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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000
Subject: #181 People Magazine: Father Stands Up Against Student Drug

People Magazine: Father Stands Up Against Student Drug Testing

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 181 August 22, 2000

As more school districts implement drug testing programs, it is
heartening to see some citizens taking a public stand against this
attack on students’ constitutional rights. People Magazine last week
featured the story of Larry Tannahill who has refused to permit his
son to participate in a random drug testing program at a local public
school.

As the story notes: “What disturbed Tannahill, 36, was the presumption
of guilt: Parents were warned that if they didn’t sign a form
consenting to the exams, their children would be treated as if they
had tested positive and punished with in-school suspension and a
temporary ban from extracurricular activities.” (For more information
about Larry Tannahill and the Lockney policy, see MAP’s shortcut to
other stories at: http://www.mapinc.org/lockney.htm)

Larry Tannahill and his family have found little local support for
their challenge to the drug testing plan, but he should be commended
for his stand. Please write a letter to People to show there are
others who understand that drug war tactics like forcing grade school
children to undergo unwarranted searches weakens the Constitution for
all Americans.

NOTE: People Magazine Circulation – 3.15 Million Readers!!

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

If you YOU Who? If not NOW When?

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO:

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

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

ARTICLE

US: He Just Said No
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1183/a03.html
Newshawk: Bob Ramsey
Pubdate: Mon, 21 Aug 2000
Source: People Magazine (US)
Copyright: 2000 Time Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: People, Time-Life Building,
Rockefeller Center, New York, NY 10020
Feedback: http://www.pathfinder.com/people/web/write_to_us.html
Section: page 77
Authors: Thomas Fields-Meyer, Michael Haederle in Lockney

(Newshawk note: Main page photo of Tannahill and sons on tailgate of
pickup with caption: “It’s a sad shame that people who don’t even know
these boys think they’re guilty,” says Tannahill (with sons Coby,
left, and Brady). Three other photos: 1) Tannahill and Lawyer Jeff
Conner before the Lockney school board 2) “Pro-test” student leader
Jeffrey Hunter with water tower in background 3) Tannahill family
playing ball in the yard.)

Bookmark: MAP’s shortcut to The Lockney Policy items:
http://www.mapinc.org/lockney.htm

HE JUST SAID NO

When The Local School Tried to Make His Son Take a Drug Test, Larry
Tanahill Filed Suit

A farming community of some 2,300 in the Texas Panhandle, Lockney
might seem at first glance far removed from the drug problems facing
larger cities.

So Larry Tannahill was surprised last January when his son Brady, 12,
came home with the news that the town’s schools would be requiring
every student from sixth grade up to submit to routine urine tests.
What disturbed Tannahill, 36, was the presumption of guilt: Parents
were warned that if they didn’t sign a form consenting to the exams,
their children would be treated as if they had tested positive and
punished with in-school suspension and a temporary ban from
extracurricular activities. “It’s not right,” says Tannahill. “It’s
going against everything they’re teaching these kids about
government.”

Tannahill and his wife, Traci, 35, refused to sign–and they were the
only parents to do so. Frustrated after protesting the policy to
school officials and speaking out at a public meeting, Tannahill took
his complaint to another level: In March he sued the school district
in federal Court on the grounds that the policy violated his son’s
Constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure. As a
result, Tannahill has found himself ostracized in the town, where four
generations of his family have lived. He is also out of work, fired
from his job with a farmer whose wife and sister are employed by the
school district. Still, he vows to fight on. “We’re trying to raise
these boys with trust,” he says of Brady and his brother Coby, 11.
“And I just believe they’ve taken that away.” An A and B student who
has never been in trouble, Brady stands firmly with his dad. “I don’t
think it’s right,” he says of the policy. “They are just telling you,
‘Do it or else.'”

Whether the court backs up the Tannahills remains to be seen. In 1995
the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a policy allowing random drug testing
for student athletes in the small town of Vernonia, Ore. Citing an
American Academy of Pediatrics policy critical of drug testing, Graham
Boyd, a lawyer handling Tannahill’s suit for the American Civil
Liberties Union, argues that such policies haven’t been shown to curb
abuse. “They look tough on drugs,” he says, “but they’re not effective.”

Despite its bucolic setting, Lockney has had its battles with drugs.
In September 1998, after a lengthy undercover investigation, a grand
jury indicted 11 locals, all adults, on charges of cocaine
trafficking. (Eight defendants were convicted, and three cases are
pending.) School superintendent Raymond Lusk notes that teachers had
complained of students showing up on Monday mornings with drug and
alcohol hangovers. “Our staff felt like there was a severe problem,”
he says. Incoming student council president Jeffrey Hunter, 17, who
supports the policy, says he learned about drugs in Lockney schools
“pretty much as soon as I got into sixth grade. That’s when it starts.”

Lockney adopted its policy-modeled after one in Sundown, 76 miles
away-in November. All students and staff would be tested during the
first round; thereafter 10 percent of the school population would
undergo tests monthly. “I’m sure there’s drugs in Lockney,” says
Tannahill. “But I don’t think there’s enough to warrant what they’re
trying to do.”

Before January the soft-spoken Tannahill was not exactly known as a
rabble rouser. The youngest of three children born to a Lockney farmer
and his homemaker wife, he tried farming on his own but later hired on
as a hand for another local farmer, moving to the small rented house
he shares with Traci–a clerk at a nearby prison–and their sons.

Neighbors have offered little support for their stance. “If either one
of my children were doing drugs, I’d want them to get help,” says Pat
Garza, 36, mother of two teenagers. “I don’t see what the big deal
is.” Other Lockney residents have been harsher: Someone shot Ranger,
the Tannahills’ boxer, with a paint ball, and a note was left on their
door that said, “You’re messing with our kids.” Letters to the local
paper have suggested the Tannahills relocate. “You should not have to
pack your bags,” says Traci, just because you disagree.”

Waiting for a U.S. district judge to hear his case, Larry Tannahill
isn’t going anywhere. “What I’m doing is my birthright,” he says.
“They have the right to try to have this policy, and I have the right
to try to stop it, because I’m concerned for my kids.”

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

SAMPLE LETTER

All Americans should be grateful for Larry Tannahill’s stand against
mandatory drug tests at his son’s school (“He Just Said No,” Aug. 21).
By insisting that the U.S. Constitution be taken seriously, he
attempts to protect freedom for all of us. He also sets a good example
for other families. With mandatory drug tests, adults are telling
youth that regardless of any positive actions, they still must prove
their innocence by producing bodily fluids on command. By showing such
disrespect to young people, how can adults expect to get anything
different in return?

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, 09 Aug 2000
Subject: # 180 Urge Media To Expand Coverage Of Shadow Convention

Urge Media To Expand Coverage Of Shadow Convention

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #180 August 9, 2000

The Shadow Convention held alongside the Republican National
Convention in Philadelphia last week addressed issues, like drug
policy reform, that are generally ignored among the major parties.
While participants could see the value of the event, those of us who
weren’t there didn’t have many chances to see what was happening at
all. Broadcast media coverage of the Shadow Convention was quite limited.

The public at large will have another opportunity to hear what’s being
said about the drug war as the Shadow Convention reconvenes in Los
Angeles, along with the Democratic National Convention. Please write
to the media contacts below to urge them to spend more time covering
the Shadow Convention, and also to suggest the Shadow Convention’s
issues be raised by journalists during the other political convention
in LA.

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:

C-Span http://www.c-span.org/
Questions about Program Air Times and Video Tapes, as well as comments
about C-SPAN programming. ([email protected])
Suggestions ([email protected])
Pone Numbers
Front Desk (202) 737-3220
Viewer Services: (765) 464 3080 – 0
Washington Journal: FAX (202) 393-3346
Alternate Fax Numbers 202 737 6226 737 3323

ABC News mailform http://abcnews.go.com/onair/email.html Peter
Jennings is the Senior Editor for World News Tonight, the daily
program. Address things to him.

CBS News Mailform. http://cbsnews.cbs.com/feedback/frameset/0,1712,412,00.html
Dan Rather is the Senior Editor of the Evening and other news
programming, address things to him. Contact page for Rather.
http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,15218-412,00.shtml

NBC Nightly News With Tom Brokaw [email protected] This page today has
some of their gop convention coverage. http://www.msnbc.com/news/NIGHTLYTB_Front.asp

“EXTRA CREDIT”

This is a National Issue. We need LOTS of media coverage.

Do a ZIP Code search for ZIP Codes in your area (or the Los Angeles Area
90012 thru 90089) Send a notice to ALL of your local newspapers, radio and
TV stations encouraging coverage on the LA Shadow Convention. This is an
easy fun and very productive way of increasing media exposure. See:
http://congress.nw.dc.us/wnd/

-OR-

Send your letter to any and all media contacts you have. See
http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm to find Email contacts for
your local papers.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear C-Span,

I was disappointed the by the sparse coverage provided during the
Shadow Convention held simultaneously with the Republican National
Convention in Philadelphia. I watched some of the RNC on TV, but as
hundreds of reporters who were actually there noted, it was both
predictable and repetitive. Instead of rehashing that basic
observation again and again, couldn’t a few more of those reporters
and camera crews have been sent over to the Shadow Conventions, where
some controversial issues were actually being discussed?

I hope there will be more coverage from the Shadow Convention in Los
Angeles. It will make for a better informed public, but it will also
make for more interesting programming.

Please get the Shadow Conventions on the air. The American public
deserves the truth about the horrendous damage being caused to our
nation by the “war on drugs”

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

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, 27 Jul 2000
Subject: #179 Shadow Conventions: Wash. Post Gets It, But Time Doesn’t

Shadow Conventions: Washington Post Gets It, But Time Magazine Doesn’t

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 179 July 27, 2000

In an effort to raise consciousness about important issues overlooked
by the two major parties, political commentator Arianna Huffington is
organizing “Shadow Conventions” to coincide with the Republican and
Democratic national conventions. One of the issues to be highlighted
at the Shadow Conventions is the disastrous war on drugs.

In a piece from the Washington Post this week (below), columnist Judy
Mann makes it clear why the war on drugs must be confronted. She
illustrates how millions of Americans have been hurt by the drug war.
Mann also shows how the major parties have written off those millions
of Americans by keeping discussions about reform off the agenda.

On the other side of the spectrum, Time Magazine this week published a
report on the Shadow Conventions that casually dismisses the need for
drug policy reform. The story suggests Huffington tossed drug
prohibition into the mix of issues at the Shadow Conventions merely to
gain funding from billionaire George Soros. Anyone who has read
Huffington’s columns on the drug war in recent months knows she offers
a passionate and remarkably frank analysis (see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n896/a01.html?194759
and http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n882/a02.html?194759 for
example). If Time’s reporter had analyzed the subject using facts
instead of speculation, surely he would have seen it is the drug
warriors themselves who are trying to squeeze every dime they can from
drug problems, not Arianna Huffington.

Please write one or two letters: one to the Washington Post to support
Mann’s assessment of the tragedies of the drug war; and/or another to
Time Magazine to tell editors that drug policy reform is crucial for
the future of America, even if political elites don’t want to talk
about it.

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]

Source: TIME (US)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE #1

US DC: Column: Make War on the War on Drugs
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n1055/a03.html
Newshawk: Doug McVay http://www.csdp.org/
Pubdate: Wed, 26 Jul 2000
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 2000 The Washington Post Company
Page: C13
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: Judy Mann, Washington Post
Cited: The Lindesmith Center / Drug Policy Foundation:

Homepage

MAKE WAR ON THE WAR ON DRUGS

The Justice Department has just issued another indicator of the damage
being done by the war on drugs: An all-time high of 6.3 million people
were under correctional supervision in 1999–1.86 million men and
women behind bars and 4.5 million on parole or probation, 24 percent
of them for drug offenses.

The criminal justice system reached 1 percent of the adult population
in 1980. Its reach now exceeds 3 percent–about one of every 32
people. Our $40 billion-a-year war on drugs has created more prisons,
more criminals, more drug abuse and more disease. An estimated 60
percent of AIDS cases in women are attributed to dirty needles and
syringes.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision probably will spur more
litigation in the drug war, as prisoners use the ruling to appeal
unusually harsh sentences.

The court ruled that any factual determination used to increase a
sentence will have to be made by a jury, not a judge. While a judge
can use a standard of the preponderance of the evidence in sentencing,
a jury must decide beyond a reasonable doubt, says Graham Boyd,
director of the Drug Policy Litigation Project of the American Civil
Liberties Union. “If the government wants to impose draconian
sentences for drug crimes, they should have at the very least to prove
their case to a jury by a criminal standard, and that hasn’t happened
in the past–amazingly.”

That’s just one example of the civil rights casualties of a war in
which paramilitary police raid people’s homes and authorities seize
their assets without due process, flying in the face of the Fourth and
Fifth amendments.

A few politicians are brave enough to declare the obvious: The war on
drugs hasn’t worked. New Mexico’s Gary E. Johnson (R) was the first
governor to call for marijuana legalization and other major drug
policy reforms. Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.), a candidate for the U.S.
Senate, is the first major-party politician to run statewide with a
platform that includes prescription access to heroin. They will speak
at the “shadow conventions” to be held at the same time as the
Republican and Democratic conventions to address three issues of
critical importance that organizers say are being given short shrift
by the two major parties: the drug war, campaign finance reform and
the growing gulf between rich and poor.

Drug policies affect millions of people who have family members behind
bars. Some of them will be at the shadow conventions. They will put
names and faces on this whole failed drug war effort. Many of them are
likely to be black. While African Americans constitute 13 percent of
the illegal drug users, they account for 74 percent of those sentenced
for drug offenses. Convicted felons lose their right to vote, a
backdoor way of reinstituting Jim Crow laws.

Pressure to change drug laws is mounting, and it is coming from
unlikely places, including farmers, who are forbidden to grow hemp,
the plant from which marijuana comes but which has other, non-drug
uses. The Lindesmith Center, which advocates drug policy reform, did a
survey several years ago that found more than 50 percent of farmers in
five midwestern and western states favored legalizing hemp. Only 35
percent were opposed.

“This was the first indication we had that the public, in fairly
conservative agricultural states, were supporting this,” says Ethan
Nadelmann, executive director of the center.

More recently, Hawaii and North Dakota passed legislation legalizing
hemp’s cultivation, and similar measures are “in play” in more than 10
other states, Nadelmann says. From 30 to 40 countries, including
Canada, have made it legal. “This is quite galling for farmers on the
northern border who can look across the border and see people growing
this stuff,” he says.

Nadelmann believes that both Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice
President Gore, the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates,
would be well served if they did some research on hemp. “It may be an
issue that a number of people care about, and it would be sending a
message they are willing to think rationally about the economic and
agricultural interests of farmers even when the product has a
relationship to marijuana.”

The Lindesmith Center is one of more than 35 public policy, health,
religious and racial advocacy organizations that sent a list of 10
tough questions to the presidential candidates during the primaries,
pointing out where the drug policies have failed and asking what they
would do to change them.

None of the candidates have answered, according to Kevin B. Zeese,
co-chair of the National Coalition for Effective Drug Policies,
although the groups will try to pursue the issue during the general
election campaign. “Unless the drug issue is forced on them, they
prefer to avoid it rather than confront it,” Zeese says. “Our basic
point is the drug war is bankrupt and our policymakers aren’t facing
up to it. We tried to construct those questions in a way that showed
the drug war methods are causing more problems than they solve, and we
got a range of groups to show a breadth of concern about this.”

Highly visible people, including Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura (I), are
now calling for a genuine debate on how to deal with drugs. Approaches
gaining support include legalizing marijuana (except for sale to
minors), prescription access to heroine, needle exchanges, taxing
drugs and redirecting most of the drug war funding into public health
and education.

We are a nation of intelligent and thoughtful people who deserve
better than overheated rhetoric and a drug policy dictated by crazy
hard-liners and pandering politicians. At the very least, in the face
of the well-documented harm the war on drugs has caused, we deserve a
debate on how to control the drug market in a way that works. This
lackluster presidential campaign would be a good place to start.

ARTICLE #2

US: Time Magazine: The Arianna Sideshow
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1052.a06.html
Newshawk: Come to the Shadow Conventions
Pubdate: Mon, 31 Jul 2000
Source: TIME (US)
Copyright: 2000 Time Inc.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: Time Letters, Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, NY, NY 10020
Fax: (212) 522-8949
Website: http://www.time.com/
Author: Andrew Ferguson
Bookmark: MAP’s link to shadow convention items:
http://www.mapinc.org/shadow.htm

Note: Shadow Convention websites: http://www.drugpolicy.org/
http://www.shadowconventions.com/

THE ARIANNA SIDESHOW The Activist And Socialite Has Plans For Two “Shadow
Conventions” She Hopes Will Roil The Establishment. What Are They Really About

IT’S NOT EASY GETTING A political convention off the ground –
especially when the convention is not really a convention but a
“shadow convention,” and especially when the politics being convened
is not the old-fashioned kind but a new, revolutionary kind of
politics that will “transcend the old categories of left and right.”
Arianna Huffington has been learning this lesson the hard way all
summer. While Americans across the country – hundreds of them! maybe
thousands! – eagerly await the twin spectacle of the Republican and
Democratic conventions in Philadelphia and Los Angeles, the syndicated
columnist and former Newt Gingrich confidant has been trying to round
up participants for a self-styled alternative – the Shadow
Conventions 2000, dubbed by sponsors as a “Citizens’ Intervention in
American Politics.”

“It’s really exploding in ways I could not have imagined,” Huffington
says, riding through downtown Philadelphia a few weeks before the
Republicans are scheduled to arrive. Today she has already held a
press conference, visited two newspaper editorial boards, met with a
dozen area activists and scouted the arena where the shadow revels are
to be held. But the complications never let up. An aide’s cell phone
beeps, and he hands it over. “Bill Bradley,” he says. Bradley has
unofficially agreed to appear at one of the shadow
conventions.

“Bill!” she says, though in her heavily Greek-accented English it
comes out “Beeeel!” “How are you’?”

A long silence ensues.

“Oh, Bill, that’s ridiculous,” Huffington says at last. “No, no, no.
He’s just trying to make trouble, Bill. It is false. He does not know
what he is talking about.”

In time she hangs up, evidently having mollified Bradley. “He just saw
Bob Novak on Inside Politics,” she explains, referring to the
conservative columnist and the CNN political show on which he
regularly appears. “Bill’s worried because Novak says no one knows who
is financing our conventions. Novak says if people knew, they would
not want to appear. This is false.” She sighs deeply. “But this is the
kind of thing we will have to put up with. The Establishment hates
anything it cannot control. What it cannot control, it tries to
eliminate.” Huffington and her colleagues are convinced they have hit
on a formula that will roil the muddy middle of American politics,
from Bushies on the one side to Gorites on the other. Their plan is
media-savvy and politically astute.

Concurrently with the party conventions, an assortment of activists,
professional pols and celebrities with populist pretensions (from
stand-ups like Bill Maher to superstars like Warren Beatty) will
gather for four days of speechifying, seminar giving and satirical
merrymaking, all on the indisputable assumption that the national
press corps (and the public) will be so starved for spectacle and
spontaneity that it will lavish attention on them – and their
issues. CNN and C-SPAN have expressed interest in broadcasting some
sessions live.

“We want to throw light on the things that no one will be talking
about in the other conventions – and have a genuine debate, not an
infomercial,” Huffington says. She and her co-conveners – who
include Scott Harshbarger of Common Cause and antipoverty activist Jim
Wallis – have whittled their agenda down to three items. One day
will be devoted to campaign-finance reform, the next to the growing
income gap between rich and poor, and the third to “reforming” –
read liberalizing – the nation’s drug laws.

If all goes well, organizers hope, this trinity of issues will form
the nucleus for a “new politics,” re-energizing the half of the
electorate now so alienated from the old politics that it no longer
bothers to vote, Campaign-finance reform is the thread that ties all
other reforms together. “It’s no accident that the major parties
aren’t addressing the income gap and are ignoring the failed war on
drugs,” says Harshbarger, “The constituencies that are hurt by these
issues aren’t donating millions of dollars to the political parties.
Unless you fix campaign finance, you can’t move on to the other
issues.” Still, it seems a curiously arbitrary trio of concerns –
particularly the drug-war component, which scores scarcely a blip in
any catalog of the public’s disenchantments. Why single out drug laws
instead of guns, for example, or the environment, or educational
policy, or any of half a dozen issues with greater populist appeal?

One reason – ironically enough, given the convener’s hostility to
big money in politics – might be cash. A third of the convention’s
tab will be picked up by organizations funded by George Soros, the
international financier whose passion for ending the drug war has made
him an all-purpose bogeyman for political establishmentarians
everywhere. Other funding will come from foundations and individual
donors across a narrow span of the political spectrum, from the center
to the center left.

“Transcending the old categories of left and right,” after all, is a
favorite rhetorical trope of liberals who are tired of being dismissed
in a political culture that makes “moderation” the pre-eminent virtue.

NOTE: The rest of this article has been deleted for space reasons. To
read the whole piece, go to http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1052.a06.html

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

SAMPLE LETTER #1

To the editor of the Washington Post:

Judy Mann does an excellent job of summarizing some of the tremendous
damage done by the drug war (“Make war on the war on drugs,” July 26).
Sadly, the politicians and government officials who have the power to
stop the tragedy prefer to pretend there is no tragedy. It seems as if
the simplistic “Just Say No” mantra repeated to the point of nausea by
politicians in the 1980s has been replaced by an attitude even more
frustrating and dangerous: “Just Say Nothing.”

It’s well past time for more American leaders to face their denial and
break the silence.

Stephen Young

SAMPLE LETTER #2

To the editor of Time:

Your article on Arianna Huffington and the upcoming Shadow
Conventions, “The Arianna Sideshow,” was a fair piece but I was
confused by the following:

“Still, it seems a curiously arbitrary trio of concerns –
particularly the drug-war component, which scores scarcely a blip in
any catalog of the public’s disenchantments.”

Barely scores a blip? Do you only read your own magazine? Get a clue.
There is an intense and powerful debate rising in the media of this
country. The drug war has taken the “land of the free” and made us the
most incarcerated nation on the planet.

Get out more often. In fact, step into the “Shadows” and see for
yourself.

Allan Erickson

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, 22 Jul 2000
Subject: # 178 Sun-Times Recognizes Drug War As Factor In Violence

Sun-Times Recognizes Drug War As Factor In Violence

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 178 July 22, 2000

Editorialists at the Chicago Sun-Times have been generally restrained
in their criticism of the drug war, but this week the newspaper called
for a serious discussion on decriminalizing drugs. The Sun-Times is
finally officially recognizing that the illegal drug market is major
cause of violence.

“There are many options between strict enforcement of the current drug
laws and decriminalization, but in order to determine whether there is
a better strategy for combatting illegal drug trafficking, the pros
and cons of decriminalizing drugs have to be debated in an open
forum,” the editorial said.

Please write a letter to the Sun-Times to support its call for an open
forum, one that isn’t even restricted by terms like
“decriminalization.”

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: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

US IL: Editorial: Dialogue Can Spur New Look At Drugs
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n1011.a06.html
Newshawk: Sledhead
Pubdate: Wed, 19 Jul 2000
Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)
Copyright: 2000 The Sun-Times Co.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: 401 N. Wabash, Chicago IL 60611
Feedback: http://www.suntimes.com/geninfo/feedback.html
Website: http://www.suntimes.com/

DIALOGUE CAN SPUR NEW LOOK AT DRUGS

Every so often the topic of decriminalizing drugs surfaces, only to be
squashed by fears that the proposal is too controversial to merit
serious discussion.

In 1995, Criminal Court Judge Richard E. Neville stirred quite a
debate among law enforcement officials when he advocated legalizing
drugs and challenged lawmakers to have a dialogue on this issue. At
the time, he and other supporters argued that removing drugs from the
street trade would reduce violence. James E. Gierach, a lawyer who
once ran for Cook County state’s attorney, also has advocated an end
to the drug war, which, according to the Human Rights Watch, has
resulted in a racial disparity in sentences for drug crimes.

Given that the skyrocketing prison population and the continued street
violence related to gang and drug wars affect African Americans
disproportionately, it is entirely fitting that a discussion of
decriminalizing drugs should be on the agenda at the anti-violence
summit of African American leaders that Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) has
scheduled for Saturday.

For a politician to express any support for legalizing drugs carries a
political risk since opponents later could accuse him of being soft on
crime. And to be clear, Rush is not advocating legalization; rather,
he correctly observes that there should at least be discussion on the
drug trade and violence. Rush also intends to take a look at the
Prohibition experience to see if it is relevant to the drug issue.
Indeed, now may be the right time to tackle this issue. The judicial
system has softened its stance. For example, more court systems are
choosing to divert those convicted on minor drug offenses to special
drug courts, where they are monitored while they receive substance
abuse treatment instead of being sent to prison.

There are many options between strict enforcement of the current drug
laws and decriminalization, but in order to determine whether there is
a better strategy for combatting illegal drug trafficking, the pros
and cons of decriminalizing drugs have to be debated in an open forum.
Hopefully, the leadership summit can help spark this debate as
participants look for ways to significantly reduce black-on-black
violence. This is just one issue that will be on the agenda. Rush is
to be commended for calling this meeting to address the violence
continuing to plague too many neighborhoods.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor of the Chicago Sun-Times:

I was pleased to read the editorial “Dialogue Can Spur New Look At
Drugs,” (July 19). The fact that the black market for illegal drugs is
a hotbed for violence and injustice just scratches the surface of the
problems created by the war on drugs. The drug war has scaled back
the Bill of Rights; the drug war prevents sick people from getting
appropriate medicine; the drug war encourages corruption in law
enforcement and other government agencies; the drug war is dragging
our nation into another foreign civil war without an exit strategy.

What good does the drug war do? It has not ended illegal drug use –
levels of use generally rose in the 1990s, along with government
anti-drug budgets and prison populations. It’s not making drug use any
more safe since drug deaths also rose in the 90s.

It’s easy to talk about the problems of the drug war; finding some way
to defend is a much bigger challenge.

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, 11 Jul 2000
Subject: When Leaders Do What Is Right We Should Thank Them

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

When Leaders Do What Is Right We Should Thank Them

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 177 July 11, 2000

President Clinton has commuted the prison sentences of four women;
Louise House, Shawndra Mills, Amy Pofahl and Serena Nunn; who were
convicted of drug crimes but received much harsher sentences than men
involved in the cases. This presents a rare opportunity to praise for
doing the right thing. Below is a sample letter to President Clinton.
Please consider sending your own letter.

Robert Field of Common Sense for Drug Policy wrote, in response to the
sample letter:

I am delighted to read Tom’s letter (below) of praise to President
Clinton for more than the obvious reason.

As I was discussing with a board member yesterday, now that our
movement has matured and is becoming a major political force, it is
very important that we be able to change hats from guerrilla warriors
to establishment players.

Oh, we will still need to be outspoken on our condemnation of abuses.
But the only way we will ever accomplish much is to be able to form
coalitions, flex political muscle, educate, reason with those in power
who are receptive to incremental change, and help guide and modify
their proposals and programs so that they are more consistent with
what we desire to accomplish.

Some of us are attracted to movements because it is our disposition to
be rebels. There is an important place for such people and without
what my rabbi calls “prophets” the world would be without vital critics.

Others can both see the wrongs and appreciate the progress is made
incrementally and by consensus, through give and take. They also
recognize that politics indeed make for strange bedfellows (the recent
forfeiture reforms comes to mind) and they are less interested in
finding reform soul mates than in achieving alliances towards bringing
about specific reforms – medical marijuana, decrim of marijuana,
lessening or mandatory minimums, legalization of syringe exchanges,
expansion of methadone availability, treatment in place of
incarceration or examples.

I hope Tom’s letter is symbolic of a movement that is achieving
prominence and is confident and pragmatic enough not limit its
potential by taking “all or nothing” stands.

Robert Field

Although Letters to the Editor are also appropriate, we are asking you
to send a letter to the White House to encourage more of the same –
release drug war prisoners serving these unbelievable mandatory
minimum sentences.

Organizations which have taken the lead on this issue
include:

Families Against Mandatory Minimums:

Homepage

The November Coalition:
http://www.november.org/

Human Rights and the Drug War:
http://hr95.org/

Jubilee Justice 2000: http://www.jubileejustice.org/

Other articles about this release:

US: 4 Women Granted Clemency By Clinton URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n957/a08.html

US MN: Clinton Commutes Federal Drug Sentence Of Minneapolis Woman
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n956/a04.html

US: Women Freed By Clinton From ‘Harsh’ Sentences:
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n959/a03.html

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

Email:
[email protected]

Email via the White House webform: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Mail/html/Mail_President.html

Mail:
President William Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 20500

EXTRA CREDIT

Let your Senators and Representative know what you think about
mandatory minimums:

Contact your Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm

Contact your Representative:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Or bulk email them all: http://usa.letterstoleaders.com/

Plus a letter to the editor of your local newspapers is always
appropriate. Find the email addresses here: http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

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

ARTICLE

Pubdate: Sun, 09 Jul 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://www10.nytimes.com/comment/

CLINTON COMMUTES 4 WOMENS SENTENCES

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Clinton has commuted the prison sentences
of four women who were convicted of drug crimes but received much
harsher sentences than men involved in the cases, a White House
spokesman said Sunday.

“The president felt they had served a disproportionate amount of
time,” said spokesman Jake Siewert. “They received much more severe
sentences than their husbands and boyfriends.”

The women freed under Friday’s order were Louise House, Shawndra
Mills, Amy Pofahl and Serena Nunn.

One man, Alain Orozco, also was ordered freed after serving time on a
drug conviction.

“I thought they were joking with me at first,” Nunn told ABC News,
which first reported on the commutations. “After I realized it was
actually happening, I began to tremble and one of the staff members
asked me if I wanted to take a seat. Right after that, the tears just
started flowing.”

Authorities said Nunn was convicted after being drawn into a
Minneapolis drug ring by her boyfriend, but received a stiff 14-year
sentence after refusing to inform on him. She served 10 years before
her release.

The federal judge who sentenced her lobbied the White House for her
early release.

“I frankly have never written a letter to the president before asking
that one of my sentences by commuted,” U.S. District Judge David Doty
told ABC News. “Ms. Nunn was obviously guilty of a crime, but a crime
that did not deserve the penalty the court was required to impose
under the sentencing guidelines.”

He referred to guidelines imposed by Congress in the 1980s, requiring
mandatory sentences for a number of drug violations. The guidelines
have be criticized by a number of federal judges who complain they
strip them of discretion.

Pofahl was convicted along with her husband, a Stanford University Law
School graduate and wealthy Dallas businessman, in connection with the
drug Ecstasy. While he received three years probation, she was
sentenced to 24 years without parole.

My knees buckled,” Pofahl told ABC News. “I was overwhelmed. I just
felt incredible that I was free to do things without someone looking
over my shoulder.”

The Pofahl case was profiled in Glamour magazine last year and the
Star Tribune of Minneapolis wrote about the Nunn case in late 1997.

Details of the House and Mills cases were not available from the White
House.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

President William Clinton
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC 20500

Dear President Clinton:

After nearly eight years of intense frustration with your
administration for its abysmal lack of intelligence and leadership in
the field of drug policy, it’s a genuine pleasure to be able to
congratulate you for granting clemency to five federal prisoners who
were serving obscenely long drug sentences.

In a perfect world, there would be no criminal drug markets; people
with drug problems would have stumbled into them the same way smokers
and alcoholics do now. Those who chose to could also get over them the
same way; through their own initiative and with the help of medical
professionals of their own choosing – certainly not through the
intervention of their local narc or sheriff .

Who ever said we live in a perfect world? But — no matter what its
motivation — the same small step which freed five people also calls
attention to the gross injustice of our drug laws, and may thus be but
the first on a long journey.

For that I also thank you.

Sincerely,

Tom O’Connell, MD

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 President does not receive numerous copies of
the same letter and so that the original author receives credit for his 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 Sr. Editor, DrugNews

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