>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <002e01bf294f$f14fb070$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: New York Times on me >Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 10:43:11 -0800 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >New York Times > >Sunday, November 7, 1999 > >Los Angeles Drug Case Bars Medical Marijuana Defense > >LOS ANGELES -- In a July 1997 raid, police officers and federal agents here >found more than 4,000 marijuana plants in a Bel-Air mansion known as the >castle, near the home of Ronald Reagan, whose administration created the >"zero tolerance" approach to illegal drugs. > >With a trial scheduled to begin Nov. 16, the case has turned into a test of >judicial tolerance for a defense strategy based on marijuana's medical uses. > >Two defendants, Todd McCormick and Peter McWilliams, advocate legalizing >marijuana for medical use and have used it to treat their own ailments: >McCormick for pain from cancer treatments that fused several of his >vertebrae, and McWilliams for nausea from drugs he takes to treat AIDS. > >Saying the plants were for personal use and research on a book about medical >marijuana, they contend their actions were legal under Proposition 215, the >ballot measure approved by California voters in 1996 allowing patients to >smoke marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. > >Federal prosecutors, however, sought and received an order from a federal >judge barring the defendants from telling the jury that side of the story, >even offering to drop some of the counts against them to keep those issues >out of the courtroom. > >In a ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge George King prohibited the >defendants from making any reference to Proposition 215, the purported >medical benefits of marijuana or even the federal government's own >experimental program, now closed, providing marijuana to patients. > >The defendants say they are not being allowed to defend themselves. "I'm >devastated," McWilliams said in an interview on Friday. "I can't even >present my case to the jury. We just have to sit there and listen to the >evidence, and we've already admitted everything. Obviously, the federal >government is stonewalling any discussion of medical marijuana in any >forum." > >McWilliams, a best-selling self-help author, McCormick, who founded a club >that distributes marijuana for medical purposes, and another defendant, >Aleksandra Evanguelidi, were among nine people charged with conspiring to >grow and sell marijuana. They face minimum prison sentences of 10 years if >convicted. Three other defendants have pleaded guilty. > >In court filings, prosecutors have said the medical issues are irrelevant to >the charges, and if allowed into evidence, "will serve only to confuse and >mislead the jury." Further, they maintain that if the defendants want to >change the government's position on marijuana, they should petition the Drug >Enforcement Administration. > >"Whether the defendants like it or not, the proper challenge is through the >regulatory process," Mary Fulginiti, a prosecutor, said in court last month. > >The trial comes at a time of increasing conflict in America's relationship >with marijuana. On Tuesday, voters in Maine approved an initiative allowing >medical use, joining six Western states. A report commissioned by the >Clinton administration concluded earlier this year that marijuana's active >ingredients were useful in treating pain and nausea, though the benefits >were limited by the smoke's toxic effects. > >And in September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a cannabis >club in Oakland to resume providing marijuana to patients, in the face of an >injunction from the Clinton administration. > >Yet marijuana remains classified by Congress as a Schedule I controlled >substance, putting it in the company of heroin and LSD. That raised a >central question: whether the defendants could assert a "medical necessity >defense," maintaining that they broke the law because their health required >it. > >Prosecutors contended that marijuana's Schedule I status precluded such an >argument, because it legally defined the drug as having no legitimate use. >But defense lawyers maintained that the appeals court decision in the >Oakland case opened the door to such a defense. > >Federal prosecutors are so intent on keeping medical issues out of the >courtroom in the case that they agreed to dismiss charges of intent to >distribute if the judge barred the medical-necessity defense. Under the law, >the defendants could have been allowed to assert that Proposition 215 and >their medical conditions contributed to their "state of mind" if they were >prosecuted on the intent charges. But with manufacturing charges, state of >mind is not relevant. > >In his ruling, King said the medical-necessity defense would be unavailable >to the defendants because allowing them to use it would explicitly >contradict a congressional determination. Judge King found that the appeals >court ruling in Oakland did not directly address the issue, and he rejected >admission of Proposition 215 and medical benefits of marijuana because the >government agreed to limit its case to simple manufacturing charges. > >The number of marijuana plants, which rose to more than 6,000 after the >discovery of other growing sites, has led to charges that the defendants >sought to reap profits by selling to cannabis clubs, an enterprise not >sanctioned by Proposition 215, which allows possession in "personal use >amounts." > >According to court documents, the two men signed a detailed agreement on >financing and managing cultivation sites, distribution plans and profit >sharing. McWilliams is accused of approaching an employee of a cannabis club >with an offer to sell it marijuana, saying that he wanted to become the >"Bill Gates of medical marijuana." > >The case has become a celebrated one with legalization advocates. The actor >Woody Harrelson, who was once arrested for planting hemp seeds in a >ceremonial protest, put up McCormick's $500,000 bail, and Alan Isaacman, the >lawyer who defended Larry Flynt on pornography charges, signed on to defend >him. > >McCormick made his case on the television show "Politically Incorrect." And >a fugitive in the case, Renee Boje, who was hired by McCormick to sketch the >plants for his book, is profiled in the December issue of Glamour magazine >under the headline "Drug Queenpin or Innocent Victim?" > >Legalization advocates say the results of the case will serve as a barometer >of the federal government's willingness to prosecute medical marijuana cases >aggressively in states where medical use is legal. > >"To some degree, the outcome of this case will shape the extent to which the >federal government proceeds with additional federal prosecutions for >offenses which are no longer illegal under state law," said Keith Stroup, >the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of >Marijuana Laws, a lobbyist for marijuana legalization. "If it's a clean >victory, it will encourage them to use federal prosecution." > >------- > >What follows is my DRAFT letter to the New York Times, not yet sent. > >Peter > >-------- > >Editors, New York Times > >Your article about my upcoming federal trial for marijuana manufacturing >("Los Angeles Drug Case Bars Medical Marijuana Defense") stated, "According >to court documents, the two men signed a detailed agreement on financing and >managing cultivation sites, distribution plans and profit sharing." If there >is such an agreement, I will plead guilty today and begin serving my >ten-year mandatory-minimum sentence tomorrow. Technically the charge may be >in a "court document," but the more accurate term is for it is "incitement," >and even the incitement does not claim we "both signed it." There is no such >agreement in writing, for there was no such agreement at any time. > >Your reporter merely repeated what federal prosecutors told him without >checking the facts although the facts were readily available, an infraction >of the basic rules of journalism that is endemic in covering the War on >Drugs. > >Your article also states that I admit to growing "4,000 marijuana plants in >a Bel-Air mansion known as the castle." This is also untrue. Although I did >attempt to grow a considerably more modest number of plants in my own home, >my only connection to that operation was, as a publisher of 32 years with >books that have appeared five times on the New York Times Bestseller List, I >gave a book advance to an author and he used it to rent the ugliest >structure in Bel Air to begin a much-needed medical marijuana research >facility. > >The precedent being set here is not just about the iron-fisted federal >treatment of medical marijuana users, but also the freedom of the press. Is >the president of Random House to be held criminally liable for the civil >disobedience of his authors? Is the publisher of the New York Times to be >charged with "conspiracy to purchase a controlled substance" because a >reporter buys a joint with money earned at the Times? These may seem absurd >examples today, but the legal precedent for it taking place tomorrow is >being set here in Los Angeles, and the New York media is asleep to this >story-to its own future peril. > > > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: