Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001
Subject: #198 Ashcroft’s Escalation Of The Drug War Won’t Help

Ashcroft’s Escalation Of The Drug War Won’t Help

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #198 Tuesday Feb. 13, 2001

Recently on the Larry King Alive show on CNN the new U.S. Attorney
General John Ashcroft said, “Well, I want to escalate the war on
drugs. I want to renew it, relaunch it if you will.”

Of course, if he had been paying attention, he would know that every
administration since Reagan’s has escalated the war on drugs.
Ironically, Ashcroft’s comments came just as the Chicago Sun-Times
finished excerpting journalist Dan Gardner’s excellent series from the
Ottawa Citizen on the devastation and futility of the drug war (see
http://www.mapinc.org/gardner.htm). A Sun-Times editorial (below)
noted the discrepancy.

Please write a letter to the Sun-Times or other media outlets listed
below where Ashcroft’s statements were publicized to say drug problems
can only be addressed by moving away from the drug war, not embracing
it more closely.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

NOTE: Your letter can also be sent directly to Larry King Live by
visiting http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/ Scroll to
the bottom left of this web page and click on “Send In” under the
“Email the Producer” headline.

EXTRA CREDIT

Some other newspapers have printed or editorialized on Ashcroft’s call
for a renewed drug war. Please send a letter to them to tell them how
terrible Ashcroft’s idea is.

US: A BRIGHT AND SHINING LIE
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n240/a09.html
Pubdate: Sat, 10 Feb 2001
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)
Contact: [email protected]

US: Relaxed Ashcroft Outlines Priorities On `Larry King’
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n233/a02.html
Pubdate: Feb. 10
Source: Kansas City Star (MO)
Contact: [email protected]

US: Ashcroft Outlines Top Three Priorities
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n230/a01.html
Pubdate: Thu, 08 Feb 2001
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

US: VIOLENCE, TEEN DRUG USE ARE ASHCROFT PRIORITIES
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n228/a04.html
Pubdate: Thu, 08 Feb 2001
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US IL: Editorial: Frontline Report – We’re Still Losing
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n250/a05.html
Newshawk: Sledhead
Pubdate: Sun, 11 Feb 2001
Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Copyright: 2001 The Sun-Times Co.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 401 N. Wabash, Chicago IL 60611
Feedback: http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html
Website: http://www.suntimes.com/ FRONTLINE REPORT: WE’RE STILL LOSING

In the movie “Traffic,” Michael Douglas, portraying the new national
drug czar, is met with stares and shrugs when he urges aides to “think
outside the box.” He has seen the tens of thousands of cars that enter
California daily from Tijuana, Mexico. He has been told that only a
fraction of the drugs being smuggled through this point are
intercepted by authorities. “Let’s have some new ideas, now,” implores
the impatient Douglas character.

But there is no courage among his staff to acknowledge that victory is
not at hand in this war on drugs.

In real life, we know that our approach to controlling illicit
drugs–primarily through interdiction and punishment–has failed.
Drugs still are readily available to people who want them–though at a
cost that prompts too many users to commit crimes to obtain the money
to buy drugs.

Nearly a half-million people are behind bars for drug-related
crimes–a tenfold increase since 1980. Yet, a typical teenager finds
it easier to buy marijuana than a six-pack of beer.

For the last six weeks, the Sunday Sun-Times has published excerpts
from a special report examining the war on drugs.

Ottawa Citizen editorial writer Dan Gardner paints a picture of a
well-intentioned effort–to keep Americans drug-free–that has spawned
a host of unwanted consequences, including fomentation of a $400
billion criminal industry, violence in some of our poorest communities
and official corruption.

In an interview on CNN last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft
listed “reinvigorating the war on drugs” as one of his top priorities.
If that means devoting more resources solely to intercepting drugs,
his plan has been invalidated. More encouraging are President Bush’s
remarks that indicate a willingness to re-examine certain aspects of
the drug war. He has noted that minimum sentencing for first-time
users “may not be the best way to occupy jail space and/or heal people
from their disease.” Bush also said that authorizing medical use of
marijuana should be a decision for states, not the federal government.
If these are hints that the Bush administration will treat drugs as a
health problem rather than primarily a crime problem, they are welcomed.

Today’s installment in Gardner’s series ( Pages 34-35 ) focuses on
“harm reduction”: the idea that drug use has always existed, and
always will, and how do we reduce its harmful effects on society.

Some European nations have, in effect, decriminalized possession of
small amounts. More dramatic approaches include setting up ways for
addicts to safely ingest drugs.

In the United States, we are far from government-run “safe injection
sites,” but the European experience is intriguing if not compelling.
Certainly, dropping mandatory prison for first-time nonviolent
offenders would be a good start, as would stronger efforts to redirect
drug users into treatment.

Bush has not yet appointed a drug czar, but a positive sign would be
naming someone who is well-versed in the health aspects of drug abuse.

As Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, the Clinton administration’s drug czar,
has said, “America can’t arrest our way out of the drug problem.”

There is increasing criticism of our war on drugs–criticism offered
up by reasonable people motivated by a desire to reduce the unintended
consequences. Bush has acknowledged this divergence of views, and he
should establish a national commission to examine the arguments.

Let’s have some new ideas.

Because stares and shrugs just aren’t going to cut
it.

******************************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER
Editor:

Recently on the Larry King Alive show on CNN our new Attorney General
John Ashcroft said, “Well, I want to escalate the war on drugs. I want
to renew it, relaunch it if you will.”

In 1972 when President Nixon launched the war on drugs, the federal
budget for the drug war was approximately 101 million dollars. This
year the federal budget for the drug war will be more than 19.2
billion dollars. More than a 190 fold increase.

What have we received for our so-called investment? Nothing positive.
In what used to be the land of the free, we now incarcerate more of
our people than any other country on the planet. With less than 5% of
the world’s population, the United States now has more than 25% of the
world’s prisoners. Thanks to the drug war.

Thanks to the drug war, many of our individual rights guaranteed by
the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, have been effectively nullified.

Thanks to the drug war, more than 700,000 Americans were arrested last
year for possession of marijuana. Marijuana is a natural herb that has
never been documented to kill a single person.

Yet the drug war is what our Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to
intensify. Obviously, the drug war is not working. Obviously, we need
to do something different.

Best regards, Kirk Muse

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

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

Prepared by Kirk Muse – http://www.drugwarinfo.com and Stephen Young –
http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001
Subject: # 197 LA Times: Is Prohibition Or Reform Better For Kids?

LA Times: Is Prohibition Or Reform Better For Kids?

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #197 Wednesday February 7, 2001

DrugSense, Mike Gray and The Lindesmith Center were mentioned in the
LA Times this week. Unfortunately, the author of the oped piece in
question didn’t have much good to say about drug policy reform advocates.

Mike Males’ writing (below) is based on a sound premise, that reducing
and preventing youth drug use is not currently the most crucial aspect
of drug policy, since many more adults than young people use illegal
drugs. He correctly states that current policies scapegoat young
people. Unfortunately, Males goes on to attack drug reform advocates
DrugSense and author Mike Gray for claiming that reforming drug policy
is a better way to keep kids from being harmed by drugs.

Please send a letter the Times to say that it is the drug war that is
causing most drug-related harm, including harm to young people,
however limited that may be. While reform may not make youth drug use
disappear, it is a more rational and humane way to deal with all drug
problems.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, Fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is one important way we have of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US CA: OPED: Fighting A War Armed With Baby-Boomer Myths
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n213/a06.html
Pubdate: Sun, 04 Feb 2001
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Address: Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
Fax: (213) 237-7679
Feedback: http://www.latimes.com/siteservices/talk_contacts.htm
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/discuss/
Author: Mike Males
Note: Mike Males, Justice Policy Institute Senior Researcher and UC Santa
Cruz Sociology Instructor, Is the Author of “Kids and Guns: How
Politicians, Experts, and the Press Fabricate Fear of Youth.”
Cited: DrugSense Weekly http://www.drugsense.org/current.htm
Drug Crazy http://www.drugsense.org/crazy.htm
TLC-DPF http://www.drugpolicy.org/

FIGHTING A WAR ARMED WITH BABY-BOOMER MYTHS

SANTA CRUZ, CALIF. — Remarks by retiring drug czar Barry McCaffrey
and accolades for the Steven Soderbergh film “Traffic” by drug-policy
reform groups frame a vigorous drug-war debate–circa 1970. Thirty
years ago, McCaffrey’s goal to save our children from their own drug
use might have been relevant.

So, too, “Traffic” ‘s scenes of the daughter of the film’s drug czar
sampling heroin in response to the hypocrisies of liquor-swilling and
pill-popping grown-ups.

But these vintage baby-boom notions have little to do with today’s
drug realities.

On one side, the rhetorical distortions and misdirected policies of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy squandered billions of
dollars and locked up millions of drug users — and the United States
is enduring the worst drug-abuse crisis in its history.

As McCaffrey leaves office, the federal Drug Abuse Warning Network
reports that drug abuse soared to record peaks in 1999: An estimated
555,000 Americans were treated in hospitals for drug-related visits;
at least 11,600 died from overdoses. On the other side, reformers
seeking to decriminalize marijuana and relax drug policies perpetrate
so many drug-war myths that they reinforce hard-line attitudes even as
they win minor improvements.

The chief drug-war myth is the “demographic scapegoat.” Wars against
drugs ( including Prohibition ) always seek to link feared drugs to
feared populations: the Chinese and opium; Mexicans and marijuana;
black musicians and cocaine; and Catholic immigrants and alcohol.

Today’s war on drugs sustains itself by depicting white suburban
teenagers menaced by inner-city youths’ habits.

No matter who peddles it, this image is unreal.

In truth, the drug-abuse crisis chiefly concerns aging baby boomers,
mostly whites.

A high schooler is five times more likely to have heroin-, cocaine-or
methamphetamine-addicted parents than the other way around; far more
senior citizens than teenagers die from illegal drugs.

Accordingly, a “war on drugs” that truly cared about protecting
children would make treating parents’ addictions its top priority.

The “teenage heroin resurgence” repeatedly trumpeted in headlines and
drug-war alarms is fabricated; it shows up nowhere in death, hospital,
treatment or survey records.

The Drug Abuse Warning Network’s most recent hospital survey reports
84,500 treatments for heroin abuse nationwide in 1999; just 700 of
these were for adolescents. Of 4,800 Americans who died from heroin
abuse, only 33 were under 18 years old. Press panics over supposed
teenage heroin outbreaks in Portland and Seattle last summer collapsed
when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the
average overdoser was 40 years old.

Teenage “heroin epidemics” breathlessly clarioned in some California
cities are refuted by hospital records that show just nine of San
Francisco’s 3,100 emergency treatments for heroin overdoses in 1999
were teenagers, as were 17 of San Diego’s 1,100 and two of Los
Angeles’s 2,950. Why aren’t there more teen heroin casualties? Few use
it. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, released in September
2000, showed that .2% of 12- to 17-year-olds had used heroin at any
time in the previous year. Nor are the few heroin initiators getting
younger ( most remain over 21 ).

There are preppie kids who smoke heroin, as “Traffic” depicts, but
their numbers pale beside the tens of thousands of baby boomers whose
addictions are rooted in the Vietnam era. Four-fifths of California’s
heroin decedents over the age of 30, and three-fourths of them are
white, a quintessentially mainstream demographic neither drug warrior
nor drug reformer wishes to target.

Thus, policy debate and cinematic representations promote a
comfortable myth: Baby-boom drug days are behind us.

Similarly, drug-reform publications such as DrugSense Weekly allege an
“increase in heroin use among our youth” to indict the drug war. Mike
Gray, author of “Drug Crazy,” and other reformers claim
decriminalizing and regulating marijuana for adults would make it
harder for teenagers to get. Ridiculous. The 1999 National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse reports 12- to 17-year-olds use legal,
adult-regulated cigarettes and alcohol 100 times more than they use
heroin; two to three times more teens drink or smoke than use the most
popular illicit, marijuana.

Teenagers can get alcohol and drugs whenever they want them, yet
suffer very low casualties. Drug reformers’ own research gospel, the
Lindesmith Center’s exhaustive “Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts,”
finds no scientific reason why teenagers should be banned from using
marijuana that would not also apply to adults.

In short, teenagers are not the issue.

Drug policy will change only when compelling new information is
introduced. That means discarding first-wave baby-boomer drug images
and moving toward second-generation realities.

Throughout the Western world, young people are reacting against their
parents’ hard-drug abuse by patronizing softer drugs such as beer and
marijuana.

It’s understandable that baby boomers would indulge moral panic over
any drug use by kids while denying their own middle-aged drug woes,
but these illusions should not govern 2000-era drug policy.

The Netherlands’ 1976 Dutch Opium Act reforms recognized that modern
soft-drug use by young people is separate from the midlife hard-drug
crisis. Dutch studies showed that marijuana and hashish use was
unrelated to hard-drug abuse, except among a small fraction already
inclined to addiction. These conclusions were confirmed by the
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse analysts and long-term studies
by University of California researchers. True, most drug abusers first
tried drugs in their youth, as did most non-abusers. But 90% of the
160 million American adults who used marijuana or alcohol during
adolescence did not find them “gateways” to later addiction.

The Netherlands’ reforms stressing public-health strategies to contain
hard-drug abuse, coupled with tolerance for marijuana use by adults
and teenagers, has produced a spectacular benefit: a 65% decline in
heroin deaths since 1980 ( while U.S. heroin death rates doubled ).

Whether or not Dutch-style reforms are feasible here, the U.S. will
not reduce its worst-ever drug-abuse crisis until politicians
radically revamp the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the
facile demographic scapegoating of young people.

Yet, because drug reformers, copying drug-war hard-liners,
increasingly promote their agendas by exploiting youth as
fear-invoking symbols in today’s anachronistic “debate,” genuine
reform seems remote.

******************************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor

Mike Males raises some interesting points (“Fighting a War Armed With
Baby-Boomer Myths” Feb 4, 2001) then misses the target. The war on
drugs is about symbolism, not logic. True, it has been fueled from its
inception by the scapegoating of minorities, but it has always used
“saving our children” as the moral engine.

The drug warriors tell us that prohibition reduces availability and
that an alternative regulatory model of government control and
taxation would cause availability to skyrocket. Males seems to go
along with this even though there is a mountain of evidence to the
contrary.

We’re now in the midst of the most costly prohibition campaign in
history, yet eight out of ten high school seniors consistently say
they find marijuana “fairly easy” or “very easy” to get – – in fact,
easier to get than alcohol – – which is not surprising since the sale
of alcohol is controlled by the state and the sale of marijuana is
controlled by nobody.

On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that regulation and
taxation might help. When the Netherlands decriminalized adult use of
marijuana in 1976, the prohibitionists warned of disaster but twenty
years later use of the drug among Dutch teenagers and adults is half
that of the United States.

Regulation of the drug trade will not end drug abuse any more than
regulation of alcohol ended alcoholism. But it will clear the decks of
the wreckage of prohibition and let us focus on alcoholics and addicts
as human beings with a medical problem instead of fodder for the
prison-industrial complex.

Mike Gray, author, “Drug Crazy”

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

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

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001
Subject: # 196 Boston Globe: Drug Warriors Fabricate Budget Numbers Too

Boston Globe: Drug Warriors Fabricate Budget Numbers Too

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #196 Friday January 26, 2001

Drug war supporters frequently pull “facts” out of thin air. These
alleged facts (circulated most prominently by former Drug Czar Barry
McCaffrey) are designed to show that drug war isn’t really a disaster.
Now it seems some have also been creating false budgets to suggest
that the drug war is more humane than it really is.

As the Boston Globe reported this week, a new study indicates that
some drug law enforcers have greatly overstated the percentage of
money being spent on treatment. McCaffrey and his apologists made much
of the general’s supposed support for a kinder and gentler drug war
that was based on treatment and prevention. But, this study proves
that it’s all just more disinformation, and that nobody really knows
exactly how much money is being wasted on anti-drug efforts in general.

Please write a letter to the Boston Globe to say drug warriors have to
fudge their facts, or everyone would know just how counterproductive
the drug war is.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US: US Is Said To Overstate Spending On Drug Care
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n135/a09.html
Newshawk: Kim Hanna, Sledhead, FoM, Richard Evans and Mark Greer
Pubdate: Wed, 24 Jan 2001
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2001 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378
Feedback: http://extranet.globe.com/LettersEditor/default.asp
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Author: John Donnelly
Cited: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1262/
US IS SAID TO OVERSTATE SPENDING ON DRUG CARE

Report Cites $1b In Discrepancies

WASHINGTON – Promising to further stoke the debate over America’s
controversial war against drugs, a Rand Corporation study has found
that three federal agencies overstated their spending on drug
treatment by $1 billion, and that the reported costs of some law
enforcement efforts are no more than “educated guesses.”

“I tracked down one budget guy for the Border Patrol and asked how
they figured out the drug budget and he told me, ‘We made it up,”‘
said Patrick J. Murphy, one of the study’s authors and an assistant
professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. “He said 10
percent of their budget seemed too low, 20 percent too high, so they
settled on 15 percent.”

The report, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, was requested
by Barry R. McCaffrey, who stepped down last month as director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy. It examined 10 agencies that
report their drug budgets to the drug policy office.

There were no allegations of misspending in the report, but the survey
said “flawed” reporting techniques made it impossible to know how much
money was actually spent on the battle against illicit drug use.
Critics of US drug policy have long argued that it gives short shrift
to treatment programs designed to help addicts overcome their cravings.

McCaffrey, who did not return telephone calls seeking comment,
insisted on completing the potentially embarrassing report because he
wanted a better accounting of the drug war, the authors said. They
noted that he had long been bothered by seemingly soft figures in
agencies’ budgets, even though he continued to cite the inflated
treatment numbers in his defense of drug-control policy.

The drug policy office said in a statement that it “asked for the Rand
reports because we want the most reliable data” and that it has “used
the Rand findings, and will continue to do so, to improve the way drug
budgets are presented to the Congress and the public.” Rand is a
consulting and research firm known for its work on complex subjects.

The statement said that the FBI drug methodology has been corrected
and that the Veterans Affairs and Education departments changed their
data collection so as to “substantially address Rand’s findings.” It
gave no specifics.

The most politically sensitive aspect of the Rand study, which for
more than a year examined the 1998 federal drug budget of $16 billion,
may be the amount spent on drug treatment.

In 1998, McCaffrey’s office said US agencies spent $2.8 billion on
drug treatment. Rand said the actual number was closer to $1.8
billion, or 36 percent less than reported. That finding upset several
members of Congress.

“If a guy wants to surrender himself for drug treatment in this
country, there are not enough places to go,” said Representative J.
Joseph Moakley, a Democrat from Boston. “I think it’s terrible if
they are inflating figures that show there’s more drug treatment than
there actually is.”

Added Representative John F. Tierney, a Democrat from Salem: “Before we
ask for more drug-control money, we ought to be sure where it’s going.”

The largest discrepancy originated from Veterans Affairs, which
reported spending $363 million on specialized care for drug addicts
and $710 million on related treatment for those with substance abuse
problems, according to Rand.

Veterans Affairs spokesman Jo Schuda said the department could not
comment on the report because it had not seen a copy. She said the
department reported spending $407 million on specialized care for drug
addicts in 1998, and $1.1 billion overall for medical care of addicts,
slightly higher numbers than Rand’s.

Murphy, one of the study’s authors, said the department included in
its accounting, for example, “heroin addicts who were seeking
treatment for a broken arm, not drug treatment.”

“If people are serious about spending money on drug treatment, they
are going to have to look at the level of services they have been
providing, and it’s much less than they had thought,” Murphy said.

The report praised the Coast Guard, Bureau of Prisons, and Defense
Department for the accuracy of their accounting. But it said the
methodologies used for the Immigration and Naturalization Service and
Customs “are based largely on educated guesses.”

The collection of data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, which administers about $2 billion in block
grants to states for drug prevention, “is a collection of arbitrary
assumptions and rules,” the report said.

And the 1998 figures from the Health Care Financing Administration are
based on patient diagnoses and costs, “but the patient data are taken
from a 1983 study,” the report said.

The Rand report recommends that the drug control office “define
explicitly what constitutes an antidrug activity” and that budgets
should be based on “empirical data, something more than guesses or
expert judgments.”

Lynn E. Davis, a senior fellow at Rand and another of the report’s
five authors, said that without better figures, the drug office is
unable to “measure performance against its goals.”

She also said the lessons in the report could be applied to other
federal offices that compile figures from several agencies “to give
Congress and the American people a sense whether the right priorities
of money are being allocated, or whether there are gaps.”

Herbert Kleber, medical director of the National Center on Addiction
and Substance Abuse in New York and deputy head of demand reduction in
the drug policy office from 1989 to 1991, said the Veterans Affairs
Department has “gotten a free ride” for some time on categorizing
non-drug-related medical care as drug treatment.

He called the level of funding for treatment a “bipartisan failure.
… It doesn’t seem to matter whether you have Democrats or
Republicans, drug treatment doesn’t get a lot of play. No one ever
lost an election being soft on drug treatment.”

Many Democrats are expected to ask for a major jump in drug treatment
funding. One of them is Representative Nancy Pelosi of California.

“We are going to have much stronger oversight to make sure that money
is being spent in a cost-effective way to face the demand,” Pelosi
said.

******************************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor of the Boston Globe:

Is anyone really surprised that drug warriors have been misleading the
public on how much money is being spent on drug treatment and other
aspects of anti-drug spending? The whole war on drugs has always been
based on lies and misinformation – why should budgeting for treatment
be any different?

In his final days as Drug Czar, Barry McCaffrey’s arm must have become
sore from all that patting himself on the back. Remember the talk
about his great strides in humanizing the drug war by increasing
funding for treatment? But now, like most of McCaffrey’s rhetoric, his
assertions prove to be, at best, questionable. Only in the drug war
could a career soldier take the helm and then repeatedly claim that it
wasn’t really a war. I hope more concerned citizens are starting to
understand the looking glass world of the drug war, where up is really
down and where freedom is achieved through a police state.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

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

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001
Subject: # 195 NYT Recognizes, But Doesn’t Understand, Move For Reform

NYT Recognizes, But Doesn’t Understand, Move For Reform

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #195 Sunday January 21, 2001

As New York Governor George Pataki calls for state drug law reform,
the New York Times has decided to analyze the reasons why. The article
(below) suggests that because crime rates are down, people are more
tolerant of drug users, so they support lightening
punishments.

Whatever truth there may be in that perspective, the article does not
mention the fact that the drug war as a whole always creates more
problems than solutions, and that more and more people are arriving at
this inescapable conclusion.

Please write a letter to the NYT to say it’s good to see coverage of
drug law reform, but that the problem isn’t just with New York drug
laws – it’s the drug war itself.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US NY: Signs Of A Thaw In The War On Drugs
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n115.a08.html
Newshawk: Rob Ryan
Pubdate: Sun, 21 Jan 2001
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036
Fax: (212) 556-3622
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: James C. Mckinley Jr.

SIGNS OF A THAW IN THE WAR ON DRUGS

ALBANY, Jan 20 — Three recent events hint at a change in public
attitudes toward the war on drugs. On Wednesday, Gov. George E. Pataki
proposed softening the harsh Rockefeller-era drug laws in New York
State. Gov. Christie Whitman of New Jersey acknowledged that her state
police had been stopping black and Hispanic drivers as part of a
drug-enforcement effort the public once applauded and moved to stop
the practice.

And within the last two weeks President Clinton has not only urged a
re-examination of federal drug sentencing, but also proposed
equalizing penalties for possession of powdered and crack cocaine, on
the ground that the stiffer penalties for crack discriminated against
members of ethnic minorities.

If politicians are societal weather vanes, then the war on drugs seems
to be losing some appeal.

For decades, experts on drug addiction have argued that long prison
terms for nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom are addicts as well,
are less effective than drug-treatment programs at reducing crime.
They also say imprisonment is more expensive than treatment.

The country’s prison population has grown to two million, and a
quarter of the inmates are serving time for drug offenses.

Until recently, though, these arguments have failed to move many
Americans or their public officials. But now the cause is being joined
by Republican governors and an outgoing president who greatly expanded
federal financing for drug interdiction and local law enforcement, and
gave $1 billion to help the Colombian military attack cocaine
trafficking.

Why are critics of the drug war making headway now? The answer,
criminologists and other experts say, may lie in the waning of the
public’s fear of crime.

Fear begets intolerance. People and the politicians they elect are
more willing to put up with severe penalties for relatively minor drug
offenses when crime rates are high, as it was in New York City in the
late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the period that produced the Rockefeller
laws.

At the time, heavy heroin use in the city was widely blamed for
rapidly increasing property crime.

The city experienced another, more murderous, crime wave in the late
80’s and early 90’s when crack cocaine became popular.

City officials responded with a huge expansion of the police force and
an aggressive campaign against street dealers and people carrying
concealed guns.

Now, though, crime has declined steadily for several years, and
violent crime in New York City has reached its lowest levels since
1967. Fear has eased, and the public has begun to question some
harsher elements of the war on drugs and crime. “There is a pretty
clear correlation between the crime rate and criticism of
law-enforcement officials for being too tough,” said the director of
the Jerry Lee Criminology Center at the University of Pennsylvania,
Lawrence Sherman. “As crime rates drop, you see more people
complaining about the cops.”

At the same time, legions of people whose children are serving lengthy
sentences under the Rockefeller laws have begun making their presence
felt in Albany. Many are black and Latino, and many maintain that the
laws, as enforced, discriminate against their ethnic groups. More than
21,000 people are serving time for drug convictions in New York State,
about 95 percent of whom are black or Hispanic. About 70 percent were
convicted of nonviolent crimes.

“Where is the sanity?” asks Mary Mortimer of New York City, who has
two sons serving prison time, one 15 to 30 years, the other 10 to 20,
both for possession of small amounts of cocaine with intent to sell.
“I’d like to be able to spend some time with my sons on this earth
before I leave here.”

These days Mr. Pataki can afford the political consequences of
listening to Mary Mortimer and people like her. After six years in
office, his reputation as a tough-on-crime governor is well
established. He pushed for and signed the death penalty back into law,
he increased sentences for many crimes, and he eliminated parole for
violent crimes.

The governor may also be reacting to the political winds from other
parts of the country as well. In November, California voters passed a
proposition requiring the state to direct most people convicted of
nonviolent drug possession into treatment programs rather than prison.

Arizona passed a similar law, and the governor of New Mexico has said
he plans to introduce comparable changes this year. Even some New York
legislators who voted for the Rockefeller laws in 1973 now advocate
their repeal. John R. Dunne, a former state senator from Long Island,
has formed a coalition to lobby the governor with other former state
lawmakers, including Warren Anderson, who was Senate majority leader
from Binghamton.

In the early 70’s, besides the heroin epidemic, Gov. Nelson A.
Rockefeller was faced with a youthful counter-culture, particularly in
New York City, that often celebrated “sex, drugs and rock and roll,”
as a line from a popular song put it.

Governor Rockefeller, a liberal Republican, first tried to persuade
the Legislature to create the Narcotics Addiction Control Commission
and establish secure residential treatment centers around the state.

He also started methadone clinics for addicts.

Those efforts proved costly and failed to reduce crime.

So in 1973, a frustrated Mr. Rockefeller proposed the “lock them up
and throw away the key” approach.

Some historians have said that Mr. Rockefeller had his eye on the
presidency and hoped to appear more conservative. In any case, he
persuaded the Legislature, over the objections of some New York City
lawmakers, to pass the laws that carry his name.

At the time, the state had 12,000 state prison inmates.

Today it has 70,000. Oddly enough, the laws put the state out of step
with the times.

In 1970, Congress had liberalized the harsh drug laws passed in the
mid-1950’s, eliminating many mandatory sentences for drug offenses and
repealing the death penalty for heroin dealers who sold to minors.

In 1977, President Carter formally advocated legalizing marijuana in
amounts up to an ounce.

It was not until 1986, after the effects of the cocaine craze of the
early 1980’s had begun to materialize, that Congress passed tough drug
laws with mandatory sentences and the death penalty for what were
called drug kingpins.

Crack addiction and drive-by shootings dominated the
headlines.

The war on drugs was back with a vengeance, and the Rockefeller laws
once again meshed with the tenor of the times.

Judging by Mr. Pataki’s latest proposal, however, the pendulum has
begun to swing back the other way, in no small part, criminologists
say, because violent crime is down 40 percent in New York since he
took office. “The general public’s attitude is more tolerant because
the crime problem has been reduced so much,” said Dr. David F. Musto
of Yale University, an authority on the history of narcotics in America.

In calling for these changes, which go much farther than changes he
proposed in 1999, Governor Pataki is not abandoning his political roots.

What he has proposed falls far short of repeal of the Rockefeller
laws, a step that some critics have urged.

They want judges to have discretion in sentencing for all narcotics
cases.

They also complain that Mr. Pataki has not called for changing what
they see as the laws’ biggest problem, the fact that their mandatory
sentences are based on the weight of the drugs seized rather than on
the role of the person arrested.

So a low-level “mule,” addicted himself, who is hired to cart some
cocaine across town, can end up serving 15 years.

Mr. Pataki has proposed reducing the mandatory sentence for the top
class of drug offender to 10 years, from 15. The current laws impose a
15-year-to-life sentence for possession of more than four ounces of
cocaine or heroin or for sale of two ounces or more. Judges would have
discretion to send people to treatment only in the case of low-and
mid-level drug offenses.

One danger is that district attorneys, most of whom oppose weakening
the law, will stop charging people with the lesser offenses. “The key
to sentencing reform is giving judges discretion,” said Anita Marton
of the Legal Action Center, a nonprofit advocacy organization that
specializes in drug issues and has offices in New York and Washington.
“This tries to chip away at that but it doesn’t get to the heart of
the issue.

This proposal is not going to affect the vast majority of
offenders.”

If the debate in Albany or the vote in California is any indication,
the war on drugs is not likely to be abandoned altogether. No one on
either side of the debate over the Rockefeller drug laws is arguing
that violent drug dealers should be given lesser sentences or that
drugs should be legalized.

But if Governor Pataki and the Legislature reach an agreement on
changing the Rockefeller laws, the resulting legislation is likely to
resemble the California model.

The governor’s aim is to retain harsh penalties for violent felons but
move nonviolent addicts back into society. The hope is that the prison
population will then drop but that high crime rates will not return.

“The governor thinks it’s good policy, that this is something it is
time to do,” said a spokeswoman for Mr. Pataki, Caroline Quartararo.
“The crime rates are way down because we are locking up violent
offenders for a long period of time.”

******************************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

While it’s always interesting to read about the declining appeal of
the drug war, I thought the analysis in “Signs of a thaw in the war on
drugs” (Jan. 21), missed a key point: As a miserable boondoggle
expands, more people will take notice and speak up. The war on drugs
grows year after year with more arrests and bigger budgets. For anyone
who is willing to take an honest look, it’s impossible to ignore the
counterproductive results that have been reaped from decades of
pushing for a “drug-free America.” The problem isn’t just with the
Rockefeller laws. Governor Pataki and other leaders who are finally
expressing some skepticism about some aspects of the drug war need to
reevaluate of the whole concept of drug prohibition, not just the details.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

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

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001
Subject: #194 NM Governor Johnson Ready To Back Talk With Action

NM Governor Johnson Ready To Back Talk With Action

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #194, Jan 07 2001

New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson took an important step toward
bringing reason to drug policy when he started criticizing the drug
war. Now, he says he is going to move beyond rhetoric by attempting to
work with the state legislature to propose drug law reform.

Naturally, traditional drug war supporters are expressing dismay over
the challenge to absolute drug prohibition without even waiting to see
the nature of the reform. But some media in the state seem to be
swayed by Johnson’s ideas.

As a good editorial from the Albuquerque Journal this week noted,
“What is needed next is for the Legislature to objectively consider
the drug-related bills Johnson has promised to present, including a
bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana.”

Please write a letter to the Albuquerque Journal and other newspapers
that have covered the story to show that people around the world
support Johnson’s brave stand.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

Source: Albuquerque Journal (NM)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT:

These newspapers have also covered the latest developments in the Gary
Johnson story. Please also send a copy of your letter to them.

Title: US NM: Johnson Bill Would Legalize Small Amounts of Pot
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n027/a05.html
Pubdate: Sat, 06 Jan 2001
Copyright: 2001 Albuquerque Journal
Contact: [email protected]

Title: US NM: Governor To Pursue Changes In Drug Policy
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n027/a08.html
Pubdate: Sat, 06 Jan 2001
Source: Albuquerque Tribune (NM)
Contact: [email protected]

Title: US NM: Johnson To Propose Some Drug Legalization For NM
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n028/a10.html
Pubdate: Sat, 06 Jan 2001
Source: El Paso Times (TX)
Contact: [email protected]

Title: US NM: Johnson’s Staff To Draft Eight Drug Bills
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n029/a01.html
Pubdate: Sat, 06 Jan 2001
Source: Santa Fe New Mexican (NM)
Contact: [email protected]

Title: US NM: Local Political Leaders Blast Johnson’s Plans
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n033/a02.html
Pubdate: Sat, 06 Jan 2001
Source: Farmington Daily Times (NM)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US NM: Editorial: Let Serious Drug Policy Reform Begin

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n035.a02.html
Newshawk: Sledhead
Pubdate: Sat, 06 Jan 2001
Source: Albuquerque Journal (NM)
Copyright: 2001 Albuquerque Journal
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Drawer J, Albuquerque, N.M. 87103
Website: http://www.abqjournal.com/
LET SERIOUS DRUG POLICY REFORM BEGIN

As America’s drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, leaves office, we find the
use of steroids, ecstasy and other drugs is up nationally, despite a
federal drug-fighting budget in the billions.

We find Rio Arriba leads New Mexico counties in per-capita drug
overdose fatalities, with 16 deaths last year. Since the beginning of
1999, 70 have died in Rio Arriba and Santa Fe counties alone. Per
capita, New Mexico is the worst in the nation in drug overdose deaths.

People are dying, prisons are filling up and treatment facilities are
inadequate. It is time to seek “common sense” drug policy reform.

That is what Gov. Gary Johnson asked for in creating a special
committee last summer; that is what he has received in its
recommendations to him this week. What is needed next is for the
Legislature to objectively consider the drug-related bills Johnson has
promised to present, including a bill to decriminalize possession of
small amounts of marijuana.

To some, the proposals will be anathema. But it is important to note,
as the committee points out in its letter to Johnson, that much of
current drug policy — and public perception — “is based on
misleading and even patently false information about illegal drugs.
… Even more disturbing, ( we ) determined that false information
frequently comes from sources that we expect to be reliable, including
our own federal government.”

Johnson has been criticized, with reason, for shooting from the hip in
advocating radical drug policy changes, without details and underlying
analysis. That criticism loses validity with the work of this
committee. Comprised of New Mexicans familiar with the state, its 10
members have extensive and varied expertise in health, community
issues, law enforcement and the courts.

Current drug policy, the committee found, is “expensive, harmful to
families, wasting taxpayer money, filling prisons and is not letting
the Legislature prioritize its resources,” in the words of chairman W.
C. “Woody” Smith, a retired state court judge. “What we’ve been doing
for decades is make things worse.”

The committee approached its task, as Johnson requested, in terms of
“harm reduction.” What could the state do with drug policy to decrease
death, disease, crime and suffering, and at the same time exercise
fiscal responsibility with taxpayer dollars?

The state Department of Health has already acted to reduce harm in northern
New Mexico: On Wednesday it delivered to Espanola Valley doctors 100
syringes of naloxone ( cost to the state: $1.50 each ), a drug which
reverses the deadly effects of overdosing on heroin, morphine or methadone.
Dr. Steve Jenison, of the state Public Health Division, and Alex Valdez,
state health secretary, helped facilitate the action; both are members of
the drug policy committee.

State Police would like to train officers in administering naloxone,
but first want the Legislature to pass a law protecting them from
possible lawsuits.

The panel also recommends amending laws to allow the sale of sterile
syringes in pharmacies and to allow doctor-prescribed medical use of
marijuana. It recommends amendment of criminal statutes on drug
possession to reduce first and second offenses to misdemeanors, as is
done in Arizona and California, and require treatment rather than jail
time.

It suggests a number of ways to make effective treatment available and
to enhance drug education. It points out that particular attention
should be paid to the needs of children and teen-agers suffering from
mental illnesses who are self-medicating with alcohol and other drugs.

It is time for a re-examination of thinking about drugs. It is time to
shift focus from imprisonment to treatment and prevention, from fear
and ignorance to education.

It is imperative that this panel continue in some form. It behooves
the Legislature to develop a comprehensive statewide drug policy. For
starters, lawmakers should conduct a meaningful impact analysis of
what current laws, incarceration and lack of treatment cost the state,
not only in actual dollars, but in terms of lost wages, broken
families, school dropout rates and lost lives.

******************************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

While the upper levels of government often leave me dismayed, my faith
that there are some politicians who really do care about the people
they govern is always bolstered when I hear Gov. Gary Johnson
promoting ideas about drug policy reform. Now that he is talking about
getting some legislation on the issue into the statehouse, I am even
more impressed.

I’m not surprised that there are many other politicians and drug war
beneficiaries who are decrying even the discussion Johnson has raised.
When drug policy is reformed even slightly, the remaining vestiges of
drug prohibition are further exposed as disastrous and
counterproductive. This fading illusion of a successful drug war, not
the problems associated with drugs, is the true concern of the drug
warrior.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

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

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000
Subject: # 193 Even Feds Can See Flaws Of Drug Tests

Even Feds Can See Flaws Of Drug Tests

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #193 December 17, 2000

The inherent unfairness of urine testing for illegal drugs is so
obvious that the federal government has finally recognized it. As
reported in the Wall Street Journal this week, many airline employees
were fired for failing drug tests even though test results were
completely incorrect.

In the wake of that news, federal officials are altering some
procedures in order to protect the rights of federal employees
required to take urine tests. It’s good to see some type of reform,
but this does nothing for people in the private sector and it does not
address all the problems of drug testing. Please write a letter to the
Journal or another paper where this story has appeared to say that
random drug testing is worse than unfair, it’s unnecessary and its one
more attack on personal privacy in the name of the drug war.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

If not YOU who? If not NOW when?

NOTE: The Wall Street Journal will be a special focus for the MAP
Focus Alert efforts throughout 2001. Please help us to inform this
important publication about the failure of the drug war with your
letters as often as possible.

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, Fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT:

The New York Times also covered this story. Please send your letter
there as well.

US NY: Workers Get Greater Drug Test Protection
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1881.a03.html
Pubdate: Fri, 15 Dec 2000
Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US: US Issues New Rules On Drug-Test Accuracy
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1883/a09.html
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Fri, 15 Dec 2000
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Copyright: 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 200 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281
Fax: (212) 416-2658
Website: http://www.wsj.com/
Author: Stephen Power, Staff Reporter Of The Wall Street Journal
U.S. ISSUES NEW RULES ON DRUG-TEST ACCURACY

WASHINGTON — The Transportation Department unveiled rules intended to
encourage more accurate drug testing of airline workers and other
transportation employees and to ensure that workers have an
opportunity to challenge results.

But the rules — which cover 8.5 million transportation workers
nationwide, from truckers to pipeline operators — don’t go as far as
some union officials would like in defining the procedures companies
must follow in administering drug tests. The rules are also likely to
draw fire from private drug-testing labs, whose trade group has
slammed such proposals in the past as an attempted “public
blacklisting” of the industry.

In October, the Department of Health and Human Services said it was
launching inspections of all 65 federally certified drug-testing labs
that test transportation workers after a case involving a Delta Air
Lines pilot raised questions about how samples were validated at a lab
in Kansas. The airline initially fired the pilot and four flight
attendants after LabOne Inc. reported their urine samples had been
“substituted.” After the lab’s findings were questioned by
pilots-union leaders, the airline offered to reinstate the employees
because of doubts about the results.

Transportation Department officials said the rules weren’t related to
the irregularities cited at LabOne or the Department of Health and
Human Services inquiry. They said the rules are an attempt to tighten
standards in areas of the drug-testing industry that have been loosely
regulated until now.

One department official noted that many employers started out running
their own drug-testing programs in house. “Now, many outsource [drug
testing] to third-party providers, and the whole nature of the way the
programs are administered has changed,” the official said. “There
wasn’t a whole lot written about what these persons should be doing.”

Among other things, the new rules would give transportation workers
greater opportunity to challenge “validity tests,” in which companies
test workers’ urine samples for evidence of substitution or
adulterants, substances that conceal drug use. Currently, if workers
fail a validity test, they can’t demand a second test of the sample by
an independent party; the new rules would allow them to do so.

The rules would also direct companies not to contract with drug labs
that have violated federal drug-testing guidelines. That provision has
come under attack by the Substance Abuse Program Administrators
Association, which represents drug labs and substance-abuse programs.
The organization, which didn’t return calls seeking comment Thursday,
has questioned whether the Transportation Department has the authority
to impose such penalties.

Most of the new rules will take effect in August, although a few, such
as the requirements on validity tests and penalties for companies that
violate drug-testing rules, will take effect next month.

Robert Morus, a spokesman for the Airline Pilots Association, said the
new safeguards don’t guarantee that workers whose drug-test results
are proved false will be able to clear their names. He said some
airline workers whose test results were later tossed out have been
allowed to reapply for their old jobs, only to be placed on probation
and accelerated drug-testing schedules when they returned.

The new rules are “a mixed bag,” Capt. Morus said. “There are some
good things, but they didn’t settle all the issues. … There’s a
serious crisis in the [drug-]testing business, and they seem to not
want to reveal how serious it is.”

******************************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor of the Wall Street Journal:

While it’s heartening to see the federal government finally
recognizing some unfair aspects of drug testing (“US Issues New Rules
on Drug Test Accuracy,” Dec. 15) the whole procedure should be
abandoned. Drug tests can destroy the reputation of those who have
nothing to do with drugs, but the tests may actually encourage the use
of more dangerous drugs. Marijuana can be detected by urine tests for
weeks after use; traces of heroin and cocaine can be found for only a
couple days. As the weekend starts, a savvy illegal drug user knows to
stick to the hard stuff. Marijuana never leads to death like heroin,
cocaine and alcohol sometimes do, but in a professional sense, it’s
the least safe drug. As usual, the disastrous zero tolerance tactics
of the drug war aggravate drug problems while solving nothing.

It’s reasonable to implement performance-based testing to confirm or
reject suspicions that an employee may be impaired on the job. Urine
tests, on the other hand, have as little intrinsic value as the fluid
analyzed, unless a high price is placed on an employer’s ability to
intrude on the private life of a worker.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

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

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000
Subject: Alert #192 Lawless Law Enforcement Tries To Ignore Changes In

Lawless Law Enforcement Tries To Ignore Changes In Drug War

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #192 Thursday December 7, 2000

As drug policy reform begin to gain popularity, it’s not surprising to
find some groups that benefit from the drug war refusing to accept the
changing landscape. A couple of the most audacious of the drug war
profiteers appear to be refusing to accept the will of the U.S.
Supreme Court and the will of the people.

The Sheriff of Rolla, Mo. has announced that he will continue to
operate random drug checkpoints even though the U.S. Supreme Court
recently ruled that such tactics are unconstitutional. As the
excellent Kansas City Star article explains below, It’s not surprising
that the Sheriff can’t let go of what has become a huge cash cow.

Elsewhere, some Oregon newspapers have reported on a narcotics task
force that has filed a lawsuit to fight state residents who voted to
reform asset forfeiture. Clearly those officials have no sense of
irony, as they are trying to claim that efforts to restrict asset
forfeiture practices are “unconstitutional.”

Please write a letter to the Kansas City Star or the Oregonian to let
these lawless law enforcement officials know that their contempt for
basic justice and fairness is being observed around the world.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, Fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

Source: Kansas City Star (MO)
Contact:
(mailto:[email protected])letters@kcstar.(mailto:[email protected])com

EXTRA CREDIT:

Please also write to the Oregonian to protest a drug task force’s
decision to legally challenge a ballot initiative that would reform
asset forfeiture practices.

US: OR: Suit says approved measure is illegal
URL :
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/news_week.ssf?/news/oregonian/00/12/lc_71suit02.frame
Pubdate: Dec. 2, 2000
Source: Oregonian, The (OR)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US MO: Rolla-Area Sheriff Says He’ll Continue Drug Checkpoints
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1816/a05.html
Newshawk: Mark Greer
Pubdate: Sun, 3 Dec 2000
Source: Kansas City Star (MO)
Copyright: 2000 The Kansas City Star
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108
Feedback: http://www.kansascity.com/Discussion/
Website: http://www.kcstar.com/
Author: Karen Dillon, The Kansas City Star
Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1615/a05.html
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1786/a04.html
ROLLA-AREA SHERIFF SAYS HE’LL CONTINUE DRUG CHECKPOINTS

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court last week outlawed roadblocks to
check for drugs, the Phelps County Sheriff’s Department in Rolla, Mo.,
apparently plans to continue checkpoints on Interstate 44.

Sheriff Don Blankenship said last week in a Rolla newspaper article
that he would continue the checkpoints, which have been so frequent
that critics call him the “Sheriff of I-44.”

The ruling “shouldn’t affect us because we have a different type of
checkpoint” from the one the Supreme Court addressed, Blankenship was
quoted as saying.

Blankenship also said in the article that the U.S. attorney’s office
agreed with his interpretation.

He did not return telephone calls from a reporter over the past week.
Blankenship’s decision runs counter to actions taken by several law
enforcement organizations.

The Missouri Highway Patrol said last week troopers would no longer
conduct checkpoints and state Attorney General Jay Nixon agreed with
that decision, a spokesman for Nixon said.

The Missouri Sheriffs Association sent notices about the ruling to
sheriffs in the state, and Executive Director James L. Vermeersch said
he was planning to talk with Blankenship after hearing about his decision.

The Missouri Police Chiefs Association has advised police agencies to
stop the checkpoints while the ruling is being researched. However,
Terri Dougherty, executive assistant to U.S. Attorney Audrey Fleissig
in the Eastern District in St. Louis, confirmed it was her office that
advised Blankenship he could continue the roadblocks. She declined
further comment.

Blankenship did not attend a Phelps County Commission meeting
Thursday. Commissioners had wanted to discuss the high court ruling
with him, the presiding commissioner said.

The American Civil Liberties Union branch in St. Louis will address
the Phelps County action, an official said. Attorneys for the ACLU in
Indianapolis won the Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday.

“We certainly intend to share with the sheriff our view with how the
Supreme Court decision applies to his checkpoints and encourage him to
stop them,” said Matt LeMieux, executive director of the ACLU of
Eastern Missouri.

“Even if the Justice Department gave him the go-ahead, I don’t think
it changes the fact that the practice appears to conflict with the
U.S. Supreme Court ruling.”

In the 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Indianapolis’ use of
checkpoints — intended to catch drug criminals — was an unreasonable
search and seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. According to
the ruling, it is the purpose of a checkpoint that determines whether
it is constitutional.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor distinguished drug checkpoints from
sobriety roadblocks.

The sobriety roadblocks, O’Connor wrote, protect the public from an
“immediate, vehicle-bound threat to life and limb.”

But drug checkpoints are attempts to find evidence that a crime
occurred and thus serve only law enforcement’s need for crime control,
she wrote.

In Indianapolis, the checkpoints were staged like sobriety
checkpoints, with police and drug-sniffing dogs stopping each vehicle
along a thoroughfare.

Law enforcement officers in Phelps County and other locations in
Missouri say they commonly use deception to create the necessary
suspicion to be able to search cars.

The officers set up a sign just before a highway exit that warns a
drug checkpoint is ahead. However, the checkpoint is actually at the
end of the exit.

Motorists, especially those from out of state, who take the exit
appear to be avoiding the checkpoint, Blankenship said in a previous
interview with The Star. Those drivers have created reasonable
suspicion to be stopped and possibly searched, especially if they
cannot explain why they took the exit, Blankenship said.

Because his officers have a reason to suspect each vehicle they
search, that makes the Phelps County checkpoints different from
Indianapolis, Blankenship told the Rolla newspaper. But the ACLU’s
LeMieux said the purpose of the checkpoints is no different from
Indianapolis.

“If the purpose is to find evidence of a crime then it is
unconstitutional,” LeMieux said. “It is quite clear that the purpose
of the Phelps County checkpoints is to find criminal evidence — drugs
in this case.”

The Star reported in October that Blankenship, who was running for
re-election, was criticized by opponents and others for spending so
much time on Interstate 44 conducting the checkpoints instead of
patrolling the county.

The critics also said Blankenship’s checkpoints stemmed from the
benefit his office received from the cash and property his deputies
seized.

Blankenship said that the checkpoints, which he ran at least twice a
week, were valuable in the war on drugs and had no effect on other
crime control.

Blankenship said his deputies had taken thousands of pounds of illegal
narcotics off the interstate.

******************************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor of the Kansas City Star:

Thanks to Karen Dillon for all the work she has done to expose asset
forfeiture practices.

I thought the efforts of law enforcement to hold onto forfeited assets
despite state law to the contrary was outrageous enough, but now we
learn that the Phelps County Sheriff’s Department in Rolla feels it
does not need to abide by a U.S. Supreme Court decision banning random
drug checkpoints (“Rolla-Area Sheriff Says He’ll Continue Drug
Checkpoints,” Dec.3).

In some ways, it is possible to sympathize with law enforcement
officials who have been given the impossible task of creating a
“drug-free America.” Since illegal drug users often don’t look any
different from other citizens, the obvious response is to put everyone
under suspicion. And since politicians have made this into a holy war,
it’s not surprising that some police think any tactics are fair game,
and that they deserve to get a cut of the black market windfall being
generated by drug prohibition.

However, this dependence on forfeiture money is eroding law
enforcement’s respect for the law itself, and the general public.
Police should not decide which laws they will enforce (and which court
decisions they will abide) based on their own financial self-interest.
We should end the drug war and allow police to determine priorities
based on public safety, not their own economic bottom line.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

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

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000
Subject: #191 The Supreme Court Takes A Stand Against The Drug War

The Supreme Court Takes A Stand Against The Drug War

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 191 Sunday December 3, 2000

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that random road blocks for
drug searches are unconstitutional. This a relief to drug reformers
and anyone interested in maintaining basic civil liberties.

Several newspapers editorialized about the decision, and most looked
favorably at the ruling. Below is one particularly good editorial from
the San Jose Mercury News. Many of the other editorials weren’t as
strong as the Mercury News, but the number of editorials published so
far shows that this aspect of the drug war has hit a nerve even with
those who aren’t given to speaking against the drug war.

Please send a letter to one or all of the newspapers where editorials
and other articles have been published. Tell editors the Supreme Court
did the right thing in putting a stop on the police state tactic of
arbitrary drug checkpoints, but note that basic constitutional
freedoms are still under assault by other aspects of the drug war.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, Fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is the only way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT:

Please also send your letter to one or several of the following
newspapers that printed editorials or other articles about the Supreme
Court ruling.

US IL: Column: A Rare Victory For The Right To Be Left Alone
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1793/a01.html
Pubdate: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)

US: U.S. Justices Halt Drug Roadblocks
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1789/a09.html
Pubdate: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

US: Supreme Court Bars Traffic Roadblocks Intended to Check for
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1785/a04.html
Pubdate: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: [email protected]

US CA: Editorial: Supreme Court Removes A Roadblock to Rights
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1791/a05.html
Pubdate: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

US GA: Editorial: A Win For Privacy
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1795/a09.html
Pubdate: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
Contact: [email protected]

US TX: Editorial: Random Ruling
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1794/a10.html
Pubdate: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
Source: Times Record News (TX)
Contact: [email protected]

US IN: Editorial: The Right Decision On Indy Roadblocks
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1791/a08.html
Pubdate: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
Source: Indianapolis Star (IN)
Contact: [email protected]

US IN: Editorial: What Did They Say?
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1794/a01.html
Pubdate: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
Source: News-Sentinel (IN)
Contact: [email protected]

US CO: Editorial: Drug Roadblocks
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1794/a03.html
Pubdate: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
Source: Durango Herald, The (US CO)
Contact: [email protected]

US NC: OPED: The Court Got It Right
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1797/a07.html
Pubdate: Thu, 30 Nov 2000
Source: Goldsboro News-Argus (NC)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US CA: Editorial: Improbable Cause
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1782/a05.html
Newshawk: Jane Marcus
Pubdate: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Copyright: 2000 San Jose Mercury News
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA 95190
Fax: (408) 271-3792
Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/
IMPROBABLE CAUSE

When Police Stop Every Vehicle At A Roadblock To Search For Drugs, That
Goes To Far, Supreme Court Rules

THERE’S a saying that the U.S. Supreme Court has never run into a
police roadblock it didn’t like. Checkpoints to intercept drunken
drivers? Sure. Stops to verify the licenses and registrations of
motorists? Fine. Highway blockades near the border to snatch illegal
immigrants? Those are legal too.

It looked as if law enforcement agents could use random roadblocks for
any reason. Constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches
and seizures didn’t appear to protect innocent people who happened to
be on the wrong road at the wrong time.

But no more. On Tuesday the justices finally put on the brakes. By
6-3, they said the police can’t intrude on the privacy of law-abiding
drivers to nab a handful of possible drug traffickers.

The case involved police officers in Indianapolis setting up big
dragnets to ferret out drug dealers. Stemming the flow of narcotics
into a city is an important and well-intentioned goal. But to carry it
out, the police would detain and question everyone driving by the
checkpoints. Motorists didn’t get to leave until the officer was
convinced that no drugs were hidden in the car.

Two innocent people caught up in these blockades sued. To stop them
and inspect their cars, the drivers argued, an officer should need a
good reason to suspect they’ve committed a crime. That kind of
warrantless search requires at least a suspicion that the individual
was breaking the law. The roadblocks allowed the police to skirt that
requirement based on a mere fear that drugs might be coming into a
neighborhood.

“If this case were to rest on such a high level of generality,”
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the court, “there would be
little check on the authorities’ ability to construct roadblocks for
almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose.”

Blockades designed to police the national border or ensure roadway
safety – — such as DUI checkpoints — are unaffected by Tuesday’s
decision. The court previously has said the Constitution permits those
stops.

Instead the ruling is an overdue reminder to law enforcement that
innocent people have some constitutional right to be left alone when
behind the wheel. And even this conservative court won’t allow the war
on drugs to change that.

******************************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

It is heartening to see the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against random
drug checkpoints. For years the drug war has been used to invade the
privacy of all citizens. Want a job? You must prove yourself innocent
of drug crimes by submitting bodily fluids for analysis. Same thing if
you are a student hoping to join in an extracurricular activity. And
all students are subject to random searches by drug sniffing dogs,
while anyone who travels by bus may find themselves face to face with
a law enforcement officer who “requests” to search their personal belongings.

Since many illegal drug users look and act just like people who don’t
use illegal drugs, those would protect us from ourselves need to check
out everyone. While making people prove their innocence may catch some
drug users, it also allows authorities to scrutinize citizens without
any cause. The war on drugs is a also a war on personal privacy.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

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

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000
Subject: #190 Even Supporters See Disaster In Plan Colombia

NYT: Even Supporters See Disaster in Plan Colombia

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #190 Saturday November 18, 2000

The plan to send $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid to Colombia,
allegedly to assist the war on drugs, can only make the violence in
Colombia worse. Now, even a legislator who pushed to advance Plan
Colombia has realized that it is a disaster in the making.

As the New York Times reported this week, U.S. Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman
has flip-flopped on his enthusiasm for Plan Colombia. Gilman still
doesn’t seem to understand that the problems aren’t just in the
details, but in the overall concept of fighting the war on drugs.
However, it is important to recognize another voice speaking out
against the military aid.

Please write a letter to the New York Times or other newspapers where
the story has appeared to note that even fervent drug warriors know
Plan Colombia will create more problems while solving nothing.

WRITE A LETTER – MAKE THINGS BETTER!!

It’s not what others do it’s what YOU do

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID ( Letter,
Phone, Fax etc.)

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] Your letter will then
be forwarded to the list with so others can learn from your efforts
and be motivated to follow suit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is one important way we have of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT:

The Miami Herald also ran a story on this subject. Please send your
letter to the Herald also.

Title: US: Key Lawmaker Drops Support For Aid To Colombian Armed
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1716/a04.html
Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT:

The Chicago Tribune also had a good editorial about this subject,
noting “It’s time to think not just about switching this money from
one Colombian pocket to another. It’s time to rethink the whole
thing.” Please check out the whole editorial and send a letter to the
Tribune too.

Title: US IL: OPED: Second Thoughts On Colombia
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1718/a03.html
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US: Key House Leader Withdraws Support For Colombia Aid Plan
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1714/a07.html
Newshawk: Amanda
Pubdate: Fri, 17 Nov 2000
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2000 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036
Fax: (212) 556-3622
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Christopher Marquis with Juan Forero
Bookmark: Reports from Colombia: http://www.mapinc.org/area/Colombia
KEY HOUSE LEADER WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FOR COLOMBIA AID PLAN

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 — Representative Benjamin A. Gilman, chairman of
the House International Relations Committee, has abruptly withdrawn
his support from the decision to funnel $1.3 billion in mostly
military aid to Colombia, arguing that the United States is on the
brink of a “major mistake.”

Mr. Gilman, Republican of New York, sent a letter this week to the
White House drug policy coordinator, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey,
contending that the American plan to increase the role of the
Colombian military in the drug fight will end disastrously, because
the military has undermined its political support after a history of
corruption and human rights abuses. That position echoes other critics
of the plan.

Mr. Gilman called on the Clinton administration to redirect its
assistance, including at least 40 Black Hawk helicopters, from the
military to the national police in Colombia. Mr. Gilman has long
admired the police, which he views as more effective and less tainted
by human rights violations.

“If we fail early on with Plan Colombia, as I fear, we could lose the
support of the American people for our efforts to fight illicit
narcotics abroad,” Mr. Gilman said. “If we lose public support, we
will regret we did not make the mid-course corrections for Colombia
that I have outlined here.”

Last summer, Mr. Gilman voted to support Plan Colombia, a $7.5 billion
strategy drafted jointly by American and Colombian officials and
passed by Congress. In addition to the military spending, the program
allocates money to promote alternative crops, economic renewal and
human rights. The plan seeks to halve drug production over five years
in Colombia, reportedly the source of most of the cocaine and heroin
that enters the United States.

Congressional sources said Mr. Gilman was troubled by recent military
failures in rural areas where rebel forces operate.

It is unclear what effects, if any, Mr. Gilman’s shift will have. A
Senate Republican aide who follows Colombia closely said it was “far
too early” to criticize the plan. Mr. Gilman is expected to relinquish
his chairmanship next year because of term limits.

Critics of the plan have argued that the military aid would merely
intensify the conflict in which two rebel groups have joined forces
with narcotics traffickers against the government, a conflict that
could eventually draw the United States directly into fighting the
rebels.

Leaders of Colombia’s neighbors also have expressed fears that the
fighting will spill into their countries.

Washington counters that Colombia’s increasingly jumbled battle lines
make it necessary to equip and deploy the military in the fight
against drugs. The American plan calls for training three
counternarcotics battalions, with a total of up to 3,000 troops.

The administration also has promised to watch over the military’s
record on human rights. A spokesman for General McCaffrey, Robert
Weiner, said today that denying aid to the military on the basis of
its past performance would ensure defeat.

“Granted they’re not a superpower,” Mr. Weiner said. “One of the major
purposes of the Plan Colombia is to provide the military with the
resources they need. This actually scares the cartels to death.”

In southern Putumayo Province, where half of the coca in Colombia is
grown, rebels have sealed off roads, arguing that the military has to
rein in right-wing gunmen who are associated with the armed forces.

A botched operation in a northern town, Dabeiba, resulted last month
in the downing of one of the army’s seven American-made Black Hawks
and the deaths of 22 troops.

The helicopter had been carrying reinforcements to assist soldiers
locked in a firefight with rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia. But sloppy communications led the pilot to land in a
rebel-controlled area, an American official said.

The rebels “were waiting for them,” the official said. “What kind of
intelligence is that? They were dug in like the Ho Chi Minh Trail.”

A high-ranking official in President Andres Pastrana’s government
defended the military involvement on the grounds that the drug war has
fundamentally changed in the last five years.

“It used to be an urban drug war, which the police were very capable
of handling,” the official said. “It has now become a drug war fought
in the jungles, and you can’t do that without military support.”

Another official said, “The fact that there are voices that are
against these tactics doesn’t mean that the strategy is going to change.”

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

It has long been clear that Plan Colombia will neither stop drugs from
reaching Americans nor stabilize Colombia. But, new objections from
Rep. Ben Gilman, formerly one of the plan’s strongest supporters, show
how awful the plan truly is.

Gilman may only have problems with the details, but as history shows,
the whole concept of fighting drugs with force is always a failure.
The outcome of Plan Colombia can only be more violence and increasing
involvement by the U.S. in the affairs of South America.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

Please note: If you choose to use this letter as a model please modify it
at least somewhat so that the paper does not receive numerous copies of the
same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his/her work.
—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

3 Tips for Letter Writers http://www.mapinc.org/3tips.htm

Letter Writers Style Guide http://www.mapinc.org/style.htm

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

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

Prepared by Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist