Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999
Subject: McCaffrey’s Attempt At An Offensive Makes Great Target!

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #113 Tuesday June 29, 1999

McCaffrey’s Attempt At An Offensive Makes Great Target!

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #113

Well, McCzar has finally done it; he’s been goaded (probably by the
press response to last week’s hearings, plus the Geraldo NBC special)
into attempting the impossible: a reasoned defense of the need for
prohibition. This is a heaven-sent opportunity to slay the dragon
intellectually-once and for all. We can never convince the
doctrinaire zanies, but we can persuade reasonable people to consign
prohibitionists to the same intellectual pigeon-hole as creationists;
McC’s just made the classic mistake the French made at Dien Bien Phu-
putting all his eggs in a single basket.

It’s as full of holes as Swiss cheese; it’s central flaw is citing the
fact that drugs may be both addictive and harmful as an imperative for
creation of an additionally harmful and destructive criminal market.

As for his claims that America’s policy has had some success over the
years; mere citation of just some random details of its record is
enough to hoot that one right off the stage. This op-ed should provoke
the immediate & best efforts of as many letter-writers as possible.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

*

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Contact: Feedback:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

Note: for best results write your letter off line so you can spell check
etc. then paste it into the LTE window at the address above.

*

Pubdate: Tue, 29 June 1999
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: Barry R. McCaffrey
Note: The writer is director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

DON’T LEGALIZE THOSE DRUGS
By Barry McCaffrey

Three-quarters of the U.S. population opposes the legalization of
psychoactive drugs such as heroin, cocaine, LSD, methamphetamine, and
marijuana. Therefore, the term “drug legalization” has rightfully
acquired pejorative connotations. Many supporters of this position
have adopted the label “harm reduction” to soften the impact of an
unpopular proposal that, if passed, would encourage greater
availability and use of drugs — especially among children. The
euphemism of “harm reduction” implies that legalizing dangerous
substances would reduce the harm these substances cause. In fact,
condoning drugs would increase their use and hence their harm.

Drug use imposes an unacceptable risk of harm on the user and others.
The evidence supporting this viewpoint is chilling:

Substance abuse wrecks families. A survey of state child-welfare
agencies found substance abuse to be one of the top two problems
exhibited by 81 percent of families reported for child maltreatment.
Researchers estimate that chemical dependence is present in at least
half of the families involved in the child welfare system. One study
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed
that non-drug users who live in households where drugs are used are 11
times more likely to be killed than individuals from drug-free households.

Drug-dependent individuals are responsible for a disproportionate
percentage of our nation’s violent and income-generating crimes such
as robbery, burglary or theft. National Institute of Justice surveys
consistently find that between one-half and three-quarters of all
arrestees have drugs in their system at the time of arrest. In 1997, a
third of state prisoners and about one in five federal prisoners said
they had committed the crimes that led to incarceration while under
the influence of drugs.

Injection-drug users place themselves at great risk. A University of
Pennsylvania study of Philadelphia injection-drug users found that
four times as many addicts died from overdose, homicide, heart
disease, renal failure and liver disease as did from causes associated
with HIV disease. Dr. James Curtis, director of addiction services at
Harlem Hospital Center, explains: “It is false, misleading and
unethical to give addicts the idea that they can be intravenous drug
abusers without suffering serious self-injury.”

Clearly, drugs themselves harm users. A significant percentage of all
current drug users are addicted to illegal substances. Addiction is a
brain disease that changes a person’s neurochemistry. For 4 million
chronically addicted people, drug use is not a choice and hence has
little to do with personal liberty. Removing the threat of criminal
sanctions would eliminate the possibility of forced treatment and
condemn countless addicts to miserable lives.

One argument given for drug legalization by harm-reduction advocates
is that the “war against drugs has been lost.” Aside from the fact
that this is not a war, much progress has been made. Current drug
policies are reducing drug use and its consequences. Drug use in this
country has declined by half since 1979. The number of current users
dropped from 25 million in 1979 to 13 million in 1996. The decrease in
current use of cocaine has been even more dramatic.

This is not to say that drug policies cannot be improved. The 1999
National Drug Control Strategy is implementing important changes. The
strategy’s number one goal is prevention. In the past four years, the
administration increased spending on prevention by 55 percent while
spending on treatment rose 25 percent. The strategy calls for more
treatment in the criminal justice system to break the cycle of drugs
and crime.

At root, the debate over drug legalization boils down to a question of
risk. Studies show that the more a product is available and
legitimized, the greater will be its use. If drugs were legalized, the
cost to the individual and society would grow astronomically. Removing
the criminal status associated with drug use and sale would not make
such activity less criminal when drug abuse wrecks young lives. It is
criminal that more money is spent on illegal drugs than on art or
higher education; it is criminal that crack babies are born addicted
and in pain; it is criminal that thousands of adolescents lose their
health and the freedom to create a bright future.

Harm-reduction advocates tolerate drug use because they consider it
part of the human condition that will always be with us. Many other
perennial problems such as racism, theft and aggression cannot be
extinguished entirely, but we still resist their damage and
criminalize the practices. No one argues that we should legalize these
activities to make them more sanitary or provide tax revenues.

On a judicial level, the question of drug legalization comes down to
whether we should legalize destructive behavior. With respect to the
individual, society at large and the environment, American
jurisprudence has run in the opposite direction. Americans have
decided that people do not have a right to ride motorcycles without
wearing helmets, drive cars without using seat belts, pollute the
environment at will, or endanger the self and others by refusing
vaccination or similar life-saving health measures. In general, our
laws indicate that self-destructive activity should not be permitted
or condoned. Drug consumption damages the brain, which in turn
produces other forms of destructive behavior. U.S. law does not grant
people the right to destroy themselves or others. Addictive drugs were
criminalized because they are harmful; they are not harmful because
they were criminalized.

The writer is director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Editors:

Drug czar Barry McCaffrey observes that despite the “pejorative
connotations” attached to the term “drug legalization”, one-quarter of
Americans– or 68.1 million citizens-would favor legalization. Of
course, reform advocates don’t want “legalization” as commonly
understood; we desire a regulated market like the liquor and tobacco
markets, not an unregulated free-for-all. Unfortunately, the dangers
of a completely uncontrolled market are exactly what current drug
policies deliver most effectively.

McCaffrey claims that drugs are illegal because they are harmful, not
vice versa. This claim runs counter to every lesson America learned
from alcohol Prohibition. During that “Noble Experiment”, deaths from
poisoned liquor skyrocketed, cities were controlled by bootlegger
gangs, and children had equal access to liquor (because dealers never
ask for ID). The parallels to our Drug War are hard to miss;
consider, especially, the fact that kids can generally get
(unregulated) marijuana more easily than (regulated) alcohol.

Prohibition was well-intentioned, but law enforcement is the wrong
tool for solving a social and health problem. Regulated markets and
treatment on demand are significantly more effective.

Keith Sanders

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

Prepared by “Tom O’Connell” ([email protected]) and Keith Sanders
([email protected]) DrugSense FOCUS Alert Specialists

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.

NOTICE:

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.

REMINDER:

Please help us help reform. Send any news articles you find on any
drug related issue to [email protected]

=
NOW YOU CAN DONATE TO DRUGSENSE ONLINE AND IT’S TAX DEDUCTIBLE

DrugSense provides many services to at no charge BUT THEY ARE NOT FREE
TO PRODUCE.

We incur many costs in creating our many and varied services. If you
are able to help by contributing to the DrugSense effort visit our
convenient donation web site at http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm

* Just DO It!!

Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999
Subject: FOCUS Alert – Asset Forfeiture Bill Passes! Write A Letter

U.S. House Takes A Step Away From Drug War With Asset Forfeiture Reform Bill

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 112 Asset Forfeiture Bill Passes! Huge Victory
for Individual Liberty and Freedom

Since they were adopted in the 1980s, asset forfeiture laws have
threatened every citizen. The laws gave police the power to take
property from people who were merely accused of drug crimes; no
convictions were necessary. As law enforcement officials raked in easy
money, horror stories about innocent people losing cash, cars and
homes have multiplied. Some of the stories and other information about
asset forfeiture abuses have been documented at

http://www.fear.org

while an excellent series of reports on how state law enforcement has
taken advantage from the Kansas City Star is available at

http://www.kcstar.com/projects/drugforfeit/index.html

Even the U.S. House of Representatives felt uncomfortable about these
policies. Last week, by a huge margin, the house voted in favor bill
that offers sweeping and meaningful reforms to asset forfeiture
practices. As the nation waits for a response from the U.S. Senate,
please write a letter to your local newspapers, and other publications
around the country, thanking House members for this important action.
You may also want to write directly to your federal legislators to
express the need for reform.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

*

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXTRA CREDIT part 1 –

Write your local newspapers, or other newspapers around the country
encouraging the reform of asset forfeiture laws.

Need an Email address for your local paper? Email addresses for nearly
every paper of any size can be found at:

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXTRA CREDIT part 2 –

Write your federal legislators to remind them of the importance of
this issue. To find contact information for your senator of
congressman, use the links below.

NOTE: The Senate in particular needs to be encouraged to pass this
legislation.

For the Senate:

http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

For the House:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

*

Pubdate: June 25, 1999
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/
Copyright: 1999 Chicago Tribune Comany
Author: Mike Dorning,

HOUSE OVERWHELMINGLY BACKS MEASURE TO LIMIT SEIZURE LAWS

WASHINGTON — Responding to reported abuses of federal laws permitting
authorities to seize property suspected of use in crimes, the House
voted overwhelmingly Thursday to make it easier for citizens not
convicted of crimes to recover property taken from them.

The seizure of private property has become an increasingly popular
weapon in fighting crime–and in generating revenue to fund law
enforcement–since Congress expanded police power to seize assets
during the 1980s as part of the war on drugs.

The annual flow of cash, vehicles, houses, airplanes and other assets
to the Justice Department has surged from $27 million in 1985 to $449
million last year.

Critics assert that weak protection for property owners has allowed
that weapon to be misused. A property owner need not be charged with a
crime before his property is taken and, once police seize the
property, the owner bears the burden of proving it was not used in
law-breaking activities.

“They don’t have to convict you. They don’t even have to charge you
with a crime, but they’ve got your property,” said House Judiciary
Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.).

He called the current law “a throwback to the days of the Soviet
Union, where justice was the justice of the government and the citizen
didn’t have a chance.”

The legislation, which does not affect confiscation from people
convicted of crimes, was propelled to a 375-48 approval in the House
by an unusual alliance of conservative constitutionalists and liberal
civil libertarians.

The lead sponsors include some of the fiercest antagonists from the
presidential impeachment battle, including Hyde, conservative Rep. Bob
Barr (R-Ga.), archliberal Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Rep. John
Conyers (D-Mich.), President Clinton’s top defender on the Judiciary
Committee.

The measure still must pass the Senate and faces opposition from
police organizations, as well as the Justice Department.

The bill approved Thursday would shift the burden of proof in seizure
cases to require the government to present “clear and convincing”
evidence that property was used for an illegal purpose.

Currently, authorities can seize assets if they have “probable cause”
to believe the assets were used in breaking the law. That is the same
standard of evidence police use to stop and frisk people and the
lowest threshold in criminal law.

Hyde said the low standard of evidence is especially troubling because
local police agencies are allowed to keep up to 80 percent of the
value of confiscated property for their own use.

“It’s like the speed trap along the rural highway . . . You don’t have
a great chance at equal justice,” Hyde said.

Under the measure, indigent people would be entitled to free legal
representation in proceedings to reclaim their property.

A current requirement that property owners first post a bond worth 10
percent of the property taken from them before they can file a
challenge would be dropped. And citizens would be able to regain use
of their property during the court proceedings, if they showed that
they otherwise faced a hardship.

Hyde said the lopsided House vote should help as the measure moves to
the Senate because “it shows there is strength. It is not a bizarre,
off-the-wall idea.”

Law-enforcement officials consider vigorous asset seizures a crucial
way to discourage the drug trade because it attacks narcotics dealers’
motive for entering the business: money.

“Yes, there have been high-profile cases where mistakes were made,”
said Gene Voegtlin, legislative counsel for the International
Association of Chiefs of Police. “But these are things that would lead
to frivolous lawsuits and burden the court system.”

Myron Marlin, spokesman for the Justice Department, conceded the law
should be changed so property owners no longer must bear the burden of
proving their innocence.

But the department advocates allowing the government to prevail in
asset-seizure cases by meeting a lower standard of proof: the
preponderance of evidence, which means it only must make a better
case–however slight–than the property owner. That is the standard
used in civil lawsuits.

The House defeated a proposed amendment that included that lower
standard.

A Justice Department official involved in enforcement said the tougher
“clear and convincing” standard in the bill would make it especially
hard to seize assets in cases involving suspected money-laundering.

“The whole point of money-laundering is to make it difficult to
establish a connection with the crime,” the official said.

News media reports and congressional hearings uncovered a series of
apparent abuses of existing seizure law.

In one case detailed in congressional testimony, a nursery owner had
$9,000 cash confiscated from him in a Nashville airport after he paid
cash for an airline ticket to Houston, thus triggering suspicions he
was a drug courier.

Drug-sniffing dogs suggested there were traces of narcotics on the
money. The nursery owner, Willie Jones, never was charged with a
crime; it took two years of legal wrangling for him to regain the cash.

The Justice Department’s Marlin said that more than 80 percent of
federal asset seizures are related to an arrest, although not
necessarily of the property owner.

In about two-fifths of the cases, the property is suspected of being
used in the drug trade. But the federal government also makes wide use
of the laws in seizing property related to the smuggling of illegal
immigrants, money-laundering and other white-collar crimes, Marlin
said.

Hyde said in the floor debate that he was inspired to propose the
legislation after reading a 1993 column by the Tribune’s Steve Chapman
describing abuses of the seizure law.

“I must tell you I couldn’t believe it. I thought over 200 years ago
we had worked out what due process meant, what equality under the law
meant,” Hyde said.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Henry Hyde and all the co-sponsors and supporters of the asset
forfeiture reform bill passed in the U.S. House deserve our thanks.

As they are currently applied, asset forfeiture procedures amount to a
license to steal for law enforcement officials. The protections
offered by the Hyde bill are a crucial step towards safeguarding every
citizen from the horrible abuses documented by Hyde and journalists
around the nation.

Just as important, the bill shows that it is possible to move away
from “get-tough-at-all-costs” anti-drug policies that have done much
more harm than good.

I look forward to the U.S. Senate backing asset forfeiture reform, and
perhaps even a thoughtful reevaluation by federal legislators of the
entire war on drugs.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

Prepared by Steve Young ([email protected]) DrugSense
FOCUS Alert Specialist

Please help us help reform. Send any news articles you find on any
drug related issue to [email protected]

See http://www.mapinc.org/hawk.htm for details

=
NOW YOU CAN DONATE TO DRUGSENSE ONLINE AND IT’S TAX DEDUCTIBLE

DrugSense provides many services to at no charge BUT THEY ARE NOT FREE
TO PRODUCE.

We incur many costs in creating our many and varied services. If you
are able to help by contributing to the DrugSense effort visit our
convenient donation web site at http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm

* Just DO It!!

Amnesty International Takes a stand against the Drug War!

The following effort created by The November Coalition takes less than a minute to sign on to.

Just DO it!

Dear Friends:

(PLEASE DISSEMINATE WIDELY ON EMAIL LISTS AND NEWSLETTERS)

As many of you know, Amnesty International has finally taken on the prison-industrial complex in the United States in their Rights for All campaign. A core segment of their message in each of their reports has been how the war on drugs contributes to the human rights abuses of prisoners.

These are courageous steps for AI to take, both because attacking the US as a human rights abuser can alienate its US members and because any dissension of the drug war encourages ideological opponents to attack AI’s work.

Amnesty’s support for prison-reform and their message about the impact of the drug war is important, because AI’s message is heard and promoted throughout the social-justice community. (High school civics classes regularly engage in Amnesty International campaigns). However, if domestic criticism is heavy enough, and there is little vocal support for AI’s work, there is a chance that they will simply stop working on US issues.

In order to let Amnesty know that their work is valuable and supported, the November Coalition is organizing a campaign to acknowledge Amnesty’s good work. Please visit our site at: http://www.november.org/ai/

Fill out the form and add whatever comments you would like. Hard copies of the letters of support will be printed at the November Coalition’s headquarters and mailed to Amnesty International’s director of campaigns.

If you would like to read the on-line versions of Amnesty’s excellent documentation of human rights abuses within the US prison system, please visit: http://www.amnesty-usa.org/rightsforall/index.html

Best regards, Paul Lewin

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999
Subject: Debate Over Alcohol Ads Reveals Hypocrisy Of War On Drugs

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 110 June 11, 1999

DEBATE OVER ALCOHOL ADS REVEALS HYPOCRISY OF WAR ON DRUGS

In another recent scheme to rid the world of drugs, federal officials
announced they would spend $2 billion of taxpayer funds to place
anti-drug advertisements from the Partnership for a Drug-Free America
in various media outlets. These PDFA ads have never targeted alcohol
use, and now more people are asking why.

In one sense, it’s a good question, even if it has a simple answer. As
an op-ed piece from the San Francisco Chronicle notes (below), alcohol
is more widely used by young people (and adults) than illegal drugs.
Alcohol causes much more death and destruction than illegal drugs. So
wouldn’t it make sense to target alcohol too? Not if you are the
Partnership for a (Partially) Drug-Free America. The people who
volunteer their time to make the PDFA’s anti-drug ads made their real
living by creating advertisements for the alcohol industry. The fact
that many major alcohol manufacturers have contributed financially to
the PDFA in the past might have an impact as well.

While it’s important that the distinctions between good (legal) and
bad (illegal) drugs be exposed as arbitrary and irrational, the
question as to whether the PDFA should be used to fight teen alcohol
use presumes the PDFA advertisements are effective at stopping illegal
drug use. Many experts believe they are not, since they sell hysteria
and suspicion, not effective solutions. Please write a letter to the
San Francisco Chronicle or to your own newspaper showing how every
player in this drug war mini-drama is attempting only to protect their
own interests, even if those interests have nothing to do with making
America “drug-free.”

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

So…

Just DO it

*

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXTRA CREDIT –

Write to your own local newspaper to say that the Partnership for a
Drug-Free America is a farce, since it doesn’t consider alcohol a drug
from which America needs to be freed, and because its scare tactics
are unproven and counterproductive. If your newspaper runs PDFA ads,
this action is especially encouraged.

Need an Email address for your local paper? Email addresses for nearly
every paper of any size can be found at:

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

*

US CA: OPED: Drug War Isn’t On Target URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n610.a06.html

Newshawk: Frank S. World
Pubdate: Tue, 08 Jun 1999
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 1999 San Francisco Chronicle
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/
Author: Diana Conti

DRUG WAR ISN’T ON TARGET

Alcohol Lobby Derails Any Efforts To Dissuade Teens

In His War Against Drugs, General Barry McCaffrey is outgunned by the
political influence of special interest money that diverts attention
from the gateway to teen drug problems, the drug most used and abused
by adolescents — alcohol. McCaffrey has repeatedly gone on record
saying that alcohol is the primary drug abused in this country and he
has lamented his inability to make alcohol the centerpiece of his
current $195 million anti-drug media campaign.

Coming to his rescue, U.S. Representatives Lucille Roybal-Allard, D–
Calif., Frank Wolf, R-Va., have authored an amendment to the Treasury,
Postal Service and Government Appropriations bill that would add
alcohol to the media campaign. McCaffrey’s lament apparently wasn’t
sincere. When the Roybal-Allard Wolf amendment was announced, the
drug czar and the White House came out in opposition to alcohol being
included in the campaign to unsell drugs to America’s youth. The
reason: the powerful alcohol and advertising lobbies.

The two major opponents of the Roybal- Allard/Wolf amendment are the
politically influential and well-connected National Beer Wholesalers
Association and the San Francisco-based Wine Institute.

Another opponent is the Partnership for a Drug Free America, a
nonprofit organization comprised primarily of advertising
professionals. Many of them work for the very ad firms that produce
the alcohol advertising that the drug czar’s media campaign would
counterbalance, if it included alcohol counter-ads.

The partnership, which was founded on alcohol, tobacco and
pharmaceutical money, provides volunteers to produce the current ads
on illegal drug use by teens. It claims that it would not be
productive to produce a campaign that includes alcohol because alcohol
is “deeply ingrained in our culture” and “alcohol use is widely
glamorized in movies, television and music.” And, the alcohol
industry spends as much as $3 billion a year putting positive alcohol
messages in front of kids’ faces. The partnership’s position mirrors
that of beer companies who hypocritically claim their ads have no
effect on underage drinking. Its position conveniently ignores how
effectively tobacco counter-ads have worked using hard-hitting
messages that expose the tobacco industry and debunk its advertising
images.

It’s predictable that the National Beer Wholesalers Association would
oppose public health efforts to counteract youth-oriented beer ads
that glorify alcohol. Wine ads on the other hand are, for the most
part, responsible and not inviting to children. The Wine Institute’s
opposition is strange and unnecessary.

Alcohol is a leading cause of death among young people. Thirty
percent of twelfth graders report hazardous drinking, and youth who
start drinking before age 15 are four times more likely to become
addicted than those who begin at 21. Every day on average, 11,318
kids try alcohol for the first time, compared with 6,488 for
marijuana; 2,786 for cocaine; and 386 for heroin.

Our children will be the losers if corporate lobbies continue to
undermine efforts to protect their health and safety. Lawmakers
should just say no to special interests and make the well-being of the
next generation their top priority.

The first step should be to pass legislation that allows the war on
teen drug use to combat its biggest enemy — alcohol.

Diana Conti is executive director of The Marin Institute for the
Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems in San Rafael.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

I applaud Diana Conti’s expose of the hypocrisy of the war on drugs
(“Drug War Isn’t On Target,” June 8). The leaders of the drug war
rarely focus on alcohol even though it is used and abused more widely
than all illegal drugs put together.

Since Conti displays the insight to see why this is happening, I’m
surprised that she still seems to believe that ads from the
Partnership For a Drug-Free America are the answer to any drug
problems, especially alcohol problems. Far from being an answer, the
PDFA’s scare strategies are counterproductive. The PDFA ads repeatedly
suggest that drugs are everywhere, and if you’re on drugs, you’re lost
and hopeless. The PDFA attempts to further marginalize people who are
already marginalized. Creating ads like that for alcohol will look
particularly absurd to kids who have seen thousands of typical beer
ads: fun-loving, good-looking, sport-playing hipsters living life to
the fullest.

It’s time we take a new approach to drug policy in general. It should
start, as Conti suggests, with a focus on the drugs that do the most
damage, not the ones that do the least damage. After that, maybe we
can try to reduce the hype (both negative and positive) that surrounds
every drug. Anyone who wants a free and truthful America needs to
recognize “drug-free America” as a dangerous illusion.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone number

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