• Focus Alerts

    Political Attitudes Regarding Cannabis Changing In UK

    Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
    Subject: Political Attitudes Regarding Cannabis Changing In UK

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 157 January 30, 2000

    Political Attitudes Regarding Cannabis Changing In UK

    ——-
    PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

    ——- Make Writing At Least One Letter a Week Your Commitment to
    Reform

    Together we ARE making a difference

    ——-

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 157 January 30, 2000

    The battle to change marijuana laws in Britain continues to gain
    momentum, especially after the government’s new head of anti-drug
    efforts Mo Mowlam admitted she smoked marijuana while she was a student.

    The oped piece below from The Times of London offers an interesting
    look at the forces that seem to be driving the push toward a more
    reasonable cannabis policy. Earlier in the week another newspaper, the
    Daily Mail, published a story about an area police force that has not
    only admitted that the government’s drug war is a failure, but also
    suggested the legalization of drugs as a viable alternative (see
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n115/a07.html).

    As the Times oped notes, if politicians say they don’t have enough
    evidence to soften drug laws, they haven’t been looking very hard.
    Please write letters to either paper to offer support for changes in
    marijuana policy.

    Thanks for your effort and support.

    WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

    Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the 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: Times, The (UK)

    Contact: [email protected]

    EXTRA CREDIT

    Please write a letter to the Daily Mail in response to the article
    about police admitting the failure of the war on drugs
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n115/a07.html.

    Source: Daily Mail (UK)
    Contact: [email protected]

    Please note: Newshawks in the UK inform us that the Daily Mail
    generally prints shorter letters, while The Times is more inclined to
    print longer letters.

    ***************************************************************************
    ARTICLE

    UK: OPED: A New Political Generation Is Ending The Cannabis Taboo
    URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n131.a04.html
    Newshawk: Eric Ernst
    Pubdate: Fri, 28 Jan 2000
    Source: Times, The (UK)
    Copyright: 2000 Times Newspapers Ltd
    Contact: [email protected]
    Address: PO Box 496, London E1 9XN, United Kingdom
    Fax: +44-(0)171-782 5046
    Website: http://www.the-times.co.uk/
    Author: Mary Ann Sieghart
    Bookmark: MAP’s shortcut to UK items:
    http://www.mapinc.org/uk.htm

    A NEW POLITICAL GENERATION IS ENDING THE CANNABIS TABOO
    You’re Only As Old As Your Reefer

    What I like about Labour’s attitude to drugs is that they say one
    thing and do another. They say they are acting tough, when in fact
    they are focusing more on treatment than punishment. Mo Mowlam says
    she tried cannabis and disliked it, when we all know that, like most
    fun-loving people of her generation, she must have enjoyed her toke or
    three.

    Attitudes to drugs – and cannabis in particular – are cast along
    generational lines. The last Government was made up of politicians
    brought up in the 1950s, for whom it was a scary, alien substance. I
    can no more imagine John Major smoking dope than I can imagine Mo
    Mowlam hating it. It was not just because they were Tories that they
    opposed any relaxation in the laws. I find that my liberal views are
    shared with more younger Conservative MPs than older Labour ones.

    The cusp comes round about 50 years of age. Dr Mowlam, who turned 50
    last year, is one of the oldest ageing hippies in the Cabinet. Jack
    Straw, a visceral anti-legaliser, is on the wrong side of 50. So are
    David Blunkett, another social conservative, and John Prescott. Only
    Clare Short jumps the age barrier, by calling for a debate on
    legalisation from the other side of 50.

    The other factor is political ambition. Those who knew from their
    early youth that they wanted to run the country might well have been
    more circumspect. No surprise, then, that Jack Straw addressed his
    first political meeting at 13, or that William Hague was staider than
    staid at Oxford. Tony Blair, meanwhile, had no interest in politics
    at university but grew his hair and played lead guitar in The Ugly
    Rumours.

    Whether he inhaled or not, I have no idea. But I am sure that he does
    not share Mr Straw’s instinctive antipathy to liberalising laws on
    cannabis. He merely worries about what Middle England might think. If
    he has pressed Dr Mowlam to tone down her enthusiasm for legalising
    marijuana for medical use, it is not because he thinks such a policy
    is intrinsically wicked, but because it could be caricatured by the
    Daily Mail. And that, as we know, is a critical test for government
    policy.

    You might have thought that an administration led by a Mick Jagger
    wannabe (age 46) would be more sympathetic to legalisation. With the
    critical exception of the Home Secretary, it is – but it still
    believes that it cannot be seen to be. I get the odd nod and a wink
    about this being “something for the second term”. But the first term
    is still dominated by the desire to prove what they are not.

    Mr Blair has had to show that he is not soft on defence, not a high
    tax-and-spender, not in the pocket of the unions – and not an
    irresponsible dopehead. But the position for his generation, both
    here and in America, is becoming unsustainable. They think they have
    to claim either that they smoked and did not inhale (Clinton); that
    they did not smoke but if they had, they would have inhaled (Blair);
    or that they did inhale but they did not like it (Mowlam). When will
    a politician admit not only that they smoked but that it was fun?

    You can see these people not so much inching as millimetring their way
    towards a more sensible policy. Dr Mowlam thinks cannabis should be
    allowed for the terminally ill – only they, it seems, will not be
    gripped by reefer madness. The Liberal Democrats think they are brave
    in calling for a royal commission, though many of them privately would
    be happy to legalise.

    What they all want is the cover of respectability. And that is
    arriving. The Police Foundation report on cannabis is imminent, and
    likely to call for a softening in the law. Cleveland’s chief police
    officers this week backed legalisation and a royal commission.

    Actually the cover has been there all along. In 1970 Richard Nixon
    appointed a commission to study the health effects, legal status and
    social impact of cannabis use. To his horror, it concluded that the
    drug should be decriminalised. A decade later, the US National
    Academy of Sciences studied the health effects and also recommended
    decriminalisation. The Lancet agrees, and was confident enough to
    declare recently that “the smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not
    harmful to health”.

    It is demographics that will soon make such a policy politically
    palatable. A senior Liberal Democrat told me last week that drug
    legalisation, along with housing, was the main subject broached by his
    young constituents. As the 1960s generation takes power, in
    Westminster and elsewhere, the taboo will dissolve.

    Already The Mirror has backed liberalisation of drug laws. A reader
    phone-in by The Sun found 70 per cent thought Dr Mowlam was not wrong
    to smoke dope. Its white van men say variously that MPs should take
    more drugs to improve their policies; that legalisation would cut out
    the dealers; and that cannabis is good because it is cheaper than
    alcohol. The Daily Mail may be edited by a man with unreconstructed
    views, but his proprietor is a 32-year-old whose attitude to marijuana
    is, I imagine, more liberal than that of his father.

    Cannabis smoking is following the same political trajectory, 40 years
    on, as homosexuality. Lots of people do it; fewer and fewer think
    that it should be illegal; and politicians are behind the curve, the
    last people to “come out”. We shrugged our shoulders when Nick Brown
    said he was gay. If Mo Mowlam showed her famous candour by conceding
    that cannabis was pretty harmless fun, I suspect the reaction, to Mr
    Blair’s surprise, would be much the same.

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

    SAMPLE LETTER (sent to The Times)

    Sir,

    Thank you for publishing Mary Ann Sieghart’s thoughtful analysis of
    annabis laws (“A New Political Generation Is Ending The Cannabis
    Taboo,” Jan. 28). It is well past time to reconsider current cannabis
    laws, and getting tougher is no solution at all.

    As a resident of the United States, I can clearly see how my country’s
    war against marijuana not only fails to curb the popularity of the
    drug, but also causes numerous unintended consequences. Over the past
    few years, about 700,000 Americans have been arrested annually on
    cannabis charges. Not only does this waste police and judicial
    resources, it makes criminals out of a wide segment of the population
    who are otherwise productive members of society.

    Compare the situation here with the situation in the Netherlands where
    personal use of cannabis is no longer considered an issue for law
    enforcement. Dutch young people are less likely to be cannabis users
    than American young people. At the same time, fewer Dutch youths have
    started using heroin in the time since cannabis laws were liberalized,
    while here in the U.S. throughout the 1990s the number of teenage
    heroin users has increased.

    Examined side by side, it should be easy for the British government to
    see which nation’s policy offers a more sensible model.

    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

  • Focus Alerts

    Arizona Republic Catalogs Failures Of Drug War

    Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
    Subject: Arizona Republic Catalogs Failures Of Drug War

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #156 January 24, 2000

    Arizona Republic Catalogs Failures Of Drug War

    ——-
    PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
    ——-

    Make Writing At Least One Letter a Week Your Commitment to
    Reform

    Together we ARE making a difference —

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 156 January 24, 2000

    The Arizona Republic featured more than a dozen articles on the drug
    war last week. The series started off with an unavoidable premise: The
    drug war has failed.

    In the introduction to the series, reporters get to the heart of the
    matter. “The truth is inescapable: The fight against narcotics, which
    costs Americans nearly $18 billion a year, is the nation’s most failed
    police action since Vietnam.” Throughout the week, the series
    demonstrated how astonishing profits help the drug war to corrupt
    society at many levels. Links to all the articles are available below.

    Unfortunately, the series stopped short of supporting a real solution
    to the problems, and advocates of serious reform were offered very
    little space to air their views. Instead, the wishy-washy implication
    of the series conclusion is that more access to treatment and the use
    of drug courts will help solve the problem. While that may be better
    than no changes at all, the series demonstrated repeatedly how black
    market money is as big a lure as drugs themselves for some who get
    tangled up in that world.

    Please write a letter to the Arizona Republic thanking the paper for
    reporting the failures of the drug war, but also to remind that more
    than a little tweaking is needed. It’s time for a complete overhaul.

    Thanks for your effort and support.

    WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

    Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the 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: Arizona Republic (AZ)
    Contact: [email protected]

    ***************************************************************************
    ARTICLE

    URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n103.a01.html
    Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
    Pubdate: Sun, 16 Jan 2000
    Source: Arizona Republic (AZ)
    Copyright: 2000 The Arizona Republic
    Contact: [email protected]
    Address: 200 E. Van Buren St., Phoenix, AZ 85004
    Website: http://www.azcentral.com/news/
    Forum: http://www.azcentral.com/pni-bin/WebX?azc

    THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC’S A LOSING DRUG WAR SERIES INDEX

    About this series:

    During a seven-month investigation, Arizona Republic reporters spoke
    to dozens of drug officers, smugglers, counselors and residents on the
    Mexican border. The conclusion: We’re losing the war on drugs.

    Day 1: Sunday, 16 Jan 2000

    Introduction: A Losing Drug War
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n061/a08.html

    A Lost Cause?

    Questions Trump Answers In War On Drugs http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n062/a04.html

    More People, More Technology, More Danger http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n062/a03.html

    Day 2: Monday, 17 Jan 2000

    The Drug Pipeline

    State Is Pipeline For Illegal Drugs http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n064/a07.html

    Eyes From Above Help In Flight http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n099/a01.html

    U.S. Customs Official Lives For The Thrill Of The Chase
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n068/a06.html

    Day 3: Tuesday, 18 Jan 2000

    Traffickers’ Tricks

    A Contest Of Wits At US Border http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n071/a03.html

    Smugglers Often Betray Themselves http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n099/a02.html

    Day 4: Wednesday, 19 Jan 2000

    Old-Time Methods

    Old-Time Methods Have Place In Fight http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n095/a01.html

    Narcs Lie In Wait, Watching The Night For ‘Contrabandistas’
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n095/a02.html

    Drug War Lost, Tucson Attorney Says http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n101/a01.html

    Day 5: Thursday, 20 Jan 2000

    Two Go Bad

    Chance Led To Side Job As Arizona Drug Runner http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n099/a04.html

    Day 6: Friday, 21 Jan 2000

    Phoenix Sting

    One Phoenix Sting Paid Off For Cops http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n093/a01.html

    Day 7: Saturday, 22 Jan 2000

    Rehab

    Aid Money Targets Certain Demographic Groups http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n098/a10.html

    Everything’s Different http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n095/a08.html

    Day 8: Sunday, 23 Jan 2000

    Conclusion: Solutions

    Putting Years Of Drug Use Behind, With Help http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n102/a02.html

    Rebuilding Broken Families http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n101/a06.html

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

    SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

    To the Editor of the Arizona Republic:

    I applaud the Arizona Republic for exposing the failure of the war on
    drugs in its week long series. It is well past time to acknowledge not
    only that the drug war doesn’t work, but that it causes more problems
    than it solves.

    That being said, I was very disappointed when I reached the conclusion
    of the series, which implied that more access to treatment and drug
    courts are going to improve the situation. While I agree those who
    think they need treatment should get it, there’s a lot more going on
    here. To paraphrase a famous line about misconceptions: It’s the black
    market economy, stupid.

    Pardon my rudeness, but the clues are glaring for those willing to
    see. One of the last stories, “Putting Years Of Drug Use Behind, With
    Help,” seemed to suggest that drug courts saved a young drug dealer.
    But the dealer himself clearly explained why demand reduction is not a
    final solution. “I think I was more addicted to selling the drugs than
    to taking them,” the young man confessed.

    Many more people (including the governor of the state directly to your
    east) are realizing that the drug war is beyond fixing, and that it’s
    time for radical change. It’s a shame your series did not give them
    more space to air their views. Putting another bandage on top of the
    corrosive disease of the drug war will only allow its damage to fester
    deeper in society.

    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

  • Focus Alerts

    Senator Hatch On C-Span Saturday AM Please Email Or Call In!

    Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000
    Subject: Senator Hatch On C-Span Saturday AM Please Email Or Call In!

    PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

    Presidential candidate Senator Orrin Hatch will be taking calls on
    C-Span’s Saturday Journal From 9-10 AM Eastern Time this Saturday AM.
    Hatch is the co-author of The Hatch/Feinstein Methamphetamine
    Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 which could easily destroy all forms of
    Internet activism on drug policy on the Internet if implemented. Below
    is a wealth of information on the bill and its background. It has
    already UNANIMOUSLY passed the senate. Hatch is also one of the most
    ardent drug war hawks in the Senate.

    The bill reads as follows “It shall be unlawful for any person– (A)
    to teach or demonstrate the manufacture of a controlled substance, or
    to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in
    part, the manufacture or use of a controlled substance, with the
    intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for,
    or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime.”

    This is a mind boggling concept in the land of the free. To me this
    sort of censorship sounds eerily like the plots in the classic books
    “Fahrenheit 451” in which book burning was mandated by the government
    or “1984” in which the government censored talk and even thought
    heavily and eliminated individual rights “for our own good.”

    Please call in, email or fax C-span to challenge Hatch on this
    egregious attack on the first amendment.

    C-SPAN
    400 North Capitol St. NW
    Suite 650
    Washington DC 20001

    Telephone E-Mail [email protected]

    Call these numbers from 9-10 AM ET Saturday:

    Washington Journal: Democrats (202) 624-1111
    Washington Journal: Republicans (202) 624-1115
    Washington Journal: Others (202) 737-6734
    Washington Journal: FAX (202) 393-3346
    Washington journal: Email [email protected]

    Front Desk (202) 737-3220
    Hotline Schediling info 202 628 2205 – 4
    Jobs Line (202) 626-7983
    Viewer Services: (202) 626-7963 – 0

    Smashing Meth or Trashing Rights?

    Consider these statements:

    A: “If you must smoke marijuana, filter the smoke with a water pipe
    and don’t even think of driving afterwards.” B: “If you ever do shoot
    up heroin, don’t use dirty needles. Clean them with bleach or find a
    syringe exchange program.”

    I think these statements are good advice. But if U.S. Senators Orrin
    Hatch and Dianne Feinstein have their way, it will soon be a felony to
    publish these statements in any book, newspaper, magazine, web site,
    or even to utter them or link to a web site containing them. The
    Hatch/Feinstein Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 makes
    these statements illegal because they “pertain” to an act that
    violates federal controlled-substance laws.

    Here’s the censorship language of the Hatch/Feinstein bill (S.486):
    “It shall be unlawful for any person– (A) to teach or demonstrate the
    manufacture of a controlled substance, or to distribute by any means
    information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use
    of a controlled substance, with the intent that the teaching,
    demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an
    activity that constitutes a Federal crime.”

    My opening statements “teach” people how to “use” criminalized drugs
    in a way that reduces potential harmfulness. They are nonetheless
    information that, if heeded at all, would be used “for … an activity
    that constitutes a Federal crime,” namely the use of marijuana or
    heroin. (Don’t believe for a minute that the “intent” aspect
    clarifies anything: the “intent” of suspects in federal crimes is
    exactly what the prosecutor says it is. Period.)

    The penalty for my heinous utterances: 10 years in federal
    prison.

    You’re probably thinking “Surely they didn’t mean that. This is a
    clamp-down on methamphetamine, isn’t it?” But a law is a very literal
    beast. The implications of S.486 are as broad as its language is
    vague. It clearly violates the face-value meaning of the First
    Amendment — guaranteed free speech.

    Anyone who thinks the feds would use common sense and restraint when
    enforcing this law hasn’t been watching the Drug War for the past 20
    years. These are the same drug warriors who just paid $1 million in an
    out-of-court settlement with the family of Donald Scott, who was shot
    to death in a “dry” (no drugs found) raid on Scott’s California ranch
    in 1992. Purportedly, the feds, fearing the publicity about corrupt
    drug cops in LA’s Rampart precinct, thought jurors might be persuaded
    that enforcers really were trying to grab Scott’s property under
    federal drug forfeiture laws, as the suit had alleged. On another
    front, drug-warring federal prosecutors are notorious for using
    mandatory sentencing laws to jail the lowest-level participants in
    drug cases for the longest possible terms, based on heresay evidence
    and wide-reaching conspiracy laws (see the PBS documentary “Snitch”).
    A study of drug case law reveals that people can be jailed on drug
    crimes through a head spinning array of legal technicalities (often
    convoluted, illogical, and unfair). Prosecutors essentially have the
    power of accuser, judge, and jury, all rolled into one, and can
    effectively jail whomsoever they please. Many use their power to seek
    high political offices.

    Would S.486 be used benignly? Tell me another.

    In states that have passed compassionate-use referendums, S. 486 would
    facilitate federal prosecution of doctors who tell patients about
    medical marijuana. These are among the more obvious applications of
    this bill. The larger implication concerns citizens who are now
    legally protesting the Drug War or conducting now-legal programs that
    are at odds with abstinence-enforcement ideology.

    Given the vague and inclusive interpretation of federal conspiracy
    laws, almost any information about criminalized drugs and any dissent
    against existing drug laws could be construed by federal enforcers as
    furthering federal drug crimes. In Congressional hearings last
    summer, drug czar Barry McCaffrey specifically accused two national
    drug reform organizations, MAP (the Media Awareness Project) and the
    Drug Policy Foundation (DPF), of distributing information to support
    the manufacture of criminalized drugs. Of course, McCaffrey was lying
    about this.

    Check it out at the Media Awareness Project (MAP) http://www.mapinc.org
    and The Drug Policy Foundation http://www.dpf.org

    MAP posts worldwide news related to criminalized drugs, drug policy,
    etc. Both groups organize activism to end the War on Drugs policy.
    Neither of them advocate drug use or offer instructions about drug
    manufacture. However, in the light of the 33,000 press articles
    clipped by MAP, the government’s Drug War does not look good. And
    activists are running scared about S.486.

    Based on McCaffrey’s statements of last summer, MAP and other drug
    policy leaders fear that enforcers, armed with the Hatch/Feinstein
    bill, would shut down their web sites, effectively silencing dissent
    against the Drug War and squelching public debate about drug policy.
    They fear selective enforcement of S.486 such that any anti-Drug-War
    web site could be shut down directly or indirectly because Internet
    service providers, fearing prosecution, would refuse to host such sites.

    In remarks about the bill, Sen. Feinstein emphasized her intent to
    censor communications about drugs on the Internet. Whether Hatch and
    Feinstein know it or not, S.486 neatly fulfills the wishes of UN drug
    czar Pino Arlacchi, whose global drug-war organization recommended, in
    a 1997 publication, that governments should curtail civil liberties in
    their pursuit of strict drug-abstinence enforcement.

    Other implications: books about criminalized drugs could be withdrawn
    from Barnes-and-Noble’s shelves; certain magazines would be shut down
    (no more High Times). Information about industrial hemp cultivation
    would be outlawed. Drug treatment and intervention programs that
    deviate from strict abstinence doctrine or help non-abstainers
    (concerning harm reduction, needle exchange, methadone maintenance, or
    medical marijuana) could be prosecuted – because their communications,
    like my opening statements, pertain to activities that are federal
    crimes.

    S.486 seems to be a bald-faced violation of the First Amendment. But
    the opinion of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who never saw a
    draconian drug law he didn’t like, is harder to predict.

    This is an extremely dangerous law, not only for drug policy and
    reform, but concerning freedom of speech generally in the United
    States. If dissent about this issue can be silenced, all dissent can
    be silenced.

    If S.486 becomes law, American speech rights become subject to the
    whim of the badge-bearing guys who smash down doors carrying
    submachine guns and yelling “Freeze!” like they did to Donald Scott.
    No matter what you think of drugs, if you love freedom, you should
    hate this bill.

    -30-

    The Media Awareness Project (MAP) Inc. is a Project of DrugSense a
    501(c)3 non profit educational organization dedicated to accurate
    information and reporting on drug and drug policy related matters.

    Additional resources

    Drug War Facts http://www.csdp.org/factbook/

    Searchable archive of more than 30,000 articles on drug policy matters
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/

    The Media Awareness Project (MAP) Inc. Home page http://www.mapinc.org

    DrugSense Home Page http://www.drugsense.org

    Free Weekly Email newsletter on important drug policy developments
    http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

    Contact Information

    The individuals below may be contacted for further information
    regarding this release.

    Mark Greer
    Executive Director DrugSense (MAP Inc.)
    PO Box 651 Porterville, CA 93258
    (800) 266 5759
    [email protected]
    http://www.mapinc.org
    http://www.drugsense.org

    Paul Bischke
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

    Tom O’Connell M.D.
    195 Warren Rd.
    San Mateo CA 94401
    650 348 6841
    [email protected]

    Kevin Zeese
    Common Sense For Drug Policy
    3619 Tall Wood Terrace
    Falls Church VA 22041
    (703) 354 5694 703-354-5695 (fax)
    [email protected]
    http://www.csdp.org/

    Kendra Wright
    Family Watch
    703-354-5694

    Family Watch® International: Standing for the Family Worldwide

  • Focus Alerts

    ONDCPPDFA Accused Of Propaganda And Influence Peddling

    Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000
    Subject: ONDCPPDFA Accused Of Propaganda And Influence Peddling

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 154 January 15, 2000

    ONDCP/PDFA Accused of Propaganda and Influence Peddling

    — Make Writing At Least One Letter a Week Your Commitment to
    Reform

    Together we ARE making a difference —

    The tax-funded anti-drug propaganda campaign sponsored by the Office
    of National Drug Control Policy and the Partnership for a Drug-Free
    America is being closely scrutinized in the wake of a story first
    published by the online journal Salon (see http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs/index.html).

    The story concerns ONDCP/PDFA efforts to place anti-drug messages not
    only in TV advertisements, but into television programs themselves.
    The networks were not only rewarded with ads (and ad money) for
    working anti-drug messages into programming, the networks actually got
    federal money without running ads (thus leaving the ad space open for
    other paying advertisers) if the anti-drug messages were deemed
    effective enough. Also, the narcs were allowed review and suggest
    changes for scripts before the shows were actually produced.

    Variations of the Salon story have been prominently featured
    throughout major media organizations ever since the story broke. While
    most of the stories (like the one from the Washington Post below)
    focus on the questionable ethics of such an arrangement, the damage
    from the propaganda is much worse. By allowing the drug warriors even
    more access to spread their poisonous messages, the networks have
    attempted to push the debate about drug policy away from reason.
    Please write a letter to the Washington Post or any other major
    newspaper to protest this latest attempt to escalate the drug war.

    Thanks for your effort and support.

    WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

    Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the 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: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

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

    EXTRA CREDIT –

    Send a copy of your letter to other major newspapers in the US. Please
    don’t use the CC or the BCC function; send each as a separate message.

    Source: The New York Times
    Contact: [email protected]

    Source: USA Today
    Contact: [email protected]

    Source: Chicago Tribune
    Contact: [email protected]

    Source: Wall Street Journal
    Contact: [email protected]

    EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT

    Send a copy of your letter to your own local newspaper or any other
    newspaper around the country. This is a huge story that has been
    covered almost everywhere.

    ***************************************************************************
    ARTICLE

    Pubdate: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
    Source: Washington Post (DC)
    Section: Front Page
    Copyright: 2000 The Washington Post Company
    Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
    Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
    Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
    Author: Howard Kurtz and Sharon Waxman Washington Post Staff Writers
    Note: Waxman reported from Los Angeles.
    See: The Salon article at:
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n043.a09.html

    WHITE HOUSE, NETWORKS CUT ANTI-DRUG DEAL

    Ad Credits Given For ‘Proper Message’

    The White House, in quiet collaboration with the six major broadcast
    television networks, has reviewed the scripts of such popular shows as
    “ER,” “Chicago Hope” and “Beverly Hills, 90210” and made suggestions
    on at least two dozen programs to help them convey an aggressively
    anti-drug message.

    In exchange for their cooperation, a White House official confirmed
    yesterday, the networks were freed from obligations to provide $22
    million in public-service advertising over the past two years,
    allowing them to sell the lucrative time to corporate
    advertisers.

    Alan Levitt, who runs the program in the White House drug czar’s
    office, said his office reviews television scripts “to see if they’re
    on strategy or not” by portraying youth drug use in a negative light.
    If so, the networks are given credits that enable them to sell more
    air time to commercial advertisers rather than donating it for
    anti-drug and other messages.

    The arrangement, first reported by the online magazine Salon, drew
    swift criticism. “If the public begins to believe that a message is
    only being put forward because of financial remuneration, there’s
    strong chance of undermining the value of all our messages,” said John
    Wells, executive producer of “ER.”

    Wells, who said he had been unaware of the cooperation with the White
    House, said the effort “implies that the programs you’re watching can
    be influenced by those kinds of financial incentives, and that’s
    simply not the case.”

    Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president of the nonprofit Media Access
    Project, said: “The idea of the government attempting to influence
    public opinion covertly is reprehensible beyond words. It’s one thing
    to appropriate money to buy ads, another thing to spend the money to
    influence the public subliminally. And it’s monstrously selfish and
    irresponsible on the part of the broadcasters.”

    Some network executives said their companies submitted scripts for
    review in advance, while others said the White House examined shows
    after they aired. But all those interviewed yesterday said they never
    allowed the government to dictate the programs’ content.

    Robert Weiner, spokesman for the drug control office, said the
    advertising credits are granted for a prime-time program “which is a
    very positive statement and has the proper message on drugs and is
    accurate. There’s nothing wrong with that. They’ve given us positive
    programs. If you’ve got a good ‘ER,’ that’s certainly as important as
    an ad.”

    The unusual financial arrangement stems from a 1997 law in which
    Congress approved $1 billion for anti-drug advertising over five
    years; this year’s allotment is $185 million. Networks that agree to
    participate are legally required to provide a dollar-for-dollar match
    for each spot purchased by the government by carrying public-service
    ads by nonprofit groups working with the White House Office of
    National Drug Control Policy, or ONDCP.

    After some networks balked, drug control officials worked out a
    compromise. They said they would credit the networks for each
    entertainment program with what they viewed as the proper message – up
    to three 30-second spots per show – enabling network executives to
    sell that time to corporate advertisers instead of using it for
    public-service ads.

    For example, Levitt praised as “wonderful” a 1998 episode of ABC’s
    “Home Improvement” in which the parents (played by Tim Allen and
    Patricia Richardson) confronted their oldest son about smoking
    marijuana, despite their own past drug use, after discovering a bag of
    pot in the back yard.

    The White House has worked with more than 100 shows, which may feature
    such themes as “parents in denial” or “peer refusal skills,” Levitt
    said. He said the office’s experts reviewed scripts in advance in
    perhaps 50 cases, and that in two dozen instances a network asked for
    the administration’s input. The contacts are generally with sales
    executives, not writers and producers, Levitt said, and each network
    can receive credit for up to 15 percent of its commitment for
    public-service ads.

    Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), chairman of the House subcommittee that
    oversees the White House drug office, said: “I’m not going to be
    wringing my hands over the fact that we’re getting some positive
    messages out.” He said that “the networks were willing to have some
    consultations on scripts. … If they feel they’re being
    strong-armed by ONDCP, they can walk away at any time.”

    Several network executives confirmed the government’s financial
    incentives but said they knew of no scripts that had been changed as a
    result.

    Julie Hoover, an ABC vice president, said the network aired more
    public-service announcements than was required and therefore did not
    benefit from the advertising credits. Hoover said ABC has sent the
    drug czar’s office tapes of shows with anti-drug messages – including
    “The Practice,” “Home Improvement” and “Sports Night” – only after the
    programs had already aired.

    Rosalyn Weinman, NBC’s executive vice president of broadcast content
    policy, said in a statement that the network “never ceded control to
    the ONDCP or any department of the government. At no time did NBC
    turn over scripts for approval from the ONDCP.” An NBC spokeswoman
    explained that the network sent the White House scripts with
    drug-related plots for review before being aired, “but we didn’t take
    input from them, absolutely not.”

    The spokeswoman would not confirm or deny Salon’s report that NBC
    redeemed $1.4 million worth of ad time in exchange for several “ER”
    episodes that dealt with drug abuse.

    A CBS spokesman said the network had been able to recoup advertising
    time for anti-drug plot lines on such hit shows as “Touched by an
    Angel,” “Cosby” and “Chicago Hope.” But, he added, “the notion that a
    Hollywood producer would change a script for the government is
    ludicrous. … All the shows we’ve put on were going to go on
    anyway. So I don’t know what the problem is.”

    But producers at one CBS program, “Chicago Hope,” resuscitated a
    script with a strong anti-drug theme because of a suggestion from a
    television executive. John Tinker, executive producer of “Chicago
    Hope,” said he reworked a script that had been put aside after getting
    a call from Mark Stroman, then of 20th Century Fox Television,
    co-owner of the show, who requested a drug-related script. That show,
    broadcast last year, featured young partygoers who suffered a
    drug-induced death, a rape, a car accident and a broken nose.

    While he didn’t revise the plot because of the request, Tinker said,
    “I do feel manipulated. It’s not so much this particular instance in
    which we seem to have been unwittingly involved. … I would have
    liked to be told. If the president wants us to talk about drugs –
    could I be told? I’d like to be told.”

    In one instance, White House officials said, CBS received advertising
    credit for a “Cosby” episode in which Bill Cosby ended the show, in
    character, by appealing to viewers to call a toll-free number for
    information about drug abuse.

    Fox spokesman Tom Tyrer said the network did not redeem advertising
    credits for two shows – a “Beverly Hills, 90210” episode in which a
    character descends into addiction and an “America’s Most Wanted”
    segment in which White House drug policy direct Barry McCaffrey was
    interviewed. Tyrer said the producers were aware of the government
    program but that no scripts were changed.

    WB said in a statement that the network redeemed advertising credits
    after consulting with the White House on scripts for “Smart Guy” and
    “Wayans Brothers,” but said it often talked to outside organizations
    in preparing programs.

    Other cooperating programs, the Salon article said, include “Promised
    Land” on CBS; “The Drew Carey Show,” “Sabrina the Teenage Witch,” “Boy
    Meets World,” “Sports Night” and “General Hospital” on ABC; “Trinity”
    and “Providence” on NBC; and WB’s “7th Heaven.”

    “This has all been above-board,” said Weiner, the White House
    spokesman. “We’re very proud of the accomplishments of the campaign.
    … We plead guilty to using every lawful means to save America’s
    children.”

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

    SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

    To the Editor of the Washington Post:

    I was glad to see some of the mischief caused by the federally-funded
    anti-drug media campaign finally exposed (“WHITE HOUSE, NETWORKS CUT
    ANTI-DRUG DEAL,” Jan. 14). Many have rightly questioned the ethics of
    secret government payoffs to television networks that worked anti-drug
    propaganda into programming. However, more basic questions need to be
    asked about the media campaign’s relationship to other drug policy
    issues.

    Why, for example, does the Clinton administration want to shell out
    more than $1.3 billion to the Colombian government to escalate the
    civil war there? To fight illegal drugs, the administration tells us.
    And why do we have to fight drugs? Because everyone knows that they
    are inherently evil. And how do we know for ourselves? Because on TV,
    only the bad people use and sell illegal drugs, and if any good people
    get involved with drugs, terrible things happen to them.

    The real goals of the anti-drug propaganda campaign have little to do
    with keeping kids (or anyone else) away from drugs. The campaign is
    designed to cause hysteria, and that hysteria is harnessed to justify
    any number of evils, from scaling back civil liberties to turning the
    prison system into a tightly packed gulag.

    If those people who engineer the drug war didn’t constantly promote
    fear and hate as the only proper responses to illegal drugs, maybe we
    could look at the situation more realistically to find an approach
    that doesn’t cause more harm than good.

    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

  • Focus Alerts

    Medical Marijuana Users Speak Out In Washington Post

    Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000
    Subject: Medical Marijuana Users Speak Out In Washington Post

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #153 January 13, 2000

    Medical Marijuana Users Speak Out In Washington Post


    MAKE WRITING AT LEAST ONE LETTER A WEEK A NEW YEARS RESOLUTION! —

    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

    ——-
    PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
    ——-

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #153 January 13, 2000

    “Pain or Prison,” an oped piece written by three medical marijuana
    patients and published in the Washington Post needs little
    introduction. The trio makes their case clearly and
    convincingly.

    What’s remarkable about the piece is that it was printed in the Post,
    a newspaper which has offered little support for medical marijuana in
    the past. Please write a letter to the newspaper to applaud editors
    for highlighting these important viewpoints. Please also suggest that
    far from being controversial, the question of medical marijuana has a
    simple answer, as long as the issue is studied with a little
    compassion and common sense.

    Thanks for your effort and support.

    WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

    Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list (sent [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: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

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

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

    Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
    Pubdate: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
    Source: Washington Post (DC)
    Copyright: 2000 The Washington Post Company
    Page: A19
    Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
    Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
    Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
    Authors: Greg Scott, Barbara Douglass and Jim Harden
    Note: Greg Scott lives in Florida, Barbara Douglas in Iowa and Jim Harden
    in Virginia.
    Also: The Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) worked with these three
    patients to write and submit this in early December, when the federal
    government’s new medical marijuana research guidelines formally took
    effect. Had MPP paid for an advertisement this size, it would have cost
    $7,800. http://www.mpp.org/

    PAIN OR PRISON?

    Last March the three of us received our 15 minutes of fame. The National
    Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine (IOM) featured our medical case
    histories in its landmark report, “Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the
    Science Base.” IOM included us as three living examples to illustrate its
    conclusion that “there are some limited circumstances in which we recommend
    smoking marijuana for medical uses.”

    One of us, Greg, smokes marijuana to treat nausea and appetite loss
    caused by AIDS. Barbara uses it to treat pain and muscle spasms
    caused by multiple sclerosis. Jim needs it to treat nausea from liver
    disease and the pain and spasms caused by reflex sympathetic dystrophy.

    Each of us has experienced tremendous suffering. We know what it’s
    like to be overcome by nausea so severe that one has to leave the
    dinner table to vomit. We’ve felt pain more agonizing than we’d ever
    imagined possible. We’ve been unable to walk, whether from muscle
    spasms or from being literally on our deathbeds.

    Marijuana has helped us. It is not a cure, but it greatly reduces our
    suffering, permits us to move around and enables us to eat.

    There is one major difference among us: Barbara is one of eight
    patients in the entire nation who have permission to use medicinal
    marijuana through a federal “compassionate use” program, which has
    been closed to all new applicants since 1992. Greg and Jim are not so
    fortunate – we risk spending a year in federal prison every time we
    light a marijuana cigarette.

    IOM recognized that we – and countless others like us – should not be
    punished for using marijuana to alleviate suffering. The report
    recommended that the federal government open a compassionate-use
    program to give seriously ill people immediate legal access to the
    substance.

    IOM’s findings gave us hope. Soon, we thought, the U.S. Department
    of Health and Human Services (HHS) would change federal policy so that
    thousands of patients nationwide would be able to stop worrying about
    being arrested.

    But we were mistaken. HHS’s new medicinal marijuana research
    guidelines took effect last month, and to our shock, they explicitly
    rejected IOM’s recommendation to allow individual patients to apply
    for permission to use medicinal marijuana.

    When the federal government commissioned the IOM report in 1997, the
    stated purpose was to receive guidance on what to do about medicinal
    marijuana. Was it too much to expect the HHS would implement IOM’s
    recommendations?

    Moreover, HHS’s new research guidelines place a much greater burden on
    medicinal marijuana researchers than on drug companies that develop
    and study newly synthesized pharmaceuticals. It is simply too
    difficult for researchers to conduct the kinds of studies needed to
    obtain FDA approval of marijuana as a prescription medicine.

    This isn’t just our opinion. A statement urging HHS to modify its new
    guidelines was signed by a range of organizations including the AIDS
    Action Council, the National Association of People With AIDS, the
    California Pharmacists Association and the National Black Police
    Association. The coalition argues that “many of the new guidelines
    would still be too cumbersome to enable research to move forward as
    expeditiously as possible” and that patients who are already using
    medicinal marijuana should not have to live in fear of being arrested.

    We hope HHS takes heed. Our lives depend on it.

    Greg Scott lives in Florida, Barbara Douglas in Iowa and Jim Harden in
    Virginia.

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

    SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

    To the Editor of the Washington Post:

    Thank you for printing “Pain or Prison” (Jan. 12), written by three
    medical marijuana patients. The title sums up the utterly cruel (and
    utterly absurd) position in which marijuana prohibition places people
    like the authors. Why should anyone be forced to face such a horrible
    choice?

    The authors, citing the federal government’s own study, demolish the
    myth that marijuana can’t be medicine. So why are the vast majority of
    Americans who find relief with marijuana denied legal access? The drug
    warriors tell us that medical marijuana patients must suffer so a
    “mixed message” won’t be sent to young people. If, the drug warriors
    reason, young people realize that marijuana can have some positive
    applications, their little minds will be so confused they will become
    unable to just say no. Aside from the insulting view of our children’s
    intellectual capabilities, this view places a crushing burden on the
    youngsters.

    It’s been many years since my youth, but if I realized then that sick
    people were being persecuted and denied appropriate medicine on the
    pretext that I was being protected somehow, I would have felt awful.
    It might have even been enough to drive me to drugs.

    Stephen Young

    IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
    number

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

    ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
    efforts

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

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

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

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

  • Focus Alerts

    NY Times Focuses On Reform Efforts But Misses The Point

    Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2000
    Subject: NY Times Focuses On Reform Efforts But Misses The Point

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 152 January 3, 2000

    NY Times Focuses On Reform Efforts But Misses The Point

    MAKE WRITING AT LEAST ONE LETTER A WEEK A NEW YEARS RESOLUTION!

    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

    ——-
    PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
    ——-

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 152 January 3, 2000

    As more and more people accept the fact that the drug war has been a
    counterproductive failure, a few news reporters still seem baffled at
    the notion. Some leaders of the drug policy reform movement were
    featured in an article in the New York Times yesterday, and those
    interviewed for the story articulated their points well.
    Unfortunately, instead of focusing on the real reasons for challenging
    bad policy, reporter Christopher Wren attempted to assist anti-drug
    zealots in their efforts to portray the reform movement as a sneaky
    conspiracy.

    Lindesmith Center Director Ethan Nadelmann gave a fine definition of
    the people who work at drug policy reform: “The core is the people who
    to my mind get it, the people who connect the dots … We believe that
    the war on drugs is a fundamental evil in our society.” But in the
    very next paragraph, reporter Wren characterizes reformers’ efforts
    as, “The crusade to make drugs socially respectable…”

    Please write a letter to the Times in order to let Wren and editors
    know that given the horrible results of the war on drugs, there should
    be no questions about the reasons people want to end prohibition. If
    we keep up our efforts at education, maybe Wren will be able to
    connect the dots by himself some day.

    Thanks for your effort and support.

    WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CONTACT INFO

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

    EXTRA CREDIT-

    A shorter version of this Christopher Wren OPED appeared on Sunday, 2 Jan,
    in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel (FL). Please consider sending them a
    LTE also, but remember that the last eight paragraphs as shown below did
    not appear in the Florida newspaper. See:
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n005.a05.html

    Contact: [email protected]
    Feedback: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/services/letters_editor.htm

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

    Pubdate: Sun, 02 Jan 2000
    Source: New York Times (NY)
    Copyright: 2000 The New York Times Company
    Contact: [email protected]
    Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
    Forum: http://www10.nytimes.com/comment/
    Author: Christopher S. Wren
    Cited: Lindesmith Center: http://www.lindesmith.org/
    NORML: http://www.norml.org/
    Families in Action: http://www.emory.edu/NFIA/ Drug Policy Foundation:
    http://www.dpf.org/ American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.org/
    McCaffrey’s Testimony: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n636.a02.html
    Bookmark: Link to items about George Soros:
    http://www.mapinc.org/soros.htm

    SMALL BUT FORCEFUL COALITION WORKS TO COUNTER U.S. WAR ON DRUGS

    When voters in Maine went to the polls in November and endorsed the
    use of marijuana as a medicine, it was more than a victory for cancer
    patients and others who say marijuana will help relieve their pain.

    For a small coalition of libertarians, liberals, humanitarians and
    hedonists, the vote was another step forward in a low-profile but
    sophisticated crusade to end the nation’s criminal laws against
    marijuana and other psychoactive drugs.

    Using polls, focus groups and advertising, the coalition has selected
    and promoted causes that might arouse sympathy among Americans, like
    giving clean syringes to heroin users to prevent the spread of AIDS,
    or softening tough penalties for drug use. The most successful has
    been medicinal marijuana, which has been endorsed by the District of
    Columbia and seven states.

    What brought together the disparate elements of the coalition,
    however, is a far broader cause: changing the critical way that
    Americans think about drugs. Proponents say they want to end a war on
    drugs that has packed prisons, offered addicts little treatment and
    contributed to the spread of AIDS. Some want to go further and drop
    criminal penalties for personal drug use, or even make drugs legal.

    The term they have carefully crafted for their goal is “harm
    reduction”: reducing the harm caused by those people who cannot or
    will not stop using drugs.

    “We accept drugs are here to stay,” said Ethan A. Nadelmann, director
    of the Lindesmith Center, a drug policy center set up in New York with
    money donated by the billionaire George Soros. “There never has been
    a drug-free society,” Mr. Nadelmann said. “We must learn how to live
    with drugs so they cause the least possible harm and the best possible
    good.”

    Critics say the agenda is more ominous: the legalization of marijuana
    and other drugs. At a Congressional hearing in June, the White House
    director of national drug policy, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, warned of
    “a carefully camouflaged, well-funded, tightly knit core of people
    whose goal is to legalize drug use in the United States.”

    Sue Rusche, director of Families in Action, a coalition in Atlanta
    working to help parents prevent children from using drugs, accused Mr.
    Nadelmann and his supporters of systematically distorting the picture
    of what drugs do.

    “Yes, we’re concerned about children, but we’re concerned about
    everybody,” said Ms. Rusche, who likened Mr. Nadelmann to the
    tobacco industry. “He denies that drugs have the capacity to hurt
    people, and takes no responsibility for the consequences.”

    Mr. Nadelmann describes his position differently. “Drugs are not
    bad,” he said. “Drugs are good, bad or indifferent, depending on how
    you use them.”

    The movement’s supporters range beyond the Lindesmith Center and other
    efforts financed by Mr. Soros. Supporters include marijuana-smokers
    represented by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
    Laws, or Norml, libertarians who argue that personal drug use is
    nobody else’s business, and old-fashioned liberals who castigate the
    government’s campaign against drugs as worse than the problem.

    “The core is the people who to my mind get it, the people who connect
    the dots,” Mr. Nadelmann said. “We believe that the war on drugs is
    a fundamental evil in our society.”

    The crusade to make drugs socially respectable has no precedent in the
    United States, said Dr. David F. Musto, a medical historian at the Yale
    School of Medicine and the author of “The American Disease: Origins of
    Narcotics Control” (Oxford University Press).

    “You have these groups funded by wealthy individuals that are a
    constant critic of drug policy, and these groups use very
    sophisticated marketing techniques,” he said.

    Surveys show that most Americans still oppose making illicit drugs
    legal. While voters have been tolerant of letting ill people smoke
    marijuana, a Gallup poll this year reported that 69 percent of
    respondents opposed making marijuana legal for everyone.

    Mark A. R. Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University
    of California at Los Angeles, said, “When you look at all these
    medical marijuana initiatives, they pass by big margins, but the
    governors and legislators go the other way.”

    Because constituents expect their politicians to be hard-nosed,
    Professor Kleiman said, “a legislator who votes for medical marijuana
    could lose votes from people who voted for medical marijuana.”

    Mr. Nadelmann said he commissioned a poll to learn whether voters
    would support personal cultivation of marijuana; 65 percent of those
    sampled thought that growing marijuana should remain a crime.

    The result of this research into public attitudes has been the
    deliberately vague idea of harm reduction. By casting the issue in
    friendlier terms that resonate across the political spectrum,
    crusaders like Mr. Nadelmann say, they hope to induce Americans to
    tolerate, if not embrace, the elimination of criminal penalties
    against marijuana — and as a few see it, the eventual legalization of
    all psychoactive drugs.

    Critics call the medicinal marijuana issue a stalking-horse for drug
    legalization. “My guess is the real agenda is to promulgate marijuana
    as a benign substance outside the boundaries of conventional
    medicine,” General McCaffrey said.

    Mr. Nadelmann did not contradict him. “Will it help lead toward
    marijuana legalization?” he said. “I hope so.” But he said that
    reports of his support for harder drugs have quoted him out of context.

    Mr. Nadelmann has advised the campaign putting medicinal marijuana on
    state ballots, which is spearheaded by a group calling itself
    Americans for Medical Rights, with no mention of marijuana. The
    campaign’s director, Bill Zimmerman, explained, “You pick the name
    with a view toward winning support for the organization.” Not all
    critics of government drug policy want to make illicit drugs legal.

    Some assert that prohibition has not stopped drug use. Others say
    that money would be better spent treating addicts who commit crimes
    rather than locking them up.

    Mr. Nadelmann wants to enlist such people in his cause of repealing
    all penalties for drug use. “What we reformers do is to use these
    coalitions on one issue to educate our allies about the broader
    implications of the drug war,” he said.

    Rob Stewart, a senior policy analyst for the Drug Policy Foundation,
    another group in Washington supported by Mr. Soros, said that lifting
    criminal penalties for marijuana use would be sufficient. Writing in
    the group’s newsletter, he explained, “decriminalization makes the
    point that adults should not be arrested for using marijuana as they
    would use a martini.”

    Mr. Stewart described the Drug Policy Foundation as “agnostic” about
    other illicit drugs. But its founder, Arnold S. Trebach, told
    journalists in 1997 that everything from cocaine and heroin to
    steroids should be freely available.

    Mr. Nadelmann objects to stigmatizing recreational drug use. “People
    shall not be discriminated against based on the substances they
    consume,” he said. “The extension of the notion of equality is going
    to have to include drug users.”

    The American Civil Liberties Union also endorses the right to consume
    drugs. Ira Glasser, its director, said this year, “The A.C.L.U.’s
    position is basically that criminal prohibition is inappropriate in
    matters that involve a person’s own behavior.”

    Mr. Glasser is also chairman of the Drug Policy Foundation. Holding
    both posts, he said, poses no conflict of interest.

    Mr. Nadelmann said that a fresh initiative on medicinal marijuana
    would be voted on next year in Colorado, where an earlier referendum
    was declared illegal, and in Nevada, where the proposal must be
    approved twice. Other states that have passed such initiatives, he
    said, would be encouraged to get involved in producing and
    distributing marijuana for medicinal purposes.

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

    SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

    To the Editor of the New York Times:

    Throughout the story “Small but Forceful Coalition Works to Counter
    U.S. War on Drugs” (Jan. 2) anti-drug leaders question the motives of
    anyone involved in the movement against the drug war. At the same
    time, the motives of anti-drug leaders themselves are never questioned.

    The results of the drug war have been devastating. It’s time to ask
    people like drug czar Barry McCaffrey whether their support for
    current policy isn’t just a cover for support of the actual effects of
    the drug war. Since the drug war was initiated levels of drug use have
    fluctuated, but the policies have consistently helped to multiply
    prison populations, erode civil liberties and spread disease. These
    devastating consequences have been so consistent, I wonder if they
    weren’t the original goals?

    Stephen Young

    IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
    number

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

    ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
    efforts

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

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

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

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

  • Focus Alerts

    Drug Bust “Mistake” Costs Another Life

    Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999
    Subject: Drug Bust “Mistake” Costs Another Life

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #151 December 28. 1999

    Drug Bust “Mistake” Costs Another Life

    MAKE WRITING ONE LETTER A WEEK YOUR NEWS YEARS RESOLUTION!!!

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

    ——-
    PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
    ——-

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #151 December 28. 1999

    Colorado resident Ismael Mena was killed in September by police who
    burst into his home looking for drugs. In the aftermath of the all too
    familiar tragedy, no drugs were found in the house. Colorado
    newspapers finally focused some attention on the story this month, but
    few reporters have put the incident into its proper perspective like
    Denver Post columnist Ed Quillen. In an excellent column (reprinted
    below) Quillen demonstrates why Mena’s death was the result of
    dangerous policy, not a simple “mistake.” For more details on the
    killing of Mena, see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1375/a05.html?34592

    Quillen also notes that if more politicians were as brave and honest
    as New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, then maybe the madness of drug
    prohibition would end. Unfortunately, some recent reports indicate
    that Gov. Johnson is becoming frustrated by his opponents’ refusal to
    accept the most basic facts about the failure of the drug war (see
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1385.a07.html).

    Professional drug warriors cannot put a positive spin on Ismael Mena’s
    death, nor can they manipulate any “facts” to justify it. Please write
    a letter to the Denver Post to thank Quillen for his insights and to
    notify editors that the only way to prevent another tragic death like
    Mena’s is to end the drug war. Please also consider sending an email
    or letter to Gov. Johnson to encourage him to continue his battle even
    if the drug warriors never learn how to participate in a fair fight.

    Thanks for your effort and support.

    WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

    Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the 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: Denver Post (CO)

    Contact: [email protected]

    EXTRA CREDIT –

    Please send a message of encouragement to New Mexico Governor Gary
    Johnson to thank him for all he’s done so far, but also to remind him
    that he must keep up the fight to stop the killing of innocent people
    like Mena. Contact information for the governor is available at
    http://164.64.43.1/opinion/Opinion.htm

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

    Pubdate: Sun, 26 Dec 1999
    Source: Denver Post (CO)
    Copyright: 1999 The Denver Post
    Contact: [email protected]
    Address: 1560 Broadway, Denver, CO 80202
    Fax: (303) 820.1502
    Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
    Forum: http://www.denverpost.com/voice/voice.htm
    Author: Ed Quillen, Denver Post columnist
    Note: Ed Quillen of Salida is a former newspaper editor whose column appears
    Tuesdays and Sundays.

    NEW MEXICO’S RAY OF SUNSHINE AMID THE USUAL GLOOM

    Dec. 26 – Let us suppose that a gang of drug dealers had broken into
    a house, surprised an occupant who tried to defend himself, and then
    shot him dead.

    There would be an outcry that the death penalty wasn’t nearly harsh
    enough for such scum.

    But when the police do it, it’s just an accident – some of that
    unavoidable collateral damage in the all-important War on Drugs – and
    if there’s any outcry, it hasn’t been loud enough to notice. Nobody’s
    marching in the street.

    Last September, Denver police served a “no-knock” warrant at the home
    of Ismael Mena, who ended up dead by police bullets. Many have noted
    that no drugs were found in the house, as if that would have been an
    excuse for killing Mena.

    Start with the rationale for a “no-knock” warrant. The theory is
    that if the police act in a polite and civil way, and ring the door
    bell and announce their presence, then the miscreants inside might
    flush the drugs down the toilet before answering the door.

    Since the excuse for much enforcement is “to get the drugs off the
    street,” it would seem that a “yes-knock” warrant would serve that
    purpose just as well. Drugs in the sewer certainly aren’t on the street.

    Then there’s the matter of the police going to the wrong address. I
    saw that once, and then heard the cop call me a liar.

    It happened in early 1974, when I was in college in Greeley. Among my
    other duties at the campus paper was covering the police department,
    and we had a decent working relationship.

    A friend, Tom Hopkins, had applied at the Greeley Police Department
    and listed me as a reference. One afternoon, as I was sitting in my
    second-floor apartment, I heard noises next door, looked out the
    window, and saw a Greeley cop going around that house, beating on
    every door he could find.

    A couple of days later, I was in the police station, checking the
    blotter, when that cop appeared and said he’d like to talk to me.
    Invitations like that can lead to trouble if refused, so I agreed.

    He asked me about Tom, and without stretching the truth unduly, I told
    him Tom was a decent and upstanding citizen. Then the cop asked me
    why I hadn’t answered my door a couple of days ago when he’d come to
    check on Tom’s reference – I didn’t have a phone at the time.

    “You went to the wrong house,” I said. “I saw you next door, and I
    wondered what was going on.”

    “No I didn’t,” he said. “You’re wrong.”

    We looked at the address Tom had given them for me, and it was the
    correct address. The cop had indeed gone to the wrong address.
    Although I was sorely tempted, I did not push the issue, lest I
    jeopardize Tom’s job application, and he may have owed me money at the
    time so that it was in my interest for him to be gainfully employed.

    Everybody makes mistakes. On a regular warrant, if the police show up
    at the wrong house, whoever answers the door can gently show them the
    street number on the mailbox, accept their apology if they bother to
    offer one and return to normal life. On a no-knock, those safeguards
    don’t happen.

    From what I read, most no-knock warrants are used in the War on
    Drugs, and its rationale is getting mighty thin as this millennium
    ends. The main argument is that we have to control certain
    substances, or else young people will use them and ruin their lives.

    Granted, there are addictive substances that make you stupid, but the
    principal of these is alcohol, and you’d think America would have
    learned the lesson after Prohibition failed.

    But the question is: Does youthful use necessarily lead to a life of
    dissipation? If the answer is negative, then what’s the point of the
    War on Drugs?

    That’s why Texas Gov. George W. Bush remains coy about his youthful
    adventures. If he were to say “Yeah, I did some stupid things, but I
    got over it, and so will most other people,” the entire Drug-War
    Industrial Complex would fund some other candidate, one who could be
    relied upon to tell the customary lies and keep the funds flowing.

    There aren’t many rays of sunshine amid all these frauds and
    deceptions, but one glows just to the south of us.

    New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson hasn’t just admitted to “youthful
    experimentation.” A few months ago, he flat-out said he smoked a lot
    of pot and snorted cocaine. Without the benefit of prison or therapy
    from William Bennett, he went on to a successful business and
    political career.

    The good news for the coming election year is that there’s one honest
    Republican governor in the country. The bad news is that he’s not the
    one that Republicans want to nominate for the presidency.

    Ed Quillen of Salida is a former newspaper editor whose column appears
    Tuesdays and Sundays.

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

    SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

    To the editor of the Denver Post:

    Thank you for printing Ed Quillen’s excellent column on yet another
    tragedy in our counterproductive war on drugs (“New Mexico’s Ray of
    Sunshine Amid the Usual Gloom” Dec. 26). That a father like Ismael
    Mena should lose his life because someone told police they obtained
    $20 worth of crack at Mena’s house is obscene. The circumstances
    surrounding this incident should be a wake-up call to every American,
    even if they (like Mena) have nothing to do with illegal drugs.

    If anyone but a gang of police burst into a private residence,
    terrorized the inhabitants with paramilitary tactics, shot one
    resident to death, tore the interior apart and then held another
    residents captive, it would be national news. Imagine the non-stop
    coverage and breast-beating if high school students had committed an
    act half as brutal. Legislators would be tripping over themselves to
    punish someone. But, in terms of the drug war, Mena’s death and his
    family’s terror are just bit more collateral damage.

    If more citizens don’t express outrage over this tragedy and the whole
    devastating war on drugs, they can’t expect much reaction when the
    anti-drug squad kicks in their door some dark night. As the Mena story
    illustrates, innocence is no protection in such a situation.

    Stephen Young

    IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
    number

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

    ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
    efforts

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

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

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

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

  • Focus Alerts

    Magazines Mistakenly Find Judge Judy “Intriguing”

    Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999
    Subject: Magazines Mistakenly Find Judge Judy “Intriguing”

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #150 December 18. 1996

    Magazines Mistakenly Find Judge Judy “Intriguing”

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

    ——-
    PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
    ——-

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #150 December 18. 1996

    As many are already aware, Judy “Judge Judy” Sheindlin has been
    embroiled in a controversy over her remarks about injection drug users.

    According to the Australia Courier-Mail, Sheindlin made an appearance
    in November where she said the debate about clean needle supplies for
    heroin addicts is an indulgence lead by “liberal morons.” The solution
    is simple, she said. “Give ’em dirty needles and let ’em die. . .I
    don’t understand why we think it’s important to keep them alive.”

    To read longer accounts, see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1245/a07.html
    and http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1245/a06.html

    Activists have been complaining to her producers and sponsors, and at
    least one sponsor has already dropped its support for Sheindlin’s
    show. Unfortunately, Sheindlin still hasn’t retracted or apologized
    for her statements. At the same time, the popularity of the Judge Judy
    TV show has led to year-end kudos from two publications. New York
    Magazine cited Sheindlin as a recipient of the New York Awards, which
    singles out prominent New Yorkers “leading the city into the next
    millennium.” And, Sheindlin is also expected to be named as one of
    People Magazine’s “most intriguing people” of the year.

    It is likely that neither publication was aware of Sheindlin’s “let
    ’em die” comments when they decided to pay tribute to her, so please
    write a letter both New York Magazine and People Magazine to say that
    Sheindlin needs a lesson in basic humanity much more than any award.

    Thanks for your effort and support.

    WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

    CONTACT INFO

    Source: New York Magazine
    Contact: [email protected]

    NOTE: An alternate email address for NY Magazine has been reported but
    it appears that the one above is correct. You may want to BCC the
    address below as a failsafe to insure delivery of your letter

    EXTRA CREDIT –

    Dateline NBC recently announced that People Magazine has chosen Judge
    Judy as one of its “25 most intriguing people of the year.” Let’s
    tell them what she is really about. Here is a link to tell People
    Magazine about Judge Judy. Please write your letter and then cut and
    paste it into this web page.

    http://www.pathfinder.com/people/web/write_to_us.html

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

    Pubdate: Dec. 20, 1999
    Source: New York Magazine
    Copyright: 1999 New York Magazine
    Contact: [email protected]
    Website: http://www.newyorkmag.com/
    Author: Eric Konigsberg

    NEW YORK AWARD WINNER: TELEVISION

    Judge Judy Justice, no peace.

    Her mother, legend has it, wanted her to marry well and took the
    family on holidays in the Borscht Belt so she could meet someone nice.
    But Judith Sheindlin has never been one to settle. Judge Judy, as we
    know from her daily appearances presiding over real-life legal
    disputes on her television show, is a case study in the art of the
    second act. Now in her second marriage (to Judge Jerry Sheindlin, who
    recently replaced Ed Koch as the centerpiece of The People’s Court),
    she is a long way from her previous jobs settling cases for a
    cosmetics concern and prosecuting juvenile delinquents in Bronx Family
    Court. Wearing a lace collar and the demeanor of someone who perhaps
    drinks lemon juice by the glass, Judge Judy handles her litigants with
    skepticism and impatience. “My sense is,” she warns a man whose wife
    had previously been involved with his brother, “that your wife is
    still flaky.” She’s the cold and rational mother we never had. And
    that is what lifts Judge Judy miles above the rest of daytime
    television’s bottom-scrapers: Where Messrs. Jerry and Montel permit
    their guests the verbal space to make fools of themselves, Judge Judy
    cuts them off and spares them (and us) the embarrassment. So it’s no
    surprise that Judge Judy, currently in its fourth season, is the
    highest-rated show in daytime syndication. (Them’s the breaks, Oprah.)
    Only Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! can boast of higher day or night
    syndication ratings — but if they did, Judge Judy would just tell
    them to shut up.

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

    SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

    The inclusion of “Judge Judy” in your list of New Yorkers “who are
    leading the city into the next millennium” shows the climate that
    exists today in Guilianni’s New York. Judge Judy recently suggested
    that drug users be given infected needles and said “let them die”.
    When criticized she called her critics “liberal morons”, and has since
    come out with other statements confirming her ignorance or callous
    disregard of all the studies by the Institute of Medicine , the Center
    for Disease Control, ReconsiDer, and others that say the availability
    of clean syringes reduces the spread of HIV and Hepatitis among IV
    drug users by 50% with no risk of an increase in drug use. Her show
    has already lost sponsors as a result of her incredibly cruel and
    dangerous remarks. I hope that New Yorkers will not follow this 1990’s
    media version of Typhoid Mary into the new millennium.

    Nicolas Eyle, executive director
    ReconsiDer: Forum on Drug Policy

    IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
    number

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

    ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
    efforts

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

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

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

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

  • Focus Alerts

    Juarez Graves Show How The Drug War Kills

    Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999
    Subject: Juarez Graves Show How The Drug War Kills

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #149 Saturday December 12, 1999

    Juarez Graves Show How The Drug War Kills

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

    ——-
    PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
    ——-

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #149 Saturday December 12, 1999

    A couple weeks after the announcement that the graves of more 100
    people killed by a powerful drug cartel may have been found in Ciudad
    Juarez, Mexico, the story is still being uncovered. It now looks as if
    more of the bodies will be found elsewhere around the city, but the
    importance of the story has not diminished.

    All the major news magazines are covering it this week. The article
    from Time Magazine (below) illustrates how the drug trade has evolved
    to stay ahead of those trying to enforce prohibition. While violence
    and corruption have always played a part in drug prohibition, it seems
    the violence is becoming more ruthless, while the corruption is
    becoming more endemic.

    For all the coverage this story has received, very few commentators
    have dared to state the obvious truth: this whole situation is the
    result of the drug war, and there is nothing that the drug war
    establishment can do to stop the carnage. Please write to Time
    Magazine, or another major weekly news magazine, to explain how the
    drug war gives the drug cartels their terrible power and to say that
    ending the drug is the only way to end the type of violence being
    uncovered in Juarez.

    Thanks for your effort and support.

    WRITE A LETTER TODAY

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

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

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

    Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the 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 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: Time Magzine

    Contact: [email protected]

    Please note: Time and the other news weeklies tend to print much
    shorter letters than most newspapers. Please try to keep your letter
    concise.

    EXTRA CREDIT –

    Send a letter to Newsweek, which has also published a story on
    Juarez

    (available at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n1338.a08.html)

    Source: Newsweek

    Contact: [email protected]

    EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT

    Send your letter to U.S. News and World Reports, which also published
    a story on Juarez, though it hasn’t made it to the MAP news archive
    yet.

    Source: U.S. News and World Reports

    Contact: [email protected]

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

    URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1325/a12.html

    Pubdate: Mon, 13 Dec 1999
    Source: Time Magazine (US)
    Copyright: 1999 Time Inc.
    Page: 62
    Contact: [email protected]
    Address: Time Magazine Letters, Time & Life Bldg., Rockefeller Center, NY,
    NY 10020
    Fax: (212) 522-8949
    Website: http://www.time.com/
    Author: Elaine Shannon, Washington And Tim Padgett, Miami

    MEXICO: BATTLES ALONG THE BORDER

    How Arrogance And Violence Bred A Massive Drug-War Slaughter

    IF YOU DON’T LIVE IN THE BORDER Region between the U.S. and Mexico,
    it is hard to understand how totally the drug business has come to
    dominate life there.

    But last week, as FBI and Mexican backhoes began digging into what may
    be mass graves containing dozens of victims of the region’s drug
    cartels, it was suddenly a lot easier.

    FBI sources say the grave uncovered last week is probably the first of
    many; they will continue exploring for more this week.

    “In law-enforcement circles, there have been rumors of these for a
    long time,” says a senior Drug Enforcement Administration agent.
    “Hell, there are bodies [from drug-related killings] buried all over
    the place down here.”

    The carnage is a sign of an epic shift in the drug business. From the
    early 1970s until a couple of years ago, if you went out on the
    streets of New York City to score cocaine, you’d look for a Colombian
    trafficker or a Dominican who dealt with a Colombian. Nowadays,
    you’re just as likely to find yourself face-to-face with a Mexican.
    Your dealer’s ethnic roots probably won’t matter to you so long as the
    product is as advertised.

    But to DEA agents, the decline and fall of Colombia’s once impregnable
    Cali cartel is a sensational development surpassed only by the
    meteoric rise of the Juarez Cartel now headed by Vicente Carrillo
    Fuentes. As the U.S. has cracked down on drug cartels in Colombia in
    the past decade, the business has shifted north and into the hands of
    Mexican traffickers, who play by the same bloody rules that
    characterized the lethal reign of the Colombians. Mexico’s
    narco-industry is now a $30 billion-a-year business.

    “The flow of drugs through Mexico to the U.S. is not slowing down,”
    says a U.S. official. “If anything, it’s increasing.” The Juarez
    cartel has risen faster than most tech stocks, thanks to the vision of
    its late founder, Amado Carrillo Fuentes, and the ruthlessness of his
    dumber but meaner younger brother Vicente. For a long time, Mexican
    criminals were simply subcontractors whom the Colombians paid a set
    fee, usually $1,500 to $2,000 per kilogram, to truck cocaine over the
    U.S. border and to warehouses in California or Texas. There, Cali
    cartel employees would reclaim the goods, move them to major retailing
    hubs like Manhattan and Los Angeles and wholesale them to
    distributors. The Colombians pocketed a chunk of the wholesale and
    retail markups.

    The Mexicans risked their necks for chump change. But kingpins like
    Amado changed all that. He fancied himself the Bill Gates of Mexican
    drug traffickers, a visionary who earned the nickname “Lord of the
    Skies” for the multi ton shipments of Colombian cocaine he received in
    Boeing 727s. When he died in 1997 after botched plastic surgery, DEA
    agents were skeptical that his brother Vicente would last as the
    successor head of the Juarez syndicate.

    But in Vicente’s favor, says a U.S. agent, “he’s vicious.” After a
    two-year-long war against factional leaders, notably Rafael Mufloz
    Talavera, found shot to death in his jeep in Juarez in September 1998,
    Vicente secured his bid to succeed his brother. He has since been
    indicted in El Paso, Texas, and in Mexico on drug-trafficking charges.
    any of the bodies being unearthed south of Juarez are believed to be
    victims in that war, as are any Americans who Mexican officials say
    might be among the dead.

    U.S. agents believe the war has subsided, but they admit they don’t
    have good intelligence on the inner workings of the Juarez cartel or
    on Vicente himself. “We don’t really know where he is,” admits a top
    U.S. official. “He could be anywhere. We assume he’s somewhere in
    Mexico, probably Chihuahua.” Still, Vicente is no Amado, a fact that
    emboldens his rivals, especially the recklessly homicidal Arellano
    Felix brothers, who run the Tijuana cartel. Shortly after Amado
    Carrillo’s death, Mexican officials told TIME, the Arellanos phoned in
    a death threat against U.S. anti drug czar General Barry McCaffrey as
    he toured the border. Specifically, they threatened a
    rocket-propelled grenade attack.

    The arrogant brutality wasn’t a surprise: the brothers reportedly once
    sent the severed head of the wife of a rival to him in a box of dry
    ice.

    But U.S. officials do know this: the Juarez cartel and the other
    Mexican syndicates control an ever larger slice of the illegal drug
    market in the U.S. They still transport cocaine for Colombian gangs,
    but they also move their own cocaine onto the street through
    retail-distribution established decades ago to sell Mexican marijuana
    to middle-class Americans. These networks have become one-stop
    shopping outlets for Mexican marijuana, methamphetamine and heroin.

    The Mexican move into retailing is bad news for U.S. law enforcement
    because the Mexicans are even harder to track than Colombians.
    Mexican gangsters have ready-made support structures in most cities in
    the U.S., large extended families who put down roots in the U.S.
    years ago. U.S. drug agents complain that, unlike the Colombians, who
    tend to stand out by the way they dress and speak, Mexican criminals
    are practically invisible even in non-Hispanic neighborhoods. They
    cross the border at will, indistinguishable from the millions of U.S.
    and Mexican citizens who present themselves at border checkpoints
    daily. When they’re in Mexico, as demonstrated by the Juarez killing
    fields discovered last week, they can do just about anything they want
    often with the help of Mexican police.

    What most angers families of those presumed buried near Juarez is the
    alleged involvement of local, state and possibly federal police in the
    narco-murders. Recent studies by U.S. and Mexican researchers have
    shown that many Mexican police recruits are actually convicted
    criminals; they join police forces to get a piece of the narcotics
    action, usually as cartel enforcers.

    A state-police commander in Tijuana told TIME last year that he quit
    when cops under him killed an honest anti-drug detective in 1996. “I
    realized I was working with police more vicious than the traffickers
    who pay them off,” he said. Vicious, perhaps, but also well paid to
    ignore and even abet what goes on in the borderlands. U.S. DEA and
    other law-enforcement agents often refer to the corrupt, usually
    low-paid Mexican police as “lafamiliafeliz” the happy family, always
    smiling and never enforcing the law.

    Last Friday, when Mexican Attorney General Jorge Madrazo and FBI
    Director Louis Freeh visited the first Juarez grave site, called
    Rancho de La Campana, Madrazo insisted that police were being
    investigated. “We’re not going to cover up for anybody,” he said.
    Mexico, with multi-million-dollar U.S. help, has tried to create more
    professional, better-paid and less corrupt anti drug units.

    But even the new, vetted squads have been tainted – two Tijuana agents
    were charged last year with kidnapping – or have balked at pursuing
    targets like the Arellanos, who still freely frequent clubs and boxing
    matches on both sides of the border.

    During the `90s, only one Mexican drug-cartel leader Juan Garcia
    Abrego has been arrested. As a result, exasperated U.S. officials
    are increasingly declining Mexican cooperation. For example, in a
    major sting that netted Mexican drug-money launderers last year,
    called “Operation Casablanca,” the gringos didn’t even consult their
    cross-border counterparts.

    Americans, however, shouldn’t get too righteous about the Mexicans’
    failings: the drug crisis, after all, is fueled by the insatiable
    Yanqui appetite for snorting, shooting and smoking what grows in Latin
    America.

    And the U.S. even plays a role in the violence: of the estimated
    4,000 illegal guns seized in Mexico since 1994, more than 75% were
    traced back to U.S. smugglers as were the rocket-propelled grenades
    the Arellanos threatened to fire at McCaffrey. It’s something else to
    consider in the coming weeks while peering into the death pits outside
    Juarez.

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

    SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

    While many are expressing shock over the discovery of humans killed by
    a drug cartel in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, it is a surprise to no one who
    has followed the history of prohibition. Violence and corruption are
    crucial tools for those who operate in black markets; those who employ
    violence with the most ruthlessness and those who seek corruption on
    the broadest scale will always control black markets. The drug war has
    created the incentive to commit the atrocities being uncovered in
    Juarez. Attempts to get “tougher” on drugs will only lead to more
    brutality and graft.

    Stephen Young

    IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
    number

    Please note: Time and the other news weeklies tend to print much
    shorter letters than most newspapers. Please try to keep your letter
    concise.

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

    ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
    efforts

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

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

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

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