Date: Wed, 23 May 2001
Subject: #211 Taliban’s Tyranny No Problem For Anti-Drug Aid

Taliban’s Tyranny No Problem For Anti-Drug Aid

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #211 Wednesday May 23, 2001

The moral bankruptcy of the drug war was highlighted again last week
as US officials announced that the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan would
be receiving about $43 million in anti-drug funds for forcing farmers
to abandon opium crops that had previously been tolerated.

As columnist Robert Scheer pointed out in the Los Angeles Times
(below), the Taliban has created one of the world’s most repressive
governments. Women have been effectively stripped of all rights in
Afghanistan, and leaders have caused other recent international
uproars by destroying ancient Buddhist statues and announcing that
religious minorities will soon be required to wear identification tags.

But all this can be forgiven by the Bush administration, because these
totalitarians are allies in the drug war. US leaders and the Taliban
are also aware that farmers who had been growing opium will likely
starve, but aside from expressing mild regret, they are doing nothing
to change the situation.

Please write a letter to the Los Angeles Times to express outrage that
the drug war is again being used as an excuse to support cruel oppression.

************************************************************************
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 sent
letter list ([email protected]) 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 followsuit

This is VERY IMPORTANT as it is one important way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.
************************************************************************

Contact Info

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

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

ARTICLE

US CA: Column: Bush’s Faustian Deal With The Taliban
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/a09.html
Newshawk: Terry Liittschwager
Pubdate: Tue, 22 May 2001
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/248
Author: Robert Scheer
Note: Robert Scheer Is a Syndicated Columnist.

BUSH’S FAUSTIAN DEAL WITH THE TALIBAN

Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy
every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush
administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up
as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this
nation still takes seriously.

That’s the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the
Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American
violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last
Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other
recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards
that “rogue regime” for declaring that opium growing is against the
will of God. So, too, by the Taliban’s estimation, are most human
activities, but it’s the ban on drugs that catches this
administration’s attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading
anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from
which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American
embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at
a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions
on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin
Laden.

The war on drugs has become our own fanatics’ obsession and easily
trumps all other concerns. How else could we come to reward the
Taliban, who has subjected the female half of the Afghan population to
a continual reign of terror in a country once considered enlightened
in its treatment of women.

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more
systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of
madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates
their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without
being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the
burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by
a male family member. They’ve not been permitted to attend school or
be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing
medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an
extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all
behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this
last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at
the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and
cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to
reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian
country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising.
But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director
of the State Department’s Asian anti-drug program, to describe the
Taliban’s special methods in the language of representative democracy:
“The Taliban used a system of consensus-building,” Callahan said after
a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on
drugs “in very religious terms.”

Of course, Callahan also reported, those who didn’t obey the
theocratic edict would be sent to prison.

In a country where those who break minor rules are simply beaten on
the spot by religious police and others are stoned to death, it’s
understandable that the government’s “religious” argument might be
compelling. Even if it means, as Callahan concedes, that most of the
farmers who grew the poppies will now confront starvation. That’s
because the Afghan economy has been ruined by the religious extremism
of the Taliban, making the attraction of opium as a previously
tolerated quick cash crop overwhelming.

For that reason, the opium ban will not last unless the U.S. is
willing to pour far larger amounts of money into underwriting the
Afghan economy.

As the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Steven Casteel admitted, “The
bad side of the ban is that it’s bringing their country–or certain
regions of their country–to economic ruin.” Nor did he hold out much
hope for Afghan farmers growing other crops such as wheat, which
require a vast infrastructure to supply water and fertilizer that no
longer exists in that devastated country. There’s little doubt that
the Taliban will turn once again to the easily taxed cash crop of
opium in order to stay in power.

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war
zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our
long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs
demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic
obsession.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor,

I’m glad Robert Scheer took the Bush administration to task for giving
millions in anti-drug aid to Afghanistan’s Taliban, a government that
insists on dehumanizing women and committing other crimes (“Bush’s
Faustian Deal With The Taliban,” May 22).

US leaders seem to think that despite all the horrors that have been
visited on the people of Afghanistan, a successful drug eradication
program shows some light shining in an otherwise very dark government.
To the contrary, America’s relentless support of the drug war helps to
magnify the darkness in our own government.

Instead of rewarding these despots, the administration ought to
reevaluate its own policies and goals regarding drugs. If we have to
bribe the Taliban to display a degree of ruthlessness suitable to us,
that should surely indicate the depth to which we have sunk in the
immoral cesspool of the drug war.

Stephen Young contact info

*************************
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.
—————————————————————————-
TARGET ANALYSIS Los Angeles Times

Circulation. 1.2 Million Readers. A 160 word Letter published in this
paper has an advertising value of about $2,880.

The MAP published letter archive has 164 letters from the Los Angeles
Times. A recent sample showed that they published both long and short
letters, some as brief as 65 words, one as long as 450 words. On
average, the letters sampled were about 160 words long.

The published letters can be viewed here:

http://www.mapinc.org/mapcgi/ltedex.pl?SOURCE=Los+Angeles+Times+(CA)

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************
Prepared by Stephen Young – http://www.maximizingharm.com
Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Wed, 16 May 2001
Subject: #210 Former Czar’s Memory Faulty On “Successful” Drug War

Former Czar’s Memory Faulty On “Successful” Drug War

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 210 Wednesday May 16, 2001

Former drug czar William Bennett has been busy cranking out oped
pieces defending John P. Walters, who has been chosen to be the new
drug czar. Walters subscribes to the same dangerous “lock ’em up”
mentality as Bennett. Unfortunately for both of them, the failure of
their strategies have been documented thoroughly. But, never one to
let facts get in the way of his opinions, Bennett evoked a
mythological golden age of the drug war in the Wall Street Journal
this week.

He boasts: “…far from being a failure, drug-control programs are
among the most successful public-policy efforts of the later half of
the 20th century.” Bennett acknowledges that the past 8 years have
seen increases in drug use statistics, but he blames that on the
Clinton administration. He conveniently ignores the fact that under
Clinton the number of drug arrests and prison sentences soared, as did
federal funds allocated for the drug war.

But somehow, Walters will win the drug war by getting even tougher.
Please write a letter to the Wall Street Journal to expose Bennett’s
nonsense for what it is.

************************************************************************
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 sent
letter list ([email protected]) 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 followsuit

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

Contact Info

Source: Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US: OPED: The Drug War Worked Once – It Can Again

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n863/a06.html
Newshawk: Douglas Caddy
Pubdate: Tue, 15 May 2001
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Copyright: 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: William J. Bennett
Note: Mr. Bennett is co-director of Empower America and co-chairman of the
Partnership for a Drug-Free America. He was director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush

THE DRUG WAR WORKED ONCE – IT CAN AGAIN

George W. Bush recently announced the nomination of John P. Walters to
serve as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The new “drug czar” is being asked to lead the nation’s war on illegal
drugs at a time when many are urging surrender.

The forms of surrender are manifold: Buzzwords like “harm reduction”
are crowding out clear no-use messages. State initiatives promoting
“medical marijuana” are little more than thinly veiled legalization
efforts ( as underscored by yesterday’s 8-0 Supreme Court ruling
against medical exceptions ). The film “Traffic” portrayed the war on
drugs as a futile effort. In a recent survey by the Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press, 74% of Americans believe the war
on drugs is a failure.

And yet recent history shows that, far from being a failure,
drug-control programs are among the most successful public-policy
efforts of the later half of the 20th century. According to a national
drug survey, between 1979 and 1992, the most intense period of
antidrug efforts, the rate of illegal drug use dropped by more than
half, while marijuana use decreased by two-thirds. Cocaine use dropped
by three-fourths between 1985 and 1992.

Why is this record described as a failure? For those who would
legalize drugs, all drug-control efforts must be painted as
disastrous. But for most Americans, frustration with the drug issue
stems from the fact that over the past eight years we have lost ground.

During the Clinton administration, our nation’s drug policy suffered a
period of malign neglect. President Clinton’s two clearest statements
about illegal drugs were his infamous statement “I didn’t inhale” and
his immediate and dramatic cut in the size of the federal antidrug
staff. Morale and political leadership were both compromised, and a
national cynicism about drug use resulted. Hiring a four-star general
may have fooled the public and the Washington press corps for a while,
but it didn’t add up to a meaningful program.

To paraphrase Arthur Miller, attention was not paid, and the problem
quickly worsened: Between 1992 and 1999, rates of current drug use —
defined as using once a month or more — increased by 15%. Rates of
marijuana use increased 11%. The situation was far worse among our
children: Lifetime use of illegal drugs increased by 37% among
eighth-graders and 55% among 10th-graders. We have reached the point
where more than one-quarter of all high school seniors are current
users of illegal drugs; indeed, rates of monthly drug use among high
school seniors increased 86% between 1992 and 1999.

We must re-engage this fight. What we were doing in the 1980s and
early 1990s — vigorous law enforcement and interdiction coupled with
effective prevention and treatment — worked. It can work again.

The most important component of any antidrug strategy is prevention.
Children who reach the age of 21 without using illegal drugs are
almost certain never to do so. The Partnership for a Drug-Free America
has crafted some of the most memorable and effective advertisements in
history, encouraging children to turn down illegal drugs. The message
that drug use is dangerous and immoral is the essential key to prevention.

In addition, we must continue to develop effective treatment programs.
Many criticisms have been leveled at America’s lack of treatment
capacity, but more troubling is the lack of treatment efficacy.
However, 12-step programs ( akin to Alcoholics Anonymous ) have been
shown to be both inexpensive and effective in private-sector drug
treatment. Hopefully, their success can be extended to public-sector
treatment as well.

Everyone agrees on the necessity of effective treatment and strong
prevention efforts. Some people, however, believe that law enforcement
should have no role in the process. This is an altogether simplistic
model: Demand reduction cannot be effective without supply reduction.

It is true that there will always be a supply of illegal drugs as long
as there is a demand. But forceful interdiction can help to increase
the price and decrease the purity of drugs available, a critical means
of intervening in the lives of addicts, who can only beg, borrow and
steal so much to support their habit. Government reports document that
recovering addicts are more likely to relapse when faced with cheap,
plentiful drugs. Aggressive interdiction efforts, then, are not supply
reduction so much as the first step in demand reduction.

Some people will admit that there is a place for law enforcement, but
contend we spend too much on this effort, to the detriment of demand
reduction. In fact, according to Robert DuPont, who led the nation’s
antidrug efforts under Presidents Nixon and Ford, there has never been
as much federal money spent on prevention education as is being spent
today. The U.S.’s total spending on drug-demand reduction far exceeds
the amounts spent in the rest of the world combined.

A more pragmatic point: While treatment is often centered at the
individual and local levels, interdiction and law enforcement must be
federal responsibilities. Given the scope and complexity of drug
trafficking, the federal government can and must assume the
responsibility for stopping the traffic of drugs across and within our
borders. The drug czar’s first concerns, then, must be interdiction
and law enforcement, if only because they are tasks no other agency
can perform as effectively.

I believe that the position of drug czar ought to remain at the
cabinet level, but more important is the president’s personal support
and commitment to the office. I had that backing, and I expect the new
drug czar will enjoy that same support and commitment from Mr. Bush.
If Mr. Walters is to have any success, he must enjoy it.

The past eight years are, once again, illustrative: Gen. Barry
McCaffrey never enjoyed that support from President Clinton. In
renewing the drug war, the new drug czar will not be alone. He will be
able to draw on the assistance of people — parents, teachers,
substance-abuse counselors, clergymen and elected officials — who
have continued to fight drug use over the past eight years. These
groups are our first lines of defense; without them, the regression
since 1992 would have been far worse. Their dedication gives the lie
to the gospel of futility.

I look forward to America re-engaging in the war on drugs — and
continuing the success that we had between 1980 and 1992.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor,

I find it interesting that former Drug Czar William J. Bennett
attributes rising drug use during the ’90s to Bill Clinton’s “malign
neglect” of the Drug War (“The Drug War Worked once – It Can Again”,
May 15).

Under Clinton, the amount budgeted for domestic drug law enforcement
rose 74 percent. Arrests for cannabis possession soared from 271,900
in 1992 to 620,500 in 1999, a 128 percent increase. On average, annual
drug arrests were 30 percent higher under Clinton than under Bennett’s
boss George H.W. Bush. Yet, according to Bennett, “rates of monthly
drug use among high school seniors increased 86% between 1992 and
1999.” How tragic if, as both Bennett and the evidence suggests,
Clinton’s costly escalation was less significant than his quip on MTV.

Unfortunately, due to a lack of research funding, no one really knows
why usage rates rise and fall. A recent government-commissioned study
by the National Research Council found that “Neither the necessary
data systems nor the research infrastructure to gauge the usefulness
of drug-control enforcement policies exists.” As Charles Manski, a
professor of economics and chairman of the study committee put it, “It
is unconscionable for this country to continue to carry out a public
policy of this magnitude and cost without any way of knowing whether,
and to what extent, it is having the desired result.”

Matthew M. Elrod

contact info

*************************
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.
—————————————————————————-
TARGET ANALYSIS Wall Street Journal

There are 61 letters to the WSJ in the MAP archive. A sampling of
recent letters shows some as short as 93 words and some as long as 340
words, with an average of about 180 words.

The published letters can be viewed here:

http://www.mapinc.org/mapcgi/ltedex.pl?SOURCE=Wall+Street+Journal+(US)

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************
Prepared by Matt Elrod and Stephen Young – http://www.maximizingharm.com
Focus Alert Specialists

Date: Tue, 08 May 2001
Subject: #209 New Drug Czar May Be Worse Than McCaffrey

New Drug Czar May Be Worse Than McCaffrey

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #209 Tuesday May 8, 2001

There’s a new drug czar in town, and warning alarms are being sounded
by those who understand drug policy. Columnist William Raspberry, who
has written many enlightened pieces on the drug war in recent months,
noted that former ONDCP employee John P. Walters will likely push drug
policy in the wrong direction (see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n762/a04.html?15547).

Another reason to be wary of Walters is the strong support shown for
him by professional anti-drug huckster William Bennett, a former
failed drug czar himself. Bennett attempted to rebut Raspberry’s
assessment of Walters in the Washington Post (see article below). A
careful reading of the column actually shows Bennett’s willful
ignorance and his deceptive way of discussing drug problems.

Please write a letter to the Washington Post to refute Bennett’s
slippery appraisal of the situation and to remind editors that
Bennett’s own tenure as drug czar was a disaster that helped push the
US drug war to the wasteful and destructive level we find it at today.

************************************************************************
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 sent
letter list ([email protected]) 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 one important way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.
************************************************************************

Contact Info

Source: Washington Post (DC)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US DC: OPED: A Superb Choice For Drug Czar
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n803/a11.html
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Mon, 07 May 2001
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2001 The Washington Post Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: William J. Bennett
Note: The writer, co-director of Empower America, was in charge of drug
policy for President George Bush in 1989-90.

A SUPERB CHOICE FOR DRUG CZAR

William Raspberry devoted his April 30 column to President Bush’s
reportedly imminent nomination of a new federal “drug czar,” the
position I held in his father’s administration. Raspberry has a long
and distinguished record of well-written and thoughtful columns on a
variety of public policy issues. His column of last Monday therefore
was out of character: incautious in its choice of “experts” on whom to
rely for evidence about the drug war status quo and doubly incautious
— bordering on irresponsible – — in its use of such distorted
testimony to tar the reputation of an unusually conscientious public
servant.

John P. Walters, the president’s apparent choice to lead the White
House drug-policy office, has been a friend and colleague for 20
years. He is not the man Raspberry imagines.

Raspberry has persuaded himself that Walters is a Torquemada on the
question of drug addiction, someone who believes “we can incarcerate
our way out” of the problem — indeed, someone who is “on record”
asserting that “we’d be better off” if the nation sent a still greater
number of “nonviolent drug offenders” to prison automatically, even on
first convictions for simple possession.

Every bit of this is ridiculous, and Walters believes none of it. He
is “on record” that not just first-but second-time arrestees carrying
small quantities of drugs should be routinely diverted from the
criminal justice system to treatment and prevention programs.

Which, despite popular mythology and Hollywood’s pseudo-docu-drama
“Traffic,” is pretty much what happens already. In the federal system
and nearly every state, the law now generally refuses to imprison
defendants for simple small-time possession violations. In 1999, for
example, the federal law enforcement programs that John Walters would
supervise as the drug czar secured roughly 23,000 courtroom drug
convictions, fewer than 700 on simple possession charges. And it is
only a subset of this already small group of arrestees who are even
theoretically subject to a mandatory prison sentence. Nonviolent first
offenders, in particular, face mandatory federal prison terms for
possession only if they have been arrested with crack cocaine and then
only when the quantities involved are those associated with retail,
street-level drug dealing.

This, then, is the crux of the matter: Should street-level drug
dealers go to prison? John Walters says yes. I would have expected
William Raspberry to agree with him. But Raspberry listened instead to
people who advocate a sweeping relaxation of penalties against drug
offenders — up to and including the proprietors of open-air crack
markets. Raspberry has naively accepted the word of one such fringe
advocate, Ethan Nadelmann, that rates of drug abuse in America “are
roughly equal for blacks and whites.” And that racial disparities in
drug-crime arrest rates must reflect institutional bias in the
nation’s justice system. And that Walters’s reluctance to abandon the
federal minimum mandatory sentence for crack possession represents an
extremist’s endorsement of such bias.

It does African Americans no favor to twist the numbers this way. It
is beyond serious dispute that cocaine and crack addiction
disproportionately plague black people. It is similarly beyond serious
dispute that retail cocaine distribution is disproportionately
concentrated in inner-city black neighborhoods — which is why the
protection of those neighborhoods remains an object of special effort
for federal and state law enforcement agencies and why the resulting
pool of criminal defendants looks the way it does.

Yes, there is a racial skew in the statistics. But I cannot see the
“bias.” What I can see is the disaster that would befall our urban
centers were the Nadelmann’s of this world to get their way. In 1995
John Walters opposed a proposal by the U.S. Sentencing Commission to
raise the threshold quantity of crack necessary to trigger a mandatory
federal prison term. Had this “reform” been adopted, as Nadelmann
wishes, drug dealers arrested with 50 grams of crack — enough for
1,500 sales — would be escaping prison entirely. Fortunately, the
idea was rejected by bipartisan majorities in Congress and by
President Clinton. It pleases Nadelmann to discern racial
insensitivity in this decision. I would have thought it beneath
Raspberry to imply that he is right.

As a senior drug policy official during and after my tenure as drug
czar, Walters did as much as anyone to ensure enactment of five
consecutive federal budgets in which spending on direct drug treatment
services nearly tripled, spending on drug treatment research more than
tripled and general funding priorities were redirected to those
effective “demand reduction” efforts Raspberry properly endorses. It
is an unprecedented record; eight succeeding Clinton administration
drug budgets haven’t come close to matching it. And it should more
than confirm Walters’s commitment to a humane, sensible and
comprehensive federal drug policy.

John Walters would make a superb drug czar. Neither President Bush nor
the country could hope to do better.

The writer, co-director of Empower America, was in charge of drug
policy for President George Bush in 1989-90.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor

William Bennett’s “A Superb Choice For Drug Czar” response to William
Raspberry’s excellent column condemning the choice of John Walters for
Drug Czar was a predictable if disappointing piece.

Bennett claims that Walters will not go after first- and second-time
users in his quest to end the drug war. Yet Walters has said as much,
claiming that the prisons are not filled with users, but rather
big-time dealers. This despite the fact that an American citizen is
arrested every 45 seconds for simple marijuana possession.

John Walters may indeed one day be regarded as a capable drug czar.
But this will only happen if he has the courage to open his eyes and
realize that the nation’s drug laws are far worse for the average
American than the illegal drugs themselves. If he is willing to
regulate currently illegal drugs in a manner similar to alcohol and
tobacco (which kill ten times as many people every year as illegal
drugs), he will be one day regarded as a great drug czar.

Until this happens, though, John Walters must be looked at with
suspicion, if you love America and the Constitution in your heart.

Sincerely,
Kevin M. Hebert

contact info

*************************
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.
—————————————————————————-
TARGET ANALYSIS Washington Post

Circulation 1.15 MILLION – Advertising Value Of A 150 Word Published Letter
– $2,587

The Washington Post is an influential newspaper that has 71 published
letters in the MAP archive. A sampling recently published letters
shows the average length tends to be about 160 words, with some as
short as 90 words and others as long as 280 words.

The published letters can be viewed here:

http://www.mapinc.org/mapcgi/ltedex.pl?SOURCE=Washington+Post+(DC)

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************
Prepared by Stephen Young – http://www.maximizingharm.com
Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001
Subject: # 208 Current State Of Affairs Makes For A Unique Opportunity

Current State Of Affairs Makes For A Unique Opportunity

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #208 Friday, April 27, 2001

After some promising statements early on, the Bush administration is
reaching out to Afghanistan’s brutal Taliban regime in anticipation of
close cooperation in the drug war. The long wait for a drug czar is
finally over now that drug war hawk and William Bennett protege John
Walters has been nominated just weeks after a Pew research poll found
that 74% of Americans feel the drug war has failed. This misguided
appointment coincides with a tragedy in Peru and the repeat arrests of
Robert Downey, Jr. and Darryl Strawberry. Drug policy reform is THE
hot topic in the media.

An excellent Apr. 26th op-ed by Lindesmith-DPF Director Ethan
Nadelmann in the New York Times provides reformers the opportunity to
take advantage of this convergence and leverage any number of drug
policy reform arguments into additional coverage in the opinion pages
of one of America’s largest and most respected newspapers.

************************************************************************
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 sent
letter list ([email protected]) 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: New York Times (NY)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US NY: OPED: An Unwinnable War On Drugs
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n735/a06.html
Newshawk: Amanda
Pubdate: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Ethan A. Nadelmann
Note: Ethan A. Nadelmann is executive director of the Lindesmith Center-Drug
Policy Foundation.
AN UNWINNABLE WAR ON DRUGS

What has the war on drugs done for Darryl Strawberry and Robert Downey
Jr.? Are they better off or worse off? Are they the targets or the
victims? Should they be thankful or regretful?

The war on drugs is really a war on people – on anyone who uses or
grows or makes or sells a forbidden drug. It essentially consists of
two elements: the predominant role of criminalization of all things
having to do with marijuana, cocaine, heroin, Ecstasy and other
prohibited drugs and the presumption that abstinence – coerced if
necessary – is the only permissible relationship with these drugs.
It’s that combination that ultimately makes this war unwinnable.

The previous drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, wanted to do away with the
rhetoric of the war on drugs while retaining its two core elements.
Now the new attorney general, John Ashcroft, wants to intensify the
drug war efforts. The implications are ominous.

The success or failure of drug policies is usually measured by those
annual surveys that tell us how many Americans, particularly
teenagers, confessed to a pollster that they had used one drug or
another. Drug warriors often point to the 1980’s as a time when the
drug war really worked because the number of illicit drug users
reportedly fell more than 50 percent in the decade.

But consider that in 1980 no one had ever heard of the cheap, smokable
form of cocaine called crack or of drug-related H.I.V. infection. By
the 1990’s, both had reached epidemic proportions in American cities.
Is this success?

Or consider that in 1980, the federal budget for drug control was
about $1 billion, and state and local budgets perhaps two or three
times that. Now the federal drug control budget has ballooned to
roughly $20 billion, two-thirds of it for law enforcement, and state
and local governments spend even more. On any day in 1980,
approximately 50,000 people were behind bars for violating drug laws.
Now the number is approaching 500,000. Is this success?

What’s needed is a new way of evaluating drug policies by looking at
how they reduce crime and suffering. Arresting and punishing citizens
who smoke marijuana – the vast majority of illicit drug users – should
be one of our lowest priorities. We should focus instead on reducing
overdose deaths, curbing new H.I.V. infections through
needle-exchange programs, cutting the numbers of nonviolent drug
offenders behind bars, and wasting less taxpayer money on ineffective
criminal policies.

Darryl Strawberry and Robert Downey Jr. qualify as both targets and
victims of the war on drugs – targeted for consuming a forbidden drug,
victimized by policies that must “treat” not just addiction but
criminality. Millions more are victimized when their loved ones are
put behind bars on drug charges or when they lose family members to
drug-related AIDS, overdoses or prohibition-related violence. We
should base our drug policies on scientific evidence and public health
precepts. That’s the most sensible and compassionate way to reduce
drug abuse.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

Ethan Nadelmann’s Apr. 26th op-ed on the need to base our drug
policies on scientific evidence and public health precepts was right
on target. I sometimes think that drug laws have done more harm to
Darryl Strawberry and Robert Downey Jr. than the drugs they are
addicted to. The real eye opener for me was the phrase
“prohibition-related violence.” Despite decades of hearing politicians
and drug czars blame drugs for violence, the parallels between the
drug war and alcohol prohibition had never occurred to me. Alcohol, of
course, was once very much associated with organized crime and
violence prior to the repeal of prohibition. With innocent
missionaries being shot down in Peru and America’s prison population
at an all time high, perhaps its time for politicians to drop the drug
war hysteria and give drug peace a chance. As a Christian, I have to
ask myself: What would Jesus do?

Robert Sharpe

contact info

*************************
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.
—————————————————————————-
TARGET ANALYSIS – NY Times

NEW YORK TIMES Circulations 1,115,000 The New York Times is one of the
most widely read and influential newspapers in the country A published
letter of only 2 column inches in this paper has an equivalent
advertising as if you bought a $52,800 advertisement on behalf of
reform and had it published in the NY TImes.

Please note that the New York Times limits letters to 150
words.

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************
Prepared by Robert Sharpe – Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001
Subject: #207 Drug Warriors Shoot Before Asking Questions In Peru

Drug Warriors Shoot Before Asking Questions In Peru

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #207 Wed. April 25,2001

A seven-month-old baby and her mother were killed in the drug war last
week as the Peruvian military shot down a plane carrying American
missionaries while American CIA operatives watched. The plane was
apparently mistaken as a drug runner, but conflicting reports relating
to the incident indicate little attempt at confirmation was made
before the shooting started.

Several American newspapers have editorialized on the incident this
week. Many say tighter precautions should be taken to avoid such a
tragedy again, but few have dared to take look at the broader picture
of counterproductive drug prohibition. Many newspapers accept official
US reports that tough policies have helped to reduce the illegal drug
trade in Peru. But more thoughtful journalists looking beyond the
propaganda have shown that drug smuggling and drug corruption continue
to run rampant in Peru (see the excellent piece by Kevin G. Hall at
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n718/a09.html?5880).

An editorial from the New York Times (below) touches on these issues,
but somehow still concludes, “If cooperative drug interdiction can be
resumed without continuing risk to innocent fliers, it should be.” By
its very nature, the drug war puts innocent people at risk, and it
will continue to do so. Please write a letter to the NY Times and
other papers that have editorialized on this situation to say that
overly aggressive tactics are only part of the problem – the real
issue is the drug war itself.

NOTE: Would you like to be able to donate the equivalent of $52,800 to
help bring about sensible drug policies and do so without spending a
dime? See the Target Analysis below.

************************************************************************
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 sent
letter list ([email protected]) 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 followsuit

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: New York Times (NY)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

Several newspapers have editorialized on the Peru shooting, many with
a similar tone to the NY Times editorial. Please send your letter to
some or all of these newspapers as well, or read various editorials
and tailor your letters to each newspaper.

US IL: Editorial: Only Losers In War That We Can’t Win
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n718/a03.html
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

US OH: Editorial: Casualties Of A Lost War
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n718/a12.html
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: Cincinnati Post (OH)
Contact: [email protected]

US FL: Editorial: Innocent Victims
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n717/a06.html
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: Sarasota Herald-Tribune (FL)
Copyright: 2001 Sarasota Herald-Tribune

US MI: Editorial: Drug War
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n717/a09.html
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: Detroit Free Press (MI)
Copyright: 2001 Detroit Free Press
Contact: [email protected]

US NJ: Editorial: A Tragedy In Peru
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n723/a03.html
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: Bergen Record (NJ)
Contact: [email protected]

US TN: Editorial: Tragedy in Peru
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n723/a04.html
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: Chattanooga Times & Free Press (TN)
Contact: [email protected]

US IL: Editorial: A Fool’s Errand In Latin America
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n722/a03.html
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

US MA: Editorial: The Plane Truth In Peru
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n720/a05.html
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: [email protected]

US CA: Editorial: Collateral Damage
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n720/a08.html
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US NY: Editorial: Peru’s Reckless Shooting
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n717/a10.html
Newshawk: M & M Family
Pubdate: Tue, 24 Apr 2001
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n714/a07.html
PERU’S RECKLESS SHOOTING

It should not have taken the tragic deaths of two innocent members of
an American missionary family to force Washington to re-examine its
cooperation with Peru’s risky drug interdiction program. Although the
facts of last Friday’s incident are still being sorted out, the deaths
raise serious questions about how Peru’s air force has been carrying
out a program involving help from the Central Intelligence Agency to
fight drug trafficking. The White House is right to suspend the
program’s operations until it can be sure more reliable controls are
in place.

The official rules of engagement are designed to safeguard against
mistaken identifications. They are also meant to compel drug
trafficking planes to land rather than shooting them out of the sky.
But Peru’s record suggests a preference for more aggressive tactics.
Several years before this program began, Peruvian jet fighter planes
fired on a United States military transport, killing an American
airman. Some 30 aircraft have been shot down during the six years of
the joint program, although this is apparently the first time that
American civilians have been killed. While the program is suspended,
President Bush should ask for a review of the previous shooting incidents.

Peru’s pugnacious attitude seems to have been a critical factor on
Friday. Americans working for the C.I.A. spotted an unknown aircraft
flying through a zone frequented by drug traffickers and relayed the
information to the Peruvian military. The Peruvian fighter pilot sent
up to investigate apparently ignored precautions designed to prevent
mistaken identifications and opened fire on the suspected plane,
forcing it to crash-land in the Amazon jungle.

The joint drug interdiction program, authorized by Congress in 1994,
was designed to discourage the growing of coca leaf in Peru by making
it more difficult to bring the product to market. The program has
resulted in a nearly two-thirds drop in coca production in Peru since
1995. Much of that lost output simply moved to Colombia, and in recent
years new marketing channels have opened up in Peru, relying on rivers
and roads rather than the skies. But there is little question that
fear of aerial interdiction has been a significant constraint on
Peruvian drug production.

Unfortunately, for most of the life of this program, military
cooperation with Peru meant cooperation with its autocratic former
president, Alberto Fujimori, and his corrupt intelligence chief,
Vladimiro Montesinos. Both men have now been evicted from power, and
senior military commanders from that era have been replaced. But the
aggressive approach they favored apparently remains. If cooperative
drug interdiction can be resumed without continuing risk to innocent
fliers, it should be. But until it can be certain that Peruvian pilots
will not shoot first and ask questions later, Washington should keep
the program in suspension and under an unbiased review.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

In the wake of the missionary plane shooting in Peru, more than Peru’s
“shoot-down” policy needs to be evaluated. The whole
counterproductive, rights-infringing, corruption-producing,
budget-busting, violence-mongering, freedom-hating, race-baiting,
lie-fueled war on drugs ought to be put on trial.

Seven-month-old Charity Bowers is not the first innocent child killed
in the drug war, and she won’t be the last as long as we continue to
accept the myth that force and violence are the best way to address
drug problems.

Stephen Young

contact info

*************************
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.
—————————————————————————-
TARGET ANALYSIS US News and World Reports

NEW YORK TIMES Circulations 1,115,000

The New York Times is one of the most widely read and influential
newspapers in the country A published letter of only 2 column inches
in this paper has an equivalent advertising as if you bought a $52,800
advertisement on behalf of reform and had it published in the NY TImes.

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************
Prepared by Stephen Young – http://www.maximizingharm.com
Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001
Subject: # 206 US News Tells Only Part Of Colombian Paramilitary Story

US News Tells Only Part Of Colombian Paramilitary Story

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #206 Sunday April 15, 2001

As Plan Colombia rolls ahead, U.S. News and World Reports is taking a
look at the questionable alliance between the U.S., the Colombian
government and the brutal paramilitaries who have helped to fuel the
violence in Colombia. Without going into too much detail, the magazine
does report that the paramilitaries use terror as a weapon.

While it’s important for the American people to understand what they
are paying to support in Colombia, unfortunately, U.S. News only tells
part of the story. The article ignores the fact that the paramilitary
leaders have acknowledged that they benefit from the cocaine trade
(see URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n034/a07.html). This is
profoundly ironic, as U.S. officials have said the goal of Plan
Colombia is to stop Colombian rebel forces from allegedly flooding the
U.S. with cocaine, even though paramilitary involvement in the trade
seems to be deeper than that of the rebels.

Please write a letter to U.S. News urging the magazine to tell the
whole story on the paramilitaries so American citizens can see the
true perversity of Plan Colombia.

************************************************************************
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 sent
letter list ([email protected]) 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: U.S. News and World Report (US)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

Colombia: Making A Deal With The Devil
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n651.a01.html
Newshawk: David Isenberg
Pubdate: Mon, 16 Apr 2001
Source: U.S. News and World Report (US)
Copyright: 2001 U.S. News & World Report
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.usnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/464
Author: Karl Penhaul

MAKING A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL

Colombia’s Violent Vigilantes Pave The Way For U.S.-Backed Antidrug Forces

GUAMUEZ VALLEY, COLOMBIA-Here amid the cocaine-producing drug
plantations of southern Colombia, five recruits with shaved heads and
armed with wooden stakes march down the main street in a dusty village.

A truck packed with 40 right-wing paramilitary fighters, brandishing
assault rifles and rocket launchers, heads off on a search-and-destroy
mission against communist guerrillas. More camouflage-clad combatants
of the outlaw paramilitary force are dug into foxholes in this farming
hamlet and throughout Putumayo province.

These are the warriors of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (
AUC ), who are key to the opening phase of Plan Colombia-the
government offensive, bankrolled with $1.3 billion of mostly military
aid from Washington, to wipe out the drug trade in this longtime rebel
territory.

Since mid-December, the skies above the Guamuez Valley have resonated
with the clatter of Vietnam-era helicopters, donated by the United
States, and the hum of crop-duster planes dumping defoliant on fields
of coca leaf, the raw material for cocaine.

The air assault was preceded by ground operations led by the illegal
paramilitary forces, who drove out guerrilla units and reportedly
massacred suspected civilian sympathizers in areas to be sprayed. That
cleared the way for the Colombian Army’s new, U.S.-trained antidrug
battalions to enter without fear of ambush and reduced the risk of
aircraft being shot down by the rebels. “Plan Colombia would be almost
impossible without the help of the [paramilitary] self-defense
forces,” boasts a paramilitary leader calling himself Comando Wilson,
the head of the AUC’s military operations in Putumayo who formerly
served in an Army counterinsurgency battalion.

Putumayo province, a stronghold of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia ( FARC ) guerrillas, is the hub of world cocaine production,
responsible for about half of Colombia’s annual output of more than
580 metric tons. The rebels get their take in the drug trade, and
those revenues are the mainstay of their war economy.

The AUC moved into Putumayo in early 1998 in an effort to drive out
the FARC, carrying out a wave of massacres that have claimed around
100 civilian lives a year, according to the Center for Popular
Research and Education, a Roman Catholic Church-backed human-rights
group. Since the launch of Plan Colombia, the paramilitary force has
stepped up efforts, and in January it added some 550 reinforcements to
its 800-strong combat force here, according to Wilson.

Along with the coca fields, legal crops such as plantains, maize, and
yucca are withered throughout the Guamuez Valley from defoliant spraying.

That is sparking bitter complaints from peasants like Irma Galarza,
who describes Plan Colombia as a “plan of destruction.”

Success? The Army and senior U.S. officials have heralded the initial
results as a resounding success.

But they recognize that most of the coca crop-60,000 acres of the
total 72,500 acres so far sprayed-has been in areas dominated by
paramilitary forces.

This has enabled members of the new Counterdrug Brigade to “get their
sea legs before moving into areas more heavily controlled by the
FARC,” said a U.S. military official.

The Colombian government is ostensibly under pressure from Washington
to cut ties to paramilitary groups, but there is much evidence that
paramilitary groups are doing the groundwork for Plan Colombia. A
recent U.S. State Department report echoed human-rights groups’
charges that Colombian security forces still cooperate with
paramilitaries. That hardly seems to be in dispute.

Wilson says he and Army officials swap information daily on the
position of their forces, and some soldiers turned paramilitary
fighters still wear the insignias of their former Army battalions. One
paramilitary fighter was seen eating a U.S. Army meal packet; the
meals officially were issued to the U.S.-trained military counterdrug
units.

Publicly, President Andres Pastrana has pledged to crack down on the
paramilitary forces.

And the state security services report killing 89 right-wing gunmen
and arresting 315 others last year ( while also killing 970 leftist
guerrillas and capturing 1,556 ).

Still, it took repeated complaints by the U.N. High Commissioner for
Human Rights before Colombia’s attorney general opened an
investigation into alleged paramilitary collaboration with police
commanders and the former head of the Army’s Putumayo-based 24th
Brigade. Although investigators recommended prosecuting at least five
Army and police commanders, including former 24th Brigade commander
Col. Gabriel Diaz, the inquiry is moving slowly, and Diaz is in line
for promotion to general.

The brigade is currently banned from receiving U.S. military aid
because of its alleged involvement in human-rights abuses.

The brigade’s new commander, Gen. Antonio Ladron de Guevara,
acknowledged to U.S. News that at least 30 men from one of his
counterguerrilla units have joined the paramilitary force ( the
remainder of that unit, the 31st Battalion, has been sent back to
Bogota for retraining ). Paramilitary leader Wilson put the figure at
100 and said many others among his men also are former soldiers.

Military ties to the right-wing death squads color perceptions of the
U.S-backed antidrug effort. “The paramilitary phenomenon in Putumayo
is the spearhead of Plan Colombia,” said German Martinez, outgoing
municipal human-rights ombudsman in the regional center of Puerto
Asis. “It’s a terror tactic.”

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor of US News and World Reports:

While I applaud US News for showing how my tax dollars are going to
support brutal paramilitaries in Colombia, I was disappointed that the
story neglected to mention how paramilitary leaders have used cocaine
to support themselves financially. This is no baseless allegation –
paramilitary leader Carlos Castano has openly acknowledged the fact
(see, for example, the AP report archived at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n034/a07.html).

US leaders have told the American people that Colombian rebel forces
must be attacked because of their involvement with the cocaine trade,
yet we are cozying up with another group that has relied on drug money
as much or more than the rebels. Plan Colombia will spill a great deal
of Colombian blood, and some American blood, but the cocaine will flow
without interruption.

Stephen Young contact info

*************************
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.
—————————————————————————-
TARGET ANALYSIS US News and World Reports

US News has only four published letters in the MAP archive. They tend
to be short, between 66 and 173 words, with an average of 110 words.

The published letters can be viewed here: http://www.mapinc.org/mapcgi/ltedex.pl?SOURCE=U.S.+News+and+World+Report+(US)

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************
Prepared by Stephen Young – http://www.maximizingharm.com
Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001
Subject: #205 Time Mag: Narcs Want To Treat Raves Like Crack

Time Mag: Narcs Want To Treat Raves Like Crack

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 205 Thursday April 5, 2001

In their newest quest to criminalize youth, some federal narcs are
attempting to apply “crackhouse laws” that were written in the 1980s
to indict people who organize raves. As Time Magazine reports this
week, the narcs don’t care if the dance party organizers are trying to
sell drugs or not, they just want someone to punish.

As usual, there is no consideration on the part of the drug warriors
that if they do effectively outlaw raves, the parties will be pushed
underground where there is even less chance of reasonable regulation.
Please write a letter to Time Magazine to say that this newest “get
tough” tactic will be just as counterproductive as all the other
“crackdowns” hyped in the name of a drug-free America.

NOTE: A one inch LTE published in TIME Magazine has an equivalent
advertising value of more that $25,000!! See Target Analysis Below.

At Least One Letter a Month. That’s All We Ask!

************************************************************************
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 sent
letter list ([email protected]) 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 one way we have of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.
************************************************************************

Contact Info

Source: Source: Time Magazine (US)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n587.a02.html
Newshawk: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/
Pubdate: Mon, 09 Apr 2001
Source: Time Magazine (US)
Section: Society, Pg 62
Copyright: 2001 Time Inc
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.time.com/time/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/451
Author: John Cloud, New Orleans

ECSTASY CRACKDOWN

Will The Feds Use A 1980s Anti-Crack Law To Destroy The Rave Movement?

Nearly three years after her daughter’s death, Phyllis Kirkland still
visits her grave every day. She drives over from the Monroeville,
Ala., dentist’s office where she works.

She weeps.

Jillian was only 17–“a beautiful 17,” her mom chokes–when she died
from a drug overdose after a sweaty night of dancing at the State
Palace Theatre, a nightclub about a four-hour drive away, in New Orleans.

Jillian’s August 1998 death crushed her mom, but it may also change
how the U.S. government fights its war on drugs like ecstasy.

Jillian’s overdose–the coroner can’t say precisely from what–and the
sad 16 days she clung to life at Charity Hospital enraged doctors there.

Federal agents began investigating, and in January a grand jury
indicted three of the men who ran the club under a novel application
of a 1986 law called the Crack House Statute. It prohibits maintaining
a property “for the purpose of…distributing or using a controlled
substance.” Congress wrote the law to go after sleazebag landlords who
let dealers and addicts hide the crack trade in slums.

This is the first time prosecutors have used it against a nightclub,
and drug enforcers and club owners across the U.S. are watching the
case.

What’s new about this drug-war strategy is that it does not require
the government to show that the defendants–brothers Robert and Brian
Brunet, who managed the State Palace, and Donnie Estopinal, who
promoted its raves–were actually selling drugs.

And so far, the government has offered no evidence that they were,
though investigators have been digging for well over a year.

Rather, U.S. Attorney Eddie Jordan plans to argue that the defendants
looked the other way as druggies turned the State Palace into a kind
of crack house for club drugs.

Cops say it was a place where partiers could easily score hits of
ecstasy and acid without getting hassled by club staff, and where the
staff encouraged the pharmacological festivities by selling
rave-culture gear such as glow sticks and pacifiers.

These are silly fashion accessories for many ravers, but they can be
drug-related too: glow sticks stimulate dilated pupils; pacifiers
relieve the teeth grinding associated with ecstasy.

The Brunets and Estopinal say they did everything they could to keep
their parties sober.

They and their A.C.L.U. lawyers also argue that those who provide
music should not be blamed for its devotees’ crimes.

But the case raises an important question: Given that the use of
ecstasy continues to soar, is there any way to stop club drugs without
stopping the raves?

Could music be to blame for what happened to Jillian
Kirkland?

Before he ever heard of Kirkland, before he became a nationally known
promoter and way before an attorney showed him photos of the prison he
might call home if he loses his case, Estopinal was a frat boy at
Louisiana State University. In the early ’90s, according to
friends–the defendants wouldn’t talk on the record–Estopinal, now
31, was waiting tables, trying to decide whether he really wanted to
be an accountant. Co-workers started taking him dancing. Dance music
was enjoying a revival, having shaken off disco excesses and borrowed
harder beats from underground. Estopinal fell in love with the dance
renaissance and began having parties at a stinky fish-processing
warehouse. By 1995, cops were closing him down for illicit booze sales
and noise, but he knew he could draw thousands of fans of the new music.

He turned to the State Palace to help legitimize his
work.

NOTE: The balance of this article has been snipped for brevity. It can
be read in full at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n587.a02.html

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor of Time Magazine:

So federal narcs want to prosecute organizers of raves where drugs are
used, even if organizers provide reasonable security measures. This is
absurd but not surprising. Drug prohibition itself causes many
problems related to illegal drugs, including dangerous adulterants and
general disrespect for official warnings regarding risks. Drug law
enforcers want to point fingers elsewhere, but a new crackdown is only
going to provide a disincentive for organizers to call an ambulance
when somebody really needs one.

Stephen Young

contact info

*************************
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.
—————————————————————————-
TARGET ANALYSIS Time Magazine Circulation 4,250,000

Time only has seven published letters in the MAP archive. They tend to
be extremely short, between 23 and 83 words, with an average of 65
words. On the other hand, if you can generate a short powerful reply
to this article you could potentially influence a huge audience. A one
inch LTE published in TIME Magazine has an equivalent advertising
value of more that $25,000!!

http://www.mapinc.org/mapcgi/ltedex.pl?SOURCE=Time+Magazine

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************
Prepared by Stephen Young – http://www.maximizingharm.com
Focus Alert Specialist

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

SUN-SENTINEL Medicinal Marijuana A “Mine Field”

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #204 Thursday March 29, 2001

Well in the wake of yesterday’s Supreme Court hearing on the Oakland
Cannabis Club’s case versus the Feds, the FT LAUDERDALE SUN-SENTINEL
gets loose with an editorial that may well have been ghosted by a DFAF
officer. This is implicated due to the fact that FL is the ‘second’
home for DFAF offices and their supporters, outside of St Petersburg.

This one reads like every DFAF anti-MMJ release issued since the
infancy of Prop 215 in California five years ago. It provides a host
of items that can be addressed thru a quick and thoughtful LTE.

Note to letter writers: There are a number of flawed premises and
misleading statements in the article below. Please consider using the
Drug War Facts collection to counter one or more. http://www.drugwarfacts.org

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

If not YOU who? If not NOW when?

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

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 sent
letter list ( [email protected] ) 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: Ft Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel
Contact: [email protected]
Pubdate: Wed, 28 Mar 2001

MEDICINAL MARIJUANA A MINE FIELD

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments today on a volatile,
extremely important question: Should marijuana be legalized as
medicine? Mark this debate “handle with care.”

Specifically, the justices are being asked to decide whether a state
law authorizing medical use of marijuana can override a federal
anti-drug law saying pot has no medical benefits and can’t be
prescribed for patients.

The case involves a California law, Proposition 215, approved by state
voters in 1996. It permits pot possession, sale, purchase and use for
medical purposes under a doctor’s prescription.

The federal government sued a pot buyers’ cooperative to get it to
stop distributing marijuana. A U.S. appeals court ruled last year
that “medical necessity” is a valid defense against federal laws
banning marijuana possession, sale, purchase or use.

Voters in six other states later approved similar measures. Two
petition drives in Florida, one to legalize medical marijuana and the
other to legalize it for all uses, have stalled.

Among legalization backers is Irvin Rosenfeld of Broward County, one
of eight Americans legally allowed to smoke pot under a doctor’s
prescription. He claims marijuana is the only medicine that relieves
chronic pain from bone tumors.

While various studies of pot’s medical benefits are under way, the
drive to legalize marijuana is based almost entirely on anecdotal
testimony of sick people. Supporters claim pot smoke can stimulate
lost appetite and reduce nausea caused by chemotherapy drugs used to
treat cancer and AIDS patients. They also say it can reduce glaucoma,
arthritis, chronic pain, headaches, muscle spasms and other ailments.

It is legitimate to investigate and consider the potential medical
benefits of any drug, even mind-altering illegal ones. For example,
morphine is a proven pain-killer commonly used in hospitals and
nursing homes.

But medical-marijuana backers see it only as a compassionate way to
fight pain and illness, ignoring many legitimate objections:

No other prescription drug is delivered to patients by smoking it.
Doing so prevents supplying measured, controlled, properly timed doses
or providing stringent quality control to avoid toxic pollutants.
Marijuana smoke contains about 2,000 separate chemicals, in an
unpredictable, unmeasured and unstable mix.

The active ingredient in marijuana, THC, is already available by
prescription in pill form.

Much current marijuana is far more potent, mind-altering and harmful
than before. The side effects can outweigh the benefits. Tests show
pot smoking can damage the heart, lungs, brain, reproductive organs
and the immune system. It can be especially dangerous to those who
seek it the most, suffering chronic, intractable illnesses.

For many of the conditions supposedly helped by marijuana, including
pain management, there are numerous adequately tested and proven,
safer and more effective medicines already available, without
marijuana’s harmful side effects.

Studies have documented the similarity in marijuana addiction, and
difficulty of withdrawal, to that of heroin or cocaine. Drug experts
consider marijuana a “gateway” drug that opens the door to
experimentation with more harmful illegal drugs.

Legalizing pot could hurt sick people by encouraging them to use a
psychoactive ( mind-altering ) drug instead of something else that is
more helpful.

Finally, experts in drug policy believe this so-called “weedotherapy”
campaign is a thinly veiled, well-financed effort to eventually
legalize pot and other now-illegal drugs for purely recreational use.

So far, the negatives of legalization of medical marijuana far
outweigh the positives. State laws, no matter how compassionate the
motivation, cannot be allowed to override federal laws.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editors:

Your editorial stated that we should not end the criminal sanctions
against consenting adults who use cannabis for medical relief, based
on the advice of their personal physician.

You said that the active ingredient in cannabis, THC, is already
available in pill form. That is indeed correct, but in our work with
cannabis patients here in Florida, as well as nationwide, we have
determined that many patients are unable to successfully consume pills
as medication due to their specific needs, including chemotherapy
related nausea and AIDS wasting syndrome.

You note that current marijuana is often more powerful and harmful
than before. Powerful yes, as a stronger dose reduces the number of
doses needed. More harmful however is absurd, since cannabis sativa
has had the exact same benefit and harm potential for over five
thousand years. The marijuana being distributed at the Oakland
Cannabis Club was carefully grown, harvested and measured for strength
and purity, with of course no additives or adulterants included.

Your suggestion that the harmful side effects outweigh the potential
benefits is immediately contradicted by the tens of thousands of
patients who elect to use cannabis instead of drug company narcotics.
Clearly they feel your statement is in error, as do their doctors.

Your statement that the effects of cannabis addiction are on par with
heroin or cocaine is patently untrue.* The Institute of Medicine in a
report commissioned by former Drug Czar McCaffery released a report in
Mar 1999 that specificly equated withdrawal from active cannabis use
to be on par with caffeine withdrawal. Uncomfortable, yes. But nothing
akin to withdrawal from opiates or cocaine.

Finally, your reference to the ‘gateway theory'(a hoax that was also
clearly debunked by the IOM report)is just plain outlandish. To
suggest that current cannabis patients have any desire or plan to
‘experiment with other more harmful illegal drugs’ is poppycock.

In the end, your editorial position endorses the arrest, prosecution
and incarceration of patients who elect to use cannabis instead of
heavy duty narcotics and pharmaceuticals, on the advice of
theirdoctor. Now that’s a minefield I’d rather not be part of.

Respectfully submitted

Stephen Heath
Clearwater
***********************************************************************

TARGET ANALYSIS Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel 250,000 Subscribers

Our published letter archive only showed 5 LTEs published in this
paper. Let’s put on a concerted effort to increase that number. Your
LTE could influence and help educate 300,000 people

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

************************************************************************
Prepared by Steve Heath http://www.mapinc.org

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001
Subject: #202 Failed Drug Czars Urge Future Czar To Make Things Worse

Failed Drug Czars Urge Future Czar To Make Things Worse

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 203 Thursday, March 22, 2001

Well it seems that former Drug Czars may have been failures in their
job at solving America’s drug policy problems, but they still have
plenty of advice for the new Czar, a position yet to be filled by new
President G.W. Bush.

In this week’s Miami Herald, former Czar William Bennett and an
earlier predecessor, Robert DuPont (White House Drug Chief under Nixon
and Ford) get loose with their ADVICE FOR THE NEXT DRUG CZAR.

Their eight point analysis is a regurgitation of basic Drug War myths,
most notably two slams against the ‘legalizers’ who teach us that the
War on Drugs is lost, and that we should not believe that.

Interestingly, the Herald also ran a somewhat opposing viewpoint
titled OUR LONG LOST WAR ON DRUGS, see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n491.a02.html
which focused on the overall public reaction and response to the movie
‘Traffic’.

PLEASE write a letter today to the Miami Herald to not only dispute
the Czars’ article, but also possibly to commend them for printing two
points of view. If you wish to focus on refuting the Czars, may we
suggest that you include a PS with a thanks for balanced editing?

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

You can make a difference.

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

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
letter list ([email protected]) 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 a very important method of gauging our
impact and effectiveness.
************************************************************************

Contact Info

Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Contact: [email protected]
Address: One Herald Plaza, Miami FL 33132-1693

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

ARTICLE

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01.n491.a08.html
Newshawk: Ginger
Pubdate: Tue, 20 Mar 2001
Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Copyright: 2001 The Miami Herald
Contact: [email protected]
Address: One Herald Plaza, Miami FL 33132-1693
Fax: (305) 376-8950
Website: http://www.herald.com/
Forum: http://krwebx.infi.net/webxmulti/cgi-bin/WebX?mherald
Author: William J. Bennett, and Robert L. Dupont
Note: William J. Bennett, co-chair of the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America, served as the 1989-1990 director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. Robert L. DuPont, president of the Institute for Behavior
and Health, was the White House drug chief under Presidents Nixon and Ford
and the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse in 1973-1978.

ADVICE FOR THE NEXT DRUG CZAR

Gov. Jeb Bush recently held a summit on drug policy in Tallahassee. He
reiterated the ambitious plan announced in 1999: to reduce the use of
illegal drugs in Florida by 50 percent over five years.

We hope that President Bush will follow his brother’s example and
fight aggressively to reduce drug use. As former heads of the nation’s
fight against illegal drugs, we offer him this advice:

* Prevention is the best medicine. The drug czar’s most important job
is to promote a clear message: Drug use is dangerous. The intellectual
elites laughed at Nancy Reagan’s motto, “Just Say No.” Children did
not, for it was simple and effective.

* Support parents’ groups. During the 1980s, when drug use among
children plummeted ( decreasing 63 percent among high school seniors
); they were the leaders in the anti-drug movement. Bush already has
taken steps toward this goal in announcing his intention to fund the
training of a nationwide Parents Drug Corps.

* Prepare for new drug threats. While the crack-cocaine epidemic of
the 1990s has passed, methamphetamine and Ecstasy are growing in
popularity, especially among the young. In 1999 more than a million
Americans used meth, more than used crack and almost three times as
many as used heroin. Meth is devastating and provides a high that
lasts six times as long as that of crack or cocaine. These new
synthetic drugs are cheap and far too easy to obtain; many of them are
manufactured in the United States.

* Supply reduction is demand reduction. When drugs are more plentiful,
cheaper and purer, more people become addicted. Increased drug supply
leads to higher levels of drug demand and to greater amounts of social
harm. We need to be firm in pursuing, arresting and punishing those
who sell and traffic in illegal drugs.

* Develop a plan for interdiction. Simply spending more money to
intercept drugs overseas and crossing our borders is insufficient. We
need a well-developed supply-reduction strategy that takes into
account political, military and geographic factors.

* Law enforcement and treatment work together. Those who want to move
the war on drugs from the criminal to the medical arena neglect the
fact that laws against drug use promote effective treatment.
Successful treatment is a function of the longevity of treatment, and,
for most addicts, the longevity of treatment is a function of
coercion, being forced into treatment – by a loved one, an employer or
by the law.

* Fight legalization. More threatening than the efforts to medicalize
drugs are the efforts to legalize drugs. These efforts – often well
funded – argue that the costs of waging a war on drugs outweigh the
benefits.

The advocates of drug legalization ignore the human costs of overdose
deaths, drug- addicted newborns, broken homes and broken hearts.

* Speak the truth about the war on drugs. We need to counter a
pernicious myth cited by drug-legalization supporters: that we have
lost the war on drugs. That is not so.

The number of Americans currently using illegal drugs peaked in 1979,
when 25.4 million people used drugs monthly or more often. By 1992
that number was down to 12 million – an achievement that is even more
impressive, considering that the population increased by 25 million
over the same 13-year period. In Florida, the rate of youth drug use
is the third-lowest in the nation.

With the right combination of efforts on the legal, international,
medical and moral fronts, we – in Florida and in America – can reduce
drug use even more.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editors:

The two opposing viewpoints expressed in Tuesday’s Herald were very
interesting as readers were able to compare the counsel and viewpoints
of former Drug Czars Bennett and DuPont against the reality of
America’s drug policy efforts in the year 2001.

Dupont was one of the initiators of Nixon’s War on Drugs while
Bennett, who carried the torch for former President Bush now continues
to preach his flawed message via his association with the PDFA.

Most notable in the contrast was the former Czars’ stern
recommendation that the incoming Czar not be ‘fooled by the legalizers
who say the War on Drugs is lost’. While meanwhile, via the opposing
column and it’s references to the movie “Traffic”, we are presented
with the stark and real evidence that the policies of the past 30
years are wreaking untold havoc on our populace, their families and
overall civil liberties.

The new Czar should take to heart the movie’s most poignant message
and know that ‘a War on Drugs is a war against our own friends and
families’, as so eloquently stated by the fictional Drug Czar
portrayed by Michael Douglas. It is simply not possible to coerce our
fellow free citizens into healthy lifestyles via the gun, the badge or
the prison cell.

Rather we will only solve America’s very real problems with drug abuse
when we transfer this war from the military and law enforcement arena
back to the public health arena it properly belongs in.

Sincerely,
Steve Heath

contact info

*************************
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.
—————————————————————————-
TARGET ANALYSIS Miami Herald Circulation 433,000 Subscribers

Is the Herald Biased?

It appears that this newspaper may have a bias against letters which
question the War on Drugs as there are many similar sized newspapers
in the U.S. from which we have dozens, if not hundreds of published
letters in the MAP published letter archives. For the Miami Herald
there are only eleven!

Thus showing reader interest by sending this newspaper letters is very
important.

The Herald tends to publish shorter LTEs, ranging from 64 to 225 words
for the body of the LTE, with an average of 148 words.

You may review the 11 letters published by the Herald in the MAP
published letter archives by clicking this link

http://www.mapinc.org/mapcgi/ltedex.pl?SOURCE=Miami+Herald

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE
http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

TO UNSUBSCRIBE SEE http://www.drugsense.org/unsub.htm

***************************************************************************
Prepared by Steve Heath and
Stephen Young – http://www.maximizingharm.com
Focus Alert Specialist