The Entheogen Law ReporterIssue No. 19 ISSN 1074-8040

Fall 1998

The Crime of Publishing?Federal Court Says Publisher

May Be Held Liable For Crime Committed by Reader

In January of 1992, James Perry ordered thebooks Hit Man: A Technical Manual forIndependent Contractors and How to Make aDisposable Silencer, Volume 2 from PaladinPress, a mail-order company specializing inpublications about crime and criminal activities. Educated, encouraged, and outfitted byexplicit instructions in the book, Perry beganstyling himself as an assassin for hire andshortly thereafter came in contact with a Mr.Lawrence Horn. Mr. Horn hired Perry to murder Horn's ex-wife and quadriplegic child, inorder to collect a $2 million trust fund thatwould be payable to him in event of theirdeaths.

On the night of March 3, 1993, Perryentered the home of Mildred Horn, and brutally murdered her, her child, and a nurseattending to the child. It was clear from themethod of murder, escape, and attempted concealment, that Perry followed numerous techniques taught in the pages of the Paladinbooks he read.

In October 1994, Perry was convicted ofmurder and is now on Maryland's death row.Lawrence Horn was also convicted and isserving a life sentence. Relatives of the murdered Horns subsequently brought a civil suitagainst Paladin Press alleging that the publisher, through its books Hit Man and Silenceraided and abetted the triple murder. Paladindefended by raising the First Amendment,arguing that the protection for free speech andpress was an absolute bar to the imposition ofcivil liability on a publisher when a readeruses published information to commit a crime.

The Fourth Circuit's decision sent a chillthrough the publishing world. (Rice v. Paladin Enterprises (4th Cir. 1997) 128 F.3d 233Cert, denied 4/21/98.)

The court held that speech, even speechby the press, which aids or abets criminalconduct, can constitute civil aiding and abetting if the speaker or publisher "has the specific purpose of assisting and encouraging

commission of such conduct and the allegedassistance and encouragement takes a formother than abstract advocacy." (Id. at p.243.) Based largely on shockingly ill-considered stipulations entered by Paladin,the court found that in publishing the booksHit Man and Silencer, Paladin specificallyintended these books to aid murderers. Assummarized by the Fourth Circuit:

Here, it is alleged, and a jury could reasonably find,... that Paladin aided and abettedthe murders at issue through the quintessential speech act of providing step-by-step instructions for murder (replete with photographs, diagrams, and narration) so comprehensive and detailed that it is as if theinstructor were literally present with thewould-be murderer not only in the preparation and planning, but in the actual commission of, and follow-up to, the murder; there isnot even a hint that the aid was provided inIhe form of speech that might constitute abstract advocacy. (Id. at p. 249.)

On April 21,1998, the Supreme Courtrefused to hear the case, thereby letting theFourth Circuit's opinion stand.

The decision in Paladin may have implications for publishers of books related toentheogens outlawed under federal or statelaw. What liability, if any, might a publisherface for a book that contains a recipe formanufacturing LSD or any other scheduledentheogen? What about publications, printand Internet-based, that disseminate infor

mation on using various outlawed entheogens? Indeed, what about an individualpost to a web site, newsgroup, or electronicmail list, with details on extracting a controlled substance from a plant or fungi? Cansuch writings, disseminated to the world-at-large, subject the author to potential liabilityif a reader uses the information to commit adrug crime?

A case, decided in 1982, sets an intimidating spotlight on some of these questions.

On June 1,1980, DEA agents raided anamateur PCP lab in Central California.Seated just outside the lab, which was situated in a small shack in his backyard, wasDonald Hensley. He was reading a pamphlettitled Synthesis of PCP - Preparation ofAngel Dust. Under interrogation, Hensleyadmitted he had been attempting to manufacture PCP based on the instructions in thepamphlet. He explained that he learnedabout the $10.00 pamphlet from an advertisement in High Times magazine.

DEA agents took an interest in the pamphlet It was printed by the "United NewsService" (UNS) and listed a post office boxin New York. DEA agents contacted aPostal Inspector and learned that the postalbox was rented by a man named Gary Bar-nett. Agents staked out his apartment andbegan secretly surveilling his activities.

Using the fake name "James Fredericks," one of the DEA agents sent UNS$30.00 requesting the company's publica-

(Cont'mued on page 200)

IN THIS ISSUE

The Crime or Publishing?Warrantless Thermal Image Scan Or Home Held Unconstitutionai.VmcrNiA Man AimESTED For Selling "Fake" MDMA.RLPA Could Restore "religious defense"Reader Question: Conscious Dreams in Japan?.. .GHBAnd The InternetComing Soon: Limitation On Importing Foreign MedicationsEntheogen Law Nets

199200203204204204207208

The Entheogen Law Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/California • 95617-3481- e-mail: telr@cwnet.com 19 TELR 199

Publishing Crime?(Continued from page 199)tion on manufacturing PCP, amphetamines,and methaqualone. Agents were watchingwhen Barnett retrieved the letter from his POBox and took it to his apartment. The agentswere still spying five days later when Barnettleft his apartment carrying mail, which hedeposited in a mailbox at the post office.After Barnett left, agents seized the mail andfound a letter addressed to "James Fredericks." Inside were pamphlets on synthesizingPCP, amphetamines, and methaqualone, aswell as a pamphlet titled Chemicals Used inDrug Synthesis which described how to surreptitiously order required precursor chemicals from a chemical supplier.

Based on these publications, and recitingthe facts that a UNS publication had previously been found in Donald Hensley's lab,the DEA obtained a search warrant for GaryBarnett's apartment. This novel warrant saidnothing about searching for illegal drugs orevidence of illegal manufacturing. Rather, thesubject of the search warrant was nothing butUNS publications and correspondence.

The search of Barnett's apartment uncovered no controlled substances, no precursors,and no evidence that Barnett was manufacturing or using illegal drugs. As detailed in theDEA's inventory, only liieraluie and ruail-order business materials were found andseized, including:

Cardboard drawer containing instructions formanufacture of PCP, methamphetamine, amphetamine, dimethyltryptamine, mescaline,methaqualone, cocaine and others, UnitedNews Service correspondence, order forms,drag pamphlets, brochures, mailing lists and

advertizements [sic] relating to drugs; eight (8)cardboard boxes containing UNS envelopes,stationary, brochures and advertizing [sic] materials relating to UNS operations; one (1)plastic file cabinet containing addressographfile cards with names and addresses; severalenvelopes containing postal money order receipts, registered mail receipts, telephone and

Agents were watchingwhen Barnett retrievedthe letter from his pobox and took it to his

apartment. the agentswere still spying five

days later when barnettleft his apartment

carrying mail which hedeposited in a mailbox at

the post office.utility bills; UNS stamps and addressing andmailing materials; seven (7) cassette tapes; one(1) box containing miscellaneous UNS correspondence; and documents relating to locations and means of purchasing chemicals usedin the manufacture of drugs.

Based on the investigation and the itemsseized from his apartment, Gary Barnett wascharged with aiding and abetting the attempted manufacture of controlled substancesand using the US mail to facilitate the crime.In his defense, Barnett argued that he hadcommitted no crime, that his publicationswhere protected under the First Amendment,and that the search warrant was invalid forfailing to state probable cause that he wascommitting a crime or that evidence of acrime would be found in his apartment. The

Ninth Circuit rejected each and every argument. (United States v. Barnett (9th Cir.1982 667 F.2d 835.)

The Ninth Circuit began by noting thata person who aids or abets another personwho commits a crime is punishable just as ifhe or she (i.e.,the aider) had been the onewho committed the crime. This is standard"aiding and abetting law." For example, aperson who aids and abets a murder, say bydriving the get-away car, is punished just asharshly as if he or she pulled the trigger.Likewise, a person who aids and abets theunlawful manufacture of controlled substances is punished just as if he or she wasthe chemist who actually made the drugs. Inshort, "aiding and abetting" is a very seriouscharge.

The Ninth Circuit held that Barnett's"crime" of aiding and abetting the manufacture of drugs was not committed simply byproviding his publications to the public.Dissemination of the information was justone step. The crime manifested, said thecourt, when a reader (e.g., Hensley) actuallyused one of Barnett's pamphlets to try andmanufacture PCP. The Ninth Circuit gavethe following illustration of this rule basedon the facts before it:

...Barnett...furnished instructions for themanufacture of phencyclidine to both AgentSherrington [who posed as "James Fredericks"] and Hensley. Agent Sherrington did 'not use these instructions in an attempt tomanufacture phencyclidine... Thus, Barnettcannot be guilty of aiding and abetting AgentSherrington in the commission of a crime...since that crime was not committed byAgent Sherrington. Hensley, however, usedBarnett's formula in an attempt to manufac-

(Continued on page 201)

Warrantless Thermal Image Scan of Home Held Unconstitutional

Closing the door to your house and drawing the shades does not necessarilyshield your indoor activities from the intrusive gaze of law enforcement officers who,outfitted with today's hi-tech surveillancedevices, can "see" through walls. Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal,considered the penultimate court of influence in the country (second only to the US.Supreme Court), has held that officers whoelectronically "enter" a home by peeringthrough walls with a thermal imaging devicecommit an unconstitutional search if notarmed with a search warrant. (United Statesv. Kyllo, No. 9630333 (9th Cir. 7 April1998).)

Officers in the Kyllo case used an

Agema Thermovision 210™ thermal imaging device to "thermally audit" the home ofa man suspected of growing Cannabis indoors. The officers did not get prior authorization from a judge before performing thescan of the man's home. Indeed, as is typicalof many police departments, the scanningdevice was used to collect preliminary evidence that would later be used in an application seeking a warrant to perform a physicalsearch of a suspect's home.

A brochure published by the Agemacompany provided the following descriptionof the capabilities of the Agema Thermovision 210™:

Sensitive to temperature differences as small

as 0.9 F, the Thermovision 210 can detectand delineate objects or persons in completedarkness, or under natural cover, as far awayas 1500 feet. Operations can be conducted inany level of ambient light and at air tempera-lures from 14 to 131 F. Even at that distance... the rugged 210 can easily distinguishbetween a domestic animal and a humanbeing.

The Fourth Amendment provides that"[t]he right of the people to be secure intheir persons, houses, papers, and other effects, against unreasonable searches andseizures, shall not be violated." (U.S. Constamend. IV.) Traditionally, a person's residence has been granted the maximum

(Continued on page 201)

The Entheogen Law Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/Califomia • 95617-3481 • e-mail: telr@cwnet.com 19 TELR 200

Publishing Crime?(Continued from page 200)

ture phencyclidine in violation of federal law,and pleaded guilty to that crime. (Barnett,supra, 667 F.2d at p. 842.)

In my opinion, this point is crucial andshould spell the policy reason why publishersought to be immune from aiding and abettingbased on a publication. Publishers dissemi-nate information to a large,varied, unseen, and unmoni-tored, populace of readers. Apublisher has no way of knowing what purchasers will dowith a book and no way tomonitor them. For this reason,it is unfair to hold publishersliable for the distant actions ofa reader, and thus, publishersshould be immune from suchliability. It is aiding and abetting illegal LSDmanufacturing to agree to assist a chemist bypersonally writing out a step-by-step recipefor manufacturing the drag and handing thisto the chemist along with a "shopping list" ofnecessary precursor chemicals. Here, the information provider is acting with the undeniable intent to combine his or her specialknowledge with that of the chemist for theunderstood purpose of actually making LSD.Such a concrete intent is a far cry from theintent of a publisher who prints informationon how LSD is made and distributes it toanyone interested for any reason.

The Barnett court, however, held otherwise. Citing a federal case in which defendants were convicted of aiding and abettingpeople who filed false or fraudulent tax returns after hearing the defendants address a

public meeting on various way to avoid paying taxes, the Barnett court held that no personal contact or guidance is needed in orderto trigger aiding and abetting liability. "[I]t isunnecessary," said the court, "for the government to show that Barnett ever met withHensley in order to prove that he aided andabetted him in his attempt to manufacturephencyclidine." (Id. at p. 843.)

Similarly, in the Paladin case, the FourthCircuit (also citing tax cases as support) held

A PUBLISHER HAS NO WAY OF KNOWINGWHAT PURCHASERS WILL DO WITH A BOOKAND NO WAY TO MONITOR THEM. FOR THISREASON, IT IS UNFAIR TO HOLD PUBLISHERS

LIABLE FOR THE DISTANT ACTIONS OF AREADER, AND THUS, PUBLISHERS SHOULD

BE IMMUNE FROM SUCH LIABILITY.

that general distribution of information is nobar to imposing liability on a publisher if itcan be proven that the publisher intended theinformation to facilitate the commission of acrime:

...at the very least where a speaker—individualor media—acts with the purpose of assisting inthe commission of crime, we do not believethat the First Amendment insulates thatspeaker from responsibility for his actions simply because he may have disseminated hismessage to a wide audience... This is certainlyso, we are satisfied, where not only thespeaker's dissemination or marketing strategy,but the nature of the speech itself, stronglysuggest that the audience both targeted andactually reached is, in actuality, very narrowlyconfined, as in the case before us. (Paladin,supra, 128 F.3d at p. 248.)

The problem with such a rule is how todetermine a publisher's "intent." Hopefully,future courts will limit publisher liability tofacts as uncommon as those in the Paladincase. Paladin entered into extremely ill-considered stipulations admitting that thecompany not only knew that its books mightbe used by murderers, but that it actuallyintended to provide assistance to murderersand would-be murderers. (Id. at p. 242.)

Such uncommon acknowledgements by Paladin distinctly removed it from the position heldby most publishers.

Indeed, the Paladin courtstressed the uniqueness of theHit Man book itself. The bookwas, said the court, "pure andsimple, a step-by-step murdermanual, a training book for assassins." (Id. at p. 263.) HitMan was not objective report-

Unconstitutional Thermal Image Scan ...

ing on murder, or methods of murder, ratherits pages "[spoke] directly to the reader inthe second person, like a parent to a child.Hit Man addresses itself to every potentialobstacle to murder, removing each, seriatim,until nothing appears to the reader to standbetween him and the ultimate criminal act."(Id. at p. 261.) Representative is the following passage from Chapter Two of the booktitled "Equipment—Selection and Purpose:"

The knife you carry should have a six-inchblade with a serrated section for makingefficient, quiet kills.... Make your thrusts toa vital organ and twist the knife before youwithdraw it. If you hit bone, you will have tofile the blade to remove Ihe marks left on themetal when it struck the victim's bone. (HitMan at pp. 27-28.)

(Continued on page 202)

(Continued from page 200)amount of constitutional protection againstgovernmental intrusions. The SupremeCourt has repeatedly emphasized that "[a]tthe very core [of the Fourth Amendment]stands the right of a man [sic] to retreat intohis [sic] own home and there be free fromunreasonable'

relatively unsophisticated thermal imagingdevice (available at some outlets for as littleas $12,000), the Ninth Circuit found that itsability to detect private activities occurringinside a person's home was problematic.Evidence showed that under cover of night

and it was dark outdoors.Remarking on the general capabilities of

thermal imaging devices and the privacy-invading capabilities they give governmentagents, the Ninth Circuit noted "with a basicunderstanding of the layout of a home, a■ thermal imager

[The Thermovision 210's] invasive technological abilities, said the cum" identify aNinth Circuit, made its use by law enforcement agents tantamount to varjety of daily ac-

AN ENTRY OF THE HOME - AN ENTRY DONE LATE AT NIGHT AND SURREPTITIOUSLY, tivities conductedhomes

governmentali n t r u s i o n . "(Si lverman v. ^^^^^^^^^^^_^^__United States(1961) 365 U.S. 505. Because of respect forthe sanctity of the home, "the FourthAmendment has drawn a firm line at theentrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reason-

"Sbly be crossed without a warrant." (Paytonv. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573.)

Although the Thermovision 210™ is a

the Thermovision 210™ could reveal a manstanding inside a glass door of a house, andshow details such as his movements to openthe door, and his hand waving. Similarly,the imager could spot and surveil a personbehind drawn curtains if the person wasvery close to a window, and could revealpeople embracing if the window was open

in homes acrossAmerica: use of showers and bathtubs,ovens, washers and dryers, and any otherhousehold appliance that emits heat."

Such invasive technological abilities,said the Ninth Circuit, made its use by lawenforcement agents tantamount to an entryof the home - an entry done late at night and

(Continued on page 202)

Publishing Crime?(Continued from page 201)

Not only is Hit Man filled with extremely detailed advice on how to murderand escape detection, its tone and compelling narrative style guilelessly rousesreaders to commit murder. This, explainedthe court, was another important factor inholding Paladin liable:

Paladin's book. Hit Man does not merelydetail how to commit murder and murder forhire; through powerful prose in the secondperson and imperative voice, it encouragesits readers in their specific acts of murder. Itreassures those contemplating the crime thatthey may proceed with their plans withoutfear of either personal failure or punishment.And at every point where the would-be murderer might yield either to reason or to reservations, Hit Man emboldens the killer, confirming not only that he should proceed, butthat he must proceed, if he is to establish hismanhood. (Paladin, supra, 128 F.3d at p.252.)

These factors, along with Paladin's extraordinary stipulations, made the case fareasier than just about any other a courtmight face in the future. The uniqueness ofthe facts in Paladin was underscored by thecourt, noting "In only the rarest case, as herewhere the publisher has stipulated in almosttaunting defiance that it intended to assistmurderers and other criminals, will there beevidence extraneous to the speech itselfwhich would support a finding of the requisite intent...." (Id. at p. 265.)

Although the holding in Paladin shouldbe limited to its facts, and is only binding on

courts inside the Fourth District (Maryland,North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia,and West Virginia), plaintiffs in other jurisdictions will no doubt try and use the case toattack other publishers who distribute information subsequently used by a reader tocommit a crime.

I cannot imagine a future case in whicha publisher would enter stipulations likethose entered by Paladin. In an aiding andabetting case premised on a publication, thepublisher's intent is the central issue. Stipulations that concede that issue are unthinkable. (Paladin obviously thought it had a"slam dunk" defense under the FirstAmendment.)

Obviously, publishers should never expressly declare or advocate that their publications are intended for use in violating anyfederal or state laws. Doing so will providea future plaintiff or prosecutor with all thatis necessary to impose civil or perhaps criminal liability in the event the publication isutilized to commit a crime. To the contrary,publishers of "dangerous literature" shouldalways include an express disclaimer -though it is important to realize that a disclaimer is largely ineffectual if the contentand marketing of a book give reason tobelieve the disclaimer is just lip-service, orworse, coy marketing. For example, HitMan had several disclaimers and warnings.Its advertising description and its cover declared "for informational purposes only!"and "for academic study only!" A longerdisclaimer, standard in such books, read:"fn]either the author nor the publisher assumes responsibility for the use or misuse ofthe information contained in this book."

The Fourth Circuit not only rejected thevalue of these disclaimers, but actually used

them against Paladin, remarking that theywere really just further hype and "titillation"designed to market the book. "Paladin'sdisclaimers," remarked the Fourth Circuit,"are plainly insufficient in themselves toalter the objective understanding ofthe hundreds of thousands of words that follow,which, in purely factual and technical terms!tutor the book's readers in the methods andtechniques of killing. These 'disclaimers'and 'warnings' obviously were affixed inorder to titillate, rather than to dissuadereaders from engaging in the activity [thebook] describes. (Id. at p. 263.)

I suggest that publishers of informationthat is potentially useful to manufacturers ofillegal drugs include in their standard disclaimer a sentence or two with a dissuadingaffect such as: "Manufacturing [particularillegal drug] is a crime which can result in alengthy term of imprisonment and significant fines." A sentence such as this shouldhelp avoid charges that a disclaimer is simply titillation or glamorization.

Similarly, the title and subtitle of anywork should be scrutinized to eliminate anylanguage that might indirectly declare a purpose of facilitating the violation of a criminal law. For example, the subtitle of HitMan was "A Technical Manual For Independent Contractors" and the book described itself as "an instruction book onmurder." The Fourth Circuit noted that suchlanguage was further evidence that the publisher of the book intended the book toassist the commission of murder.

A future court trying to determine theintent of a publisher will also examine themethods used to advertise the publication.Paladin, noted the court, marketed Hit Man

(Continued on page 203)

(Continued from page 201)surreptitiously. As explained by the TenthCircuit in a 1995 case "The machine...stripsthe sanctuary of the home of one vital dimension of its security: 'the right to be letalone' from the arbitrary and discretionarymonitoring of our actions by governmentofficials." (United States v. Cusumano, 67F.3d 1497, 1504 (10th Cir. 1995), vacatedon other grounds, 83 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir.1996).)

As the Kyllo case illustrates, becausehigh intensity lamps used by indoorCannabis growers emit a tell-tale thermalsignature, law enforcement agents routinelytaken thermal imaging scans of homes afterreceiving a tip that the resident is growingCannabis indoors. (Of course, thermal im-

Unconstitutional Thermal Image Scan...agers cannot discern what type of plant isgrowing under the lights- it could be carnations not Cannabis.) In states located withinthe Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon andWashington) this tip corroboration practiceis now unconstitutional.

With respect to entheogens other thanCannabis, thermal imaging devices providelittle information. In fact, an article in Law& Order magazine (November, 1996), admitted that such devices (at least those inexistence in 1996) were unable to provide ausable "probable cause" thermal profile ofan LSD laboratory, though they might beable to detect the location of waste that hasbeen dumped on the ground. (See, "HeatMade Visible: Infrared images "see" the

heat emitted by all things," by Charles A.Stowell.)

The holding in the Kyllo case is, unfortunately, only binding in the Ninth Circuit.Hopefully, other federal circuit courts willfind the Ninth Circuit's reasoning persuasive and similarly require police to obtain asearch warrant before making thermal scansof a home. Should the circuit courts remainsplit on the issue, it is likely that the U.S.Supreme court will grant certiorari in a future case and settle the issue nationwide.

The opinion in die Kyllo case can beaccessed on-line at:

http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9630333.html

The Entheogen Law Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/California • 95617-3481 • e-mail: telr@cwnet.com 19 TELR 202

Publishing Crime?(Continued from page 202)with the following description in its mailorder catalog:

Learn how a pro gets assignments, creates afalse identity, makes a disposable silencer,leaves the scene without a trace, watches hismark unobserved and more. [The author]reveals how to get in, do the job and get outwithout getting caught. For academic studyonly! (Paladin Press Catalog, Vol. 26, No. 2at p. 41 (emphasis in original).)

Although the first sentence of this description seems to describe a permissiblereport-like narrative on how hit men operate, the second sentence is clearly moreinstruction-oriented. The Fourth Circuitread the entire description as evidence thatPaladin marketed the book to those whowhere interested in committing murder. Thecourt recognized that although the bookcould be purchased by anyone in the publicat large, Paladin's marketing plan specifically targeted those "persons whom the publisher knew to be interested in murder."Such target-marketing, said the court, wasmore evidence of Paladin's intent to facilitate actual murder.

This was further supported, said thecourt, by the fact that Paladin is a mail ordercompany:

A conclusion that Paladin directed Hit Man

to a discrete group rather than to the public atlarge would be supported, even if not established, by the evidence that Hit Man is notgenerally available or sold to the public fromthe bookshelves of local bookstores, but,rather is obtainable as a practical matter onlyby catalogue. Paladin Press is a mail ordercompany, and for the most part does not sellbooks through retail outlets.

In order to procure a copy of Hit Man, theprospective reader must first obtain a copy ofPaladin's catalogue, typically by completinga request form reprinted in one of Paladin'sadvertisements in specialized magazines suchas Soldier of Fortune. After obtaining thatcatalogue, the reader must scan the list ofbook titles and read the accompanying descriptions. Once the reader finds the book hedesires, he must then complete and mail another form to order the book.

From the requirements of this process, together with the book's character, a jury neednot, but could, permissibly find that Hit Manis not at all distributed to the general publicand that, instead, it is available only to alimited, self-selected group of people interested in learning from and being trained by aself-described professional killer in variousmethods of killing for money, individualswho are then contemplating or highly susceptible to the commission of murder. (Paladin,supra, 128 F.3d at pp. 254-255.)

In my opinion, it was grossly unfair forthe court to hold Paladin's mail-order statusagainst the company. Books by small independent publishers are routinely excluded

from the shelves of retail bookstores and, inmany cases, only find distribution via mailorder. Far from evidencing a publisher'scriminal intent to use mail-order to slip dangerous wares directly into the hands of future perpetrators, a publisher's use of mailorder merely evidences the economic realityof today's book industry. Go into any mainstream bookstore and look for books bysmall independent publishers; you will behard-pressed to find any. Few publisherswho print books in small runs can offerbookstores the 55%-off-cover price thatbookstores demand. As a result, small publishers commonly operate via mail-order,where overhead is substantially lower.

The Paladin and Barnett cases areclearly troubling. Perhaps the best that canbe said is that the Paladin case, by theextreme nature of its facts and stipulations,will set a very high threshold for holdingother publishers liable. It is hard to imagineany case so extreme. On the other hand, thePaladin case, in my opinion, points out theends-oriented analysis that judges often driftinto when facing cases that involve extremeanti-social topics. Once the judges determined that Paladin should be held liable,they even turned a disclaimer and the economics of the book trade against Paladin.This was decidedly unfair, but is not uncommon in cases centered on highly-chargedmoral and social issues such as murder—oroutlawed drugs.

Virginia Man Busted For Selling "Fake" MDMA Pleads GuiltyAfter Turning In Others

[any states have laws against selling alegal substance claiming it is a con

trolled substance. For example, in somestates, selling "MDMA" which is in actuality nothing more than a legal aspirin tablet,is a crime. Prosecutors in Virginia recentlyused that state's "imitation drug law"against a group of men caught selling purported MDMA which was actually Robi-tussin DM cough medicine.

According to an article in the RoanokeTimes, an anonymous tip led police to begininvestigating a 22-year-old Virginia man forselling MDMA. In February of this year,agents sent a woman with $150 to the man'sapartment seeking to buy MDMA After,the man sold her some capsules, the policemoved in and arrested the man. Scared outof his wits, he immediately agreed to be

come a police informant and to help policecatch his supplier.

After calling his supplier and arrangingto purchase more "MDMA," the police outfitted the man with a hidden recording device and told him to complete the deal whenthe supplier arrived. Under the gaze andauditory surveillance of hidden police officers, the supplier arrived and made the deal.While at the apartment, he also made aphone call (which was monitored by police)to set up another sale of the drug.

Police then followed the supplier's caras he drove to the next sale. There, thesupplier entered another car occupied bytwo other people. Police stopped the carminutes later. The two men inside the cardenied any knowledge ofa drug deal, but thesupplier told police that both men were users

and buyers. All were arrested.Subsequent lab tests on the capsules

seized in the case showed that they contained no MDMA. Instead, the capsuleswere identified as Robitussin cough capsuleswhich contain the legal drug dextromethorphan (aka "DXM").

In June, the men pled guilty to attemptedpossession of an imitation controlled substance and attempted possession of MDMAUnder a Virginia law that grants leniency tofirst-time drug felons, it is possible that themen may escape jail time and instead attenda court ordered drug treatment program.

Primary Source: M. Chittum, RoanokeTimes, "Fake 'Ecstasy' Case Brings GuiltyPleas, June 19,1998.

The Entheogen Law Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/California • 95617-3481* e-mail: telr@cwnet.com19 TELR 203

Pending Federal Bill May"Religious Defense" to Outlawed

For all intents and purposes, when the USSupreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) asunconstitutional, the religious defense to using outlawed entheogens was eliminated.(See 15 TELR 149-152 for details on RFRAand its aftermath.) A new bill (H.R. 4019)introduced by Representative CharlesCanady of Florida, seeks to re-establish protection for religious conduct, and if enactedinto law would restore a potential "religiousdefense" to people whose sacraments havebeen criminalized.

Under the "Religious Liberty ProtectionAct of 1998" (RLPA) Government would beprohibited from "substantially burdenfing] aperson's religious exercise"—

(1) in a program or activity, operated by agovernment, that receives Federal financialassistance; or(2) in or affecting commerce with foreignnations, among the several States, or with theIndian tribes;even if the burden results from a rule ofgeneral applicability.

A government's (state or federal)"substantial burden" on religious conductwould violate the RLPA unless:

the government demonstrates that applicationof the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and(2) is the least restrictive means of furtheringthat compelling governmental interest.

For technical legal reasons, the bill onlyprotects religious exercise "in or affecting

RestoreEntheogen Use

Question:Do you have any information on the legalityof Psilocybe mushrooms in Japan? A shopin Tokyo, Conscious Dreams, I believe asatellite of the long running company of thesame name in Amsterdam has P. semilanceata and P. cubensis mushrooms ondisplay on the shop's window and sells themthere and by mail order. I am curious thatthis is so open in a land where drug laws aregenerally strict. I ask because I wonder howsafe it would be to order from them. Theirprices are also quite expensive at $45 pergram. I would prefer to order directly fromEurope if they are indeed legal. If you knowof any information I'd be grateful. Thankyou. C—Japan

commerce." I have some concerns whetherthis aspect of the bill would preclude protection for individual religious users of entheogens, who practice outside the aegis ofan organized church which in the aggregatemight "affect commerce." In what way doessuch use affect interstate commerce?

Fortunately, the government has longjustified the constitutionality of the federalanti-drug laws on the premise that any possession of an illegal drug necessarily affectsinterstate commerce because drugs are somobile and are routinely manufactured inone state but often wind-up sold and consumed in other states. Accordingly, in myopinion such case-law would support anargument that the religious exercise of evena solitary spiritual user of an outlawed entheogen "affects commerce."

Other than this Commerce Clause issue,RLPA looks almost identical to the oldRFRA As stated recently by free exercisescholar Professor Douglas Laycock "RLPAis not a bill for left or right, or for anyparticular faith, or any particular tradition orfaction within a faith. There is an extraordinary diversity of beliefs about religion inAmerica, from the very far left to the veryfar right both theologically and politically,from the most traditional orthodoxies to themost experimental and idiosyncratic viewsof the supernatural. RLPA will protect people of all races, all ethnicities, and all socioeconomic statuses." (D. Laycock, testimonyJune 16, 1998 before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Hearing on H.R.4019, The Religious Liberty Protection Actof 1998.)

Reader QuestionResponse:

I sent an e-mail to the Amsterdam Conscious Dreams shop to find out about theJapanese store you saw. They responded:

The store in Japan is not ours and for all weknow they just stole our name. We have nothing to do with them and are not lookingforward to do so.

So, the store you saw is not an "official"Conscious Dreams store. As their e-mail suggests, it is more likely a legitimate companythat ripped off their name than a government-run sting operation.

According to a report in the now defunctPsychedelic Resource List (supplement #7,Issue No. 8) p. 19, Psilocybe mushrooms arelegal in Japan. The report was sent in from a

Section 8(1) of the RLPA defines"religious exercise" as "an act or refusal toact that is substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the act or refusal is compulsory or central to a largersystem of religious belief." This is an important clause for entheogen users. Some courtsin past cases have refused to grant religiousprotection to entheogen users on the groundthat the use of the particular entheogen wasnot a compulsory tenet of a given religion.In this regard RLPA is more explicit thanRFRA, codifying U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements that courts may not engage indetermining what is and what is not"central" to any given religion. (See, Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 886-87 (1990); Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439,457-58(1985).

Hopefully, if RLPA becomes law, practitioners of shamanic-based religions whosefree exercise has been squashed by government criminalization of die sacraments willfind protection. I join Professor Laycock'sobservation:

Today the greatest threat to religious libertyis the vast expansion of government regulation.Pervasive regulation regularly interferes with theexercise of religion, sometimes in discriminatoryways, sometimes by the mere existence of somuch regulation written from a majoritarian perspective. Many Americans are caught in conflictsbetween their constitutionally protected religiousbeliefs and the demands of their government.RLPA would not establish any religion, or religion in general; it would protect the civil libertiesof people caught in these conflicts.

person living in Japan, who elaborated:

[P]eople called Kaos IrfTERNATiONAl. . . .sellpre-inoculated PF cakes for about $5.00USD. They also sell dried mushrooms, peyotebuttons, Bufo toads, Datura, etc. They canoperate near a police station because all thesethings are legal in Japan. ...Many entheogensare available in Japan. Most are illegal, withthe following exceptions: Psilocybe mushrooms (7 grains for S40.00 USD), 2C-B (rareand expensive at $7.00 USD for 5 mg),ayahuasca (quasi-legal; $150.00 for a twoday Santo Daime ceremony). Those whichare illegal include MDMA...LSD...Cannabis,... and hash...Cannabis is considered a "hard drug" and can land you threeyears jail time even for a small; personal ,a m o u n t . • " ■ ' " ' • "

/"r%

The Entheogen Law Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/California • 95617-3481 • e-mail: telr@cwnet.com 19 TELR 204

Congress Examines Possible ConnectionBetween GHB And The Internet

/0^*\

GHB has been under attack as a so-called "rape drug" for the last severalyears. Now, lawmakers and others are giving more attention to companies on theInternet that sell ingredients and instructions for kitchen manufactures of GHB.

Under PL 104-305 the "Drug-InducedRape Prevention and Punishment Act of1996," a person who commits rape bydrugging the victim with any controlledsubstance is subject to a punishment oftwenty years imprisonment. The Act alsoset punishment for simple possession ofthreshold amounts of fiunitrazepam. However, because GHB is not a "controlledsubstance" under federal law (it is scheduled in some states) the Act does not applyto GHB-induced rape.

At a hearing held on July 30,1998, onthe use of drags to commit date rape, federal lawmakers heard testimony from asmall group of people, all of whom calledfor stricter control of GHB, perhaps addingit to one of the five federal schedules. Mostof the witnesses, however, acknowledgedthat GHB may have some useful therapeutic applications—an acknowledgement thatshould keep it out of Schedule I rtatus.(One criteria for Schedule I status is that adrag have "no accepted medical use.")

In his opening statement at the hearing,Representative Bill McCollum, a republican from Florida, gave a short descriptionof GHB, emphasizing the effects of overdose and problems when combined withalcohol. He then noted that despite a so-called FDA "ban" on GHB in 1990 (see"GHB Law" 13 TELR 120-122) the DEAcontinues to received reports of GHB"being used to incapacitate victims beforethe commission of a sexual assault."

Given the FDA "ban" on GHB, Representative McCollum, asked and answeredthe question: "how...are young studentsgetting there hands on a drag which isbanned in the United States? The answer,charged McCollum, was via the Internet:

...the Internet is being manipulated by thosewho would take advantage of its wide accessibility and protections of anonymity.

The instructions for concocting GHBabound on the web, which is extremelydangerous since the drug can be manufactured at home with a few simple productsavailable from hardware stores and spe-

( jaltyJpqd,/£ores. Sqme,s;les even offer thevisitors an opportunity to purchase anyitems which they may not be able to obtain

locally. Unfortunately, this information isusually inaccurate and misleading. One particularly sinister web site even noted thatGHB was very effective as a precursor forsex, since it lowered a woman's inhibitions.To me this sounds like a direct invitation fordate rape.

Dr. Joye M. Carter, a forensic pathologist and the Chief Medical Examiner forHarris County, Houston, Texas, testified"on behalf of the dead, who can no longertell their own story." The Harris CountyMedical Examiner Office set precedent in1996 when the office ruled that the death ofhigh school student, Hillory Farias wascaused by GHB toxicity. According to Dr.Carter:

Ms. Farias was by all accounts a healthyand well-adjusted seventeen year old girlabout to enter her senior year of highschool. She had gone to a teen dance clubwhere she may have consumed a soft drink.Upon returning home she complained of asevere headache and went to bed. She neverwoke up. The Medical Examiners Officewas notified of a sudden death in a teenagerand the family had made a conscious decision lo donate her organs. The workingdiagnosis had been cerebral hemorrhagesecondary to aneurysm. At autopsy, no abnormalities were found. Repeated drug testing finally revealed the presence of GHB inher blood and ocular fluid. The investigation into Ms. Farias death did not demonstrate any willing experimentation withdrags. The detected blood level was low, byforensic standards, however, themetabolism and half-life of this drug shouldbe taken into consideration.

Dr. Carter went on to state her beliefthat apart from it's possible use in druggingpotential rape victims, GHB "should beconsidered as [an] abused substance" because it "can act as [a] ... mild hallucinogen in individuals." Explaining that theeffects of GHB are "dose and time related"Dr. Carter testified that "[njumerous casesare cited in the recent literature of abuse bypurposeful ingestion of the compound either in liquid form, mixed, or consumed asa powder. If used as an abused substance,the findings might include getting a'high'..."

Paul Doering, a professor of PharmacyPractice at the University of Florida, alongwith his colleague Dr. Michael Okun, aneurologist at the same university, submitted a report titled "GHB: Harmless'Vitamin' or Dangerous Drag?" Their an

swer to the question posed by the title wasevident from the first sentence of theirreport which branded GHB "a dreadfuldrug of abuse that is wreaking havoc incommunities all over this country."

Professor Doering testified that the"[problem with GHB is nationwide," citing a June 1998 article in The Annals ofEmergency Medicine which reported on aseries of 88 patients seen in a San Francisco Emergency Room from 1993 through1996. Professor Doering stated that he hasseen ten GHB cases in the Shands hospitalat the University of Florida and had toplace 5 of those patients on breathing machines.

Like everyone else who testified, Professor Doering targeted the Internet as botha source for "misinformation" about GHB,as well as GHB "kits." In his opinion,many of the people who leam about GHBobtain their information from the Internet.In an effort to counteract what he called the"lie" promulgated on the Internet that GHBis "safe," Professor Doering announced thecreation of a University of Florida web siteon GHB:

Our impression after interviewing many ofGHB's victims is that they are truly Interneteducated and honestly believe Ihe drug to bea safe over-the-counter vitamin. Dr. Okunand I decided to fight back with an information campaign of our own, using the sametools to spread the truth as others use lospread lies. We set up a Web site(www.shands.com), with the title "Uni.versity of Florida declares WAR on MISINFORMATION on GHB."

Concerned with more that just the"lies" about GHB spread via the Internet,Professor Doering drew congressional attention to GHB "kits" marketed and soldvia web sites:

Today the major source of GHB sold on thestreets is homemade from cheap kits obtained over the Internet It is mixed largelyby non-chemists from recipes that are oftenflawed or incomplete. This leads to finishedproducts of questionable purity and, moreimportantly, unknown potency. Becausethere is no way to tell the strength of homemade GHB, what might be a safe dose today(for example, "one capful") could produce atoxic dose tomorrow.

The misinformation surrounding GHB ismost troubling. Proponents of GHB often

(Continued on page 206)

The Entheogen Law Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/California • 95617-3481* e-mail: telr@cwnet.com 19 TELR 205

...GHB And The Internet(Continued from page 205)

appeal to the anti-government, anti-establishment mentality of potential users.One seller calls GHB "not only very safe,but also extremely beneficial" and brazenlyoffers "a $10,000 reward for any scientifically documented permanent harm" fromthe drug. He finishes his message by stating,"It appears that the only true danger associated with GHB use is the loss of Sbillions ofrevenues to the alcohol, tobacco, legal andillegal drug pushers and AMA malpracti-tioners of the world when GHB gains widespread acceptance and use." (http://www.ghbinfo.com/)

Later in his testimony, Professor Doering returned attention to GHB entrepreneurs, alleging that they exploit"loopholes" to "peddle their deadly wares."He cited the example of one web site thatclaims its kits are merely scientific demonstrations of a common chemical reaction:

Unscrupulous sellers of the dangerouschemicals used to make illegal drugs arevery creative and will use whatever loopholes they can find to peddle their deadlywares. One site claims that they sell their"kits" only for purposes of demonstrating atype of heat producing chemical reactioncalled an "exothermic" reaction. Here ispart of their disclaimer:

This experiment is for lawful use inresearch and study only. Purchase ofthis kit does not give permission tothe buyer to perform this experiment.Il is meant to provide an educationalexperience in an exothermic reaction

as well as showing properties ofmolecules when reacted.

It is unclear what effect, if any, thesehearings will have on the future federallegal status of GHB. It is clear, however,that lawmakers are not only well-aware ofthe Internet as a source for GHB information, but also as a source for GHB manufacturing kits. The University of Floridaweb site, after mentioning the danger ofGHB kits available via the Internet claimsthat some of these sites are "actually" lawenforcement stings:

Beware because some of these sites areactually 'storefronts* set up by various police agencies where agents sit back andcollect names of people ordering these kitsand then begin investigations that may leadto later arrests.

Even a report on the CBS Sportslineabout the NCAA's attempt to monitor draguse by amateur athletes mentioned GHBand web sites that market it, stating "fojnesite got the NCAA's attention recentlywhen it began e-mailing wrestling andfootball coaches marketing GHB,..." Thereport likened the Internet to "a carnivalbarker with a plethora of web sites advertising legal and illegal substances." (D.Dodd, CBS Sportsline "NCAA Tries Hard,But Comprehensive Monitoring Of DragUse Impossible," July 21,1998.)

Without question GHB is a candidatefor federal scheduling in the near future;probably Schedule II. Additionally, I be-

fe) THE COMPLETE JV)| ENTHEOGEN I

L A WREPORTER

Back Issues 1-10The first ten issues of The Entheogen LawReporter. Includes many essays, answers toquestions, and notes on government-watched visionary plants and drugs.Comprehensively indexed.Limited supply. 100 pages.

$25.00, plus $3.00 s/h.(half the normal back issue price.)calpurchasersmustadd$1.70 salestax.

Individual Back IssuesAll individual back issues are currentlyavailable for $5.00 each.

lieve the trend is already visible for lawmakers to soon begin a much wider attackon the "Internet and Illegal Drags," including entheogens. I have little doubt thatinformation in support of such a broadattack is currently being gathered by lawenforcement agents, and that numerousweb sites and newsgroups are now beingmonitored.

Massachusetts SchedulesGHB & Ketamine

\a August 7, 1998, Massachusetts"Governor Paul Cellucci signed a new

law that immediately places GHB, ketamine hydrochloride and Flunitrazepam inMassachusetts' "Class A" the state's mostcontrolled class equivalent to federalSchedule I. The new law also set a well-deserved fifteen year mandatory minimumfor anyone who uses "any" drag to facilitate rape or kidnapping, (ch. 232, Mass.Laws 1998.)

STATEMENT OF PURPOSESince time immemorial humans have used entheogenicsubstances as powerful toolsfor achieving spiritual insightand understanding. In fnetwentieth century, however,many of these most powerfulof religious and epistemolog-ical tools were declared illegal in the United States, andtheir users decreed criminals. The shaman has beenoutlawed. It is the purpose ofThe Entheogen Law Reporter(TELR) to provide the latestinformation and commentaryon the interspace of entheogenic substances andthe law.COPYRIGHT

~) 1998 SPECTRAL MINDUSTRIES.

D I S C L A I M E R , < ■Manufacturing or possessing.out-lawed entheogens is a crimewhich can result in a lengthyterm of imprisonment and significant fines. The EntheogerilawReporter is not engaged in rendering legal or other professionaladvice, and assumes no responsibility for the statements andopinions advanced by any of itswriters or contributors. The information herein is subject' tochange without notice and is notintended to be, nor should it beconsidered, a substitute for indi-.vidualized legal adyjce^rendered.by a compe^^^ri^ — ^

Wl

The Entheogen Law Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/California • 95617-3481 • e-mail: telr@cwnet.com '-•19TELR 206

— Coming Soon —Limitation On Importing Foreign Medications

In Mexico, some pharmaceutical drugswhich would require a doctor's prescription to obtain in the US are available overthe counter. For financial reasons, manyAmericans suffering from untold numbersof diseases purchase legal pharmaceuticalsin Mexico each year and bring them back tothe US. Under current federal law, US citizens are allowed to import into the UnitedStates a "personal use" supply of pharmaceuticals, so long as they declare the dragsat the Mexican border.

Authors of a 1996 study published inClinical Therapeutics, estimated that in oneyear at the Laredo border crossing, over60,000 drug products were brought into theUS by more than 24,000 people. The top 15drug products, which represent 94.1 percentof the total quantity of declared drags, werecontrolled substances, usually prescriptiontranquilizers, stimulants, and narcotic analgesics. (McKeithan & Shepherd, "Pharm.aceutical Products Declared by US Residents on Returning to the United States,"Clinical Therapeutics, 18(6), Nov.-Dec.1996.)

By travelling to Mexico to acquire medication, US citizens (especially those wholivl near the border) avoid the extreme costof seeing a US physician and, in some cases,also save money on the actual cost of thedrug purchased.

Currently, under federal regulation 21CFR 1311.27, any individual who has in hisor her possession a controlled substancelisted in Schedules n, m, TV, or V, whichhas been lawfully obtained for personalmedical use, or for administration to ananimajrflqcqmpanying them, may enter ordepart Hhe ."United States with such substance;'provided the following conditionsare met:

(a) The controlled substance is in the originalcontainer in which it was dispensed to theindividual; and(b) TrttHndividual makes a declaration lo anappropriate official of the U.S. Customs Service stating:

That nhe' controlled substance is possessedfor persb'Bal use, or for an animal accompanying;lhem;and

The iraide or chemical name and the symboldesignating'the schedule of the controlledsubstance if it appears on the label, or if suchsame does not appear oh the label, the name

^fcd-adrfi^'of^Mpria^fficy or practitioneri.Xrio dispk^^BPSub^rarice and the pre--leftption numberHfaw***'™'"

Currently, neither the DEA nor the FDAspecify precise amounts of medication thatconstitute "personal use" quantities. According to a US Customs memo:

The totality of circumstances, including, butnot limited to, resident or nonresident status,drug type and length of a stay, will guide aCustoms inspector to determining a legitimatepersonal use amount. When drug type, amount,or various drug combinations arouse suspicions, our inspectors will contact the nearestFDA office for advice and final determinationpursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1499.

According to Wesley S. Windle, a U.S.Customs Service official who testified beforethe House Sub-committee on Crime on March26,1998:

In the teal world, there is some latitude in ourinspectors' determinations of a legitimate personal use amount for different types of prescription drugs. Over several years it has become accepted that for some types of medications a 30-day supply was considered a'reasonable amount,' and for others it became a90-day supply. These quantities are generallysupported by the FDA when our inspectorstelephone their offices for advice and finaldetermination.

All this may change however in the verynear future under a new bill introduced byCongressman Steve Chabot.

According to Mr. Chabot, the personaluse exemption is being exploited by "drugdealers" who acquire prescription drugs inMexico and then resell the drugs illegally onthe streets of the US. "This blatant perversionof our nation's drag laws must be stopped,"Congressman Chabot told the House Subcommittee on Crime. "The personal use exemption," he said, "should allow Americancitizens who become injured or ill while traveling abroad to bring needed medicine backinto the United States—it was never intendedto allow drag dealers to legally import largequantities of hazardous, mind-altering dragsinto our communities."

On April 1,1998, Chabot introduced H.R.3633, the "Controlled Substances TraffickingProhibition Act." If enacted into law, HR3633 would amend Section 1006(a) of theControlled Substances Import and Export Act(21 U.S.C. 956(a)) by adding:

a United States resident who enters the UnitedStates through an international land borderwith a controlled substance (except a substancein Schedule I) for which the individual does notpossess a valid prescription issued by a [USdoctor]... in accordance with applicable Federal and State law (or documentation that veri

fies the issuance of such a prescription to thaiindividual) may not import the controlledsubstance into Ihe United States in anamount that exceeds 50 dosage units of thecontrolled substance.

HR 3633, in other words, wouldseverely limit the quantity of unprescribedmedicine that a person can bring back froma foreign country. Without a US prescription for the medication, HR 3633 limitsimportation to 50 pills, which is said to be"generally a two-week supply" - far lessthan the 90 day amount under current law.Under HR 3633, A person with a prescription from a U.S. physician could bring in asmany pills as were prescribed. Also, the billshould not affect substances, such as GHBand ketamine, which (at least presently) arenot "controlled substances" under federallaw. It is unclear under HR 3633, how medications in liquid and powder form will bemeasured and limited.

On August 3,1998, HR 3633 passed inthe House of Representatives. I predict itwill become law by the first ofthe year.

Impetus for the proposed bill may havecome, at least in part, from an sensationalized episode ofthe Inside Edition TV sh'ow.On an episode titled "Mexican PillPipeline," reportainers were video-tapedvisiting Mexican doctors' offices in searchof prescriptions for sedatives, and then acquiring the prescribed medication at Mexican pharmacies. The episode was introducedinto evidence before the Sub-committee onCrime.

US anti-drag pressure on Mexico isclearly increasing. In an entirely separatehearing held on August 6, 1998 (an over-;sight hearing on drug diversion investigaitions by the United States Dra& Enfotce-jment Administration), an bffidaf'frotiijtheDepartment of Justice testified: . '' ;

...we are pressing our neighbor to the southto take stronger measures to regulate its pbiu- ;maceutical industry. Many ofthe licitly man- Sufacmred controlled substances that are laterdiverted in this country —including Rohypnol (also known as the "date-rape" drug),Valium and related preparations, and anabolic steroids—are obtained from Mexico.We suspect that pharmacies in the borderareas of Mexico profit from .practices thatviolate Mexican pharmacy laws, but the violations too often go unpunished du^o'scarceresources, among other reasons. DEA officials have recently initiated cflfttacts thatcould make a difference in Mexico's cooperation in this area. In fact, a second DEAdiversion investigator, soon to be posted inMexico, should be able to focus on this issue.

ThfiEpthepgen Law Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/California • 95617-3481* e-mail: telr@cwrjet.com 19TELR 207

'OUTSTANDING' DOCTORIS JAILED FOR GIVINGLSD TO PARTY GUESTS

Source: The Electronic Telegraph, June 261998, by Richard Savill.

A young doctor convicted of supplying LSDto an off-duty police constable and otherguests at a party was jailed for three monthsyesterday. Michael McKenzie, 25, describedas a dedicated professional who was destined for an outstanding career, faces beingstruck off the medical register. Paisley sheriffcourt was told that the policeman, AlexanderRobertson, 24, suffered such extreme hallucinations alter he took a small tab" of thedrug that he dialed {911] and said he hadtaken an overdose. Mr Robertson claimedthat he experienced nightmarish visions ofhis friends tuning into werewolves andzom-

He was suspended from duty and resignedfrom Strathcfyde Police in advance of thetrial.

Mr Robertson told tfie court that he had beengiven ihe drug by McKenzie, who was formerly at Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospitalbefore becornfng a senior house officer spe-ciaBang in obstetrics and gynecology at Sunderland Royal Hospital. The former policeman described in court how he left Ihe partyin the-early hours of the morning and wentwandering the streets. "I began to hearvoices in rnyhead and howling Has in the filmAn.Amer^ Werewolf in London,'' he said.Everyone'.Hooked like zombies." He^e-tumed to thet party where his hallucinationsbecame so bad that he dialed [911] andreportedjhat he had overdosed. Police wentfolhe houseS r^fetey, and took Mr. Rcbert-son, who said he .haa got* to the party lastJuty knowing there would be drugs available,to hospital.

Mr Robertson tr^thecxxirt that the aflairriad■tiev&tf^rriyfe andI career."

Mckenzie, of Hawkhead Road, Paisley, denied five charges of supplying the Class A

, drugtoothers.

At the close of the Crown case, two of the.charges Wetf1 dropped. Finding McKenzie^ijyha" sfieHff, Neil Douglas, said that aJ-thpugh ft hariiieen dirHcultto distinguish factfr6rh.%ntasv as Mr Robertson recalledRobertsonevents, due to The terr^'consequences ofwhat happened to rerr),* he haa rib reason todisbelieve his account and concluded

J5

hewas telling the truth.

The court heard that partygoers had sharedseveral cannabis "Joints" and cans of beerbefore the police arrived and began their investigation. McKenzie, a Glasgow Universitygraduate, claimed that he had taken controlled substances once in his life, when hewent on holiday to Amsterdam in 1996. Hedenied 1hat any drugs, especially LSD, hadbeen in circulation on the night of the party.

Edgar Prais, QC, defending, said McKenziewas highly regarded by senior staff at Sunderland Royal Hospital. He was a man of"outstanding ability and professional excellence." Appealing for leniency, Mr Prais saidMcKenzie had a lotto offer the community atlair and that although he still maintained hisinnocence, the ccrrviction had Shaken him tohis boots and his life to its roots." He hadreskjnedfrom his position at Sunderland. Hesaid McKenzie, who came from a good, respectable family, had always been used toplaudBs and had paid a heavy price. "He has(earned as bitter a lesson as anyone possiblycould "said Mr Prais.

NICHOLAS SANDBACK IN CALIFORNIA COURT

Source: San Francisco Examiner, June 6,1998, by Eric Brazil.

When Nicholas Sand last stood before U.S.District Judge Samuel Conti, the judgeroasted him for having "contributed to thedegisclattarrof mankind" and sentenced himto 15 years in prison.

That was on March 8,1974. Two years later,when he lost his appeal of a conviction formanufacturing LSD, Sand jumped bail inSan Francisco and vanished.

This week, Sand was returned to San Francisco, and he and Judge Conti are about tomeet again.

For 23 years, he remained at large, shuttlingbetween Canada and Mexico and continuingto manufacturer-trie pure acid that turned ona generation and made the Bay Areapsychedelia central.

But in September 1996, Royal CanadianMounted Policearrested Sand in his LSDlaboratory in the Vancouver suburb of PortCoquiHan.

Whatmeyfourdflabbergasted the mounties.It was, they saJd - and Interpol and the U.S.Drug Enforcement Agency agreed - thelargest designer drug lab in the world. In

addition to $500,000 in cash and gold bullion,and a cache of firearms, the mounties foundLSD, DMT, Ecstasy and Nexus with astreetvalue of $6.5 mill ion. ^ ■

There was enough LSD, said RCMP StaffSgt Kenneth Ross, to make 45 milliondoses. The lab "was literally better than theHealth Canada lab," Ross told The Examiner." Our lab tested it (LSD) out at 106 percent purity." Sand, he said "is an icon in theworld of illicit drugs."

The $800,000 lab and warehouse - alsoSand's residence - had been under surveillance for several months. The mounties ;moved in when ihey suspected that Sand-planned to leave the country.

It took investigators nearly two months toidentify Sand, because he had false identification and refused to discuss his background.

In February, Sand, 58, pleaded guilty to trafficking in LSD and was sentenced to nineyears in prison.

He was then sent back to San Francisco forthe resolution of his case here.

Sand was arraigned Friday [June 5, 1998}-before U.S. Magistrate Elizabeth Laporte. Hiscase - now complicated by a baiHumpingindictment - was re-assigned to Judge Conti,who is regarded as one of the toughest sen-tenrjrsreonttefwietal.^ Wc., nt.Sand's attorney, Patrick IpalrW'/sard hewas going to take a hard.look ayhe.initialoonvfetfon in an attempt to wro"sopiei leniencyfor his client "Some of the iacjjs rase very,very serious issues that go'to^beart of thejustice system," he said, "i. n"^Z'.

Sand, a New York native whj^yia&gwng inSanta Rosa when he was ta$cte(ftn 1973 formanufacturing LSD and eva^g iiobme tax,was a disciple of Augustus' 1 ..„/!_.._,III, the so-called King of LSD,4ha prosecutioncharged. ' - . "■•> ' ■ ' " "

While Stanley, the man whc£made LSDavailable to the masses, becarne irtemation-ally famous, it was the.lowjjrofi&Sand whoactually manufactured most" tf jne,Rraluctwhen the Bay Area drug culture flourished inthe 1960s and 1970s, accprding^to law enforcement officials

Sand's first brus i.arrest in Ctotorack'LSD and failure toreg

, f™^k

The Entheogen Law Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/Califomia • 95617-3481 • e-mail: telr@cwnet.com WTELR20&

Entheogen Law News(Continued from page 208)facturer. When police stopped1 him in Dinosaur National Monument for a traffic violation, they found the truck he was drivingequipped with a mobile LSD lab and $40,000worth ofthe hallucinogenic drug aboard.

In 1990, Canadian police arrested Sand foroperating a lab in British Columbia. However,using one of the numerous false IDs he kepthandy, he escaped before police could determine his true identity and his status as afugitive.

The San Francisco indicttnent that led toSands 1974 trial and sentencing accusedhim of being part of a faHlung conspiracythat had labs in Belgium, Mexico and Honduras, as well as the Bay Area Its distributionnetwork included Hells Angels and the Brotherhood of Eternal Love, a drug cult foundedby the late LSD guru Timothy Leary, according to the rjfosecufesn.

Enough LSD was found by investigators at alab Sand operated in the Sonoma Countytown of Windsortosupply 15 million doses.

One of the principal witnesses against Sandand two cc-defendants was William MellonHitchcock, an heir to the U.S. Steel fortune,who testified urider Immure arri arAncwr-edged that he had bankrolled the operation.The jury deliberated four days before convicting Sand.

Hallinan said that' Sarkfs i&year sentenceon the LSD cr^argeyjrB ^ry;severe," giventheV^ur«:i6f'luH8f,'enfr^.-'He could receiveanctJiir)five yew^feipfead8 guilty to or iscon^ctedcfjumph^bail. Authorities inCanada liaWdeddiridjfe let Sand's Canadian settenc¥ruh cbmajentlywim whateversentence he gets from Conti, Hallinan said.

Sand'wiir.^peSf in Gcflfijs court at 10 amJune 16i 'Tte VaVic^ Provincecontributed to this reppfto

• . , - . -V-X-Wv: .V; ' , 1 i ^ ./V/flfafClTED BY ENGLISHLAWMAKERS WHO THEN MOVETO BAN36,"DESIGNER DRUGS"* . .!■_v . • ■•KJ'-

!"$:•:■- ■£•

Source: TheGurarduih^'&i&i&t 12,1998, byAlan Travis • §.120

." tfrVM?.; Suit: .

The HorneCJfRCB:l8^r^8rBiounoed itwasbanning a swathe of New Age "designerdrugs" similarft §S^i$V n9®* P**^ties avaitaWfo^bmcQUjsW'ftieir manufac-' t u r e i B ' "

i'« \j*!w£wfiJ\

The Govemmenfs concern about the drugsstems from the easy availability through theInternet of a "do-it-yourseif" guide to the 36synthetic substances which are beingbanned. Many are mescaline-related chemicals.

The book, Pihkal: A Chemical Love Story, byAlexander and Ann Shulgin, was publishedin California in 1991 and provides a detailedchemical and technical guide to the production of 179 phenethytemines, including thegroup to be banned in Britain.

Mr Shulgin, a former Dow Chemical scientist,has been described as the Calvin Klein ofdesigner drugs and the stepfather of ecstasy.He does, however, give a cautionary notethat no one should try to synthesise the drugswithout legal authority as doing so could leadto "bagic ruination of a life." -<

However, readers have posted rave reviewsofthe book on the Internet booksite, praisingit for scientific objectivity and readability, withsomething for everyone from chemists to thecurious. One Dutch fan calls it "a very goodbook especially if you like to try anypsychedelic substance."

The Home Office Muifeter, George Howarth,said there was e-zidence that these "designerdrugs" were being produced in Europe. Fiftythousand tablets of two of the drugs to bebanned had been seized.

He said: "We all knowthe dangers of ecstasyand the Government has a responsibility todo all it can to prevent more of these types of■ substances from being launched on the illicit-market Strict controls are essential to pre-'vent the misuse of these ecstasy-type sub-

"Although there is little evidence of their misuse in the UK, these measures will slam the

'stable door firmly shut before the horse hasbolted."

35 ofthe 36 drugs are to be treated as Qass-A substances, meaning that possessioncould attract a prson sentence of up to sevenyears and dealing in them a life sentence.

The Shulgin bock, which is subtitledPhenethytamines I Have Known and Loved,gives detailed descriptions of the effects ofeach of the drugs. For example, TMA, one ofthose to be banned, is described as an activeand more potent drug than mescaline itself.

A 140 mg dose of TMA lasts about six toeight hours and Mr Shulgin says it produced

no nausea but "somehow my personalitywas divided and exposed." It produced agood humour and an over-appreciation ofjokes: "The images behind the eyes wereremarkable and tied in with the music and Ibecame annoyed at other people's conversations that got in the way."

The Home Office is expected to confirm theproposed ban after a consultation periodending on September 18. As yet there are noofficial plans to outlaw the second group ofdiernical substances described in the Shulgins' second popular volume - TJhfcafc TheContinuation, which is an acronym forTryptamines I Have Known and Loved.

ANONYMOUS TIP LEADSTO BIGGEST MUSHROOMBUST IN TEXAS HISTORY

The Texas newspaper Austin American-Statesman, reported on July 19,1998, that

mushroom seizure in the history of Texas.

An anonymous tip led police to a trailer in theremote Pedemates River Basin. Inside, thepolice found over forty pounds of psikwybianmushrooms as well as cultivation equipment

According to a Deputy Weinrich, quoted inthe article, the street value ofthe mushroomswas calculated to be $175,000. The owner oftiie property on which the traiterwas located ■■was arrested and charged with possession ofa controlled substance with intent to (leaver."Its very rare that you see anyththgilifethjar,"Weinrich said. 'The renditions are roywbr-able, but he had the complete setup."

According to Deputy Weinrich,: the miish-rooms are *N«iyrx)pulararriong.lh8 naturalists, and it just makes you hallucinate.* Hesaid that the mushrooms sell for about $270an ounce and that "a person can reach astate of hallucination" on as tittle as. 10 milligrams. Obviously, this latter figure is anenormous overestimate ofpotenajMalsslymagnifying the number of potential dosesrecovered by a factorof 100.

While mushrooms vary in potency, it is fairlysafe to say that at least 1 gram (100 timesmore than stated by Deputy Weinrich) mustbe ingested to experience erflheogenic effects. Even pure psilocybin requires about Qmlgrams for entfieogenfc.effecte.^See^Stamets, Psilocybin.. Mushrooms ofjheWorld, (1996)p,35,37,);

The Entheogen Low Reporter • Post Office Box 73481 • Davis/California • 95617-3481* e-mail: telr@cwnet.com19 TELR 209

•i ?Ji; f .';.■•;

i-'.:. ..; n:lf V.

•'; ■'.... -sr. ■

'•'■; ,'i*?- :r.' ■: if.; • .1,1■,-.'i.'.„■,■:•■;:■ H-<

o •.' -•■*■.•:•■••. :.nf; u.

."".'; ...-.affile:'

■ .-;-..•■< i = ii; ,fi,,i • ."••■:=.' '. -" r ;-■*;£ ..

:':■• :.-:VCU..*'• .-.!lr>H -■..• • i •■;,•

;. '>:- : ic::?..v■ -• "■"•;•.■ ' >:^:i: '!' n i r - v - ^ ^ . i . - o r - j ; :

„■« £ ' . -': ■■■'■' "■ -r;..:--V;, •J. .

.:_= • i-;;.:,;^.y(,,; -^ w ■' -ill■..-If! :'• :■:;." i'fr sd.i>jfj ■' r.

"■'' ' 'O'.''.' ' .. : ■:?IIJ<:ri'r;"Si:»

!"V:! 1 'Ay of nhCGi-: a;

1 !'i:."!-?.■' ?©«'«-v

-'•:.■ - ■' .Sipfr-1 =:•0 =^^;.;:i sri V. -.

•t CM-; v. .-.urv :-.■;:.

■■'On. ■ ;.iC ii.-.VX .'•.'. ' • -x r i fi ' j !.

, J3M3 VB t:\ .;jkn t*::-JHTOriW 'i.i'.

i y U8G n3M3{5:-.'0 t .

■•.:fi::-ar;ii«jinriii.Mt>.-!i;1:i ..-'i/igiu^D' .g/vv.~.v< i >,:■';•■.•V,ri«? >,-•>'-))1 f .).'.',.>..• »•; ■;■ .•A iirufn writ ■ ■; -'•",■■ -

\.;•;., i- >:-..\\