-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mixing Driving, Over-The-Counter Drugs Could Become Illegal
('The Associated Press' Says More Than 300 Police So-Called
Drug Recognition Experts Together With About 100 Prosecutors,
Toxicologists And Highway Safety Advocates Are In Portland
Through Tuesday For A National Conference - Police 'Experts'
Want To Criminalize Oregon Drivers They Deem Impaired By Legal Drugs,
But Dr. Robert Julien, An Anesthesiologist At Providence St. Vincent
Hospital In Portland, Acknowledges A Lack Of Research On How Such Drugs
Correlate With Behavior)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 23:54:47 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US OR: Mixing Driving,
Over-The-Counter Drugs Could Become Illegal
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Source: Associated Press
Pubdate: Mon, 29 Jun 1998
MIXING DRIVING, OVER-THE-COUNTER DRUGS COULD BECOME ILLEGAL
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- Police trained to detect drugged drivers worry that
too many motorists drive with legal sedating medications, such as pain
killers, cold and flu treatments and antihistamines.
"It's one of the weaknesses in our law," said Lt. Chuck Hayes, a 24-year
Oregon State Police veteran and a drug recognition specialist.
More than 300 experts from the United States and Canada are in Portland
through Tuesday for a national conference. Joining them will be about 100
prosecutors, toxicologists and highway safety advocates.
Hayes would like to see Oregon join Washington state in adding legal drugs
to the definition of driving under the influence.
Hayes, who hopes a such a law will be passed by the next Legislature, said
the goal is not to punish people but to educate them.
An estimated 400,000 allergy sufferers live in Oregon, studies show. For
many, antihistamines alleviate sneezing and watery eyes, but they also can
cause drowsiness.
Dr. Robert Julien, an anesthesiologist at Providence St. Vincent Hospital
in Portland, said decongestants and blood pressure medication also can
cause dizziness, drowsiness and disorientation.
Julien said some medications have the opposite effect.
Anti-asthma medications can cause anxiety reactions and irritability, he
said, making overmedicated drivers could become more volatile or hyperactive.
Ruth Vandever, executive director of the Oregon Board of Pharmacy, said she
doesn't think over-the-counter drugs pose a driving hazard as long as the
consumer follows the directions on the label.
That means taking the prescribed dosage and, in many cases, not combining
the drug with other drugs or alcohol.
"I don't think it's anything where the consumer would be disabled by the
medication," Vandever said.
Julien acknowledges a lack of research on how the level of such drugs in
the blood correlates with behavior. Because of that, he doubts legislation
controlling the use of medications while driving would take hold in Oregon
immediately.
Julien noted that the use of drug recognition experts in police agencies
still is relatively new.
Twenty-five officers underwent Oregon's first training in 1995 to identify
illegally drugged individuals.
Today 120 officers have gone through the 100 hours of drug-recognition
training.
"Our goal is to have a drug recognition expert be able to respond to any
given area throughout the state at any time," he said.
Oregon law does not permit officers to require urine tests to determine
drug use. But the officers have had an 88-percent success rate in
convincing the drivers to take the test, Hayes said.
"All of this has to do with the quality of the people we have in the
program and their demeanor," Hayes said.
Methamphetamine is by far the most popular drug among Oregon drivers who do
get caught. Marijuana is second, Hayes said.
"Forty-five percent of all the urine tests that we get back show two or
more drugs in the system."
Once these expert officers have determined that a driver may be
drug-impaired, toxicology tests have proved their suspicions right 90
percent of the time, slightly better than the national average, Hayes said.
Since the program began, arrests for drug-impaired driving have increased
from 319 in 1994 to more than 700 in 1997.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No On Measure 57 Meeting Notes (A Summary Of A Meeting In Portland
Sunday Night Intended To Organize Opposition To Recriminalizing Possession
Of Less Than An Ounce Of Marijuana, To Be Decided By Oregon Voters
In November)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anti-Prohibition Lg (aal@inetarena.com)
Subject: NO ON MEASURE 57: 6/28 Meeting Notes
THE NO ON MEASURE 57 COMMITTEE (*)
3125 SE BELMONT STREET
PORTLAND OREGON 97214
503-235-4524
AAL@InetArena.com
6/28/98 Meeting Notes
1. In attendance were Floyd Landrath (Antiprohibition Lg.), D. Paul
Stanford (Campaign for the Restoration & Regulation of Hemp), Terry
Miller, Perry Stripling, & Dona MacPherson (Pdx NORML), Lee Berger & L.
Beau (Voter Power). Floyd took the notes.
2. The League's draft proposal (below) was presented for a second
reading and discussion. While the proposal has been widely
distributed, so far only CRRH (Stanford) and the League fully accept
it. Pdx NORML and Voter Power wish to differ the proposal for further
study. No word yet from the Pacific Party which is also studying it.
3. CRRH, the current OCTA sponsor, announced that it has secured
about $10,000 in pledges earmarked for No on 57. A registered
political committee must be set-up asap to begin accepting
contributions. The League and CRRH will set one up, calling it: THE NO
ON MEASURE 57 COMMITTEE. The group requested Floyd to act as director
on an interim basis and that the League office and phone number be used
as our primary contact point with the public. Floyd then requested and
appointed Paul Stanford as interim co-director. Paul also volunteered
to file the new committee with the Secretary of State, within the next
couple of days.
4. General discussion revolving around relationship between Voter
Power and this group, THE NO ON MEASURE 57 COMMITTEE. Lee expressed
concern over duplicating efforts and the need to avoid divisive
infighting. Floyd noted all infighting must stop and anyone who wants
to work with either group is free to do so, "we all have the same goal,
defeating M57," he said.
Everyone agreed, M57 presents an opportunity to make much needed
progress in organizing on a statewide level, coordination and
cooperation will bring cohesion and political power for the future of
the Oreogn antiprohibition movement. Lee suggested and their was
unanimous agreement for Floyd and Paul to meet with the Board of Voter
Power to make clear this mutual agenda and to offer mutual cooperation,
the meeting is TBA.
5. The 1st Eugene meeting is set for Friday, July 10, 7 to 9 p.m. at
the Growers' Market. Please contact Dan Koozer at (dkoozer@pondnet.net)
or 541-747-3589) for details.
6. NEXT MEETING IN PORTLAND FOR 'NO ON M57' IS: SUNDAY, JULY 5, 4
P.M. AT THE LEAGUE OFFICE (PHANTOM GALLERY), 3125 SE BELMONT STREET.
(Please note the earlier start time.)
7. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30p.m.
***
(*) -- THE NO ON MEASURE 57 COMMITTEE
American Antiprohibition League
Voter Power
Portland NORML
Campaign for the Restoration & Regulation of Hemp
Cannabis Liberation Society
Southern Oregon University Hemp Club
(as of 6/29/98)
The AMERICAN ANTIPROHIBITION LEAGUE
Volunteers Working for "Drug Peace!" In Oregon
Just Say NO! to M57
3125 SE BELMONT STREET
PORTLAND OREGON 97214
503-235-4524
fax:503-234-1330
Email:AAL@InetArena.com
Sunday, June 21, 1998
Draft Proposal
No on Measure 57 Coalition, Organizing the grass-roots
Coalition purpose: To organize a grass-roots campaign to defeat
marijuana "recrim" (M57) in the November 3, 1998 election and then
reconstitute itself as a united, statewide antiprohibition force.
Coalition members (as of 6/21/98):
* American Antiprohibition League (OR Pol. Committee)
* Voter Power (OR PC)
* Portland NORML (Non-profit through national?)
* Campaign for the Regulation & Restoration of Hemp (OR PC)
* Cannabis Liberation Society (?)
* Southern Oregon University Hemp Club (?)
Coalition endorsements (as of 6/21/98): TBA
Coalition structure: Each member organization appoints one voting
delegate. All decisions are by consensus of the delegates. Each
member organization agrees to:
* Register as many supporters as possible.
* Recruit as many volunteers as possible.
* Provide this data to a centralized data base.
* Do at least 1 fund raising event by Oct. 1998.
* Distribute Coalition approved literature.
* Monitor and report on local press and media.
Coalition functions:
* Centralized contact point, run statewide headquarters
* Centralized data base of supporters
* Fund raising and distribution
* Standardize message, clear focus
* Bulk mail
* Scheduling, monitoring and reporting
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Prisons Bringing In Millions Of Dollars
(According To 'The San Francisco Examiner,'
A Report By Berkeley Economist George Goldman
Says California Prisons Generate More Than $150 Million
A Year - It's Not Clear Whether Goldman Or Just The Newspaper
Omits Any Information About The Billions Of Dollars Spent Building
And Maintaining California Prisons, Or The Costs Involved In Filling Them
With Victimless Drug Offenders)
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com ( Frank S. World)
Source: San Francisco Examiner ( CA)
Contact: letters@examiner.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Pubdate: Mon, 29 Jun 1998
PRISONS BRINGING IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
BERKELEY - A Berkeley economist says prisons are producing much
more than just license plates, with California's prison products -
ranging from prunes to shoes - generating more than $150 million a year.
The state's prison farms and factories also produce farm and dairy
items such as eggs, as well as almonds, furniture, mattresses and
clothing, according to a report by George Goldman, an economist at
UC-Berkeley.
Prisons also cut meat, roast coffee, offer dental and optical
services, run a knitting mill - as well as make $10 million worth of
license plates each year.
The report says California has the nation's largest state prison
work program, employing about 7,000 inmates in 23 units.
"If you wiped out the California Prison Industry Authority, you'd
lose $62 million in personal income in the state," Goldman said.
The biggest prison products are food, with $33 million in annual
sales. Prison work programs in California are voluntary.
Pay scales range from 30 cents to 95 cents per hour, but inmates
are eager to take the available positions, the report says.
***
[War is good for business. Invest your son. - PDX NORML]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Announces Anti-Methamphetamine Campaign (A Press Release
From The Office Of California Attorney General Dan Lungren Notes
The Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Has Received $18.2 Million
From The Clinton Administration To Fight The Illegal Methamphetamine Market,
With $1.8 Million For A Public Education Campaign And The Rest To Hire
131 Narcotics Agents, Criminologists And Lab Technicians Statewide)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:18:17 +0100
To: dpfca@drugsense.org, friends@freecannabis.org
From: Ellen Komp (ekomp@slonet.org)
Subject: DPFCA: Fwd: [PRESSLIST] ATTORNEY GENERAL
ANNOUNCES ANTI-METHAMPHETAMINE CAMPAIGN
Sender: owner-dpfca@drugsense.org
Reply-To: dpfca@drugsense.org
Organization: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/dpfca/
Could Lungren be shifting to a new war? On the other hand, I wonder if the
131 new drug agents, etc. will be working solely on methamphetamine...
From: Larry True (TRUEL@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us)
Subject: [PRESSLIST] ATTORNEY GENERAL ANNOUNCES
ANTI-METHAMPHETAMINE CAMPAIGN
To: PRESSLIST@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us
ATTORNEY GENERAL ANNOUNCES ANTI-METHAMPHETAMINE CAMPAIGN
June 29, 1998
98-84
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SACRAMENTO- Attorney General Dan Lungren today unveiled television and
radio ads designed to raise awareness of the methamphetamine problem in
California and discourage the use of the deadly drug.
"California's methamphetamine problem is truly a multi-headed monster. The
consequences of using the drug and the costs and danger associated with
the aftermath of environmental hazards all need to be addressed in our
methamphetamine strategy,"
Lungren said. "Simply put: where meth goes, violence and destruction
follow. All of us in law enforcement and the general public alike, need to
become as educated and informed as possible about this growing menace."
Lungren unveiled two television ads which are part of a statewide public
education campaign. The first ad focuses attention on the devastating
environmental impact that "meth cookers" impose on California's environment.
The second ad, titled "Eyes," shows the world through the point of view of a
meth user, illustrating the paranoia and violence often associated with heavy
meth use. Both ads begin airing today. Two additional television spots are
currently in production.
The public education campaign also includes four radio ads and 55 billboards
which will be rotated throughout the state, all of which direct the public to an
interactive web-site, www.stopdrugs.org ,which gives extensive information
on the dangers of methamphetamine and other drugs.
The Attorney General's Office successfully lobbied the federal government
for the $18.2 million grant to address the growing methamphetamine problem
in California.
Approximately $1.8 million of the grant money is earmarked for the public
education campaign. The grant money will also fund the expansion of the
California Department of Justice's law enforcement efforts including the
hiring of 131 narcotics agents, criminologists and lab technicians statewide.
In 1997, the California Bureau of Narcotics (BNE) seized 946 clandestine drug
labs and local law enforcement seized 713 labs, totaling 1,659 labs in
California. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) reports that they seized
1,495 labs nationwide in 1997, including cases they worked on with BNE in
California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Medical Pot Effort Plagued By Feuds (According To 'The Olympian,'
Backers Of Initiative 692, Who Are Facing A Thursday Deadline To Qualify
For The November Ballot, Say They May Already Have Enough Signatures
To Send It To Voters - But Seattle Artist And Multiple Sclerosis Patient
Karen Pehoushek, Who Co-Sponsored The Initiative With Tacoma Physician
Robert Killian, Said Killian, His Brother, Tim, And The Influx
Of Nationally Donated Money Have Destroyed The Effort To Pass The Initiative)
From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen - Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
To: "Hemp Talk" (hemp-talk@hemp.net)
Subject: HT: Daily Olympian - WA Medical pot effort plagued by feuds
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 15:14:01 -0700
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net
WA Medical pot effort plagued by feuds
LOST SUPPORT: Karen Pehoushek, the co-sponsor of the current medical
marijuana initiative, smokes the drug daily to control her multiple sclerosis.
* INITIATIVE: A sponsor withdraws support and others find language and
methods disturbing.
By Jerry Weatherhogg
The Olympian
SEATTLE - The co-sponsor of an initiative that would legalize medicinal
marijuana has withdrawn her support for the measure.
But backers of the initiative who are facing a Thursday deadline to qualify
for the November ballot say they already may have enough signatures to send
it to voters.
Seattle artist Karen Pehoushek, who co-sponsored Initiative 692 with Tacoma
physician Robert Killian, said Killian, his brother Tim and the influx of
nationally donated money have destroyed its effort to pass the initiative.
Pehoushek, 38, said she has used marijuana daily since 1992 to quell leg
spasms and to induce sleep to relieve the symptoms of her multiple
sclerosis.
Although the initiative would legalize her marijuana use, Pehoushek
complained Friday of last-minute additions to the initiative's text and
what she called a disorganized campaign that has left medicinal marijuana
users, including Green Cross activists, in the dark.
"It's a fiasco, and I think it was a mistake signing on with the Killian
brothers. With these guys, there just has been no forward momentum, no
cohesiveness, no meetings called, no information, absolutely not a shred of
any involvement," she said.
Pehoushek also took issue with a clause in the initiative that would
effectively prohibit cooperatives similar to the pot clubs that sprang up
in California after medicinal marijuana was approved by voters there. The
clubs are places where patients can obtain and use the drug.
But Killian said the initiative would be a hard sell to voters without
prohibiting pot clubs. He said the clause was added shortly before the
initiative petition was filed on Feb. 26.
Killian said his campaign polled Washington voters four times during the
past year, finding that while up to 75 percent of the people indicated they
would support medicinal marijuana, two-thirds would vote against permitting
"pot clubs."
"This is not about setting up places for people to smoke marijuana openly,"
Killian said.
While he declined to comment how Pehoushek's departure would affect the
campaign, Killian said the initiative has plenty of grass-roots support.
That support, however, doesn't include members of the Green Cross - a group
which distributes marijuana to about 300 patients with the written consent
of a physician. Under the initiative, the group would be illegal.
"They don't have a patient's perspective on this, and the patients are the
only important people in this," Green Cross co-founder Joanna McKee said.
Dale Rogers, the patient coordinator for the Green Cross, said the
grass-roots effort was lost when paid signature-gatherers from
California-based Progressive Campaigns were employed.
"I see 16- (to) 17-year-olds wearing hemp shirts collecting signatures and
I think, 'That should be activists,' but we've been taken out of the loop,"
Rogers said.
Green Cross member Lee deMou said he wishes the infighting would end.
"This shouldn't be an internal fight made public," deMou said. "This is
about people being sick, not individual personalities."
Killian said the Green Cross' members make up a small portion of the
state's medicinal marijuana users - many of whom prefer to remain anonymous
and stay detached from the group.
He estimates that more than 1,000 people who suffer from ailments such as
AIDS, multiple sclerosis, cancer and glaucoma would benefit from the
initiative.
1-692 would shield from prosecution patients with terminal or debilitating
illnesses who grow and use marijuana with the consent of a physician.
Unlike last year's failed medicinal marijuana measure, 1-692 doesn't
mention other drugs or prison policies.
The campaign, funded by upwards of $375,000 from out-of-state donors, has
received more than 200,000 signatures - well ahead of the 179,284 needed to
put it on the ballot, Tim Killian said.
Jerry Weatherhogg covers Olympia for The Olympian. He can be reached at
754-5442.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two In Washington Plead Guilty To Marijuana Smuggling
('The Associated Press' Says John Benjamin Ricker Of Exeter,
New Hampshire, And Jim Garvorcauskas Of Newport, Rhode Island,
Who Were Aboard A Marijuana-Laden Sailboat That Burned And Sank
Off Neah Bay December 1, Pleaded Guilty June 12 To Importing Cannabis
And Racketeering - Sentencing September 11)
From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen - Olympia" (when@olywa.net)
To: "Hemp Talk" (hemp-talk@hemp.net)
Subject: HT: Two in WA plead guilty to marijuana smuggling
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:11:52 -0700
Sender: owner-hemp-talk@hemp.net
Two plead guilty to marijuana smuggling
The Associated Press
06/29/98 12:51 PM Eastern
SEATTLE (AP) -- Two men who were aboard a marijuana-laden sailboat that
burned and sank off Neah Bay have pleaded guilty.
John Benjamin Ricker, about 30, of Exeter, N.H., and Jim Garvorcauskas,
about 43, of Newport, R.I., pleaded guilty on June 12. Papers in the court
of U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly say Garvorcauskas pleaded guilty to
importing marijuana and Ricker pleaded guilty to racketeering.
They had faced drug and arson charges in a trial that had been scheduled to
start today.
A third man, Indonesian national Amir Tobing, pleaded guilty earlier to
conspiring to smuggle marijuana.
The 60-foot sailboat Ok Tedi caught fire and sank Dec. 1 as the Coast Guard
approached it in the Pacific Ocean off the northwest tip of Washington. The
boat was sailing in the dark without running lights.
The Coast Guard recovered 3,768 pounds of marijuana in bales floating in
the water. It was said to be worth more than $15 million.
The boat had been sailing from Thailand.
Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 11.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Theater Review - Reefer Blandness ('The Chicago Tribune'
Doesn't Think Much Of 'Pot Mom,' The New Play By Justin Tanner
Of California, Who Also Wrote 'Still Life With Vacuum Salesman')
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 17:01:38 -0400
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Theater Review: Reefer Blandness
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Steve Young (theyoungfamily@worldnet.att.net)
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: tribletter@aol.com
Website: http://www.chicago.tribune.com/
Pubdate: 29 June 1998
Author: Richard Christiansen, Tribune Chief Critic
Section: Tempo
REEFER BLANDNESS
`I'm tired of trying to make this work," shouts Richard, the beer-bellied
truckdriver, and out he walks, taking his dog Skipper and his stash of
marijuana with him.
At this point, near the end of "Pot Mom," you may be thinking that Richard,
not the smartest man in the world, is nonetheless the brightest character
in this play.
By then, however, he and the audience have gone through several scenes of
high-decibel shouting and wisecracking, fueled by endless smoking of joints
and drinking of booze. And all to little purpose.
Justin Tanner, the show's author, is a Californian who has developed
something of a cult in Los Angeles with a play list that includes such
piquant titles as "Still Life with Vacuum Salesman." "Pot Mom"--which, like
most of his work, was first presented at CAST Theatre in Los Angeles--had
Laurie Metcalf in its original production and is lucky to have her and a
terrific cast for its Chicago transplant in the Steppenwolf Studio Theatre.
Tanner says just about all he has to say in his first, long scene, in which
Patty (Metcalf), about to go back to work after nine months on unemployment
compensation, is celebrating the end of her "vacation" by doing drugs with
her lusty, pot-smoking companion, Michelle (Rondi Reed).
Soon, they are joined in Patty's decrepit Southern California bungalow
(perfectly realized by scenic designer Mark Netherland) by her bellicose
boyfriend, Richard (Tom Irwin, with greasy hair and tattoo), and her three
teenage children from hell (Zoe Perry, Katie Cassis and Johnny Galecki).
A little later on, two zonked-out rockers (Matt Roth and Brendan Smith) and
two visiting country club princesses (Carey Peters and Dado) join the cast
of caricatures, adding their zaniness to the proceedings; but by then,
Tanner has pretty well shot his wad in character and plot development, and
it all starts to sound the same.
To give credit where it's due, the author has uncorked many nifty
California jokes for his cast to deliver. For example: Troy, Patty's randy
son (neatly played by Galecki), who works in a movie theater, says, "I'm an
usher, but I want to direct."
Director Wilson Milam, playing traffic cop on this expressway of quarrels,
confrontations and shouting matches, moves the actors briskly and funnily
through their paces. And the actors, reeling from living room to kitchen
and back again, go through their routines with tremendous skill and gusto.
(On Saturday night, Reed slammed into the kitchen with such force that she
broke a couple of slats in its swinging door.)
Perhaps Metcalf and company were drawn to this material because it reminded
them of the good old days, when they were tearing up the stage at
Steppenwolf with "Coyote Ugly" and "Killers," roaring, red-meat plays with
juicy, far-out characters.
They're still in fine form, and Metcalf, as always, is a pleasure to watch.
This time, however, instead of gnawing on a slab of raw beef, she's biting
into a veggieburger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
When Clinics Gave Away Heroin ('The Baltimore Sun'
Responds To A Recent Proposal To Establish A Heroin Maintenance Program
In Baltimore With A Brief And Rather Biased History Of Heroin Maintenance
In New York And Its Prohibition As A Result Of
The 1914 Harrison Narcotic Act)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 21:54:04 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US MD: When Clinics Gave Away Heroin
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Rob Ryan
Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)
Contact: letters@baltsun.com
Website: http://www.sunspot.net/
Pubdate: Jun 29 1998
Author: Scott Shane
WHEN CLINICS GAVE AWAY HEROIN
Policy: Supplying addicts in the interest of public health and safety is
not a new idea and has been tried -- in this country, in this century.
Appalled at the crime and degradation resulting from drug addiction among
the inner-city poor, public health officials take a radical step: They open
a clinic where addicts can come and get their heroin free.
The year is 1919.
"The Clinic has served a humanitarian purpose in that it has provided a
place for a careful physical examination, advice as to needed medical
treatment and careful oversight of the progress of the drug disease," wrote
New York's health commissioner, Dr. Royal S. Copeland, in January 1920.
The Worth Street Clinic, then open for just eight months, had served 7,000
addicts, cut out the "wicked profiteering" of illicit drug suppliers,
improved addicts' health and reduced crime, the doctor asserted. And it was
not alone: From 1919 to 1925, some 40 clinics across the United States
legally supplied addicts with heroin, morphine and cocaine.
History, that great recycler, may be preparing to stage an updated version
of that experiment.
Drug-policy reformers met recently in New York City to hear about the
claimed success of a three-year Swiss program of "heroin maintenance."
Baltimore's health commissioner, Dr. Peter Beilenson, and drug-abuse
experts at the Johns Hopkins University raised the possibility this month
of a research trial aimed at luring hard-core addicts into treatment by
offering them heroin.
Politicians rushed to denounce the idea. They may not have known it, but
their objections, too, were an echo of the past.
In 1920, busloads of tourists stopped to gawk at the young men standing in
New York's "dope line." Patients conned doctors out of extra doses, which
were resold on the street. Plans to wean addicts from drugs by gradually
reducing doses failed.
In March 1920, health authorities, under pressure from the federal
government, closed the New York clinic after less than a year.
"Physicians should not be permitted, under the guise of treatment, to
prescribe narcotics for such indulgence," they wrote. "The only hope is
cutting off the supply of drugs as completely as possible."
Nearly eight decades later, the old ambition to "cut off the supply of
drugs" remains the core of American narcotics policy. But the drug supply
has never been bigger, and some public health officials are again tempted
by the radical idea of providing addicts with heroin.
Most Americans assume drug abuse began with the rebellious youth culture of
the 1960s. But the problem, and the debate over solutions, are far, far older.
"People say, `Go look at the Swiss experience,' " says David N. Nurco, a
veteran Baltimore drug-abuse researcher. "I say the Swiss should look at
our experience."
Nurco remembers interviewing in the late 1970s an elderly addict -- a
safecracker by trade -- who had received narcotics from the New York clinic
in 1919.
"He said that for him, it was a good thing," Nurco recalls. "But he said
the clientele ruined it. They'd steal the typewriters and the rugs.
They'd send their girlfriends in to get extra drugs."
Given the scale of drug abuse today, it may come as a surprise that the
rate of opiate addiction in the United States at the turn of the century
was probably at least as high. Then, an estimated 250,000 Americans out of
a population of 76 million were dependent on opium, morphine and heroin,
which existed in over-the-counter medications, according to Dr. David F.
Musto, a drug historian at Yale University.
Indeed, opium and morphine addiction were so widespread that when heroin
was first put on the market by the Bayer Pharmaceutical Co. exactly a
century ago, in 1898, some doctors enthusiastically promoted it as a cure
for addiction to the older drugs.
Bayer chemists had developed diacetylmorphine chiefly as a cough
suppressant for victims of pneumonia and tuberculosis; they named it
"Heroin" from the German word for "heroic," applied to powerful drugs.
But by 1903, medical journals were questioning Bayer's claim that heroin
was not habit-forming. By 1910, police were reporting recreational use of
heroin, chiefly by young white men, mostly in New York, near Bayer's supply
houses.
In 1914, Congress banned non-medical narcotic use with the Harrison
Narcotic Act. But lawmakers failed to clarify whether doctors could legally
maintain a patient indefinitely on heroin or other
drugs. A class of unscrupulous "dope doctors" emerged, living off addicts
by writing as many as 200 prescriptions a day for heroin, morphine and
cocaine.
In 1919, at the urging of government lawyers, the U.S. Supreme Court
clarified the law by ruling that such addiction maintenance was illegal.
Police moved swiftly to shut down the prescription mills, cutting off the
drug supply for thousands of addicts.
That was when health authorities, in New York and elsewhere, opened drug
clinics to head off a crime wave. "They thought, `Oh, my gosh, we'll have a
black market, we'll have desperate addicts committing crimes,' " says David
T. Courtwright, a historian of narcotics at the University of North Florida.
Many of the clinics, says Baltimore writer Jill Jonnes, author of a 1996
history of U.S. drug culture, "were aimed at genteel, middle-class addicts
who got on drugs through medical treatment."
Such was the case, for instance, in Shreveport, La., where the chief of
police declared the clinic "a model that should be copied over the entire
United States. It has practically eliminated the bootlegger who deals in
narcotics."
In New York, far more of the addicts were recreational users with criminal
records -- gang members, gamblers and prostitutes roughly resembling heroin
addicts of today, Jonnes says.
"The neighborhood was very unhappy, because hundreds of addicts were
hanging out, waiting for their drugs," Jonnes says. Controls were lax. When
Col. Levi Nutt, the federal drug czar of his day, stood in line, he had no
trouble getting supplied with drugs.
By 1921, sometimes under pressure from Nutt's Treasury Department agents,
most clinics had shut down. The last one, in Knoxville, Tenn., closed in 1925.
On occasion since then, the maintenance option has been raised. A 1972
paper by the U.S. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs assessed its pros
and cons, declaring that "it might be possible to virtually eliminate the
organized black market." But whatever the medical merits, the prospect of
taxpayers paying for addicts' drugs has proved political anathema.
Courtwright, the historian, says he believes outright legalization of drugs
would be a catastrophe. But he nonetheless thinks the government took a
costly wrong turn when it closed the clinics and in effect turned the
narcotics trade over to organized crime.
"The crucial question was whether medical personnel would be allowed to
offer addicts a legal supply of drugs," he says. "After 1919, the
government said no. I think that was a serious mistake."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
National Association Of Police Organizations Files Amicus Curiae Brief
To US Supreme Court (US Newswire Says The NAPO Today Submitted A Legal Brief
In The Case Of Patrick Knowles V. State Of Iowa, A Fourth Amendment
Vehicular Search And Seizure Case In Which The Defendant Refused To Permit
A Search That Turned Up Some Marijuana And A Pipe)
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:17:47 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: National Assn. Of Police Organizations
Files Amicus Curiae Brief To U.S. Supreme Court
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project
http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Patrick Henry (resist_tyranny@hotmail.com)
Source: U.S. Newswire
Pubdate: Mon, 29 Jun 1998
NATIONAL ASSN. OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS FILES AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF TO U.S.
SUPREME COURT
WASHINGTON, June 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today, the National Association of
Police Organizations, Inc. (NAPO), representing more than 4,000 police
unions and associations and over 220,000 sworn law enforcement officers
from across the nation, submitted a legal brief in support of law
enforcement officers in the case of Patrick Knowles v. State of Iowa, a
Fourth Amendment vehicular search and seizure case.
This case directly bears on the authority of law enforcement officers to
protect themselves and the public by conducting a search for weapons,
whenever they stop a motor vehicle for a traffic violation and issue a
citation instead of making an arrest (assuming there is authority to do
both). NAPO and its members have a significant interest in the resolution
of this case. The Iowa State Police Association is a member of NAPO, with
approximately 3,000 police officer members, whose safety during traffic
stops will be impacted by the Court's decision. In addition, NAPO is
vitally concerned with the impact that this case will have on the safety of
law enforcement officers throughout the nation. NAPO's amicus brief
provides the Court with the perspective of the police profession and an
insight into the serious danger inherent in routine traffic stops.
BACKGROUND: FACTS OF THE CASE On March 9, 1996, Officer Ronald Cook of the
Newton, Iowa, Police Department stopped the vehicle of Petitioner in this
case, Patrick Knowles, for speeding. The officer checked the Petitioner's
driver license and determined that there were no outstanding arrest
warrants. The officer issued Knowles a speeding citation and then conducted
a search of both Knowles and the passenger compartment of his vehicle.
During that search, the officer found a pipe and some marijuana under the
driver's seat. Knowles was subsequently convicted of possession of
marijuana and keeping marijuana in his vehicle.
The officer issued a traffic citation and conducted this search as incident
to that citation, pursuant to Iowa Code 805.1. That special provision
allows law enforcement officers to issue a citation in lieu of making an
arrest, as long as the officer initially has the grounds for an arrest.
Under the statute, the issuance of a citation in lieu of an arrest or
continued custody does not affect the officer's authority to conduct an
otherwise lawful search.
Knowles moved to suppress the admissibility of the seized evidence,
claiming that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The
following facts were undisputed: (1) The officer stopped Knowles for
speeding, an offense for which he could be arrested; (2) Officer Cook had
probable cause for the stop, based on the excessive speed, but had no
probable cause or suspicion to believe that Knowles was involved in any
other criminal activity; and (3) Knowles did not consent to the search of
his vehicle.
The trial court rejected Knowles' motion to suppress the incriminating
evidence, and he was then convicted. On appeal the Iowa Supreme Court
upheld his conviction, stating "an election by the officer to pursue a
lesser intrusion, such as issuing a citation, may be conditioned on certain
aspects of detention and search that are conducive to the officer's safety."
Knowles has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the ACLU and the
National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys have jointly submitted
an amicus curiae brief on his behalf, arguing against the constitutionality
of this Iowa code provision and searches conducted under it.
SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS IN NAPO'S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF "Traffic stops are
inherently dangerous and risky and pose a significant threat to the
physical safety of law enforcement officers. Stopping a motor vehicle
constitutes one of the least predictable and potentially most dangerous
duties of a law enforcement officer. Each traffic stop presents a situation
where an officer, usually alone and without any other officer support, must
confront unknown individuals, who may be hiding weapons or concealing
evidence. It is not uncommon for routine traffic stops to escalate into
violence, without any prior warning to the officer," said Robert T. Scully,
NAPO's executive director.
In fact, tens of thousands of officers have been assaulted. From 1987
through 1996, there were 4,333 law enforcement officers assaulted through
use of weapons during traffic stops and pursuits. And since the advent of
the automobile, hundreds of officers have been feloniously killed by
drivers or other occupants of vehicles involved in traffic stops or pursuits.
Under the Fourth Amendment, the reasonableness of a stop and search of a
vehicle and its driver stop rests on the balance between an individual's
right of privacy and the public's significant interest in the safety of its
law enforcement officers. In Maryland v. Wilson (upholding the right of
officers to order passengers out of vehicles), the Supreme Court recognized
that officer safety during a vehicle stop is the crucial "public interest"
factor in analyzing the reasonableness of searches and seizures. (In
Maryland, the Court cited statistics showing the danger to officers, which
were taken directly from NAPO's amicus curiae brief filed in that case.)
Iowa Code 805.1(4), allowing for searches incident to a citation, is a
reasonable effort by the State of Iowa to reduce this danger to police
officers during traffic stops in a less intrusive manner than a full
custodial arrest.
Past Supreme Court cases authorize searches of persons and vehicles
incident to an arrest based on probable cause, even before an actual arrest
occurs. The purpose of such searches is to discover weapons (in order to
disarm the driver) and to preserve evidence (to prevent its destruction).
The application of the Iowa statute recognizes that a law enforcement
officer is exposed to a potentially dangerous situation whenever the
officer stops and detains a vehicle, based on probable cause that a traffic
violation has occurred. The statute is also based on the realization that
this danger exists at the onset of the stop and detention, regardless of
whether the officer eventually decides to make a formal arrest or issue a
citation in lieu of an arrest.
The brief urges the Supreme Court to recognize that the ultimate charging
decision made by the police officer (an arrest or a citation) should not
determine the validity of a search of the driver and the passenger
compartment. Limiting searches during traffic stops to only when there is
an eventual arrest would significantly increase the risk of harm to law
enforcement officers in Iowa, whenever they issue a citation instead. The
distinction between a search incident to an arrest and a search incident to
a citation is meaningless in the context of officer exposure to significant
danger.
Accordingly, searches incident to a citation instead of an arrest advance a
significant public interest in protecting officer safety and are reasonable
under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, any weapon seized or evidence of crime
uncovered during such searches is properly admissible in a criminal case,
as was the evidence of criminality discovered in defendant's vehicle in
this case.
Furthermore, issuing a traffic citation is significantly less intrusive on
the public than an arrest. A requirement that an actual arrest must occur
before a search for weapons or concealed evidence can take place would
deter law enforcement officers from proceeding in this less intrusive
manner and result in more arrests for traffic offenses. The Iowa statute
follows a more reasonable approach by giving officers needed flexibility,
and thus benefits the citizens of Iowa.
In the brief's conclusion, amicus curiae National Association of Police
Organizations, Inc. urged the Supreme Court to apply the doctrine of
searches incident to arrests to issuances of citations in lieu of arrests
during traffic stops, given the substantial public interest in officer
safety, and to thereby affirm the judgment in this case of the Iowa Supreme
Court.
The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) is a coalition of
police unions and associations from across the United States that serves in
Washington, D.C. to advance the interests of America's law enforcement
officers through legislative and legal advocacy, political action and
education. Founded in 1978, NAPO now represents more than 4,000 police
unions and associations, over 220,000 sworn law enforcement officers, 3,000
retired officers and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common
dedication to fair and effective crime control and law enforcement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Experts Worry Border Patrol Agents Exceeding Their Authority
('The Associated Press' Notes The US Border Patrol Is Creating Controversy
In Arizona By Using Unconstitutional Search And Seizure Tactics)
Date: Sat, 04 Jul 1998 20:03:00 -0400
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Wire: Legal Experts Worry Border Patrol
Agents Exceeding Their Authority
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project
http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: DrugSense
Source: Associated Press
Pubdate: Monday, June 29, 1998
LEGAL EXPERTS WORRY BORDER PATROL AGENTS EXCEEDING THEIR AUTHORITY
BISBEE, Ariz. (AP) -- Bisbee nurse Glen Goerdt says he's been stopped by
U.S. Border Patrol agents in southeastern Arizona several times, including
two occasions in which the agent asked him to open the trunk of his car.
Goerdt says he knew such a search would require a warrant, but he also knew
there was nothing incriminating in the trunk.
``I guess I wanted to show I was a good American and that I was clean.
Besides, I was in a hurry and I just wanted to get it over with,'' says
Goerdt. ``But I've always wondered what would happen if I'd said no.''
But to some legal experts in Arizona, Goerdt's decision to comply with the
agent's request is worrisome. Experts say the encounter highlights an
increasing trend: agents are acting beyond their authority in the border
region.
``The Border Patrol claims broad rights of search and seizure that go far
beyond what the Constitution allows. But a Border Patrol agent can ask you
your citizenship and that's about it,'' said Ivan Abrams, a former
assistant U.S. attorney who is now a defense attorney in Cochise County.
To do anything more, Abrams said, the agent must have the cooperation and
permission of the individual he's stopped, or must establish probable cause
to make an arrest.
Eleanor Eisenberg, executive director of the Arizona Civil Liberties Union,
agreed. She noted that the agency benefits from a public perception that
its officers have the authority to stop and search people in the vicinity
of the border.
Like a security search at an airport, the border stop has come to be viewed
by many as the cost of protecting society.
Eisenberg said the erosion of this area of civil rights has been aided by
legislation and court decisions that have expanded the definition of
probable cause and increased the admissibility of questionably gathered
evidence.
Ed Pyeatt, an assistant chief of the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector, said
agents are trained to deal with the public in a friendly and courteous
manner that elicits people's cooperation, but they are also trained about
the requirements of the law.
He said the agency receives few complaints regarding vehicle searches and
does not believe it is a problem.
``Our ladies and gentlemen are very well trained to recognize reasonable
suspicion and probable cause,'' he said.
The authority of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service officers,
which include the Border Patrol, begins at the border points of entry.
There, immigration inspectors and U.S. Customs agents share the
responsibility of greeting all U.S.-bound people with questions aimed at
determining citizenship and eligibility for legal entry into the country.
The legal authority of immigration officers to act without a warrant away
from the border is described in Title 8 of U.S. Code 1357, which empowers
INS officers and employees to interrogate a suspected illegal entrant as to
his right to remain in the United States.
The code also authorizes the agent to arrest anyone who in his presence or
view is entering or attempting to enter the U.S. illegally, or who he
believes is in the country illegally.
The same portion of the code contains provisions that allow immigration
officers to board and search buses, trains, airplanes and other vehicles
within a ``reasonable distance'' of the border.
Within 25 miles of the border, immigration officers may ``have access to
private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border
to prevent illegal entry.''
Abrams said he normally advises his clients to respond to agents' questions
on citizenship, but that they not cooperate further or agree to a voluntary
search.
A vehicle stop is always more of a confrontation because of the Fourth
Amendment requirement that agents establish a reasonable suspicion of a
crime before pulling a vehicle over.
``The agent has the right to inspect portions of the vehicle's passenger
compartment, mainly areas accessible to the passengers, to ensure there is
not a weapon present,'' said Pyeatt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzo Drug Czar (Staff Editorial In 'The Ottawa Citizen'
Ridicules General McCaffrey's 'Bitter, Paranoid Attacks'
Against Reformers During His Recent Testimony
Before A US Senate Committee)
From: creator@islandnet.com (Matt Elrod)
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
Subject: Canada: Editorial: Gonzo drug czar
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 08:25:34 -0700
Lines: 69
Newshawk: creator@mapinc.org
Source: Ottawa Citizen
Contact: letters@thecitizen.southam.ca
Pubdate: Monday 29 June 1998
Gonzo drug czar
If the world-wide war on drugs has a commander-in-chief, it is
President Bill Clinton's "Drug Czar," retired general Barry McCaffrey.
Those who still support the failed policy of drug prohibition should
note the latest musings of their leader.
Testifying before a U.S. Senate committee, Gen. McCaffrey sounded as
if he were auditioning for a part on the X-Files when he claimed,
"There is a carefully camouflaged, exorbitantly funded, well-heeled,
elitist group whose ultimate goal is to legalize drug use in the
United States."
The general's comments followed the publication the previous week of a
two-page newspaper ad calling for an end to the war on drugs. The
letter was signed by more than 500 prominent individuals from around
the world, and included subversives like George Shultz, Ronald
Reagan's Secretary of State, former UN Secretary General Javier Perez
de Cuellar, Nobel-laureate Milton Friedman, and journalist Walter
Cronkite. The general's Senate audience knew exactly what and whom he
was getting at.
Was this petition "carefully camouflaged"? It was organized -- quite
openly -- by the Lindesmith Center. That this American institute is
funded by billionaire financier George Soros is well-known. And Mr.
Soros is hardly a shadowy character: His philanthropic efforts,
including assistance for former communist countries making the
transition to freedom, have been impressive. He deserves better than
the general's innuendo.
What about the claim that the legalization movement is "exorbitantly
funded"? Exorbitant is a relative thing. The United States spends $30
billion a year on its drug war and accompanying propaganda. Relative
to that $30 billion, its funding is insignificant.
As for the charge of elitism, that is an example of the worst sort of
political rabble-rousing, a cheap shot not worth comment.
But the drug-warrior-in-chief wasn't done. He went on to tell the
Senate that drug reformers had, "Through a slick misinformation
campaign, E [perpetrated] a fraud on the American people, a fraud so
devious that even some of the nation's most respected newspapers and
sophisticated media are capable of echoing their falsehoods."
In other words, it's inconceivable that journalists could look at the
facts and reasonably come to a conclusion different than the
general's. Every publication that disapproves of drug prohibition --
among them National Review, The Economist, and yes, this newspaper --
has simply been duped by the conspiracy.
General McCaffrey's bitter, paranoid attacks, coming as they did hard
upon the UN conference on drugs and the debate about drug prohibition
that it prompted, exposed just how empty the drug warriors' case
really is.
Bereft of evidence, belied by experience, drug prohibitionists have
few rational arguments to make -- so they insult, vilify, and
denounce.
It's an old rule in politics: When the facts are against you, throw
mud in their eyes.
Copyright 1998 The Ottawa Citizen
-------------------------------------------------------------------
'No One Demands Cocaine In The Grocery Store' (Translation Of An Article
In 'Dagens Nyheter' In Which The 12 Swedes Who Joined Hundreds Of Other
World Leaders In Signing An Open Letter Opposing The Global Drug War
Respond To Swedish Social Minister Margot Wallstrom's Demand
That They Explain Themselves)
Newshawk:: Psykedeliska Bokhandeln (order@psykedelbok.se)
Pubdate: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 11: 07:44 +0100
Source: Dagens Nyheter
Contact: dnet@dn.se
Website: http://www.dn.se/
Authors: PETER CURMAN, author; HANNS von HOFER, assistant professor; LEIF
LENKE, PhD; INGEMAR REXED, judge; JERZY SARNECKI, professor; SUNE SUNESSO N,
professor; HENRIK THAM, professor; PER OLE TRC4SKMAN, professor Translation:
Olafur Brentmar and John Yates
"NO ONE DEMANDS COCAINE IN THE GROCERY STORE"
The Swedes who signed the New York Times drug war proclamation answer Social
Minister Margot Wallstrom: "Specify your accusations of drug liberalism".
Social Minister Margot Wallstrom demands in her DN guest editorial 21/6 that
the twelve Swedes who signed a proclamation on narcotics policy submitted to
the UN Secretary General should "Come forwards and explain more clearly what
it is they are really after".
The proclamation was signed by 650 people from around the world, among them
were former UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar, chairman of
international Pen, several current and former presidents, ministers and
parliament members as well as Nobel laureates, high court judges and
prominent researchers.
The proclamation has not yet been seen by Swedish newspaper readers,
although those who signed it have been characterized in the media as
ignorant, deceived, ambiguous, cowardly and more. In order to clarify what
we have said and not said, we here cite the letter. The proclamation
concerns the global situation and not necessarily any individual country.
"On the occasion of the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on
Drugs in New York on June 8-10, 1998, we seek your leadership in stimulating
a frank and honest evaluation of global drug control efforts.
"We are all deeply concerned about the threat that drugs pose to our
children, our fellow citizens and our societies. There is no choice but to
work together, both within our countries and across borders, to reduce the
harms associated with drugs. The United Nations has a legitimate and
important role to play in this regard -- but only if it is willing to ask
and address tough questions about the success or failure of its efforts.
"We believe that the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug
abuse itself.
"Every decade the United Nations adopts new international conventions,
focused largely on criminalization and punishment, that restrict the ability
of individual nations to devise effective solutions to local drug problems.
Every year governments enact more punitive and costly drug control measures.
Every day politicians endorse harsher new drug war strategies.
"What is the result? U.N. agencies estimate the annual revenue generated by
the illegal drug industry at $400 billion, or the equivalent of roughly
eight per cent of total international trade. This industry has empowered
organized criminals, corrupted governments at all levels, eroded internal
security, stimulated violence, and distorted both economic markets and moral
values. These are the consequences not of drug use per se, but of decades of
failed and futile drug war policies.
"In many parts of the world, drug war politics impede public health efforts
to stem the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other infectious diseases. Human
rights are violated, environmental assaults perpetrated and prisons
inundated with hundreds of thousands of drug law violators. Scarce resources
better expended on health, education and economic development are squandered
on ever more expensive interdiction efforts. Realistic proposals to reduce
drug-related crime, disease and death are abandoned in favor of rhetorical
proposals to create drug-free societies.
"Persisting in our current policies will only result in more drug abuse, more
empowerment of drug markets and criminals, and more disease and suffering.
Too often those who call for open debate, rigorous analysis of current
policies, and serious consideration of alternatives are accused of
'surrendering.' But the true surrender is when fear and inertia combine to
shut off debate, suppress critical analysis, and dismiss all alternatives to
current policies.
"Mr. Secretary General, we appeal to you to initiate a truly open and honest
dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies - one in which
fear, prejudice and punitive prohibitions yield to common sense, science,
public health and human rights."
Margot Wallstrom contends that the Swedes who signed this proclamation are
drug liberals and support the legalization of narcotics, that they make
unreasonable assertions about the costs of the war on drugs and are lacking
in alternatives. Let us address these accusations.
Regarding legalization, the issue is not raised in the proclamation.
The question of whether one is for or against the legalization of narcotics
is moreover of no interest as long as Margot Wallstrom does not specify what
she means. No one demands cocaine at the grocery store. In Sweden
methadone is legally prescribed and until 1988 use of drugs was not a
criminal offence. Does this mean that we have or have had legalisation in
Sweden and that Parliament is or has been "drug liberal"?
Margot Wallstrom says that we are making unreasonable assertions when we say
that the war on drugs is more damaging than the actual drugs. Examples of
the costs of the drug war are given in the proclamation. In the USA for
example the prison population has risen four-fold, mainly because of long
sentences for drug offences. Today the USA has 1.7 million prison inmates in
relation to population, more than ten times as many as in Sweden.
Under the slogan "a drug free society" Sweden has, since the beginning of
the 1980s, begun forced treatment of abusers, taken more than 40 000
compulsory urine and blood tests and prison sentences for drug crimes have
more than doubled. The Swedish researchers who signed the proclamation can
find no evidence in their research for the success of this kind of policy.
We who signed the proclamation are worried about the suggestions for an even
more repressive drug policy which have been proposed. Widar Andersson,
adviser to the Prime Minister, has said "freedom of speech ought to be
denied to those who covertly or openly propagandize for narcotics" and Carl
Bildt and Gun Hellsvik have recently demanded that the police should be
given the power to administer emetics, advocated urine analysis for minors
and life sentences as solutions to the drug problem. Does the Social
Minister find it pertinent to demand that these Swedes should step forward
and explain themselves?
We are also worried about the rising death rate among drug users in Sweden,
which now exceed 200 per year, and wonder if this is connected to the
criminal justice orientation in Swedish drug policy. A country like the
Netherlands, with a more liberal policy, has noticeably lower death rate from
a European perspective. And even if causal relationships and comparisons
with other nations are always open to discussion, we think that one cannot
just ignore the Swedish death rate in the drug debate.
We are accused of not providing any alternatives. It might be considered
enough of an alternative to demand change in an inhuman, expensive and
ineffective policy. It usually is considered reasonable in other policy
areas. One man-year in a closed prison in Sweden costs more than 1/2 million
skr (US $62,500) and the most effective use of the police might not be in
the collection of urine samples from already known drug users.
Our alternative originates from the premise that the drug problem is not a
new phenomenon separate from the old usual ones - alcohol abuse, street
prostitution and habitual criminality. It is concerns the same groups and is
about marginalization and alienation. The official political focus on the
narcotic substance itself hides the real reasons for drug abuse such as
unemployment, poverty, urban decay and inequality.
And even if one focuses on drugs, is it then really narcotics which are the
all over-shadowing problem? An article in the same newspaper, next to Margot
Wallstrom's guest editorial, started with the words: "Drunkenness, fights,
rape, drownings and knife murders. That is the summary of midsummer
celebrations around the country."
Now Margot Wallstrom might contend that the social and employment policy
factors are obviously important and in no way conflict with the repressive
aspect of narcotics policy. The important outcome of the UN meeting is said
to be that now, partially building upon the Swedish example, efforts to
reduce demand are to be accentuated. We agree that this change in
perspective is positive. The determining factor however is how demand is to
be reduced, i.e., how to get addicts to stop using drugs. In Sweden care and
rehabilitation have been reduced, extra personnel in schools have been
withdrawn and youth unemployment has increased drastically during the
1990s. The hallmark of Swedish drug policy has come more and more to be the
police slogan "It is going to be tough to be a drug abuser".
For Margot Wallstrom the UN has just made a breakthrough and decided upon a
sound program. The global fight has just begun. The problem has been that
until now we have not waged a war against drugs. In a debate editorial in DN
20.9.1989 the then Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson described the UN's big
1987 political manifestation against drugs and Sweden's proposal to the
General Assembly for "A Global plan of action against drugs". And already
then the war on drugs had been going on for a long time - in the UN, the USA
and other countries.
Against this background the proclamation and our demands are very reasonable
- that drug policy should be opened up for expertise and dialogue. We would
gladly expand, where there is space, on drug policy problems and dilemmas in
regards to law-making, efficiency, costs, supernational decision making,
democratic principles and not least - humanitarianism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Booming Trade In Cut-Price Drugs Adds To Nigeria's Woes (The British 'Times'
Finds A Novel Reason The Drug War Isn't Working In Nigeria, Said To Be
A Transshipment Point For 40 Per Cent To 60 Per Cent Of The World's Heroin,
And At Least A Third Of All Cocaine Consumed In Europe - The Success
Of Local Police Against Nigeria's International Drug Traffickers
Has Led To A Surge In Domestic Drug Use As Traffickers Dump Goods
On The Local Market In 'Distress' Sales)
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 10:51:37 -0400
To: DrugSense News Service (mapnews@mapinc.org)
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: Nigeria: Booming Trade In Cut-Price
Drugs Adds To Nigeria's Woes
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project
http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn)
Pubdate: 29 June 1998
Source: The Times (UK)
Author: Sam Kiley in Lagos
Contact: letters@the-times.co.uk
Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/
BOOMING TRADE IN CUT-PRICE DRUGS ADDS TO NIGERIA'S WOES
HANGING in wooden cages suspended from the ceiling, dancers dressed in
belt-length skirts performed high-speed hip jiggles that would have snapped
the spines of lesser mortals.
A young prostitute fired up a joint coated with cannabis oil, inhaled
deeply and sat back to enjoy the heady mix of sex 'n' drugs 'n' rock 'n'
roll at Nigeria's most famous nightclub - The Shrine.
Outside, street hustlers emerged through a smog of pungent pot smoke,
offering harder drugs, heroin and crack cocaine, to punters wandering the
dark streets in search of oblivion.
In Nigeria, the transshipment point for 40-60 per cent of the world's
heroin, and at least a third of all cocaine consumed in Europe, oblivion
comes cheap.
The discount prices for drugs have caused an explosion of abuse that
threatens to undermine the social fabric of a nation already staggering
under the weight of decades of military rule, corruption and unemployment.
According to the United Nations and international security forces employed
in the global war on drugs, Nigeria's drug traffickers have launched a
campaign to hook their own people into a cycle of dependency in the name of
profit.
"In Lagos, lbadan, Port Harcourt and Kano, cocaine and heroin are
increasingly easily available and used. To suit the local market
conditions, where people do not have much money, drugs have become cheap.
They are cut [diluted with inert substances] and made into different grades
for the different parts of the market," Shariq bin Raza, the UN's
Nigeria-based anti-drug chief, said. The surge in Nigerian narcotics
abusers, experts said, was in part caused by local successes in combating
the international trafficking industry. These had "forced" the drug lords
into "distress sales" in which they dumped goods on the local market to
realise some profit, rather than have their goods rot in hideouts which
risked discovery.
"The Nigerian Drug Law Enforcement Agency [under Major-General Musa Bamayil
has made an enormous effort to rid itself of corruption within its own
ranks and combat the trafficking problem. The problem is that NDLEA
successes sometimes mean that there are more drugs on the local market," Mr
bin Raza, of the UN International Drug Control Programme said.
Other Western security sources said that Nigerian "mules" - individuals who
swallow condoms filled with narcotics to smuggle them into Europe and
America were being seduced into dependency so they could be paid in drugs.
"The result of this is obvious; the mules want to maximize their own
profits, so they sell their drugs on the local market. They create addicts,
they are addicts themselves, and suddenly you have a whole new market for
drugs," one Western anti-drug security source said.
The huge profit margins made by drug smugglers has opened their eyes to
vast possibilities in discounted bulk sales to Third World consumers.
The collapse of most Nigerian government departments under the late General
Sani Abacha, whose plunderous five-year rule ended with his death earlier
this month, has meant that no accurate statistics are available for the
extent of Nigeria's domestic drug problem. But experts said that it was an
epidemic in the making.
Isolated diplomatically and squeezed by sanctions against General Abacha,
which cut foreign aid, Nigerian anti-drugs campaigners have been hamstrung,
and the results are graphic.
For many Nigerians, the money being spent on drugs is at the expense of
more basic commodities - like food.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to 1998 Daily News index for June 25-July 1