Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000
Subject: #190 Even Supporters See Disaster In Plan Colombia

NYT: Even Supporters See Disaster in Plan Colombia

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #190 Saturday November 18, 2000

The plan to send $1.3 billion in U.S. military aid to Colombia,
allegedly to assist the war on drugs, can only make the violence in
Colombia worse. Now, even a legislator who pushed to advance Plan
Colombia has realized that it is a disaster in the making.

As the New York Times reported this week, U.S. Rep. Benjamin A. Gilman
has flip-flopped on his enthusiasm for Plan Colombia. Gilman still
doesn’t seem to understand that the problems aren’t just in the
details, but in the overall concept of fighting the war on drugs.
However, it is important to recognize another voice speaking out
against the military aid.

Please write a letter to the New York Times or other newspapers where
the story has appeared to note that even fervent drug warriors know
Plan Colombia will create more problems while solving nothing.

WRITE A LETTER – MAKE THINGS BETTER!!

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 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 important way we have of gauging
our impact and effectiveness.

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

CONTACT INFO:

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

EXTRA CREDIT:

The Miami Herald also ran a story on this subject. Please send your
letter to the Herald also.

Title: US: Key Lawmaker Drops Support For Aid To Colombian Armed
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1716/a04.html
Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT:

The Chicago Tribune also had a good editorial about this subject,
noting “It’s time to think not just about switching this money from
one Colombian pocket to another. It’s time to rethink the whole
thing.” Please check out the whole editorial and send a letter to the
Tribune too.

Title: US IL: OPED: Second Thoughts On Colombia
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1718/a03.html
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US: Key House Leader Withdraws Support For Colombia Aid Plan
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1714/a07.html
Newshawk: Amanda
Pubdate: Fri, 17 Nov 2000
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2000 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036
Fax: (212) 556-3622
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Christopher Marquis with Juan Forero
Bookmark: Reports from Colombia: http://www.mapinc.org/area/Colombia
KEY HOUSE LEADER WITHDRAWS SUPPORT FOR COLOMBIA AID PLAN

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 — Representative Benjamin A. Gilman, chairman of
the House International Relations Committee, has abruptly withdrawn
his support from the decision to funnel $1.3 billion in mostly
military aid to Colombia, arguing that the United States is on the
brink of a “major mistake.”

Mr. Gilman, Republican of New York, sent a letter this week to the
White House drug policy coordinator, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey,
contending that the American plan to increase the role of the
Colombian military in the drug fight will end disastrously, because
the military has undermined its political support after a history of
corruption and human rights abuses. That position echoes other critics
of the plan.

Mr. Gilman called on the Clinton administration to redirect its
assistance, including at least 40 Black Hawk helicopters, from the
military to the national police in Colombia. Mr. Gilman has long
admired the police, which he views as more effective and less tainted
by human rights violations.

“If we fail early on with Plan Colombia, as I fear, we could lose the
support of the American people for our efforts to fight illicit
narcotics abroad,” Mr. Gilman said. “If we lose public support, we
will regret we did not make the mid-course corrections for Colombia
that I have outlined here.”

Last summer, Mr. Gilman voted to support Plan Colombia, a $7.5 billion
strategy drafted jointly by American and Colombian officials and
passed by Congress. In addition to the military spending, the program
allocates money to promote alternative crops, economic renewal and
human rights. The plan seeks to halve drug production over five years
in Colombia, reportedly the source of most of the cocaine and heroin
that enters the United States.

Congressional sources said Mr. Gilman was troubled by recent military
failures in rural areas where rebel forces operate.

It is unclear what effects, if any, Mr. Gilman’s shift will have. A
Senate Republican aide who follows Colombia closely said it was “far
too early” to criticize the plan. Mr. Gilman is expected to relinquish
his chairmanship next year because of term limits.

Critics of the plan have argued that the military aid would merely
intensify the conflict in which two rebel groups have joined forces
with narcotics traffickers against the government, a conflict that
could eventually draw the United States directly into fighting the
rebels.

Leaders of Colombia’s neighbors also have expressed fears that the
fighting will spill into their countries.

Washington counters that Colombia’s increasingly jumbled battle lines
make it necessary to equip and deploy the military in the fight
against drugs. The American plan calls for training three
counternarcotics battalions, with a total of up to 3,000 troops.

The administration also has promised to watch over the military’s
record on human rights. A spokesman for General McCaffrey, Robert
Weiner, said today that denying aid to the military on the basis of
its past performance would ensure defeat.

“Granted they’re not a superpower,” Mr. Weiner said. “One of the major
purposes of the Plan Colombia is to provide the military with the
resources they need. This actually scares the cartels to death.”

In southern Putumayo Province, where half of the coca in Colombia is
grown, rebels have sealed off roads, arguing that the military has to
rein in right-wing gunmen who are associated with the armed forces.

A botched operation in a northern town, Dabeiba, resulted last month
in the downing of one of the army’s seven American-made Black Hawks
and the deaths of 22 troops.

The helicopter had been carrying reinforcements to assist soldiers
locked in a firefight with rebels of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia. But sloppy communications led the pilot to land in a
rebel-controlled area, an American official said.

The rebels “were waiting for them,” the official said. “What kind of
intelligence is that? They were dug in like the Ho Chi Minh Trail.”

A high-ranking official in President Andres Pastrana’s government
defended the military involvement on the grounds that the drug war has
fundamentally changed in the last five years.

“It used to be an urban drug war, which the police were very capable
of handling,” the official said. “It has now become a drug war fought
in the jungles, and you can’t do that without military support.”

Another official said, “The fact that there are voices that are
against these tactics doesn’t mean that the strategy is going to change.”

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

It has long been clear that Plan Colombia will neither stop drugs from
reaching Americans nor stabilize Colombia. But, new objections from
Rep. Ben Gilman, formerly one of the plan’s strongest supporters, show
how awful the plan truly is.

Gilman may only have problems with the details, but as history shows,
the whole concept of fighting drugs with force is always a failure.
The outcome of Plan Colombia can only be more violence and increasing
involvement by the U.S. in the affairs of South America.

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

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

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://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000
Subject: #189 Boston Globe Questions Initiative, But Not Opponents

Boston Globe Questions Initiative, But Not Opponents

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE AND TAKE ACTION TODAY!
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #189 Wednesday October 25, 2000

On election day, Massachusetts voters will be able to cast a ballot on
an initiative that would push some people convicted of drug possession
to treatment instead of jail. The Boston Globe reported on the
initiative this week by seeking out professionals from the criminal
justice system who are against the initiative. A considerable portion
of the article questions the motives of initiative supporters. But
readers need to reach the very tail end of the story before questions
are raised about the motives of opponents in law enforcement, who will
lose access to asset forfeiture funds seized through drug
investigations if the initiative succeeds.

The article also tries to give a mistaken impression about the
resources available from philanthropists who support the ballot
measure. The author states that George Soros has given $1 billion to
“causes such as this one.” While George Soros has been generous to the
drug policy reform movement, he supports a number of other causes that
have nothing to do with drug policy reform. A recent article from the
Copley News Service stated that Soros had spent close to $6 million
supporting political movements involving drug reform. A great deal of
money, yes; but it’s a mere fraction of billions spent by government
every year to support drug prohibition.

Please write a letter to the Boston Globe to let editors know that
painting the drug warriors as helpless underdogs and drug policy
reformers as the ones with the real financial power is a total
inversion of reality.

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 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: Boston Globe (MA)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT Los Angeles Times on California’s Proposition
36

California has a similar initiative to Massachusetts Proposition 8.
Proposition 36 will be on the ballot in California and many of the
same Soros issues have been raised there. Please consider sending a
slightly revised version of your letter to the Los Angeles Times, who
opposed this measure in the article at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1601/a07.html

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

AND/OR please write any other California news paper you like regarding
your views on Proposition 36. Email addresses for nearly any newspaper
can be found at http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

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

ARTICLE

Pubdate: Tue, 24 Oct 2000
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378
Feedback: http://extranet.globe.com/LettersEditor/default.asp
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Author: Tina Cassidy
Bookmark: For Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act items:
http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm

QUESTION 8

For Police, Drug War Extends To Ballot Box

The state’s district attorneys and police chiefs may know how to fight
crime, but they are finding it tough to fight Question 8, the ballot
initiative that seeks to replace prison time for some drug offenders
with addiction treatment.

Local law enforcement officials say their first problem is public
relations, because the measure, when summarized, sounds appealing:
Send the drug-addicted to treatment, a cheaper alternative to prison.
However, opponents say some of the question’s details, which are
difficult to explain to voters, could wreak havoc with drug
prosecutions.

The measure’s foes face another problem: They don’t have any money to
help them get across their point of view.

The initiative would allow judges to send those charged with a first
or second offense of drug possession, manufacturing, distribution, or
drug trafficking between 14 and 28 grams of cocaine to treatment if
the court finds them “drug-dependent.” It also would make it harder
for law enforcement officials to seize drug offenders’ assets, and
those assets seized would pay for addiction programs instead of law
enforcement’s and prosecutors’ antidrug efforts.

Question 8 is supported by a few people with big checkbooks, including
George Soros, the famous hedge fund manager, who has made the nation’s
top philanthropy list for contributing about $1 billion to causes such
as this one. Soros has a soft spot for changing drug laws to allow,
for example, medical marijuana use.

So far, most of the donations for Question 8 have come from three men:
Soros, of New York, who has given $290,000 over the last month;
Cleveland Peter Lewis, chief executive officer of the Progressive
Group insurance company, who has contributed $315,000 in the same time
period; and John Sperling of Phoenix, chief executive officer of the
Apollo Group, who has given the campaign $45,000 since September,
according to filings with the state Office of Political and Campaign
Finance for the period that ended Oct. 15.

Sperling, a millionaire, found marijuana eased his prostate cancer
pain. And Lewis has been arrested for using marijuana for circulatory
problems.

Those opposing the measure, mostly law enforcement officials, do not
even have an account to collect donations.

“We have not really made much of an effort to raise money,” said
Plymouth District Attorney Michael J. Sullivan. “It’s difficult with
our full-time commitments. We don’t have access to billionaires who
look at this as a major-cause issue. But the message is on our side.
We believe a grass-roots effort will go a long way toward defeating
ballot Question 8.”

While it may appear that local law enforcement is against Question 8,
the initiative was written by Tom Kiley, a former first assistant
attorney general and former assistant district attorney in Norfolk
County who has donated about $40,000 to the cause. Like the question’s
financial backers, Kiley’s interest in the issue is personal. A heroin
addiction killed his 50-year-old brother, Scott, two years ago.

“I think of him every day,” Kiley said, adding that his brother’s life
might have been saved by rehabilitation.

Despite the fact that the question centers on using seized assets and
fines from drug cases to fund treatment for addicts, the controversy
is not about the money. It’s about whether the ballot question would
make it easier for drug dealers to avoid prison time by claiming they
are at risk of becoming addicts.

Kiley said someone carrying 28 grams, or about 1 ounce, of cocaine is
likely a user and someone who could benefit from treatment.

The district attorneys say a dealer is a dealer and most users could
not hold on to that quantity of drugs long enough to sell them.

“There’s nobody who opposes treatment for the addicts,” Sullivan said,
“but there’s already treatment for addicts. Ballot Question 8 is all
about allowing the drug dealers to escape punishment.”

Just look at the question’s financial backers and their reasons for
giving, Sullivan said.

Although Kiley does not say it, others working to pass Question 8
argue that the real issue for the district attorneys is that they do
not want to lose the millions of dollars a year their departments
receive from property forfeiture related to drug cases. Both sides
have wildly different estimates on how much law enforcement receives
from seizures; the range was $4 million to $9 million.

The initiative also requires public records to be kept detailing all
forfeitures.

Kiley estimates that it costs about $5,000 to treat one addict,
meaning that even if only $4 million a year were diverted to
treatment, 800 people could be helped.

******************************************************************************
SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

I was disappointed by the story “For Police, Drug War Extends To
Ballot Box” (Oct. 24), particularly in the way it portrayed the
supporters of Question 8 as having unlimited resources, while
opponents are fighting the good fight on a shoestring budget.

“Question 8 is supported by a few people with big checkbooks,
including George Soros, the famous hedge fund manager, who has made
the nation’s top philanthropy list for contributing about $1 billion
to causes such as this one. Soros has a soft spot for changing drug
laws to allow, for example, medical marijuana use,” according to the
article. While George Soros has been generous to the drug policy
reform movement, to suggest that he has given a billion bucks to
“causes such as this one,” is greatly overstating the case. A recent
article from Copley News Service put a more precise figure on Soros’s
support for political campaigns involving drug policy reform: $5
million to $6 million. It’s a lot of money, but nothing compared to
the billions spent each year by government to maintain the destructive
policy of drug prohibition.

If editors were trying to make this into a David and Goliath story,
they’ve got the main characters mixed up.

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

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

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://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
Subject: #188 Meth Causes Madness At California Newspapers

Meth Causes Madness At California Newspapers

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #188 Tuesday October 10, 2000

Even as media coverage of the war on drugs becomes more balanced, some
newspapers continue to cover drug issues the old-fashioned way: with
scare stories and the optimistic notion that the drug war will work if
we just put some more money into it. A mammoth 16-page report about
methamphetamine appeared in the Fresno Bee and other Bee papers this
week that attempted to reinforce all the old stereotypes about drugs
and drug policy, as the editorial below illustrates (if you have a lot
of time on your hands and you want to hear more details, the articles
from the report have been archived at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1511/a03.htm).

Please write a letter to the newspapers to let them know that as long
as they remain committed to drug prohibition, they are only helping to
increase the problems associated with illegal drugs.

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 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: Fresno Bee, The (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

Source: Modesto Bee
Contact: [email protected]

Source: Sacramento Bee
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US CA: A Madness Called Meth, Editorial
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1509/a02.html
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
Source: Fresno Bee, The (CA)
Copyright: 2000 The Fresno Bee
Contact: [email protected]
Feedback: http://www.fresnobee.com/man/opinion/letters.html
Website: http://www.fresnobee.com/
Forum: http://www.fresnobee.com/man/projects/webforums/opinion.html
Note: This series also ran in the Modesto Bee ([email protected]) and the
Sacramento Bee ( [email protected]), A Special Report by the McClatchy
Company’s California Newspapers with a special website:
http://www.methvalley.com/
MAP’s index is at: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1500/a04.html

A Madness Called Meth: Editorial

WE ARE LOSING THE DRUG WAR IN OUR OWN BACK YARD.

Speed, crank, crystal, ice: Whatever its street name these days,
methamphetamine represents a threat — not only to the people who use
it, but to their children, their neighbors, the environment and the
wider community.

Unlike previous drug scourges, the meth epidemic is uniquely American
in origin. Alarmingly, as a team of Bee reporters from Modesto, Fresno
and Sacramento document in today’s special 18-page section, “A Madness
Called Meth,” California’s great Central Valley is meth’s principal
breeding ground and the place where the bulk of its victims live.

Overdosed meth addicts crowd Valley hospitals.

From Redding to Bakersfield, their abused and neglected children
swell the rolls of foster care. With increasing and deadly frequency,
the makeshift labs where they cook their drugs erupt into flames,
spewing toxic chemicals and leaving poisonous residues that threaten
groundwater and force costly cleanups.

The number of drug labs discovered in California has soared, from 559
in 1995 to more than 2,000 last year. Police — local, state and
federal — have spent countless hours and millions of dollars chasing
meth traffickers. They close a lab only to find that three others pop
up to take its place.

They cut off the supply of one ingredient chemical and the meth
merchants find a substitute. Penalties are stiff, but when the choice
is between $6.40 an hour picking fruit or a dead-end job in the city,
and thousands of dollars a day cooking meth, an endless supply of
people will take the risk.

What is meth’s lure? The drug floods the brain with dopamine, a
natural chemical that stimulates pleasure.

Soon the body craves more and more. Over time, meth addicts can’t live
without it. The craving is so powerful that if they can’t buy from
suppliers, meth addicts will make their own brews, using recipes
available over the Internet or in book shops, with ingredients that
can be purchased in bulk from drugstores.

The side effects of chronic use include itchy scalps and skin, scabs
from all the scratching and teeth that fall out. The drug triggers
sleeplessness, agitation and violence.

Researchers say the damage to the brain may be irreversible. Because
meth has not generated the kind of gang warfare and shootouts that
have attended other drug epidemics in the country — cocaine, for
example — Congress has failed to recognize or address the magnitude
of meth’s growing threat.

Compared with federal drug-fighting funds approved for other states
and regions, Bee reporters found that Central California’s
meth-fighting efforts have been shortchanged. While San Diego gets $10
million from the federal government to combat drug trafficking,
Milwaukee $4.5 million and Lake County, Indiana, $3 million, the nine
Valley counties that stretch from Sacramento to Kern receive just $1.5
million from the federal government, the smallest drug-fighting budget
for any region in the country.

That has to change.

Money is needed in large amounts for education, enforcement, treatment
and environmental cleanup.

Unfortunately, politicians, at both the state and federal level, have
failed to grasp the scope of the problem.

Gov. Gray Davis inexcusably vetoed a bill that would have created meth
site cleanup standards.

He called the $3 million price tag too expensive, a shocking
indication of how steep the learning curve is, even for our own governor.

Where are our champions in Washington, the Valley’s representatives in
Congress — Gary Condit, George Radanovich, Calvin Dooley and William
Thomas? Where are our senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer?
What can we expect from our state legislators, Jim Costa, Chuck
Poochigian, Dick Monteith, George House, Mike Briggs, Sarah Reyes,
Dean Florez and Roy Ashburn?

Predictably and understandably, local and state governments’ limited
answer to the meth threat has been to attack the supply side. It’s a
response weighted toward cops and prosecutors, leaving little for
education, treatment and cleanup.

One recent evening in Kern County, 29 officers, county sheriffs’
deputies, city police, and state and federal narcotics officers
gathered to bust one meth dealer, a man who’d been under surveillance
for months.

Bee reporters totaled up the law enforcement cost for putting just six
members of a big Fresno-based meth ring in prison: $2.1 million.

An adequate police response to attack the supply side of the meth
threat is essential. But it’s also true that the money will be largely
wasted if government doesn’t act simultaneously to reduce demand.

Resources to attack the demand side — money for treatment and
education — are almost nonexistent. In Butte County north of
Sacramento, meth addicts desperate for treatment are instructed to
call a number every Monday between 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. Mostly they are
told to call back later.

Beyond more treatment, there is an urgent need for education about the
special dangers of this awful drug. Anyone tempted to try meth should
see the before-and-after pictures of Jackie Hughes, the former Sears
model reduced after years of meth abuse to a toothless crone with bald
patches on her head and scabs on her face. They ought to hear the
story of Douglas Haaland Jr., the father who, agitated after coming
down from an eight-day meth binge, beat his 4-year-old son to death
and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

They should see Amber Walker, the 3-month-old who died of starvation,
wide-eyed in her crib in a squalid Bakersfield motel, leaving behind a
meth-addicted mother who rarely touched her.

“The Madness of Meth” is both a warning and a plea. To the public,
it’s a warning about the dangers this drug poses: Don’t try it. To
policy-makers, it’s a plea — and a demand.

We need more help to stop the traffickers, to clean up the toxic mess
they leave behind.

And we urgently need resources to treat the addicts more effectively and to
educate the vulnerable. Without serious investments in all those areas, the
chase will never end. Meth will win and we will lose.
******************************************************************************

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

I spent a significant portion of my day wading through the thousands
of words in your report “A Madness Called Meth.” While there were some
moving human portraits, and the depth of the problem was clearly
illustrated, I must say all the effort was for naught, as editors
lacked the guts to clearly address the root of the situation: drug
prohibition itself.

Users of legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol don’t have an incentive
to subsidize their own habits by encouraging friends and acquaintances
to pick up the same habits. But, methamphetamine users quickly learn
that they can get high for free and actually make some good money on
the side by selling part of their stash. More enterprising users
realize they can produce the drug with little time or investment to
make truly impressive profits. Those manufacturers have no incentive
to deal with the byproducts of the process in a responsible way. They
dispose of hazardous waste clandestinely, leaving the mess for someone
else.

When you are all done patting yourselves on the back for allegedly
exposing a great menace, I suggest everyone who contributed to the
report, especially those who conceived and shaped it, read journalist
Dan Gardner’s series “Losing the war on drugs” published in the Ottawa
Citizen last month (it’s still online at http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/drugs/).
See how compelling and enlightening honest reporting can be when it’s
not encumbered by the requirements of ideology.

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

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

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://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000
Subject: Tulia, Texas And The ACLU Fights Back – So Can YOU

Tulia, Texas and the ACLU Fights Back – So Can YOU

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #187 Saturday, 7 October 2000

During the past week newspapers across the land carried stories about
the small Texas town of Tulia, in which the ACLU accuses law
enforcement of ethnic cleansing which resulted in roughly 12 percent
of the town’s black population – and almost a third of the town’s
young black men – being arrested.

While the ACLU will show in court that this was a well thought out
plan to take these black men off the streets, this is just a more
visible example of how the War on Drugs has become a tool for racists.
One has only to look at the well documented facts at
http://www.csdp.org/factbook/racepris.htm to see the pattern.

Please write a letter to both the LA Times and NY Times to remind
editors and readers that the dark side of prohibition is it’s impact
on racial minorities.

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 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
Contact: [email protected]

Source: Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

Please consider sending additional letters to the following
newspapers. The story and contact information is at the URL:

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1482/a09.html
Pubdate: Thu, 05 Oct 2000
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Email: [email protected]

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1477/a04.html
Pubdate: Wed, 4 Oct 2000
Source: Amarillo Globe-News (TX)
Email: [email protected]

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1475/a04.html
Pubdate: Wed, 4 Oct 2000
Source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal (TX)
Email: [email protected]

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1475/a06.html
Pubdate: Wed, 4 Oct 2000
Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)
Email: [email protected]

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1472/a10.html
Pubdate: Mon, 02 Oct 2000
Source: Register-Guard, The (OR)
Email: [email protected]

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1470/a08.html
Pubdate: Tue, 3 Oct 2000
Source: Ft. Worth Star-Telegram (TX)
Email: [email protected]

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1457/a03.html
Pubdate: Sun, 01 Oct 2000
Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)
Email: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE ONE

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1493.a02.html

Pubdate: Sat, 7 Oct 2000
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2000 The New York Times Company
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036
Fax: (212) 556-3622
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Jim Yardley

THE HEAT IS ON A TEXAS TOWN AFTER THE ARRESTS OF 40 BLACKS

TULIA, Tex., Oct. 4 — On the morning of July 23, 1999, Billy Wafer, a
forklift driver, was swept up in the biggest drug sting in local
history: In this town of only 4,500 people, 43 suspects were arrested
on charges of selling small amounts of cocaine. In some cases,
hometown juries later meted out sentences ranging from 20 years to
more than 300 years.

In Tulia, an isolated place ringed by cotton farms and cattle ranches
on the high plains of the Texas panhandle, local officials declared
the operation a stunning success. In all, 22 of the defendants were
sent to prison while others received probation. The undercover agent
at the center of the operation, Tom Coleman, was even named by the
state as lawman of the year.

But more than a year later, an operation once hailed as a victory in
the war on drugs now has civil rights groups and local minorities
asking whether it was really a war on blacks. All but three of the 43
defendants were black, an enormous percentage considering blacks make
up less than 10 percent of the town’s population. In fact, roughly 12
percent of the town’s black population was arrested.

The doubts raised about the racial makeup of the group arrested are
compounded by contentions that the investigation was flimsy at best.
The sole evidence in nearly every case was the word of Mr. Coleman,
whose own character had come under criticism in the past. There were
no videotapes or wiretaps or, in most cases, any corroborating witnesses.

“They declared war on this community,” said Sammy Barrow, a black
resident with four relatives who were arrested. “You either were going
to get a long term in the penitentiary or you were going to get enough
of a deterrent to get out of here.”

So now Tulia itself is on trial: last week, the American Civil
Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of a defendant whose case
was dismissed in February, apparently because of a false
identification. The suit accuses local officials of singling out
blacks to run them out of town. Next week, the A.C.L.U. plans to file
a civil rights complaint with the Justice Department seeking to revoke
financing for the agencies that ran the sting.

[snip – Please click the URL above for the rest of this long
article]

***************************************************************************
ARTICLE TWO

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1492.a06.html

Pubdate: Sat, 07 Oct 2000
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Address: Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
Fax: (213) 237-7679
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/discuss/
Author: Hector Tobar, Times Staff Writer

A QUESTION OF MOTIVE DOGS TEXAS PANHANDLE DRUG BUST

Tulia: One of every six blacks was arrested. Some residents see raid as
state-sponsored ‘ethnic cleansing.’

TULIA, Texas–The officers and deputies came in the morning. They
arrested pig farmers and warehouse workers, single mothers and lithe
young men who once were heroes for the town’s pride and joy–its high
school football team. Forty-three people in all.

The biggest drug raid in Swisher County’s history also was the worst
day in memory for Tulia’s small, tightknit African American community.
In a matter of hours, one of every six black residents had been
indicted for selling cocaine.

At first, hardly anyone raised a voice in protest. The local paper
celebrated the roundup of the “scumbags” corrupting the town’s
children. Those few who had doubts kept quiet, except for one man–a
self-described “hick farmer” and gadfly named Gary Gardner.

Thanks in part to his efforts, Tulia now stands divided by a
controversy that has thrust this town of 5,000 in the drought-stricken
Texas Panhandle into the national debate about drugs, race and the
criminal justice system.

Sentiment here began to turn after a series of revelations about the
white undercover agent who had set up the July 1999 sting, a
journeyman deputy with a tainted past whose word was the only evidence
against most of the defendants. That information led the American
Civil Liberties Union last week to file a federal civil rights lawsuit
against the county, charging that the arrests were racially motivated.

“I just worked the facts and the facts show that a lot of these people
aren’t guilty,” said Gardner, a large man with a pinkish complexion
and a penchant for foul language. “It’s like a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle
you dump on the floor, and years later it begins to make sense.”

In the last year, Tulia’s one-bench courthouse has hosted 11 drug
trials, each one ending with a conviction, most without a single black
on the jury.

Many of those convicted have received long, Texas-size sentences for
selling relatively small amounts of cocaine–crimes big-city
prosecutors and judges likely would punish with a few years of probation.

The most recent trial ended last month with the conviction of Kareem
Abdul Jabbar White, who got 60 years for selling one-eighth of an
ounce of cocaine (street value: about $150).

“These drug traffickers have been a cancer on our community long
enough,” one local paper editorialized. “It’s time to give them a
major dose of chemotherapy behind bars.”

Buoyed by such sentiments, the county district attorney and sheriff
have defended the drug raid and the aggressive prosecution. “We’re not
a lynching county,” said Swisher County Dist. Atty. Terry McEachern.
“This is a community that’s tough on drugs.”

Some See Different Agenda

And no one denies that Tulia has a drug problem. Rural communities
have the nation’s fastest growing rate of cocaine and heroin use. But
to some here it seems that, at best, the local authorities rounded up
a bunch of small-time users–many had previous arrests for petty
offenses–and treated them as if they were million-dollar drug kingpins.

“These are the young people we’re supposed to be trying to help,” said
Charles Kiker, a retired Baptist preacher and one of a small but
growing circle of residents who have denounced the raid as
government-sponsored “ethnic cleansing.”

“It’s not the drugs they’re after,” said Mattie White, a guard at a
nearby state prison who had three adult children arrested in the raid,
including Kareem. “They don’t want these kids in this town.”

To these critics, the allegations behind the drug sting are patently
absurd: Tulia is a poor, hardscrabble community. And yet the
defendants were charged with selling powder cocaine, a rich man’s
habit. And why, they ask, were no guns, drug paraphernalia or large
amounts of cash seized in the raid?

“You see how small this town is?” asked Billy Wafer, a warehouse
worker who was arrested in the 1999 raid but was later freed by a
judge. “How can 43 drug dealers survive in this community? Everybody
in this town would have to be a drug user.”

William Harrell, executive director of the Texas ACLU, calls the Tulia
case “the most blatant example of police and prosecutorial misconduct
I’ve seen in my entire career.” Harrell has petitioned federal
authorities to launch a criminal investigation.

[snip – Please click the URL above for the rest of this long
article]

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editor:

RE: [insert title and Pubdate of article here]

While what happened in Tulia, Texas — the arrest and sentencing to
very long prison terms of a large share of the town’s young black men
under the guise of the War on Drugs — should shock every American, it
is only the tip of the iceberg.

According to the federal Household Survey, “most current illicit drug
users are white. There were an estimated 9.9 million whites (72
percent of all users), 2.0 million blacks (15 percent), and 1.4
million Hispanics (10 percent) who were current illicit drug users in
1998.” And yet, blacks constitute 36.8% of those arrested for drug
violations, over 42% of those in federal prisons for drug violations.
African-Americans comprise almost 60% of those in state prisons for
drug felonies; Hispanics account for 22.5%.

Thus it is clear that our drug laws, and their mandatory minimum
punishments, are now a tool for racists – America’s tool for ethnic
cleansing.

It is time to consider common sense drug policies — policies based on
public health and honest education instead of law enforcement.

Richard Lake

Note to the Editor:
I found the fact from the household survey, well documented, at item six on
this webpage:
http://www.csdp.org/factbook/racepris.htm

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 Richard Lake http://www.mapinc.org/rlake/ Focus Alert
Specialist

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000
Subject: # 186 Urge The Media To Cover Journey For Justice

Urge The Media To Cover Journey For Justice

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #186 Thursday September 28, 2000

For the past several days, a number of dedicated drug policy reform
activists have been making their way through Texas in order to
publicize the cruelty and absurdity of the drug war. To learn more
about the Journey for Jubilee Justice, go to its web site at
http://www.journeyforjustice.org

Over the coming days Vigils will be held around the nation calling
attention to prison and drug war issues. See http://www.november.org/upcomingvigils.html
for an updated list of times and places.

The Journey for Jubilee Justice has received some press coverage (to
see some articles go to http://www.mapinc.org/journey.htm), but
organizers are hoping for even more as the journey comes to a close in
Austin on Friday and as other vigils get underway (many on September
29th.) Journey organizers are urging activists around the country to
call their local network television news outlets in order to encourage
local broadcasts of reports from the journey finale (see the note from
Kevin Zeese below).

Please use the link below to find contacts for your local network
television stations. Call the station’s news room and ask if they will
be covering the Journey For Justice. Explain that the Journey For
Justice is an event that is important to all Americans and to suggest
that it be covered in some way.

CALL A NEWSROOM TODAY!

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

============================================

PLEASE 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:

The following site offers links to local television stations by city.
Find the network affiliates in your city or town and please give them
a call. If your local stations aren’t listed at this site, please find
the appropriate contact information in a phone book or through a
general search engine.

http://www.tvrundown.com/statnint.htm

Another great source is http://congress.nw.dc.us/wnd/ See the “Guide
to the Media” insert your zip code and you’ll have a great list of TV,
Radio stations, newspapers etc. in your area (or an area where a vigil
will be occurring soon) complete with phone numbers, Email and other
contact info.

========

ARTICLE

(This message was sent from Common Sense for Drug Policy President
Kevin Zeese as he participates in the journey.)

Friends:

We’ve appreciated the email messages of support from those who have
written — our virtual fellow journeyers.

The Journey for Jubilee Justice arrives in Austin tomorrow and will
conduct a workshop at the Mexican American Cultural Center. The
workshop will focus on how people can exercise their first amendment
rights effectively.

You can help us make our events in Austin a national story by calling
your local television network and asking if they will be covering it.
Below is our schedule or visit http://www.journeyforjustice.org. Also
check http://www.november.org to see if their city is one of their 20
vigil cities this weekend. Encourage your station to call their
network affiliated station in Austin and ask for video of the event.

There is still time to get a last minute inexpensive fare to Austin on
Southwest or over the Internet. So you can still join us.

Thanks for your support and encouragement.

Kevin and Jodi

Schedule

Friday, 29. 2000 9:00 ­ 10:30 AM Assemble at the Mexican American
Cultural Center to march to the Capitol. 12:00- 1:00 PM Press
conference at the Capitol 4:00 – 6:00 PM vigil in front of Governor’s
Mansion

SAMPLE MESSAGE

There is a story taking place in Texas with both local and national
significance that your viewers should know about. A group of people
who have been hurt by the drug war are marching through Texas to
protest the harmful policies that have jammed our prisons and denied
citizens adequate medication. Some of the participants are confined to
wheel chairs but the have bravely traveled hundreds of miles through
difficult conditions to illustrate their plight. The Journey for
Justice ends in Austin, Texas on Friday and I think any coverage you
could provide would be greatly appreciated by viewers. Thank you.

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://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

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

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000
Subject: FA: How The Drug War Kills Children

We apologize for the duplicate post. Due to a typo, the initial Focus
Alert went out with an incorrect Email address for the target paper
the L.A. Times. ———

How The Drug War Kills Children

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #185 Sunday September 25, 2000

Drug prohibition took another young life recently when 11-year-old
Alberto Sepulveda was shot in the back and killed by police during a
drug raid at his family’s home in Modesto, Ca. The story was reported
in newspapers around the country, but not as widely or with as much
soul-searching if Alberto Sepulveda’s killer was another child.

The drug war has been the cause of many tragic fatalities, and many of
the dead (like Alberto) were neither drug users nor drug sellers. A
recent oped from the LA Times (below) mentions a few of them. It also
explains that when we give SWAT teams license to burst into homes with
total disregard for the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, its
only natural for incidents like this to occur.

Please write a letter to the LA Times to remind editors and readers
that prohibition supporters often claim to be protecting children, but
the drug war itself has no regard for the age of its victims.

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

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

ARTICLE

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1414.a07.html
Newshawk: http://www.cannabisnews.com/
Pubdate: Fri, 22 Sep 2000
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Address: Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
Fax: (213) 237-7679
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/discuss/
Author: Sharon Dolovich
Note: Sharon Dolovich Is an Acting Professor at UCLA School of Law

INVASION OF SWAT TEAMS LEAVES TRAUMA AND DEATH

Alberto Sepulveda is no Elian Gonzalez. When 11-year-old Sepulveda was
shot and killed last week by a SWAT team member during an early
morning drug raid on his parents’ Modesto home, the story barely made
the papers. Yet, as did the Immigration and Naturalization Service
raid on the Gonzalez home in Miami in May, the killing of Alberto
Sepulveda highlights a troubling trend in law enforcement: stealth
raids on the homes of sleeping citizens by heavily armed government
agents.

Such raids are the hallmark of police states, not free societies, but
as a growing number of Americans can attest, the experiences of these
two boys are by no means isolated incidents.

Just ask the widow of Mario Paz. She was asleep with her husband in
their Compton home at 11 p.m. in August 1999 when 20 members of the
local SWAT team shot the locks off the front and back doors and
stormed inside. Moments later, Mario Paz was dead, shot twice in the
back, and his wife was outside, half-naked in handcuffs. The SWAT team
had a warrant to search a neighbor’s house for drugs, but Mario Paz
was not listed on it. No drugs were found, and no member of the family
was charged with any crime.

And then there is Denver resident Ismael Mena, a 45-year-old father of
nine, killed last September in his bedroom by SWAT team members who
stormed the wrong house.

Or Ramon Gallardo of Dinuba, Calif., shot 15 times in 1997 by a SWAT
team with a warrant for his son.

Or the Rev. Accelyne Williams of Boston, 75, who died of a heart
attack in 1994 after a Boston SWAT team executing a drug warrant burst
into the wrong apartment.

SWAT teams, now numbering an estimated 30,000 nationwide, were
originally intended for use in emergency situations, hostage-takings,
bomb threats and the like. Trained for combat, their arsenals (often
provided cut rate or free of charge by the Pentagon) resemble those of
small armies: automatic weapons, armored personnel carriers and even
grenade launchers.

Today, however, SWAT units are most commonly used to execute drug
warrants, frequently of the “no-knock” variety, which are issued by
judges and magistrates when there is reason to suspect that the 4th
Amendment’s “knock and announce” requirement, already perfunctorily
applied, would be dangerous or futile, or would give residents time to
destroy incriminating evidence.

California is one of few states that does not allow no-knock warrants.
But the fate of Alberto Sepulveda–who was shot dead an estimated 60
seconds after the SWAT team “knocked and announced”–suggests the
problem is not the type of warrant issued but the use of military tactics.

The state’s interest in protecting evidence of drug crimes from
destruction, or even in preventing the escape of suspected drug
felons, does not justify the threat to individual safety, security and
peace of mind that the use of these tactics represents. On this, the
now-famous image of a terrified Elian facing an armed INS agent speaks
volumes. Even when no shot is fired, these raids leave in their wake
families traumatized by memories of an armed invasion by government
agents.

Police officers, too, are shot in these raids, barging unannounced
into homes where weapons are kept. These shootings may appear to
confirm the dangerousness of the criminals being pursued, until one
realizes that they are committed when people are caught by surprise by
intruders in their own homes and not unreasonably, if unfortunately,
grab a weapon to defend themselves. (Suspects also die in these shoo
touts. Troy Davis, 25, was shot point blank in the chest by Texas
police who broke down his door during a no-knock raid in December 1999
and found him with a gun in his hand. Police had been pursuing a tip
that Davis and his mother were growing marijuana. His gun was legal.)

Using paramilitary units to enforce drug warrants is the inevitable
result of the government’s tendency to see itself as fighting a “war
on drugs.” This rhetoric makes it easy to forget that the targets in
these raids are not the enemy but fellow citizens, and that the laws
being enforced are supposed to ensure a safe, peaceful, well-ordered
society. If lawmakers in Washington and Sacramento are genuinely
committed to defending the right of the American people to be safe and
secure in their own homes, they would demand an accounting for the
thousands of drug raids executed by SWAT teams every year all over the
country, raids that get little media attention but nonetheless leave
their targets traumatized and violated. Assuming, that is, that they
leave them alive.

Sharon Dolovich Is an Acting Professor at UCLA School of
Law

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editor:

Sharon Dolovich hit the nail on the head (Invasion of SWAT Teams
Leaves Trauma and Death LAT 9/22) in pointing out our inexorable march
towards a police state in the name of “protecting” us from drugs but
her article should probably be expanded into a multi-part series.

Home invasions by black clad SWAT teams are increasing at an alarming
rate and innocent people being killed by those sworn “to protect and
serve” with ever increasing frequency nationwide. What we may not
realize, however, is that a dozen other societal horror stories are
simultaneously causing untold damage to our Bill of Rights, individual
liberties, and the love of freedom our forefathers had hoped for.

In the name of the “war on drugs,” we have wasted hundreds of billions
of dollars, incarcerated more of our citizens than any other country
in the world, implemented mandatory minimums, and rendered 1.5 million
minorities with felony convictions ineligible to vote in this
election. “Driving while black” harassment, the Rampart and similar
scandals, “testilying” by police officers and a loss of respect for
law enforcement can all be traced to the foolish notion that we ever
had a chance of making prohibition work. When will we wake up and
realize that prohibition has never worked once in the entire history
of man? It only creates a criminal black market which leads to
increased use and skyrocketing related crime.

Many think that drugs are bad so the drug war must be good. I would
urge those people to reconsider. Drug use and the related damage of
that use are relatively minor in the face of the tremendous damage
this foolish drug war has caused our society.

Mark Greer

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 Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000
Subject: Ottawa Citizen Levels Drug War With Series

Ottawa Citizen Levels Drug War With Series

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #184 Tuesday September 19, 2000

Press criticism against the drug war increases every day, but rarely
is the criticism as honest and sharp as the series “Losing The War On
Drugs” by Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen. Over two weeks Gardner
published more than a dozen long articles that each shattered central
myths of drug prohibition. Read in whole, the series leaves drug
warriors with absolutely no defense. Below is the last article from
the series, but others are available at http://www.mapinc.org/gardner.htm.

Please write a letter to Ottawa Citizen thanking Gardner for his
important work.

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 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: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

We have a unconfirmed rumor that this important series may have also
run in the Vancouver Sun. Please consider send a copy of your letter
to them as well

Source: Vancouver Sun
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1385/a08.html
Newshawk: [email protected]
Pubdate: Sun, 17 Sep 2000
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2000 The Ottawa Citizen
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 1101 Baxter Rd.,Ottawa, Ontario, K2C 3M4
Fax: 613-596-8522
Website: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/
Author: Dan Gardner, member of the Citizen’s editorial board,
Email: [email protected]
Series: http://www.mapinc.org/gardner.htm
Related: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/drugs/
Losing The War On Drugs: Weighing The Costs Of The Drug War, Part 13

THE PROS AND CONS OF PROHIBITION

Legalization isn’t perfect, but it’s better than a drug
ban.

Humans have used psychoactive drugs in just about every society in
every time in history. There has never been, and can never be, a
“drug-free world.”

If drug use will always be with us, it follows that the harms drugs
can cause will also remain. There is no “solution” to the drug problem.

That might sound resigned, but it’s not. We still can, and must, make
important choices: Which drug-related harms will society cope with?
Some are worse than others. Given the range of possible drug policies
we could adopt, which policies will produce the fewest and least
destructive harms? We can’t choose solutions, but we can, and do,
choose our problems.

Beginning in the early 20th century, most countries chose the most
extreme policy available: Some drugs were banned and their production,
sale, or possession made a crime. The people who originally made this
choice believed prohibition would create a drug-free Utopia. By that
standard, drug prohibition has been a spectacular failure.

But the justification for prohibition has evolved. Officials who
seriously talk of “drug-free societies” are now rare. Instead,
government leaders claim prohibition at least keeps down the rate of
drug use and thus limits the damage of drugs. To withdraw the criminal
prohibition of drugs, they say, would send the number of drug users
and addicts soaring. Society would suffer horribly.

As I argued yesterday, I don’t believe that’s true. There is no
substantial evidence that prohibition keeps down drug use. But what if
it were true? Wouldn’t criminal prohibition then be the best drug
policy? The answer is still no.

In the broadest terms, there are two basic drug policies: The first is
prohibition, in which the production, sale and possession of drugs are
crimes. The second is legalization. Although many levels of
legalization are possible, most supporters of legalization want a
policy that regulates drugs at least to the degree that we regulate
(but don’t ban) other products that can be dangerous to health.
Alcohol regulation is often cited as a model.

What are the problems caused by these policies? Which is the least
harmful?

As my series Losing the War on Drugs has tried to show, the harms
caused by prohibition are many and terrible. Third World countries,
where illegal drugs are produced, have to struggle with drug lords and
traffickers whose staggering wealth is used to corrupt institutions
and pay for private armies to murder opponents. Central governments
are weakened, fostering unrest. Billions of dollars that could go to
development are wasted on futile fights with traffickers and
producers. Eco-systems are ravaged by futile efforts to stamp out drug
crops. Many people, often desperately poor, are lured by black-market
wealth into a business where they risk prison or death. In this way,
Colombia stands at the brink of civil collapse. Mexico and other
countries on the traffickers’ routes have also suffered economic
distortions, violence and corruption.

In drug-consuming countries such as Canada, police are frustrated by
the impossible task of stopping the flow of drugs, so they ask for and
get more powers, eroding everybody’s civil liberties in the process.
Some succumb to the unique opportunities for corruption presented by
black-market drugs. Others turn, in frustration, to vigilante justice
— lying under oath, planting evidence and committing other heinous
acts to win an unwinnable war.

Prohibition leaves users buying untested, unlabeled drugs that are
often tainted, fraudulent or even poisonous. It causes the purity of
drugs to rise. It encourages users to favour the fastest-acting, most
potent varieties of drugs and use them in the most cost-efficient way:
injection. It stigmatizes addicts as criminals, pushing them to the
margins of society where they can’t get the help they need. All of
this multiplies fatal overdoses and drug-related deaths, and spreads
infections among users. Drug prohibition is a major contributor to the
AIDS epidemic.

Prohibition fuels petty property crime by forcing addicts to pay
black-market prices for drugs. It turns what would otherwise be an
ordinary business like the alcohol industry into one run by criminals
who settle business disputes with bullets and bombs, turning streets
into battlefields. Prohibition gives organized crime its largest
source of revenue and power.

Prohibition has cost governments worldwide hundreds of billions of
dollars. The U.S. government’s anti-drug budget is now more than $20
billion U.S. a year. Of that, almost $13 billion is devoted to
fighting the production, distribution, sale and possession of drugs.
That doesn’t include drug-related state and municipal spending on
police, prisons and courts that, by one estimate, has topped $16 billion.

Canadian governments don’t itemize drug-enforcement costs, but there
are indications taxpayers are footing an enormous bill. The RCMP alone
has 1,000 officers devoted full-time to prohibition. There are drug
specialists in all police forces across the country. Add the time
spent by regular officers, in the RCMP and all other police forces,
dealing with illegal drugs in the course of their duties. And the
specialists who fight organized crime, including the many officers who
have spent years trying to cope with Quebec’s biker war. The customs
officers searching for drugs at borders — and putting a drag on the
economy as they slow cross-border traffic — are also part of the
bill. And the forensic accountants tracking money laundering. And the
judges and court officials processing almost 70,000 drug charges each
year. And the guards needed to watch over the nine per cent of
Canadian prisoners behind bars for drug crimes.

The loss of fundamental liberty is surely prohibition’s greatest
harm.

These direct monetary costs are only half of what we pay. There is
also all the good that could have been done if these vast resources
had been available for other priorities.

And lastly, there is the fundamental injustice of imprisoning people
simply for choosing to take a substance not approved by the state, or
for selling that substance to those who choose to buy it. If the right
to control one’s own life means anything, it must include the right to
choose what to ingest. The loss of fundamental liberty is surely
prohibition’s greatest harm.

This is a short summary of a much longer list. But it’s enough to
weigh against the harms of legalization. If legalization did not cause
an increase in drug use — and I do not think it would cause one —
the argument is over. But what if it did cause a significant increase
in drug use? Would legalization inflict equal or worse harms and costs
than prohibition?

To answer, we must distinguish between use and abuse. Drug-law
enforcers refer to all illegal drug use as “abuse,” but this is
inaccurate. Drug use that does not harm or impair one’s health, work
or relationships is generally considered mere “use.” Consumption that
hurts the user or others is “abuse.”

Most of us recognize the line between “use” and “abuse” of alcohol.
Dr. Harold Kalant, professor emeritus in the faculty of medicine at
the University of Toronto and researcher emeritus with the Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health, says that alcohol abusers make up between
10 to 15 per cent of the total number of drinkers. Between five and
eight per cent of problem drinkers are addicted, he says, while the
other alcohol abusers drink in ways that are harmful to themselves or
others — drinking and driving, for example, or binge drinking that
interferes with work or family life. That means 85 or 90 per cent of
alcohol users generally consume without significant harm.

The same line between use and abuse exists with illegal drugs. Dr.
Kalant estimates that the ratio of use to abuse of marijuana is
roughly the same as for alcohol. But drugs like cocaine and heroin are
more addictive than alcohol and so, Dr. Kalant says, instead of a 10
or 15 per cent abuse rate, “you’re more likely talking of 30 per cent
or more.” (Only one drug causes addiction among a majority of its
users: nicotine.)

That’s a rough estimate. Unlike alcohol, we don’t have detailed
pictures of illegal drug users and the effects of their use, for the
obvious reason that users tend to avoid attention. But it appears the
majority of users of illegal drugs do not abuse them, and their
consumption of drugs, like consumption of alcohol, generally has no
serious ramifications. “If you’re a light, casual user,” notes Dr.
Kalant, “you probably don’t have any significant health effects.”

There may be more involved in these numbers, cautions Dr. Kalant, than
just the effects of illegal drugs. He says the very fact that some
drugs have been made illegal gives them an anti-social image which may
attract people inclined to seek novelty and danger. And “people like
that,” he says, “may be more at risk (of problem use) than others.”
Thus, the abuse rates we see with illegal drugs may be higher than
they would be if the drugs were legal.

None of this detracts from the real dangers of drug use. It’s
difficult for a drug user to know in advance, for example, if he is
one of the minority of users who is susceptible to addiction. And some
methods of drug-taking are dangerous in themselves; injection, for
example, risks infection. And even casual, light use of some drugs may
pose small risks of serious harms. Synthetic drugs like ecstacy, for
example, haven’t been well-studied, but there is evidence that even
one dose has, on rare occasions, done grave harm. These risks alone
are reason enough to avoid drug use.

But the distinction between use and abuse puts things in perspective.
In the unlikely event that legalization led to an increase in drug
use, the majority of that increase would be casual use; health and
social consequences would not be daunting.

Those who see drugs as a moral issue may still consider an increase in
casual use unacceptable. But for people concerned only with limiting
the individual and social damage of drug use, such an increase should
not cause great alarm. How many people are having a Saturday night
toot of cocaine doesn’t matter nearly so much as how many people are
ending up in the morgue. Current drug policy cares far too much about
the former, and not nearly enough about the latter. The American
government, for one, celebrates the fact that casual cocaine use is
down from its peak — while staying remarkably silent about the fact
that drug-related deaths are at a record high.

Of course, a rise in casual drug use might also be accompanied by a
smaller rise in addiction. That would obviously be a major concern,
but that, too, must be put in context. As I tried to show in this
series, most of the horrific harms that we now associate with
addiction — overdose deaths, crime, homelessness, infections,
marginalization — stem for the most part from the criminal
prohibition of the drugs that the addict depends on, not from the
drugs themselves. Eliminate prohibition and these harms will go as
well.

This is not to treat addiction lightly. Even with legal access to
clean drugs and good health care, addiction is a serious burden on
health and relationships. But addiction would not mean, as it so often
does now, squalour, fear and early death. With the proper health care
and social programs, individuals and society could cope. It would not
be an overwhelming crisis.

So let’s compare the harms of two drug policies, prohibition and
legalization. Prohibition inflicts a horrendous cost, in lives and
suffering and wasted effort, all over the world. And legalization?
Even under the false assumption that it would cause an increase in
drug use, legalization would lead to an increase in casual use,
perhaps accompanied by a rise in addiction; the former would inflict
modest personal and social harms, while the harms of the latter would
be more painful but still manageable.

Which policy causes the least harm? For anyone who looks at the
question intently and honestly, the answer is clear.

A 1998 letter sent to the United Nations by hundreds of statesmen,
Nobel laureates, and drug experts put the answer bluntly: “We believe
that the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse
itself.” That’s a conclusion that more and more public health experts,
researchers, and even politicians are coming to as well. “The
criminalization of drug use does not achieve the goals it aims for,”
said Dr. David Roy of the University of Montreal when he and others
released a major report in 1999 looking at drug use and AIDS. “It
causes harms equal to or worse than those it is supposed to prevent.”

In 1933, Americans came to exactly that conclusion about the attempt
to ban alcohol. They remembered the real harms done by alcohol before
it was banned in 1920. But they also saw that those harms weren’t
nearly as terrible as the damage done by Prohibition itself. Being
able to contrast the two situations, Americans decided to legalize
alcohol.

We can’t draw on personal memory as Americans did in 1933, but we can
look carefully at the evidence. It’s a difficult task. It may mean
uprooting comfortable assumptions and old ways of thinking. But so
many have needlessly suffered and died. More will follow. Surely we
owe them at least the willingness to try.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor of the Ottawa Citizen:

I don’t understand how anyone who read all of Dan Gardner’s series
“Losing the War on Drugs” could possibly still support drug
prohibition – unless they were making a living from it.

As encyclopedic as the series was, the horrors of the drug war
continued to rise to even more extreme levels. Here in the U.S., a
police officer killed an innocent 11-year-old boy in the midst of a
drug raid last week. Even more young people will die in Colombia as
U.S. military aid is unleashed. Prohibitionists often say their
crusade is worthwhile if just one child is saved from the horrors of
drugs. But as Gardner proved, no one is being saved by prohibition.
Some day the drug warriors need to sit down and count how many real
children have died in an effort to protect that single symbolic child.

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

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

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://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000
Subject: #183 George Will Shows Hypocrisy Of Colombia Aid

George Will Shows Hypocrisy Of Colombia Aid

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #183 Monday September 11, 2000

The Colombian aid package, allegedly designed to hurt the cocaine
trade in that nation, is so poorly planned that even traditional
supporters of drug prohibition are speaking out against it. And, in
doing so, they are being forced to confront the idiocy of the drug war
itself.

Several newspapers, including the Washington Post, published George
Will’s recent column about Colombia (see below). It seems that the
hypocrisy is so great that Will even acknowledges the futility of the
whole drug war in (to use a George Will-like phrase) an oblique
manner. Of course, Will overlooks the fact that the rebels are not the
only group in Colombia profiting from the cocaine trade, but this is
still much better than anything he’s written about drug policy in the
past.

Please write a letter to the Washington Post and other newspapers
where the column appeared to offer kudos to Will for taking a step in
the right direction, and to remind editors that the Colombian aid
package is just one more outrage in the war on drugs.

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

EXTRA CREDIT:

US AZ: Column: U.S. Drug-War Policy Does Not Work
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1348/a02.html
Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ)
Contact: [email protected]

US NJ: Column: Futile Anti-Drug Efforts In Colombia
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1347/a05.html
Source: Bergen Record (NJ)
Contact: [email protected]

US NY: Column: Colombia Policy Lacks Credibility
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1346/a09.html
Source: Daily Gazette (NY)
Contact: [email protected]

US PA: Column: U.S.’s Colombia Policy ‘Barren Of Historical
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1346/a04.html
Source: Tribune Review (PA)
Contact: [email protected]

US FL: Column: Peace Through Herbicides In Colombia
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1345/a02.html
Source: Tampa Tribune (FL)
Contact: [email protected]

US: Column: U.S. Drug Policy In Colombia Ignores The Lessons Of
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1344/a09.html
Source: Columbia Daily Tribune (MO)
Contact: [email protected]

US NH: Column: Will the US Ever Learn From Mistakes?
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1344/a10.html
Source: Union Leader (NH)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1347/a07.html
Newshawk: Doug Caddy
Pubdate: Sun, 10 Sep 2000
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2000 The Washington Post Company
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: George Will

COLOMBIA ILLUSIONS

President Clinton’s assurances that the United States will not get
involved in the Colombian civil war that the United States already is
involved in (with military personnel, equipment, training, financing
and intelligence) make sense if you think of the helicopters as farm
implements. The 60 transport and attack helicopters, and most of the
other elements in the recent $1.3 billion installment of U.S. aid,
look warlike. However, the administration says the aid is essentially
agricultural. It is all about controlling crops–particularly the coca
fields that provide upward of 90 percent of the cocaine that reaches
America.

The law governing U.S. intervention includes this language: “The
president shall ensure that if any helicopter procured with funds
under this heading is used to aid or abet the operations of an illegal
self-defense group or illegal security cooperative, then such
helicopter shall be immediately returned to the United States.”
Imagine how reliably this will be enforced.

Conceivably, important U.S. interests are involved in the Colombian
government’s fight with the more than 17,000-strong forces of Marxist
insurgency in the civil war, now in its fourth decade, that has killed
35,000 people and displaced 2 million in the past 10 years. Political
violence has killed 280,000 since the middle of the 19th century. Do
makers of U.S. policy understand this long-simmering stew of class
conflict, ideological war and ethnic vendettas?

They advertise their policy as drug control through crop extermination. The
president, delivering the money that will buy military equipment, said: “We
have no military objective.” And: “Our approach is both pro-peace and
anti-drug.” As though the civil war and the anti-narcotics campaign can be
separated when the left-wing forces that control half the country are
getting hundreds of millions of dollars a year by protecting and taxing
coca fields.

The U.S. policy–peace through herbicides–aims to neutralize the
left-wing forces by impoverishing them. But already those forces are
diversifying. The Wall Street Journal reports: “Armed with automatic
rifles and personal computers, guerrillas often stop traffic, check
motorists’ bank records, then detain anyone whose family might be able
to afford a lucrative ransom.” There are an average of seven
kidnappings a day, and the newspaper reports that every morning
Colombia’s largest radio network “links its 169 stations with its
stations in Miami, New York, Panama and Paris. It opens its lines to
relatives of kidnap victims who broadcast messages they hope will be
heard by their missing loved ones.”

Speaking of diversification, does anyone doubt that, in the very
unlikely event that Colombia is cleansed of the offensive crops,
cultivation of them will be promptly increased elsewhere? Despite
Colombia’s efforts, coca cultivation increased 140 percent in the past
five years, partly because the United States financed the reduction of
Bolivia’s coca crop. However, the pressure on Colombia’s coca growers
is “working”: Some of them have planted crops (and the seeds of future
conflicts) across the border in Peru. And guerrillas have made
incursions into Panama and Ecuador for refuge. And the price of
cocaine in the United States has plummeted for two decades.

Will the United States ever learn? As long as it has a $50 billion
annual demand for an easily smuggled substance made in poor nations,
the demand will be served. An anecdote is apposite.

A presidential adviser was fresh from persuading the French government
to smash the “French connection” by which heroin destined for America
was refined from Turkish opium in Marseilles. Boarding a helicopter to
bring his glad tidings to President Nixon, the adviser, Pat Moynihan,
who then still had Harvard’s faith in government efficacy, found
himself traveling with Labor Secretary George Shultz, embodiment of
University of Chicago realism about powerful appetites creating
markets despite governments’ objections. When Moynihan (who tells this
story) told Shultz about his achievement, this conversation ensued.

Shultz, dryly: “Good.”

Moynihan: “No, really, this is a big event.”

Shultz, drier still: “Good.”

Moynihan: “I suppose you think that so long as there is a demand for drugs,
there will continue to be a supply.”

Shultz: “You know, there’s hope for you yet.”

That is more than can be confidently said for U.S. policy in Colombia,
which seems barren of historical sense. “The enduring achievement of
historical study,” said British historian Sir Lewis Namier, “is a
historical sense–and intuitive understanding–of how things do not
work.” Such a sense should produce policy. Instead, the most that can
be hoped is that U.S. policy in Colombia may, painfully and tardily,
produce such sense.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor of the Washington Post:

I was glad to see George Will expose another absurd layer of military
aid for Colombia (“Colombia Illusions,” Sept. 10). The aid package is
allegedly being sent in order to address drug trafficking in Colombia.
Of course military aid will not impact the cocaine trade. If anything,
as Will noted, it will help to spread the trade throughout South America.

The cocaine industry is just a pretext for the use of increased force
against rebel forces in the country. A real effort to address the
problems in Colombia would automatically exclude an escalation of the
drug war. By enriching all sides of the conflict, drug prohibition
only helps to stoke the violence. As long as there is a war on drugs,
there will be a war in Colombia. And after the drug war is over, there
still may be war in Colombia. But at least then all sides of the
conflict can address the real issues over which they fight – without
having to play artificial anti-drug games refereed by disingenuous
policy makers in Washington.

Stephen Young
990 Borden Drive
Roselle, IL 60172
(630) 539-4486

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 Stephen Young – http://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist

Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000
Subject: #182 – USA Today: Neighbors Warn Colombia Violence Will Spread

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 182 August 31, 2000

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

USA Today: Neighbors Warn Colombia Violence Will Spread

Anyone who has followed the drug war knows the $1.3 billion U.S. aid
package allegedly designed to hurt the cocaine industry in Colombia,
is doomed to fail in its stated goals. The traffickers will move
elsewhere — and the drugs will continue to flow into the U.S.

No one knows this better than leaders in other South American
countries. As USA Today reported this week, military leaders in Brazil
are moving extra troops to the nation’s Colombian border in hopes of
keeping the turmoil contained in Colombia. (For many more details
about the concerns of Colombia and its neighbors, see the daily “Press
Briefings,” at http://www.narconews.com/pressbriefing.html. The site
includes translations of stories from the Latin American press showing
that the people there know increased U.S. involvement under the guise
of fighting drugs is a recipe for disaster throughout the continent.)

Please write a letter to USA Today to thank them for covering some of
the dark reality behind Bill Clinton’s optimistic rhetoric. Please
also write to your own local newspaper to say that no matter how much
violence is used in the drug war, waging a war on drugs can only make
problems worse.

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 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: USA Today (US)
Contact: [email protected]

NOTE USA Today circulation is 2.1 MILLION readers – A 5 inch LTE
published in this paper has an advertising value for reform of
$6,300!! Write Away!

EXTRA CREDIT:

Write to your own local newspaper, or any of the newspapers that have
covered Colombia to protest the start of “Plan Colombia.”

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

ARTICLE

Brazil: Brazil Says ‘Plan Colombia’ Biggest Security Risk
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1273/a06.html
Newshawk: Sledhead – VOTE Patrick L. Lilly, Colo. Senate, Dist. 12
Pubdate: Tue, 29 Aug 2000
Source: USA Today (US)
Copyright: 2000 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 1000 Wilson Blvd., Arlington VA 22229
Fax: (703) 247-3108
Website: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htm

BRAZIL SAYS ‘PLAN COLOMBIA’ BIGGEST SECURITY RISK

BRASILIA, Brazil (Reuters) — Brazil is dispatching thousands of
troops to its jungle border with Colombia to prevent fallout as the
neighbouring country launches an offensive against drug traffickers
and rebel forces, the national security chief said.

Gen. Alberto Cardoso, the president’s chief security adviser, told
Reuters in an interview late on Monday that “Plan Colombia” — the
neighbouring country’s $7.5 billion assault on drug traffickers in
rebel strongholds — is causing major concern for Brazil.

“For Brazil, Colombia is causing the biggest worry,” Cardoso said.
“Our attention is dedicated to the effects it could have on Brazil,
like the flight of guerrillas and the transfer of (drug) laboratories
and plantations.”

Cardoso said Brazil already has sent 6,000 troops to the Amazon
border, winding along about 1,000 miles (1,644 km) of dense jungle.
Within one year, another 6,000 troops will be sent to the region,
where they will remain until Plan Colombia has been completed, Cardoso
added.

The troops normally would be stationed throughout the Amazon
region.

“The army will perform a serious operation of surveillance and defence
of our territory,” Cardoso said.

While Brazil has offered moral support to Colombia’s peace efforts, it
also has added its voice to a growing chorus of concern among
neighbouring countries, including Peru, Ecuador and Venezuela.

Neighbours worry that the conflict will spill over into their
territory, either in the form of refugees, cocaine production,
guerrillas or drug traffickers seeking shelter from a widely expected
military offensive.

Particularly controversial has been $1.3 billion in mostly U.S.
military aid to support Plan Colombia. Under the package, U.S.
military advisors will go to Colombia to train special battalions in
fighting the drug trade and, indirectly, the leftist guerrillas who
protect and profit from the trafficking.

Brazil’s Foreign Minister Luiz Felipe Lampreia said during a recent
visit by U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that Latin
America’s biggest country was not as committed as the United States to
Plan Colombia and would not take part in any common international action.

U.S. President Bill Clinton is due to arrive in Colombia on Wednesday
to show his support for the government efforts to end its
four-decade-long civil war.

In the interview, Cardoso said he doubted that displaced drug
traffickers and guerrillas would head toward Brazil because in the
past they “have preferred other destinations.”

“But this is no guarantee, so we need planning to safeguard the border
during Plan Colombia,” Cardoso said.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor of USA Today:

Thank you for covering the concerns of Brazil in regard to “Plan
Colombia,” (“Brazil Says ‘Plan Colombia’ Biggest Security Risk,” Aug.
29). U.S. leaders who insist more military aid will bring peace to
Colombia are either lying to us or they are deluded. As for the notion
that an infusion of U.S. arms will somehow stop the cocaine trade,
when has force ever hurt the illegal drug business? It may increase
the risk taken by illegal drug operations, but increased risks simply
mean increased profits and more incentive to keep operating.

The huge U.S. aid package is a grave mistake that will only escalate
violence in and around Colombia. Our tax dollars and our military
forces are being used to promote more mayhem. How much death and
destruction will be endured before the American people stand up
against this fiasco that has no clear exit strategy? Will it take the
deaths of more than a million natives and 55,000 American soldiers
like it did in Vietnam?

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

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

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://home.att.net/~theyoungfamily Focus
Alert Specialist