Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999
Subject: 60 Minutes: Secret Colombian Drug War Could Evolve Into New

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #128 September 27,1999

60 Minutes: Secret Colombian Drug War Could Evolve Into New Vietnam

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #128 September 27,1999

It’s common to think of the “war on drugs” as more of a metaphor than
a real war, but for the people of Colombia it is terribly real.
Colombia has long been a major producer and exporter of cocaine. Now
many U.S. leaders say that fact should make Colombia a target for
military intervention.

Actually, as 60 Minutes II revealed last week, the U.S. has been
orchestrating a covert war in the country since 1992. Representatives
of the U.S. military and other agencies have advised Colombians during
hundreds of commando raids against what was once Colombia’s biggest
drug cartel. These American military leaders claim the raids were
successful since the head of the cartel was eventually killed. But
drugs continue to flow through Colombia unimpeded.

Now some in Washington want war on an even larger scale. About $1
billion in additional U.S. military aid has been proposed for
Colombia. Supporters of the plan present the situation in Colombia as
an easy-to-understand fight between “good” government forces and “bad”
rebels financed by drug money. However, a closer look at the country
shows something infinitely more complex: the Colombian Army has ties
to paramilitary squads that kill because of politics, not drugs; much
of the U.S. aid sent to fight drugs has been used to decimate enemies
of the government; and even the DEA questions how much involvement
major rebel groups have with drug cartels.

History should remind us that mixing heavy U.S. fire power into the
ambiguous motives and allegiances of a civil war fought in jungle
terrain is a recipe for disaster. Please write a letter to 60 Minutes
II to say that America could do much more to solve drug problems by
overhauling its own counterproductive policies at home than by adding
to the violence in Colombia.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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 MAPTalk
list 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: 60 Minutes II
Contact: [email protected]

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

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1053.a08.html

Pubdate: Tue, 21 Sep 1999
Source: 60 Minutes II
Copyright: 1999 Burrelle’s Information Services CBS News Transcripts
Contact: [email protected]
Mail: [email protected]
Feedback: http://209.3.209.3/prd1/now/feedback?p_whonetwork
Note: Video from this is currently available at:
http://www.cbs.com/flat/story_187452.html

AMERICA’S SECRET WAR

United States Trains Commandos To Fight In The War On Drugs In Colombia

DAN RATHER, co-host: The United States is on the verge of a dramatic
escalation in a war that you probably know nothing about. The
proposal is to spend at least another $ 1 billion to fight an army of
old-line Marxist guerrillas in Colombia who now have gone into the
drug trade. The president of Colombia is in Washington this week to
push for the whole amount. This may sound like the start of a new
war, but it’s actually only the latest battle in a secret war America
has been fighting in Colombia for most of the ’90s, a war that was
started to take out Colombia’s drug lords and a war fought by secret
warriors trained by the United States.

(Footage of commandos; helicopter; Major Gil Macklin and commandos;
Rather exiting plane)

RATHER: (Voiceover) They’re called Copes commandos, a small US-trained
strike force of deadly warriors. Since 1992, they have been fighting
America’s secret war on drugs in the jungles of Colombia. And one of
the men who trained them in the art of killing is former US Marine
Major Gil Macklin. We met up with him in Colombia recently to meet
America’s secret allies and to learn details of a mission about which
he has never spoken publicly before.

When we say Copes, in brief, what are we talking about?

Maj. MACKLIN: The Copes are the–the direct action forces of the
Colombian National Police. They’re like the Delta Force. Their
skills are honed on a regular basis to go at a moment’s notice, to do
anything at any time.

(Footage of commandos; vintage footage of Pablo Escobar and others on
motorcycles; Escobar and others on boat; Escobar and others on beach;
assassination of presidential candidate; aftermath of bombed plane;
footage of Ambassador Morris Busby)

RATHER: (Voiceover) But to understand the significance of the Copes
today, we have to go back to the early ’90s, to when the United States
started backing them for one mission and one mission alone: to take
down the Colombian drug lords, wipe out the cartels. And chief among
their targets was this man, Pablo Escobar. It was widely reported
that he was killed in 1993, but details of how he was killed have
never been revealed. Escobar was a larger-than-life character,
colorful, ruthless and seemingly unstoppable. Eighty percent of the
cocaine consumed in America came from him. His assassins murdered
anyone who got in his way, even taking out a presidential candidate at
a nationally televised rally. But when he reportedly ordered the
bombing of this Avianca passenger plane with five Americans on board,
Escobar’s reign of terror suddenly hit home. Morris Busby was the US
ambassador to Colombia.

Now that bombing was an Escobar bombing to do what?

Ambassador MORRIS BUSBY (Colombia): As near as we were ever able to
piece together, it was a bombing to kill one particular individual on
the airplane.

RATHER: That Escobar wanted taken out?

Amb. BUSBY: Yes. And so they killed everybody else on the
airplane.

RATHER: But who would kill 120-some-odd people to get one
person?

Amb. BUSBY: A monster.

(Vintage footage of George Bush exiting plane; footage of Busby; US
Embassy; vintage footage of Macklin and commandos; Jesuit mission;
commandos)

RATHER: (Voiceover) President Bush was so outraged, he ordered the
beginning of a secret war to take Escobar down. And Ambassador Busby
was the man he chose to do it. A former Navy SEAL, Morris Busby, like
Major Macklin, has never spoken publicly about his role in the secret
war. It all began when he turned the US Embassy into a war command
and dispatched Macklin, among others, to start forming the small army
that is now known as the Copes commandos. Macklin and a team of
Marine trainers set up shop at this ancient Jesuit mission at the foot
of the Andes. Their job was to find a few good men, young,
uncorrupted and prepared to die for their country.

Maj. MACKLIN: At the tip of the spear were these young farm boys from
the valleys, the hills, the mountains and jungles of Colombia who came
from nothing.

(Footage of commandos training)

RATHER: (Voiceover) Once he assembled enough men, Macklin gave them a
crash course in the dark arts of killing–day and night, the kind of
training only Special Forces do, exercises like this one: shooting
live ammunition inches from each other’s heads.

Maj. MACKLIN: See this guy here? He’s very dead.

(Footage of commandos training)

RATHER: (Voiceover) Macklin taught them his philosophy, kill or be
killed, and he taught them how to fight, to take down the drug lords
by surprise, to take them at a time and a place when they would least
expect it.

Maj. MACKLIN: (Voiceover) These men kill without compunction and die
without complaint. There is–there is one solution, and their solution
is to accomplish the mission and come out in one piece.

RATHER: Marines are trained to kill people and break things. Is that
what you trained these Copes commandos to do?

Maj. MACKLIN: Yes.

(Footage of commandos; ambulance; fires; General Rosso Jose Serrano
and commandos)

RATHER: (Voiceover) It’s a chilling idea: Americans training killers
with ski masks. But that’s exactly what Gil Macklin set out to do.
And back in 1992, with Colombia being terrorized by the drug lords,
the stakes were never higher. Macklin trained them, and this
Colombian police commander was chosen to take them into battle. At a
time when thousands of cops were on cartel payrolls, General Rosso
Jose Serrano was considered to be incorruptible. And for him and his
120 commandos, all of them devout Catholics, the mission against the
drug lords was a moral crusade.

General ROSSO JOSE SERRANO: (Through Translator) We know that God is
going to protect us and help us. We with faith have been able to move
mountains.

(Footage of Serrano and commandos; Air Force airplane)

RATHER: (Voiceover) They may have relied on their faith that God was
watching over them, but they also believed in something else:
high-tech weaponry that Ambassador Busby delivered courtesy of the
most powerful war machine on Earth.

Amb. BUSBY: We spared nothing in trying to use all of the
intelligence we could find on a worldwide basis to pass to the
Colombians to try and find him.

RATHER: And your assets? DEA, CIA, FBI, Special Forces, Delta
Forces?

Amb. BUSBY: All of the above.

RATHER: Has there been any other occasion which you know of in which
the United States said right from the top, ‘This is what we’re going
to do, and we’re going to commit whatever assets are necessary to do
it, and we’re going to have the determination and the staying power
that it takes to get it done’?

Amb. BUSBY: I can’t think of anything that–that we went into that we
stayed with the way we stayed with this. We never wavered.

(Vintage footage of commandos; dead soldiers; helicopter; gunners on
helicopter)

RATHER: (Voiceover) In the summer and fall of 1992, the mission began
and they moved systematically. To get to Escobar, the Copes had to
first eliminate each and every one of his lieutenants. These are the
pictures of what they left behind, dead and injured soldiers of the
drug cartels. The search for Escobar, spanning a period of a year and
a half, was one of the most intense manhunts ever mounted.

Amb. BUSBY: Well, the strategy that was followed was strip away his
lieutenants, strip away all of his money, go after his infrastructure,
take down everything that protects him. And that was done on a very
systematic and organized basis.

RATHER: Now we’re not talking about one or two or three raids here,
are we? Or are we?

Maj. MACKLIN: No. We’re talking about a whole series of raids that
were conducted to take out the–the central nervous system of the cartels.

RATHER: We’re talking about tens of raids, dozens of raids, hundreds
of raids?

Maj. MACKLIN: Hundreds.

RATHER: And what were they up against?

Maj. MACKLIN: The best that money could buy. Escobar reportedly
hired some of the best mercenaries in the world–British, Israeli,
Russian.

RATHER: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Working for Pablo Escobar were
some of the best special operations people who were British and Israeli?

Maj. MACKLIN: Exactly.

(Vintage footage of commandos in vehicles)

RATHER: (Voiceover) But the Copes gradually eliminated those
surrounding Escobar, nearly 100 lieutenants in his private army.

Maj. MACKLIN: (Voiceover) In the dead of night, they’d come like
darkness, and they’d bust through a door or a window or go through the
roof. And they’d capture these arrogant, narcissistic animals, the
drug lords, and they’d bring them to justice. And that’s what they
did.

(Vintage footage of funeral)

RATHER: (Voiceover) The Copes took heavy casualties themselves, many
of them killed by Escobar’s hit men.

Maj. MACKLIN: (Voiceover) The price they paid in flesh and blood is
tremendous; it’s enormous. If we lose two cops who get killed in the
US Capitol, like we did last summer, Washington ground to a halt.
They lose two cops before breakfast every morning.

(Vintage footage of commandos; footage of Rather and Busby at scene of
showdown)

RATHER: (Voiceover) It took two years from the time they began
training for American intelligence to finally corner Escobar. We went
with Ambassador Busby back to the scene of the final showdown.

BUSBY: In the final moments, what happened was that Pablo Escobar was
talking on a phone to his son, and he was standing at one of these
windows and the police van rolled up the street here; they–they were
monitoring the conversation. And he said to his son, ‘There’s
something wrong. I have to go.’

(Footage of roof of building; vintage footage of Escobar’s body;
footage of commandos throwing Macklin into pond)

RATHER: (Voiceover) Escobar tried to escape up the stairs. He got as
far as the roof. That’s where the commandos gunned him down. For Gil
Macklin and his Copes commandos, it will always be remembered as their
finest hour. But it was a triumph that could only be shared in
private. Of the 120 Copes he trained, half of them died in action.
As Macklin sees it, they died fighting America’s war.

Maj. MACKLIN: Copes!

RATHER: But the American public didn’t know about this.

Maj. MACKLIN: No.

RATHER: Have any second thoughts about that? Secret operation
overseas, training young men to break and enter and kill and…

Maj. MACKLIN: None whatsoever. Not now. I just wish we’d done
more.

RATHER: I think most Americans think we always lose in the drug wars.
In fact, the record shows that if we don’t always lose, we lose nearly
all the time.

Amb. BUSBY: But that’s not true. That’s not true. We scored a great
success here.

RATHER: But it’s hard to talk about success when today more drugs are
coming into America from Colombia than ever before. The sad truth
about the drug war is that getting rid of one enemy seems only to
bring on another even more menacing one. After Pablo Escobar came the
drug lords of the Cali cartel. And the man who led the Copes
commandos, General Serrano, became a national hero when he wiped them
out. But by the time we met up with him last month, he was facing yet
another enemy.

(Footage of Rather and Serrano in vehicle with security vehicles;
guerrillas)

RATHER: (Voiceover) When we travel with the general through Colombia
today, this is how he moves, escorted by an army of security. He is a
living symbol of the war against the drug trade in his own country and
a lot of people would like to see him dead, especially his new
enemies. They are armed guerrillas. Led by old-style Marxists, the
guerrillas began moving into the drug trade after the urban cartels
were taken out. And today drug money has transformed that guerrilla
army as it pursues its age-old war against the government of Colombia,
according to US drug czar General Barry McCaffrey.

General BARRY McCAFFREY (Drug Czar): These insurgent forces are fueled
by massive amounts of money that produce shiny new uniforms, planes,
helicopters and more automatic weapons in their battalions than in the
Colombian army.

Representative DAN BURTON (Republican, Indiana): A blind person could
have seen there’s a problem.

(Footage of Dan Burton at House of Representatives; McCaffrey;
guerrillas)

RATHER: (Voiceover) For two years now, Republican congressmen like Dan
Burton have been accusing McCaffrey and the Clinton administration of
ignoring the mounting threat posed by Colombia’s narcoguerrillas.
Last month the drug czar joined this chorus, saying that he, too, is
alarmed and now wants the US to intervene with $ 1 billion to counter
this new and growing enemy in America’s war on drugs.

What’s the single most important thing for Americans to
know?

Gen. McCAFFREY: The Colombians are involved in a situation of
incredible violence. The situation’s veering out of control, and we
need to step in and stand with the forces of democracy in Colombia.

(Footage of Capitol; guerrillas; commandos)

RATHER: (Voiceover) The $ 1 billion McCaffrey wants would inevitably
put the United States into the position of taking on a full-scale
guerrilla army, and that’s an escalation many in Washington don’t
want. Whether we choose to ante up or not, the Copes commandos have
already started to move in on key guerrilla positions. For them, the
war on drugs never ends.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

The report on the secret war in Colombia (Sept. 21) was quite
disturbing. The fact that the Cali cartel was destroyed but the drug
trade remains active should indicate escalating violence in the region
isn’t going to stop any drugs from coming to the United States.

Recent history shows how drug traffickers thrive on the chaos of civil
war. Further U.S. intervention might put some current traffickers out
of business, but they would quickly be replaced by more traffickers,
leaving an increasingly fragmented drug trade that would even be
harder to fight. As the battle intensifies, drug-running just becomes
more profitable and more attractive to desperate people.

And when increased military aid fails to stem the flow of drugs or
bring more order to Colombia, U.S. troops can’t be far behind. And
there’s no reason to believe those troops will be any more successful
at eradicating drugs. Increased militarization won’t make the drug
trade die, but many Colombian citizens and American soldiers can
expect to lose their lives in the fight.

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999
Subject: Veteran Cop Explains How Drug War Causes Police Corruption

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 127 September 23, 1999

LA Times: Veteran Cop Explains How Drug War Causes Police Corruption

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 127 September 23, 1999

LA Times: Veteran Cop Explains How Drug War Causes Police Corruption

While drug policy reformers sometimes blame law enforcement for drug
war damage, it is important to remember that the drug war is bad for
police as well. In the wake of a huge corruption scandal in the Los
Angeles Police Department, former police chief Joseph McNamara
explained why this week in an excellent column for the Los Angeles
Times. After researching the connection between the drug war and cops
gone bad, McNamara came to a disturbing conclusion.

“Studying the nation’s police forces, I was stunned to discover that
the old-type corruption uncovered when cops occasionally were caught
taking payoffs from gangsters had been replaced by something
considerably more ominous. Throughout the country, small groups of
cops were the gangsters,” McNamara writes in the piece.

This is bad for the public, or course, but it’s also bad for the
majority of cops who haven’t been corrupted. The good cops lose their
credibility with citizens. They may also become demoralized. Please
write a letter to the LA Times to thank McNamara for demonstrating how
the country is reaping another bitter harvest sown with seeds from the
drug war.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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

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

Pubdate: Tue, 21 Sep 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: [email protected]
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
Author: Joseph D. McNamara
Note: Retired Police Chief of San Jose, Joe McNamara is a Research Fellow
at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His Forthcoming Book Is
“Gangster Cops: the Hidden Cost of America’s War on Drugs.”

PERSPECTIVE ON POLICE

When Cops Become the Gangsters

The war on drugs has spawned an ominous form of corruption: protector
becoming the criminal.

It may not be much comfort to Police Chief Bernard C. Parks and the
people of Los Angeles during the current corruption scandal, but the
pattern of small gangs of cops committing predatory crimes has
occurred in almost every large city in the nation and in a great many
less populated areas as well.

Six years after retiring from 35 years in policing, I began research
for a book on police administration. Studying the nation’s police
forces, I was stunned to discover that the old-type corruption
uncovered when cops occasionally were caught taking payoffs from
gangsters had been replaced by something considerably more ominous.
Throughout the country, small groups of cops were the gangsters.

The lure of fortunes to be made in illegal drugs has led to thousands
of police felonies: armed robbery, kidnapping, stealing drugs, selling
drugs, perjury, framing people and even some murders. These police
crimes were committed on duty, often while the cop gangsters were
wearing their uniforms, the symbol of safety to the people they were
supposed to be protecting.

Of course, only a small percentage of American police officers are
recidivist felons. Sadly, however, these predatory criminals are
protected by a code of silence. Otherwise honest officers who knew or
suspected what was going on did not report the crooks, and at times
even lied rather than testify against other cops.

A code of silence is not unique to police. It exists in the White
House, among students, doctors, lawyers, business executives and other
groups. Indeed, even as children, our parents and peers admonish us
not to tattle. Basic human characteristics of loyalty, trust and
security are involved. These motivations are even more intense in
police work. If cops make an error of judgment, they or someone else
may be killed, or they can be sent to jail for using too much force.
And even the most ethical officers fear being falsely accused of
brutality or other crimes and of being railroaded to prison because
their chiefs or mayors will not support them in politically volatile
cases.

Furthermore, the code of silence is strengthened because many cops
chafe under the pressure from superiors to make petty arrests for
drugs. State and local police made approximately 1.4 million drug
possession arrests last year. Very few took place with search
warrants, although the 4th Amendment, with few exceptions, requires
the police to obtain a judicial warrant to search people or their
homes. It is so common for police to lie about how they obtained drug
evidence that the term “testilying” has replaced “testifying” in
police jargon. Ambitious politicians and police brass calling for
more arrests condemn the code of silence while ignoring widespread
police perjury in drug cases. It is not surprising that many cops
feel that the only one they can really trust is another cop.

Nevertheless, it is perverse when those sworn to enforce the law
instead shelter predatory criminals who happen to carry a badge.
Minorities tend to be the victims of the most grievous police crimes.
The current Los Angeles police shooting scandal, like the thousands of
cop crimes elsewhere, does immeasurable damage to the credibility of
the criminal justice system. Mayors and police chiefs usually assure
their citizens that there are only a few rotten apples when these
scandals are publicized. Yet the number and similarity of police
gangster crimes nationally indicate a crisis in American policing.

Official corruption will be a major problem as long as we cling to the
present drug policies. The code of silence cannot be totally
eliminated. But the harm to good cops and to society can be reduced if
politicians abandon their demagogic calls for a police war against
drugs. Police officers who are true partners with the community in
reducing crime will be far more likely to report thugs on the force
than cops who think they’re part of a warring occupation army.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Thanks to Joseph McNamara for explaining how the drug war causes
police corruption (“Perspective on Police,” Sept. 21). Others may say
that there will always be a few bad apples in any large group. It’s
impossible to deny that police, like members of any other profession,
are subject to corruption even under the best circumstances. Likewise,
there are police who are immune from corruption under the worst
circumstances. But, it is grossly myopic to say that the incidents
recently uncovered in Los Angeles are just about a handful of bad cops.

There is a common thread running through these incidents, and others
around the nation: the obscene profits made possible by drug
prohibition. That is the invitation to corruption, just as it was
during alcohol prohibition during the 1920s. No matter how many honest
cops there are, drug prohibition offers the lure of easy money to
those teetering on the edge. Add that to the despair of knowing that
efforts against illegal drug sellers will never really put a dent in
the trade and you’ve got a recipe to make more bad cops.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999
Subject: LA Times Prints A Great Introduction To Reform By Ethan

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 126 September 20, 1999

LA Times Prints A Great Introduction to Reform by Ethan
Nadelmann

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*****

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
*****

LA Times Prints A Great Introduction to Reform by Ethan
Nadelmann

The problems created by drug prohibition are intertwined in such a
complex way that it is sometimes difficult to look at the whole
situation without getting caught up in the details. With the
cooperation of the Los Angeles Times, prominent drug policy reform
advocate Ethan Nadelmann presented a nice overview of the need for
reform this week.

Nadelmann’s points are convincing in themselves, but they have added
power in the LA Times now as the newspaper uncovers a huge scandal in
the LA Police Department. Allegations of corruption in the department
are at least partly related to drug policy. To read more about the
scandal see:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1021.a02.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1018.a08.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1021.a01.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1019.a01.html

Please write a letter to the Times thanking them for printing
Nadelmann’s oped, and also to remind editors that they don’t have to
dig too deep into many societal problems to find a connection between
the problems and counterproductive drug policy.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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

Note: The LA Times circulation is 1.5 million.
A published LTE in the Times that is five column inches long (about 200 words)
represents an advertising value of $3,000 on behalf of reform.

Ethan’s article below had an ad value of $29,592 See
http://www.mapinc.org/lte/value.htm for an explanation of how to
calculate the ad value of your published letters.

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

Pubdate: Sun, 19 Sep 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: [email protected]
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
Author: Ethan A. Nadelmann
Note: Ethan A. Nadelmann Is Director of the Lindesmith Center, a Drug
Policy Institute With Offices in New York and San Francisco
http://www.lindesmith.org/

PERSPECTIVE ON LEGALIZING DRUGS

Don’t Get Carried Away

There Must Be A New Approach That Is Grounded Not In Ignorance Or Fear But
In Common Sense.

“So you want to legalize drugs, right?” That’s the first question I’m
typically asked when I start talking about drug policy reform. My
short answer is, marijuana, maybe. But I’m not suggesting we make
heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine available the way we do alcohol and
cigarettes.

What am I recommending? Here’s the long answer:

Drop the “zero tolerance” rhetoric and policies and the illusory goal
of a drug-free society. Accept that drug use is here to stay, and
that we have no choice but to learn to live with drugs so they cause
the least possible harm and the greatest possible benefit.

More specifically, I’m recommending:

* that responsible doctors be allowed and encouraged to prescribe
whatever drugs work best, notwithstanding the feared and demonized
status of some drugs in the eyes of the ignorant and the law;

* that people not be incarcerated for possessing small amounts of any
drug for personal use. But also that people who put their fellow
citizens at risk by driving while impaired be treated strictly and
punished accordingly;

* that employers reject drug-testing programs that reveal little about
whether people are impaired in the workplace but much about what they
may have consumed over the weekend;

* that those who sell drugs to other adults not be treated by our
criminal laws as the moral equivalents of violent and other predatory
criminals;

* that marijuana be decriminalized, taxed and regulated, even as we
step up our efforts to provide honest and effective drug education
rather than feel-good programs like DARE;

* that top priority be given to public health policies proved to
reduce the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with
injection drug use and heroin addiction–in other words, expanded
methadone maintenance treatment, heroin maintenance trials, ready
access to sterile syringes and other harm-reduction policies that have
proved effective abroad and that can work just as well here.

These beliefs, these statements of principles and objectives,
represent a call for a fundamentally different drug policy. It’s not
legalization, but it’s also not simply a matter of spending more on
treatment and prevention and less on interdiction and
enforcement.

Some call it “harm reduction”–an approach that aims to reduce the
negative consequences of both drug use and drug prohibition,
acknowledging that both will likely persist for the foreseeable future.

Most “drug legalizers” aren’t really drug legalizers at all. A
legalizer, as most Americans apparently understand the term, is
someone who believes that heroin, cocaine and most or all other drugs
should be available over the counter, like alcohol or cigarettes.

That’s not what I’m fighting for, nor is it the ultimate aim of
philanthropist and financier George Soros, who has played a leading
role in funding drug policy reform efforts. Nor is it the aim of the
great majority of people who devote their time, money and energies to
ending the drug war.

This is not to say there is no such thing as a “legalizer.” Milton
Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, and Thomas Szasz, the
famed libertarian psychiatrist, have argued that total drug
legalization is the only rational and ethical way to deal with drugs
in our society. Most libertarians and many others agree with them.
Szasz and others have even opposed the medical marijuana ballot
initiatives, arguing that they retard the repeal of drug
prohibition.

Friedman, Szasz and I agree on many points, among them that U.S. drug
prohibition, like alcohol Prohibition decades ago, generates
extraordinary harms. It, not drugs per se, is responsible for
creating vast underground markets, criminalizing millions of otherwise
law-abiding citizens, corrupting both governments and societies at
large, empowering organized criminals, increasing predatory crime,
spreading disease, curtailing personal freedom, disparaging science
and honest inquiry and legitimizing public policies that are both
extraordinary and insidious in their racially disproportionate
consequences.

But I’m not ready to advocate for over-the-counter sale of heroin and
cocaine, and not just because that’s not a politically palatable
argument in 1999. I’m not convinced that outright legalization is the
optimal alternative.

The fact is, there is no drug legalization movement in America. What
there is a nascent political and social movement for drug policy
reform. It consists of the growing number of citizens who have been
victimized, in one way or another, by the drug war, and who now
believe that our current drug policies are doing more harm than good.

Most members of this “movement” barely perceive themselves as such, in
part because their horizons only extend to one or two domains in which
the harms of the drug war are readily apparent to them.

It might be the judge who is required by inflexible, mandatory minimum
sentencing laws to send a drug addict, or small-time dealer, or
dealer’s girlfriend, or Third World drug courier, to prison for longer
than many rapists and murderers serve. Or it might be the corrections
officer who recalls the days when prisons housed “real” criminals, not
the petty, nonviolent offenders who fill jails and prisons these days.
Or the addict in recovery–employed, law-abiding, a worthy citizen in
every respect–who must travel 50 or 100 miles each day to pick up her
methadone, i.e., her medicine, because current laws do not allow
methadone prescriptions to be filled at a local pharmacy.

Or the nurse in the oncology or AIDS unit obliged to look the other
way while a patient wracked with pain or nausea smokes her forbidden
medicine. Both know, from their own experience, that smoked marijuana
works better than anything else for many sick people.

Or the teacher or counselor warned by school authorities not to speak
so frankly about drug use with his students lest he violate federal
regulations prohibiting anything other than “just say no” bromides.

Or the doctor who fears to prescribe medically appropriate doses of
opiate analgesics to a patient in pain because any variations from the
norm bring unfriendly scrutiny from government agents and state
medical boards.

Or the employee with an outstanding record who fails a drug test on
Monday morning because she shared a joint with her husband over the
weekend–and is fired. Or the struggling farmer in North Dakota who
wonders why farmers in Canada and dozens of other countries can plant
hemp, but he cannot. Or the political conservative who abhors the
extraordinary powers of police and prosecutors to seize private
property from citizens who have not been convicted of violating any
laws and who worries about the corruption inherent in letting law
enforcement agencies keep what they seize.

Or the African American citizen repeatedly stopped by police for
“driving while black” or even “walking while black,” never mind
“running while black.”

Some are victims of the drug war, and some are drug policy reformers,
but most of them don’t know it yet. The ones who know they’re drug
policy reformers are the ones who connect the dots–the ones who see
and understand the panoply of ways in which our prohibitionist
policies are doing more harm than good.

We may not agree on which aspect of prohibition is most
pernicious–the generation of crime, the corruption, the underground
market, the spread of disease, the loss of freedom, the burgeoning
prisons or the lies and hypocrisies, and we certainly don’t agree on
the optimal solutions, but we all regard our current policy of
punitive drug prohibition as a fundamental evil both within our
borders and beyond.

Most drug policy reformers I know don’t want crack or methamphetamine
sold in 7-Elevens–to quote one of the more pernicious accusations
hurled by federal drug czar Barry McCaffrey. What we’re talking about
is a new approach grounded not in the fear, ignorance, prejudice and
vested pecuniary and institutional interests that drive current
policies, but rather one grounded in common sense, science, public
health and human rights.

That’s true drug policy reform.

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Bravo to the Times for printing Ethan Nadelmann’s fine Op-Ed (Sunday,
19 September) “Perspective On Legalizing Drugs.”

As other more prominent headlines point to police corruption, I hope
readers see the connection between the LAPD scandal and Nadelmann’s
insights. It is, after all, drug money that fuels the gangs, and the
drug war that corrupts the police. Los Angeles is far from the first
city to have such a scandal.

But the last great corruption scandal for the LA police was in 1933,
during that prohibition. By 1931 it was an accepted fact that the
upper and middle classes were drinking in large numbers in quite frank
disregard of the declared policy of the Volstead Act. Have we learned
nothing from history?

Just as then, today a growing number of citizens are recognizing the
errors of the current enforcement based prohibition – and the damage
being done. As then, today the people are well ahead of the our
elected officials in saying “There must be a better way.”

Politicians shouting “legalizer” does not make it so.

Richard Lake

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999
Subject: “The Nation” Magazine Devotes Issue To Drug Policy Reform

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 125 September 15, 1999

“The Nation” Magazine Devotes Issue to Drug Policy
Reform

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*************************

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 125 September 15, 1999

“The Nation” Magazine Devotes Issue to Drug Policy
Reform

This week’s issue of The Nation features a number of articles on drug
policy reform. Activists will find many ideas to support, while they
may also find a few ideas they would like to challenge. Either way we
need to let editors at the publication know that we appreciate the
broad coverage offered on these important issues.

Several of the articles are now available at the MAP archives. Use the
links below to read some or all of the articles. Then please write a
letter to The Nation generally thanking them for shining a spotlight
on reform issues. Feel free to praise any articles you found
particularly good, or to criticize any articles you feel were off base.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

Don’t Think About it – Just DO It! You CAN Make a
Difference

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

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 MAPTalk
list 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: Nation, The (US)

Contact: [email protected]

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

Pubdate: 20 Sep 1999
Source: Nation, The (US)
Copyright: 1999, The Nation Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.thenation.com/
Note: This list should make finding the articles in our archives easier.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n963.a03.html

THE NATION – SPECIAL ISSUE “BEYOND LEGALIZATION – NEW IDEAS FOR ENDING THE
DRUG WAR”

Editorial: Beyond the Drug War

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n954.a12.html
——-

It’s Time for Realism Michael Massing

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n957.a01.html
——–

Life of a Scandal Peter Kornbluh

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n958.a04.html
——-

Perils of Prohibition Mike Gray

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n958.a03.html
——-

Yes, Treatment, But…
Elliott Currie

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n955.a03.html

——-

Michael Massing Responds

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n955.a02.html

——

An Old City Seeks A New Model –
Baltimore Moves Toward “Medicalization”
Joshua Wolf Shenk

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n957.a02.html
——-

Does Europe Do It Better? Lessons From Holland, Britain and
Switzerland Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n955.a01.html

—–

George Soros’s Long Strange Trip A Philanthropist Defies Drug War
Orthodoxy Russ Baker (posted in two parts)

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n959.a11.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n962.a06.html

——

Marijuana Made Easy Armies of Experts Sell a Little White Pill Cynthia
Cotts

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n962.a05.html

——

The Road to Reform Activists Need Fresh Strategies to Win Carol A.
Bergman

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n958.a05.html

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Dear Editor,

Hearty congratulations for your in depth coverage of the debate on our
failed drug war. An open dialogue on alternatives to this wretched
policy is precisely what is needed to move us back in the direction of
a sane drug policy.

I was very surprised, however, that your articles completely missed
mentioning two of the deepest, most popular, and most informative web
sites on drug policy available on the web.

http://www.drugsense.org/

The DrugSense web site, offers a vast array of information and what
may be the most informative weekly newsletter and news synopsis on
drug policy developments in the world.

http://www.mapinc.org/

The Media Awareness Project (MAP) web site also offers a huge
information database including more than 25,000 news articles on drug
policy from all over the world all completely searchable on any
subject in seconds. It also offers an archive of more than 2,000
published letters to the editor and opeds on drug policy.

Missing these sites when writing about drug policy was tantamount to
writing about book sales on the Internet and not mentioning Amazon.com

Mark Greer
Executive Director
DrugSense (MAP Inc.)

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999
Subject: Florida Plan Gives Money To Drug Warriors And Takes Rights From Citizens

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 124 September 8, 1999

Florida Plan Gives Money to Drug Warriors and Takes Rights from Citizens

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 124 September 8, 1999

Florida Plan Gives Money to Drug Warriors and Takes Rights from Citizens

Despite the refreshing voice of New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson,
other state governors remain unwilling to retreat at all on the drug
war. In Florida, a major escalation appears to be in the works. That’s
right, from the same people who can’t understand why mutant
dope-killing fungus is a risky proposition comes a plan to spend half
a billion dollars on drug control in the state next year.

The windfall will be divided among the special interest groups that
tend to benefit most from the drug war. According to the Miami Herald
: “The crusade will include a massive increase in drug-treatment beds,
more specialized drug courts, more prosecutors, better security at
airports and seaports and a renewed emphasis on the need for parents
to talk to their kids about the dangers of drugs.”

While the profiteers dance in the street, the people of Florida have
much to fear from this plan. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is proposing to
take away the right of defendants in drug cases to depose police
officers before trial. Defense lawyers in the state worry this will
bring more weak cases to trial. Please write a letter to the Miami
Herald or other Florida newspapers to suggest that the “drug experts”
who are embracing this plan need to look beyond their own desires, and
that Florida residents need to stand up for themselves before another
one of their basic rights disappears.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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 MAPTalk
list 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: Miami Herald (FL)
Contact: [email protected]

Extra credit

Write to other Florida newspapers to protest this plan

To find other Email addresses for other Florida newspapers search
at:

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

***

Pubdate: Thu, 2 Sep 1999
Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Copyright: 1999 The Miami Herald
Page: 1 – Front Page
Contact: [email protected]
Address: One Herald Plaza, Miami FL 33132-1693
Fax: (305) 376-8950
Website: http://www.herald.com/
Forum: http://krwebx.infi.net/webxmulti/cgi-bin/WebX?mherald
Author: Steve Bousquet, Capital Bureau Chief

Bush vows new assault on drugs

Ambitious Florida goals revealed

TALLAHASSEE — Saying drugs ”poison our community,” Gov. Jeb Bush
promised Wednesday to spend a half-billion dollars next year with the
goal of reducing drug use by 50 percent over five years in Florida —
an ambitious goal in a place known worldwide as a magnet for illegal
drugs.

Speaking to a statewide conference of alcohol and drug abuse experts
in Orlando, Bush said the state will embark on a two-part strategy of
punishment and treatment, while streamlining the state’s cannibalized
and disconnected anti-drug efforts.

The crusade will include a massive increase in drug-treatment beds,
more specialized drug courts, more prosecutors, better security at
airports and seaports and a renewed emphasis on the need for parents
to talk to their kids about the dangers of drugs. The Bush plan would
attack drug use in all its guises — from pot plants growing in the
Keys to cocaine being smuggled through Miami International Airport
cargo holds to suburban teens snorting it.

”When people sell drugs and poison our community, they should be
punished, but we also need to expand treatment,” Bush said before his
speech to the Florida Alcohol & Drug Abuse Association. ”We’ve kind
of gone back and forth on one side or the other, but it’s clear we
need to do both.”

Jim McDonough, Bush’s drug policy coordinator, who worked in the White
House drug control office before joining the state administration,
said he would also push for more U.S. Customs agents in South Florida.

”We have to bring down the demand and bring down the supply,” he
said.

McDonough cited recent revelations of rampant drug trafficking at
Miami International Airport as the latest example of the ”cavalier,
casual” attitude toward illegal drugs in Florida.

”It’s atrocious. It’s a wink and a nod, and here come the drugs,”
McDonough said. ”That’s the kind of stuff that kills people.”

Florida’s rate of drug use — about 8 percent of the population — is
much higher than the national average of 6.2 percent, McDonough said.
Nearly two-thirds of all cocaine seized in the U.S. last year came to
Florida, a year in which the state also experienced a 51 percent
increase in heroin-related deaths.

He called it a troubling result of the state’s mobile, transient
population and laid-back atmosphere.

Bush will formally unveil his anti-drug strategy on Sept. 10. An
estimated $360 million in the first year of the program will come from
the state, with the rest coming from the federal government — though
none of it is new money.

The state is coordinating anti-drug programs now scattered through
various state agencies — like health and corrections departments and
the Department of Law Enforcement. But even that step is a novel
approach, officials say.

About 60 percent of the money would be spent on education and
prevention, said Tim Bottcher, spokesman for the six-person drug
policy office, a branch of the governor’s office. The rest, he said,
will go to law enforcement.

Expert approves

A Miami-Dade drug treatment expert welcomes Bush’s promise to add more
than 9,000 new drug-treatment beds.

”There is a tremendous shortage of beds,” said Dr. Moraima Trujillo,
chief of general psychiatry at Veterans Administrators Hospital, who
specializes in substance abuse and serves as the medical director at
several Miami-Dade rehab and detox centers. ”Outpatient treatment is
not the answer. Patients need to be removed from their environment in
order to truly be helped. It’s a major problem. At the centers where I
work, patients are constantly being pushed out the door. There are
never enough beds to keep them.”

”If the governor is able to pull this off, I think it would be a
tremendous help to the community,” Trujillo said. ”If you eliminate
the bottom of the pyramid, which are the users, you will be
eliminating the market for the pushers. And it’s the community at
large that’s suffering. They are the ones being hit by drunk or
drugged drivers.”

Controversial point

One aspect of Bush’s anti-drug program is sure to be controversial
among civil libertarians and some legal experts: The governor is
proposing to take away the right of defendants in drug cases to depose
police officers before trial. Bush said that would stop police from
spending ”All their time in depositions when they’re trying to
apprehend the major drug dealers.”

Miami defense lawyer Chris Mancini said eliminating pretrial
depositions is ”a terrible idea,” because the investigative legwork
turns up examples of sloppy police work that save prosecutors from
taking weak cases to trial.

”Anybody who’s been in the system for a long time, other than a
politician like Jeb Bush, understands depositions actually work to
everyone’s benefit,” Mancini said. ”I don’t know who they’re
pandering to.”

Bush also proposes tax breaks for companies that submit their
employees to random drug testing.

In renewing the war on drugs, Bush also is confronting the post-baby
boom culture that generally takes a so-what attitude toward alcohol
and marijuana.

Questionable goals

Dr. Andres Fernandez, medical director at Center Intake Unit, a Miami
drug rehab center, said Bush’s goals were admirable — but
questionable.

”I think that if the government increased the number of beds and at
the same time increased the amount of drug education given to young
people, and if we controled the drugs coming into Florida, the
governor could do it in five years. But that’s a whole lot of ifs,”
Fernandez said.

Even some drug experts who heard Bush’s talk were skeptical of his
lofty goals.

Asia Eichmiller, a drug counselor at Brevard Correctional Institution,
said reducing drug use by 50 percent is unrealistic. ”It’s very
entrenched in our culture,” Eichmiller said.

But Kerry Wilensky, a drug treatment expert in Clermont, applauded the
shift in focus away from purely punishment to prevention.

”Traditionally, we’ve had too much emphasis on interdiction instead
of prevention,” Wilensky said. ”As long as there is no demand, there
is no supply.”

Police applaud

Some local law enforcement experts applauded Bush’s commitment to
fighting drug abuse.

Danny Wright of the Broward Sheriff’s Office, who serves as chief of
the Pompano Beach police, called Bush’s target of a 50 percent
reduction in drug use ”a reachable goal.” He cited two key factors:
constant drug-abuse awareness efforts in public schools and pressing
apartment owners to write leases threatening immediate eviction for
drug-dealing tenants.

”At one time, we were only doing enforcement. The education and
prevention mechanisms were missing. But it’s changing,” said Wright,
who is organizing a drug summit Oct. 16 at Ely High School in Pompano
Beach.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Governor Bush’s “ambitious” plan to cut drug use by 50 percent over
five years could be laughed off if it didn’t present such a terrible
threat to the people of Florida. It’s funny because every couple years
federal legislators have mandated similar reductions with great
fanfare, fanfare that is nowhere to be found when the plans fail
miserably to meet stated goals. But, the latest plan is also deadly
serious. Like the idea to test plant-killing fungus within the
Sunshine State, the new plan shows Florida officials are so eager to
display their intolerance of drugs they are willing to risk the safety
of residents in the process.

This time anti-drug bureaucrats want the people of Florida to give up
their right to depose police officers before trial should they be
accused of a drug crime. Defense lawyers have said this will mean more
weak cases will go to trial, instead of being thrown out before trial.
People who stay away from illegal drugs probably feel they have
nothing to fear from this provision. However, with more money being
spread around the state for more drug law enforcement, every citizen
has a great deal to fear. State anti-drug officials will want to see
results from increased law enforcement budgets, which means more
arrests. So when the police are having a slow day, they are more
likely to make questionable arrests. Floridians caught in this trap
will no longer have the protection provided by pre-trial depositions.
But again, the courts and the cops look like they’re working hard,
because more cases will be flowing through the system.

But even when that happens, illegal drugs will also continue to flow
through the state. And after a while, some other politician will
suggest it’s time to get really tough before he snatches another right
from the people.

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999
Subject: LA Times: Marijuana Can’t Kill, But Marijuana Prohibition Can

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 123 August 31,1999
LA Times: Marijuana Can’t Kill, but Marijuana Prohibition Can

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 123 August 31,1999
LA Times: Marijuana Can’t Kill, but Marijuana Prohibition Can

Most drug policy reform supporters are aware marijuana has no lethal
dose. Marijuana prohibition, on the other hand, can be quite deadly. A
heartbreaking reminder came last week as the Los Angeles Times
reported on a late night “drug raid” that killed a grandfather who had
nothing to do with drugs. The police shot 65-year-old Mario Paz to
death in front of his wife. Showing great compassion for the family’s
loss, police confiscated Paz’s life savings and dragged family members
to the police station for hours of interrogation.

If there was ever a story that embodied all the horror the drug war
can unleash on innocent people, this is it. Please write a letter to
the Los Angeles Times thanking them for covering this important story,
and urging the paper’s continued pursuit of the harsh truth about drug
war injustice.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

Don’t Think About it Just DO It!

*

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 MAPTalk
list 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: Los Angeles Times (CA)

Contact: [email protected]

*

Please note: At this time, the following is the most recent coverage
in the LA Times. For other stories with different details, search
http://www.mapinc.org/search/index.htm using “Paz” as a key word.

Pubdate: Sat, 28 Aug 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: [email protected]
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
Author: Anne-Marie O’Connor, Times Staff Writer
Note: Times staff writers Peter Y. Hong and Tina Daunt contributed to this
story.

NO DRUG LINK TO FAMILY IN FATAL RAID, POLICE SAY

The El Monte Police Department has no evidence that anyone in the
family of Mario Paz–a 65-year-old man fatally shot in the back by an
El Monte officer during a search of his home Aug. 9–was involved in
drug trafficking, nor did officers when they shot their way into the
house in the nighttime raid, a senior police official said.

El Monte Assistant Police Chief Bill Ankeny said he was unsure if his
department’s narcotics unit even knew whether the family was living at
the Compton home when it was raided by the SWAT team. He said the
team of up to 20 officers–who shot the front and back doors open as
the family slept–was looking for evidence that could be used in a
case against Chino drug suspect Marcos Beltran Lizarraga, who had been
released on bail the morning of the raid.

“We didn’t have information of the Paz family being involved in
narcotics trafficking,” Ankeny said in an interview Thursday. “To my
knowledge, right now, we don’t have any information that the Paz
family was dealing in narcotics. To our knowledge they were not.”

Ankeny said El Monte police asked for the warrant to search the home
after some phone bills, Department of Motor Vehicles records and other
mail bearing the family’s address was found among Beltran’s
possessions. The family says Beltran lived next door in the 1980s and
persuaded Paz, a father of six and grandfather of 14, to let him
receive mail at the Paz home.

Paz was shot to death in the back in full view of his wife, Maria
Luisa, by an officer who entered their bedroom during the raid.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which is investigating
the killing as an officer-involved shooting, has provided three
different explanations for why Paz was shot, though sheriff’s
investigators interviewed the family and the SWAT officers intensively
after the shooting.

The first explanation, given in a statement read to the news media
until as recently as Monday, was that El Monte officers believed Paz
to be armed. The second, offered Wednesday by sheriff’s homicide
investigator Lt. Marilyn Baker, was that the officer who shot Paz
thought he saw him reaching for his gun–a suggestion hotly disputed
by the family. The current explanation, in a statement dated Thursday
at 1:30 p.m., is that Paz was shot when he began to reach for a nearby
drawer where police say they found guns.

Baker was not available Friday and could not be reached to clarify the
changes in the explanations.

Sheriff’s spokesman David Halm said he was not familiar with the
details of the probe, but “sometimes as an investigation progresses,
things are learned that differ slightly from the original
information.”

El Monte police reported finding three pistols–two of them, they say,
in a drawer on the floor near Paz–and a .22-caliber rifle in the
home. The weapons were seized as evidence. The rifle and the third
pistol were found in the corner of the bedroom, the Sheriff’s
Department bulletin said Thursday.

“I personally think that four weapons are a lot for one person to have
next to the bed,” Baker said. “If you had one, would you keep it next
to your bed? Probably. But four?”

The family said Mario Paz, who came to the United States as part of
the bracero agricultural labor program in the 1950s, kept firearms
safely stored away in a dresser drawer to protect the family in the
high-crime neighborhood. They adamantly rejected the suggestion that
he would have turned a gun on a police officer–or that their family
is anything but hard-working and law-abiding.

“My father’s name means peace, and he stood for that,” said Maria
Derain, who works for a lithographer, during a news conference at the
Paz home Friday. She said the shooting has “taken someone who was
dearest to me.”

Brian Dunn, an attorney for Johnnie L. Cochran Jr.’s firm who is
representing the family in a planned lawsuit against El Monte police,
criticized the agency for linking the family to a suspected drug trafficker.

“What the El Monte Police Department has not told you,” he said at the
news conference, “is that Mario Paz has never been suspected of
committing a criminal act.”

El Monte Assistant Chief Ankeny said the officers believed there might
be armed people at the Paz address because they had found three
high-powered rifles in a search of another home linked to Beltran.
The warrant said officers also found $75,000 and 400 pounds of
marijuana at two other homes linked to Beltran.

Ankeny said police went to the Paz home–where no drugs were
found–“in furtherance of their narcotics investigation case” against
Beltran.

“I don’t know whether they expected to find the Paz family living
there or not,” Ankeny said. “I don’t even know if they expected to
contact the family when they went in. I don’t know if [the Pazes]
were owning or renting. [The officers] were looking for evidence of
narcotics trafficking–drugs, or money from sales. But when we
search, we don’t always find what we expect.”

Ankeny said he “can’t say absolutely that the [Pazes] were not
involved in narcotics trafficking. To our knowledge they were not.
But all that has to come out with the continuing investigation.”

El Monte police also seized $10,000 in cash at the Paz home, which the
sheriff’s investigators say was taken as evidence. El Monte officers
initially said they would try to have the cash forfeited in a civil
procedure as ill-gotten gains, but Ankeny backed off from that
position late Thursday. The family has described the money as their
life savings.

“That’s usually the way it goes–[authorities] would file a civil
action to try to have the money forfeited,” Ankeny said. But “if they
can’t develop information that the proceeds of the money was [from]
narcotics trafficking, it will be given back to the family.
[Authorities are] not going to proceed unless they have evidence.”

Ankeny said he had “the greatest sympathy for the family and their
loss. Loss of life is a tragedy.”

Another officer probing the shooting, sheriff’s homicide investigator
Susan Coleman, said that the El Monte police warrant to search the
Compton home had been legally obtained and that police “made the
proper commands and announcements. It’s not out of the ordinary. You
don’t know all of the reasons they went into that house.”

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Reading the excellent reporting done by the Los Angeles Times on the
killing of Mario Paz has been a very disturbing experience. That a man
should lose his life because police want to rid world of nontoxic
plant is obscene. The circumstances surrounding this incident should
be a wake-up call to every American, even if they (like Paz) have
nothing to do with illegal drugs.

If anyone but a gang of police shot the locks off the door of a
private home, burst in, terrorized a family with paramilitary tactics,
shot the patriarch to death, took the family’s life savings, abducted
the remaining family members and held them against their will, it
would certainly be national news. Imagine the non-stop coverage and
breast-beating if high school students had committed an act half as
brutal. Legislators would be tripping over themselves to punish someone.

But, in terms of the drug war, Paz’s death and his family’s terror are
just bit more collateral damage.

If more citizens don’t express outrage over this tragedy and the whole
devastating war on drugs, they can’t expect much reaction when the
anti-drug squad kicks in their door some dark night. As the Paz story
illustrates, being innocent is no protection in such a situation.

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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999
Subject: Is Support For The War On Drugs A Brain Disease?

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 122 August 29,1999
Washington Post: Is Support For The War On Drugs A Brain Disease?

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 122 August 29,1999
Washington Post: Is Support For The War On Drugs A Brain Disease?

It has become increasingly common for commentators to admit the
punitive strategies of the war on drugs have failed. Sadly, instead of
acknowledging that a “drug-free America” is merely a fantasy of
repression, they imagine the nation can really rid itself of drugs
through treatment.

An editor at the Washington Post entered similar territory this week.
While it’s always good to hear a condemnation of law enforcement-based
drug policy, the faith that treatment will triumph over drugs raises
troubling questions. For example: Is there a distinction between
illegal “brain disease” and legal “brain disease”? If addiction is a
“brain disease,” how much tinkering are researchers willing to do on
our brains as a preventative measure? Is it more desirable to be
locked in a state prison or a state treatment facility?

Drug users who think they will benefit from treatment certainly should
get it. But the idea that drug use will simply disappear thanks to
treatment is, at the very least, naive. (For a great deal more on this
topic, see Stanton Peele’s website at http://www.peele.net and in
particular his review of the book “The Fix” at http://www.peele.net/lib/massing.html
)

Please write a letter to the Washington Post expressing encouragement
over the call to move away from punitive drug strategies, but also
expressing caution about viewing treatment as the ultimate weapon in
the drug war.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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 MAPTalk
list 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: Washington Post (DC)

Contact: Feedback:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

NOTE: there is no direct Email address for sending your letter to the
Washington Post We recommend you compose your letter off-line and
paste it into the window provided at the URL above.

*

Pubdate: Fri, 27 Aug 1999
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: Stephen S. Rosenfeld

IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO CUT OFF DRUGS

No public policy argument is so familiar and fatiguing, yet so central
and urgent, as the decades-long battle over whether to focus more on
the supply end of our illicit-drug problem or on the demand end.

I got into the issue 30 years ago partly in response to a call by
now-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), then working for President
Richard Nixon to stanch the flow of illegal drugs at the “source.” The
State Department’s traditional indifference to engagement in gritty
law enforcement seemed to Moynihan, and in turn to me, as outdated and
dangerous. He had a role in the Nixon administration’s experiment
with supply interdiction: It produced what he now acknowledges to be
“at most a brief success” in closing down the “French Connection,”
while “opium and heroin production merely moved elsewhere.”

This is pretty much the story of supply interdiction since then.
Prodigies of law enforcement are overwhelmed by the ease with which
traffickers can meet a seemingly insatiable American demand. Moynihan
confronted the political reality behind policy as a U.S. senator in
1988 while working to focus new drug legislation on users. Some 60
percent of the money was to be earmarked for demand reduction, 40 for
supply reduction.

But, Moynihan now relates, “as the bill made its way through House and
Senate deliberations and quasi-conference committee negotiations, its
emphasis shifted incrementally from demand reduction to supply
reduction and, especially, to law enforcement. I suppose this was
inevitable. Fear of crime far outstripped concern for addicts. And
just a few weeks away from the 1988 elections. . . . The deal was
a 60-40 ratio in favor of demand reduction; in the end it was the
other way around. Now the ratio is about two-to-one the other way.”

This episode and much else shaped the conclusions he presented at a
Yale conference on the century of American experience with heroin.
“While the science of drug abuse and addiction holds great therapeutic
promise,” he said, “the politics are self-defeating, punitive and
vainglorious.”

What? The science of drug abuse and addiction holds great therapeutic
promise? An emphasis on cutting down the demand for illegal drugs, on
focusing on users rather than producers and traffickers, appeals to
many of us who are frustrated by the shortfalls of law enforcement and
troubled by the foreign-policy complications of a supply-oriented
strategy. Up to now, however, there don’t appear to have been the
research breakthroughs that would make a treatment-oriented policy a
medically, economically and politically feasible alternative to
sending in the cops.

I am not a student of the science, but let me cite Moynihan and one of
his gurus:

Moynihan: “Ours surely is the great age of discovery in the field of
neuroscience. We are exploring the brain, not least with respect to the
effect of drugs. . . . I think it safe to assume that we may never win
a ‘war’ against drugs. Perhaps the closest we can come, through scientific
research, will be to identify ‘pre-exposure’ vulnerability in the
population and develop some sort of active or passive immunization. We’re
making progress. . . . Supply interdiction doesn’t work, although
absent it things could be even worse. We spend twice as much on it as we
do on biomedical research. But the latter moves.”

Alan Leshner, director, National Institute on Drug Abuse: “If we know that
criminals are drug addicted, it is no longer reasonable to simply
incarcerate them. If they have a brain disease, imprisoning them without
treatment is futile. If they are left untreated, their recidivism rates to
both crime and drug use are frighteningly high; however, if addicted
criminals are treated while in prison, both types of recidivism can be
reduced dramatically. . . .

“Understanding addiction as a brain disease explains in part why
historic policy strategies focusing solely on the social or criminal
justice aspects of drug use and addiction have been unsuccessful.
They are missing at least half of the issue. If the brain is the core
of the problem, attending to the brain needs to be a core part of the
solution.”

Moynihan: “The outcome of narcotics prohibition over the past century has
been to concentrate drug abuse and addiction principally among an urban
underclass most don’t know and for whom there is currently little public
understanding or sympathy. So Congress and the public continue to fixate
on supply interdiction and harsher sentences (without treatment) as the
‘solution’ to our drug problems, and adamantly refuse to acknowledge what
Dr. Leshner and others now know and are telling us.”

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

I read Stephen S. Rosenfeld’s comments on drug strategy with interest,
but they offered little comfort to me. While Rosenfeld is completely
correct to describe the inability of punitive policies to end drug
problems, his hope that treatment will serve as a magic bullet in the
drug war is misguided.

There’s no doubt treatment is less expensive than incarceration, and
it may be more effective in addressing drug problems, but that’s a
long stretch from being a final solution. As addiction researchers
like Stanton Peele have pointed out for years, more people end drug
use on their own than through treatment programs. And while it’s true
that the federal drug budget has favored interdiction over treatment
and prevention, the amount of money being spent on treatment has still
risen dramatically in recent years.

Rosenfeld and others may see treatment research only in a positive
context, but there can be a dark side. Let us not forget that
psychiatry was used as a weapon against those who disagreed with state
policies in the former Soviet Union. Will it also be used against
those who don’t respect the U.S. government determinations about which
drugs are “good” (like alcohol) and which drugs are “bad” (like marijuana)?

Rosenfeld quotes NIDA director Alan Leshner’s statements about “brain
disease” being at the root of drug use. Perhaps Leshner would be
better serving the nation by looking into the possibility that “brain
disease” among legislators is responsible for so many years of
punitive anti-drug policies. These policies have caused more damage
than drugs themselves. If science can make such politicians act more
responsibly, I’d have a lot more faith in its ability to solve all
other drug problems.

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999
Subject: G.W. Bush’s Problem Represents Opportunity For Reformers

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #121 August 24. 1999

Bush’s Problem Represents Opportunity for Reformers

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #121 August 24. 1999 Bush’s Problem Represents
Opportunity for Reformers

U.S. presidential candidate George W. Bush has been taking heat from
the press in recent days over his refusal to flatly confirm or deny
whether he has ever used illegal drugs. Whether individual reformers
support Bush or another candidate in the presidential race, this issue
offers a great opportunity for us to get our message out.

With the Bush controversy, we can play both sides of the field.
Reformers have a chance to promote drug law change regardless of how
someone suggests Bush should respond.

When someone says Bush should just admit the truth, we can agree and
point out:

1. Bush’s hypocrisy for supporting zero tolerance for everyone else
even though it appears he was fortunate enough to avoid serious punishment.

2. The fact that drug use is overblown as a personal failing – here is
this guy who allegedly did use illegal drugs, but not only is he a
popular governor, he’s running for president.

When other people say Bush should refuse to elaborate, we can agree
and say:

1. Drug use is a personal matter, while noting that it’s a shame GWB
doesn’t hold that standard for everyone else.

2. The consequences for drug use allegations are too severe, and while
taking a lot of heat from the press is hardly equal to having property
confiscated, as a country we really need to analyze our priorities and
criteria for judging other people.

Whatever position someone takes, we can suggest they are correct and
that they must agree drug policy reform is in order. On the other
hand, the professional drug warriors (with the exception of Bush’s
presidential opponents) have been wise to stay fairly quiet on this
issue, since the whole episode illustrates the complete moral and
intellectual bankruptcy of American drug policy.

The story has been covered everywhere, so we have a wide variety of
targets. Please write a letter to your local newspaper or any of
several newspapers across the nation to show that any way you slice
the Bush-drug question, it’s a wake-up call for drug policy reform.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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 MAPTalk
list 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

We are doing this Focus Alert a bit differently. There are a wide
assortment of articles on the Bush dilemma (57 at this writing).Pick
any you like they have all been sorted for you at:

http://www.mapinc.org/bush.htm

Then write an LTE to that paper using the Email address provided on
the article.

Alternately since nearly every newspaper in the country has done at
least one article on this topic you can look up your local or favorite
papers Email address(es) at our media Email web page

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

then send your letter to as many as you like.

NOTE: If sending your LTE to multiple papers send a separate copy to
each one. CC’s or BCC’s are not looked on with favor in the print
media and you will lower your chances of publication significantly if
you fail to follow this procedure.

SAMPLE LETTER

Due to the diverse ways to approach this topic we decided to leave
this Focus Alert wide open without a sample LTE and let your
imagination be your guide as to what you want to cover.

Here we have posted some ideas (Duplicates of the ones
above)

When someone says Bush should just admit the truth, we can agree and
point out:

1. Bush’s hypocrisy for supporting zero tolerance for everyone else
even though it appears he was fortunate enough to avoid serious punishment.

2. The fact that drug use is overblown as a personal failing – here is
this guy who allegedly did use illegal drugs, but not only is he a
popular governor, he’s running for president.

When other people say Bush should refuse to elaborate, we can agree
and say:

1. Drug use is a personal matter, while noting that it’s a shame GWB
doesn’t hold that standard for everyone else.

2. The consequences for drug use allegations are too severe, and while
taking a lot of heat from the press is hardly equal to having property
confiscated, as a country we really need to analyze our priorities and
criteria for judging other people.

Whatever position someone takes, we can suggest they are correct and
that they must agree drug policy reform is in order. On the other
hand, the professional drug warriors (with the exception of Bush’s
presidential opponents) have been wise to stay fairly quiet on this
issue, since the whole episode illustrates the complete moral and
intellectual bankruptcy of American drug policy.

The story has been covered everywhere, so we have a wide variety of
targets. Please write a letter to your local newspaper or any of
several newspapers across the nation to show that any way you slice
the Bush-drug question, it’s a wake-up call for drug policy reform.

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

—————————————————————————-

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999
Subject: New Mexico Governor Stands By Call For Drug Reform

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #120 August 18, 1999

New Mexico Governor Stands By Call For Drug Reform
A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN THE MAKING?

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL
ADDRESS PLEASE SEE THE INFORMATION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS FOCUS ALERT

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #120 August 18, 1999

New Mexico Governor Stands By Call For Drug Reform
A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN THE MAKING?

Last month, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson surprised many around the
country by suggesting that it is time for the nation to reevaluate its
drug policies. He raised the possibility of decriminalizing drugs.
Naturally he found little immediate support from mainstream
politicians, Republican or Democrat.

Since he first made his statements the press seems to be growing more
interested, especially as it appears Johnson has no plans to back away
from his position. Last week, the AP placed a story on the wires about
Johnson; this week he appeared on MSNBC and the Albuquerque Tribune
offered a respectful profile (below).

Please write a letter to the Tribune, other New Mexico papers, or your
own local newspaper to show support for Johnson’s brave common sense
and to encourage other politicians to come out of the closet regarding
the need for reform.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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 MAPTalk
list 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 Tribune (NM)
Contact: [email protected]

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

EXTRA CREDIT #1

Write other New Mexico newspapers, or your own local newspapers to
express appreciation for Johnson’s stand and to remind other
high-level politicians that the ice has been broken and it’s time for
them to join a serious debate.

NOTE: All NM papers have carried stories about Gov. Johnson’s courageous stand.
To review any or all of the recent articles and/or published LTEs on Governor
Johnson See:
http://www.mapinc.org/johnson.htm

Some other New Mexico newspapers:

[email protected] (Albuquerque Journal)

[email protected] (Las Cruces Sun-News)

To find other email addresses for other newspapers search
at:

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

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

EXTRA CREDIT #2

Governor Johnson is undoubtedly taking some tremendous heat from drug
warriors for his courageous stand. He is the highest profile
politician in the nation calling for a national debate on drug policy.
He needs PLENTY of encouragement.

Please consider calling his office to voice your opinion or faxing a
copy of your letter to him.

CALL GOVERNOR JOHNSON’S OFFICE (505) 827 3000

FAX GOVERNOR JOHNSON (505) 827 3026

NOTE Gov. Johnson’s home web page can be viewed at
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/

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

Pubdate: Tue, 17 Aug 1999
Source: Albuquerque Tribune (NM)
Copyright: 1999 The Albuquerque Tribune.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.abqtrib.com/
Author: Ollie Reed Jr., Tribune reporter

NEW MEXICO GOV JOHNSON TODAY

Governor in spotlight, but he’s on stage alone Drug-use, voucher
issues get Gary Johnson national media attention but little political
support.

Gov. Gary Johnson — grim-faced and intent, jaw muscles tensed —
leaned slightly forward in the chair in KOB-TV’s Albuquerque studio
and stared at the television monitor a few feet away.

The governor was zeroed in on the Monday morning edition of “Hot
Wire,” a national MSNBC cable news program. In just minutes, he would
appear on the show live to talk about his controversial call for
national consideration of decriminalizing marijuana use.

In the background, KOB newsroom personnel quietly went about Monday
morning’s business. And just across the room, a couple of the
governor’s aids chatted with each other and with reporters, trying not
to sound apprehensive about the fast-approaching interview.

But the governor was alone in front of the monitor, watching MSNBC
staffers do stories on students returning to Colorado’s Columbine High
School as he awaited his turn in the spotlight.

Alone is a feeling he’s becoming accustomed to. And it’s a condition
the “Hot Wire” anchor alluded to as he introduced Johnson.

“The Republican governor says too much money is being spent to fight a
war that the country is losing. And he says the answer may lie in
decriminalizing drugs, and that stand has him at odds with fellow
Republicans.”

Ten minutes later, after the interview, after Johnson had told a
national television audience he doesn’t believe people should go to
jail for using marijuana, the governor conceded he is breaking new
political ground and exploring possibilities others fear to tackle.

“I feel out on a limb,” the governor said. “I think this is something
that needs to be said and no one else is saying it.”

In recent months, the governor’s positions on drugs and on school
vouchers have made him something of a hot topic in the media.

In April, The Economist, a respected magazine of ideas and opinions,
did a piece about Johnson and school vouchers that the magazine titled
“America’s Boldest Governor.”

He has been interviewed by the Dallas Morning News, discussed in Wall
Street Journal editorials and is expecting a visit today from The New
York Times.

Johnson said he believes there isn’t another governor, member of the
U.S. House of Representatives or a U.S. senator talking about
decriminalizing drug use as a way to refocus the war against illegal
drugs.

Certainly, he said, he has received no support from any high-profile
political figures.

But that didn’t keep Johnson from coming out swinging in Monday’s TV
interview, a session he started by asking a question himself.

“How much money does our government spend each year on incarceration,
on enforcements and on courts?” he asked.

The anchor didn’t know, but the governor thought he
did.

“Well, we’re spending about $50 billion a year,” he said, “and I would
argue that about half the resources that we spend when it comes to
incarcerations, enforcements and courts are spent on illegal
drug-related crime.”

Before the anchor could jump in, Johnson hastened to point out he was
not condoning drug use just because he thought money used to enforce
drug-use laws could be better spent in other ways.

“Drugs are an incredibly bad choice,” the governor said. “Don’t do
drugs.”

The anchor acknowledged that Johnson, a nationally ranked triathlete,
abstains from drugs and alcohol now, but he asked the governor if it
were true that he had admitted smoking marijuana while in college and
using cocaine about three times.

“Right,” said Johnson, who disclosed his past drug use during the 1994
campaign before he was first elected governor.

But then he muddied the answer by adding, “That’s my point. We’re
doing drugs. Under the right set of circumstances . . . I, along
with tens of millions of others — we’re behind bars.”

Later, Johnson spokeswoman Diane Kinderwater said the governor did not
mean he was still using drugs or that he had ever been in jail for
using them.

She said Johnson simply meant that if everyone who ever used illegal
drugs had been imprisoned, there would be millions and millions of
people behind bars.

Still, Johnson told the television audience that some 700,000 people
had been arrested in this country on marijuana-related charges, and he
thinks that’s a waste of law-enforcement energies and public money.

“We are sending people to jail today for selling even small amounts of
drugs, including marijuana,” he said.

After Monday’s interview, the governor said the public would be better
served if some portion of the billions spent fighting drugs was used
for programs to prevent drug use or to help people kick the drug habit.

He added the money could be used to fund a strong anti-drug
advertising campaign.

The governor, who is planning forums on drug-use policy later this
summer, admitted that a lot of fellow Republicans disagree with his
views on drugs, but he said a lot of them are willing to talk about
the issue.

John Dendahl, chairman of New Mexico’s Republican Party, supported
that assessment.

“In the main, the governor is getting a fair hearing,” Dendahl said.
“There are some people coming out of the woodwork in support of
decriminalization. He’s getting kudos from them — and some of them
are Republicans.”

Dendahl, who did not see the governor’s TV interview on Monday, said
the state’s Republican executive committee did send a letter to the
governor opposing decriminalization just to make sure that Johnson’s
stand was not the last word on drug enforcement or decriminalization
in New Mexico.

Johnson said he’s not worried about what his views on
decriminalization might do to his political future in New Mexico,
because he’s not planning one.

“There is no future,” the two-term governor said. “This is it. This
is the last public office I’m going to hold.

“And I’m raising the issues that need to be raised. This is good
politics. This is the job I was hired to do.”

The governor said that if nothing else, his stand has pushed the issue
of decriminalizing drug use into the national forum.

“I am hearing a lot of support from the media,” he said. “This is an
excuse for the media to write about something that needs writing about.”

One thing is for sure: The governor of New Mexico is being taken more
seriously now than he was on his only other appearance on MSNBC.

That was in July 1997 in Roswell, and the subject was the supposed
crash 50 years earlier of an alien spacecraft in New Mexico.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Governor Gary Johnson is right to provoke a debate on drug policies in
America. By consistently taking a punitive approach to illegal drug
use we have aggravated problems, not relieved them.

Johnson feels free to acknowledge this fact, perhaps because he
doesn’t plan to run for office again. If other politicians were more
honest, they would admit the same thing. Certainly they have enough
information to understand that the whole war on drugs has been an
exercise in failure, with drugs and their sellers gaining power, while
individual Americans have been losing their civil liberties. Most
politicians pretend not to understand the real issues in the way
Johnson understands them because they see such a discussion as risky.
However, the risk the drug war poses to the country is much greater
than the value of any single politician’s career. And I suspect as
more politicians offer views like Johnson, they will find broad
support among the public.

Sooner or later we must turn away from zero-tolerance, tough-on-drugs
policies. I hope it happens before we approach the level of complete
self-destruction. Thanks to truly brave leaders like Governor Johnson,
we at least have a chance of making the change sooner rather than later.

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 resources to help you in your letter writing efforts:

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

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