Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:57:34 -0700
Subject:Japan: To Your Health - Is Everyone Becoming High on Hemp? Up TOC

Newshawk: Libertarians 1 - Drug Warriors 0 - http://www.plylar.org
Pubdate: Sat, 21 Sep 2002
Source: Daily Yomiuri (Japan)
Copyright: 2002 The Yomiuri Shimbun
Contact: daily@tokyo.yomiuri.co.jp
Website: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/main/main-e.htm
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/629
Author: Ann Endo Special to The Daily Yomiuri

TO YOUR HEALTH - IS EVERYONE BECOMING HIGH ON HEMP?

Pamela was idly strolling through the shopping arcade of her conservative
small town when she realized she had seen signs in not one but several store
windows advertising hemp products. Hemp? Isn't that cannabis--marijuana?
Wasn't Paul McCartney arrested, handcuffed, interrogated for more than a
week, and ultimately deported from Japan for bringing a small supply of
marijuana into the country? Is marijuana now legal in Japan?

Marijuana is most definitely not legal in Japan today. Importing, possessing
or selling marijuana still leads to unpleasant close encounters with the
police and justice system.

"Industrial" hemp and marijuana both belong to the "cannabis sativa" family
of plants. Cannabis is an annual plant (must be started from seed every
year), but can reach an amazing height of five meters. All varieties are
hemp, but only plants with a high amount of the active ingredient
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are marijuana.

Hemp is believed to have originated in central Asia and to have spread both
east and west throughout temperate climates around the world. By 2800 B.C.,
it was cultivated in China, and it is from China that most historians
believe hemp came to Japan. The seeds were eaten, while the fibers were used
for clothing and making baskets. The technique of making paper from hemp
apparently arrived in Japan in the 7th century along with Buddhism and the
Chinese writing system (kanji). Hemp's durability allows for multiple
recycling--clothing to rags to paper.

Japanese associate hemp with purity and fertility. Indeed, "taima," one of
most significant rituals at the holiest Shinto shrine at Ise, means "big
cannabis." When the Emperor ascended the throne, he ceremonially planted
both rice and hemp. At Buddhist temples, the bell rope in front of the altar
is made of hemp, and the reigning sumo champion wears a hemp rope for the
entrance ceremony before each competition. "Asako" (containing the kanji for
hemp) remains a popular name for Japanese girls, whose parents presumably
wish them to remain pure.

Nevertheless, hemp production faces severe constraints in Japan today
because of restrictions imposed by the U.S. occupation forces after World
War II. Fearing that his soldiers would be overwhelmed by the mind-altering
temptations of hemp, Gen. Douglas MacArthur issued a widespread edict
against its cultivation. This caused a large problem decades later since by
Shinto tradition the Emperor was required to wear hemp clothing at his
accession to the throne in 1989. A gift by a clandestine farmer solved the
problem, but obtaining a license to grow hemp in Japan remains difficult to
this day.

Medical use of cannabis goes back at least until 2300 B.C. in China, when it
was used to treat constipation, gout, malaria, rheumatism, asthma, and an
assortment of other problems. It has also been widely used for millennia in
Indian Ayurvedic medical practice. In medieval Europe, textbooks of herbal
medicine recommended cannabis for everything from toothache to arthritis to
the pain of childbirth, and even into the early 20th century European
physicians prescribed marijuana to relieve migraine headaches and anxiety.

Is marijuana actually useful as a medicine? There is considerable evidence
that it does relieve nausea, help control chronic pain, reduce muscle
spasms, and increase the appetite. Persons with AIDS and cancer are among
those likely to benefit if marijuana were available to them.

However--aside from legal issues--there are several problems with taking
marijuana as medication.

The well known mental effects of euphoria and distortions of time, space,
vision, and judgment are no doubt what the "recreational" user is seeking,
but not necessarily what someone trying to cope with chemotherapy or AIDS
needs. For anyone, an overdose or a bad reaction due to sensitivity may
cause anxiety, depression, wild mood swings, and occasionally psychosis
lasting several hours.

Getting the dose right is extremely tricky. The THC content of the dried
leaves and flowers of marijuana hemp vary from plant to plant, and even on
the same plant THC is concentrated at the top. The concentration range is
0.5 percent to 5 percent, a 10-fold variation that is unacceptable in
ordinary medication.

There is also the question of consumption--marijuana can be smoked or eaten.
If smoked, the mental effects are felt almost immediately, and similarly
diminish rapidly when one stops. If eaten (as in the proverbial
marijuana-laced brownies), effects are not felt for 30 to 60 minutes and
persist for a long time. If the "trip" turns bad, there is little recourse.
Smoking marijuana also causes respiratory problems. Although an occasional
joint may act as a bronchodilator to ease breathing, the long-term effects
on heavy users are thought to be worse than tobacco (according to the Mayo
Clinic). The marijuana smoker inhales three times as much tar as the tobacco
smoker and accumulates more carbon monoxide in his or her blood.

In an effort to avoid these problems, researchers developed dronabinol, a
capsule containing synthetic cannabinoids dissolved in sesame oil. Most
people find it alleviates nausea and loss of appetite without the
psychological side effects. Others insist that it is impossible to reproduce
the hundreds of chemicals in marijuana, any one of which may contribute to
better relief. Dronabinol is unavailable in Japan.

As of now, the laws of nine states in the United States permit doctors to
prescribe marijuana for those with conditions such as cancer and AIDS. On
the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled in May 2001 that federal law
prohibits medical use of marijuana. If the U.S. laws are confusing, the
Japanese laws are not--don't try bringing marijuana into Japan.

While medical research continues, hemp is enjoying a revival for non-
pharmaceutical use. As Pamela found on her shopping street, there is a wide
range of cool, lightweight, durable hemp clothing. The Body Shop chain also
offers a number of potent skin moisturizers based on hemp oil.

For more information, see http://www.taima.org for the history of hemp in
Japan. Material about marijuana is abundant on the Internet, but for
straight facts on this and other health matters, search MayoClinic.com.

* * *

Readers are advised to consult a physician about any serious health
concerns.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:02:47 -0700
Subject:MA: Medical Marijuana, Myth Or Miracle? Up TOC?

Newshawk: URI SSDP http://members.cox.net/urissdp
Pubdate: Wed, 11 Sep 2002
Source: Boston Weekly Dig (MA)
Copyright: 2002 Boston Weekly Dig
Contact: letters@weeklydig.com
Website: http://www.weeklydig.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1515
Cited : http://www.maps.org/ (Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic
Studies)
Author: Caitlin E. Cox
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/walters.htm (Walters, John)

MEDICAL MARIJUANA, MYTH OR MIRACLE?

Medical marijuana's history began thousands of years ago in China and
India. In India, marijuana has had a solid position in Ayruvedic medicine
and is still prescribed today.

The world's first encyclopedia of medicines, compiled in 1 A.D. by Chinese
authors, suggests marijuana for over 100 conditions such as malaria and
absentmindedness. Even in the United States, pharmaceutical companies
produced marijuana-based drugs until 1937, when high taxes and extensive
paperwork discouraged doctors from treating patients with marijuana.

Today's medical marijuana advocates are seeking the right to use marijuana
for a relatively short list of ailments. California's Compassionate Use
Act, approved by voters in 1996, supports the possession and cultivation of
marijuana for the "treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain,
spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which
marijuana provides relief."

The majority of Americans approve of legal medical marijuana use. In the
past six years, citizens of Alaska, California, Colorado, the District of
Columbia, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington have voted in favor of this
position. Supportive articles have appeared in the New England Journal of
Medicine and even in Consumer Reports. Meanwhile, President Bush's drug
czar, John P. Walters, targets medical marijuana in his war against
recreational drugs.

His Washington Post editorial warns Americans about the "cynical campaign"
for medical marijuana that is based on "psuedo-science." He aims for the
weak point in the argument for medical marijuana: lack of documented
scientific evidence.

Yet, the US government has prevented nearly all medical marijuana research
for two decades.

The handful who have chosen to challenge this system have faced barriers to
even the most basic studies.

Scientists lack adequate funding to study medical marijuana.

Also, many regulations limit marijuana research. Researchers must seek
permission from a long chain of agencies: the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Food and Drug
Administration. The federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classifies
marijuana as a Schedule I drug with a "high potential for abuse" and "no
currently accepted medical use" in the US. The law imposes stringent rules
on the registration, security, labeling and distribution of marijuana.

Researchers also must navigate a maze of varying state laws that apply to
marijuana regulation.

Yes, No, Maybe

Dr. Donald Abrams, a professor at the University of California at San
Francisco, is the best-known example of a scientist whose research has been
restricted by the government. Abrams' ordeal began in 1992. Partially
funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS),
his project would study the use of smoked marijuana to treat AIDS Wasting
Syndrome. Some people with HIV believe that smoking marijuana has helped
them decrease the amount of extreme weight loss associated with the
disease, but there had never been a controlled study to measure how this
treatment actually affects body composition, appetite or weight gain.

After the FDA approved his study design, Abrams requested marijuana from
the only legal supplier of marijuana in the United States, the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Nine months later, the NIDA rejected his
application, saying that the study's "design, scientific merit and
rationale" were inherently faulty.

According to the NIDA, Abrams did not have a way of ensuring that the
patients had consistent dosages of marijuana. Therefore, the study could
not examine whether how much marijuana the patient took affected the amount
of weight gain. Also, the study did not record daily calorie intake or the
types of foods eaten.

NIDA did not suggest that any revisions in Abrams' design would change
their stance.

Abrams fired back with his response. "You and your Institute failed,"
Abrams wrote in a letter posted on the MAPS website. "In the words of the
AIDS activist community: SHAME!" He scolded NIDA for waiting so long to
reply and not allowing any discussion on the study design.

He listed a variety of advisors who had assisted him with the study design
to disprove the claim that the study did not have scientific merit.

More importantly, he offered specific changes in the design that would
satisfy NIDA's demands. He explains that their concerns are somewhat
irrelevant because the study was meant to assess marijuana's impact on
heart health, immune system and severity of HIV. If the pilot study did not
cause any intolerable side effects, further research would address AIDS
Wasting Syndrome.

The exchange of proposals and letters continued.

Finally, just as the government was reevaluating its position on medical
marijuana research, Abrams' third proposal was approved.

NIDA gave Abrams a $978,000 grant in September 1997. Abrams conducted the
first legal medical marijuana research on humans in fifteen years.

In his preliminary study, he found that patients who smoked marijuana for
21 days did not have any increase in HIV severity. Today, Dr. Abrams
continues his research at the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research in
California.

Hometown Help?

Massachusetts' own quest to conduct medical marijuana research began in
1991. The State Legislature and Governor William Weld established a statute
that allowed the Department of Public Health to head a "therapeutic
research program," which would study how well marijuana could treat
glaucoma, asthma and cancer treatment side effects.

The federal government denied Massachusetts' request to begin the study.

In 1996, the governor intensified state efforts to gain federal approval.

He added two amendments to the law that put the commissioner of public
health in charge of the program and gave legal protections to certified
patients.

The federal government still stalled research, implying that it would only
approve a legal marijuana supply for a well-designed study but not defining
any specific requirements.

The following year, the Department of Public Health sent a letter to Donna
Shalala, Clinton's Secretary of Health and Human Services, asking for
detailed information on how to begin an approved study and receive federal
marijuana. The letter clearly states the Department of Public Health's
intent to research whether "marijuana improves the quality of life" for
patients. "Considering the urgency of our desire to establish a
compassionate, humane program," wrote David H. Mulligan, Massachusetts
Commissioner of Public Health, "we seek your earliest possible response."
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health tried to increase awareness
by sending copies of the letter to Attorney General Janet Reno, Senator
Edward M. Kennedy, Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Congressional
Delegation and Barry McCaffrey, Clinton's Director of National Drug Control
Policy.

Despite the initial impetus of Massachusetts' demands, the therapeutic
research program has mysteriously disappeared. The Department of Public
Health issued a memorandum summarizing the proposed program in April 1997.
By August 1997, according to the Boston Globe, the federal government still
had not responded to the proposal.

No written record exists after that point. The Department of Public Health
declined to comment on exactly how research was blocked or why
Massachusetts no longer seems to be pursuing the issue.

The Government Moves So Slow - Perhaps They're Stoned?

Although Abrams and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health faced
obstacles, the federal government appears to be gradually relaxing its
prohibitive stance on medical marijuana research.

Two major developments influenced this mood change.

First, the state referenda passed in California and Arizona gave legitimacy
to the medical claims made about marijuana. Second, scientists began to
understand that the human body produces its own supply of cannabinoids, the
class of chemical compounds such as THC that exist in marijuana.

These chemicals act as keys that either open or block protein "locks" on
the surfaces of our bodies' cells. These proteins send signals within the
cell or to neighboring cells.

The body's natural cannabinoids are believed to affect memory, pain and
movement. When a person smokes marijuana, the plant's cannabinoids enter
the body and act in a similar way. So far, scientists have identified 66
cannabinoids in the marijuana plant.

In 1997, at around the same time that Abrams first successfully obtained
government approval for his work, the NIH held a meeting to discuss
possibilities for future medical marijuana research.

The NIH nominated the panel of eight experts, each chosen because of their
lack of strong opinions on the issue.

It was, however, the first well-publicized crack in the government's solid
refusal to acknowledge the potential merits of medical marijuana.

The panel recommended that future clinical trials, studies involving human
beings, were justifiable.

At the request of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, an Institute
of Medicine (IOM) study team completed a two-year report on issues related
to medical marijuana in 1999. The IOM team investigated marijuana's safety,
potential for addiction, effectiveness and future marketability. The report
emphasizes the benefits of biotechnology, praising the pharmaceutical
industry's ability to isolate chemical compounds in a plant and to create
medicines rather than discover them. It states that the marijuana plant
would not have "known composition or quality." While very positive about
marijuana's potential to help patients, it favors the mainstream route of
drug development that is expensive and difficult.

The IOM team believes that the future of medical marijuana lies in the
creation of synthetic cannabinoids that can be profitable enough to entice
drug companies to pursue further research.

Currently, the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) at the
University of California offers the most hope for scientists who wish to
research medical marijuana in a non-hostile, stable environment. The State
Legislature of California and Governor Gray Davis established the CMCR in
order to "enhance understanding of the efficacy and adverse effects of
marijuana as a pharmacological agent" during a three-year period.

The 1997 NIH report and the 1999 IOM report will both guide the direction
of research topics.

The CMCR will also help investigators secure funding sources and comply
with state and federal regulations. Seven studies are now in progress at
the center.

Medical marijuana researchers ask several questions.

Scientists want to document exactly how much marijuana helps ease the
symptoms of different diseases. They also wish to compare whole-plant
marijuana with Marinol, the THC pill. Patients report many difficulties
with the synthetic pill. Marinol takes a long time to affect the body, and
patients find the pill difficult to swallow when nauseated.

Many doctors, however, express concerns that burning marijuana creates
chemicals that may cause cancer or weaken the immune system.

Therefore, researchers are looking for ways to ingest marijuana that do not
involve smoking or taking pills, such as inhalers or skin patches, but
still contain the complex web of chemicals present in marijuana.

In the meantime, researchers hope to establish consistent ways of smoking
marijuana so that patients can ingest a standard amount of the drug. They
are also seeking methods of using medical marijuana that provide relief
without producing a high. Some patients, especially the elderly, do not
want to deal with psychoactive effects on a daily basis.

If medical marijuana follows the conventional path towards drug
development, patients could be in for a long wait. The typical process
takes five to ten years.

For medical marijuana advocates, being able to begin experiments involving
human patients is a major accomplishment, but only one in five drugs given
permission to carry out human trials will ever secure final FDA approval.

For now, patients and their doctors have to weigh the risk of arrest versus
the ability to treat health problems.

Marinol's history shows the limitations of the established path. Since
appearing on the US market in 1985, Marinol has been the only legal
cannabinoid medicine.

Unimed, a pharmaceutical company, developed the THC pill with the financial
support of the NIH. The US government partially funded the research
necessary for FDA approval.

Despite its adverse effects and inconvenient pill form, Marinol still has
$20 million in annual sales. Individual patients pay approximately $200 a
month to combat AIDS Wasting Syndrome, the most common condition treated
with the drug. Many patients cannot afford the financial burden and are
forced to look elsewhere for relief. Marinol's manufacturers are not concerned.

According to the IOM report, "Unimed perceives only a small percentage of
its market to be lost to 'competition' from marijuana itself."

When the government and pharmaceutical companies join together for both
research and profit, our health care suffers.

If this partnership continues, medical decisions will increasingly be based
on profit instead of patient need. The 1997 IOM report bluntly illustrates
this connection. "The outcomes of preclinical and clinical research
determine whether a drug is sufficiently safe and effective to warrant FDA
approval for marketing," explains the government-funded report. "But the
decisions to launch preclinical research and to proceed to clinical trials
if early results are promising are dictated largely by economic factors ...
For any given drug, the question is, will there be an adequate return on
investment?"

If money is the primary factor, medical researchers may be forced to
abandon creative solutions to human suffering.

The pursuit of profit creates an environment of unasked scientific questions.

Patients seeking their own answers find closed paths.

The question is, do Americans have access to the medicines that they need?
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:03:50 -0700
Subject:Canada: Hysteria Still Reigns On Pot Laws Up TOC

Newshawk: CannabisLink.ca (http://cannabislink.ca)
Pubdate: Sun, 22 Sep 2002
Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB)
Copyright: 2002, Canoe Limited Partnership.
Contact: letters@edm.sunpub.com
Website: http://www.fyiedmonton.com/htdocs/edmsun.shtml
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/135
Author: Mindelle Jacobs

HYSTERIA STILL REIGNS ON POT LAWS

A Senate committee bluntly declared earlier this month that Ottawa's new
laws governing therapeutic marijuana are unworkable.

The federal government's highly publicized plan to allow terminally ill
Canadians and those with serious ailments to smoke pot are "illusory," the
committee noted in its report on illegal drugs.

Dale and Alice Strohmaier, who both have hepatitis C because of blood
transfusions, are again in danger of being busted for growing pot.

They are among 441 Canadians who were exempt from prosecution under the old
medicinal pot rules because of the severity of their conditions.

I wrote about them in February because their exemptions were about to
expire and they were finding it impossible to meet the requirements under
the new regulations.

Because of concerns expressed by the Canadian Medical Association, the
Edmonton couple couldn't find the mandated two medical specialists to
approve their applications for medicinal marijuana. A little publicity
helped. After my column ran, Health Canada extended their exemptions for
six months.

Here we go again. Their permission to grow and possess pot runs out at the
end of October.

Once again, they've been doing the rounds of doctors' offices, hoping for
physician signatures. No such luck. They've been to their family
physicians, pain specialists and liver doctors. All turned them down.

It's not that the docs don't think pot can be therapeutic. As their pain
specialist wrote to Dale's family doctor: "It seems Mr. Strohmaier clearly
has symptomatic improvement on the use of marijuana that he has not been
able to achieve with other therapies."

Because of the "flaws" in the federal government's approval process, he
won't sign the forms, the specialist wrote in his July letter.

Dale and Alice plan to forward the letter to Health Canada officials, who
have declined to extend their ministerial exemptions under the old rules.

Department staff are "very sympathetic" to the problem but their hands are
tied because it's a political issue, notes Dale.

Currently, they have permission to cultivate 40 pot plants - enough that
they can smoke the allowable four grams a day each.

But they fear that if no further clemency is granted, police will
confiscate the plants and charge them after their exemption expires on Oct. 27.

If that happens, they'll be forced to increase the modest amounts of
painkillers they already consume. That, of course, poses the risk of addiction.

They find it sadly ironic that Ottawa would prefer they take higher doses
of potentially habit-forming painkillers than continue smoking pot, which
isn't addictive. "We're not trying to be criminals. We're just trying to be
regular citizens," says Alice.

Calls to Health Minister Anne McLellan's office haven't been returned, she
says. They suspect McLellan is not as committed to a medicinal marijuana
program as her predecessor in the portfolio, Allan Rock.

Now, they hope the current Ontario court challenge of the therapeutic pot
laws and a pending Supreme Court of Canada hearing on the issue will win
sick Canadians more freedom to use pot.

Some physicians are filling out medical pot forms for patients, notes
Health Canada spokesman Andrew Swift. Under the new rules, 376 people have
been authorized to possess pot. Mind you, not all of them are allowed to
grow it. "They get it where they can get it," says Swift.

Of the Strohmaiers' predicament, he says: "It's a difficult situation. I
can appreciate that."

But the process requires the input of physicians, he says.

It makes you long for a government with the common sense of the Senate
committee which recommended that pot be legalized and regulated. As the
committee noted, our early drug laws were based on "moral panic."

Hysteria still reigns.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:04:12 -0700
Subject:Canada: Chretien Sought Pot-Law Rethink 20 Years Ago Up TOC

Newshawk: CannabisLink.ca (http://cannabislink.ca)
Pubdate: Sun, 22 Sep 2002
Source: Edmonton Sun (CN AB)
Copyright: 2002, Canoe Limited Partnership.
Contact: letters@edm.sunpub.com
Website: http://www.fyiedmonton.com/htdocs/edmsun.shtml
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/135
Author: Dean Bee

CHRETIEN SOUGHT POT-LAW RETHINK 20 YEARS AGO

Canadian Press -- Jean Chretien helped launch an initiative to radically
reform marijuana laws when he was justice minister in 1981, newly released
records show.

Cabinet documents from the government of then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau
show that Chretien pressed cabinet to lower fines, reduce jail sentences
and eliminate the criminal records of Canadians convicted of possessing
small amounts of marijuana.

Chretien also tabled a discussion paper at cabinet that, among other
things, raised the possibility of legalizing marijuana.

"Legalization and any regulation of cannabis production, distribution and
use would likely reduce some of the adverse consequences of using the
criminal law in this area," says the Jan. 23, 1981, paper.

"Because the conduct would be legal there would be no offences, no criminal
records, and no stigmatization. As well, there would be a significant
reduction of an illicit market, which obliges people to engage in criminal
activities or deal with criminal types in order to supply themselves with
cannabis."

Documents detailing the reform proposals, which were never put into effect,
were obtained under the Access to Information Act. The law permits the
disclosure of cabinet records only after 20 years have passed.

Between January and July of 1981, Chretien joined Robert Kaplan and Monique
Begin - the solicitor general and health minister - in trying to persuade
cabinet colleagues to lighten the fines and prison terms for simple
possession of marijuana.The proposals would also curb police powers and
provide pardons to those convicted under the previous, harsher law.

Full legalization, although briefly considered, was ultimately rejected.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens

Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:05:54 -0700
Subject: NV: Legalizing Marijuana: Nevada's Smoke Signal Up TOC

Newshawk: Libertarians 1 - Drug Warriors 0 - http://www.plylar.org
Pubdate: Sun, 22 Sep 2002
Source: Las Vegas Sun (NV)
Copyright: 2002 Las Vegas Sun, Inc
Contact: letters@lasvegassun.com
Website: http://www.lasvegassun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/234
Author: Steve Kanigher

LEGALIZING MARIJUANA: NEVADA'S SMOKE SIGNAL

The national spotlight will be on Nevadans when they go to the polls in
November to determine whether they wish to legalize marijuana, something no
other state has done.

Question 9, a proposed constitutional amendment, would make it legal for
individuals 21 and older to possess up to 3 ounces of the controversial
substance -- enough to make 80 to 255 marijuana cigarettes, depending on
whom you believe -- for use in their residences.

The statewide initiative would also direct the Nevada Legislature to
establish ways to grow, sell and tax marijuana and set penalties for
individuals who violate the law.

Because it takes passage in two consecutive general elections to amend the
state constitution, the initiative must pass both in November and in 2004
to take effect on Jan. 1, 2005.

The initiative is being financed by the Marijuana Policy Project, a
Washington pro-marijuana lobby whose main backer is billionaire auto
insurance executive Peter Lewis of Cleveland. The project sent one of its
directors with political campaign experience to Nevada to coordinate the
effort to get Question 9 on the ballot.

Its proponents argue that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol or
other legal products and that legalization would allow law enforcement to
concentrate on other crimes.

But a less organized coalition of opponents that includes law enforcement
agencies and an anti-drunken driving group says marijuana is a harmful
"gateway drug." The opponents, Nevadans Against Legalizing Marijuana, fear
legalization will lead to more drug dependency and crime, including driving
under the influence. More specifically, they believe that Question 9 would:

Legalize hashish, which they say is far more potent than marijuana.

Eliminate existing laws that deal with motorists caught driving under the
influence of marijuana.

Discriminate against users of medical marijuana, who are already protected
by state law.

Be difficult to enforce because possession would be legal in most public
places.

Do nothing to eliminate illicit sales to children.

If Question 9 passes, the Legislature could decide either to have the state
grow the plant or have private contractors do it under state supervision.
Sales would then be accomplished through stores licensed with the state and
taxes similar to those for cigarettes would apply to marijuana.

But a major hurdle to implementation is that federal law prohibits the
cultivation, possession or sale of marijuana. The nation's drug czar, John
Walters, is scheduled to make an Oct. 10 appearance in Las Vegas to speak
against Question 9.

"Marijuana is riskier than people think, especially for kids," Walters said
in a prepared statement last week. "Smoking marijuana can lead to
significant health and behavior problems for youth -- disrupting families
and jeopardizing our children's futures. The risks associated with
marijuana have been trivialized and our kids are getting the wrong message."

Proponents will keep an eye on how the federal government reacts if voters
in San Francisco approve a measure in November that would allow that city
to be first to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Proponents have been successful in recent years at getting the government
to relax federal sentencing guidelines for marijuana- related crimes.
Backed by wealthy businessmen, legalization proponents have also gained a
toehold in nine states -- including Nevada -- that have legalized marijuana
for medicinal purposes. And they have been successful in convincing many
states -- including Nevada -- to reduce penalties for possession.

Current Nevada law, passed last year, makes possession of less than 1 ounce
of marijuana a misdemeanor subject to a $600 fine or mandatory drug
treatment, and possession of an ounce or greater a felony. Question 9
proponents say the most relaxed marijuana laws in the country are in Ohio,
where an individual can possess up to 3 1/2 ounces and face only a $100 fine.

Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp., the nation's fourth largest auto
insurer, represents the common thread between Nevada's successful medical
marijuana initiative and the drive to pass Question 9. He was a major
financial backer of Americans for Medical Rights, the Santa Monica, Calif.,
organization that sponsored Nevada's medical marijuana initiative. And
Question 9 proponents say that Lewis is the largest contributor to the
Marijuana Policy Project.

Lewis, who declined an interview request, has donated millions of dollars
to universities and museums. He also has financed efforts by the American
Civil Liberties Union to litigate against drug laws. The Wall Street
Journal reported last year that Lewis was arrested in New Zealand in 2000
for possession of marijuana and hashish, but was released after making a
donation to a local drug rehabilitation center.

He told the newspaper that he became involved in efforts to change
marijuana laws because, "I have seen it for quite a while as pure
patriotism to try to change a policy that is sillier than Prohibition."

The successful 1998 campaign to approve medical marijuana in Nevada was
coordinated by Las Vegas political consultant Dan Hart. His arguments won
out over Washington politicians who suggested that medical marijuana
efforts would be the first step toward legalization of illicit drugs.

Four years later, Nevada has become the initial battleground in efforts to
legalize marijuana possession for all adults. But Hart is not involved in
the Question 9 effort and said he is neutral on that initiative.

"This is a different issue because what we were talking about before was to
have patients with catastrophic illnesses have something to relieve their
symptoms," Hart said. "Three ounces would seem to be an awful lot of
marijuana. But from what I understand there is a belief that we spend far
too much money on drug prosecution in this country and that we could use a
lot of that money on treatment or prevention."

Hart said he was not surprised that the measure made Nevada's ballot given
the success of the medical marijuana initiative.

"The people of Nevada are fiercely independent and don't like people to
tell them what to do," Hart said.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas political science Chairman Ted Jelen echoed
that sentiment, noting that the talk on campus about Question 9 has to do
with the libertarian notion that marijuana use should be a private issue.

"It would seem to me that it would have at least a fighting chance of
passing by virtue of the state's libertarian streak," Jelen said. "It has
no better than a chance."

Gov. Kenny Guinn has not taken a position on Question 9 because "he's
interested in seeing what the will of the people is," spokesman Greg
Bortolin said. But Democratic gubernatorial foe Joe Neal, a state senator
from North Las Vegas, said he opposed Question 9 because he has concerns
about the hallucinogenic effects of marijuana's tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

"I just don't feel that we know enough about that and the addiction rate
could be tremendous," Neal said. "I'm concerned about the THC levels and
the other chemicals in marijuana that we hardly know anything about. I am
told marijuana has about 40 chemical properties."

Local business organizations, including Las Vegas Convention and Visitors
Authority, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and Nevada Development Authority,
have not taken a stand on Question 9. The chamber's government affairs
committee discussed the initiative, but decided to take no position,
according to Virginia Valentine, the chamber's senior vice president of
government affairs.

"They didn't look at this as an image issue but more from the standpoint of
how it would affect employee health care," Valentine said. "It's also hard
to know whether this will reduce the cost of law enforcement or the judiciary."

But Somer Hollingsworth, president of Nevada Development Authority, which
recruits businesses, expressed concern that the marijuana initiative would
set back local efforts to distance Las Vegas from its "Sin City" image.

The authority has said that businesses looking to move to Nevada often
inquire about the effect of controversial issues in this state.
Hollingsworth said he has not yet fielded any inquiries about Question 9,
but believes that that could change if the initiative passes.

"If we pass the most liberal marijuana laws in the country, I don't think
it's going to help our recruiting at all," Hollingsworth said. "We pretty
much have gotten past the image of Las Vegas as 'Sin City.' This may take
us back and reinforce the complaint of it being a city of sin."

To launch its campaign the Marijuana Policy Project directed Austin, Texas,
native Billy Rogers to set up shop in Nevada in May under the moniker
Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement. Rogers, who comes complete with
drawl and cowboy boots, is a veteran Democratic political operative who was
campaign manager for Gary Mauro, the candidate defeated by then-Texas Gov.
George W. Bush in 1998 to retain his office.

The irony is that Rogers said he hasn't smoked marijuana in several years.

"I don't like it," Rogers said. "When I was growing up I had a lot of
friends who were arrested and they went through ordeals."

But Rogers, the project's director of state policies, is passionate in his
belief that adults ought to be able to smoke marijuana privately. He opened
an office at 3201 W. Sahara Ave. and in a mere 40 days coordinated a
petition drive that gathered 110,000 signatures statewide -- including
67,000 in Clark County -- to put Question 9 on the ballot.

Through last month, the Marijuana Policy Project -- which says it has 8,000
individual contributors, including 300 Nevadans -- had pumped $575,000 into
the Nevada campaign, much of which was spent to pay the petition gatherers.
More money is expected to come to finance additional television advertisements.

Rogers said his organization chose Nevada because of the Legislature's
decision last year to reduce possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana
from a felony to a misdemeanor. That made Nevada the most recent state in
the nation to reduce marijuana penalties, he said.

"The Nevada Legislature is the only one in a decade that has passed that
type of legislation," Rogers said. "We can all count on the Legislature to
act responsibly. They are a conservative Legislature. We can count on them
to set up a system for the regulation, taxation and distribution of marijuana."

Rogers hired as a consultant Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las
Vegas. She sponsored last year's bill that reduced penalties for possession
of marijuana. The bill also implemented the regulations for medical
marijuana use.

"If there wasn't an appetite for this, then why did 110,000 Nevadans sign a
petition in 40 days?" Giunchigliani said. "That's phenomenal. Most Nevadans
are independent and don't think that the government should be involved in
the privacy of their homes."

But Question 9 foes, including the Clark County district attorney's office,
Metro Police and the head of an anti-drunken driving organization, say that
"Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement" is an insult since neither
Rogers nor other executives with the Marijuana Policy Project have a law
enforcement background.

Metro narcotics Detective Todd Raybuck said the initiative would threaten
public safety if implemented.

"We could see more traffic problems and increased drug use and increases in
violent behavior associated with drug use," Raybuck said. "Under this
initiative, if marijuana becomes legal, employers will not be able to
discriminate against those employees who use it. If your test comes back
positive for marijuana, employers can't refuse to hire you for only that
reason. We're talking about school bus drivers. They could smoke before
they drive the bus.

"I'm also insulted that virtually all the money supporting this movement is
from non-Nevadans. Billy Rogers is a carpetbagger. As far as I know Billy
Rogers and the others at the Marijuana Policy Project have no law
enforcement background, so they don't know what responsible law enforcement
is."

The opponents last month organized their own group, Nevadans Against
Legalizing Marijuana, though they've only been able to scrape together
enough money to print fliers with the title, "Don't be fooled by Question
9." Chief Deputy District Attorney Gary Booker, head of the vehicular
crimes unit, is pictured holding three plastic bags filled with marijuana.
Above the photo is the proclamation that amount is equivalent to 255
marijuana cigarettes.

"This has public safety disaster written all over it," Booker said of
Question 9. "We're at risk for a couple reasons. We have a 24-hour town so
we always have teenagers with minimal or no supervision. It's also the
nature of our town to attract people who are a little excessive and
compulsive. They are predisposed to having a chemical dependency."

Rogers scoffed at the "scare tactics" used by opponents, accusing them of
constantly increasing the number of marijuana cigarettes that can be
produced by 3 ounces. He said law enforcement opponents previously
estimated that 3 ounces would yield 90 to 120 cigarettes.

His own office calculated that 3 ounces was equivalent to 80 cigarettes, or
four packs.

"They can't get their story straight," Rogers said of opponents. "They're
trying to scare people and ultimately it won't work. All this initiative
does is allow responsible adults to possess three ounces in the privacy of
their home or under the care of a doctor."

As for the carpetbagger tag, Rogers said: "If that were true, 110,000
Nevadans wouldn't have welcomed us with open arms and signed the petition
to put it on the ballot. Ultimately Nevadans will make the decision whether
it passes."

But STOP DUI Executive Director Sandy Heverly of Las Vegas, an advocate for
tougher laws against motorists who drive under the influence, said she
feared that the more marijuana is available "the more it will be used and
abused."

"We honestly believe that this initiative will lead to more death and
destruction on our roadways," Heverly said. "This is crossing the line into
the victims' arena. If marijuana isn't harmful, why stop at legalizing 3
ounces? Why not 100 pounds or more?"

Question 9 foes say the initiative is vaguely worded and full of gaping
legal holes. But Giunchigliani said she is not concerned about the way the
initiative is worded, saying those problems can be worked out by the
Legislature.

"If something is vague and not clear, we in the Legislature have the
authority and a responsibility to fix it," she said. "When you amend the
state Constitution you're specific about the intent, but the actual
implementation is our responsibility."
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens

CRRH is working to regulate and tax the sale of cannabis to adults like 
alcohol, allow doctors to recommend cannabis through pharmacies and restore 
the unregulated production of industrial hemp.

*Campaign for the Restoration and Regulation of Hemp*
mail:     CRRH ; P.O. Box 86741 ; Portland, OR 97286 USA
email:   crrh@crrh.org
phone:  (503) 235-4606
fax:       (503) 235-0120
web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
End of Restore-Digest V2002 #199
********************************