From: Christopher B Reeve <[cr 39] at [andrew.cmu.edu]>
Organization: Sophomore, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon,
Pittsburgh, PA

Famous Drug Users

"what Larry Martz calls in Newsweek the 'dirty little secret'
about crack is that it is possible to smoke it without becoming
addicted.  It is estimated that at least 2.4 million Americans
have tried crack, but that less than half a million use it once
a month or more.  An op-ed piece in the New York Times denounced
'Bennett's Sham Epidemic,' accusing him of manipulating figures
to create a false sense of emergency over drugs such as crack
[Martz, Larry.  (2/19/90).  A Dirty Drug Secret.  Newsweek: 74.].
  The Marion Barry case illustrates well the panic over crack and
the distortions of its effects.  The U.S. government spent over
$3 million to entrap Barry, who was accused of crack use.  But
the question that was never asked in the media even after
Barry's arrest and indictment was how he could have run the
capital of the country for years while smoking a drug that
(according to the administration and the media) turns people
into violent, out-of-control zombies." (Christina Jacqueline
Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds
Like Failure, 61)

Violation of Rights

"In early 1990, for example, the governor of Maryland,
responding to critcism from those who questioned the
constitutionality of some of the provisions of his anti-drug
abuse package, stated: 'I can first say the constitution won't
allow many of these things.  I can say my rights as an
individual are being violated.  The question is: Are we going to
take the drug situation as a serious problem in our state?'
[Schneider, Howard.  (1/28/90).  Schaefer's Anti-Drug Strategy
Aimed at Middle Class.  Washington Post: D1.]." (Christina
Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing
Succeeds Like Failure, 89)

"The increasing tolerance of the Court for privacy intrustion
can be seen in cases that validate aerial surveillance to find
indications of drug possession (Florida v. Riley, 1989);
searches in airports without probable cause of people who fit a
drug-courier profile (Florida v. Royer, 1983); warrantless
searches of automobiles and inside compartments (United States
v. Ross, 1982); surveillance of suspects with electronic devices
placed inside cars, briefcases, or trunks (United States v.
Knotts, 1983); the acquisition of warrants to search private
homes based on anonymous tips (Illinois v. Gates, 1983), police
inspection of bank records without customer consent (United
States v. Miller, 1976); and the reading and inspecting of
contents of a person's trash without a warrant or probable cause
(California v. Greenwood, 1988) [Drug Policy Foundation.
(1989).  Mr. Bush and the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act.  Drug Policy
Letter, 1, 1.]." (Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy,
and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure, 90 - 91)

"In October 1989, for example, the DEA conducted raids of retail
stores specializing in the sale of indoor garden supplies in
forty-six states.  The rationale for the raids was that the
stores were assisting in the production of marijuana.  The DEA
seized not drugs but books, records, and merchandise from over
three dozen stores [Gorman, Peter.  (12/30/90).  Marijuana
McCarthyism.  New York Times: 15.].
  These raids represent a government seizure of records from
legitimate businesses not for the purpose of discovering any
illegal activity on their part, but for the purpose of
investigating their customers who could (the DEA reasoned) be
using the equipment to grow marijuana.  In conducting these
raids, the government went into shops without evidence of
wrongdoing, arrested owners, and padlocked doors.  It then
effectively shut down the businesses by seizing merchandise and
records necessary for their operation [Gormon, Peter.
(12/30/90).  Marijuana McCarthyism.  New York Times: 15.]."
(Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on
Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure, 92)

  "There is nothing illegal in publishing a pro-marijuana
publication, and the harassment of advertisers is an infrigement
on the First Amendment  guarantee of free speech.  As Peter
Gorman noted in discussing this raid, 'The fact that the
Government can target publications' advertisers, investigate
consumers and disrupt the lives of thousands without evidence of
a crime is an obvious misuse of judicial authority' [Gorman,
Peter.  (12/30/90).  Marijuana McCarthyism.  New York Times:
15.].
  But again, not only is there little objection to such tactics,
there is even support for further curtailing freedom of speech.
In the 1989 Washington Post / ABC News poll, for example, a
startling 71 percent of the respondents said that they would
support making 'it against the law to show the use of illegal
drugs in entertainment movies' [Morin, Richard.  (9/8/89).  Many
in Poll Say Bush Plan Is Not Stringent Enough.  Washington Post:
A18.]." (Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the
War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure, 93)

  "Rather than overturning the exclusionary rule directly, the
courts and legislators have adopted a tactic of narrowing its
applicability.  A provision incorporated into the Anti-Drug
Abuse Bill of 1988 and supported by the Reagan-Bush
administration [New York Times.  (10/10/88).  Reagan Backs House
Drug Bill: 15.] was a codification of a 1984 Supreme Court
decision that permitted the admission of flawed evidence
obtained with a search warrant in cases in which the police had
a 'good-faith' belief that they were acting properly.  A similar
provision in the House version of the drug bill, which was
passed in September 1988, allowed good-faith exceptions in
searches conducted without a written warrant [Mohr, Charles.
(10/13/88).  Senate Is Closer to Drug Bill Vote.  New York
Times: 24.].  By January 1990, Bush was proposing to Congress
legislation that would allow such good-faith exceptions in
warrantless searches [Rosenthal, Andrew.  (1/24/90).  President
Unveils New Drug Efforts.  New York Times: A11.].
  The reason for the exclusionary rule, however, is that the
police cannot be trusted to act in good faith.  As Supreme Court
Justice Brandeis noted in 1928, doing away with the exclusionary
rule makes the Court an accomplice to official misconduct."
(Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on
Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure, 95)

"Until the mid-1970s, the Supreme Court had taken the position
that reasonable searches required 'particularized' suspicion,
that is, that a person could be searched or tested only if there
was evidence of illegal behavior.  The shift that recent
decisions represent, however, is that searches can be considered
reasonable even if there is no such suspicion.  This opens the
door for searches that would primarily affect people not
involved in illegal behavior, and searches of categories of
people, like whole neighborhoods.  The Supreme Court has now
taken the position that searches need not be based on
particularized suspicion to be considered reasonable, when the
interests of the state are perceived to outweigh the intrusion
into the private lives of citizens.  The Court has argued that
this balancing test is 'when special needs, beyond the normal
need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probably cause
requirement impracticable' (Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives
Assn., 109 U.S., 1989).  But as Jurg Gerber et al. [Gerber,
Jurg, Eric L. Jensen, Myron Schreck, and Ginna M. Babcock.
(1990).  Drug Testing and Social Control: Implications for State
Theory.  Contemporary Crisis, 14: 243 - 258.] point out, the
special need may today be drug use.  Later it could be child
abuse, communism, or flag burning." (Christina Jacqueline Johns,
Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like
Failure, 96)

  "Increasingly, there have been moves to deny rights to
individuals before they have been convicted on drug charges.
This turns the presumption of innocence on its head.  In 1989,
for example, the police in Lawrence, Massachusetts, began
confiscating Medicaid and food stamp identification cards from
people arrested but not convicted on drug charges.  A legal
defense group in Massachusetts challenged the statute allowing
this as unlawful search and seizure and denying due process
[Mydans, Seth.  (10/16/89).  Powerful Arms of Drug War Arousing
Concern for Rights.  New York Times: 1A.].
  Elsewhere, there have also been confiscations of driver's
licenses and threats to withdraw federal benefits, including
education subsidies, from people involved with drugs.
Forfeiture laws allow the confiscation of automobiles, boats,
and other property of people accused but yet to be convicted of
drug offenses.  Seizures are sometimes allowed even when the
owner of the property is unaware of the presence of drugs
[Mydans, Seth.  (10/16/89).  Powerful Arms of Drug War Arousing
Concern for Rights.  New York Times: 1A.]." (Christina
Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing
Succeeds Like Failure, 101 - 102)

  "In a memorandum issued to 3,000 public housing authorities in
April 1989, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp
asked the housing authorities to submit a report about what they
were doing to 'evict drug abusers and drug dealers' from their
projects.  A staff lawyer with the National Housing Law Project
was quoted in the New York Times as responding: 'Does Mr. Kemp
have some magic way to find out who these people are?  The issue
is not whether people should be dealing drugs, but how to decide
if someone really is a drug dealer' [Tolchin, Martin.  (3/8/89).
 Kemp Vows to Oust Tenants over Drugs.  New York Times: 1.].
  Under the Kemp policies, those accused of dealing in or abusing
drugs would be considered to have broken thier lease and the
entire family would be subject to eviction.  When Kemp was
interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour [MacNeil/Lehrer
Newshour.  (4/17/89).  National Public Broadcasting.], he was
asked if a child evicted at one housing project could really be
considered as implicated in drugs.  His answer was that often
children helped their parents deal drugs." (Christina Jacqueline
Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds
Like Failure, 102 - 103)

  "Under the proposed program, which was a major part of Kemp's
campaign to get drugs out of public housing, tenants were to be
evicted on the basis of an affidavit signed by a law enforcement
official that the leaseholder was involved in illegal drug
activity..  The eviction could take place even though there had
been no formal charge brought against the leaseholder, much less
a conviction [Lewis, Neil A.  (6/25/90).  Court Bars H.U.D. Plan
to Evict Drug Dealers.  New York Times: A10.]
  Both the ACLU and the American Bar Association opposed the
eviction plan and argued that it violated the constitutional
right to due process.  Congressional Democrats sent a letter to
Kemp in 1990 in which the plan was called 'shocking to
fundamental notions of justice' and 'ill-conceived' [Lewis, Neil
A.  (6/25/90).  Court Bars H.U.D. Plan to Evict Drug Dealers.
New York Times: A10.]." (Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power,
Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure,
103)

"Drug-using mothers are subject not only to criminal prosecution
but also to having their children taken away from them.  In New
York State, for example, the Department of Social Services (DSS)
is allowed to petition the court for permission to temporarily
take away the baby of a mother who shows through testing at the
hospital that she has taken drugs within seventy-two hours of
delivery.  DSS may also initiate neglect proceedings in such
cases and sever the mother's rights entirely [Lewin, Tamar.
(1/9/89).  When Courts Take Charge of the Unborn.  New York
Times: 1.]." (Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and
the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure, 108)

"Pamela Rae Stewart, for example, was charged with criminal
failure to provide medical help for a child after she ignored
her doctor's advice to discontinue taking drugs and to abstain
from sexual intercourse during her pregnancy.  Stewart was later
released when the court ruled that the law did not apply to
fetuses, but the case illustrates well a trend that could end in
the state prosecuting pregnant women for failing to be an
adequate 'environment' through faulty diets, lack of exercise,
and smoking during pregnancy [Lewin, Tamar.  (1/9/89).  When
Courts Take Charge of the Unborn.  New York Times: 1.]."
(Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on
Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure, 108)

"William Bennett summed up the administration's position on
penalties when he said publicly that he did not see anything
wrong with beheading drug offenders [American Civil Liberties
Union.  (1989).  Letter.  New York.].  Los Angeles Police Chief
Daryl Gates said before a Senate hearing that casual drug users
should be 'shot' [In These Times.  (9/19 - /25/90).  If You
Can't Beat 'Em, Shoot 'Em: 6.]." (Christina Jacqueline Johns,
Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like
Failure, 111)

  "In early 1989, the Department of Education began requiring
students to sign an oath that while they received financial aid,
they would not manufacture, distribute, dispense, or use drugs.
This policy drew criticism from the National Association of
Student Financial Aid Officers, who resisted being expected to
enforce a policy that would require them to turn students over
to the government and, in effect, function as law enforcement
officers [New York Times.  (10/8/89).  Colleges Balk at
Enforcing Pledge on Student Aid and Drugs: 14A.].
  The requirement that students sign this oath not only means
that they can lose their financial aid if they are convicted on
a drug-related charge, but it also makes them subject to fraud
charges that carry a potential $10,000 fine and a jail sentence
[New York Times.  (10/8/89).  Colleges Balk at Enforcing Pledge
on Student Aid and Drugs: 14A.].
  The provision clearly has a disproportionate effect on
low-income students, who are the primary recipients of financial
aid.  It means that these students, if prosecuted, will be left
with few alternatives but to continue manufacturing,
distributing, dispensing, or using drugs, since by denying them
money to continue their education, they are condemned to
low-paying jobs that cannot compete with the economic rewards of
the drug trade.
  In June 1988, a policy board chaired by Edwin Meese approved
proposals to deny student loans and other governmental benefits
to persons convicted of drug use [Isikoff, Michael.  (6/8/88).
Federal Aid May Be Lever in Drug War.  Washington Post: 1.].  By
November 1988, William Bennett was complaining that schools and
colleges were not sufficiently enforcing stringent anti-drug
policies [Barrett, Paul M.  (11/30/89).  Drug Czar Bennett, Once
Supreme in His Realm, Is Himself in Revolt over Obstacles in His
Path.  Wall Street Journal: A16.].
  The states have followed suit.  Governor Kay Orr of Nebraska,
for example, proposed an anti-drug plan in January 1990 that
would include expelling students of public colleges and
universities upon their conviction for any drug offense, even
misdemeanors.  Students could re-enter school only after
mandatory completion of a drug rehabilitation program.  Another
part of the plan was to require students entering institutions
of higher education to certify that they will be 'drug free'
[New York Times.  (1/9/90).  Nebraska Drug Curbs Proposed by
Governor: 6.]." (Christina Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy,
and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure, 116 - 117)

  "Two cases decided in 1989 (Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v.
United States and United States v. Monsanto) made it possible
for the state to freeze assets that would be used by a defendant
to pay an attorney.  In both these decisions the Court majority
essentially refused to accept the realities of litigation.  In
Caplin & Drysdale, the majority found that forfeiture did not
unduly burden the defendants' right to counsel of choice.  The
majority reasoned that a lawyer might be persuaded to accept the
case on condition that the fees would be paid on acquittal, or
based on 'means that a defendant might come by in the future.'
Judge Blackmun, in his dissent, noted the absurdity of the
reasoning that a private attorney would be 'so foolish ignorant,
or beholden or idealistic as to take the business' on such a
basis.  ABA rules disallow contingency fees, and furthermore,
attorneys are unlikely to risk basing their fees on people who
are facing possible life imprisonment [Tarlow, Barry.  (1989).
RICO Report.  National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
(September/October).].
  These cases make it possible for the state to impoverish drug
defendants and leave them dependent on court-appointed counsel.
The Court has done this even while acknowledging in Caplin &
Drysdale that 'the harsh reality' is that 'the quality of a
criminal defendant's representation frequently may turn on his
ability to retain the best counsel money can buy.  As Justices
Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens noted in their dissent,
'it is unseemly and unjust for the Government to beggar those it
prosecutes in order to disable their defense at trial.'
  In addition, if appointed counsel is adequate and the state has
an interest in disallowing the use of 'drug merchants' their
assets, why are not all criminal defendants forced to rely on
appointed attorneys?  It is highly doubtful that any of the
defendants prosecuted in connection with teh S&L scandal have
been forced to rely on court-appointed counsel due to asset
seizure.
  The dissenters in Caplin & Drysdale point out that Congress
'concluded that crime had become too lucrative for criminals to
be deterred by conventional punishments.'  If this is the case,
the resort to 'unconventional punishments' like asset seizure
should be applied to all criminals.  The reality, however, is
that they are being applied only to street criminals, most
especially defendants in drug cases.
  In addition to denying drug defendants the right to counsel of
their choice, the state is increasingly eroding the right to
confidentiality in the lawyer-client relationship.  In 1990,
there were major court cases pending in New York, Tulsa,
Houston, and Denver regarding whether or not a lawyer in a drug
case could be forced to reveal who paid the legal fees.  In
Tulsa and Houston, lawyers were put in jail for their refusal to
answer questinos about the sources of their fees [Lewis, Neil A.
 (2/9/90).  Drug Lawyers' Quandry: Lure of Money vs. Ethics.
New York Times: 1.].
  In 1985, a law was passed that required any business receiving
payment of $10,000 or more in cash for goods and services to
repor that payment to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Described by Fred T. Goldberg, Jr., commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service, as 'another weapon in fighting the war on
drugs,' this law contained no exceptions.  In the fall of 1989,
therefore, the IRS contacted 950 lawyers who had reported cash
transactions over $10,000 and had not revealed the names of
those paying the fees [Goldberg, Fred T., Jr.  (3/13/90).  IRS
Needs to Know Who's Paying in Cash.  USA Today: 10A.].
  Neal Sonnett, president of the National Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers, maintained that the action forced 'lawyers to
become witnesses against clients.'  Sonnett argued that such
laws would discourage clients from consulting lawyers because
they could not keep confidential their consultation even though
lawyer-client relations are supposed to be protected.  Sonnett
pointed out that many clients who pay in cash do so because they
do not want spouses or employers, for example, to know that they
have consulted a criminal attorney.  'There must be limits to
government power,' Sonnett said.  He then added:
  At a time when people around the globe are casting off
  authoritarian govnerments, it is tragic to think that we who
  inspired their dreams of freedom are, step by step, in our
  single-minded hysteria over drugs, shrugging off our most
  cherished rights [Sonnett, Neal R.  (3/13/90).  Stop this IRS
  Assault on Lawyers.  USA Today: 10A.]
Sonnett maintained that the IRS summonses demanded that lawyers
'divulge virtually all client records.'  He added, 'I worry
about what drugs are doing to America.  But I am also worried
about what the 'war on drugs' is doing to America; it is
becoming a war on the Bill of Rights and on our adversarial
system of justice' [Sonnett, Neal R.  (3/13/90).  Stop this IRS
Assault on Lawyers.  USA Today: 10A.]" (Christina Jacqueline
Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds
Like Failure, 119 - 120)

  "... restrict freedom of movement.  In reaction to a rising
homicide rate, the City Counsel of Washington, D.C., approved a
curfew (later found to be unconstitutional) for those under age
eighteen, even though the average age of homicide victims in the
District of Colombia was thirty years and the average age of
killers was over eighteen [New York Times.  (3/1/89).
Washington Imposes Curfew to Fight Drug-Related Crime: 1.].
  ... restrict freedom of association.  District of Columbia
police sought to expand an anti-loitering law that allowed them
to cordon off streets, order people out of an area, and arrest
those who gathered in a group of two or more people.  There are
similar anti-loitering laws in Florida, Ohio, Michigan,
Virginia, and elsewhere, some of which have been challenged as
infringements on the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of
association.  Even so, City Attorney Robert H. Cinabro of
Kalamazoo, Michigan, defended the anti-loitering law there by
saying, 'We don't feel there is a constitutional right to
associate with drug dealers.' [Mydans, Seth.  (10/16/89).
Powerful Arms of Drug War Arousing Concern for Rights.  New York
Times: 1A.]
  ... deny due process.  The City Council of Miami Beach,
Florida, approved an ordinance in early 1991 directing the
police to notify the employers of defendants arrested on drug
charges, even if the charge was possession of small amounts of
illegal substances.  The law was limited specifically to drug
cases and did not cover drunk driving or other crimes [New York
Times.  (1/25/91).  City Plans to Tell Employers of Drug
Arrests: A10.].  Similarly, in New Bedford, Massachusetts, one
daily newspaper has begun publishing photographs of defendants
going into district court on drug charges [Treaster, Joseph B.
(2/23/91).  Miami Beach's New Drug Weapon Will Fire Off Letters
to the Employer.  New York Times: 9.].
  ... deny the right to an education.  In June 1988, a policy
board chaired by Edwin Meese approved proposals to deny driver's
licenses and student loans to people convicted of drug use
[Isikoff, Michael.  (6/8/88).  Federal Aid May Be Lever in Drug
War.  Washington Post: 1.].  By 1990, there was a proposal in
Nebraska to expel students from colleges and universities for
drug convictions [New York Times.  (1/9/90).  Nebraska Drug
Curbs Proposed by Governor: 6.].
  The mayor of Miami Beach, referring to the ordinance passed by
the City Council directing police to notify the employers of
those arrested in drug cases, made a statement that sums up well
the impplications of this increasing expansion of state power
over the lives of individuals.  Mayor Alex Daoud remarked in one
hearing that 'I hate to equate it with what occurred in Nazi
Germany, but that's how I see it.  Totalitarian government
begins slowly and moves first against the rights of those least
able to defend themselves' [Treaster, Joseph B.  (2/23/91).
Miami Beach's New Drug Weapon Will Fire Off Letters to the
Employer.  New York Times: 9.]." (Christina Jacqueline Johns,
Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like
Failure, 125 - 126)

Cash / Property Seizure

"What is being encouraged is an informant culture, a society in
which citizens are encouraged to act as informants against each
other, and even family members are encouraged (and in some cases
expected) to inform on their fathers, husbands, siblings, and
children.  For example, after one of George Bush's drug war
speeches, a small boy responded by turning in his mother and her
boyfriend for using drugs.  A woman from Moultrie, Georgia,
whose husband was convicted of growing marijuana, was widely
criticized by callers to the Larry King Live show for not having
turned her husband in to the police.  The woman lost her job as
a teacher as a result of the case, even though she had never
used illegal drugs of any kind [Montgomery Advertiser.
(12/6/89).  Teacher Cleared Files Lawsuit over Lost Job: 5A.].
  Many states have implemented programs providing free telephone
numbers that take reports from citizens on drunk drivers
[Johnson, Dirk.  (6/17/90).  Road Checks: Where the Police Put
Drunken Drivers to the Test.  New York Times: 1.].  In Anderson,
South Carolina, the county had billboards erected that read:
'Need Cash?  Turn in a drug dealer.'  Using a program patterned
after one used by the U.S. Customs Service, the county offered
not only cash rewards but a percentage of the take, assets
seized from a dealer the informant turned in.  In Des Moines,
the police have initiated a program in which hotel employees are
trained to look for drug dealers and maids are asked to keep the
trash of suspicious people [Kelley, Jack.  (5/17/90).  Drug
Tactics Raise Rights Fears.  USA Today: 3A.]." (Christina
Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing
Succeeds Like Failure, 104)

"The seizure of assets before a criminal conviction again turns
the presumption of innocence on its head.
  In Maryland in 1990, for example, two men were stopped and
searched based on drug courier profiles and the fact that police
dogs sniffed cocaine on their money.  The cash of the men was
confiscated.  Even though most cash is now tainted with traces
of cocaine and the men were never charged with any crime, they
were responsible for proving that they were not involved with
drugs in order to get their money back [USA Today.  (5/23/90).
Don't Risk Rights in the War on Drugs: 10A.]." (Christina
Jacqueline Johns, Power, Idealogy, and the War on Drugs: Nothing
Succeeds Like Failure, 118)


--
"Freud was convinced that 'the voice of the intellect will be heard.'
But no one understood better than he that if reason is to triumph,
it has to sound above the clamor of conflicting emotion and the roar
of primitive desires." (Zinberg and Robertson, _Drugs & The Public_, 242)