Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:59:37 -0700
Subject:Canada: Going To Pot Up TOC
Newshawk: Join CMAP (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/lists.htm)
Pubdate: Mon, 15 Jul 2002
Source: Vancouver Courier (CN BC)
Copyright: 2002 Vancouver Courier
Contact: editor@vancourier.com
Website: http://www.vancourier.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/474
Author: Mike Howell

GOING TO POT

It's just after 9 a.m. on a Wednesday when four police cars roll up to an
old grey stucco bungalow on Charles Street.

The wide tree-lined boulevards, manicured lawns and well-kept houses in
this pocket of East Vancouver catch the attention of Sgt. Rollie Woods as
he steps from his unmarked cruiser.

"See," he says, as fellow cops draw their guns in the front yard of the
bungalow, "this is a nice neighbourhood and the house fits in with the rest
of them. Most people probably wouldn't suspect anything."

Nor should they-the lawn is cut, roses are growing in a garden below the
front window, the trim has recently been painted pink and the female
tenant, by all accounts from neighbours, is friendly.

That pleasant picture is quickly erased by the sound of a sturdy cop
driving a steel battering ram into the front door. It takes him four whacks
to knock the door down because of the two 2x4s braced against the back, a
precaution against intruders.

Nobody's inside but the lingering smell of incense overpowered by a strong
skunky odour from the basement lets police know they've hit upon another
one of the city's most infamous criminal enterprises: a marijuana grow-op.

Lined neatly in rows in two small basement rooms, 158 plants grow in
plastic pots of soil under the hum of fans and eye-squinting brightness of
tube-like lights that dangle from the six-foot ceiling.

With another 250 baby plants awaiting transfer from an upstairs bedroom
closet, Woods believes the illegal operation could be generating $80,000
every three months.

Police estimate this clandestine enterprise is one of up to 10,000 in the
city, which means the amount of money changing hands for the potent bud is
likely in the millions. As the country moves toward legalization of
marijuana-it's already permitted for medical purposes-some see growing pot
as a victimless crime, but the sheer volume of cash involved means growers
are often at risk of being beaten and having their money and plants ripped
off by other criminals.

Grow-ops also cause fires-38 in the past two years-because of the crude
electrical work running throughout them, and expose children to toxic
chemicals and gases used to grow the plants.

It all doesn't sit well with Woods, who runs the investigative unit of the
drug squad, and Sgt. Tom Cork, in charge of Grow Busters, a police team
that works with inspectors from city hall, the fire department and B.C.
Hydro to shut down grow-ops.

The two squads have worked together since the first of the year, although
the marriage didn't come without a controversial courtship, with drug squad
cops criticizing Grow Busters in internal police department memos and
e-mails for not pursuing charges against growers when they bust grow-ops.

Now, if Cork's team finds somebody in a grow house or discovers evidence to
support a charge, that information is forwarded to Woods' squad, which
investigates and recommends charges to the Crown prosecution office. That
strategy has shut down 200 grow-ops this year. Although the charge rate
remains a low 10 to 15 per cent, and the few growers who are convicted are
most likely to be fined or put on probation instead of jailed, Cork
maintains Grow Busters is having an impact.

Since the program started in July 2000, Grow Busters has busted more than
700 grow-ops. During the Courier's mid-June ride-along, the team shut down
five grow-ops in one day, which Cork says is more effective than spending a
day or week tracking down one grower on a charge that may not stick.

At the end of this month, city council is expected to decide whether to
extend the controversial Grow Busters program for another three years. It
still has its critics in the police department, and raises the ire of
marijuana advocates, who argue legalization of pot would prevent crime and
safety problems.

But for residents in the Charles Street area and other neighbourhoods, who
had little or no action from police until Grow Busters formed, turning a
grower's livelihood upside down for a day is better than doing nothing at all.

"Ask the neighbours. They'll tell you they're just glad to get them out of
their neighbourhoods," says Cork.

Joanne Pantelle grew up in this largely Italian neighbourhood, where most
residents know each other, and now lives with her two young sons in her
childhood home across the alley from the busted Charles Street grow-op.

The neighbourhood has changed over the years-the 43-year-old racetrack
worker said she's had a couple of break-ins in the last decade. Still, she
was shocked to learn her new neighbour is suspected of growing marijuana.

Only last summer, the 30-something Vietnamese woman stopped by Pantelle's
yard sale and bought some toys for what Pantelle believed were the woman's
two kids, a five-year-old girl and a two-year-old boy.

The woman seemed nice, but Pantelle never saw the kids again and wondered
if her neighbour actually lived in the house or whether it was occupied by
relatives.

"You'd never really see anybody around and that seemed kind of strange but
I had no idea what was really going on in there-I'm surprised," she says,
standing in her backyard a few metres from her neighbour's house.

Pantelle is also surprised to learn police found a long sword underneath a
mattress in one of the two bedrooms; the other bedroom was full of garbage
bags of used soil, fans, lights and other growing equipment.

There was no food in the cupboards, a few leftovers in the fridge and the
living room had only a television, VCR and a chair. The mattress in the one
bedroom was laid out next to a smaller one, probably for a child, since a
stuffed toy animal was resting on it when police arrived.

Downstairs, the walls were surrounded by a shiny tinfoil-like wrap to
reflect the light for rapid plant growth. Silver ventilation ducts ran in
and out of the rooms and were fed into a hole in the house's chimney and
sewer system, via the toilet, to mask the skunky smell of the weed.

Fans were used to cool and vent the operation which, in this case, was
powered illegally. The operator cut into the wires above the house's hydro
meter and fused it to the main cable running to the breaker panel,
effectively bypassing the meter and avoiding detection of increased power
use from B.C. Hydro.

Such heavy use of power made the kitchen stove inoperable, leaving the
tenant to cook inside on a propane stove. That danger, coupled with the
fact carbon dioxide exhaust from the furnace was being diverted into the
basement to help with plant growth, made the house not only a health risk
but a ticking time bomb.

Police believe the tenant was the caretaker of the operation and stayed
only long enough to maintain and harvest the plants before taking them to a
"transfer house" for packaging and distribution.

All this information is a little overwhelming for Pantelle but familiar.
About 16 years ago, Pantelle's dad decided to move out of the neighbourhood
and rent out the house. The prospective tenant told him he'd recently been
divorced and needed a place to look after his daughter.

When he moved in, he brought two rottweilers and soon after started a
grow-op. Joanne was suspicious and so were the neighbours, but her dad
wouldn't believe them, saying he trusted his tenant because he gave him his
word the place would be looked after.

"He'd go over to check the house and the guy would say, 'It's not a good
time to see the basement,' or, 'Everything's fine, no problems'-and my dad
believed him." Police eventually busted the grow-op, which left the
Pantelles' house in a mess. After a clean-up that cost thousands of
dollars, Joanne Pantelle moved in.

Now with another grow-op in the neighbourhood, Pantelle is considering
moving to a municipality where her 9 and 11-year-old sons might be safer.
"My kids play hockey in that alley and that house was just hell waiting to
happen," she says, shaking her head. "You think your neighbourhood is safe,
but then you find it isn't. I'm glad the police got rid of it, and now that
we know about it, we'll make sure it doesn't happen again."

In some cases, it has happened again. A recent city report indicated more
than 140 houses have been busted twice for grow-ops since last summer.

In fact, after leaving Charles Street, police shut down an operation in a
house on Rupert Street they busted two years ago. This time, they found
about 150 plants inside a bedroom but nobody home. Again, the caretaker is
believed to be a young Vietnamese woman, who was friendly and often said
hello to neighbour Russell Pelland.

"I wouldn't think she would have anything to do with something like that,"
says Pelland, standing on his porch as police remove the plants. "I sure
don't like it. I don't like to see all these police here, either."

The one-level stucco house resembles the one on Charles but is in worse
shape. It's owned by Angelo Antonio Iorio, a maintenance worker at the VPD
station at 312 Main St., and his wife Italia, who live in East Vancouver.
Italia Iorio claims she doesn't know how the house became a grow-op twice.
She said the couple is now considering whether to re-rent the house they've
owned since March 1993 or demolish it. "I can't believe [the tenant] would
do this. She invited me in, gave me coffee, gave me cookies, gave me
doughnuts. I was there twice a week, but I never asked to go into the bedroom."

The Iorios will now have to meet with Carlene Robbins, city hall's manager
of the bylaw administration branch, to make sure the house doesn't become a
grow-op for a third time. They'll have to show Robbins a proper rental
agreement, give the name of the prospective tenant, supply references for
the tenant and allow the city to inspect the property once the tenant has
moved in.

But before that, city hall will charge the Iorios a $750 inspection fee to
ensure the electrical, plumbing and other infrastructure is up to code.
They'll then have to upgrade deficiencies before applying for a $100
re-occupancy permit. Robbins admits the $850 fee-plus repair bills-is not
enough to dissuade anyone from setting up a grow-op, but notes only 20 per
cent of the 1,016 grow-ops busted by police since last summer were
owner-occupied. The rest involved renters.

"If we're a thorn in [landlords'] side long enough, they may decide it's
just not worth it," says Robbins, noting city hall has collected $695,000
in inspection revenue related to grow-ops since July 2000. "We know it's
kind of like David and Goliath, but what's the alternative-to say forget
it, it's too much, we're not going to do it? I don't think so."

In most cases, landlords deny knowledge of the grow-op and police rarely
investigate them further. The landlord of the Charles Street house is
listed on the city's tax rolls as Dung T. Nguyen, with an address in
Aldergrove.

The address is home to Garden Grow Nursery, where a man who answered the
phone denied knowing Nguyen but said an Asian woman sold the business about
six months ago.

Whether or not city hall is successful in locating Nguyen, she will
eventually have to contact Robbins' staff and go through a similar process
to Iorio if she wants to occupy or rent her house again-a likely scenario,
considering about 98 per cent of landlords of grow-ops apply to the city
for re-occupancy.

Robbins recalls an incident where a family of five had to be treated for
gas inhalation because of a furnace that had been tampered with in what
used to be a grow-op. "Even if marijuana was made legal, we would not want
people growing it in their homes because it is so unsafe."

Marc Emery, the Vancouver Marijuana Party's candidate for mayor in this
year's civic election, counters that people wouldn't be growing marijuana
in their homes if it was legal. "People would be growing it in a greenhouse
in some massive field somewhere. Nobody in their right mind would be
turning their bedroom into a grow-op."

Emery argues dismantling grow-ops only drives up the price of marijuana and
supports organized crime. "If the police stopped busting marijuana growers
for even just one year, the price would plummet so low that you would have
no financial incentive for people to be growing marijuana," says Emery, who
plans to protest the extension of the Grow Busters program when council
reviews it.

While the legalization debate rages on, the number of grow-ops in the city
continues to grow. Sgt. Rollie Woods with the drug squad says police
"dropped the ball" when the problem first increased sharply in the late 1990s.

"We didn't adapt when it started to become a problem, and when it started
to become a bigger problem, we didn't do anything to change our tactics,"
says Woods, who argues the approach should be a regional one. He'd like to
see all police departments and detachments establish programs similar to
Grow Busters, where city hall and the fire department work with police.

If there isn't an across-the-board strategy, he says, the grow-op problem
will only be pushed from municipality to municipality-which is happening
now. In recent months, the Organized Crime Agency has noticed more
Vancouver growers setting up operations in the Fraser Valley and even
moving to Ontario. Grow Busters is taking some of the credit for educating
neighbours on how to identify a grow-op and inform police-it gets 20 to 30
tips a week about grow-ops.

But as long as convicted growers avoid jail time and landlords continue to
look the other way, police will be busting down doors for years to
come-with or without the Grow Busters program.

Later in the week of the Charles Street bust, neighbours saw the suspected
grower driving slowly down the alley. Whether her life as a grower is over
or not, the police raid seems to have had an emotional effect. They say she
was crying as she drove by.

It's a stark contrast to the snapshot police found in the home of her
sitting in an RCMP cruiser, wearing a constable's hat and smiling for a
camera with the Parliament Buildings in the background.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens

------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:28:25 -0700
Subject:UK: Drug Laws - Briton Takes A Timid First Step Up TOC
Newshawk: Jim White
Pubdate: Mon, 15 Jul 2002
Source: Blade, The (OH)
Copyright: 2002 The Blade
Contact: letters@theblade.com
Website: http://www.toledoblade.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/48
Author: Gwynne Dyer

DRUG LAWS: BRITON TAKES A TIMID FIRST STEP

'It's moving further towards decriminalization than any other country in
the world,' warned Keith Hellawell, the ex-policeman who was the British
'drugs tsar' until the Labour government belatedly realized that his job
was as ridiculous as his title.

He was responding to British Home Secretary David Blunkett's announcement
on July 10 that being caught with cannabis will in future be treated no
more seriously than illegally possessing other Class C controlled drugs
like sleeping pills and steroids.

He was technically wrong, but in terms of its political impact he was
right. Numbers of smaller European countries have already decriminalized
various drugs, but what the Portuguese or the Dutch do will never have an
impact in the United States. Britain is one of the very few countries whose
example will ever be seen as relevant in the country that is the real home
of the drug war. Britain's decriminalization of cannabis, and even more
importantly its partial return to the old policy of prescribing free heroin
for addicts on the National Health Service, could finally open the door to
a real debate in the United States.

The actual changes in British law are rather timid. In future, British
police will generally confiscate cannabis and issue warnings to users,
rather than arresting them, but "disturb public order" by blowing cannabis
smoke in a policeman's face and you're in jail. Until the late 19th
century, all kinds of recreational drugs were legal throughout the Western
world. Florence Nightingale used opium, Queen Victoria used cannabis, and
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in a matter-of-fact way about Sherlock Holmes
injecting drugs with a syringe.

Then came the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU), most powerful in
the deeply religious United States, which succeeded in banning one drug
after another (mainly on the grounds, they argued, that they were
associated principally with Chinese, blacks and other racially inferior
groups). By the early 20th century only the mainstream Western drugs,
alcohol and tobacco, were still legal in the U.S. For almost two decades,
in the 1920s and 1930s, the WCTU even succeeded in prohibiting alcohol in
the US.

Organized crime expanded tenfold to meet the opportunity created by this
newly illegal demand for alcohol -- Al Capone was just as much the result
of alcohol prohibition as Pablo Escobar in Colombia was of America's war on
drugs -- but eventually there was a retreat to sanity in the case of alcohol.

There will eventually be a return to sanity on drugs too, but Britain's
decriminalization of cannabis is only a very tentative first step. The "war
on drugs" as Canada and other Western nations sometimes refer to it, is one
of the most spectacularly counter-productive activities human beings have
ever engaged in. "We have turned the corner on drug addiction," said
President Richard Nixon in 1973, and predictions of imminent victory
continue to be issued at frequent intervals, but the quality of the drugs
gets better and the street price continues to drop.

As any free marketeer should understand, making drugs illegal creates
enormous profit margins and huge incentives to expand the market by pyramid
selling. When cocaine was still legal, annual global production was
estimated at 10 tons. Now it is estimated at 700 tons.

Drug prohibition greatly increases the number of users, fills the jails
with harmless people, channels vast sums into the hands of the wicked
people who work to expand the lucrative black market, and causes a huge
wave of petty crimes.

It is estimated that between half and two-thirds of the muggings and
property crimes in both Britain and the U.S. are committed by cocaine and
heroin addicts desperate to find the inflated sums needed to satisfy their
habit.

It will be many years yet before mainstream American politicians gain the
political courage to take on the prohibitionist lobby directly, but the
external environment is changing.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth

------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:41:25 -0700
Subject:Canada: Cauchon says pot laws could be eased  Up TOC
Newshawk: CannabisLink.ca (http://cannabislink.ca)
Pubdate: Tuesday, July 16, 2002
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Website: http://www.globeandmail.ca/
Contact: letters@globeandmail.ca
Author: Brian Laghi

Cauchon says pot laws could be eased

By BRIAN LAGHI
Page A1
Ottawa Ottawa will consider loosening up Canada's marijuana laws,
possibly
by decriminalizing simple possession of the drug.

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon made the suggestion Monday while questioning
the efficacy of current pot laws and whether they are applied equally across
the country.

He added, however, that the federal government would continue to make
possession illegal, although it might be preferable to replace jail
sentences and criminal records with fines.

"We're not talking about making it legal, we're talking about the
possibility of moving ahead with what we call decriminalization," Mr.
Cauchon said Monday. "The question we have to ask is if the system we have
in place is efficient. We want to make sure it will still be illegal. But do
we have to keep it criminal?"

He added that he will wait for two separate reports from parliamentary
committees on the issue of drugs before moving forward. One of the
committees, a senate committee, has already issued a preliminary report that
says there is no scientific evidence that cannabis leads users to harder
narcotics.

Last week, Britain decided to relax its possession laws. Starting next
summer, police there will no longer have the automatic power to arrest a
person found with small quantities of marijuana. They will have the right to
confiscate the drug, but can only arrest someone when their use threatens
public order or children. Traffickers would still be liable for sentences of
up to 14 years.

Monday, Mr. Cauchon referred to the British decision.

"There are some countries that have decided to move ahead because if you
look at the system that we have in place, keeping it criminal, it's not very
efficient," he said. "Maybe we can find a way to keep it illegal and be more
constructive, more effective, more efficient as well."

Because possession is still considered criminal, very often jurisdictions do
not apply the law, he said. He added that it was a bit too early to begin
gauging cabinet support for the idea.

Canadian Alliance MP Randy White said Mr. Cauchon acted irresponsibly by
making his remarks before the release of the parliamentary reports.

"This is a substantial comment that he's made," said Mr. White, who sits on
a House of Commons committee examining the issue.

"If that's how they run the country, by jumping into things without even
knowing what they're talking about, then heaven help us."

Mr. Cauchon said the government might also look at programs to help people
who "are using such a substance."

The government will launch a consultation with Canadians before moving
forward.

Just a year ago, Prime Minister Jean Chr=E9tien ruled out decriminalization.
However, the Senate report issued two months ago found that most
recreational users smoke marijuana irregularly, with 10 per cent becoming
chronic users.

Alan Young, a civil rights lawyer and champion of decriminalization, said
Monday that it is unclear what Mr. Cauchon is proposing. Most of those
convicted of possession do not go to jail currently, and what the government
needs to do is ensure those caught with the drug do not receive a criminal
record.

The real problem for most offenders is the employment difficulties and
travel restrictions that a conviction imposes upon them, he said.

"I've heard these things too many times before," he said. "It's a small step
forward but it doesn't really address the problem."

Any move to decriminalize simple possession of marijuana is likely to be
unpopular with the United States because of its relatively open border with
Canada, and could lead to trade difficulties.

Canada is already portrayed in the U.S. media as the source of a great deal
of the pot =97 particularly the potent B.C. bud =97 available south of the
border. When Ottawa began allowing marijuana to be used for medical reasons,
U.S. newspapers reported it as a sign of a soft stand on drugs. Although the
numbers are not supported, the United States media has suggested that as
much as half of the pot grown in Canada goes south.


=



**




web:     http://www.crrh.org/

------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:46:20 -0700
Subject:Canada: Ottawa may ease laws on marijuana possession  Up TOC

Newshawk: CannabisLink.ca (http://cannabislink.ca)
Pubdate: Tuesday, July 16, 2002
Source: Toronto Star (CN ON)
Website: http://www.thestar.com/
Address: One Yonge St., Toronto ON, M5E 1E6
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com
Author: Tonda MacCharles

Ottawa may ease laws on marijuana possession

Offenders could face a ticket and fine, minister says

By Tonda MacCharles
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA =97 Canada may follow Britain's lead in decriminalizing marijuana use
by making simple possession of small amounts of pot a ticketing offence,
Justice Minister Martin Cauchon said yesterday.

"We're not talking about making it legal. We're talking about the
possibility of moving ahead with what we call the decriminalization of
that," said Cauchon.

"It would still be illegal. It wouldn't be criminal, of course; but it would
still be illegal. (The law would be) easier to apply. You would get a
contravention (ticket) and you would have to pay something. I guess we would
be maybe more effective, more efficient in proceeding that way," he said in
response to reporters' questions after a cabinet committee meeting here.

In one of the strongest statements by a minister of this government, Cauchon
expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the current laws.

He noted the law makes drug possession a crime, and results in a criminal
record =97 sometimes jail =97 for convicted persons.

Criminal records can often lead to a person being barred from professional
certification, or from travel to the U.S.

"Very often the legislation will simply not be applied" depending on where
you live across Canada, said Cauchon.

Last week, Britain relaxed its laws on cannabis use, making it a
non-arrestable offence, meaning pot-smokers may be merely issued a police
warning. But the government said it would re-focus enforcement efforts on
harder drugs and trafficking.

Before introducing any new legislation, Cauchon said he wants to hear from
the two committees, a Senate committee and a Commons committee, now looking
at the status of Canada's cannabis laws.

Any change would require a lengthy period of public consultation beforehand,
he added.

But already Pierre-Claude Nolin, chair of the Senate committee, has
criticized the idea of fines as an impractical idea, which puts an unfair
burden on the poor and young people who are often the subject of charges.

Cauchon said yesterday there are many legislative models to look at other
than Britain's, but did not go into detail.

"If you look at the system that we have in place, keeping it criminal, it
seems that it's not very efficient," said Cauchon.

"So maybe we can find a way to keep it illegal and be more constructive,
more efficient, more effective as well. And find a way with programs to help
those people that are using such a substance."

He said any legislative changes would not mean abandoning the fight against
drug trafficking, adding distribution networks are "highly criminal, as we
all know."

"We want to keep fighting that, keep making sure that we will protect our
society from those organized crime groups," he said.

Cauchon said he has not yet presented any proposal to cabinet, but has had
informal talks with people on the law enforcement side and those who work
with young offenders.

"I guess the Canadian population is behind us when we're talking about
keeping it illegal. That's the aim and goal. The aim and goal as well is
making sure that we will be more efficient, more effective."

Several of Cauchon's cabinet colleagues seemed open to the proposal, but
Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAulay, responsible for law enforcement in the
country, was doubtful.

"Drugs are a very serious problem in this country and what we have to do is
do what's right and make sure we have the proper rules and laws in place."

Fisheries Minister Robert Thibault, who is responsible for the Coast Guard,
which patrols East and West Coast waters for illicit drug shipments, said:
"I think it's the way of the world and what's been happening."

He said he could see the pros and cons, but "you don't want to in any way
encourage drug use."

B.C. MP and lawyer Stephen Owen (Vancouver-Quadra), a junior economic
development minister, said polling data shows that when Canadians are
informed of the facts on the ineffectiveness of cannabis laws and the high
costs of drug enforcement, greater numbers support decriminalization.

"One, it's not working; two, it's perhaps illogical; three, it's costing a
whole lot of money that might better be focused on law enforcement, on
possession and use of more serious drugs =97 and on trafficking of all
drugs,including marijuana," Owen said.

Owen said the illegal status of marijuana encourages large-scale marijuana
growing operations in the Vancouver area because it means operators =97 who
are usually organized crime gangs =97 stand to make a larger profit.

With files from Allan Thompson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:48:17 -0700
Subject: Cannabis and Sleep Apnea

Sleep 2002 Jun 15;25(4):391-8 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Functional role for cannabinoids in respiratory stability during sleep.

Carley DW, Paviovic S, Janelidze M, Radulovacki M.

Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, 60612, USA.
dwcarley@uic.edu

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Serotonin, acting in the peripheral nervous system,
can exacerbate sleep-related apnea, and systemically administered
serotonin antagonists reduce sleep-disordered respiration in rats and
bulldogs. Because cannabinoid receptor agonists are known to inhibit the
excitatory effects of serotonin on nodose ganglion cells, we examined
the effects of endogenous (oleamide) and exogenous
(delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol; delta9THC) cannabimimetic agents on
sleep-related apnea. DESIGN: Sleep architecture, respiratory pattern,
and apnea expression in rats were assessed by polysomnography. A
repeated measures, within-subjects, fully nested crossover design was
used in which each animal was recorded on exactly 12 occasions.
PARTICIPANTS: Eleven adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were instrumented
for chronic polysomnography. INTERVENTIONS: Animals were recorded
following intraperitoneal injection of various doses of delta9THC,
oleamide, and serotonin, alone and in combination. MEASUREMENTS AND
RESULTS: Our data show that delta9THC and oleamide each stabilized
respiration during all sleep stages. With delta9THC, apnea index
decreased by 42% (F=2.63; p=0.04) and 58% (F=2.68; p=0.04) in NREM and
REM sleep, respectively. Oleamide produced equivalent apnea suppression.
This observation suggests an important role for endocannabinoids in
maintaining autonomic stability during sleep. Oleamide and delta9THC
blocked serotonin-induced exacerbation of sleep apnea (p0.05 for each),
suggesting that inhibitory coupling between cannabinoids and serotonin
receptors in the peripheral nervous system may act on apnea expression.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates potent suppression of sleep-related
apnea by both exogenous and endogenous cannabinoids. These findings are
of relevance to the pathogenesis and pharmacological treatment of
sleep-related breathing disorders.

PMID: 12071539 [PubMed - in process]

For News, Recipes, and Medical Info
Come visit at http://www.letfreedomgrow.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:52:40 -0700
Subject: New Zealand: Britain's Timid Move Biggest Crack In US DrugWar
Pubdate: Mon, 15 Jul 2002
Source: New Zealand Herald (New Zealand)
Copyright: 2002 New Zealand Herald
Contact: letters@herald.co.nz
Website: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/300
Author: Gwynne Dyer
Note: Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist.

BRITAIN'S TIMID MOVE BIGGEST CRACK IN US PROHIBITIONIST DAM

It's moving further towards decriminalisation than any other country in the
world," warned Keith Hellawell, the former policeman who was the British
"drugs tsar" until the Labour Government belatedly realised that his job
was as ridiculous as his title.

He was responding to British Home Secretary David Blunkett's announcement
last week that being caught with marijuana will in future be treated no
more seriously than illegally possessing other Class C controlled drugs
such as sleeping pills and steroids. He was technically wrong, but in terms
of its political impact he was right.

Hellawell was technically wrong because Britain is not leading the parade
of European countries who have broken away from the prohibitionist United
States approach. Even after Blunkett's changes, Britain will lag behind
other European countries such as Switzerland, the Netherlands, Belgium and
Portugal in its laws on recreational drug use.

But he was right because Britain is (a) still more or less a great power,
and (b) speaks English.

The main engine of the war on drugs is the US, which managed to enshrine
its prohibitionist views in international law during the Cold War by a
series of treaties that make it impossible for national legislatures to
legalise the commonly used recreational drugs.

All that other countries can do without Washington's agreement is to
decriminalise the possession and use of at least some of the banned drugs.

Numbers of smaller European countries have already decriminalised various
drugs, but what the Portuguese or the Dutch do will never have an impact in
the US. Britain is one of the very few countries whose example will ever be
seen as relevant in the country that is the real home of the drug war.

Britain's decriminalisation of marijuana, and even more importantly its
partial return to the old policy of prescribing free heroin on the National
Health Service for addicts, could finally open the door to a real debate in
the US.

The actual changes in British law are rather timid. In future British
police will generally confiscate marijuana and issue warnings to users,
rather than arresting them, but "disturb public order" by blowing marijuana
smoke in a policeman's face and you're in jail. Moreover, only a small
fraction of Britain's 200,000 heroin users will get free prescriptions.

Nevertheless, this is by far the biggest crack that has yet appeared in the
prohibitionist dam.

Until the late 19th century, all kinds of recreational drugs were legal
throughout the Western world. Florence Nightingale used opium, Queen
Victoria used marijuana, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle writes in a
matter-of-fact way about Sherlock Holmes injecting drugs with a syringe.

Then came the Women's Christian Temperance Union, most powerful in the
deeply religious US, which succeeded in banning one drug after another
(mainly on the grounds that they were associated with Chinese, Blacks and
other racially "inferior" groups) until by the early 20th century only the
mainstream Western drugs - alcohol and tobacco - were still legal in the US.

For almost two decades, in the 1920s and 1930s, the WCTU even succeeded in
prohibiting alcohol in the US. Organised crime expanded tenfold to meet the
opportunity created by this newly illegal demand for alcohol - Al Capone
was just as much the result of alcohol prohibition as Pablo Escobar in
Colombia was of America's war on drugs - but eventually there was a retreat
to sanity in the case of alcohol.

There will eventually be a return to sanity on drugs, too, but Britain's
decriminalisation of marijuana is only a very tentative first step.

The war on drugs is one of the most spectacularly counter-productive
activities human beings have ever engaged in.

"We have turned the corner on drug addiction," said President Richard Nixon
in 1973, and predictions of imminent victory continue to be issued at
frequent intervals, but the quality of the drugs gets better and the street
price continues to drop.

As any free marketeer should understand, making drugs illegal creates
enormous profit margins and huge incentives to expand the market by pyramid
selling.

When cocaine was still legal, annual global production was 10 tonnes. Now
it is 700 tonnes.

Drug prohibition greatly increases the number of users, fills the jails
with harmless people, channels vast sums into the hands of the wicked
people who work to expand the lucrative black market, and causes a huge
wave of petty crimes.

It is estimated that between half and two-thirds of the muggings and
property crimes in both Britain and the US are committed by cocaine and
heroin addicts desperate to find the inflated sums needed to satisfy their
habit.

Decriminalising marijuana only nibbles at the fringes of this problem, for
marijuana users are overwhelmingly neither addicts nor criminals.

The more significant part of Blunkett's initiative is his willingness to
revive the old policy of prescribing heroin to addicts (now around 200,000
in Britain, compared to around 500 when that policy was dropped at
Washington's behest in 1963).

He's willing to let only a small proportion of them have it on prescription
for now, but since those will be the only heroin addicts who stay alive and
for the most part stay clear of crime, the rest will also be back on
prescription sooner or later.

It will be many years yet before mainstream American politicians gain the
political courage to take on the prohibitionist lobby directly, but the
external environment is changing.
__________________________________________________________________________
Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth


------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:06:38 -0700
Subject: Canada: Pot farm found below ground
Newshawk: Join CMAP (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/lists.htm)
Pubdate: Tuesday, July 16, 2002
Source: Winnipeg Free Press (CN MB)
Website: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/
Feedback: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/letters_to_editor/index.html
Address: 1355 Mountain Avenue, Winnipeg Manitoba R2X 3B6
Contact: letters@freepress.mb.ca
Pot farm found below ground

A secret sliding door that led to an underground lair. A tiny video camera
hidden inside a birdhouse nestled in a tree.

Sounds like something out of a James Bond movie.

And it may be, one day, if Hollywood producers look to La Broquerie for
ideas.

Bruce Jeffery, a rural Manitoba resident, pleaded guilty yesterday to
production of marijuana in an elaborate setup that surprised even veteran
police investigators.

In a September 1998 raid, police found Jeffery living underground in a large
bunker where more than 500 healthy marijuana plants were in full bloom.

Police said it was the first-ever underground marijuana grow operation
discovered in Manitoba. Jeffery had purchased and installed a high-powered
generator to supply heat and light to the estimated $1.5-million operation,
court was told. It also allowed the drug growers to circumvent Manitoba
Hydro and avoid detection.

The Crown asked for a two-year prison term. Defence lawyer Jay Prober
requested a conditional sentence.

------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:09:06 -0700
Subject: Canada: Cauchon considers relaxing law on cannabis
Newshawk: CannabisLink.ca (http://cannabislink.ca)
Pubdate: Tuesday, July 16, 2002
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Website: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/
Address: P.O. Box 5020, 1101 Baxter Rd., Ottawa, ON K2C 3M4
Contact: letters@thecitizen.southam.ca
Author: Janice Tibbetts
Webpage: http://www.mapinc.org/cancom/25FFAF25-BBA0-4668-839C-048D5B276C3F

Cauchon considers relaxing law on cannabis

'We're talking about moving ahead with decriminalization,' justice minister
says Janice Tibbetts
The Ottawa Citizen

Justice Minister Martin Cauchon says Canada is seriously considering the
bold move of decriminalizing marijuana possession because the current system
encourages a patchwork of criminal charges across the country.

After years of debate, Mr. Cauchon's revelation that he is contemplating
action is the closest any minister of justice has come in recent years to
acknowledging that saddling people with criminal records for recreational
drug use might not be fair or an efficient use of police resources.

"There is discussion to find ways to be more efficient, more effective," Mr.
Cauchon confirmed yesterday. "We're not talking about making it legal, we're
talking about the possibility of moving ahead with what we call
decriminalization."

The proposal would mean handing small-time users a fine akin to a parking
ticket rather than criminally charging and arresting them and forcing them
through the court system.

Mr. Cauchon said he would wait for recommendations from a Senate committee
and consult widely with Canadians before replacing the federal law.

The Senate committee studying decriminalization, which has held hearings
across the country, will produce a report by late summer that is expected to
recommend relaxing marijuana possession laws.

Mr. Cauchon acknowledged that Britain's move last week to reclassify
cannabis is a factor in his decision.

However, his proposal goes further than Britain's, which still plans to
maintain cannabis possession as a criminal offence, but is instructing
police not to lay charges if people have the drug for their personal use.

Mr. Cauchon said the current system in Canada, in which police in some
provinces lay charges while others do not, might not be working as it
should. Also, some people are getting off entirely because police do not
want to lay charges when a criminal record is at stake, he said.

"If you look at the system that we have in place, keeping it criminal, it's
not very efficient," he said. "Depending where you are across Canada, they
apply or they don't apply the legislation that we have."

The prospect is a dramatic change of heart for Mr. Cauchon, who said earlier
this year that society is not ready for decriminalizing marijuana.

There were signs yesterday that he will encounter fierce opposition if he
moves ahead, even from within the federal cabinet.

Solicitor General Lawrence Mac-Aulay voiced concerns and police promised to
fight any move to decriminalize what they say is a "gateway drug" that leads
to more serious drug use.

"Drugs are a very serious problem in this country and what we have to do is
do what's right and make sure we have the proper rules and laws in place,"
said Mr. MacAulay. "Law enforcement is quite concerned about the drug
problem in this country and they'll certainly be involved too before any
changes are made."

Grant Obst, president of the Canadian Police Association, said
decriminalization would hamper efforts to catch drug traffickers because
police would not be able to use the threat of a criminal record to extract
information from people about where they bought their marijuana.

"It sort of gives you the hammer," said Mr. Obst, a Saskatoon police
officer. "I really hope we get to consult with the minister before any
dramatic moves are made in this regard."

Mr. Obst said the threat of a criminal record also deters some people from
getting involved in marijuana smoking, which he maintains can lead to more
serious drug use. Proponents of decriminalization argue it would free police
to deal with more serious crimes.

The federal government is considering moving possession from the Criminal
Code and putting it in a less serious piece of non-criminal legislation
called the Contravention Act, said Mr. Cauchon. He refused to provide
further details on federal plans.

His cabinet colleague, Fisheries Minister Robert Thibault, emerged from a
meeting of the social union committee saying it's important to have a wide
public debate about decriminalization.

"I think it's the way of the world. We see what's been happening in
Britain."

There has been mounting pressure on the federal government to decriminalize
possession of small amounts of marijuana, including a call from the Canadian
Medical Association Journal, which said last year that the more than 1.5
million Canadians who smoke marijuana should not risk the indelible tattoo
of a criminal record.

Statistics Canada figures from the 1990s show there is already a de facto
drift toward decriminalization, with three times as many Canadians avoiding
the justice system for marijuana possession in 1999 than in 1989.

The statistics indicate a patchwork of police action across the country,
where charges for marijuana possession depend largely on where you live,
with the difference sometimes being a matter of a few kilometres.

------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:09:36 -0700
Subject: Canada: Editorial: Decriminalize it
Newshawk: Join CMAP (http://www.mapinc.org/cmap/lists.htm)
Pubdate: Tuesday, July 16, 2002
Source: Montreal Gazette (CN QU)
Website: http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/
Address: 250 St. Antoine St. W., Montreal, Quebec H2Y 3R7 Canada
Contact: letters@thegazette.southam.ca
Webpage: http://www.mapinc.org/cancom/2EBABAD6-6A70-49D1-AE44-C486F491D380
Decriminalize it

Montreal Gazette
It was encouraging to learn last week that federal Justice Minister Martin
Cauchon is seriously thinking of amending the country's drug laws to make
simple possession of marijuana a misdemeanor instead of a crime.

The report came on the heels of an announcement that the British government
intends to reclassify marijuana from the category of hard drugs, such as
heroin and crack cocaine, to a level along with considerably less heinous
substances such as steroids and anti-depressants.

The new British system does not entirely decriminalize marijuana; possession
of the drug in its new category still carries a maximum two-year penalty.
But police will be instructed not to arrest people caught holding small
amounts for personal use. At the same time, penalties for trafficking in
harder drugs will increase.

What the Canadian government is reported to be considering is a system
whereby simple possession would be treated as a summary offence punishable
by a fine, much the same as a traffic violation. While no one is sent to
prison anymore for possessing a personal stash of marijuana, offenders under
the present law are still, in theory, liable to prison terms of up to seven
years and face the prospect of lifelong criminal records.

Decriminalization is also likely to be recommended by a Senate committee on
illegal drugs, scheduled to report in September.

These proposed new approaches have been criticized by people on both sides
of the issue. Britain's top anti-drug official resigned over the new British
measures, saying they will encourage wider drug use. In Canada, the head of
the Marijuana Party, which promotes full legalization, argued that the fines
for possession would overwhelmingly be imposed, in practice, on the young
and the poor. Both of these fears might prove to be correct; many
jurisdictions will be watching the British example with interest.

We don't approve of marijuana smoking, and we don't believe Canadian society
does. There is cause to fear that full-scale legalization would entail
further proliferation of marijuana use, particularly by children, with
untold social consequences. For another thing, the profits from marijuana
flow very largely to criminal gangs - and certain hashish profits, according
to one recent news report, fuel terrorism.

But it's clear that marijuana isn't going to go away. And there is also
ample evidence that saddling casual users with criminal records does greater
social harm than the offence itself. On balance, then, we see good reason to
steer a middle course between outright legalization and treating marijuana
as a deadly substance (as we have been for nearly a century). Mr. Cauchon is
on the right track; we wish him the courage to push ahead.

------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:36:38 -0700
Subject: Crime And (Very Little) Punishment 
from Roger Dodger
HUFFINGTON: Crime And (Very Little) Punishment
Arianna Huffington, AlterNet
July 15, 2002

Send the bastards to jail! At least, so goes the refrain from America's 
newest anti-corporate activists -- the Senate, the House, and the 
President. Clearly, corporate crime is finally starting to register on 
pollsters' seismographs because suddenly all of official Washington is high 
on corporate punishment -- drunk on the idea of tossing CEO scofflaws in 
the slammer. The Big House is all the rage, with politicians on both sides 
of the aisle dancin' to the jailhouse rock.

A day after President Bush took Wall Street to the woodshed and proposed 
doubling the maximum prison term for mail fraud and wire fraud, the Senate 
did him one better, voting 97-0 to adopt stiff new criminal penalties for 
securities fraud, document shredding and the filing of false financial 
reports.

"Somebody needs to go to jail," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle intoned 
ominously. "We're going to shackle them and take them to jail," growled 
House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, sounding like he couldn't wait to slap on 
the handcuffs himself.

The new consensus along that other Axis of Evil, the one connecting 
Washington and Wall Street, is that very publicly hauling a few corporate 
crooks off to jail would be a very good thing for the market, for the 
economy -- and for our political leaders' reelection prospects.

Count me in with the law-and-order crowd. The question is, how many of 
corporate America's new breed of robber barons will ever actually see the 
inside of a jail cell? If the past is indeed prologue, the answer is very, 
very few.

In the last ten years, the Securities and Exchange Commission -- which, 
despite being the government's top corporate watchdog, doesn't have the 
authority to toss even the worst Wall Street cheaters in jail -- turned 609 
of its most offensive offenders over to the Justice Department for 
potential criminal prosecution. Of those, only 187 ended up facing criminal 
charges. And of those, only 87 went to jail. Eighty-seven. In 10 years. And 
most white-collar criminals land in one of those ritzy country club 
prisons, where inmates play tennis and make collect calls to their brokers 
all day.

So despite the PR value of pumping up maximum sentences for corporate 
crimes, it's not going to make much of a dent in boardroom thievery since 
so few of the perpetrators will ever face criminal prosecution. For a 
corrupt corporate chieftain crunching the numbers, the odds will still 
justify the crime. Doubling the penalties for those convicted of crimes 
that are so rarely prosecuted is not serious reform.

And just why are most prosecutors so reluctant to take on these kinds of 
cases, passing up more than half of the ones the SEC sends their way? Well, 
for one thing, proving fraudulent intent is tricky business -- and in 
criminal cases, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

For another, with rare exceptions, most prosecutors just don't have either 
the passion for making corporate criminals pay or the mindset that these 
kinds of crimes are worth the hassle of pursuing them. Too busy busting 
prostitutes in New Orleans, perhaps? Even New York Attorney General Eliot 
Spitzer, one of the few who has shown a willingness to take on Wall 
Street's elite, allowed Merrill Lynch to walk away with a fine but without 
having to admit guilt for brazenly misleading investors -- even though 
Spitzer had the bankers dead to rights.

Plus, prosecutors like to win. When they go after a corporate player, they 
know they'll be locking horns with the best legal talent that billions can 
buy -- not running roughshod over some overworked public defender. It's a 
high-stakes game that many aren't willing to play.

Compare this tip-toeing on eggshells with the ardor with which our criminal 
justice system pursues even the lowest-level drug offenders. In 2000 alone, 
646,042 people were arrested in America for simple possession of marijuana. 
And while the Drug Enforcement Administration has a budget of $1.8 billion, 
even with the extra $100 million Bush wants to toss its way, the SEC will 
have to make do with $513 million.

The sentencing side of the criminal justice ledger exhibits the same 
inequity: the average sentence for even the biggest white-collar crooks is 
less than 36 months; nonviolent, first time federal drug offenders are sent 
away for over 64 months. So much for letting the punishment fit the crime.

The bitter truth is that, unlike the majority of nonviolent drug cases, 
corporate malfeasance is not a victimless crime. Not with tens of thousands 
of laid-off workers, $630 billion lost from corporate pension plans, and 
more than $4 trillion in shareholder assets wiped out in the scandal-fueled 
stock market swoon.

So when it comes to rooting out corrupt corporate kingpins, will the 
president's new "financial crimes SWAT team" have the stomach for the 
fight? Can we expect to see undercover "narc-accountants" infiltrating 
what's left of the Big Five accounting firms? Middle of the night no-knock 
raids on companies that restate their earnings by billions of dollars? 
Confiscation of an executive's entire assets simply on the suspicion of 
fraud? Will corporate cops get to emulate their drug fighting counterparts 
and be allowed to keep a percentage of the money they confiscate? I bet 
that would help change the reluctance to target corporate corruption.

Here's the bottom line: our political leaders' tough talk notwithstanding, 
are we really serious about declaring war on corporate crime? Or are we 
merely going to toss Martha Stewart in jail and move on?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13601
Forwarded by: Roger Dodger

------------------------------
End of Restore-Digest V2002 #137
********************************