Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003
Subject: #279 Outspoken Rush Limbaugh Should Speak Out

OUTSPOKEN RUSH LIMBAUGH SHOULD SPEAK OUT

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #279 October 9, 2003

Syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh has yet to speak out on
allegations that he illegally obtained and used huge amounts of
prescription pain pills like OxyContin. Conspicuously silent on the
subject now that it affects him personally, Rush has both condemned
drug users and argued the libertarian case for legalization in the
past. Rush Limbaugh’s mixed messages on drug policy are
characteristic of the right wing he vociferously defends.

While bible-belt fundamentalists in the GOP would like to see more
hate and intolerance in the name of Jesus, free market fundamentalists
in the Republican party want to end drug prohibition entirely. So
where does Rush stand? His silence epitomizes the right wing. Big
government legislated morality and laissez-faire economics are
inherently incompatible. Hence the silence. In an Oct. 8th column,
syndicated Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page takes Rush to task
for remaining silent on a subject that needs to be addressed by both
Rush and the Republican party he so stridently defends.

Just because Rush chooses to remain silent on an issue that affects
all American taxpayers doesn’t mean you have to. Write the Chicago
Tribune today to let them know how you feel about the war on some drugs.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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

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

SPECIAL REQUEST

The columns of Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Clarence Page are
syndicated in about 150 papers. Some of them include: Alameda
Times-Star (CA), Atlanta Journal-Constitution (GA), Baltimore Sun
(MD), Beacon Journal, The (OH), Blade, The (OH), Buffalo News (NY),
Charlotte Observer (NC), Daily Journal, The (IL), Dallas Morning News
(TX), Dominion Post (WV), Houston Chronicle (TX), New Haven Register
(CT), Newsday (NY), Oak Ridger (TN), Oakland Tribune (CA), Sacramento
Bee (CA), Salt Lake Tribune (UT), San Jose Mercury News (CA), San
Mateo Co Times (CA), Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA), St. Louis
Post-Dispatch (MO), St. Petersburg Times (FL), State Journal-Register
(IL) , Stevens Point Journal (WI), The Holland Sentinel (MI), and the
Washington Times (DC).

Thus it is likely that the column below will be printed in newspapers
in your state. Please be watching for the column, and send those
newspapers letters, also.

We would like to obtain a list, and MAP archive, this column from as
many newspapers as possible. If you see the column on a newspaper
website, or in hard copy, and can newshawk it to MAP using the
instructions at http://www.mapinc.org/hawk.htm please do.

If you are not comfortable with newshawking, but see the column in a
newspaper, please send a personal email to [email protected] with the
following information: The newspaper’s name, date the column was
published, the headline the newspaper used for the column, and a note
on any differences between the column as printed from the column as it
appears below.

We will archive the columns at

http://www.mapinc.org/author/Clarence+Page

so that all the folks who write letters to the editor can check back
using the link to see if there are additional targets for their letters.

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

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

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not
subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others
can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ([email protected]) will help you to
review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm
and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)

Contact: [email protected]

TARGET ANALYSIS

The Chicago Tribune is read by nearly 2 million people every day.
While our analysis indicates that the average letter published is only
about 140 words in length, the Chicago Tribune appears to look more at
quality and substance than length, having printed some letters that
were slightly over 300 words. They also print good letters originating
from writers everywhere, not just their immediate circulation area.

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

ORIGINAL COLUMN

Pubdate: Wed, 08 Oct 2003
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 2003 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact: [email protected]

RUSHING TO A SANE DRUG POLICY

Memo to Rush Limbaugh: Hey, Rush, we’re counting on you, pal. Now that you
might be feeling the hot breath of drug prosecutors on your neck, perhaps
you might speak out for more enlightened treatment of non-violent drug
offenders.

News reports say that Limbaugh is facing an investigation by the Palm
Beach County state attorney’s office in Florida for allegedly buying
thousands of tablets of the powerful painkiller OxyContin and other
highly addictive prescription drugs from an illegal ring in Florida
between 1998 and 2002. Mike Edmondson, a spokesman for the state
attorney’s office, told The Associated Press last week that his office
could neither confirm nor deny that an investigation was under way.

Limbaugh issued a three-sentence statement on his Web site saying that
he was “unaware of any investigations by any authorities involving
me.” He also promised to cooperate fully ” if my assistance is
required in the future.”

Drug addiction is a disease. It respects no particular race, gender
or political leaning. If someone has an addiction problem and he or
she hasn’t hurt anybody with it, I think treatment will do the drug
user and society a lot more good than throwing the person into the
slammer.

And I am not alone. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the
non-profit Drug Policy Alliance, said in a news release that someone
who was convicted of non-violent drug use “should not face
incarceration or otherwise be punished for what he chooses to put into
his own body.”

The alliance, it is worth noting, showed similar sympathies to former
drug czar William J. Bennett when he announced in May that he will no
longer gamble, following news reports that said the Republican Party’s
high priest of virtues had lost millions over the last decade.

Bennett has always called for tough punitive measures against those
convicted of drug use, even against low-level marijuana users. But,
as for his own favorite addiction, Bennett pointed out rather meekly
that he never said anything in public about gambling.

The alliance also supported Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s call for respect
and privacy regarding the arrest of his 26-year-old daughter, Noelle,
for trying to buy Xanax without a prescription in 2002. Happily,
Noelle completed treatment in August and a judge allowed her to go
home to her parents.

Unhappily, the same cannot be said for a lot of non-violent Florida
drug offenders who have less money or political power. Instead, Gov.
Bush has cut drug-treatment and drug-court budgets. He also flatly
opposes a possible ballot initiative like the one California passed a
few years ago that would divert non-violent drug offenders away from
prison and into treatment programs.

As for you, Rush, you deserve to be presumed innocent until proven
otherwise, like anyone else.

However this turns out, I cannot help but hope that this experience
has a chastening effect on your drug views. Your past political
commentaries offer a ray of hope. Online searches of your past views
reveal a Limbaugh who seems, uncharacteristically, to have wavered on
the drug issue between the libertarian and authoritarian wings of the
conservative movement.

On Oct. 5, 1995, you insisted on your now-defunct TV show that “if
people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused
and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.”

You also said, with tongue at least partly in cheek, that the
statistics that show blacks go to prison far more often than whites
for the same drug offenses only show that “too many whites are getting
away with drug use.”

“The answer to this disparity,” you said, “is not to start letting
people out of jail … The answer is to go out and find the ones who
are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river too.”

Ah, yes. Those words may come back to haunt you. I guess I am doing
my part.

However, Newsday columnist Ellis Henican and the pro-drug reform Media
Awareness Project’s Web site (MAPinc.org) cite a March 1998 radio show
in which you, Rush, advocated legalization of addictive drugs the way
we regulate cigarettes and alcohol. “License the Cali [the drug
cartel in Cali, Colombia] cartel,” you reportedly said. “Make them
taxpayers and then sue them. Sue them left and right and then get
control of the price and generate tax revenue from it. Raise the
price sky high and fund all sorts of other wonderful social programs.”

I remember when former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, a former drug
prosecutor, advocated that very same idea after seeing how much the
war against drugs had become a war against drug victims.

I don’t remember hearing you say much about that at the time, Rush.
If ever there was a time for you to speak out more ( And I never
thought I would ever be saying that about you! ), this could be it.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editor,

Clarence Page’s Oct. 8th column was right on target. I don’t think
anyone is going to argue that Rush Limbaugh would benefit from a
lengthy prison sentence for his addiction to OxyContin. While I can
sympathize with Rush’s substance abuse troubles, his past support for
the drug war is hypocritical to say the least. Incarcerating
nonviolent drug offenders cannot be justified from either a fiscal or
public health perspective.

Jail cells and criminal records do not cure addiction. Non-violent
drug offenders are eventually released, with dismal job prospects due
to criminal records. Turning drug users into unemployable ex-cons is
a senseless waste of tax dollars. As long as there exists an unmet
need for effective drug treatment on demand, it makes no sense to
continue the “lock ’em up” approach, an approach that has done little
other than give the former land of the free the highest incarceration
rate in the world.

The tax dollars wasted on incarcerating Americans with substance abuse
problems would be better spent on effective drug treatment. It’s time
to declare peace in the failed drug war and begin treating all
substance abuse, legal or otherwise, as the public health problem it
is. Destroying the futures of citizens who make unhealthy choices
doesn’t benefit anyone.

Sincerely,
Juan Costo

Please Note: This is a sample letter only. Please write your own letter
focusing on issues that you see as important. Even a simple thank you for
publishing the column sends a signal to a newspaper about reader interest.
Published or not, it tells the editor that you think our issues are important.

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See:

Writer’s Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

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

Prepared by: Robert Sharpe, Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003
Subject: #278 Ed Rosenthal Blasts Feds

ED ROSENTHAL BLASTS FEDS

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #278 September 27, 2003

Ed Rosenthal is recognized worldwide as an authority on marijuana. In
his thirty-plus years as a cannabis expert, he has written or edited
more than a dozen books about marijuana cultivation and social policy,
that cumulatively have sold over one million copies. Rosenthal has
also been active in promoting and developing policies of civil
regulation for medical marijuana. Since the passage of California’s
pioneering Prop 215 in 1996, which authorizes medicinal use of
marijuana, he has worked with the state’s growers, dispensaries, and
local governments to standardize and implement the delivery of
pharmaceutical grade cannabis to patients.

On February 12, 2002, Ed was arrested by federal agents for applying
his knowledge and helping patients to use medical marijuana. He has
since been convicted of three counts of cultivation and conspiracy. In
a stunning setback for the federal government, he was sentenced on
June 4th, 2003 to one-day in prison and a $1,000 fine. Thanks to the
efforts of Green Aid and a crack legal team, Ed now faces probation
instead of a statutory maximum of 100 years imprisonment and possible
fines up to $4.5 million.

Most people would steer clear of controversy after facing the wrath of
the federal government’s drug war machine. Not Ed Rosenthal. Ed has
refused to tone down his outspoken criticism of the war on marijuana.
Less than a week after kicking off the Marijuana Policy Project’s new
medical marijuana Political Action Committee (PAC) in the nation’s
capital, Ed lambasted the feds in an excellent Sep. 26th op-ed in the
San Francisco Chronicle. Although the op-ed has inspired legal debate
on drug policy lists as to whether probation results in the loss of
voting rights (some experts say only parole does), there is no denying
that Ed is a hero to the movement.

The Bush administration picked the wrong high-profile activist if they
thought Ed Rosenthal would go away quietly. Write the San Francisco
Chronicle today to show your support for Ed – and your disgust for the
federal government’s ongoing efforts to undermine voter-approved
medical marijuana legislation.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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,
email messages, etc.)

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not
subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others
can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ([email protected]) will help you to
review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm
and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

CONTACT INFO and TARGET ANALYSIS

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Contact: [email protected]

While the Chronicle recommends that letters to the editor be
restricted to 200 words, our own analysis of published letters shows
that the average printed letter is 146 words. These appear to fall
into about two equal groups, slightly under 100 words and in the 200
word range – the largest being 236 words. The Chronicle will often
print three or four letters if well written and different in content
that respond to the same editorial or OPED. And they do print letters
from out of state, indeed from as far away as Canada.

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

ORIGINAL OPED

Pubdate: Fri, 26 Sep 2003
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2003 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Author: Ed Rosenthal

THE CANNABIS CRUSADES:

MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND THE RECALL ELECTION

The California gubernatorial recall is the first election in which I
will not be voting since I turned 18, 40 years ago. It’s not my
disgust with what I consider a “coup attempt” by the extreme right
that keeps me from the polls. It’s my three felony convictions related
to cultivating medicinal marijuana.

Although I was spared prison time, the loss of my voting rights is
cruel punishment for me, because I have always been politically and
civically active.

It is remarkable that I ended up with the felonies, since I had been
deputized by the city of Oakland and promised immunity from
prosecution for providing medicine to qualified patients.

Still, I feel a certain satisfaction about the recall campaign. I
watched one of my daydreams come true in the first debate. Medical
marijuana was the only issue that all the candidates agreed upon: all
pledged to uphold California’s marijuana laws. State Sen. Tom
McClintock, R-Northridge, the most conservative, was the most ardent
— stating that the federal government should stay out of the state’s
business.

When Dennis Peron opened San Francisco’s first medical marijuana
dispensary nearly 10 years ago, there was virtually unanimous
agreement among politicians and the criminal justice community that
marijuana wasn’t a medicine. Furthermore, the risk was too great for
the medicine to be permitted. What a difference a decade makes. In
1994, no reporter would have asked the question, but if they had,
every candidate would have pledged to redouble efforts to eliminate
“the assassin of youth.”

All the candidates agreed that medical marijuana should be “legal,”
but there are definite differences in their attitudes toward what
legal means and who should decide. This is significant, because some
California state agencies are still at war against this popular
medicine. The California attorney general’s Medical Board is
prosecuting doctors based on complaints. Neither patients, their
caregivers, nor their loved ones are complaining. No, all the
complaints are being filed by officers or prosecutors thwarted when
they attempt to arrest or prosecute a patient. Police and prosecutors
in some counties have declared war on medical patients, spending an
inordinate amount of time and taxpayers’ money to harass people whose
only crime is that they are ill.

State probation and parole orders sometimes limit use of medical
marijuana, even in life-threatening cases. Could you imagine the
uproar if a judge denied a diabetic the use of insulin?

These actions are being fueled by the inflammatory rhetoric of the
California Narcotic Officers’ Association. The organization denies
that marijuana has any medical use and encourages police and
prosecutors to view all medical cases as bogus. Its lobbyists use
obstructionist tactics and threaten legislators inclined to vote to
implement provisions of Proposition 215, California’s medical
marijuana law. CNOA functions as a clique of verbal terrorists
fighting against patient’s rights.

The problem with the implementation of Proposition 215 is that it is
based on the “stakeholders theory,” where all the interested parties
reach a compromise. This policy may work for water rights, but it is
insane when patients’ health is compromised. The idea that the
criminal justice system is a stakeholder in a health and medical issue
is ridiculous on its face. The police have training only in
identifying marijuana and arresting its owners. They have no
cultivation expertise, know next to nothing about the herb’s medical
use and have no sociological knowledge to lend to the discussion. The
police’s only vested interest in marijuana is using tax dollars to
arrest and incarcerate users of any type, recreational or medical. The
police industry’s influence in this medical and sociological debate is
inappropriate, since their representatives mostly deny marijuana’s
medical benefits and view arrests as an employment issue.

That’s why this recall campaign is such a watershed. All the
candidates accept marijuana as medicine. How each one would implement
the law is of prime importance to the 70,000 Californians holding
medical marijuana recommendations. Will patients using this
exceedingly safe herbal medicine continue to be held hostage to
“stakeholders” whose interest is a high arrest count? Ironically,
though I am now barred from voting, the issues that were brought to
the surface in my case are reverberating through this campaign. I am
hopeful of winning my appeal and having my rights restored. I would
like to vote again soon.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editor,

Few Americans realize that the United States is one of the few Western
countries that uses its criminal justice system to punish otherwise
law-abiding citizens who prefer marijuana to martinis. Evidence of the
U.S. government’s reefer madness is best exemplified by the Bush
administration’s prosecution of marijuana expert Ed Rosenthal.

The federal government’s paramilitary raids on voter-approved medical
marijuana providers in California says a lot about our government’s
bizarre sense of priorities. The very same federal government that
claims illicit drug use funds terrorism is forcing cancer and AIDS
patients into the hands of street dealers. Apparently marijuana
prohibition is more important than protecting the country from terrorism.

Sincerely,

Juan Costo

Please note: This is a sample letter only. Your own letter should be
substantially different so that it will be considered. Please provide
your name and telephone number along with your letter. You will be
called if your letter is being considered for publication.

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See:

Writer’s Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

**********************************************************************
TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

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

Prepared by: Robert Sharpe

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
[email protected]

Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003
Subject: #277 The Boston Herald’s Prejudiced Reporting

THE BOSTON HERALD’S PREJUDICED REPORTING

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #277 September 21, 2003

Below are the stories covering the Boston Freedom Rally as presented
by The Boston Globe and The Boston Herald. One would have a hard time
believing that the reporters were at the same event. Let’s look at the
differences.

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Pubdate: Sun, 21 Sep 2003
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2003 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: [email protected]
Author: Ron DePasquale

RALLY URGES RELAXATION OF POT LAWS

There may have been a haze in the air, but organizers of the annual
Freedom Rally on the Boston Common clearly saw their goal, to
decriminalize marijuana and allow medicinal use.

As the smell of pot mixed with incense, and the band onstage competed
with numerous bongo players and guitar strummers, organizers from the
Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition spoke of their confidence that
marijuana will be decriminalized in the state. They cited the
non-binding results of votes last November in 20 districts where
citizens, by an average of 2-to-1, instructed their state
representatives to decriminalize pot. No bills have made it out of
committee, but that has not discouraged MassCann president Bill Downing .

“We expect very soon to see Massachusetts decriminalize marijuana,”
Downing said. “It will probably have to be done through the initiative
process, because legislators are reluctant to pursue it unless they
are forced to do so.”

About 45,000 attended the festival, Boston police said. At least 45
arrests were made on drug-related charges, police said. An organizer
said attendance appeared to be down from last year.

Canada’s decision to decriminalize possession of less than two-thirds
of an ounce of marijuana also encourages MassCann, Downing said, along
with the case of Ed Rosenthal , a Californian who was deputized by the
city of Oakland to grow marijuana for medicinal use and convicted in
January in federal court of cultivation and conspiracy to grow more
than 1,000 marijuana plants, after a raid on his home.

A judge sentenced Rosenthal to a one-day prison term and said he had
already served it after he was arrested. The activist has since become
a symbol of the movement and spoke twice at yesterday’s Freedom Rally.

“The government did in six months what I’ve been trying to do for 35
years,” said Rosenthal, coauthor of “Why Marijuana Should Be Legal”
and author of 12 other books about marijuana. “The whole legal
situation has catapulted me into being a spokesman for the movement,
and I really appreciate their help.”

Rosenthal is appealing his conviction, while federal prosecutors are
appealing his sentence.

Rachel, a 34-year-old government worker in Rhode Island who did not
want her last name used, called Rosenthal “courageous” after buying
two of his books.

“I’m glad to see people getting together on the issue,” she said.
“Most people walk around and don’t express an opinion, because they’re
afraid of persecution. But the numbers here speak for themselves, when
you look at everyone who’s come here.”

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

Good reporting by the Boston Globe. Covered what happened well. Worthy
of a pat on the back Letter to the Editor.

But what did the Boston Herald write?

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Pubdate: Sun, 21 Sep 2003
Source: Boston Herald (MA)
Copyright: 2003 The Boston Herald, Inc
Contact: [email protected]
Author: Jules Crittenden

UP IN SMOKE: POTHEADS UNITE: 45 ARRESTED AT ANNUAL PROTEST

Police arrested 45 pot smokers on Boston Common yesterday as
protesting hempheads called for an end to the war on drugs and a
diversion of billions of anti-drug dollars to the war on terrorism.

“Fight terrorism! End prohibition,” yelled Joe Bonni of MASS
CANN/NORML, the pro-weed lobby that organized the event. Citing the
transfer of narcotic agents to terrorism duty after 9/11, Bonni said,
“Imagine how safe we’d be if they had been on home security in the
first place. We need to make the nation a safer place, and one of the
ways to do that is to end the war on drugs.”

Thousands of cannabis enthusiasts along with anti-reefer activists
descended on the Common for the 14th annual Freedom Rally, where pot,
politics, tie-dye styles, head-banging punk rock, Christian evangelism
and fried dough converged in a big, sweaty, sun-baked mass yesterday.

Clouds of marijuana smoke wafted across the green, and by 5 p.m.,
undercover officers had arrested 45 people for possession or
distribution of marijuana.

A reporter’s approach made one 50-year-old pot smoker
jump.

“I’d have some explaining to do,” said the Waltham man, who identified
himself only as “Joe.” He estimated that he had been smoking pot for
at least 32 years, and said he considered it a crime that it is still
illegal.

“The penalties people get for smoking pot are ridiculous,” Joe
said.

Where two main paths crossed, a series of activists with placards
angled for the attention of passersby. They ranged from an evangelist
beseeching sinners to change their ways, to a pot proponent protesting
NORML for proposing legislation rather than fighting a court battle on
constitutional grounds.

An earnest young law student clutching a hefty tome argued the issue
with him. Another man nearby simply held up a store-bought utility
sign that said, “Keep Off the Grass.”

A blue-haired, black-clad youth said he came because he thought the
Freedom Rally would be a patriotic event featuring punk rock bands
like Scissorfight.

“I think pot should not be legalized. I’m a born-again Christian. Why
do you think I wear this stuff?” he said about his “Abortion is
Homicide” T-shirt.

But Joyce Walsh, 73, a former Beacon Hill resident now retired in
Savannah, Ga., said, “I think it’s way overdue to legalize it.’

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

What kind of reporting is this?

Arrests are the most important, lead paragraph?

“UP IN SMOKE” “POTHEADS” “hempheads” “pro-weed lobby”
???

Only “thousands” – not 45,000?

Where is the coverage of what happened on the stage, the messages from
well known activists? Instead we get “Where two main paths
crossed….”

Well, you can all see the differences. Thankfully the Boston Globe is
the far larger newspaper, with a strong Sunday readership throughout
the New England states.

The clear bias exhibited by The Boston Herald is a tradition for the
paper. Reporter Crittenden was most likely told the kind of story he
had to write. Where does a Boston Herald reporter go to advance his
career? The supermarket tabloids?

Please also consider writing a Letter to the Editor to the Boston
Herald about their biased reporting.

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Boston Globe
Contact: [email protected]

Source: Boston Herald
Contact: [email protected]

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

TARGET ANALYSIS:

With a Sunday circulation of 704,926, The Boston Globe is the #1
circulating newspaper in the six New England states. Sunday
circulation for the Boston Herald is 156,234.

The body of the average published letter in The Boston Globe is 176
words in length. But well focused and written letters as long as 330
words have been published.

The Boston Herald prints only short letters, averaging 117 words, with
the largest about 170 words – probably preferring to give more space
to their prohibitionist polemics.

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See:

Writer’s Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

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

PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTERS OR TELL US WHAT YOU DID (Letter,
email messages, etc.)

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not
subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others
can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ([email protected]) will help you to
review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm
and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

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

Prepared by: Richard Lake, Sr. Editor, DrugNews, www.mapinc.org

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
[email protected]

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003
Subject: #276 Cannabis Debate In The UK: Decrim Vs. Legalisation

CANNABIS DEBATE IN THE UK: DECRIM vs. LEGALISATION

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #276 September 14, 2003

While drug czar John Walter’s reefer madness revisited campaign
continues to saturate US media, newspapers in Britain are debating
whether cannabis should be decriminalised or legalised outright. In
anticipation of UK Home Secretary David Blunkett’s cannabis
reclassification scheme taking effect in early 2004, the release of
new police guidelines has revived Britain’s enlightened cannabis
debate. Come January, cannabis consumers will no longer be prosecuted.

Instead of an arrest and possible jail time, consumers will have the
drug confiscated and a record of the incident will be noted by
officers. The new guidelines don’t specify a personal limit for the
drug and plans for a US-style “three strikes and you’re out” system
have been abandoned. Under the Association of Chief Police Officers
guidelines, police will still be able to arrest people who smoke
cannabis in public, consumers who are under 17 and anyone who uses it
near a school.

The guidelines apply to police forces in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland. Home Secretary David Blunkett argues that this
“softly-softly” approach to cannabis will free up police resources to
tackle hard drugs like heroin and crack cocaine. Prior to Blunkett’s
groundbreaking reforms, Britain had some of the toughest cannabis laws
in Europe — and the highest rates of use.

For the many UK newspapers that have editorialized in favor of ending
cannabis prohibition, the incremental policy change underway, radical
by US standards, does not go far enough. In an excellent September
13th leader (editorial), The Daily Telegraph, Britain’s largest
quality daily, argues that Blunkett’s cannabis reforms are “the
worst-of-all-possible-worlds.”

Write the Daily Telegraph today to let them know you wholeheartedly
agree with their common sense take on cannabis. If you’re writing
from a country outside of the UK, be sure to let them know how closely
the rest of the world is watching and why.

To learn more about the new guidelines please visit:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1383/a10.html

Thanks for your effort and support.

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,
email messages, etc.)

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not
subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others
can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ([email protected]) will help you to
review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm
and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)

Contact: [email protected]

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

ADDITIONAL TARGETS: This is big news in the United Kingdom. Additional
articles and opinion items that are good targets for your Letters to
the Editor may be found at http://www.mapinc.org/area/United+Kingdom

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

ORIGINAL EDITORIAL

Pubdate: Sat, 13 Sep 2003
Source: Daily Telegraph (UK)
Copyright: 2003 Telegraph Group Limited
Contact: [email protected]

OFF HIS HEAD

There are two good arguments for the legalisation of cannabis. One of
them is practical, one moral. The moral argument is simple: here is
an activity that gives pleasure to many and relief to some (
sufferers, for example, of multiple sclerosis ); an activity whose
damaging effects on the health are confined to the user, which is less
addictive than tobacco and, probably, less damaging than alcohol. Why
not let grown-up citizens make their own decisions, as they do with
alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods?

The practical argument is that the country’s many, many millions of
cannabis users are already determined to ignore the laws that
criminalise their recreation – and that our legislature should take
sensible account of this. At present, smokers are forced to rely on
proper criminals to supply them with drugs, and are ill-served by a
market in which you have no idea whether your UKP15 is buying you
carbonised pencil erasers, dried oregano or terrifying genetically
modified superskunk. We waste police time and money on
cannabis-related prosecutions; at the same time, we allow the criminal
economy to benefit from what would be, properly taxed and regulated, a
vast source of revenue to the Exchequer.

Though very far from conclusive, both these arguments have merit. But
they are arguments for legalisation; not for decriminalisation, the
worst-of-all-possible-worlds fudge now proposed. To legitimise
consumption, while continuing to criminalise supply, is more than just
an intellectual nonsense. In moral terms, it is too incoherent to
claim any authority. In practical terms, it worsens rather than
improves the situation.

The removal of even the vestigial fear of prosecution for smokers will
enlarge demand – and do so to the sole benefit of the criminal
economy. The innocent, law-abiding dopehead will continue to be sold
Oxo cubes. And the law will continue to be an ass – and an
underfunded ass at that. It makes you wonder: what is David Blunkett
on?

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editor,

Your Sep. 13th leader was right on target. Home Secretary David
Blunkett’s reclassification of cannabis is merely a step in the right
direction. There is a big difference between condoning cannabis use
and protecting children from drugs. Decriminalisation acknowledges
the social reality of cannabis use and frees users from the stigma of
life-shattering criminal records. What’s really needed is a regulated
market with age controls. Separating the hard and soft drug markets
is critical.

As long as cannabis remains illegal and is distributed by organised
criminals, consumers will continue to come into contact with sellers
of hard drugs like crack cocaine. This “gateway” is the direct result
of a fundamentally flawed policy. Drug policy reform may send the
wrong message to children, but I like to think the children themselves
are more important than the message.

Sincerely,

Juan Costo

PLEASE NOTE: This is a sample letter only. Your own letter should be
substantially different.

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See:

Writer’s Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

**********************************************************************
TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

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

Prepared by: Robert Sharpe

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
[email protected]

Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2003
Subject: #275 Bad Science Drives Drug War Hysteria

Bad Science Drives Drug War Hysteria

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #275 September 7, 2003

As shown in the Washington Post article, below, scientists at Johns
Hopkins University made an unbelievable mistake in trying to find
evidence to support their theory that MDMA, popularly called ecstasy,
is a very dangerous drug.

You can read the original study as published in Science magazine, and
now being retracted, here: http://mdma.net/toxicity/ricaurte.html

But this isn’t even the first time scientist George Ricaurte has found
evidence to damn ecstasy. Ricaurte’s classic paper on MDMA claiming
massive serotonin reductions in ecstasy users which was published in
1998 in The Lancet was then used by the National Institute on Drug
Abuse (NIDA) as the basis of educational efforts against MDMA. Later
and larger studies have failed to confirm the results, and even NIDA
no longer references the study. Just errors, research with an agenda,
or junk science?

But the retraction by Science magazine did not come about without
considerable concern being expressed first. Please see the work of the
Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS)
http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/studyresponse.html

Junk science and errors in research are quickly spread by the media,
quoted by government officials, and used to create the drug war
hysteria that supported the RAVE Act. Now your elected federal
representatives wish to expand on the frenzy with the VICTORY, Ecstasy
Awareness and CLEAN-UP Methamphetamine Acts. And the hysteria extends
to state and local lawmakers.

Harm reduction efforts like those of DanceSafe http://www.dancesafe.org/
are undermined.

And finally, as the sample letter indicates below, when false
information about drugs is spread, users figure it out. They then tend
not to believe anything that is said.

Thus there are plenty of reasons to respond to this story with your
Letters to the Editor. Please do!

Thanks for your effort and support.

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,
email messages, etc.)

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not
subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others
can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ([email protected]) will help you to
review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm
and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

TARGETS: Versions on this story have appeared in many newspapers. Here
is a partial list of the newspapers, along with links to the articles.
At the links you will find the contact information for each article,
set up so that with one click you can start writing your letter to
that newspaper. Please send your letters one at a time, addressed to
that newspaper, and modified for it. Newspapers expect that the letter
you send is exclusive for them. If they think that you are sending the
same letter to multiple newspapers, they will not use it.

Arizona Republic (AZ) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1343.a05.html

Baltimore Sun (MD) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1341.a09.html

Charlotte Observer (NC) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1342.a03.html

Dallas Morning News (TX) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1338.a11.html

* Detroit News (MI) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1343.a07.html

* Duluth News-Tribune (MN) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1341.a10.html

Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (TX) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1343.a04.html

* Globe and Mail (Canada) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1338.a04.html

* Grand Forks Herald (ND) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1341.a11.html

* Honolulu Advertiser (HI) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1343.a11.html

* Ledger-Enquirer (GA) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1343.a08.html

* Macon Telegraph (GA) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1341.a08.html

New York Times (NY) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1336.a01.html

* Newsday (NY) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1342.a04.html

* Oakland Tribune, The (CA) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1344.a06.html

Observer, The (UK) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1344.a02.html

* Oklahoman, The (OK) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1342.a02.html

* Plain Dealer, The (OH) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1342.a01.html

San Jose Mercury News (CA) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1343.a06.html

* San Mateo County Times, The (CA) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1344.a04.html

* Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1344.a05.html

* Tampa Tribune (FL) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1340.a11.html

* Tri-Valley Herald (CA) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1344.a03.html

Washington Post (DC) [below] http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1341.a07.html

Watertown Daily Times (NY) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1342.a11.html

* Wichita Eagle (KS) http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03.n1343.a03.html

* indicates that the story was from the Associated Press wire service.
Versions and titles may vary.

This news undoubtedly appeared in many other newspapers. Besides the
above, more may be posted at the following URL. And, in time, we hope
to see your published letters listed at the link, also:

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

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

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Pubdate: Sat, 06 Sep 2003
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A03
Copyright: 2003 The Washington Post Company
Contact: [email protected]
Author: Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer

RESULTS RETRACTED ON ECSTASY STUDY

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University who last year published a
frightening and controversial report suggesting that a single
evening’s use of the illicit drug ecstasy could cause permanent brain
damage and Parkinson’s disease are retracting their research in its
entirety, saying the drug they used in their experiments was not
ecstasy after all.

The retraction, to be published in next Friday’s issue of the journal
Science, has reignited a smoldering and sometimes angry debate over
the risks and benefits of the drug, also known as MDMA.

The drug is popular at all-night raves and other venues for its
ability to reduce inhibitions and induce expansive feelings of
open-heartedness. But some studies have indicated that the drug can
at least temporarily damage neurons that use the mood-altering brain
chemical serotonin. Some users also have spiked fevers, which rarely
have proven fatal.

Last year’s research, involving monkeys and baboons, purported to show
that three modest doses of ecstasy – the amount a person might take in
a one-night rave– could cause serious damage to another part of the
brain: neurons that use the brain chemical dopamine.

Two of 10 animals died quickly after their second or third dose of the
drug, and two others were too sick to take the third dose. Six weeks
later, dopamine levels in the surviving animals were still down 65
percent. That led Hopkins team leader George Ricaurte and his
colleagues to conclude that users were playing Russian roulette with
their brains.

Advocates of ecstasy’s therapeutic potential, including a number of
scientists and doctors who believe it may be useful in treating
post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychiatric conditions,
criticized the study. They noted that the drug was given in higher
doses than people commonly take and was administered by injection, not
by mouth. They wondered why large numbers of users were not dying or
growing deathly ill from the drug, as the animals did, and why no
previous link had been made between ecstasy and Parkinson’s despite
decades of use and a large number of studies.

The answer to at least some of those questions became clear with the
retraction, which is being released by Science on Sunday evening but
was obtained independently by The Washington Post. Because of a
mislabeling of vials, the scientists wrote, all but one of the animals
were injected not with ecstasy but with methamphetamine, or “speed” —
a drug known to damage the dopamine system.

The researchers said they discovered the mistake when follow-up tests
gave conflicting results, and they offered evidence that the tubes
were mislabeled by the supplier, identified by sources as Research
Triangle Institute of North Carolina. A spokesman for the company
said last night that he did not know whether the company had erred.

The error has renewed charges that government-funded scientists, and
Ricaurte in particular, have been biased in their assessment of
ecstasy’s risks and potential benefits.

Rick Doblin, president of Multidisciplinary Association for
Psychedelic Studies, a Sarasota, Fla.-based group that funds studies
on therapeutic uses of mind-altering drugs and is seeking permission
to conduct human tests of MDMA, said the evidence of serotonin system
damage is weak.

“The largest and best-controlled study of the effect of MDMA on
serotonin showed no long-term effects in former users and minimal to
no effects in current users,” he said.

Una McCann, one of the Hopkins scientists, said she regretted the role
the false results may have played in a debate going on last year in
Congress and within the Drug Enforcement Administration over how to
deal with ecstasy abuse.

“I feel personally terrible,” she said. “You spend a lot of time
trying to get things right, not only for the congressional record but
for other scientists around the country who are basing new hypotheses
on your work and are writing grant proposals to study this.”

But she and Ricaurte emphasized last night that the retraction had not
changed their feelings about the danger of taking ecstasy.

“I still wouldn’t recommend it to anybody,” McCann
said.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editors,

Dr. Ricaurte’s motives behind initially publishing this study
suggesting that a common dose of ecstasy might cause brain damage and
Dr. Leshner’s motives in promoting the study must be seriously
questioned. They ignored other studies with humans showing no brain
damage and anecdotal evidence and health data from millions of ecstasy
users over 20 years that have not revealed the magnitude of risk
suggested by Dr. Ricaurte’s studies.

This irresponsible bias on the part of politicians and NIDA funded
scientists undermines efforts to educate young people and adults about
the real risks associated with drug use. It is easily seen for what it
is, dishonest scare tactics, which causes a loss of trust in
authorities. It also puts drug users at greater risk by depriving them
of honest information that enables informed choices that may reduce
the potential harms associated with drug use.

Andrew Tatarsky, Ph.D. Harm Reduction Psychotherapy and Training
Associates

Please note: This is a sample letter only, already sent to one of the
large target newspapers. Your own letters to editors should be
substantially different.

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See:

Writer’s Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

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

Prepared by: Richard Lake

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
[email protected]

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003
Subject: #274 US Drug Warriors Threaten Canada – By Request?

US DRUG WARRIORS THREATEN CANADA – BY REQUEST?

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #274 August 28, 2003

When it comes to drug policy, the people are way ahead of the
politicians. And Canada is light years ahead of its southern
neighbor. Like many Western countries, Canada has largely abandoned
zero tolerance in a favor of harm reduction. Interestingly enough,
it’s not safe-injection rooms or the very real prospect of heroin
maintenance pilot projects that have drawn the ire of U.S. drug
warriors, but rather marijuana decriminalization.

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has
conducted a relentless cross-border reefer madness campaign ever since
Canada’s Senate proposed marijuana legalization in 2002, even going so
far as to repeatedly threaten Canada with a trade-inhibiting border
crackdown. US pressure notwithstanding, marijuana law reform
continues to move forward in Canada – despite the efforts of some
Members of Parliament who actively sought out U.S. drug war
misinformation.

In a disturbing August 27th editorial, the National Post reveals that
opposition elements in Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s own
party conspired with the ONDCP to thwart marijuana law reforms. Write
the National Post today to thank them for exposing Canada’s reefer
madness holdouts. Be sure to remind them that U.S. drug policy is not
worthy of emulation.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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,
email messages, etc.)

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not
subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others
can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ([email protected]) will help you to
review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm
and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: National Post (Canada)

Contact: [email protected]

TARGET ANALYSIS

As one of Canada’s two large national newspapers, the National Post is
always a worthy target for letters to the editor. The average
published letter is about 160 words in length; however, well written
letters of up to 250 words have been published.

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

ORIGINAL EDITORIAL

Pubdate: Wed, 27 Aug 2003
Source: National Post (Canada)
Copyright: 2003 Southam Inc.
Contact: [email protected]

A DOPEY LOBBY

It is nothing new for Jean Chretien to be feuding with backbenchers.
But while the Prime Minister may have himself to blame for some of his
deteriorating relations, he appears to have had good cause to blow his
top at several of his caucus members last week.

In July, a group of Liberal MPs met with Barry Crane, the U.S. deputy
drug czar. The MPs claim the point of the meeting was simply to help
them gain an understanding of U.S. concerns over Canada’s plan to
decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. But a Foreign
Affairs official who attended and took notes has reported that they
used the opportunity to actively lobby the U.S. government to press
its objections to the policy change by tying it to trade and border
disputes. “All the attendees were highly critical of the proposed
cannabis reform bill,” the official’s memo noted. “The apparent aim of
the members of the meeting was to solicit the help of U.S. officials
to defeat [it].”

Although some of the MPs have claimed that their intentions have been
misreported, at least one — Brenda Chamberlain — has admitted not
only that she and others asked Mr. Crane to tell the PM and federal
bureaucrats about the possibility of border problems if the law
passed, but that they asked him to repeat those concerns when he
indicated he had already expressed them. And according to reports,
Liberal MP Dan McTeague — who the memo says conveyed “the obvious
implication that the only thing that would stop [decriminalization]
was U.S. influence” — gave Mr. Crane’s officials a memo listing the
bill’s flaws.

Assuming the MPs have not been unfairly smeared by these reports,
their conduct was inexcusable: Given the damage that has already been
wrought against our economy thanks to existing U.S. restrictions on
softwood lumber and beef, we hardly need our elected MPs manufacturing
yet another problem. Indeed, the backbenchers’ spiteful campaign
against the government’s sensible marijuana reforms contravenes the
national interest they were elected to protect.

Somewhere along the way, Ms. Chamberlain, Mr. McTeague and others
appear to have lost perspective. As some of Mr. Chretien’s toughest
critics, their tactics have grown increasingly aggressive over the
past couple of years. Ordinarily, that’s just fine; given the weak
state of the opposition parties, a little friendly fire is a
constructive thing. But attempting to turn our neighbours against us
represents a step too far.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editors,

Your August 27th editorial was right on target. Clearly the Liberal
MPs who actively sought out U.S. drug warriors to thwart long-overdue
marijuana law reform never bothered to consider the experience of the
former land of the free and current record holder in citizens
incarcerated. Police searches on public transit, drug-sniffing dogs
in schools and suspicionless drug testing have led to a loss of civil
liberties in the United States, while failing miserably at preventing
drug use.

The University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future Study reports that
lifetime use of marijuana is higher in the U.S. than any European
country, yet the U.S. is one of the few Western countries that uses
its criminal justice system to punish citizens who prefer marijuana to
martinis. Unfortunately, marijuana represents the counterculture to
reactionaries intent on legislating their version of morality. Canada
should follow the lead of Europe and Just Say No to the American
Inquisition.

Sincerely,
Juan Costo

Please note: This is a sample letter only. Your own letter should be
substantially different so that it will be considered.

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See:

Writer’s Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

**********************************************************************
TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

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

Prepared by: Robert Sharpe

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
[email protected]

Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003
Subject: #273 Rumsfeld Reiterates Supply Side Failure

RUMSFELD REITERATES SUPPLY SIDE FAILURE

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 273 August 19, 2003

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld may very well be the only
person in the Bush administration capable of applying basic economic
principles to drug policy. During his confirmation hearings in 2001
he boldly spoke out against the supply-side drug war, noting that
America’s drug problem is “overwhelmingly a demand problem… If
demand persists, it’s going to get what it wants. And if it isn’t
from Colombia, it’s going to be from someplace else.” More recently,
Rumsfeld broke ranks with prohibitionist ideology once again,
criticizing the supply-side drug war during an August 14th Town Hall
meeting at the Pentagon.

Prompted by a reporter’s question on Afghanistan’s booming opium
trade, Rumsfeld exhibited a clear understanding of prohibition
economics. “You push it down in one country, and it goes up in
another country” said Rumsfeld. “You push it down in four countries,
and the price goes up because there’s a shortage, and the higher the
price, the greater the willingness of people to take risk, the
greatest — greater the willingness of people to buy the kinds of
things they need to hide what they’re doing and to protect them as
they transport these materials.”

Rumsfeld’s answer can be read in its entirety at: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030814-secdef0581.html

Inspired by Rumsfeld, the Boston Globe ran a powerful August 16th
editorial that used key portions of his comments to make the case for
a long overdue shift in drug policy resources. Not only did the
Boston Globe agree with Rumsfeld’s take on the failure of the
supply-side drug war, but their editorial board refused to buy into
the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s claim that U.S. drug policy
is “balanced.”

Thanks in part to Rumsfeld’s straight talk, the Boston Globe is
beginning to understand what is wrong with the drug war. Write the
Boston Globe today to thank them for exposing the drug war’s inherent
imbalance. Be sure to tactfully let them know that it’s not a just a
question of resource allocation. Law enforcement and effective
treatment are mutually exclusive. Would alcoholics seek help for
their illness if doing so were tantamount to confessing to criminal
activity?

Thanks for your effort and support.

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,
email messages, etc.)

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not
subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others
can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ([email protected]) will help you to
review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm
and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Boston Globe (MA)

Contact: [email protected]

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

Original Editorial:

Pubdate: Sat, 16 Aug 2003
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2003 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: (mailto:[email protected])[email protected]
Website: (http://www.boston.com/globe/)http://www.boston.com/globe/

DRUG WAR DISTORTIONS

IN ACKNOWLEDGING that opium production is on the rise in Afghanistan,
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has suddenly enlisted as a
demand-side soldier in the war on drugs — a move that is most welcome
if it spreads to others in the Bush administration. For more than two
decades, Washington’s war on drugs has tilted heavily toward
supply-side strategies: arresting drug smugglers and dealers;
defoliating coca fields; attempting to squeeze off the production and
availability of narcotics.

But this approach has failed in Afghanistan, where US forces and the
US-backed government have been less effective than the Taliban in
controlling the production of opium and heroin.

“My impression is that in a very real sense it’s a demand problem,”
Rumsfeld said Thursday in a town hall question-and-answer session with
civilian and military employees of the Pentagon. “It’s a problem that
there are a lot of people who want it, a lot of people with money who
will pay for it, a lot of people who will steal from others to pay for
it.”

As for Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said, “You ask what we’re going to do and
the answer is I don’t really know.”

This shrug of impotence contrasts sharply with America’s aggressive
drug policy elsewhere. In Colombia, $1.6 billion goes into the effort
annually, making it the third-largest recipient of US dollars after
Israel and Egypt. In the end, Rumsfeld characterized drug use as “a
whale of a tough problem. And I’m afraid that the ultimate solution
for that is going to be probably found by attacking it in all
directions, not just the supply side but the education and demand side
as well.”

Rumsfeld’s specialty is military conflicts, but his candid assessment
should be a lesson to those leading the war on drugs. Will Glaspy,
spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration, insists the overall
policy is balanced, “combining strong enforcement with education and
treatment. We know we can’t arrest our way out of it.”

Yet the proportion of federal drug funds going to treatment was cut in
half during the Reagan administration and has never recovered. And
with nearly all 50 states slashing budgets in response to revenue
shortfalls, state and local drug treatment facilities have been hard
hit, including in Massachusetts.

Those fighting drug abuse cannot avoid supply. The blooming poppy
fields of Afghanistan — once again the world’s leading supplier of
opium — are a deserved embarrassment to the United States.

But Rumsfeld is right in pointing to the other side of the market.
There will be few victories in the war on drugs until effective
treatment and education lower demand. But Rumsfeld is right in
pointing to the other side of the market. There will be few victories
in the war on drugs until effective treatment and education lower demand.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editor,

I’m glad someone in the Bush administration is capable of applying
basic economic principles to drug policy. Your excellent Aug. 16th
editorial on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s take on the
supply-side drug war should be required reading at the Drug
Enforcement Administration. It’s not just a question of wasted
resources. The tough-on-drugs approach essentially provides price
supports for organized crime by limiting supply while demand remains
constant.

The DEA talks about a “balanced” approach involving enforcement,
education and treatment, but talk is cheap. Using the criminal
justice system to deal with substance abuse makes as much sense as
using a baseball bat to fix a broken bone. I think it’s safe to say
that turnout at alcoholics anonymous meetings would be rather low if
alcoholism were a crime pursued with zero tolerance zeal. Until more
media follow the lead of the Boston Globe and begin to question drug
war distortions, this country will continue to waste scarce tax
dollars on misguided drug policies that discourage effective treatment
– while subsidizing organized crime.

Sincerely,

Charles Brent

Please note: The Boston Globe limits letters to 200 words or less.
This is a sample letter only. Your own letter should be substantially
different so that it will be considered for publication.

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See:

Writer’s Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

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

Prepared by: Robert Sharpe

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
[email protected]

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003
Subject: #272 New York Times Gets It Right

NEW YORK TIMES GETS IT RIGHT

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #272 August 13, 2003

Just days after Attorney General John Ashcroft asked U.S attorneys to
report judges who “downwardly depart” from federal sentencing
guidelines, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy told the annual
meeting of the American Bar Association that prison terms are too long
and that he favors scrapping the practice of setting mandatory minimum
sentences for some federal crimes. “Our resources are misspent, our
punishments too severe, our sentences too long,” Kennedy said. “I can
accept neither the necessity nor the wisdom of federal mandatory
minimum sentences.” Kennedy asked lawyers to think about the
consequences of the current prison system, including what he called
its “remarkable scale” of about 2.1 million people behind bars
nationwide and the fact that about 40 percent of the prison population
is black.

At a time when fiscal crises are forcing states to implement
state-level sentencing reform, Kennedy’s remarks have the potential to
spark a lively debate on the need for federal reform. In what will
likely be the first of many editorials on the subject, the New York
Times calls on the Bush administration to heed Kennedy’s advice. Not
only does the Times make a strong case for sentencing reform, but the
editorial correctly identifies one of the primary reasons the land of
the free now has the highest incarceration rate in the world –
draconian drug laws. Write the New York Times today to let them know
you agree with their position.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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,
email messages, etc.)

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not
subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others
can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ([email protected]) will help you to
review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm
and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: New York Times

Contact: [email protected]

TARGET ANALYSIS

The New York Times is one of the most widely read and influential
newspapers in the country. Our analysis of published letters at
http://www.mapinc.org/mapcgi/ltedex.pl?SOURCE=New+York+Times indicates
a strong preference for short letters. The average published letter is
only 113 words long, with a range from 45 to 143 words. Please note
that the New York Times limits letters to 150 words.

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

ORIGINAL EDITORIAL

Pubdate: Tue, 12 Aug 2003
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2003 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]

JUSTICE KENNEDY SPEAKS OUT

We hope that both the members of Congress and the Bush administration
were paying attention last weekend when Supreme Court Justice Anthony
Kennedy, a tough-on-crime Reagan appointee, decried harsh and
inflexible sentencing policies. Justice Kennedy was speaking for legal
experts from across the political spectrum when he said the current
rules misspent America’s criminal justice resources by locking up
people for irrationally long amounts of time.

The nation’s inmate population reached 2.1 million, a record, last
year. One major factor behind the increase has been the imposition of
the mandatory minimum sentences contained in many federal laws,
especially drug laws. A second reason for the rise is the effect of
federal sentencing guidelines, which were adopted in the mid-1980’s to
make criminal sentences in federal cases more uniform. These two
measures have both pressured judges to give longer sentences than they
otherwise would.

Justice Kennedy, speaking to the American Bar Association’s annual
convention, said he supported sentencing guidelines in principle, but
that they must be “revised downward” to less draconian levels. As for
the mandatory minimums, the inflexible minimum sentences written into
some laws, Justice Kennedy said he could accept neither their
“necessity” nor their “wisdom.” He is hardly alone, even among
conservatives, in raising these objections. Chief Justice William
Rehnquist has complained that inflexible sentencing rules may threaten
judicial independence. And Judge John Martin Jr., appointed by the
first President George Bush, has announced that he is leaving the
federal bench rather than remain part of “a sentencing system that is
unnecessarily cruel and rigid.”

Even as these objections are being raised, the Bush administration and
Congressional Republicans are making the situation worse. They have
enacted a new law, called the Feeney Amendment, that reduces judges’
discretion to impose sentences less severe than those called for by
the guidelines. And Attorney General John Ashcroft has announced plans
to track individual judges’ sentencing records, an intimidating move
that critics are calling a judicial blacklist.

Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote this year in upholding lengthy
sentences for minor crimes under California’s “three strikes” law. But
as he told the association, a court can call something permissible
that is not necessarily “wise or just.” Mandatory minimums and overly
harsh federal sentencing guidelines are not wise or just. If the Bush
administration does not believe the liberal critics, it should take
the word of the growing number of conservatives who are calling for
reform.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editor,

Your August 12th editorial on Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s
well-founded criticism of mandatory minimums was right on target. If
draconian penalties served to deter illicit drug use the elusive goal
of a “drug-free” America would have been achieved decades ago.
Instead of adding to what is already the highest incarceration rate in
the world, we should be funding cost-effective drug treatment.

It’s worth noting that tobacco use has declined considerably in recent
years. Public education efforts are paying off. Apparently,
mandatory minimum sentences, civil asset forfeiture, random drug
testing and racial profiling are not necessarily the most
cost-effective means of discouraging unhealthy choices.

Sincerely,

Hamilton Wright

Please Note: This is a sample letter only. Your own letter should be
substantially different so that it will be considered for publication.

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See:

Writer’s Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

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

Additional Related Letter to the Editor Targets

The news items at the top of the lists – the ones from the last few days –
produced by clicking these links may also be good targets for similar
Letters to the Editor:

http://www.mapinc.org/people/Justice+Anthony+Kennedy

http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Feeney+Amendment

http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

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

Prepared by: Robert Sharpe

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
[email protected]

Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003
Subject: #271 Lou Dobbs Duped By Drug Czar

LOU DOBBS DUPED BY DRUG CZAR

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #271, 10 Aug 2003

On Sunday, August 10th, the New York Daily News printed a column
written by CNN economist Lou Dobbs. Dobbs’ column came on the heels
of a five-part presentation – The Forgotten War-from his nightly CNN
television show, Lou Dobbs Tonight.

The television series covered a wide range of drug war related topics
and included footage and quotes from both policy makers and reform
activists. However the concluding interview was with U.S. Drug Czar
John Walters who answered all questions from Dobbs with misleading and
frankly inaccurate information and statistics. Dobbs did nothing to
provide a rebuttal to the drug war rhetoric.

Then in the Daily News column, Dobbs gave strong support to the
current drug war tactics and presented reformers as being ‘dopey’ and
unconcerned with the social costs of drug ‘abuse’. Dobbs accepts the
Drug Czar’s definition that any drug use is abuse – for which arrest
is an appropriate way of reducing harm. He bought into many of the
Czar’s drug war distortions, for which honest evidence is presented at
http://www.drugwardistortions.org/

Please consider writing a letter to the Daily News and also to CNN
with appropriate comments on how you believe Dobbs could more
accurately present information about the failed drug war.

Thanks for your effort and support.

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,
email messages, etc.)

Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) if you are subscribed, or by
E-mailing a copy directly to [email protected] if you are not
subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others
can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit.

This is _Very_ Important as it is one very effective way of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ([email protected]) will help you to
review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
efforts.

To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm
and/or http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

CONTACT and TARGET information

Source: New York Daily News

Contact: [email protected]

The New York Daily News prints short and to the point letters. The
average published letter is about 82 words in length, with few larger
than 150 words.

We suggest that you email your message to CNN to all three of these
addresses:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

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

ORIGINAL COLUMN

Pubdate: Sun, 10 Aug 2003
Source: New York Daily News (NY)
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nydailynews.com/
Author: Lou Dobbs

Why Legalizing Drugs Is A Dopey Idea

We’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars in law enforcement,
prevention and treatment since former President Richard Nixon declared
war on drugs in 1971. Yet the use of illicit substances continues to
plague our country.

The federal government spends nearly $1 billion a month on this war,
but users spend more than five times that much to buy drugs.

Beyond the horrific human toll of 20,000 drug-induced deaths each
year, illegal drugs cost our economy more than $280 billion annually,
according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration.

Incredibly, there are those who choose to ignore drugs’ human
devastation and economic cost. Many of them are pseudo-sophisticate
baby boomers who consider themselves superior and hip in their wry,
reckless disregard of the facts.

They also may smoke marijuana, advocate its legalization and
rationalize cocaine as what they call a recreational drug.

And there is a surprising list of libertarians and conservatives,
including William Buckley and Nobel laureate economist Milton
Friedman, who also advocate the legalization of drugs.

Another Nobel laureate, Gary Becker, a professor of economics at the
University of Chicago, told me, “It would certainly save a lot of
resources for society. We could tax drug use so it could even lead to
government revenue.”

He also said, “We would be able to greatly cut the number of people in
prison, which would save resources for state and local
government.”

But the cost of drug abuse goes well beyond the expense of controlling
supply and demand. Drug users cost the country $160 billion each year
in lost productivity. Parental substance abuse is responsible for $10
billion of the $14 billion spent nationally each year on child
welfare. And drugs are involved in seven out of 10 cases of abuse and
neglect.

Pete Wilson, former governor of California, is a strong opponent of
drug legalization. Wilson said the problem that advocates of
legalization fail to acknowledge is that drugs are addictive and,
therefore, not just another commodity.

“Drugs did not become viewed as bad because they are illegal,” Wilson
said. “Rather, they became illegal because they are clearly bad.”

Although the war on drugs certainly has not captured the American
public’s attention, there has been success in efforts to curb drug use
and supply.

According to the University of Michigan’s Monitoring the Future Study,
the percentage of high school seniors who reported using any drug in
the past month decreased to 26% in 2001 from 39% in 1978.

Crop Report

There are 9 million fewer drug users in America than there were in
1979. And coca cultivation was 15% lower in Colombia in 2002, thanks
to the combined efforts of the U.S. and Colombian governments.

John Walters, national drug control policy director, is optimistic
about the war on drugs. Walters told me, “We have to remember that,
since we got serious in the ’80s, overall drug use is half of what it
was. And that’s progress.”

I would say that is quite a lot of progress, but the job is only half
done.

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

The CNN Series – The Forgotten War – may be read in full at this
URL:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1204/a06.html

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

SAMPLE LETTERS

To the editors of the New York Daily News:

Lou Dobbs accepts the wisdom of U.S. Drug Czar John Walters as being
accurate and authoritative and therefore is duped into promoting
continued expansion and perpetuation of the failed War on Drugs.

If drugs are illegal because they are dangerous – per California’s
Pete Wilson – then Dobbs offers no explanation for why we should not
criminalize tobacco and alcohol use. If all drug use is abuse, then
the only way to win the war is to arrest and jail at least 20 million
more Americans who enjoy responsibly using marijuana.

If anyone thinks that citizens truthfully answer ‘Yes’ to telephone
surveys which ask, “Do you use illegal drugs?”, then Walters’
assertion that ‘drug use has been cut in half’ holds water.
Otherwise, this assertion is absurd and Dobbs should be smart enough
to see it.

The many reputable voices Dobbs cites, along with millions of other
citizens who promote reform of current drug policies, are not blind to
the very real risks and damage to people associated with legal drug
use. We simply believe that the policy of criminal drug prohibition
laws result in far greater costs and destruction – does more harm by
far than the drugs themselves.

Sincerely,

Billy Bennett

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

TO the producers of Lou Dobbs Tonight:

Does Lou Dobbs have financial interests in policies which support drug
prohibition laws? His five part series – The Forgotten War – gave a
broad exposure to the many aspects of the current War Against Drugs
and also included alternative ideas and comments from those who
believe serious reform of these policies is needed, but Dobbs seemed
to be persuaded only by those who promote continuation of the failed
Drug War. Your online poll, while admittedly not scientific, showed
over 90% of respondents believe marijuana should be decriminalized,
but Dobbs gave that literally no attention.

Mr. Dobbs repeatedly mentioned the expenditures of billions of dollars
and complained that legalizers ignore the economic cost. And yet, all
of those expenditures are a result of, or increased by, the war on
drugs, which he would have us continue and even escalate. As an
economist, Lou Dobbs should know better.

Sincerely,

Pete Guither

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

Please note: These are SAMPLE letters only. Your own letters should be
substantially different so that they will be considered as adding to
the discussion.

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing efforts, Please See:

Writer’s Resources http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:

Please utilize the following URLs

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

We wish to thank all our contributors, editors, Newshawks and letter
writing activists.

**********************************************************************
Prepared by: Stephen Heath, DPF Florida http://www.dpffl.org

= Please help us help reform. Send drug-related news to
[email protected]