Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000
Subject: More Drug Tests And Forced Treatment Are Not The Answer

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 169 April 14, 2000

More Drug Tests And Forced Treatment Are Not The Answer

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

NOTE: Please forgive the duplication. The contact info was incorrect
in the original alert. Please send your LTEs to the Wall Street
Journal _NOT_not the Boston Globe. Contact info below.

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 169 April 14, 2000

As the failure of the drug war becomes impossible to ignore, even many
drug warriors understand the tactics of its supporters are failing.
John Q. Wilson, the Pepperdine professor who occasionally tries to
give the drug war a veneer of academic and moral credibility, is at
least honest enough to see that sending more resources to Colombia is
not going to affect the level of drug use inside the US.
Unfortunately, as he writes in the Wall Street Journal this week,
Wilson believes that more drug testing and more coerced treatment for
illegal drug users will be a wonderful success while “legalization”
would be a disaster.

To make his case he uses facts selectively. While suggesting the
Netherlands’ more liberal policy of dealing with marijuana has caused
an increase in marijuana use, he ignores the fact that rates of
marijuana and hard drug use are lower for Dutch kids than American
kids.

Worse than his abuse of the facts is his attempt to dehumanize drug
users by calling them “barbarians … incapable of being improved by
free and equal discussion.” Wilson has spouted similar justifications
for totalitarianism for more than a decade, which makes it clear he is
incapable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Please write
a letter to editors at the Wall Street Journal to identify the real
barbarian.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

If not YOU who? If not NOW When?

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT INFO

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

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

ARTICLE

Pubdate: Thu, 13 Apr 2000
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Copyright: 2000 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Section: A Page: 20
Contact: [email protected]
FAX: (212) 416-2658
Address: 200 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10281
Website: http://www.wsj.com/
Author: James Q. Wilson
Note: Mr. Wilson is a professor of public policy at Pepperdine University
and author of “The Moral Sense,” available in paperback from Free Press.

A NEW STRATEGY FOR THE WAR ON DRUGS

Neither Legalizing Drugs, Nor Trying To Block Supply, Is Likely To Work.
There Is A Third Way: Reduce Demand Through Manditory Testing.

The current Senate deliberation over aid to Colombia aimed at fighting
narcotics reminds us that there are two debates over how the
government ought to deal with dangerous drugs. The first is about
their illegality and the second is about their control. People who
wish to legalize drugs and those who wish to curtail their supply
believe that their methods will reduce crime. Both these views are
mistaken, but there is a third way. Advocates of legalization think
that both buyers and sellers would benefit. People who can buy drugs
freely and at something like free market prices would no longer have
to steal to afford cocaine or heroin; dealers would no longer have to
use violence and corruption to maintain their market share. Though
drugs may harm people, reducing this harm would be a medical problem
not a criminal justice one. Crime would drop sharply.

Prices Would Fall

But there is an error in this calculation. Legalizing drugs means
letting the price fall to its competitive rate (plus taxes and
advertising costs). That market price would probably be somewhere
between one third and 1/20th of the illegal price. And more than the
market price would fall. As Harvard’s Mark Moore has pointed out, the
“risk price”–that is, all the hazards associated with buying drugs,
from being arrested to being ripped off–would also fall, and this
decline might be more important than the lower purchase price.

Under a legal regime, the consumption of low priced, low risk drugs
would increase dramatically. We do not know by how much, but the
little evidence we have suggests a sharp rise. Until 1968 Britain
allowed doctors to prescribe heroin. Some doctors cheated, and their
medically unnecessary prescriptions helped increase the number of
known heroin addicts by a factor of 40. As a result, the government
abandoned the prescription policy in favor of administering heroin in
clinics and later replacing heroin with methadone.

When the Netherlands ceased enforcing laws against the purchase or
possession of marijuana, the result was a sharp increase in its use.
Cocaine and heroin create much greater dependency, and so the increase
in their use would probably be even greater.

The average user would probably commit fewer crimes if these drugs
were sold legally. But the total number of users would increase
sharply. A large fraction of these new users would be unable to keep
a steady job. Unless we were prepared to support them with welfare
payments, crime would be one of their main sources of income. That
is, the number of drug related crimes per user might fall even as the
total number of drug related crimes increased. Add to the list of
harms more deaths from overdose, more babies born to addicted mothers,
more accidents by drug influenced automobile drivers and fewer people
able to hold jobs or act as competent parents.

Treating such people would become far more difficult. As psychiatrist
Sally Satel has written on this page, many drug users will not enter
and stay in treatment unless they are compelled to do so. Phoenix
House, the largest national residential drug treatment program, rarely
admits patients who admit they have a problem and need help. The
great majority are coerced by somebody–a judge, probation officer or
school official–into attending. Phoenix House CEO Mitchell Rosenthal
opposes legalization, and for good reason. Legalization means less
coercion, and that means more addicts and addicts who are harder to
treat.

Douglas Anglin, drawing on experiences in California and elsewhere,
has shown that people compelled to stay in treatment do at least as
well as those who volunteer for it, and they tend (of necessity) to
stay in the program longer. If we legalize drugs, the chances of
treatment making a difference are greatly reduced. And as for drug
use prevention,. forget it. Try telling your children not to use a
legal substance.

But people who want to keep drugs illegal have problems of their own.
The major thrust of government spending has been to reduce the supply
of drugs by cutting their production overseas, intercepting their
transfer into the U.S. and arresting dealers. Because of severe
criminal penalties, especially on handlers of crack cocaine, our
prisons have experienced a huge increase in persons sentenced on drug
charges. In the early 1980s, about 1/12th of all prison inmates were
in for drug convictions; now well over one third are.

No one can be certain how imprisoning drug suppliers affects drug use,
but we do know that an arrested drug dealer is easily replaced.
Moreover, the government can never seize more than a small fraction of
the drugs entering the country, a fraction that is easily replaced.

Emphasizing supply over treatment is dangerous. Not only do we spend
huge sums on it; not only do we drag a reluctant U.S. military into
the campaign; we also heighten corruption and violence in countries
such as Colombia and Mexico. The essential fact is this: Demand will
produce supply.

We can do much more to reduce demand. Some four million Americans are
currently on probation or parole. From tests done on them when they
are jailed, we know that half or more had a drug problem when
arrested. Though a lot of drug users otherwise obey the law (or at
least avoid getting arrested), probationers and parolees constitute
the hard core of dangerous addicts. Reducing their demand for drugs
ought to be our highest priority. Mark Kleiman of UCLA has suggested
a program of “testing and control”: Probationers and parolees would be
required to take frequent drug tests–say, twice weekly–as a
condition of remaining on the street. These tests are inexpensive and
show immediate results. If you failed the test, you would spend more
time in jail; if you passed it, you would remain free. This approach
would be an inducement for people to enter and stay in treatment.

This would require some big changes in how we handle offenders.
Police, probation and parole officers would be responsible for
conducting these tests, and more officers would have to be hired.
Probation and parole authorities would have to be willing to sanction
a test failure by immediate incarceration, initially for a short
period (possibly a weekend), and then for longer periods if the
initial failure were repeated. Treatment programs at little or no cost
to the user would have to be available not only in every prison, but
for every drug dependent probationer and parolee. These things are
not easily done. Almost every state claims to have an intensive
community supervision program, but few offenders are involved in them,
the frequency with which they are contacted is low, and most were
released from super vision without undergoing any punishment for
violating its conditions.

But there is some hope. Our experience with drug courts suggests that
the procedural problems can be overcome. In such courts, several
hundred of which now exist, special judges oversee drug dependent
offenders, insisting that they work to overcome their habits. While
under drug court supervision, offenders reduce drug consumption and,
at least for a while after leaving the court, offenders are less
likely to be arrested. Our goal ought to be to extend meaningful
community supervision to all probationers and parolees, especially
those who have a serious drug or alcohol problem. Efforts to test Mr.
Kleiman’s proposals are under way in Connecticut and Maryland.

If this demand reduction strategy works, it can be expanded. Drug
tests can be given to people who apply for government benefits, such
as welfare and public housing. Some critics will think this is an
objectionable intrusion. But giving benefits without conditions
weakens the character building responsibility of society.

Prevent Harm to Others

John Stuart Mill, the great libertarian thinker, argued that the only
justifiable reason for restricting human liberty is to prevent harm to
others. Serious drug abuse does harm others. We could, of course,
limit government action to remedying those harms without addressing
their causes, but that is an uphill struggle, especially when the
harms fall on unborn children. Fetal drug syndrome imposes large
costs on infants who have had no voice in choosing their fate.

Even Mill was clear that full liberty cannot be given to children or
barbarians. By “barbarians” he meant people who are incapable of
being improved by free and equal discussion. The life of a serious
drug addict–the life of someone driven by drug dependency to
prostitution and crime–is the life of a barbarian.'”

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the Editor:
James Q. Wilson’s recommendation that present drug policy be retained
and modified by increased drug testing and compulsory treatment (A
New Strategy for the War on Drugs, April 13) – is best seen as an
unwitting example of the vicious thinking which spawned our
catastrophic drug war; not as a basis for any rationale public policy.

Space won’t permit a full listing of Wilson’s sins against both logic
and history; the first is his assumption that the major purpose of any
drug policy is reducing crime. In truth, crime wasn’t associated with
drug use until America initiated drug prohibition. Before 1915 users
weren’t criminals and addicts didn’t have to steal.

Another erroneous assumption is his equation of drug use with
addiction in attempting to justify forcing those who test positive
into “treatment.” Most repeat users of any agent do not become
addicts; they either continue sporadic recreational use for the
balance of their lives or give it up completely; much like the
situation with (legal) alcohol. Even where daily compulsive use is
acknowledged to be harmful to health, our society hasn’t seen fit to
force (legal) alcoholics and nicotine addicts into treatment.

In his last paragraph, Wilson reveals the full dimensions of his
inhumanity and arrogance. By his definition, all “addicts” (users) are
“barbarians,” thus they don’t deserve full liberty. This is neither
sociology nor responsible policy; it’s the cant of the bogus religion
of repression intended to grace a brave new zero-tolerance world.

No, thanks.

Tom O’Connell MD

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000
Subject: ONDCP Attacks MAP And Journalist Dan Forbes

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 168 April 8, 2000

ONDCP Attacks MAP And Journalist Dan Forbes

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 168 April 8, 2000

If you’re unable to challenge the facts, attack your opponent. Barry
McCaffrey’s Office of National Drug Control Policy brought those words
to life this week after assailing Daniel Forbes, the writer whose
Salon.com stories have helped to shed light on the ONDCP’s practice of
paying media outlets in return for submerging “anti-drug” messages in
content.

The Boston Globe ran a story this week (below) that not only allowed
ONDCP officials to say bad things about Forbes, but also to suggest
that Forbes is somehow in cahoots with all of us who work with MAP.
The article quotes a cog in the ONDCP propaganda machine who proudly
demonstrates that his willful ignorance of drug policy extends out to
the activities of MAP.

The ONDCP’s ability to understand irony also appears to be limited.
The ONDCP attacks an individual for expressing alleged bias, while
they have spent millions to make sure that their own bias is
effectively expressed in media reports, sitcoms and magazines. Please
write a letter to the Boston Globe to protest the fabrications and
dirty tricks of the ONDCP.

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

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

ARTICLE

Newshawk: Richard Lake
Pubdate: Fri, 07 Apr 2000
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
Section: The Media Page: D12
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378
Feedback: http://extranet.globe.com/LettersEditor/default.asp
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Author: Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff
Note: Mark Greer is quoted below. MAP’s Sr. Editor makes a rare comment
following this item.
Bookmark: MAP’s link to the ONDCP Media Campaign
http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm

ONLINE JOURNALIST TANGLES WITH FEDS OVER ANTIDRUG AD POLICY

There’s a new battlefront in the White House war on drugs. Daniel
Forbes.

Forbes, 44, is the freelancer who recently authored two big stories
for the online magazine Salon ( www.salon.com ) that revealed a
controversial financial link between the media and the government’s
antidrug campaign.

Now he’s the focus of a heated dispute between the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) – which is asking Salon to disclose
Forbes’s ”bias” against the drug war – and Salon, whose editor
accuses the ONDCP of ”coming close to Nixonian behavior in trying to
nail the messenger … ”

In January, Forbes reported that six TV networks earned millions by
airing prime-time programs with antidrug themes deemed appropriate by
the ONDCP. Media outlets taking ONDCP antidrug ads must provide
additional space or time of equal value or other forms of public
service, and those prime-time programs allowed the networks to reclaim
some discounted ad time.

Last week, Forbes named six magazines – US News & World Report, The
Sporting News, Family Circle, Seventeen, Parade, and USA Weekend –
that hoped to reap similar rewards by submitting content with antidrug
messages to the ONDCP. This week, the antidrug office told the Globe
that several other publications – including Family Life, Ladies’ Home
Journal, Hispanic magazine, and NEA Today – also submitted content
that is currently being evaluated under the ONDCP program.

The ONDCP says it’s properly enlisting the media in the drug war. But
Forbes’s stories have ignited a debate about whether the media should
be part of what he calls a ”government campaign to influence the
control of popular culture.”

In a March 30 letter to Salon, ONDCP assistant director for strategic
planning Robert Housman, said ”it is clear that Dan Forbes … is
more than just a disinterested reporter in search of a story. Mr.
Forbes has been a regular contributor to the Media Awareness Project’s
Website, an organization that essentially advocates for the
legalization of drugs.”

The MAP ( www.mapinc.org ) is part of the DrugSense organization whose
”primary objective is to get a national dialogue so we can start
getting sensible alternatives … to our failed policy,” says
DrugSense executive director Mark Greer.

The MAP postings include a lengthy 1998 piece Forbes (using the pen
name Daniel Hill) wrote for Brandweek magazine casting doubts on the
research behind the government’s antidrug ad campaign. Greer says the
MAP will ”archive virtually any article we can find that is
drug-policy-related,” and that Forbes received no money from the
organization. Greer says the MAP became aware of Forbes’s work when he
mentioned the Brandweek piece to one of the group’s editors at a seminar.

Forbes says ”I had no great interest in the drug issue” until he
began examining the antidrug ad campaign for Brandweek at an editor’s
request. ”There’s been no editorializing in the Salon pieces,” he
adds. ”I am not an advocate for any policy situation or drug policy
organization. They [the ONDCP] descend to ad hominem attacks on me,
but they don’t seem to want to discuss the substance of the articles.”

”I’m not accusing him of anything,” says Housman. ”I’m trying to
make them [Salon] play honest journalism. I’m not asking the guy not
to write .. I don’t care what his view is. But I think the readers
should know.”

When asked if Salon should disclose Forbes’s views, editor David
Talbot says, ”whatever biases Dan Forbes has about US drug policy …
I think the biases were not the driving factor in the stories he did
for us … What’s really going on here is the White House is coming
close to launching a preemptive strike on the reputation of a
journalist.”

Meanwhile, even as magazine editors say they did not know that
editorial content was being submitted to the ONDCP, the journalistic
debate over that practice rages. NEA Today publisher Sam Pizzigatti
says his publication submitted material on student health that
referenced an antidrug Web site, noting that we ”do that anyway,
regardless of advertising.”

Family Life editor in chief Peter Herbst says his magazine submitted a
story that wasn’t actually about drugs, but contained ”positive stuff
about raising kids.”

”In general, this kind of [content for credit] swap is a bad idea,”
Herbst says. ”It contaminates the process.” But he adds that ”no
editors have created material to satisfy this demand and no editors
have ever been aware of this.”

Thanks to Forbes, they’re aware now.

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

The following is by Richard Lake, MAP’s Sr. Editor:

It comes as no surprise that ONDCP’s Robert Housman would try to
distort the relationship between Dan Forbes and MAP. We know that
ONDCP follows the MAP effort to collect news and opinion about the War
on Drugs worldwide and provide the results in an educational research
archives. Apparently this makes some ONDCP folks unhappy as just last
summer they had the Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey attack MAP in testimony
to Congress for having links to sites that had links to sites that our
Czar did not like – as if we were guilty of something. I guess they
don’t know that we are not responsible for the content of the sites of
others, twice removed – no more than we are responsible for the
content of the writings of any author who’s work may be found in our
archives.

Unlike our ONDCP, MAP has never paid anyone for what they
wrote.

Yes, Dan Forbes did ask me to add the Brandweek article Drug Money to
our archives at a seminar. At the time I doubt he even knew about the
MAP efforts other than that we gathered drug policy related items and
placed them on the web. I took a copy, OCRed it, and added it to the
archives. This is not unusual at all. Editors, reporters and authors
frequently send their published writings from their newspapers and
magazines to [email protected] – just as they use our archives for
research for their writing. However, of the six articles in our
archives by Dan Forbes, only that one was provided by him. Our
NewsHawks found the others. Mr. Forbes is hardly a “regular
contributor.”

Maybe ONDCP thinks this is somehow unfair? We note that there are over
two dozen items by the Czar himself in our archives. We have no idea
if any were newshawked by someone from ONDCP to us – but they are
welcome to contribute. We promise not to ask for any of the ONDCP
payola funds in exchange!

It is interesting that ONDCP’s Robert Housman would say Dan Forbes, or
Michael Massing, or anyone is biased. Their ad hominem attacks don’t
represent a bias? Well, I guess it would be too much to ask our
taxpayer supported point team for ‘approved’ drug war media content to
adopt MAP’s motto of “Moving the Discourse on Drugs from Hysteria to
Sanity and Humanity.”

(NOTE: to see a list of items cataloged in the MAP archive authored by
both Forbes and drug czar Barry McCaffrey see URL:
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n462/a11.html)

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

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Editor:

In general I applaud Mark Jurkowitz for accurate reporting (Online
Journalist Tangles With Feds Over Antidrug Ad Policy BG 4/7.) The
items I would take issue with in his article are the predictably
inaccurate statements by ONDCP spokesman Robert Housman who referred
to the Media Awareness Project (MAP) as “an organization that
essentially advocates for the legalization of drugs.” I will endorse
or oppose “legalization” if Housman will define it. If he means crack
vending machines in the junior high schools I am adamantly opposed. If
he means sensible alternatives to the boondoggle of a policy we
currently endure I am likely a proponent.

MAP and DrugSense comprise a non profit organization that provides
more in the way of accuracy and fact on drug policy than ONDCP could
ever hope to compete with. ONDCP director Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey
has been documented in advancing more fabrications, distortions and
half truths on drug policy matters than perhaps all prior drug czars
combined. Many of these inaccuracies have been documented in the MAP
news archive (www.mapinc.org) and in the collection of ads entitled
“Is truth a casually of the drug war” run by Common Sense for Drug
Policy (www.csdp.org). These ads have appeared in major publications
nationwide and can be accessed off the DrugSense web page
(www.drugsense.org). They document the ONDCP and McCaffrey as at least
being horribly misinformed.

Housman also claims that journalist Dan Forbes “has been a regular
contributor to the Media Awareness Project’s Website.” Yet another
fallacy. Forbes has made MAP aware of but one single article that he
authored in Brand Week entitled “Drug Money” and our archive contains
a total of six articles by Forbes out of 35,000 total articles. The
MAP archive also contains no less than 25 articles by Drug Czar Barry
McCaffrey not to mention hundreds of articles in which McCaffrey is
quoted. ONDCP employees access the MAP archive on a daily basis and we
have received letters of appreciation from a number of them for the
accurate research service it provides.

It sounds to me as if the ones with less than journalistic integrity
might be our “leaders” at ONDCP who steadfastly refuse to admit that
existing drug policy is a monumentally expensive and unassailably
failed policy.

Mark Greer
Executive Director
DrugSense (MAP Inc.)

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000
Subject: Magazines Paid To Spout Drug War Propaganda

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 167 April 5, 2000

Magazines Paid To Spout Drug War Propaganda

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 167 April 5, 2000

A few months ago, Salon.com published a story explaining how
television networks were getting paid federal money to insert
government approved anti-drug messages in their programming. The
networks got the money as part of the billion-dollar propaganda
campaign organized by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and
the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

Many were rightly shocked by this arrangement, but some argued that it
revolved around entertainment programming on television, where people
don’t necessarily expect to find objective or accurate information.
Daniel Forbes, who wrote the original story for Salon, is back with
another story about how supposedly objective and serious magazines
also got paid if the ONDCP/PDFA liked the slant of their stories (The
entire story of “The Drug War Gravy Train” by Forbes can be read at
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n428/a04.html, below is a short
Associated Press report on the subject.)

Forbes identifies the following magazines as those that took money for
publishing propaganda approved by the ONDCP: US News & World Report,
The Sporting News, Family Circle, Seventeen, Parade and USA Weekend.
While the editors at the magazines deny that the payoffs impacted the
stories published in the magazines, evidence collected by Forbes
suggests otherwise.

“Take the case of two magazines: Family Circle and Woman’s Day, the
latter published by Hachette Filipacchi Magazines Inc. To the average
reader, these books probably appear about as different as Tweedledum
and Tweedledee. But appearances can be deceptive. According to
Hall’s Magazine Reports Inc., an industry research group, Family
Circle ran a hefty eight-and-a-half pages of anti-drug editorial
matter in 1999. Woman’s Day, on the other hand, ran none, states
Hall’s research director, Sandy Santora. Family Circle was the
recipient of a $1.4 million drug-office ad buy, second only to Parade.
The Woman’s Day buy? Zero.”

Please write letters to some or all of the magazines that took the
payments expressing disappointment at their willingness to place ad
revenues and drug war orthodoxy over independence and
objectivity.

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: U.S. News and World Reports
Contact: [email protected]

Source: Parade Magazine
Contact: http://www.parade.com/email/index.html

Source: USA Weekend
Contact: http://www.usaweekend.com/about/mail_letter_eds.html

Source: Seventeen
Contact: [email protected]

Source: Family Circle
Contact: [email protected]

Source: The Sporting News
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

Pubdate: Sun, 02 Apr 2000
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles Times
Contact: [email protected]
Address: Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA 90053
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
Author: From Associated Press

6 MAGAZINES GIVEN ANTI-DRUG DISCOUNTS

WASHINGTON–The White House drug policy office offered financial
incentives to at least six magazines that ran stories discouraging
drug use, an arrangement similar to one with television networks.

The drug office and the publications say there were never any attempts
to influence the content of articles. Under the deal with the
networks, which drew public attention earlier this year, programs that
carried anti-drug messages could be exempted from requirements to run
anti-drug ads.

Stephen G. Smith, editor of U.S. News & World Report, one of the six
named in a report by the online magazine Salon, told Associated Press
that people on the editorial side were “utterly ignorant of any kind
of arrangement or even the hint of any kind of arrangement.”

He noted that an article in the January issue of the magazine
questioned the propriety of television networks including anti-drug
themes in entertainment shows in exchange for public service
announcements.

Salon reported that the Sporting News, Family Circle, Seventeen,
Parade and USA Weekend also made use of the arrangement that gave them
financial credits worth thousands of dollars in ad space they owed the
Office of National Drug Control Policy.

“We have been open about this from the beginning,” Bob Weiner,
spokesman for White House drug policy director Gen. Barry R.
McCaffrey, said in an interview.

He said there was “no attempt and no action that dictates any content
control whatsoever.” The magazines’ editorial sides were unaware of,
and played no role in, negotiations between the office’s ad agency
that bought ad space and their sales departments, he said.

Congress in 1997 approved a $1-billion program to buy anti-drug ads in
the national media.

The agreements with the networks and magazines reduce their public
service obligations when they carry anti-drug messages in their shows
or articles.

U.S. News Publisher Bill Holiber said in an interview that dealings
with the drug office occurred before he started his job in January.
He said the magazine no longer gets ads from the office because it is
against the magazine’s policy to link editorial content to financial
incentives.

Holiber said U.S. News never submitted articles for review, but the
ad agency representing the drug office looked at articles on its own
to see if they met the criteria for exemptions. He said articles in
the publication never qualified.

Revelations that the drug office reviewed such television shows as
“ER” and “The Practice” raised concerns of government interference in
editorial independence. In January, the White House announced new
guidelines making clear that it would not review program episodes for
ad credits until after they have been aired.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

I was surprised and disappointed to read at Salon.com that your
publication accepted money from the Office of National Drug Control
Policy in return for approval of stories with an “anti-drug” slant.

Some may argue that it is appropriate to join forces with government
agencies that claim to fight illegal drugs since the illegal drug
market is related to may societal ills. However, an honest appraisal
of the situation shows that the drug war that has been continually
waged for decades causes much more harm than good. Scare stories and
calls to “get tough” on drugs may seem effective to those who don’t
look past the surface, but attempts to use coercion to stop drugs only
leads to bad results. Throughout the 1990s the U.S. has used more
resources and jailed more people in the name of the drug war only to
see rates of drug use increase along with levels of drug potency. By
taking the money and sticking to the party line your publication is
shamelessly supporting these terrible results.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
Subject: IMPORTANT Are YOU Writing At Least One Letter Per Week?

You are receiving this because you have either signed up to receive
Focus Alerts from the Media Awareness Project (MAP) of the DrugSense
organization at http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm or you are on a
drug policy reform listserv. Apologies to those who are in fact
writing one or more letters a week. This message is for those who are
not.

—

Sure we’re all busy and it’s easy to procrastinate or simply delete
DrugSense Focus Alerts and assume that someone else will write those
letters but every so often it’s important that we remind ourselves how
important it is for every drug policy reformer to commit to writing at
least one letter a week utilizing the tools provided by MAP. There is
little that most drug policy reform advocates can do that is more
effective and rewarding.

Recently we have seen a bit of a drop off in the number of letters
that are sent in reply to our weekly alerts despite the fact that we
have more letter writing volunteers than ever. Perhaps you are writing
letters but you are not sending copies of them to the sent letters
list? (If so see below)

It is vitally import that we keep participation in the MAP effort at
high levels. We have had a profound effect on the print media as can
be evidenced by scanning the headlines at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/
on any given day.

Four years ago it was difficult to find a pro-reform article. Today
after 4 years of MAP and tens of thousands of letters influencing and
educating the media and the public, it is difficult to find a pro-drug
war article unless it is written by Barry McCaffrey, Joe Califano or
some other drug warrior with an agenda and a fat paycheck to protect.

Please help us help reform by writing a letter a week. You can either
utilize our weekly Focus Alerts or use the DrugSense Weekly Newsletter or
the news archive to select an article that particularly interests you.
Nearly all articles include the email address of the newspaper making this
a very easy task. Numbers matter. Even a short LTE sends a powerful
message. Please consider recommitting yourself to this important endeavor.

Remember to send a copy of your letter in so they can be archived. Simply
put the word SENT in the subject and send your letter to
[email protected] if you are subscribed. You can subscribe to this list
at http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form
If you are not subscribed to the Sent LTE list please send a copy of your
letter to [email protected] and I will forward your letter to the list.

We are also interested in any ideas that you may have that would help to
encourage greater participation in the MAP letter writing effort.

Thanks for your efforts. Together We ARE making a difference.

—

HOW TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE AT PROMOTING SENSIBLE DRUG POLICY ALTERNATIVES

One of the best, most effective, and cheapest ways of gaining positive PR
is the methods developed by the Media Awareness Project (MAP). All members
encouraged to be on the lookout for any news articles on drug policy
issues. They should be posted to our central clearinghouse at
[email protected] See
http://www.mapinc.org/hawk.htm
for more info on how to be a NewsHawk

You can also use topical shortcuts to read the articles others have posted
to the DrugNews archive these have been developed for most states and most
issues so you can see articles you want for locations or issues of
particular interest to you or your group

There are hundreds of past news articles complete with the publications
email addresses for easy letter writing in each topical shortcut.

A concerted effort to write letters to these publication should be
undertaken by all list members. You will be amazed at how quickly the media
can be educated. Impressive PR can be managed with a consistent letter
writing effort. We have seen it hundreds of times in hundreds of newspapers
and localities over the last few years.

Letters to the editor (LTEs) when published are like small ads that have
been taken out for drug policy reform. They are read by many thousands
(sometimes millions) of individuals. The MAP effort has reported nearly
3,000 published LTEs to date with an overall advertising value of more than
$2.7 MILLION. The average advertising value of just one published LTE is
more than $1,000. An LTE in USA Today can be worth more than $10,000. See
http://www.mapinc.org/lte/

Be sure to send a copy of your sent LTEs to [email protected] if you
are subscribed to that list or to me at [email protected] if not and I will
forward them for archiving. Any published LTEs should go to
[email protected] for permanent archiving. It is helpful if you put SENT or
PUBLTE in the subject.

Learn about how to write better and more effective letters at our writer’s
resources web page
http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

It’s fun it’s easy and how else can you contribute thousands of dollars in
value to the drug policy reform effort for free, in just a few minutes, and
while at home in front of your computer?

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000
Subject: Stop The Violence By Stopping The Drug War

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 166 Thursday March 23, 2000
Stop The Violence By Stopping The Drug War

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 166 Thursday March 23, 2000

The horrors of the drug war don’t seem to have much impact on
reporters on the business beat. They often seem to assume that the
drug war represents “business as usual,” but this week a business
columnist at the Dallas Morning News decided otherwise.

After visiting San Diego, Scott Burns (in a column below) determined
that the terrible violence plaguing Mexican towns on the U.S.-Mexico
border is caused by drug prohibition. He also arrived at the obvious
solution that seems so difficult for elected officials to understand:
End the drug war.

“Have the guts, as a nation, to realize that we are awash in substance
abuse and that the legality or illegality of substances ranging from
alcohol and prescription tranquilizers to cocaine and heroin are
transitory social conventions that allow criminals to make fortunes,
cost the lives of substance abusers and inflict agony on their loved
ones. Do that and we can enjoy a magnificent decline in the domestic
crime rate,” Burns wrote.

Please write a letter to the Dallas Morning News to let editors and
readers know that Burns is on the right track.

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: Dallas Morning News (TX)
Contact: [email protected]

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

ARTICLE

Pubdate: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)
Copyright: 2000 The Dallas Morning News
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Box 655237, Dallas, Texas 75265
Fax: (972) 263-0456
Feedback: http://dmnweb.dallasnews.com/letters/
Website: http://www.dallasnews.com/
Forum: http://forums.dallasnews.com:81/webx
Author: Scott Burns, DMN Business Columnist

Drugs Cast Shadow On Border Cities

SAN DIEGO — It’s easy to think of San Diego as a sports dreamland.
On the ride from Yuma, I passed huge sand dunes where dune buggies
were cavorting, a mountain peak circled by strangely out-of-scale
hawks that turned out to be hang gliders and parasails, a gigantic
skating park and finally San Diego Bay itself, stately with sails,
busy with small fishing boats. If you want to be active and outdoors,
this city has got to be one of the great places in America to live.

But a dark shadow looms over San Diego and reaches into every corner
of America. It is from Tijuana and drugs. In the first two months of
the year, according to news reports, 70 people have been killed in
Tijuana, presumed victims in drug turf battles.

TV news is interrupted on the day of my arrival by an announcement
that Tijuana Police Chief Alfredo de la Torre Marquez was shot to
death on his way to work. Ambushed by assassins with automatic
weapons, his vehicle was hit by at least 100 shots. Fifty-three
bullets were found in his body.

Murder isn’t unique to Tijuana. It is increasing along the entire
border. In Juarez, Mayor Gustavo Elizondo has successfully petitioned
the government of Mexico to rename the major drug cartels after their
leaders instead of the city in which they operate. Overnight, the
“Juarez Cartel,” disappears from public reporting.

Not surprisingly, the mayor was concerned with the image of his city
after November’s highly publicized search for mass graves. While 100
to 300 bodies were sought, “only” nine were found. Since 1993, over
200 people have disappeared in Juarez. Why is this happening?

Drugs. Only the incredible money in illegal drugs can explain the
rising level of violence along the border.

Skeptical?

Then consider this. Just west of Del Rio, after riding over the
Amistad Reservoir Bridge, a single Border Patrol agent, Alex Lopez,
stopped me. Mr. Lopez is part of a Special Response Team in the area.
Officer Lopez was alone in a region that resembles the surface of the
moon.

I commented that he had a tough job.

“Not so bad.” He answered. “It gets exciting sometimes.”

I asked how it was exciting.

“This is a major area for drug smuggling. A lot of stuff comes
through here, and we’re here to stop it.”

It’s a tough job. You can understand by looking at a map. The
U.S.-Mexico border is 2,000 miles long. Large areas of Texas, New
Mexico and Arizona — like the area between Del Rio and Langtry — are
virtually devoid of population. It is easy to cross the river and
meet waiting transportation. And if you want to operate big time,
you’ve got thousands of square miles of empty land in Texas to scrape
out a airstrip.

Now consider the economics of heroin in the Sierra Madre. According
to Edwin Bustillos and Alan Weisman in The Late Great Mexican Border,
an acre of land can support about 44,000 poppy bulbs, which can
produce at least 13,200 grams of opium gum. That, in turn, will
refine down about 1,320 grams of pure heroin that is valued at $80 to
$500 a gram in the United States.

So do the math.

Depending on productivity and price, an acre of dirt in the Sierra
Madre can produce a heroin crop worth from $105,600 to $2.2 million.
That’s a lot more than can be earned from raising cattle, hunting
exotic game, farming pecan groves, citrus groves — or even renting RV
spaces. What we’re talking about here is the ultimate crop, the crop
that displaces (or corrupts) everything.

While most of the border area struggles to leapfrog from a subsistence
agricultural and mining economy to an industrial economy — one where
manufactured homes displace farmland in McAllen and RVs replace orange
groves in Yuma — the crop that beats industrialization cold is
heroin. It is an irresistible force.

Our “war on drugs” is a Vietnam: Whatever we spend to turn the entire
2,000-mile border into an American version of the Great Wall of China, it
will not be enough to stop the movement of drugs across the border or
reduce the carnage on both sides.

What to do?

Something radical: eliminate the profit in illegal drug
traffic.

Decriminalize the production, distribution and use of drugs.
Disembowel criminal levels of profitability. Have normal levels of
profitability by conventional companies that produce and distribute
high-quality, low-cost drugs. Use taxes on drugs to support drug
treatment programs for people who want to recover.

Have the guts, as a nation, to realize that we are awash in substance
abuse and that the legality or illegality of substances ranging from
alcohol and prescription tranquilizers to cocaine and heroin are
transitory social conventions that allow criminals to make fortunes,
cost the lives of substance abusers and inflict agony on their loved
ones. Do that and we can enjoy a magnificent decline in the domestic
crime rate. We can build treatment centers instead of prisons. We
might even restore millions of Americans who live in the shadow world
of drugs.

I did not think this way when I left Dallas and headed for Brownsville
on Feb. 5. I was convinced it was the only solution by the time I
left San Diego.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

I applaud Scott Burns for looking at the facts about drug prohibition
(“Drugs Cast Shadow On Border Cities,” March 21). Like anyone who
attempts to analyze the realities of the drug war honestly, Burns came
to an obvious conclusion: The only way to stop the violence
surrounding the illegal drug market is to eliminate the astonishing
profits made possible by prohibition.

It is well past time to end the current version of prohibition.
Alcohol prohibition was lifted in the 1930s in part because people got
sick of the black market violence. The same thing will happen
eventually with drug prohibition. The question is how many more bodies
are we going to allow to pile up before a majority demands that this
madness stop? As the recent assassination of the Tijuana chief of
police illustrates, anyone can become a fatality in the drug war.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

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

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

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

Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000
Subject: Colombia Aid Can Only Make Drug War Disaster Worse

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 165 Saturday March 18, 2000

Colombia Aid Can Only Make Drug War Disaster Worse

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

Write a Letter – Make a Difference ——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 165 Saturday March 18, 2000

A few editorialists and columnists have come out against congressional
plans to send $1.6 billion to Colombia, but few have done so with the
clarity of Arianna Huffington. The money is supposed to be used to
fight the drug war, but Huffington showed how the Colombian aid plan
is really a very destructive form of corporate welfare.

In a column from this week appearing in at least three newspapers,
Huffington also illustrated the perversity of current priorities in
the drug war.

Please write a letter to one or all of the newspapers – San Francisco
Examiner, Chicago Sun-Times, or Washington Times – where the column
ran. Remind editors and readers that the plan to send more than a
billion dollars to Colombia, like most plans in the drug war, will
cause a great deal of trouble. Benefits will go only to those who
already profit from 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: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

The Washington Times also ran Huffington’s column under the headline
“Latest Priority In The Drug War” (URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n370/a07.html),
while the Chicago Sun-Times ran the story under the headline “Drug War
Comes At High Price” (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n367/a08.html)
on March 15. Please also send your letter to one or both.

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

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

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

ARTICLE

Pubdate: Wed, 15 Mar 2000
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Copyright: 2000 San Francisco Examiner
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Forum: http://examiner.com/cgi-bin/WebX
Page: A 19
Author: Arianna Huffington

MISGUIDED? $1 .7 BILLION FOR COLOMBIA IS NUTS

We’re about to spend $1.7 billion to escalate the drug war in
Colombia, while here at home we have 3.6 million addicts not receiving
the treatment they need.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives will vote on an emergency
aid package initiated by the White House and enthusiastically backed
by the House Republican leadership. It’s a product of the drug war’s
perverse priorities and another example of the disturbing link between
campaign cash and public policy.

Let’s start with the cash spread around to help grease the wheels for
the aid bonanza. The Colombian government hired Vernon Jordan’s old
law firm — Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, which he has since
left – to stump for it on The Hill.

Indeed, when the House Appropriations Committee met last week to
consider the White House proposal, a member of the committee, Rep.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. D-Ill, noticed that an Akin, Gump lobbyist was in
attendance. He must have gone away happy. The committee not only
approved the president’s $1.2 billion request but added another $500
million.

The Colombians have other powerful allies in Washington. Most
persistent has been a collection of multinational corporations with
operations in Colombia — including Occidental Petroleum, BP Amoco
and Enron — that has been lobbying both Congress and the
administration for a big-buck package that would serve their business
interests there.

And speaking of business interests, more than $400 million of the aid
will be spent on the purchase of 63 helicopters manufactured by two
U.S. firms — Sikorsky Aircraft, a subsidiary of United Technology
and Bell Helicopter Textron.

In the last two election cycles, Textron and its employees donated
close to a million dollars to both Republicans and Democrats, and
United Technologies gave more than $700,000.

“It’s business for us, and we are as aggressive as anybody,” one Bell
Helicopter lobbyist told Legal Times, “I’m just trying, to sell
helicopters,”

Underscoring the incestuous relationship between commerce and drug
policy, Tom Umberg the architect of the administration’s Colombian
initiative, is moving from the White House Office of Drug Control
Policy to the law firm of Morrison & Foster to represent Colombia and
other Latin American countries on trade issues.

Colombia is in the midst of a protracted three-way civil war, pitting
the Colombian army, which has one of the worst human-rights records in
the Western Hemisphere, against leftist rebels and right-wing
paramilitary groups, both largely funded by the drug trade.

The army will receive the largest share of the U.S. money, prompting
senior defense officials to express privately their fear that our
military’s expanding role in fighting the war on drugs could draw the
United States into another Vietnam.

Maybe that’s why the Clinton administration decided to introduce the
Colombian aid as part of a larger emergency-spending package, The
potentially controversial measure is bundled with proposals only a
coldhearted misanthrope would oppose.

Along with the money for Colombia, the bill includes $2.2 billion for
relief from natural disasters such as Hurricane Floyd and $854 million
for military health care.

It’s an old legislative ploy designed to squelch debate and force
politicians to vote for wasteful — or even terrible — measures
just because they don’t want to be painted as being against God,
country and disaster relief.

Jackson is one of the members who will nevertheless vote against the
bill.

“It’s absurd,” he told me. “There wasn’t even any language added
tying the aid to human-rights concerns. And (Rep.) Nancy Pelosi’s
(D.-San Francisco) amendment to spend equivalent amounts of money on
the demand side was defeated during the Appropriations Committee
mark-up — even though treatment has been proven to be 23 times more
cost-effective than eradication of crops and 11 times more
cost-effective than interdiction.”

The cost of the helicopters alone would provide treatment for almost
200,000 substance user’s or drug-prevention services for more than 4
million Americans.

When Richard Nixon — hardly one to be accused of being soft on crime
— declared a war on drugs in 1971, he directed more than 60 percent
of the funds into treatment. Now, we’re down to 18 percent. This
despite the fact that drug czar Barry McCaffrey’s budget is expected
to rise to a proposed $19.2 billion next year.

Since 1980, the emphasis has turned to interdiction, crop eradication,
border surveillance and punishment.

It’s been a misguided use of resources. But putting $1.7 billion into
Colombia, in the middle of a civil war, is more than misguided —
it’s nuts. And if it’s not voted down in the House on Thursday, it
needs to be stopped in the Senate.

Arianna Huffington’s e-mail address is [email protected] Her
new book, “How to Overthrow the Government,” is published by
Harper-Collins.

MAP posted-by: Don Beck

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the editor:

Arianna Huffington correctly describes plans for $1.6 billion in
alleged drug war aid to Colombia as “nuts.” The aid package will not
make drugs disappear from either the U.S. or Colombia. But the average
American will experience no benefits – we’re just along to foot the
bill. Undesirable as that is, it doesn’t begin to describe the
situation for most people in Colombia, where an influx of war related
resources can only result in intensified violence.

The aid plan is attractive only to a few corporate profiteers and
government officials in both countries. They appear ready to use more
force to achieve their goals, whether those goals have anything to do
with stopping drugs or not.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:04:15 -0800
Subject: TIME MAGAZINE – Ecstasy- Have YOU Written a Letter this Week?

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 164 Sunday March 12, 2000

Time Magazine Exposes The Futility Of Ecstasy Ban

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

PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE

NOTE: Time Magazine has a circulation of more than 4 MILLION READERS. A 5
inch letter published in this magazine is equivalent to buying an ad on
behalf of drug policy reform worth MORE THAN $12,000!!

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

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 164 Sunday March 12, 2000

In a recent article, Time Magazine exposes that the US has encountered a
striking upsurge in popularity of the rave drug ecstasy, despite its
15-year old worldwide ban instigated by the DEA in 1985. This provides yet
another case study for the utter futility of the efforts to contain
recreational drug use with prohibitionist measures.

Please use this opportunity to point out to the editors and readers of Time
Magazine the necessity to find less harmful approaches to addressing the
drug problem.

Here are some arguments that may serve as departure points for your letter
to the editors:

(1) Even though ecstasy was banned in the US in 1985 and in the consecutive
year, under US influence, in most European countries, this did not curb the
growth of the drug’s popularity which peaked in Europe in the 1990s and
now, with a delay of about ten years, in North America. This shows that
drug usage patterns are largely independent of interdiction and law
enforcement.

(2) The article mentions that the drug marketing efforts of racketeers have
helped popularize the drug. This suggests that criminalization is not just
fruitless but actually counterproductive. There are many more indications
for the ill effects of drug prohibition. For example, emergency room
admissions associated with intoxications from GHB, a club drug also
mentioned in the article, were never reported before the FDA banned its
sale in 1991 but have skyrocketed since then.

(3) The article mentions that the purity and potency of ecstasy pills vary
widely and that the drug is often mixed with other ingredients. The
potential harm to the drug user who cannot judge what is inside the pill
is, again, the result of criminalization.

(4) Ecstasy is almost as cheap and exactly as easy to produce as meth (the
process is the same, only the precursor chemicals are harder to come by).
If setting up a drug lab costs nearly nothing and every kitchen chemist can
synthesize the drug, ever so many lab busts will not put a lid on the
supply side. To cut the demand, on the other hand, police would have to
purge every campus in the US of ravers, which is as scary and ludicrous as
it is impossible.

(5) The article mentions the scientific dispute about possible brain damage
due to MDMA use and says that the ban issued by the DEA resulted from the
initial findings. In fact, in 1985, the year of the ban, appeared the first
report about the destruction of brain nerve terminals in rats exposed to
ecstasy. In comparison, some anti-obesity drugs, such as Meridia and Redux,
have been known from the early 1990s to effect similar kinds of brain cell
alterations, but this never resulted in the revocation of these drugs
(Redux was pulled from the market in 1997 only after reports of heart valve
damage). Similarly, antidepressants such as Prozac and Zoloft are known to
alter the function of the very same brain nerve terminals that are
allegedly damaged by MDMA. A recent study by Jefferson Medical College in
Philadelphia found that the changes effected by these antidepressants are
similar to those observed with MDMA. How can the eagerness to ban MDMA be
justified in comparison with the lack of concern with regard to
prescription drugs?

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

Note: Always include your address and telephone number.

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

ARTICLE

US: It’s All The Rave
Newshawk: Tom O’Connell
Pubdate: Mon, 13 Mar 2000
Source: Time Magazine (US)
Copyright: 2000 Time Inc.
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: John Cloud
Bookmarks: For ecstasy items http://www.mapinc.org/mdma.htm
For: rave items http://www.mapinc.org/raves.htm

IT’S ALL THE RAVE

SUDDENLY PEOPLE ALL OVER THE country are talking about “ecstasy” as if it
were something other than what an eight-year-old feels at Disney
World. Occasionally the trickle from the fringe to the heartland turns
into a slipstream, and that seems to have happened with the heart-pulsing,
mildly psychedelic drug called ecstasy.

To get a sense of just how far and fast “e” has moved into American
communities in the past year or so, talk to Mark Bradford, a junior at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

“I came to college in the fall of ’97,” says Bradford, 21, “and I didn’t
even know the word had another meaning.” It’s not shocking that young Mark
moved from suburban St. Louis to find drugs on a big campus. But it’s a
little surprising where he encountered ecstasy, a drug first used in the
1970s by a small group of avant-garde psychotherapists — at frat houses.

As president of the university’s Interfraternity Council, Bradford has
found himself in meetings with police to discuss frat boys’ growing
appetite for a drug today usually associated with teen ravers, gay men and
what’s left of America’s aging hippies, “It’s everywhere now,” says
Bradford, who doesn’t touch the stuff.

Law enforcers are coming across gigantic stashes of ecstasy in places where
it was rarely seen. E comes as tablets or capsules, and since December,
Ohio authorities have seized 25,000 pills in Columbus and 200 more in rural
Lorain County. In January some 30 people were arrested in New Orleans for
distributing the drug. Two weeks ago in Providence, R.I., a seven-month
investigation into ecstasy dealing ended with the arrest of 23. In bigger
cities, the trade has exploded. In December the U.S. Customs Service
discovered 100 lbs. of ecstasy shipped from France to the FedEx
headquarters in Memphis. The agents followed the drug’s intended trail to
L.A. and found a staggering 1.2 million tablets, worth $30 million.

And in an elaborate sting last summer, customs agents and the Drug
Enforcement Administration helped dismantle a far-flung ecstasy empire run
by a Canadian based in Amsterdam who allegedly claimed he could sell
100,000 hits of ecstasy in Miami – in 48 hours.

The mastermind was using pious looking Hasidic Jews as couriers. (Israeli
organized crime dominates the global trade, according to the
U.S. government.)

The busts have had little effect.

Nationwide, customs officers have already seized more ecstasy this fiscal
year (nearly 3.3 million hits) than in all of last year; in 1997, they
seized just 400,000 hits. In a 1998 survey, 8% of high school seniors said
they had tried e, up from 5.8% the year before.

In New York City, according to another survey, 1 in 4 adolescents has tried
ecstasy. So much e is coming into the U.S. that the Customs Service has
created a special ecstasy command center and is training 13 more dogs to
sniff out the drug.

But it took a seizure in Phoenix two weeks ago to generate e’s first big
press coverage in years.

That bust snared Salvatore Gravano, the notorious Mob hit man turned
government snitch.

Like the Hasidim, Gravano is a rather curious newcomer to the ecstasy
culture.

You wouldn’t think someone nicknamed “Sammy the Bull” would be peddling the
so-called hug drug. But simple reasons lie behind the drug’s popularity
among sellers and users.

E is cheap to make, easy to distribute and consume–no dirty syringes or
passe coke spoons needed, thanks–and it has a reputation for being
fun. E’s euphoria may be chemically manufactured, but it feels no less
real to users.

It’s called the hug drug because it engenders gooey, rather gauche
expressions of empathy from users.

Last week students at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff reminisced
about melting into “cuddle puddles,” groups of students who massage and
embrace on the dance floor. The skin feels tremblingly alive when
caressed. “Feathers, toys, lotions, anything,” gurgles “Katrina,” 23, a
student at N.A.U. “A guy touching your skin with a cold drink. It’s
delicious.”

Though often cut with other drugs, ecstasy pills are at least intended to
be a substance called MDMA (and known only to chemists as
methylenedioxymethamphetamine). MDMA is pharmacologically related to
amphetamine and mescaline, but it doesn’t produce the nervy, wired feeling
that typically accompanies speed or the confusion of a purer psychedelic
like LSD. It doesn’t generate addictive cravings. Treatment admissions
for drugs of its type still account for less than 1% of the total,
according to Dr. Blanche Frank of the New York State office of alcohol and
substance abuse.

In fact, e’s popularity is largely due to its lack of noticeable downsides.

It’s possible to overdose on ecstasy, but even police agree that the drug
isn’t like heroin or crack in terms of short-term dangers.

Most problems are attributable to dehydration among novices who don’t drink
water.

However, another club drug, GHB – which is also known as “Liquid X” though
it’s chemically unrelated to ecstasy – can easily cause coma and death.

MDMA was first synthesized in 1912, but the big experiments with it didn’t
begin until the 1970s, when a group of psychologists rediscovered it as a
tool for therapy.

By the early ’80s, the drug – still perfectly legal – was sold openly in
bars and clubs.

But at the time a scientific debate had begun – and continues today about
whether MDMA can cause long-term brain damage.

In 1985, on the basis of preliminary data about its harmfulness, the DEA
used its discretionary power to outlaw MDMA. A group of therapists sued,
but after a three-year court battle, the DEA won the right to ban the drug
permanently.

So why is it upon us again?

Partly because the debate about MDMA’s harmfulness has never been resolved.

Johns Hopkins neurologist George Ricaurte has concluded in several animal
studies and one human study that MDMA can damage a particular group of the
brain’s nerve cells. But he wants more research.

Last week Ricaurte said his work has never shown that the damage to the
affected cells has any visible effect on “the vast majority of people who
have experimented with MDMA.” The debate has now found its way onto the
Web, where the old therapist crowd behind MDMA has become active.

The sites are populated mostly by young users, however, kids who blindly
praise the drug (“Sammy the Bull rules,” wrote one last week).

But the most important reason for e’s quick and recent spread into places
like Denver and Sacramento is that professional criminals have almost
completely assumed control of its trade.

The life of a typical tablet found in the U.S. begins somewhere along the
Dutch-Belgian border, a quiet region of pig farmers.

The setting is rural but not far from the Brussels airport.

Manufacturers convert abandoned barns or garden sheds into e factories,
which can be filthy. “They’ve been mixing chemicals in dirty cans I
wouldn’t even use for garbage,” says Charles De Winter, director of the
drug section of Belgium’s national police force.

These mills aren’t mom-and-pop setups, at least not anymore.

“We’re seeing more and more hardened criminals,” says Cees van Doorn, a
Dutch organized-crime specialist. They are drawn by the profits. After
setup the marginal cost of each pill is maybe 10 cents . It’s sold in New
York City clubs for $30,

U.S. Customs commissioner Raymond Kelly says professional criminals in
this country have brought better management and marketing to the ecstasy
trade.

Mobsters have the distribution networks to move millions of pills.

And most pills now come with a catchy brand name-like the “Candy Canes”
taken in Flagstaff (red and white capsules) or tablets stamped with
corporate logos.

Users can ask dealers for a good brand by name. Last year’s “Mitsubishis,”
for instance, were hugely popular because they seemed to have an extra kick
of speed.

This winter’s “AOLS,” however, were duds.

What is the future of ecstasy?

Officials in the Low Countries are cracking down on e factories but warn
that production is cropping up in central Europe and Spain. For good
reason: Americans are in love with ecstasy. “New York used to be a meat
and-potatoes drug town – heroin, coke and pot,” says John Silbering, a
former narcotics prosecutor who works for the Tunnel, a big New York City
nightclub. “Today we no longer find coke or heroin among the young. It’s
always ecstasy.”

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

To the Editors of Time Magazine:

In “It’s all the Rave” (March 13 issue) John Cloud addressed the recent
upsurge of MDMA (ecstasy) use in the US.

Ecstasy was banned in the North America and in Europe in the mid-80s, just
at around the time that the rave movement started in Britain. The
rave/ecstasy rage then spilled over to continental Europe where it had its
heyday in the early 1990s. That the US and Canada now experience the same
mania with ten years delay, calls into question the effectiveness of
criminalizing ecstasy, as the phenomenon spread regardless and
independently of the almost simultaneous worldwide ban of the drug.

The article notes that criminal organizations attracted by the illicit drug
trade have assumed control of the distribution and marketing of ecstasy. As
a consequence and to no surprise, teenagers nowadays can generally obtain
ecstasy and other illegal drugs easier than alcohol. This means that
criminalization is not only vain but rather achieves the exact opposite of
protecting young people from the exposure to drugs.

When alcohol prohibition ended in 1933, this did not create a nation of
deranged alcoholics, but it helped to tear down crime syndicates and to
establish effective controls such as age limits on alcohol sales. It is in
society’s interest that young people get not exposed to drugs of
uncontrolled origin and quality. The popular wisdom of combining law
enforcement with drug treatment will hardly help to achieve this. For law
enforcement only tends to aggravate problems and treatment is both
fruitless and ethically questionable where it is not requested by the drug
user.

Eric Ernst

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.
—————————————————————————-

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

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 Eric Ernst
Focus Alert Specialist

Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000
Subject: Presidential Candidates Fail Drug Policy Test

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 163 Tuesday March 7, 2000

Presidential Candidates Fail Drug Policy Test

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

NOTE: an exceptional press release has been sent out on this topic
including a letter signed by scores of organizations nationwide
including the ACLU and the YWCA.

The URLs below flesh out this important story and provide a copy of
the original press release, the open the letter to all presidential
candidates, and the ten questions developed by the NCEDP to be posed
to our candidates.

Original Press Release http://www.csdp.org/ncedp/release.htm

Open Letter to Presidential Candidates http://www.csdp.org/ncedp/letter.htm

Ten Questions for Our Presidential Candidates http://www.csdp.org/ncedp/question.htm

——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #163 Tuesday March 7, 2000

Anyone looking for different approaches to drug policy issues from the
major candidates for U.S. president must be sorely disappointed.
Variations on the messages and drug policy ideas of John McCain,
George Bush, Al Gore and Bill Bradley are microscopic, even though
more citizens seem to want change.

This week the Boston Globe analyzed the drug policy positions of the
four major candidates and found, basically, business as usual. All the
candidates are standing by the traditional idea of drug prohibition,
even though each of them have had personal experiences that challenge
basic notions about the drug war. Gore and Bradley admit to using
marijuana, while Bush won’t completely deny using illegal drugs and
McCain saw his wife’s substance abuse problem addressed with
compassion, not punishment. However, they all still seem to think
prohibition and punishment is the best policy for the rest of us.

Please write a letter to the Boston Globe to say that basic drug
policy reform is a very important issue that all the candidates need
to confront with real honesty, not more toughness.

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: Boston Globe
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

The Chicago Tribune also did an Oped on the same subject. Please
consider writing them a letter or sending a copy of your Boston Globe
LTE to them.

A RECORD POLITICIANS AREN’T TALKING ABOUT http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n177/a02.html

Source: Chicago Tribune
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT #2

Write any paper in the nation on the subject of drug policy in the
presidential debates. Find the email address for sending LTEs to these
papers at http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

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

US: Apart From Personal Use, A Key Issue Stays Away
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n321.a04.html
NewsHawk: FoM http://www.cannabisnews.com/
Pubdate: Sun, 05 Mar 2000
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
Contact: [email protected]
Address: P.O. Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378
Feedback: http://extranet.globe.com/LettersEditor/default.asp
Website: http://www.boston.com/globe/
Author: John Donnelly, Globe Staff
Cited: Common Sense for Drug Policy http://www.csdp.org/
Note: Check the new “We Can Connect You With the Right Reform Group” page at:
http://www.csdp.org/active.htm

Bookmark: Find the MAP archived items on Bush and Gore at:
http://www.mapinc.org/bush.htm and http://www.mapinc.org/gore.htm

APART FROM PERSONAL USE, A KEY ISSUE STAYS AWAY

The war on drugs, which is likely to get another huge boost in funds,
seems to be missing in action in the presidential campaign.

The candidates’ silence on drug policy, analysts say, may be
attributable to the lack of easy solutions. Or it may stem from a
widely shared belief that any position even hinting at reducing
penalties for drug use would be political suicide.

The only headlines involving drugs in the presidential race have been
whether the candidates themselves used them – not the uses of the
budget, which has jumped from $13.5 billion in 1996 to a proposed
$18.9 billion this year, and which includes a plan to fight drugs in
Colombia.

Former senator Bill Bradley and Vice President Al Gore both have
admitted to using marijuana in their younger years, and Governor
George W. Bush of Texas is still trailed by unsubstantiated
allegations of cocaine use.

And while Senator John McCain says he never used illicit drugs, his
wife, Cindy, has admitted she once stole prescription drugs from the
charity she directed.

Such talk is a major change from eight years ago, when Bill Clinton,
then a candidate, said he had smoked marijuana but had not inhaled.

“People can now actually speak frankly about their past marijuana use,
and it doesn’t damage them at all,” said Michael Massing, author of
”The Fix,” a history of the war on drugs. ”You would think that
would lead to more rational discussion about drug policy, but it hasn’t.”

Massing said the refusal to discuss lesser penalties ”is baffling in
many ways because Americans have become more tolerant on most issues.
This campaign is encouraging to the fact that anyone seen as imposing
a narrow moral view has been rejected – except on the drug issue.”

Reacting to the issue’s obscurity, a 36-group coalition, including the
Young Women’s Christian Association, the American Civil Liberties
Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People, has called on candidates to answer 10 questions on drug policy.

The questions cover the candidates’ stance on a $1.6 billion Colombian
aid bill; whether they support the means the United States uses to
fight drugs, with one-third of the budget going toward treatment and
prevention and two-thirds toward law enforcement and supply
interdiction; and whether the United States should ”continue to rely
so heavily on incarceration as a solution to drug problems.”

More than 1.5 million people a year are arrested for drug offenses.
In federal prisons, 60 percent of the inmates are sentenced for
drug-related crimes, the overwhelming majority for low-level offenses.

”The drug war is the biggest head-in-the-sand issue in American
policy, and we hope the candidates face up to it,” said Kevin B.
Zeese, president of Common Sense for Drug Policy, a nonprofit group
based in Falls Church, Va. ”It’s always been safe to do more of the
same, but now more of the same is getting to be absurdly expensive.

”It’s almost a $20-billion-a-year project,” Zeese said. ”We’re
only spending $600 million a year on after-school programs. We say
we’re fighting the drug war to save our kids; I say we’re fighting it
to rob our kids.”

The silence on the issue does not result from lack of knowledge. In
an unusual move, a White House official said, the US drug-policy
coordinator, Barry R. McCaffrey, told President Clinton last year
that he planned to be available to all campaigns.

McCaffrey has conferred with Gore, and he met Bush for two hours in
Texas. McCaffrey has had a relationship with the Bush family dating to
the Gulf War, when Bush’s father was president and McCaffrey was a
general in the Army.

Of the four major candidates, McCain has expressed the most hawkish
positions on drug policy. He wants to increase penalties for selling
drugs, supports the death penalty for drug kingpins, favors tightening
security to stop the flow of drugs into the country, and wants to
restrict availability of methadone for heroin addicts.

In a policy address last month, he said the Clinton administration was
”AWOL on the war on drugs” and he would push for more money and
military assistance to drug-supplying nations such as Colombia.

Bush has said little on the issue. A campaign spokesman, Scott
McClellan, said yesterday that the governor favors the Colombian
military package ”to make sure their military is well-trained and
well-equipped to fight the drug traffickers.”

As governor, Bush favored tougher laws for drug offenders, including
signing legislation that allows judicial discretion to sentence
first-time offenders possessing less than one gram of cocaine to a
maximum of 180 days in jail. (Previously, first-offenders received
automatic probation.) Bush also is a strong supporter of faith-based
initiatives to fight addictions.

Bradley and Gore offer different solutions.

Breaking slightly with Clinton administration policy, Gore said he
supports giving doctors greater flexibility to prescribe marijuana to
relieve patients’ pain. Otherwise, Gore closely adheres to the
framework of current policy.

Gore said he would push for ”tougher drug penalties and
enforcement,” would increase drug interdiction efforts, would expand
drug courts and would institute a $2 billion national media campaign
targeted at preventing youth from using drugs. He is supportive of
the Colombian plan.

Bradley wants to spend more money on drug treatment. He says that
”the more effective way to deal with the drug problem is to tackle
the demand side at home rather than at the supply side,” said a
campaign spokesman, Josh Galper.

As for the Colombian plan, Bradley would ”give limited assistance,”
Galper said. ”The important thing for him is that the effort is not
turned into a US war.”

Bob Weiner, spokesman for McCaffrey, said he believed drug policy has
been a non-issue because there was little disagreement with current
policy. ”We’ve worked hard to have this not be a political
football,” he said.

But Thomas J. Umberg, one of the architects of the Colombian aid plan
as deputy director of supply reduction in McCaffrey’s office, who
recently left to rejoin his old law firm in Washington, said he was
surprised about the lack of debate.

In polling done by his former office, he said, it was found that ”the
drug issue is one of very high interest among voters, but people’s
views were that we should do everything. We should interdict, do
prevention, do treatment, lock up criminals for a long period of time.”

The conclusions could squelch debate, he said, or it could encourage
candidates to make choices.

”There are some large issues before policy makers now,” Umberg said.
”What is our international role in drug control? What should the
federal government do about treatment? What about prevention? And how
about state initiatives concerning decriminalization? You would think
there’s enough to talk about.”

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the Editor of the Boston Globe,

I believe drug policy reform is one of the most important issues
facing the country today, so I was pleased to see the Boston Globe’s
story on the attitudes of presidential candidates (“Apart From
Personal Use, A Key Issue Stays Away,” March 5). While it’s nice to
see the media coverage, it’s very disappointing to learn that the four
major contenders for the presidency are so unwilling to challenge the
drug war. More citizens have been able to see that our current system
of prohibition is a cruel failure. This has been clearly demonstrated
whenever state medical marijuana initiatives are placed before voters.

The public is trying to send the candidates a message on this issue,
yet all candidates remain committed to ignoring the message. It’s
enough to make one wonder whose interests Bradley, Bush, Gore and
McCain are really considering. Do they care more about the law
enforcement institutions and drug testing companies that profit from
this multi-billion fraud, or the average people who are being
demonized and punished by drug war profiteers?

When I weigh the evidence, the answer leads me away from voting for
either Republicans or Democrats in the presidential election, as it
did in 1996.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

TO SUBSCRIBE, DONATE, VOLUNTEER TO HELP, OR UPDATE YOUR EMAIL SEE

http://www.drugsense.org/hurry.htm

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000
Subject: Detroit News Shows How DARE Fails Kids

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 162 March 1, 2000

Detroit News Shows How DARE Fails Kids

——-
PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE
——-

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 162 March 1, 2000

The Detroit News ran several articles on the DARE program this week.
Like others who have attempted to take an objective look at the widely
used “drug education” program, editorialists at the newspaper
concluded that the DARE program doesn’t have any measurable effect on
drug use. The editorial also notes that DARE “may even be making
matters worse.” (See the editorial and links to other articles from
the series below.)

While the series of articles contains the standard apologies from DARE
supporters who like the program because it makes them feel good, the
scope of the series allows some critics of DARE to have their say
without being contradicted. In particular, the article “Some Schools
Opt Out Of Program” (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n282/a04.html)
gives school administrators a chance to say why they dropped the
program without having to respond to criticism from DARE supporters.

Please write a letter to the Detroit News to thank for the series and
to express support for the conclusion that DARE has failed kids.

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: Detroit News (MI)
Contact: [email protected]

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

US MI: Editorial: Drugs: Dare to be Honest
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a05.html
Newshawk: MAP – Making a Difference with Your Help
Pubdate: Tue, 29 Feb 2000
Source: Detroit News (MI)
Copyright: 2000, The Detroit News
Contact: [email protected]
Feedback: http://data.detnews.com:8081/feedback/
Website: http://www.detnews.com/

~~~~~

Index for the D.A.R.E. FAILING OUR KIDS series: Sun, 27 Feb
2000:

D.A.R.E. Doesn’t Work http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n281/a04.html

DARE Wary Of Outside Reviews http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n281/a02.html

Some Schools Opt Out Of Program http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n282/a04.html

Officers Become School Favorites http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n281/a06.html

Officers Hope To Make A Difference http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n292/a02.html

Analysis Tracks Students’ Drug Use http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n292/a03.html

Mon, 28 Feb 2000:

DARE’s Clout Smothers Other Drug Programs http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n292/a04.html

Raves Thrive As Teen Drug Havens http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a04.html

Parents Struggle When Discussing Drugs With Teens http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n292/a05.html

Tips For Parents http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a03.html

Parents’ Anti-Drug Resource Guide [many website links]
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a02.html

Tue, 29 Feb 2000:

Editorial: Drugs: Dare to be Honest
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a05.html

Readers: Cops Key to DARE Success, Failure
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n293/a06.html

~~~~~

DRUGS: DARE TO BE HONEST

A two-part series by The Detroit News reported that DARE, the
multibillion-dollar, nationwide drug prevention program, is making no
difference in lowering teenage drug or alcohol use in Metro Detroit .
It may even be making matters worse. These findings confirm at least
a dozen previous national studies.

It may be time for schools to return responsibility for the matter to
families — where it properly belongs.

The News’ investigation, based on surveys by Western Michigan
University of eighth, 10th and 12th graders in Metro Detroit every two
years, found that kids who have undergone the program are just as
likely to use drugs as those who have not. Although some schools in
recent years have dropped DARE, which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance
Education, the program is still offered in 70 of the 88 area
districts. Yet, according to The News, 60 percent of Detroit area
seniors admit to trying drugs, compared with 55 percent nationally.

Despite mounting evidence about DARE’s ineffectiveness, the program,
in which uniformed police officers teach fifth and sixth graders how
to resist peer pressure, remains hugely popular. Indeed, the federal
government alone spends $2 billion annually on the program – with
local grants, local fund raisers and donations pouring in millions
more. More than $2 million is spent on the program in Metro Detroit.

Although DARE has used this money to preach drug abstinence for a
quarter of a century, drug use in America has gone up in recent years:
A University of Michigan study two years ago found that marijuana use
among eighth graders tripled between 1991 to 1996. Similarly, other
studies have found a slight increase in drug use among suburban kids
who have taken DARE.

It is difficult to definitively link this increase with DARE. But the
program relies on scare scenarios and blanket proscription to drive
home the danger of drug use. Yet, researchers speculate, when
children discover these exaggerations, they abandon all caution,
creating a “boomerang” effect.

Whatever the cause of the observed increase, it is clear that the
program does not provide a life-time inoculation against drug abuse.
Some of DARE’s critics suggest replacing the program with its message
of zero tolerance with others that emphasize how to deal with the
consequences of drug use, such as an overdose. This sounds realistic,
but may have the perverse effect of encouraging drug use by discussing
ways to make it safe.

Drug and alcohol use is a complicated matter that simply is not
amenable to a full and nuanced exploration in the classroom. It may
be time to bring parents and families back into the equation and
encourage them to design their own specific message for their own
kids: Lulling them into a false sense of security with feel-good
programs is a disservice to all.

Our View

Mounting evidence that DARE, the drug-abuse prevention program, is
ineffective ought to cause area schools to rethink their commitment to
it.

Opposing View

DARE is widely popular anti-drug school program that ought to be
continued.

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

SAMPLE LETTER

To the Editor of the Detroit News,

Thank you for the series exploring the failure of DARE. The editorial
“Drugs: DARE to be Honest,” was particularly insightful when it discussed
the “boomerang” effect of DARE. When young people realize that DARE
officers and others have been exaggerating the dangers of marijuana, they
naturally wonder whether warnings about more destructive drugs are
exaggerated as well.

Of course, this problem is not unique to DARE. It plagues the whole
big, dumb, destructive war on drugs. Anti-drug crusaders don’t want
honesty. They are offended by objective analysis, like that offered by
the Detroit News. These crusaders may be successful at fooling
themselves, but they aren’t fooling many of the kids they are
supposedly trying to save. And in the process, these young people are
learning troubling lessons, not only about drugs, but about the nature
of authority. When I was young, I was taught that honesty is the best
policy. Will the drug warriors who blindly support DARE ever learn
that lesson for themselves?

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