>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <016301bf05a2$37a14560$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Washington Post March to the Drug War Drum >Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:01:26 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Here is the Washington Post's cautious reporting of the medical marijuana >initiative landslide in Washington D.C. It should be noted that the Post is >one of the most pro-prohibition papers in the nation. You'll note they print >what Drug Czar McCaffrey says without even a basic bit of fact-checking. I'd >like to say, "as usual," but the fact is, for the Post, it is "as always." > >My letter to its editors follow. > >Enjoy, > >Peter > >======== > >RESULTS ARE OUT: MARIJUANA INITIATIVE PASSES > >Washington Post, 9/21/99 > >by Bill Miller and Spencer S. Hsu > >Hill Republicans, Who Blocked D.C. Vote Tally, >Vow Measure Won't Become Law > > >District voters overwhelmingly approved a measure last fall to legalize >the medical use of marijuana, according to results released yesterday, >but congressional Republicans again vowed that the initiative would not >become law. > >Congress had forbidden city officials to even count the votes until a >federal judge intervened last week; the results released yesterday showed >that the initiative was approved 69 percent to 31 percent. Since 1996, >similar measures have been approved in six states and are in effect in >four of them. > >Initiative 59 would change D.C. drug laws to permit the possession, use, >cultivation and distribution of marijuana if recommended by a physician >for serious illness. Advocates contend that marijuana can alleviate >symptoms of AIDS, cancer and other illnesses, but opponents maintain that >patients have other alternatives and that legalizing drugs sets a >dangerous precedent. > >Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the House Government >Oversight subcommittee on the District, said that Congress is "determined" >to reject the legislation, adding that it is so broadly drafted that it >would hamper enforcement of any anti-marijuana laws in the city. > >"If Fairfax County voted to allow medical use of marijuana, the state >wouldn't let us, would it? That's the analogy I hear from members," said >Davis, who opposes the measure. > >D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) kept up his long-standing support >of the initiative, saying, "I call upon Congress to respect the will of >the electorate of the District of Columbia who have decided on this >measure." > >For two straight years, members of Congress have endorsed riders to the >D.C. appropriations bill barring marijuana legalization, a move that U.S. >District Judge Richard W. Roberts last week ruled did not extend to >sealing the referendum results. > >In September 1998, the full House voted 310 to 93 in favor of a non- >binding resolution opposing marijuana legalization for medicinal use. >One referendum supporter, Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), warned t >hat D.C. voters probably would "be deprived of the right to exercise >their own judgment." > >"Most of the members are rightfully reticent to override a democratic >referendum, but they're also afraid that . . . they will be subjected >to 30-second ads claiming they voted to legalize drugs," said Moran, >senior Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee on the District. > >The subcommittee chairman, Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr. (R-Okla.), >provided an idea of what's in store in the initiative battle when he >said the vote results threatened "to reignite the national ridicule of >D.C. that erupted" when then-Mayor Marion Barry was arrested for cocaine >possession in a sting operation. > >Although D.C. voters cast their ballots on the issue Nov. 3, the results >had remained secret because of a congressional amendment last year that >forbade the District to spend money on any initiative that would loosen >laws governing marijuana use. On Friday, Roberts cleared the way for the >tallies to be announced and certified by the D.C. Board of Elections and >Ethics. > >Medicinal marijuana laws already are in effect in Alaska, California, >Oregon and Washington state. The only legislature that tried to overturn >a result, the Arizona body, was rebuffed when citizens passed a referendum >a second time, although the measure did not remove criminal penalties. > >The results of the D.C. vote showed 75,536 D.C. residents in favor and >34,621 opposed. Supporters commanded 69 percent of the vote, the largest >percentage recorded in any medical marijuana initiative in the country. >It passed in every precinct. > >The matter will be sent to Congress, which has 30 working days to either >allow the new law to be enacted or to override it. Because of the city's >unique status, the District's home rule charter makes Congress the >ultimate authority on local laws. > >"Yes, this is a victory, but there's a lot of work to do," acknowledged >Wayne Turner, an AIDS activist who led the initiative campaign. > >Turner was among a crowd of initiative supporters who gathered at the >election board's office yesterday to get the news. He stood beside a >computer as officials pushed a button that printed out the results and >looked over as Alice P. Miller, the election board's executive director, >gave him a thumbs up. > >Turner and his partner, Steve Michael, had launched the initiative >campaign in December 1996, working to generate enough signatures to get >it on the ballot. Michael, who had AIDS, died in May 1998, and Turner >vowed to continue the campaign without him. Turner and his friends >brought Michael's ashes with them to election headquarters yesterday. >"We wanted Steve to be here," Turner said. > >The 30-day window in Congress isn't the only obstacle. Rep. Robert L. >Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), who pushed through the amendment thwarting initiative >supporters last year, came up with a new version that has passed in the >House and Senate. Attached to the D.C. appropriations bill, the new >amendment prohibits the District from spending any money to enact any >law that would legalize any drugs or reduce penalties. Under current >law, possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six >months in jail and a $1,000 fine. > >"Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and it would send a >terrible message to America's young people to allow those laws to be >openly flouted in the same city where they were passed," Barr said. > >Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who opposed both Barr amend- >ments, issued a statement praising last week's court decision, saying >it "vindicated democratic self-government." > >Although the White House has threatened to veto the D.C. appropri- >ations package and its amendments, the Clinton administration has >not embraced the medical use of marijuana. > >National Drug Policy Director Barry R. McCaffrey reiterated his >opposition yesterday, saying the initiative "flies in the face" of >findings issued this year by the National Academy of Sciences' >Institute of Medicine. The report detected "little future [for] or >benefit from smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication." > >Davis also directed a volley at the White House, saying, "It's hard for >the president to veto a D.C. appropriations bill because we won't allow >legalized marijuana use in the District. That's just a tough sell." > >Istook took a tougher position: "If there is a veto, it'll show that >Bill Clinton is as soft on drugs as he is on Puerto Rican terrorists." > >The American Civil Liberties Union, which joined with the D.C. >government to wage the recent court challenge, said it was studying >options. Mary Jane DeFrank, executive director of the ACLU of the >National Capital Area, said Congress should not make the District "a >political plaything" when people who are suffering from disease could >get help. > >"Congress ought not to take any action at all," she said. > > >[sidebar] > >KEY DATES IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPUTE > >Dec. 5, 1996: Activists announce plans to push for an initiative on >the D.C. ballot that would legalize the use of marijuana for medical >reasons. > >Dec. 8, 1997: The initiative fails when supporters are unable to >muster enough signatures. > >July 1998: Backers submit 32,000 signatures to the D.C. Board of >Elections and Ethics. > >Aug. 6, 1998: Elections officials say the issue cannot appear on the >ballot because of a dispute involving the validity of thousands of >signatures. The initiative's proponents challenge the ruling in D.C. >Superior Court. > >Sept. 3, 1998: D.C. Superior Court Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle says >elections officials erred in rejecting thousands of signatures. >Officials announce that Initiative 59 will be on the Nov. 3 ballot. > >Oct. 21, 1998: Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.) attaches an >amendment to the fiscal 1999 D.C. appropriations bill. The so-called >Barr amendment would prohibit the District from spending money on any >initiative that would legalize or reduce the penalties for users of >marijuana. The measure passes along with the D.C. spending bill. As >a result, elections officials say they cannot release or certify the >results of the Initiative 59 vote. > >Oct. 30, 1998: The initiative's supporters join with the American >Civil Liberties Union and file suit in U.S. District Court. > >Nov. 3, 1998: D.C. residents vote on Initiative 59. The outcome >remains a secret; meanwhile, voters in five states pass similar >initiatives. > >Nov. 6, 1998: The D.C. government seeks to overturn the Barr amendment. > >Dec. 17, 1998: U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts hears more than >two hours of legal arguments on the issue, with the Justice Department >arguing the case for Congress. > >July 29, 1999: Barr proposes an amendment to the fiscal 2000 D.C. >appropriations bill to prohibit the District from using any money to >legalize or reduce the penalty for the possession, use or distribution >of marijuana and other drugs. The House passes the bill, and Barr >declares that the medical marijuana law will not take effect no matter >how D.C. residents had voted. > >Sept. 16, 1999: The Senate passes the D.C. appropriations bill, >containing Barr's amendment. The White House threatens to veto the >package. > >Sept. 17, 1999: Roberts rules that the vote count can be released >and certified. Barr says the results are irrelevant, but initiative >supporters celebrate what they called "Day 319 of Democracy Held Hostage." > >Sept. 20, 1999: D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics releases the vote >total, showing the initiative passed by an overwhelming margin. Both >sides begin girding for more battles in Congress. > > >======== >Here's my letter to the Washington Post: >======== >Editors, Washington Post > >You quote National Drug Policy Director Barry R. McCaffrey's opposition to >the D.C medical marijuana initiative saying it "'flies in the face' of >findings issued this year by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of >Medicine." His statement is completely untrue. Let the Executive Summary of >the IOM report speak for itself: > >"The combination of cannabinoid drug effects (anxiety reduction, appetite >stimulation, nausea reduction, and pain relief) suggests that cannabinoids >would be moderately well suited for particular conditions, such as >chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting.The psychological >effects of cannabinoids, such as anxiety reduction, sedation, and euphoria >can influence their potential therapeutic value. > >"Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes >available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people >suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking >marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting. One possible approach is to treat >patients as n-of-1 clinical trials (single-patient trials).[involving] an >oversight strategy comparable to an institutional review board process that >could provide guidance within 24 hours of a submission by a physician to >provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use." > >The truth, then, is (a) marijuana is medicine; (b) it is "moderately well >suited" for certain illnesses; (c) there is "no clear alternative" to >"smoking marijuana" for some patients, and (d) that smoked marijuana be >available "within 24 hours of a submission by a physician." > >The ONDCP's latest wave in its $1 billion advertising campaign is themed, >"HONESTY: The Anti-Drug." Perhaps ONDCP director McCaffrey should follow the >advice of his own copywriters. > >Peter McWilliams >8165 Mannix Drive >Los Angeles, California 90046 >323-650-8488 >peter@mcwilliams.com >www.petertrial.com > > >======== > >And here's the final word on the subject from "grandma" Kay Lee. Go, gandma, >go! Take us home. > >Enjoy, > >Peter > >==== > >I just want to point out something to those who don't know enough about >marijuana to support the effort to change the laws. > >The two reports below will give you an idea of what subterfuge and >dishonesty people who advocate for the marijuana plant have had to deal with >from the politicians that call us liars. > >This fight has gotten very difficult and dangerous because the government is >targeting cannabis users and patients who dare to expose or express the >truth. > >The opposition has it down to a fine art. Even now, during a height of >patient and advocate arrests, the truth manages to be kept muffled. > >In court, if the pain doesn't show, the patient goes to prison. If the pain >shows too clearly, the court offers such a lenient plea-bargain that the >truth the patient has been trying to tell is never seen or heard by the >public. > >The sick person is so relieved to avoid jail time and in many cases, no >urine testing while on probation, that he grabs the plea bargain, accepts >the loss of his stuff, pays the fees, and lives with the criminal record. >But, you the public, never get the opportunity to hear the truth. > >Although the effort to cover-up is frantic and ruthless, the proof that >marijuana does not belong in schedule 1 or even 2 or 3 or maybe even 4 does >exist and is being constantly uncovered, despite the government's efforts to >keep us ignorant. > >The truth never changes. First we were told marijuana was a violent drug, >causing women to prostitute themselves and men to murder. After WWII we >were told that marijuana made people so laid back that the 'commies' could >come in and take over America. In the 80's they said it was medicine and >still give eight patients a monthly supply, and they even developed an >imitation THC called Marinol. Now in 99 they say there is absolutely no >medicinal use and that all patients are liars. > >First they said marijuana caused brain damage, then cancer, then impotence >and infertility, now they are reduced to saying it might hurt your lungs >like cigarettes and that no medicine can be smoked, which isn't true. Many >natural medicines were smoked before the pillpushers perverted the form. > >The other argument they have left is that it 'sends the wrong message to the >children.' Here's where the grandmother in me gets angry, because I will >not raise my family in ignorance just so the status quo can be maintained. > >The message is perverted. Instead of sticking to a lie, I prefer to tell my >grandchildren that almost all medicine came from nature so marijuana is not >unique: That all medicine is to be respected and used responsibility: That >lies should never be tolerated. > >The IOM report that says that marijuana is not addictive, not particularly >harmful, and can be used medically. > >The National Toxicology Report stated that the group of rats who had lots of >THC for two years had FEWER tumors than the rats who had none. What if >proper testing proves marijuana to be preventative? > >The National Highway Department found that you couldn't visually tell a >stoned driver from a straight one. Except the stoner's tended to drive >slower and more cautiously, which everyone should do. > >The list goes on: We base our truth on research that has been hidden from >view. We offer this evidence to you the same way it was offered to us - as >a wonderful gift of knowledge and a path to understanding. > >In Truth, >Kay Lee > > > > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------