[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----KAN., NEB., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

July 19



KANSAS:

White supremacist to judge: blacks and Hispanics fine, but no Jews on my jury


The defense and prosecution are preparing to select a jury next month in the 
capital murder trial of Frazier Glenn Cross. He is accused of murdering three 
people outside 2 Jewish centers in Johnson County on April 13, 2014. The 
victims are Reat Underwood, 14, his grandfather, William Corporan, 69, and 
Terri Lamanno, 53.

The judge in the case is considering calling a panel of up to 51 jurors to hear 
the case against Cross.

During a motions hearing on Friday, the white supremacist told the judge that 
he's not going to be hard to get along with during jury selection. The judge 
says Cross will be able to question potential jurors himself about whether they 
believe in the death penalty.

Cross also expressed a desire to have blacks and Hispanics on his jury, but 
told the judge he does not want any Jews to determine if he's guilty. Cross 
also complained about prosecutors seeking the death penalty, saying that he's 
read that death penalty cases cost six times as much as those in which the 
defendant is sentenced to life in prison, without any chance of parole.

Cross said the prosecutor knows that Cross is only expected to live 2 years and 
he accused D.A. Stephen Howe of stealing millions of tax payer dollars for 
political gain to win re-election by making this a death penalty case.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin August 17.

(source: Fox News)






NEBRASKA:

Nebraskans should be able to vote on death penalty


In my 7 years as a Nebraska state senator, no issue has elicited a more 
impassioned response from Nebraskans than the passage of Legislative Bill 268, 
replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment.

The message to me has been loud and clear: Nebraskans want the opportunity to 
vote on the death penalty.

During the second round of debate on the bill, I offered an amendment to allow 
the death penalty to be put to a vote of the people. 17 of my colleagues agreed 
with me, including 2 senators who voted to override Gov. Pete Ricketts' 
subsequent veto of the legislation.

Time after time on issues of grave importance, the Nebraska Legislature has 
sent measures to the Second House - the people of Nebraska. It is disturbing 
that "blockers" or "educators" who have been funded by those from outside our 
state are trying to discourage Nebraskans from signing the petition to retain 
the death penalty.

The voters should have the right to decide whether they wish to sign the 
petition without interference.

I respect those who do not support the death penalty, but that does not mean we 
should lose sight of the facts. Of all the arguments made by those opposed to 
the death penalty, I have yet to see a single report or fact specific to our 
state that backs up their claims.

There is no fiscal argument on the death penalty in Nebraska. LB 268 was the 
subject of 3 fiscal analysis notes from the Legislature's Fiscal Office, each 
one showing no cost savings by replacing the death penalty with life 
imprisonment.

Other states may have factors that affect costs, but the only costs that matter 
are those that apply to Nebraska.

Opponents of the death penalty throw out numbers of post-conviction DNA 
exonerations in the United States. If you look at their statements carefully, 
you will see that not only do those numbers not reflect Nebraska but they are 
talking about those who were serving long prison sentences, not those sentenced 
to death.

Not 1 of the 10 men currently on death row in Nebraska claims to be innocent.

For every victim's family member who opposes the death penalty, there is 
another family member who wants justice carried out through capital punishment.

Kent and Teri Roberts, parents of Andrea Kruger, have volunteered their time 
gathering signatures for Nebraskans for the Death Penalty's petition drive. 
Their daughter's killer, Nikko Jenkins, is awaiting sentencing.

Vivian Tuttle's daughter, Evonne, was murdered in the 2002 Norfolk bank 
robbery. Vivian is asking Nebraskans to sign the petition to put the question 
on the ballot.

Teena Brandon's mother, JoAnn Brandon, has publicly stated life in prison is 
not enough for the man who brutally killed her child in 1993.

These were unspeakable, heinous murders, carried out against innocent 
Nebraskans.

The same people who want to deny Nebraskans the opportunity to vote on this 
issue have put up roadblocks to justice at every turn, and they then claim the 
death penalty is a broken government program.

The U.S. Department of Justice has done everything in its power to make it 
impossible for pharmaceutical companies to sell the drugs necessary to carry 
out the death penalty to states. Yet federal prosecutors pushed for the death 
penalty for the Boston Marathon bomber, who was sentenced to death last month 
by a federal judge.

I fully expect the federal government will come up with a drug protocol to 
carry out this sentence, as it should. This protocol will provide a new pathway 
for Nebraska and other states to carry out executions through lethal injection.

I wish we lived in a society where these kinds of heinous murders did not 
occur. But we do.

It is our duty to do all that we can to see that justice is served.

Signing a Nebraskans for the Death Penalty petition will give Nebraskans the 
opportunity they deserve to vote on repealing LB 268 and keep the death 
penalty.

(source: Opinion; The writer, Beau McCoy, of Omaha, is a state senator 
representing District 39 in the Legislature and a co-chairman of the Nebraskans 
for the Death Penalty petition drive----Omaha World-Herald)

*******************

Death penalty wasteful as government program


As a military veteran, a fiscal conservative and a pro-life Nebraska state 
senator, it is clear to me and a super-majority of Nebraska lawmakers that our 
great state has spent too much time and money on the death penalty with very 
few results.

I voted to repeal the death penalty and replace it with the sentence of life in 
prison based on conservative analysis, supporting factual documentation and my 
personal conviction and conscience.

I offer a discussion of the analytics and hope you consider them when you are 
asked to sign a petition or, ultimately, to vote.

A few years ago, former Nebraska Solicitor General J. Kirk Brown, a 
conservative leader in this state, gave testimony before the Legislature and 
noted that the cost of the state's death penalty is "staggering."

The staggering burden to Nebraska taxpayers is documented and substantiated by 
the nonpartisan Death Penalty Information Center, which concluded in 2013 that 
Nebraska has spent $100 million on death-penalty cases since 1976.

When you apply conservative processes and look at the value of investment, you 
must look at results. In this analysis, the result is just 3 executions - with 
none occurring in the past 20 years.

The plain math concludes that Nebraska taxpayers paid $45 million for 3 
executions. That's nearly enough to pay the salaries of Nebraska state 
employees for about 2 months.

Why is it so expensive?

Everything about the investment in achieving a death-penalty conviction is 
supersized: More expensive experts, top-dollar forensics, additional 
investigators, extra lawyers and heightened security, among other things.

Before a death sentence can be imposed in Nebraska, there are essentially 3 
trials - a guilt/innocence phase, a hearing to prove aggravating circumstances 
(such as whether the killing was particularly heinous) and a sentencing 
hearing. All of these supersized trial dynamics are required by law, and those 
due process guarantees cannot be dismantled by any Legislature.

Here are some historical, factual illustrations in Nebraska:

--Madison County officials reported spending more than $1.26 million for the 
trials of 5 men in the 2002 Norfolk bank killings. And that figure doesn't 
reflect costs for housing and feeding the defendants or the salaries of 
prosecutors and defense lawyers.

--Richardson County went into a financial abyss, having to borrow money and 
mortgage its ambulances in order to help pay the $1.35 million in costs for two 
death-penalty cases involving John Lotter and Michael Ryan.

But the costs do not end with the trials. There are the seemingly never-ending 
appeals.

More than 15 states have done cost studies on the death penalty. All concluded 
that the death-penalty systems in their states were far more expensive than a 
system in which the maximum sentence is life in prison. The costs reflect the 
realities that most capital prosecutions never result in a death sentence and 
that most death sentences do not lead to an execution.

How does that play out in Nebraska?

The Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy studied 1,450 murder cases in 
Nebraska from 1973 to 2013. Of those, 235 (16 %) resulted in 1st-degree murder 
convictions. The death penalty was sought in 103 cases (7 %). Death sentences 
were handed down in 31 (2 %).

That resulted in just 3 executions - less than 1 % (0.002 %, to be exact) of 
all murder cases.

The commission's data show that the average length of appeals more than doubles 
for death sentences: 13.3 years versus 5.8 years for life sentences.

Look at the case of Michael Ryan, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 
death in 1985. He had 13 different appellate filings in state and federal 
courts over 29 years. Ryan died on death row in May of natural causes. The Ryan 
case is not unique.

The death-penalty process is not only procedurally unattainable, it is a 
staggering burden to Nebraska taxpayers, diverting much-needed resources from 
supporting victims' families or solving cold cases or doing the state's 
business.

After thorough, careful, factual analysis, I concluded that the death penalty 
is less about justice and more about another failed government program full of 
waste.

(source: Opinion; The writer, Bob Krist, of Omaha, is a state senator 
representing District 10 in the Nebraska Legislature----Omaha World-Herald)

**************

Life in prison costs more than appeals


Whether you believe in the death penalty or not, you should be given correct 
information in regard to cost. The majority of the costs for death-row inmates 
are their appeals. The state picks up these appeals. Why wouldn't inmates 
appeal; what do they have to lose?

With this being said, life in prison has the potential to cost a lot more than 
death-row prisoners. With death row, there is a chance the state will actually 
enforce the law and this would stop future appeals.

Opponents also claim that the death penalty isn't a deterrent to killing. It 
was a deterrent to Charles Starkweather, John Joubert and Walkin' Willie Otey. 
They never killed anyone after they were executed. I wouldn't want to be a 
guard in a prison without the death penalty; it puts their lives at risk.

The worst thing is the legislators who totally ignored the majority of the 
people, voted to stop the death penalty and used false information to justify 
their vote.

Kenneth A. Becker, Omaha

************

Delays make death penalty useless

Why is anyone signing the death-penalty referendum petition? What, so Nebraska 
taxpayers get more of their hard-earned money spent on lawyers appealing 
constantly?

The death penalty is not a deterrent and never has been. It's rarely if ever 
used anymore and only costs us money. It's about as useless as an unloaded gun.

When we actually start disposing of these dirtbags, then we'll talk. But in 
this politically correct society, it will never happen.

Scott Bray, La Vista

(source: Letters to the Editor, Omaha World-Herald)






CALIFORNIA:

Times editorial on the death penalty in California is dead wrong


In your July 11 editorial advocating the death penalty's abolition, "End death 
penalty," you premised your main argument upon the death penalty's alleged 
excessive costs. Let's examine those claims.

You boldly asserted that since 1978, "California has wasted $4 billion to 
execute 13 prisoners." That's simply not true. The death penalty's actual cost 
has never been fully determined. The $4 billion figure you casually toss about 
comes from an obscure law review article written by a former federal judge who 
based his financial approximations upon rough estimates, anecdotal reports and 
newspaper articles.

You cited a "state report" that claimed it costs an additional $90,000 per year 
to house a death row prisoner. Interestingly, the source of your $90,000 figure 
has never been identified.

It's apparently an "unidentified person" at the California Department of 
Corrections, yet the department itself has never confirmed that figure. 
Unfortunately, you continue to use that unsubstantiated figure to argue that 
additional housing costs for death row inmates are excessive. That is sloppy, 
irresponsible journalism.

We know for certain that one reason the death penalty costs as much as it does 
results from the fact that it's never carried out. It costs at least $50,000 a 
year to house someone in prison, and it's 20 to 25 years from a jury's sentence 
of death to an actual execution date.

There are 750 inmates currently on death row, with an average age of 27, and 
average life expectancy of 74. Reducing their punishment to life without parole 
as you suggest would cost taxpayers $1.8 billion in housing costs alone.

I agree that our death penalty system is broken. Legislators have been asked 
several times to fix the death penalty process by allocating more money for 
qualified attorneys to represent these convicted killers on appeal, and to 
shorten delays by allowing appeals to proceed directly to the Court of Appeals 
before going to the California Supreme Court.

These solutions would save hundreds of millions of dollars, and they've been 
recommended by nonpartisan commissions that have studied the issue, as well as 
the California Supreme Court.

Our legislators refuse to follow the people's will and fix the problem, which 
is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

You claim the death penalty is vengeful, retributive and medieval. No it isn't. 
It's punishment. The 750 individuals currently on death row murdered 1,000 
innocent victims, including 44 peace officers, and 229 children.

And 235 of their crimes involved sexual assault. They tortured 90 of their 
victims. It isn't revenge, retribution or medieval to punish these killers for 
their horrific crimes.

You claim that executing an innocent person "almost certainly has happened here 
(in California)."

Of course, you can't identify a single case, yet you make your claim with 
"certainty." Yes, there are reports of other states where death row inmates 
have been exonerated. However, none of those states have the extent of 
protections California has in place to prevent such a tragedy.

You deceptively implied that there were 214 California "exonerations" of death 
row prisoners when in fact those 214 exonerations were not death row inmates. 
Additionally, dozens of the alleged "exonerations" weren't people that were 
found to be innocent; they had their convictions overturned for other reasons.

Once again you've proven the truth of the adage about journalists: "Never let 
the facts get in the way of a good story."

I agree with you that fixing the death penalty will take a vote of the people. 
Since 1972, California's voters have affirmed the death penalty 8 times at the 
ballot box. Because our elected leaders continue to refuse to follow the will 
of the people and enforce the death penalty, law enforcement leaders throughout 
the state are placing an initiative (the Death Penalty Reform and Savings Act) 
on the November 2016 ballot, and asking voters to reaffirm once again their 
reasoned desire for comprehensive death penalty reform and implementation.

Mark Peterson is the district attorney for Contra Costa County.

(source: Guest Commentary, Contra Costa Times)






USA:

Plan For 2nd Trial For Boston Bomber Prompts Backlash


After a federal jury gave Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the death 
penalty for his crimes, survivors of the 2013 attack expressed relief that at 
least the 4-month trial was over.

"We can breathe again," said one survivor.

But a state prosecutor's insistence that Tsarnaev should stand trial a 2nd time 
has triggered an indignant backlash from those who insist it would 
re-traumatize victims and amount to a waste of taxpayer money.

"I understand intellectually - provincially - sticking up for your community," 
said Suffolk University law professor Christopher Dearborn. "But I have a hard 
time not coming down on the side that it is a monumental waste of resources."

Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan said she believes it's important to 
prosecute Tsarnaev in state court for crimes committed in Middlesex County, 
including the killing of MIT police Officer Sean Collier, the carjacking of a 
Cambridge man and a gun battle with police in Watertown as Tsarnaev and his 
brother tried to escape days after the marathon bombings.

"When you come into Middlesex County and execute a police officer in the 
performance of his duties and assault other officers attempting to effect his 
capture, it is appropriate you should come back to Middlesex County to stand 
trial for that offense," Ryan said in a statement.

Tsarnaev has already been convicted on federal charges in Collier's shooting, 
but that does not prevent him from being tried on state charges. And the 
reaction to her decision may help explain why multiple trials are so rare.

"He is guilty, and is never going to be exonerated. The absolute best he can 
ever hope for is life in prison. There is nothing to be gained from another 
conviction," wrote Adrian Walker, a columnist for The Boston Globe, after Ryan 
recently reiterated her intention to put Tsarnaev on trial.

Her decision stands in contrast to the approach by Suffolk District Attorney 
Daniel Conley, who said early on that he would let the federal government 
prosecute Tsarnaev for the marathon bombing - committed in his jurisdiction.

Conley cited the laws available at the state and federal level, as well as a 
desire to shorten a grueling process for victims, their families and the city.

The death penalty was available for Tsarnaev's crimes under federal law, but 
not under state law. Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984.

Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, said 
he cannot recall another case in which someone on federal death row was then 
tried on state charges.

"The decision here to prosecute or not prosecute would seem to be more 
political than practical." - Robert Dunham

John Allen Muhammad, known as the "D.C. Sniper" for a 3-week killing spree in 
2002 that left 10 dead, was sentenced to death on state charges in Virginia. 
Prosecutors went ahead and tried him on state charges in Maryland, but for 
separate killings in that state.

Ryan did not respond to multiple requests seeking comment.

Ryan has faced criticism since she was appointed in 2013, particularly for her 
office's handling of the prosecution of Jared Remy, the son of Red Sox 
broadcaster Jerry Remy, who was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend but 
killed her 2 days later - after prosecutors did not seek bail or a hearing to 
determine whether he was too dangerous to be released.

Some legal experts say Ryan's repeated pledges to prosecute Tsarnaev on state 
charges may be aimed at appearing tough on crime.

"The decision here to prosecute or not prosecute would seem to be more 
political than practical," Dunham said.

"As a practical matter, he is already guaranteed to be punished more severely 
in the federal system than anything else that he could be sentenced to in the 
state system."

After Tsarnaev was first indicted on state charges in June 2013, Collier's 
father, Allen Collier, praised prosecutors.

"I can sense their commitment to prosecuting this individual for my son," he 
told the Globe.

Collier's family could not be reached for comment on Ryan's recent remarks. 
Messages were left for Allen Collier, Sean Collier's stepfather and sister.

Legal experts said Ryan could simply be trying to give Collier's family a sense 
of justice by focusing more closely on his killing than prosecutors in the 
federal case did.

"Some people felt like Officer Collier's death was overshadowed by the events 
of the marathon bombing," said Daniel Medwed, a law professor at Northeastern 
University.

"There is something about vindicating the family by proceeding in the Middlesex 
County case, especially this idea of allowing the facts surrounding Officer 
Collier???s killing to be more fully developed than perhaps they were in the 
federal case," he said.

(source: WBUR news)

**************

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Holmes


"Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night 
already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do 
that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that." - Martin Luther King 
Jr., Strength to Love

Dear Mr and Mrs Holmes,

As we hold everyone involved in the horrific tragedy in Aurora in our thoughts, 
I wanted to take a moment to share a snapshot of the moments of my shock and 
horror when the news broke about the verdict in your son's case.

One of the board members of my mental health non-profit sent me the news and I 
gasped. The pain in my heart was so intense as the flurry of texts and emails 
came to my in-box. My compatriot in mental health advocacy, Liza Long, was 
surprised at my strong reaction given how the trial had progressed. But. .... I 
was in denial, disbelief that, given all we know about brain disorders, this 
could be the outcome. The staggering questions of how we could have ever gotten 
this result when your son had been in treatment, diagnosed and his threat of 
danger was reported to the authorities is unfathomable to me.

As soon as I read the breaking news and responded to people asking me to share 
my thoughts, I googled your son's name with mine to count the pieces that I 
have written since that tragic day in July of 2012. I was reminded of the blogs 
I wrote calling for understanding and action -- including a piece published 
this past Tuesday about the serious consequences of missing the red flags of 
mental illness. As a nation, through our "othering" and disenfranchisement of 
those with brain based disorders, we all failed your son and, as a result, 
everyone affected by the nightmare in Aurora.

I write to you today to express my sorrow and support. I have been holding you 
and your son in my heart for these three arduous years and continue to pray for 
you during this very dark moment.

I also write to apologize on behalf of this nation that refuses to do what it 
takes to invest in prevention, treatment and brain research and advocate for 
people with mental illness in the judicial system. It is very painful for me to 
even write this, but the most important apology that needs to be made is for 
the inhumane, discriminatory hatred that has been focused towards you and your 
son. The letter that you published in December 2014 pleading against the 
prosecution's pursuit of the death penalty was an act of profound love and 
courage and one of the most unthinkable things that any parent could ever 
imagine. We share your understanding that your son is not a "monster" but a 
human being and your belief that the death penalty is morally wrong especially 
for someone with a serious brain disorder.

"We do not know how many victims of the theater shooting would like to see our 
son killed. But we are aware of people's sentiments. We have read postings on 
the Internet that have likened him to a monster. He is not a monster. He is a 
human being gripped by a severe mental illness... We believe that the death 
penalty is morally wrong, especially when the condemned is mentally ill."

If it offers any solace I share what I wrote in an open letter to Peter Lanza, 
the father of Adam Lanza:

"It is clear that your family is an example of the failure of a medical and 
educational system that does not yet know how to treat and educate people like 
your son. You, your ex-wife and your son are not to blame. The time has come 
for us to do some collective soul searching and ask how we can unite to create 
caring communities and a society that supports brain research, education and 
most importantly promotes inclusion for all."

Yes, Mr. and Mrs. Holmes, instead of blame, the time has come for us to do some 
collective soul searching and take action to choose love, forgiveness and 
compassion which is the only way for us to pave a meaningful path to progress. 
We continue to mourn the senseless, preventable loss of so many lives, while 
knowing how immoral it would be to intentionally lose one more.

In Flawless Light,

Janine Francolini

(source: Janine Francolini, Founder, The Flawless Foundation----Huffington 
Post)

****************

The truth will out ---- No matter how long it takes


"The long unmeasured pulse of time moves everything. There is nothing hidden 
that it cannot bring to light . . ." -- Sophocles

Call it a footnote to history. It's 46 pages long, but till now it's been kept 
under wraps: the testimony of David Greenglass before a grand jury some 6 
decades ago on August 7, 1950. It doesn't contain any surprises. It's been 
known for some time that his testimony against his sister, Ethel Rosenberg, was 
false. A frame-up. He admitted it in a newspaper interview before he died, and 
explained why he'd ratted on her: to save his own skin. She was just a 
scapegoat for his own crime.

The release of David Greenglass' grand jury testimony last week by order of a 
federal judge--at the request of various historians eager to wrap up the 
evidence--further confirms his perfidy. Not because of what it contains, but 
because of what it doesn't: any indication that his sister Ethel was guilty of 
the crime for which she was convicted--and executed--along with her husband 
Julius.

But by the time of the trial, egged on by federal prosecutors hell-bent on a 
conviction, David Greenglass would testify against his own sister, saying she 
had typed up the notes when he delivered atomic secrets to Soviet agents.

Summing up its case at the end of the trial, the prosecution charged that Mrs. 
Rosenberg had "struck the keys, blow by blow, against her own country in the 
interests of the Soviets."

Ethel Rosenberg may not have been wholly innocent--she was part of her 
husband's spy ring and doubtless knew what was going on--but it's clearer than 
ever now that she wasn't the one who typed up those notes.

That's not what the jury heard from the government's zealot of a prosecutor, 
Irving H. Saypol, who could have been Andrei Vishinsky leading the charge 
against all those old Bolsheviks put to death in one of Stalin's show trials. 
Ethel Rosenberg, the prosecutor declaimed in grand style, was fully deserving 
of the death penalty because she'd typed up her brother's notes. ("Just so had 
she, on countless other occasions, sat at that typewriter and struck the keys, 
blow by blow, against her own country in the interests of the Soviets.") Off 
with her head!

Ethel Rosenberg's having typed up those stolen secrets became the central 
accusation against her, and certainly the most emotionally resonant one. It was 
the linchpin of the government's argument for putting her to death. And the 
jury bought it.

Both of the Rosenbergs, duly convicted, would be executed at Sing Sing on June 
19, 1953. Despite worldwide protests from Paris to Moscow organized by the 
Communist Party and its fellow travelers, who were always on the lookout for a 
good cause celebre, however inflated or short-lived, before moving on the next 
subject of their agitprop. The Rosenberg Case made fine fodder for America's 
enemies.

It wouldn't be the first time our Justice Department showed a disregard for 
justice. That pattern scarcely began with the present administration, which has 
only continued it, not inaugurated it. There is no shortage of precedents, 
legal and historical, for scandals like Fast and Furious or the IRS' selective 
tax exemptions.

High among those injustices has to be the execution of Ethel Rosenberg on the 
dubious testimony of her own brother. It's become clearer and clearer over the 
years that she wasn't the one who transcribed those notes of her brother's, the 
most inflammatory accusation against her.

But the truth has a way of outing, however long it takes. More and more of it 
is revealed as the years pass. Now it's happened again. And the moral standard 
of another historical figure has been confirmed. And in David Greenglass' case, 
it was the lowest.

(source: Editorial, arkansasonline.com)

********************

John Kasich on the issues


Ohio Gov. John Kasich is expected to enter the crowded GOP presidential field 
with an official announcement on Tuesday.

With that will come even more attention to his stances on issues from gun 
control and abortion to foreign policy and gay marriage. A look at what he has 
said about key issues over the years:

Abortion

Kasich describes himself as "pro-life." He voted for the Child Custody 
Protection Act in 1999, which made it illegal to take minors across state lines 
in order to get an abortion, and voted to ban partial-birth abortions in 2000.

As governor, he has signed two state budgets that include restrictions on 
abortions or abortion clinics.

Death penalty

Kasich supports the death penalty and has allowed 12 men to be executed during 
his tenure as governor. However, he commuted the death sentences of 5 killers 
to life without the possibility of parole in his 1st term.

Ohio has not had an execution since January 2014 because of a controversy over 
lethal-injection drugs.

(source: Columbus Dispatch)