• Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    What are clinical trials?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 5-28-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 5-28-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3403

    Question of the Week: What are Clinical Trials?

    Wikipedia defines clinical trials as,

    “a set of procedures in medical research conducted to allow safety and efficacy data to be collected for health interventions such as drugs, diagnostics, devices, and therapy protocols.”

    Clinical trials in the United States begin with the Food and Drug Administration or FDA that

    “regulates both the safety and effectiveness of prescription pharmaceuticals and certain medical devices.”

    The National Bureau of Economic Research overviews this process that,

    “begins when a firm files an Investigational New Drug [IND] application, which requests permission from the FDA to conduct clinical trials on humans … Once the FDA gives its approval, the firm may begin conducting clinical trials for the drug, which proceed in three phases.”

    “The goal of Phase I is to evaluate the drug’s safety and to obtain data on its pharmacologic properties. Typically, phase I trials enroll small numbers of healthy volunteers. Phase II trials then enroll slightly larger numbers of sick volunteers. The goal of these trials is to begin investigating a drug’s efficacy and optimal dosage, and to monitor the drug’s safety in diseased patents. Finally, Phase III testing typically involves larger numbers of sick patients and is the most costly stage of the approval process. Phase III testing seeks to establish more definitively the efficacy of a drug, as well as to discover any rare side effects. Upon the completion of Phase III testing, the firm submits a New Drug Application to the FDA, which is accompanied by the results of the clinical trials. The FDA may then reject the application, require further clinical testing, or approve the drug outright.”

    These facts and others like them can be found Regulation of Prescription Drugs section of the United States Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

     

  • Drug Policy

    Insite’s Fate And A History Of Safe Injection Sites

    This explainer provides an overview and background information about Insite, North America’s only supervised injection site for drug users. It is the subject of a May 2011 Supreme Court of Canada hearing that will determine the future of the operation. This post will be updated as new information becomes available.

  • Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net

    VANDU v. AG Canada – Insite Case

    On May 12, 2011 an historic case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. As many of you know, Canada permitted the operation of a “safer injection site” for those using unlawful injection drugs under
    supervision. This facility, which is known as “Insite” was originally a scientific experiment permitted pursuant to section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Harper Conservative government declined to allow Insite to continue to operate after the initial exemption ran out despite overwhelming evidence that it
    reduces overdose, saves lives, reduces unsafe injection practices and a host of other good results. Accordingly various people and organizations went to court.

    The battle was won at trial, won again on appeal and now heads to Canada’s highest Court. There are a number of arguments being advanced including that it is drug prohibition itself that causes the most harm to those dealing with the disease of addiction and that, therefore, the prohibition laws violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are invalid.

    You can watch the arguments live, commencing at 9:30am EST, streamed over the web:

    http://scc-csc.insinc.com/web/scc_live_stream.php?lan=EN&resolution=HI

    Please see the Supreme Court of Canada website for more information about the case:

    http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=33556.

    Kirk Tousaw
    Executive Director
    Beyond Prohibition Foundation
    www.whyprohibition.ca

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Is Asset Forfeiture taxation?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 4-20-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 4-20-11.  http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3355.

    Question of the Week: Is Asset Forfeiture taxation?

    According to the U.S. Justice Department,

    “Civil forfeiture is a proceeding brought against the property rather than against the person who committed the offense. Civil forfeiture does not require either criminal charges against the owner of the property or a criminal conviction.”

    “…forfeiture can be used to seize and forfeit the following:
    • any amount of currency;
    • personal property valued at $500,000 or less, including cars, guns, and boats;
    • hauling conveyances of unlimited value.

    Real property cannot be forfeited administratively.”

    In 2009, U.S. Attorneys seized over one billion dollars in assets, roughly four times more than in 1989. During that 21 year span, the value of forfeited assets totaled 11 billion dollars, five billion short of the 2011 federal drug control budget.

    The Justice Department readily admits that,

    “… civil forfeiture expanded greatly during the early 1980s as governments at all levels stepped up the war on drugs.”

    The department goes on to claim,

    “… asset forfeiture can assist in the budgeting realm by helping to offset the costs associated with fighting crime. Doing what it takes to undermine the illicit drug trade is expensive and time-consuming. Forfeiture can help agencies target these difficult problems, sometimes without the need to seek additional outside resources to offset their costs.”

    In its 2010 report, the Institute for Justice called asset forfeiture

    “… legal fiction that enables law enforcement to take legal action against inanimate objects for participation in alleged criminal activity, regardless of whether the property owner is guilty or innocent—or even whether the owner is charged with a crime.”

    I have to ask, is asset forfeiture for merely alleged drug crimes taxation without representation?

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Asset Forfeiture Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Do drug courts work?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 4-12-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 4-12-11.  http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3343.

    Question of the Week: Do drug courts work?

    A new report called “Drug Courts Are Not the Answer” from the Drug Policy Alliance defines drug courts as,

    “an application of therapeutic jurisprudence theories in which the judge does not ask whether the state has proven that a crime has been committed but instead whether the court can help to heal a perceived pathology.”

    The report goes on to say,

    “The judge is the ultimate arbiter of treatment and punishment decisions and holds a range of discretion unprecedented in the courtroom … The defense lawyer, no longer an advocate for the participant’s rights, assists the participant to comply with court rules.”

    The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers asserts,

    “Under the traditional drug court model, an individual must waive significant rights when entering drug court.”

    “Most drug courts require a guilty plea as the price of admission.”

    While drug courts have been praised for reducing recidivism and yielding positive cost/benefit ratios, the Congressional Research Service found,

    “Drug court evaluations have been widely criticized for methodological weaknesses and data inconsistencies. … the majority of drug court program evaluations (1) have either no comparison group or a biased comparison group, … (2) report outcomes only for participants who complete the program, … and (3) use flawed data-collection methods, such as drug court participants’ self-reported surveys.”

    District Judge Morris B. Hoffman concluded in the North Carolina Law Review,

    “… drug courts are not satisfying either the legitimate and compassionate interests of the treatment community or the legitimate and rational interests of the law enforcement community. They are, instead, simply enabling our continued national schizophrenia about drugs.”

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Drug Court Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Drug Policy

    Obama’s Facebook Forum Fails to Silence Marijuana Legalization Advocates

    By Scott Morgan, Associate Editor, StoptheDrugWar.org

    In an apparent effort to prevent marijuana legalization from again dominating the discussion, Obama’s next online townhall event will not allow participants to vote on their favorite questions for the president. But what does that say about the politics of social media? And will it even work?

    It started with a simple and promising idea. The young voters who helped put Obama in office congregate on the Internet, and the best way to keep them involved in the political process is to meet them on their own turf. The incoming Obama Administration planned online forums mimicking the “thumbs up, thumbs down” voting systems that help rank the best content on popular viral sites like YouTube, Reddit and Digg. The President would solicit questions from the public and see what people cared about the most.

  • Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net

    Vancouver Injection Site Becomes Election Issue

    Vancouver’s controversial safe injection site became an election issue Monday after yet another published study showed it has saved lives, prompting the study’s author to say Conservative policy on the site has no basis in fact.

    Critics demanded Prime Minister Stephen Harper drop his government’s opposition to the clinic and abandon efforts to have it shut down.

    Harper was in Yellowknife on Monday where he touted his government’s national drug strategy, saying it is based on prevention and treatment.

    But the Conservative government has said in the past that it doesn’t condone the safe injection site and claims it fosters addiction.

    The latest study was published this week in the influential medical journal The Lancet. It was written by Dr. Thomas Kerr, along with his colleagues from the Urban Health Research Initiative at Vancouver’s St. Paul’s Hospital.

    “Canadians should be concerned about how the federal government is approaching problems like drug addiction — that they’re really not basing their decision on science, they’re basing it on ideology,” Kerr said.

    Marc Townsend, manager of the Portland Hotel Society, enters Insite

  • Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net

    Drug Policy Research

    Download over 650 peer-reviewed journal articles and significant reports on Harm Reduction and Drug Policy Reform!

    This comprehensive (and amazing) collection of references includes the following categories of papers:

    Alcohol harm reduction
    Cannabis
    Drug Education / prevention
    Drug policy documents – the need for change
    Drug policy history
    Economic issues
    Entheogens and psychedelics
    Health and social consequences of drug prohibition
    Incarceration
    Needle Exchange
    Policing and drug law enforcement
    Positive or non problematic relationships with drugs
    Post prohibition options
    PowerPoint presentations
    Ranking of drug harms
    Science is trumped by ideology
    Sex trade work
    Supervised injection facilities
    United Nations and human rights
    Violence and drugs

    The download time is approx 10 minutes and the file you receive will need to be unzipped.

    https://rcpt.yousendit.com/1096089053/7d1dc1ae510268bbd237f32729feb17d

  • Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net

    By Huge Margins, Voters Want Drug Penalties Reduced

    A whopping 72% of California voters support reducing the penalty for possession of a small amount of illegal drugs for personal use from a felony to a misdemeanor

    A brand new poll this week finds that a whopping 72% of California voters support reducing the penalty for possession of a small amount of illegal drugs for personal use from a felony to a misdemeanor, including a solid majority who support this reform strongly. The March 21-24 survey of 800 California general election voters was conducted by Lake Research Partners and commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance, the ACLU of Northern California and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Poll results and analysis are available online.