[Only the first part of this message is displayed. The entire message has been
turned into a text attachment, which you can retrieve by selecting Download.
Once downloaded, open it with a word processor or text editor for reading.]
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #78 -- February 12, 1999
A Publication of the Drug Reform Coordination Network
-------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --------
(To sign off this list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit <http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html>.)
(This issue can be also be read on our web site at
<http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html>. Check out the DRCNN
weekly radio segment at <http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/>.)
PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the
contents of The Week Online is hereby granted. We ask that
any use of these materials include proper credit and, where
appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If
your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet
requests checks payable to the organization. If your
publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use
the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification
for our records, including physical copies where material
has appeared in print. Contact: Drug Reform Coordination
Network, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036,
(202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you.
Articles of a purely educational nature in The Week Online
appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise
noted.
TECHNICAL TRAVAILS: Due to some continuing server trouble,
our alert of Wednesday night didn't make it through until
tonight, except to about 400 of you. We apologize for the
two posts in one night, and to the 400 of you who received
two copies of the alert. We are close to having these
problems resolved, and thank you for bearing with us in the
meantime.
ALERT! DRCNet's 501(c)(4) lobbying entity is running
desperately short of funds. This won't threaten our
educational programs, lik
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #78 -- February 12, 1999
A Publication of the Drug Reform Coordination Network
-------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --------
(To sign off this list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit <http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html>.)
(This issue can be also be read on our web site at
<http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html>. Check out the DRCNN
weekly radio segment at <http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/>.)
PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the
contents of The Week Online is hereby granted. We ask that
any use of these materials include proper credit and, where
appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If
your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet
requests checks payable to the organization. If your
publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use
the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification
for our records, including physical copies where material
has appeared in print. Contact: Drug Reform Coordination
Network, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036,
(202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thank you.
Articles of a purely educational nature in The Week Online
appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise
noted.
TECHNICAL TRAVAILS: Due to some continuing server trouble,
our alert of Wednesday night didn't make it through until
tonight, except to about 400 of you. We apologize for the
two posts in one night, and to the 400 of you who received
two copies of the alert. We are close to having these
problems resolved, and thank you for bearing with us in the
meantime.
ALERT! DRCNet's 501(c)(4) lobbying entity is running
desperately short of funds. This won't threaten our
educational programs, like the DRCNN radio show and most of
the articles in the Week Online, which are funded mainly by
grants and major gifts to our 501(c)(3) educational
foundation. But it will prevent us from issuing important
legislative alerts and from pursuing some of our key
projects, including the Higher Education Act reform project
(see http://www.u-net.org), unless members like yourselves
come through. To donate, visit our online registration form
at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html to print out a form to
mail in or submit your credit card info. Or just mail your
check or money order to: DRCNet, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615,
Washington, DC 20036. Donations to the Drug Reform
Coordination Network are not tax-deductible. You can also
support DRCNet by participating in the iGive online
fundraising program (formerly eyegive). Register to support
DRCNet at http://www.igive.com/html/ssi.cfm?CID=1060 (we
earn $2 immediately when you do), and visit the iGive home
page at http://www.igive.com and point and click up to five
times a day to earn much needed funds for the organization!
Also, tax-deductible contributions supporting our
educational work can be made to the DRCNet Foundation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. As Certification Debate Nears, Mexico Declares "Total
War" on Drugs
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#totalwar
2. White House Releases Drug Strategy Amid Criticism from
Reformers
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#amidcriticism
3. New York State's Top Judge Calls For Rethinking of
Rockefeller Drug Laws
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#topjudge
4. County Requests Federal Okay To Conduct Medical Marijuana
Study
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#sanmateo
5. Impact of the Closure of a Needle Exchange Program
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#programclosure
6. EDITORIAL: Young Entrepreneurs and the Culture of
Prohibition
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#editorial
================
1. As Certification Debate Nears, Mexico Declares "Total
War" on Drugs
As Congress and the President prepare once again to debate
certification of the nations of the world regarding their
perceived cooperation in America's Drug War, Mexico, the
subject of fierce and bitter debate over the past several
years has announced a $500 million two-year program to
combat drug trafficking. At a briefing last week (2/4),
high ranking Mexican officials announced that President
Ernesto Zedillo is prepared to put "all the power of the law
and the government" behind the effort.
Mexico has come under fire in Congress in recent years due
to entrenched corruption and the fact that large percentages
of the drugs imported into America are transported through
that nation. Certification is the process by which the U.S.
Government approves or disapproves of a nation's anti-drug
efforts. De-certification carries a host of economic
consequences including potential trade sanctions and
restrictions on U.S. aid. Last year, under pressure from
congressional Republicans, President Clinton de-certified
Mexico but waived sanctions in the interest of national
security. Certification decisions will be made in March.
(See The Week Online's coverage of last year's certification
debate at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/036.html#mexico and
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/032.html#certification -- check
our archives at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/archives.html for
the recent history on many drug policy topics.)
Most of the money from this new initiative will be spent on
new, high-tech hardware for the detection of drugs and drug
shipments.
A spokesperson for Representative John Mica (R-FL), chairman
of the house subcommittee on criminal justice and an
outspoken opponent of Mexican certification in the last
Congress, told The Week Online that the Congressman was
taking an open-minded approach to this latest development.
"On the one hand, Representative Mica is pleased to hear the
Mexican government say that it is committed to implement
such an ambitious program and to make use of the technology
that's available. On the other hand, however, there have
been promises made in the past, when it turned out that the
Mexican government was heavy on rhetoric but light on
action. The congressman was briefed this morning on the
matter and his attitude going into the certification debate
is that he wants to wait and see what transpires."
Sources on the Hill have told The Week Online that drug
policy is an area in which Republicans hope to gain traction
against the Clinton administration this year. With rumors
circulating about the impending departure of Drug Czar Barry
McCaffrey, a towering and nearly unassailable figure due to
his military record, drug war hawks are likely to feel free
to take off the gloves in assailing the administration as
insufficiently "tough" with regard to both domestic law
enforcement and international interdiction efforts, despite
the fact that Clinton has presided over the greatest
increases in both interdiction spending and drug arrests in
our history.
================
2. White House Releases Drug Strategy Amid Criticism from
Reformers
Scott Ehlers, Senior Policy Analyst, Drug Policy Foundation,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) released its 1999 National Drug Control Strategy
this week, calling for $17.8 billion to be spent in FY 2000.
The request represents an increase of $735 million (+4.3%)
over 1999's regular appropriations, and $1.1 billion (+6.5%)
more than the projected FY 2000 budget included in last
year's strategy. (See also "Clinton's New Drug Control
Strategy Repeats Mistakes of Past," online at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/077.html#strategy in last week's
Week Online.)
The strategy is seeking to reduce illicit drug use and
supply by 50 percent by 2007. Domestic marijuana
cultivation should be reduced by 50 percent as well, and the
Department of Agriculture will begin conducting annual crop
estimates to track the government's progress in its efforts
to eradicate the plant.
The plan received its usual lashing from reformers and
Republicans alike, but drug policy reformers dominated the
press coverage of the strategy's release. The Associated
Press quoted Ethan Nadelmann of the Lindesmith Center
(http://www.lindesmith.org) as saying, "Unfortunately, it's
just another example of throwing billions of dollars down
the bottomless pits of interdiction and failed prevention
programs." The Washington Post quoted the Drug Policy
Foundation as characterizing the strategy as being
"hypocritical and disappointing," and Eric Sterling of the
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation (http://www.cjpf.org) as
saying, "This is a betrayal of what the White House says
it's doing, promising a balanced strategy when it is
lopsided." Sterling was referring to the fact that 66% of
the strategy's budget will go to law enforcement, prisons,
and other supply reduction efforts, while only 34% goes to
drug prevention and treatment.
Oddly enough, the only Republican response came from Rep.
Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who criticized the White House for
talking about prevention and treatment, but spending the
vast majority of its budget on law enforcment. He told the
Orange County Register, "My concern is that the president's
budget priorities don't match the rhetoric from the White
House."
One area of "prevention" that the White House is supporting
is "countering attempts to legalize drugs" and "countering
attempts to legalize marijuana" (p. 52-54). Much of the
anti-legalization section is devoted to attacking harm
reduction by mischaracterizing it as a ruse for
legalization. According to the strategy, "The real intent
of many harm-reduction supporters is the legalization of
drugs, which would be a mistake... At best, harm reduction
is a half-hearted approach that would accept defeat.
Increasing help is better than decreasing harm." Assuming
that the current policy is considered to be "increasing
help," one might ask how prison, the refusal of college
financial aid and education, forced joblessness, and the
refusal to fund proven HIV-prevention programs like syringe
exchange "increase help?" The strategy failed to address
that question.
In regard to medical marijuana, the strategy claims that the
"U.S. medical-scientific process has not closed the door on
marijuana or any other substance that may offer therapeutic
benefits," but that process cannot be subverted by state
initiatives. The strategy also notes that "hemp cultivation
would result in de facto legalization of marijuana
cultivation because both hemp and marijuana come from the
same plant..." But according to the strategy, a Department
of Agriculture review of university studies shows that hemp
is unlikely to be a sustainable, economically viable
alternative crop, so, according to the government, there
really isn't a need to legalize the crop.
In order to combat "encroaching efforts to justify
legalization," the 1999 Strategy outlines ways to "counter
the potential harm such activities pose." The
countermeasures include: "informing state and local
government as well as community coalitions and civic
organizations about the techniques associated with the drug
legalization movement" and "working with the international
community to reinforce mutual efforts against drug
legalization."
Will the Clinton administration begin educating community
groups on how to counter Steve Forbes' efforts to create a
federal flat tax? Will its next target be the National
Rifle Association's attempts to allow citizens to carry
concealed weapons? Or will changes in drug policy continue
to be the only public policy reforms that the Clinton
administration actively opposes with Americans' tax dollars?
Stay tuned to find out.
The 1999 National Drug Control Strategy is online at
<http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/ndcs.html>. The
Drug Policy Foundation's press release on the 1999 Strategy
is located at <http://www.dpf.org/html/prstrategy.html>.
================
3. New York State's Top Judge Calls For Rethinking of
Rockefeller Drug Laws
Judith Kaye, New York State's chief judge, proposed several
changes this week to that state's draconian Rockefeller drug
laws, which are among the toughest in the country. Enacted
in 1973, the laws were among the first mandatory minimum
sentences ever enacted, requiring, among other things, a
fifteen year minimum for distribution of more than two
ounces or possession of more than four ounces of cocaine or
heroin.
Kaye's proposal would allow appeals court judges to take
into account the nature of the offense and of the offender
in reassessing sentences handed down under the current
scheme. The proposal would give the court of appeals the
option of reducing a sentence to a five-year minimum.
"We do not presume to take on the larger policy issues,"
said Kaye. "But we do seek to address aspects of the law
that can work unjustly, and to supplement the law with some
of the lessons we in the courts have learned over the past
decade on effective responses to drug based crime."
Robert Gangi, Executive Director of the Correctional
Association of New York, told The Week Online that while it
was important for Judge Kaye to take a stand on the
Rockefeller drug laws, her proposals left something to be
desired.
"We who have been studying and chronicling the destructive
impact of these laws are certainly pleased that Judge Kaye,
a public official of great standing and a politically
unassailable voice in the state, has called attention to the
problems that the Rockefeller laws have caused.
Unfortunately, her proposals were fairly weak in that they
do not seek to rectify the primary problem with the laws,
the fact that the sentencing judge has no discretion in
these cases. It is well-known that in New York State, the
political force behind the status quo are the upstate
Republicans. From here, it looks as if Judge Kaye took
politics into account in tempering her criticism.
"Judge Kaye, who ought to be speaking in the interests of
her constituency -- the judges of New York State -- doesn't
address the fact that the sentencing judge is not permitted
to decide the threshold question: whether or not to
incarcerate a particular defendant. Her proposal for the
most serious felonies, in which 4 ounces are possessed of 2
ounces are distributed, is to leave it to the appellate
court to decide if an injustice was done, and then to limit
the court of appeals in their remedy. As for lower level
felonies, she proposes that the sentencing judge have the
right to divert an offender to treatment, but only with the
blessing of the prosecutor. The problem here is that the
prosecutor is still making the determination on sentencing,
and this proposal codifies that system, which is an improper
role for the D.A., and one that has led to numerous
injustices in this state. Given the level of
dissatisfaction with these laws among New York's judges, I'm
quite surprised that Judge Kaye did not take a more forceful
stand on these issues."
(See our coverage of the Correctional Association of New
York and Justice Policy Institute's recent report -- online
at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/069.html#newyork -- on the
correlation between prison spending increases and
educational spending decreases in that state.)
================
4. County Requests Federal Okay To Conduct Medical Marijuana
Study
(article appears courtesy of the NORML Foundation,
http://www.norml.org)
February 11, 1999, Redwood City, CA: San Mateo county
officials will apply for federal permission to begin medical
marijuana trials on human patients. Officials seek approval
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, and the National Institute on
Drug Abuse (NIDA). NIDA is the only legal supplier of
marijuana for research purposes.
Last year, the Redwood City Board of Supervisors
appropriated $50,000 to conduct medical marijuana research.
The proposed three-year study hopes to include between 500
and 1,000 patients.
County officials anticipate a federal response to their
request by April 1, 1999.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, NIDA provided medical
marijuana to state-sponsored research programs in seven
states: California, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, New
York, Tennessee, and Vermont. Through these programs,
thousands of cancer patients found relief from legal
marijuana cigarettes. NIDA discontinued supplying medical
marijuana to these programs in the late 1980s, and most
recently refused requests from the Massachusetts and
Washington Boards of Health to allow those states to permit
medical marijuana research.
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre
or Paul Armentano of The NORML Foundation at (202) 483-8751.
================
5. Impact of the Closure of a Needle Exchange Program
Social scientists with the University of Connecticut,
Storrs, have released the results of an empirical study on
the closure of an established needle exchange, and its
impact on the risk behaviors of the exchange's injection
drug-using clients and the community-at-large. The study
was conducted by sociologists Robert S. Broadhead, Ph.D.,
Yael Van Hulst, M.A. and Douglas D. Heckathorn Ph.D., funded
by a multi-year grant from the National Institute on Drug
Abuse. The study was released during a formal presentation
by the study's authors at a colloquium series sponsored by
the Yale AIDS Program on January 28, 1999. The study also
appears in the February 1999 issue of Social Problems, a
prestigious social science journal of the Society for the
Study of Social Problems.
Background
In April 1998, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, declared that, "A
meticulous scientific review has now proven that needle-
exchange programs can reduce the transmission of HIV and
save lives without losing ground in the battle against
illegal drugs." The Secretary was responding to a 34-member
Presidential Advisory Council's review of scores of
empirical studies on the effectiveness of needle exchange
programs on reducing the risk behaviors of injection drug-
using clients.
The study released by Broadhead et al. looks at the
effectiveness of such programs from a different angle: It is
the first empirical study of the impact of an established
needle exchange's closure on injection drug users' risk
behaviors, and on the community. The study was conducted in
Windham, a small city in northeastern Connecticut where a
state-sponsored needle exchange operated for several years
serving several hundred injection drug users. The exchange
was closed in March, 1997 following ten months of tumultuous
public debate and controversy. The program's opponents
succeeded in placing blame on the needle exchange program
for virtually all of Windham's drug-related problems, and
even the economic decline of the city itself. While not a
perfect program, the exchange became a convenient and ready
scapegoat by its opponents. Thus, like a storm, as the
controversy began, gained in strength, peaked, and then blew
itself and the needle exchange away, virtually all of the
problems blamed on the exchange still remain in Windham,
including a very large and active illicit drug scene.
Design of the Study
For three years prior to the closure of the Windham needle-
exchange, the Eastern Connecticut Health Outreach (ECHO)
project, directed by the researchers, conducted 330 initial
and 173 follow-up interviews on HIV risk-related behavior of
Windham drug injectors. Following the closure of the
exchange in March 1997, the ECHO project began re-recruiting
former respondents who remained in the area and continued as
active injectors. This resulted in 111 "post-closure
initial" interviews and 78 three-month "post-closure follow-
up" interviews focusing on any changes in their risk
behavior status.
The ECHO project also continued the practice, begun many
months before the closure of the needle exchange, of
systematically surveying several public outdoor areas in
Windham where high levels of drug use occur. During these
surveys, the project recorded the number of discarded
syringes found, as well as dope bags, syringe wrappers and
caps, and other injection-related debris. Both as a public
service, and to avoid recounting such items during
subsequent surveys, the ECHO project collected these
materials.
Results
The results indicate that the closure of the needle exchange
profoundly and negatively impacted drug injectors' access to
clean syringes, which proportionately increased their risk
of using syringes infected with HIV. Before the closure of
the exchange, only 14% of Windham drug injectors reported
that their primary source of "new" syringes was from family
or friends, diabetics or street sources. These are unsafe
sources because drug users cannot be sure that such syringes
are unused and sterile. At the post-closure initial
interview, respondents' rate of obtaining syringes from
unsafe sources increased to 36% -- a 165 percent increase,
and to 51% at the post-closure follow-up interview -- mostly
from street sources -- which nearly quadrupled the pre-
closure baseline rate. This change in the number of
respondents who obtained syringes from street dealers -- the
least safe source -- was more alarming. Whereas before the
closure of the exchange, only 4% of respondents obtained
their syringes from the street, after the closure the rate
increased to 38%.
Further, before the closure of the exchange, the respondents
reported that they reused syringes 3.52 times on average.
This increased to 7.68 times at the post-closure initial
interview -- a 118% increase. This findings is especially
dramatic because a relationship has been scientifically
documented between the amount of time syringes remain in
circulation and rates of HIV infection among drug injectors.
As reported by Charles Kaplan and Robert Heimer in their
highly respected "needle circulation" study of the New Haven
needle exchange, a needle exchange reduces the circulation
time of syringes, which reduces the probability that they
will become infected. After the closure of the Windham
needle exchange, there was a sharp increase in the amount of
time that dirty syringes remain in circulation, creating a
proportional increase in the probability that Windham drug
injectors are likely to re-use and share infected syringes.
The closure of the needle exchange also significantly
increased drug injectors' self-reported syringe sharing. At
their last interview before the closure of the exchange,
only 16% of Windham drug injectors' reported sharing a
syringe within the last 30 days. After the exchange's
closure, 34% of the respondents reported in their first
interview that they had shared a syringe within the last 30
days, a 100 percent increase. The respondents also reported
increases in the sharing of other HIV-related injection
materials following the closure of the exchange, such as the
sharing of cookers and water used in the preparation of
drugs.
Lastly, the surveys of public outdoor areas in Windham where
high levels of drug use occur found that the closure of the
needle exchange had no effect either on the number of
improperly discarded syringes and other drug-injection
debris, or on the robustness of the Windham illicit drug
scene.
Conclusion
All of the problems blamed on the needle exchange remain in
Windham following its closure. In fact, Windham now faces
even more problems. First, because of the controversy
surrounding the exchange, almost all of Windham's pharmacies
no longer sell syringes over-the-counter for fear of being
blamed for the city's "needle problem." This forces drug
injectors further into re-using and sharing dirty syringes.
Second, virtually all of the progress the city made over the
last several years in reducing drug injectors' HIV risk
behaviors has been lost. Finally, with the closure of the
exchange and the campaign against it -- much of it based on
assertions now disproved about the exchange causing the
city's drug problem and economic decline -- Windham has
seriously crippled its ability to protect the community
against HIV and other drug-related diseases.
================
6. EDITORIAL: Young Entrepreneurs and the Culture of
Prohibition
Adam J. Smith, Associate Director, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This week in Middletown, NY, an 11 year-old boy was charged
with selling marijuana (mixed with oregano) and soap
shavings (which he passed off as crack cocaine) to his
fifth-grade classmates. The boy was charged with criminal
sale of marijuana and the sale of an imitation controlled
substance and released to the care of his mother pending a
court appearance next week.
So here we are. Several decades and hundreds of billions of
tax dollars spent on the drug war, this moral crusade to
"protect America's children" from illicit substances, and we
are down to this. 11 year-old children selling drugs to
each other, mimicking the actions of the most financially
successful young people in their communities and taking part
in the one of the most profitable business enterprises on
earth.
Did "drugs" make this child into a dealer? And a crooked
one at that? Or is it the culture of prohibition that has
saturated our society and our children's reality? The fact
is that during alcohol prohibition, gangsters like Al
Capone, his criminal empire built on the sale of illicit
booze, were cultural icons. Bootleggers and rum-runners
were glamorous men, living life on the edge, and were, for
certain economic strata of children, the most outwardly
successful role models around. In those days, entire high
schools were shut down due to mass drunkenness, and hip
flasks were worn by trendy teens. Today, with alcohol legal
and regulated, there are no stories of pre-pubescents
selling whiskey to their classmates. Today it is drugs.
It is an easy mistake to make, really. Drugs are bad for
kids, and so we outlaw them. But that doesn't work, and so
we pass even tougher laws. The reality, however, is far
more complex. Part of that reality is the fact that
prohibition does not, cannot control contraband. In fact,
what we have done is ceded control to a criminal element,
and to our children. Another part of the reality of
prohibition is that the markets we have created, and the
wares that those markets offer are a magnet for a certain
percentage of kids. Not bad kids necessarily, but
adventurers. The ones who, in different times, dove off
cliffs into the river or who jumped their bikes over rows of
garbage cans. In clinging to a policy which assures our
children access to these substances, no proof of age
required, we have created, in the words of the law, an
attractive nuisance. And our children are drawn to that
nuisance like flies.
In Middletown, NY, an eleven year-old kid sells mostly phony
"drugs" to his eleven year-old classmates. He did not, we
can be sure, invent the idea himself. He was simply doing
something that goes on in every single town and city across
our nation, day and night, every single day of the year.
Now we must decide what to do with him. Is he the most evil
child in his school? Or is he simply the most enterprising?
And what will we do with all the others like him, thousands
and thousands of them, and most just a few years older than
he? This is the fallout from the culture of prohibition.
It is a culture that we adults have created. So that now,
in the midst of our boondoggle crusade to protect the
children, we find that we cannot build the prisons for them
fast enough.
-----------------------------------------------------------
DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to 2000 P
St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or made by credit
card at <http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html>. Donations to
the Drug Reform Coordination Network are not tax-deductible.
Deductible contributions supporting our educational work can
be made by check to the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-
exempt organization, same address.
***********************************************************
DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet DRCNet
***********************************************************
JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/
DRCNET HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org/
GATEWAY TO REFORM PAGE http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/
