[Only 1 issue of the weekly NORML news was skipped, and that was on August11. The last one that will have been written by Rob Kampia was on August 18. This issue--as well as future issues--was and will be written by others in the NORML office until further notice. Rob Kampia will continue to be the one who distributes these announcements over the Internet. Any questions or comments about NORML's weekly news announcements should continue to be directed to "NATLNORML@AOL.COM". Thank you.]

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS

1001 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW

SUITE 1010

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036

E-MAIL NATLNORML@AOL.COM

. . . a weekly service for the media on news items related to Marijuana Prohibition.

August 25, 1994

- NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE STUDY ON "DRUGS" AND DRIVING: BAD SCIENCE PLUS BAD JOURNALISM EQUALS GREAT PROHIBITIONIST PROPAGANDA

The widely reported article in the August 25 New England Journal of Medicine, "Testing Reckless Drivers for Cocaine and Marijuana," tells us more about the effects of reefer madness on science and journalism than it tells about the effects of marijuana on driving. In fact, it really tells us nothing about the effects of marijuana. The title itself should have been a warning of this.

Incredibly, it was assumed that the only chemical causes of reckless driving, other than alcohol, would be marijuana and cocaine. The subjects were not tested for any other drugs even though there are over-the-counter cold remedies that produce the effects attributed to marijuana. Obviously, more powerful drugs-whether legally or illegally acquired-such as opiates, barbiturates, tranquilizers, etc., would be much more likely to be the cause of the described behavior than marijuana. But would a subject be likely to volunteer the fact that he had just taken heroin?

The study understates the amount of time that the metabolites of marijuana stay in the urine. Up to 6 weeks, rather than just "days." But even the stated time period means that testing positive for marijuana on a urine test tells nothing about the state of "marijuana intoxication" at the time of the test.

While simple common sense tells us that heavy use of cannabis before driving is very inappropriate, the article fails to cite numerous studies whichsuggest that marijuana use does not significantly impair driving skills.

Also, it fails to note that there are no credible studies indicating any significant decrement in driving skills from even heavy use of cannabis after more than a few hours. Asking if someone had used marijuana within the previous 12 hours proves absolutely nothing. So the conclusion that "overhalf the reckless drivers who were not intoxicated with alcohol were intoxicated with other drugs" does not follow from the article's own stated data. In fact, it was not proven that any of them were "intoxicated" on marijuana alone, since there was no testing for anything else (other than cocaine).

Why was this study designed in this way, excluding from testing all of the widely abused drugs that are known to cause more impairment than marijuana?

A study that is designed to implicate marijuana in reckless driving might also begin with a citation of a work by the notorious prohibitionist propagandist R.L. DuPont who is in the business of advising companies on urine testing. The first footnote cites DuPont. What a coincidence!

If the media or public would like to examine a major new study that is methodologically sound, they should obtain the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study: "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance" (emphasis added). The report concluded among other things that the adverse effects of marijuana on driving appear "relatively small" and are less than those of drunken driving. The study shows that unlike alcohol, which encourages reckless driving, marijuana appears to produce greater caution and is "not profoundly impairing." In fact, the study states that marijuana's effects on driving are "in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs."

[To obtain a copy of this study, call NHTSA, the office of Ted Anderson, at 202-366-5586.]

- CRIME BILL FINALLY PASSES IN THE U.S. SENATE WITHOUT A RETROACTIVE SAFETY VALVE; FEDERAL PRISONS WILL CONTINUE TO INCARCERATE THOUSANDS OF FIRST-TIME LOW-LEVEL NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS

August 25, the U.S. Senate passed a crime bill after years of partisan bickering. The bill was approved 61-38. The bill-which allocates nearly $30 billion for "crime" fighting-is the most expensive "anti-crime" measure ever passed by Congress.

Unfortunately, one of the most important provisions for the drug law-reform community was removed by the House and did not reappear in the bill's final version. The retroactive release of first-time low-level drug offenders, which would have potentially released up to 5,000 inmates, was scrapped due in part to:

- An intense public relations campaign by the NRA (featuring actor Charlton Heston) which misrepresented the number of affected inmates, nature of their offenses, and the procedure by which an inmate could have been granted an early release; and

- A full court press by the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys (NAAUSA).

According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), a result of scuttling retroactivity is the loss of $201 million in savings the first year alone and $37 million annually thereafter.

A safety valve provision is still in the crime bill for the president to sign. To be eligible for this, an individual must meet strict criteria set forth by the House and Senate conference committees. Those criteria are:

1. Very little or no prior criminal activity;

2. No violence, weapons, death, or injury involved in the offense;

3. Cannot be a kingpin, leader, or manager;

4. Must provide cooperation or accept responsibility; and

5. If incarcerated, the offender must be a model prisoner.

[For further details on the crime bill's impact on criminal sentencing, contact FAMM at 202-457-5790.]

- MASS MEDIA REPORTED TOO LATE ON THE MISINFORMATION SURROUNDING THE

"SAFETY-VALVE" ASPECT OF THE CRIME BILL

After weeks of hysterical rhetoric from the GOP that the "crime bill" would release "10,000 drug felons," the mass media have finally reported on the small number of prisoners who actually would have been affected by the "safety-valve" provision in the crime bill.

GOP leaders such as Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) have been quoted in

Washington's Legal Times as saying that "drug felons" will be retroactively released from prison en masse. Legal Times reported Justice Department spokesman Bert Brandenberg as saying that the actual number of releases would be 100 to 400. "There have been some myths floating around," said Brandenberg. "This 10,000 is one of the bigger whoppers."

The GOP's stance on this is all the more perplexing considering that when liberal Representative Charles Schumer (D-New York) introduced the safety valve, he was supported by conservative Representatives Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) and Bill McCollum (R-Florida). Senators Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina) and Alan Simpson (R-Wyoming) joined Senate Democrats in spearheading the measure.

In the Legal Times article, Rep. Hyde cast some unintended insight on the process of passing legislation. "Nobody wants to appear soft on crime," he said. "Republicans are proud of being tough on crime. So am I. But you know how these things go: You get your five minutes at the microphone, and maybe they're [the public] listening and maybe they're not."

NORML is always listening when issues arise that will potentially affect marijuana consumers.

- CALIFORNIA ADOPTS SAFEGUARDS AGAINST FORFEITURE EXCESSES

On August 18, the legislature unanimously sent Governor Wilson a bill that would create a new state law governing the seizure of assets and offer stronger protection for innocent parties. "We've removed some of the unfairness of the previous law and put in the protections that should always have been there for the innocent persons," said the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman John Burton of San Francisco.

Since the old law took effect in 1989, some $180 million worth of assets allegedly tied to illegal drug activity were taken. Law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors were allowed to keep 90 percent of the proceeds from the assets and were allowed to use seized boats and cars.

New requirements of the law include:

- No property can be seized unless prosecutors win a criminal conviction.

- To keep the property, a prosecutor will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property was used in an illegal drug activity. Previously, prosecutors could use a lower standard of proof.

- Under the proposed law, there would be stronger protections against the seizing of community property. Previously, community property could be taken if the prosecutors could prove the spouse "should have known" about the illegal drug activity. The same standard also applies to hotel, restaurant, bar or other business owners.

- If property is taken, the affected persons would (1) have to be notified and (2) have to be given instructions on how to contest the seizure.

- Law-enforcement agencies could no longer use the actual property they seize.

- The new law also demands full accounting of how much money each agency receives from seized assets. No such rule existed before.

- Fifteen percent of the money received by law enforcement agencies from seizures must be spent on anti-drug community programs.

- Under the new law, only 65 percent of the proceeds will go to law-enforcement agencies, 10 percent to prosecutors; formerly 90 percent of seized assets went strictly to law enforcement.

- Another 1 percent will be devoted to educating police and prosecutors on the intricacies of asset forfeiture.

- The remaining 24 percent would go to the state of California.

Gov. Wilson is expected to sign the bill.

- THE WASHINGTON TIMES CASTS A CRITICAL EYE IN AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "MANDATORY DRUG SENTENCES LEAD TO INEQUITIES"

On August 24, The Washington Times ran a full-page article that aptly portrays the crisis in the criminal justice system caused by the mandatory incarceration of low-level nonviolent offenders (code for illegal drugconsumers).

Commenting in the article is former New York prosecutor David Kopel, who has authored an extensive Cato Institute report entitled "Prison Blues: How America's Foolish Sentencing Policies Endanger Public Safety," in which he argues that federal (and state) prisons devote too many resources to drug offenders-at the expense of not incarcerating violent criminals.

Many diverse groups agree, including numerous Reagan- and Bush-appointed judges, the ACLU, Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Dr. Lee Brown, Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, III, and even pro-gun groups such as Gun Owners of America.

In the conclusion of this comprehensive article, Mr. Kopel raises the much needed question, "Right now we have a system where a third of the people coming in [to prison] are drug offenders, as opposed to 7% in previous years.

x Would we be safer if the percentage of drug offenders went down and the percentage of violent offenders went up?" (emphasis added)

Percent admitted to state prisons: 1980 1984 1988 1992

Violent offenses 48.2 36.4 29.9 28.5

Drug offenses 6.8 11.2 25.1 30.5

[Copies of the 62-page "Prison Blues" report are available for $4 each from the Cato Institute by writing 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001 or calling 202-842-0200.]

- CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE DEFIES "THREE STRIKES" MANDATE

On August 11, in what may become a test for California's "Three Strikes" law, a Sonoma County judge refused to follow its tough sentencing requirements for an inmate caught with two marijuana "joints."

Superior Court Judge Lawrence Antolini refused to impose the required state prison term, stating that such a sentence would be a violation of constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Judge Antolini stated, "To send this man to a state prison x and take up space for a more violent felon is out of proportion for this crime."

"This is earthshaking," the judge said of the new law. "People should wake up and see what this does to nonviolent offenders [illegal drug consumers]."

The district attorney promised that he will file an appeal.-- end --