Weekend
Petitioning Report:
Thanks
to the hundreds of petitioners who made last weekend such a great
success! Big thanks to Matt from Grand Rapids Greens, who arranged
petitioning at the art festival, and a special thanks to J.P. Denoyer,
who (as usual) set the standard for successful petitioning technique. He
had three clipboards going, and a 7 foot tall sign which drew people to
him. We will announce the winner of last weekend's contest after all
entries are received and counted (June 10 deadline). Wayne County NORML
(George) turned in over 4,000 signatures from last weekend too, and
Amanda is really tearing it up in cartown!! Bonner is getting lots of
involvement in Western Michigan, Greg F is pulling in the sigs, and Mike
Dooley is working hard getting us airtime and exposure in Kalamazoo! Way
to go everyone! You should all be proud of the example you set! So many
of you out there do all these things, and I can never thank you all, but
I know that people you are active don't do it for the thanks or the
recognition-but because you know you are right! According to all reports
we are over 67,000 signatures so far. This is a good pace so early in
the campaign, but we will want to pick up the pace aduring these next
two months. Petition everyday during your normal routine, and encourage
others to circulate petitions. Carry extra petitions and instructions
with you. Find them in printable form at the www.PRAyes.com website.
Don't forgeet the big contest for June! June is a big month, but
July is bigger. We will need to take every advantage of these months or
face the consequences. Also, please send donations now! We have an
aggressive campaign going, and it takes more money than any of us have
individually. We still have over $10,000 in mailings waiting to be sent
when we can get stamps, and we have lots of printing to pay for. Please
send anything you can today, payable to PRAyes Committee,
255 N Center - Suite 1, Saginaw, MI 48603. We need your help
today! You can't afford not to! If each person sent in $20 this week, we
could pay our bills, finish our mailing program, and print materials for
July's big events. Send more if you can, but at least send $20 or the
equivalent in stamps now!
See
June Events and June Contest details on Website:
http://198.109.165.99/ballot2000/PRAyesBody/where_to_petition.htm
Don't
forget to check out the events above and go petition there!
The
Drug-War Lover
By
Ernest Drucker, Ph.D. and Allan Rosenfield, M.D., MPH
May
22, 2001
New
York City
We
were astonished to read in the Wall Street Journal (May 15, OpEd)
that William Bennett, drug czar for the first President Bush, now
believes that "the drug war worked once," and because we have
new faces in Washington and a tough drug czar, that "it can
again." In no other area but American drug policy can we see such
vast errors of fact and such specious arguments applied to a matter of
such genuine public concern -- and given such credence in an
authoritative publication.
Bennett
contends that the "most intense period of anti-drug
activities"(from 1980 to 1992) yielded "a 50% reduction in
illicit drug use." But hefails to mention that this decline was
mainly for marijuana (which accountsfor over 90 % of illicit drug use)
and began in 1975 when a NationalCommission was calling for
decriminalization and several states had all butlegalized the drug.
Further,
the early 1980s was also the period when cocaine first made its large
scale appearance in the US, its
use growing steadily throughout thefirst six years of the Reagan
presidency in the face of huge increases inenforcement. This enforcement
and the advent of harsh mandatory sentencingresulted in a doubling of
the population incarcerated for drug offenses.
Cocaine
use only began to turn around after Len Bias' death and a
growing awareness of how hazardous heavy use of pure cocaine could be. Yet, despite the unprecedented rise in cocaine seizures and
prosecutions, by1986 over 6% of Americans (age 12 or over)
reported use of the drug in the past month. If that figure is much
lower today (about 2%), we
attribute that
change to the all too evident horrors of crack, and its
particularly vicious market conditions visible in every affected
community. So it is no surprise
that researchers in New York's Bedford-Stuyvesant (with walls full of
memorials to the dead) find virtually no crack use among the teens
today although there are plenty of other drugs to take its place.
And
throughout the last two decades, when heroin use has been
largely unchanged (at about 1 million regular users), there has been a
steady rise in heroin overdose deaths to over 10,000 a year suggesting
that harsh policies have simply made this dangerous drug more so, even as
it produced a noticeable jump in youthful use as the drug became
"chic" again despite all the adverse publicity and enforcement
activity.
And,
as the war on drugs is a world war, increased US interdiction seems only
to have succeeded in creating new producer nations (such as Mexico
andsome states of the former Soviet Union) that have entered the
marketplace to spread heroin use to scores of poorer nations that had
never even heard of the drug 20 years ago. We now happily support the
Taliban in return for an end (however temporary) to their poppy
prodcution, and count that as agreat victory. Even the Rand Corporation
has concluded that interdiction is a waste of taxpayers dollars as the
purity of drugs has inceased and the price
declined.
These
facts don't seem to matter to Bennett who, bending a line from
ArthurMiller, claims that
"attention was not paid" by the Clinton administrationand that
this period of "malign neglect" resulted in "a national
cynicism about drug use" and increased rates of illicit drug use by
youth.
But
the Clinton administration can
hardly be accused of "neglecting" the drug wars: between 1992
and 2000 the prison population doubled once again. This rise was driven by drug prosecutions, disproportionately applied
to minorities, reaching an historic 2 million behind bars by the year
2000-- the highest
incarceration rate in the world. Drug
arrests in the US
only
began to decline last year as states balked at the expense of new prison
construction. Many overseas now look at the US war on drugs as
the creation of a vast "American Gulag" and as a major human
rights issue:groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
have begun todocument this offense for which we as a nation will one day
be held to account.
Yet
Bennett "look[s] forward to re-engaging in the war on drugs."
This brand of militant moralism once gave us alcohol prohibition, but
today the stakes are much higher. Combined with its studied ignorance of
the history of drug epidemics and denial of the
full consequences of our policies, the war on drugs is now the
real threat. It undermines our attempts to control the harms produced by
drug use and impedes the
development of more effective mechanisms for the social control of drug
use in the realm of civil society as we have done for alcohol and are now
doing for tobacco.
As
drug production and drug use burgeon in developing countries
around theworld, where AIDS lurks in every dirty syringe,
we are reminded of Thucydides' observation that "those who love war
do not know it." But those of us in public health know that moral
crusades and war are not the answer to such pressing global problems.
______________________________________________________
Ernest
Drucker Ph.D. is Professor of Epidemiology and Social Medicine
and Professor of Psychiatry at Montefiore Medical Center / Albert
EinsteinCollege of Medicine; and Editor in Chief of the international
journal,Addiction Research and Theory.
Allan
Rosenfield MD, MPH is De Lamar Professor and Dean of the MailmanSchool
of Public Health , Columbia University.
SUPREME
COURT RULING DOES NOT BAR STATE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM;
BUT
WARNING GIVEN ON POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES
Denver-In
a joint statement with Governor Owens, Attorney General Ken
Salazar
announced today that his office has completed its analysis of the
impact
of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Oakland
Cannabis
Buyers' Cooperative on Colorado's state medical marijuana
program.
The
specific question analyzed was whether the State may implement the
registry
program required by the Colorado constitutional amendment in
light
of the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in United States
v.
Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative.
The
attorney general's office concluded that, a) the Supreme Court's
ruling
does not invalidate Colorado's state law; and b) the ruling does
not
prevent the State from moving forward to meet the requirements of
Colorado's
constitutional amendment concerning the medical use of
marijuana.
Salazar
noted that he personally opposed passage of the medical marijuana
initiative
last year for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the
initiative
could not legalize marijuana use under federal law, as the
U.S.
Supreme Court has now confirmed.
"All
Colorado citizens must understand that possession, manufacture and
distribution
of marijuana by any person or organization, even for purposes
of
medical treatment, continues to constitute a violation of the federal
Controlled
Substances Act," Attorney General Salazar warned. "'Medical
necessity'
is not a defense to the federal prohibition notwithstanding the
state's
law to the contrary."
In
a letter to Acting U.S. Attorney Richard Spriggs, Governor Bill Owens
and
Attorney General Salazar asked the United States Attorney to enforce
federal
law. In a separate letter to Dr. Richard Allen, president of the
Colorado
Medical Society, Governor Owens and Attorney General Salazar
warned
that physicians face the risk of potential federal prosecution if
they
participate in the program.
CANNABIS
DECRIMINALISATION GAINING GROUND IN EUROPE
There
has been a clear tendency in many European countries to ease drug
policy:
many countries have effectively decriminalised the use of cannabis,
and
some have even stopped prosecuting users of hard drugs.
The
pioneer in liberal drug policy is The Netherlands, where cannabis
products
have been openly available since the 1970s. Today adults can buy
marijuana
and hashish at special "coffee shops" without fear of
prosecution.
To
the surprise of many anti-drug activists, the number of drug-related
deaths
in the Netherlands is one of the lowest in Europe. So the classical
gateway
theory, according to which the use of cannabis leads to hard drugs,
does
not seem to hold true - at least not among the Dutch.
According
to a study by the Trimbos Institute - the Netherlands Institute
of
Mental Health and Addiction, the decriminalisation of cannabis has not
led
to great popularity of the drug among young people. Whereas in Britain,
41%
of 15-year-olds Britain have tried cannabis, the equivalent figure in
The
Netherlands is 24%.
Belgium
lifted the ban on personal use of cannabis at the beginning of this
year.
Sale and the possession of large amounts of the drug remain illegal,
and
no Dutch-style coffee shops will be popping up on Belgian city streets.
In
the view of the Belgian Ministry of Health, there is no reason to treat
cannabis
any differently from alcohol or tobacco.
Switzerland
also plans to legalise both the use and small-scale sale of
cannabis.
Many shops are already selling drug-grade hemp, ostensibly for
other
purposes. Cannabis would be rather difficult to uproot from
Switzerland,
as about one in every four young Swiss already smoke marijuana
or
hashish.
Switzerland
has had one of Europe's most liberal drug policies. Heroin
addicts
considered incurable are given free heroin in supervised
conditions.
However, in 1998 Switzerland rejected an initiative that would
have
legalised all drugs.
Italy
and Spain have permitted the use of all drugs for a long time. The
most
recent country to take a more moderate approach toward drugs is
Portugal,
where new legislation comes into effect in July.
There
has been talk in Denmark of following the Dutch example. It is
already
standard police practice not to confiscate drugs found on an
addict.
The practical logic behind this approach is that taking the =
drugs
away
would force the addict to commit more crimes to get a new dose.
Practice
in Greece seems quite bizarre from the Finnish point of view: the
use
of cannabis can bring a more severe sentence than taking heroin.
According
to this reasoning, a heroin addict has a greater physical need
for
the drug than a cannabis user, and therefore deserves greater leniency.
Generally,
the trend in Europe is to cure drug addicts of their addictions
through
treatment.
Although
there is more tolerance toward the use of drugs, there was a sharp
increase
in arrests for drug-related crimes in nearly all EU countries in
the
1980s.
There
are quite a few unresolved questions in the debate over drug
legalisation.
One
of these is how the use of drugs can be permitted while continuing to
criminalise
the trade. It is also feared that the legalisation of drug use
would
attract more criminal elements onto the market. Portugal's change in
policy
has caused concern in Finland, where it is feared that the
implementation
of the Schengen Treaty will allow drugs to move more freely
throughout
the zone.
Legalisation
advocates speak about the rights of the individual: if no
crime
is involved in the acquisition of a drug, and the user harms nobody
else,
the state should not have any right to interfere. This is the way of
t
hinking that is gaining ground in Canada where authorities feel that it
is
not their business to interfere with the right of their citizens to grow
hemp.
The
counter-argument is that the state has the responsibility to protect
its
citizens from the consequences of their own actions, by mandating the
use
of seat belts and motorcycle helmets. It has also been argued that the
state
has the right to use the law to promote public health as a way of
saving
on health care expenditure.
Proponents
of drug legalisation also argue that by legalising drugs, the
state
could better control the trade, use, and purity of the drugs, while
getting
tax revenues.
Opponents
counter this argument by saying that state-run drug sales would
not
eliminate illegal drug dealers who would produce impure drugs at a
lower
price.
Analogies
have also been made between the present drug prohibition and the
attempts
at alcohol prohibition of both the United States and Finland.
These
laws made smugglers rich while failing to make the people sober.
Although
drunkenness certainly was not eliminated, at least the number of
alcoholics
and cases of cirrhosis of the liver declined during prohibition.
THE
WRONG MESSAGE
Losing
the war on drugs
Politicians
love to brush off uncomfortable issues with a clever sound bite. Toss
out the right line and you can walk away whistling.
Few
issues are as uncomfortable for Canadian politicians as the subject of
illegal drugs, and few questions harder to answer than "why is
prohibition a better policy than legalization?" So politicians use
a standard brush-off line: If drugs were legalized, that would mean the
government approved of drug use. And that would be "the wrong
message."
It's
a great spin line, but it's both stupid and offensive. It deliberately
ignores the reality of governance in a liberal society. In no other area
would anyone suggest that by permitting an activity, the government
actively endorses and supports it.
Some
theocracies punish adultery as a crime. Canada's government does not.
Does that mean the Canadian government endorses adultery? Is our
government "sending the wrong message" because this act goes
unpunished?
Consider
suicide. It was once a crime in Canada for a person to attempt to kill
himself. That law was scrapped. When the government legalized suicide,
did it "send the message" that it wanted Canadians to give
suicide a try?
It
would be absurd to say so, bizarre to think it. Yet this is exactly the
logic politicians routinely use to dismiss calls for any form of drug
legalization.
But
it's particularly offensive because there really is a "wrong
message" being sent. These same politicians are sending it, every
day that the government tells us what drugs we may or may not consume.
Like
other Western nations, Canada is, in the broadest and oldest sense, a
liberal society. The state will not dictate the "correct" way
to live. We are free to make decisions about our own lives, no matter
how different our choices may be from those of our neighbours. This is
what allows a Christian to live in peace with a Jew, Muslim, or atheist.
It is what allows French to live with English, yuppie with slacker,
vegetarian interior decorator with aboriginal subsistence hunter.
Diversity and tolerance are rare things in human history, and must be
cherished.
To
cherish them, we must understand what supports them. The 19th-century
philosopher J. S. Mill identified what that is and called it "the
harm principle." It is the idea that people should be free to do
what they choose provided their actions don't harm others. No government
has the moral right to forbid our private choices, or force its choices
on us.=20
Drug
prohibition is a direct violation of the "harm principle." By
criminalizing drugs, governments say that we are, in fact, children who
can be told not to touch things the state deems bad for us. Governments
can respect the harm principle by restricting a person's drug use only
when it risks harming someone else: Alcohol, for example, is legal to
possess and use, but driving under its influence is not. That, however,
is not what drug prohibition does. Prohibition bans everything -- even
smoking a joint in your own bedroom with the blinds drawn.
In
doing so, prohibition "sends a message." It says, bluntly,
that government can decide what is best for you and punish you if you
disagree.
Abraham
Lincoln found that message intolerable. In his era, all drugs were legal
but there were calls to criminalize alcohol. Lincoln was offended.
"Prohibition," he said, "goes beyond the bounds of reason
in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and
makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law
strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was
founded." (And Canada's government, too, we might
add.)(MarijuanaNews note: The Lincoln quote is apocryphal. He probably
did not really say that, but he should have.)
The
principles of freedom are the same now as they were in the days of
Lincoln, Mill and the Fathers of Confederation. So too is the offensive
statement governments make about freedom when they forbid adults from
deciding for themselves what to consume. That's the real "wrong
message" we're hearing about drugs. Anything else is a brush-off
line from a politician who just wants to walk away whistling.
Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What
We Can Do About It
- Judge James Gray
Judge Jim Gray, author of " Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed
and What We Can Do About It", will be on the O'Reilly factor this
Wed. Jun 6th: jgray@superior.co.orange.ca.us
Just a note Judge James Gray will be interviewed about his new
book this coming Wednesday, June 6 on "The O'Reilly Factor,"
which will be telecast on the Fox News Channel (FNC) that day at both
5pm and 8pm Pacific Daylight Time. I would be interested in a re-cap from you after the show.
These minutes are hard to come by, and any thoughts about how they can
be used for maximum impact would be appreciated.
"Judge Gray's thorough and scholarly work, based as it is on
his personal experience, should help considerably to improve our
impossible drug laws. [His] book drives a stake through the heart of the failed War
on Drugs and gives us options to hope for in the battles to come."
-Walter Cronkite
"However harmful the ingestion of drugs are to their users,
the attempt to prohibit drugs has made matters far worse, threatening
our basic rights to life, liberty and property.
That is Judge Gray's thesis in this important book and he cites
overwhelming evidence to support it.
His proposals to improve the situation do not go as far as I
would like, but they are all feasible and in the right direction.
If adopted, they would produce a major improvement."
-Milton Friedman, Hoover Institution
"The war on drugs cannot be a war on discussion of this
problem. We can fight drug
use and abuse and still explore viable options.
Judge Gray illuminates options and in the process will promote
necessary discussion of them."
-George P. Shultz, Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution and
author of the Turmoil and Triumph: My Years as Secretary of State
"It's all here! A
stinging indictment of today's drug strategies and a rallying cry around
new strategies for tomorrow."
-Gary E. Johnson, Governor of New Mexico
"This book is a powerful indictment of our failed war on
drugs. Jim Gray not only
communicates the devastation wrought by a war he witnessed from the
frontlines as a trial judge and federal prosecutor, but he displays in
these pages the moral courage it takes to cry out that the emperor wears
no clothes."
-Arianna Huffington, syndicated columnist and author of How to
Overthrow the Government
Why
Our Drug Laws Have Failed And What We Can Do About It - A Judicial
Indictment of the War on Drugs: In addition to the comments from the
author, who is a veteran trial judge in Southern California, the views,
observations and experiences of more than 40 judges and justices
nationwide are cited in this documented indictment of the failure of our
laws of Drug Prohibition. But the book also brings hope, because viable
options to our present failed policy are set forth with specificity, and
shown where they are being employed successfully in other countries.
Part
I: Introduction - Presents a short background of the author and the
factors that compelled him to speak out publicly about our failed drug
laws, and guarantees that anyone who reads the book with an open mind will
reach the same conclusion.
Part
II: Our Drug Laws Have Failed
1.
Past and Present
An
Historical Perspective - Provides a history of why the United passed its
laws of drug prohibition. Embarrassingly enough, those reasons have
nothing to do with public health or public safety, but were instead
based upon racism (the protection of white women from being led astray
by minority men) and empire building.
Emergence
of the Prison-Industrial Complex - Provides disturbing statistics about
the growth of prisons and the prison population in the United States as
a direct result of our laws of drug prohibition, which is unmatched by
any other country in the world.
2.
Increased Harm to Communities
Communities
Awash in Illicit Drugs - Demonstrates how illicit drugs are freely
available for adults as well as children in our communities. We cannot
even keep these drugs out of our prisons, so how can we reasonably
expect to keep them out of our neighborhoops?
Violence
and Corruption
Domestic
- Documents example after example about how the drug money, more than
the drugs themselves, is responsible for unacceptably high incidences of
violence and corruption in the United States.
Foreign
- Documents how drug money from the United States has almost completely
corrupted the governments of such countries as Colombia, Peru and
Bolivia, and is doing the same thing to Mexico. And the violence that
these drug monies have caused is overwhelming, and unnecessary.
3.
Erosion of Protections of the Bill of Rights - The War on Drugs has been
the biggest cause of the loss of our civil liberties in the history of
our country. This chapter sets forth the status of these important
constitutional protections when the author graduated from law school in
1971, and then traces how drug cases decided by the United States
Supreme Court since that time have severely and probably permanently
reduced those protections, and continuing to do so.
4.
Increased Harm to Drug Users
Demonization
- By "demonizing" or dehumanizing people who use and abuse
drugs, we have been able to perpetuate this failed system. This chapter
shows how that has been accomplished.
Deterioration
of Health - As a practical matter, the War on Drugs has at the same time
increased the risk of contagious diseases like hepatitus and AIDS for
drug users, and deprived them of medical attention for their conditions.
This has, of course, also enabled these diseases to be passed on to
people who do not use drugs.
5.
Increased Harm for the Future
Conspiracy
Theories - The incarceration of disproportionate numbers of minorities,
the involvement of law enforcement and other government officials with
domestic and foreign thugs in an effort to be informed about and reduce
national and international drug trafficking, and the enormous amounts of
money involved in these transactions have directly spawned large numbers
of conspiracy theories about our government's involvement in drug
trafficking itself. Even if these theories are not true, the fact that
many people believe them undercuts the legitimacy of our government, and
the desire of many people to cooperate with it.
Government
Policy: Don't Discuss It! - A major part of our present policy is
effectively to keep people from questioning it, and this has been
amazingly successful. This end has been accomplished by labeling anyone
who even suggests any alternatives to our policy as a drug
"legalizer," which connotes, for example, that that person
does not feel that these drugs are particularly dangerous, or concerned
if our children "purchase cocaine in a vending machine across the
street from their junior high schools."
Part
III: Options
6.
Increased Zero Tolerance - Even though our policy of Zero Tolerance has
not worked, it could always be increased. And so, this chapter suggests
specific ideas about how we could more fully implement this failed
policy. Many of these ideas have actually been advocated by some of our
government officials. However, the quote attributed to President Clinton
about the definition of insanity as "doing the same thing over and
over again, and expecting different results," overrides the
author's view of the suggestions made in this chapter.
7.
Education - This is seen by virtually everyone as being the key to
reducing the harm that has and will be caused by the presence of these
dangerous and sometimes addicting drugs in our communities. However, it
is essential that our education be truthful. Truthful education has been
quite successful in reducing smoking in our country, even though it is
not illegal for adults to use or possess tobacco. The same would be true
for these other presently illicit drugs.
8.
Drug Treatment
Rehabilitation
- Various non-medicalized rehabilitation programs are discussed in this
chapter: both voluntary and involuntary, public and private. And since a
RAND Corporation study found that treatment programs are seven times
more effective than incarceration, why are they not being more fully
used?
Medicalization
Needle
Exchange Programs - These programs allow the exchange of a dirty syringe
and needle for a clean one, with no money changing hands and no
questions asked. That is all. And numbers of studies have shown that
they reduce the transmission of dangerous diseases like AIDS and
hepatitus, and do not increase drug usage. Many countries in Western
Europe have had wonderful successes with these programs.
Drug
Substitution Programs - These programs substitute one drug (such as
methadone) for a drug addict's drug of choice (such as heroin), and are
quite effective for some people, somewhat successful for others, and
generally ineffective for many more. But the federal government's
micro-managing of these programs is reducing their effectiveness for
almost everyone.=20
Drug
Maintenance Programs - Under the strict care and control of a medical
doctor, many drug-addicted people in Switzerland are using prescription
dosages of heroin that neither result in them getting a
"rush," nor in them going through withdrawal. It simply
"maintains" these people so that they have been able to
function quite well in their everyday lives. And after establishing a
relationship with these doctors based upon trust and positive results,
an encouraging number of these addicted people have moved on to programs
of drug abstinence.
9.
De-Profitization of Drugs
Legalization
- This approach involves the legal sale and possession of drugs, using
the protections of the civil justice system for problems of the quality
and labeling of the drugs, and leaves the criminal justice system to
address the conduct of the people who use drugs. The chapter suggests
that we "legalize" hemp, which would be worthless to smoke or
otherwise use for mind-altering purposes, but has enormous potential for
manufactured products such as paper, plywood, lacquer, etc. Otherwise,
the author views legalization as not being a desirable option.
Decriminalization
- Holland is utilizing this option, which allows people to possess and
use small amounts of drugs, and as long as they stay within very well
known limits, the police are instructed to leave them alone. As a
result, the use of drugs in Holland is appreciably less than in the
United States. As a former Drug Czar in Holland said, "We succeeded
in making pot boring."
Regulated
Distribution - This option entails bringing these dangerous and
sometimes addicting drugs back under the law, and envisions a system
much like what is now being used for alcohol and tobacco. But tighter!
No transferring of any kind to children, no advertising of any kind, no
sales or special prices, no trade names, only brown packaging, etc. Then
the criminal justice system would be used to hold people accountable for
their conduct. Since the conclusion is inescapable that these drugs are
here to stay, we are faced with the choice of having the drugs either
with drug lords or without them.
10.
Federalism - This option would allow each state to pass and enforce laws
that it believes are best suited for its people. The United States was
founded upon this concept, and this would enable different options to be
tried and refined. The federal government would be restricted to
assisting each state enforce its chosen laws, just as it was upon the
repeal of Alcohol Prohibition.
Part
IV: What We Can Do About It - What can just one person do about this
critical problem? This chapter sets forth specific suggestions. And the
answer is, quite a bit.
Appendix
A: Resolution - Provides a resolution for drug policy reform that people
can sign and send to their elected officials. It has already been signed
by thousands of prominent and not-so-prominent people nationwide. And it
will have positive results.
Appendix
B: Government Commission Reports and Other Public Inquiries - Summarizes
numbers of prominent neutral studies for the last hundred years from the
United States, Canada and Great Britain, all of which say that we should
move away from our present policy of incarceration of people for using
drugs.
http://www.judgejimgray.com/
for excertps of this book
According
to Judge Morris Hoffman, the Denver drug courts have failed to
achieve
even their own immediate objectives. Once the courts wereinstituted,
police began arresting much greater numbers of much more minoroffenders.
The ones with serious drug problems fail treatment and go toprison.
Consequently the number of drug offenders going to prison hassharply
increased. Read:
http://www.drugsense.org/temp/HoffmanXNorthCarolina.Law.Review.doc
April
20, 2001
New
Drug Czar in Michigan
Ex-prosecutor
to lead
state
anti-drug office
A
Grosse Pointe Farms attorney has been named the new director of the
state's Office of Drug Control Policy.
Craig
Yaldoo will begin his new job Monday. He is a former assistant Wayne
County prosecutor and director of the office's community outreach
programs.
The
drug-control office prints anti-drug literature and funds police and
community programs.
Gov.
John Engler said of his appointee: "With an extensive background in
criminal prosecution and community outreach activities, Craig Yaldoo has
the qualities needed to serve with distinction as Michigan's new drug
czar. He knows firsthand the damage drugs inflict on the user and on
society, and he will take a tough approach in dealing with this
scourge."
Yaldoo
is chairman of the board of Alliance for a Safer, Greater Detroit and is
the secretary of the Detroit Urban League.
"Craig
brings a wealth of experience and leadership to this important
position," Michigan Department of Community Health Director James
Haveman Jr. said in a statement. Yaldoo succeeds Darnell Jackson, who
was appointed by Engler to the 70th District Court.
Nevada
Defies Feds, US Supreme Court with Medical Marijuana Bill
Legislators
Cite Duty to Move Forward as a Sovereign State
CARSON
CITY, NEVADA, June 4 - Despite federal lawsprohibiting the medical use
of marijuana upheld in a May 14th UnitedStates Supreme Court decision,
the Nevada Legislature decided todayto go ahead with a bill that will
not only enact the medicalmarijuana law approved by voters last
election, but will also loosenNevada's current law on possession of
marijuana in general.A preamble added to the bill, AB 453, acknowledges
federalopposition to medical marijuana but states that Nevada as
"asovereign state has the duty to carry out the will of the
people."AB 453 received Senate approval this weekend and Assembly
approvaltoday. It will now
go before Governor Kenny Guinn for hissignature. Dan Hart of Nevadans for Medical
Rights said, "Today thestate of Nevada has taken up the charge of
voters to move ahead onthe issue of medical marijuana regardless of
federal policy." Hecontinued,
"We've said all along that the Supreme Court's ruling wassimply a
reiteration of federal law with regards to medicalmarijuana, and that it
did not preclude state governments fromsetting their own medical
marijuana laws. This is a
major victoryfor patients in Nevada and in all states with laws allowing
for themedical use of marijuana."
If
the governor signs the bill as expected, patients inNevada will be able
to grow as many as seven marijuana plants intheir homes.
The Nevada School of Medicine will be required
to"aggressively" seek federal approval of a medical
marijuanadistribution program in which both usable marijuana and
marijuanaseeds will be made available to patients.
Also, the possession of upto an ounce of marijuana by anyone in
the state of Nevada will nolonger be a felony.
###
FACT
SHEET ON NEVADA BILL AB 453
Medical
Marijuana Implementation, Research, Distribution
History:
Nevada voters twice approved Question 9, aconstitutional amendment
legalizing the medical use of marijuana,most recently in November 2000
with 65% voting in favor. Theamendment required the legislature to
create implementing legislationfor the licensing of patients and their
caregivers authorized to growand possess marijuana, and also required
legislators to specify ameans of legal distribution of medical
marijuana.
AB
453 ELEMENTS:
Strong
preamble language: "S [T]he State of Nevada as a sovereignstate has
the duty to carry out the will of the people of this stateand to
regulate the health, medical practices and well-being of thosepeople in
a manner that respects their personal decisions concerningthe relief of
suffering through the medical use of marijuana."
Patient/caregiver
registry system: The state departments of motorvehicles and agriculture
will jointly operate a confidentiallicensing system for medical
marijuana-using patients and theircaregivers. Patients must have
approval from a Nevada physician, andmay designate a caregiver. Each
would receive credentials from theDepartment of Motor Vehicles, which
could be used to avoid amarijuana arrest.
Permits
cultivation and possession by patients, caregivers: Licensedpatients and
caregivers may cultivate up to seven marijuana plants,three flowering at
any one time, and may possess up to one ounce ofusable marijuana without
penalty.
State
research and distribution programs: The state Department ofAgriculture
is ordered to "aggressively" and "vigorously
pursue"federal approval to establish a distribution program for
both usablemarijuana and marijuana seeds. The University of Nevada
School ofMedicine must join the department in seeking approval for
generalstudies of marijuana's medical uses.
De-felonization
of non-medical marijuana possession: A separateprovision reclassifies
the possession of marijuana as a misdemeanorfor the first three
offenses. It also gives judges wider discretionfor sentencing on later
offenses.
* Notes from the Detroit
Electronic Music Fest [DEMF] (May 26, 28th)
There were 10-20 PRA circulators active (on May 26th & 28th) at the DEMF
from various chapter of NORML and other organizations. I worked 2 6-hour
shifts and averaged about 1 signiture every 2 minutes and 6 seconds.
The following reference to PRA appeared in the Metro Section of the Detroit News
(05/27/01):
"Jen Peterson, 23, sported pink sunglasses and a
necklace of mock marijuana leaves distributed by backers of a legalization
vote. "It's like Woodstock" said the Clinton Township mother,
who brought her 4-year-old son." (Page 1C)
Source: Wall Street JournaWebsite: http://www.wsj.coAuthor: David Ban
Super-Wealthy Threesome Fund Growing War on the War on
Drugs
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.co
