Drug Policy News: August 2, 2001

Colombians Protest Fumigation

Canada Goes to Pot - We Should Follow

Super Wealthy 3-Some Fund Growing War on the War on Drugs

Colombians Protest Fumigation
Posted by FoM on August 01, 2001 at 11:36:33 PT
By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post

A group of elected officials from Colombia appealed here yesterday for
congressional and public support for their campaign to stop U.S.-funded
aerial fumigation of drug crops in their country, saying the policy
endangers human health and the environment and is ineffective in reducing
illegal cultivation.
Their appeal came as Colombia's counter-narcotics police, working with U.S.
assistance, resumed the spraying program after a one-week hiatus following a
Bogota judge's order shutting it down.

The July 23 order was in response to a complaint filed by Indian communities
in southeastern Colombia. When the government of President Andres Pastrana
asked for clarification, the judge amended his injunction to apply only to
areas populated by the complaining communities, described by Colombian
National Narcotics Director Gabriel Merchan as "very, very, very small."

But the ruling sent a chill through U.S. officials in charge of the $1.3
billion aid program in Colombia. They said the counter-drug effort -- which
also includes military assistance and money for alternative development in
the countryside -- could not continue without the fumigation.

"Our assistance is a three-legged stool," an administration official said
yesterday. "We do not believe that if you pull out any of the legs, the
whole thing can stand."

The administration has requested $822 million for counter-drug programs in
the Andean region for fiscal 2002, with about half for Colombia and the rest
for six other countries.

But the fumigation policy has come under increasing criticism both here and
in Colombia. Bills to end it have been introduced in both houses of the
Colombian Congress. Governors in six southern Colombian states have joined
human rights organizations and some officials of the Pastrana government in
opposing it. The United Nations drug control program has called it
"inhumane" and "ineffective."

The protests have posed a dilemma for the United States, which says its
interest in fortifying Colombian democracy is as strong as its desire to
stop the drug exports that provide 90 percent of the cocaine in this country
and an increasing amount of heroin.

In Washington, the World Wildlife Fund has also called for suspension of the
fumigation until the "potentially grave environmental impact" can be
studied, and restrictive language was inserted in the House and Senate
versions of the foreign aid bill last week.

Governors from the southern Colombian states of Cauca and Narino, along with
two members of the Colombian Congress and two U.S. House members, told a
news conference here yesterday that the fumigation is ineffective in
stemming drug exports, endangers the environment and violates the human
rights of Colombian peasants.

"The fumigation policy is madness," said Colombian Sen. Rafael Orduz, a
member of Pastrana's Conservative Party and the former vice president of
Colombia's Industrial Chemical Association. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.),
the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee who appeared with Rep.
Janice D. "Jan" Schakowsky (D-Ill.), called the policy "a very terrible
thing we're doing. I don't think we would do it in the United States, and I
don't think we should do it in Colombia."

Although Colombia has been spraying Roundup on drug crops since 1992, the
program increased to a massive level with the U.S. aid program. Since
December, more than 125,000 acres of coca have been fumigated by planes
flown largely by U.S. government contract employees. Under Plan Colombia, as
the overall anti-drug effort is known, the fumigated areas are to be secured
from attacks by leftist guerrillas and right-wing paramilitary forces by the
U.S.-trained and -equipped Colombian military. Small farmers in coca-growing
areas are to be offered the opportunity to avoid spraying if they agree to
substitute legal crops for coca or opium poppies used to produce heroin.

But so far, the fumigation leg of the stool has far outpaced the military
and development legs. Peasant farmers and their elected officials have
protested that the spraying has destroyed food crops, threatens land and
water resources, and has harmed humans and animals.

U.S. and Colombian officials insist that glyphosate, the key ingredient in
Monsanto-manufactured Roundup, is harmless to human and animal life and
quickly dissipates in the environment. A State Department "Fact Sheet" says
that reports of harm "have been largely based on unverified accounts
provided by farmers whose illicit crops have been sprayed" and are thus not
trustworthy.

But the Colombian governors offered videotapes to support their charges of
babies with rashes, dead animals and ruined food crops. They noted that U.S.
Roundup products carry warnings to use protective eye covering and to avoid
inhaling the chemical, spraying it on water, or allowing domestic animals
into treated fields for at least two weeks -- all of which is impossible for
those sprayed without warning from the air.

Roundup also boasts that replanting can begin within one day after unwanted
vegetation is sprayed. Reporters visiting parts of southern Colombia
fumigated last spring have noted that parts of the region have already been
replanted with coca.

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Author: Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, August 1, 2001; Page A13
Copyright: 2001 The Washington Post Company
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/

 Canada Goes to Pot - We Should Follow
 Posted by FoM on August 01, 2001 at 08:42:59 PT
 Ryan H. Sager, Freelance Writer - Washington, DC
 Source: National Review

  The issue of drug policy hasn't gotten a lot of ink or bandwidth lately
in
 the American press, and there's a good reason for that: There hasn't been
 much to say. In the last two decades, the drug war has been subject to
about
 as much debate in the nation's capitol as the metric system.
 While America snoozes, however, strange noises are beginning to seep
across
 our borders, threatening to disturb our peaceful dreams. Right upstairs,
our
 Canadian neighbors are engaging in a strange and unthinkable act -
 conducting a full-throated debate over liberalizing their drug policies.

 Undoubtedly, many Americans would be shocked to learn how far Canada has
 drifted from the U.S. on drug policy in the last year. After only a few
 months of preparation, regulations went into effect in Canada this week
 allowing many terminally and chronically ill patients to legally use and
 cultivate marijuana for medical purposes. Also, the full decriminalization
 of marijuana has officially been put on the table, and could become a
 reality as early as next year.

 The pace of events in Canada may seem accelerated, but that's because the
 impetus for change so far has come from the country's court system. It was
a
 ruling by the Court of Appeals for Ontario last July that forced the
 Canadian government to allow for medical marijuana, and it is a Supreme
 Court case regarding the constitutionality of banning pot that could force
 the issue of full decriminalization.

 But even if the courts have been behind Canada's movement on drug policy,
 the Canadian people seem prepared to go along for the ride. In fact one of
 the most surprising things, at least from an American perspective, about
 Canada's legalization of medical marijuana was that it faced no organized
 opposition. In sharp contrast to the U.S., almost no one in Canada was
 willing to speak out against a patient's right to what can be reasonably
 defended as medicine.

 Canadians' openness to the idea of full marijuana legalization has also
been
 demonstrated by recent polling. According to a poll by Ottawa's University
 of Lethbridge, just under half of Canadians favor such a policy.
 Furthermore, according to the same study, that number jumps to around 60
 percent among 18 to 34-year-olds.

 All of this has lead supporters of marijuana legalization in Canada to be
 extremely optimistic. "Legalization is possible within the next two years
in
 Canada," said Richard Cowan, editor of Marijuananews.com and a resident of
 British Columbia. "In fact," he said, "I find it pretty likely." Mr. Cowan
 is optimistic about the Supreme Court case, but also feels that if the
court
 doesn't make pot legal, Parliament will.

 He may be justified in his rosy outlook. All five national parties in
Canada
 have signed onto the creation of a Commons committee to study all
 non-medical drug use including marijuana. Along with a Senate committee
 established last year and headed by an outspoken backer of marijuana
 decriminalization, the Commons committee is expected to make a report as
 early as next summer.

 In the meantime, major political voices in Canada have leant their weight
to
 the idea of decriminalization. In May, former prime minister and
 Conservative Party leader Joe Clark called for marijuana use no longer to
be
 considered a criminal offense. Also, the current justice minister, Anne
 McLellan, has said that she would "participate with enthusiasm" in
upcoming
 hearings and that it was "appropriate" for Canada to consider liberalizing
 its drug policies.

 While Prime Minister Jean Chretien has expressed reluctance on the issue,
 saying it was "not part of the agenda at this time," his opposition is
seen
 as soft--and he is expected to retire in the next few years. The only
 interest group opposed to legalization to date is the Canadian Police
 Association. They have gained little traction, however, being contradicted
 by the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, the Canadian Medical
Association
 Journal, and even the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.

 While it is impossible to know what the outcome of this debate will be in
 Canada, one thing is for sure: If Canada legalizes, the U.S. will almost
 certainly feel the impact. As Mr. Cowan is fond of saying, Canada is too
 white to invade but too close to ignore.

 Keith Stroup, executive director of America's National Organization for
the
 Reform of Marijuana Laws concurs in Mr. Cowan's sentiment. "The U.S.
 government is fairly adept at ignoring any major drug reform enacted in
 foreign countries," said Stroup, who feels that politicians in America
have
 misrepresented legalization experiments in places such as the Netherlands.
 "With Canada in particular, I don't think that'll play," Stroup said, "we
 are intimately familiar with Canada and vice-versa."

 The only other country America feels such an affinity for, one might
 venture, is England. Perhaps not coincidentally, England is also in the
 midst of a debate on their policies towards pot. On the heels of Portugal
 having decriminalized all drug abuse on the first of July, the Brixton
 neighborhood of London instituted a policy this month whereby marijuana is
 not technically legal, but police officers officially look the other way
 when it comes to pot smokers.

 The issue has also gained national attention in England due to the support
 for decriminalization expressed by figures such as Home Secretary David
 Blunkett and unsuccessful Conservative Party candidate Michael Portillo.
 Though Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed opposition to marijuana
 legalization, it was announced last week that a Commons select committee
 will study the issue.

 Certainly, events in Canada and England will not dictate policy in
America -
 and thank God, or we'd all be measuring the distance to a country with a
 decent health-care system in kilometers. But given the recent successes of
 the medical-marijuana movement in the United States, especially in the
west,
 the time may be coming for a serious national debate on drug policy.

 With our closest geographical neighbor and our closest cultural neighbor
 moving in the same direction, perhaps the United States can be brought
along
 for the ride.

 Source: National Review (US)
 Author: Ryan H. Sager, Freelance Writer - Washington, D.C.
 Published: August 1, 2001
 Copyright: 2001 National Review
 Contact: letters@nationalreview.com
 Website: http://www.nationalreview.com/

Super Wealthy 3-Some Fund Growing War on the War on Drugs
Newshawk: Douglas CaddPubdate: Wed, 30 May 2001
Source: Wall Street JournaWebsite: http://www.wsj.coAuthor: David Ban

DAVID BANK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

As the pendulum on drug policy swings away from harsher penalties antoward expanded treatment programs, it is getting a big shove from aunusual trio of rich men: billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis ancentimillionaire John Sperling.

Opposed to locking up nonviolent drug users, the three have financed string of state-ballot-box victories on what until recently seemed aunpromising electoral battlefield -- getting softer on the possession omarijuana and other illegal drugs. Now, after a breakthrough win lasNovember in California, they are moving to expand their war on the war odrugs by backing new initiatives elsewhere under the banner of "treatmennot jail."

Next month, the three men are expected to approve a multimillion-dollaplan to mount ballot-initiative campaigns in 2002 in the politically cruciastates of Florida, Ohio and Michigan. The ballot measures are modeled oCalifornia's Proposition 36, which last fall produced a voter mandate tprevent state judges from sending people to prison after their first osecond conviction for drug use or possession. Instead, those nonviolenoffenders will be directed into treatment programs.

Since 1996, when the wealthy trio decided to make reining in the drug war joint cause, they have spent more than $20 million on a state-by-statcampaign to chip away at the hard-line policies of the past 15 years. Thmoney has built a formidable political machine that has already won ballofights in nine states, including Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and California.
Most of the initiatives so far have focused on two narrow issues: allowinthe medical use of marijuana and curbing police authority to seize money anproperty from alleged drug criminals before conviction.

Last year's California victory, and one in 1996 in Arizona, made deepechanges in the legal system. For the last two decades, California has lethe nation in the rate at which it locks up people convicted of druoffenses. By 1999, the state was putting away 134 people for every 100,000
residents, a rate 60% higher than New York's and twice that of Texas.

But Proposition 36 -- approved 61% to 38%, and set to take effect July 1 --
is expected to keep as many as 36,000 new convicts and parole violators ouof California prisons each year. That could cause the state's prisoadmissions for drug offenses to fall for the first time in more than twdecades.

The funders' political operatives say their private polling tells theinitiatives pushing treatment instead of jail can win in all three of thstates they are targeting next year. The well-heeled activists are trying tprove that nationwide, "the public is ahead of the politicians" on drupolicy, as Mr. Soros's chief adviser on the issue, Ethan Nadelmann, puts it.

How far ahead even Mr. Nadelmann hesitates to guess. Still, after twdecades in which drug abuse was generally met with tougher law enforcement,
the debate seems to be swinging toward curbing extreme punishment anidentifying effective means of treatment.

 When President Bush earlier this month nominated as his drug czar thhawkish John P. Walters, he strikingly used the occasion to stress his plato expand treatment programs, even while reiterating his support for jaitime for drug offenders. "We've got to make sure that those who are hookeon drugs are treated," Mr. Bush said after the announcement.

Positions long considered untouchable by politicians are suddenly part othe mainstream debate. New York's Republican governor, George Pataki, iJanuary proposed moderating his state's severe drug-sentencing laws. Thaprompted Democratic state legislators to push for more-aggressivreductions, and compromise legislation is expected to win approval.

In New Mexico, GOP Gov. Gary Johnson is pressing a long-shot campaign fothe legalization of marijuana. And Hawaii last year became the first statin which lawmakers, rather than voters, approved the medical use omarijuana.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the federaprohibition on marijuana doesn't have an exception for medicinal use, buthe ruling won't necessarily block states from allowing such use. States anlocalities, not federal authorities, do the vast majority of drug-laenforcement.

The troika's political operatives have targeted their initiative campaigncautiously. So far, they are steering clear of legalization initiatives,
even of marijuana. They note that polls going back to the 1970s show thpublic is about evenly divided over whether marijuana use should be punishecriminally, with support for such punishment rising slightly in recenyears.

Last year, the trio opted not to back a ballot measure pushed by locapro-marijuana activists in Alaska that would have effectively legalized thdrug there. The initiative failed. Ten states, including California, havdecriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, treating thoffense as an infraction punishable by a small fine.

While there isn't a popular groundswell for broader legalization, there ievidence of popular unease about the way the war on drugs has been fought. A
nationwide poll released last month by the Pew Research Center for Peopland the Press, for example, found that a 52%-to-35% majority of adultbelieve drug use should be treated as a "disease," not a crime.

"The public has a very different view of first- or second-time users versuhabitual users -- and especially versus dealers," asserts Bill Zimmerman,
the California political consultant who has run most of the group'campaigns. "Voters see themselves and their family members and friends abeing potentially in this category."

Changing the Debat
Even foes of the trio's campaign concede it is adroitly capitalizing opublic uncertainty. Many of the initiatives "would never have made it to thballot without their funding," says Herbert Kleber, director of thsubstance-abuse division of Columbia University's medical school, whconsiders the threat of punishment a crucial ingredient of effectivtreatment. "I can't think of another situation where a few individuals havso dominated and changed the nature of a debate."

Mr. Soros, a 70-year-old financier whose fortune is estimated by Forbemagazine at $5 billion, began in the early 1990s to support organizationtrying to change U.S. drug laws. In 1994, Mr. Nadelmann, a former assistanprofessor of public policy at Princeton University, started advising Mr.
Soros on the topic and now heads the Lindesmith Center/Drug PolicFoundation, a spinoff from Mr. Soros's main foundation in New York.

"The core vision" of the Soros campaign "is that people shouldn't bpunished for what they put in their bodies, absent harm to others," says Mr.
Nadelmann. All three of the donors say they have at least dabbled witmarijuana. Mr. Soros, whose office referred all questions about the drucampaigns to Mr. Nadelmann, has said he has tried it and enjoyed it, but hsaid in 1997 he hadn't used the drug in many years.

Mr. Lewis, 67, is chairman of Progressive Insurance Inc. in Cleveland, thnation's fifth-largest auto insurer. He holds a nearly 13% stake iProgressive, worth at least $1.15 billion. After funding a 1995 poll by thAmerican Civil Liberties Union on attitudes toward marijuana use, he met Mr.
Soros to discuss the issue. "I have seen it for quite a while as purpatriotism to try to change a policy that is sillier than prohibition," Mr.
Lewis says.

Mr. Lewis, who spends much of his time in tropical climes aboard converted tugboat called the Lone Ranger, says his personal use of marijuanhas influenced his political activity. Last year, in New Zealand, he waarrested for possession of hashish and marijuana. Authorities there releasehim after he made a donation to a local drug-rehabilitation center, he says.
"My personal experience lets me understand and have a view of the relativeffects of some of these substances," he says.

The three anti-drug-war funders first warily came together for the 1996
election. Mr. Sperling, a humanities professor-turned-entrepreneur, had jusbecome a wealthy man as a result of the successful 1994 initial publioffering of Apollo Group Inc. Apollo Group is parent of the for-profiUniversity of Phoenix, which he had founded 21 years earlier. Today, his 18%
stake in Apollo Group is worth more than $515 million.

Since the mid-1980s, Mr. Sperling says, he had collected newspapeclippings about the increasingly punitive drug war, concluding that it was waste of money and lives. He used marijuana himself in the late 1970s, whehe underwent radiation treatment for prostate cancer. In an autobiographpublished last year, he recounted his recuperation on a Hawaiian beach: "I
was able to lie in the shade, listen to the surf and smoke enough marijuanto mask the burning completely." Now 80 years old, he says his use omarijuana doesn't figure significantly in his political activities.

Within weeks of the Apollo Group IPO, Mr. Sperling hired Sam Vagenas, aArizona campaign consultant, to look into ballot-box strategies. Mr. Vagenastealthily got the 1996 Arizona initiative on the ballot before it attracteany press coverage or organized opposition. For political cover, Messrs.
Vagenas and Sperling obtained endorsements from Barry Goldwater, the ex-U.S.
senator and conservative libertarian from Arizona, who has since died, anformer Sen. Dennis DeConcini, an Arizona Democrat known for hipro-enforcement views. Mr. DeConcini's brother, Dino, serves on the board oApollo Group.

Mr. Vagenas worded the initiative in a way that opponents say wadishonest. He introduced the measure with a clause that would lengtheprison sentences for certain violent drug offenders. At first glance, voter might easily have thought the whole initiative was another get-tougmove, when in fact, its main thrust was to curb incarceration. "That's jusgood politics," says Mr. Vagenas. Subsequent initiatives in other statehave used more direct language.

Word of Mr. Sperling's activities wasn't warmly received in the Soros camp.
Mr. Nadelmann sympathized with Mr. Sperling's goals but worried the Arizoninitiative would be defeated and set back lower-key public-education effortthe Soros-sponsored team was coordinating.

For the same reason, Mr. Nadelmann was fretting about a separate campaigfor a medical-marijuana initiative by local activists in California, whicalso appeared headed for an embarrassing failure. In the end, Mr. Nadelmanbrokered a compromise: Messrs. Soros and Sperling, joined by Mr. Lewis,
would underwrite the Arizona initiative and simultaneously go to the rescuof the one in California.

Both initiatives succeeded, emboldening the threesome. "It was the firstime the drug-reform movement had shown it could play ball and win in threal world of politics," says Mr. Nadelmann.

'Very Clever'

Critics say the funders' entire campaign is a disingenuous effort tpromote drug use. "They've been very clever," says retired Gen. BarrMcCaffrey, who served as President Clinton's drug czar. "You cannot haveffective drug prevention or drug treatment unless there is high sociadisapproval of drug use. And disapproval has to be backed up by it beinagainst the law to possess, use or sell drugs." Whether they admit it, onot, he says, the wealthy trio "are trying to normalize drug use iAmerica."

Undaunted by such criticism, the troika geared up for the 1998 electiocycle, agreeing to chip in as much as $3 million apiece for initiatives iseven states and Washington, D.C.

The arrival of big money changed the dynamics of drug politics, to thchagrin not just of enforcers like Gen. McCaffrey, but also of some locaactivists. In several states and in Washington, D.C., the trio paid fosignature-gathering efforts for medical-marijuana initiatives that competewith measures backed by local groups. The bad blood lingers in Washington,
where Mr. Zimmerman in 1998 unsuccessfully tried to mount an initiative thacompeted with a measure backed by local members of the AIDS-activism grouACT/UP.

The local activists, concerned about AIDS patients' privacy, objected to provision of the Soros-backed alternative that created a central registry omedical-marijuana users. Wayne Turner, who ran the local campaign, says othe outsiders: "Soros and his funders, they just wanted to win. From ouperspective, it was better to have local people and real patients fightinfor our lives." The local measure ultimately was blocked by Congress.

These days, Mr. Zimmerman, whose office is in Santa Monica, Calif., icareful to praise the local activists for their political spadework, but hsays they should step aside when an election is on the line. "You don't wansomeone with a Rastafarian hairdo and a tie-dyed T-shirt representing youideas," he says.

Following the victories in 1998, the three funders met at Mr. Soros'
country estate outside New York City. They agreed to increase theicontributions to more than $3 million each for 2000.

Last fall's victories in California and four other states were tempered iMassachusetts, where the funders learned that the public's sympathy for druusers doesn't extend to dealers. The trio backed an initiative in thgenerally liberal New England state that included the diversion to treatmenof some small-scale dealers who could show they sold drugs to feed theiaddiction. The measure was barely defeated, 52% to 48%.

Write to David Bank at david.bank@wsj.com