The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0990.049 1996-1998 -76 6f- 6zq~2'f4 n 2~zu 11 r~ ~7 LE C C~z~ kX7,~u '~,ruc / In 1979 the voters approved an amendment- to thej county charter mandating periodic program review by the county council. After extensive research, it appears that the county council has not been in compliance with the charter for the last 12 years, i.e., critical program review has not been done. I would like to provide you, briefly, with some history and argument on the issue. History Nearly a dozen independent groups approached the Charter Review Commission in 1979 with various forms of proposals for some sort of program review. The general feeling from reading the speeches and minutes of that era is that county government had grown so large and complex that few people, including councilmembers and those inside government, had a clear idea just what their money was being spent for. There was the recognition that money can be spent legally but at the same time foolishly. The specific language adopted for the proposal for a charter amendment mandating program review came from the Finance Director Stanley Nakamae (now with First Hawaiian Bank, Oahu) under Mayor Matayoshi. The Commission debated the language briefly and then sent the proposal along with 12 others to the county clerk who submitted them to the voters in a special election in November of 1979. The voters chose to enact ten of the thirteeen, giving Mandatory Program Review their third highest approval rating. It became section 3-17 of the county charter in 1980 (see enclosure 2 WmnL No. 990, 4/9 Mie No. V 5 G _ Ref, 1bi'C o UNc I L Dare DEC 14 1- 1). In January of 1981, the county council made their first attempt at program review. A list of five questions was given to each department head and they were also questioned orally by the council in a series of brief sessions. Most department heads answered the written questions with self-serving requests for more funding; many of the councilmembers did not bother to attend the oral questioning sessions. The lack of substantive program review led to the adoption by the council of a format for the legislative auditor's office to follow and a schedule for reviewing the programs of the departments. Between 1981 and 1982, six program reviews were completed by the county legislative auditor's office. In 1982, Rule 24 was adopted by the county council (see enclosure #2). From interviewing the principals from that time, the general feeling among many councilmembers was that one, the legislative auditors had traditionally served the councilmembers for office functions (answering mail to constituents, even acting in one case a-, permanent chauffer) and now their time was taken up doing program review, and two, the councilmembers' favorite programs were being seriously criticized for favoritism and cronyism. Rule 24 effectively disembowled section 3-17 (now 3- 16) of the county charter. Only two more program reviews already in progress were completed. Since that time only one and possibly two critical program reviews have been completed, one by Helene Hale and an aide in 3 1991 of the Helicopter Services program, and possibly one that 1 have not read by Lorraine Inoye in 1986 of the Research and Development Department. Argument Rule 24 attempts a plausible denial. It states that the annual budget review will be the critical program review. Hawaii County's annual budget review consists of the council sitting as the Committee of the Whole and questioning orally the department heads in a series of meetings held every Spring. The minutes of those meetings are collected together in a document labelled, strangely enough, Committee of the Whole Annual Budget Review. For example, the council's review of the budget for the police department consists of a brief statement by the Chief, and then questions from the councilmembers. Each year it averages about one to two hours and consists of 20 to 50 pages of minutes. If we accept Rule 24, it is not a difficult task then to find the critical program review of program "x". This entails only going back through the last 12 annual budget reviews and pulling out every page with a reference, however brief, to program "x". 'Every' reference must include passing references, statements by the department head (if any), questions by the councilmembers concerning the budget of the program (if any), and (according to Rule 24) the critical program review of the program. Enclosures 3-7 are every reference during the 1993-1994 Committee of the Whole Budget Session for the Police Department 4 concerning the Marijuana Eradication Program. Condensed, the references constitute two complete, double-spaced, typewritten pages, approximately four minutes total. 1993 was an exceptional year for the Marijuana Eradication Program. In only two of the last 12 years have any questions been asked by any councilmember concerning the program, in 1985 and in 1993. In each year the total was: two pages. In three of the last 12 years there are no questions by councilmembers and no statements referring to the program by the police department, which is to say 'zero' references. In the rest of those years there are brief statements averaging one to two paragraphs by the department head, e.g. "our eradication efforts are continuing.... we eradicated 'x' number of plants this year" (see enclosures 8,9 and 10). The years 1992 and 1989 are not included because there are zero references (zero statements by the police department and zero questions from councilmembers), listed in the annual budget review with regards to the marijuana eradication program. There appears to be a contradiction with the charter. Corroborating Evidence When requested from the County Clerk., I was provided with a copy of the Helicopter Program Services Review of the Fire Department (126 pages: too long to include here) and told that there was no listing for any program review of the marijuana eradication program (enclosure 11). The office of Corporation Counsel was not consulted as to the legality of Rule 24 with regards to mandatory program review 5 "t e (enclosure 12). Ms. Leithead-Todd, the Legislative Auditor for the County of Hawaii, admits that no program review has been done, as do Councilmembers De Lima, Rath, Childs, Hale, Bonk-Abramson, Arakaki, and Schutte (enclosures 13-20). Conclusion It seems clear then, by admissions of principals, by comparison with competent program reviews, by admission of the county clerk, by the paucity of evidence available, that the marijuana eradication program of the county of Hawaii has never been critically reviewed as mandated by section 3-16 (today) of the Hawaii County Charter, that the annual budget review does not constitute critical review for any program. This is unfortunate because reasoned discourse on any issue is not possible without good information. Whether the marijuana eradication program is necessary or feasible or useful or achieving its goals or the results intended cannot even be discussed until some body, presumably the office of the county legislative auditor or an outside independent auditor (Deloit and Touche, for example), critically reviews the program and asks serious questions and receives relevant answers. I have some 2000 pages of research on this issue, dating back. 14 years, and will be happy to try to provide you with any details or answers to any questions you may have on this subject. Questions concerning legislative intent, the technical meaning of the language used in 3-17 and Rule 24, are better answered at 6 length. In this letter i have not. attempted to define or otherwise circumscribe the meaning of the words "critically review every program," preferring to leave this language undefined beyond the commonsense and commonplace meaning of these words. With regard to the legal or technical meaning of the terms, I feel, nevertheless, that the commonsense meaning of the words must ultimately prevail in any argument. What is to be done More absurd than a legislative body in non-compliance with its own organic law is that critical program review is relatively inexpensive and easily accomplished. The terms are in common usage in the auditing profession, often stated as "program audits." Donald Ikeda, the designated program reviewer for the legislative auditors office, stated in an interview in December that, for example, a program audit could be accomplished of the entire Police Department for less than $100,000 and in less than one year by an outside firm such as Deloit and Touche. Considering the size of the police department's budget, this money should pay for itself very quickly in savings by eliminating foolish and wasteful expenditures. Various proposals have been floated as to just what the exact technical means of accomplishing charter compliance should be, assuming there exists the political will, i.e., five council votes. The most obvious first step is to repeal Rule 24 of the council's Rules and Procedures. A second step might be to demand from the office of the legislative auditor a scheme, a schedule 7 by which critical program review shall be accomplished, preferably by an independent, non-political, outside auditing firm, with cost estimates attached. No doubt the council would direct the legislative auditor's office to solicit bids. The funding for each department's review could obviously come from that department's annual budget, not a great deal of trimming necessary considering the size. Please consider this last section mere brain-storming; better proposals will already be apparent to you. Criticisms, critiques are actively solicited, pursued, embraced. erely, Sinc&41~ Tenn Robin tte 8 RECENED Y-- Date d go unty Council /fL A._Critical _ Review of, the Mari ,UaEradication Program, Glenn Robinette WnU DTo '27Y• O ` Hawaii Island Public Interest Research Group File Me. A4^ Set. Preieww- F C Ref. Date arir, ~ outline Page Findings and.... Conclus_ons__ 1 I. Introduction A. How long has the program been in existence? 2 II. Goals A. What is the original purpose of the program? 2 B. Has the program achieved its purpose? 2 C. Has the program deviated from its original purpose? 2 III. Evaluation A. How is success or failure determined? 1. Number of plants seized 3 2. Street-price a. Police estimates 5 b. THMQ quotes 7 C. Long-term residents 8 d. Per gram THC 9 B. Analysis 9 IV. Possible violations A. Lack of mandatory program review 13 B. Lobbying 14 C. Forfeiture money discrepancies 15 V. Social costs and benefits A. Social costs 1. Diversion of police resources 16 2. Cost of imprisonment 1s 3. Addictions 18 VI. Conclusion 20 E.ndnot.es 23 Graphs and Tables A_._Crit,Cal Review of _t he Marijuana_„Eradication__Pro_gram Is this program effective? Has marijuana been eradicated on the Big Island? What has this program accomplished in its 16 years of existence? Is this program an efficient and effective use of taxpayer monies? This critical review seeks to answer these questions. Findings and_Con,clusi_ons. 1. In 1996, marijuana is more available, less expensive, and of higher quality than before Green Harvest operations began in 1980. 2. The ideological purpose of the program has changed from "eradication" to "management." Two new purposes have been added: providing police officers with overtime and obtaining revenue through forfeitures. 3. Red flags (possible violations) include: lack of mandatory program review; use of forfeiture money to supplant county revenues; use of county money for lobbying. 4. Social costs may include: diversion of scarce police resources and personnel; arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of thousands of local residents for marijuana and marijuana-related offenses; creation of new addicts to hard drugs such as crack, ice, and heroin and subsequent expansion of hard drug markets. I. Introduction A.- How-long has the__program__been.in ex saence?_ Although some activity is reported as early as 1978,' serious operations began in 1980.' The first federal support for police overtime enters the county budget in 1983.' II. Goals A Wha_t.__is-the ,,..,.orlgl.n.al pu_r_pOseof_thepr_ogr.a.m? The purpose of a program with a title of Marijuana Eradication could reasonably be thought to be "eradication" of marijuana. Eradication means to "utterly destroy," "thoroughly annihilate" or "completely eliminate." B.- Has--the, _program_ achieved its_ori...g_i..na.l_....p_qT.20.s-e-.? Marijuana has not been eradicated on the Big Island of Hawaii.5 C_ Has the pr_ogramdeviated from_ is or.g na1 Purpose? The original ideological purpose was eradication, hence the name. In 1981 Chief Guy Paul appeared optimistic that the goal of absolute eradication could be achieved, although the "problem of marijuana cultivation is a ser.ious.one."6 Barely three years later, the police department moved away from the goal of a final eradication of all marijuana on the Big Island to "control" and "doing more."7 By 1991, ten years later, the purpose had shifted away from "control" to "maintaining the pressure." By 1993, with a temporary steep rise in prices, the purpose of the "eradication" program became "raising the price."9 (Notice that this goal suggests that the program is not aimed at marijuana as 2 the enemy, but only "cheap" marijuana, as one councilmember claimed.10 The wealthy will still be able to afford it, but presumably they will not find the substance a problem.) Since the prices have fallen in the last three years, the present ideological purpose in 1996 is "management" and once again the problem is "growing and serious," the exact same language used to describe the situation in 1982." This shift in purpose allows for open-ended funding. Eradication has a definite ending point: "complete destruction." "Management" allows the program to be funded indefinitely. (This is often termed "mission creep," when the original mission is seen to be unobtainable and a new one is then substituted.) Two new purposes have recently been added to the program= to provide overtime for the county's police officers and "forfeiture of real property." Overtime is mentioned as a reason for voting for the program by both police officers and councilmembers during hearings. "Can I add something? A lot of the officers that we use during the eradication are on their days off, and we do pay them overtime with the funding money," opines Lt. Fukui.'2 The police department openly lists forfeiture as one of the "goals" of the program in answers to an annual questionnaire dubiously called the Program and Budget Review= 'GOALS:_... f. Forfeiture of real property connected with the possession, cultivation, sale, and distribution of marijuana."13 3 III. Evaluation A. How is success or_._failur_e_ of this Pr-ogram determined? The supporters of the program have measured the success of the program in two ways= by "number-of-plants-seized"14and by "street-price." 15 1 _.._Number_s of plants ._s_eized_,.. In the early years of the program, the police department reported raw numbers of plants seized as if this by itself would be evidence of success and a sufficient reason for continuing the funding for the program.16 Graph # 2 represents the number-of- plants-seized reported by the police department to councilmembers between 1980 and 1996. The number of seized plants peaks in 1987 and has declined since. The obvious problem with using numbers-of-plants-seized as a measure of the success or failure of the program is that the total number of plants is unknown and difficult to estimate. Without the total number of plants grown, the amount of the yearly harvest cannot be put in perspective. If one million plants are harvested and two million were planted, this number represents fifty percent, a significant result for the program; if ten million were planted, then this number represents only ten percent of the total, a much less significant result. The estimate of total number of plants grown varies widely. In 1981 the police department estimated the total number of plants growing on the island at between 1,000,000 and 1,600,000.17 Six years later, the police seized 1,700,000 4 plants. " For the years 1982, 1983, and 1984, the police tied the total number of plants grown to the total number of plants seized, so that the one fluctuated as the other. 19 This produced a record high total estimate of plants grown on the Big Island of 4.5 million, or 40 marijuana plants for every man, woman and child on the Big Island. 20 In 1986 21 the police department lowered the estimated total number of plants grown on the Big Island to between 2.8 and 3.7 million. Graph # 5 shows the police department's estimates for total number of plants grown in the early 1980's. Graph # 6 shows both the total number of plants seized and the estimated total plants grown. In no year did the police department report harvesting more than 20 percent of the total. Curiously, the police department reports program success by number-of-plants-seized both when the figure is large and when it is small. 22 ? .t.r.eet.-p.r_? ce Street price cannot be used to provide evidence of success for a program whose intent is "eradication;" only complete and total elimination can do that. But street price can be used to give an indication of supply and thus the effectiveness of the police department's program in decreasing the supply and raising the price, if this is presumed to be the goal. The change in street-price from 1980 to 1996 is reflected in Graph # 3. Street-price was computed in four ways: statements of police officers to councilmembers; 5 computation of rage price in a year froi iM0 quotes; interviews with long-time island residents; price per gram of THC. a. __P.oliceofficer testimony The immediate problem with police department estimates of street-price is that in the early 1980's the police department reports numbers both fantastic and contradictory. For example, Chief Paul reports in 1981 that his department seized 160,000 plants worth 14 million dollars and weighing 73,000 pounds. 23 By these figures each plant weighs approximately 7.2 ounces giving an absurdly low figure of 12 dollars per ounce. In 1983, his department reports "a 38% increase in the number of plants seized and a 111% increase in the weight recovered." 24 But what can explain the sudden increase in weight recovered? In 1984, Lt. Wakita reports "we flew 14 missions and eradicated 24,000 plants estimated at $24 million." 25 At an average bud-weight per plant of one ounce, this provides us with a price per ounce of $1000. Yet, on the very next page, he testifies that in 1984, his department eradicated 325,000 plan ts26giving a figure of 73 dollars per ounce. The next year, now Captain Charles Wakita reports 563,621 plants and 2,783 pounds of dried marijuana seized worth one-half billion dollars.27 This gives a price of $833 per ounce. In these early years of the program, the numbers vary deceptively. Graph # 7 represents these early efforts at reporting. Part of this problem is that the police department remains a 6 self-interested party in this program: both direct overtime in the form of federal grants and forfeiture money for general- purpose computers are direct benefits to the department. This department has dollar-reasons for maintaining this program and in demonstrating its success. Thus, it should be initially supposed that the department's numbers quoted for street-price would be generally on the high side. Compared to other measures of the street-price, this turns out to be true. With a temporary price rise in 1993, the police department begins to report the price per ounce more accurately to the council as a reason to justify continued funding. Lt. Chai reports the price for an ounce of marijuana as Soo dollars in July of 1993.28 Three months later, the police report the price is $800 an ounce. 29 Over the next three years, the price drastically falls. Lt. Chai reports the street-price per ounce of marijuana in 1996 at 300 dollars. 30 Graph # 3 represents the police departments estimates of street-price from 1980 to 1996 as well as other estimates. b_......_.. THMO "High Times" is a monthly magazine primarily aimed at those who smoke, trade, and grow marijuana. Every month for nearly twenty years, the magazine has included a page entitled "Trans High Market Quotations" which tracks the current price of various kinds of marijuana in different parts of the United States. The average price per ounce for triple-A grade Hawaiian tops 7 rises gradually c a thirteen year period n 1980 to 1993. i 31 The price then drops dramatically from 1993 to 1996, paralleling the later information provided by the police department. Adjusted for inflation and measured in constant 1995 dollars, after sixteen years of Green Harvest operations, the street price is nearly the same in 1996 as in 1980 when the program began. See Graph # 3. c..L o n gt_e r.mr,e s i d e n.t s Interviews with long term Big Island residents report a price of 100 to 200 dollars an ounce in the early 1980's and a price of between 300 to 400 dollars an ounce today. Measured in constant 1995 dollars the price closely parallels the increase in all other commodities.'2 See Graph # 3. Interestingly enough the average price per ounce by all three measures shows a rise in the year 1993 and then a fall to 1996 no matter how it is measured. This is confirmed by statements from police officers regarding availability. Availability and price move opposite to one another for a given commodity. A high price means low availability; conversely, high availability means a low price. In 1993, Assistant Chief Todd reports, "I don't think you can even buy it at this point. I've talked to some undercover officers. They haven't been able to locate Hawaiian marijuana."" This would indicate an astronomical price. In 1996, Lt. Fukui reports that "within a five day week the officers would be there twice out of the day for marijuana being found on 8 students" speaking of Kona intermediate and elementary schools. 34 This would indicate a very low price. This information is independently confirmed by the Hawaii Youth Risk Behavior Survey, which reports that use among high school students of Hawaiian home grown has increased since 1987 and that the "biggest rise was among 10th graders, with 24 percent reporting they smoked pot regularly in 1995, compared with 12.4 percent in 1987."35 d_.Prc_e__per__gram of THC This method of computing the price is based on the observation that consumers do not buy beer in order to drink the water; similarly, consumers do not purchase marijuana in order to smoke green vegetable matter. Frank Sua, retired Major from the Honolulu Police Department testified before the County Council that the THC content had increased over time from around 30 before Green Harvest to roughly 15 to 30% today.J6 If this is true, comparing bud from 1980 and bud from 1996 would be like comparing beer (5e alcohol) with whiskey (400), or Tide with Super-Concentrated Tide. If Sua's numbers are correct (they are disputed by some marijuana advocates), we must divide the present street-price of 300 an ounce by an average of 5 to 10, yielding a price per ounce of around 30 to 60 dollars an ounce for the same amount of THC. Interestingly enough, this compares with the 1996 street price of 25 to 50 dollars per ounce for a product, formerly a by- product, called "bud leaf."" Some consumers report that this 9 product gets them high as they used to ge rom smoking triple s grade-A buds in the late 70's.36 Graph # 8 represents this reported rise in THC. B. Analysis. Graph # 4 examines the price per ounce, the number of plants seized and the non-county funding for this program between the years 1980 and 1996. While the number of plants seized peaks in 1987, the price does not rise appreciatively until 1993. Between 1993 and 1996, the price drops considerably, the funding is at a constant, and the numbers of plants seized at a constant 10w. If we only had the graph up to 1993, we could conclude that this program was a success at raising the price and thus restricting the supply of marijuana on the Big Island to the wealthy. Up until 1993, the price rises dramatically, the numbers of plants decline, while the funding rises to a high constant level. We could reasonably conclude that such a rise in price was due to the accumulated efforts, over many years, of the program. From 1993 to 1996, the price shows a dramatic drop while the others remain roughly constant. To what can we attribute this dramatic decline in productivity of this program? Clearly, in this period, the program is seizing fewer plants, spending more money, and achieving less restriction of supply than ever before. Indeed, measured in constant 1995 dollars, the supply is as available and the price as low as in 1980. Since most prices of most 10 commodities follow the consumer price index over time, these numbers indicate that if no money had been spent on this program, the price per ounce would be exactly what it is 1996, before this program began. In terms of long-term price and thus of interdicting long-term supply, this program has achieved exactly nothing. "This is as predictable as the change of seasons," was the response of several members of the UH Hilo Business and Economics faculty. "We use these drug programs as an example in our Economics 101 course to explain to our students about the basics of supply and demand. By raising the price of any commodity, you attract a lot of resources into trying to produce that commodity." 3' Thus, it is not difficult to understand this decline in price when we think of marijuana as simply any other agricultural commodity. The price of macnuts several years ago was 1.2S cents per pound; today it is 60 cents per pound. As the yield for a given commodity increases, more people enter the market and grow that commodity. Since more grow, there is more supply. More supply means the price drops. This tendency for free markets to correct for short-term government disruption is well-accepted by economists. Another interpretation of these numbers is that this program has been a short-term success and then a victim of that very success. This program took 13 years to steeply raise the price; the free market then took 3 years to drive the price back down to 1980 levels. And the free-market made a profit on it. ' 11 In fact, the ry theory of this progra; 3y be flawed. Lt. + Chai seems to have understood this when he testified in 1993 before the Finance Committee: "I don't think it's going to end right away because with the price of the marijuana being so high, people are going to try and I mean, they're going to make the attempt to grow the plants.",0 Certainly, these numbers show dramatic evidence of this. Statements from the police and from growers indicate several reasons for this decline: growing smarter; indoor growing operations; advance information. Outdoor growing, in response to Green Harvest, is simply smarter. Early in the 1980's, the police continually revised its estimates of the total number of plants growing on the Big Island with each large new harvest. Though this may have been merely an attempt to continue funding, if we take them at their word, this would indicate that growers were simply planting more marijuana to offset the amounts seized.41 Growers have stopped growing in large fields and no longer return to the same areas year after year according to police." Growers report they are growing in the tops of trees and have trained the plant to grow horizontally along the ground, producing a long runner and small buds every foot or so.4? Indoor growing operations are on the rise. In 1987, the police report, "We're finding more of them but we're finding it 12 difficult to stop them because it takes so much more manpower to meet the legal requirements of probable cause before we can get a search warrant." 14 And again in 1991: "Although we have reduced the amount of cultivated marijuana in this community, the pressure must be maintained as there is mounting evidence that indoor growing operations are on the rise."" Growers report being able to predict, after 16 years of operations, when and where Green Harvest operations take place.46 Independent confirmation of this was given to the Council by a citizen who lives downtown: "Street level dealers know when eradication begins."" Another citizen gave evidence that she was convinced that the police were involved in drug trafficking." Interviews with growers, traders, and consumers are replete with stories to this effect. 19 The increase in concentration of THC per plant is another common response to a prohibition. Once the government sets a penalty that is volume related, consumers and growers then make a rational decision to be found with less of the product. Ten ounces gives evidence of dealing while one ounce may be considered personal use. But, according to the police figures, ten ounces of 1960 marijuana could be considered equivalent to one ounce of 1996 marijuana. Also, growers make a commercial decision to produce a more concentrated product, partly for sales and partly for purpose of distribution. Thus, in prohibition, consumers did not turn to making "bathtub beer" but rather "bathtub gin." Consumers a 13 invented the "hif ask" during this period, t no one chose to carry around a quart bottle of beer. "Prohibition was our great national experiment in economics. I am surprised the county council has not learned this lesson," reports an unnamed faculty member.' 0 IV. Red f_1_ags. Possible ~%iolati.ons) In the process of researching this report, several incongruities were observed. It is believed that an auditor would "red flag" these areas as serious enough to require further investigation. A_,_. No mandatory. Program review_._ There exists a probable violation of County Charter section 3:16. Under this provision, the county council is mandated to review this county program at least once every four years under section 3:16 in the County Charter. The county director of public records can find no such audits in the files. Two years ago, the council required of the Legislative Auditor such a review. Donald Ikeda, program reviewer for that office, reports that ne is waiting for police contracts and has not begun the report. The county council has clearly made no good-faith effort to produce this review. Others attempting to gain access to police information have been rebuffed. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin sought information from the DEA and was turned down. Special Agent Bob Aiu explained: "There are people out there who want to use this funding agairist us. The figures are there but we don't want it 14 publicized."" If in violation of section 3:16, lacking a mandatory program review, the councilmembers would also be in violation of section 10:11 which prohibits appropriations in violation of the County Charter. This certainly raises serious questions of compliance and is thus "red-flagged" for more investigation. B_...._.. L_obby_ ng..__ As was stated before, the police do riot approach this program as they would any other program, i.e. from a position of disinterest. The department remains a self-interested party for monetary reasons of overtime and forfeiture money. instead of being willing to act as the council directs them, the department's officers routinely lobby the council to continue this very expensive program. Such lobbying began in 1993 with the first council votes against the program. In this, the police department deviates from common practice. The eradication money itself may have been used to lobby the county legislature to continue the program ~z when, on 19 October 1993, the Hawaii County police department and representatives from each of the other county departments, State enforcement agencies such as the DHHL and DLNR, the National Guard, the DEA, and the National Park Service appeared before the Finance Committee to lobby against the proposed new helicopter rules. 3 This is a possible violation of the anti-lobbying statutes listed in each contract that the county signs with the feeerai t 15 government. Fede rules (Section 1352, Tip 31 of the U.S. Code, implemented at 28 CFR Part 69) prohibit "federally appropriated funds" for "attempting to influence an officer or any employee of any agency in connection with the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant or cooperative agreement." 54 Though this statute may apply only at the federal level, similar statutes may apply at the local or state level. The council may want to consider the feed-back effect of using county or non-county drug eradication money to lobby for more drug eradication money. This certainly raises serious concerns about compliance and is "red-flagged" for more investigation. C. Forfeitures. The program results in numerous drug forfeitures in which the houses, land, automobiles, boats, and other property of Big Island citizens are seized and auctioned, some five million dollars to 1996 which accumulated for years in a Drug Enforcement miscellaneous account, number 10-201-5218.41-115.55 This drug forfeiture money is supposed to be used to "increase but rot supplant" county revenues for drug enforcement, a fact noted in numerous documents.56 In fact, this revenue, which has been detailed for drug enforcement, is being used to purchase general purpose computers for the county. 57 Accounting staff is aware of the discrepancy in purpose, advising the council to continually re-appropriate 16 the same money year after year, rolling it over in the same account. 59 Councilmembers are aware of the discrepancy."' This item is certainly deserving of more investigation and is thereby "red-flagged." V. Social Benefits and Costs No county program can be considered useful if it does riot result in some benefit to the citizens. What is the social cost of this program? What social benefits has it brought this county? These obvious questions, that should be asked of every program during any program audit, have never been addressed perhaps due to the difficulty of estimating the long-term dollar cost and benefit of short-term decision-making. Just because these costs are difficult to estimate does not mean that they will not occur. A. Social Costs 1,._ Diversion ofscarce pol,ice.__resources and personnel. Lt. Fukui reports: "A lot of the officers that we use during the eradication are on their days off, and we do pay their overtime with the funding money. We don't want to take money away from the street force, so a lot of the monies are used to pay officers overtime."" How much is "a lot?" Evidently, some of the officers are being paid when they are not on their days off, meaning that the County of Hawaii is paying them to eradicate marijuana. How many man-days are being paid by the County taxpayers since the eradication money can oniy be used for overtime? What is the s 17 total county taxF rr provided money that is ing toward marijuana eradication? It is not negligible. Lt. Paiva reports that "it does have an effect on patrol and traffic if we're using their personnel to supplement the eradication effort."61 "The county's absorbing the officers' salaries, but if we use him, say a Patrol officer, as a supplement to the eradication program, we'll pay his overtime out of the Federal grant." 62 Lt. Paiva also draws most of the eradication forces from the "larger districts, like Hilo, Kona, Puna, Waimea. ,61 Is this in order to spread the manpower shortage around the island? This dovetails neatly with the testimony before the council in May of this year, that "street level dealers" in Hilo know when Green Harvest is going to take place.64 A drain on manpower, if significant, would not be unnoticeable. Chief Guy Paul estimated the total his department spent on eradication in 1980, before any federal or state grant money entered the budget, at around five percent of his nine million dollar budget, or about 450,000 dollars.65 In 1990 dollars this would be the equivalent of 900,000 dollars. Only 420,000 dollars arrives from non-county sources. Are the county taxpayers footing the bill for marijuana eradication to the tune of 500,000 dollars? Second, police officers work as police officers whether they are being paid straight time or overtime. Both are resources that the County of Hawaii can use. Can these resources, whether to for overtime or not, Getter be used in more productive pursuits? If marijuana eradication money will not pay their overtime, will. some other program that the police department could apply for, such as a drug treatment or prevention program? 2. Cost of arrest, prosecution and.._lmprisoriment_of thousands ofl_ocal B,i_g Island residents for marijuana and mariJu_ana-related offenses. In 1987, the police department reports arrests for marijuana related offenses "jumped 29% to 872." How many Big Islanders were arrested over the last 16 years? Thousands does not seem too low of an estimate. Ten thousand? The State Attorney General's report "Hawaii's War on Drugs" reported 14,608 arrested statewide between 1983 and 1987.66 Most of the marijuana in the state is grown on the Big Island and one would suspect most of those arrested would come from the Big Island also. How many were prosecuted? How many prosecutions were successful? How many served time in jail or were imprisoned? What is the cost to the taxpayers for this effort? 3._._Cieati,on of new addictions to hard drugs _such. as crac k..... ,...i,ce, and heroin andsubsequent „expansion..of harddrug- mar kets. There is evidence that government intervention has raised the price of marijuana. By raising the price of marijuana and not raising the price of other drugs, this eradication money has produced an artificial price differential. Is this good public policy? 19 If the price cnicken triples, what he ins immediately to the consumption of beef? As Hawaiian home-grown marijuana rose in price, a cheaper variety, Mexican, entered the market to fill the ever-present demand." Assistant Chief Todd reported this as a success story in 1993, but this can only be considered a success if this program has as its goal the eradication only of Hawaiian marijuana, not all marijuana. But that is not all consumers turn to. Consider eight ounces of beer and eight ounces of whiskey. Government intervention can raise the price of beer. This makes the price of a similar commodity, the whiskey, relatively cheap. But the effect of a full glass of beer and a full pint of whiskey on the human body are quite different. After- one glass of beer, the average person's blood alcohol content is still low enough to allow that person to drive an automobile; not so after eight ounces of whiskey. Users of eight ounces of beer report a mellow lassitude; users of eight ounces of whiskey report emotional mood swings from depression to violent rage. Donald Topping presented in May of 1996 evidence that raising the price of soft drugs (marijuana) makes hard drugs (crack, ice, alcohol) that much more competitive. 68 Lt. Chai agrees: part of our goal is in reducing the amount of marijuana that's out there, reducing the supply. One setback to that is, you know, many people move to other drugs because of that, like cocaine and heroin." Ms- Bonk-Abramson: `So what you just said pretty much is because of the h.c h demand for marijuana, there has been a transfer to other drugs, they're cheaper? That are more attainable?" Lt_ Char "Yes. Yeah, it's t0 „69 more attainable And consider the State Department of Attorney General's office report, Hawaii's War on Drugs= Obviously, an all-out eradication attack against the marijuana crops funded by an unlimited supply of money could wipe out production in Hawaii. The destruction of the industry by this means would create yet another problem. There would simply be a shift to other competitively priced drugs, and as the supply of locally produced marijuana decreased, methamphetamines, cocaine, and imported marijuana would begin flowing in to answer local demand. This is the shortfall that eradication as a solution to Hawaii's marijuana problem 70 poses. Where marijuana may produce a mellow lassitude, crack can produce serious addiction and violent rages. Driving up the price of a relatively benign substance sends an economic message to consumers that government wishes them to indulge in other, more harmful, but consequently cheaper, alternatives. Finally, note that all three, crack, ice, and heroin, are associated with prostitution. Heroin is associated with intravenus drug use. I.V. drug use is identified as the transmission factor in 17 percent of HIV positive transmission cases on the Big Island, reports the State Department of Health." VI. conclusion Marijuana has not been eradicated on the Big Island. The alternative goal of driving up the price thus driving down the supply makes the drug available only to the wealthy. But even this alternative goal may be flawed since every time the price is driven up, this increases the incentive for those to enter this 21 market. This pro m may have driven up the ce; the free y market certainly drove it down again in less than a quarter of the time. In a perfect world full of perfect people, absolutist strategies such as "eradication" and "just say no" work perfectly. In an imperfect world of shrewd, capable, industrious, profit-driven people, absolutist strategies fail absolutely. A partial list of the agencies involved in this program to eradicate marijuana on the Big Island over the last sixteen years includes: Hawaii County Police Department; Honolulu, Maui, and Kauai Police Departments; Drug Enforcement Agency; Department of Justice Administration; Coast Guard; Department of Hawaiian Home Lands; Department of Land and Natural Resources; . United States Postal Service; United States Military; ana, National Park Service. A partial list of the technology used during the last sixteen years searching for marijuana includes: Forward Looking Infrarea Radar; Helicopters; Fixed wing aircraft; 22 Cartographic assistance; Night vision scopes; Helco electrical usage analysis; Drug sniffing dogs; Rappelling; and, Spray nozzles for glycophosphate and diesel emulsion. A partial list of the special "operations" that have been conducted over the last sixteen years includes: Operation Wilt (spraying diesel in cane fields); Operations Pele, Choke and Hit (intercepting parcels at post offices using drug-sniffing dogs); Operation Sweep; Operation Sweep-shake (covert sting operation); Operation Wipe Out; Operation Rabbit (covert operation of a fertilizer shop in Kona); Multi-jurisdictional Task Forces; Bush surveillance; and, Federal, State and local conferences. The results of all of this personnel, resources, money, time and technology has been a temporary price rise in 1993 which the marketplace promptly drove back down to pre-Green Harvest levels three years later. In 1981, before any federal or state eradication money entered the county, Chief Guy Paul speculated on the issue: As far as the overall problem, I think the whole issue hinges on now harmful this suustarce is to human 23 beings. If is conclusively proven t it is very , harmful, their I think we have to take a ~~rong stand against it. If someday, it is proven that it is riot harmful, then we have to consider alternatives such as handling it like alcohol. But the jury is still out on this. I think there's compelling evidence to believe that it's harmful but I don't think everyone is convinced of that yet and we have to reach that point. Then at that point, we should make a decision based on human beings as from a health standpoint. Such as abuse of alcohol is something that's a health problem, it has to be handled in the hospitals. I_ think auuse_ of _drugs ,...._is the_same._k_nd _of._._proolem . It should be handled i_n the ...hospitals and. the professionals t_hat_ know how to handle it.72 Prophetic words? 24 E rd riot es 1. Assistant Chief Todd reports that 'we started back in 1978, we were harvesting" to the Finance Committee on 19 October 1993, p. 11. 2. Testimony of Chief Guy Paul during Program Review hearings, 5 March 1981, page 32. 3. The 1983 Operating Budget records a receipt of a federal grant for 46,000 dollars for marijuana eradication. 4. Gove, editor. Webster_s Thir_d_New_I_nternational.Dictionar.y, 1976. See also Soukhanov, American ....Herittoe Dictionary, of t_he_Engli_sh Language, 1973 or Simpson and Weiner, The Oxford E_ng_lish D.ictionar.y_, second edition, twenty volumes, 1989. S. Personal research. 6. "The marijuana eradication effort is going well. The only limitation on how much marijuana we can get is the resources." (Program Review hearings, 5 March 1981, p. 32.) A year later, he reported, "The problem of marijuana cultivation is a serious one. Our goal is to harvest every marijuana plant grown in our canefields." (Annual Budget Review, Committee of the :J hole, 13 May 1982, P. 130.) 7. Chief Guy Paul: "Now you ask if we could control that So if we had the capability of doing more, we've demonstrated that we are able to do it." (Annual Budget Review, Committee of the Whole, 16 May 1985, P. 2S) See also Lt. Wakita: "Given the adequate manpower and resources, we can make Hawaii County the most unattractive marijuana growing area in the United States." (Same, P. 8) 8. Chief Vierra: "Our efforts in marijuana eradication and drug enforcement are still continuing Although we have reduced the amount of cultivated marijuana in this community, the pressure must be maintained (Annual Budget Review, Committee of the Whole, 2 April 1991, p. 245 and see also Attachment 'M.') 9. Mr. Rath: "As I understand it, the theory of eradication is we have less going into the community and the frequency of young people starting to use it is greatly reduced, right?" Assistant Chief Todd: "That's correct-" (Finance Committee hearings, 19 October 1993, p. 6) See aiso Assistant Chief John De Sa: I'm sure (the program) has some effect because the prices are going up and marijuana is not readily available. So I think we're decreasing the sale of marijuana. It's not as easy to get as it was before." (Finance Committee hearing, 23 August 1993.) Or see Lt. Chai: and we do, every year, make an evaluation as to our progress and we gauge that by the supply tF=t's available 25 which is very sma today because the price iery high, so the supply is low and ne price is up." (Finance ojmmittee hearing, 26 July 1993, p. S9) 10. Mr. Rath, 13 May 1996. 11. Testimony of Lt. Chai, Council minutes, 13 May 1996, p. 3446; and Lt. Fukui, p. 3450. 12. Councilmembers routinely approve the appropriations because "it would allow our policemen to have overtime." Council minutes, 27 January 1993. See also Lt. Paiva, 1994 ABR CW, 13 April 1994, p. 343, 344 and Lt. Fukui, Council minutes, 13 May 1996, p. 3450. 13. 1996 Budget and Program Review, Police Department responses to a questionaire, p. 3. 14. Lt. Chai at Finance Committee Hearing, 26 July 1993, p. 59. 1s. Lt. Paiva, 1994 Annual Budget Review before the Committee of the whole, 13 April 1994, p. 350. 16. See for example the 1981 through 1988 Annual Budget Reviews. 17. Chief Guy Paul, Program Review hearings, 5 March 1981, p. 32. 18. Assistant Chief Todd, Finance Committee hearing, 19 October 1993, p. 11. 19. Chief Paul: "For the last three years, speaking specifically of marijuana, we've been able to contain about 10 to 20 percent of the problem and that's been holding steady." (Annual Budget Review, Committee of the Whole, 16 May 1985, P. 24 ) 20. See attachment "G-2" in the 1987 Annual Budget Review with the number of plants seized put at 450,000 and using the high ten percent figure, this yields an estimate of 4.5 million plants planted, or 40 plants for every man, woman and child on the Big Island. 21. Capt. Charles Wakita, 1966 Annual Budget Review before the Committee of the Whole, 14 May 1986, written statement read into the record. 22. See for example, Chief Guy Paul, Committee of the Whole, Annual Budget Review, 12 May 1981 and Lt. Chai, Finance Committee hearing, 26 July 1993. See also, Major Lyman, Finance Committee hearing, 11 January 1993, P. 50, or Attachment "A" in the 1988 Annual Budget Review, Committee of the Whole, 11 May 1988. 26 23. (Testimony of Cnief Guy Paul, Program Review hearings, 5 March 1981, P. 32.) See also Chief Guy Paul, Annual Budget Review, Committee of the Whole hearings, 12 May 1981. 24. Annual Budget Review, Committee of the Whole, 24 May 1983, attachment. 25. Annual Budget Review, Committee of the Whole, 16 May 1985, P. 7. 26. Lt. Wakita, 16 May 1985, P. S. 27. Annual Budget Review, Committee of the Whole, 14 May 1986. 28. Finance Committee hearing, 26 July 1993, p. 64. 29. Finance Committee hearing, 19 October 1993, p. 6. See also Lt. Chai= "It's about $800 an ounce now." Council minutes, 22 September 1993, p. 1522. 30. Testimony of Lt. Chai, Council minutes, 13 May 1996, page 3450. 31. These numbers are computed from quotes for Hawaiian marijuana such as Puna Butaz, Hamakua Honey, and Kona Gold from THMQ 1980 to 1996. 32. Quarterly Statistical and Economic Report, 1995. DBEDT, table B-9, P. 44. 33. Finance Committee nearing, 19 October 1993, p. S. 34. Council minutes, 13 May 1996, p. 3450. 35. Reported in the Honoiulu Star-Bulletin, Monday, July 22, 1996, P. A-6. 36. Attachment from Western States Information Network dated 15 October 1993, found in Finance Committee minutes, 19 October 1993. 37. Personal Research. 38. Personal Interviews. 39. Personal interviews. 40. 26 July 1993, P. 59. See for example the 1981 to 1987 Annual Budget Reviews. 27 42. Lt. Chai, 26 y 1993, Finance Committe D. 59. "We don't have big Green Ha„ gists like we did many year, ago." Major Lyman reports: "But with 4000 square miles, it's very difficult for us to try to police the entire island." (Finance Committee, 11 Jan 1993, P. 51) Lt. Chai reports he uses no profile to identify the areas he checks on a regular basis. "We don't use any particular profile. Today, and even back in the 70's, marijuana can be located and found just about anywhere, in pasture iands, forests, cane lands." (Finance Committee, 19 October 1993, p. 35) 43. Personal Research. 44. Annual Budget Review, 13 May 1987, P. 219, and attachment "G. 11 45. Annual Budget Review, 2 April 1991, p. 245 and attachment M 46. Personal Research. 47. Testimony of Jim Blakey, S8 Furneaux Lane, Hilo, HI, on 13 May 1996, P. 3395. 48. Testimony of Lei Henry, 13 May 1996. 49. Personal Research. These stories were gathered during a price-survey around the island. Many volunteered that their neighbors or friends were police officers and were deaiing marijuana and harder drugs. One Puna businessman reports a cop friend of his as paying for an expensive item with rolls of hundred dollar bills. A Kona man recounts stories of the early 1980's concerning a green van that picked up clipped buds. A Puna resident records that he watched police raid his field through binoculars, clip tops into a garbage bag, then return later to retrieve them. SO. Personal Interviews. 51. Star-Bulletin, undated copy in personal records available upon request. S2. Mrs. Hale: "We have your whole committee here from all over the State? They all flew in on marijuana eradication money to listen to the rules? Is that what you're telling me?" Lt. Chai: "This is not the whole committee, just the key representatives; from each agency, just to come to show support and provide testimony if needed to." Finance Committee, 19 October 1993, P. 41. 53. Finance Committee, P. 2. 28 S4. See for example, LOA 91-34. 55. See Jerry in Accounts for details. 56. See for example, letter from Elliot Enoki, U.S. Attorney, District of Hawaii to Victor Vierra dated 25 May 1993. And also Communication 2723, dated 2 August 1991, a letter from the U.S. Customs Service which states "asset sharing between federal and local law enforcement agencies requires that funds shared must be used to enhance the County's anti-narcotics initiatives." Finance Committee report number 423, dated 13 August 1991. 57. See for example, Finance committee minutes, 17 May 1993, p. 12. S8. Mrs. Kaetsu: "'Cause under the terms that we're getting it, we can only use it for drug enforcement." 17 May 1993, p. 12. 59. Ms. Bonk-Abramson: "So we're calling this drug enforcement money but it's actually gonna go for the new computer system?" Chaiman Arakaki= "They could use it for it if it's related to enforcement of drugs. Or they could put it in the field and do more drug enforcement." Ms. Bonk-Abramson: So now much of this money is gonna go into tree computer system?" Finance Committee minutes, 7 September 1993, p. S. Mrs. Hale: 'As I understand this is the drug forfeiture money that was being saved up and earmarked for your new computer system." FC, 7 September 1993, p. 9. Mr. De Lima: ",As I unaerstand it, we're creating an account to put this money in, and the account we're creating is Drug Enforcement-Miscellaneous Contract Services. Okay"? Now, what we're being told is, this money will be used for drug preventive programs." FC, 1 June 1993, p. 27. Mr. De Lima: "So when the thing is earmarked and it states to us, drug enforcement, drug prevention, that doesn't necessarily mean the monies are gonna be spent on drug prevention programs, right?` p. 29. Mr. De Limas 'Okay. And we were given the impression that this ¢500,000 was going for drug prevention programs, 'cause that's the way it was presented to us. But in reality, it's all going for this computer system.' Mrs. Kaetsu: "Right, it's all for the computer system. That's what they've been sort of saving up FC, 1 June 1993, p.32-33. 60. Council minutes, 13 May 1996, 3450. 61. Annual Budget Review, Committee of the Whole, 13 May 1994, p. 344. 62. Ibid., p. 343. 63. Ibid., p. 344. 64. Council minutes, 13 May 1996, p. 3375. • 29 65. 1981 Annual get Review, 12 May 1951, 36. t 66. February 1989. 67. Finance Committee minutes, 19 October 1993, P. S. 68. Council minutes, 13 May 1996. 69. Finance Committee, 26 July 1993, pgs. 60-61. 70. February 1989, p. 64. 71. Hawaii Department of Health, Aids Surveillance Program, 91- 95 Big Island Aids Transmission Rates. 72. Committee of the Whole, 12 May 1981, pgs. 36-37. 30 © O O ~ p I ~l i yJOll ryry~~ (V • W C C c VN 4? m a~~o n r c o d o j Table 1 Non-County Revenues MEP Year Federal Sta_te_ Total 1995,._$. 1980 1981 1982 1983 46,000 46,000 78,200 1984 77,000 77,000 123,200 1985 285,000 285,000 456,000 1986 218,000 218,000 327,000 1987 296,000 296,000 440,000 1988 127,000 127,000 165,000 1989 400,000 400,000 520,000 1990 197,000 197,000 236,520 1991 233,200 233,200 256,520 1992 162,500 250,675 413,175 454,493 1993 180,000 222,500 402,500 442,750 1994 - 220,766 200,000 420,766 420,766 1995 210,000 210,000 420,000 420,000 Source= Hawaii County Accounting Department Total Non-County Revenues (1995 1980-1995= $3,920,449 ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ • n ~ lT' J I T Mme: W I 'v ~ ~ - ~ i~? ~ P - J r ~ CQ o i i ~ - ~ o ~ E` ,r ~ ~ ~ \ ~ a~ 1 a x - rl~ ~ a i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . w 1 ' I ~ Table 2 Number of Plants Seized 1980 160,000 Chief Paul, Prog. Rev., 5 Mar 81, p. 32. 1981 119,489 ABR, 13 May 1987, p. 219, Att. "G-2." 1982 353,807 - 1983 450,052 " 1983 4872140 ABR, 24 May 83, Att. (Est.: 38% rise) 1984 325,761 ABR, 13 May 87, P. 219, Att. "G-2." 1985 563,621 " 1986 742,238 d 1987 1,244,124 ABR, 11 May 88, Att. "A;" 1988 1,160,000 Interpolation. - - ###RRR I 1989 12080,000 - 1990 1,000,000IGrant Appl. 91-DB_25_ p. 1. I 1991 ( 500,000' p. 2. Q 1992 413,000 Interpolation. - - - 1993 325,000 Asst. Chief Todd, FC-19 Oct 93_p. 11. 1993 I 350,000 Lt. Chai, FC 26 Jul 93, P. 59. 1993 - j - 200,000IMaj. Lyman, FC 1-1 Jan 93, p. 50. i 1994 291,000IEstimate. i - - - - - 1995 1 291,000IEstimate. . - ...__L._.._._._.... - Source: Hawaii County Police Department. Total number of plants seized (1980-1995): 9,641,232.00. 0 d O. d ~ o ° c o = a. ' w o ~ r 7 r--yy N "rt^~jl ~ y7 3 'Ln C - r ~ rcc C n o. w a > a Table 3 Price Per Ounce Year Price Source 1995 $ 1980 150 Interviews with long-term residents. 300 1985 277 THMO, High Times 443 1987 220 330 1988 183 238 1989 279 363 1990 2741 329 1991 1992 466 512 1993 562 618 1993 500 Lt_Chai, FC 26 Jul 93, P. 64 550 1993 ----Poo Lt. Chat, CM 22 Sep 93, p. 1522. 880 I 1994 466 THMO, High Times 466 1995 450 ~ I 1996 350 - 350 - 1996 - - 300 Lt. Chai, CM 13 May 96, p. 3450. 300 1996 350 Interviews Growers, Dealers , 350 Smokers. - ......._..I _.___._....._._._.........._I .1.. i1 i ~ ~ n nT ~ ~ N~ 11c o O ~ o ~ O ~ G p ~ d O O ~t ~ v C• V"~~ r n, ^~---tom ~ N~ Cam- ~ on w~ r ~ c ~ h Ui ~ ~ a o (n ~ N r; ~ O Z1 3 ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ r U ~l N 0 r G a o g ~ d C d ~ e < z r n I 7v rn' fv O ~ O i U UV r 7V ~I ni I U I Ia N ~ ~ N r~ y, ~ cs o c o° o g Y~ U Table 5_ Estimates of Numbers of Plants Grown Year Estimate Source 1980 1,600,000 Chief Paul, 5 Mar 81, p. 32. 1981 1,200,000 (Estimated.) 1982 3,500,000 Chief Paul, 16 May 85, p. 24. 1983 4,500,000 1984 3,2507000 _ 1985 4,000,000 Capt. Wakita, 14 May 86. o M ~ ~ ~ I 0 0 ~ n o IV ~ p o ~ d o y oc n ~ T N~ vi - R Lc ! I- e u R' ~I 3 ~ c I r, a 3 r 1 g 6D ~a~zce .F>o~~CE -r~Tin~a~~ L7 S6z i j I i i i i iaule i ~ c Early __PolicE Estimates of Street Price Year Price Source - 1980 121 Chief Paul, 12 May 1981, p. 32. 1984 1000 Capt. Wakita, 1985 AB R. 1984 731 " - - - 1985 I 833L__ 1986 ABR. -._L.. - - - - - - N V~ i I / n~J z 1 70 / m~ n, - N o ~ O O I fi i i 0 o~ • a cII e / owl max e add,-esrf,c~ lveve al o -14r f Gu~d 6Qft !~/1'~e1 J/YlU1I0--f6x1 P,ghoA, ~/•vu~ai i 7 1 ate, /2 74q. 01 Ilk lea M A !Z Ref. Tos ' enfed FC Ref. Date -MG 6 1998 To The Honorable fames Arakaki, Member of the County Council County of Hawaii From. Dr. Michael Hysom, PhD, Co-Founder & Research Director, Sirius Institute and Paradise Newland, Founding Partner, Strius Institute POB 2108, Pahoa, Hawal 19677'8 Phone: 465-0929 /email: hysongbmcom Dear Honorable James Arakaia, R } ; This is a letter in support of the ftffl and complete canceUaUon of the Can a 4faryest program in Havran as well as any and all efforts now directed at the 66 eradication of Hemp (Cannabis indica and Cannabis saliva). i Stop Kesoiutkxffil-96 `To irceA-e federal furrdhrg for Creen HarresY frtmr the fedraa! t:crcernment ` As a neurobiologist (Hyson) and psychologist, (Newland) we have reached some knowledge of the Hemp situation that we wish to share with you so you can see why we hold the positions we espouse. We feet you must come to similar conclusions We urge you to cancel the already fafied Greets Harvest program in the interest of the people of Hawail, America and the Earth. We urge you to stop the flow of any Federal. State or County dollars that now go to the eradication of Hemp, and instead, encourage Hemp's use for the numerous benefits that will result. l3eip us natm's&r Hemp, allowing ft to retm to its proper place in atz ecology, economyaridoraBves. r The proper policy of Hawail County & State and America should be to encourage the gmwth of these worthy plants that have given excellent food, medicine and fiber m many people around the Earth since before the invention of wrlting it is praised a, fine medtone in our earliest writings, tike the 3000 year old Chinese Pharmacopeia of Shen Nun& and in the Egyptian Medical Papyrus of Ani. and gives us food. clothing shelter and wellbeing. i t Li6aens and public sextants that re~Yate Hemp fo / + pmperand sacred role rn our n,?hzyn ufll he b/eased abrmdanW and 1 a,"ored for lhelr courage and wlsdam In re,Yannq our fcwnders' vi-sxm of Liberty r i Yt I f~- i ~ r / r s i s f nil:,a i T. Hysm,Ph. D.; PorodIso MwIa+d ¢ < " Sirius InstItYtA the liattrv!/Sia1lvr uYAWW r + ui The natvralizativn of the Hemp plant will benefit the wellbeing, nutrition, and n economy of Hawai t in manifold ways. .AWzmab'zabvn vi Hemp will return us to a l path intended by the Founders of the united States of America and thus will restore to Wethepevple part of our Liberty as provided by the Constitution of the united States and once enjoyed by all sovereign dozens of America. We remind you that you, and all pubilc servants, have taken an Oath to sm7rart and defend the Constitution. This Oath > you to uphold the rights of the people and to actively intervene and any violation of the people's rights or violation of their due process, or the deprivation of their Liberties. Anything less is negligence and perjury of oath. We again urge you to uphold your Oath of Office by helping your fellow citizens to restore our God-given Liberty to grow and use Hemp, a< guaranteed by the Constitution, which you swore to "svppnn and defend" by your most sacred oath. Naturalization of Hemp is the wish of many people, and its use is now protected under the First Amendment insuring Freedom of Religion. The Supreme Court has ruled that sacramental Hemp use is now protected. As the Catholics have wine, and the 'native Americans have peyote - so others now have Hemp, as part of sacred ceremonv and faith healing The fight to this use of Hemp is now protected by the highest law of the land. ()hviously, since use of Hemp is protected by the First Amendment, then Green Harvest and other eradication and interdictions of Hemp violate the Citizens' Freedom of Religion. t Taking plants from private property violates the tights to privacy and due process. Private property is being taken before the service of a 4th Amendment iNarrarn properly signed and authorized. It violates 5th and 7th Amendment rights to due process. _ And this is just the beginning... Green Harvest, besides being a war on the people, a ravaging of their food and medicine supplies. and a desecration of their sacramental likrrbs, vauseb }treat harm. removing the Citizens' rights to prosper on their own land. Our dear "Land of the Free' now has more prisoners per c~aptta than any nation on Firth We have at least a MILLION people in jail. How many of them are political pn5oners of the drug war? One Thousand citizens of the united States are arrested per clay nr Hemp related charges most of them simple possession This results in loss or income, )ail time, court costs, broken lamilies, confiscation of autos and homes, denial of basic human fights, including the right to vote (if the case is a felony) Of Page 2 of 0 August 5, 19% I 4; a Mich=1 T. Hjsari, Ph . 0 . ; Po I se Mew I and ' ' " lln Slrlvs Instltute MAP 1A7tWV11. rt/ar of AIOMW Gtr' arse.'numbers of children are displaced from their parents by the State and CPS tope authorities, :How do we calculate this cost? The human toll is enormous. 4 And is this a crime? Zero A crime must have a victim. True harm must be 3 demonstrated to constitute a crime. Therefore all those now being held in prison for Hemp related charges should be released. Yet Green Harvest has the purposeof )ailing even more innocent Citizens practicing their Constitutional rights To show the true relative risk of Hemp as compared to other common legal substances, some 100,000 people per year die as a result of excessive alcohol use and sonic 45Q000 deaths per year are attributed to excessive tobacco use Something like j 3000 deaths are attributed to heroin and cocaine, 50,000 deaths to traffic mishaps, and 1 50,000 deaths from mis-prescribed medical drugs and their side effects.... we could go i on. The Number of Deaths caused by Hemp?T.ero In fact, medicinal and sacramental use of Hemp is proved to be beneficial. The Number of lives that can be saved or enhanced by the Naturalization of Hemp? Odhortst € Green Harvest is ultimately a program to 'harvest' sovereign Citizens from the land to deposit them in jail for usmg a protected sacrament and depriving them of 1 propertv and most important - them liberty. Where is the harm of Hemp to Justify its eradication and the imprisonment of thousands' It is an illusion, it is false, it is another fraud supported by the power of the government in violation of our rights. t Green Harvest is a horrible terrorism perpetrated on the people by the government, a war againai the Citi7en5 waged by their own government servants The Countv of Hawaii must stoptheir support of State-run terrorism tjow far we have come, Americans. How tar we have sunk Look The intent of the founding fathers of America with regard to the Hemp plant is i clear. Fhomas Jefferson envisioned America as a nation of self-sufficient farmers. who grew and produced most of their food, clothing and other products by their own efforts. Hemp production was key to this plan. Jefferson sent agents into China to obtain the hest seeds. Pago 3 0r 8 r~NQu3t 3, 194$ f ?,ichosl T.iiyson,Ph. p.; Paadiri ~la?w Blrlus Inst.ltutu 77re hfat~wolirutidl or'firp i 1. ~ ~ S Y~ N~ 9 f ri t ~ - f r'° r Benlamth Fr In and T' atne pirated their works on Hemp paper. AD the i major'documeti of America;' the Declaration to the the Constitution are written an Hemp paper y law, the p~sstonal Record is to be printed on Hemp paper. i rf (Since all parts of the Hemp p it are currently against the law, have we now even y tnltlawed possession of the ~Constttution you have all sworn to defend?) . l In early America, Hemp ' clothed and was medicine to the majority of people, One could even pay taxes with emp and for years, one was taxedlf one fadled to grow enmgh In 1820, in HawaN g Kamehameha accepted "unwrought hemp" as payrrient for taxes. j in Jack Her&5 book • The ~»petnr Weals No Clothes, it is related that Hemp was so important far the produ qn of sails, riape, canvas and linen, that Napoleon invaded Russia to capture theIemp supplies and end the British blockade of France by stopping, Russian Hemp suites to the British Navy. [Note: Hemp ffixr is the s b7c7Kv ratvra/ Bber and was then crucial to the production of rope and sails for any navy.) With modern, chemistry, Hemp can yield some 50,000 products Hawai'i needs Hemp - to revitalize an economy that is now faltering. There are many hungry people on this island and throughout Hawai'i that will be easily fed in 30 to 90 days of the time when Hemp is grown freely and openly by the people. The value of this one act to the prosperity and wellbeing of Hawall is vast. Please join us to Naturalize Hemp. l G Hemp and the Wellbeing of the Citimns and )especially our Children t Essential, in Biology and Medic me, means that the body MUST have at least these ESSENTIAL items in the diet in order to have the pieces needed to build the structure of the body. Their presence In the diet is obso/uteAvecrsmrv, and, well essentiai. Hemp seed protein is a crampfWte pmteir, that is, it contains all the essential ammo ands needed in the diet for proper production of proteins of which our very bodies are made. i i Page 4 of IS August 3, 1646 T t ^ N i shoe l T. Hyson, 9h . 0 . ; Pa°ad l sa risel and irlus Institute Thm 1b.WliZVtiw o/ moo t' Hemp seed is the best plant source of patty adds and oils yet found. Essential oils, such as 8wnma-hi7n/eic and 11~7alenic adds, must be in the diet and are used to produce hormones, which regulate many organs, and prostoglandins, which regulate the immune system, as well as in the very structure of all the membranes which constitute our cells. At the very least, A essential nutrients must ! be in our diet and are requtred for our welibdflg. t il. Hemp is easily: grown and is the ftnest plant source of essential amino adds and i "fats known-to human beings. Such amino adds and oils are essential to proper {i,;, -.ii. ~ni. trihon "mist growth. Therefore, we must Naturalize Hemp, Q.12-D. We know that restoration of adequate amounts of essential oils in the diet will I ' eliminate excess fat. cancer, diabetes and arthritis [See the works of J. Margret Budwig and Udo Erasmus Fab thafNeal, Fats Thal KR (easily avaflable at Keaau Natural Foods and other buokstores)1 The use of Hemp for the feeding of babies will save many lives and reduce medical costs by millions of dollars. One example is the following about sixty percent of premature infants below 1.5 Ibs at birth, now die of train hemorrhage. This is, in part, because they arenow fed formulas made from rancid (1 a rotten) soybean oils that 3 cause free radical damage and fail to supply enough ESSENTIAL fatty adds and proteins to the infant. In consequence, the membranes of the train are weak and rupture. Immediate use of baby formulae that contain the oils and proteins of live hemp seed will save, many baby's lives and reduce medical costs that may easily run P OM to SI,000,MO per baby. r personal social and al costs of Green Harvest are also immense. It is well known that when innocuous substances like Hemp are forced from the market by government intervention, that either, more harmful substances then predominate. l; Government causes distortion of the market (i.e. the eradication program) by spending 85% of all drug enforcement dollars on Hemp. This has resulted in (according to our local sources) an increase in heroin use to something like 600 doses of heroin per day being sold in the Pahoa area. This influx of heroin to the Pahoa area occurred along with the increased Green Harvest activity. Heroin alone causes prrncnind losses and costs to the individuals, their families, and the state The government would save many millions of dollars locally, statewide and nationally if i Pogo 3 or $ wigust 3, 1906 i t lIN" ,icharI T. WVW,Ph. D.; Facadiso ru. and t ~ itt{ 3 Srius Institute TAB hS~ttsv/i~vlir 7I'hiaw Aix y, they stopped Hemp dication and supported Hemp Naturalization Instead These a losses can be shift • o great gain far the people, the community and the people of the Y nation at large b~ r simple naturalization of the Hemp plant. 31, Ora an e,'are major problems as well and influence the community e tion to people's lives, and the thefts that often accompany the .,ma. pn to the cost to the children whose parents or caregtvens are users: fits, ;ad using the,' harder gs. The CPS Is full of them and the costs to the child our t; community, qur cuitlat a is vast beyond measure. It is also well known that the health consequences Vf inteivenous drug use range from hepatitis to AIDS, to death. ' in addition, babies become addicted durtngthetr fetal growth and somepercentage of these babies have drug induced birth defects. On a local radio talk show aired on October 23, 1995, a Child Welfare Services official reported that each crack addicted baby took some $250,000 and more in medical support. The Hemp plant contains THC (Tetrahydro-Cannabino0, a mild euphoric and tranquilizing substance, useful for treating glaucoma, chemotherapy side effects, the i ; oldest known drug used for childbirth and many other conditions- We have known { 5 for years that THC binds at certain sites in the brain on particular parts of neurons called receptor sites Since the shape of molecule that will bind to a neural receptor site must be highly specific, it followed that a natural transmitter must exist in the brain that matched ;the THC receptor sites Recently, this new natural nerve transmitter,substance:`was found and identified . It has been called 'Anandam)de•' from the Sanskrit mot "Ananda" meaning "bliss". It is involved mainly in "reward" circuits of the main "emotional' area of the brain (the timbc system). The seeds of Hemp contain zero THC (Tetrahydro-Cannabinoi). THC is the IDain substance of concern in Hemp, now legislated to be against the law (although virtually { all parts of the plant are now against the law). Sterilized Hemp &,%b can be legally distributed and sr)id and, with proM controls, even now, fresh live seeds could he usect Because steam sterilization removes some of the nutritional benefits by destroying much of the essential fats and protein present in the live seed, it is better to have at least some live seeds available to make the freshest, most potent oil. ) j 'Ale would like to paint out that growth of and commerce in seed products could be. started tmmedtately . even before the Naturalization of Hemp, since the seeds are legal and their components are simply the finest of foods. We suggest that the,proposed'free enterprise" zones in Hilo and elsewhere tuna) be used to produce Hemp seed and fiber products immediately. This would allow Pogo 15 of fkqust 3, 19% i i i ~ i M i chae l T HjW, Ph , 0 Pw ad i ae tide l and F Sirius Institute 77m NWtwv1i.aatiwr or' < production of manyilready legal hemp seed and fiber products, since production will begin In specially controlled zones. The THC recovered can be used for medicinal purposes, such as the treatment of glaucoma and for the side effects of chemo-therapy The Naturalization can be done in stages: t rMT s~tea Sit ed seeds can be imported from China. Shortly thereafter, live i w$t'from` China Chile, Kazakstan or other countries who are ready ma) Hem rociueers and have good seeds, or our own domestic varieties can Ue used: Then the legal culture of Hemp can begin on Hawail with the THC being @ well;;controlled wfiile the oil, protein and fiber produce new products. Finaily, li Naturalizahon of Hemp will release Hemp to grow freely throughout the Aina. ~ yl j Such a process will quickly demonstrate the value of Hemp to the economy of Hawat'i, pump millions of donats into the economy, enhance the trade balance of Hawatti through the export of new and unique products, and form the core of various new industries that will thrive when Naturalization of Hemp occurs. This will more than compensate for the Federal dollars the current programs generate. I As well. the Naturalization of Hemp will contribute to the wellbeing and balanced nutrition of the people, thereby saving millions of dollars of medical costs. Use of hemp oil, virgin hemp oils for babies will result in massive savings in improved outcomes, especially for premature babies or those at greatest risk !I Use of Hemp. both the oil and seed, will quickly feed the 14.000 plus hungry people 'I on this island. !11 3. Now you know more about Hemp, its history and sacred nature, its strong ties to the foundation of this country, as well as its nutritional benefits. medical uses and the manifold benefits that are available from Hemp to the people whose rights you are i sworn to uphold. Perhaps you voted for Green Harvest in the past out of ignorance, feeling that it was "good for the economy' or "of good moral diaracter" i Now you know the truth this program is a terrorist attack at the Uberty, rights, nutrition, lives, and property of citizens and which harms babies and imprisons thousands of ordinary people in a failed attempt to eradicate a sacred plant that has j served humanity for millennia. 's Page 7 or lripust 3, 1996 nichoel T. Hpm,Ph. D.; PanadIse N" antl g ~#y sirius Instl tuts IN N(7t<ovli.natf~ vi Akw There is only one way you can possibly decide, END GREEN HARVEST rf NATURALIZE HEMP We pray you will see the truth and deride with wisdom. Jofnus ifree g thi & plant Hemp, the people who grow and use it, and by extension, t'` r the Cahz'ens~of*Aryt cca j You have a'chance to make a difference. Say YES to Naturalization! F Aloha and mahalo, ' Dr. Michael T. Hyson. Ph.D. Co-founder and Research Director Sinus Institute (Signing for both parties) i - and Paradise Newland Founding Partner Sinus Institute r August 5, 1996, Pahoa, HI t E Page 8 of $ August S, 1996 S661 00 FAQ '3~H :oy '3a2I pa4uasald 'off aIGI Vic =W0 SCI of cn n ti c=. n r L y r ^ N it L C i " l _ - f mt~ j J _ - f i _ f V _ - - - - J _ I _ ~ f - - - J - i III ~`r~nI JF 1 m j Y ' ~ ~ - 1 T C v 7 ^ J j7 M M, _ i' C lT ti f _ _f, c i R T x rt rt ~ = n ~ '0 rt R JS f. ~ 1C T T ri• . rt Y, r R T ~ 3 a C O C Lr :G Oc V, .P d :a. ru J~ Ot v ~ U. I =F=- _ x.G Yr = ~ 5= ~ ~ R C =n F ~ Z Z Z 'S £ z~c a r Tic rt Z a r C' -t = d O? o r - ._L _ - R L D E _ ~ z - n s ~D v ~ ~ ~ TJ' = 0. ~ > ~ /r~~ 1 - - _ :f r G n ^ S G `a'rt S^ C w+ 7t n n - - - ~ G1 R_..• --t~~S -C " 2 G _Q •Qs o-~P'~9' a rt S = T_ _ £ L z + ^ T'i y^ 't ^ r T L ~ a v ~ ~^S _ n% o.a D 7 O O m m 3 1 Z v G O^ y n - ~ e - S _ r' s 1 G ~ ~ _ ~ G r rt ~ ~ G r^., jG ~ _n~'.' - R x C L S z_ _ _ - ^ _ S n :14 C G ~ R 1 ^ S "1 ~ JQ ~ ~ G ~ O i 7 N d. (t JC y N R J-rtK= T.-w:ns n ~ ?~<s ~-~Nyi=Gr N~~(p SR n'~n'C=F - ~ ~ c ~ ~ • ~ ~ N ~ .1G ~ (~/i tpFE 7 d S J d R ~ R 7 ~ O p_ ~ S N 0. ^ R F x r= C ~ rt O C C ~.d O C a C n ~ W 7 C C~= T ~9 O ~ rt 7 P y - ^ .t 3C r n = N a R ~ 'C ^ S G (y N N Ne O r 7 -i N R O y v C. p i d C. ~.di z rt T°q A T~ a° Sc sw~ R ~ _ f9 C „ OQ ~ n ? oy ZL- X- n_ _ T 5 _ C G y (3D C G v 'O d R R C p y_ r, = y c? L ? O o_ Sp n T S m 7' C s a~ m n m " . z _ _ = ti r - - . ~ _ s n 'R R r J O ~ ~y J9 F y - C r 77 7 cr, x Y cr O w c - m i n R= m_ G a - o ^ 5 T a a^ . H ~ ~ a- 'D '3 C7 y C S R n P: ' x T > _ R ? - ^ r`i 3, ^ N n i rho 2 z N' r F S mss. R i.' R v O~ H~ 0: n x v' ^ R S Rv. R F R c a n"c' 7 ,r, i y a N c H w T d a U z x rt O o- r. y n c0 ,ny C < N y O C i r9 C a x = rt x C Y F O ~ n y~ a '.'C 7 ~ tD .Y. O x R x m yl "1 Y 7~ Z r. R T v ~ 'r R 7 rlD+ lTi9 (D r rp n rD (D `C 'r1 R - Y F r R rt Y ~ r. rt n 'D rp nn ~ ~ C 9 R 7 K, O rD 49 N S O x o: -~i Y S£ Z ~ ti R y d n ~ n Y i ~ ^ ^ O. O £ ~ O O^ £ 7 R C d .rt7r Z T S a y C N O 7wi 7 .T t~ F ..C ? 0, y R jl~ - F ~ =ca aye y- I _ z_ n' rt C~ m~ f rt T d Y H~ R rt (9 ry~ 1 ~ ~ _ ~I ? = _ - _ - tD 'J ~ 7 C' i lD ~ ~ !p rD In u !D fr O 7 l: a T a _ = _ - _ S w r /D .i !D Y 7 .,t9n C G T '.rtn R w rt. F T 7 G 'e ~ _ - - G _ _ _ _ { = ^ w 7 S S J -I 7 n a rt or, T r: r _ i e i_ - - ~ n rt - R n S, rt - C S~'. C _ - I ; _ % F c 1 = ^ = A = G Z 2 C - !D d -I W Z y ^ iq +F - C n C C ~ n S -7 r m rt C . rt % R• ? y O. 2 w cr 'w0 ^ •r ? ti r- - _ - 1!D C _ T^JG ^ Z .Q rt ft rt U. S G w _ _ ~ _ ~ rD t £ rt v ~ C 't (~j rt 'tin' 3 ~ ~ C } (D ~L ~T ^O T r F S l a - y ~ - y "q "1 t9 C w_ ~ r s ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ G^' ~ :n _ _ _ v _ i n' J O r~ '1"t r. TUO y SJ Y w Y !p ^ w I nv C rt y rt< F G. 7 n W _ s r d is ? - s 7 n X o x 7G ^ 7 /D O4 m W w" 7 N 19 /D O rt 0. d? 7 tlQ tC o: z FFFF - - n r n x ~ da _ _ rL _ = m R ~ - = _ _ _ S V V J :C JL y Q1 Q1 W C .y C,~` = 9~T ° - _ M1 C R _ T T 5 / ' `z Grenc_~?n rt ~ %o <i SO to V tD tD _ - I i _ _ _ ' R _ _ _ _ ~ n ~ i R C N O G. ~ M r G (E 2 O (.n 2 v! y G=- - c_' w :n~ O_r ago o w m > j X Z 1 G C- - : ro R rt S ~0 O n ~ ID n S C O R i~ lp ° F' ¢ E c y^ .S z (n 7 y .D fDt N C •,cCL` C C" y S _ 77' D e a p o w z G G n N, w rt, x_'c c _ O. n _ ? _ a n~c _..^..^--s r 7C t~ CG O c0 ~n Gni~ p0 r G R ~ fat ate; an nOd'O £ C=. 'r~9~m... S''S _ _ _ c n n` _ _ _ s ~ _ ? ' o s r•, n ~ v t ^O 5' ' B n O~ ~ w rn n n x = F ti 5 3 n SC O C R G s.-c' - n _ c 3 w N' ng w w a i _ ~ ~ _ R j r' _ ? w 9 _ R ' _ ~ iS _ ~ - _ n `L - ~ 1 7C - ~ J Z n X L C1S U R R r ~ = f .7C 7~ T a S 3 u G: S I' ' c ~D l^D ? O tD G n I i D! - C. a Z a ~.m 7R°> C O 0. ^ ~'O Z ig n - n 3 ~ cTR C _ . L>< y rt c a' a y y < ~ 3'_• ~ ~ , a _ 3^. ~ rt ~ ^ ~ R £ n n ~ 7 ~ R jV c ^ z s, ~ n ' = ~ " g'--.j r 3 n C a• ~ ~ a. C w 7 I J a._ £ o-~£=icrto=..3 -,W <G. p,.rt „ _CC;.. nYGCry~' C' Wiz` ~ ^ ~ n o s a ~ ~ ~ s c 3 ~ CX ~ xro ~ 0 n R' C ~ n 7r s. d = R ~ ~n c ie ~ _ V - rt r K c: s w c .rt. C< v r c~~ a x~ a S R n ^Y' C y C 7; J` ^ - n, =i Y - rt_ pi JO R > ` _ j A C j W !E N W S < (9 Y r„a'x rtYn ~ - n o s £ fix. ~rt'~ z~'~'7~~ o- n a a.d~ - x- m a.~ v 1 r R 1 Sx C pQ n' '3 ° n r v rt n rt c u c rt d£ Z -oo y .A'N y x C On S 3 C j C c ? ^?'N`' A~ =_:'xa=3~.r'Tm'.E, a~c° s3 ~~.>>3ry= '_aZZ: r nom: y+~ti~ -n3q O',D rt w _C =xv2 ,~FrTi __~c6.6~n§.c_ nn~£~? ^~p~~ ~.7~7n~<Inn ~,n 7~7~- Le > .^..'J r. j y c ~ C aG - C' ~ ~ ^ T a c i ~ = n ^ ~ y y rp (p =f R ^ y µ a'. i v F 3 i~~ o ~ C ~e S 3 3 - a v T i . r ~ S 3 n~ ,,n^`, ^ rE ~n ; !D = C C. R C-' ~ ^yv,'F c~ h" c n is > o- P ~ a la o a ~ y 'a 7 n 3 n~ rp m R a n - to n p ^ lJ ^I R - v - - $ ? ~ ~ ~ d ~ _ ' o o A ? ~ C c m rt ~ 0G ~ C C ? y C ~D O 'rt C_ f. _ x 0 T". a~ f = n - rt'~ ° ^ o C O n Z " 'rt 'OO n p' r' .L F 5;' 5 e ArS^~ ~-GC ^Tna>-A ~'y z~ ^ _.=rt Cm% rt .y f O v ~'y u C n £ ~ j; < r T~ n F rt'o S c o ?:''n ^ n `Q ^ = a m i t9 0~ a r^ n T I- n v., rt n m C% ~ C n ? i rt c d_ a A rt a_ 7 v_` c c^ _oa a: y 0 G. 7 n R A _ x ; •e ~ Z > n ~c ~ c ~9 S y S ~ ~ C 3q w 7 - _ = t = rt ~ n ^ . T~ c = J9 - - rt~ i c_ act ff ^ n fr ~ -i R C R t'~ ,L 'k ^V Z r . ~ ~ ~ c ^ j ~ a rt ~ $ ~ C> ~ r; ~ % ~ _ • 0 ~ c ry u' S ~ y N £ fn ~ rip ~l C `Frt.: GF ~'i~Crns=ai~rt^..~.~~r= vs :1Q ~•n~nnd ~ 'Drys - o o . _ : x n F vas ~ rt O S O C H S S - ' s lac o"n r ^ - - ^ _GO.D _c S^ n m < w O C ~ O < C _ _ y ? ^ o.. ~ %n = ^ a ? $ D x 3 0 ^ i d' ° ~ ~ c A a 7 ~ ~ S ~ wj ~ n ^ O n y ^ C r: ^ %e C D ;A n' C ` ? V' '~^t ^ ^7 P1 -IpE w n y n 'c^3''9 s S~:'v9 ~ rtrt vv. c 7 w y v, w f v. 7 _ v rt s" -i ^ z 5. 4 v i"^ v s i v o i 2 n O O _ C Oq lD. " rt~~ d ae ~ c~ n a d s^ a w v u C x N n C 7 S C aS n~~ a 7- w y C^? ~ y J j ~ ~ _ f n f' W ' FYI. n ~ < y ^ J N N '.1. - _ _ j, - r• ~ S S ~ 'T . 'O w' 'a N. ? ~ _ w S y ^ w S J C & =:a _ w y ^.J. S 1 w R .0 n. <'4NQ m o C O A -wf w= cC.< . - ~ a `a x R w ~ C ~ rD C C - d0 w -yi _G. 0- N ? J i, S ryo " C. w d O y y w S C '-'O .N ^ .7 N T>s$ d a. a n b O ~ a - ~ A ~ ~ s 'a ~ ^ Z v T z <c ~ `n°' n R' `y° ~ ~ w a ? ^ ^ ~ ~ y a 0. fD Soc ;J c s f' x` F <n v o n rt 3 N w d m <o ~ y b G w T ad ' ' S G rt -J 'y . n c 'J ~ ~ 'JO C H O ~ W ' y 'J^7 2 £ W _ n N 2 f, ? V'~ C ] R'FFL a\ DC S rtS ? '~C.yZ S `7 H m a ^ v w ^ N ^n' N p _ n p„ r~ .D ; C' ft Ci of Y (C (E (1 C ^Y N S N N T y G w r ' C4 E g n ~ ~ 1. a` o Z c c 7~ O_'D G rt y y 0.C b ^ n w E n_ K 0 OPQ y O ro, raw < 7 ! r. y S ~ y y M~~ v ^ n ~v xT~ 9 =G ~n~ to N Z ~ ~ h ~ b'~.~.. d r tD ~ +h~ w 'O C p tp ~ S ^N T' ^ i 3~va~_~~..1~'<o a~~A r ycJ rt=RRJ 2~Ca C~fn9 T? S ix 'r Ou n~3.-;g'ao ~.^~n a'~E a.of T., H y~~ rw9 p'~5,3 ~ ^T<^ ~.k x mp2r~,y^yA 3c'z n < c y as 'n rvwc ~ sc y" i' A 'opFdm ~,_~T ~ rt n 'o y N_ n re - z o n a c R n . F u? o a 0 R S d. O' O c w ,N. ?~'^~~:n ~;~S'?~D-~ 2u-1~c^a vC<,£„D. 7O"~ wH ~y~ ~ C ~N x a O as n ^ m cl ()q ft n c ^ O'' GF T0. ~Jp-{ ~?m S ~ u'O ry w y u co 0 H C a i. 1. = on N£ .0.., OD v G. Rr-I w y 'c 57 S y 7 _ O ^v~-0~9 CVO`'~~, .A c' DZd.D~ Sfy9 d£W nR a(p~DDQ£ £ Ca a' ` o d c n ^ C n c E~ ti y N O 1 ^a 1 rT S ? c n c ~a c R C A n W N' n fb y S > > E ~ ~ ^ D tl r D n .S^_ ~ 8 aKi 7 ~ ~ ~ T w £ rtC ~ C aC n x J O o a E `n y n 'O 7_ 07q S G tn9 £ O^~ 3 c an° c ~ c Z e E ~ w E n n' G~ N A E A C S C S w a G< o ^ a~?4?~ >'a ~ ~3 . -d a > o aw n re N o n r. X _ _ - _ R ? - n. ?c C - )PE z Sr 7, 2 c, n - n 1 ice' .3 R n C 71 _ a - _ I _ -f - III Z =aq .m ~ ~ .T F, ~ r. ~ = C w ~ .'1 T y S 7 ~ V 'C W ~ ~ •w1 a S R o r. v - 2 d i ,a m T a E R= d QQ = rt R R w O R n R o b fi n y w a 2 ~ _ u o y y ,C n R ~p C S R ~p O ry R C < E 3- i o f n v °'di Q v 7 7 p ~n" d n 7 7' d S G OQ y C C r tly A i7. i 5 m y 3 6 S r P =.OrO y n T, R. K y R n n .pi, u= C R 5G' Iz n n' T n c. N 'L v _ _ C 'S '.n, io a. S O S p a ro _ ~ E a m ~ ~ v v £ n n ~ ~ C w < 7 'O ~ w' ^ R O £ R C rt W £ .y C r ~ _ O'Q n? a ; c y< v O' R g R $ p iD l£p fD 'w+ C O C z N rt p- X 1 t _ T. w~~ b e 0 m b r w ~ S ' ~ G' b G' = O O~~ n .b w fE S v y C n o6 z lCp w R O C y W F R S S w .~.i R R m T N w G c =CA ~.n DC;n O ~Cm~ o n n.~ R~< ~'D _ ? ' £ a c'x n iw p S o m Q; H W W £ p rp c R x rt G nF n n Q _~o y y w(JQ C w e w R M C R w S ti m R R 3 R C R= n~.~2d~=s mA'R caotl0 c ? B °-H ~ N R w ac' o 1 n n " ~ ' -9. ~ ' s. w o a R ~ G'~ C ~ d £ w C Sip £ ~ H 3 T? n i T_ n n m R~~ 7 n n R ~nn (SD 7 Q R „h R H R N n Z C- z n 3 m r~~ < C C C G tD C ^ s p 'b 0 0. R 7 A= c' x n a~ x~ H s S C 7 C f<p R 0. 7G C C OSi ; O C O C. w a~ ~ ^ 3 n ~ c n T K ~ ~ R^<. ran n 7 w 3 SOQ n 7 'O 2 c. 3 n 9 ~i 'n s 'n D w G W 0' C C n~ G, d 0 0. 0. C C m ~ aq 7 ~ T ~ = ~ 'S H n ~ ~ S ~Ci ~ O. < w R R G. 1 G - F ] .'V.' J ± ; f I. F ~ J J - T ^ Y S S ~ ^ _J '-T rI JCi C S S ~ Q J d -C S n ~ r ~ n n = F ".K ~ ' 7 c m^ _ J ^ a = ~ ~ N lD ~ 7q d d ~ p' ^ R ^'i ~ S 'J !D ~ 5C 3 - a:'c'~A~=£- C.b aHd Ty ^~iy ?7C47'C aw~~~N~'a.~< _ _ _ ? i _ _ G n w `G ~ _ y Y 4 tt ~ ~ rD ~ . r r rt c £ r]_- A C S 7' d M y d d~ G: n C y' n G - L V r ~+oa n ~ a d c O= ~b n s y n S b 'O ~ j ~ i _ A J a n' 2 a n v 3 ^i c 5 n O y a w ro y ~y ~ C Sip T C Y n n m G < .w. _ - a x. a f ~ c G - c 3 v ] x° c~ ~ ~ w T R R x ~ -Ci n C ^ n ^ r, 3 ? J A N ~ : t0 rt ~ - ] ~ 3 ^ ~ ~ G ~ d ~ ~fCD7 ~ y ^ fD C 0' d J TF 'L7 C a 77 dam, I.z rc c~,~ mcOC-'1~^r^~0 ` - ca:a i.~>•] ~'~w anC{Av O~ rt o- r L %e A rt rt S d C~ p S 71 71 `r.n~.^~.RRJryrt E.-.dn6NG s Jn9~3 .'GAS Ob R~nO <3 ~ (E .C I- 3' ^ R'a ~ A' ~ ~ ° ~ y ~ m ~ _ _rt y ~ d J c Y rt p ~p Cyyr R G' ~ y SQf 'C, _ J F ~ - A C R ro V: r 3 - ~ k. Q' O 'a PD -1 y 7 C ~ r' I ~ - ~ = r ~ J-~ n ~ ¢ i~j D ~ 7. ~ p p i ~c7~ j c ~e ~ u C ~ ~ ~ 2_ C y rt a'. 3 x S rt9 Or ° N yr, rt n S rGe ^•tlq FrJ ~Gaa au,-, c^', v. c -,moo ti O »r n 7 "n l E J s rt oc A ^ Q V v a a ,9 i s c S p ? C x rt z, c J m J ~ m Tc R _ ° Gc a _ mC - °n m n O d £ A G u n R R SJG n om. - X j_ T f z _ F _ = S~.. l ~ rt _I ~ ~ S j 1 ^1 ,n.• 7 ~ n ~ ~ C: - r r X - Y Y, v ^ R ~ T. < l" . ~ ^ ' '-i v A s m ~ ~ F S Jc - X Y R Y ? i .r is `G .F- ? M1^' C .2 ~D T ? "n, 1 7t F v .7 'Jr ^ ^ _ ti ~ 0 R 'R "h J ^ a L i 'f 5Q r^^. 0 R C + tI _ S F n = r r n- _ ~ x X ? ? y F : 1 iC ~ C_ I _ S. Y R S ^ A .r S ~ R R n ~ %C fn C - Y J ] I^ _ Y v y iC _ X ° R r n 3 T 3 6 R 1> x = v n r• x y r < r_ s x- x E, v v a v G z n]= R n n y i F w~ 'l^~ - 7 72 X_! J > n n'Y m n L n `.i ] n R F m n rt y a C- r js -6c "1'•_'.J av;' 'O ~4nC nv y. z i x~.0 x x 1, r<•]ro >>'0o=~~'n~ n3~ ~ rcnr`n~v~ v'v v 7m rt Sw .z r - ~ ] n s ] C : v Crt S ~ G - n A > ~ F = n ~ Z G9 C ~On-, n ^w,. JG ;°n ~.]]n? a. i.~=X3]4-'; G`• Fr -_=n 1REN zn~m5 _GZ' v _-nn~.?ran P^n nE r.. rt. p rt x x s ] s v r n = ? < it ' n _ ° v 7 c ? ~ ? m n - ' i L ~ 3 n v c C G _ ~rti G n 'n ~ ~n n _ n n ~ ~ 7 ~ - Y _ z n F T a n ~ ~ 'S ? ~ ~ ,4, a r S . C ~ _ v n G ~ ~ ^ ~ S . M .p xx ~ = L _ r _ s - _ / r r _ F rt r r r R! I S _ I z p z - 'T1£ Y C JCS r~ R 7 Srt T _ _ I N - ^ C X. _ . ? G rt _ C u ,G_y' G 7 v F ~ it d = _ F- y n lc S n G c ?c =~c = eb 5i O O rt m n 7 p JF _ lG tl it p. _ 7 Y. S ~ r - T ^ 7 ` ie ^ u. -p r1n ~ L N t0 ^ F- n s= R a d i n - G a R 0 n 3, , G H r T 'O"+ 1~ r. RS C T = r = ~'s R y u = R. ~ C a R = a % C d R. ~ ~ C r ~ .t _ _ a F R rt_ R ~ r 3 r ! R . n R ^ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ fir" r rt 'C ~ ~ - --x _R F~V-=x"~ xwaarcx '~:n~ cy 9~ Rr^~"R R s a __i TSR"' ? Ga p .__n E. } a S p 4 rt 7 ^C~, C ,lam ~M rt CL 1 A . _ ~ = R ~ f ? a y fr a ~ < . a N ~ O L ~ O C (f`.. Vi ~ I T _ Y F^ ei S ~T3r2===;76" ~-o n F-c ya N = s~ R ^t N' r_. n lC _ _ n' R _ Y n !4 R C r L O '.T "t yi CL r . x ~ - ? ~ n ~ x 3 nG 2~ rt io :a a ~ ? rt 0. P^~+ S O ~ rt t"D rn S - rt~R,-R~rtr - _o.e=en3 C'n ;~C%=~~CO~Ip R 1_ J _ R J F c f 'f y2 " F F = z = v' - X v ~ ~ R ^ geJ R T~e~ SC S s z z r 5 J_ n rt. a n r<o S 'n 'r ,'3 = - - - rt A _ r.; ~ c ~ - L ]Q R C ~ ''3 .gyn. ~ lq = _ 71 77 _ _ ~f _ _ f..l: _ '-Sn_ - "~-SR M1` 'yam $ I ~ ~ a _ya ~ ° s x^O rn~ r R R` P- - i q Y R _ 171 O i-X~a~ cr ?x-znT?~R ..F ~ ~T. £.7 ~~:-.O ~iG'3 ' < _.x r x~~ n S= , X a r .e ~ O .^.r £ O O G y w R a ix ~ ~ ^ his d--- ^n~~z"° ~dC r?r3D SCnw~ £7t III R e b UD ~ C 7 s 7 Sr. r A P^ P a ~ r r X C 7 n_° G u ~ A 7~ w y 1 ~9 .n r x r ' z - ~3 n '?^o oa z ? F z n' n m n. n n n v ? 1 G O n} 74 Ai .F y _ c~ x o n ~ o o Y 6.R -f S~ S ^f Op _R. Taa - '-i "^.nT rr~ `Nw7= 3rn P4 ~ rt R rt R w ' ti < O Y i rE x 3 'M R .n « z Z: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B r; L _Y rD D _ _ i, - ] - J r - ~ G ' _ - ~ n Y ? r ~ ,O ~ ~ cn. ~ N .,y. rCfo ` ~ T I i-_ -15=`0 v.i ^^.C " P?O S pSO CY I] H r _ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ 7 rp d "1 ry T ~ n G lD ~ ~ C ~ y r1- - ~ = Q S'C r. ~ _ O Y 3 p Z ' - x _ W^ 7 ~ 'O C -Ri a a y H ~ Gap S m a w ~ w c a v A 'r ~ t r c ;v ac t c s o m r~ 3 c n 3 n olgq S a ' . as n y 4 p Y ~ v R rt = ~ ~ a v ~ ~7. % R ^ ~ (9 'G X S ~ !p ~ .G (E W ~ O- l A - ti- ^ n C 7 rt Grc J _ - L J _ y : n s = Y ~ C S ~ J~q 1 ~ ~ ~ b v. ' V? R R Q n s P G - t = ~F Ji - ~ 7 ~ ~ .r. s H " G9' ~ ~ S ~ cWw~ N n-w~ ??:1Q x r d~ ~ ~ H nn ~ m n Y= n o n Rio ~o y c- n~ rt N R r^,,' - ~ . 1 ~ ^ ~ i n, C 3 S yai < O C ~ £ T ?C G ~n S ~ b " r ~ ~ - J^ ^ r9 y y ~ R V ^ p T _ n F N ~ 0. C N = ~ - J. e C C S_ R 7 Y~ p e w ' n 7- =t ~ R R P w ~ S _ _ R r ^ i - _ - S C S C~ fD C _ ^Fi C n rt' = ~ (D r^ e ^ - i r r"_ r h= r_- n R S n t s x" R n r y c c a' a° °q a U S s_' = n ^ c_- 2 S o a C a? S ? rt S '9 Cl. cm ft C x rt S S_ 7 R C. R? ? R r , _ z : oc c £ R v- $ ~ R C c a d ° T w - . F S?7 F R C:^ A fD n'4q R 1 s _ _ ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r = _ r R rt 7 r J r S F' X - _ z - r c _ _ - T _ ~ ~ JO G rt u" ~G Stlq J G rt I o- s - 1^ Y^ G n J 1 O N n t rt ~ y C = I E _ _ r . - - - ~ . - =h o - r r. _ S < 0. J ~ 2 r rt ~ o'y., - 7 rt ~I F ~ _rt C J7 z z ^ _ Y ^ . rD lD '7 ¢ ~E Y G. t bCi r _ y rc - n rt o S y w m ~ ~ ? ~7 7 ° ~ w ~ 'C T y, rp r c - _ o g 7 _ C _t r, N rn a' v: O rp £ ro y rS _ v x - y C p N S rG9 O^ n~ n c` ~ C- O w O. 7 7 L z' z w-° OG n m w W S y- F.. F. _ I O =e 3=.'~.rA=__ ~,c.-^ ~9 ~ w'< ~o m~ w ..j raw ? .g ~z r. L R - ' ni r. w rD R m O tnn C ° ^ 6 G " c acs - _ N ~'1 ='4 dy _ £ o n e Lc o~ a ,7O x ^al N w i Z i- x_ r ~ 1 N C J w 0. F ^ I'm i.: ' - rt x i T yG ? r<e O '3 7 t.-e S G a' C 3 w a - F r F~c _ < R C n C n N Cl..n. W~ C u'nf w - ~ > F x s' ~ ' 7 '-:J: rD O C w £ '9 ?w w m n.y , ^ ti ~ < r 1 0 'w C x _ _ 8 _ _ - C - _ - - - C - i ! c. - p - Y m a S Z 2 rS S ` r v S. " r 3 ? $ 0.h n 0 i 3 c c 0. ^ is - ~ n _ - - - u. i _ Z T S r9 / a J 7- - F- rt J r rt T p r rt y, rt a r c rt C !E rt n `n - r 2 77 c ? _ 'S rt S ~ a r~ C C £ ~ s ~ ? Y £ rp O ~ ^ rt y ,y S rt x C ?+0.'y Fes, Ta _z r a ~ < J v ~ rt ^ 0.S ~ _ ? ~ ~ ~ rt rt cry _.b y < CL W S '9 p c= = m n S w - w n O O. ? O 00 t3o 'A _ rSt S s rt I'L s % 0. 3 =t r ffiR 5.+, r 7 4 71 r p ~ ~i ~ _ F F - - G R r: tl 7 a ^ 1 R 2 J4 ~ t9 ~ ^ l _ _ _ ^ - ' ~ ; ^ ,~I' ^ rt. r s ~ -p ~ rSO ro 5 r`o o• d ? c i ! / ? =n _ R - ~ _ y :r tt V ^ S ? rL ~ „ R 7 R Y 'C 7 ~Dtom. ~ ~ in G r ~ i< b n 7^. R S A d E S r. =1 R vy S O `G R 7< ~ ~ R J~ S- F i. v z S° r~~o^~° y f9 a- ~'~o y 3 'T x %c c z z _ 3 r G ~ G. ~ rs R - i _ •v n w ryy y i F r rn, r n Y= ^ me 7 Z_ 7q F C 7 r G 7' is C: C = n 3 G 7' O rt ^ 7' C R ^ : tlQ - 14. z t X S v. - 7 3_ r, d 70 O- b 4. a p, x 71 - < - r - . - R ~ ~ ^ R R a d rev = _ ^ v o ~3 ~ o ~ - x ~i x- < S ? o x ^ R_- y rt w w' g R 3 a g n rc c ~ o c o ~ CL m _ x ~ R t £ r, ~ c: f n '7 OC ~O.r S £ < y T T v 7,1 C rD 5 v V R YC x" R 2 U -a M R C; o 1 _ _ .y 7G P: 'L C ~ L S'Jn0 ry' y C 'C R C ~ A - I - : : _ ^ _ a 'c ? oo arc n n ? a ° n' 7 C. 4 ti i i P v u ^ n R ? L C Y _ Y A S r C C- O p iD Q' n n R SY _ n Rrt 'YO 5c a R n a. 1^ y< y. v y ,e c ' a _ 'z x o b n Y' n" rt 'z = T+ C e p~ `w d T, 't . ~y _ _ ^ 7 7 . ~ - 0., 7Q R R R < 5 '3. C !S -rti a lG _ = a n ~ z _ ~ 3 R i 7 G~ R G C_ Y C y7 7~ rt~ F E Z ~ L ~ ',Si Z C rt _ ~ - _ R` s ~ L _ ~ %n t s ~ S ^ 7 /n'. ~ H ~'Yi 0. y ~ C _ C- -Z 74 1 R R T _ o R R R ~D ry n t9 H O rt C r j C JG ; ^ w p- .ter _ ? nc NC -"i R i L r fn N t Y' a= Y <6y L 7 n ti y G R rt / ri 'A = n - " - ^ ~ R ,~C C ~ O. c n~,e G ' S -RC L C n y ~ ? ~ `e C I i z e µ = Y < n S^ ~ R Y O R~~ R n S C n 'O N S C L i 0.~ R R r o t? 3 0 e 9 o y c a H v s o a R T ~~I _ Y= x~ C ^ L f9 A F C ~ G = C C.[~ R~ y :N N 0. 7~ O~ n ~ ro ~ I ~ H < R Oq ~ n 7 R tD t s I V i lj~ zr- zl- oz CL _ ` - - n G 7 J'• = G S ~ c O. r£t ~ C y. r: .J, rt 1 I;i - y _ rt. _ _ n _ - ID 1G r,. 7~-n ,S O j C •S 'j r; _ <C CS y ^ ~ J R 7 7 r r n _ _ J J J J r_- i 0.~~ C- S w S 0.d C r ?S S~ n d N R C S " r w S z ~x_ =_~x-r-c<^rt 2 3 ^ _4 ° a.i ~y w '7'? ~ c n ~Fn'o c T r y - r- i z c w T'C W n N m G O G `rt 0. :T y vO V% d h rrp C- 3 c x .t i - k< ~9 .N. S C JO 'O F t9 rS N w G < w G , n - Z . _ _ ^ _ (o x n S „i R n y rt rD tlQ l9 r 0.R y^ G c: T Z S° _ J r E 'i $ c i^ S C 0: y u y C 'C c N' tD .7y u, y r^ n , w w„ N C _ C' rt 2 C 7 C :n 0.A w -Af A w "b y wi S < d ~.e C _ In 7 _ z L c Y ~ x ~ s p m ?n. ^.7 w 7 d n ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ y ~ ~ £ p 7G y ~ T v ~ R ~ .y ~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ^ w 7 0. Nw' ~ r Y R' G ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ =t Y rE 3 r S Z r I C T> 3 N o p n G p d. c T c !o G w° a c '.n c n -c a? _ ~ v C s y 7 S 0.? d . ^J '3 w tD w N , 7 w_ 3q ? w, a a i ti z' r rt 'D f £ w 7 C u n CL ° a£ p„ tD > a J i P n I N H CL aq C w d C d , Y° G + w r r ? r x. E = s n c£ o n p n c N^ p a s 44 ° w n N, o r i z J z ^ C 7 C y 0.o d C ^ R G G° ` ^ rt= n i F`r~ / n F £ 7 a G S C O S .w- C w 7wi R y 7 a. S 'S T _7 t- j ~Ja w It O ° n ? n n 9 n y_J J O J _ i a- K rt>' z G n ' Ewj w a s ro i C s x z n C C R 3 O w£ ?S. R nC r. R 0. 7 p G i3 Fl: G _ i~ z T i a. S a n= w. w~ n rt, y~~ £ 2 n . oc s- v z. 3 3 3° d X, a b ° F 9 n No o K a, G w w r, - > 'n ~ z r i ~ n ~ W' f,0 ; 0.' ^ ° w ~ ~ y Yf u ' < Y ° (p ON p w ~ ~ w ? _ _ f _ - ~ _ fit'` v _ '7• ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ ~ = S y S - T Jq - JC n 't r.' A n yr, y r - ~ - _ ° Z _ C r9 G R -t r<p -Ri d c. n R S Y r J C ? K v R W y n ? y S R C C -O - c _ . - ~ 1 lG ~ F -O G `G R d C rip C C ~ - I - _ = X I l ~ ~ - n J4 R ^ 'o R R n G _ _ ^ 'n = Y 1 A ^jq _ _ _ r . 3 ~ y ~ c ? ' J 0.N 7qa, •O R ~ a < 3 G ~ c v S r = _ _ - - ~ - _ ; ^ •t S~•. a G, _ v ~ ^ 'C ~ 1 r~9 7 ~ ;IG JQ ^ I z - - ~ ~ r z d ~ ~ G y ~ ~ S N = -Ri ? 3 ~ ~ '~r~D 7 p• ' rC~` s _ i~ x / - J S~ ~ f ~ y 'S. ~ ~ C. ~,7 ~ S S tl7Q n. 0 9: l Cl• a .n - s _ y O _ C x c _ -~~'GRNs~ 7v S C~ CRA 7rt~ F = t Jr T G rT '7 C ^ ! -1 C ? T 1 JR 'JG C Cp y V = = / 77 r _ r . ^ '.'1 lyP T7=^. ,.i' ~=•rt rn cG.w 'T~G'O- S?:d ERR _.n V r r. A= n 7 3 r 0. C1. 3: 7Q 'r R R 'n fD 'fG v Jq Y S W _ R - ry ~R rya- lb ZL ;m .x';== _--?-~'•^,x.rt':;•< p 2'r°c'osrt ~ c roo:art~=3c - i m IF _ ` = ~ ~ to N rt ~ r: ~ n 3i T r _Fnn o n J.o rt c - o y7 B - - - v - - _ r. = _ C y C' 7 t A y S = .n. - JG ' ? 'T O 't rt ^ "_'J rt ~ Q C y y 7C R n n O ..rt "'1 ~ d. O OFq rt 1 S'O C r9 ~ p„ T ~ ? N i N N 7 ~ Sj ~ N F d Y r+ _ w m y - 3 n 70 ° F °F a n 3 w G- m a 5'. D i x rt F rt D_ r= H y 'cd 7 G c N y~ c r F- . 7 ~ mss: s rt ~'-G' 7 G r x ~ cr. z a. r. ~ a _ S,_- It ~ l9 K G'.' O C`< n=-.Y "'3~ ~ v O rtv v:1Q " /E v ~ R y n i 7 S y 1 K ^ ^ rc ~ n y ro 3 3 ~ - ~ ? ~ c ~ ^ t? y n o c N c C ' s d= ` = H a Q V w g' V 2 n Z S^ n c X ry z 7j m rE w ry R tp 7' :n y r.' C rt ti C b n J R^ d r ^N n y v R N O~ Y N rt G , oc O ro rs y .b ? =.s ~ ~ •c n. ,7°-' ~w rte, F C ~ c,_ ~ - " T G n r ~ tD s '3 C~ ~ JQ u ~ r. G III ^ M1 ~fq G. 7 £ 'C 'n' S G n y rt 'Jq N r y G~ 0. m - -.c OTi r ;ra 7 7 v rt .y. ro 7 1 F r, -p ' - rc ? ~ rt ~ d n n ~