Pubdate: Mon, 17 May 2010
Source: Huffington Post (US Web)
Copyright: 2010 HuffingtonPost com, Inc.
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Author: Ethan Nadelmann
Note: Ethan Nadelmann is the Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. www.drugpolicy.org
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0A1XTlJAio

Sting, Soros, Montel and More

WE ARE THE DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE

I’ve often felt in years past that our struggle to end the drug war is relentlessly uphill.  But that’s changing now, sometimes more quickly than even I can believe.  The principal reason is us, by which I mean every person who grasps the lunacy of drug policies in this country and throughout much of the world, and who takes some action – no matter how small – to advance a better way.

It’s time now for DPA – the Drug Policy Alliance – to launch a new organizational identity that fully expresses each of our roles as agents of change.

This change represents the once-unimaginable progress that you and I have made over the past decade to bring drug policy reform that much closer to the tipping point.  Now is the time to make drug policy reform more personal – creating an even greater sense of moral urgency, connecting the dots with more allies, and building on the common interests of everyone who makes up this movement.  We can keep chipping away at the drug war but it won’t really end until a critical mass of people, communities and elected officials demand a new way of dealing with drugs in our society.  That’s why we are the Drug Policy Alliance.

I’m often asked, “Who is this growing drug policy reform movement?”

We vary of course in what brings us to this cause.  We are people who care about fundamental freedoms, civil liberties and human rights.  We are people who care about social and economic justice.  We are people who want to end racism.  We are people who want addiction treated as a health issue rather than a criminal justice problem.  We are people who want honest drug education for our youth that fosters trust rather than fear.  And every one of us – no matter our reason – believes that the war on drugs is not the way to deal with the reality of drugs in our society.  That’s why we are the Drug Policy Alliance.

[snip]

P.S.  Today we’re introducing a new video featuring Sting, George Soros and Montel Williams.  Each of them – like so many of us – believes that our drug policies must be grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.

Continues: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n368/a09.html

Pubdate: Tue, 18 May 2010
Source: Modesto Bee, The (CA)
Copyright: 2010 The Modesto Bee
Contact: [email protected]
Author: Merrill Balassone
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?137 (Needle Exchange)

RULING HURTS IN MODESTO NEEDLE EXCHANGE CASE

A judge ruled Monday that two people arrested for handing out clean syringes to drug users and collecting dirty ones will be barred from telling a jury they did so to help prevent a public health emergency.

Kristy Tribuzio, 36, and Brian Robinson, 38, face up to a year in jail after undercover officers said they caught the two operating an unauthorized needle exchange in a south Modesto park in April 2009.

Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Ricardo Cordova said the pair had other options that were legal, such as lobbying local officials to change the law.  In September 2008, the county Board of Supervisors voted against legalizing needle exchange programs over the recommendation of county health officials.

Continues: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n368.a11.html

Pubdate: Mon, 17 May 2010
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A13
Copyright: 2010 The Washington Post Company
Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/mUgeOPdZ
Author: Jorge G. Castaneda
Note: Jorge G. Castaneda was foreign secretary of Mexico from 2000 to 2003 in the government of Vicente Fox. He teaches international relations at New York University and is a fellow at the New America Foundation.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Felipe+Calderon
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Mexico

TIME FOR A RESET IN U.S.-MEXICAN RELATIONS

Mexican President Felipe Calderon will make his first full-fledged visit to Washington this week since taking office 3 1/2 years ago.  Given the issues facing their countries, Calderon and President Obama might be tempted to nickel-and-dime their encounter.  But the time is a ripe for a “big idea,” not unlike what NAFTA — warts and all — was when it was proposed in 1990.  Instead of narrowing everything down to drugs, security and how the United States can best back Mexico’s war, the two countries should “de-narcoticize” their relationship and make their goal Mexico’s development and transformation into a middle-class society.

Calderon has been battered by the effects of the international economic crisis at home ( Mexico’s economy shrank 6.5 percent last year ); by 23,000 deaths in the drug war ( 257 deaths in early May constituted the highest weekly toll since 2007 ); by opposition intransigence to reforms and institutional gridlock; this past weekend, by the kidnapping and possible death of the most influential figure of his party for the past two decades; and by Arizona’s new immigration law, which is seen in Mexico as anti-Mexican.  With the 2012 Mexican presidential campaign already underway, Calderon, on his way to lame-duck status, would probably be content with raising a few specific issues ( trucking, American gun-running into Mexico ), obtaining a categorical restatement of U.S.  support for Mexico’s fight against organized crime and one more acknowledgement of U.S.  responsibility for drug use.

[snip]

Consider the border.  On paper, the two governments want freer flows of legal goods, services and people but much tighter control over illicit flows: people and drugs from south to north, guns, chemicals and “blood money” from north to south.  But what about the reality of Arizona, where the Obama administration may have to send the National Guard and against which Mexico has issued a travel advisory? Pressure is also growing on Calderon to legalize marijuana if California does so in November.  Can these contradictory points be dealt with one by one?

Continues: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n367.a07.html

Author: Martha Mendoza, Associated Press Writer

US DRUG WAR HAS MET NONE OF ITS GOALS

MEXICO CITY- After 40 years, the United States’ war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S.  drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn’t worked.

“In the grand scheme, it has not been successful,” Kerlikowske told The Associated Press.  “Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified.”

This week President Obama promised to “reduce drug use and the great damage it causes” with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

Continues: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n363.a11.html

Pubdate: Tue, 11 May 2010
Source: Huffington Post (US Web)
Copyright: 2010 HuffingtonPost com, Inc.
Author: Ethan Nadelmann
Note: Ethan Nadelmann is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org)
Referenced: The 2010 National Drug Control Strategy http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/strategy/
Referenced: Wall Street Journal article http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n514/a02.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Gil+Kerlikowske

ETHAN NADELMANN CRITIQUES OBAMA’S NEW DRUG WAR STRATEGY

The White House’s 2010 National Drug Control Strategy, released this morning by President Obama and drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, is both encouraging and discouraging.  There’s no question that it points in a different direction and embraces specific policy options counter to those of the past thirty years.  But it differs little on the fundamental issues of budget and drug policy paradigm, retaining the overwhelming emphasis on law enforcement and supply control strategies that doomed the policies of its predecessors.

First, to give credit where credit is due: The Obama administration has taken important steps to undo some of the damage of past administrations’ drug policies.  The Justice Department has played an important role in trying to reduce the absurdly harsh, and racially discriminatory, crack/powder mandatory minimum drug laws; Congress is likely to approve a major reform this year.  DOJ also changed course on medical marijuana, letting state governments know that federal authorities would defer to their efforts to legally regulate medical marijuana under state law.  And they approved the repeal of the ban on federal funding of syringe exchange programs to reduce HIV/AIDS, thereby indicating that science would at last be allowed to trump politics and prejudice even in the domain of drug policy.

The new strategy goes further.  It calls for reforming federal policies that prohibit people with criminal convictions and in recovery from accessing housing, employment, student loans and driver’s licenses.  It also endorses a variety of harm reduction strategies ( even as it remains allergic to using the actual language of “harm reduction” ), endorsing specific initiatives to reduce fatal overdoses, better integration of drug treatment into ordinary medical care, and alternatives to incarceration for people struggling with addiction.  All of this diverges from the drug policies of the Reagan, Clinton and two Bush administrations.

Director Kerlikowske told the Wall Street Journal last year that he doesn’t like to use the term “war on drugs” because “[w]e’re not at war with people in this country.” Yet 64% of their budget – virtually the same as under the Bush Administration and its predecessors – focuses on largely futile interdiction efforts as well as arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating extraordinary numbers of people.  Only 36% is earmarked for demand reduction – and even that proportion is inflated because the ONDCP “budget” no longer includes costs such as the $2 billion expended annually to incarcerate people who violate federal drug laws.

There’s little doubt that this administration seriously wants to distance itself from the rhetoric of the drug war, but its new plan makes clear that it is still addicted to the reality of the drug war.  Still missing is the full throttle commitment to treating drug misuse as a public health issue, and to harm reduction innovations that have proven so successful in Europe and Canada.  Still present is the old rhetoric about marijuana’s great dangers and the need to keep current prohibitionist polices in place, with no mention of the fact or consequences of arresting roughly 750,000 people each year for possession of small amounts of marijuana.

I had the pleasure of testifying a few weeks ago before the Congressional subcommittee charged with oversight of the drug czar’s office.  The subcommittee chair, Dennis Kucinich, broke new ground on Capitol Hill by challenging the drug czar, whose testimony preceded mine, on his continuing commitment to supply control strategies notwithstanding their persistent failure, and on his resistance to embracing the language of harm reduction notwithstanding its growing acceptance by governments elsewhere.  In my testimony, I asked the subcommittee to reform the ways that federal drug policy is evaluated by de-emphasizing the past emphasis on reducing drug use per se and focusing instead on reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug misuse and counter-productive drug policies.

So, yes, this administration is headed in a new direction on drug policy – but too slowly, too timidly, and with little vision of a fundamentally different way of dealing with drugs in the U.S.  or global society.  The strategy released today offers nothing that will reduce the prohibition-related violence in Mexico, Central America and Colombia, or seriously address the challenges in Afghanistan.  It dares not take on the embarrassment of America’s record breaking and world leading rate of incarceration, especially of non-violent drug offenders.  And it effectively acknowledges that politics will continue to trump science whenever the latter points toward politically controversial solutions.

We still have a long way to go.

Pubdate: Mon, 10 May 2010
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Column: The Americas
Copyright: 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Author: Mary Anastasia O’Grady

ARIZONA’S REAL PROBLEM: DRUG CRIME

The Vicious Violence the Border States Are Experiencing Is Not
Committed by Migrant Laborers.

The organized-crime epidemic in Latin America, spawned by a U.S. drug
policy more than four decades in the making, seems to be leeching
into American cities. Powerful underworld networks supplying gringo
drug users are becoming increasingly bold about expanding their
businesses. In 2008, U.S. officials said that Mexican drug cartels
were serving their customers in 195 American cities.

The violence is only a fraction of what Mexico, Guatemala and
Colombia live with everyday. Yet it is notable. Kidnapping rates in
Phoenix, for example, are through the roof and some spectacular
murders targeting law enforcement have also grabbed headlines.

Continues: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n350.a05.html

Newshawk: Please Write a LTE www.mapinc.org/resource/#guides
Pubdate: Wed, 5 May 2010
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2010 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]

A REMINDER ABOUT AMERICAN VALUES

Gov. David Paterson of New York made a brave — and startling — move on Monday to create a board to consider pardons for immigrant New Yorkers who are on a fast-track to deportation because of old or minor criminal convictions. He said he wanted to inject fairness into an “embarrassingly and wrongly inflexible” system that expels immigrants without discretion, without considering the circumstances of a person’s life or family, or even holding hearings to consider the possibility that deportation might be unwise or unjust.

Mr. Paterson’s decision is a response to the government’s aggressive enforcement of immigration laws that have greatly broadened the definition of “aggravated felonies” for which noncitizens are subject to mandatory deportation.

The category used to apply just to serious crimes like murder and drug trafficking, but it has come to include a vast array of nonviolent, even trivial misdemeanors. Under the law, minor drug offenses or even shoplifting can count as “aggravated felonies,” and this stringent view can be applied retroactively. Immigrants can be deported for decades-old convictions of crimes that were not “aggravated felonies” back then.

The harsh laws have been coupled with harsh enforcement; the Obama administration has arrested and deported tens of thousands of legal immigrants with a zeal that has gone to extremes.

In one case, now before the United States Supreme Court, the government maintains that a Texas man’s two misdemeanor convictions — one for less than two ounces of marijuana and one for a single Xanax pill without a prescription — make him a “drug trafficker” subject to mandatory deportation with no right to a hearing in which a judge could consider the absurdity of the case.

Mr. Paterson has shown courage and common sense at a time when the national debate about immigration shows little of either. His move was unconnected to the radicalism in Arizona, which just passed a law making criminals of every undocumented person within its borders, and greatly empowering the police to arrest people they suspect are here illegally.

But it inevitably calls to mind the bad example of Arizona. “In New York, we believe in rehabilitation,” Mr. Paterson said, adding that his five-member board would consider pardons judiciously, distinguishing minor offenders from dangerous criminals. His action repudiates the growing belief that only tougher and more rigid enforcement should be applied to all immigrants who run afoul of the law, with expulsion as the first and last goal.

This is not how the United States, in its best moments, deals with newcomers. We’re grateful for the reminder from the governor of New York.

Pubdate: Tue, 4 May 2010
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Copyright: 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Author: Ana Campoy
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Texas
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Mexico

DRUG WAR STALKS TEXAS CITY

For Years, McAllen Profited From Ties to Mexico, but Now Violence Is Reversing Gains

MCALLEN, Texas–For most of its history, McAllen was a dusty little farm town at the southern tip of Texas, long on cactus and short on jobs.

That started to change two decades ago, when factories began opening across the Rio Grande. McAllen morphed into a palm-fringed boomtown, sending workers across the border to Reynosa and luring shoppers and vacationers from Mexico’s northern industrial center, Monterrey, a few hours away by car. Texas City Turns to Mexico

Now, drug-gang violence, until recently confined to Ciudad Juarez and other cities far to the west, is startlingly close by. Last month, some 30 gunmen stormed two hotels in Monterrey and kidnapped six people, in a shock for the city. The 130-mile highway from Monterrey to the border has seen a number of incidents, including a recent shoot-out between armed men and the Mexican military.

The gunplay hasn’t erupted in McAllen itself, but people here fear their hard-won economic gains, already dimmed by the recession, are under threat.

“So far, the violence has acted as a disruption,” said Keith Patridge, whose job as president of the local development agency is to attract companies to the area. “If it were to get worse, it would have a big impact.”

Spooked by the spreading violence, fewer companies are investing in the U.S.-Mexico manufacturing corridor than last year. The flow of Mexican consumers, on which McAllen relies for almost a third of its retail revenue, also has dwindled.

Continued: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10.n338.a01.html

It’s kind of like stating the obvious, but now there is an interesting study to validate what drug war critics have been saying for decades.