Students and Supporters Claim Partial Victory in Higher Education Act Drug Provision Vote

The drug provision, which originally passed as a amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1998, delays or denies federal financial aid eligibility to individuals with a misdemeanor or felony drug conviction.

Set to take effect on July 1, 2000, the provision threatens the educational futures of hundreds of thousands of young people. This approaching reality ignited a nationwide student reform movement to eliminate the provision from the HEA.

The wording of H.R. 4504 includes language that will limit the applicability of the drug provision to offenses taking place during a semester for which a student is receiving aid. Though thousands will still be affected by this newer version of the bill, thousands will be spared.

At the same time, however, the committee tightened rules regarding aid applicants who leave the drug question blank. With half of the 10 million FAFSA financial aid applications processed earlier this month, a startling 11% of applicants -- more than half a million people -- had failed to answer the drug question, as opposed to only 3,000 answering in the affirmative as having a drug conviction.

The Department of Education has sent warning letters to applicants not answering the question but has allowed them to remain eligible. Under the new rules those students -- hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million, when all the applications are processed -- will be ineligible for federal aid unless they subsequently answer the question.

This partial concession by Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), the original creator of the drug provision, is a victory for student activists.

Over the past year, thousands of students and other reformers nationwide had urged their representatives to support H.R. 1053, a bill by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to eliminate the provision, and over 20 student governments, including some of the nation's largest campuses and multi-school organizations, endorsed a resolution calling for H.R. 1053's passage.

Earlier this month, students at Hampshire College voted in a campus-wide referendum to approve a $10,000 loan fund for convicted drug offenders losing aid under Souder's law.

The mounting national opposition to the HEA drug provision was reflected in the debate over an amendment offered by Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) that would have repealed it. During the debate session leading up to the vote, almost all the Democrats on the committee were present to pillory Souder's provision.

Though eventually voting with him, Souder's Republican colleagues on the committee nevertheless abandoned him to defend himself unaided from criticisms leveled by ten passionate Democrats.

Rep. Bill Clay (D-MO), the committee's ranking Democrat, asked Souder, "Are there any laws preventing rapists, arsonists, armed robbers or other violent felons from receiving aid?" Souder answered, "No, but I'll gladly cosponsor such a bill if you are offering it."

Major Owens (D-NY) highlighted the fact that the provision only affects convicted drug offenders and therefore will have a discriminatory impact on blacks and other minorities. "African Americans will be disproportionately affected," he stated, "because even though African Americans make up 13% of the US population and an estimated 13% of drug users, we represent 55% of drug convictions."

Scott introduced his amendment by noting there is no evidence the provision will decrease drug use and reason to believe it might increase drug use by marginalizing young people at difficult times in their lives. Scott also introduced a sign-on letter from the Coalition for HEA Reform (coordinated by DRCNet), in which a range of prominent national organizations call for passage of H.R. 1053 (see next article).

When time came for the official vote, reality set in that the Scott amendment was not going to pass as the Republicans outnumber the Democrats on the committee. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 30-16.

All the Republicans on the committee -- including Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who opposes the drug war but also opposes federal education funding on libertarian grounds -- voted against the amendment. Most of the Democrats voted in favor of the Scott amendment; the five who opposed it were Matthew Martinez (CA), Tim Roemer (IN), Carolyn McCarthy (NY), Ron Kind (WI) and David Wu (OR).

Rep. Scott told The Week Online, "Those who have been convicted of minor drug crimes should not be restricted from college loans when we don't restrict rapists and armed robbers." He continued, "The question is what are we trying to accomplish. It would seem that getting users into college would reduce drug use. We are fighting a philosophical battle as to whether we will reduce crime rationally or with slogans and rhetoric."

Staffers for Scott and Frank were encouraged by the vigorous debate -- better than when the provision passed in '98 and are eager to press the issue as grassroots support for repealing the drug provision grows.

OVERVIEW:

Congressional activity can be highly complex, and the HEA issue is no exception. We list here the different bills and amendments involved to try to make it all clear:

HIGHER EDUCATION ACT (HEA): The Higher Education Act was passed by Congress in 1965 and is the legislation authorizing and dealing with federal financial aid programs and related matters.

HEA DRUG PROVISION: The brainchild of Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), the HEA drug provision was passed in late 1998 and delays or denies all federal financial aid for any drug offense.

H.R. 1053: Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced H.R. 1053 last year to repeal the HEA drug provision. H.R. 1053 currently has 25 cosponsors, all of them Democrats. The bill will have to be reintroduced in January when the new Congress (107th session) begins.

H.R. 4504: This bill, titled "Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2000," makes a variety of mostly minor changes to the Higher Education Act. It contains language submitted by Souder himself that 1) limits the applicability of the drug provision to students who were receiving financial aid at the time the offense for which they were convicted was committed; and 2) requires the Dept. of Education to treat students who don't answer the drug question on the FAFSA financial aid application as ineligible until they do. H.R. 4504 was passed yesterday by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Because it is very widely supported (despite having this one controversial provision), it is expected to become law under expedited procedures without further debate.

Scott Amendment: Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) introduced an amendment in the Committee yesterday to strike the drug provision entirely, like H.R. 1053 would do. The Scott amendment failed by a vote of 31-16. It was opposed by all the Republicans and give Democrats.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

1) We urgently need to hear from students who have been affected by this law, especially students who are willing to go public.

2) Educators are needed to endorse our sign-on letter to Congress. If you teach or are otherwise involved in education, or are in a position to talk to educators, please write to us at heareform@drcnet.org to request a copy of our educators letter and accompanying activist packet -- available by US mail or by e- mail.

3) We need students at more campuses to take the reform resolution to their student governments. Campuses recently endorsing it include University of Michigan, Yale University, University of Maryland, University of Kansas, the Association of Big Ten Schools, Douglass College at Rutgers University and many more. Visit http://www.u-net.org for information on the student campaign and how to get involved.

4) All US voters are asked to visit http://www.RaiseYourVoice.com to send a letter to Congress supporting H.R. 1053, a bill to repeal the HEA drug provision. Tell your friends and other like- minded people to visit this web site. Follow up your e-mail and faxes with phone calls; our system will provide you with the phone numbers to reach your US Representative and your two US Senators.

5) Please contact us if you are involved with organizations that have mainstream credibility that might endorse a similar organizational sign-on letter -- organizations endorsing already include the NAACP, American Public Health Association, ACLU, United States Student Association, NOW, and a range of social, religious and other groups.

(An article by Jake Ginsky on the HEA drug provision appeared in the MoJo Newswire last week, and can be found at .)

================

Coalition for HEA Reform -- Letter to Congress

The Coalition's letter, which was coordinated by DRCNet, was introduced into the record of the House Education and the Workforce Committee by Rep. Bobby Scott yesterday morning. Special thanks to those who helped with this project,

particularly the Center for Women Policy Studies. Please contact us at heareform@drcnet.org if you can help us recruit more mainstream organizations to endorse this statement. The text of the letter and the list of endorsers follows here:

We the undersigned call for the repeal of Section 484, subsection r of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended in the Higher Education Act of 1998 (HEA), that delays or denies federal financial aid to any student with any drug conviction.

Prior to the HEA's passage, the US Department of Education advised Congress against including this provision. Now that it has passed, we are asking that the provision be overturned. H.R. 1053, introduced by Barney Frank (D-MA), will do that.

We have numerous concerns regarding the HEA provision.

First, access to education is essential for young people if they are to enter the mainstream of society and the economy. Blocking access for those at risk of marginalization is counterproductive for both the individual and for society. The vast majority of young people convicted of a drug offense are convicted of simple, nonviolent possession(e.g. approximately 87% of the 695,200 marijuana arrests made by state and local law enforcement in 1997 were for possession).

Judges already have the power to strip an individual of eligibility for federal benefits as individual cases warrant (21 USC 862). The current law eliminates that discretion.

The HEA provision is an extra-judicial penalty which will negatively impact only poor and middle class students and prospective students.

Citizens of modest means are more likely to be arrested for minor drug offenses, less likely to be effectively represented by counsel and more likely to have educational opportunities foreclosed by a loss of financial aid eligibility than students from wealthier families.

The HEA provision will also have a racially discriminatory impact.

According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans, who comprise approximately 13% of the population, and 13% of all drug users, account for more than 55% of those convicted of drug offenses.

In California, there were 12,494 misdemeanor drug arrests of Latinos aged 10 through 19 in 1997. Latinos comprise 29% of California's population, but account for more than 40% of misdemeanor drug arrests in that age category. The current law will disproportionately deny educational opportunities to people of color.

Women are the fastest growing segment of those convicted of drug offenses.

Here again, the majority of those convicted are nonviolent possessors of illicit substances. Drug arrests for teenage girls increased from 6,708 in 1991 to 19,940 in 1996; two thirds of these arrests were for marijuana possession.

Poor women, including women with children facing welfare time limits, need the skills and opportunities for employment that a college education can provide. Without some postsecondary education, most women who leave welfare for work will earn wages far below the federal poverty line, even after five years of employment.

The law does potentially allow for reinstatement of eligibility after drug treatment, but this does not take into account the profound scarcity of affordable drug treatment slots.

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 48% of current treatment needs (excluding alcohol treatment) are unmet. While drug treatment is far more cost- effective than incarceration, and ought to be made more available, the HEA provision disregards the fact that such treatment is not appropriate for every person convicted of a drug offense, any more than alcohol treatment is appropriate for every young person cited for underage drinking.

Inappropriately forcing people into an already overburdened treatment system will inevitably mean less access for people who truly need treatment.

No other class of offense, including violence offenses, predatory offenses or alcohol-related offenses, carries automatic denial of federal financial aid eligibility.

The majority of young people who will be denied eligibility under the new law are nonviolent offenders who are trying to turn their lives around through education.

Substance abuse among our young people is a serious national problem, but blocking the path to an education is an inappropriate response. Closing the doors of our colleges and universities, making it more difficult for at-risk young people to succeed, is not a policy fit for an advanced society such as ours.

We call upon members of Congress to stand up for access to education for all Americans by repealing Section 483 subsection r of the Higher Education Act that delays of denies access to federal financial aid on the basis of any drug offense.

ORGANIZATIONAL SIGNATORIES:

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People * United States Student Association * Students for Sensible Drug Policy * American Civil Liberties Union * NOW Foundation * American Public Health Association * National Council of Negro Women * National Coalition Against Domestic Violence * Center for Women Policy Studies * NAWE: Advancing Women in Higher Education * National Adult Education Professional Development Consortium * General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church * Unitarian Universalist Association * Friends Committee on National Legislation * Women's Law Project * Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual * Wider Opportunities for Women * National Women's Health Network * Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice * Institute for Policy Studies * Center for Campus Organizing * Virginia Nurses Society on Addictions * American College of Nurse-Midwives * Drug Reform Coordination Network * Drug Policy Foundation * Harm Reduction Coalition * North American Syringe Exchange Network * Common Sense for Drug Policy * Family Watch * New Mexico Drug Policy Foundation * Reconsider: Forum on Drug Policy * Efficacy * International Cannabis Alliance of Researchers and Educators (I-CARE) * Marijuana Policy Project * National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws * November Coalition

================

DPF Conference Video Footage Online

Check out opening statements, plenaries, workshops, awards, keynotes and a host of interviews online at .

Zoom Culture is an Internet startup company providing online video content. An excerpt of DRCNet Executive Director David Borden's plenary speech is available, and the entire speech will be available next week or the following.

================

Meddling in Michigan: Taxpayer Money Expended in Ballot Iniitiative Fight

That is what is happening in Michigan, according to Greg Schmid, who is spearheading the effort to place on the ballot and pass the Michigan Personal Responsibility Amendment, PRA 2000. The campaign, which is a strictly volunteer effort to this point, seeks to legalize the personal possession and use of marijuana in the state, and to divert monies seized in drug cases away from the coffers of police and toward education in personal responsibility.

Schmid began the campaign in late 1999, and now has over 2,000 volunteers across the state, training new recruits and gathering the signatures that will be necessary to place the initiative on the ballot. Schmid credits the Internet with allowing him to conduct such a massive operation on an out of pocket, almost nonexistent budget.

"The response has just been incredible," Schmid told The Week Online. "People are signing up on the site, we hook them in with more experienced volunteers in their region, and the signatures keep pouring in."

Schmid said that he hopes to raise some money for later stages of the campaign, including a modest advertising budget, but that for now, he is satisfied to let the strength of his arguments and the passion of his growing volunteer corps carry the day.

Pro-Drug War forces in Michigan, however, seem less confident in their own prospects. In fact, it appears that in their zeal, opponents of the measure, including some law enforcement officials, may have broken state law by using taxpayer dollars to influence the election.

On May 3rd and 4th, a two-day conference titled "Training the Trainers: Putting the Brakes on the Drug Legalization Movement" was held in Lansing, Michigan. The conference was sponsored by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Drug Free America Foundation (not to be confused with the Partnership for a Drug Free America), the Michigan Chamber Foundation, the Crime Prevention Association of Michigan and local community anti-drug organizations.

The conference, which focused heavily on the PRA and how to defeat it, raised two potential violations of state law. The first was the improper use of state professional education funding. The web site put up by conference organizers announced: "The class has been approved by MCOLES (the Michigan Committee on Law Enforcement Standards) as being eligible for 302 funds." According to Schmid, who is an attorney, 302 funds are taxpayer dollars authorized by the state in 1982 for criminal justice training programs.

The second potential violation is that according to one attendee, Michigan law enforcement personnel attended the conference while on duty. Of the 117 attendees registered for the event, 77 were government agency employees, including many law enforcement officers. Schmid said only about 65 people actually attended the conference.

"The conference was held on consecutive mid-week days," said Schmid, "meaning that it is very likely that they were there on taxpayer time." Schmid, who is in the process of filing an official criminal complaint, has waited several weeks after the actual event because "we wanted to give everyone time to cash their paychecks for the period."

Schmid also sent a letter to MCOLES asking for an explanation. In response, he received a letter back stating that MCOLES had neither received nor approved an application for 302 funding for the event, despite event advertisement to the contrary.

"Something is very definitely wrong here," said Schmid. But we will get to the bottom of it, through the discovery process if necessary."

Schmid's case will be aided by evidence gathered by a woman who attended the conference. The woman, whose name is being kept confidential, compiled her notes on the conference in a document entitled "Through the Looking Glass," which Schmid included in a press release last week.

"I arrived with a camera and tape recorder in hand," reads the document. "They looked shocked that I assumed I could record and take pictures. They demanded that prior to entering the conference I take the equipment back to my room and sign a really prohibitive agreement. No electronic equipment and no questions from the floor. Instead, we had to write them out, complete with our full name and the association we were from."

In another section of the document, the woman describes an overheard conversation between another attendee and Mary Ann Solberg, executive director of the Troy Community Coalition and Coalition of Healthy Communities and an opponent of PRA 2000.

"Ms. Solberg is so bothered about PRA that she made this tremendous effort, but she apparently has not bothered to read the petition. I eavesdropped on a conversation during lunch on the 2nd day wherein a Michigan attendee explained that it is not just a 'Medical Excuse Marijuana' initiative. (Their words, not mine.) Then she made the statement that 'my attorneys have told me not to mention PRA in public.' Then, she glanced at me and lowered her voice almost to a whisper. I felt like James Bond doing reconnaissance in a kindergarten."

Despite the cloak and dagger frivolity, there is a serious issue at stake here. And, according to Schmid, it is an issue that goes to the very heart of the ideals of free elections and free societies.

"The state of Michigan, in the wake of at least one other lawsuit, has made it clear that there is a strong interest in keeping public monies out of the electioneering process. It is a pretty basic concern for everyone, making sure that our elections are clean and free of taint. It is the business of the government to govern, not to use tax dollars to promote its will by influencing a free election."

(Visit PRA 2000 at http://www.ballot2000.net on the web.)

================

Ambitious Ballot Initiative Moves Ahead in California

The California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 applies a public health approach to one of the most egregious injustices of the drug war -- the incarceration of tens of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders.

The carefully worded measure seeks to promote community safety and public health while saving taxpayers significant money, according to a report by Elizabeth G. Hill, the state's legislative analyst for the measure.

Sponsored by Campaign for New Drug Policies, a Santa Monica-based group led by veterans of the successful campaign for California's Proposition 215 on medical marijuana in 1996, the measure would mandate probation for people convicted of non-violent drug offenses, and it would replace jail time with community-based, state-funded treatment programs for those people. The measure's provisions would not apply to people convicted of sale, production or manufacture of certain substances, or to people who refuse treatment, used a gun in committing their crimes, or were convicted of another crime in addition to drug possession.

The treatment programs would include vocational training, family counseling, literacy training and other job skills as well as maintenance therapy. The measure would fund these efforts by setting up a designated trust fund that would receive $60 million dollars in its first year and $120 million dollars in subsequent years. A small portion of those monies would be used for annual and long-term studies of the program's effectiveness.

In addition to reducing the horrific human costs of the lock-'em- up approach, the initiative would save California taxpayers a lot of money. Legislative Analyst Hill estimates that the state would need 10-12,000 fewer prison beds, which would lower state costs by $200 million to $250 million dollars per year. In addition, with about 9,500 fewer parolees to supervise, costs to the parole apparatus would be down about $20 million dollars annually. At the county level, jails would need some 2,800 fewer beds, which translates to $50 million dollars in lower costs per year.

The measure would also reduce the costs of the state's court system, and would eliminate some $475 million to $575 million in one-time expenditures to fuel the state's explosion in new prison construction.

According to the Campaign for New Drug Policies, significant funding to get the ballot measure rolling was provided by three well-known reform supporters from the business community: Peter Lewis, CEO of Progressive Insurance in Cleveland, George Soros, New York-based financier and philanthropist, and John Sperling of Phoenix, founder and CEO of the University of Phoenix, a chain of private, adult-education facilities.

"This initiative is consistent with public opinion," said Bill Zimmerman, political consultant and veteran manager of successful medical marijuana campaigns in California in 1996 and six other states in 1998 and 1999. "We hope its passage will encourage elected officials to seek alternatives to what is rapidly becoming the biggest public policy failure in recent memory."

The ballot measure has not yet attracted broad public scrutiny in the state, but that will certainly change as the political season heats up. It's not yet clear what impact the Tom Campbell- versus-Dianne Feinstein race for the US Senate might have on the measure, or vice versa. In addition, how the initiative would coexist with federal laws is still murky. What is clear is that the ballot initiative embodies an approach to drug policy that should garner wide support and perhaps offer political "cover" for elected officials who might be getting ready to "go public" in questioning our current policies.

(Visit http://www.drugreform.org for further information on the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000.)

================

Florida Officials Seriously Overcount "Club Drug" Deaths

In response to the proliferation of raves -- large techno dance parties -- and the drug use associated with them -- authorities across Florida began an enforcement drive last summer dubbed "Operation Heat Rave." The operation's central focus was a string of raids on dance parties across the state. Over the winter, state officials followed that up with a study attempting to quantify deaths caused by "club drugs."

Earlier this year, McDonough took the stage at a state-wide drug summit to announce that after a "very thorough autopsy-by-autopsy review," his office had discovered that club drugs, including MDMA (ecstacy), rohypnol and GHB, had been responsible for 254 deaths statewide.

If this number was meant to shock Floridians, it had the desired effect. But an independent investigation of that number by the Orlando Sentinel found the figure to be a gross exaggeration. In fact, many of the deaths that were counted in the figure were so clearly unrelated to dance parties or recreational drug use as to raise serious questions about the intent of the "study."

According to the Sentinel, which reviewed the 60 Central Florida deaths that McDonough's office attributed to club drugs, more than half should have been discarded at first glance.

Included in that number was a 15 year-old who died of an undiagnosed heart ailment while playing basketball, a 4 year-old boy who died in the hospital after a spinal tap, a 6 month-old Miami boy who died of sudden infant death syndrome, an 82 year- old woman who died 8 days after being hit by a car, a 58 year-old man who died upon leaving the hospital after a heart operation, a 52 year-old nursing home patient who fell and hit his head, and a 74 year-old cancer patient who died in the hospital from an accidental overdose of morphine.

The report also listed 7 amphetamine-related deaths of middle- aged men, as well as 10 deaths from heroin overdose. Neither amphetamine nor heroin is considered a "club drug," and neither, certainly, qualifies as a "new" threat.

Emanuel Sferios is the Director of DanceSafe, a San Francisco based organization that provides harm reduction information to members of the rave scene (http://www.dancesafe.org/).

"We were skeptical as soon as we heard that number (254)," Sferios told The Week Online. "We've been working with contacts in Florida for the past couple of months to try to get copies of the autopsy reports, but have been getting the run around. It is interesting but not surprising that the Sentinel was also skeptical. 254 deaths would have been way, way out of line with the statistics for club drug deaths anywhere in the world."

Florida Governor Jeb Bush created the state's Office of Drug Control in 1999. In so doing, Bush cited the need for an office that was "research-based, measurable and accountable for performance." McDonough, who had served as director of strategy under McCaffrey at ONDCP, was brought in as director.

On December 12, ten days after the National Institute on Drugs and Addiction released a report on the rising popularity of "designer drugs," McDonough contacted all 22 of the state's medical examiners. McDonough asked them to send the autopsy reports for every death since 1997 that tested positive for any of 20 different drugs.

The state's medical examiners, as it turns out, had concerns about the study even before McDonough announced his findings.

Larry Bedore, director of operations for the state Medical Examiners Commission, told the Sentinel that the commission did all that it could to make the study worthwhile.

"I spent weeks trying to educate them on what they were really looking for," he told the Sentinel. "I talked until I was blue in the face." The Sentinel also reports that "One hundred and fifty pages of memos, draft policies and other correspondence" shows an effort by the examiners' commission to limit the number of drugs to be tracked.

Steve Lauer, the Office of Drug Control's chief of staff, told the Sentinel that he was unaware that certain drugs on the list were used at hospitals. "I'm not a doctor, I'm a layman," he told them. As to the inclusion of large numbers of very old and very young people on a list of supposed club drug deaths, Lauer claimed that he forgot the advice given to him by the examiners' office not to include these.

Emanuel Sferios of DanceSafe takes a less charitable view of a process through which numbers were generated for the purpose of rationalizing policy.

"The logic of the drug war necessitates lies in a fundamental way. When you deal with a health and safety issue under the rubric of war, including military leadership and military strategies, propaganda has to be expected. There are problems with the raves, and with young people ingesting unlabeled substances with inadequate information about even those substances that they know they are ingesting. The solution to many of the legitimate safety concerns here is more information, truthful information. As we know, and as we see here, truth is usually the first casualty in any war."

(The Sentinel report can be found online at: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/automagic/oso/2000-05-21/OSOXRAVE21052100.html Letters to the Editor can be submitted to: The Orlando Sentinel, 633 N. Orange Ave., Orlando, FL 32801-1349, by fax to (407) 420- 5286 or by e-mail to insight@orlandosentinel.com and should be 175 words or less and include your name, address and day and evening telephone numbers.)

================

Missouri Becomes Fourth State in Nation to Pass Racial Profiling Legislation

The American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri praised lawmakers earlier this month for making Missouri the fourth state in the nation to pass legislation prohibiting racial profiling -- also known "Driving While Black or Brown" or DWB, and requiring police departments statewide to keep racial statistics on all police stops.

"This is an historic moment for race relations in the state of Missouri," said Matt LeMieux, Executive Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. "Racial profiling -- the practice of police stopping people based upon race or ethnicity -- is pervasive across the country. We believe that data collection of the kind adopted by the legislature today is the best way to document and end this insidious practice."

The legislation follows a year of outreach and advocacy by the ACLU and other civil rights groups in St. Louis about racial profiling.

The legislative initiative here kicked off in February, when State Rep. Russell Gunn introduced a bill outlawing racial profiling and pretext stops and calling for the data collection. Soon after, a similar bill, SB 1053, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Wayne Goode. The bill was overwhelmingly approved in the Senate before being championed back in the House by Reps. Gunn and Rita Days to similar overwhelming support.

"The Missouri legislature's overwhelming approval of this bill signals an acknowledgment of the problem and is a large step towards reducing racially motivated police encounters and improving police-community relations in our state," said Leland Ware, Vice President of the ACLU's Eastern Missouri affiliate.

With the passage of its bill, Missouri joins a nationwide legislative trend to end racial profiling. Last year, North Carolina and Connecticut passed legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to collect data during traffic stops. This year, some 25 states introduced legislation requiring data collection. Washington State passed similar legislation earlier this year, and Missouri's bill makes it the fourth state in the nation to do so.

The Missouri initiative was spurred by recent national attention to the practice of DWB by the ACLU. A 1999 report issued by the ACLU entitled, "Driving While Black: Racial Profiling on Our Nation's Highways," reviewed a number of studies around the country showing that non-white drivers are much more likely to be stopped and/or searched by the police.

The ACLU report, along with a national public education campaign and ACLU-led litigation challenging racial profiling in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Oklahoma, New Jersey and California, is helping to convince an increasing number of law enforcement agencies to review how traffic stops are being conducted. Numerous law enforcement agencies nationwide now voluntarily collect data during traffic stops.

Results from a recent Gallup Poll and reported incidents across the country reaffirm the need for gathering statistics. According to the poll, released in December 1999, 59 percent of the public believes that racial profiling is widespread, and an overwhelming 81 percent disapprove of its use by police.

LeMieux said his office has received numerous complaints of racial profiling by police. Frequent targets include black males, particularly those in nice cars or those in predominantly white neighborhoods. People of color call it one of the most prominent examples of racism thriving in American society.

One victim said that after being stopped by police, "I have a hard time telling my children the police are here to protect everyone regardless of who they are."

Further information on racial profiling and the ACLU campaign can be found at .

================

Michigan Lawmaker Proposes a Public Drug Offender Directory

Lansing, MI: A bill has been introduced in the Michigan House of Representatives that would create a public directory of drug offenders.

House Bill 5796, known as the "Controlled Substance Offenders Registration Act," was introduced by Rep. Eileen DeHart (D- Westland). The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Criminal Law and Corrections.

Anyone convicted of a drug charge anywhere, but living in Michigan, will have to register for the directory, which will be given to state law enforcement agencies and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The directory will contain the offender's name and any aliases, addresses, physical descriptions and date of birth.

The public will be able to view the directory at police departments, and the bill also calls for an electronic version of the directory to be made available to the public.

The legislation requires drug offenders to register for whatever term is longer, either 25 years following the date of initially registering or for 10 years after release from a state correctional facility.

================

San Francisco to Implement Medical Marijuana ID Cards to Protect Patients

San Francisco, CA: San Francisco will be joining the growing list of cities in California that issue medical marijuana identification cards to protect patients from criminal prosecution under state law.

San Francisco officials announced that the city Department of Public Health (DPH) will begin to issue the cards to patients within the month. The cards will be valid for two years at a cost of $25. Patients over age 18 will need to show the DPH proof of residency and a valid doctor's recommendation. Patients under the age of 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian when applying for the card.

The San Francisco city government passed Supervisor Mark Leno's proposal for the ID cards in January and since then have been finalizing details with the DPH, city lawyers and medical marijuana activists.

Patients who possess the card will be able to get their marijuana supply from any of the several marijuana buyers' cooperatives operating in the San Francisco Bay area.

================

COLOMBIA
There's another week and a half to stop the dangerous Colombia drug war military package in the Senate. DRCNet supports either eliminating the funding or shifting it into domestic drug treatment. Support is growing in the Senate for an amendment by Sen. Wellstone to shift the funds. Please visit http://www.drcnet.org/stopthehelicopters/ to tell the Senate to say no to the Colombia drug war bill! (JUNE 6 WILL BE A NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY TO CONGRESS -- STAY TUNED!)

METH BILL/FREE SPEECH
The so-called "Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act" contains provisions that would inhibit the legitimate free speech of Internet users and has not yet been made law. Even straight policy work like DRCNet's would be at risk if the accidental link on any of our vast web sites pointed to drug manufacturing information. Please visit http://www.drcnet.org/freespeech/ to tell Congress this bill is wrong!

The Washington Post editorialized against these provisions in today's paper, also at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/A9531-2000May25.html Letters to the editor can be sent to: Letters to the Editor, The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071 or to Letterstoed@washpost.com and should include your name, address and daytime and evening phone numbers (and signature if by mail).

HIGHER EDUCATION ACT
Please visit http://www.RaiseYourVoice.com to tell your Rep. and your two Senators to support H.R. 1053 to repeal the drug provision of the Higher Education Act. (See top article for information on this ongoing effort.)

================

Job Opportunity in San Francisco http://www.drcnet.org/wol/138.html#jobopportunity

Potential candidates may discuss the position with Jennifer Lorvick (contact information below), and applicants are recommended to send a resume directly to her as well as to the UCSF personnel office. The official UCSF job description follows; note, however, that the Study may be flexible on the research administration requirement for an applicant with a very strong interest in harm reduction.

================

Adam J. Smith Says So Long to Week Online Readers

My association with DRCNet began in the early days of the organization, in 1994. Back then, I was in my second year of law school, and DRCNet was little more than an email discussion list. That list, founded by David Borden on a computer in his bedroom, filled a vacuum that had long existed by bringing together activists from around the country and even from around the world. In doing so, DRCTalk, the grandaddy of drug policy discussion forums, was instrumental in transforming drug policy reform from a loose collection of local efforts into a far more coordinated and integrated national movement.

I joined DRCNet full-time in September of 1996. By that time, Dave's little email list had grown to include a burgeoning web presence and a national legislative alert system, the "Rapid Response Team." Dave had also found some financial support and a physical home in the offices of the Drug Policy Foundation, here in Washington, DC.

As I said, my time at DRCNet has been a transforming experience. The people I have met, the courage I have witnessed and the progress that has been made within this little movement for freedom, justice and sanity have been awe inspiring.

My most cherished memory, though, will be my work on The Week Online. Every week for nearly three years I have had the opportunity to inform a growing and diverse readership about the drug war, and about the amazing people and organizations that are every day making strides toward peace. The feedback that I've received, from literally thousands of you, has served as a constant source of inspiration.

I would be less than honest if I did not admit that the most indulgent part of the process has been the opportunity to vent my spleen through my editorials. It would have been impossible, I fear, to have reported for so long on the insanity without also having regular access to my little soapbox. Thanks to everyone who wrote in response to one or another of these diatribes -- even if it was only to lodge a complaint or make a correction. I can honestly say that our readers are among the most sophisticated and knowledgeable observers of government policy in the nation. It has been a privilege to get to know so many of you.

As for DRCNet, we leave the organization in David Borden's capable hands. The Week Online will continue on its regular schedule, and both Karynn and I have full confidence that DRCNet will continue to be one of the most important centers of information and activism in drug policy reform. (Of course, from this point forward Dave will expect us to be paying members.)

Our departure, however, does not mean that we are leaving the issue. In fact, Karynn and I will be involved in so many different reform projects that we have decided to form our own consulting firm so we can write off our expenses. The firm, which will do business as "a.k.a" or "a.k.@" as it says on our logo, will enable us to work with some of the most interesting people and most exciting projects in drug policy reform.

For those of you who would like to contact us, Karynn's new email address is karynnmfish@earthlink.net and mine is ajsmith66@earthlink.net. If you are interested in being kept up to date on my writing and editorials, just let me know.

My heartfelt thanks go out to David Borden, for giving me this life-changing opportunity, for having the vision to achieve all that DRCNet has become, and for being my friend through thick and thin. To all of you, I say thanks as well. I look forward to working with you all in our ongoing efforts to end the madness of this war.

- Adam

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

DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036-8402, or made by credit card at . 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.

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 210, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail drcnet@drcnet.org. Thank you.

Articles of a purely educational nature in The Week Online appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

***********************************************************
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.or