion..
From: "MAPnews Sr. Editor" <>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 22:09:03 -0500

In the Dec. 29/Jan.6 Man of the Year double issue of TIME magazine, page
10, is a special section about all the letters they received about the Dec,
8th article 'on pot clubs that distribute marijuana'

Way to go all MAP letter writers, you got their attention!!!

And then they write, 'Among the uneasy ones is Joel W. Johnson of San Jose,
Calif....'

Again our much published MAPnews editor sees print! 

Just proves you got to SEND them. The more the better. Every letter counts,
published or not.

Be watching for the full article when I get a chance to type it in, maybe
Wednesday, in your favorite edition of the MAPNews news service.

And thanks, Joel, for the help you give me with the news service!

Richard

------------------------------

Subj: Joel makes the big TIME magazine (and Ooops!)
From: "MAPnews Sr. Editor" <>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 22:31:09 -0500

(Ooops, I clearly screwed up the subject in my last post, so here it is
again!)

In the Dec. 29/Jan.6 Man of the Year double issue of TIME magazine, page
10, is a special section about all the letters they received about the Dec,
8th article 'on pot clubs that distribute marijuana'

Way to go all MAP letter writers, you got their attention!!!

And then they write, 'Among the uneasy ones is Joel W. Johnson of San Jose,
Calif....'

Again our much published MAPnews editor sees print! 

Just proves you got to SEND them. The more the better. Every letter counts,
published or not.

Be watching for the full article when I get a chance to type it in, maybe
Wednesday, in your favorite edition of the MAPNews news service.

And thanks, Joel, for the help you give me with the news service!

Richard

------------------------------

Subj: Sent to Sun Sentinel re Driscoll
From: Alan Mason <>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 20:09:00 -0800

To the editor:

I am writing to thank you for the fine public service you have been
performing by publishing James Driscoll's series of editorials on the War
on Drugs. At a time when even Ann Landers is referring to the War on Drugs
as "a colossal failure," you have considerately gathered nearly every major
lie, distortion and outright fantasy regarding drugs and drug use into one
place. Your series should provide an excellent study guide for anyone who
wants to learn how to counter such balderdash with truth, facts and logic.
If there is a Pulitzer Prize for educational news-articles, your paper has
earned it hands-down.

Alan Mason
contact info

------------------------------

Subj: Imler joins the AMR assault---  Peron's Tactics Anger Many in Medical Marijuana
From: 
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 00:32:28 -0800

Here's a big fact that Mr. Imler and his fellow losers better get through
their thick heads. If Dan Lungren succeeds in closing the San Francisco
Cannabis Club, it will mean the end of ALL of the clubs.

If Imler had bothered to read the court decision before pontificating to
the press, he would realize that Peron's methods of running the San
Francisco Cannabis Buyers Club were NOT the issue of this decision. The
**WAY**  the club is run was not a factor.  Although some of Dan Lungren's
accusations against Peron's club were mentioned, they are NOT the basis for
this decision.

In order to raise the issue of HOW a club is run, Lungren will have to
develop new evidence for actions occurring since passage of 215 and bring a
new case to trial.  From what I know,  the narcs will have a mighty slim
chance of nailing the club for diverting MMJ to non-medical recipients.
Since the raid last year, a strict admissions policy has been in place and
quite a few narcs have had their applications rejected. A picture ID system
was installed and there are very few fakers.  All of this caution appears
to be a wasted effort  because as far as the court is concerned it is
irrelevant whether you are selling marijuana in a night club or a medical
dispensary.

The SF CBC is approved and supported by virtually every local politician
from the Mayor and District Attorney to the Board of Supervisors and the
Police Chief, so Peron's operation satisfies local officials. There is NO
local objection to the club outside the narcotics squad. There is
overwhelming support (78% favorable). It is extremely unlikely that anyone
could win election here who is foolish enough to oppose MMJ and Peron's
club.  Dennis Peron has ROCK SOLID support from his community!

Can Scott Imler claim the same degree of community and political backing
for HIS "properly run (?)" club in West Hollywood???? And what about the
rest of the Chicken Little's running clubs, have they made the political
connections on the local scene that  prevent official interference. If not,
they ought think twice before criticising their betters.

(To digress for a moment: Why does Imler dissemble by calling his operation
the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center or the LACBC when it's really a
pint-sized operation in West Hollywood?)

In any event, the atmosphere of the San Francisco club or the so-called
diversion of marijuana has little to do with the court decision, so it
won't matter how low key Mr. Imler's club is, Lungren will nail the doors
shut and drag him to court once he's finished off the real resistance here
in San Francisco!

It puzzles me why Scott Imler constantly plays the stooge for the narcs in
these matters. Doesn't this poor man realize that he's sowing the seeds for
his own destruction by constantly attacking Peron in the media???

Backstabbing criticism is no substitute for leadership.

THE REAL ISSUES

The court ruling against the Cannabis Club was mainly based on the issue of
selling marijuana (sections 11359 and 11360) and the definition of a
"primary caregiver."  The contention that qualified medical users are
legally entitled to receive MMJ through Peron's organization was not
accepted as a justification for operating the club  under 215. The court
says it doesn't matter if every last member of the club and every last sale
is to legally qualified users. It is still illegal "sell, furnish,
administer, or give away [marijuana]"  to ANYONE according to this
decision.

If this ruling stands, ALL of the clubs are vulnerable to Lungren's Reefer
Madness and it simply doesn't matter how well or how badly a club is run.
Merely supplying MMJ is a criminal offense according to this court.

The  court declared that violations of other marijuana prohibition statutes
were occurring that Proposition 215 does not provide immunity against. The
major point  being that sales are not provided for in 215 and that section
11360(a) makes it a crime to "sell, furnish, administer, or give away"
marijuana. Since there is no provision for immunity to 11360(a)  mentioned
in 215, this part of the decision will effectively close every cannabis
club in California.

Non-Profit Sales Prohibited

The court ruled: "B. Marijuana Sales. Whether or Not for Profit. Continue
to be Proscribed in California Following Enactment of Section 11362.5 (Prop
215)."  "There is, therefore, no "non-profit" defense to the laws against
marijuana sales,....." "Sale and Possession for Sale of Marijuana Remain
Prohibited After the Passage of Section 11362.5"

Caretaker Status Denied

The primary caregiver definition was construed not to cover a club type
operation.  This part of the ruling seems fuzzy to me, so I'll leave it to
the lawyers to riddle it out.  However, it appears that clubs will not be
able to act as primary caregivers if this ruling stands, not withstanding
some contradictory language on caretaker status in the ruling.

This part of the decision might be reversed by the Supreme Court because
this court ruled that a someone CAN be a primary caregiver to more than one
person. The court cited the effects on nursing homes, clinics,  hospitals
and people with more than one dependant relative etc. as reasons that a
"caretaker" cannot be precluded from having many patients under their care.
This part of the decision opens the definition of "primary caretaker"  to
include organizations, not just individuals, so the court's decision is
puzzling to say the least.

Although this part of the ruling appears to contradict some other parts of
the decision it WILL stand because if the court rules otherwise, hospitals,
clinics, recovery groups, and all sorts of organizations will be adversely
affected. (ie they might nor be able to collect insurance payments for
services and they could be subject to many other restrictions that being
declared a primary caregiver exempts them from.)  The disruption of
declaring that a primary caregiver can only serve one person at a time
would cause unimaginable chaos in the health care industry in California,
so it isn't going to happen.

11570

Another  aspect of this decision is that section 11570 was ruled to apply
to the Cannabis Club.

11570 states: "Every building or place used for the purpose of unlawfully
selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away any
[marijuana], and every building or place wherein or upon which those acts
take place, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented,
and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private
nuisance."

How carefully the patients are screened and the general atmosphere of the
club is irrelevant in so far as this aspect of the decision goes.  The
judicial ruling simply says that a medical facility dispensing MMJ   **IS**
a public nuisance (only a qualified primary caregiver can do this).

Imler's accusations of laxness against the SFCBC are baseless (unless you
think a less than 1% unqualified rate is a serious matter).   I'm willing
to bet that Dan Lungren cannot make a case for distribution to unauthorized
customers since the passage of 215  because the Club has scrupulously
followed the guidelines provided by the local District Attorney and other
City officials here since reopening after the injunction was lifted.

*************************
The truth of the matter is that it ain't over until it's over. The State
Supreme Court is certain to modify some of the confusion in this decision.
If they rule favorably on one or two points (ie. sales and caretaker status
especially), Peron could be back in business with a bullet proof defense
against the Reefer Maniacs.

The disunity  foolishly promoted by Scott Imler and the AMR reminds me of
Ben Franklin's admonition to the patriots, "We shall all hang together or
we shall all hang separately." The revolutionaries wisely decided to "hang
together" and avoided King George's hangman.  Wisdom dictates a unified
front against Lungren and our enemies, not half-assed endorsements of narco
policy.

"We've had to pay a high price all along for the circus-like
atmosphere in San Francisco," said Scott Imler, director of the Los
Angeles Cannabis Resource Center in West Hollywood. "Dennis
goes marching off on his way of folly, making [bad] law every step of
the way, and everybody else has to just lump it. It's incredibly
frustrating to all of us."
Scott Imler to the Los Angeles Times December 28, 1997.

Before anybody joins Imler and the AMR in using Dennis Peron and the SF CBC
as a scapegoats for the problems 215 faces,  they better realize that
Peron's fall will bring down everyone else including THEMSELVES. They
should also realize that Peron has been the target deflecting law
enforcement attention from their  clubs because he runs the most prominent
operation in the state and has been very vocal in promoting MMJ and very
active in opposing Lungren et al.  Peron is being attacked because he is
the most effective spokesman in the state, but after Peron falls Lungren
will mop the decks with punk operations like Imler's club.

One last thing. Besides Dennis Peron, who else is defending the cannabis
clubs in court?? Scott Imler???

Peron has taken a courageous stand and I encourage everyone to stand fast
behind him in this battle.  A victory is still possible if we raise enough
hell before the Supreme Court  rules.
R Givens

>>Activist's Tactics Anger Many in Medical Marijuana Movement
>>Treatment: Dennis Peron's provocative style fuels legal battles
>>that threaten sick people's right to get the drug, other pot providers say.
>>
>>SAN FRANCISCO--Nibbling Christmas cookies in his Cannabis
>>Cultivators Club, marijuana guru Dennis Peron says he can't understand
>>why he has become a pariah in the medical marijuana movement he helped to
>>found.
>>     "It was my behavior that started this," the white-haired Peron says
>>indignantly. "Now they are telling me, 'You've got to go away.' "
>>     Those wishing Peron would go away--or at least adopt a lower
>>profile--are founders of some of the nearly 20 clubs now selling
>>medical marijuana to patients in more than half a dozen California
>>counties. They say that Peron's provocative style and the kind of club
>>he runs have fueled the legal battle that is endangering them all.
>>     "We've had to pay a high price all along for the circus-like
>>atmosphere in San Francisco," said Scott Imler, director of the Los
>>Angeles Cannabis Resource Center in West Hollywood. "Dennis
>>goes marching off on his way of folly, making [bad] law every step of
>>the way, and everybody else has to just lump it. It's incredibly
>>frustrating to all of us."
>>     A state appellate court ruling earlier this month is the immediate
>>trigger for the anger toward Peron. The court ruled that Proposition
>>215--the medical marijuana initiative approved by voters in November
>>1996--did not make cannabis clubs legal.
>>     State Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren's office says the ruling means that
>>Peron must shut his doors by Jan. 12, when the decision goes into
>>effect.
>>     What frightens other club operators is that Lungren is insisting
>>that the ruling applies to the rest of the state's clubs.
>>     "We read this decision as saying that cannabis clubs are no longer
>>legal in the state," said Lungren spokesman Matt Ross. "We will
>>advise district attorneys and law enforcement officials of each county
>>of that."
>>     But other club operators say their lawyers tell them that the ruling
>>applies only to Peron's club, which is unique.
>>     The appellate ruling grew out of an injunction Lungren obtained to
>>shut down Peron's club in August 1996. A Superior Court judge lifted
>>the injunction after Proposition 215 passed, ruling that the new law
>>allowed clubs to serve as "primary caregivers" and sell medical
>>marijuana on a nonprofit basis.
>>     When the injunction was lifted, Peron reopened his club, and it
>>now serves about 8,000 clients near San Francisco's Civic Center in a
>>five-story, 30,000-square-foot building decorated in what has been
>>described as "high crash pad." The club opened in 1994.
>>     Thousands of colorful origami birds dangle from mobiles on each
>>floor. The music of choice is hard rock. The blinking lights of two
>>Christmas trees seem timid compared to the bold green colors of
>>jungle murals that cover the walls.
>>     Dozens of people can be found toking up most days, and the air is
>>always thick with the unmistakable smell of marijuana. The club sells
>>about 50 pounds of marijuana a week, some from its basement
>>cultivation project, most from growers in Northern California whom
>>Peron contracts with to grow various grades of marijuana.
>>     On Dec. 12, the appellate court found that only individuals who
>>are consistently responsible for a patient are primary caregivers,
>>rejecting Peron's argument that his club qualifies as the primary
>>caregiver for medical marijuana users who so designate it.
>>     Club operators point out that although Peron has butted heads
>>with Lungren and drug officers, their much smaller facilities are
>>operating quietly in communities as conservative as San Jose and
>>Thousand Oaks. Medical marijuana distributors in those cities say
>>they cooperate with local police and elected officials and run
>>operations that feel more like clinics than clubs.
>>     "We're literally a doctor's office with a pharmacy," said Peter
>>Baez, executive director of the Santa Clara County Medical Cannabis
>>Center in San Jose.
>>     San Jose passed an ordinance several months ago regulating the
>>operation of the cannabis center. A San Jose police officer inspects
>>the facility regularly.
>>     Unlike Peron's club, the San Jose facility allows no smoking on its
>>premises, Baez said.
>>     "Patients register with our secretary, she pulls their file and walks
>>them to the back office," he said.
>>     "They choose from a board what we have available and we
>>attach an Rx label to the bag." All records are made available for
>>police inspection.
>>* * *
>>     "We've turned over three attempted forgeries of prescriptions to
>>the district attorney for prosecution," Baez said. One source of
>>friction between the center and local authorities, Baez said, is a city
>>requirement that the marijuana the club sells be grown at the center,
>>to avoid clashing with federal laws prohibiting the transport of
>>marijuana.

**** Federal laws DO NOT apply to INTRA-state transportation of ANYTHING.
The Feds simply have no jurisdiction. What's the matter with Baez's
attorney's for not pointing this out????  As long as California grown
cannabis is used, the Feds have no jurisdiction!!!

>>     The center's landlord has forbidden such cultivation, he said, and
>>the center is too small to grow enough plants anyway. So Baez
>>continues to buy street marijuana, sometimes from Peron, to supply
>>his 225 patients.
>>     Baez says that he too worries that Peron's operation is causing
>>trouble for everyone.
>>     "It does hurt the effort," Baez said. "Every time a news crew does
>>a story on us, they always have clips of San Francisco, showing a
>>bunch of weird-looking people smoking dope. My stomach cringes."
>>     Peron makes no apologies. A Vietnam veteran, Peron for years
>>was the dope dealer of choice for San Francisco's gay community.
>>     He lost a lover to AIDS and said he came up with the idea of a
>>cannabis club six years ago, while serving a sentence for felony
>>possession of marijuana he said he bought to ease his dying lover's
>>pain.
>>     "Jonathan was covered with sores and was a pariah before he
>>died," Peron said. "I dreamed of building a place where people like
>>Jonathan would feel welcomed, would feel accepted."
>>     In liberal San Francisco, hit hard by the AIDS epidemic, Peron's
>>club was embraced by city officials when it opened.
>>     Both AIDS patients and cancer patients say that marijuana eases
>>nausea caused by their drug regimens and helps them keep their
>>appetites. Others say the drug can prevent epileptic seizures, ease
>>headaches and control spasms.
>>     Peron, who insists that "all marijuana use is medical" and says that
>>smoking it helps him control alcoholism, has vowed to appeal the 1st
>>District Court's ruling to the state Supreme Court.
>>     He says that state drug officials will have to drag him and the
>>club's patrons out if the Supreme Court rules against the cannabis
>>club.
>>     "There is a deeper issue here, of who we are and where we are
>>going," Peron said. "Do we have a say in America or not?"
>>     Peron is not alone in his frustration at the way state and federal
>>officials have reacted to passage of Proposition 215, the first state
>>initiative in the nation legalizing marijuana.
>>     On the federal level, the Drug Enforcement Administration has
>>threatened doctors who might prescribe the drug. On the state level,
>>Lungren keeps a running count of prosecutions brought for
>>possession or sale of marijuana where the defense has cited
>>Proposition 215.
>>     Local government officials complain that although the state is
>>quick to say what is not allowed under Proposition 215, they have
>>gotten no guidance on how to legally implement the law.
>>     In San Mateo County, Supervisor Mike Nevin, a retired San
>>Francisco police officer, has proposed that the county get into the
>>business of supplying medical marijuana.
>>     "It is clear that we need some state direction in getting marijuana
>>to the sick and the dying," Nevin said. "We need to be sensitive and
>>figure out a way to carry out Proposition 215. I understand what the
>>appellate court is saying about cannabis clubs," he said.
>>* * *
>>     "But that decision still leaves us with the dilemma of how to carry
>>out the spirit of 215, with how to deal with the problem of cultivation
>>and distribution."
>>     Nevin's solution? San Mateo should hand over the marijuana it
>>confiscates from street dealers to county pharmacists and let them
>>supply to anyone with a doctor's recommendation. It is a proposal
>>that sparked some interest from Lungren before the appellate court
>>ruling came down.
>>     "The program that I am suggesting would take the whole profit
>>motive out of this," Nevin said. "It would limit distribution to the very,
>>very sick. It takes away the whole underground, seedy aspect."
>>     Nevin met once with Lungren to discuss his proposal, which has
>>won informal backing from his colleagues on the Board of
>>Supervisors, who formed a committee to study it.
>>     He said he has promised Lungren that the county would couple
>>the plan with an aggressive anti-drug education effort in the county's
>>schools.
>>     "My police experience gave me a practical aspect to life," Nevin
>>said. "You've got a law on the books that says that marijuana is legal
>>for medicinal purposes. But there is no leadership."
>>     Lungren vigorously opposed Proposition 215 during the campaign
>>and has repeatedly said that voters didn't know what they were
>>voting for. Since the election, the attorney general has taken the
>>position that it is up to each county to decide on implementation of the
>>initiative, said Ross, the Lungren spokesman.
>>     Across the state, the county-by-county response to Proposition
>>215 has varied wildly.
>>     In Orange County, one volunteer at the county's only cannabis
>>club is in jail, facing felony charges for possession and sale of
>>marijuana. The club operates on an ad hoc basis, meeting patients in
>>restaurants or at their homes to avoid local authorities.
>>* * *
>>     In Thousands Oaks, city officials recently agreed to let a club
>>operate out of a shopping mall.
>>     "There's just a lot of confusion out there," Baez said. "It is a
>>nerve-racking situation."
>>     "Where there is a little more need and a little more tolerance, the
>>providers have felt comfortable coming out and being public with
>>what they are doing," said Dave Fratello, spokesman for Americans
>>for Medical Rights, a group campaigning for passage of state laws
>>legalizing medical marijuana.
>>     Fratello said his group anticipates four election battles in 1998--in
>>Maine, Alaska, the District of Columbia and Colorado--in the push to
>>legalize medical marijuana.

[Is the AMR behind this assault on Peron???]

>>     Ultimately, he said, the goal is to change federal laws to reclassify
>>marijuana as a legal drug. It is in that nationwide effort, Fratello says,
>>that Peron's in-your-face style hurts.

[Fratello and the AMR are absolutely clueless as to how to accomplish MMJ.
Their stupidity is revealed by the fact that none of their initiatives
correct the defects in 215 that caused the court to rule against the sale
of medical marijuana.  Their initiatives are an exercise in frustration
because they will all end up being overturned on the same basis. In fact,
the Calfiornia court provided a precedent that insures the uselessness of
the AMR initiatives.

The AMR is either braindead or they are narcs in disguise otherwise or they
wouldn't be giving the enemy ammunition against the cause and running
idiotic initiatives that are doomed to failure.  The AMR will never achieve
anything worthwhile now that they have revealed their true colors and
alienated almost every activist  in the country.  In the future we can
expect unrelenting attacks on local activists from the AMR. Indeed, we
don't have to wait to see the pattern. Just listen to the people who have
tried to cooperate with the AMR and been burned for their efforts. Anybody
who thinks an outfit as brainless as the AMR has a chance of succeeding
needs serious therapy.]

>>     "Many people consider him to be the prophet of the movement,"
>>he said.
>>     "Dennis is a revolutionary, and more power to him. But most clubs
>>run screaming from that image. Most are nonsmoking facilities.
>>That's because in most cases, we're talking about an emergency
>>service for real patients in need and there is no time for a revolution."

[Fratello should have read the court decision before launching a kneejerk
attack on Peron, but attacking fellow (?????) activists in the media seems
to be the only PR gimmick the AMR can come up with.]

>>Copyright Los Angeles Times
>>
>>Jim Rosenfield
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>tel:  310-836-0926                  fax:  310-836-0592
>>http://insightweb.com           
>>
>
>Scott Imler
>SCCU/LACBC
>
>

------------------------------

End of Maptalk-Digest V97 #558
******************************

Mark Greer ()         ___ ___     _ _  _ _
Media Awareness Project              /' _ ` _ `\ /'_`)('_`\
P. O. Box 651                        | ( ) ( ) |( (_| || (_) )
Porterville, CA 93258                (_) (_) (_) \__,_)| ,__/
(800) 266-5759                                         | |
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/list/maplists.htm           (_)

HomeBulletin BoardChat RoomsDrug LinksDrug NewsFeedback
Guest BookMailing ListsMedia EmailMedia LinksLettersSearch