Conference back40::soapbox

    I consider the War on Some Drugs to be the action of a police state
    government, ineffective, costly, and unconstitutional.  Here is what
    the Drug War's defenders will no doubt call 'collateral damage'.
    
    DougO
    -----
    $2.75 million for man shot in botched drug raid

    SAN DIEGO (AP) -- A computer executive who suffered permanent injuries
    when federal agents stormed his home after a drug informant's false tip
    will get  $2.75 million in compensation from the government.

    Donald Carlson was shot three times in the 1992 pre-dawn raid, which
    was  prompted by a tip from an informant who afterward was convicted of
    lying to federal agents.

    Carlson, then an executive at a computer products company outside San
    Diego,  will get $2.5 million directly. The other $250,000 will go into
    a medical trust fund.

    ``This brings to a conclusion a very painful chapter of my life,''
    Carlson said  from the Dallas home where he now lives. ``But it does
    not make up for what I went  through.''

    U.S. Attorney Alan Bersin said the settlement of a lawsuit filed by
    Carlson  ``adequately compensates Mr. Carlson for his injuries and the
    horror he suffered while it  protects the taxpayer from the risks of
    additional litigation.''

    Agents from the U.S. Customs Service and the Drug Enforcement
    Administration had been told by the informant that they would find
    5,000 kilos of cocaine in two  homes in Poway, 20 miles north of San
    Diego.

    The informant, Ronnie Edmond, told the agents the two homes were part
    of a  cocaine ring running drugs between Florida and San Diego.

    Edmond gave agents cassette tapes of alleged conversations between him
    and a San Diego County deputy marshal who he said was overseeing the
    drug business. The  tapes were voice-verified by the deputy marshal's
    supervisors, Bersin said.

    But agents who burst into the first home found it empty and without any
    trace of  cocaine. Meanwhile, another group of agents broke down
    Carlson's door with a battering  ram.

    Carlson, who was roused from his sleep and thought he was being
    burglarized,  grabbed an old revolver and fired shots at the front
    door, wounding one agent.

    Carlson still was standing in the doorway with the revolver when the
    next line  of agents came upon him and opened fire, striking Carlson
    three times.

    He spent six weeks in an intensive care unit.

Published 12/16/94 in the San Jose Mercury News.

    The DEA is just another government agency who uses force to enforce
    its self-made rules. They want power and usurped jobs and the freedom
    to be lazy. They will never solve the so-called drug "problem" because
    there is no incentive for them to do so. In fact increasing drug use is
    to their liking and benefit. Without drug laws these thugs would be out
    of a job and recognized as the worthless group that they are.
    
    ...Tom

    DougO
    
    I was looking for the war on rights (I mean drugs) topic, but hadn't
    found it yet.  Thanks for getting it started.
    
    In other new on the WOD, Colombian peasants have kidnapped the head of
    the Colombian DEA for the eradication efforts.  Seems the only crop
    which will grow that makes cash for these people is coca.  
    
    meg

    
    do we wish to have more human catastrophes walking about, more 
    zomboids whose minds have gone up like a pile of gunpowder and 
    who now beg outside Starbucks?
    
    can society afford the increase in the aggregate brain damage
    due to the recreational use of extracts of this humble bush?
    
      

    
    RAH,
    
    Do you mean like, Rush Limbaugh, Newt gingrich, Bill Buckley, and a few
    other darlings of the right who indulged in "youthful indescretion" in
    the 60's and '70's?  Yep you are right.  Some drugs to cause brain
    damage.  
    
    meg

    
    if you are going to stir it up, you don't need to resort to slandering
    Rush L.

    RAH,
    
    Rush admits he has smoked pot.  Really given rush and Newt, the PDFA
    actually has evidence that pot destroys brains and increases paranoia.
    
    meg

    	Pot?  I thought you were waxing eloquent about coca.

    Two paragraphs, two topics.
    
    Cocaine was Freuds drug of choice, not newts (as far as I know)  He
    only admits to pot use.

    
    When the US government declares "war" on something, it means :
    
      (1) Many billions will be spent without effect.
      (2) "Something" will become more prevalent.
      (3) Innocent bystanders will die.
    
    Drugs are but a modest example.  bb
    

    
    >...the PDFA actually has evidence that pot 
    >destroys brains and increases paranoia.
    
    Is this directed at me?  Why are you picking on me, Meg?  
    What'd I ever do to you?  Why don't you all just LEAVE ME ALONE!!
    

    
    We were discussing coca bushes, I thought that much was clear.
    
    
    

    We are spending over 19 billion a year on the WOD, not including
    incarceration costs.  
    
    How many college educations could that pay for? and what kind of dent
    in the deficit could we make if we finally declared the WOD over and
    release the non-violent drug offenders who are in there for mandatory
    terms.  Think of the violent people we wouldn't be releasing on the
    streets because there needs to be more room in the prisons for Drug
    offenders. 
    
    meg

	Heard an intersting tidbit on the radio earlier this week.

	Dean Adell, MD (the talk show doctor) reported on two
	independent studies regarding popular recreational drugs.

	The drugs were rated on 5 categories (I can't remember them
	all) like how addictive, difficulty of withdrawal, speed of
	addiction and the like.

	Ratings for both studies came out claose to the same and went
	something like this (the lower the number the "worse" the drug):

	Heroin - 9
	Cocaine - 12
	Nicotine- 12
	Marijuana - 27
	Caffeine - 27


Jim

    Was alcohol on the list?
    
    -Stephen

    How dangerous is marijuana compared to other substances?
    
    death/year in the us from drug use
    
    tobacco.....................................................340,000-395,000
    Alcohol(not including 50% of highway
    deaths and 65% of homicides)................................125,000_
    
    Aspirin (including deliberate overdose).....................180 to 1,000
    
    Caffeine (from stree, ulcers, and
    triggering irresgular heartbeats............................1,000 to
    10K
    
    'Legal' drug overdose(deliberate or accidental)
    from legal, presribed or patent medicines and/or
    mixing with alcohol).......................................14K to 27K
    
    Illicit Drug overdosn (deliberate or accidental)
    from all illegal drugs.....................................3.8K to 5.2K
    
    marijauna(including overdose).................................--0--
    
    Information pulled from the surgeon generals reports for the 18 years
    prior to 1990.
    
    meg

    .16:
    
    Yabbut, marijhuana has...ummm...some other side effects, which...
    

    ...ummm...like...other problems caused by pot...such as...
    

    ...uhhh...what were we talking about?

    
    
    Um,
    
    so  does alcohol when taken to excess.
    
    

    
    I don't recall...does alcohol cause memory loss?  :^)
    

    what was the question?

    
    I forget.  Another round, anyone?
    

    Oh yeah, now I remember, the answer is 42. 
    
    Brian

    .2
    
    The gubment will just print some more to pay off the judgement.

    
    Who are you people, and how did I get inside this cramped box ?

    re: Note 188.4 by CALDEC::RAH
    
    Oh, you want to ban booze?  
    I thought we already tried that, and it didn't work.
    Why do you think the war on drugs will be any different?

    RE: .10
    
          >(1) Many billions will be spent without effect.
          >(2) "Something" will become more prevalent.
          >(3) Innocent bystanders will die.
    
    They know this when they start, but they do it anyway. Why? because
    they need the work.
    
    ...Tom 

    The WOD is a growth industry.
    
    1.  People, for whatever reason seem to want to get high
    
    2.  As long as there is a demand, someone will be  willing to take
    risks to make money by importing the supply.
    
    3.  The least harmful drugs are the easiest to intercept, by virtue of
    bulk, smell etc.  They also have the least profit potential.
    
    4.  The least risk is in the more addicting and dangerous drugs, they
    are harder to detect and cheaper to ship.  (see 3.)
    
    5.  The PTB(powers that be) can safely continue the WOD's, using it to
    steal rights from the unstoned by manipulating the market, and creating
    spot-shortages to make those who indulge more likely to commit crimes
    to support their habits. 
    
    6.  (My paranoia kicking in here)  By making the most addictive
    substances available to the poorest segment of the US. The PTB also can
    continue to find an excuse to curtail the rights of those living in
    those segments of the country.  
    
    7.  The PTB can also use the WOD to further agendas in other countries.

    
    Both the DEA and the BATF are facist organizations, modern day
    brownshirts. 
    
    Paul
    

    
    
    
    
    You've got that 100% right.  The latest pizza party that they had
    proves that out.  And they want our guns, yeah right.
    
    
    Mike

    RE:>>188.26
     >They know this from the start, but they do it anyway.  Why? because
     >they need the work.
    
    Uh Huh.  I'm sure there's nothing better to do, than to "harass"
    people on an indiscriminate basis.  Your're right!  
    
    Give it a rest, Please!!

    re: .30
    
  >  RE:>>188.26
  >  >They know this from the start, but they do it anyway.  Why? because
  >  >they need the work.
    
  >  Uh Huh.  I'm sure there's nothing better to do, than to "harass"
  >  people on an indiscriminate basis.  Your're right!
    
	For the DEA and the US government - the 'war on (some) drugs' is
    	good business. A nice side benefit is that they get the ignore the
    	constitution, after all this *is* a war, so bending the rules a
    	little is acceptable, right?!?
    
			Robert.

    The DEA and company have alsohad a field day harrassing law-abiding
    citizens on the basis of age, race, and anything else they deem
    important on a day.  
    
    In colorado, one DEA agent was convicted of harrassing a bar owner, and
    menacing him and staff after they were cut from buying more booze. 
    (Five agents, 12 pitchers, and multiple shots of tequila.)  the person
    convicted threatened the owner with shutting down the bar, and also
    threatened to kill him.  The other four are on limited duty, with loss
    of government cars and desk duty.  They were presumably on duty the day
    they spent the afternoon drinking in the Sedalia bar.  
    
    Two young men from Philadelpia were returning from a week in Jamaica. 
    They were hauled into a back room and strip searched when their luggage
    didn't turn up anything illegal.  They were then "treated" to a body
    cavity search and when that failed to turn up anything, a trip to the
    local hospital for barium x-rays.  At that point, one of the men was
    driven back to the airport, but the other one was handcuffed to a
    hospital bed because "they had found somthing suspicious inthe x-ray,"
    The one driven back asked why the two were targetted.  His answer? 
    "How old are you?"
    "24"
    "what is your race?"
    "Hispanic" (puerto Rican in fact)
    "where did you come from?"
    "Jamaica"
    "why ask why?  Have a nice day"
    
    The other youth was handcuffed in the bed, fed massive doses of
    laxatives, and his bowel products run through strainers for two days. 
    The "suspicious" thing on the x-ray turned out to be a hotdog.  He was
    taken back to the airport with no apology after this.  To add injury to
    insult, the hospital has sent both of them a bill for "services
    rendered."  
    
    Innocent people have been held to the floor while these modern-day
    storm troopers go through their possessions and homes on the hearsay
    information from paid informants.  This has resulted in deaths,
    shootings, and a large number of law-suits against the federal
    government, but apparently not enough to deter the DEA, and ATF from
    conducting the no knock raids and getting warrants on verbal
    information from people seeking to lower their sentences, or to make
    money.  (Can you say Salem?)
    
    Despite this type of harrassment of citizens, the flow of drugs into
    the country has not been stopped, or even slowed.  I would like to see
    this madness stopped.
    
    meg

    
    "Drug use is wrong because it is immoral, and it is immoral because it
    enslaves the mind and destroys the soul."
    
    George Will quoting James Q. Wilson in, "How Reagan Changed America", a
    Newsweek article back in '89.
    
    jeff

    jeff,
    
    do you include alcohol, caffiene and tobacco in this list?

    re: .33
    
    >"Drug use is wrong because it is immoral, and it is immoral because it
    >enslaves the mind and destroys the soul."
    
    >George Will quoting James Q. Wilson in, "How Reagan Changed America", a
    >Newsweek article back in '89.
    
    	Is this supposed to mean something? James Q. Wilson (whoever the
    	hell THAT is!) thinks drugs use 'enslaves the mind and destroys
    	the soul'. Perhaps he shouldn't take drugs then.
    
    			Robert.
    
    

    Morality has nothing to do with it with the possible exception 
    of the immorality of our government as backed by the few power zealots  
    wanting to foist their pretentions of righteousness on the godless 
    masses.  Then again there is the immorality of allowing socially 
    accepted but generally regarded dangerous substances pervade our social 
    fabric.  These of course are cash crops buoyed by huge commercial 
    enterprises and therefore the livelihoods of thousands depend upon 
    government sanguinity.  The vileness of the hypocrisy makes me 
    ill.  The criminal negligence in the tobacco industry in collusion with 
    the government wreaks havoc on the collective health of millions 
    worldwide.  The resultant monetary costs in health care are staggering. 
    The resultant preventable loss of life is the far greater sin.  
    
    Brian

    .35
    
    the point is that because drug use is wrong (enslaving and destroying
    people), the govt. must ensure that illicit drug use and sale is
    punishable by law. 
    
    meg,  as a matter of law, tobacco, alcohol and caffeine are legal
    drugs.  what is the point of comparing legal substances with illegal
    substances?  it only confuses the issue (which is probably why they are
    mentioned, imo).
    
    jeff

    
    
    It ain't the governments job, Jeff.
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    how do you figure, Mike?
    
    jeff

>    the point is that because drug use is wrong (enslaving and destroying
>    people), the govt. must ensure that illicit drug use and sale is
>    punishable by law. 

That's about the silliest thing I've read in here in ages.

    
    
    Read the constitution, Jeff.
    
    
    Mike

    
    was the use of illicit drugs a threat or even a perceived problem when
    our consittution was established?  I don't think so.
    
    The community is destroyed by the use and sale of illicit drugs - look at 
    our inner cities.  Innocent lives are held hostage to illegal, immoral 
    acts.  It is a matter of justice and is most appropriate for our govt to 
    pass and enforce laws against it for the sake of the community.
    
    jeff

    
    
    And booze, and depression, and layoffs, and cigs, and etc, etc, etc.....
    
    

    re .37
    
    There is some logic missing here.
    
    If drugs enslave, destroy etc. (let's take that as an axiom), then there 
    are some logical alternatives:
    
    1. make ALL drugs illegal and enforce the laws relating to that.
    (applies to nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, refined sugars, ketones,
    acetones, other petroleum distillates, barbiturates, codein, cocaine,
    opium derivates etc. etc.)
    
    2. make all drugs legally available, but educate on effect and
    distribute in a manner to ensure children do not have easy access and
    where distribution is made in a safe manner with adequate and
    equivalent warning notices.  (e.g. the warnings on cans of spray paint
    pull no punches, compared to the what's on a beer can)
    
    Distribution of the currently illegal drugs through a legal but
    rigorous distribution network would have a lot of benefits - lower
    crime, less risk of infection - which I'm sure has been discussed ad
    nauseam.
    
    The point of comparing legal to illegal drugs is that both cause major
    individual and social ills, yet the line between illegal and legal is
    not based on logic but on history and commercial influence.
    
    Axel

Perhaps more to the point, there were far more exemplary ways to enslave
and destroy people at the time the constitution was written and the idea
of tying that concept in with any sort of drugs was ludicrous.

You think maybe cannabis and coca and heroin were discovered in the 60's,
Jeff? Cannabis was well known for its properties in colonial times. Do
some reading, why don't you.

    So the government, the representatives of the people, decide what is
    legal and what is illegal.  The current division makes no sense.  If
    however "the people" want the system to make no sense  - OK then.  But
    ket's not kid ourselves that illegal drugs are worse than the legal
    ones.

    
    .44  there is no logic missing, simply other alternative conclusions
    (which are illogical, imo).
    
    to wit, sugar may enslave (dubious) but it does not destroy nor is its
    primary purpose to enslave and destroy.  same goes for most of the
    others you mentioned.  
    
    yes, let's let only volunteers enslave and destroy themselves and wreak
    havoc on our communities. this is some alternative.
    
    we have the responsibility and task as a nation built on law to draw
    moral distinctions, deciding what is right and wrong.  enslaving and
    destroying the self with all the attendant anti-social behavior and
    consequences on the larger community infringes on the rights of others
    in a significant fashion.  it must be constrained by the laws of our
    land, for the sake of our communities and our nation.
    
    jeff

    
    don't be foolish.  illegal drugs are more dangerous than legal drugs,
    by far.  Heroin addiction will always end in death.  crack addiction is
    famous for its destructive effects.  on and on and on.
    
    i think our society has been on a binge for long enough now, don't you? 
    how can rational people argue for more freedom to drug oneself into
    oblivion?  and none of you presumably are even drug users!  yet you
    argue that the poor, wasted, pitiful, miserable drug addicted person may 
    continue legally and freely to destory his life, his community and the 
    fabric of our society?  and you want the govt. and the people to be
    partners in the crime!!  incredible!!!
    
    jeff

    .48
    
    I don't really disagree with you.
    
    Yes we need to make moral judgements and we need to protect society.
    
    But what is the logical difference between alcohol and cocaine use? 
    Let's take those two for discussion.  (My reference to refined sugar is
    one extreme of the case - but a refined sugar, caffeine combination
    plays havoc with the human system, is very addictive and can lead to
    anti-social behaviour, depression etc.)
    
    I'm no expert - never having bought or used cocaine.  But I hear it's
    relatively expensive compared to equivalent grade alcohol.  Under the
    influence of either, or in the withdrawal state when the effects wear
    off, the individual may commit serious breaches of conduct.  The real
    difference comes in the distribution system - for cocaine because the
    system is illegal prices are high, crime is committed to raise the
    money and more crime is committed at every level of the system. 
    Alcohol is bought over the counter with the blessings of all.
    
    I just don't see the logical line between one being legal and the other
    not.
    
    Axel

    Am I following this right? Is Jeff asserting that because drugs are
    such a serious problem that whatever the government does to combat
    them is fine? Is Jeff perhaps forgetting that the minions of two
    former presidents are themselves implicated in benefiting from drug
    trafficking and that the current president is under suspision of
    benefiting as well? Does Jeff perhaps forget that 80+ people who
    engaged in the high crime of non-traditional religious practices
    have also been murdered by similar thugs using similar tactics?
    The government, at the _very best_, has been ineffective in
    the "drug war". Many (including myself) believe that the government
    has a much more sinister presence in the trade...
    
    -b

    The illicitness of a given substance is artificial.  There is nothing
    inherently immoral with coca, cannabis, poppies, peyote, mushrooms etc.  
    There primary historical purposes were not to enslave the populace of 
    asia or the americas.  The illegality and illicitness of certain drugs 
    is a contrivance of the pretentious moral keepers of society.  As stated 
    the illegality of these substances is what causes the social decay, 
    not the existence and use.  
    
    Brian

    
    cocaine , like alcohol, enslaves the mind and destroys the
    soul.  but cocaine does it faster, much faster.  one can be an
    alcoholic and live a long life.  one cannot be a cocaine addict and
    live long.  many can drink alcohol on a regular basis and not become an
    alcoholic.  almost all who use cocaine on a regular basis become addicted
    very quickly. alcohol has a sedative affect.  cocaine has a stimulating
    affect.  the alcohol user will go to sleep most often.  the cocaine user
    can't sleep and is awake, plotting his next debauched move, driven to
    satisfy insatiable appetites.
    
    i don't suggest that this is a complete argument for the legality of
    alcohol or the illegality of cocaine and other drugs.  i'm not certain
    that the legality of alcohol is justified.  i'm certain the illegality
    of cocaine and other such drugs is justified.
    
    jeff
    
    
    

    Jeff, you forgot the IMOs etc.  So you assert that alcohol is the
    lesser evil as it will put you to sleep and therefore preven further
    plotting and debauching?  Is this correct?  You further assert cocaine,
    which has a stimulating effect, there for enables further debauching. 
    Is this also correct?  Can we surmise from your assertions that drugs
    that make you sleepy are good and those that keep you up are bad? 
    Sominex is good, Vivarin is bad.  Nicotine is good, caffeine is bad. 
    Heroin and opiates must be good as they narcotize.  Amphetamines must
    be bad as they excite.  I see, much clearer now thanks.  
    
    Brian

    
    absurd, brian. 
    
    illegality changes nothing concerning a drug's affects. drugs do not harm 
    individuals because they're illegal!  they harm individuals because
    they are toxic and destroy good judgement.  but you know that.
    
    let's try not to jump from the argument that natural substances and
    their original intended uses are morally neutral to the conclusion that
    there is then nothing immoral about abusing drugs derived from these
    substances.
    
    jeff
    
    

    .54 brian.  this is not only my opinion, but my personal experience
    with alcohol and cocaine and my observations of many, many others
    using the same drugs.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    No conclusion drawn that the abuse of anything is not immoral.  I found
    the analogy that x puts you to sleep and therefore is less likely to
    enable you to do something bad where as y stimulates and becomes an
    enabler for bad deeds to be absurd.  Actually I found your note to 
    be quite contradictory on this.  Your assertion that alcoholics can 
    lead long lives is also quite unlikely statistically and used as a 
    grounds for equating one vice is less bad than another is really
    stretching it.  
    
    Abuse of a substance is going to happen regardles of it's legal status.
    Abuse stems from individual behavior though not because the abused
    substance is inherently evil.  Your assertion tells me that that things
    should be illegal because we as citizens in general are incapable of 
    making the right (to you) moral decisions regarding our lives.  News 
    flash Jeff, that condition exists either way.  The W.O.D. has managed 
    to perpetuate and accelerate criminal activity.  It has turned otherwise 
    productive members of society into criminals and incarcerated them
    adding to the pool of future offenders.  It has cost the citizens of
    the country billions in direct and indirect expenditures by funding the
    frontline combatants as well as helping to build the artificially
    needed facilities to house the new criminals.  The W.O.D. is a
    government hypocrisy at best.  To justify the actions for the government 
    from a moralistic standpoint is absurd.  It would be laughable if it
    was not so tragic.  
    
    Brian

    Here's what really cocerns me about this whole deal; I'm not a US
    citizen but I sure am a taxpayer.  So part of my taxes get spent on a
    thing called the "war on drugs" rather than on useful things like
    getting my road repaired or cheaper tuition at college.
    
    This war has no solid foundation.  It is based on an arbitrary
    definition of legal vs. illegal.  See .16 for the effects of various
    drugs - it's as good a measure as any.
    
    Where is the US going with this?  Do we really want a jail baseed
    economy?  Are draconian measures, zero tolerance, seizures of homes,
    yachts etc. really justified?  It sems that by making some drugs
    illegal, users also become part of another society where they have no
    rights, where even medical decency is denied.
    
    Why will the US not look at and debate the experiences elsewhere?  Sure
    every now and then at 11p.m. on public TV there will be some balanced
    report.  Certainly Europe has a drug problem but nothing like the US
    and I would suggest that it is "better" because the distribution system
    is regulated and controlled rather than being made war on.  Australia
    has had a clean needle exchange scheme for at leat 10 years which at
    least cuts down one of the risks, and costs, of drug use.
    
    The whole thought of intravenous drug use makes me cringe.  But if we
    are going to bet the shape of society on pur actions we really should
    look at this more thoroughly.
    
    Axel

    as is shown daily, brian, murder is going to occur regardless of the
    laws against it.  are you going to argue that we should stop passing
    laws to convict murderers and stop spending money for their
    apprehension, trial and incarceration?
    
    jeff

    
    
    What about obese people, Jeff?  When are you going to go after them? 
    They cost society in many of the same ways these different substances
    do.  Bottom line is, your rights end where my rights begin.  

    
    how so, mike?
    
    jeff

    
    
    
    Cost in productivity, health, etc which is where it costs "society".
    
    
    
    Mike

    Not quite the correct comparison Jeff.  You are comparing inanimate
    objects with behaviors.  A more correct analogy would be to weapons 
    because some are used irresponsibly to commit murder.  The answer is 
    no, I would not seek to ban these things because irresponsible behavior 
    can be harmful.  My stance on some drugs is the same.          ^^^^^^^^
    
    The W.O.s.D. is also irresponsible behavior by our government,
    funded by the taxpayer, and supported by the morally pretentious.  I
    would not seek to ban government or religions because they are used
    irresponsibly in this regard as well.  
    
    Brian

    RE: 188.38
    
    >It ain't the governments job, Jeff.
    
    
    >Mike
    
    O Please.  Yeah and I suppose it is the governments job to have to pay 
    to keep all these nit-wits in hospitals and in so-called drug rehab.
    centers using my tax-dollars.   GREAT!!
    In my opinion, I would rather have tax money spent on stopping the
    problem at the source.  
    
    Re: 188.42  I couldn't agree more!!!  Finally someone not living in a
    fantasy world!!
    
    steve

re: .49 (Jeff)

>    don't be foolish.  illegal drugs are more dangerous than legal drugs,
>    by far.  Heroin addiction will always end in death.  crack addiction is
>    famous for its destructive effects.  on and on and on.
    
The problem with broad statements like this is that it MAY be correct for
SOME illegal drugs (PCP, cocaine) but is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE for others.
You have lumped all illegal drugs together; their effects, their
"dangerousness", their potential for addiction.

In order that we might have constructive dialog, I have some questions:

a) are there ANY illegal drugs that you know of that are LESS DANGEROUS
    than one particular legal drug?
   1) if so: what should happen - the "illegalization" of the more dangerous,
    currently legal drug or
   2) the "legalization" of the less dangerous currently illegal drug

b) what statistics or effects should be taken in to account when determining
    how "dangerous" a drug is?

c) since, in the past, coffee, tobacco, and yes, alcohol, have all been
    illegal at one time or another, you must agree that there is some amount
    of subjectivity in the decision-making process about "enslaving the
    soul."  Is there some documented christian basis for the current set
    of legal/illegal drugs, or is the "morality" thing just a buzzword to
    get the conservatives to rally together?  If some other country decides
    to make any of the aforementioned legal drugs illegal, does that
    suddenly affect the souls of the consumers in that country?  

\john

    
    \john's question calls to mind 188.16.
    

    re .68,
    
    that is exactly where I was going to send Jeff.  i am interested in how
    he rationalizes keeping marijuana illegal, when alcohol and tobacco
    have so many deaths as a direct result of using them.  
    
    jeff when you read it, remember, I didn't include traffic fatalities or
    homocides caused by alcohol use either.
    
    meg

    .66
    
    We'd all like to have the problem stopped at the source - but the WOD
    is not doing it.

                      <<< Note 188.48 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

    
>    we have the responsibility and task as a nation built on law to draw
>    moral distinctions, deciding what is right and wrong.  enslaving and
>    destroying the self with all the attendant anti-social behavior and
>    consequences on the larger community infringes on the rights of others
>    in a significant fashion.  it must be constrained by the laws of our
>    land, for the sake of our communities and our nation.
 
	It should be noted that this is a very recent decision.

	All currently illegal drugs were quite legal when this nation
	was founded.

	The attempt to declare the single most damaging drug illegal was
	an unmitigated failure. 

	To outlaw marijuana while allowing the sale of alchohol is
	hypocritical.

Jim

    What exactly has the war on drugs done for any of us?
    
    After the late 70's when the goverment decided to get heavily into
    declaring was on a small part of the population, what have the results
    been, outside of the obvious fact that we have thrown enough money/year
    down this to educate 1000 kids/year at harvard?
    
    
    let's see:
    
    1.  cocaine is cheaper in both real and nominal dooar value than it was
    in the '70's
    
    2.  Heroin use is increasing.  The potency and price is better than it
    was, even during the height of the Viet Nam conflict, when it was
    smuggled in by GI's with habits.
    
    3.  marijuana cost has gone through the roof, both in nominal and
    adjusted dollars.  
    
    4.  Gangs are able to finance themselves through drug sales, as have
    several covert portions of the federal government.
    
    5.  if you are under 40, or look the least bit counter-culture, you are
    at risk everytime you come back into the US for the same treatment
    given to those two youths in pennsylvania.
    
    6.  Having large amounts of cash is considered "probable cause" both
    for searching your person and for confiscating your money.
    
    7. The prison population has exploded.
    
    8.  Violent criminals get substantially shorter sentences than those
    convicted of non-violent drug crimes.  Further, because the drug-crimes
    carry mandatory minimum sentences, violent offenders are being released
    at earlier dates to make room for low-level users.
    
    Anybody else want to take a stab at what great benefits we are reaping
    from this war on rights?
    
    meg

                      <<< Note 188.49 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

    
>    don't be foolish.  illegal drugs are more dangerous than legal drugs,
>    by far. 

	Wrong. 

> Heroin addiction will always end in death.

	Life always ends in death. 

>  crack addiction is
>    famous for its destructive effects.  on and on and on.
 
	Alchohol addiction is known for its beneficial side effects?

>and none of you presumably are even drug users!

	Poor assumption. I currently use two recreational drugs on a 
	regular basis. Nicotine and Alchohol.

Jim

    Jim,
    
    You mean you gave up caffiene?  Or were you never a user?
    
    meg

    <<< Note 188.74 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

    
>    You mean you gave up caffiene?  Or were you never a user?
 
	Amended. 

	I regularly use THREE recreational drugs.

	;-)

Jim

 
>	It should be noted that this is a very recent decision.
    	
    	so?  are recent laws invalid because they're recent?

>	All currently illegal drugs were quite legal when this nation
>	was founded.
    	
    	so?  was addiction to heroin, crack, cocaine, marijuana and the
    attendant carnage a problem at that time?

>	The attempt to declare the single most damaging drug illegal was
>	an unmitigated failure. 
    	
    so?  does this negate the need for such laws?  alcohol may be the most
    damaging drug because it is legal and generally socially acceptable.

>	To outlaw marijuana while allowing the sale of alchohol is
>	hypocritical.

    maybe.

    
    Re: .72 Hi Meg
    
    	Good note. One I wish more people would pay attention to,
    	ESPECIALLY number 8 on your list about prison terms.
    
    							Hank

    
>    We'd all like to have the problem stopped at the source - but the WOD
>    is not doing it.
    
    the wod *is* limiting drug entrance to this country by some amount.  we
    have little control over those countries who produce drugs.  i think
    much of our failure is closely related to the weakness of our other
    laws - criminal, immigration and borders, foreign policy and so on. not
    to mention the morals of our citizens.
    
    even so, it is one thing to say that our attempts at eliminating the
    source of such drugs are not working well.  its another thing to say
    since its not working let's just legalize drugs and stop trying to
    battle this scourge.
    
    jeff
    
    

    .78
    
    Look at my .59 again - look at the examples of some other countries. 
    There are other ways to tackle this issue rather than having a war.
    
    Your note is pretty scary.  You would advocate stronger laws and a
    different foreign policy.  What does that mean?  Imprisonment on
    suspicion?  Body searches for everybody at all border crossings?  A big
    wall, with a mined strip between the US and Mexico?  A foreign policy
    which allows armed intervention in drug producing countries?
    
    There are other ways to do this!  For whatever reason throughout
    recorded history some people have turned to drugs and some of those
    have gotten so deeply addicted to become a danger to themselves and to
    society.  Declaring war on them does not do anything.  Education and
    treatment might.

                      <<< Note 188.76 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

 
>    	so?  are recent laws invalid because they're recent?

	No. But it is something to think about. Your contentions regarding
	all the negative effects of drugs SHOULD have also have been true
	prior their having been made illegal. Yet we did not have the
	serious problems that we associate with drug abuse today. Why
	is this? Could it be that the drugs are a symptom and not a
	cause? 

>    	so?  was addiction to heroin, crack, cocaine, marijuana and the
>    attendant carnage a problem at that time?

	But then you have to ask yourself why they were not.


>    so?  does this negate the need for such laws?  alcohol may be the most
>    damaging drug because it is legal and generally socially acceptable.

	Negate? Not sure if that's the right word. Demonstrate how useless
	such laws are? Certainly.

>>	To outlaw marijuana while allowing the sale of alchohol is
>>	hypocritical.

>    maybe.

	No maybes about it. Competent research by by scientists working
	for the NIH have concluded that alchohol is more damaging that
	marijuana.

Jim

    RE:188.79
    
    >...Declaring war on the does not do anything.  Education and treatment 
    >might."
    
    That's all well and good.  That would work, the only problem is getting
    them to go.  
    
    >Imprisonment on suspicion?  Body searches at all border crossings?
    
    All this worry about other people rights.  What about that whole 
    thing about Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  We have rights
    too.  And those include securing a way of life that is safe.  One were
    your kids can walk down your block and not walk in front of a crack
    house, and at night you can hear the crickets not the sound of
    automatic weapons.  If youcan deter the flow into the country, you can
    then work on putting the pieces of shattered lives back together.
    
    steve
    
    

    re .79,
    
    I like the idea of forced barium x-rays for all people coming into the
    country, at the private citizens' expense.  Anything suspicious should
    result in chaining the person to a hospital bed, or better a single
    cot, windowless cell, until three weeks have passed, to make sure there
    was nothing injested (once again the room space and analysis will be at
    the citizens' expense.  unrine and blood tests should be given as well,
    also at a cost to those who are entering the country.  Any suspicious
    outcome will result in 6 months detention at a detox center, also at
    the (alleged) users' expense.  
    
    then we can move on to weekly public executions, forced removal of
    children from all suspected drug-users homes, and random urine tests at
    every traffic stop for any reason.  those who use public transportation
    should be tested on a daily basis, and those who use the xportation
    service will pay for their tests too.
    
    this will put a virtual end to all drug-use/trafficking in this
    hallowed country.  Of course the freedoms it was founded on will be
    history, but hey!  It will be safe, right?
    
    meg
    
    

    Jeff,  
    
    Marijuana is not addicitve.  
    
    Serious questions to anyone follow:
    
    When was legislation enacted to criminalize Marijuana, Heroin and 
    Cocaine?  
    What were the reasons given behind the criminalization of the above?  
    When was cocaine deleted as an ingredient in Coca-cola?  
    
    
    Brian

    Re:84
    
    well Meg, as long as your not going to any extremes or anything 8-)
    
    steve

            <<< Note 188.85 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "aspiring peasant" >>>

>    When was legislation enacted to criminalize Marijuana, Heroin and 
>    Cocaine?  

	Just a guess, the 30's?

>    What were the reasons given behind the criminalization of the above?  

	I've heard at least on suggestion that the mob knew that booze
	was going to be legalized and that they wanted to ensure a 
	continued source of income.

>    When was cocaine deleted as an ingredient in Coca-cola?  
 
	Not even a guess on this one.

Jim

    Steve,
    
    The only way to get rid of the drug trade in a free country is not to
    have a free country.  anything less than draconian treatment of
    citizens has failed to stop users.  Even China and Singapore have a
    thriving, if underground, illicit drug business.  If nations who
    respect individual rights as little as these countries can't end the
    illicit trade, how will a country that values human liberty?
    
    meg

    .83
    
    I have a funny feeling that even if you could stop all flow of drugs
    into the country there is enough genius and incentive to produce
    homegrown or synthetic drugs to keep quite a bit of mayhem going.
    
    "The only problem is getting them to go".  Go where?  By education I
    mean really getting down to it.  Ads on MTV, pople walking the streets
    giving a bit of wisdom with a clean needle, schools, churches,
    billboards.."
    
    Maybe I'm dreaming.  But I'm getting too old and cynical to believe that
    a war will achieve anything except create casualties.
    
    

    Jim,
    
    decocanized coca leaf is still an ingredient in coca cola, they
    recently had an interview with the man who provides this in one of the
    sunday focus sections.  
    
    the laws against marijuana began when Dupaont patented a new acid
    process for paper manufacture from wood pulp in 1916.  1931 brought
    Harry Anslinger came into power in 1931, and began a campaign against
    the "evil weed" and "destroyer of youth"  It was demonized by using
    racism and xenophobia about blacks, hispanics, and the new jazz
    movement.  
    
    If you would like, I have quite a nice little history book about
    marijuana you could borrow.  for those out of the area, I strongly
    recommend "The Emperor Wears no Clothes" by Jack Herer, you could learn
    something about soe of the "freedoms" in this country and also about
    the usefulness of hemp to industry.
    
     meg

                      <<< Note 188.78 by USAT05::BENSON >>>

    
>    the wod *is* limiting drug entrance to this country by some amount.

	Even the DEA admits to only stopping about 10% The drug cartels
	consider this a cost of goods sold adder.

	Note Meg's entry regarding the price of cocaine. It has gone
	DOWN since the advent of the War on Rights started. 

Jim

                      <<< Note 188.89 by AKOCOA::DOUGAN >>>

>    I have a funny feeling that even if you could stop all flow of drugs
>    into the country there is enough genius and incentive to produce
>    homegrown or synthetic drugs to keep quite a bit of mayhem going.
 
	Don't have to rely on feelings. Increased use of methantheptamine
	(crank/speed), LSD and a whole raft of "designer" drugs gives us
	a good look at the inventiveness of drug dealers. All of these
	can be produced within the borders of the US. Most of them with
	easily available, garden variety chemicals.

Jim

    after the crackdown on pot on the borders american homegrowers went to
    work.  If william Bennetts information is correct, these people are
    better hybridizers than burpee.  qp times morwe potent indeed.  I
    wonder who his connection is/was.
    
    meg

Burpee?  Take it the Coke vs. Pepsi note.

.83>    							One were
.83>    your kids can walk down your block and not walk in front of a crack
.83>    house, and at night you can hear the crickets not the sound of
.83>    automatic weapons.

You, like Jeff, should do some reading. It might assist you in
curtailing some of the silliness in your notes. The above scene
you paint so nicely sounds quite similar to the atmosphere in
this country during prohibition. Guess how it was eliminated.

    
    mexican marijuana was always substandard.  columbian was preferred
    day-to-day.  hawaiian and vietnamese for special occasions. and
    lebanese hash for the fancier, most exclusive affairs.
    
    but i have (long ago) smoked homegrown that was potent enough.  
    
    jeff
    
    

>You, like Jeff, should do some reading. It might assist you in
>curtailing some of the silliness in your notes. The above scene

    
    reading proves it all, doesn't it?  you've educated yourself into
    imbecility.
    
    jeff

.-1>    reading proves it all, doesn't it?  you've educated yourself into
.-1>    imbecility.


 Reading merely proves the errors in your silly assumptions and
 contentions. You should know by now that I don't enter into these
 discussions lightly, but only when folks begin to make statements
 which are clearly insubstantial. Here's a deal for you Jeff - I'll
 keep my mouth shut once you stop spouting garbage. The fact of the
 matter is as I've stated in response to you (cannabis, coca and
 the products of the poppy _were_ in use when the Constitution was
 written), and to Steve (his "world of horror" is a replay of the
 USofA during prohibition, said replay which ended along with that
 ammendment). Now, either refute it with facts (Hint: there are none)
 or keep your snide, not to mention poorly composed, commentary to
 yourself.

    It's a draw, well done guys. Now then, let's get on with the subject
    at hand.

    
    can't you be a bit more original debalso?  did i say that there were no
    drugs around at that time?  no, i didn't.  go reread the note.
    
    the point is, drug use destroys lives and communities, not because
    they're illegal but because they enslave the mind and destroy the soul
    of those who *use* them resulting in illegal and immoral acts often
    violating the rights of other individuals and communities.
    
    if you want to argue that nothing is immoral, go ahead.  if you want to
    argue that murder is immoral and drug use is not, go ahead.  you don't
    have a leg to stand on in either case from a historical, legal,
    religious or philosophical perspective.
    
    jeff

    Prove the existence of a soul to be destroyed.  
    
    Brian

    
    
    Bzzzt, wrong again Jeff.  Drug ABUSE destroys these things.

RE: 188.101 by USAT05::BENSON

> {drugs} enslave the mind and destroy the soul of those who *use* them 
> resulting in illegal and immoral acts often violating the rights of other 
> individuals and communities.

People should use drugs to destroy their soul.  That way they don't have to 
worry about ending up in Heaven with wonderful people like Jeff,  or in Hell 
with better company and poorer conditions.


Phil

>    the point is, drug use destroys lives and communities, not because
>    they're illegal but because they enslave the mind and destroy the soul
>    of those who *use* them resulting in illegal and immoral acts often
>    violating the rights of other individuals and communities.

Well, by the time I got to this, I see you've already been served the
appropriate counters to your fallacies. It ain't use that's the problem,
Jeff, but ABuse. We aren't outlawing tobacco, caffeine or alcohol due
to the fact that they CAN be abused and neither does it make sense to
continue to so strictly control the other substances that the wod keeps
restricted. Communities aren't destroyed by drugs, but by people who
abuse them. If you can't see the distinction there, I don't know what
more I can do to assist you. The enslavement of the mind to which you
refer is a condition of abuse, not use. The illegal and immoral acts
are largely the result of the substances being illicit rather than
a consequence of their existance.

.42>    was the use of illicit drugs a threat or even a perceived problem when
.42>    our consittution was established?  I don't think so.

Natural drugs considered to be illicit today were in use and well known of
at the time of the writing of the constitution. It is correct that they were
not a threat or perceived problem at that time. Not because their use or
availability was less significant than it currently is, but largely because
societal attitudes and laws were such that they didn't pose the problems,
which largely result today from their illicit status rather than from
their inherent properties, your claims of "enslavement of the mind and
destruction of the soul" notwithstanding. There's plenty of historical
evidence to back this up. If you could look at the facts rationally,
rather than choosing to ignore them so that you can continue to hide behind
your self-righteous "moral" attitude regarding the matter, you'd see the
lack of substance in your arguments.

    Didn't the Japanese encourage opium consumption in China during the war
    in order to keep control of the people? They new it would weaken the
    people and make them dependent, addiction was used as an effective
    counter insurgence weapon.

    Glenn

    Glenn,
    
    china has had an opium issue forever.  Seems to me there is a chunk of
    history referring to the "Opium Wars" around china.  
    
    Remember though, they have their own list of 'licit' and 'illicit'
    drugs, just as we do.  what makes sense to one set of leaders doesn't
    to another country and culture, witness some moslem countries which
    permit, (if not condone) hashish, qat, or opium, but not alcohol.
    
    Leave is open, tax it to pay for any needed treament, and let's get on
    with what is really wrong with this country.

    But it's what it does to the people that matters no? The Japanese used
    opium to control the people and even helped increase production and
    distribution. This practice had a devastating effect, especially in
    Manchuria.

    Glenn

    And some doctors use tranquilizers and anti-depressents to control some
    of their patients, particul;arly those who have complaints they can't
    diagnose.  What is your point?
    
    meg

    My point is, the consumption of certain intoxicating substances has a
    detrimental affect on an entire society. You can't put nicotine on the
    same scale as cocaine. Though they both may be detrimental, one is
    more dangerous than the other and more harmful and addictive. Were the
    Japanese speeding up production of rice wine to control the populace?
    No, they needed something more harmful and addictive.

    There is some credence to having a substance banned from the general
    populace, that's my point. How this is handled is a completely
    different story.
    
    Glenn

    
    ...your point being...?
    

    Re:188.92
    
    >All of these can be produced within the borders of the US. Most of
    >them with easily available, garden variety chemicals.
    
    >Jim
    
    I disagree, Jim.  The Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act(CDTA) of
    1988 and other chemical control legislation that followed, placed 24
    precursor and 7 essential chemicals used to produce illicit drugs,
    under Federal control.  It also placed the distribution of tableting 
    and encapsulating machines under their control as well.  Most states,
    at least the ones in my area of the country, have passed similar
    legislation or have rewritten existing legislation to counter
    laboratory operators who thwart the intent of the law by altering their
    synthesis routes and purchase different chemicals.
    	For the most part, chemical suppliers cooperate with the DEA
    because it is in their best interest to do so.  This has made it
    difficult for clandestine laboratory operators to obtain with ease the 
    necessary chemicals. 
    
    steve
    

I think he was just reinforcing what he said in .81.

Will no one enter the history of the opium wars in China during the 19th
century and its source to Britain and the tea industry?

    
    I'll try to make the time tonight 8^).

    From today's paper:
    
    	Tobacco kills three times more Canadians than alcohol, AIDS,
    	illicit drugs, car accidents, suicide and murder,
    
    
    	*******************ALL COMBINED******************
    
     Thank goodness it is legal, just imagine the "war" the government
    could wage with statistics like that !!!!
    
    
    							Derek.

    Tobacco isn't a drug, it's a plant.
    
    And if you saw the movie "Sleeper" you'd know that it's good for you.
    
    NNTTMHA

    How many people die in automobile accidents? Are cars drugs?

    When my Mustang was brand new, it created lots of endorphins for me.

    Just thought I'd open a rat hole.

    Canada already declared economic war on tobacco by increasing the taxes
    by a bazillion % (a lot).  Created a whole new opportunity for
    smugglers along with the requisite loss of life.  Clue, drugs do not
    fuel crime.  The illegality of them does.  
    
    Brandon, I was wondering the same thing.  The Crown sponsored and ran
    opium dens for Chinese workers.  Nurses would distribute the doses from
    a tray.  This is also referenced in a Beatles song Sgt. Peppers I
    believe.  Kept the rabble in line I guess.  
    
    Brian

    Heard yesterday on NPR that Canadian health costs have gone UP because
    of the restriction on cigarettes.  People live longer and instead of
    dying quickly and neatly of lung cancer need long term medical care.
    
    Another great argument for legalising all drugs - reduce health
    care costs (Somehow a smiley isn't appropriate here)

    Take away the speed limits on highways.

    Then, treat patients like horses.

    doc: "Where does it hurt?"

    patient: "It's my leg!"

    doc: "Ah, yes, it's broken."

    patient: "What are you gonna do doc?"

    doc: (loads shotgun) "Sorry, but it's for the best."

    patient: gulp.

    BLAM!

    
    What was the topic again?
    
    Anyone, anyone?
    
    steve

    In a fit of moral correctness BC has decided to increase the amount of
    money to the DEA.  the proposed budget is over 15 Billion.  How nice,
    and how many college educations could we afford for this boondoggle. 
    Seems clinton has gotten the same bug I used to accuse only
    republicrats of having.  
    
    Dempublicans believe any issue can be solved if you throw enough money
    at it.  
    
    Republicrats "know" this only works for the military and law
    enforcement.  
    
    meg

    Meg,
    
    So they shouldn't get more money.  In all honestly, I'm really not
    quite sure where it is you are going with all of this.  Do you  
    believe that the DEA should simply be disolved and the money go to
    "social reconstruction programs"?  
    The morbid truth of the matter is that in some instances you have
    to spend money to insure the safety of the public.  While for 
    some this may seem unacceptable, I don't see that many alternatives.
    Are you questioning the parties or the agencies that work for them?
    
    steve

    In this case, Steve, the War on Some Drugs has FAILED to improve the
    public safety.  Increasing the DEA budget is throwing money away;
    their tactics don't work, and they're turning this place into a police
    state.  By increasing the risk, they've changed the economics of the
    game such that gangs now run crack cocaine instead of grass; this has
    arguably DECREASED the public safety.  It's prohibition with armed
    gangs fighting for turf all over again (Valentine's Day; how apropos.)
    
    DougO

    
    
    Whos "Public Safety" we talking about?
    

    The good people whose neighborhoods have been taken over by
    drug-running gangs selling crack.  guess their safety counts
    for nothing with you.
    
    DougO

    I've lived in the same neighborhood since before the WOR, (oops thats
    drugs, not the constitution silly) and the graffitti from gangs
    financed by crack only started inthe last 4 yers, also the time that
    the DEA started getting all kinds of funding.  I can't help but wonder
    if we would have had the imported trouble if cocaine wasn't so
    obscenely profitable.  
    
    Also given the fact that the CIA hasn't been above smuggling when they
    needed to finance their particular agenda, I wonder whose pockets in
    the DEA are getting lined as well.
    
    When you are talking about a $50 billion /year industry, the
    potential corruption of those who are supposed to be "keeping the
    peace" is most likely reality than potential.
    
    meg

    
    RE: .130
    
    Ahhh... I see.. the majority of the population in this country!! How
    silly of me to miss that vital fact!!!
    
    >guess their safety counts for nothing with you.
    
    
     My suggestion? Let these people have the opportunity to purchase
    weapons and train them in their use... Have the government subsidize
    the cost....
    
      We'll see how well the "drug-running gangs selling crack" will last
    with a little comeuppance...

    Why not legalize and tax the "softer" drugs, such as marijuana, instead
    of pretending this is a winnable war?
    
    Even one of the local narcs said in an interview they only account for
    getting 10% of the drugs in this area off the street.  the worst is
    most of it is pot, rather than the profitable methamphetamine nd cocain
    derivitives.
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    Singapore seems to have a good handle on it!

    Singapore is a police state.  You aware of the trial of a journalist
    and his publication for stating that 'some asian countries use a
    compliant judiciary to bankrupt the political opposition'?  The
    government of Singapore took it personally (as well they should, since
    they have bankrupted most of their opposition politicians through court
    proceedings) and sued him.  He came back to the US (warned in time) and
    refuses to pay the fine.  His paper (Int'l Herald Tribune) is stuck,
    though; they'll have to pay if they want to keep publishing in
    Singapore.  That the style of government you want here?
    
    DougO

    
    Even though he's back in the U.S., his troubles are not over.

    The Government of Singapore has managed to
    freeze his bank accounts.

    /john

his US bank accounts or his Singaporean bank accounts?

    
    
    Do you really want to live in a place as devoid of civil rights as
    Singapore?  
    
    Singapore may hang drug dealers, but one would think if it was totally
    effective that after the first year of this practice the number of
    hangings would go down.  this hasn't been the case.
    
    the PRC also executes their dealers, and it is still a problem there.
    
    meg

    Obviously, I don't care for the government of Singapore.  But I am for
    corporal punishment here in the US.  
    
    Los Angelas and Singapore are very similar in size and population.  I
    would be very interested in a comparison of crime statistics of the two
    cities.  I know for a fact that LA is far more reprehensible than
    Singapore, it's just a matter of how much.  We can still do the caning
    thing and maintain the same government!
    
    -Jack

    Ohh....Ummmmmmm...err...sorry

    >The laws in Singapore on libel and slander are taken very seriously.
        
    What the International Herald Tribune printed was *true*.  The laws on
    libel may be taken "seriously" but if the very definition of libel is
    ignored (the truth cannot be libelous) then the law isn't worth the
    paper it is printed on.  This has far more to do with the Asian
    cultural value of 'face'.  If the truth makes the government lose face,
    then it must not be admitted to nor allowed to stand.  This is not the
    first time that the government of Singapore has pursued the
    international press for reporting what goes on there.  Ironic how the
    very method they used (to sue their perceived opponent for monetary 
    damages) was the one of which they deny the truth in the same case!
    
    Perhaps 'police state' is not accurate.  Perhaps 'state of laws by the
    government, for the government' would be more accurate to describe
    Singapore.
    
    DougO

    > What the International Herald Tribune printed was *true*.  The laws on
    > libel may be taken "seriously" but if the very definition of libel is
    > ignored (the truth cannot be libelous) then the law isn't worth the
    > paper it is printed on.
    
    shows just how little you understand the law, dougo.  libel can indeed
    be perfectly true - all that is necessary for a statement to qualify as
    libel is that it be defamatory.

    izzat so?  
    
    fine, so they uphold their laws on libel.  It remains a way for the
    government to muzzle the press and to mislead the populace.
    
    DougO

    > government to muzzle the press and to mislead the populace.
    
    when did any government desire not to do these things?

    perhaps when they were proud of their actions and wanted them reported?
    
    the argument Jack presented for Singapore-style handling of these
    policy matters is very weak.  Why do you go on?
    
    DougO

    DougO;
    
    The statistics between Los Angeles and Simgapore are exponentially
    different in crime, etc.  The problem is that you've been coddling
    thugs way too long!
    
    -Jack

    
    Because what we do in the US is even worse.  We randomly savagely
    punish people while others go free of the same offense.  We stifle
    our entire society under mountains of litigation.  Over half of all
    the lawyers who ever lived are alive and practicing in the USA.
    
    I don't think much of Sungapore's legal system, but it is better than
    ours.  So is everybody else's.  We have a system in which there is
    no justice for small things (under $500), and the rules for big things
    are totally incomprehensible to the bulk of our people.
    
    But go ahead - make fun of those other guys.
    
      bb

    Ohh....Ummmmmmm...err...sorry
     

    14.1161> protect us from ourselves, god knows we need someone to do it 
           > for us.
    
    "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any
    member of the civilised community against his will, is to prevent harm
    to others.  His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient
    warrant."
    
    -John Stuart Mill
    
    DougO

    Just a nit - but Singapore and LA are NOT comparable.  Singapore has a
    population of 2.8 million, greater LA must be well over 10.  Singapore
    is an isolated island/city state with relatively easy control of
    movement in and out of the city.  The historic and cultural setting is
    totally different.
    
    Axel

    re: .146
    
    HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!!
    
    
    Sorry, a scene from Monty Python's 'Holy Grail' just popped into my
    mind while reading your note.  8^)

    
    Oh, what a giveaway!  Did you hear that?  Did you hear that, eh?
    That's what I'm on about!  Did you see him repressin' me?  You saw
    it, didn't you?
    
    
    
    

	HELP! I'm being reposessed!!!!

    I didn't vote for you.  

| <<< Note 188.159 by POWDML::LAUER "Intoxicatingly Connected" >>>


| -< you don't vote for king! >-


	How about for queen???

    .157
    
    reposSessed

	Mr. Bin-der, would that make me possesed AGAIN??? :-)

    you'd have to call an exorcist and get your current possession revoked
    first.

	Oh..... maybe I have a duel possesion?

Take the Singapore discussion (.134-.141) to the Gum Control topic.

    Should we unload the drug war?

    By Joanne Jacobs

    THE Bulldog coffeehouse serves chocolate, vanilla, strawberry and
    banana milkshakes, and lemon, mango, peppermint and four-fruit tea --
    and, in the back, hashish and marijuana.

    I was in Amsterdam last summer visiting my brother, who'd lived there
    for years. He gave me the grand tour: prostitutes in shop windows and
    marijuana in coffeehouses.

    In the cellar of The Grasshopper, an illuminated sign shows the various
    types and prices, ranging from $7 a gram to $25 a gram.

    Drugs aren't sold in the front room. You can't order a round of grass
    from the waitress. But those who choose to use soft drugs can do so.
    Alcohol is not allowed where drugs are sold.

    An electronic sign outside a daily newspaper's office offers advice to
    drug-buyers, urging them to stay away from street dealers and patronize
    the drug cafes instead.

    Various publications -- ``Mellow Pages'' -- also provide consumer tips
    to drug buyers, many of whom are tourists.

    Contrary to what Americans think, drugs are not legal in the
    Netherlands. It's just that drug laws are not enforced when it's
    believed that they do more harm than good.

    Marijuana and hashish are tolerated, unless users or sellers cause
    problems, in which case a coffeehouse may be closed down. Hard drug
    smugglers and vendors are not tolerated. Junkies are -- if they don't
    cause problems for others. Occasionally, police sweep a neighborhood
    where drug use is out of hand. Otherwise, addicts are offered help at a
    rehabilitation or residential treatment center. Addiction is not
    criminal.

    Recently, a Baltimore grand jury came out for ``medicalizing'' rather
    than criminalizing -- or legalizing -- drug abuse. They proposed
    offering users treatment instead of time behind bars.

    The idea is lifted from the Netherlands and other European countries,
    which try to reduce the harm caused by drug abuse, rather than turning
    users into criminals.

    The Baltimore grand jury concluded that legalizing drugs would increase
    addiction, but suggested that doctors might be allowed to prescribe
    drugs to addicts. The goal is not to make everyone clean and sober --
    that's not possible -- but rather to lower the level of street dealing
    and the crime that goes with it.

    ``Removing the profit from the drug trade may be the only way to
    resolve'' the problem, the report says.

    According to the report, 80 percent of prisoners in Baltimore jails are
    in for drug-related crimes.

    Baltimore Circuit Judge Joseph P. McCurdy Jr. had told the grand jury
    to consider decriminalization, saying: ``Many of us feel that the war
    on drugs has not succeeded, that we are losing ground with each passing
    day, that we are wasting resources and that we have to look at this
    problem anew.''

    That's not heretical thinking in Baltimore. Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke is an
    advocate of the public health approach to controlling drugs, having
    fought the criminal war in his years as a prosecutor.

    It's not heretical here either. Mayors and police chiefs in San Jose,
    San Francisco and Oakland signed the resolution developed at a Hoover
    Institution conference, which calls for treating drug abuse as a
    medical and social problem rather than a ``war.''

    The ``three strikes'' law makes rethinking drug laws a priority for
    California. The whole idea of three strikes was to keep the most
    dangerous criminals in prison for long periods, where they can't hurt
    us. To make room, we'll have to let the less dangerous inmates out. Or,
    alternatively, devote 98 percent of the state budget to building and
    operating prisons.

    Amsterdam attracts druggies from all over Europe: If you're going to be
    a junkie, the Netherlands are a good place to be. Drug tourists also
    come from more uptight places to indulge. There are lots of scruffy
    people wandering around looking wasted.

    That's hardly a contrast with American cities, of course. The Dutch say
    their relaxed approach hasn't boosted the Dutch addiction rate, and
    marijuana use by teenagers is declining. (It's hard to use drugs for
    adolescent rebellion when society's message is: Just Take It Easy.)

    Junkies steal car radios and bicycles to finance their habits. But
    there's little violence. The streets are safe.

    The Dutch success with harm reduction policies may not transplant
    easily to American society, which is both more puritanical and more
    violent. But we've got to get serious about the trade-offs in
    confronting drug abuse. Protecting law-abiding citizens from street
    violence should be our top priority. Making it harder for drug abusers
    to harm themselves should not take precedence.

    Medicalizing drugs wouldn't make the streets as safe as they are in
    Amsterdam. But it could help. And it would make room in prisons for the
    real criminals.

    Joanne Jacobs is a member of the Mercury News editorial board. 
    Her column appears on Mondays and Thursdays.
    
Published 2/23/95 in the San Jose Mercury News.

    Agency Urges Review Of Crack Cocaine Laws 
    
    Washington 
    
    The U.S. Sentencing Commission, reporting to Congress on a racially
    sensitive issue, urged the legislators yesterday to take another look
    at laws that punish dealers of crack cocaine 100 times more severely
    than those who peddle the drug in powder form. 
    
    The commission, an independent agency, said that it had ``great
    concern'' that many more blacks than whites are convicted and subjected
    to ``much harsher punishment'' for distributing crack. It added,
    though, that it saw no evidence that there was any intentional racism
    in the different penalty or its enforcement. 
    
    Published 3/1/95 in SF Chronicle

AP 8 Mar 95 23:08 EST V0871
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    MIAMI (AP) -- A judge ordered the government to pay $871,000 to six
    people arrested and beaten in Honduras after U.S. drug agents planted
    cocaine on their plane in 1991 as part of a botched drug sting. 

    The three crew members and three passengers had no idea the plane was
    loaded with cocaine when they made a stopover in Honduras en route from
    Belize to Miami. Honduran officials also knew nothing of the planned
    sting. 

    "The incarceration of the plaintiffs was directly caused by the action
    of the U.S. government," U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno said
    Wednesday in ruling in the seven-day, nonjury trial. 

    The six sued the U.S. government, claiming it was liable for the
    bungled sting. U.S. Attorney Cynthia Everett said it wasn't immediately
    known if the government would appeal. 

    Drug Enforcement Administration officers put about 90 pounds of cocaine
    on board the Belize Air International Ltd. plane as part of a plan to
    capture drug runners when the craft landed in Miami. 

    But drug dogs discovered the cocaine in Honduras, and the six were
    arrested and held for 12 days. 

    During their imprisonment, they were "blindfolded, handcuffed, beaten,
    threatened with cattle prods and kicked, all in an attempt to make them
    confess to a crime which they had not committed," the lawsuit claimed. 

    American authorities later admitted they had bungled the operation by
    failing to notify Honduras the drugs were on the plane. 

    The six were each awarded between $95,000 and $155,000. 

>    American authorities later admitted they had bungled the operation by
>    failing to notify Honduras the drugs were on the plane. 

Prolly too spaced out on what they kept for themselves . . . 

    
    
    
    
    RE: 188.169 
    > Prolly too spaced ouot on what they kept for themselves . . .
    
    Wow, you're a funny guy.  Are you always that funy?  Cause that was
    really funny, almost hysterical even.  No really, I mean that was 
    funny, wow!
    		Tee-hee, what a good one.
    				WHATEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
    
    /steve
               

>    				WHATEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Indeed . . . . 

    Re: 188.171
    > Indeed . . . .
    
    Have you always had this tremendous faith in the law enforcement 
    profession, or has a specific incident sparked your skepticism?
    
    /steve

re: .172 (Steve)

One need only notice the disproportionate number of police officers
indicted recently for all manner of illegal acts, from selling drugs
to selling drivers licenses, to shaking down their OWN deputies fer
cryin' out loud, to understand that being cops doesn't make them
honest people.

Are you trying to say you've seen none of this?

\john

\john beat me to it, Steve. I was about to ask if you posited that
Law Enforcement and DEA officers never kept aside any confiscated
drugs or made use of same.

(Hint: You'd be wrong to do so.)

    Couldn't resist sharing this from my Dad in this topic.
    
    (Dad is now an evidence officer for San Diego County.  Used to be a
    street cop for 20 years.  They just finished moving to a new warehouse)
    
    Got everything moved and went in and swept out the
    narco vault yesterday. Got about 6 lbs. of marajuana  from under the
    shelves from where the mice had their stash. We will probably have some
    pissed off rodents going thru withdrawal now that we moved., If you see
    something on CNN about an outbreak mice with a  BAADDDD ATTTTITTTUDE in
    San Diego, you'll know why.
    

    Pot isn't physically adictive and doesn't cause withdrawal symptoms,
    FWIW.  The mice may have a population boom now if the PDFA's propaganda
    about marijuana reducing fertility had much truth in it.
    
    Just a small nit.
    
    meg

    
    <------
    
    Yeah.. but now the mice will have to hijack a Doritos truck to satisfy
    their munchies....
    

Remind them to take care for their teeth, Andy.

:^)

    I'm reading the TV/Radio section of the Globe.
    They discuss teh ABC News Special that will air tonite at 10:00
    called "America;s War on Drugs"
    
    What shocked me was the following...
    
    "The spotlight first turns to Oklahoma, where a jury gave a life
    sentence to Jim Montgomery, a 41-year-old paraplegic with no
    criminal record, for possession of 2 ounces of marijuana - "an
    amount equal to the tobacco in two packs of cigarettes,"...
    
    .."Montgomery is now out of prison appealing a reduced sentence
    of 10 years, longer than the average time served in the United
    States for murder."
    
     

    This is a shameful page from our history.  Laws should be repealed to
    ensure this travesty does not happen again. 
    
    Brian

If'n this batch of Republicans applied the same logic to the war on drugs
as they do to welfare, they would defund it! It aint working.

But, since this is one of the current morality crusades, I'm sure they
won't.

TTom

 ZZ   If'n this batch of Republicans applied the same logic to the war on
 ZZ   drugs as they do to welfare, they would defund it! It aint working.
    
    Welfare fosters dependence.  Drug control is supposed to deter crime.
    Result: government fails in both aspects.  Sounds to me like the
    country needs spiritual revival but I'm sure this will be scoffed at.
    
    -Jack

    Scoff

> 						Sounds to me like the
>    country needs spiritual revival but I'm sure this will be scoffed at.

Only because of the impracticality of the concept, Jack. How would you
realistically propose that that could happen? Round up all the "non-believers"
and subject them to round-the-clock sermonettes until they crack under
the strain?

I'm serious in my question. Do you actually believe that there's any practical
way to "spiritually revive" a population as diverse in culture/background as
this country is? It's an interesting concept which is most likely very
attractive to people of faith in terms of belief that "all may become one",
but is it at all a practical reality?

    
    It doesn't even have to do with spirituality, it has to do with respect
    to others.  I know people who do not believe in God who are some of the
    most upstanding people I've ever had the pleasure to know.  They would
    give the shirt off their back.  I also know people who proclaim
    spirituality who are the most selfish people you'd ever want to meet.  
    
    I think Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you should be
    the credo that's taught in schools and in life.
    
    
    Mike

    Jack:
    
    Serious answer is that it cannot be implemented by force.  It is a
    concept that has to be desired...and it has been in the past and can be
    now.  Unfortunately, it usually takes a catastrophe before it happens.
    Although fictitious, I always appreciated the movie...War of the
    Worlds.  At the very end, when all hope of human intervention was lost,
    the churches were packed.  This is a point we need to get to...just as
    the early church did through persecution, the same way that David, Job,
    Hosea, Daniel, and others of the Bible had to in their own lives!
    
    All I'm saying here is that the country needs a face lift...a believer
    can only tell of the news of salvation...but one cannot force it!
    
    -Jack

>    I know people who do not believe in God who are some of the
>    most upstanding people I've ever had the pleasure to know.  They would
>    give the shirt off their back.


Why, thankyou, Michael. That was a very nice compliment.

:^)

Jack, I'm waiting for the shirt.

As soon as Michael's done with it, Gerald. I promise.

    re .184
    
    At gunpoint what do you think?  I seriously doubt that there is an easy
    conversion for some of us out here.
    
    the big problems that we have is the obscene profits some people are
    making because some drugs are illegal.  This kind of money corrupts
    these people, law enforcement, and everyone down to the bottom person
    who must do things he or she might not otherwise do to get their "fix"
    
    In the case of marijuana, there are a lot of people out there who use
    it to calm the nausea from chemotherapy, radiation, and AIDS.  there
    are others who use it to quiet muscle spasms (people with spinal
    injuries, closed skull head injuries, and paralytic diseases, such as
    MS, ALS and MD.)  There are some who use it to treat epilepsy,
    anorexia, glaucoma, asthma, and some auto-immune syndromes.  
    
    the hysteria around this drug  is ridiculous and becasue it is bulky,
    has a low profit margin, and smells, those who want lots of money have
    introduced more concentrated and more dangerous drugs to the community
    of recreational users.  As norml says in many of its ads, ask your
    doctor which is least harmful: alcohol, tobacco, or pot.  Now ask him
    why it is illegal?
    
    meg

    
    
    No charge, Jack........btw, don't need the shirt right now, but you can
    send the check to......

Please forward the shirt to Gerald, then.

    
    
    It's on its way.

    Do away with cash, and you do away with most of the drug dealers. 
    Electronic funds transfers of large amounts would catch the attention
    of bankers and thus the authorities.
    
    This is at least one rationalization, of many, for going cashless. 
    
    The WoD has been a fine instrament on a few fronts for helping to usher
    in a NWO.  If you doubt this, look at some of the laws that have been   
    passed due to the WoD, and see the deterioration of the BoR due to
    them.
    
    
    -steve 

RE                   <<< Note 188.194 by CSOA1::LEECH "yawn" >>>

>    Do away with cash, and you do away with most of the drug dealers. 
>    Electronic funds transfers of large amounts would catch the attention
>    of bankers and thus the authorities.
>    
>    This is at least one rationalization, of many, for going cashless. 

  This seems to me to be an example of taking away the rights of everyone
just to make chasing after crooks easier.

  They have already done away with all bills larger than the $100 partly for
this reason. Why should I be forced to use bank checks just because some
criminal somewhere might break some law some day? 

  Bring back the $500s and $1000s,
  George

	The more I listen to, about the "drug problem" the more I get confused. 
Other than the problem of more addicts(IMHO this will not be a problem long any
way, if at all.), what danger is there in legalizing all "drugs".  Specifically,
I am talking about marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, etc...

	The way I see it there will be less if any,profit to be made.  With no
profits, drug dealers will have to turn somewhere else for their ill-gotten
gains.  With no drug dealers in the affected neighborhoods, and no junkies
stealing to pay big money for their next fix.  (Please don't pick nits on this
it just distracts from the subject.  Alcohol is legal and winos still sometimes
steal to get their bottle of mad dog)  Wouldn't it follow that crime related to
drugs would fall to a minimum.  There would be more money in the poorer
neighborhoods since those that use them would pay much less.  A minmum wage job
would pay more than being a runner.  People would start back to work.

	All the money now spent on WOD could be used for treatment programs and
lowering the deficit.  By gosh that's the answer!! Let's do it tommorrow

:-}:-}:-}:-}:-}:-}:-}:-}
Mikey

RE          <<< Note 188.196 by DECLNE::SHEPARD "It's paddlin' time" >>>

>	The more I listen to, about the "drug problem" the more I get confused. 
>Other than the problem of more addicts(IMHO this will not be a problem long any
>way, if at all.), what danger is there in legalizing all "drugs".  Specifically,
>I am talking about marijuana, Cocaine, Heroin, etc...
        :
        :
        :
>	All the money now spent on WOD could be used for treatment programs and
>lowering the deficit.  By gosh that's the answer!! Let's do it tommorrow

  This is an excellent point. The war on drugs from the supply side has been a
complete bust. It's time to decriminalize the whole thing and turn to the
demand side which as you say means treatment. 

  Sooner the better,
  George

Holy crow - having to agree with George twice in one day is about all
I can stand . . . 

    not only all of the previous things mentioned about legelizing drugs
    you can also place a tax on the drugs. It would have to be separte from
    prescription drugs because they aren`t taxed here.  

Is there going to be a war on some SNARFS?

    re: .195
    
    That was just my point.  
    
    
    We agree on this one.  Kinda spooky, eh?  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    
    RE: .195
    
    >This seems to me to be an example of taking away the rights of everyone
    >just to make chasing after crooks easier.
     
    

         <<< HUMANE::DISK$CONFERENCES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DIGITAL.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< The Digital way of working >-
================================================================================
Note 716.831                Drug testing at Digital?                  831 of 834
STAR::ABBASI "i^(-i) = SQRT(exp(PI))"                13 lines  25-MAR-1992 15:27
             -< i explain for last caller about abuse of aspirin >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    i think he just means dont take too much asirin just nilly willy like
    that if you dont really need it, espcially since they say it good
    for the heart, some started bying a lot of it and cosume it in large
    quantity hoping to help the hearts.
    
    i like to moderate , i never take more than 5 tablets a day, 2 in
    the mornings, two when i go home, and one befor sleep, and take the
    buffered ones for your stomach, i hear some crazy peoples take 12 
    each day, if their finger hurt, they take aspirin, it is crazy.
    
    every thing in moderate is good, except ice cream offcourse.
    
    /nasser

        <<< Note 188.203 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
                -< Classic /nasser which I ran across recently >-

Thanks, Jack.

After hearing about /nasser for all these months, I wondered what the fuss 
was about. Now I shall forever regret not having joined the 'box sooner.

There's still plenty of /nasser in HUMANE::DIGITAL.

    EDITORIAL -- Marijuana as Medicine


    WHAT A SENSE of justice and relief many AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and
    multiple sclerosis patients felt last year when both houses of the
    state Legislature passed a bill allowing them to use marijuana to ease
    their pain and nausea.

    Some otherwise law-abiding citizens already had been using the illegal
    weed to combat the ravages of their diseases. Others were aware of the
    helpful effects of pot and wanted to try it but could not bring
    themselves to defy laws against marijuana use and possession. When both
    the state Senate and Assembly approved the medicinal marijuana measure
    by Senator Milton Marks, D-S.F., both groups expressed gratitude.

    But their victory was short-lived. Despite its legislative approval
    after substantive hearings, Governor Wilson vetoed the bill.

    Let us hope that in this non-election year, compassion and good sense
    rule and that an identical measure, by Assemblyman John Vasconcellos,
    D-San Jose, passes and, this time, is signed by Wilson.

    The Assembly did the right thing last week by approving the measure.
    Now it is up to the Senate and the governor to provide the opportunity
    for relief from suffering for many patients for whom marijuana controls
    nausea caused by anti-cancer and anti-AIDS drugs, lowers eye pressure
    caused by glaucoma and reduces muscle spasms and pain related to
    multiple sclerosis.

    The measure is narrowly drawn and would not change laws against
    marijuana possession and use for the general public. It simply would
    allow suffering patients -- with doctor approval -- to possess or
    cultivate marijuana for personal use.

    Several medical studies have shown marijuana does ease pain and nausea
    for many patients. Recognizing this, a number of communities have
    chosen to look the other way when known cancer -- and other -- patients
    grow pot. But neither the patients nor law enforcement should be forced
    to disobey the law to provide medical relief.

    The patients' hopes were raised, then dashed, last year. A repeat of
    that cruel outcome is not acceptable.
    
    Published 5/23/95 by San Francisco Chronicle

    Maybe this will pave the way for a decriminlization for non-medicinal
    uses as well.  That should clear out a few jail house bunks.  

    Fat chance. The DEA and other law enfarcement groups love the power too
    much- they and many statist politicians as well as muddle headed do
    gooders will lobby to keep mary jane illegal as long as it gives them
    an imaginary enemy to fight.

    	Are there really that many people in jail for smoking MJ for
    	truly medicinal purposes?

re: .209

>    	Are there really that many people in jail for smoking MJ for
>    	truly medicinal purposes?

Isn't one too many?

Also, if the Feds prosecute, the judges are bound by the minimum sentence
laws and there is no early release/parole in the federal system.

Bob

    	Well, you answered a question with a question.
    
    	What I'm really getting at is that I don't see much credibility
    	in arguments that use extreme cases (like "medicinal purposes") to
    	support leniency for the general case (recreational purposes.)
    
    	If recreational use is the goal, make it stand on its own merit.

    Who cares if it was medicinal or recreational.  The fact that MJ is a
    controlled substance with criminal penalties for posession,
    distribution, cultivation etc. is a crime in itself.  IMO etc.
    
    Brian

    
      This is not a comment on drug-prohibition pros/cons, but on a
     technique of somewhat dishonest argument common to many issues
     today.  Reagan invaded Granada "to protect the med students",
     pro-choicers argue from "rape-and-incest", and now this.  Well,
     the danger to medical students was minimal, less than 1/100,000
     of abortions have anything to do with rape/incest, and the fraction
     of marajuana used as medicine would be grams to the ton.  The
     problem the druggies face, as a minority, is that they get outvoted.
     So this is just a transparent ruse used by recreational users to
     try to talk non-users into voting for legalization.
    
      Of course, that is to say nothing about the merits (or lack thereof)
     of the prohibition.  But nobody intelligent will be fooled by this
     bogus argument.
    
      bb

    Yes Bob, you are correct.  It is unwise for the recreational community
    to whine about the hypocrisy.  It still does not make the laws any more
    just though does it?  You stated the point that is continually missed
    and that is what purpose is being served by the existence of the
    prohibition and the subsequent criminalization?  
    
    Brian

    >What purpose is being served by the existence of the
    > prohibition and the subsequent criminalization?
    
    It keeps the DEA in business of course!!!
    
    ...Tom

    I'll never forget the look on my cousin's face when I asked him if
    he could get me some MJ cigs for Mom.  She had been prescribed the
    MJ pills to try and control the nausea from chemo, the pills didn't
    do squat.  The puffs worked quite nicely; the chuckles Mom and I
    shared over this were among the few bright spots we had during the
    hideous 7 months of rigorous chemotherapy.
    
    

    Joe,
    
    there is at least one prisoner of the WOD in OK, who is wheel chair
    bound, but is serving a longer sentence than people do for rape, and
    most murders for possessing two ounces of mj.  He used it, as many
    paraplegic people do to control muscle spasms.  He was originally
    sentenced to a life term, which has been reduced to 10(?) years, but
    there is no parole for drug "criminals" in OK.  
    
    The Paralyzed Veterans of America recommends a book on Medical
    marijuana which explains the use of MMJ for muscle spasms, and pain
    relief without the nasty side effectw of the muscle relaxers, sleeping
    pills, and anti-depressents currently prescribed by the medical
    profession when dealing with those whose mobility has been impaired
    from illness or accident.  I have a friend who was able to get off of
    several extremely addictive drugs (tranquilizers and barbituates) when
    she took up smoking a little pot instead of taking the collections of
    pharmacutical poisons her Dr. had prescribed for her MS.  I know of
    several Oncologists who turn their heads when their patients use mj for
    relief of nausea from chemo, they know it works, as do Dr's treating
    HIV+ patients.  
    
    There was a couple in Fla who were prosecuted for growing mj because
    they were treating AIDs with it.  (He caught HIV from a transfusion and
    unknowingly passed it on to his wife.)  They had both managed to gain
    weight and t-cell count.  The time away from mj while the prosecution
    moved on may have hastened the death of the woman. 
    
    meg

    <<< Note 188.218 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

	Meg --
    
    	You missed the point that I made in .211 and others made even
    	better after that.
    
    	Individual extreme cases should not define the general situation.
    	That's the only reason that I jumped in this topic where I usually
    	just NEXT UNSEEN through.  I don't support the WOD.  I don't oppose
    	it either.
    
    	As for your examples:
        
>    there is at least one prisoner of the WOD in OK, who is wheel chair
>    bound, but is serving a longer sentence than people do for rape, and
>    most murders for possessing two ounces of mj.  He used it, as many
>    paraplegic people do to control muscle spasms.  He was originally
>    sentenced to a life term, which has been reduced to 10(?) years, but
>    there is no parole for drug "criminals" in OK.  
    
    	I understand that this guy was convicted of distribution.  He
    	circumvented the law to obtain and distribute his supply.  As
    	you stand behind the acceptability of abortion because it is
    	legal, the justice system stood behind the conviction because
    	what he did was illegal.  
    
    	If you are arguing for the acceptability of medicinal MJ use, then
    	do that.  If you are arguing for the acceptability of recreational
    	MJ use, then do that.  But don't try to gain recreational MJ
    	legality because of limited medicinal use.
    
    	And I do not disagree with you that drug convictions seem to carry
    	unreasonable penalties relative to so many other crimes.

    California House passed this bill yesterday.  It still has to go to the
    Senate.  Wilson vetoed a similar bill last year, arguing it made no
    sense until/unless the FedGov ban on medicinal uses of marijuana was
    eased.  But this year, he's in a mood to fight with the Fed Gov, to
    make a name to bolster his GOP presidential primary chances, so that
    excuse for vetoing doesn't look as convenient- he's already taken on
    the FedGov in several high-profile actions.  So if he uses that excuse
    to veto again, he's a hypocrite; if he uses some other excuse, he's
    inconsistent; and if he signs it, he's a Republican for legal pot. I
    hope it plays that way in the national press ;-).  Better make it
    through the Senate.
    
    DougO

    >technique of somewhat dishonest argument
    
    I disagree.  This is merely the wedge to get some use legalized, so
    that medical studies can be done.  Then, the proof of harm/noharm will
    be gatherable.
    
    Currently, the hysteria of the War on Some Drugs prevents the gathering
    of any medical evidence, and thus prevents policy from being made on
    rational grounds.
    
    DougO

      <<< Note 188.221 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    This is merely the wedge to get some use legalized ...
    
    	Kind of like the "moment of silence", huh?
    
    	I guess sometimes you see the wedge as a positive tool, and
    	sometimes you see it as an evil thing...

    Wedge? Its a tactic, Joe, and in itself has no moral character at all.

    Prayer in schools is unconstitutional, and its interesting that you
    admit the moment of silence is intended to achieve it.  But I don't
    consider a moment of silence evil in and of itself; merely the edge 
    of a practise of clearly dubious constitutionality.
    
    Recreational drug use is legal for Caffeine, Alcohol and Nicotine, all
    of which are proven to be potentially lethal.  Pot isn't legal nor
    potentially lethal.  Proving just what it does do would inform the
    public debate and seems worthwhile- not evil or good in and of itself,
    but directed towards making public policy based on fact.  I approve of
    it on those grounds.
    
    DougO

    
      Yeah, right.  Lots of rock concert fans must be pretty ill, then.
    
      bb

    What is inherently bad/evil with smoking marijuana?  Does this differ
    from drinking alcohol and how?  What is it about rock concert attendees
    that are inherently bad/evil?  Does their smoking marijuana make them more
    so?  Are sober rock concert attendees inherently good because of their
    sobriety?  
    
    BTW the last "rock" concert I was at it seemed the ones with the
    marijuana could have just stepped out of the board room/country
    club/court room, stripped off their ties, pumps, and jackets to have a
    nice relaxing time.  
    
    Brian

    
    .225

    >What is inherently bad/evil with smoking marijuana?
    
    Nothing.
    

      <<< Note 188.223 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Prayer in schools is unconstitutional, and its interesting that you
>    admit the moment of silence is intended to achieve it.  
    
    	Oh, did I?
    
>    of a practise of clearly dubious constitutionality.
    
    	So in a matter of a few lines we've gone from "unconstitutional" 
    	to "dubious constitutionality".
    
    	Maybe some kind of wedge is working on you too!  (Or maybe it's
    	just some caffeine, alcohol, or nicotine...)

    
      Nor did I argue it was.  I have little interest in the question,
     as I won't use this stuff, legal or not, and have more important
     things to worry about.
    
      But I don't believe for one minute the "medicine" argument - it
     is a decoy duck, for sure, by addicts wanting to get high legally.
    
      bb

    Addicts?  By all admissions from government agencies and private
    research, marijuana in non-addictive therefore addicts is a misnomer.  
    The current popular argument is to decriminalize not legalize though 
    some would argue this should be the ultimate goal.  This would prevent 
    the casual user from fearing about unjust and inordinate jail sentences 
    for a relatively harmless activity.  It would also allow clinical
    useage to be prescribed freely in those cases that it may help.  As a 
    non-user I have little interest in legalization from a personal 
    perspective but find the criminal penalties to be absurd and costly in 
    both tax dollars wasted and human suffering by the victims of misguided 
    justice.  What is wrong with recreational users of marijuana wishing to
    partake without fear?  
    
    Brian
    
    

re: .228
    
    
>      But I don't believe for one minute the "medicine" argument - it
>     is a decoy duck, for sure, by addicts wanting to get high legally.
    
		Addicts?!?!
    
				Robert.

    
    CRAZED DOPE FIENDS!!
    

    Joe,
    
    I am anti-prohibition, being pro-choice in a number of items, as you
    know.  However, I have seen enough suffering of people who need viable
    alternatives to the current "medically approved" round of anti-nausea, 
    muscle relaxing, sleep inducing, pain relieving drugs to push for at
    least medically indicated legalization.  The WOD doesn't affect the
    vast majority of recreational users, other than forcing them to deal
    with a criminal element, and paying higher than necessary prices.  Even
    the DEA admits they don't grab as much as 10% of the stuff being sold
    on the (very) private economy. However, forcing the sick into this same
    realm is unfair IMO.
    
    My family went through 16 years of cancer and varying treatments for my
    dad.  The final months of his life were the kind of hell I wouldn't
    even wish on a certain isolationist politition who has declared war on me
    and mine.  Marijuana wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome, but it
    may have at least allowed him to enjoy a small meal, glass of wine, or
    even a walk across the room without barfing.  However since it was
    "bad" because the government said so, he wouldn't try it.  (Never mind
    the fact that the government also didn't think atomic fallout caused
    cancer, and exposed him rather liberally to same)
    
    Of course the poor guy in OK dealt illegally.  The compassionate
    medical marijuana program has been on hold for accepting new people
    since Bush and cronies realized it was becoming in demand for
    glaucoma, chemo-nausea, muscle spasms, and "wasting syndrome" patients. 
    One of the things I hold Clinton accountable for, was not
    renewing and speeding the application process when he came into office. 
    Where do you propose the dude was supposed to procure his stash from? 
    The local legal pharmacist?  You can't buy viable seeds legally, so
    even growing it (illegally) in his backyard would have involved dealing 
    with "criminals."  
    
    The "distribution" charge came from posessing more than 1/4 ounce,
    about the same as a pack of cigarrettes. Anything more is likely to get 
    you charged and convicted as a dealer, even if all you procurred was
    for your own personal use.  
    
    This same paranoia is preventing US farmers from cashing in on growing
    hemp for fibers.  Now, I know you garden so you know the difference
    between flint and sweet corn.  Hemp comes in the different varieties for 
    THC content or fiber content, but there are people who would have you 
    believe that all of it is equal.  
    
    meg
    
    

    	Meg --
    
    	I don't understand why you are telling me all this.  I have
    	already expressed that I don't disagree with any of those points.
    
    	I'm not sure what you are responding to.

    Braucher, I don't give a tinker's toot whether MJ is ever made
    legal, I don't smoke any sort of cigaratte.  Considering your
    comments about it's medicinal qualities after some of us have
    said we witnessed how it help loved ones who were suffering through
    ghastly nausea.....well, I hope you don't ever find yourself in the
    position of wanting something, anything to give you some respite.
    
    

    
      Well, bring out the violins all you want, I smell a rat.  In case
     you didn't notice, there's big bux in this, and a convenient sob
     story helps in a pinch.  There's more chance I'll smother under the
     tons of recreational drugs in the US than that I'd ever want or need
     the so-called medicinal properties of pot.  And I've heard the same
     line for other recreational stuff, too, from alcohol to cocaine.
    
      Not that I care whether people wreck themselves with this vomit.
     It is cheaper to let them than to try to stop them, like the drunks.
    
      But spare me the justifications and sob stories.  I've heard this
     crap before.  I don't believe a word, and you can bet I'd slap a
     100% tax on this stuff, just like cigs.  Medicinal, bah !
    
      bb

	>> Medicinal, bah !

	??  

    He's so cute when he's irrational.
    
    DougO

	usually pretty lucid, and then all of a sudden -
	what the... hunh?

    Makes you wonder what he's smoking.

>	usually pretty lucid, and then all of a sudden -
>	what the... hunh?

I wonder if I could get him to buy into my capital punishment for
crimes of violence scheme . . . 


:^)

    
     .235
    
     >...you can bet I'd slap a
     >100% tax on this stuff, just like cigs.
    
    100% of what?     ;^)
    
    But seriously...this has been one of my biggest beefs for a while now...
    that the gov't is missing out on a serious source of revenue here, and
    for no good reason.
    
    100% BAH!  Right now, the stuff is more expensive, ounce per ounce,
    than gold.  I'd pay your 100% with glee.  At least I wouldn't have to
    worry about prosecution (I mean...y'know...if I *did* choose to
    smoke...and I'm not sayin' I would...but...y'know...stranger things
    have happened...).
    
    jc
    

    
    Yes, I admit to irrationality on the subject of drugs.  As I've
    said before, this doesn't mean I support the "War on x," since
    this invariably means that x increases, billions are squandered,
    and our joke government expands its powers.
    
    As to drugs, you'd have to live in a cave not to know the usual
    consequences of getting caught in the US teenage epidemic.  If
    marajuana and coca went extinct tomorrow, it would be a blessing
    to us all.  Yes, the drunks self-destruct as well.
    
    What a crock of see-through self-justifications the druggies on their
    way to self-induced catatonia spout.  If they could only see the pity
    in the hearts of their straight friends when they do this to
    themselves.
    
    The best thing you can say about using drugs for the purpose of
    altering the mind is
    
    
    
    
    
    

    What are the usual consequences of the teenage epidemic?  

    
    .243:
    
    You know...first they start with milk...then move on to beer and
    cigarettes...then marijhuana...and before you know it, they're
    robbing liquor stores to support their crack and heroin habits.
    
    I've seen it happen a million times.
    

    Does medicinal use of marijuana make one a druggie?
    Does casual use of marijuana make one a druggie?
    Does casual use of alcohol make one a drunk?
    Does medicianl use of prescribed medicies make one a drugie?
    If marijuana was prescribed for pain relief, legally, would that make
    the user a druggie?  
    
    Brian	

 .245  uh-oh, a pop quiz.

    You pass, go to the head of the class Lady Di.  
    

    re: .223
    
    Prayer in school is not unconstitutional.
    
    
    -steve

    i dunno about casual use, but maybe causal use?  :-)
    
    Chip

    Heavy man!!!
    
    

    
    What was the question?
    

    Is valium good or bad?
    
    Is Seconal good or bad?
    
    Is Morphine good or bad?
    
    Is prozac good or bad?
    
    Does using one or more of these substances under medical advice make
    one a "druggie?"
    
    Are any of these addicting?
    
    Can you get a fatal overdose from any of these drugs?
    
    Is marijuana addicting?
    
    Is it possible to get a fatal overdose from marijuana?
    
    Which should be outlawed for the "good of the people" as a dangerous
    drug?
    
    All alcoholics started with drinking some form of milk.  Let's outlaw
    milk of all forms.  If it saves one life.......
    
    meg
    

    
    How many songs has this band played so far?
    

    
      Well, if you really want to know, see the bestseller "Leave me
    alone", which documented a study of tens of thousands of teenage
    drug dependents.  Correlates to flunking out, violence, crime,
    pregnancy, sexual diseases, memory loss, low subsequent income,
    low rates of subsequent education, failure in marriage, suicide,
    and mental illness.  The combination of mental illness and drug
    dependency is particularly worrying because it is not known to be
    reversible, and is clinically known as "dual disorder syndrome".
    
     The synmptoms are loss of direction, aimlessness, catatonia,
    failure to communicate, and general obliviousness.  More studies,
    costing millions, have been done on comparing drug-using teens
    vs. straight ones than you can fit in your house.  The druggies
    just fall by the wayside as regards just about everything in life.
    And there is precious little difference whether the drug is alcohol
    or pot or coke or LSD or heroin.  It's all bad news, just a matter
    of degree.
    
      bb

     >The synmptoms are loss of direction, aimlessness, catatonia,
     >failure to communicate, and general obliviousness.
    
    Sounds like fun. What's the problem. You must be one of them there
    pushers to offer such benefits to drug abuse.   :)
    
    ...Tom

    For starters I haven't seen anyone in the pro-relegalization movement
    suggest mind-altering drugs are good for kids, or even supporting
    legalizing same for children.  However, the current black market makes
    it lucarative to sell to children as the penalties are not
    significantly higher than for selling to adults, and the DEA admits it
    catches less than 10% of the illegal traffic.  We have been down this
    rathole before.
    
    On the other hand, liquor is harder for kids to acquire from a dealer,
    as the dealer has a license and livelihood to lose for selling to those
    underage.  
    
    Now obviously not all kids who experiment at a younger age become
    abusers, or more than 25% of the "boomer" generation would be
    unemployed and unemployable, and they aren't.
    
    meg

re:  .256
    
>    Now obviously not all kids who experiment at a younger age become
>    abusers, or more than 25% of the "boomer" generation would be
>    unemployed and unemployable, and they aren't.

	Why Meg, thats impossible! .254 has read studies (studies that
	cost MILLIONS!) that prove that they are all catatonic!
    
			Robert.

    
      There isn't any alternate universe except between the ears of those
     who take this crap.
    
      My comment on the elaborate studies of drug use in American
    teenagers, conducted by our government, our universities, etc for
    thirty years, was in response to DougO, who claimed it was necessary
    to "study" drug dependence in the US.  Not only is it necessary, it
    continues to go on all over.  There are plenty of people who in the
    US who have had long careers in studying drug use here.  They ought
    to - it's a multi-billion dollar industry.  But you don't need to
    change any laws to do so - there are millions of druggie kids in the
    US, and there exists comparative data going back for generations.
    
     The literature is vast, there are even scholarly journals.  The USA
    contains thousands of people whose sole livelihood is in treating
    the awful human tragedies caused by substance abuse.  If you need any
    chemical to get through your day, seek help.  Digital provides such
    help, in case you didn't know.  And it is widely used by employees,
    whose lives have turned into nightmares due to drug problems either
    of themselves, or by dependants.
    
     Treating the hordes of self-destroyed drug victims is also a major
    industry in our country.  Right here in New England, you have dozens
    of countryside drying-out places, most of which are available through
    your HMO, which will break your psychological dependence, on booze,
    pot, cocaine, or whatever.  They are experts, having seen hundreds,
    even thousands of cases.
    
     If you think you (or a loved one) "can handle it", I think you are
    kidding yourself.  Sooner or later, nobody can.
    
     bb

    A substance thumper.

    	re: -< yawn >-
    
    	Shouldn't that be yaTn?
    
    	But I digress...
    
    
    	What is wrong with the impassioned notes entered by bb?  Does 
    	drug abuse NOT contribute to the waste of humanity as he says?  
    	Do we NOT pay for that tragedy (monitarily, emotionally, spiritually) 
    	whether we personally use drugs or not?  How will decriminalizing/
    	legalizing drugs prevent -- even merely reduce -- that loss?

    there is also a 12 step program for those who shed other addictions,
    but are now addicted to their 12-step program.  
    
    Lets face it addiction of any kind (even religion) can be harmful to
    oneself, family and friends.  
    
    This has nothing to do with the WOR (or is it drugs) that is going on
    in this country.  Given the fact that even the most repressive regimes
    in the world are still hanging drug users, smugglers, and dealers, I
    fail to see where more draconian laws are going to make things work
    better.  
    
    As for the University studies, are you referring to those by Gabrial
    Najas, Carleton Turner, or to those by the blue ribbon panel Nixon set
    up and then refused to publish, along with a host of others, regarding
    the use and abuse of certain substances.
    
    meg

    >What is wrong with the impassioned notes entered by bb? 
    
     They are emotion laden fact lite entries, clearly written by someone
    with an axe to grind. His replies are so replete with stereotypes, one
    senses his source is the documentary Reefer Madness.
    
    >Does drug abuse NOT contribute to the waste of humanity as he says?
    
     Drug _abuse_ may well contribute to the "waste of humanity," but there
    is a difference between use and abuse and bb claims there is not. Users
    are abusers is a quaint mantra, but it bears little resemblance to
    reality.
    
    >Do we NOT pay for that tragedy (monitarily, emotionally, spiritually)
    >whether we personally use drugs or not?
    
     Some would argue that the present state of prohibition costs us more
    monetarily, emotionally and spiritually than would a more reasoned
    approach.
    
     The fact remains that the search for altered states of consciousness
    has been around as long as people. Only fairly recently in human
    history has the hysteria surrounding a small number of ways to achieve
    altered consciousness arisen with its concomitant detrimental social
    effects.
    
    >How will decriminalizing/legalizing drugs prevent -- even merely 
    >reduce -- that loss?
    
     Much of the loss that drugs present is a result of ill advised and ill
    fated law enforcement efforts to curb a natural process, not from the
    intrinsic issues arising from the effects of the drugs themselves.
    Eliminating the black market for drugs would have a number of positive
    effects: a reduction in the erosion of rights, an elimination of a
    huge, untaxed source illegitimate income, the removal of an "easy road"
    out of poverty in trafficking, the end of turf wars, sharp curtailing
    of the major source of funding for gangs and organized crime, the
    disbanding of marauding "law enforcement" agencies and the resulting
    reduction in the federal budget, etc. 
    
     And instead of trying to club users to death, we could adopt the same
    tack being used to prevent alcohol abuse and nicotine usage: education.
    Real education, not "reefer madness" style lies. Laws like those
    prohibiting drug possession and use like those regarding speed limits
    undermine the ability of law enforcement to be effective because they
    are an insult to our intelligence. They encourage disrespect for the
    law. They are erratically enforced. It's all such utter BS that it
    continually amazes me that some people still fail to see through it.
    
     bb's claims that people who use drugs can't be productive members of
    society ring as hollow as Jimmy Swaggart's pious tomes. Please. Too
    many counter examples exist. Unless one makes the claim that sobriety
    in and of itself exceeds the contribution that anyone who has ever
    smoked a joint can make, in which case no amount of reason will ever
    get through to you.

> 	What is wrong with the impassioned notes entered by bb?  Does 
>    	drug abuse NOT contribute to the waste of humanity as he says?  
>    	Do we NOT pay for that tragedy (monitarily, emotionally, spiritually) 
>     	whether we personally use drugs or not?  How will decriminalizing/
>    	legalizing drugs prevent -- even merely reduce -- that loss?

The waste is occuring, and will occur, regardless of legality. But the
prohibition is making it worse, i.e.:
- the criminal activity surrounding the drug trade, motivated by the huge 
  financial incentives.
- the WOD is amounting more and more to the war on the BOR, it it is obvious
  that:
    1) the war is expensive.
    2) the war is not doing much good, and in the opinion of many, it is
       unwinnable.
    3) by various estimates, prison space occupancy is 25% - 50% drug
       related, many of them minor, yet we complain because violent offenders
       are paroled to offend again.

All this has been said before. The preceeding note talks about "the loss" due
to drugs, but what about the losses due to the WOD? These losses are greater,
IMHO.

Why should mj be treated in the same way as hard drugs? Everyone knows that the
majority of recreational users are just that -- occasional users who never go
on to harder dope, just like most occasional users of beer/wine never become 
alcoholics. And the belittling of legitimate uses is bogus:
- medicinal uses: cancer is common. We're not talking about .001% of the 
  population here. I personally know people who need it.
- fibres: I don't have the figures, but I have heard that for paper production,
  mj produces much more lbs/acre/year that the forests - I for one really
  cringed when I realized that many old-growth trees are ground into pulp for
  paper production. 

If you look at the history of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1927 (1927 I think?),
it is easy to see that it was politically motivated. Keeping it illegal is
still politically motivated.

As to the harder drugs, these are harder questions. I still believe that the
cure is worse than the disease. I find it reprehensible that terminal cancer
patients, enduring incredible pain, do not have the herion option available
to them.

.262
what he said ...

>          <<< Note 188.262 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

Good note.

I said this in "Politics of the Middle": people always have and always will
continue to do pretty much whatever they want, regardless of what some
politician writes on a piece of paper and calls a "law". Those who would
attempt to stop them have two choices: make them want to stop, or fail
utterly.

          <<< Note 188.262 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "luxure et supplice" >>>

>     Some would argue that the present state of prohibition costs us more
>    monetarily, emotionally and spiritually than would a more reasoned
>    approach.
    
    	You could find "some" to argue anything.
    
>    Eliminating the black market for drugs would have a number of positive
>    effects: ...
    
    	These I have seen, and they are quite persuasive.

    I'm somewhat torn on this issue.  First, I see the WOD as an utter
    failure.  We need to address the issues that cause kids and adults turn
    to drugs to begin with, then perhaps we have a chance at reducing the number
    of drug abusers.  Second, the conspiracy lobe of my brain is in utter
    alarm at the disintegration of the BoR that directly result from the
    WOD. 
    
    On the other side, I see the danger of drugs and the great harm they
    cause to society and individuals.  It destroys lives.  It kills the
    mind and trashes the body (speaking of abuse, mainly).  Inevitably, the
    cost of this falls to the taxpayers.  What you do in the privacy of
    your own home may indeed enter my pocketbook sooner or later. 
    
    There are also moral implications, IMO, that cannot be ignored.  We
    should promote the idea that drugs are NOT good (not talking about
    medicine, of course), but legalizing them would say just the opposite,
    IMO.  What society promotes via laws is a witness to its collective
    values.  Drugs have no place in our value system, IMO.
    
    Now, that said, I think the cost of the WOD is criminal- especially
    looking at the results thereof.  I'd be willing to stop funding of all
    the extra things the WOD has funded for the last 10 years or so, but I'd 
    not be willing to legalize drugs until we, as a society, know how to deal 
    with our freedoms.  
    
    Currently, we are of the attitude that all citizens are *entitled* to a 
    certain package of goods that goes well beyond what our FF enumerated
    in the Constituion, the BoR and the Declaration of Independence.  Until 
    this mentality is put to rest, and we truly begin to take our freedoms
    seriously, as in "you take the risk, you be responsible for the 
    consequences- both physical and financial- period"-- and until our safety 
    net stops resembling an inheritance system to assuage society's guilty
    conscience of inactive compassion -- we, as a society, are too interlinked 
    for true freedom to be enjoyed.  Meaning, you can't have the freedom to
    do whatever you like, because your actions- even if only affecting your
    person (as with drugs)- may sooner or later affect society (taxpayers). 
    An example scenario:
    
    Your drug use may turn into an addiction, causing you to lose your job,
    family, etc.  Down and out, you are forced to join the welfare ranks,
    forcing society to pick up the tab. 
    
    Another scenario:
    
    Your drug use turns to addiction, which leads to criminal activity to
    support your habit.  You may or may not join the welfare ranks, but
    society pays the bill, nontheless, with higher insurance premiums,
    crime, and perhaps violence and even loss of life.
    
    
    I'd be willing to legalize drugs ONLY if society would take on an
    attitude of personal responsibility and personal accountability- even
    though I have moral qualms about it.  I'm willing to err on the side of
    freedom legally, realizing that my morality is far from universal. 
    Unfortunately, the point is moot for me, since society is heading 180
    degrees in the wrong direction.
    
    As is stands, I'm for dropping the WOD spending, but I'm not for
    legalizing any currently illegal substance (except for medicinal
    purposes, if applicable).
    
    
    -steve

    
      Steve, I couldn't agree more - the War on Drugs is a failure.
    
      I certainly wish people didn't take them.  They do lots of harm,
     and no good at all.  As to "altered states of consciousness", well,
     as a never-user, all I can say is, this sounds a very suspicious
     salesman line to me.  "Accept that when I take these pills (or
     whatever), I am transported magically to the ethereal plane.  The
     only way you can prove this to yourself is take them, too.  Pay no
     attention to the fact that I speak gibberish and fall down a lot
     when on the other plane of consciousness.  Of course, my brain is
     taken up with higher things than body control at that time."
     Pardon me if this seems like the least convincing argument ever.
    
      We've all had acquaintances who took too much whatever and came to
     a bad end.  We've had acquaintances who took too much whatever and
     then got older, wised up, and quit.  We've even had rare acquaintances
     who occasionally took things, but seemed never the worse for wear.
     By far, however, among my own personal anecdotal sample, the most
     successful and happy acquaintances are those who never much took
     anything at all.
    
      The statistics on this subject are taken all the time.  That drug
     use is much more widespread today than it was when I was a kid is
     true for sure.  That people who take these things don't do very well
     in life compared to those who don't take them, stands out a mile.
    
      As our society goes, I am a MODERATE on this issue.  The popular
     majority in America is for throwing druggies in jail - check out
     every political campaign or poll in your area.  Here in Massachusetts,
     polls run 3-1 against legalization of marijuana.  The only "debate"
     is whether to give life sentences for selling drugs.
    
      I am more of the view that this is a disease.  Like most such
     compulsions, I doubt much of a cure can be found except through
     the sufferer wanting to get better.  But society takes a grimmer
     view.  Our schools have a mandatory "health" class, in which so-called
     recreational drug use is unmercifully trashed over and over.  It is
     now mandatory to expel any student caught with drugs in school.  Yet
     just the other day, I drove by a local high school, and there were
     the kids, smoking dope and handing out pills right out in front in
     broad daylight.  And you can bet these weren't the kids on the honor
     roll !
    
      Politically, calling for decriminalization is pretty much suicide.
     You can't get elected that way anywhere I know in the US.
    
      bb

    
    Difficult issue this.  I did a 4-year undergrad course in Psychology,
    specialising in neuropsychology and physiology and biochemistry
    of the brain.  One thing that stuck was that there's no free lunch
    when it comes to psychoactive substances.
    
    I don't buy into many of the studies that are used to support the view
    that mj is "not addictive".  Few people really know what addiction is,
    or understand the mechanisms of tolerance and dependency.  There's a
    lot of evidence of neurophysiological changes during even moderate use
    such as enlargement of the ventricles in the brain, increased levels of
    endorphins & enkephalins (which is what might help pain sufferers).
    
    If there is a medical benefit, let a drug company synthesize a 
    set of molecules that mimic TCB and develop a delivery mechanism
    that works like a reefer.  Then test the drug against alternative
    anti-nausea and anti-pain medicines using a double-blind placebo
    experiment.
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin

    Re: .269
    
    >I don't buy into many of the studies that are used to support the view
    >that mj is "not addictive".
    
    What I remember hearing is that it isn't physically addictive (no
    withdrawal symptoms), but it can be psychologically addictive.  But
    then, so can ice cream.

.267>    There are also moral implications, IMO, that cannot be ignored.  We
.267>    should promote the idea that drugs are NOT good (not talking about
.267>    medicine, of course), but legalizing them would say just the opposite,

If you disregard advertising for alcohol and cigarettes, I think we'd all
agree that the rest of the messages regarding them are primarily of the
sort that promote them as not being good, yet they are legal. If certain
recreational drugs were decriminalized which by definifion would tend to mean
no advertising whatsoever, it would appear that the only public messages
regarding them would remain the negative ones that already exist, possibly
amplified with some of the funds no longer needed to wage the WoSD. This
appears to be a much better solution to this particular aspect of the issue.

    .260 Joe, only if you are not a OJ dream team DNA expert and Nobel
         Prize winner...      ^^^
    
    
         Chip

    >As to "altered states of consciousness", well,
    >as a never-user, all I can say is, this sounds a very suspicious
    >salesman line to me.
    
     You've never consumed alcohol, smoked a cigarette, been hypnotized,
    gotten a "runner's high," had a cup o' java that gave you a caffeine
    buzz or experienced an adrenaline rush? You've never been given a
    general anesthetic? All of these things and others provide some sort of
    altered consciousness. Some are very subtle, others are more
    bricklike. But none of them are radically from illegal drugs in the
    mechanisms used to bring about altered consciousness. Obviously, the
    buzz of nicotine is not as powerful from a consciousness altering
    standpoint as the buzz of sensemilla, but the former creates a physical
    dependency whereas the latter does not.
    
     I was brought up by people who had the same attitude towards drugs as
    you do. My first attitudes reflected this fact. Curiousity and a wild
    streak lead me to try drugs, and I was almost disappointed the same
    way I was disappointed the first time I drove 70 in a 55. You mean
    that's it? Jeez. Much ado about nothing.
    
    >By far, however, among my own personal anecdotal sample, the most
    >successful and happy acquaintances are those who never much took
    >anything at all.
    
     Or at least never let you know that they took anything. I personally
    think you vastly underestimate the number of people who have taken
    drugs and gone on to lead productive, well adjusted lives.
    
    >That people who take these things don't do very well
    >in life compared to those who don't take them, stands out a mile. 
    
     If you changed that to "people who _abuse_ these things" and I'll
    agree with you. Perhaps you are only aware of people who "take these
    things" when they abuse them. Obviously, if everyone you know that uses
    abuses, then you will get a skewed vision of what happens to people who
    use. If everyone you ever see take a drink ends up lying in a pool of
    their own vomit, you'll have a view of alcohol that is unrelated to
    alcohol use on the whole.
    
    >just the other day, I drove by a local high school, and there were
    >the kids, smoking dope and handing out pills right out in front in
    >broad daylight.  And you can bet these weren't the kids on the
    >honor roll !
    
     No, the honor roll kids were behind the school, because they have
    something to lose if they get caught.
    
    >Politically, calling for decriminalization is pretty much suicide.
    
     Rather like calling for the end of slavery in the 1860's. Doesn't mean
    it wasn't the right thing to do.
    
     Look- I understand that you are a never user and can't relate to
    people who've tried the stuff. All I'm telling you is that the sky does
    not fall when you spark up a joint. You don't go from a straight A
    student to the welfare rolls. I recognize that there is a segment of
    the population that will become addicts; I personally believe this
    segment to be small, and to be more a function of personality/genes
    than substance; the same people who get addicted to drugs are the ones
    who become alcoholics. As has been stated before, we shouldn't set
    public policy by the extreme cases. We'd be far better off as a society
    by repealing prohibition and replacing that system with a minimalist
    set of regulations and moderate taxation and using a portion of that
    (very substantial) income to provide _real_ education (not the moral
    preaching and hyperbolic "users are abusers" rhetoric the the kids
    figure out is BS the first time they puff) and treatment for those who
    become addicted, no matter what the substance is. That way, people who
    don't partake don't have to pay for the problems arising from those who
    do and who can't control themselves.

    
    <----- What he said (...mannn...)!
    

    
    > What I remember hearing is that it isn't physically addictive (no
    > withdrawal symptoms), but it can be psychologically addictive.  But
    > then, so can ice cream.

    I have not seen any avidence that successfully separates these
    two definitions (there may be some, but I have not read it).
    Anecdotally, I know long term users who claim not to be addicted, but
    simply can't give it up.  They hold down good jobs may be in
    stable long term relationships and are societally responsible
    individuals.  However, they can't seem to enjoy the weekend
    without partaking of a joint.  Are they not addicts because
    their inter-drug interval is measured in days rather than hours?
    
    A psychological dependence is simply labelling a behaviour which is in
    turn the manifestation of some neurophysiological activity.  Someone
    may be addicted to ice cream because the act of eating ice cream
    stimulates the pleasure centre of the brain to produce more of a
    certain neurotransmitter.  Relatively innocuous when it's ice cream,
    but the same basic mechanism is thought to be responsible for gambling
    addiction. I can't help wondering that if alcohol and tobacco were
    discovered tomorrow, would we want to make them a controlled substance?
    
    There's a couple of other things worth noting about the smokables too.
    Firstly, it's extremely difficult to control the content of
    psychoactive substances in naturally grown products such as mj, peyote,
    cocaine etc.  What is available on the underground market can vary from
    very mild to moderate because it is cut to enhance profits.  If the
    stuff was freely available, I would expect the potency of the product
    to rise very quickly.  I think that we might then begin to see more
    evidence of stronger physiological dependency, psychosis and antisocial
    behaviour.  The kinds of thimgs that we are seeing now with the huge
    increase in the use of Prozac in the general population.
    
    
    Secondly, a lot of the high-usage studies have used populations that do
    not reflect general society.  In order to do a study that found that
    there was a low risk of addiction, you'd need carefully controlled
    study groups - not groups of former Vietnam vets, college students
    etc.  As far as I know, no-one has really done such a sstudy yet.
    
    Colin
     
    
    
    
    

    Marijuana and Peyote cut?  With what?  Maybe you could add some other
    herb to marijuana but doesn't Peyote come as a button and require
    cleaning prior to ingesting?  Cocaine, yes, cut quite a few times before 
    hitting the street.  
    
    Brian

    >Anecdotally, I know long term users who claim not to be addicted, but
    >simply can't give it up.  They hold down good jobs may be in
    >stable long term relationships and are societally responsible
    >individuals.  However, they can't seem to enjoy the weekend
    >without partaking of a joint.
    
     Do they partake during inappropriate moments? Do they miss work or
    skip obligations due to their use?
    
    >Are they not addicts because their inter-drug interval is measured 
    >in days rather than hours?
    
     Interesting question. Would you consider them addicts if they smoked
    once a year?
    
    >Firstly, it's extremely difficult to control the content of
    >psychoactive substances in naturally grown products such as mj,
    >peyote, cocaine etc. 
    
     Not really. Why do you think the average weed in the 90s has more THC
    and other cannabinoid content than that of the 60s? Because it was
    grown to be that way.
    
    >If the stuff was freely available, I would expect the potency of the
    >product to rise very quickly. 
    
     I suspect you are mistaken, at least, if the experience we have with
    alcohol is to be repeated.
    
     During prohibition, the popular form of alcohol was distilled spirits.
    This is because prohibition made trafficking in diluted forms of
    alcohol riskier, since transportation was the major issue. You were
    just as busted for beer as for moonshine, so it made more sense to fill
    a car trunk with moonshine (worth, say, $50) than beer (worth, perhaps,
    $5.) Why make 10 trips with beer to make $50 when you could do it in 1
    trip with moonshine? The penalty was the same for getting caught, so
    increased concentration reduced the risk by requiring fewer trips, and
    thus, opportunities to get caught.
    
     Since the repeal, people have been consuming less and less spirits and
    more diluted forms of alcohol such as beer, wine coolers and wine.
    There is no evidence to suggest this trend would be reversed in the
    case of drugs. In fact, crack cocaine is totally a byproduct of the
    prohibition of drugs. It was created to be a potent, easily smuggled
    form of cocaine that was easy to manufacture and relatively
    inexpensive. Absent a prohibition on flake, there would be no reason to
    create crack.

    Brian, MJ is "cut" or combined with angel dust.
    
    Chip

    
    For peyote the common form of ingestion is as a liquid the way that
    this is prepared affects the potency.  Don't tell me you never
    heard of (or made) an mj buy that was impotent - it can be doctored
    in many ways.  One of the main reasons that medicine does not
    like using natural substances is because it's impossible to determine
    the potency and efficacy of the drug.  (It's also a reason why
    drug studies are hard to do - you never know what you have.)
    
    The reason that I would expect a change in the user population if mj
    was legalized is because there is this widespread belief that mj is a
    safe, non-addictive substance that is "safer than alcohol or nicotine"
    (Which is kind of ironical, considering the damage that those drugs
    do.)  It is also "non addictive" like "medicinal drugs such as Prozac.  
    Even aspirin can be addictive, so the "non-addictive" argument is
    unsupported, unless you can cite some longitudinal clinical studies
    that have been published in a reputable journal.
    
    True, there may be an initial sharp rise in use that will decline
    over time, as has happened with alcohol.  I'll also concede that there
    is very little evidence that social users progress to stronger drugs.
    However, there is a lot of evidence that social users of
    alcohol can become alcoholics.
    
    If I understand the thrust of your argument, do you expect *no* change in
    use or social impact as a result of legalisation?
    
    Colin
    
    
    (repost)
    
    
    
    

    
    If, by "cut", you mean "watered down" or "reduced in potency",
    then oregano or tobacco are common additives.
    
    Never heard of angel dust being used, except perhaps in anti-drug
    scare-tactic literature ("Dope dealers put angel dust or PCP in
    their product to get you hooked!").
    
    jc
    

    angel dust is not an uncommon additive.
    
    Chip

    No Chip, it's not, or so I have been told.  That would not cut it though.  
    
    

    
    I seeeee.  THC's just not GOOD enough for you 'muricans, IS it?
    Gotta add angel dust, eh?
    
    :^)
    

    okay Brian... i believe you've been told. :-)
    
    Chip

    Re: .275
    
    >A psychological dependence is simply labelling a behaviour which is in
    >turn the manifestation of some neurophysiological activity.
    
    It might be for you, but not for me.  All emotions are manifestations
    of some neurophysiological activity.  By your definition, that must
    mean there's no such thing as psychology, it's all physiology.
    
    >If the stuff was freely available
    
    It is currently freely available.  It just isn't legal.  I don't see
    why legalization would alter the basic desire to enhance profits.

    Nah  THC  don't cut it!  We ain't no wussy Canadians or limp wristed
    Europeans !
    
    
    
    
    :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)   :-)
    
    Kidding !  Hold your fire !
    
    Dan
    

    >angel dust is not an uncommon additive.
    
     It's not unheard of but it is relatively rare. It's gotten a bad
    reputation (and deservedly so, from what I've heard), and few go near it.

    
      The odd thing, really, is how badly the legalization movement is
     doing politically.  In a climate where casinos are going up all
     around and there's no end of libertine congresscritters, no major
     figure in either party has come out on the legalization side.
     Even people with admitted prior use, reputations as mevericks in
     their parties, and a record of bucking public opinion in their
     districts (such as Gore, Gingrich, Frank, even Marion Barry) have
     jumped on this wagon.  When Elders even mealymouthed a
     decriminalization, Sliq immediately categorically repudiated it.
    
      bb

    Given the demonization of drugs and drug users, it's hardly surprising
    that politicians (who are not exactly known for intestinal fortitude)
    would hesitate to step up to the plate. The only people with the gonads
    to say something are those who don't have to depend on the masses' will
    for continued employment (Like William F Buckley, for example.)

    > The odd thing, really, is how badly the legalization movement is 
    > doing politically. 
    
    The people in the trenches have started to speak out, though.  Joe
    McNamara, former chief of police of San Jose and ardent anti-gunnut,
    now a fellow at the Hoover Foundation at Stanford,  has admitted the
    War on Some Drugs to be a total failure and called for a completely
    different approach.  Mayors of several large cities including Baltimore
    have said the same.  But there's no advocacy movement because of the
    level of personal risk involved; the confiscation laws are simply too
    threatening to allow for an open and honest debate.
    
    The Clash had a song with the line, "You have the right to free
    speech...as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it!"
    It applies.
    
    DougO

    
    Canada came very close - in the late '70s - to decriminalization,
    as recommended in the LeDain Commission Report.  Trudeau (that
    dope-smokin' swinger) was very open to the idea, but I think that
    he was ultimately still worried about the potential political cost
    of such a move.
    
    And so, it was not to be.
    
    Since then, the pendulum has swung in the other direction.
    

    Nice P/N BTW

Seems like I remember a few years back that Alaska had a legal/non-criminal
possession of <= 1 oz, and William Bennett (then the "drug czar") went up there
to do some arm twisting on Bush's behalf. Whatever happened with that?

    
    did mr bennett ever give up ciggies?

	the swiss geezer did.

    285
    
   > All emotions are manifestations of some neurophysiological activity.
    
    No, I'm not as extreme as that.  I meant specifically in the context
    of dependency.  And note that I'm willing to entertain good evidence
    to the contrary.
    
    For the moment, I agree with the view that there is a subset of the
    population that has a predisposition towards using drugs.
    a likely cause of this is genetic, and the supporting evidence
    is that:
    
    	o relatively few people become long-term users in societies where
          softer drugs are freely available, such as coca leaves in latin
          america, qat in the middle east or pot in some European countries.
    
    	  By "freely" available, I mean that there is no legal impediment,
    	  and there is less of a social stigma.
     
    	o The number of users does not change significantly when drugs are
          legalized.
    
    As this seems to hold tru between diffeent societies, it seems more than
    likely that the cause is due to physiology (genetics) than it is to
    socialization. There's a lot of very strong evidence alcoholism
    having a genetic basis.
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin

>whatever happened with that

Alaska re-criminalized pot.

/john

    
    .298:
    
    Why?  Did they encounter problems?
    

Bush's arm-twister was that effective?

    >Bush's arm-twister was that effective?
    
     I believe he used the old "if you don't do this, we'll withhold money
    that is rightfully yours" extortion trick.

    Anyone see that news spot yesterday where Phillip Morris
    have apparently been caught fibbing to congress over nicotine
    addiction studies?                               
    
    Nothing on NPR this am.  What was the gist of it?
    

What does Alaska need from Uncle with all that oil money?

    Highway funds?  Skating rink subsidies?   

    > I believe he used the old "if you don't do this, we'll withhold money
    > that is rightfully yours" extortion trick.
    
    This is probably irrelevant, but the money IS NOT rightfully any
    STATES !  It's yours' and mine.  We earned it.  The government only has
    it because we have been gracious enough to give it to them!  At I
    recall wasn't the income tax originally voluntary ?  (Yeh, volunteer,
    or we'll put you in jail !)  :-(
    
    This is a tender subject with me, sorry about the spouting !
    
    Dan

re: Note 188.305 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN
        
>    This is probably irrelevant, but the money IS NOT rightfully any
>    STATES !  It's yours' and mine.  We earned it.  The government only has
>    it because we have been gracious enough to give it to them!  

Depends upon how the money was collected.

>    At I recall wasn't the income tax originally voluntary ?  (Yeh, volunteer,
>    or we'll put you in jail !)  :-(
 
Still is.  Learn the law and apply it.
   
>    This is a tender subject with me, sorry about the spouting !
    
Same here.

Street Terms:  Drugs and the Drug Trade                    
February 1995


For source information, please contact the ONDCP Drugs & Crime Clearinghouse 
at 1-800-666-3332.

Alphabetical Listing
A                       - LSD; amphetamine
Abe                     - $5 worth of drugs
Abe's cabe              - $5 bill
Abolic                  - veterinary steroid
Acapulco gold           - marijuana from S.W.Mexico
Acapulco red            - marijuana
Ace                     - marijuana; PCP
Acid                    - LSD
Acid head               - LSD user
AD                      - PCP
Adam                    - MDMA
African black           - marijuana
African bush            - marijuana
African woodbine        - marijuana cigarette
Agonies                 - withdrawal symptoms
Ah-pen-yen              - opium
Aimies                  - amphetamine; amyl nitrite
AIP                     - heroin from Afghanistan, Iran, & Pakistan
Air blast               - inhalant
Airhead                 - marijuana user
Airplane                - marijuana
Alice B. Toklas         - marijuana brownie
All lit up              - under the influence of drugs
All star                - user of multiple drugs
All-American drug       - cocaine
Alpha-ET                - alpha-ethyltyptamine
Ames                    - amyl nitrite
Amidone                 - methadone
Amoeba                  - PCP
Amp                     - amphetamine
Amp joint               - marijuana cigarette laced with some form of narcotic
Amped-out               - fatigue after using amphetamines
Amping                  - accelerated heartbeat
AMT                     - dimethyltryptamine
Amys                    - amyl nitrate
Anadrol                 - oral steroid
Anatrofin               - injectable steroid
Anavar                  - oral steroid
Angel                   - PCP
Angel dust              - PCP
Angel hair              - PCP
Angel mist              - PCP
Angel Poke              - PCP
Angie                   - cocaine
Angola                  - marijuana
Animal                  - LSD
Animal trank            - PCP
Animal tranquilizer     - PCP
Antifreeze              - heroin
Apache                  - fentanyl
Apple jacks             - crack
Aries                   - heroin
Aroma of men            - isobutyl nitrite
Artillery               - equipment for injecting drugs
Ashes                   - marijuana
Atom bomb               - marijuana and heroin
Atshitshi               - marijuana
Aunt Hazel              - heroin
Aunt Mary               - marijuana
Aunt Nora               - cocaine
Aunti                   - opium
Aunti Emma              - opium
Aurora borealis         - PCP
B                       - amount of marijuana to fill a matchbox
B-40                    - cigar laced with marijuana and dipped in 
                          malt liquor
B.J.'s                  - crack
Babe                    - drug used for detoxification
Baby                    - marijuana
Baby bhang              - marijuana
Baby habit              - occasional use of drugs
Babysit                 - guide someone through first drug experience
Baby T                  - crack
Backbreakers            - LSD and strychnine
Back door               - residue left in a pipe
Backjack                - injecting opium
Back to back            - smoking crack after injecting heroin or 
                          heroin used after smoking crack
Backtrack               - allow blood to flow back into a needle during 
                          injection
Backup                  - prepare vein for injection
Backwards               - depressant
Bad bundle              - inferior quality heroin
Bad                     - crack
Bad go                  - bad reaction to a drug
Bad seed                - peyote; heroin; marijuana
Bag                     - container for drugs
Bag bride               - crack-smoking prostitute
Bag man                 - person who transports money
Bagging                 - using inhalant
Bale                    - marijuana
Ball                    - crack
Balling                 - vaginally implanted cocaine
Balloon                 - heroin supplier
Ballot                  - heroin
Bam                     - depressant; amphetamine
Bambalacha              - marijuana
Bambs                   - depressant
Bang                    - to inject a drug; inhalant
Bank bandit pills       - depressant
Bar                     - marijuana
Barb                    - depressant
Barbies                 - depressant
Barbs                   - cocaine
Barrels                 - LSD
Base                    - cocaine; crack
Baseball                - crack
Base crazies            - searching on hands and knees for crack
Base head               - person who bases
Bash                    - marijuana
Basuco                  - cocaine; coca paste residue sprinkled on 
                          marijuana or regular cigarette
Bathtub speed           - methcathinone
Batt                    - IV needle
Battery acid            - LSD
Batu                    - smokable methamphetamine
Bazooka                 - cocaine; crack
Bazulco                 - cocaine
Beam me up Scottie      - crack dipped in PCP
Beamer                  - crack user
Beans                   - amphetamine; depressant; mescaline
Beast                   - LSD
Beat artist             - person selling bogus drugs
Beat vials              - vials containing sham crack to cheat buyers
Beautiful boulders      - crack
Bebe                    - crack
Bedbugs                 - fellow addicts
Beemers                 - crack
Behind the scale        - to weigh and sell cocaine 
Beiging                 - chemicals altering cocaine to make it appear 
                          a higher purity
Belladonna              - PCP
Belt                    - effects of drugs
Belushi                 - cocaine and heroin
Belyando spruce         - marijuana
Bender                  - drug party
Bennie                  - amphetamine
Benz                    - amphetamine
Bernice                 - cocaine
Bernie                  - cocaine
Bernie's flakes         - cocaine
Bernie's gold dust      - cocaine
Bhang                   - marijuana, Indian term
Big bag                 - heroin
Big bloke               - cocaine
Big C                   - cocaine
Big 8                   - 1/8 kilogram of crack
Big D                   - LSD
Big H                   - heroin
Big Harry               - heroin
Big flake               - cocaine
Big man                 - drug supplier
Big O                   - opium
Big rush                - cocaine
Bill Blass              - crack
Billie hoke             - cocaine
Bindle                  - small packet of drug powder; heroin
Bing                    - enough of a drug for one injection
Bingers                 - crack addicts
Bingo                   - to inject a drug
Bings                   - crack
Birdie powder           - heroin; cocaine
Biscuit                 - 50 rocks of crack
Bite one's lips         - to smoke marijuana
Biz                     - bag or portion of drugs
Black                   - opium; marijuana
Black acid              - LSD; LSD and PCP
Black and white         - amphetamine
Black bart              - marijuana
Black beauties          - depressant; amphetamine
Black birds             - amphetamine
Black bombers           - amphetamine
Black ganga             - marijuana resin
Black gold              - high potency marijuana
Black gungi             - marijuana from India
Black gunion            - marijuana
Black hash              - opium and hashish
Black mo/black moat     - highly potent marijuana
Black mollies           - amphetamine
Black mote              - marijuana mixed with honey
Black pearl             - heroin
Black pill              - opium pill
Black rock              - crack
Black Russian           - hashish mixed with opium
Black star              - LSD
Black stuff             - heroin
Black sunshine          - LSD
Black tabs              - LSD
Black tar               - heroin
Black whack             - PCP
Blacks                  - amphetamine
Blanco                  - heroin
Blanket                 - marijuana cigarette
Blanks                  - low quality drugs
Blast                   - to smoke marijuana; to smoke crack
Blast a joint           - to smoke marijuana
Blast a roach           - to smoke marijuana
Blast a stick           - to smoke marijuana
Blasted                 - under the influence of drugs
Blizzard                - white cloud in a pipe used to smoke cocaine
Block                   - marijuana
Block busters           - depressant
Blonde                  - marijuana
Blotter                 - LSD; cocaine
Blotter acid            - LSD
Blotter cube            - LSD
Blow                    - cocaine; to inhale cocaine; to smoke marijuana
Blow a fix              - injection misses the vein and is wasted in the skin
blow a shot             - injection misses the vein and is wasted in the skin
blow the vein           - injection misses the vein and is wasted in the skin 
Blow a stick            - to smoke marijuana
Blow blue               - to inhale cocaine
Blowcaine               - crack diluted with cocaine
Blow coke               - to inhale cocaine
Blow one's roof         - to smoke marijuana
Blow smoke              - to inhale cocaine
Blowing smoke           - marijuana
Blowout                 - crack
Blow up                 - crack cut with lidocaine to increase size, weight, 
                          and street value
Blue                    - depressant; crack                  
Blue acid               - LSD
Blue angels             - depressant
Blue barrels            - LSD
Blue birds              - depressant
Blue boy                - amphetamine
Blue bullets            - depressant
Blue caps               - mescaline
Blue chairs             - LSD
Blue cheers             - LSD
Blue de hue             - marijuana from Vietnam
Blue devil              - depressant
Blue dolls              - depressant
Blue heaven             - LSD
Blue heavens            - depressant
Blud madman             - PCP
Blue microdot           - LSD
Blue mist               - LSD
Blue moons              - LSD
Blue sage               - marijuana
Blue sky blond          - high potency marijuana from Columbia
Blue tips               - depressant
Blue vials              - LSD
Blunt                   - marijuana inside a cigar; marijuana and cocaine 
                          inside a cigar
Bo-bo                   - marijuana
Boat                    - PCP
Bobo                    - crack
Bobo bush               - marijuana
Body packer             - person who ingests crack or cocaine to transport it         
Body stuffer            - person who ingests crack vials to avoid prosecution
Bogart a joint          - salivate on a marijuana cigarette; refuse to share
Bohd                    - marijuana; PCP
Bolasterone             - injectable steroid
Bolivian marching powder - cocaine
Bolo                    - crack
Bolt                    - isobutyl nitrite
Bomb                    - crack; heroin; large marijuana cigarette; 
                          high potency heroin
Bomb squad              - crack-selling crew
Bomber                  - marijuana cigarette
Bombido                 - injectable amphetamine; heroin; depressant
Bombita                 - amphetamine; heroin; depressant
Bombs away              - heroin
Bone                    - marijuana; $50 piece of crack
Bonecrusher             - crack
Bones                   - crack
Bong                    - pipe used to smoke marijuana
Bonita                  - heroin
Boo                     - marijuana
Boom                    - marijuana
Boomers                 - psilocybin/psilocin
Boost                   - to inject a drug; to steal
Boost and shoot         - steal to support a habit
Booster                 - to inhale cocaine
Boot                    - to inject a drug
Boot the gong           - to smoke marijuana
Booted                  - under the influence of drugs
Boppers                 - amyl nitrite
Botray                  - crack
Bottles                 - crack vials; amphetamine
Boubou                  - crack
Boulder                 - crack; $20 worth of crack
Boulya                  - crack
Bouncing powder         - cocaine
Boxed                   - in jail
Boy                     - heroin
Bozo                    - heroin
Brain ticklers          - amphetamine                                                      
Breakdowns              - $40 crack rock sold for $20
Break night             - staying up all night until day break
Brewery                 - place where drugs are made
Brick                   - 1 kilogram of marijuana; crack
Brick gum               - heroin
Bridge up or bring up   - ready a vein for injection
Britton                 - peyote
Broccoli                - marijuana
Broker                  - go-between in a drug deal
Brown                   - heroin; marijuana
Brown bombers           - LSD
Brown crystal           - heroin
Brown dots              - LSD
Brown rhine             - heroin
Brown sugar             - heroin
Brownies                - amphetamine
Browns                  - amphetamine
Bubble gum              - cocaine; crack
Buck                    - shoot someone in the head
Bud                     - marijuana
Buda                    - a high-grade marijuana joint filled with crack
Buffer                  - crack smoker; a woman who exchanges oral sex 
                          for crack
Bugged                  - annoyed; to be covered with sores and abscesses 
                          from repeated use of unsterile needles
Bull                    - narcotics agent or police officer
Bullet                  - isobutyl nitrite
Bullet bolt             - inhalant
Bullia capital          - crack
Bullion                 - crack
Bullyon                 - marijuana
Bumblebees              - amphetamine
Bummer trip             - unsettling and threatening experience from PCP 
                          intoxication
Bump                    - crack; fake crack; boost a high; 
                          hit of ketamine ($20)
Bundle                  - heroin
Bunk                    - fake cocaine
Burese                  - cocaine
Burn one                - to smoke marijuana
Burn the main line      - to inject a drug
Burned                  - purchase fake drugs
Burned out              - collapse of veins from repeated injections; 
                          permanent impairment from drug abuse
Burnese                 - cocaine
Burnie                  - marijuana
Burnout                 - heavy abuser of drugs
Bush                    - cocaine; marijuana
Businessman's LSD       - dimethyltryptamine
Businessman's trip      - dimethyltryptamine
Businessman's special   - dimethyltryptamine
Busted                  - arrested
Busters                 - depressant
Busy bee                - PCP
Butt naked              - PCP
Butter                  - marijuana; crack
Butter flower           - marijuana
Buttons                 - mescaline
Butu                    - heroin
Buzz                    - under the influence of drugs
Buzz bomb               - nitrous oxide
C                       - cocaine
C  joint                - place where cocaine is sold
C & M                   - cocaine and morphine
C-dust                  - cocaine
C-game                  - cocaine
Caballo                 - heroin
Cabello                 - cocaine
Caca                    - heroin
Cactus                  - mescaline
Cactus buttons          - mescaline
Cactus head             - mescaline
Cad/Cadillac            - 1 ounce
Cadillac                - PCP
Cadillac express        - methcathinone
Cakes                   - round discs of crack
Caine                   - cocaine; crack
California cornflakes   - cocaine
California sunshine     - LSD
Cam trip                - high potency marijuana
Cambodian red/Cam red   - marijuana from Cambodia
Came                    - cocaine
Can                     - marijuana; 1 ounce
Canadian black          - marijuana
Canamo                  - marijuana
Canappa                 - marijuana
Cancelled stick         - marijuana cigarette
Candy                   - cocaine; crack; depressant; amphetamine
Candy C                 - cocaine
Cannabinol              - PCP
Cannabis tea            - marijuana
Cap                     - crack; LSD
Caps                    - crack
Cap up                  - transfer bulk form drugs to capsules
Capital H               - heroin
Caps                    - heroin; psilocybin/psilocin
Carburetor              - crack stem attachment
Carga                   - heroin
Carmabis                - marijuana
Carne                   - heroin
Carnie                  - cocaine
Carpet patrol           - crack smokers searching the floor for crack
Carrie                  - cocaine
Carrie Nation           - cocaine
Cartucho                - package of marijuana cigarettes
Cartwheels              - amphetamine
Casper the ghost        - crack
Cat                     - methcathinone
Cat valium              - ketamine
Catnip                  - marijuana cigarette
Caviar                  - crack
Cavite all star         - marijuana
Cecil                   - cocaine
Chalk                   - methamphetamine; amphetamine
Chalked up              - under the influence of cocaine
Chalking                - chemically altering the color of cocaine so 
                          it looks white
Chandoo/chandu          - opium
Channel                 - vein into which a drug is injected
Channel swimmer         - one who injects heroin
Charas                  - marijuana from India
Charge                  - marijuana
Charged up              - under the influence of drugs
Charley                 - heroin
Charlie                 - cocaine
Chase                   - to smoke cocaine; to smoke marijuana
Chaser                  - compulsive crack user
Chasing the dragon      - crack and heroin
Chasing the tiger       - to smoke heroin
Cheap basing            - crack
Check                   - personal supply of drugs
Cheeba                  - marijuana
Cheeo                   - marijuana
Chemical                - crack
Chewies                 - crack
Chiba chiba             - high potency marijuana from Columbia
Chicago black           - marijuana, term from Chicago
Chicago green           - marijuana
Chicken powder          - amphetamine
Chicken scratch         - searching on hands and knees for crack
Chicle                  - heroin
Chief                   - LSD; mescaline
Chieva                  - heroin
China cat               - high potency heroin
China girl              - fentanyl
China town              - fentanyl
China White             - fentanyl
Chinese molasses        - opium
Chinese red             - heroin
Chinese tobacco         - opium
Chip                    - heroin
Chipper                 - occasional Hispanic user
Chipping                - using drugs occasionally
Chippy                  - cocaine
Chira                   - marijuana
Chocolate               - opium; amphetamine
Chocolate chips         - LSD
Chocolate ecstasy       - crack madebrown by adding chocolate milk powder
                          during production
Cholly                  - cocaine
Chorals                 - depressant
Christina               - amphetamine
Christmas rolls         - depressant
Christmas tree          - marijuana; depressant; amphetamine
Chronic                 - marijuana; marijuana mixed with crack
Chucks                  - hunger following withdrawal from heroin
Churus                  - marijuana
Cid                     - LSD
Cigarette paper         - packet of heroin
Cigarrode cristal       - PCP
Citrol                  - high potency marijuana, from Nepal
CJ                      - PCP
Clarity                 - MDMA
Clear up                - stop drug use
Clicker                 - crack and PCP
Cliffhanger             - PCP
Climax                  - crack; isobutyl nitrite; heroin
Climb                   - marijuana cigarette
Clips                   - rows of vials heat-sealed together
Clocking paper          - profits from selling drugs
Closet baser            - user of crack who prefers anonymity
Cloud                   - crack
Cloud nine              - crack
Cluck                   - crack smoker
Co-pilot                - amphetamine
Coasting                - under the influence of drugs
Coasts to coasts        - amphetamine
Coca                    - cocaine
Cocaine blues           - depression after extended cocaine use
Cochornis               - marijuana
Cocktail                - cigarette laced with cocaine or crack; partially 
                          smoked marijuana cigarette inserted in regular 
                          cigarette
Cocoa puff              - to smoke cocaine and marijuana
Coconut                 - cocaine
Coco rocks              - dark brown crack made by adding chocolate pudding
                          during production
Coco snow               - benzocaine used as cutting agent for crack
Cod                     - large amount of money
Coffee                  - LSD
Coke                    - cocaine; crack
Coke bar                - bar where cocaine is openly used
Cola                    - cocaine
Cold turkey             - sudden withdrawal from drugs
Coli                    - marijuana
Coliflor tostao         - marijuana
Colorado cocktail       - marijuana
Columbian               - marijuana
Columbo                 - PCP
Columbus black          - marijuana
Comeback                - benzocaine and mannitol used to adulterate cocaine 
                          for conversion to crack
Come home               - end a "trip" from LSD
Conductor               - LSD
Connect                 - purchase drugs; supplier of illegal drugs
Contact lens            - LSD
Cook                    - mix heroin with water; heating heroin to prepare 
                          it for injection
Cook down               - process in which users liquify heroin in order to 
                          inhale it
Cooker                  - to inject a drug
Cookies                 - crack
Coolie                  - cigarette laced with cocaine
Cooler                  - cigarette laced with a drug
Cop                     - obtain drugs
Copping zones           - specific areas where buyers can purchase drugs
Coral                   - depressant
Coriander seeds         - cash
Cork the air            - to inhale cocaine
Corrinne                - cocaine
Cosa                    - marijuana
Cotics                  - heroin
Cotton                  - currency
Cotton brothers         - cocaine, heroin and morphine
Courage pills           - heroin; depressant
Course note             - bill larger than $2
Cozmo's                 - PCP
Crack                   - cocaine
Crack attack            - craving for crack
Crack back              - crack and marijuana
Crack cooler            - crack soaked in wine cooler
Cracker jacks           - crack smokers
Crackers                - LSD
Crack gallery           - place where crack is bought and sold
Crack spot              - area where people can purchase crack
Crank                   - methamphetamine; amphetamine; methcathinone
Cranking up             - to inject a drug
Crap/crop               - low quality heroin
Crash                   - sleep off effects of drugs
Crazy coke              - PCP
Crazy Eddie             - PCP
Crazy weed              - marijuana
Credit card             - crack stem
Crib                    - crack
Crimmie                 - cigarette laced with crack
Crink                   - methamphetamine
Cripple                 - marijuana cigarette
Cris                    - methamphetamine
Crisscross              - amphetamine
Cristina                - methamphetamine
Cristy                  - smokable methamphetamine
Croak                   - crack and methamphetamine
Cross tops              - amphetamine
Crossroads              - amphetamine
Crown crap              - heroin
Crumbs                  - tiny pieces of crack
Crunch & Munch          - crack
Cruz                    - opium from Veracruz, Mexico
Crying weed             - marijuana
Crypto                  - methamphetamine
Crystal                 - methamphetamine; PCP; amphetamine; cocaine
Crystal joint           - PCP
Crystal meth            - methamphetamine
Cystal T                - PCP
Crystal tea             - LSD
Cube                    - 1 ounce; LSD
Cubes                   - marijuana tablets
Culican                 - high potency marijuana from Mexico
Cupcakes                - LSD
Cura                    - heroin
Cushion                 - vein into which a drug is injected 
Cut                     - adulterate drugs
Cut-deck                - heroin mixed with powdered milk
Cycline                 - PCP
Cyclones                - PCP
D                       - LSD, PCP
Dabble                  - use drugs occasionally
Dagga                   - marijuana
Dama blanca             - cocaine
Dance fever             - fentanyl
Dawamesk                - marijuana
Dead on arrival         - heroin
Deca-duabolin           - injectable steroid
Deccadence              - MDMA
Deck                    - 1 to 15 grams of heroin, also known as a bag;  
                          packet of drugs
Deeda                   - LSD
Delatestryl             - injectable steroid
Demo                    - crack stem; a sample-size quantity of crack
Demolish                - crack
Dep-testosterone        - injectable steroid
DET                     - dimethyltryptamine
Detroit pink            - PCP
Deuce                   - $2 worth of drugs; heroin
Devil's dandruff        - crack
Devil's dick            - crack pipe
Devil's dust            - PCP
Devilsmoke              - crack
Dew                     - marijuana
Dews                    - $10 worth of drugs
Dexies                  - amphetamine
Diambista               - marijuana
Dianabol                - veterinary steroid
Diet pills              - amphetamine
Dihydrolone             - injectable steroid
Dimba                   - marijuana from West Africa
Dime                    - crack; $10 worth of crack
Dime bag                - $10 worth of drugs
Dime's worth            - amount of heroin to cause death
Ding                    - marijuana
Dinkie dow              - marijuana
Dip                     - crack
Dipper                  - PCP
Dipping out             - crack runners taking a portion of crack from vials
Dirt                    - heroin
Dirt grass              - inferior quality marijuana
Dirty basing            - crack
Disco biscuits          - depressant
Disease                 - drug of choice
Ditch                   - marijuana
Ditch weed              - marijuana inferior quality, Mexican
Djamba                  - marijuana
DMT                     - Dimethyltryptamine
Do a joint              - to smoke marijuana
Do a line               - to inhale cocaine
Do it Jack              - PCP
DOA                     - PCP; crack
Doctor                  - MDMA
Dog                     - good friend
Dog food                - heroin
Dogie                   - heroin
Dollar                  - $100 worth of drugs
Dolls                   - depressant
Domes                   - LSD
Domestic                - locally grown marijuana
Domex                   - PCP and MDMA
Dominoes                - amphetamine
Don jem                 - marijuana
Dona Juana              - marijuana
Dona Juanita            - marijuana
Doobie/dubbe/duby       - marijuana
Doogie/doojee/dugie     - heroin
Dooley                  - heroin
Dope                    - heroin; marijuana; any other drug
Dope fiend              - crack addict
Dope smoke              - to smoke marijuana
Dopium                  - opium
Doradilla               - marijuana
Dots                    - LSD
Doub                    - $20 rock of crack
Double bubble           - cocaine
Double cross            - amphetamine
Double dome             - LSD
Double rock             - crack diluted with procaine
Double trouble          - depressant
Double ups              - a $20 rock that can be broken into two $20 rocks
Double yoke             - crack
Dove                    - $35 piece of crack
Dover's powder          - opium
Downer                  - depressant
Downie                  - depressant
Draf weed               - marijuana
Drag weed               - marijuana
Draw up                 - to inject a drug
Dream                   - cocaine
Dream gum               - opium
Dream stick             - opium
Dreamer                 - morphine
Dreams                  - opium
Dreck                   - heroin
Drink                   - PCP
Dropper                 - to inject a drug
Drowsy high             - depressant
Dry high                - marijuana
Duct                    - cocaine
'Due                    - residue of oils trapped in a pipe after 
                          smoking base
Duji                    - heroin
Dummy dust              - PCP
Durabolin               - injectable steroid
Durog                   - marijuana
Duros                   - marijuana
Dust                    - heroin; cocaine; PCP; marijuana mixed with 
                          various chemicals
Dust joint              - PCP
Dust of angels          - PCP
Dusted parsley          - PCP
Dusting                 - adding PCP, heroin, or another drug to marijuana
Dymethzine              - injectable steroid
Dynamite                - heroin and cocaine
Dyno                    - heroin
Dyno-pure               - heroin
Earth                   - marijuana cigarette
Easing powder           - opium
Eastside player         - crack
Easy score              - obtaining drugs easily
Eating                  - taking a drug orally
Ecstasy                 - MDMA
Egg                     - crack
Eight ball              - 1/8 ounce of drugs
Eightball               - crack and heroin
Eighth                  - heroin
El diablito             - marijuana, cocaine, heroin and PCP
El diablo               - marijuana, cocaine and heroin
Electric Kool Aid       - LSD
Elephant                - PCP
Elephant tranquilizer   - PCP
Embalming fluid         - PCP
Emergency gun           - instrument used to inject other than syringe
Emsel                   - morphine
Endo                    - marijuana
Energizer               - PCP
Enoltestovis            - injectable steroid
Ephedrone               - methcathinone
Equipose                - veterinary steroid
Erth                    - PCP
Esra                    - marijuana
Essence                 - MDMA
Estuffa                 - heroin
ET                      - alpha-ethyltyptamine
Eve                     - MDEA
Explorers club          - group of LSD users
Eye opener              - crack; amphetamine
Factory                 - place where drugs are packaged, diluted, or 
                          manufactured
Fake STP                - PCP                        
Fall                    - arrested
Fallbrook redhair       - marijuana, term from Fallbrook, CA
Famous dimes            - crack
Fantasia                - dimethyltryptamine
Fat bags                - crack
Fatty                   - marijuana cigarette
Feed bag                - container for marijuana
Ferry dust              - heroin
Fi-do-nie               - opium
Fields                  - LSD
Fiend                   - someone who smokes marijuana alone
Fifteen cents           - $15 worth of drugs
Fifty-one               - crack
Finajet/finaject        - veterinary steroid
Fine stuff              - marijuana
Finger                  - marijuana cigarette
Fir                     - marijuana
Fire                    - to inject a drug; crack and methamphetamine
Fire it up              - to smoke marijuana
First line              - morphine
Fish scales             - crack
Five cent bag           - $5 worth of drugs
Five C note             - $500 bill
Five dollar bag         - $50 worth of drugs
Fives                   - amphetamine
Fix                     - to inject a drug
Fizzies                 - methadone
Flag                    - appearance of blood in the vein
Flake                   - cocaine
Flakes                  - PCP
Flame cooking           - smoking cocaine base by putting the pipe 
                          over a stove flame
Flamethrowers           - cigarette laced with cocaine and heroin
Flash                   - LSD
Flat blues              - LSD
Flat chunks             - crack cut with benzocaine
Flea powder             - low purity heroin
Florida snow            - cocaine
Flower                  - marijuana
Flower tops             - marijuana
Fly Mexican airlines    - to smoke marijuana
Flying                  - under the influence of drugs
Following that cloud    - searching for drugs
Foo foo stuff           - heroin; cocaine
Foo-foo dust            - cocaine
Foolish powder          - heroin; cocaine
Footballs               - amphetamine
45 Minute Psychosis     - Dimethyltryptamine
Forwards                - amphetamine
Fraho/frajo             - marijuana
Freebase                - smoking cocaine; crack
Freeze                  - cocaine; renege on a drug deal
French blue             - amphetamine
French fries            - crack
Fresh                   - PCP
Friend                  - fentanyl
Fries                   - crack
Frios                   - marijuana laced with PCP
Frisco special          - cocaine, heroin and LSD
Frisco speedball        - cocaine, heroin and LSD
Friskie powder          - cocaine
Fry                     - crack
Fry daddy               - crack and marijuana; cigarette laced with crack
Fu                      - marijuana
Fuel                    - marijuana mixed with insecticides; PCP
Fuete                   - hypodermic needle
Fuma D'Angola           - marijuana Portugese term
G                       - $1000 or 1 gram of drugs; term for an unfamiliar male
G.B.                    - depressant
GHB                     - gamma hydroxy butyrate
G-rock                  - one gram of rock cocaine
G-shot                  - small dose of drugs used to hold off withdrawal 
                          symptoms until full dose can be taken
Gaffel                  - fake cocaine
Gaffus                  - hypodermic needle
Gage/gauge              - marijuana
Gagers                  - methcathinone
Gaggers                 - methcathinone
Galloping horse         - heroin
Gamot                   - heroin
Gange                   - marijuana
Gangster                - marijuana
Gangster pills          - depressant
Ganja                   - marijuana from Jamaica
Gank                    - fake crack
Garbage                 - inferior quality drugs
Garbage heads           - users who buy crack from street dealers instead of
                          cooking it themselves
Garbage rock            - crack
Gash                    - marijuana
Gasper                  - marijuana cigarette
Gasper stick            - marijuana cigarette
Gato                    - heroin
Gauge butt              - marijuana
Gee                     - opium
Geek                    - crack and marijuana
Geeker                  - crack user
Geeze                   - to inhale cocaine
Geezer                  - to inject a drug
Geezin a bit of dee gee - injecting a drug
George smack            - heroin
Get a gage up           - to smoke marijuana
Get a gift              - obtain drugs
Get down                - to inject a drug
Get high                - to smoke marijuana
Get lifted              - under the influence of drugs
Get off                 - to inject a drug; get "high"
Get the wind            - to smoke marijuana
Get through             - obtain drugs
Ghana                   - marijuana
Ghost                   - LSD
Ghost busting           - smoking cocaine; searching for white particles 
                          in the belief that they are crack
Gick monster            - crack smoker
Gift-of-the-sun         - cocaine
Giggle smoke            - marijuana
Gimmick                 - drug injection equipment
Gimmie                  - crack and marijuana
Gin                     - cocaine
Girl                    - cocaine; crack; heroin
Girlfriend              - cocaine
Give wings              - inject someone or teach someone to inject heroin
Glacines                - heroin
Glad stuff              - cocaine
Glading                 - using inhalant
Glass                   - hypodermic needle; amphetamine
Glass gun               - hypodermic needle
Glo                     - crack
Gluey                   - person who sniffs glue
Go-fast                 - methcathinone
Go into a sewer         - to inject a drug
Go loco                 - to smoke marijuana
Go on a sleigh ride     - to inhale cocaine
God's flesh             - psilocybin/psilocin
God's medicine          - opium
God's drug              - morphine
Gold                    - marijuana; crack
Gold dust               - cocaine
Gold star               - marijuana
Golden Dragon           - LSD
Golden girl             - heroin
Golden leaf             - very high quality marijuana
Golf ball               - crack
Golf balls              - depressant
Golpe                   - heroin
Goma                    - opium; black tar heroin
Gondola                 - opium
Gong                    - marijuana; opium
Goob                    - methcathinone
Good                    - PCP
Good and plenty         - heroin
Good butt               - marijuana cigarette
Good giggles            - marijuana
Good go                 - proper amount of drugs for the money paid
Good H                  - heroin
Good lick               - good drugs
Goodfellas              - fentanyl
Goof butt               - marijuana cigarette
Goofball                - cocaine and heroin; depressant
Goofers                 - depressant
Goofy's                 - LSD
Goon                    - PCP
Goon dust               - PCP
Gopher                  - person paid to pickup drugs
Goric                   - opium
Gorilla tab             - PCP
Gorilla biscuits        - PCP
Gorilla pills           - depressant
Got it going on         - fast sale of drugs
Graduate                - completely stop using drugs or progress to 
                          stronger drugs
Gram                    - hashish
Grape parfait           - LSD
Grass                   - marijuana
Grass brownies          - marijuana
Grata                   - marijuana
Gravel                  - crack
Gravy                   - to inject a drug; heroin
Grease                  - currency
Great bear              - fentanyl
Great tobacco           - opium
Green                   - inferior quality marijuana; PCP; ketamine
Green double domes      - LSD
Green dragons           - depressant
Green frog              - depressant
Green goddess           - marijuana
Green gold              - cocaine
Green goods             - paper currency
Green leaves            - PCP
Green single domes      - LSD
Green tea               - PCP
Green wedge             - LSD
Greens/green stuff      - paper currency
Greeter                 - marijuana
Greta                   - marijuana
Grey shields            - LSD
Griefo                  - marijuana
Griff                   - marijuana
Griffa                  - marijuana
Griffo                  - marijuana
Grit                    - crack
Groceries               - crack
Ground control          - guide or caretaker during a hallucinogenic experience
Gum                     - opium
Guma                    - opium
Gun                     - to inject a drug; needle
Gungun                  - marijuana
Gutter                  - vein into which a drug is injected
Gutter junkie           - addict who relies on others to obtain drugs
Gyve                    - marijuana cigarette
H                       - heroin
H & C                   - heroin and cocaine
H Caps                  - heroin
Hache                   - heroin
Hail                    - crack
Hairy                   - heroin
Half                    - 1/2 ounce
Half-a-C                - $50 bill
Half a football field   - 50 rocks of crack
Half G                  - $500
Half load               - 15 bags (decks) of heroin
Half moon               - peyote
Half piece              - 1/2 ounce of heroin or cocaine
Half track              - crack
Hamburger helper        - crack
Hand-to-hand            - direct delivery and payment 
Hand-to-hand man        - transient dealers who carry small amounts of crack
Hanhich                 - marijuana
Hanyak                  - smokable speed
Happy cigarette         - marijuana cigarette
Happy dust              - cocaine
Happy powder            - cocaine
Happy trails            - cocaine
Hard candy              - heroin
Hard line               - crack
Hard rock               - crack
Hard stuff              - opium; heroin
Hardware                - isobutyl nitrite
Harry                   - heroin
Hats                    - LSD
Has                     - marijuana
Have a dust             - cocaine
Haven dust              - cocaine
Hawaiin                 - very high potency marijuana
Hawaiian sunshine       - LSD
Hawk                    - LSD
Hay                     - marijuana
Hay butt                - marijuana cigarette
Haze                    - LSD
Hazel                   - heroin
HCP                     - PCP
Head drugs              - amphetamine
Headlights              - LSD
Heart-on                - inhalant
Hearts                  - amphetamine
Heaven and Hell         - PCP
Heaven dust             - heroin; cocaine
Heavenly blue           - LSD
Heeled                  - having plenty of money
Helen                   - heroin
Hell dust               - heroin
He-man                  - fentanyl
Hemp                    - marijuana
Henpicking              - searching on hands and knees for crack
Henry                   - heroin
Henry VIII              - cocaine
Her                     - cocaine
Herb                    - marijuana
Herb and Al             - marijuana and alcohol
Herba                   - marijuana
Herms                   - PCP
Hero                    - heroin
Hero of the underworld  - heroin
Heroina                 - heroin
Herone                  - heroin
Hessle                  - heroin
Highbeams               - the wide eyes of a person on crack
Hikori                  - peyote
Hikuli                  - peyote
Him                     - heroin
Hinkley                 - PCP
Hippie crack            - inhalant
Hiropon                 - smokable methamphetamine
Hit                     - crack; marijuana cigarette; to smoke marijuana
Hit the hay             - to smoke marijuana
Hit the main line       - to inject a drug
Hit the needle          - to inject a drug
Hit the pit             - to inject a drug
Hitch up the reindeers  - to inhale cocaine
Hitter                  - little pipe designed for only one hit
Hitting up              - injecting drugs
Hocus                   - opium; marijuana
Hog                     - PCP
Holding                 - possessing drugs
Hombre                  - heroin
Hombrecitos             - psilocybin
Homegrown               - marijuana
Honey                   - currency
Honey blunts            - Marijuana cigars sealed with honey
Honey oil               - ketamine; inhalant
Honeymoon               - early stages of drug use before addiction or 
                          dependency develops
Hong-yen                - heroin in pill form
Hooch                   - marijuana
Hooked                  - addicted
Hooter                  - cocaine; marijuana
Hop/hops                - opium
Hopped up               - under the influence of drugs
Horn                    - to inhale cocaine; crack pipe
Horning                 - heroin; to inhale cocaine
Horse                   - heroin
Horse heads             - amphetamine
Horse tracks            - PCP
Horse tranquilizer      - PCP
Hot dope                - heroin
Hot heroin              - poisoned to give to a police informant
Hot ice                 - smokable methamphetamine
Hot load/hot shot       - lethal injection of an opiate
Hot stick               - marijuana cigarette
Hotcakes                - crack
House fee               - money paid to enter a crackhouse
House piece             - crack given to the owner of a crackhouse or 
                          apartment where crack users congregate
How do you like me now? - crack
Hows                    - morphine
HRN                     - heroin
Hubba, I am back        - crack
Hubba pigeon            - crack user looking for rocks on a floor after a
                          police raid
Hubbas                  - crack, term from Northern CA
Huff                    - inhalant
Huffer                  - inhalant abuser
Hulling                 - using others to get drugs
Hunter                  - cocaine
Hustle                  - attempt to obtain drug customers
Hyatari                 - peyote
Hype                    - heroin addict; an addict
Hype stick              - hypodermic needle
I am back               - crack
Ice                     - cocaine; methamphetamine; smokeable amphetamine; 
                          MDMA, PCP
Ice cream habit         - occasional use of drugs
Ice cube                - crack
Icing                   - cocaine
Idiot pills             - depressant
In                      - connected with drug suppliers
Inbetweens              - depressant;  amphetamine
Inca message            - cocaine
Indian boy              - marijuana
Indian hay              - marijuana from India
Indica                  - species of cannabis, found in hot climate, 
                          grows 3.5 to 4 feet
Indo                    - marijuana, term from Northern CA
Indonesian bud          - marijuana; opium
Instant zen             - LSD
Interplanetary mission  - travel from one crackhouse to another in search
                          of crack
Isda                    - heroin
Issues                  - crack
J                       - marijuana cigarette
Jab/job                 - to inject a drug
Jack                    - steal someone else's drugs
Jackpot                 - fentanyl
Jack-Up                 - to inject a drug
Jag                     - keep a high going
Jam                     - amphetamine; cocaine
Jam cecil               - amphetamine
Jane                    - marijuana
Jay smoke               - marijuana
Jay                     - marijuana cigarette
Jee gee                 - heroin
Jefferson airplane      - used match cut in half to hold a partially smoked
                          marijuana cigarette
Jellies                 - depressant
Jelly                   - cocaine
Jelly baby              - amphetamine
Jelly bean              - amphetamine; depressant
Jelly beans             - crack
Jet                     - ketamine
Jet fuel                - PCP
Jim Jones               - marijuana laced with cocaine and PCP
Jive                    - heroin; marijuana; drugs
Jive doo jee            - heroin
Jive stick              - marijuana
Johnson                 - crack
Joint                   - marijuana cigarette
Jojee                   - heroin
Jolly bean              - amphetamine
Jolly green             - marijuana
Jolly pop               - casual user of heroin
Jolt                    - to inject a drug; strong reaction to drugs
Jones                   - heroin
Jonesing                - need for drugs
Joy flakes              - heroin
Joy juice               - depressant
Joy plant               - opium
Joy pop                 - to inject a drug
Joy popping             - occasional use of drugs
Joy powder              - heroin; cocaine
Joy smoke               - marijuana
Joy stick               - marijuana cigarette
Ju-ju                   - marijuana cigarette
Juan Valdez             - marijuana
Juanita                 - marijuana
Juggle                  - sell drugs to another addict to support a habit 
Juggler                 - teen-aged street dealer
Jugs                    - amphetamine
Juice                   - steroids, PCP
Juice joint             - marijuana cigarette sprinkled with crack
Jum                     - sealed plastic bag containing crack
Jumbos                  - large vials of crack sold on the streets
Junk                    - cocaine; heroin
Junkie                  - addict
K                       - PCP
Kabayo                  - heroin
Kabuki                  - crack pipe made from a plastic rum bottle 
                          and a rubber sparkplug cover
Kaksonjae               - smokable methamphetamine
Kali                    - marijuana
Kangaroo                - crack
Kaps                    - PCP
Karachi                 - heroin
Kaya                    - marijuana
K-blast                 - PCP
Kentucky blue           - marijuana
KGB (killer green bud)  - marijuana
K-hole                  - periods of ketamine-induced confusion
Kibbles & Bits          - small crumbs of crack
Kick                    - getting off a drug habit; inhalant
Kick stick              - marijuana cigarette
Kiddie dope             - prescription drugs
Kiff                    - marijuana
Killer                  - marijuana; PCP
Killer weed (1980s)     - marijuana and PCP
Killer weed (1960s)     - marijuana
Kilo                    - 2.2 pounds 
Kilter                  - marijuana
Kind                    - marijuana
King ivory              - fentanyl
King Kong pills         - depressant
King's habit            - cocaine
Kit                     - equipment used to inject drugs
KJ                      - PCP
Kleenex                 - MDMA
Klingons                - crack addicts
Kokomo                  - crack
Koller joints           - PCP
Kools                   - PCP
Kryptonite              - crack
Krystal                 - PCP
Krystal joint           - PCP
Kumba                   - marijuana
KW                      - PCP
L                       - LSD
L.A.                    - long-acting amphetamine
L.A. glass              - smokable methamphetamine
L.A. ice                - smokable methamphetamine        
L.L.                    - marijuana
Lace                    - cocaine and marijuana
Lady                    - cocaine
Lady caine              - cocaine
Lady snow               - cocaine
Lakbay diva             - marijuana
Lamborghini             - crack pipe made from plastic rum bottle and a 
                          rubber sparkplug cover
Las mujercitas          - psilocybin        
Lason sa daga           - LSD
Laugh and scratch       - to inject a drug
Laughing gas            - nitrous oxide
Laughing grass          - marijuana
Laughing weed           - marijuana
Lay back                - depressant
Lay-out                 - equipment for taking drugs 
LBJ                     - LSD; PCP; heroin
Leaky bolla             - PCP
Leaky leak              - PCP
Leaf                    - marijuana; cocaine
Leapers                 - amphetamine
Leaping                 - under the influence of drugs
Legal speed             - over the counter asthma drug; trate name = Mini thin
Lemon 714               - PCP 
Lemonade                - heroin; poor quality drugs
Lens                    - LSD
Lethal weapon           - PCP
Lettuce                 - money
Lib (Librium)           - depressant
Lid                     - 1 ounce of marijuana
Lid proppers            - amphetamine
Light stuff             - marijuana
Lightning               - amphetamine
Lima                    - marijuana
Lime acid               - LSD
Line                    - cocaine
Lipton Tea              - inferior quality drugs
Lit up                  - under the influence of drugs
Little bomb             - amphetamine; heroin; depressant
Little ones             - PCP
Little smoke            - marijuana; psilocybin/psilocin
Live ones               - PCP
Llesca                  - marijuana
Load                    - 25 bags of heroin
Loaded                  - high
Loaf                    - marijuana
Lobo                    - marijuana
Locker room             - isobutyl nitrite
Locoweed                - marijuana
Log                     - PCP; marijuana cigarette
Logor                   - LSD
Loused                  - covered by sores and abscesses from repeated use 
                          of unsterile needles
Love                    - crack
Love affair             - cocaine
Love boat               - marijuana dipped in formaldehyde; PCP
Love drug               - MDMA; depressant
Love pearls             - alpha-ethyltyptamine
Love pills              - alpha-ethyltyptamine
Love trip               - MDMA and mescaline
Love weed               - marijuana
Lovelies                - marijuana laced with PCP
Lovely                  - PCP
LSD                     - lysergic acid diethylamide
Lubage                  - marijuana
Lucy in the sky with diamonds - LSD
Ludes                   - depressant
Luding out              - depressant
Luds                    - depressant
M                       - marijuana; morphine
M.J.                    - marijuana
M.O.                    - marijuana
M.S.                    - morphine
M.U.                    - marijuana
M&M                     - depressant
Machinery               - marijuana
Macon                   - marijuana
Madman                  - PCP
Mad dog                 - PCP
Magic                   - PCP
Magic dust              - PCP
Magic mushroom          - psilocybin/psilocin
Magic smoke             - marijuana
Main line               - to inject a drug
Mainliner               - person who injects into the vein
Make up                 - need to find more drugs
Mama coca               - cocaine
Manhattan silver        - marijuana
Marathons               - amphetamine
Mari                    - marijuana cigarette
Marshmallow reds        - depressant
Mary                    - marijuana
Mary and Johnny         - marijuana
Mary Ann                - marijuana
Mary Jane               - marijuana
Mary Jonas              - marijuana
Mary Warner             - marijuana
Mary Weaver             - marijuana
Maserati                - crack pipe made from a plastic rum bottle and 
                          a rubber sparkplug cover
Matchbox                - 1/4 ounce of marijuana or 6 marijuana cigarettes
Matsakow                - heroin
Maui wauie              - marijuana from Hawaii
Max                     - gamma hydroxy butyrate dissolved in water and 
                          mixed with amphetamines
Maxibolin               - oral steroid
Mayo                    - cocaine; heroin
MDM                     - MDMA
MDMA                    - methylenedioxy-methamphetamine
Mean green              - PCP
Meg                     - marijuana
Megg                    - marijuana cigarette
Meggie                  - marijuana
Mellow yellow           - LSD
Merchandise             - drugs
Merk                    - cocaine
Mesc                    - mescaline
Mescal                  - mescaline
Mese                    - mescaline
Messorole               - marijuana
Meth                    - methamphetamine
Meth head               - regular user of methamphetamine
Meth monster            - person who has a violent reaction to methamphetamine
Methatriol              - injectable steroid
Methyltestosterone      - oral steroid
Mexican brown           - heroin; marijuana
Mexican horse           - heroin
Mexican mud             - heroin
Mexican mushroom        - psilocybin/psilocin
Mexican red             - marijuana
Mexican reds            - depressant
Mezc                    - mescaline
Mickey Finn             - depressant
Mickey's                - depressant
Microdot                - LSD
Midnight oil            - opium
Mighty Quinn            - LSD
Mighty Joe Young        - depressant
Mighty mezz             - marijuana cigarette
Mind detergent          - LSD
Minibennie              - amphetamine
Mint leaf               - PCP
Mint weed               - PCP
Mira                    - opium
Miss                    - to inject a drug
Miss Emma               - morphine
Missile basing          - crack liquid and PCP
Mission                 - trip out of the crackhouse to obtain crack
Mist                    - PCP; crack smoke
Mister blue             - morphine
Modams                  - marijuana
Mohasky                 - marijuana
Mojo                    - cocaine; heroin
Monkey                  - drug dependency; cigarette made from cocaine 
                          paste and tobacco
Monkey dust             - PCP
Monkey tranquilizer     - PCP
Monos                   - cigarette made from cocaine paste and tobacco
Monte                   - marijuana from South America
Mooca/moocah            - marijuana
Moon                    - mescaline
Moonrock                - crack and heroin
Mooster                 - marijuana
Moota/mutah             - marijuana
Mooters                 - marijuana cigarette
Mootie                  - marijuana
Mootos                  - marijuana
Mor a grifa             - marijuana
More                    - PCP
Morf                    - morphine
Morning wake-up         - first blast of crack from the pipe
Morotgara               - heroin
Mortal combat           - high potency heroin
Mosquitos               - cocaine
Mota/moto               - marijuana
Mother                  - marijuana
Mother's little helper  - depressant
Mouth worker            - one who takes drugs orally
Movie star drug         - cocaine
Mow the grass           - to smoke marijuana
Mud                     - opium; heroin
Muggie                  - marijuana
Mujer                   - cocaine
Mule                    - carrier of drugs
Murder one              - heroin and cocaine
Murder 8                - fentanyl
Mushrooms               - psilocybin/psilocin
Musk                    - psilocybin/psilocin
Mutha                   - marijuana
Muzzle                  - heroin
Nail                    - marijuana cigarette
Nailed                  - arrested
Nanoo                   - heroin
Nebbies                 - depressant
Nemmies                 - depressant
New acid                - PCP
New magic               - PCP
New Jack Swing          - heroin and morphine
Nexus                   - 2C-B
Nice and easy           - heroin
Nickel bag              - $5 worth of drugs; heroin
Nickel deck             - heroin
Nickel note             - $5 bill
Nickelonians            - crack addicts
Niebla                  - PCP
Nimbies                 - depressant
Nix                     - stranger among the group
Nod                     - effects of heroin
Noise                   - heroin
Nontoucher              - crack user who doesn't want affection during or 
                          after smoking crack
Nose                    - heroin
Nose candy              - cocaine
Nose drops              - liquified heroin
Nose stuff              - cocaine
Nose powder             - cocaine
Nubs                    - peyote
Nugget                  - amphetamine
Nuggets                 - crack
Number                  - marijuana cigarette
Number 3                - cocaine, heroin
Number 4                - heroin
Number 8                - heroin
O                       - opium
O.J.                    - marijuana
O.P.                    - opium
O.P.P.                  - PCP
Octane                  - PCP laced with gasoline
Ogoy                    - heroin
Oil                     - heroin, PCP
Old Steve               - heroin
On a mission            - searching for crack
On a trip               - under the influence of drugs
On ice                  - in jail
On the bricks           - walking the streets
On the nod              - under the influence of narcotics or depressant
One and one             - to inhale cocaine
One box tissue          - one ounce of crack
One-fifty-one           - crack
One way                 - LSD
Ope                     - opium
Optical illusions       - LSD
Orange barrels          - LSD
Orange crystal          - PCP
Orange cubes            - LSD
Orange haze             - LSD
Orange micro            - LSD
Orange wedges           - LSD
Oranges                 - amphetamine
Outerlimits             - crack and LSD
Owsley                  - LSD
Owsley's acid           - LSD
Oz                      - inhalant
Ozone                   - PCP
P                       - peyote, PCP
PCP                     - phencyclidine
PCPA                    - PCP
P.R. (Panama Red)       - marijuana
P-dope                  - 20-30% pure heroin
P-funk                  - heroin; crack and PCP
Pack                    - heroin; marijuana
Pack of rocks           - marijuana cigarette
Pakalolo                - marijuana
Pakistani black         - marijuana
Panama cut              - marijuana
Panama gold             - marijuana
Panama red              - marijuana
Panatella               - large marijuana cigarette
Panckes and syrup       - Combination of glutethimide and codeine cough syrup
Pane                    - LSD
Pangonadalot            - heroin
Panic                   - drugs not available 
Paper acid              - LSD
Paper bag               - container for drugs
Paper blunts            - marijuana within a paper casing rather than a 
                          tobacco leaf casing   
Paper boy               - heroin peddler
Parabolin               - veterinary steroid
Parachute               - crack and PCP smoked; heroin
Paradise                - cocaine
Paradise white          - cocaine
Parlay                  - crack
Parsley                 - marijuana, PCP
Paste                   - crack
Pat                     - marijuana
Patico                  - crack (Spanish)
Paz                     - PCP
Peace                   - LSD, PCP
Peace pill              - PCP
Peace tablets           - LSD
Peace weed              - PCP
Peaches                 - amphetamine
Peanut                  - depressant
Peanut butter           - PCP mixed with peanut butter
Pearl                   - cocaine
Pearls                  - amyl nitrite
Pearly gates            - LSD
Pebbles                 - crack
Peddlar                 - drug supplier
Pee Wee                 - crack; $5 worth of crack
Peep                    - PCP
Peg                     - heroin
Pellets                 - LSD
Pen yan                 - opium
Pep pills               - amphetamine
Pepsi habit             - occasional use of drugs
Perfect High            - heroin
Perico                  - cocaine
Perp                    - fake crack made of candle wax and baking soda
Peter Pan               - PCP
Peth                    - depressant
Peruvian                - cocaine
Peruvian flake          - cocaine
Peruvian lady           - cocaine
Peyote                  - mescaline
Phennies                - depressant
Phenos                  - depressant
Pianoing                - using the fingers to find lost crack
Piece                   - 1 ounce; cocaine; crack
Piedras                 - crack (Spanish)
Pig Killer              - PCP
Piles                   - crack
Pimp                    - cocaine
Pimp your pipe          - lending or renting your crack pipe
Pin                     - marijuana
Pin gon                 - opium
Pin yen                 - opium
Ping-in-wing            - to inject a drug
Pink blotters           - LSD
Pink hearts             - amphetamine
Pink ladies             - depressant
Pink Panther            - LSD
Pink robots             - LSD
Pink wedge              - LSD
Pink witches            - LSD
Pipe                    - crack pipe; marijuana pipe; vein into which a 
                          drug is injected; mix drugs with other substances
Pipero                  - crack user
Pit                     - PCP
Pixies                  - amphetamine
Plant                   - hiding place for drugs
Pocket rocket           - marijuana
Pod                     - marijuana
Poison                  - heroin; fentanyl
Poke                    - marijuana
Polvo                   - heroin; PCP
Polvo blanco            - cocaine
Polvo de angel          - PCP
Polvo de estrellas      - PCP
Pony                    - crack
Poor man's pot          - inhalant
Pop                     - to inhale cocaine
Poppers                 - isobutyl nitrite; amyl nitrite
Poppy                   - heroin
Pot                     - marijuana
Potato                  - LSD
Potato chips            - crack cut with benzocaine
Potten bush             - marijuana
Powder                  - heroin; amphetamine
Powder diamonds         - cocaine
Power puller            - rubber piece attached to crack stem
Pox                     - opium
Prescription            - marijuana cigarette
Press                   - cocaine; crack
Pretendica              - marijuana
Pretendo                - marijuana
Primo                   - crack; marijuana mixed with crack
Primobolan              - injectable and oral steroid
Primos                  - cigarettes laced with cocaine and heroin
Proviron                - oral steroid
Pseudocaine             - phenylpropanolamine, an adulterant for cutting crack
Puff the dragon         - to smoke marijuana
Puffer                  - crack smoker
Puffy                   - PCP
Pulborn                 - heroin
Pullers                 - crack users who pull at parts of their bodies 
                          excessively
Pumping                 - selling crack
Pure                    - heroin
Pure love               - LSD
Purple                  - ketamine
Purple barrels          - LSD
Purple haze             - LSD
Purple hearts           - LSD; amphetamine; depressant
Purple flats            - LSD
Purple ozoline          - LSD
Purple rain             - PCP
Push                    - sell drugs
Push shorts             - to cheat or sell short amounts
Pusher                  - one who sells drugs;  metal hanger or umbrella 
                          rod used to scrape residue in crack stems
Q                       - depressant
Quad                    - depressant
Quarter                 - 1/4 ounce or $25 worth of drugs
Quarter bag             - $25 worth of drugs
Quarter moon            - hashish
Quarter piece           - 1/4 ounce 
Quartz                  - smokable speed
Quas                    - depressant
Queen Ann's lace        - marijuana
Quicksilver             - isobutyl nitrite
Quill                   - methamphetamine; heroin; cocaine
Quinolone               - injectable steroid
Racehorse charlie       - cocaine; heroin
Ragweed                 - inferior quality marijuana; heroin
Railroad weed           - marijuana
Rainbows                - depressant
Rainy day woman         - marijuana
Rambo                   - heroin
Rane                    - cocaine; heroin
Rangood                 - marijuana grown wild
Rap                     - criminally charged; to talk with someone
Raspberry               - female who trades sex for crack or money to buy crack
Rasta weed              - marijuana
Raw                     - crack
Rave                    - party designed to enhance a hallucinogenic 
                          experience through music and behavior
Razed                   - under the influence of drugs
Ready rock              - cocaine; crack; heroin
Recompress              - change the shape of cocaine flakes to resemble "rock"
Recycle                 - LSD
Red                     - under the influence of drugs
Red and blue            - depressant
Red bullets             - depressant
Red caps                - crack
Red cross               - marijuana
Red chicken             - heroin
Red devil               - depressant, PCP
Red dirt                - marijuana
Reds                    - depressant
Red eagle               - heroin
Red phosphorus          - smokable speed
Reefer                  - marijuana
Regular P               - crack
Reindeer dust           - heroin
Rhine                   - heroin
Rhythm                  - amphetamine
Riding the wave         - under the influence of drugs
Rig                     - equipment used to inject drugs
Righteous bush          - marijuana
Ringer                  - good hit of crack
Rippers                 - amphetamine
Roach                   - butt of marijuana cigarette
Roach clip              - holds partially smoked marijuana cigarette
Road dope               - amphetamine
Roca                    - crack (Spanish)
Roche                   - Rophynol; (see "roofies")
Rock attack             - crack
Rock house              - place where crack is sold and smoked
Rock(s)                 - cocaine; crack
Rocket caps             - dome-shaped caps on crack vials
Rocket fuel             - PCP
Rockets                 - marijuana cigarette
Rockette                - female who uses crack
Rocks of hell           - crack
Rock star               - female who trades sex for crack or money to buy crack
Rocky III               - crack
Roid rage               - aggressive behavior caused by excessive steroid use
Roller                  - to inject a drug
Rollers                 - police
Rolling                 - MDMA
Roofies                 - Rophynol; a sedative that makes users feel very drunk
Rooster                 - crack
Root                    - marijuana
Rope                    - marijuana
Roples                  - Rophynol; (see "roofies")
Rosa                    - amphetamine
Rose marie              - marijuana
Roses                   - amphetamine
Rox                     - crack
Roxanne                 - cocaine; crack
Royal blues             - LSD
Roz                     - crack
Ruderalis               - species of cannabis, found in Russia, 
                          grows 1 to 2.5 feet
Ruffles                 - Rophynol; (see "roofies")
Runners                 - people who sell drugs for others
Running                 - MDMA
Rush                    - isobutyl nitrite
Rush snappers           - isobutyl nitrite
Russian sickles         - LSD
Sack                    - heroin
Sacrament               - LSD
Sacre mushroom          - psilocybin
Salt                    - heroin
Salt and pepper         - marijuana
Sam                     - federal narcotics agent
Sancocho                - to steal (Spanish)
Sandoz                  - LSD
Sandwich                - two layers of cocaine with a layer of heroin 
                          in the middle
Santa Marta             - marijuana 
Sasfras                 - marijuana
Satan's secret          - inhalant
Satch                   - papers, letter, cards, clothing, etc., saturated 
                          with drug solution (used to smuggle drugs into 
                          prisons or hospitals)
Satch cotton            - fabric used to filter a solution of narcotics before
                          injection
Sativa                  - species of cannabis, found in cool, damp climate,
                          grows up to 18 feet
Scaffle                 - PCP
Scag                    - heroin
Scat                    - heroin
Scate                   - heroin
Schmeck                 - cocaine
Schoolboy               - cocaine, codeine
Schoolcraft             - crack
Scissors                - marijuana
Score                   - purchase drugs
Scorpion                - cocaine
Scott                   - heroin
Scottie                 - cocaine
Scotty                  - cocaine; crack; the high from crack
Scramble                - crack
Scratch                 - money
Scruples                - crack
Scuffle                 - PCP
Seccy                   - depressant
Seeds                   - marijuana
Seggy                   - depressant
Sen                     - marijuana
Seni                    - peyote
Sernyl                  - PCP
Serpico 21              - cocaine
Server                  - crack dealer
Sess                    - marijuana
Set                     - place where drugs are sold
Sevenup                 - cocaine; crack
Sewer                   - vein into which a drug is injected
Sezz                    - marijuana
Shabu                   - ice
Shake                   - marijuana
Shaker/baker/water      - materials needed to freebase cocaine; shaker
                          bottle, baking soda, water 
Sharps                  - needles
She                     - cocaine
Sheets                  - PCP
Sheet rocking           - crack and LSD
Shermans                - PCP
Sherms                  - PCP; crack
Shmeck/schmeek          - heroin
Shoot/shoot up          - to inject a drug
Shoot the breeze        - nitrous oxide
Shooting gallery        - place where drugs are used
Shot                    - to inject a drug
Shot down               - under the influence of drugs
Shrooms                 - psilocybin/psilocin
Siddi                   - marijuana
Sightball               - crack
Silly Putty             - psilocybin/psilocin
Simple Simon            - psilocybin/ psilocin
Sinse                   - marijuana
Sinsemilla              - potent variety marijuana
Sixty-two               - 2 1/2 ounces of crack
Skee                    - opium
Skeegers/skeezers       - crack-smoking prostitute
Sketching               - coming down from a speed induced high
Skid                    - heroin
Skied                   - under the influence of drugs
Skin popping            - injecting drugs under the skin
Skuffle                 - PCP
Skunk                   - marijuana
Slab                    - crack
Slam                    - to inject a drug
Slanging                - selling drugs
Sleeper                 - heroin; depressant
Sleet                   - crack
Slick superspeed        - methcathinone
Slime                   - heroin
Smack                   - heroin
Smears                  - LSD
Smoking                 - PCP
Smoke                   - heroin and crack; crack; marijuana
Smoke Canada            - marijuana
Smoke-out               - under the influence of drugs
Smoking gun             - heroin and cocaine
Snap                    - amphetamine
Snappers                - isobutyl nitrite
Sniff                   - to inhale cocaine; inhalant; methcathinone
Snop                    - marijuana
Snort                   - to inhale cocaine; use inhalant
Snorts                  - PCP
Snot                    - residue produced from smoking amphetamine
Snot balls              - rubber cement rolled into balls and burned
Snow                    - cocaine; heroin; amphetamine
Snowball                - cocaine and heroin
Snow bird               - cocaine
Snowcones               - cocaine
Snow pallets            - amphetamine
Snow seals              - cocaine and amphetamine
Snow soke               - crack
Snow white              - cocaine
Society high            - cocaine
Soda                    - injectable cocaine used in Hispanic communities
Softballs               - depressant
Soles                   - hashish
Soma                    - PCP
Sopers                  - depressant
Space base              - crack dipped in PCP; hollowed out cigar refilled 
                          with PCP and crack
Space cadet             - crack dipped in PCP
Space dust              - crack dipped in PCP
Space ship              - glass pipe used to smoke crack
Spark it up             - to smoke marijuana
Sparkle plenty          - amphetamine
Sparklers               - amphetamine
Special "K"             - ketamine
Special la coke         - ketamine
Speed                   - methamphetamine; amphetamine; crack
Speed boat              - marijuana, PCP, crack
Speed freak             - habitual user of methamphetamine
Speed for lovers        - MDMA
Speedball               - heroin and cocaine; amphetamine
Spider blue             - heroin
Spike                   - to inject a drug; needle
Splash                  - amphetamine
Spliff                  - marijuana cigarette
Splim                   - marijuana
Split                   - half and half or to leave
Splivins                - amphetamine
Spoon                   - 1/16 ounce of heroin;paraphernalia used to prepare 
                          heroin for injection
Spores                  - PCP
Sporting                - to inhale cocaine
Spray                   - inhalant
Sprung                  - person just starting to use drugs
Square mackerel         - marijuana, term from Florida
Square time Bob         - crack
Squirrel                - smoking cocaine, marijuana and PCP; LSD
Stack                   - marijuana
Stacking                - taking steroids with a prescription
Star                    - methcathinone
Stardust                - cocaine, PCP
Star-spangled powder    - cocaine
Stash                   - place to hide drugs
Stash areas             - drug storage and distribution areas
Stat                    - Methcathinone
Steerer                 - person who directs customers to spots for buying crack
Stem                    - cylinder used to smoke crack
Stems                   - marijuana
Step on                 - dilute drugs
Stick                   - marijuana, PCP 
Stink weed              - marijuana
Stoned                  - under the influence of drugs
Stones                  - crack
Stoppers                - depressant
STP                     - PCP
Straw                   - marijuana cigarette
Strawberries            - depressant
Strawberry              - female who trades sex for crack or money to buy crack
Strawberry fields       - LSD
Strung out              - heavily addicted to drugs
Stuff                   - heroin
Stumbler                - depressant
Sugar                   - cocaine; LSD; heroin
Sugar block             - crack
Sugar cubes             - LSD
Sugar lumps             - LSD
Sugar weed              - marijuana
Sunshine                - LSD
Super                   - PCP
Super acid              - ketamine
Super C                 - ketamine
Super Grass             - PCP
Super ice               - smokable methamphetamine
Super joint             - PCP
Super kools             - PCP
Super weed              - PCP
Supergrass              - marijuana
surfer                  - PCP
Sweet Jesus             - heroin
Sweet Lucy              - marijuana
Sweet stuff             - heroin; cocaine
Sweets                  - amphetamine
Swell up                - crack
synthetic cocaine       - PCP
Synthetic THT           - PCP
T                       - cocaine; marijuana
T.N.T.                  - heroin; fentanyl
Tabs                    - LSD
Tail lights             - LSD
Taima                   - marijuana
Taking a cruise         - PCP
Takkouri                - marijuana
Tango & Cash            - fentanyl
Tar                     - opium; heroin
Tardust                 - cocaine
Taste                   - heroin; small sample of drugs
Taxing                  - price paid to enter a crackhouse; charging more 
                          per vial depending on race of customer or if 
                          not a regular customer
T-buzz                  - PCP
Tea                     - marijuana, PCP
Tea party               - to smoke marijuana
Teardrops               - dosage units of crack packaged in the cut-off 
                          corners of plastic bags
Tecate                  - heroin
Tecatos                 - Hispanic heroin addicts
Teenage                 - 1/16 gram of methamphetamine
Teeth                   - cocaine; crack
Tension                 - crack
Tex-mex                 - marijuana
Texas pot               - marijuana
Texas tea               - marijuana
Thai sticks             - bundles of marijuana soaked in hashish oil; 
                          marijuana buds bound on short sections of bamboo
THC                     - tetrahydrocannabinol
The beast               - heroin
The C                   - methcathinone
The devil               - crack
The witch               - heroin
Therobolin              - injectable steroid
Thing                   - heroin; cocaine; main drug interest at the moment
Thirst monsters         - heavy crack smokers
Thirteen                - marijuana
Thoroughbred            - drug dealer who sells pure narcotics
Thrust                  - isobutyl nitrite
Thrusters               - amphetamine
Thumb                   - marijuana
Tic                     - PCP in powder form
Tic tac                 - PCP
Ticket                  - LSD
Tie                     - to inject a drug
Tin                     - container for marijuana
Tish                    - PCP
Tissue                  - crack
Titch                   - PCP
Toilet water            - inhalant
Toke                    - to inhale cocaine; to smoke marijuana
Toke up                 - to smoke marijuana
Toncho                  - octane booster which is inhaled
Tooles                  - depressant
Tools                   - equipment used for injecting drugs
Toot                    - cocaine; to inhale cocaine
Tooties                 - depressant
Tootsie roll            - heroin
Top gun                 - crack
Topi                    - mescaline
Tops                    - peyote
Torch                   - marijuana
Torch cooking           - smoking cocaine base by using a propane or 
                          butane torch as a source of flame
Torch up                - to smoke marijuana
Torpedo                 - crack and marijuana
Toss up                 - female who trades sex for crack or money to buy 
                          crack
Totally spent           - MDMA hangover
Toucher                 - user of crack who wants affection before, 
                          during, or after smoking crack
Tout                    - person who introduces buyers to sellers
Toxy                    - opium
Toys                    - opium
TR-6s                   - amphetamine
Track                   - to inject a drug
Tracks                  - row of needle marks on a person
Tragic magic            - crack dipped in PCP
Trails                  - LSD induced perception that moving objects leave 
                          multiple images or trails behind them
Trank                   - PCP
Tranq                   - depressant
Trap                    - hiding place for drugs
Trays                   - bunches of vials
Travel agent            - LSD supplier
Trip                    - LSD; alpha-ethyltyptamine
Troop                   - crack
Trophobolene            - injectable steroid
Truck drivers           - amphetamine
TT1                     - PCP
TT2                     - PCP
TT3                     - PCP
Tuie                    - depressant
Turbo                   - crack and marijuana
Turf                    - place where drugs are sold
Turkey                  - cocaine; amphetamine
Turnabout               - amphetamine
Turned on               - introduced to drugs; under the influence
Tutti-frutti            - flavored cocaine developed by a Brazillian gang
Tweak mission           - on a mission to find crack
Tweaker                 - crack user looking for rocks on the floor after 
                          a police raid
Tweaking                - drug-induced paranoia; peaking on speed
Tweek                   - methamphetamine-like substance
Tweeker                 - methcathinone
Twenty                  - $20 rock of crack
Twenty-five             - LSD
Twist                   - marijuana cigarette
Twistum                 - marijuana cigarette
Two for nine            - two $5 vials or bags of crack for $9
Ultimate                - crack
Uncle                   - Federal agents
Uncle Milty             - depressant
Unkie                   - morphine
Up against the stem     - addicted to smoking marijuana
Uppers                  - amphetamine
Uppies                  - amphetamine
Ups and downs           - depressant
Utopiates               - hallucinogens
Uzi                     - crack; crack pipe
V                       - the depressant Valium
Viper's weed            - marijuana
Vodka acid              - LSD
Wac                     - PCP on marijuana
Wack                    - PCP
Wacky weed              - marijuana
Wake ups                - amphetamine
Wasted                  - under the influence of drugs; murdered
Water                   - methamphetamine, PCP
Wave                    - crack
Wedding bells           - LSD
Wedge                   - LSD
Weed                    - marijuana, PCP
Weed tea                - marijuana
Weightless              - high on crack
Whack                   - PCP and heroin
Wheat                   - marijuana
When-shee               - opium
Whippets                - nitrous oxide
White                   - amphetamine
White ball              - crack
White boy               - heroin
White cloud             - crack smoke
White cross             - methamphetamine; amphetamine
White dust              - LSD
White ghost             - crack
White girl              - cocaine; heroin
White-haired lady       - marijuana
White horizon           - PCP
White horse             - cocaine
White junk              - heroin
White lady              - cocaine; heroin
White lightning         - LSD
White mosquito          - cocaine
White nurse             - heroin
White Owsley's          - LSD
White powder            - cocaine; PCP
White stuff             - heroin
White sugar             - crack
White tornado           - crack
Whiteout                - isobutyl nitrite
Whites                  - amphetamine
Whiz bang               - cocaine and heroin
Wild cat                - methcathinone and cocaine
Window glass            - LSD
Window pane             - LSD
Wings                   - heroin; cocaine
Winstrol                - oral steroid
Winstrol V              - veterinary steroid
Witch                   - heroin; cocaine
Witch hazel             - heroin
Wobble weed             - PCP
Wolf                    - PCP
Wollie                  - rocks of crack rolled into a marijuana cigarette
Wonder star             - methcathinone
Woolah                  - a hollowed out cigar refilled with marijuana 
                          and crack
Woolas                  - cigarette laced with cocaine; marijuana 
                          cigarette sprinkled with crack
Woolies                 - marijuana amd crack or PCP 
Wooly blunts            - Marijuana and crack or PCP
Working                 - selling crack
Working half            - crack rock weighing half gram or more
Works                   - equipment for injecting drugs
Worm                    - PCP
Wrecking crew           - crack
X                       - marijuana; MDMA; amphetamine
X-ing                   - MDMA
XTC                     - MDMA 
Yahoo/yeaho             - crack
Yale                    - crack
Yeh                     - marijuana
Yellow                  - LSD; depressant
Yellow bam              - methamphetamine
Yellow bullets          - depressant
Yellow dimples          - LSD
Yellow fever            - PCP
Yellow jackets          - depressant
Yellow submarine        - marijuana
Yellow sunshine         - LSD
Yen pop                 - marijuana
Yen Shee Suey           - opium wine
Yen sleep               - restless, drowsy state after LSD use
Yerba                   - marijuana
Yerba mala              - PCP and marijuana
Yesca                   - marijuana
Yesco                   - marijuana
Yeyo                    - cocaine, Spanish term
Yimyom                  - crack
Z                       - 1 ounce of heroin
Zacatecas purple        - marijuana from Mexico
Zambi                   - marijuana
Zen                     - LSD
Zero                    - opium
Zig Zag man             - LSD; marijuana; marijuana rolling papers
Zip                     - cocaine
Zol                     - marijuana cigarette
Zombie                  - PCP; heavy user of drugs
Zombie weed             - PCP
Zooie                   - holds butt of marijuana cigarette
Zoom                    - PCP; marijuana laced with PCP
Zoomers                 - individuals who sell fake crack and then flee

    >>Alice B. Toklas         - marijuana brownie
    
    
    i work with a lila t. tokla...
    
    
    

    >>Alice B. Toklas         - marijuana brownie

    thought it was the hash brownie
    

    Is that the Betty Stoner recipe or the Pillsbury recipe

    Or the Chef Rah recipe?

    >> Is that the Betty Stoner recipe or the Pillsbury recipe
    
    It's probably the Hillsbury recipe...
    
    Chris

From the June 21, 1995 Philadelphia Inquirer

15 MORE DRUG CASES OVERTURNED

The costs could be huge for Philadelphia.  Suits are likely over
the 39th I District police corruption. -   

By Mark Faziollah INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

     It could force the review of a thousand drug cases.

     Put hundreds of drug defendants back on the streets.

     And cost the city millions.

     Yesterday, as a specially assigned judge dismissed charges against 
13 more defendants, Philadelphia got its loudest warning yet of the potential 
enormity of the 39th District police-corruption scandal's impact.

     First Deputy District Attorney,Arnold H. Gordon, a veteran prosecutor in 
the odd role of requesting a mass acquittal - asked Common Pleas Judge Legrome 
D. Davis to reverse the defendants' 15 cases "in the interest of justice."

     The arresting officers in the cases - five former 39th District 
policemen - all have admitted they lied about drug arrests and searches in the 
North Philadelphia district between 1988 and 1991, and have pleaded guilty 
to federal charges.

     Yesterday's dismissals bring to 27 the total number of drug defendants 
whose cases were dismissed because of the federal investigation.  And Public 
Defender Bradley Bridge, who represented most of the defendants at yesterday's 
hearing, said it's just the beginning.

     "Many innocent defendants have spent years in prison," Bridge said.  
"Sadly, this is not yet even the tip of the iceberg.  Many, many more cases 
will follow."

     Davis appeared to accept Bridge's prediction.  He said he would handle 
-all future requests for dismissals arising from the 39th District 
investigation, thus speeding the process.  The five former officers were 
indicted Feb. 28. They have since pleaded guilty to obstructing defendants' 
civil rights, and have agreed to help federal prosecutors expand the 
investigation.

     Bridge said after the hearing that his preliminary review of past drug 
cases showed the five officers handled 200 cases in 1988 alone, and that his 
office later this week would begin reviewing all arrests made by the five 
officers between 1987 and 1994.

     Eventually, he predicted, a thou.sand cases would have to be reexamined 
and hundreds of convictions could be overturned.

     Thus far, all 12 of the drug cases the public defender has submitted 
for review by the District Attorney's Office have been dismissed.

     And each case is a potential lawsuit.

     Deputy City Solicitor James B. Jordan said he was "expecting a whole 
bunch" of suits related to the 39th District scandal.

    "This could have very significant financial implications," Jordan said 
after yesterday's hearing.

     Several of the defendants already are talking of suing.

     There is Betty Patterson, 53, who completed her three-year prison term 
last year and was on parole until her charges were dismissed yesterday.

     John Baird, a former 39th District officer who pleaded guilty to 
corruption charges, has said police framed Patterson and planted drugs in her 
North Philadelphia home - in an effort, Baird contended, to get evidence in
a separate case against her three sons.

      Patterson wore a big smile after the hearing but declined to comment.  
Her attorney, Jennifer St. Hill, has notified the city  that a suit is imminent.

      John Wayne Coleman, who spent the last four years in prison, had all his 
drug charges dismissed yesterday.

     "When they came into my house, they never acknowledged they were 
police," Coleman told reporters at the hearing.  "Before this conviction, I 
wasn't in trouble for 10 years."

     Coleman's attorney, Adrian J. Moody, said his client, too, would sue 
the city.

     In addition to dismissing the convictions of Patterson and Coleman 
and the 13 other cases, Judge Davis also began expunging the defendants' 
records of all information about the arrests.

     Officially, Betty Patterson, who was accompanied at yesterday's hearing 
by six of her relatives, now has no criminal record.

     "Fortunately, the truth finally came out," said Daniel-Paul Alva, 
Patterson's original trial lawyer, who attended yesterday's hearing.  
"The police woke up that day and said they were going to make her a criminal."

     Davis also dismissed charges against defendants identified as Denise 
Patterson (no relation to Betty) , Andre Bonaparte (who had three cases 
dismissed), Daniel Briggs, Clinton Cotton, Clifford Foster, Lonyo Holmes, Larry
Maddox, Anthony Thomason, Steven Trotty, John Walker and Wanda Wilson.

     Typically, the defendants had been convicted of possessing crack 
cocaine with intent to deliver.

     Briggs and Thomason had never been convicted.  They ' had been sought 
by authorities since they failed to appear in court shortly after their 19
88 arrests.  Davis ordered their arrest warrants withdrawn.

     "They can come home again," attorney Bridge said.

     He said the only time Briggs and Thomason had been arrested was when 
they were picked up by the former 39th District officers.

     Later this week, Bridge said, he intends to ask the District Attorney's 
Office to dismiss 10 to 20 additional cases - selected from the 200 he has 
identified from 1988 files.  He said he would seek immediate attention for 
cases involving defendants still imprisoned.

     Denise Patterson, one of those cleared yesterday, was an 18-year-old 
nursing student when she was arrested   in November 1988.  Though she did not 
attend the hearing, she has steadfastly maintained she was innocent of drug
charges,

    "We'll sue," said her attorney, Vincent J. Ziccardi.  "Now the fun begins."

-- end --

    Anybody else disappointed with the SCOTUS ruling yesterday allowing
    periodic random drug tests as a requirement for student athletes even
    when there is no suspicion? Talk about paving the way for a further
    erosion of rights... Who needs those pesky amendments, anyway?

       re .314:
       
       Yes.
       
       --Mr Topaz

re: .314

Yes!  A long time ago, someone told me that the WOD would mean the end of our
rights.  I didn't believe him at the time.

Bob

    
      I'm interested in the argument.  The fourth/fifth amendments
     have a checkered history compared to the first, because of the
     constitutional use of the word "reasonable".  The question is
     therefore whether the search meets this test.  Apparently, the
     Supremes were persuaded that schools, being liable when allowing
     athletes to perform in dangerous exercise, can "reasonably" test
     for situations which exacerbate the risk.  I haven't seen the
     argument.  Has anybody ?
    
      bb

              <<< Note 188.314 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Mr Blister" >>>

Yes.  This was a bad decision.  The wording of the majority opinion is 
particularly disturbing.  It appears to indicate that the majority on the 
court are willing to sacrifice individual rights for the War on Drugs.

   Grrrrrr.

From: courts@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Newsgroups: freenet.govt.hermes.opinions,courts.usa.federal.supreme
Subject: 94-590.ZO Opinion
Date: 26 Jun 1995 15:15:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 664
NNTP-Posting-Host: cwrusc.ins.cwru.edu

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports.  Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

--------
No. 94-590
--------
VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J, PETITIONER
v. WAYNE ACTON, et ux., etc.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court
of appeals for the ninth circuit
[June 26, 1995]

  Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
  The Student Athlete Drug Policy adopted by School
District 47J in the town of Vernonia, Oregon, authorizes
random urinalysis drug testing of students who partici-
pate in the District's school athletics programs.  We
granted certiorari to decide whether this violates the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.

                            I
                            A
  Petitioner Vernonia School District 47J (District)
operates one high school and three grade schools in the
logging community of Vernonia, Oregon.  As elsewhere
in small-town America, school sports play a prominent
role in the town's life, and student athletes are admired
in their schools and in the community.
  Drugs had not been a major problem in Vernonia
schools.  In the mid-to-late 1980's, however, teachers and
administrators observed a sharp increase in drug use. 
Students began to speak out about their attraction to
the drug culture, and to boast that there was nothing
the school could do about it.  Along with more drugs
came more disciplinary problems.  Between 1988 and
1989 the number of disciplinary referrals in Vernonia
schools rose to more than twice the number reported in
the early 1980's, and several students were suspended. 
Students became increasingly rude during class; out-
bursts of profane language became common.
  Not only were student athletes included among the
drug users but, as the District Court found, athletes
were the leaders of the drug culture.  796 F. Supp.
1354, 1357 (D. Ore. 1992).  This caused the District's
administrators particular concern, since drug use
increases the risk of sports-related injury.  Expert
testimony at the trial confirmed the deleterious effects
of drugs on motivation, memory, judgment, reaction,
coordination, and performance.  The high school football
and wrestling coach witnessed a severe sternum injury
suffered by a wrestler, and various omissions of safety
procedures and misexecutions by football players, all
attributable in his belief to the effects of drug use.
  Initially, the District responded to the drug problem
by offering special classes, speakers, and presentations
designed to deter drug use.  It even brought in a
specially trained dog to detect drugs, but the drug
problem persisted.  According to the District Court:
-[T]he administration was at its wits end and . . . a
large segment of the student body, particularly those
involved in interscholastic athletics, was in a state
of rebellion.  Disciplinary problems had reached
`epidemic proportions.'  The coincidence of an almost
three-fold increase in classroom disruptions and
disciplinary reports along with the staff's direct
observations of students using drugs or glamorizing
drug and alcohol use led the administration to the
inescapable conclusion that the rebellion was being
fueled by alcohol and drug abuse as well as the
student's misperceptions about the drug culture.-
Ibid.
At that point, District officials began considering a drug-
testing program.  They held a parent -input night- to
discuss the proposed Student Athlete Drug Policy
(Policy), and the parents in attendance gave their
unanimous approval.  The school board approved the
Policy for implementation in the fall of 1989.  Its
expressed purpose is to prevent student athletes from
using drugs, to protect their health and safety, and to
provide drug users with assistance programs.

                            B
  The Policy applies to all students participating in
interscholastic athletics.  Students wishing to play sports
must sign a form consenting to the testing and must
obtain the written consent of their parents.  Athletes are
tested at the beginning of the season for their sport.  In
addition, once each week of the season the names of the
athletes are placed in a -pool- from which a student,
with the supervision of two adults, blindly draws the
names of 10% of the athletes for random testing.  Those
selected are notified and tested that same day, if
possible.
  The student to be tested completes a specimen control
form which bears an assigned number.  Prescription
medications that the student is taking must be identified
by providing a copy of the prescription or a doctor's
authorization.  The student then enters an empty locker
room accompanied by an adult monitor of the same sex. 
Each boy selected produces a sample at a urinal, re-
maining fully clothed with his back to the monitor, who
stands approximately 12 to 15 feet behind the student. 
Monitors may (though do not always) watch the student
while he produces the sample, and they listen for nor-
mal sounds of urination.  Girls produce samples in an
enclosed bathroom stall, so that they can be heard but
not observed.  After the sample is produced, it is given
to the monitor, who checks it for temperature and tam-
pering and then transfers it to a vial.
  The samples are sent to an independent laboratory,
which routinely tests them for amphetamines, cocaine,
and marijuana. Other drugs, such as LSD, may be
screened at the request of the District, but the identity
of a particular student does not determine which drugs
will be tested.  The laboratory's procedures are 99.94%
accurate.  The District follows strict procedures regard-
ing the chain of custody and access to test results.  The
laboratory does not know the identity of the students
whose samples it tests.  It is authorized to mail written
test reports only to the superintendent and to provide
test results to District personnel by telephone only after
the requesting official recites a code confirming his
authority.  Only the superintendent, principals, vice-prin-
cipals, and athletic directors have access to test results,
and the results are not kept for more than one year.
  If a sample tests positive, a second test is adminis-
tered as soon as possible to confirm the result.  If the
second test is negative, no further action is taken.  If
the second test is positive, the athlete's parents are
notified, and the school principal convenes a meeting
with the student and his parents, at which the student
is given the option of (1) participating for six weeks in
an assistance program that includes weekly urinalysis,
or (2) suffering suspension from athletics for the remain-
der of the current season and the next athletic season. 
The student is then retested prior to the start of the
next athletic season for which he or she is eligible.  The
Policy states that a second offense results in automatic
imposition of option (2); a third offense in suspension for
the remainder of the current season and the next two
athletic seasons.

                            C
  In the fall of 1991, respondent James Acton, then a
seventh-grader, signed up to play football at one of the
District's grade schools.  He was denied participation,
however, because he and his parents refused to sign the
testing consent forms.  The Actons filed suit, seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief from enforcement of the
Policy on the grounds that it violated the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu-
tion and Article I, 9, of the Oregon Constitution.  After
a bench trial, the District Court entered an order deny-
ing the claims on the merits and dismissing the action. 
796 F. Supp., at 1355.  The United States Court of Ap-
peals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the
Policy violated both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amend-
ments and Article I, 9, of the Oregon Constitution.  23
F. 3d 1514 (1994).  We granted certiorari.  513 U. S. ___
(1994).

                           II
  The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitu-
tion provides that the Federal Government shall not
violate -[t]he right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason-
able searches and seizures, . . . .-   We have held that
the Fourteenth Amendment extends this constitutional
guarantee to searches and seizures by state officers,
Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 213 (1960),
including public school officials, New Jersey v. T. L. O.,
469 U. S. 325, 336-337 (1985).  In Skinner v. Railway
Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 617 (1989), we
held that state-compelled collection and testing of urine,
such as that required by the Student Athlete Drug
Policy, constitutes a -search- subject to the demands of
the Fourth Amendment.  See also Treasury Employees 
v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656, 665 (1989).
  As the text of the Fourth Amendment indicates, the
ultimate measure of the constitutionality of a govern-
mental search is -reasonableness.-  At least in a case
such as this, where there was no clear practice, either
approving or disapproving the type of search at issue, at
the time the constitutional provision was enacted,
whether a particular search meets the reasonableness
standard -`is judged by balancing its intrusion on the
individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its
promotion of legitimate governmental interests.'- Skin-
ner, supra, at 619  (quoting Delaware v. Prouse, 440
U. S. 648, 654 (1979)).  Where a search is undertaken
by law enforcement officials to discover evidence of
criminal wrongdoing, this Court has said that reason-
ableness generally requires the obtaining of a judicial
warrant, Skinner, supra, at 619.  Warrants cannot be
issued, of course, without the showing of probable cause
required by the Warrant Clause.  But a warrant is not
required to establish the reasonableness of all govern-
ment searches; and when a warrant is not required (and
the Warrant Clause therefore not applicable), probable
cause is not invariably required either.  A search
unsupported by probable cause can be constitutional, we
have said, -when special needs, beyond the normal need
for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable-
cause requirement impracticable.-  Griffin v. Wisconsin,
483 U. S. 868, 873 (1987) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
  We have found such -special needs- to exist in the
public-school context.  There, the warrant requirement
-would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the
swift and informal disciplinary procedures [that are]
needed,- and -strict adherence to the requirement that
searches be based upon probable cause- would undercut
-the substantial need of teachers and administrators for
freedom to maintain order in the schools.- T. L. O.,
supra, at 340, 341.  The school search we approved in
T. L. O., while not based on probable cause, was based
on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.  As we explic-
itly acknowledged, however, -`the Fourth Amendment
imposes no irreducible requirement of such suspicion,'-
id., at 342, n. 8 (quoting United States v. Martinez-
Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 560-561 (1976)).  We have upheld
suspicionless searches and seizures to conduct drug
testing of railroad personnel involved in train accidents,
see Skinner, supra; to conduct random drug testing of
federal customs officers who carry arms or are involved
in drug interdiction, see Von Raab, supra; and to
maintain automobile checkpoints looking for illegal
immigrants and contraband, Martinez-Fuerte, supra, and
drunk drivers, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496
U. S. 444 (1990).

                           III
  The first factor to be considered is the nature of the
privacy interest upon which the search here at issue
intrudes.  The Fourth Amendment does not protect all
subjective expectations of privacy, but only those that
society recognizes as -legitimate.-  T. L. O., 469 U. S.,
at 338.  What expectations are legitimate varies, of
course, with context, id., at 337, depending, for example,
upon whether the individual asserting the privacy
interest is at home, at work, in a car, or in a public
park.  In addition, the legitimacy of certain privacy
expectations vis---vis the State may depend upon the
individual's legal relationship with the State.  For
example, in Griffin, supra, we held that, although a
-probationer's home, like anyone else's, is protected by
the Fourth Amendmen[t],- the supervisory relationship
between probationer and State justifies -a degree of
impingement upon [a probationer's] privacy that would
not be constitutional if applied to the public at large.-
483 U. S., at 873, 875.  Central, in our view, to the
present case is the fact that the subjects of the Policy
are (1) children, who (2) have been committed to the
temporary custody of the State as schoolmaster.
  Traditionally at common law, and still today, uneman-
cipated minors lack some of the most fundamental rights
of self-determination-including even the right of liberty
in its narrow sense, i.e., the right to come and go at
will.  They are subject, even as to their physical free-
dom, to the control of their parents or guardians.  See
59 Am. Jur. 2d 10 (1987). When parents place minor
children in private schools for their education, the
teachers and administrators of those schools stand in
loco parentis over the children entrusted to them.  In
fact, the tutor or schoolmaster is the very prototype of
that status.  As Blackstone describes it, a parent -may
. . . delegate part of his parental authority, during his
life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is
then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the
power of the parent committed to his charge, viz. that
of restraint and correction, as may be necessary to
answer the purposes for which he is employed.-  1 W.
Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 441
(1769).
  In T. L. O. we rejected the notion that public schools,
like private schools, exercise only parental power over
their students, which of course is not subject to constitu-
tional constraints.  T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 336.  Such a
view of things, we said, -is not entirely `consonant with
compulsory education laws,'- ibid. (quoting Ingraham v.
Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 662 (1977)), and is inconsistent
with our prior decisions treating school officials as state
actors for purposes of the Due Process and Free Speech
Clauses, T. L. O., supra, at 336.  But while denying that
the State's power over schoolchildren is formally no more
than the delegated power of their parents, T. L. O. did
not deny, but indeed emphasized, that the nature of that
power is custodial and tutelary, permitting a degree of
supervision and control that could not be exercised over
free adults.  -[A] proper educational environment re-
quires close supervision of schoolchildren, as well as the
enforcement of rules against conduct that would be per-
fectly permissible if undertaken by an adult.-  469 U. S.,
at 339.  While we do not, of course, suggest that public
schools as a general matter have such a degree of con-
trol over children as to give rise to a constitutional
-duty to protect,- see DeShaney v. Winnebago County
Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189, 200 (1989), we
have acknowledged that for many purposes -school au-
thorities ac[t] in loco parentis,- Bethel School Dist.
No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 684 (1986), with the
power and indeed the duty to -inculcate the habits and
manners of civility,- id., at 681 (internal quotation
marks omitted).  Thus, while children assuredly do not
-shed their constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse
gate,- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506 (1969), the nature of
those rights is what is appropriate for children in school. 
See, e.g., Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565, 581-582 (1975)
(due process for a student challenging disciplinary
suspension requires only that the teacher -informally
discuss the alleged misconduct with the student minutes
after it has occurred-); Fraser, supra, at 683 (-[I]t is a
highly appropriate function of public school education to
prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public
discourse-); Hazlewood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484
U. S. 260, 273 (1988) (public school authorities may
censor school-sponsored publications, so long as the
censorship is -reasonably related to legitimate pedagogi-
cal concerns-); Ingraham, supra, at 682 (-[I]mposing
additional administrative safeguards [upon corporal
punishment] . . . would . . . entail a significant intrusion
into an area of primary educational responsibility-).
  Fourth Amendment rights, no less than First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights, are different in public
schools than elsewhere; the -reasonableness- inquiry
cannot disregard the schools' custodial and tutelary
responsibility for children.  For their own good and that
of their classmates, public school children are routinely
required to submit to various physical examinations, and
to be vaccinated against various diseases.  According to
the American Academy of Pediatrics, most public schools
-provide vision and hearing screening and dental and
dermatological checks. . . . Others also mandate scoliosis
screening at appropriate grade levels.-  Committee on
School Health, American Academy of Pediatrics, School
Health: A Guide for Health Professionals 2 (1987).  In
the 1991-1992 school year, all 50 States required public-
school students to be vaccinated against diphtheria,
measles, rubella, and polio.  U. S. Dept. of Health &
Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for
Disease Control, State Immunization Requirements
1991-1992, p. 1.  Particularly with regard to medical
examinations and procedures, therefore, -students within
the school environment have a lesser expectation of
privacy than members of the population generally.- 
T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 348 (Powell, J., concurring).
  Legitimate privacy expectations are even less with
regard to student athletes.  School sports are not for the
bashful.  They require -suiting up- before each practice
or event, and showering and changing afterwards. 
Public school locker rooms, the usual sites for these
activities, are not notable for the privacy they afford. 
The locker rooms in Vernonia are typical: no individual
dressing rooms are provided; shower heads are lined up
along a wall, unseparated by any sort of partition or
curtain; not even all the toilet stalls have doors.  As the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
has noted, there is -an element of `communal undress'
inherent in athletic participation,- Schaill by Kross v.
Tippecanoe County School Corp., 864 F. 2d 1309, 1318
(1988).
  There is an additional respect in which school athletes
have a reduced expectation of privacy.  By choosing to
-go out for the team,- they voluntarily subject them-
selves to a degree of regulation even higher than that
imposed on students generally. In Vernonia's public
schools, they must submit to a preseason physical exam
(James testified that his included the giving of a urine
sample, App. 17), they must acquire adequate insurance
coverage or sign an insurance waiver, maintain a
minimum grade point average, and comply with any
-rules of conduct, dress, training hours and related
matters as may be established for each sport by the
head coach and athletic director with the principal's
approval.-  Record, Exh. 2, p. 30, -8.  Somewhat like
adults who choose to participate in a -closely regulated
industry,- students who voluntarily participate in school
athletics have reason to expect intrusions upon normal
rights and privileges, including privacy.  See Skinner,
489 U. S., at 627; United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S.
311, 316 (1972).

                           IV
  Having considered the scope of the legitimate expecta-
tion of privacy at issue here, we turn next to the
character of the intrusion that is complained of.  We
recognized in Skinner that collecting the samples for
urinalysis intrudes upon -an excretory function tradition-
ally shielded by great privacy.-  Skinner, 489 U. S., at
626.  We noted, however, that the degree of intrusion
depends upon the manner in which production of the
urine sample is monitored. Ibid.  Under the District's
Policy, male students produce samples at a urinal along
a wall.  They remain fully clothed and are only observed
from behind, if at all.  Female students produce samples
in an enclosed stall, with a female monitor standing
outside listening only for sounds of tampering.  These
conditions are nearly identical to those typically encoun-
tered in public restrooms, which men, women, and
especially school children use daily.  Under such condi-
tions, the privacy interests compromised by the process
of obtaining the urine sample are in our view negligible. 
  The other privacy-invasive aspect of urinalysis is, of
course, the information it discloses concerning the state
of the subject's body, and the materials he has ingested. 
In this regard it is significant that the tests at issue
here look only for drugs, and not for whether the
student is, for example, epileptic, pregnant, or diabetic. 
See Skinner, supra, at 617.  Moreover, the drugs for
which the samples are screened are standard, and do
not vary according to the identity of the student.  And
finally, the results of the tests are disclosed only to a
limited class of school personnel who have a need to
know; and they are not turned over to law enforcement
authorities or used for any internal disciplinary function.
796 F. Supp., at 1364; see also 23 F. 3d, at 1521.
  Respondents argue, however, that the District's Policy
is in fact more intrusive than this suggests, because it
requires the students, if they are to avoid sanctions for
a falsely positive test, to identify in advance prescription
medications they are taking.  We agree that this raises
some cause for concern.  In Von Raab, we flagged as one
of the salutary features of the Customs Service drug-
testing program the fact that employees were not
required to disclose medical information unless they
tested positive, and, even then, the information was
supplied to a licensed physician rather than to the
Government employer.  See Von Raab, 489 U. S., at
672-673, n. 2.  On the other hand, we have never
indicated that requiring advance disclosure of medica-
tions is per se unreasonable.  Indeed, in Skinner we held
that it was not -a significant invasion of privacy.- 
Skinner, 489 U. S., at 626, n. 7.  It can be argued that,
in Skinner, the disclosure went only to the medical
personnel taking the sample, and the Government
personnel analyzing it, see id., at 609, but see id., at 610
(railroad personnel responsible for forwarding the
sample, and presumably accompanying information, to
the Government's testing lab); and that disclosure to
teachers and coaches-to persons who personally know
the student-is a greater invasion of privacy.  Assuming
for the sake of argument that both those propositions
are true, we do not believe they establish a difference
that respondents are entitled to rely on here.
  The General Authorization Form that respondents
refused to sign, which refusal was the basis for James's
exclusion from the sports program, said only (in relevant
part): -I . . . authorize the Vernonia School District to
conduct a test on a urine specimen which I provide to
test for drugs and/or alcohol use.  I also authorize the
release of information concerning the results of such a
test to the Vernonia School District and to the parents
and/or guardians of the student.- App. 10-11.  While the
practice of the District seems to have been to have a
school official take medication information from the
student at the time of the test, see App. 29, 42, that
practice is not set forth in, or required by, the Policy,
which says simply: -Student athletes who . . . are or
have been taking prescription medication must provide
verification (either by a copy of the prescription or by
doctor's authorization) prior to being tested.-  App. 8. 
It may well be that, if and when James was selected for
random testing at a time that he was taking medication,
the School District would have permitted him to provide
the requested information in a confidential manner-for
example, in a sealed envelope delivered to the testing
lab.  Nothing in the Policy contradicts that, and when
respondents choose, in effect, to challenge the Policy on
its face, we will not assume the worst.  Accordingly, we
reach the same conclusion as in Skinner: that the
invasion of privacy was not significant.

                            V
  Finally, we turn to consider the nature and immediacy
of the governmental concern at issue here, and the
efficacy of this means for meeting it.  In both Skinner
and Von Raab, we characterized the government interest
motivating the search as -compelling.-  Skinner, supra,
at 628 (interest in preventing railway accidents); Von
Raab, supra, at 670 (interest in insuring fitness of
customs officials to interdict drugs and handle firearms). 
Relying on these cases, the District Court held that
because the District's program also called for drug
testing in the absence of individualized suspicion, the
District -must demonstrate a `compelling need' for the
program.-  796 F. Supp., at 1363.  The Court of Appeals
appears to have agreed with this view.  See 23 F. 3d, at
1526.  It is a mistake, however, to think that the phrase
-compelling state interest,- in the Fourth Amendment
context, describes a fixed, minimum quantum of govern-
mental concern, so that one can dispose of a case by
answering in isolation the question: Is there a compel-
ling state interest here?  Rather, the phrase describes
an interest which appears important enough to justify
the particular search at hand, in light of other factors
which show the search to be relatively intrusive upon a
genuine expectation of privacy.  Whether that relatively
high degree of government concern is necessary in this
case or not, we think it is met.
  That the nature of the concern is important-indeed,
perhaps compelling-can hardly be doubted.  Deterring
drug use by our Nation's schoolchildren is at least as
important as enhancing efficient enforcement of the
Nation's laws against the importation of drugs, which
was the governmental concern in Von Raab, supra, at
668, or deterring drug use by engineers and trainmen,
which was the governmental concern in Skinner, supra,
at 628.  School years are the time when the physical,
psychological, and addictive effects of drugs are most
severe.  -Maturing nervous systems are more critically
impaired by intoxicants than mature ones are; childhood
losses in learning are lifelong and profound-; -children
grow chemically dependent more quickly than adults,
and their record of recovery is depressingly poor.- 
Hawley, The Bumpy Road to Drug-Free Schools, 72 Phi
Delta Kappan 310, 314 (1990).  See also Estroff,
Schwartz, & Hoffmann, Adolescent Cocaine Abuse: Ad-
dictive Potential, Behavioral and Psychiatric Effects,
28 Clinical Pediatrics 550 (Dec. 1989); Kandel, Davies,
Karus, & Yamaguchi, The Consequences in Young Adult-
hood of Adolescent Drug Involvement, 43 Arch. Gen.
Psychiatry 746 (Aug. 1986).  And of course the effects of
a drug-infested school are visited not just upon the
users, but upon the entire student body and faculty, as
the educational process is disrupted.  In the present
case, moreover, the necessity for the State to act is mag-
nified by the fact that this evil is being visited not just
upon individuals at large, but upon children for whom
it has undertaken a special responsibility of care and di-
rection.  Finally, it must not be lost sight of that this
program is directed more narrowly to drug use by school
athletes, where the risk of immediate physical harm to
the drug user or those with whom he is playing his
sport is particularly high.  Apart from psychological
effects, which include impairment of judgment, slow re-
action time, and a lessening of the perception of pain,
the particular drugs screened by the District's Policy
have been demonstrated to pose substantial physical
risks to athletes.  Amphetamines produce an -artificially
induced heart rate increase, [p]eripheral vasoconstriction,
[b]lood pressure increase, and [m]asking of the normal
fatigue response,- making them a -very dangerous drug
when used during exercise of any type.-  Hawkins,
Drugs and Other Ingesta: Effects on Athletic Perform-
ance, in H. Appenzeller, Managing Sports and Risk
Management Strategies 90, 90-91 (1993).  Marijuana
causes -[i]rregular blood pressure responses during
changes in body position,- -[r]eduction in the oxygen-
carrying capacity of the blood,- and -[i]nhibition of the
normal sweating responses resulting in increased body
temperature.-  Id., at 94.  Cocaine produces -[v]asocon-
striction[,] [e]levated blood pressure,- and -[p]ossible
coronary artery spasms and myocardial infarction.- Ibid.
  As for the immediacy of the District's concerns: We
are not inclined to question-indeed, we could not
possibly find clearly erroneous-the District Court's
conclusion that -a large segment of the student body,
particularly those involved in interscholastic athletics,
was in a state of rebellion,- that -[d]isciplinary actions
had reached `epidemic proportions,'- and that -the
rebellion was being fueled by alcohol and drug abuse as
well as by the student's misperceptions about the drug
culture.-  796 F. Supp., at 1357.  That is an immediate
crisis of greater proportions than existed in Skinner,
where we upheld the Government's drug testing program
based on findings of drug use by railroad employees na-
tionwide, without proof that a problem existed on the
particular railroads whose employees were subject to the
test.  See Skinner, 489 U. S., at 607.  And of much
greater proportions than existed in Von Raab, where
there was no documented history of drug use by any
customs officials.  See Von Raab, 489 U. S., at 673; id.,
at 683 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  As to the efficacy of this means for addressing the
problem: It seems to us self-evident that a drug problem
largely fueled by the -role model- effect of athletes' drug
use, and of particular danger to athletes, is effectively
addressed by making sure that athletes do not use
drugs.  Respondents argue that a -less intrusive means
to the same end- was available, namely, -drug testing on
suspicion of drug use.-  Brief for Respondents 45-46. 
We have repeatedly refused to declare that only the
-least intrusive- search practicable can be reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment.  Skinner, supra, at 629,
n. 9 (collecting cases).  Respondents' alternative entails
substantial difficulties-if it is indeed practicable at all. 
It may be impracticable, for one thing, simply because
the parents who are willing to accept random drug
testing for athletes are not willing to accept accusatory
drug testing for all students, which transforms the
process into a badge of shame.  Respondents' proposal
brings the risk that teachers will impose testing arbi-
trarily upon troublesome but not drug-likely students. 
It generates the expense of defending lawsuits that
charge such arbitrary imposition, or that simply demand
greater process before accusatory drug testing is im-
posed.  And not least of all, it adds to the ever-expand-
ing diversionary duties of schoolteachers the new
function of spotting and bringing to account drug abuse,
a task for which they are ill prepared, and which is not
readily compatible with their vocation.  Cf. Skinner,
supra, at 628 (quoting 50 Fed. Reg. 31526 (1985)) (a
drug impaired individual -will seldom display any
outward `signs detectable by the lay person or, in many
cases, even the physician.'-); Goss, 419 U. S., at 594
(Powell, J., dissenting) (-There is an ongoing relation-
ship, one in which the teacher must occupy many
roles-educator, adviser, friend, and, at times, parent-
substitute.  It is rarely adversary in nature . . .-)
(footnote omitted).  In many respects, we think, testing
based on -suspicion- of drug use would not be better,
but worse.

                           VI
  Taking into account all the factors we have considered
above-the decreased expectation of privacy, the relative
unobtrusiveness of the search, and the severity of the
need met by the search-we conclude Vernonia's Policy
is reasonable and hence constitutional.
  We caution against the assumption that suspicionless
drug testing will readily pass constitutional muster in
other contexts.  The most significant element in this
case is the first we discussed: that the Policy was
undertaken in furtherance of the government's responsi-
bilities, under a public school system, as guardian and
tutor of children entrusted to its care.  Just as when
the government conducts a search in its capacity as
employer (a warrantless search of an absent employee's
desk to obtain an urgently needed file, for example), the
relevant question is whether that intrusion upon privacy
is one that a reasonable employer might engage in, see
O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U. S. 709 (1987); so also when
the government acts as guardian and tutor the relevant
question is whether the search is one that a reasonable
guardian and tutor might undertake.  Given the findings
of need made by the District Court, we conclude that in
the present case it is.
  We may note that the primary guardians of Vernonia's
schoolchildren appear to agree.  The record shows no
objection to this districtwide program by any parents
other than the couple before us here-even though, as
we have described, a public meeting was held to obtain
parents' views.  We find insufficient basis to contradict
the judgment of Vernonia's parents, its school board, and
the District Court, as to what was reasonably in the
interest of these children under the circumstances.

                       *    *    *
  The Ninth Circuit held that Vernonia's Policy not only
violated the Fourth Amendment, but also, by reason of
that violation, contravened Article I, -9 of the Oregon
Constitution.  Our conclusion that the former holding
was in error means that the latter holding rested on a
flawed premise.  We therefore vacate the judgment, and
remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                      It is so ordered.

From: courts@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Newsgroups: freenet.govt.hermes.opinions,courts.usa.federal.supreme
Subject: 94-590.ZC Concurring
Date: 26 Jun 1995 15:16:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 30
NNTP-Posting-Host: cwrusc.ins.cwru.edu

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
--------
No. 94-590
--------
VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J, PETITIONER
v. WAYNE ACTON, et ux., etc.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court
of appeals for the ninth circuit
[June 26, 1995]

  Justice Ginsburg, concurring.
  The Court constantly observes that the School
District's drug-testing policy applies only to students
who voluntarily participate in interscholastic athletics. 
Ante, at 3, 10-11 (reduced privacy expectation and closer
school regulation of student athletes), 15-16 (drug use
by athletes risks immediate physical harm to users and
those with whom they play).  Correspondingly, the most
severe sanction allowed under the District's policy is
suspension from extracurricular athletic programs.  Ante,
at 4.  I comprehend the Court's opinion as reserving the
question whether the District, on no more than the
showing made here, constitutionally could impose routine
drug testing not only on those seeking to engage with
others in team sports, but on all students required to
attend school.  Cf. United States v. Edwards, 498 F. 2d
496, 500 (CA2 1974) (Friendly, J.) (in contrast to search
without notice and opportunity to avoid examination,
airport search of passengers and luggage is avoidable -by
choosing not to travel by air-).

From: courts@usenet.ins.cwru.edu
Newsgroups: freenet.govt.hermes.opinions,courts.usa.federal.supreme
Subject: 94-590.ZD Dissenting
Date: 26 Jun 1995 15:17:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Lines: 755
NNTP-Posting-Host: cwrusc.ins.cwru.edu

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
--------
No. 94-590
--------
VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J, PETITIONER
v. WAYNE ACTON, et ux., etc.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court
of appeals for the ninth circuit
[June 26, 1995]

  Justice O'Connor, with whom Justice Stevens and
Justice Souter join, dissenting.
  The population of our Nation's public schools, grades
7 through 12, numbers around 18 million.  See U. S.
Dept. of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 58 (1994) (Table
43).  By the reasoning of today's decision, the millions
of these students who participate in interscholastic
sports, an overwhelming majority of whom have given
school officials no reason whatsoever to suspect they use
drugs at school, are open to an intrusive bodily search.
  In justifying this result, the Court dispenses with a
requirement of individualized suspicion on considered
policy grounds.  First, it explains that precisely because
every student athlete is being tested, there is no concern
that school officials might act arbitrarily in choosing who
to test.  Second, a broad-based search regime, the Court
reasons, dilutes the accusatory nature of the search.  In
making these policy arguments, of course, the Court
sidesteps powerful, countervailing privacy concerns. 
Blanket searches, because they can involve -thousands
or millions- of searches, -pos[e] a greater threat to
liberty- than do suspicion-based ones, which -affec[t] one
person at a time,- Illinois v. Krull, 480 U. S. 340, 365
(1987) (O'Connor, J., dissenting).  Searches based on
individualized suspicion also afford potential targets
considerable control over whether they will, in fact, be
searched because a person can avoid such a search by
not acting in an objectively suspicious way.  And given
that the surest way to avoid acting suspiciously is to
avoid the underlying wrongdoing, the costs of such a
regime, one would think, are minimal.
  But whether a blanket search is -better,- ante, at 18,
than a regime based on individualized suspicion is not
a debate in which we should engage.  In my view, it is
not open to judges or government officials to decide on
policy grounds which is better and which is worse.  For
most of our constitutional history, mass, suspicionless
searches have been generally considered per se unreason-
able within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. 
And we have allowed exceptions in recent years only
where it has been clear that a suspicion-based regime
would be ineffectual.  Because that is not the case here,
I dissent.

                            I
                            A
  In Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132 (1925), the
Court explained that -[t]he Fourth Amendment does not
denounce all searches or seizures, but only such as are
unreasonable.-  Id., at 147.  Applying this standard, the
Court first held that a search of a car was not unrea-
sonable merely because it was warrantless; because
obtaining a warrant is impractical for an easily movable
object such as a car, the Court explained, a warrant is
not required.  The Court also held, however, that a
warrantless car search was unreasonable unless sup-
ported by some level of individualized suspicion, namely
probable cause.  Significantly, the Court did not base its
conclusion on the express probable cause requirement
contained in the Warrant Clause, which, as just noted,
the Court found inapplicable.  Rather, the Court rested
its views on -what was deemed an unreasonable search
and seizure when [the Fourth Amendment] was adopted-
and -[what] will conserve public interests as well as the
interests and rights of individual citizens.-  Id., at 149. 
With respect to the -rights of individual citizens,- the
Court eventually offered the simple yet powerful intu-
ition that -those lawfully within the country, entitled to
use the public highways, have a right to free passage
without interruption or search unless there is known to
a competent official authorized to search, probable cause
for believing that their vehicles are carrying contraband
or illegal merchandise.-  Id., at 154.
  More important for the purposes of this case,
the Court clearly indicated that evenhanded treatment
was no substitute for the individualized suspicion
requirement: 
-It would be intolerable and unreasonable if a
prohibition agent were authorized to stop every
automobile on the chance of finding liquor and thus
subject all persons lawfully using the highways to
the inconvenience and indignity of such a search.- 
Id., at 153-154. 
  The Carroll Court's view that blanket searches are
-intolerable and unreasonable- is well-grounded in
history.  As recently confirmed in one of the most
exhaustive analyses of the original meaning of the
Fourth Amendment ever undertaken, see W. Cuddihy,
The Fourth Amendment: Origins and Original Meaning
(1990) (Ph.D. Dissertation at Claremont Graduate
School) (hereinafter Cuddihy), what the Framers of the
Fourth Amendment most strongly opposed, with limited
exceptions wholly inapplicable here, were general
searches-that is, searches by general warrant, by writ
of assistance, by broad statute, or by any other similar
authority.  See id., at 1402, 1499, 1555; see also Clancy,
The Role of Individualized Suspicion in Assessing the
Reasonableness of Searches and Seizures, 25 Mem. St.
U. L. Rev. 483, 528 (1994); Maclin, When the Cure for
the Fourth Amendment Is Worse Than the Disease, 68
S. Cal. L. Rev. 1, 9-12 (1994); L. Levy, Original Intent
and the Framers' Constitution 221-246 (1988).  Al-
though, ironically, such warrants, writs, and statutes
typically required individualized suspicion, see, e.g., Cud-
dihy 1140 (-Typical of the American warrants of 1761-76
was Starke's `tobacco' warrant, which commanded its
bearer to `enter any suspected Houses'-) (emphasis
added), such requirements were subjective and largely
unenforceable.  Accordingly, these various forms of
authority led in practice to -virtually unrestrained,- and
hence -general,- searches.  J. Landynski, Search and
Seizure and the Supreme Court 20 (1966).  To be sure,
the Fourth Amendment, in the Warrant Clause, prohib-
its by name only searches by general warrants.  But
that was only because the abuses of the general warrant
were particularly vivid in the minds of the Framers'
generation, Cuddihy 1554-1560, and not because the
Framers viewed other kinds of general searches as any
less unreasonable.  -Prohibition of the general warrant
was part of a larger scheme to extinguish general
searches categorically.-  Id., at 1499.
  More important, there is no indication in the historical
materials that the Framers' opposition to general
searches stemmed solely from the fact that they allowed
officials to single out individuals for arbitrary reasons,
and thus that officials could render them reasonable
simply by making sure to extend their search to every
house in a given area or to every person in a given
group.  See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 664
(1979) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (referring to this as
the -`misery loves company'- theory of the Fourth
Amendment).  On the contrary, although general
searches were typically arbitrary, they were not invari-
ably so.  Some general searches, for example, were of
the arguably evenhanded -door-to-door- kind.  Cuddihy
1091; see also id., at 377, 1502, 1557.  Indeed, Cuddihy's
descriptions of a few blanket searches suggests they may
have been considered more worrisome than the typical
general search.  See id., at 575 (-One type of warrant
[between 1700 and 1760] went beyond a general search,
in which the searcher entered and inspected suspicious
places, by requiring him to search entire categories of
places whether he suspected them or not-); id., at 478
(-During the exigencies of Queen Anne's War, two
colonies even authorized searches in 1706 that extended
to entire geographic areas, not just to suspicious houses
in a district, as conventional general warrants allowed-).
  Perhaps most telling of all, as reflected in the text of
the Warrant Clause, the particular way the Framers
chose to curb the abuses of general warrants-and by
implication, all general searches-was not to impose a
novel -evenhandedness- requirement; it was to retain the
individualized suspicion requirement contained in the
typical general warrant, but to make that requirement
meaningful and enforceable, for instance, by raising the
required level of individualized suspicion to objective
probable cause.  See U. S. Const., Amdt. 4.  So, for
example, when the same Congress that proposed the
Fourth Amendment authorized duty collectors to search
for concealed goods subject to import duties, specific
warrants were required for searches on land; but even
for searches at sea, where warrants were impractical
and thus not required, Congress nonetheless limited
officials to searching only those ships and vessels -in
which [a collector] shall have reason to suspect any
goods, wares or merchandise subject to duty shall be
concealed.-  The Collection Act of July 31, 1789, 24, 1
Stat. 43 (emphasis added); see also Cuddihy 1490-1491
(-The Collection Act of 1789 was [the] most significant
[of all early search statutes], for it identified the
techniques of search and seizure that the framers of the
amendment believed reasonable while they were framing
it-).  Not surprisingly, the Carroll Court relied on this
statute and other subsequent ones like it in arriving at
its views.  See Carroll, 267 U. S., at 150-151, 154; cf.
Clancy, supra, at 489 (-While the plain language of the
Amendment does not mandate individualized suspicion
as a necessary component of all searches and seizures,
the historical record demonstrates that the framers
believed that individualized suspicion was an inherent
quality of reasonable searches and seizures-).
  True, not all searches around the time the Fourth
Amendment was adopted required individualized suspi-
cion-although most did.  A search incident to arrest
was an obvious example of one that did not, see
Cuddihy 1518, but even those searches shared the
essential characteristics that distinguish suspicion-
based searches from abusive general searches: they
only -affec[t] one person at a time,- Krull, 480
U. S., at 365 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), and they are
generally avoidable by refraining from wrongdoing.  See
supra, at 1-2.  Protection of privacy, not evenhanded-
ness, was then and is now the touchstone of the Fourth
Amendment.
  The view that mass, suspicionless searches, however
evenhanded, are generally unreasonable remains invio-
late in the criminal law enforcement context, see Ybarra
v. Illinois, 444 U. S. 85 (1979) (invalidating evenhanded,
nonaccusatory patdown for weapons of all patrons in a
tavern in which there was probable cause to think drug
dealing was going on), at least where the search is more
than minimally intrusive, see Michigan Dept. of State
Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444 (1990) (upholding the brief
and easily avoidable detention, for purposes of observing
signs of intoxication, of all motorists approaching a
roadblock).  It is worth noting in this regard that state-
compelled, state-monitored collection and testing of
urine, while perhaps not the most intrusive of searches,
see, e. g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 558-560 (1979)
(visual body cavity searches), is still -particularly
destructive of privacy and offensive to personal dignity.- 
Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U. S. 656, 680
(1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also ante, at 11;
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U. S.
602, 617 (1989).  We have not hesitated to treat moni-
tored bowel movements as highly intrusive (even in the
special border search context), compare United States v.
Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543 (1976) (brief interrogative
stops of all motorists crossing certain border checkpoint
reasonable without individualized suspicion), with United
States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U. S. 531 (1985)
(monitored bowel movement of border crossers reason-
able only upon reasonable suspicion of alimentary canal
smuggling), and it is not easy to draw a distinction.  See
Fried, Privacy, 77 Yale L. J. 475, 487 (1968) (-[I]n our
culture the excretory functions are shielded by more or
less absolute privacy-).  And certainly monitored urina-
tion combined with urine testing is more intrusive than
some personal searches we have said trigger Fourth
Amendment protections in the past.  See, e. g., Cupp v.
Murphy, 412 U. S. 291, 295 (1973) (Stewart, J.) (charac-
terizing the scraping of dirt from under a person's
fingernails as a -`severe, though brief, intrusion upon
cherished personal security'-).  Finally, the collection and
testing of urine is, of course, a search of a person, one
of only four categories of suspect searches the Constitu-
tion mentions by name.  See U. S. Const., Amdt. 4
(listing -persons, houses, papers, and effects-); cf.
Cuddihy 835, 1518, 1552, n. 394 (indicating long history
of outrage at personal searches before 1789).
  Thus, it remains the law that the police cannot, say,
subject to drug testing every person entering or leaving
a certain drug-ridden neighborhood in order to find
evidence of crime.  3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure
9.5(b), pp. 551-553 (2d ed. 1987) (hereinafter LaFave). 
And this is true even though it is hard to think of a
more compelling government interest than the need to
fight the scourge of drugs on our streets and in our
neighborhoods.  Nor could it be otherwise, for if being
evenhanded were enough to justify evaluating a search
regime under an open-ended balancing test, the Warrant
Clause, which presupposes that there is some category
of searches for which individualized suspicion is non-
negotiable, see 2 LaFave 4.1, at 118, would be a dead
letter.
  Outside the criminal context, however, in response to
the exigencies of modern life, our cases have upheld
several evenhanded blanket searches, including some
that are more than minimally intrusive, after balancing
the invasion of privacy against the government's strong
need.  Most of these cases, of course, are distinguishable
insofar as they involved searches either not of a person-
ally intrusive nature, such as searches of closely regu-
lated businesses, see, e. g., New York v. Burger, 482
U. S. 691, 699-703 (1987); cf. Cuddihy 1501 (-Even the
states with the strongest constitutional restrictions on
general searches had long exposed commercial establish-
ments to warrantless inspection-), or arising in unique
contexts such as prisons, see, e. g., Wolfish, supra, at
558-560 (visual body cavity searches of prisoners
following contact visits); cf. Cuddihy 1516-1519,
1552-1553 (indicating that searches incident to arrest
and prisoner searches were the only common personal
searches at time of founding).  This certainly explains
why Justice Scalia, in his dissent in our recent Von
Raab decision, found it significant that -[u]ntil today
this Court had upheld a bodily search separate from
arrest and without individualized suspicion of wrong-do-
ing only with respect to prison inmates, relying upon the
uniquely dangerous nature of that environment.-  Von
Raab, supra, at 680 (citation omitted).
  In any event, in many of the cases that can be
distinguished on the grounds suggested above and, more
important, in all of the cases that cannot, see, e.g.,
Skinner, supra (blanket drug testing scheme); Von Raab,
supra (same); cf. Camara v. Municipal Court of San
Francisco, 387 U. S. 523 (1967) (area-wide searches of
private residences), we upheld the suspicionless search
only after first recognizing the Fourth Amendment's
longstanding preference for a suspicion-based search
regime, and then pointing to sound reasons why such a
regime would likely be ineffectual under the unusual
circumstances presented.  In Skinner, for example, we
stated outright that -`some quantum of individualized
suspicion'- is -usually required- under the Fourth
Amendment, Skinner, supra, at 624, quoting Martinez-
Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 560, and we built the requirement
into the test we announced: -In limited circumstances,
where the privacy interests implicated by the search are
minimal, and where an important governmental interest
furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy
by a requirement of individualized suspicion, a search
may be reasonable despite the absence of such suspi-
cion.-  Ibid. (emphasis added).  The obvious negative
implication of this reasoning is that, if such an individu-
alized suspicion requirement would not place the
government's objectives in jeopardy, the requirement
should not be forsaken.  See also Von Raab, supra, at
665-666.
  Accordingly, we upheld the suspicionless regime at
issue in Skinner on the firm understanding that a
requirement of individualized suspicion for testing train
operators for drug or alcohol impairment following
serious train accidents would be unworkable because
-the scene of a serious rail accident is chaotic.-  Skinner,
489 U. S., at 631.  (Of course, it could be plausibly
argued that the fact that testing occurred only after
train operators were involved in serious train accidents
amounted to an individualized suspicion requirement in
all but name, in light of the record evidence of a strong
link between serious train accidents and drug and
alcohol use.)  We have performed a similar inquiry in
the other cases as well.  See Von Raab, supra, at 674
(suspicion requirement for searches of customs officials
for drug impairment impractical because -not feasible to
subject [such] employees and their work product to the
kind of day-to-day scrutiny that is the norm in more
traditional office environments-); Camara, supra, at 537
(suspicion requirement for searches of homes for safety
code violations impractical because conditions such as
-faulty wiring- not observable from outside of house); see
also Wolfish, 441 U. S., at 559, n. 40 (suspicion require-
ment for searches of prisoners for smuggling following
contact visits impractical because observation necessary
to gain suspicion would cause -obvious disruption of the
confidentiality and intimacy that these visits are
intended to afford-); Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 557 (-A
requirement that stops on major routes inland always be
based on reasonable suspicion would be impractical
because the flow of traffic tends to be too heavy to allow
the particularized study of a given car that would enable
it to be identified as a possible carrier of illegal aliens-);
United States v. Edwards, 498 F. 2d 496, 500 (CA2
1974) (Friendly, J.) (suspicion-based searches of airport
passengers' carry-on luggage impractical because of the
great number of plane travelers and -conceded inapplica-
bility- of the profile method of detecting hijackers).
  Moreover, an individualized suspicion requirement was
often impractical in these cases because they involved
situations in which even one undetected instance of
wrongdoing could have injurious consequences for a
great number of people.  See, e.g., Camara, supra, at
535 (even one safety code violation can cause -fires and
epidemics [that] ravage large urban areas-); Skinner,
supra, at 628 (even one drug- or alcohol-impaired train
operator can lead to the -disastrous consequences- of a
train wreck, such as -great human loss-); Von Raab,
supra, at 670, 674, 677 (even one customs official caught
up in drugs can, by virtue of impairment, susceptibility
to bribes, or indifference, result in the noninterdiction of
a -sizable drug shipmen[t],- which eventually injures the
lives of thousands, or to a breach of -national security-);
Edwards, supra, at 500 (even one hijacked airplane can
destroy -`hundreds of human lives and millions of
dollars of property'-).

                            B
  The instant case stands in marked contrast.  One
searches today's majority opinion in vain for recognition
that history and precedent establish that individualized
suspicion is -usually required- under the Fourth Amend-
ment (regardless of whether a warrant and probable
cause are also required) and that, in the area of intru-
sive personal searches, the only recognized exception is
for situations in which a suspicion-based scheme would
be likely ineffectual.  See supra, at 9-10.  Far from
acknowledging anything special about individualized
suspicion, the Court treats a suspicion-based regime as
if it were just any run-of-the-mill, less intrusive alterna-
tive-that is, an alternative that officials may bypass if
the lesser intrusion, in their reasonable estimation, is
outweighed by policy concerns unrelated to practicability.
  As an initial matter, I have serious doubts whether
the Court is right that the District reasonably found
that the lesser intrusion of a suspicion-based testing
program outweighed its genuine concerns for the
adversarial nature of such a program, and for its abuses. 
See ante, at 17-18.  For one thing, there are significant
safeguards against abuses.  The fear that a suspicion-
based regime will lead to the testing of -troublesome but
not drug-likely- students, id., at 17, for example, ignores
that the required level of suspicion in the school context
is objectively reasonable suspicion.  In this respect, the
facts of our decision in New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S.
325 (1985), should be reassuring.  There, we found
reasonable suspicion to search a ninth-grade girl's purse
for cigarettes after a teacher caught the girl smoking in
the bathroom with a companion who admitted it.  See
id., at 328, 345-346.  Moreover, any distress arising
from what turns out to be a false accusation can be
minimized by keeping the entire process confidential.
  For another thing, the District's concern for the ad-
versarial nature of a suspicion-based regime (which
appears to extend even to those who are rightly accused)
seems to ignore the fact that such a regime would not
exist in a vacuum.  Schools already have adversarial,
disciplinary schemes that require teachers and adminis-
trators in many areas besides drug use to investigate
student wrongdoing (often by means of accusatory
searches); to make determinations about whether the
wrongdoing occurred; and to impose punishment.  To
such a scheme, suspicion-based drug testing would be
only a minor addition.  The District's own elaborate
disciplinary scheme is reflected in its handbook, which,
among other things, lists the following disciplinary
-problem areas- carrying serious sanctions: -DEFIANCE
OF AUTHORITY,- -DISORDERLY OR DISRUPTIVE
CONDUCT INCLUDING FOUL LANGUAGE,- -AUTO-
MOBILE USE OR MISUSE,- -FORGERY OR LYING,-
-GAMBLING,- -THEFT,- -TOBACCO,- -MISCHIEF,-
-VANDALISM,- -RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING,-
-MENACING OR HARASSMENT,- -ASSAULT,- -FIGHT-
ING,- -WEAPONS,- -EXTORTION,- -EXPLOSIVE
DEVICES,- and -ARSON.-  Record, Exh. 2, p. 11; see
also id., at 20-21 (listing rules regulating dress and
grooming, public displays of affection, and the wearing
of hats inside); cf. id., at 8 (-RESPONSIBILITIES OF
SCHOOLS- include -To develop and distribute to parents
and students reasonable rules and regulations governing
student behavior and attendance- and -To provide fair
and reasonable standards of conduct and to enforce
those standards through appropriate disciplinary ac-
tion-).  The high number of disciplinary referrals in the
record in this case illustrates the District's robust
scheme in action.
  In addition to overstating its concerns with a suspi-
cion-based program, the District seems to have under-
stated the extent to which such a program is less intru-
sive of students' privacy.  By invading the privacy of a
few students rather than many (nationwide, of thou-
sands rather than millions), and by giving potential
search targets substantial control over whether they will,
in fact, be searched, a suspicion-based scheme is
significantly less intrusive.
  In any event, whether the Court is right that the
District reasonably weighed the lesser intrusion of a
suspicion-based scheme against its policy concerns is
beside the point.  As stated, a suspicion-based search
regime is not just any less intrusive alternative; the
individualized suspicion requirement has a legal pedigree
as old as the Fourth Amendment itself, and it may not
be easily cast aside in the name of policy concerns.  It
may only be forsaken, our cases in the personal search
context have established, if a suspicion-based regime
would likely be ineffectual.
  But having misconstrued the fundamental role of the
individualized suspicion requirement in Fourth Amend-
ment analysis, the Court never seriously engages the
practicality of such a requirement in the instant case. 
And that failure is crucial because nowhere is it less
clear that an individualized suspicion requirement would
be ineffectual than in the school context.  In most
schools, the entire pool of potential search
targets-students-is under constant supervision by
teachers and administrators and coaches, be it in
classrooms, hallways, or locker rooms.  See T. L. O., 469
U. S., at 339 (-[A] proper educational environment
requires close supervision of schoolchildren-).  
  The record here indicates that the Vernonia schools
are no exception.  The great irony of this case is that
most (though not all) of the evidence the District
introduced to justify its suspicionless drug-testing
program consisted of first- or second-hand stories of
particular, identifiable students acting in ways that
plainly gave rise to reasonable suspicion of in-school
drug use-and thus that would have justified a drug-
related search under our T. L. O. decision.  See id., at
340-342 (warrant and probable cause not required for
school searches; reasonable suspicion sufficient).  Small
groups of students, for example, were observed by a
teacher -passing joints back and forth- across the street
at a restaurant before school and during school hours. 
Tr. 67 (Apr. 29, 1992).  Another group was caught
skipping school and using drugs at one of the students'
houses.  See id., at 93-94.  Several students actually
admitted their drug use to school officials (some of them
being caught with marijuana pipes).  See id., at 24. 
One student presented himself to his teacher as -clearly
obviously inebriated- and had to be sent home.  Id., at
68.  Still another was observed dancing and singing at
the top of his voice in the back of the classroom; when
the teacher asked what was going on, he replied, -Well,
I'm just high on life.-  Id., at 89-90.  To take a final
example, on a certain road trip, the school wrestling
coach smelled marijuana smoke in a hotel room occupied
by four wrestlers, see id., at 110-112, an observation
that (after some questioning) would probably have given
him reasonable suspicion to test one or all of them.  Cf.
4 LaFave 10.11(b), at 169 (-[I]n most instances the evi-
dence of wrongdoing prompting teachers or principals to
conduct searches is sufficiently detailed and specific to
meet the traditional probable cause test-).
  In light of all this evidence of drug use by particular
students, there is a substantial basis for concluding that
a vigorous regime of suspicion-based testing (for which
the District appears already to have rules in place, see
Record, Exh. 2, at 14, 17) would have gone a long way
toward solving Vernonia's school drug problem while
preserving the Fourth Amendment rights of James Acton
and others like him.  And were there any doubt about
such a conclusion, it is removed by indications in the
record that suspicion-based testing could have been
supplemented by an equally vigorous campaign to have
Vernonia's parents encourage their children to submit to
the District's voluntary drug testing program.  See id.,
at 32 (describing the voluntary program); ante, at 19
(noting widespread parental support for drug testing). 
In these circumstances, the Fourth Amendment dictates
that a mass, suspicionless search regime is categorically
unreasonable.  
  I recognize that a suspicion-based scheme, even where
reasonably effective in controlling in-school drug use,
may not be as effective as a mass, suspicionless testing
regime.  In one sense, that is obviously true-just as it
is obviously true that suspicion-based law enforcement
is not as effective as mass, suspicionless enforcement
might be.  -But there is nothing new in the realization-
that Fourth Amendment protections come with a price. 
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U. S. 321, 329 (1987).  Indeed, the
price we pay is higher in the criminal context, given
that police do not closely observe the entire class of
potential search targets (all citizens in the area) and
must ordinarily adhere to the rigid requirements of a
warrant and probable cause.
  The principal counterargument to all this, central to
the Court's opinion, is that the Fourth Amendment is
more lenient with respect to school searches.  That is no
doubt correct, for, as the Court explains, ante, at 8-10,
schools have traditionally had special guardian-like
responsibilities for children that necessitate a degree of
constitutional leeway.  This principle explains the
considerable Fourth Amendment leeway we gave school
officials in T. L. O.  In that case, we held that children
at school do not enjoy two of the Fourth Amendment's
traditional categorical protections against unreasonable
searches and seizures: the warrant requirement and the
probable cause requirement.  See T. L. O., 469 U. S., at
337-343.  And this was true even though the same
children enjoy such protections -in a nonschool setting.- 
Id., at 348 (Powell, J., concurring).
  The instant case, however, asks whether the Fourth
Amendment is even more lenient than that, i.e., whether
it is so lenient that students may be deprived of the
Fourth Amendment's only remaining, and most basic,
categorical protection: its strong preference for an
individualized suspicion requirement, with its accompa-
nying antipathy toward personally intrusive, blanket
searches of mostly innocent people.  It is not at all clear
that people in prison lack this categorical protection, see
Wolfish, 441 U. S., at 558-560 (upholding certain
suspicionless searches of prison inmates); but cf. supra,
at 10 (indicating why suspicion requirement was imprac-
tical in Wolfish), and we have said -we are not yet ready
to hold that the schools and the prisons need be equated
for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.-  T. L. O.,
supra, at 338-339.  Thus, if we are to mean what we
often proclaim-that students do not -shed their consti-
tutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate,- Tinker v.
Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393
U. S. 503, 506 (1969)-the answer must plainly be no.
  For the contrary position, the Court relies on cases
such as T. L. O., Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651
(1977), and Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975).  See
ante, at 8-10.  But I find the Court's reliance on these
cases ironic.  If anything, they affirm that schools have
substantial constitutional leeway in carrying out their
traditional mission of responding to particularized
wrongdoing.  See T. L. O., supra (leeway in investigating
particularized wrongdoing); Ingraham, supra (leeway in
punishing particularized wrongdoing); Goss, supra
(leeway in choosing procedures by which particularized
wrongdoing is punished).
  By contrast, intrusive, blanket searches of school
children, most of whom are innocent, for evidence of
serious wrongdoing are not part of any traditional school
function of which I am aware.  Indeed, many schools,
like many parents, prefer to trust their children unless
given reason to do otherwise.  As James Acton's father
said on the witness stand, -[suspicionless testing] sends
a message to children that are trying to be responsible
citizens . . . that they have to prove that they're
innocent . . . , and I think that kind of sets a bad tone
for citizenship.-  Tr. 9 (Apr. 29, 1992).
  I find unpersuasive the Court's reliance, ante, at 10,
on the widespread practice of physical examinations and
vaccinations, which are both blanket searches of a sort. 
Of course, for these practices to have any Fourth
Amendment significance, the Court has to assume that
these physical exams and vaccinations are typically
-required- to a similar extent that urine testing and
collection is required in the instant case, i.e., that they
are required regardless of parental objection and that
some meaningful sanction attaches to the failure to
submit.  In any event, without forming any particular
view of such searches, it is worth noting that a suspi-
cion requirement for vaccinations is not merely impracti-
cal; it is nonsensical, for vaccinations are not searches
for anything in particular and so there is nothing about
which to be suspicious.  Nor is this saying anything
new; it is the same theory on which, in part, we have
repeatedly upheld certain inventory searches.  See, e.g.,
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U. S. 364, 370, n. 5
(1976) (-The probable-cause approach is unhelpful when
analysis centers upon the reasonableness of routine
administrative caretaking functions-).  As for physical
examinations, the practicability of a suspicion require-
ment is highly doubtful because the conditions for which
these physical exams ordinarily search, such as latent
heart conditions, do not manifest themselves in observ-
able behavior the way school drug use does.  See supra,
at 14.
  It might also be noted that physical exams (and of
course vaccinations) are not searches for conditions that
reflect wrongdoing on the part of the student, and so are
wholly nonaccusatory and have no consequences that can
be regarded as punitive.  These facts may explain the
absence of Fourth Amendment challenges to such
searches.  By contrast, although I agree with the Court
that the accusatory nature of the District's testing
program is diluted by making it a blanket one, any
testing program that searches for conditions plainly
reflecting serious wrongdoing can never be made wholly
nonaccusatory from the student's perspective, the
motives for the program notwithstanding; and for the
same reason, the substantial consequences that can flow
from a positive test, such as suspension from sports, are
invariably-and quite reasonably-understood as punish-
ment.  The best proof that the District's testing program
is to some extent accusatory can be found in James
Acton's own explanation on the witness stand as to why
he did not want to submit to drug testing: -Because I
feel that they have no reason to think I was taking
drugs.-  Tr. 13 (Apr. 29, 1992).  It is hard to think of a
manner of explanation that resonates more intensely in
our Fourth Amendment tradition than this. 

                           II
  I do not believe that suspicionless drug testing is
justified on these facts.  But even if I agreed that some
such testing were reasonable here, I see two other
Fourth Amendment flaws in the District's program. 
First, and most serious, there is virtually no evidence in
the record of a drug problem at the Washington Grade
School, which includes the 7th and 8th grades, and
which Acton attended when this litigation began.  This
is not surprising, given that, of the four witnesses who
testified to drug-related incidents, three were teachers
and/or coaches at the high school, see Tr. 65; id., at 86;
id., at 99, and the fourth, though the principal of the
grade school at the time of the litigation, had been
employed as principal of the high school during the
years leading up to (and beyond) the implementation of
the drug testing policy.  See id., at 17.  The only
evidence of a grade school drug problem that my review
of the record uncovered is a -guarantee- by the late-
arriving grade school principal that -our problems we've
had in '88 and '89 didn't start at the high school level. 
They started in the elementary school.-  Id., at 43.  But
I would hope that a single assertion of this sort would
not serve as an adequate basis on which to uphold mass,
suspicionless drug testing of two entire grades of
student-athletes-in Vernonia and, by the Court's
reasoning, in other school districts as well.  Perhaps
there is a drug problem at the grade school, but one
would not know it from this record.  At the least, then,
I would insist that the parties and the District Court
address this issue on remand.
  Second, even as to the high school, I find unreasonable
the school's choice of student athletes as the class to
subject to suspicionless testing-a choice that appears to
have been driven more by a belief in what would pass
constitutional muster, see id., at 45-47 (indicating that
the original program was targeted at students involved
in any extracurricular activity), than by a belief in what
was required to meet the District's principal disciplinary
concern.  Reading the full record in this case, as well as
the District Court's authoritative summary of it, 796
F. Supp. 1354, 1356-1357 (Ore. 1992), it seems quite
obvious that the true driving force behind the District's
adoption of its drug testing program was the need to
combat the rise in drug-related disorder and disruption
in its classrooms and around campus.  I mean no
criticism of the strength of that interest.  On the
contrary, where the record demonstrates the existence of
such a problem, that interest seems self-evidently
compelling.  -Without first establishing discipline and
maintaining order, teachers cannot begin to educate
their students.-  T. L. O., 469 U. S., at 350 (Powell, J.,
concurring).  And the record in this case surely demon-
strates there was a drug-related discipline problem in
Vernonia of -`epidemic proportions.'-  796 F. Supp., at
1357.  The evidence of a drug-related sports injury
problem at Vernonia, by contrast, was considerably
weaker.
  On this record, then, it seems to me that the far more
reasonable choice would have been to focus on the class
of students found to have violated published school rules
against severe disruption in class and around campus,
see Record, Exh. 2, at 9, 11-disruption that had a
strong nexus to drug use, as the District established at
trial.  Such a choice would share two of the virtues of
a suspicion-based regime: testing dramatically fewer
students, tens as against hundreds, and giving students
control, through their behavior, over the likelihood that
they would be tested.  Moreover, there would be a
reduced concern for the accusatory nature of the search,
because the Court's feared -badge of shame,- ante, at 17,
would already exist, due to the antecedent accusation
and finding of severe disruption.  In a lesser known
aspect of Skinner, we upheld an analogous testing
scheme with little hesitation.  See Skinner, 489 U. S., at
611 (describing -`Authorization to Test for Cause'-
scheme, according to which train operators would be
tested -in the event of certain specific rule violations,
including noncompliance with a signal and excessive
speeding-).
 
                           III
  It cannot be too often stated that the greatest threats
to our constitutional freedoms come in times of crisis. 
But we must also stay mindful that not all government
responses to such times are hysterical overreactions;
some crises are quite real, and when they are, they
serve precisely as the compelling state interest that we
have said may justify a measured intrusion on constitu-
tional rights.  The only way for judges to mediate these
conflicting impulses is to do what they should do any-
way: stay close to the record in each case that appears
before them, and make their judgments based on that
alone.  Having reviewed the record here, I cannot avoid
the conclusion that the District's suspicionless policy
of testing all student-athletes sweeps too broadly, and
too imprecisely, to be reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.

    .314
    
    TERRIBLE DECISION.
    
    This is, quite seriously, the precipice over the slippery slope that so
    many reactionary people have been warning us about for so long.

    it isn't the war on (some) drugs, it is and always has been a war on
    rights.  Drugs and the incumbent violence of drug prohibition are
    merely a convenient excuse to get the frightened majority to give up
    their constitutional protections to get "them evil drug pushers."  
    
    "Assault rifles" the "weapon of choice of drug kingpins" have not been
    used in the US by dealers and cops haven't been shot by them, but
    people gave them up willingly, "if it saves one life."  We are willing
    to give up the exclusionary rule, even though it has been successfully
    invoked in only about 3% of cases, the impression is that many guilty
    people walk, and the media and congress propagandize every case.  WE
    have violated the 5th, 4th, and I don't know how many other ammendments
    in the name of public saftey regarding urinalysis on people whose only
    crime is trying to make a living, (but if it saves one life).  
    
    Now, rather than testing for the drugs which truly endanger student
    atheletes, (namely steroidal compounds used in the name of bigger and
    stronger), the school districst are willing to spend a small fortune
    invading the privacy of students, and SCOTUS is going to let them get
    away with it, because kids don't need rights.  BTW the school district
    in question spendsover 8000 dollars testing about 200 kids in
    athletics, kids who are unlikely to be using anything other than
    alcohol (not tested for) and steroidal compounds, (also not tested
    for).  But if it saves one life, hang the fact that this could pay for
    safety equipment, and also raise people who believes rights are
    guaranteed, not hysterically dropped when there is a problem.
    
    meg

    Scalia's decision is perfectly consistent, reasonable and well
    written, but it is wrong. I agree with the dissenters.

    
      Well, I agree with Scalia/Ginsberg.  It meets the reasonableness
     tests.  The fourth amendment is SPECIFICALLY not absolute, like
     the first.  We already have many searches/seizures which meet the
     test with no warrant.  We also have many which do not.  By definition,
     the Supremes have to direct lower courts as to what is reasonable.
    
      It's a pure judgement call, because the constitution makes it so.
    
      bb

    > "Assault rifles" the "weapon of choice of drug kingpins" have not been
    > used in the US by dealers and cops haven't been shot by them, but
    > people gave them up willingly, "if it saves one life."

    I wouldn't necessarily say that we gave them up willingly.  In fact
    many people are still trying to get the assault weapon ban repealed.

    Dan

Scalia has certainly changed his tune with this one.

It appears, like most Republicans, he is only conservative when it fits
his personal agenda. I guess the thinking musta drugs are bad, so he had
to come up with some nonsense about since you take showers in a public
area you don't have private rights.

This is a very liberal opinion: extend government at the expense of the
individual.

TTom

Um, it's not a liberal vs. conservative issue.

    
      The court did not break down on liberal/conservative grounds at all,
     if you look at who went which way.
    
      bb

    .327
    
    Nope, it's not a liberal/conservative issue.  The ACLU, that Great
    Liberal Satan, immediately said they disapprove of it, and among those
    in the SCOTUS majority was Clarence Thomas, the most conservative of
    the conservatives.

    
      And both Clinton liberal appointees (Brier and Ginsberg) join
     Thomas, Scalia, Rehmquist and Kennedy ?  Against another motley
     collection of O'Connor/Stevens/Souter ?  Just try to make left/right
     out of that one !
    
      bb

I don't mean liberal vs conservative in terms of political parties.

I contend it's liberal to extend government into the private lives of
citizens. A conservative would uphold the rights of the individual.

TTom

    "Disappointing" isn't the word.  "Outraged" would be a better fit.
    
    This is extrememly ominous, because the hand-waving "justification"
    that I'd heard surrounding this was along the lines of "well, the
    students are using government/school services, so they forfeit
    some individual rights".  What?!  Where in the Constitution does
    it list such conditions under which the government can revoke
    constitutional rights?
    
    Watch for this kind of "justification" to be used more and more
    in the future by the government, especially in regards to school
    and children, where they have a captive audience in their grasp.
    
    My kids will not participate in any school-sponsored or town-sponsored
    activities that require drug testing without cause.  It's not long
    before they'll institute mandatory drug testing for all students.
    That's when we'll look around for a nice private school.
    
    I've said it before and I'll say it again:  the biggest danger to
    our freedom, and our ways of life, come from judges; arrogant,
    unaccountable judges who are neither elected nor removable.  It's
    past time to change the way that we do this whole "judge" thing.
    
    Chris

    >This is extrememly ominous, because the hand-waving "justification"
    >that I'd heard surrounding this was along the lines of "well, the
    >students are using government/school services, so they forfeit
    >some individual rights"
    
     Read the opinion; it's not just handwaving. It's logical and
    consistent.

    
     No, Scalia is not hand-waving (see .318).  Neither is O'Connor
    in .320 - so far, hers is the only well-reasoned argument I have
    seen in here AGAINST the reasonableness of the Oregon testing
    program in question.
    
     You do NOT have an unlimited right of privacy, only a right to
    "reasonable" privacy, as the constitution says.  It is up to Scalia
    to show the search was "reasonable", to O'Connor that it is not.
    Since both are very smart people who know the document, neither
    claims an absolute position.  It's a judgement call.
    
     bb

    	Somebody back there said that they are not testing for steriods.
    
    	That would seem to be the PRIMARY reason for testing athletes.

    
    
     Not in the NBA!!!
    

Hey, you drive on public streets? Then you have to pee in this cup to renew
your driver's license.

It's coming. Slowly, carefully, pushing it just a little farther every time.
Don't believe it? Massachusetts voters threw out a seatbelt law once. Now
it's law, and we the sheep voted FOR it. Un freaking believable.

Sadly, many conservatives, whose views I otherwise agree with, give us crap
like this. We desperately need a new, powerful politcal party that stands for
freedom like the the Minutemen stood, and not because it's politically
trendy.

The onliest thing that will save us is the money. We should all be
grateful that this is a_expensive and inefficient process.

We - remember us who fund this crap - spend a load of money, don't make a
dent into anything and give the students the clear messges that we don't
trust them and we don't believe them.

TTom

    The reason the decision was wrong is that the premise - that
    drug testing will enhance safety and control - is flawed.

    It has not been shown that drug testing has this effect, and
    in fact it HAS been shown that drug testing can have deleterious
    effects on the livelyhood and well-being of those who "fail"
    the test with a "false positive."

    It's a real crock.

    \john

    
    Well, according to the opinion, the tests are 99.94% accurate,
    and in the event of a positive, a second test is ordered and
    no action is taken unless that is also positive.  And the only
    action taken is to suspend the athlete from the sports.  No cops
    are notified.
    
    Are you saying if the test were 100% accurate, you think it is OK ?
    
      bb

re: 99.94% accuracy

Nonsense, just ask a_airline pilot about doing Sudafed. Or Johnny Cochran
who's making a living outta refuting accuracy in testing.

Besides, it's just a screen. 

Also, for a fraction of the cost of the test, you can go to your local
drug or nutrition store, buy the good herbs and it'll mask the bad ones.

TTom

	From the news reports there were several lines of reasoning in
	Scalia's opinion. Some sem, to me, to be valid. The others are scary.

	The fact that schools can and do hold Athletes to higher standards
	than other students, the fact that they undergo more rigourous 
	physical both make sense.

	The reasoning that "controlling drug use" is of such importance that
	it allows such searches is the spooky part. That definition of 
	"reasonableness" can be used to justify anything.

Jim

    
      Well, I certainly know nothing aboutthe accuracy of the tests.
     Neither the Court nor the dissent thought this an important matter.
    
      You will note also that nobody on either side thought it proper
     for the Supremes to consider the policy question whether the WOD
     is a good idea.  That is properly a legislative matter, of course.
    
      No, the only important question here, is whether the constitutional
     rights of the students are violated by a blanket search as opposed
     to a suspicion-based one.  If the school required probable cause,
     there never would have been a constitutional case at all - the action
     would certainly be reasonable.  And that is true, even if marajuana
     cocaine and amphetamines are placebos.
    
      bb

    
    Slick: "Right! We'll start with the students in the projects!.. just to
    protect everyone else there!"
    

    How many kids are in school districts today?  the cost on this is
    something that should probably be looked at as far as your tax/tuition
    dollars at work.  
    
    According to npr the district has <200 students in atheletics.  The
    cost/year, right now is $8000.00.  Remember medical tests tend to go up
    in price.  Looks like they are spending $40.00/student for testing. 
    
    This inquiring mind would like to know what fees they increased, or
    safety equipment, books, teacher/student ratios they decreased to
    afford this.  Also it would be interesting to know how many kids they
    have actually "caught" in this cost, and how much more respect this
    district is getting from kids, now that they have dissed respect for
    those kids in a "role model position."  
    
    Of course, I do come from the school of thought that says treating
    people, including kids, with respect and trust generally gets more
    respectful and trustworthy behavior from them.  
    
    meg

    Testing all students is wrong. That's just a case of you yankee doodle
    muricans over reacting again.
    
    Testing teenagers in sports is ok I guess. Only because by using drugs
    some other teenagers 'might' be denied their chance, because the person
    on the steroids has an enhanced performance level. I for one would be
    pretty p.o.ed if I lost my place on a team to someone who was only
    better than me because they were using a performance enhancing illegal
    drug. Or taking it one step further...lost my place for a scholarship
    to someone who was using a drug. 

Re.347
>Or taking it one step further...lost my place for a scholarship
>    to someone who was using a drug

I believe that in the US sports & scholarships are big.  Lose out on a 
scholarship, you lose the chance of the going pro, lose possibly millions of 
dollars.  Surely, the schools have a responsibility to all students to ensure 
no-one is cheating.  

Re.346
>    Of course, I do come from the school of thought that says treating
>    people, including kids, with respect and trust generally gets more
>    respectful and trustworthy behavior from them.  

I agree, unfortunately there's always some-one who's going to try to get
an advantage by cheating whether by the kid or thru pressure from the
coach/parents.

Re.342
>Also, for a fraction of the cost of the test, you can go to your local
>drug or nutrition store, buy the good herbs and it'll mask the bad ones.

I'm afraid this is old info.  In the 70s/80s this was possible but now for
the commonly available performance-enhancers the tests are now capable of
seeing thru the masking agents.  Of course new drugs come along all the time
but so do the tests improve.


You can argue that testing infringes on civil rights but the kid who has cheated
infringes other peoples civil rights but denying someone else the opportunity.
To follow the analogy of drink-driving that person is not just a danger to
himself/herself but to other people as well.  You can do what you like to
yourself but adversly affecting other people should not be allowed.

Johjn

    Re.347
    
> >Or taking it one step further...lost my place for a scholarship
> >    to someone who was using a drug
> 
> I believe that in the US sports & scholarships are big.  Lose out on a 
> scholarship, you lose the chance of the going pro, lose possibly millions of 
> dollars.  Surely, the schools have a responsibility to all students to ensure 
> no-one is cheating.  

    The point is people are always going to cheat.  I think that you should
    take some REASONABLE precautions to prevent it, but people will cheat.
    If we raise children who are going to whine and complain about cheaters
    instead of working harder to beat them anyway, then I think that we
    have missed the point of competition.  I have lost a competition to a 
    cheater before, lodged a formal challenge, and went about my business to 
    whip his a$$ anyway, regardless of the result of the challenge.  I believe
    that we are raising an entire generation that believes if you don't get
    what you want, whine and complain until someone fixes it for you.  We
    are becoming a NATION of VICTIMS !

    -----

    also  (Minor Nit)

    > ... lose the chance of the going pro, lose possibly millions of 
    > dollars.... 

    That is only one possible future for the individual.... There are
    millions of other opportunities in this country.....

    -----

    Really minor nit

    re: .348 
    > the commonly available performance-enhancers the tests are now capable of
    > seeing through the masking agents.  Of course new drugs come along all 
    > the time but so do the tests improve.
    
    This strikes me as the situation we have with radar guns/radar
    detectors !  Hhhhmmmm..... I wonder ....

    Dan

>>Re.347
>>Or taking it one step further...lost my place for a scholarship
>>    to someone who was using a drug
    
>I believe that in the US sports & scholarships are big.  Lose out on a 
>scholarship, you lose the chance of the going pro, lose possibly millions of 
>dollars.  Surely, the schools have a responsibility to all students to ensure 
>no-one is cheating.
    
    Were you agreeing with me or what ?? That was the point of my original
    arguement.
    
RE. 349
    
  >>Or taking it one step further...lost my place for a scholarship
  >>    to someone who was using a drug
    
    >That is only one possible future for the individual.... There are millions
    >of other opportunities in this country
    
      I think you are missing the point.

SNOFS1::DAVISM

Yes, I was agreeing with you.

    > >That is only one possible future for the individual.... There are millions
    > >of other opportunities in this country
    > 
    >   I think you are missing the point.

    I don't think so.  You forgot to include the line which indicated that
    this was a minor nit.  I address your point in the previous paragraph,
    which is not show here.

    Dan

    The Great Virgin Hunt

    ARTHUR HOPPE

    NO ONE WAS more overjoyed by the Supreme Court's approval of random
    drug testing for high school athletes than the Essential Values
    Coalition.

    ``This is not only a blow to the evils of narcotics in our nation's
    schools,'' said the coalition's chief coordinator, the Rev. Titus
    Torkey, ``but we can now be sure the court will uphold our nationwide
    virgin testing program.''

    The virgin-testing program got off to a somewhat controversial start at
    the Sweetapple (Texas) High School last September. Two of the schools
    23 pompon girls and drum majorettes were to be selected by lot each
    month to be examined by a gynecologist in hopes of reducing the scourge
    of teenage sex.

    A 17-year-old student, Mary Jane Pickney, an honors student and a
    member of the Sweetapple Baptist Church choir, immediately brought suit
    against the school board, charging a violation of her Fourth Amendment
    right to be secure in her person ``against unreasonable searches and
    seizures.''

    ``If this is not an invasion of privacy,'' she said in her suit, ``what
    is?''

    The Sixth District Court of Texas, however, denied her claims. In
    reasoning much like Justice Scalia's in the drug-testing case, Judge
    Homer (Bigfoot) Collins wrote:

    ``The question here is whether the search is reasonable. Does the right
    of the individual under the Fourth Amendment outweigh the legitimate
    concerns of the state?

    ``In this case,'' he said, ``the court finds that deterring sex among
    teenagers is at least as important as enhancing efficient enforcement
    of laws against drug taking. Sex, after all, leads to disease and
    unwanted pregnancies, and it definitely takes the students' minds off
    their studies.''

    The court also found that Mary Jane and the other 22 girls were ``role
    models,'' and ``the very sight of a pregnant cheerleader would be
    detrimental to the moral well being of the other students.''

    Mary Jane's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Albert Pickney, vowed to take the
    case to the Supreme Court. ``To say that a gynecological examination of
    a straight-A member of the Rainbow Girls is reasonable,'' said Mr.
    Pickney, ``boggles the mind.''

    In its decision Monday on drug testing, howev er, the Supreme Court
    appeared to have upheld the state's right to inspect virgins as well.

    In the majority opinion, Justice Scalia held that ``the effect of a
    drug-infested school are visited not just upon the users, but on the
    entire student body and faculty, as the educational process is
    disrupted.''

    As the Essential Values Coalition's Rev. Torkey pointed out, ``A
    sex-infested school is just as disruptive.''

    Once the Supreme Court has ruled favorably on virgin testing, the
    coalition plans to extend the project to all the nation's schools.
    Eventually, the Rev. Torkey said, the tests would apply not only to
    athletes and cheerleaders. ``If we are to rid our schools of drugs and
    sex,'' he said ``clearly the urine or private parts of all students
    must be inspected regularly.

    ``The penalties for failure of a virgin test would be the same as those
    for a drug test,'' he said, ``a strict warning to the parents the first
    time a girl lost her virginity, a 30-day suspension for a second time
    and outright expulsion for the third. `Three strikes and you're out,'
    we say.''
    
Published 6/28/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

    EDITORIAL -- The Supreme Slippery Slope

    CIVIL LIBERTARIANS are properly worried about the U.S. Supreme Court
    ruling that for the first time permits public school officials to
    randomly test students for drugs as a condition of playing
    interscholastic sports.

    In its 6-to-3 decision, the high court greatly expanded the powers of
    government to investigate individuals who are not suspected of
    wrongdoing, but left open the question of whether schools could subject
    all their students to routine drug testing.

    Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia placed the issue of
    privacy on a slippery legal slope that begs to be abused, especially by
    government zealots in the flagging war on drugs who praised the
    decision as ``another weapon'' in their arsenal. It does not take much
    imagination for a police-mentality to extend the ruling from student
    athletes to all students and eventually to all citizens. ``Deterring
    drug use by our nation's schoolchildren is at least as important as
    enhancing efficient enforcement of the nation's laws against the
    importation of drugs,'' Scalia wrote.

    He breezily dismissed concerns about the violation of student athletes'
    privacy with the fatuous reasoning that, ``School sports are not for
    the bashful. They require `suiting up' before each practice or event
    and showering and changing afterwards. Public school locker rooms, the
    usual sites for these activities, are not notable for the privacy they
    afford

    We fear that Scalia has forgotten his own school days. There are great
    differences between showering with teammates and the humiliating
    intrusion of being required to present a urine sample on demand.

    In 1989, Scalia dissented in an opinion upholding a federal
    drug-testing program of Customs Service employees seeking sensitive
    jobs. At the time, he described the programs as ``a kind of immolation
    of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use.''
    Scalia's eloquent 1989 defense of privacy should apply to student
    athletes as well as Customs agents.
    
Published 6/28/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

    Wow, they can lose their virginity three time in Sweetapple?  BTW, that
    was a spoof yes?  Please tell me it was a spoof, please?  

    Jeez, Brian.

    	Yes?

    
    Damn. I was hoping to add virgin-certification as an adjunct
    to my growing hair-color-verification service.
    
    -b

    
     I found it a pretty funny spoof.  bb

      date=6/29/95
      type=close-up
    number=4-08442
     title=scotus:student athlete drug tests
    byline=adam phillips
 telephone=619-1102
  dateline=washington
    editor=nancy smart

content=                      (inserts in s-o-d)

anncr:         on monday, in a 6 to 3 decision, the supreme court
               of the united states ruled that schools may  
               require students to submit to random drug tests  
               before being allowed to play on their school  
               sports teams. citizens and school officials who  
               favor drug tests cite safety concerns and the  
               importance of school athletes as role models.  
               those opposed to the tests cite the fourth  
               amendment to the u-s constitution, which prohibits
               unreasonable searches and seizures. voa's adam  
               phillips has this report on the controversy.

text:          the supreme court ruled on a case brought by a boy
               named james acton from the small logging town of  
               vernonia, oregon. mr. acton, then a model 7th  
               grade student whom no one suspected of drug use,  
               refused to submit to his school's policy of  
               randomly requiring urine samples from prospective  
               athletes to test for drugs.  the school then  
               denied him a place on a sports team.  

               mr. acton took his case to court, claiming the  
               school's policy denied him his constitutional  
               right to privacy. after a series of rulings and  
               appeals, the case landed in the supreme court. on  
               monday, five years after the dispute began, the  
               court ruled that mr. acton's school -- or any  
               school -- is constitutionally permitted to test  
               its athletes for drugs. news of this decision  
               provoked both sympathy and outrage among the  
               random sample of high schoolers the voa  
               interviewed in washington d-c the next day.  

tape cut one                     vox pop (:26)

               "boy: i think it's right. because you shouldn't be
               doing that and if you're taking steroids or  
               marijuana you shouldn't be allowed to play.  
               because it effects the way you play and it can  
               make your play better or worse and it's not fair.  
               girl: i totally dis-agree. what kids do is their  
               own business. if they play good, then they play  
               good. boy: if they want to do something with their
               life, it's their business and it's none of the  
               principal's business to go invade it."

text:          but timothy dyer, executive director of the  
               national association of secondary school  
               principals, says that students are in the legal  
               custody of the school during classes and sports  
               activities., and, he says,  administrators have  
               the same obligations to protect children against  
               drug use and drug users while they are in school  
               as parents do when the children are at home.  

tape cut two                     dyer (:42)

               "when you are on an athletic team, you're expected
               to perform and you're expected to adhere to rules  
               and to know the games and to know the plans  
               etcetera. and if you make a mistake you could hurt
               one of your colleagues. in athletics, you depend  
               upon your team mates to be doing what is right and
               not to be performing in some goofy kind of a  
               fashion! one of the primary reasons of school  
               administrators and school personnel, all of us,  
               teachers and administrators, is to protect the  
               safety of the student body. and that, i think, is  
               what the court is dealing with in this decision.  
               it is a reasonable intrusion because of the  
               potential harm that can come to the individual  
               student as well as to the other members of the  
               team and the opponents that they are faced with."

text:          critics claim that there are  no  reasonable  
               intrusions against the constitution's fourth  
               amendment protection against unreason-able  
               searches. they say that such privacy rights are  
               absolute, and not a matter of degree.  

               in his majority opinion,  supreme court justice  
               antony scalia (schu-lee-uh) wrote that the school  
               district's program is "reasonable and hence  
               constitutional."  addressing the privacy issue,  
               justice scalia said that "public school locker  
               rooms ... are not notable for the privacy they  
               afford". and, he said,  "school sports are not for
               the bashful." justice sandra day o'connor, in her  
               dissenting opinion, quoted an earlier case which  
               found that state monitoring collection of urine is
               "particularly destructive of privacy and offensive
               to personal dignity."  

               norman siegal, the executive director of the new  
               york civil liberties union also opposes monday's  
               ruling.  

tape cut three                   siegal (:29)

               "i think it sends two horrible messages to our  
               young people. number one, it says that with regard
               to fourth amendment rights, student athletes are  
               second class citizens. they have a limited right  
               of privacy in the public school. and second, it  
               sends the wrong civics lesson. it teaches young  
               people that the presumption of innocence is turned
               upside down. no longer will these young people be  
               innocent until proven guilty. they are now  
               suspects and they have to prove their innocence."

text:          gwendolyn gregory, deputy general counsel of the  
               national school boards association, was closely  
               involved in the case and applauds monday's result.
               she acknowledges that courts have ruled in the  
               past that most searches may be conducted only  
               against specific individuals who are under  
               so-called "reasonable suspicion," and that groups  
               as a whole may not be targeted. but she says that,
               precisely because school testing programs are  
               random, they actually prevent social stigma.  

tape cut four                    gregory (:44)

               "prior to this time, courts have held that if you  
               don't suspect the individual searched, that you  
               can't search basically. and this has changed that  
               a bit i think. but i think in the case of drug  
               testing, that this is a little different than  
               other types of testing. because, in this case, if  
               the only time that you can test is when you have a
               suspicion then it does send a stigma where a child
               is tested and all the kids say 'oh well. he's  
               suspected of using drugs or he wouldn't be  
               tested.' but in this case, it's random, so he's  
               only tested because he's number ten on the list or
               whatever the random system [is] of picking the  
               child to be tested."  

text:          mr. siegal of the new york civil liberties union  
               says that, whatever the strict constitutionality  
               of the supreme court decision, drug tests will  
               still have a negative effect on student morale.  

tape cut five                       siegal (:22)/

               "i think this is going to be tremendously  
               divisive. in team sports, the whole objective is  
               to bring the team together. you're going to have  
               some students going along with this, some students
               deciding that they're not going to go along with  
               it. it's going to be very divisive. it's going to  
               be very costly for the schools. they don't have  
               money for reading and writing and now we're going  
               to  be using millions of dollars across this  
               country for this kind of program."

text:          that was norman siegel, a civil liberties lawyer,  
               who opposes monday's supreme court decision  
               allowing public schools to conduct random drug  
               tests on prospective team athletes. (signed)

neb/ap/nes

29-jun-95 5:10 pm edt (2110 utc)
nnnn

source: voice of america
.

    >>   I think you are missing the point.

    >I don't think so.  You forgot to include the line which indicated that
    >this was a minor nit.  I address your point in the previous paragraph,
    >which is not show here.
    
    I'm sorry my head's not working today... Can you elaborate a bit ?

    also a minor nit.  The district in question is not testing for
    "performance enhancers" such as steroids.  Just the run of the mill
    "evyl" marijuana, cocaine, uppers, downers stuff.

    Oh I see... I'll have to re think my views and get back to you.
    Actually I'll have to read the whole lot again !!!!! :*)

    Reprinted:

    > The point is people are always going to cheat.  I think that you should
    > take some REASONABLE precautions to prevent it, but people will cheat.
    > If we raise children who are going to whine and complain about cheaters
    > instead of working harder to beat them anyway, then I think that we
    > have missed the point of competition.  I have lost a competition to a 
    > cheater before, lodged a formal challenge, and went about my business to 
    > whip his a$$ anyway, regardless of the result of the challenge.  I believe
    > that we are raising an entire generation that believes if you don't get
    > what you want, whine and complain until someone fixes it for you.  We
    > are becoming a NATION of VICTIMS !

    My point was that you will always encounter cheaters in life.  I
    believe that we as a society spend too much time trying "to make
    everything fair", and not enough time trying to improve ourselves.
    Trying to attain a level playing field all too often involves lowering
    standards for one group to make it easier for them to compete, or
    penalizing the more successful group.  "The nail that stands the
    highest is the first on that get hammered down."  This is WRONG!  The
    basic concept is wrong.  Life will NEVER have a level playing field. 
    Someone will ALWAYS have the advantage.  There is nothing wrong with
    that.  I will accept that we need to prevent laws which would exclude
    certain groups from playing on the field of life, but we should not
    allow them extra points when they get on the field.  You want a piece
    of this, come on out and get it.  If it's too hot for you stay outta
    the kitchen!

    I have gone out on the field and fought and won numerous times.  There
    have also been times when I came off the field bloody, battered, and
    beaten with no prize.  IT'S CALLED LIFE !  Sometimes I have stayed on
    the sidelines and watched, because I didn't feel I could cut it.  We
    all come into this world pretty much the same, upside-down, naked, and
    crying.  It's where we go from there which is our decision.

    In a nut shell, I'm tired of all of the whining that goes on.  Don't
    try to stop me, in my run for the gold, to try and show me your lumps, I
    got some good ones of my own.  This is what I was trying, apparently
    unsuccessfully to get across to the reader.

    Many thanks for your patience in reading my thoughts on this.

    :-)
    Dan

    
    >We all come into this world pretty much the same, upside-down, naked,
    >and crying.  
    
    
    I didn't.

    Silly me ! ! !
    Of course not !

    It's a well known fact that all the 'box babes were created perfectly
    formed and delivered by a Golden Eagle (no mere stork would do)!

    For give me for my stupidity.  I was referring to us lowly peons.
        Forgive me !
        Forgive me !
        Forgive me !
        Forgive me !

    :-)
    Dan

    
    Actually, what I meant was that I came into the world right side up and
    quiet as the tomb, but if you'd like to spread the notion that the
    babes were birthed in somewhat of a Botticellian fashion, go right 
    ahead 8^). 

    .367
    
    > right side up and quiet as the tomb
    
    Botticellian fashion, indeed.  Did you cover yourself modestly while
    you were arriving on the seashell?

    
    My family doctor, Otto Bruckschwager, built me from spare parts.
    

    
    Botti Jelly is good for diaper rash.

    I had a nice box of Botticelli once.....

>   <<< Note 188.364 by DEVLPR::DKILLORAN "M1A - The choice of champions !" >>>
>    Trying to attain a level playing field all too often involves lowering
>    standards for one group to make it easier for them to compete, or
>    penalizing the more successful group.  "The nail that stands the
>    highest is the first on that get hammered down."

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Punish achievement, reward sloth.

 


The following letter was written by Associate Professor of Law Jeffrey
M. Blum of the University of Buffalo School of Law, in response to a
request from a federal court judge, and is a good summary of many of
the things that are wrong with the "war on drugs." 



May 21, 1990 

   The Hon. John L. Elfvin 
   United States District Court 
   Western District of New York 
   Buffalo, New York 14202 

Re: United States v. Anderson, CR-89-210E 

Dear Judge Elfvin: 

I have received a request from your Chambers for a submission in the
nature of an amicus curiae brief addressed to the question: 

   "whether today's climate of allegedly rampant importation of
   contraband drugs * * * * justifies a `relaxation' of the
   Constitutional rules which would otherwise control." 

I am told that argument on this question is scheduled for June 4, 1990.
Unfortunately my publishing deadlines and commitments at this time of
year preclude me from preparing a full brief. However, because I
appreciate the request and believe it is critically important for members
of the judiciary to be well informed on this issue, I wish to offer three
things in response: first, the instant letter brief which will simply list
proposed findings of fact that bear centrally on the issue, second, the
enclosed packet of readings that documents some of the proposed
findings and assesses the drug war from a variety of perspectives, and
third, my personal expression of willingness to speak free of charge
regarding any or all of the proposed findings to any gathering containing
influential members of the Western New York legal community. 

The proposed findings are based upon information I have gathered from
a variety of what I believe to be reputable sources. In most cases more
than one source is involved. The proposed findings are offered in
support of the following answer to Your Honor's question: 

   No, today's climate of allegedly rampant importation of
   contraband drugs * * * * does not justify a `relaxation' of the
   Constitutional rules which would otherwise control. Rather, it
   necessitates a strengthening of constitutional norms to
   safeguard reasonable exercises of personal liberty from
   arbitrary and unwarranted invasion, and to prevent uncontrolled
   cycles of hysteria from severely impairing our constitutional
   form of government. 

Professorial Amicus' Proposed Findings of Fact 

 1. For several years now the United States government's "war on
   drugs" has been inspiring a series of decisions substantially
   cutting back on established constitutional rights, particularly in
   the areas of the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments to the U.S.
   Constitution. See - Wisotsky, Crackdown: The Emerging Drug
   Exception to the Bill of Rights, 38 HASTINGS L. J. 889 (1987). 

 2. The drug war has been directed against a variety of very
   different illicit substances, some highly addictive and posing a
   significant public health problem, and others not. Over three-
   fourths of the illicit drug use in the United States involves
   smoking or ingestion of marijuana. For each of the last ten years
   marijuana has accounted for a majority of drug-related arrests,
   seizures, property forfeitures, and expenditure of law
   enforcement funds. Because of marijuana's easy detectability,
   laws against it have generated an average of close to 500,000
   arrests annually in the United States. See- annual household
   surveys of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and annual
   reports of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

 3. There is not now, nor has there ever been, credible medical
   evidence to justify this level of law enforcement effort against
   marijuana. Rather, several presidential panels of experts and a
   number of other comprehensive reputable studies have
   consistently and unequivocally shown marijuana to be far less
   addictive, less toxic, less hazardous to health, less disruptive of
   family relationships, less impairing of workplace productivity
   and less likely to trigger release of inhibitions against violent
   behavior than alcohol. See- Hollister, Health Aspects of
   Cannabis, 38 PHARMACOLOGICAL REVIEWS 1 (1986)
   (included in enclosed packet). 

 4. Marijuana was first made illegal in the United States in the
   early twentieth century largely for two reasons, neither of which
   was health-related. The first publicly known large user group of
   marijuana was Mexican-Americans. Marijuana laws began
   being passed in Southwestern states as part of a
   self-conscious harassment campaign designed to drive
   Mexican-Americans out of the United States and "back" to
   Mexico. This harassment campaign intensified during the
   1930's when the depression was making jobs scarce and
   causing Anglo-Americans to covet the jobs held by Chicanos.
   For proposed findings 4 through 7, infra, see- Riggenbach,
   Marijuana: Freedom is the Issue, 1980 LIBERTARIAN
   REVIEW 18 (included in enclosed packet). 

 5. The second important reason for marijuana prohibition was the
   covert protectionist activities of paper and synthetic fiber
   industries in the 1930's. These interests, of which the Du Pont
   Corporation was the most important representative, wanted to
   eliminate possible competition from the hemp plant (marijuana
   is comprised of the buds or flowers of the hemp plant), which
   had recently become a serious "threat" as a result of the
   invention of the hemp decorticator machine. With such a
   machine in existence, competition could have become severe
   because hemp, in contrast to trees, is an annual plant with no
   clearcutting problem. Hemp also is believed to produce 4.1
   times as much paper pulp as trees, acre for acre. 

 6. Several trends in government converged to make
   hemp/marijuana prohibition possible. The New Deal Court had
   recently swept away earlier established doctrines of economic
   due process which had limited covert protectionist uses of
   government agencies. Andrew Mellon, the chief financier of the
   Du Ponts, had become Secretary of the Treasury and appointed
   his nephew, Harry Anslinger, to head the newly created Federal
   Bureau of Narcotics. Anslinger proceeded to misclassify
   marijuana, which is a mild stimulant and euphoriant, as a
   narcotic, and to make its prohibition his agency's top priority. In
   addition, the recent lifting of alcohol prohibition had confronted
   a number of federal agents with the risk of unemployment if new
   forms of prohibition could not be instituted. All these factors
   contributed to passage of the Marijuana Tax Act, the initial
   federal prohibitory legislation, in 1937. 

 7. Throughout the 1930's a lurid "reefer madness" propaganda
   campaign was carried on throughout the nation, largely through
   the Hearst newspaper chain. The Hearst chain, whose vertical
   integration had caused them to buy substantial amounts of
   timber land, had been accustomed to using lurid propaganda
   campaigns to sell newspapers since the Spanish-American
   War in 1898. The "reefer madness" campaign was based partly
   on the knowledge that Pancho Villa's army had smoked
   marijuana during the Mexican Revolution. It portrayed marijuana
   as a powerful drug capable of causing Anglo teenagers to turn
   instantly into hot blooded, irrational, violent people, much akin
   to the "Frito bandito" stereotype of Mexican-Americans. 

 8. The "reefer madness" campaign rested on a large number of
   anecdotal stories of violent incidents, almost all of which have
   turned out to have been fictitious and traceable to a single
   doctor who had worked closely with Harry Anslinger. One
   indication of the stories' falsity is that during the Second World
   War and Korean War Anslinger himself shifted from calling
   marijuana a violence-inducing drug to calling it a menace that
   had the capacity to turn large numbers of young people into
   pacifists. For proposed findings 8 through 11, infra, see Herer,
   THE EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES (Los Angeles:
   HEMP Publishing, 5632 Van Nuys Blvd., Van Nuys, Calif.
   91401). 

 9. Since marijuana began becoming popular among the white
   middle class in the mid-1960's a number of specious medical
   studies alleging great harm from marijuana have been widely
   publicized. The most important of these, and the source of the
   widespread myth that marijuana damages brain cells, involved
   force feeding rhesus monkeys marijuana smoke through gas
   masks. The monkeys consumed in a matter of minutes amounts
   of smoke far greater than what human beings would be likely to
   consume in a month. The monkeys suffered substantial brain
   damage that appears to have been caused by carbon monoxide
   poisoning from smoke inhalation. 

 10. Covert economic protectionism appears to have played a
   continuing important role in sustaining marijuana prohibition
   during the last decade. Pharmaceutical companies, possibly
   alarmed at the increasingly widespread use of marijuana as a
   versatile home remedy, provided most of the funding in the late
   1970's and early 1980's for a network of "parents' groups
   against marijuana." By far the largest sponsor of the
   Partnership for Drug-free America, which blankets the
   airwaves with anti-marijuana commercials, has been the Philip
   Morris Company. Philip Morris owns several brands of tobacco
   cigarettes and is the parent company of Miller Beer, and
   possibly some other brands of beer as well. 

 11. Partnership commercials, while exaggerated but to some degree
   truthful about cocaine, have been uniformly uninformative about
   marijuana. They have ranged from merely casting negative
   stereotypes of marijuana users as lazy and shiftless to being
   instances of outright (and possibly legally actionable) fraud.
   One widely aired commercial compares the brainwaves of "a
   normal teenager" and "a teenager under the influence of
   marijuana." The latter was later admitted by Partnership
   officials to have been the brain waves of a person in a deep
   coma. 

 12. Largely as a result of such government and
   corporate-sponsored propaganda campaigns a majority of
   people have come to support an across-the-board crackdown
   on illicit drug use and sales. Due to this political climate a
   number of harsh statutes have been passed during the last five
   years and these, combined with various "relaxations" of
   constitutional restrictions on law enforcement activities, have
   resulted in large numbers of young people receiving ten, fifteen
   and twenty-year mandatory-minimum sentences for transport
   and sale of marijuana. Thousands of people have forfeited
   ownership of their farms, homes, shops and vehicles for
   growing, and in some instances merely possessing, marijuana.
   See generally- the Omnibus Anti-drug and Anti-crime Acts of
   1984, 1986 and 1988. 

 13. Because of this wholly unjustified crackdown on marijuana,
   people around the country have come to view the term "Your
   Honor" as connoting a person of ill will, mean spirit and low
   principle. "The Government" has come to connote an
   organization that is both very inefficient in its processing of
   information and very casual current system of black market
   distribution which generates widespread crime, escalating rates
   of incarceration and a substantial hidden subsidy for organized
   crime. Whatever disincentives were needed to keep large
   numbers of people from choosing to become addicts (e.g.,
   making addicts wait in line for two hours to get their doses)
   could be built into the system of distribution. Such a system
   worked quite well in Great Britain until the issue became too
   politicized for it to continue. See Trebach, supra. 

 14. Psychedelic drugs pose greater hazards than marijuana, but
   less than those of addictive drugs like heroin and cocaine.
   While some psychedelics, such as PCP, may be inherently
   dangerous and thus appropriately prohibited altogether, most
   can be taken safely by most people. The problems posed by
   LSD, for example, in some ways resemble those presented by
   scuba diving. Each is seen as a form of exploration that opens
   new vistas. Hence participants often find the activity
   enormously stimulating and inspiring. Each activity poses a
   small but significant risk of serious personal harm, these being
   death for one and aggravation of pre-existing states of mental
   instability for the other. Untrained, unsupervised use of
   unchecked substances or equipment are ill-advised in both
   cases. Conversely, though, a government-orchestrated
   campaign of persecution for either group of explorers is likely to
   be viewed as barbaric by knowledgeable persons. In each case
   a premium should be put on devising social policies that
   minimize the hazards of the activities in question. 



Thank you, Judge Elfvin, for the opportunity to place these proposed
findings of fact before the Court. I believe Your Honor can discern the
relationship between the information they present and the answer
proposed in response to the Court's question. If I may be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to call my secretary at (716)
636-2103. I do, however, expect to be out of town during the period of
May 21, 1990 to June 10, 1990. 

   Sincerely, 

   Jeffrey M. Blum 
   Associate Professor of Law 

      The Honorable Richard J. Arcara 
      The Honorable Robert L. Carter 
      The Honorable John J. Callahan 
      The Honorable M. Dolores Denman 
      The Honorable John H. Doerr 
      The Honorable Samuel L. Green 
      Susan Barbour, Esq. 

104th Congress H. R. 135  As Introduced in the House

Note: This document is the unofficial version of a Bill or Resolution.
      The printed Bill and Resolution produced by the Government Printing
      Office is the only official version.

VERSION   As Introduced in the House
CONGRESS  104th CONGRESS
           1st Session
BILL                                   H. R. 135
TITLE     To prohibit federally sponsored research pertaining to the
              legalization of drugs.
                                  --------------------
                            IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                    JANUARY 4, 1995
          Mr. Solomon  introduced the following bill; which was referred to
          the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
                                  --------------------
TEXT                                     A BILL
          To prohibit federally sponsored research pertaining to the
              legalization of drugs.
            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
          United States of America in Congress assembled,
          SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
            This Act may be cited as the `Anti-Drug Legalization Act`.
          SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
            The Congress finds that -
                (1) the sale, possession and use of drugs pose a pervasive
              and substantial threat to the social, educational, and economic
              health of the United States;
                (2) the impact of drug abuse is reflected in the violence
              that it causes and in the disintegration of families, schools,
              and neighborhoods;
                (3) the effects of rampant drug use is amply illustrated by
              national violent crime statistics across the United States;
                (4) the overwhelming majority of health care and law
              enforcement experts agree that drug legalization would have
              disastrous consequences for the people of the United States;
              and
                (5) recent studies demonstrate that drug use by young people
              is on the rise in the United States.
          SEC. 3. RESTRICTION.
            Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department or
          agency of the United States Government shall conduct or finance, in
          whole or in part, any study or research involving the legalization
          of drugs.

104th Congress H. R. 1453  As Introduced in the House

Note: This document is the unofficial version of a Bill or Resolution.
      The printed Bill and Resolution produced by the Government Printing
      Office is the only official version.

VERSION   As Introduced in the House
CONGRESS  104th CONGRESS
           1st Session
BILL                                   H. R. 1453
TITLE     To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny tax-exempt
              status to organizations which promote the legalization of
              certain drugs.
                                  --------------------
                            IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                     APRIL 6, 1995
          Mr. Solomon introduced the following bill; which was referred to
              the Committee on Ways and Means
                                  --------------------
TEXT                                     A BILL
          To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to deny tax-exempt
              status to organizations which promote the legalization of
              certain drugs.
            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
          United States of America in Congress assembled,
          SECTION 1. DENIAL OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS TO ORGANIZATIONS WHICH
                        PROMOTE THE LEGALIZATION OF CERTAIN DRUGS.
            (a) In General  . - Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of
          1986 (relating to exemption from tax on corporations, certain
          trusts, etc.) is amended by redesignating subsection (n) as
          subsection (o) and by inserting after subsection (m) the following
          new subsection:
            `(n) Organizations Promoting Legalization of Certain Drugs Not
          Exempt From Tax  . - An organization shall not be exempt from tax
          under subsection (a) if any portion of the activities of such
          organization consists of promoting the legalization of any
          controlled substance, as defined in section 102(6) of the
          Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).`
            (b) Effective Date  . - The amendment made by this section shall
          apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of
          this Act.

104th Congress H.R. 117  As Introduced in the House

Note: This document is the unofficial version of a Bill or Resolution.
      The printed Bill and Resolution produced by the Government Printing
      Office is the only official version.

VERSION   As Introduced in the House
CONGRESS  104th CONGRESS
           1st Session
BILL                                    H.R. 117
TITLE     To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to prevent persons
              having drug or alcohol use problems from occupying dwelling
              units in public housing projects designated for occupancy by
              elderly families, and for other purposes.
                                  --------------------
                            IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                    JANUARY 4, 1995
          Mr. Blute  (for himself, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Canady, Mr.
          Franks of Connecticut, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hutchinson,
          Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Johnston of Florida, Mr. Klug, Mr.
          Livingston, Mr. Martinez, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Petri, Mr. Quinn, and Mr.
          Royce) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
          Committee on Banking and Financial Services
                                  --------------------
TEXT                                     A BILL
          To amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to prevent persons
              having drug or alcohol use problems from occupying dwelling
              units in public housing projects designated for occupancy by
              elderly families, and for other purposes.
            Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
          United States of America in Congress assembled,
          SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
            This Act may be cited as the `Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act
          of 1995`.
          SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON OCCUPANCY IN PUBLIC HOUSING DESIGNATED FOR
                        ELDERLY FAMILIES.
            (a) In General  . - Section 7(a) of the United States Housing Act
          of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437e(a)) is amended -
                (1) in paragraph (1), by striking `Notwithstanding any other
              provision of law` and inserting `Subject only to the provisions
              of this subsection`;
                (2) in paragraph (4), by inserting `, except as provided in
              paragraph (5)` before the period at the end; and
                (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
                `(5) Limitation on occupancy in projects for elderly families
          . -
                    `(A) Occupancy limitation  . - Notwithstanding any other
          provision of law, a dwelling unit in a project (or portion of a
          project) that is designated under paragraph (1) for occupancy by
          only elderly families or by only elderly and disabled families
          shall not be occupied by -
                        `(i) any person with disabilities who is not an
                      elderly person and whose history of use of alcohol or
                      drugs constitutes a disability; or
                        `(ii) any person who is not an elderly person and
                      whose history of use of alcohol or drugs provides
                      reasonable cause for the agency to believe that the
                      occupancy by such person may interfere with the health,
                      safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises
                      by other tenants.
                    `(B) Required statement  . - A public housing agency may
          not make a dwelling unit in such a project available for occupancy
          to any person or family who is not an elderly family, unless the
          agency acquires from the person or family a signed statement that
          no person who will be occupying the unit -
                        `(i) uses (or has a history of use of) alcohol, or
                        `(ii) uses (or has a history of use of) drugs,
                  that would interfere with the health, safety, or right to
                  peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants.`.
            (b) Lease Provisions  . - Section 6(l) of the United States
          Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437d(l)) is amended -
                (1) in paragraph (5), by striking `and` at the end;
                (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7); and
                (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new
              paragraph:
                `(6) provide that any occupancy in violation of the
              provisions of section 7(a)(5)(A) or the furnishing of any false
              or misleading information pursuant to section 7(a)(5)(B) shall
              be cause for termination of tenancy; and`.
          SEC. 3. EVICTION OF NONELDERLY TENANTS HAVING DRUG OR ALCOHOL USE
                        PROBLEMS FROM PUBLIC HOUSING DESIGNATED FOR ELDERLY
                        FAMILIES.
            Section 7(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 is amended
          to read as follows:
            `(c) Standards Regarding Evictions  . -
                `(1) Limitation  . - Except as provided in paragraph (2), any
          tenant who is lawfully residing in a dwelling unit in a public
          housing project may not be evicted or otherwise required to vacate
          such unit because of the designation of the project (or a portion
          of the project) pursuant to this section or because of any action
          taken by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or any
          public housing agency pursuant to this section.
                `(2) Requirement to evict nonelderly tenants having drug or
              alcohol use problems in housing designated for elderly families
          . - The public housing agency administering a project (or portion
          of a project) described in subsection (a)(5)(A) shall evict any
          person whose occupancy in the project (or portion of the project)
          violates subsection (a)(5)(A).
                `(3) Requirement to evict nonelderly tenants for 3 instances
              of prohibited activity involving drugs or alcohol  . - With
          respect to a project (or portion of a project) described in
          subsection (a)(5)(A), the public housing agency administering the
          project shall evict any person who is not an elderly person and
          who, during occupancy in the project (or portion thereof), engages
          on 3 separate occasions (occurring after the date of the enactment
          of the Senior Citizens Housing Safety Act) in any activity that
          threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the
          premises by other tenants and involves the use of alcohol or drugs.
                `(4) Rule of construction  . - The provisions of paragraphs
          (2) and (3) requiring eviction of a person may not be construed to
          require a public housing agency to evict any other persons who
          occupy the same dwelling unit as the person required to be
          evicted.`.
          SEC. 4. STANDARDS FOR LEASE TERMINATION AND EXPEDITED GRIEVANCE
                        PROCEDURE.
            Section 6 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
          1437d) is amended -
                (1) in subsection (k), in the first sentence of the matter
              following paragraph (6), by striking `criminal` the first place
              it appears; and
                (2) in subsection (l)(5), by striking `criminal` the first
              place it appears.

 
The Drug War and the Constitution

by Paul Hager

   Following is a transcript of the speech I gave at the ICLU
   Conference. I am appending the companion notes to the end.
   Text between brackets [] is description or commentary and
   not part of the actual transcript. 



I'd like to draw your attention to companion notes that I put together
for this talk. They're located on the tables out back there, and I think
that those of you who are doing CLE have them in your manuals. 

Well, I'm going to attempt to descend into the murky depths of
political philosophy and Constitutional analysis. At the outset, I do
have a caveat: the arguments I am going to be presenting have never
been endorsed by Congress or the courts and I hope that during the
question and answer session we can get into this in a little bit more
detail. 

The thesis that I want to advance today is that the drug war and the
laws that prohibit the private consumption of certain drugs are
un-Constitutional. Prohibition laws, themselves, violate every tenet
of limited government that is embodied in our Constitution. 

To begin, let me pose a question: why was it necessary to amend the
Constitution in order to prohibit the drug alcohol? And, while you are
cogitating on that: how is it possible to prohibit other drugs without
going through the formal amendment process? Well, I think, in order
to answer these questions, it's necessary to take a look at what the
Constitution is supposed to be. 

At the recent confirmation hearings of Judge Clarence Thomas (uh,
Clarence Thomas, by the way, -- he and I have at least two things
in common: we're both ex marijuana users [chuckles from the
audience], and we're both married to attorneys) -- in any case,
there was a lot of discussion at the hearings about natural law and
natural rights. Just about all of the participants seemed to agree that
our system recognizes the existence of "inalienable" natural rights
and that government exists to "secure" those rights for its citizens.
It's just as well that they agreed on that -- the architects of our
system of government, in fact, had that principle in mind, and they
viewed the Constitution as being a blueprint for a limited government
in which those powers that were to be made available to the federal
government would be listed. If a power is not listed in the
Constitution, it is not supposed to be available to the Federal
government. Two hundred odd years ago, when the Bill of Rights --
which we're here to celebrate -- was being debated, there were
those who opposed the Bill of Rights on the grounds that, uh, they're
completely unnecessary. It's redundant -- the rights already exist
and therefore they don't have a place in the the Constitution. In fact,
they made the argument that a Bill of Rights is dangerous because at
some future point in time, people would get the idea that if a right
wasn't to be found in the Constitution -- like privacy -- it did not
exist. Perhaps the best articulation I've ever seen of this principle is
to be found in _The Federalist Papers_. [I hold up a paperback of The
Federalist Papers.] Alexander Hamilton writing in Federalist number
84 -- and I'll just read some of this out to you. He says: 

   "... bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they
   are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed
   constitution, but would even be dangerous." 

And then his argument is: 

   "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is
   no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the
   liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is
   given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not
   contend that such a provision would confer a regulating
   power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed
   to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They
   might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution
   ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing
   against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and
   that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press
   afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper
   regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the
   national government. This", he concluded, "may serve as a
   specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to
   the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an
   injudicious zeal for bills of rights." 

Good writer, Mr. Hamilton. [I gestured with the book and put it
aside.] Well, anyway, as we know, Hamilton's view did not prevail
and 10 of the 12 Amendments that were proposed as a Bill of Rights
were ratified in December of 1791. 

In order to mollify critics and meet the arguments of people like
Hamilton, language was added to the Bill of Rights to address this
idea of limited government and natural rights. 

I just happen to have a copy of the Constitution here -- don't leave
home without it [I hold up my pocket copy of the Constitution]-- and
I'll read the language that bears on this. 

   "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
   not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
   people." 

That's the 9th Amendment, this lays out that whole idea of rights
existing apart from the Constitution. 

And then we have: 

   "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
   Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
   to the States respectively, or to the people." 

That's the 10th Amendment and that has to do with delegation of
powers and the idea of limited government. 

Well, let's go back to those questions. I think the answer to the first
question is fairly straightforward -- this idea of alcohol prohibition.
We were talking about a new power that was being acquired --
surrendered by the people and the states -- and so the 18th
Amendment was passed to give that power to the Federal
government. In the case of our second question -- prohibitting other
drugs -- I would argue that we are talking about new powers being
granted to the Federal government that have never been surrendered
by the people and the states. Ergo, the drug war, prohibition laws,
the DEA, the whole ball of wax, are all unconstitutional. I think what
we have here is a prime example of the illegal acquistion of powers
by a central government through a process of slow accretion. And
this was exactly the sort of thing Hamilton was warning against
back in 1787. 

If it is the case the federal government can't get involved in the
prohibition business, what about the state governments? Uh, I think
one answer to this is to look at the right of privacy which is
protected by the 9th Amendment and extended to the states by the
14th. The right has been invoked to protect privacy in such areas as
family planning -- birth control -- and, at least so far, the right of
privacy seems to be protecting a woman's choice whether or not to
have an abortion. Furthermore, this same right should apply in
matters involving an individual's decision to consume, privately, a
recreational drug in his or her home. 

One argument that might militate against this idea of a right of
privacy taking precedence might be -- uh, well, what if the people
who use drugs are infringing on the rights of other people. For
example, users of cocaine and opiates. Is there a compelling state
interest -- is there some kind of balancing test that we can apply
that gives the state the right to intervene? I'd like to pose a
hypothetical here that we can use for the purposes of analysis. Let's
posit the existance of a drug that is 100% addicting and potentiates
violence in its users 100% of the time. I think we'd have a very clear
case of there being a compelling state interest to get itself involved
in prohibitting this drug on the grounds that the state is protecting
the rights of the non-users. Well, suppose we begin reducing those
percentages. Let's suppose that we're talking about a drug that is
15% addictive and potentiates violence in some lesser percentage of
its users. We have an empirical answer for that: I've just described
alcohol. And, just for another for instance, let's suppose that we
have a drug that is 90% addictive but doesn't seem to correlate with
violence at all. Again, empirically we have an answer: I've just
described cigarettes. 

I would argue that pharmacological and population data can be
adduced to compare alcohol and tobacco with other drugs like
opiates and cocaine derivitives. And, if we do this, we find that
alcohol is, in fact, more addictive than many forms of opiates and
many forms of cocaine although less addictive than crack cocaine.
Furthermore, smoked tobacco is generally recognized as being the
most addictive drug around. That other area, having to do with
violence and anti-social behavior, once again we find that the drug
that is the greatest potentiator of violent behavior is alcohol. And if
we look at the other drugs like opiates and cocaine, we find that
most of the violence that is associated with these drugs is
associated with the black market/organized crime component of the
drug trade and is not a pharmacological feature of the drug itself. 

Well, I'm the political coordinator of the Hoosier Cannabis
Re-legalization Coalition, and I haven't said a word about marijuana
yet and I probably should -- uh -- marijuana, which is the Nation's
number one illegal drug, which is estimated to have been used by
over 60 million people, is recognized as being relatively
non-addictive. For a point of comparison, if we look at the common
drug caffeine -- which I was dosing myself with earlier today --
caffeine, which is in coffee and softdrinks, is generally recognized
as being more addictive than marijuana. Furthermore, no scientific
evidence has ever been brought forth that would support the idea
that marijuana leads to violent, anti-social behavior. Thus, by no
stretch of the imagination is there a rational or scientific justification
for marijuana prohibition and, perforce, there is no marijuana
prohibition law that passes Constitutional muster. Moreover, using
alcohol and tobacco as our metrics, even heroin and crack prohibition
cannot be justified. 

At this point, it's probably time to boldly go where no Constitutional
interpreter has gone before and so I'm going to move into more
speculative areas. The 1st Amendment, which protects religion and
speech, I think also by extension protects thought and belief. Well,
what is the seat of religion, thought and belief? [A pregnant pause.]
The brain, right? [Tapping my cranium.] In fact, speech and belief are
manifestations of the internal state of a person's brain. Science is
beginning to inform us as to how chemicals and neurotransmitters,
indeed the physical "wiring" of our brain defines who we are and how
we think. Unless we get involved in metaphysics I think we have to
recognize that there is physical basis for belief. Where I'm heading
with this is that, if it is the case that your physical brain state
determines whether you are a Methodist, an agnostic, or a Nazi then
clearly the state of your brain is protected in some sense. The
question I'd like to put to you is: if it is the case that the 1st
Amendment allows a person to alter his or her cognitive system by
reading "Mein Kampf" -- which might well alter it permanently, you
might become a Nazi for the rest of your life -- then how is it
possible for the government to step in and say that a person may not
temporarily alter his or her cognitive system for two or three hours
by smoking a marijuana joint? [Scattered applause.] Also, another
way of looking at this same thing is, what is the rationale for saying
that programming your brain across the visual or aural pathways is
OK but programming your brain _chemically_ across the blood-brain
barrier is not? 

And finally -- uh, and I think that this is the most frightening
prospect in this whole thing -- consider this: if a state government
can come up to you and can say, you may not pass delta-9-THC --
the principal intoxicant in marijuana -- you cannot pass that across
your blood-brain barrier, what is to prevent a state from saying at
some point in the future, you _must_ pass drug X -- let's call it
soma like in _Brave New World_ -- you must pass soma across
your blood-brain barrier? I guess what I'm arguing is that the
government has intruded into your biochemical and physiological
brain and in principle, once the government can do this, then in
principle the government can control any part of your body. 

I think I've just abrout wrapped up the general comments I wanted to
make. One thing I might suggest: we might also talk about some
specific areas where government has been in violation of
Constitutional rights all at the behest of this drug war. 

Thank you. 



Companion Notes

By focusing on the Constitutional dimension of drug _prohibition_,
I've attempted to approach the issue from a different perspective. In
claiming that the drug war and drug prohibition violate the U.S.
Constitution and fundamental principles of civil liberty I am aware
that there is a dearth of present day case law to support my
arguments. Instead, I have relied on the writings of Hamilton,
Madison, and Jay in The Federalist Papers and, to a lesser extent,
selected writings of Thomas Jefferson that appear in Jefferson:
Writings (Merrill D. Peterson wrote the notes and selected text,
ISBN 0-940450-16-X). I assert that current prohibitionist policy
entails a grant of power to government that was never contemplated
and was, in fact, explicitly rejected by the framers of the
Constitution. 

The Harrison Act of 1914 was the first major step by the Federal
government in the direction of drug prohibition. The 18th Amendment
and the enabling legislation of the Volsted Act were to come later, in
1919 and 1920 respectively. An excellent analysis of the case law
interpreting the Harrison Act is to be found in Arnold S. Trebach's
book, The Heroin Solution (Yale University Press, 1982, ISBN
0-300-02773-7), chapter 6. For a short overview of drug prohibition
"cycles" in U.S. History, and the place of the Harrison Act in them,
see "Opium, Cocaine, and Marijuana in American History", by David
F. Musto, Scientific American, July 1991, volume 265, number 1. 

An excellent source on the "heroin problem" and possible solutions
is The Hardest Drug: Heroin and Public Policy , by John Kaplan
(University of Chicago Press, 1983, ISBN 0-226-42427-8).
Professor Kaplan devotes the first two chapters of the book to
exploding the myths about heroin's addictiveness and dangers that
have been used to justify its prohibition. Kaplan also argues that the
Harrison Act was in large part responsible for the development of
many of the social problems that we now associate with heroin use
and considers the Act to have been a mistake. Unaccountably (given
the foundation he lays), Kaplan shies away from legalization
strategies completely and offers heroin maintenance programs with
possible coercive treatment as his alternative to the present
approach. Arnold Trebach, on the other hand, argues in his book that
doctors should be allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts as needed
and to include heroin in their pharmacopoeia. Trebach's legal
analysis of the Harrison Act (mentioned above) is used to buttress
his argument in favor of a liberal interpretion of the Act.
Interestingly, Kaplan, who considers the Act to have been a
mistake, favors a much more restrictive solution than does Trebach
who considers the Harrison Act to have been an appropriate piece of
social engineering. 

On the subject of marijuana, John Kaplan is also the author of a book
entitled Marijuana -- the New Prohibition (1970). Kaplan argued
convicingly for marijuana decriminalization in this book. Arnold
Trebach is currently the head of the Drug Policy Foundation, an
organization that seeks alternatives to the drug war. The
organization generally favors full legalization of marijuana but
embraces a variety of opinion regarding changes in the legal status
of other drugs. 

The issue of "addictiveness" of drugs is complicated. The term itself
has fallen into disfavor among the scientific establishment and "drug
dependence" is generally preferred. I will stick with the more
common term for simplicity. It turns out that the picture of addiction
that is a favorite with police departments and drug czars is far from
accurate. In "The Tragedy of Needless Pain", (by Ronald Melzack,
February 1990, Scientific American), scientific evidence is
presented that morphine used for pain relief is not addictive. Trebach
notes statistics that gave a rate of 500,000 heroin addicts and
3,500,000 "chippers" or non-addicted occasional users in the late
1970's which would mean a 12.5% addiction rate. Laboratory studies
show a higher rate but these studies use medical grade, pure heroin.
In Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction (Surgeon
General's Report, 1988), a comparison is made of the relative
addictiveness of smoked tobacco and several other drugs (the 15%
figure for alcohol comes from this source). The Surgeon General's
Report observes that of service men who became addicted to heroin
in Vietnam, aproximatedly 90% were able to avoid readdiction upon
return to the U.S. The report also mentions the frequency of
"chipping" in heroin use but notes that nonaddicted cigarette users
are exceedingly rare. The addiction rate of 90% for cigarette
smokers also derives from the Surgeon General's Report. 

Other sources that give some picture of comparative addiction
include "Drug Prohibition in the United States: Costs,
Consequences, and Alternatives" by Ethan Nadelmann (Science,
September 1, 1989). In building his case for drug legalization,
Nadelmann cites National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) research
that gives a surprisingly low value for cocaine addiction rates. A
more complete comparision of addictive potentional is to be found in
the magazine, In Health, in an article entitled "Hooked, not Hooked"
by Deborah Franklin (Nov/Dec 1990). Franklin cites addiction
experts' rankings of various legal and illegal drugs as follows (p.
41): 

   1) Nicotine 
   2) "Ice" (smoked methamphetamine) 
   3) Crack 
   4) Crystal Meth (injected methamphetamine) 
   5) Valium (diazepam) 
   6-8) Quaalude 
   6-8) Seconal (secobarbital) 
   6-8) Alcohol 
   9-10) Crank (snorted methamphetamine) 
   9-10) Heroin 
   11) Cocaine 
   12) Caffeine 
   13) PCP 
   14) Marijuana 
   15) Ecstasy (MDMA) 
   16-18) Psilocybin Mushrooms 
   16-18) LSD 
   16-18) Mescaline 

(The rankings as they appear in the magazine are in the form of a bar
graph -- I've converted them to a rank ordering. Note also that,
although amphetamine is broken down according to the method of
administration, other drugs with multiple modes of administration are
not. I.V. injection will, for a number of reasons, be more addicting
than oral ingestion. Concentration is also an important factor as well.
Although the "potency" of heroin is considered to be 3 to 4 times
that of morphine, heroin is actually diacetylmorphine -- morphine
reacted with acetic anhydride. In the body, heroin breaks down to
morphine in order to produce its effect. Apparently, the "potency" of
heroin is the result of the ease with which heroin crosses the
blood-brain barrier before it breaks down to morphine.) 

The Drug Policy Letter, Vol II, number 2, Mar/Apr 1990 (a
newsletter published by the Drug Policy Foundation) uses a back-
of-the-envelope calculation to expose the myth that "crack is the
most addictive drug known to man." It is often said that if one uses
crack just once, a person is addicted. According to the
NIDA-sponsored National Household Survey, 2.5 million people
have tried crack, and 480,000 used it in the month prior to the survey.
Even if one assumed that anyone who used the drug in the past
month was an addict, that would still give an addiction rate of only
19%. Using this same method for alcohol would give a 62% rate and,
for powdered cocaine a 13% addiction rate. Though this is not the
sort of analysis that should be used to gauge addiction rates, it does
give the lie to the "one puff and you're hooked" claim. 

A number of the sources cited above present evidence that violent
criminal activity associated with heroin and cocaine use is actually
the result of the high cost of the drugs coupled with the low
socio-economic status of inner-city addicts. In other words, violent
crime is not a pharmacological feature of the drug itself but a
reflection of black market economics. The same Drug Policy Letter
cited above also reports on research done by Goldstein, Brownstein,
Ryan, and Bellucci on the drug component of violence in New York
City. They found that only a very small proportion of drug-related
murders were a function of the drug itself and most of those were
caused by alcohol. Heroin and other opiates, in particular, are well
known to not provoke aggressive or violent behavior in people under
the influence. 

Two monographs by Professor Bruce L. Benson and Professor David
W. Rasmussen of the Policy Sciences Program of Florida State
University in Tallahassee give another view of drug use and violent
crime from the perspective of incarceration rates in Florida. Benson
and Rasmussen find that the overwhelming number of people who
have been arrested for a drug offense have no arrest history for a
violent or property crime. (See "Drug Offenders in Florida", July
1990, and "Drug Crime and Florida's Criminal Justice Problem",
December 1990.) This is not the result one would expect if the
drug-violent crime connection were as intertwined as apologists for
the drug war would have us believe. 

Notes on Additional Materials

Along with these notes, I'm including two additional items. The first
is "Marijuana Myths", a collection of some typical anti-marijuana
and D.A.R.E. Program falsehoods and their refutation. Each of the
numbered refutation sections has an associated reference section
which will allow readers to check my sources. The second item is
Report #126 of the ABA Law Student Division which recommended
that the ABA reverse its 18 year position favoring marijuana
decriminalization. Report #126 offers no references of any kind,
scientific or otherwise. This is understandable because most of its
assertions are without scientific foundation. If this represents the
sort of evidence that is considered acceptable for a major policy
reversal of the ABA, I believe it reflects badly on the level of
scholarship practiced by the national organization. 

One item that appears in #126 deserves a comment. Much is made
of the increased potency of marijuana. In the Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs, Vol. 20(1), Jan-Mar 1988, Tod Mikuriya, M.D. and Michael
Aldrich, Ph.D. address this matter in "Cannabis 1988 Old Drug, New
Dangers The Potency Question." In a careful piece of research,
Mikuriya and Aldrich demonstrate that a review of independent,
contemporary assays of imported marijuana from the early 70's
show it was every bit as potent as modern domestic sensimilla
varieties. (Anyone who has personal experience with Thai Sticks,
Panama Red, and Oaxacan in the period from the late 60's to early
70's can attest to the potency of the imports.) They also reveal that
improper DEA and police evidence handling techniques (e.g., no
refrigeration of seized marijuana) led to an underestimate of street
potency in the 1970s because samples degraded rather quickly in
evidence warehouses. Besides the country's illicit experience with
marijuana, Mikurya and Aldrich point to the extremely potent forms
of cannabis (i.e., marijuana) tonics that were in common use in the
United States prior to marijuana prohibition in the 1930's. Such
tonics were frequently given to children with no reported ill effects.
Eli-Lilly and Parke, Davis, & Co. entered into a "joint" venture to
produce a potent strain of domestic cannabis sativa for their
cannabis pharmaceuticals which they called cannabis americana
(note: a picture of the 1929 Parke-Davis catalogue for "Cannabis
U.S.P." can be found on page 113 of Dr. Andrew Weil's book,
Chocolate to Morphine: Understanding Mind-Active Drugs, written
with Winifred Rosen, 1983, ISBN 0-395-33108-0). Parke-Davis
claimed uniform effectiveness for their cannabis extract at a 10
milligram dose level (the effective dose of pure delta-9-THC, the
main cannabinoid, is between 25 and 50 micrograms per kilogram).
For those who appreciate irony, take note that Parke-Davis, which
used to make a profit from selling legal cannabis, now makes money
from marketing drug testing kits which primarily detect marijuana
use. 

The following article appeared in Claustrophobia, August 1994

This article may be reprinted without permission, if reprinted whole.

(c) 1994 Kirby R. Cundiff



Crime and the Drug War

Kirby R. Cundiff

In 1907, when Georgia and Oklahoma made the manufacture, sale, or
transportation of intoxicating liquors illegal state wide, the homicide
rate in the United States was 1 person per 100,000 per year.[2]
Before the end of the decade, 13 states plus Alaska, Puerto Rico and
the District of Columbia had gone dry.[6] By 1919--when the 18th
amendment was passed, making alcohol use illegal nationwide--the
homicide rate had grown to 8 per 100,000. The murder rate climbed
steadily until it peaked at 10 per 100,000 around 1933, when our
nation admitted its mistake, and repealed the 18th amendment. By
1943 the homicide rate had drastically shrunk to 5 per 100,000 and
stayed near that level until 1964 when the United States made the
same mistake all over again.[2]

In December of 1964, having been ratified by 40 countries, the Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 went into effect restricting
narcotic drug use to medical and scientific purposes. It also
internationally banned narcotic drug trade outside of government
monopolies.[8] History was about to repeat itself. From 1964 to 1970
in the United States, the number of state prisoners incarcerated for
drug offenses more than doubled from 3,079 to 6,596 (it was 90,000
in 1989)[9], and the new concentration on enforcing victimless
crimes caused the homicide rate to skyrocket. Between 1964 and
1970 the homicide rate doubled from 5 per 100,000 to 10 per 100,000,
where it has remained, with minor fluctuations, until today.[2]
Lyndon Johnson had declared war on drugs, to be followed by
Richard Nixon declaring War on Drugs in 1969, Ronald Reagan
declaring War on Drugs in 1982, and George Bush declaring War on
Drugs in 1989.[4]

At the turn of the century, both heroin and aspirin were legally
available and sold for approximately the same amount. Today aspirin
can be purchased at the corner drug store for 20 cents per gram;
heroin costs $50 per gram. [p. 33, 3] The price of heroin rose
drastically after it was made illegal due to the dangers involved in its
sale. Dealers are willing to kill each other for profits obtained from
such a lucrative market; junkies are willing to rob and kill for money
to support their habit--money, if drugs were legal and cheap, that
they could easily obtain by working at McDonald's. You and I,
through high crime rates caused by the War on Drugs and high tax
rates used to support the War on Drugs, pay the price. During
prohibition "liquor store" owners murdered each other to protect their
turf just as drug dealers do today. Today, liquor store owners are
generally peaceful. Eliminating the enormous profits involved in
black-market businesses eliminates the motive for violent crime,
and therefore the violent crime.

More law enforcement is commonly touted as the answer to
America's violent crime problem. Since 1970 the percentage of the
American population in prision has tripled with no noticeable effect
on the homicide rate.[2] More than 1.3 million citizens are now in
jail.[p. 24, 3] The United States has a larger percentage of its
population in prision than any other nation[2], and still maintains the
highest homicide rate in the industralized world. [1] We have even
thrown away parts of our constitution in the name of fighting crime.
Asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement officers to seize the
property of American citizens without even charging them with a
crime, even though the 5th amendment to the constitution clearly
states "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law..." Of course if you want your property
back you do have the right to post a bond and try to prove yourself
innocent, of a crime you have not even been charged with, in a court
of law. No attorney will be provided for you if you cannot afford one.
Over $2.4 billion worth of assets have been seized since 1985, $664
million in 1991 alone--and in 80% of the cases no charges were ever
filed.[7]

Disparities between the poor and the rich are often considered
causes of our high crime rate, but the United States has not only one
of the world's highest crime rates, but also one of the world's
largest middle classes. The religious right claims America's huge
crime rate is caused by a break-down of family values. This would
require family values breaking down suddenly in 1907, returning in
1933, and suddenly breaking down again in 1964. Many liberals
believe that America's large crime rate is due to our lack of
gun-control laws, but America's gun-control policy has changed
little throughout this century. There is no way gun control can
explain the enormous fluctuations in America's homicide rate. The
United States government's substance control policies are the only
answer. The only way to lower America's violent crime rate, short of
turning the United States into a totalitarian state, is through ending
the War on Drugs.

The growing list of people who support decriminalization of drugs in
America include: William F. Buckley, George Carlin, George
Crockett, Alan Dershowitz, Phil Donahue, Hugh Downs, Milton
Friedman, Ira Glasser, Michael Kinsley, David Letterman, John
McLaughlin, Andy Rooney, Carl Sagan, Kurt Schmoke, Tom Selleck,
George Shultz, George Silver, Tom Snyder, Robert Sweet, Thomas
Szasz, Garry Trudeau, and Donald Trump.[5]

The only political party supporting drug legalization is the Libertarian
Party (1-800-682-1776). I urge you to join us.



 1. "Crime, Law Enforcement, and Penology." Britannica Book of
   the Year 1993, 
   Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 117. 
 2. "The Crime Scene." Forbes, 14 September 1992, 308. 
 3. "Drugs in America." Rolling Stone, 5 May 1994. 
 4. Hazlett, Thomas W., "Looking Backwards." Reason, May
   1993, 70-82. 
 5. "Honor Roll." Illinois Libertarian, April 1993, 10. 
 6. Kobler, John., Ardent Spirits, New York: G. P. Putnam's
   Sons, 1973, 196. 
 7. Paff, John. "Fear." Libertarian Party News, December 1993,
   17. 
 8. "Pharmacology." Britannica Book of the Year 1966, 
   Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 605-607. 
 9. World Almanac and Book of Facts 1993. New York: Pharos
   Books, 950. 

    
    I understand that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded 
    last week that the nicotine in tobacco should be regulated as a drug.
    
    Health Canada said yesterday it has no plans to do the same.
    

    No, they'll just tax the snot out of it some more.  

    
    Yup.  And when the smuggling increases, they'll lower the tax, and
    when the smuggling decreases, they'll raise the tax, and when the
    smuggling increases...well...you get the picture.
    

    My head is spinning.

    I thought the FDA had held that opinion for a while...
    
    That's why Phillip Morris never marketed the "smokeless cigarette." The
    FDA insisted on regulating it as a drug-delivery device instead of a
    tobacco product. In the smokeless cigarette, no tobacco was burned, but
    the user still was able to inhale nicotine.

    So the FDA has found an additional excuse to justify their existence!
    
    Why am I not surprised???
    
    
    ...Tom

    I gotta back them up on that one..they are the Food and >Drug<
    Administration, after all, and nicotine is certainly a drug. The
    smokeless cigarette is also nothing more than a drug delivery device.
    
    They'd be the ones regulating pot if it were ever legalized, too.

>    smokeless cigarette is also nothing more than a drug delivery device.

And that differs from a smoke-style cigarette in what fashion, other than
that the latter is also a cancer deliver device?

I would guess that the tobacco industry's lawyers were careful not to bring
that up when the smokeless cigarette was being challenged by the FDA.

    
    > They'd be the ones regulating pot if it were ever legalized, too.

    Does this mean that we'll see them up there petitioning to have it
    legalized?

    Dan

    I never said, implied, insinuated, hinted, postulated, theorized or
    communicated that a cigarette was NOT a drug delivery device.
    
    It certainly is.

>                       -< Where did you get that idea? >-

Nowhere, actually. Now, discretion prevents me from following up with
the almost inevitable "What made you think that I was . . . ", so I'll
just leave it with, "Don't have a cow, OK?"

                          (__)
                          (oo)
                   /-------\/ 
                  / |     ||  
                 *  ||W---||  
                    ~~    ~~  

    That's not my cow...
    
    I had a cow, but the feds came and impounded it.
    
    Told me I was illegally growing cows without a license and kids were
    getting high sniffing gas produced by cowfarts.
    
    Wait, no, that's the ozone problem...

    Izzat spozed to be funny, or am I methane the point somehow??
    

    
    
    
    Everything's a "drug delivery device"

    If you're methane the point, I can give you all the latest poop on this
    thread...

    
    > Everything's a "drug delivery device"
    
    This probably means I'm a drug delivery device, ...
    'cuz I delivered to to Ms. Deb,.... er, I mean... 
    I gave her those cough drops.... er, let her have 'em....
    I mean,.... Oh never mind
    
    :-)
    Dan
    

    The feds came and pounded your cow? 
    
    Sheeesh, they ARE perverts.

    huh huhuhuh huh....
    
    cough drops are cool....
    
    huh huh huuh....
    

    Ya, but after they pounded my cow, they got busted for entering
    without a warrant.
                                                     

    You can get warrants for bestiality?

    
    I'm ready to deliver those cough drop drugs to a willing victim, Dan
    8^).                                                              

    re: warrants for bestiality

    is that like a subpoena to get janet reno to testify before
    congress?

    -b

    re: .401
    

    
    .392>   Wait, no, that's the ozone problem...
     
    No - cows are causing global warming.  Please try to 
    get your ecological disasters right :) 
    
    	Skip

    Ya, something about cows using too much lysol to hide the smell of
    their meadow muffins, so the hole in the ozone is growing, which is
    over anartica, of course, so anartica is melting, and the oceans are
    gonna rise, causing a bunch of homeless crack addicts who now live on
    Miami Beach to relocate to central Denver, leaving their unrecycled
    carboard box homes on the beach, which will be ingested by dolphins
    before they get turned into tuna.

    An artica is melting? I wonder what that looks like....

    Try again.

    Anarctica?
    A nartica?
    The big chunk o' ice down south?

    
    re: .409
    
    
    Echo..echo..echo..echo..echo..echo..echo..echo..

    Perhaps you should read an article about it.

    
    How about Antarctica.
    
    As for the ozone - they forget to mention that the hole only
    occurs druing the antarctic winter - when there is no sun.
    But I bet that's a subject for another topic.
    
    But in a related issue - the skillful manipulation of the press
    can confuse and worry people significantly - like the ozone layer.
    The manipulation is being done over illegal drugs.  It was first 
    done in the '30s with the release of Reefer madness and it
    continues even now.  (If you don't think so, just think of the term
    "Crack Babies" and the horror it brings.  Yet the original stories 
    of babies being born addicted to drugs were FAKE.  The author of
    one famous one admitted it when she as about to win the Pulitzer.)
    
    	Skip

>                         (If you don't think so, just think of the term
>    "Crack Babies" and the horror it brings.  Yet the original stories 
>    of babies being born addicted to drugs were FAKE.  The author of
>    one famous one admitted it when she as about to win the Pulitzer.)

From your use of the term "original stories," I gather that you're not
claiming that there aren't babies being born addicted now.

    Many video stories now rent the film "Reefer Madness," produced in the
    1930's.
    
    You'll probably find it in the cult or comedy sections. Definitely not
    the documentary.

    RE: .412
    
    >Perhaps you should read an article about it.
    
    
    .406 or .407 ????

    BURMA!

    
    Why did you say Burma?
    
    

    SHAVE!

    I panicked.

    I generally yell "MALAYSIA!" when I panic.
    
    yer weird.

    You never yell Anartica?

    no, annartyca is my expression of joy

    I'm happy for both you and ann. ;-)

    Ummm...how did we wander so far from the WOR?

    No, not really... the previous 20+ replies show what happens when
    you're on them too long...
    
    
    

    
================================================================================
SPSEG::COVINGTON "When the going gets weird..."        1 line  19-JUL-1995 15:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ...the weird turn pro.

    re: .427
    
    <polite applause>
    
    Read much HST?

    
    .428:
    
    No, but I remember reading the quote somewhere (Doonesbury,
    perhaps?).
    
    It also used to be my p_n.  :^)
    

The War on Drugs
  Remains a draw(r),
    But drop down to
      Your druggists' store
        For styptic pencils
          By the score
            When next your face
              Is dripping gore.
                (No nerd teenagers
                  Need you to bore.)

			Burma Shave!

re .430:

Bwahahahahahaha!  Agagagagagagag!

    I hate to be a party pooper but back to the subject......
    
    > Everything's a "drug delivery device"
    
    Be careful, the FDA would be very glad to regulate *everything*, using
    this as the reason.
    
    Question: If I want to use/take/smoke/snort/suck in any drug, what
    gives the FDA (or anybody for that matter) the right to decide that I
    am a criminal? The FDA could do some studies and then warn everyone of
    their findings, admonishing them not to partake. But taking away the
    choice of partaking or not is not their right. It may be their job due
    to some political policy law. But, it is nobody's right to restrict
    such things especially in the United States of America, supposedly the
    home of the "free"
    
    ...Tom

    I think you do have the right to suck/smoke/snort/really have a wild
    bash with/use any drug. I don't think there should be any such thing as
    a consensual crime. 
    
    I might be wrong, but I do not think it is the job of the FDA to decide
    what is legal and illegal. That is left up to the states and to
    congress. The FDA is created by, and responsible to, congress. They
    only enforce what they are told to enforce - and illegal drug use is
    not their jurisdiction. Legal drug use is.
    
    I, for one, would be happy to see the regulation of marijuana in the
    hands of the FDA - as opposed to the FBI and DEA, where it is now.

When Gangs Hijack the Welfare State

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.(c) 1995 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

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

TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1995

When Gangs Hijack the Welfare State

By Camille Harper

Crack! Was that a shot? I scrambled to the floor and jerked the
lamp plug from its socket. I heard muffled voices and objects
being moved. Footsteps moved away and there was silence.

The silence lasted. And lasted.

I crawled to the living room door and peered through the space
where the door didn't meet the frame: no one. Still, I
hesitated. The tenants of the apartment across the hall were
heavy drug dealers. I had a "survival contract" with them: They
had offered me $300 a week -- to hide their stash. The offer
wasn't serious. What it really meant was, "Take it and become a
part of us or else keep quiet."

I had chosen the "or else." So I knew that whatever had been
going on wasn't directed at me. But bullets don't respect
agreements. I did not relax until the drug dealer knocked on my
door to apologize for the trouble and ask if I had been
disturbed. I assured him that I had slept through the whole
affair.

Still, I knew my time to move was fast approaching. Four years
is as long as any honest tenant is safe in a crack house; after
that, the tenant knows too much. I am a 59-year-old former
schoolteacher, now severely disabled. I lived then -- as I do
now -- in a "Section 8" apartment. My rent is federally
subsidized under a program intended to help law-abiding people
move out of the projects into private housing. But this program
-- like all the well-intentioned government programs that I've
witnessed during my years as a resident in and near some of
Chicago's worst housing -- has turned into a messy, often
deadly, arrangement between honest citizens and the gangs that
control the federal funding and the streets.

I remember all too well what had happened to a young woman in
the early '70s when she defied her "survival contract." That had
been when I still taught English at a high school near Chicago's
infamous Robert Taylor Homes. The young woman was an honor
student; she had a scholarship waiting at a prestigious
university; she wanted to show other kids that academic
excellence -- just like basketball -- could pave the way out of
poverty and violence.

But her plans defied the gangs' control of the projects. The
federal War on Poverty had a lot of intervention programs on the
way, and the gangs wanted to control these, too. If gang leaders
allowed this young woman to succeed in setting the example that
hard work paid off better than gang membership, others would
follow her lead. So the word came down: Cease and desist, or
else.

She too chose "or else," but hers was different from mine. One
afternoon, several gang members intercepted her on her way home
from school. They dragged her into a vacant apartment, tortured
and gang-raped her, shot her full of heroin, kicked down the
door of her apartment, and drowned her naked in her bathtub.

The gang, known then as "Black P. Stone Nation," went on to
become nationally famous, to own real estate and to set up its
own "intervention" projects -- recreational programs and
vocational training -- funded in large part by the taxpayer. The
Taylor projects, in turn, became some of the most dangerous in
the country.

After my own shooting scare, I managed to find a Section 8
apartment in a building with thick walls and no windows directly
facing the street. I felt safe for a time -- until one day,
crack! I rolled over and continued my afternoon nap. There was
no point in calling the police. I had heard the shot, but I
couldn't tell them where it came from.

Minutes later, the police were pounding on my door. An
addict/drug dealer had accused me of shooting at him with a .22
caliber pistol in the gangway below. After which, he'd claimed,
I had run up two flights of stairs -- crutches, brace and heart
problem -- to hide in my apartment.

The complainant's apartment was adjacent to mine. I was familiar
with the heavy traffic in and out. The man was enrolled in a
nearby drug abuse program. Gangs especially like to control drug
abuse programs, since addicts are their customers. Such programs
are rarely monitored adequately. A report released in 1993 by
Sen. Bill Cohen (R., Maine) indicated that 250,000 substance
abusers collected $1.4 billion in disability benefits. Fewer
than one-third (78,000) were required to receive treatment or
even to have representative payees to monitor the money's use.
The report notes that some of the representative payees were
addicts, bartenders and liquor store owners.

I had reported my neighbor many times to the police, determined
that there would be no more "survival contracts" for me. As I
sat in a chair with one officer watching me, the other searched
my apartment for a gun. I don't own one. I re-reported the
activities of my neighbor, and the police left.

In all the current discussions about welfare reform, few people
outside the inner cities realize that government aid for the
poor more often reinforces gang control of the neighborhood.

For example, a friend asked if I would attend a meeting to
evaluate a program run by a local organization that tries to
teach "leadership development" to former gang members. There had
been a recent gang-related shooting at the school where the
meeting was being held. My friend's nine-year-old had seen one
of his friends fatally shot. The neighborhood hoped the program
would curb gang violence.

I went to the meeting. Afterward, my friend asked me to meet in
private with some other friends. Private meetings are much safer
than public ones. This group said that the gangs had put the
word out to children ages eight to 12 that they must "buy a gun
and sell drugs to pay for it" or they "wouldn't be allowed to
participate in the program," which took kids to sporting events
and on field trips.

In 1928, Frederick Thrasher's landmark book "The Gang"
identified some 1,500 gangs in Chicago; today, the number is
probably no more than 175. But this smaller figure represents
not a reduction of gang activity, but city-wide consolidation
and organization of the gangs. Much of that consolidation
occurred during the War on Poverty. Because federal housing and
program resources tend to be concentrated in the same areas, the
result was to bring gangs together geographically.

The other aspects of poverty programs that worsened the
situation for the poor was the change in their approach: raising
"self-esteem" rather than encouraging the skills needed to
compete beyond the ghettoes. Frankly, I find it hard to
understand why otherwise rational people will buy the
low-self-esteem arguments of social workers. When gangs deal
drugs openly on street corners wearing $125 shoes and $300
jackets in gang colors, this is not low self-esteem -- it is
arrogance.

Poverty programs aren't cheap to operate, either. There is
insurance to be paid, space to be rented, workers to be hired,
and equipment to be bought. Too few of those in charge recognize
-- or admit -- that housing, education and social services are
all part of the social contract by which gangs control their
communities. In all of these cases, they depend on the
community's silence to continue their activity and to expand
their control.

  Recently there was a community cleanup in my neighborhood for
children under 12. The woman in charge, who was not familiar
with the ways of the neighborhood, introduced me to the "good"
kids who were going to do the work. They stood behind her,
facing me. I had seen those boys "muling" (delivering drugs),
and all of them wore smirks on their faces. Their shoes (colors
and laces) signified identification with a local gang. They were
"wannabees" -- kids trying to impress the gang enough so that
they'd be invited to join. I would not be surprised to learn
that the local gang had ordered them to show up just so the
neighborhood would know who ran things.

  But there was one other boy who stood, unsmiling, apart from
the others. His clothes and shoes showed no gang affiliation and
were shabbier and cheaper than the others'. I'd never seen him
muling.

Afterward, the woman invited me to go with them all for free
burgers. She spent the meal explaining that the lone boy's
failure to mix with the others was no doubt due to deep
psychological problems, possibly involving child abuse. His
social skills, she continued, were seriously compromised. She
said that she thought that one little boy was seriously at risk
of joining a gang, and that's why intervention programs were
needed. She never even suspected that he was doing his best to
stay away from just that -- gang involvement.

Crack! I hope neither kind ever gets to him -- the kind that's
smoked, or the kind that's fired from a gun.

---

    .414>From your use of the term "original stories," I gather that you're
    .414>not claiming that there aren't babies being born addicted now.
    
    'Tis true babies are born with problems due to the drugs their mother
    took during pregnancy.  The thing is, most of the addictions are to
    alcohol.  Most "crack babies" are actually suffering from fetal alcohol
    syndrome.  But that doesn't make headlines.
    
    Also, the story I was talking about came out in the early '80s and was
    about a family in Harlem, and how the 16 year old girl had a baby who
    was born addicted to heroin.  It was about to win the Pulitzer when it
    was discovered that the reporter had never even been to Harlem and the
    people (and affliction) were totally made up.
    
    It was great fiction though.
    
    	Skip

>    'Tis true babies are born with problems due to the drugs their mother
>    took during pregnancy.  The thing is, most of the addictions are to
>    alcohol.  Most "crack babies" are actually suffering from fetal alcohol
>    syndrome.  But that doesn't make headlines.

I think I've read at least as much on FAS as I have on "crack babies."

Date: July 19, 1995
For Release: EMBARGOED 
Contact: NIDA Press Office Mona Brown,Sheryl Massaro (301) 443-6245 

SECRETARY SHALALA CITES EVIDENCE OF MARIJUANA
DEPENDENCY AND EFFECTS ON CHILDREN EXPOSED
BEFORE BIRTH 

HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala warned today that new research
shows that marijuana can produce drug dependence and has long-term
effects on prenatally exposed children. 

Speaking at the first national conference on marijuana use, Secretary
Shalala was joined by Lee Brown, director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, and Alan Leshner, director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, as part of ongoing marijuana prevention
efforts aimed at reaching young people where they live, work, study and
socialize. 

During the last three years, NIDA surveys have shown a doubling in
marijuana use among eighth graders, and significant increases among
10th and 12th graders. Accompanying the increases in marijuana use is
a significant erosion of anti-drug perceptions and knowledge among
young people. 

In her speech, Secretary Shalala said, "I am deeply troubled by what
some of our young people think and say about marijuana. At the core of
our agenda must be a clear and consistent message -- marijuana is
illegal, dangerous, unhealthy and wrong. We must all drive home that
message -- and to do it, we must sweep aside some powerful myths
about marijuana."

Shalala also drew attention to budget cuts made by the House of
Representatives Labor/HHS Appropriations Subcommittee last week.
The subcommittee approved a 75 percent cut in funding for
demonstration efforts in drug abuse prevention and treatment,
compared with the current year. These reductions would effectively cut
off federal support for development of new knowledge on prevention
and treatment, and curtail information collection and dissemination,
Shalala said. In addition, total reductions would affect prevention
services nationwide, and cut treatment services for more than 26,000
people compared with this year, she said.

Calling the cuts "unfortunate," she said "we will not let others in
Washington lead us into retreat in the ongoing battle against substance
abuse."

More than 500 parents, educators, prevention practitioners and
researchers gathered for the conference aimed at providing
scientifically based information about marijuana to dispel myths and to
alert people to the increases in use and the potential health threats to
young people. 

"We expect that by communicating what science has uncovered about
marijuana, we can help people who are looking for reliable information
to use in their homes, schools and communities," 

Dr. Leshner said. "This conference is an important part of our drug
prevention efforts."

In her keynote address, Secretary Shalala summarized new research
findings presented at the conference:

-- Scientists have demonstrated marijuana dependence--meaning that
a user feels a need to take a substance to feel well--using standard
measures which have demonstrated withdrawal for other drugs of
abuse;

-- Long-term studies of children, now 9-12 years old, who were
prenatally exposed through their mother's use of marijuana indicate an
association with impaired executive function (the intellectual ability
which involves decision-making and future planning); 

-- Long-term, multi-generational studies show that there are certain
factors which predispose young people to marijuana use (i.e., children
who are aggressive and have a distant 

relationship with their parents are more likely to use marijuana as
young adults).

Other conference speakers presented findings from years of research
on the harmful effects of marijuana: 

-- Marijuana has been shown to elicit a variety of acute and chronic
effects on the brain, the endocrine system and the immune system. 

-- Marijuana impairs short-term memory, distorts perception, impairs
judgment and complex motor skills, and alters the heart rate.
Laboratory studies have demonstrated that marijuana significantly
impairs performance. Deficits in balance and coordination found may be
related to reported marijuana-induced impairment of actual driving.

-- Pulmonary (lung) consequences of habitual use of marijuana include
symptoms of chronic bronchitis, an increased frequency of acute chest
illnesses, a heightened risk of pulmonary infection, a variable tendency
to airways obstruction and a possible increased risk of malignancy
involving both the upper airway and the lungs.

In another presentation, the Partnership for a Drug Free America
released public service announcements entitled "Talk to Your Kids,"
which ask parents, "If you don't (talk with your kids about drugs)...who
will?"

Secretary Shalala also unveiled two new public information booklets on
marijuana, one for parents and one for youth. In addition, meetings with
key drug prevention leaders are being organized to reach out to the
community with marijuana prevention messages. The National Institute
on Drug Abuse is also expanding its marijuana research program to
continue to increase knowledge about marijuana.

The conference will continue through Thursday, July 20, at the Crystal
City Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Va. 

### 

HHS FACT SHEET

Date: July 19, 1995
For Release: EMBARGOED
Contact: NIDA Press Office  (301) 443-6245


NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MARIJUANA USE: New
Research Findings and Public Information Efforts

Overview: The first National Conference on Marijuana Use is taking
place July 19- 20 in Arlington, Va. The conference was called in
response to recent findings that marijuana use is once again increasing
among younger Americans, and that its dangers are not fully understood.
New public education materials are being released, aimed at parents
and teens.

New research released at the conference makes the first definitive
findings that marijuana can produce dependence, and that it can have
long-term effects on prenatally exposed children.

At the same time, however, current budget proposals in Congress would
reduce new efforts aimed at preventing drug abuse and developing new
approaches in drug abuse treatment.

Background

HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala released findings of the 1994
"Monitoring the Future" survey last December 12. The annual survey of
8th, 10th and 12th graders showed that marijuana use by young people
rose for the third straight year. 

The survey found that 30.7 percent of 1994 seniors said they had tried
marijuana at least once in the past year, compared with 26 percent in
1993 and 21.9 percent in 1992. 

At the same time, compared with the prior year, the survey found that
fewer students in all three grades considered marijuana to be
potentially hazardous to their health. The proportion of those who
believe marijuana use is harmful dropped by 22 percent in the years
1992-1994.

Use of marijuana by young people, however, remains lower than the
levels observed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. From 1975 through
1985, over 40 percent of those covered by the survey said they had
tried marijuana in the past year.

National Conference

The National Conference on Marijuana Use is the first of its kind,
sponsored by an NIH institute, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in
collaboration with the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and the
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, part of the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. The HHS agencies are
working with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America to provide
information to students, parents, schools and communities.

The conference is aimed at dissemination of science-based information
concerning the upswing in use of marijuana and the potential health
threats from marijuana use. 

About 500 educators, parents, prevention practitioners and researchers
are taking part in the conference. Keynote addresses are being given by
Secretary Shalala and Director of the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy Lee P. Brown. 

New Research Findings Released

Findings by Billy R. Martin, Ph.D., show that marijuana can produce
addiction. The research uses standard proven methods which have
been employed to demonstrate addiction to other drugs of abuse. The
availability of a functional experimental model for cannabis dependence
allows for the systematic study of the consequences of chronic
exposure to cannabinoids and for the development of treatment
strategies for individuals who become compulsive cannabis users. 

Martin's study, "Cannabinoid Precipitated Withdrawal by a Selective
Antagonist SR 141716A," will be published later this year in the 
European Journal of Pharmacology. Martin is professor, Department of
Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.

Preliminary findings by Peter Fried, Ph.D., indicate harmful effects from
prenatal exposure to marijuana use. For 15 years, Fried has been
following, from birth, the children of mothers who used marijuana and
cigarettes during pregnancy. The preliminary evidence of the effects of
prenatal marijuana exposure on 9-12 year olds suggests that such
exposure is associated with impaired executive function (the
intellectual ability which involves decision-making and future
planning).

Research findings by Fried also show an association between prenatal
exposure to marijuana and impaired cognition (verbal reasoning and
memory) at 3 and 4 years of age, and impairment to sustained attention
at ages 5, 6 and 7. 

Fried's preliminary findings on impairment of executive function were
presented at a June meeting of international cannabis researchers in
Scottsdale, Ariz. He is at Carleton University, Ottowa, in Canada.

Findings by Judith Brook, Ph.D., stem from her multi-generational
study over the past 20 years of more than 1,000 marijuana-using
parents and their children, showing factors that predispose young
people to marijuana. The researcher finds that children who are
aggressive and have a distant relationship with their parents are more
likely to use marijuana as young adults.

NIDA has published a notice in the NIH Guide this month for new
marijuana research, as a supplement to existing funding. A new
marijuana research program announcement is also being prepared by
NIDA. This effort is aimed at continuing development of new
knowledge, especially in the areas of initiation and progression of
marijuana use and abuse, patterns of use among various
subpopulations, and health consequences.

New Public Information Materials

Two new booklets are being released at the conference:

-- "Marijuana: Facts for Teens" includes basic facts about marijuana,
its chemical characteristics, effects of use, and possible health
hazards. It points out that most teens do not use marijuana.

-- "Marijuana: What Parents Need to Know" is aimed at helping
parents discuss the issue with their children. It points out that
marijuana use today starts at a younger age and that more potent forms
of the drug are available.

The booklets will be widely distributed to parents and teens through
PTAs, civic organizations, state and local government, and drug
prevention community groups. They are available from the National
Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information, P.O. Box 2345,
Rockville, MD, 20847. Telephone: 800-729-6686.

NIDA is also developing a classroom oriented science education
booklet on marijuana for elementary students. 

Two TV public service announcements produced by the Partnership for
a Drug Free America are also being released at the national
conference. The TV spots challenge adults to discuss marijuana with
young people.

Drug Abuse Budget Proposals

Federal efforts to support drug abuse prevention and treatment are
carried out primarily by HHS' Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration. President Clinton's budget proposal for FY
1996 called for total spending by SAMHSA at $2.2 billion, including
$1.6 billion in ongoing block grants to states and $506 million in
consolidated demonstration and training programs for substance abuse
and mental health services. These consolidated programs included
funds for new approaches in preventing drug abuse and providing
treatment to addicted persons.

The House Appropriations Subcommittee voted July 11 to provide only
$144 million for SAMHSA's consolidated demonstration and training
programs. This is a 75 percent reduction from current funding for
demonstration efforts in prevention and treatment. Overall, the
reduction represents a cut of 18 percent in total SAMHSA efforts,
compared with the current year.

The SAMHSA reductions would effectively cut off federal support for
development of new knowledge on prevention and treatment, and curtail
collection and dissemination of information. In addition, the House
subcommittee's proposed funding for SAMHSA would would reduce
comprehensive prevention services nationwide and cut treatment
services for more than 26,000 people, compared with this year. 

The House action also reduced other anti-drug programs, including the
Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Program (Department of
Education) and enforcement funds for the Bureau of International
Narcotics.

###

    <--- From the horse's mouth (or some other orifice).
    

    Notice that the pre-natal study only included mothers who used
    marijuana AND tobacco.
    
    WHAT? Smoking tobacco while pregnant damages your baby's brain? Say it
    ain't so!

In a parallel universe...
    
    
    Date: July 19, 1995
    For Release: EMBARGOED 
    Contact: NIDA Press Office Mona Brown,Sheryl Massaro (301) 443-6245 

SECRETARY SHALALA CITES EVIDENCE OF NICOTINE
DEPENDENCY AND EFFECTS ON CHILDREN EXPOSED
BEFORE BIRTH 

HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala warned today that new research
shows that nicotine can produce drug dependence and has long-term
effects on prenatally exposed children. 

Speaking at the first national conference on nicotine use, Secretary
Shalala was joined by Lee Brown, director of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, and Alan Leshner, director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse, as part of ongoing nicotine prevention
efforts aimed at reaching young people where they live, work, study and
socialize. 

During the last three years, NIDA surveys have shown a doubling in
nicotine use among eighth graders, and significant increases among
10th and 12th graders. Accompanying the increases in nicotine use is
a significant erosion of anti-drug perceptions and knowledge among
young people. 

In her speech, Secretary Shalala said, "I am deeply troubled by what
some of our young people think and say about nicotine. At the core of
our agenda must be a clear and consistent message -- nicotine is
illegal, dangerous, unhealthy and wrong. We must all drive home that
message -- and to do it, we must sweep aside some powerful myths
about nicotine."

Calling the cuts "unfortunate," she said "we will not let others in
Washington lead us into retreat in the ongoing battle against substance
abuse."

More than 500 parents, educators, prevention practitioners and
researchers gathered for the conference aimed at providing
scientifically based information about nicotine to dispel myths and to
alert people to the increases in use and the potential health threats to
young people. 

"We expect that by communicating what science has uncovered about
nicotine, we can help people who are looking for reliable information
to use in their homes, schools and communities," 

Dr. Leshner said. "This conference is an important part of our drug
prevention efforts."

In her keynote address, Secretary Shalala summarized new research
findings presented at the conference:

-- Scientists have demonstrated nicotine dependence--meaning that
a user feels a need to take a substance to feel well--using standard
measures which have demonstrated withdrawal for other drugs of
abuse;

-- Long-term studies of children, now 9-12 years old, who were
prenatally exposed through their mother's use of nicotine indicate an
association with impaired executive function (the intellectual ability
which involves decision-making and future planning); 

-- Long-term, multi-generational studies show that there are certain factors
which predispose young people to nicotine use (i.e., children who are
aggressive and have a distant relationship with their parents are more likely
to use nicotine as young adults).

Other conference speakers presented findings from years of research
on the harmful effects of nicotine: 

-- Nicotine has been shown to elicit a variety of acute and chronic
effects on the brain, the endocrine system and the immune system. 

-- Nicotine elevates blood pressure and alters the heart rate. Laboratory
studies have demonstrated that nicotine significantly impairs performance.
Deficits in balance and coordination while attempting to light cigarettes may
be related to reported nicotine-induced impairment of actual driving.

-- Pulmonary (lung) consequences of habitual use of nicotine include
symptoms of chronic bronchitis, an increased frequency of acute chest
illnesses, a heightened risk of pulmonary infection, a variable tendency
to airways obstruction and a possible increased risk of malignancy
involving both the upper airway and the lungs.

In another presentation, the Partnership for a Drug Free America
released public service announcements entitled "Talk to Your Kids,"
which ask parents, "If you don't (talk with your kids about drugs)...who
will?"

Secretary Shalala also unveiled two new public information booklets on
nicotine, one for parents and one for youth. In addition, meetings with
key drug prevention leaders are being organized to reach out to the
community with nicotine prevention messages. The National Institute
on Drug Abuse is also expanding its nicotine research program to
continue to increase knowledge about nicotine.

The conference will continue through Thursday, July 20, at the Crystal
City Marriott Hotel in Arlington, Va. 

Background

HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala released findings of the 1994
"Monitoring the Future" survey last December 12. The annual survey of
8th, 10th and 12th graders showed that nicotine use by young people
rose for the third straight year. 

The survey found that 30.7 percent of 1994 seniors said they had tried
nicotine at least once in the past year, compared with 26 percent in
1993 and 21.9 percent in 1992. 

At the same time, compared with the prior year, the survey found that
fewer students in all three grades considered nicotine to be
potentially hazardous to their health. The proportion of those who
believe nicotine use is harmful dropped by 22 percent in the years
1992-1994.

Use of nicotine by young people, however, remains lower than the
levels observed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. From 1975 through
1985, over 40 percent of those covered by the survey said they had
tried nicotine in the past year.

National Conference

The National Conference on Nicotine Use is the first of its kind,
sponsored by an NIH institute, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in
collaboration with the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and the
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, part of the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. The HHS agencies are
working with the Partnership for a Drug-Free America to provide
information to students, parents, schools and communities.

The conference is aimed at dissemination of science-based information
concerning the upswing in use of nicotine and the potential health
threats from nicotine use. 

New Research Findings Released

Findings by Billy R. Martin, Ph.D., show that nicotine can produce
addiction. The research uses standard proven methods which have
been employed to demonstrate addiction to other drugs of abuse. The
availability of a functional experimental model for cannabis dependence
allows for the systematic study of the consequences of chronic
exposure to cannabinoids and for the development of treatment
strategies for individuals who become compulsive cannabis users. 

Martin's study, "Nicotine Precipitated Withdrawal by a Selective
Antagonist SR 141716A," will be published later this year in the 
European Journal of Pharmacology. Martin is professor, Department of
Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.

Preliminary findings by Peter Fried, Ph.D., indicate harmful effects from
prenatal exposure to nicotine use. For 15 years, Fried has been following, from
birth, the children of mothers who used  cigarettes during pregnancy. The
preliminary evidence of the effects of prenatal nicotine exposure on 9-12 year
olds suggests that such exposure is associated with impaired executive function
(the intellectual ability which involves decision-making and future planning).

Research findings by Fried also show an association between prenatal
exposure to nicotine and impaired cognition (verbal reasoning and
memory) at 3 and 4 years of age, and impairment to sustained attention
at ages 5, 6 and 7. 

Fried's preliminary findings on impairment of executive function were
presented at a June meeting of international tobacco researchers in
Scottsdale, Ariz. He is at Carleton University, Ottowa, in Canada.

Findings by Judith Brook, Ph.D., stem from her multi-generational
study over the past 20 years of more than 1,000 nicotine-using
parents and their children, showing factors that predispose young
people to nicotine. The researcher finds that children who are
aggressive and have a distant relationship with their parents are more
likely to use nicotine as young adults.

NIDA has published a notice in the NIH Guide this month for new
nicotine research, as a supplement to existing funding. A new
nicotine research program announcement is also being prepared by
NIDA. This effort is aimed at continuing development of new
knowledge, especially in the areas of initiation and progression of
nicotine use and abuse, patterns of use among various
subpopulations, and health consequences.

New Public Information Materials

Two new booklets are being released at the conference:

-- "Nicotine: Facts for Teens" includes basic facts about nicotine,
its chemical characteristics, effects of use, and possible health
hazards. It points out that most teens do not use nicotine.

-- "Nicotine: What Parents Need to Know" is aimed at helping
parents discuss the issue with their children. It points out that
nicotine use today starts at a younger age and that more potent forms
of the drug are available.

The booklets will be widely distributed to parents and teens through
PTAs, civic organizations, state and local government, and drug
prevention community groups. They are available from the National
Clearinghouse on Alcohol and Drug Information, P.O. Box 2345,
Rockville, MD, 20847. Telephone: 800-729-6686.

NIDA is also developing a classroom oriented science education
booklet on nicotine for elementary students. 

Two TV public service announcements produced by the Partnership for
a Drug Free America are also being released at the national
conference. The TV spots challenge adults to discuss nicotine with
young people.

    

    Is there an echo in the box today?

 .442  yes.  not only that, but people keep reposting the
       same articles.

    Thanks, little buddy B.

    
    Actually, Covinkton's post was more like a Friday version of the
    article Jim posted.
    

    Actually, my posting was different...to illustrate a point.
    
    Sorta a humor-type look-at-it-from-this-point-of-view type thing.
    
    Guess it went whizzing right by too fast for anyone to notice.

    
    It is still kinda early, try it again after we finish our fourth cup(s) of
    coffee.....
    
    :-)
    Dan

    Relaying to the populas the results of various studies is a good job
    for the FDA and the government in general. However, using forced backed
    laws to stop the use of substances found to be harmful is wrong, IMO.
    Secretary Shalala is just another bureaucrat who's focus is power and
    control. After all since we know that she produces nothing of value to
    society she'll just have to make us conform. Marijuana is bad for me.
    Thanks for the information. Now leave me the hell alone!
    
    ...Tom

>             <<< Note 188.438 by SUBPAC::SADIN "We the people?" >>>
>
>Date: July 19, 1995
>For Release: EMBARGOED 
>Contact: NIDA Press Office Mona Brown,Sheryl Massaro (301) 443-6245 
>
>SECRETARY SHALALA CITES EVIDENCE OF MARIJUANA
>DEPENDENCY AND EFFECTS ON CHILDREN EXPOSED
>BEFORE BIRTH 
>
>HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala warned today that new research
>shows that marijuana can produce drug dependence and has long-term
>effects on prenatally exposed children. 

ad nauseum...

In the words of the infamous Mr. Bill...

"They lie, why do they lie"

    I particularly liked the study on withdrawal.  They fed pretty
    good-sized amounts of THC to the rats, and then used a chemical blocker
    to stop the THC from being soaked up by the receptors in the brain. The
    withdrawal symptoms were described as excessive grooming, "and wet dog
    shaking" 
    
    So pot withdrawal makes rats pay more attention to their appearences?
    
    meg

    > So pot withdrawal makes rats pay more attention to their appearences?
    
    does anyone realize the profound effect this study could have
    on computer science?
    
    -b

    Yes!
    
    We may be part of a study where humans are put into small cages...er, I
    mean cubicles, irradiated with alpha particles from electron-beam
    guns...er, I mean monitors...and then they'll study us when we are
    taken out of the cubicles at the end of the week!
    
    Conclusion:
    Radiation makes programmers drink heavily.

I remember years ago a study was published, touting the harmful effects of
MJ. Seems they dosed monkeys at very high levels of THC, and measured their
ability to perform work (using shock-punishment motivation, no doubt). Seems
that the effects weren't particularly great, except at high altitude.

Big news. MJ reduces the ability of monkeys to perform work at high altitude.
They made a big deal about it. Meanwhile, tobacco-related deaths, alcohol
related disease and accidents, fetal alcohol syndrome, etc., accepted as
normal part of life.

Sheesh.

>> In her speech, Secretary Shalala said, "I am deeply troubled by what
>> some of our young people think and say about marijuana. At the core of
>> our agenda must be a clear and consistent message -- marijuana is
>> illegal, dangerous, unhealthy and wrong.
    
    So, how're those security checks of White House staffers coming
    along?  You know, the ones that started to reveal massive drug
    usage amongst WH staff, until the whole issue just kinda quietly
    went away?  It's only been two-and-a-half years...
    
    Almost on this day in history, from our esteemed Clunker-in-Chief:
    
    	7/23/92:  An Arkansas Gazette reporter pressed Clinton on
    	the mixed signals regarding his contradicting statements
    	relative to drug use... Clinton responded "It is accurate
    	to say that I haven't broken any drug laws."  He added "I
    	will say that because it is a legal question.  I literally
    	thought what I said was consistent with what I said in 1990".
    
    Eh?
    
    Chris

    Tell me who has a right to know the history of your private drug use?
    
    If those White House staffers have actual knowledgable experience about
    a common phenomenon in this country, it is hard to imagine how the fact
    should be a matter of the public interest; especially when it would
    only be revealed in the privacy of a security investigation.  These
    people are civilians- they have chosen to serve their country.  You can
    take it as a given they could make more privately.  Dragging them
    through public exposure of such private information serves no
    legitimate security needs, only partisan political ones: you people
    would pillory Clinton if he kept such people ("he didn't inhale,
    right"), and you'd pillory him if he didn't ("he didn't inhale, right,
    haha, now he's a hypocrite for firing them".)
    
    So if those security checks were quietly recognized to contain private
    information that the public doesn't need to know, well, its like most
    legitimate security checks.  So sorry it doesn't suit your agenda.
    
    DougO

    (images of mice getting zonked out of their minds makes me fall over
    laughing...)

    Images of mice making sandwiches with way to much peanut butter made me
    smile  :)
    
    ...Tom

    <--- Last few offered a well needed BWAHAHAHA! for the end of this
    afternoon.
    

    
    	agreed. the mice making peanut butter sandwiches had me rolling...
    
    :_)

    
    Regarding marijuana:
    
    "The dose that would actually kill a man is very high indeed, really
    well beyond what would be achieved by almost any amount of smoking.
    The drug is really quite a remarkably safe one for humans, although it
    is really quite a dangerous one for mice and they should not use it."
    
    					- Dr. J.W.D. Henderson, Director
    					  Bureau of Human Drugs
    					  Health and Welfare Canada
    

    I however have been weeping openly.
    
    I think I'll go pull my pants down now.....

    Maybe you should consider leaving them off completely; you're going to
    get winded dropping trou so frequently.

They do seem to go up and down faster than a bride's nightie on the honeymoon.

    
    Oh John, how gauche!
    
    

    Do brides still wear nighties on honeymoons these daze?
    
    

    Not for long.

    What's the full rhyme...
    
    ... "he thought my torso was moreso,
    and that's why my trousseau is toreso..."??
    

U.S. pilots unhappy with shoot-down policy for drug smugglers


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (Sep 24, 1995 - 12:36 EDT) -- The
radar detects a plane hauling coca leaf over the Peruvian
jungle. The technology runs cleanly, precisely. That's not what
bothers some American government employees. It's what
happens next.

Using radar data from the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S.
Air Force, Colombian and Peruvian fighters are intercepting
and, in some cases, shooting down airborne drug smugglers.

At least 27 flights have been forced to land, seized or
destroyed on the ground, or shot out of the sky since the Air
Force resumed its radar-sharing program in March, said Lt.
Col. Byron Conover, spokesman for the U.S. Southern
Command in Panama. He said he could not break out the
number of planes fired upon.

Pentagon officials say Operation Constant Vigil makes it
harder for Colombian drug chiefs to airlift raw coca from Peru
to cocaine processing labs in Colombia. Peru is the source of at
least 60 percent of the world's coca leaf.

Supporters say disrupting air routes pressures the Cali cocaine
cartel, which has seen six of its top leaders fall into the hands
of Colombian police since June.

But some Customs agents believe the operation strays beyond
their duty to enforce smuggling laws and arrest offenders.

"I don't think we should be doing it," radar operator John
Fowler said. "I'm a Christian man. I am a believer. How can I
as a believer work toward an end which deals with killing
people?"

The air surveillance involves secret ground radar stations in
South America and two kinds of radar-equipped planes based
in Peru.

Customs began air surveillance in the 1970s to detect
contraband flights into U.S. air space. It was the Bush
administration that pushed the idea of sharing radar intelligence
with the Andean air forces, contending that interdiction must
start at the source of the multibillion-dollar coca industry.

"One of the critical vulnerabilities of the traffickers is the
reliance on general aviation or small aircraft to fly the loads of
coca base from Bolivia and Peru to Colombia," said Brian
Sheridan, a top Defense Department official for drug issues.

The United States suspended radar sharing in May 1994 out of
concern that U.S. officials could be held liable if Colombia or
Peru shot down the wrong plane.

President Clinton gave a fresh go-ahead in December, signing
executive determinations that the two Andean air forces have
adequate safeguards to prevent accidental shootdowns.

The host nation cannot use U.S. data to attack a plane unless it
is flying without a flight plan in a no-fly zone, said Conover of
the Southern Command.

The rules of engagement say Peruvian and Colombian fighters
must try to make radio contact and visually signal a suspect
aircraft to land for inspection before opening fire. If the pilot
balks, warning shots must be fired before a high-ranking air
force officer of Peru or Colombia can give a "kill order."

"They don't simply fly up to it and shoot it down," said a
Pentagon official who supports the program. "We think it is a
rigorous process and drug traffickers go into these areas at
their own peril."

Others are less certain. Critics cite two midair interventions
with tragic consequences.

On April 14, 1994, a pair of U.S. fighter jets enforcing the
no-fly zone over northern Iraq shot down two U.S. Army Black
Hawk helicopters they had mistaken for Iraqi craft. All 26
people aboard were killed. An investigation found that a radar
plane failed to warn the fighters of the choppers' presence.

On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Air Iran
plane carrying 290 people. The Vincennes believed the airliner
was an attacking fighter jet.

"We cannot take the chance of having such a tragedy repeated
in the tension-loaded Andean drug-smuggling environment,"
said J. Randolph Babbitt, president of the Air Line Pilots
Association, in opposing the plan in Congress last year.
Babbitt's organization represents 42,000 civilian pilots.

"Our members and their passengers would be at risk."

But it's the question of due process that nags at some crew
members.

"How can you justify this situation when our Constitution says
innocent until proven guilty?" asked Fowler, who was
suspended for five days in 1993 for refusing to participate in a
similar operation in Ecuador.

"This definitely doesn't jibe with our version of democracy and
our version of human rights," complained another radar
operator, who spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his
job.

"Probable cause doesn't warrant the death penalty. Mistakes
can happen."



    
    	Aren't these the same guys who accidentally shoot their own
    	helicopters out of the sky?
    
    	And now they get to shoot smugglers' planes down, too?  I
    	hope they're more accurate in this venture.
    

Interpol says police floundering in drugs war


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

PARIS (Oct 1, 1995 - 11:12 EDT) - The world's police are floundering in
a war on drugs which is the most potent threat to global stability now the
Cold War has ended, according to the international police agency Interpol.

"We're pretty overwhelmed," said Interpol Secretary General Raymond
Kendall, accusing governments of talking a lot but doing little to create a
world strategy against crime barons.

The 176-nation International Criminal Police Organization holds its
annual congress in Beijing for a week from Oct. 4 for what is likely to be a
gloomy reassessment of police action in a world freed from the
East-West conflict.

The organization, based in Lyon in central France, canceled a planned
1989 meeting in China to protest against the Tiananmen Square
anti-democracy massacre in June that year.

But its general assembly voted last year to go to China even though
critics brand the communist country a police state.

Since the fall of Germany's Berlin Wall, "if you look at the real threat to
our societies today what you have is a combination of organized crime
and drug trafficking," Kendall told Reuters.

Vast profits means "they have the ability to corrupt our institutions at the
highest level. If they can do that, then it means our democracies are in
real danger," he said.

Organized crime gangs have found drugs a profitable addition to more
traditional activities such as racketeeering and arms smuggling. And the
lack of legal checks in ex-East bloc nations has spawned crimes ranging
from drug smuggling to art theft.

Political guerrillas are also turning to drugs as a source of funds, partly
because state sponsorship is drying up, parlty because some intelligence
agencies have shown that it is a profitable path to take.

"We're seeing that drugs and insurgency go together, notably in
Afghanistan, Tajikistan, even in Pakistan and Burma," he said.

"There's a lack of a truly strategic approach" among the world's
governments, said Kendall, a Briton. "This is the real difficulty we have
today."

He rapped politicians for "talking about the war on drugs, the war against
organized crime. If you really mean it, then let's think of putting the
resources into it that you would put into a war," he said.

Kendall cited U.N. estimates putting the international drug trade at $400
billion a year. Interpol's budget is $28 million.

"With our budget you might be able to buy a couple of tanks," he said.
Interpol has about 315 employees at its gleaming headquarters, opened in
1989, to coordinate the fight against international crime.

He suggested that Interpol and the United Nations be allowed to team up
to devise a new global strategy against drugs, blamed for more than 50
percent of crime in major western cities.

He said democracies had made a late start in cracking down on demand
at home, having long preferred efforts to choke off supply. Kendall favors
decriminalization of some drugs.

He suggested that the world's spy services, partly redundant after the
Cold War, should give more resources to the police.

Statistics on drug seizures almost certainly reflect a sharp rise in traffic
rather than a greater police success rate.

World opium seizures, for instance, rose to a record 26.3 tons in 1994
from 25.1 in 1993 and 8.9 tons in 1989. Cocaine surged to 155.1 tons from
58.1 in 1993 and 41.7 in 1989. Heroin fell to 13.6 tons from 13.9 but up
from 11.8 in 1989.

"In the first six months of 1995, we have seen opium seizures up 20
percent, heroin up 40 percent and cannabis 80 percent," compared to the
same 1994 periods, Kendall said.

There were worrying signs of increasing contacts between criminal
organizations such as the Italian and Russian mafias.

"We knew of a meeting in Czechoslovakia in 1992 and we know of similar
contacts in Prague and Warsaw .... They don't seem to have developed to
the stage where there's a kind of regular cooperation going on, but the
danger exists," he said.

And terrorism too is changing its face.

Kendall said 21st century "terrorist threats" were likely to be headed by
Muslim extremism, but could also include new shadowy fringe groups
linked to extremists in the environmental, animal rights and anti-nuclear
groups.

"Our first thought is for Islamic extremism, but I think we should not
neglect the environmental aspects, animal rights, nuclear disarmament
and so on because they can give rise to extremist actions," he said.

He admitted that Interpol's members included states accused of
sponsoring terrorism. But he said, "At the police level, we find we can
work together provided we remove everything of a political, religious or
racial nature."

Amid grim warnings about the state of global crime, he said that one
frequently exaggerated danger was from smuggling of nuclear material.
"It's something we have to keep an eye on but we don't see it as a
particular threat so far."

He said there had been 39 cases of smuggling reported since 1989,
mostly by hoaxers and extortionists. The only cases of radioactive
materials being found were two small amounts of plutonium, some
non-weapons' grade uranium and cesium.

Asked which criminals he would most like to see behind bars, Kendall
named Nazi Alois Brunner, blamed by Interpol for deporting 73,000 Jews
to their deaths at the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II.

Brunner, aged 83 if still alive, is rumored to have left Syria for a hideout in
South America.

    
> Asked which criminals he would most like to see behind bars, Kendall
> named Nazi Alois Brunner, blamed by Interpol for deporting 73,000 Jews
> to their deaths at the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II.
> 
> Brunner, aged 83 if still alive, is rumored to have left Syria for a hideout in
> South America.
    
    This is his idea of the most wanted criminal?!  An 83 year old man that
    may or may not be still alive !?!  Give me a break!
    

    
    
    	
>    This is his idea of the most wanted criminal?!  An 83 year old man that
>    may or may not be still alive !?!  Give me a break!
    
 	This 83yr old man sent 73000 people to their death. That says to me
    he needs to be brought to justice (although God will be his ultimate
    Judge).
    
    jim

    
    > 	This 83yr old man sent 73000 people to their death. That says to me
    > he needs to be brought to justice

    That I won't argue with, but MOST WANTED?!?
                                 ==== ======
    You mean to tell me that he's more important then people who are
    killing people right now.  I have a GREAT DEAL of difficulty with this.

    
    	re: .473
    
    	I guess I can agree with that....there are more important fires to
    put out.
    
    
    jim

    But look at the message it sends by making him most wanted and tracking
    him down:
    
    It doesn't matter how old you get, it doesn't matter how far you run -
    
    WE WILL FIND YOU.
    
    Pretty scary, isn't it? Makesya think twice before killing 73,000
    people. OK, so it won't make you think twice, but it's still spooky.

    
    Tell ya what Jim, if I ever think about killing 73,000 people I'll
    think twice before I do it.  72,999 not a second thought, but 73,000
    definitely!

    ;-}    <---look of sarcasm.

    It's amazing what you see when you resign yourself to watching the
    boob tube (not related to boob cake or tube steak) for an evening
    in the 1990's.
    
    I saw... I'm not sure I can describe what I saw.  It was a commercial
    that appeared to be exhorting suspicious parents to use the sponsor's
    drug-testing kit to be able to tell whether their kids are using drugs.
    This drug-testing kit consisted of some kind of (?) treated cloth (?)
    that you simply rub on items around the house that your kids have
    merely been *touching*.  Then you send this cloth to the sponsor's
    testing lab, and (confidentially, I'm sure :-S) they inform you of
    the exciting results after they pass their magic wand over the cloth.
    The ad showed the tense parent rubbing the cloth on schoolbooks and
    telephone receivers.
    
    I was so astonished that at first I honestly thought I was seeing
    some kind of SNL-like parody.  But no, apparently these guys are
    serious.
    
    What kind of test could possibly work this way?  And if it does
    indeed work (or even if enough people *think* it works), think of
    the abuse potential.  The abuse of trust alone as portrayed in the
    ad, with the parent sneaking around her house furtively rubbing her
    magic cloth all over everything was most repulsive.
    
    Chris

    re: .477
    
    That's got to be one of the most bizarre things I've heard of.
    
    Bob

    I thought I'd stumbled onto a "Kids in the Hall" broadcast or
    something similar, but no.  It was positively incredible.  It blew
    me away to the extent that even though I made an effort to remember
    the product's name, it vanished almost instantly.  Of course, the
    late hour and the OJ-filled brain circuits probably contributed to
    the overload.  :-)
    
    Anyone else seen this?
    
    Chris

    It wasn't on around the time they were advertising the improperly
    obtained condom detectors was it?  I may have seen it.  

    the test works because resdidues will stick to things.  the cloth is
    chemically treated to pick up certain residues.  Now the catch is, who
    acutally used this, and when.  Can you imagine having a non-using child
    who has friends who use and touch things?  What trust are you giving
    your child?
    
    IMO if you have to resort to this kind of thing, you have already lost
    the battle of raising a child to be responsible and honest, and are
    probably less than trustworthy yourself.
    
    Bleah
    
    meg

Nine drug convictions overturned in rogue cop scandal in Philadelphia


(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Associated Press

PHILADELPHIA (Oct 11, 1995 - 02:01 EDT) -- Drug
convictions against nine people were thrown out Tuesday by a
judge who ruled that officers who made the arrests had set
their victims up.

Judge Legrome Davis dismissed the sentences after defense
attorneys cited confessions from the officers that they had
falsified reports and in some cases planted drugs in the
defendants' homes.

"They put a gun in my face and robbed me of 3 1/2 years of my
life," said Edwin Scott, the only one of the nine defendants to
appear at a brief hearing before Davis in Philadelphia's
Criminal Justice Center.

Six former officers from the city's 39th District have confessed
to planting drugs on suspects, stealing their money and
falsifying police reports, putting the city in jeopardy of millions
of dollars in false arrest and false imprisonment lawsuits.

The officers are believed to have also implicated at least 12
colleagues, including members of the Police Department's elite
Highway Patrol Unit.

So far, 60 cases handled by the officers have been overturned
in what Deputy City Solicitor James B. Jordan has called the
worst police problem in Philadelphia history.

The District Attorney's Office is now reviewing more than
1,400 arrests made in the 39th District between 1987 and 1992
for evidence of other trumped-up charges.

"We are not talking about legal technicalities -- these are
innocent people, set up by corrupt officers," said Public
Defender Bradley Bridge.

One police victim was Betty Patterson, described as a
churchgoing grandmother, who spent three years in prison after
Officers John Baird, James Ryan and Thomas DeGiovanni
claimed to have found drugs in her house.

The officers later admitted they had sneaked the drugs into
Patterson's home as a subterfuge to search for evidence in a
murder case involving her three sons.

Patterson, 53, has notified the city through attorney Jennifer St.
Hill that she is seeking $7 million in punitive damages.

Scott, who now manages a restaurant, plans to sue for $3.5
million, said his lawyer, Steven G. Dubin,

"How much is a year of a man's life worth?" asked Dubin.
"Imagine three years, the suffering and the lost opportunities."



    
    Gee, does everyone feel safer now?

    <--- Only if you don't live in New Orleans...
    

    New Option for Drug Offenders
    Instead of jail, San Mateo County to try rehabilitation

    Benjamin Pimentel, Chronicle Peninsula Bureau

    San Mateo County courts are taking a new approach to drug abuse, with
    judges, attorneys and treatment professionals working together to help
    defendants rebuild their lives.

    The San Mateo County Drug Court, which begins hearing cases today,
    hopes to help drug defendants, not by sending them to jail, but by
    having them go through a rehabilitation program under the court's
    supervision.

    ``San Mateo has seen a sharp increase in drug-related crime,'' said
    Deberah Bringelson, executive director of the Criminal Justice Council
    of San Mateo County, which helped set up the program. ``Alternative
    treatment programs such as this provide exciting and creative
    solutions.''

    Unlike similar systems in place in other counties, including San
    Francisco, the San Mateo drug court will work not only with first- time
    offenders, but also with those charged with serious nonviolent felonies
    and repeat offenders, Bringelson said. Defendants who committed serious
    felonies and fall under the ``three strikes'' law do not qualify.

    The court, to be financed in part by a $336,000 state grant, will be
    operated by Superior Court Judge Mark Forcum and Municipal Court Judge
    Craig Parsons. It will work with as many as 245 drug defendants at any
    time.

    Under the program, a defendant signs a contract with the court and
    promises to participate in a rehabilitation program supervised by the
    judge, the attorneys and the drug treatment specialists.

    As part of the monitoring, the defendant undergoes urine tests and
    meets with a probation officer twice a week and appears before the
    court at least once a month.

    The defendant will be given sanctions, such as jail or community
    service, for such violations as failing a urine test or neglecting to
    attend classes. There are also rewards for compliance, such as a
    shorter probation period.

    Felony drug arraignments in the county rose by 30 percent between 1992
    and 1994, and more than half of felony arraignments in 1994 were for
    drug offenses, according to the Criminal Justice Council.

    Bringelson said the drug court will help reduce the number of drug
    offenders and help the county save on jail costs.

    George Borg, executive director of the El Centro de Libertad, a
    substance abuse rehabilitation center in Redwood City, said the drug
    court will benefit the entire community.

    ``Any program that enlightens addicts with education instead of
    incarceration helps our community,'' he said. ``A lot of people can get
    caught up in the system and they are never exposed to the word
    `recovery.' '' 
    ----- 
    Thursday, October 26, 1995 7 Page A20 
    )1995 San Francisco Chronicle

    
    
    pissin more money away.....

    > Felony drug arraignments in the county rose by 30 percent between 1992
    > and 1994, and more than half of felony arraignments in 1994 were for
    > drug offenses, according to the Criminal Justice Council.
    >
    > Bringelson said the drug court will help reduce the number of drug
    > offenders and help the county save on jail costs.
    
    They're already losing money charging, trying, and incarcerating
    non-violent offenders, Mike.  This should save money immediately.
    I'm quite sure that they wouldn't do it if they didn't think so-
    local governments here are no better off than anywhere else, what
    with California having had a worse time recovering from this last
    recession than the rest of the country.
    
    DougO

    Approximate cost to house a murderer till the end of his or her
    sentence:  24-40K/year  and a 50%+ recidivism rate.
    
    Cost to house a non-violent drug offender till the end of his/her
    sentence 24-40K/year. and a 50%+ recidivism rate.
    
    Cost to house a non-violent drug offender who is working and paying
    some of their income into housing, treatment, etc.  Significantly less,
    depending on the treatment programs.  and a somewhat less than 50%
    recidivism rate.
    
    For my money, I know which is really pissing away my tax dollars.
    
    meg

    
    
    You all read more into my note than was actually there.  1)The whole war
    on drugs is a waste.  They should not be illegal (IMO).  2)Treatment for
    people who don't want help doesn't work and for people who do want
    help, it is free (through Narcotics Anonymous) and from what I've read
    and seen, the rate for NA is better than that of a treatment center
    (without NA).
    
    
    Mike

    >Approximate cost to house a murderer till the end of his or her
    >sentence:  24-40K/year  and a 50%+ recidivism rate.
    
    >For my money, I know which is really pissing away my tax dollars.
    
     A good economic reason to fry 'em.

    re: .489
    
    But Mike, if we legalized drugs, think of how many poor helpless
    bureaucrats would be out of work and on the unemployment line. Think of
    all the poor drug cartels that would be put out of business. What about
    all of the drug enforcement agents that protect us helpless Americans,
    what would they do? 
    
    You just must not be thinking straight!   :)

    
    	But think of how many stupid "drug movies" wouldn't be made in
    	the coming years.
    

    
    
    yup, I must be smokin sumpthin.....

    From the Rocky Mountain News
    
    Eagle county will pay $800,000 to motorists stopped on I-70 solely
    because they fit a "drug courier profile" that targeted blacks and
    hispanics.  
    
    The payment settles a class-action suit by the ACLU on behalf of 402
    people who were stopped by sherrif deputies for no other reason than
    race, and a federal program that targeted peple of color.
    
    None of the 402 stopped were ticketed or arrested for drugs.  Jhenita
    Whitfield, who is black, was traveling with her sister and four infants
    was stopped on her way back to Colorado from San Diego.  she was told
    she failed to signal properly before changing lanes.  The deputy then
    asked to search her car.  
    
    "I didn't want any hassle, and I didn't feel I had a choice.  The kids
    were hungry and one had to go to the bathroom.  I figured let's do it
    and get the hell out of here."
    
    Eagle County sherrif A.J. Johnson apologized, saying "it is unfortunate
    that racism became the issue between us and self-interest."  Eagle
    county sherriff's deputies were involved in a federal traffic
    enforcement program that used the courier profile in an attempt to find
    drug violations.  
    
    David Lane, the lead attorney said that the law was enforced this way
    to hit drug dealers in the pocket book.  The suit was to hit counties
    that use a profile as the sole reason for stopping cars, a violation of
    civil rights, where it hurts, in the counties' pocket books.  
    
    The agreement also calls for the dismissal of the case and requires to
    sheriff's office to stop the program.  It also demands that the police
    not stop, search, or sieze a person "unless there is some objective
    reasonable suspicion that the person has done something wrong."
    
    

    Some town in Georgia was doing this several years ago.  I think a stop
    was put to it when a black lawyer drove through the area and was stopped
    for 'not staying in his lane' and then requested to allow his car to be
    searched.  What the police didn't know was that the lawyer had a
    paralegal in another car with a VCR filming his car as he drove, which
    clearly showed that he had not strayed out of his lane.
    
    Bob
    

     Hemp Merchant Makes Federal Case Out Of Stamp

     MICHAEL HILL, Associated Press, 11/13

     WOODSTOCK, N.Y. (AP) - George Washington grew hemp, Joy Beckerman just
     wants you to know.

     But her way of saying it has gained maybe too much attention. Dollars
     given as change at her Heaven on Earth hemp store are stamped with
     little word balloons saying ``I GREW HEMP'' next to Washington's
     picture.

     Since marijuana comes from the hemp plant, police in this
     counterculture capital noticed. Then the U.S. Secret Service told her
     to stop.

     Beckerman said Monday she's not backing down.

     ``It's the message we want to promote: that George Washington was a
     hemp farmer. He's quoted in his diaries saying make the most of the
     hemp seed,'' Beckerman said. ``Our forefathers were very hip.''

     Sitting in her store amid hemp twine, hemp paper, hemp shoes, hemp
     shirts and hemp shorts, the 25-year-old merchant said the stamp is her
     way to help spread the word that hemp is environmentally sound and has
     many uses.

     Of course, it's one recreational use of the hemp plant that started her
     woes. Woodstock Police Chief Paul Ragonense said he sent an officer to
     the store after it opened in May to make sure it wasn't selling
     marijuana.

     The officer found no drugs, but police did pass along a copy of an ``I
     GREW HEMP'' bill to the Secret Service, asking if it was legal.

     Stamping bills with pro-hemp slogans has been done for years, but it
     has recently grown in popularity, especially among fans of the Grateful
     Dead and Phish, said Jeff Jones, project coordinator for the Cannabis
     Action Network in Berkeley, Ca.

     And yes, George Washington really did grow hemp, according to John
     Riley, historian at the first president's home in Mount Vernon, Va.

     Hemp, used widely for rope and clothing at the time, was among dozens
     of crops Washington grew, he said. But Riley added that Washington was
     a self-disciplined man whose indulgences ran more toward Madeira.

     ``He's looking obviously to make rope here,'' Riley said

     Jones said he's marked bills with stamps similar to Beckerman's only to
     have trouble getting them released from the bank. He didn't know of
     anyone getting arrested for the practice.

     Essentially, it's illegal to mutilate or deface any U.S. currency with
     intent to render unfit to use, said Timothy Koerner, resident agent in
     charge of Albany office of the Secret Service. The federal offense is
     punishable by fine and a prison term of up to six months.

     Koerner said although Beckerman apparently wasn't trying to take the
     bills out of circulation, the stamps could have that effect. The Secret
     Service, after conferring with the U.S. Attorney's office, decided to
     give her a verbal order to stop.

     Not only does Beckerman refuse to stop, she said she wants to sue the
     town of Woodstock for harassment - not that she hates the police or
     anything.

     ``They're very nice. I mean, it's not even their fault,'' she said.
     ``They're extremely ignorant. Nobody told them they were doing the
     dirty work for industrialist pigs.''

     Ragonese wishes Beckerman well and said the case is out of his hands.
     Koerner said he considers the case closed unless he receives new
     complaints.

     ``This, of course, is something that is not of the highest priority on
     the Secret Service plate of investigative issues,'' Koerner said.

     Waving aside future problems, Beckerman said she's thinking of using a
     more with-the-times stamp: ``Lower Taxes, Legalize Hemp.''

     AP-DS-11-13-95 1418EST

>     Essentially, it's illegal to mutilate or deface any U.S. currency with
>     intent to render unfit to use, said Timothy Koerner, resident agent in
>     charge of Albany office of the Secret Service.

Most U.S. currency has some kind of ink mark on it.  For some reason, such
currency is "unfit for use" in certain countries.  The cash we took to
Moldova had to be unmarked and dated 1990 or later (so that it would have
the anti-counterfeiting polyester strip in it).

So Gerald shows up in Moldova wearing too much polyester...

(Actually, I thought the strip was mylar.)

/john

    
    	Is it legal to "advertise" on currency?
    
    	Maybe they can bag her for that.  Not that I care either way,
    	of course.
    

    Mercury News Sunday Front Page had an article about how CAMP, the
    Campaign Against Marijuana Producers, has been a total failure in its
    thirteen years of existence as a high-profile fight in the War on Some
    Drugs in California.  People in the target counties are just totally
    fed up with intrusive helicopter overflights every October for the last
    decade; the number of innocents harassed has grown with every passing
    season, and the local also complain of an insidious problem the drug
    war itself has created in their communities- essentially, they have no
    police force.  Every cop is chasing drug busts because the confiscation
    laws give them and their departments a financial incentive to do so-
    and ordinary community police work is neglected.  I'll see if I can get
    some more of the details.  Even an architect of CAMP calls for its end;
    the sheriff of one of these counties who lost his job recently in an
    angry local election, where the big campaign issue was his record as a
    drug warrior, which people increasingly disdain.
    
    DougO

    How about HEMP, Harassed Exclusively Model Potsmokers?

    It's boring in here today. Let's start trouble!
    
    The DEA, with subjective laws enacted by power-usurping politicians,
    uses deception to point at the drugs seized and people jailed as
    progress in the "War on Drugs". But, in fact, the DEA has no motivation
    to diminish any drug problem. Without an expanding drug problem, it's
    system of livelihoods and power would diminish. So, the DEA has every
    motivation to expand it's bureaucracy of bogus lifelihoods and power by
    creating and expanding drug problems, which it does very successfully.

    Can't stir me up with this one, I already figured that out.
    
    There is too much money (not just the quasi-legal stuff dished out by
    congress) being made by those in power to motivate them to treat drugs
    as a health rather than legal issue.
    
    

Too much money being made by law enforcement using property forfeiture,
without charges/conviction. Let's see them take THAT profit out!

    <--- ...unconstitutional property forfeiture, as that.
    
    re: Tom
    
    Consider me unstirred.  Try again.  8^)  I am not for putting drug
    users in prisons, either.

    unstirred?  At the flagrant violation of the Due Process clause of the
    4th Amendment?
    
    Do you still want to pretend to constitutional understanding on other
    amendments?  better cover your gaping lack of concern here.
    
    DougO

    
      Um, beware DougO.  Perhaps it is you who don't understand the Due
     Process clause of the 4th amendment.  I'm sure I don't - it is one
     of the most intellectually complex phrases in the Constitution, and
     has a vast history.  What violation are you referring to ?
    
      bb

    all right, then, the due process clause of the FIFTH amendment.
    
    DougO

    re: .506
    
    Uhm, DougO, I think you mis-read my note, yes I do.
    
    
    -steve

    
      The "Due Process" clause (no person to be deprived of life, liberty,
     or property without due process of law) appears in the Fifth
     Amendment and again, with extension to the states, in the Fourteenth.
     The concept, which goes back to Magna Carta, 1215, Runnymede, England,
     has two parts : procedural due process, and substantive due process.
     Under Magna Carta, the king could not cut off the head of a peer
     without giving him/her an opportunity to speak to the crown.  This
     has been extended for many years till "procedural" due process has
     given a general right to a hearing whenever government action affects
     any group or individual.  There's lots of SCOTUS cases defining this.
     In general, you get a hearing if you persist.  Doesn't mean they
     won't do you in anyways, of course.  "Substantive" due process is a
     modern concept dating to Justice Field's  dissents in the so-called
     "slaughterhouse cases" of the 1870's, and reflected today in the
     "takings" debate on whether the government can restrict use of land,
     a matter still unresolved.
    
      bb

Heard on the news this AM -

   60% of all Federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there due to
   mandatory Federal minimum sentences.

   Talk about insanity ...

>   60% of all Federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there due to
>   mandatory Federal minimum sentences.

    And what percentage of crime is by repeat offenders?  What percentage
    of the prisoners are in for drug related crimes?

    Taking no sides, just curious, 

    -- Dave

    
>   60% of all Federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there due to
>   mandatory Federal minimum sentences.

    And ~100% are there due to breaking a federal law.
    
    ed

This should have read as follows. I didn't think that it might be misconstrued
due to the topic.

        <<< Note 188.511 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
                 -< The easy solution to overcrowded prisons >-

Heard on the news this AM -

   60% of all Federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there due to
   mandatory Federal minimum sentences for drug crimes (posession and sale).
				       ____________________________________
   Talk about insanity ...

    RE: .513, ed
    
    ^And ~100% are there due to breaking a federal law.
    
    Yes, mostly political policy laws that have no relation to if a person
    is a real criminal or not.

    
    	What's a "real criminal"?
    
    	I figured it meant "someone found guilty of breaking a law".
    
    
    	Whether the law should be changed doesn't change the fact
    	that the law is in place now, and therefore one breaking that
    	law is considered a "real criminal".
    

    re .516
    
    "real criminal"
    
    	Yup, if you break the law even if its a 'political' law, youse is
    a real criminal. Get the law changed or don't do the crime.
    
    ed

    ^therefore one breaking that law is considered a "real criminal".
    
    Yes, within the conventional, arbitrary, or closed boundaries, such as 
    perpetrated by political policy. Using the political policy law method,
    as used in the United States, almost any destructive end, even
    destructions of entire economies and genocide can be made to appear
    beneficial to the public and anything beneficial can be made to appear
    destructive. Upon evaluation it can be seen that many of the political
    policies laws in this country actually support armed government
    agencies while expanding the real crime, death and loss of
    constitutional rights for every American Citizen. American political
    policy law is what is criminal. It justifies theft and even murder of
    American citizens while being nothing but subjective political agenda
    law which corrupts justice.

    
    	So change the law, don't break it to get your point across.
    

    
    Turn on.
    Tune in.
    Drop out.
    

re .520:

He's dropping out of the big one soon.

    
    No, no no no, he's outside, looking in.
    

    Of the 60% in for mandatory min's on drug sentences, most are
    non-violent drug offenders and this is their first contact with the
    judicial/prison system.  40K/year would buy one hell of a lot of drug
    rehab programs, for twice as many people, and help pay for a college
    education at the same time.  

>    judicial/prison system.  40K/year would buy one hell of a lot of drug
>    rehab programs, for twice as many people, ...

    How effective are rehab programs when the drug user isn't there by
    choice?

>    ... and help pay for a college
>    education at the same time.  

    Hmmmm.  So if we take the approach of "help pay for college" for drug
    users, I should stop saving for my kids college education and just make
    sure they get busted for drugs their senior year of high school ...

    -- Dave

    
    	And people laugh at me for referring to the "free ride" that
    	millions of Americans are always looking for.
    
    	"You're a drug user?  Awww, poor baby.  Here's rehab, and
    	here's a college education.  While you're at it, want to
    	sign up for welfare, too?"
    
    	Dad gave me about $1800 towards college and I paid for the
    	rest.  I didn't qualify for financial aid, so I took out
    	student loans.
    

    
    How about this: no rehab, no college, and no jail?
    

    
    	I would have no problem with that, as long as the drug use didn't
    	lead to the commission of a violent crime.
    

    
    Then prosecute for the violent crime.
    

    
    	Yes and no.
    
    	I believe the penalty should be stiffer when the crime is com-
    	mitted under the influence of mind-altering substances.  IE, I
    	don't care if you use drugs, as long as they don't affect me.
    

   .528  so simple that it's almost brilliant.

   .529  wow - that would be a real bummer.  if i used drugs and
	 they affected _you_?  geez.

    
    	So you're saying a non-drunk driver is just as likely to hit
    	someone as a drunk driver?
    
    	BAC's of .00 and .2, for example?
    
    
    
    	And Diane, "affect" can be used in a variety of ways.  If you
    	were to get blitzed on a couple spoonfuls of cocaine, I figure
    	you might get a bit weird and possibly do a table dance or 2.
    	Compare that to a psycho who gets blitzed and decides to run a
    	knife through my throat for no reason.
    
    	There's a difference, you know.
    

    
  >  	And Diane, "affect" can be used in a variety of ways.

	no kidding. ;>

  >     If you were to get blitzed on a couple spoonfuls of cocaine, I figure
  >  	you might get a bit weird and possibly do a table dance or 2.

	let me say this about that.  aagagag!  er, i doubt it, shawn baby.  

    Two things that I worry about if drugs are made legal:
        1.  Increased DUI.
        2.  Is the second hand smoke that I'm being forced to inhale
            tobacco or something with a little more kick to it?

    In regards to DUI's, if they threw DUI offenders in prision for murder,
    attempted murder, and/or manslaughter, as well as confiscation of
    vehicle, revokation of drivers license and confication of all vehicles
    driven on a revoked licenses, ... then I would be less concerned about
    DUI's.

    The only way I'd feel comfortable with number two is if they banned all
    smoking in all public places (including out doors).

    -- Dave

    
    .529
    
    	>I believe the penalty should be stiffer when the crime is com-
    	>mitted under the influence of mind-altering substances.
    
    Why?  A victim is every bit as much a victim regardless of whether the
    perp has alcohol, cocaine, heroin, caffiene, THC, LSD, PCP or nicotine
    in his bloodstream, or even if he has *no* drug in his bloodstream.
    
    Incidentally, you touch on a point that legal-types seem to have a
    problem with, which is `mens rea', or criminal intent.  SOME legal
    types seem to believe that impairment ABSOLVES a perp of responsibility
    for his actions, arguing that the perp lacked the ability to form a
    criminal intent in his mind (a result of his "altered state").
    

    
     .532

    	>So you're saying a non-drunk driver is just as likely to hit
    	>someone as a drunk driver?
    
    No, but we're talking about criminals who *have* committed a violent
    crime, not about people who are *likely* to commit a violent crime.
    
    And, alcohol consumption is not illegal in most U.S. counties, or *any*
    Canadian counties.
    

    
    	RE: Joan
    
    >Incidentally, you touch on a point that legal-types seem to have a
    >problem with, which is `mens rea', or criminal intent.  SOME legal
    >types seem to believe that impairment ABSOLVES a perp of responsibility
    >for his actions, arguing that the perp lacked the ability to form a
    >criminal intent in his mind (a result of his "altered state").
    
    	Yes, I realize that, and was going to mention it but forgot all
    	about it.  Anyways, that's a load of bull.  People know what
    	drugs can do to them, so there's no excuse for what they end up
    	doing while under the influence.
    

    
    .537,
    
    Agreed, but unfortunately our Supreme Court here went a little wacky
    recently and dismissed a bunch of violent-crime convictions on just
    such reasoning.
    

    
    	Joan, I was going under the premise that drug use was legal.
    
    	Use drugs, fine.  Use drugs and rape or kill someone, not fine.
    	Maybe get the chair for it.
    
    	My point was that the drugs could very well be considered the
    	catalyst that brought on the violent behavior.  That's why I
    	said "as long as your use of drugs doesn't affect me".  And
    	add "in a violently negative way" if it helps you understand
    	it better.
    

    
    	RE: .538
    
    	That's why defense attorneys get the big bucks.  If they keep
    	looking long enough, they can find a loophole for almost any-
    	thing so that their clients can walk.
    
    	And most of them are probably scum, too.
    

    
    .539

    	>Use drugs, fine.  
    
    Woo Hoo!
    
        >Use drugs and rape or kill someone, not fine.
    
    Of course. But convict for the crime of rape or murder.  No additional
    charges are necessary.
    
    	>And add "in a violently negative way" if it helps you understand
    	>it better.
    
    Uuuhhhhhhhnnnnnnnn...
    
    <furrowed eyebrows>
    

    Shawn,
    
    As far as I'm concerned people taking SOME prescription drugs have
    no business behind the wheel of a car.  Before I bought my house
    I had an elderly neighbor who insisted on keeping her car (long
    past the point where her children said they'd be more than happy to
    chauffeur her around).
    
    She had various ailments and the combination of some of her medicine
    left her ditzy on her better days and zoned on her bad days.
    
    One day the Georgia State Patrol nailed her on I75 and they took her
    to the pokey and charged her with a DUI.  Although I felt sorry for
    the embarrassment and stress she suffered, the fact remained is that
    officer did the right thing; she had no business being on any road,
    much less the stretch of I75 closeby.
    
     

>    	I believe the penalty should be stiffer when the crime is com-
>    	mitted under the influence of mind-altering substances.

I don't follow this either, Shawn. Like !Joan says, if you are a victim of
a violent crime, would you feel any differently dependent upon the presence or
absence of drugs in the perp's system? Why should the punishment be any 
different? Doesn't that, yet again, send that ridulous message that certain 
crimes are "more acceptable" under some circumstances than others?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt today, however, as with all that
Our Jack Martin has been spouting today, I think we all may have taken
a minor hit in the rationality index via induction.

    
    	Jack, I was serious.  A crime committed under the influence can
    	be filed under "very probably could have been prevented" with-
    	out that influence.
    
    	That's why a vehicular homicide by a drunk driver should be con-
    	sidered a worse crime than a vehicular homicide by a non-drunk
    	driver.  The drunk driver chose to impair him/herself and there-
    	fore there is no excuse for what happened.
    
    	[And before you comment on this one, let me try to reason through
    	 the case of the non-drunk driver that kills someone, and why/how
    	 he did it, or what caused it, and why it's no worse than being
    	 drunk and doing the same thing.  It's getting a little too late
    	 to think.  Or comment if you want, and maybe by the time I see
    	 this again I'll have some answers.]
    
    	Or a coked-up psycho blows away someone in a liquor store.  Is
    	it possible that it would have happened without the coke?  Yes
    	it is.  But he gets the death penalty.
    

>    	Jack, I was serious.  A crime committed under the influence can
>    	be filed under "very probably could have been prevented" with-
>    	out that influence.

Once the crime is committed, what the hell difference does "could have
been prevented" have to do with it?
    
>    	That's why a vehicular homicide by a drunk driver should be con-
>    	sidered a worse crime than a vehicular homicide by a non-drunk
>    	driver.

I'll grant you that if it's truly negligent homicide which wouldn't have
occurred without the impairment, that the situation is different. But
negligent homicide is not a "violent crime" in the sense that it is 
non-intentional.

>    	Or a coked-up psycho blows away someone in a liquor store.  Is
>    	it possible that it would have happened without the coke?  Yes
>    	it is.  But he gets the death penalty.

I say he gets the death penalty either way - drugs or no.

    

    Kill them all!!!!
    
    Even the unfortunate bar room brawler who decided he had had enough of
    the wise ass that was berating him, and calling him names too!

    
    >That's why defense attorneys get the big bucks.  If they keep looking
    >long enough, they can find a loophole for almost any- thing so that
    >their clients can walk.
     
    You know what I like about the modern legal system?  They have
    mandatory sentencing for drug offense.  They don't for violent crimes. 
    Thus - if you get caught with a couple of joints and it's your second
    time - 3-5 years (depending on the state) with no parole.
    
    But, go out and kill someone - you will be freed on the average of 2.7
    years.  Why? because they need the space for the mandatory drug
    sentences.  The result is that violent criminals may spend less then
    half the time in jail as criminals that are convicted for having (but
    not selling) drugs.  (This from a 1994 Bureau of Justice Statics
    Report.)  The single largest growing segment of the prison population
    is drug users that were caught with less then 1 once of marijuanna.
    
    Now, if I were a government that wanted money to control the people
    this is what would I do:
    
    	1) Arrest all the non-violent people who show a mild disreguard for 
    	   the government.  These will be the easiest to handle in jail and
    	   may end up becoming a part of some grass roots anti-government
    	   group.
    
    	2) Let the violent criminals go.  They will perform more headline
    	   catching crimes that will have the people pleading with the
    	   government to add more police (like 100,000 funded with federal
    	   money).  Also, these tend to be the hardest to control while
    	   in jail, so get rid of the problems by putting them back on 
    	   the streets.
    
    	3) Start a huge dis-information campaign about a benign substance
    	   that causes people to demand more police protection from
    	   crazed dope addicts (see, for example "Reefer Madness").
    
    	4) Fund "illegal" police activities by confiscating people's
    	   property, saying it's tainted with drugs.  Never actually charge
    	   the people for such confiscations since that will cost money.
    	   Just take it, and make them prove the stuff is innocent.
    
    	5) Increase the "takings" at a 45-50% per year rate.  This will
    	   allow local and federal crimal "enforcement" agencies to grow at
    	   a rate faster then the rest of government.  (1993 confiscations
    	   hit $4 billion, compared to $40 million in '79.)
    
    Unfortunately I am not the government.  The government is actually much
    worse.
    
    	Skip

    RE: .545

>>    	That's why a vehicular homicide by a drunk driver should be con-
>>    	sidered a worse crime than a vehicular homicide by a non-drunk
>>    	driver.
>>
>I'll grant you that if it's truly negligent homicide which wouldn't have
>occurred without the impairment, that the situation is different. But
>negligent homicide is not a "violent crime" in the sense that it is 
>non-intentional.

    Let's say a person is killed by your average, sober, alert, ... driver
    who's brakes happen to fail.  It's an accident.  The victim is dead and
    the family mourns.  It was an accident.

    Let's say a person is killed by your average, sober, alert, ... driver
    who carries around 5 or 6 quarts of brake fluid because their car
    leaks the stuff like seive.  The brakes fail.  The victim is dead and
    the family mourns.

    Should the two drivers be treated the same.  The victim is just as
    dead.  In one case it was clearly an accident.  The second case the
    person didn't do it on purpose, but was negligent in not getting the
    car fixed properly.

    Let's say a person is killed by a drunk driver ...

    The driver's actions (or non-actions) contribute to the accident then
    the driver should be held more accountable then if it truly was an 
    "accident." 

    -- Dave

So who's disagreeing with you, Dave? That was what I said in response to Shawn.
That the drunk driver guilty of negligent homicide is "more guilty" than
the accidental driver. My point was that negligent homicide is not an
an intentional violent crime, such as the liquor store murder, in which case
the presence or absence of drugs is immaterial.

re:             <<< Note 188.546 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "CPU Cycler" >>>


Damn straight!

    RE: .549

    Ok, I think I misunderstood your position.  Paraphrasing your position,
    the guy with the known leaky braking system should be held just as
    accountable as the DUI, and both of these should be treated more
    harshly then the sober guy who maintains his car, then you're right,
    we're in agreement (in which case I'll go stick my nose into another
    note somewhere).

    -- Dave

    
    re:.532

>     	Compare that to a psycho who gets blitzed and decides to run a
>     	knife through my throat for no reason.

    "no reason".... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA....
    I don't know, maybe they could come up with a convincing justifiable
    homicide plea, I'd be willing to listen!   
    ;-)

    re:.534

>     In regards to DUI's, if they threw DUI offenders in prison for murder,
>     attempted murder, and/or manslaughter, as well as confiscation of
>     vehicle, revocation of drivers license and confiscation of all vehicles
>     driven on a revoked licenses, ... then I would be less concerned about
>     DUI's.

    Why charge them with murder if they were only DUI?  DUI isn't a violent
    crime last time I checked.  No one is injured.  I missed something
    somewhere!?!?

    re:.538

>     Agreed, but unfortunately our Supreme Court here went a little wacky
>     recently and dismissed a bunch of violent-crime convictions on just
>     such reasoning.

    Joan, can I safely assume that you're talking about your Supreme Court
    (Canadian) vs. our Supreme Court (American)?

    re:.547

>     	2) Let the violent criminals go.  They will perform more headline
>     	   catching crimes that will have the people pleading with the
>     	   government to add more police (like 100,000 funded with federal
>     	   money).                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
           ^^^^^
    I can't help but laugh at the people who actually bought that line, but
    that's in the Bill and Hillary note I think...  :-)

    Overall, this note is a very unpleasant thought Skip.  The reason is
    that it's soooo dam close to reality.

    RE: .552

>    re:.534
>>     In regards to DUI's, if they threw DUI offenders in prison for murder,
>>     attempted murder, and/or manslaughter, as well as confiscation of
>>     vehicle, revocation of drivers license and confiscation of all vehicles
>>     driven on a revoked licenses, ... then I would be less concerned about
>>     DUI's.
>
>    Why charge them with murder if they were only DUI?  DUI isn't a violent
>    crime last time I checked.  No one is injured.  I missed something
>    somewhere!?!?

    I probably wasn't clear.  I meant after an accident involving a DUI. 
    If no-one is killed, charge them with something stiffer OR make DUI's
    penalties as stiff as attempted murder.  Statistically DUI drivers will
    be repeat offenders.  Merely suspending their drivers license doesn't
    get them off the road and fines are next to meaningless.

    -- Dave

    
    .552>
>     	2) Let the violent criminals go.  They will perform more headline
>     	   catching crimes that will have the people pleading with the
>     	   government to add more police (like 100,000 funded with federal
>     	   money).                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
           ^^^^^
    I can't help but laugh at the people who actually bought that line, but
    that's in the Bill and Hillary note I think...  :-)

    Overall, this note is a very unpleasant thought Skip.  The reason is
    that it's soooo dam close to reality.

    - - - - - -
    
    Okay, so they didn't get the 100,000 they wanted, but they still got a
    significant number (I believe it was over 60,000).  I also know that
    the cities and towns were going to get some form of matching money, not
    100% from the feds.  But the original proposal was to add 100,000 new
    police financed by the Feds.  This was to combat the ever increasing
    crime rate.
    
    Unfortunately, the ever increasing crime rate is a myth.  In 1992, the
    crime rate hit a 20 year low across the country - and they had only
    been compiling that statistic for 20 years.
    
    Yet, even with a decreasing crime rate, the level of law enforcement
    has continued to grow.  Some stats:
    
    - - - - - -
    
    Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 1992
    
    By Brian A. Reaves, Ph.D.
    BJS Statistician
    
    In 1992 State and local governments  funded 17,358 police and
    sheriffs' departments, including 12,502 general purpose local
    police departments, 3,086 sheriffs' departments, 49 primary
    State police departments, and 1,721 special police agencies.
    These agencies employed approximately 604,000 full-time sworn
    officers with general arrest powers and 237,000 nonsworn
    civilian personnel.
    
    Excluding officers in special police agencies, like those for
    airports, parks, transit systems, and universities, there
    were 22 full-time police and sheriffs' officers per 10,000
    U.S. residents, a 7% increase from 1986.
    
    *Civilian employment in general purpose police and sheriffs'
    departments grew 27.5% from 1986 to 1992, about twice as much
    as that of sworn officers (13.4%).
    
    *The total number of general purpose police and sheriffs'
    employees increased by 17% from 1986 to 1992, including a 35%
    increase among sheriffs' departments.
    
    *From 1986 to 1992, the number of general purpose police and
    sheriffs' officers per 10,000 U.S. residents increased by
    7.2%, from 20.6 to 22.0.  This included 3.5% more police
    officers and 21.2% more sheriffs' officers per 10,000
    residents.
    
    - - - - -
    
    There is a lot more, but it gets too depressing.  If you want the full
    report, I will mail it to you.
    
    	Skip

>    Okay, so they didn't get the 100,000 they wanted, but they still got a
>    significant number (I believe it was over 60,000).  I also know that

    Which math are you using?  Clinton NEVER proposed funding for 100,000
    more cops on the street (yes, he did mouth the words, but that wasn't
    in his bill).  What Clinton DID propose was funding for 20,000 cops for
    5 years (and after 5 years the funding goes away).

    -- Dave

      >  <<< Note 188.555 by HIGHD::FLATMAN "Give2TheMegan&KennethCollegeFund" >>>
      >  Which math are you using?  Clinton NEVER proposed funding for 100,000
    
	Louis Farrakan's Million Man Math program
    
    --Geoff

    More corrupt lawmen.  Predictable and ruinous results of the War on
    Some Drugs.
    
    DougO
    -----
    AP 5 Dec 95 23:42 EST V0660
 
    Copyright 1995 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
    Sheriff Is Convicted

    MUSKOGEE, Okla. (AP) -- A former sheriff accused of taking bribes to
    protect marijuana growers and an illegal gambling operation was
    convicted Tuesday on racketeering charges. 

    J.W. Trapp, sheriff of southern Oklahoma's Choctaw County from 1989
    until he resigned in October, faces up to 20 years and a $250,000 fine.
    He was released on bail until his sentencing, which wasn't immediately
    set. 

    Trapp was convicted of soliciting tens of thousands of dollars in
    bribes from marijuana growers and a night club owner who operated a
    dice game and sold alcohol without a license. 

    A club owner testified that Trapp charged $400 a week for protecting a
    craps game, then raised the rates when business was booming. Another
    witness said Trapp asked him for $20,000 to protect his marijuana
    operation. 

    After more than two weeks of testimony, jurors deliberated more than
    three hours before returning their verdict. 

    "I'm disappointed," Trapp said outside the courthouse. "My attorney and
    the judge did all they could do. The judge is the fairest I've ever
    seen. I've got nothing bad to say about them." 

    
    TTWA:
    
    Do the mods ever find <R.O.> in Covert's German postings?
    
    :^)
    

[To the best of recollection ... ]This morning on CNN I heard that Clinton
plans on signing an executive order than will force all persons arrested on
federal charges to submit to a drug test.  If a person opposes being tested,
they will arrained without the possibility of bail.

    
    I wonder if Bill's gonna make Hillary pee in the cup when
    her turn comes...
    
    -b

> If a person opposes being tested, they will arrained without the
> possibility of bail. 

    How long do you think it will take the SCOTUS to overturn that one?

    -- Dave

They may not.  It might be seen to be analagous to the breathalyzer tests for
drunk driving.  (not that I think is but in a stretch ...)

    and how much is this going to add to the cost of processing an
    arresstee?  the most accurate tests are around $200 a pop and I damn
    sure wouldn't settle for anything less, the cheaper tests have too much
    chance of drawing a false "hot"
    
    meg

Yet more evidence that Slick is an idiot.

Or, if you prefer, dog crap.

    given that the Republican congress will probably approve this, I can't
    say who the bigger idiots are.  Of course the only president to be
    logical on this was Jimmy Carter.  Reagan instituted the urine test on
    all transportation workers and all who work for the military-industrial
    complex and started the hysteria that led to madatory min's for
    non-violent drug use, and Bush escalated it.
    
    End the war on drugs, save us at least 17 million/year, and put some
    righteously evil cops out of work (the DEA)  I seriously doubt even the
    most corrupt town-clowns is on a par with those agents I have seen in
    action in Colorado.
    
    meg

>    given that the Republican congress will probably approve this

Well, but, if it's an executive order, their approval doesn't really have much
more value than yours or my disapproval, Meg.

    jack,
    
    Executive orders mean nothing if there is no funding.  
    
    let's get real.  50-200 extra bucks/arrestee is a lot of moola that
    coud be used for corporate tax breaks.

    By the way, has his staff passed security clearance yet?
    They've only had about three years to pass their drug tests.
    You'd think they'd be purged out by now, unless they're still
    using.
    
    Chris

    This was brought up last spring by Newt and was found to be unfouded.  
    
    Besides any hard user knows how to get around urine tests.