Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999
Subject: “The Nation” Magazine Devotes Issue To Drug Policy Reform

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 125 September 15, 1999

“The Nation” Magazine Devotes Issue to Drug Policy
Reform

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

*********************PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*************************

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 125 September 15, 1999

“The Nation” Magazine Devotes Issue to Drug Policy
Reform

This week’s issue of The Nation features a number of articles on drug
policy reform. Activists will find many ideas to support, while they
may also find a few ideas they would like to challenge. Either way we
need to let editors at the publication know that we appreciate the
broad coverage offered on these important issues.

Several of the articles are now available at the MAP archives. Use the
links below to read some or all of the articles. Then please write a
letter to The Nation generally thanking them for shining a spotlight
on reform issues. Feel free to praise any articles you found
particularly good, or to criticize any articles you feel were off base.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

Don’t Think About it – Just DO It! You CAN Make a
Difference

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

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

Please post a copy your letter or report your action to the MAPTalk
list 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: Nation, The (US)

Contact: [email protected]

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

Pubdate: 20 Sep 1999
Source: Nation, The (US)
Copyright: 1999, The Nation Company
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.thenation.com/
Note: This list should make finding the articles in our archives easier.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n963.a03.html

THE NATION – SPECIAL ISSUE “BEYOND LEGALIZATION – NEW IDEAS FOR ENDING THE
DRUG WAR”

Editorial: Beyond the Drug War

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n954.a12.html
——-

It’s Time for Realism Michael Massing

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n957.a01.html
——–

Life of a Scandal Peter Kornbluh

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n958.a04.html
——-

Perils of Prohibition Mike Gray

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n958.a03.html
——-

Yes, Treatment, But…
Elliott Currie

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n955.a03.html

——-

Michael Massing Responds

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n955.a02.html

——

An Old City Seeks A New Model –
Baltimore Moves Toward “Medicalization”
Joshua Wolf Shenk

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n957.a02.html
——-

Does Europe Do It Better? Lessons From Holland, Britain and
Switzerland Robert J. MacCoun and Peter Reuter

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n955.a01.html

—–

George Soros’s Long Strange Trip A Philanthropist Defies Drug War
Orthodoxy Russ Baker (posted in two parts)

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n959.a11.html

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n962.a06.html

——

Marijuana Made Easy Armies of Experts Sell a Little White Pill Cynthia
Cotts

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n962.a05.html

——

The Road to Reform Activists Need Fresh Strategies to Win Carol A.
Bergman

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n958.a05.html

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

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Dear Editor,

Hearty congratulations for your in depth coverage of the debate on our
failed drug war. An open dialogue on alternatives to this wretched
policy is precisely what is needed to move us back in the direction of
a sane drug policy.

I was very surprised, however, that your articles completely missed
mentioning two of the deepest, most popular, and most informative web
sites on drug policy available on the web.

http://www.drugsense.org/

The DrugSense web site, offers a vast array of information and what
may be the most informative weekly newsletter and news synopsis on
drug policy developments in the world.

http://www.mapinc.org/

The Media Awareness Project (MAP) web site also offers a huge
information database including more than 25,000 news articles on drug
policy from all over the world all completely searchable on any
subject in seconds. It also offers an archive of more than 2,000
published letters to the editor and opeds on drug policy.

Missing these sites when writing about drug policy was tantamount to
writing about book sales on the Internet and not mentioning Amazon.com

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999
Subject: Florida Plan Gives Money To Drug Warriors And Takes Rights From Citizens

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 124 September 8, 1999

Florida Plan Gives Money to Drug Warriors and Takes Rights from Citizens

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 124 September 8, 1999

Florida Plan Gives Money to Drug Warriors and Takes Rights from Citizens

Despite the refreshing voice of New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson,
other state governors remain unwilling to retreat at all on the drug
war. In Florida, a major escalation appears to be in the works. That’s
right, from the same people who can’t understand why mutant
dope-killing fungus is a risky proposition comes a plan to spend half
a billion dollars on drug control in the state next year.

The windfall will be divided among the special interest groups that
tend to benefit most from the drug war. According to the Miami Herald
: “The crusade will include a massive increase in drug-treatment beds,
more specialized drug courts, more prosecutors, better security at
airports and seaports and a renewed emphasis on the need for parents
to talk to their kids about the dangers of drugs.”

While the profiteers dance in the street, the people of Florida have
much to fear from this plan. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is proposing to
take away the right of defendants in drug cases to depose police
officers before trial. Defense lawyers in the state worry this will
bring more weak cases to trial. Please write a letter to the Miami
Herald or other Florida newspapers to suggest that the “drug experts”
who are embracing this plan need to look beyond their own desires, and
that Florida residents need to stand up for themselves before another
one of their basic rights disappears.

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 MAPTalk
list 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: Miami Herald (FL)
Contact: [email protected]

Extra credit

Write to other Florida newspapers to protest this plan

To find other Email addresses for other Florida newspapers search
at:

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

***

Pubdate: Thu, 2 Sep 1999
Source: Miami Herald (FL)
Copyright: 1999 The Miami Herald
Page: 1 – Front Page
Contact: [email protected]
Address: One Herald Plaza, Miami FL 33132-1693
Fax: (305) 376-8950
Website: http://www.herald.com/
Forum: http://krwebx.infi.net/webxmulti/cgi-bin/WebX?mherald
Author: Steve Bousquet, Capital Bureau Chief

Bush vows new assault on drugs

Ambitious Florida goals revealed

TALLAHASSEE — Saying drugs ”poison our community,” Gov. Jeb Bush
promised Wednesday to spend a half-billion dollars next year with the
goal of reducing drug use by 50 percent over five years in Florida —
an ambitious goal in a place known worldwide as a magnet for illegal
drugs.

Speaking to a statewide conference of alcohol and drug abuse experts
in Orlando, Bush said the state will embark on a two-part strategy of
punishment and treatment, while streamlining the state’s cannibalized
and disconnected anti-drug efforts.

The crusade will include a massive increase in drug-treatment beds,
more specialized drug courts, more prosecutors, better security at
airports and seaports and a renewed emphasis on the need for parents
to talk to their kids about the dangers of drugs. The Bush plan would
attack drug use in all its guises — from pot plants growing in the
Keys to cocaine being smuggled through Miami International Airport
cargo holds to suburban teens snorting it.

”When people sell drugs and poison our community, they should be
punished, but we also need to expand treatment,” Bush said before his
speech to the Florida Alcohol & Drug Abuse Association. ”We’ve kind
of gone back and forth on one side or the other, but it’s clear we
need to do both.”

Jim McDonough, Bush’s drug policy coordinator, who worked in the White
House drug control office before joining the state administration,
said he would also push for more U.S. Customs agents in South Florida.

”We have to bring down the demand and bring down the supply,” he
said.

McDonough cited recent revelations of rampant drug trafficking at
Miami International Airport as the latest example of the ”cavalier,
casual” attitude toward illegal drugs in Florida.

”It’s atrocious. It’s a wink and a nod, and here come the drugs,”
McDonough said. ”That’s the kind of stuff that kills people.”

Florida’s rate of drug use — about 8 percent of the population — is
much higher than the national average of 6.2 percent, McDonough said.
Nearly two-thirds of all cocaine seized in the U.S. last year came to
Florida, a year in which the state also experienced a 51 percent
increase in heroin-related deaths.

He called it a troubling result of the state’s mobile, transient
population and laid-back atmosphere.

Bush will formally unveil his anti-drug strategy on Sept. 10. An
estimated $360 million in the first year of the program will come from
the state, with the rest coming from the federal government — though
none of it is new money.

The state is coordinating anti-drug programs now scattered through
various state agencies — like health and corrections departments and
the Department of Law Enforcement. But even that step is a novel
approach, officials say.

About 60 percent of the money would be spent on education and
prevention, said Tim Bottcher, spokesman for the six-person drug
policy office, a branch of the governor’s office. The rest, he said,
will go to law enforcement.

Expert approves

A Miami-Dade drug treatment expert welcomes Bush’s promise to add more
than 9,000 new drug-treatment beds.

”There is a tremendous shortage of beds,” said Dr. Moraima Trujillo,
chief of general psychiatry at Veterans Administrators Hospital, who
specializes in substance abuse and serves as the medical director at
several Miami-Dade rehab and detox centers. ”Outpatient treatment is
not the answer. Patients need to be removed from their environment in
order to truly be helped. It’s a major problem. At the centers where I
work, patients are constantly being pushed out the door. There are
never enough beds to keep them.”

”If the governor is able to pull this off, I think it would be a
tremendous help to the community,” Trujillo said. ”If you eliminate
the bottom of the pyramid, which are the users, you will be
eliminating the market for the pushers. And it’s the community at
large that’s suffering. They are the ones being hit by drunk or
drugged drivers.”

Controversial point

One aspect of Bush’s anti-drug program is sure to be controversial
among civil libertarians and some legal experts: The governor is
proposing to take away the right of defendants in drug cases to depose
police officers before trial. Bush said that would stop police from
spending ”All their time in depositions when they’re trying to
apprehend the major drug dealers.”

Miami defense lawyer Chris Mancini said eliminating pretrial
depositions is ”a terrible idea,” because the investigative legwork
turns up examples of sloppy police work that save prosecutors from
taking weak cases to trial.

”Anybody who’s been in the system for a long time, other than a
politician like Jeb Bush, understands depositions actually work to
everyone’s benefit,” Mancini said. ”I don’t know who they’re
pandering to.”

Bush also proposes tax breaks for companies that submit their
employees to random drug testing.

In renewing the war on drugs, Bush also is confronting the post-baby
boom culture that generally takes a so-what attitude toward alcohol
and marijuana.

Questionable goals

Dr. Andres Fernandez, medical director at Center Intake Unit, a Miami
drug rehab center, said Bush’s goals were admirable — but
questionable.

”I think that if the government increased the number of beds and at
the same time increased the amount of drug education given to young
people, and if we controled the drugs coming into Florida, the
governor could do it in five years. But that’s a whole lot of ifs,”
Fernandez said.

Even some drug experts who heard Bush’s talk were skeptical of his
lofty goals.

Asia Eichmiller, a drug counselor at Brevard Correctional Institution,
said reducing drug use by 50 percent is unrealistic. ”It’s very
entrenched in our culture,” Eichmiller said.

But Kerry Wilensky, a drug treatment expert in Clermont, applauded the
shift in focus away from purely punishment to prevention.

”Traditionally, we’ve had too much emphasis on interdiction instead
of prevention,” Wilensky said. ”As long as there is no demand, there
is no supply.”

Police applaud

Some local law enforcement experts applauded Bush’s commitment to
fighting drug abuse.

Danny Wright of the Broward Sheriff’s Office, who serves as chief of
the Pompano Beach police, called Bush’s target of a 50 percent
reduction in drug use ”a reachable goal.” He cited two key factors:
constant drug-abuse awareness efforts in public schools and pressing
apartment owners to write leases threatening immediate eviction for
drug-dealing tenants.

”At one time, we were only doing enforcement. The education and
prevention mechanisms were missing. But it’s changing,” said Wright,
who is organizing a drug summit Oct. 16 at Ely High School in Pompano
Beach.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Governor Bush’s “ambitious” plan to cut drug use by 50 percent over
five years could be laughed off if it didn’t present such a terrible
threat to the people of Florida. It’s funny because every couple years
federal legislators have mandated similar reductions with great
fanfare, fanfare that is nowhere to be found when the plans fail
miserably to meet stated goals. But, the latest plan is also deadly
serious. Like the idea to test plant-killing fungus within the
Sunshine State, the new plan shows Florida officials are so eager to
display their intolerance of drugs they are willing to risk the safety
of residents in the process.

This time anti-drug bureaucrats want the people of Florida to give up
their right to depose police officers before trial should they be
accused of a drug crime. Defense lawyers have said this will mean more
weak cases will go to trial, instead of being thrown out before trial.
People who stay away from illegal drugs probably feel they have
nothing to fear from this provision. However, with more money being
spread around the state for more drug law enforcement, every citizen
has a great deal to fear. State anti-drug officials will want to see
results from increased law enforcement budgets, which means more
arrests. So when the police are having a slow day, they are more
likely to make questionable arrests. Floridians caught in this trap
will no longer have the protection provided by pre-trial depositions.
But again, the courts and the cops look like they’re working hard,
because more cases will be flowing through the system.

But even when that happens, illegal drugs will also continue to flow
through the state. And after a while, some other politician will
suggest it’s time to get really tough before he snatches another right
from the people.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999
Subject: LA Times: Marijuana Can’t Kill, But Marijuana Prohibition Can

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 123 August 31,1999
LA Times: Marijuana Can’t Kill, but Marijuana Prohibition Can

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 123 August 31,1999
LA Times: Marijuana Can’t Kill, but Marijuana Prohibition Can

Most drug policy reform supporters are aware marijuana has no lethal
dose. Marijuana prohibition, on the other hand, can be quite deadly. A
heartbreaking reminder came last week as the Los Angeles Times
reported on a late night “drug raid” that killed a grandfather who had
nothing to do with drugs. The police shot 65-year-old Mario Paz to
death in front of his wife. Showing great compassion for the family’s
loss, police confiscated Paz’s life savings and dragged family members
to the police station for hours of interrogation.

If there was ever a story that embodied all the horror the drug war
can unleash on innocent people, this is it. Please write a letter to
the Los Angeles Times thanking them for covering this important story,
and urging the paper’s continued pursuit of the harsh truth about drug
war injustice.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

Don’t Think About it Just DO It!

*

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)

Contact: [email protected]

*

Please note: At this time, the following is the most recent coverage
in the LA Times. For other stories with different details, search
http://www.mapinc.org/search/index.htm using “Paz” as a key word.

Pubdate: Sat, 28 Aug 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: [email protected]
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
Author: Anne-Marie O’Connor, Times Staff Writer
Note: Times staff writers Peter Y. Hong and Tina Daunt contributed to this
story.

NO DRUG LINK TO FAMILY IN FATAL RAID, POLICE SAY

The El Monte Police Department has no evidence that anyone in the
family of Mario Paz–a 65-year-old man fatally shot in the back by an
El Monte officer during a search of his home Aug. 9–was involved in
drug trafficking, nor did officers when they shot their way into the
house in the nighttime raid, a senior police official said.

El Monte Assistant Police Chief Bill Ankeny said he was unsure if his
department’s narcotics unit even knew whether the family was living at
the Compton home when it was raided by the SWAT team. He said the
team of up to 20 officers–who shot the front and back doors open as
the family slept–was looking for evidence that could be used in a
case against Chino drug suspect Marcos Beltran Lizarraga, who had been
released on bail the morning of the raid.

“We didn’t have information of the Paz family being involved in
narcotics trafficking,” Ankeny said in an interview Thursday. “To my
knowledge, right now, we don’t have any information that the Paz
family was dealing in narcotics. To our knowledge they were not.”

Ankeny said El Monte police asked for the warrant to search the home
after some phone bills, Department of Motor Vehicles records and other
mail bearing the family’s address was found among Beltran’s
possessions. The family says Beltran lived next door in the 1980s and
persuaded Paz, a father of six and grandfather of 14, to let him
receive mail at the Paz home.

Paz was shot to death in the back in full view of his wife, Maria
Luisa, by an officer who entered their bedroom during the raid.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which is investigating
the killing as an officer-involved shooting, has provided three
different explanations for why Paz was shot, though sheriff’s
investigators interviewed the family and the SWAT officers intensively
after the shooting.

The first explanation, given in a statement read to the news media
until as recently as Monday, was that El Monte officers believed Paz
to be armed. The second, offered Wednesday by sheriff’s homicide
investigator Lt. Marilyn Baker, was that the officer who shot Paz
thought he saw him reaching for his gun–a suggestion hotly disputed
by the family. The current explanation, in a statement dated Thursday
at 1:30 p.m., is that Paz was shot when he began to reach for a nearby
drawer where police say they found guns.

Baker was not available Friday and could not be reached to clarify the
changes in the explanations.

Sheriff’s spokesman David Halm said he was not familiar with the
details of the probe, but “sometimes as an investigation progresses,
things are learned that differ slightly from the original
information.”

El Monte police reported finding three pistols–two of them, they say,
in a drawer on the floor near Paz–and a .22-caliber rifle in the
home. The weapons were seized as evidence. The rifle and the third
pistol were found in the corner of the bedroom, the Sheriff’s
Department bulletin said Thursday.

“I personally think that four weapons are a lot for one person to have
next to the bed,” Baker said. “If you had one, would you keep it next
to your bed? Probably. But four?”

The family said Mario Paz, who came to the United States as part of
the bracero agricultural labor program in the 1950s, kept firearms
safely stored away in a dresser drawer to protect the family in the
high-crime neighborhood. They adamantly rejected the suggestion that
he would have turned a gun on a police officer–or that their family
is anything but hard-working and law-abiding.

“My father’s name means peace, and he stood for that,” said Maria
Derain, who works for a lithographer, during a news conference at the
Paz home Friday. She said the shooting has “taken someone who was
dearest to me.”

Brian Dunn, an attorney for Johnnie L. Cochran Jr.’s firm who is
representing the family in a planned lawsuit against El Monte police,
criticized the agency for linking the family to a suspected drug trafficker.

“What the El Monte Police Department has not told you,” he said at the
news conference, “is that Mario Paz has never been suspected of
committing a criminal act.”

El Monte Assistant Chief Ankeny said the officers believed there might
be armed people at the Paz address because they had found three
high-powered rifles in a search of another home linked to Beltran.
The warrant said officers also found $75,000 and 400 pounds of
marijuana at two other homes linked to Beltran.

Ankeny said police went to the Paz home–where no drugs were
found–“in furtherance of their narcotics investigation case” against
Beltran.

“I don’t know whether they expected to find the Paz family living
there or not,” Ankeny said. “I don’t even know if they expected to
contact the family when they went in. I don’t know if [the Pazes]
were owning or renting. [The officers] were looking for evidence of
narcotics trafficking–drugs, or money from sales. But when we
search, we don’t always find what we expect.”

Ankeny said he “can’t say absolutely that the [Pazes] were not
involved in narcotics trafficking. To our knowledge they were not.
But all that has to come out with the continuing investigation.”

El Monte police also seized $10,000 in cash at the Paz home, which the
sheriff’s investigators say was taken as evidence. El Monte officers
initially said they would try to have the cash forfeited in a civil
procedure as ill-gotten gains, but Ankeny backed off from that
position late Thursday. The family has described the money as their
life savings.

“That’s usually the way it goes–[authorities] would file a civil
action to try to have the money forfeited,” Ankeny said. But “if they
can’t develop information that the proceeds of the money was [from]
narcotics trafficking, it will be given back to the family.
[Authorities are] not going to proceed unless they have evidence.”

Ankeny said he had “the greatest sympathy for the family and their
loss. Loss of life is a tragedy.”

Another officer probing the shooting, sheriff’s homicide investigator
Susan Coleman, said that the El Monte police warrant to search the
Compton home had been legally obtained and that police “made the
proper commands and announcements. It’s not out of the ordinary. You
don’t know all of the reasons they went into that house.”

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Reading the excellent reporting done by the Los Angeles Times on the
killing of Mario Paz has been a very disturbing experience. That a man
should lose his life because police want to rid world of nontoxic
plant is obscene. The circumstances surrounding this incident should
be a wake-up call to every American, even if they (like Paz) have
nothing to do with illegal drugs.

If anyone but a gang of police shot the locks off the door of a
private home, burst in, terrorized a family with paramilitary tactics,
shot the patriarch to death, took the family’s life savings, abducted
the remaining family members and held them against their will, it
would certainly be national news. Imagine the non-stop coverage and
breast-beating if high school students had committed an act half as
brutal. Legislators would be tripping over themselves to punish someone.

But, in terms of the drug war, Paz’s death and his family’s terror are
just bit more collateral damage.

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

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999
Subject: Is Support For The War On Drugs A Brain Disease?

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 122 August 29,1999
Washington Post: Is Support For The War On Drugs A Brain Disease?

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 122 August 29,1999
Washington Post: Is Support For The War On Drugs A Brain Disease?

It has become increasingly common for commentators to admit the
punitive strategies of the war on drugs have failed. Sadly, instead of
acknowledging that a “drug-free America” is merely a fantasy of
repression, they imagine the nation can really rid itself of drugs
through treatment.

An editor at the Washington Post entered similar territory this week.
While it’s always good to hear a condemnation of law enforcement-based
drug policy, the faith that treatment will triumph over drugs raises
troubling questions. For example: Is there a distinction between
illegal “brain disease” and legal “brain disease”? If addiction is a
“brain disease,” how much tinkering are researchers willing to do on
our brains as a preventative measure? Is it more desirable to be
locked in a state prison or a state treatment facility?

Drug users who think they will benefit from treatment certainly should
get it. But the idea that drug use will simply disappear thanks to
treatment is, at the very least, naive. (For a great deal more on this
topic, see Stanton Peele’s website at http://www.peele.net and in
particular his review of the book “The Fix” at http://www.peele.net/lib/massing.html
)

Please write a letter to the Washington Post expressing encouragement
over the call to move away from punitive drug strategies, but also
expressing caution about viewing treatment as the ultimate weapon in
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 MAPTalk
list if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to
[email protected] Your letter will then be forwarded to the list with
so others can learn from your efforts and be motivated to follow suit

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Washington Post (DC)

Contact: Feedback:

http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm

NOTE: there is no direct Email address for sending your letter to the
Washington Post We recommend you compose your letter off-line and
paste it into the window provided at the URL above.

*

Pubdate: Fri, 27 Aug 1999
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: Stephen S. Rosenfeld

IT’S NOT ENOUGH TO CUT OFF DRUGS

No public policy argument is so familiar and fatiguing, yet so central
and urgent, as the decades-long battle over whether to focus more on
the supply end of our illicit-drug problem or on the demand end.

I got into the issue 30 years ago partly in response to a call by
now-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.), then working for President
Richard Nixon to stanch the flow of illegal drugs at the “source.” The
State Department’s traditional indifference to engagement in gritty
law enforcement seemed to Moynihan, and in turn to me, as outdated and
dangerous. He had a role in the Nixon administration’s experiment
with supply interdiction: It produced what he now acknowledges to be
“at most a brief success” in closing down the “French Connection,”
while “opium and heroin production merely moved elsewhere.”

This is pretty much the story of supply interdiction since then.
Prodigies of law enforcement are overwhelmed by the ease with which
traffickers can meet a seemingly insatiable American demand. Moynihan
confronted the political reality behind policy as a U.S. senator in
1988 while working to focus new drug legislation on users. Some 60
percent of the money was to be earmarked for demand reduction, 40 for
supply reduction.

But, Moynihan now relates, “as the bill made its way through House and
Senate deliberations and quasi-conference committee negotiations, its
emphasis shifted incrementally from demand reduction to supply
reduction and, especially, to law enforcement. I suppose this was
inevitable. Fear of crime far outstripped concern for addicts. And
just a few weeks away from the 1988 elections. . . . The deal was
a 60-40 ratio in favor of demand reduction; in the end it was the
other way around. Now the ratio is about two-to-one the other way.”

This episode and much else shaped the conclusions he presented at a
Yale conference on the century of American experience with heroin.
“While the science of drug abuse and addiction holds great therapeutic
promise,” he said, “the politics are self-defeating, punitive and
vainglorious.”

What? The science of drug abuse and addiction holds great therapeutic
promise? An emphasis on cutting down the demand for illegal drugs, on
focusing on users rather than producers and traffickers, appeals to
many of us who are frustrated by the shortfalls of law enforcement and
troubled by the foreign-policy complications of a supply-oriented
strategy. Up to now, however, there don’t appear to have been the
research breakthroughs that would make a treatment-oriented policy a
medically, economically and politically feasible alternative to
sending in the cops.

I am not a student of the science, but let me cite Moynihan and one of
his gurus:

Moynihan: “Ours surely is the great age of discovery in the field of
neuroscience. We are exploring the brain, not least with respect to the
effect of drugs. . . . I think it safe to assume that we may never win
a ‘war’ against drugs. Perhaps the closest we can come, through scientific
research, will be to identify ‘pre-exposure’ vulnerability in the
population and develop some sort of active or passive immunization. We’re
making progress. . . . Supply interdiction doesn’t work, although
absent it things could be even worse. We spend twice as much on it as we
do on biomedical research. But the latter moves.”

Alan Leshner, director, National Institute on Drug Abuse: “If we know that
criminals are drug addicted, it is no longer reasonable to simply
incarcerate them. If they have a brain disease, imprisoning them without
treatment is futile. If they are left untreated, their recidivism rates to
both crime and drug use are frighteningly high; however, if addicted
criminals are treated while in prison, both types of recidivism can be
reduced dramatically. . . .

“Understanding addiction as a brain disease explains in part why
historic policy strategies focusing solely on the social or criminal
justice aspects of drug use and addiction have been unsuccessful.
They are missing at least half of the issue. If the brain is the core
of the problem, attending to the brain needs to be a core part of the
solution.”

Moynihan: “The outcome of narcotics prohibition over the past century has
been to concentrate drug abuse and addiction principally among an urban
underclass most don’t know and for whom there is currently little public
understanding or sympathy. So Congress and the public continue to fixate
on supply interdiction and harsher sentences (without treatment) as the
‘solution’ to our drug problems, and adamantly refuse to acknowledge what
Dr. Leshner and others now know and are telling us.”

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

I read Stephen S. Rosenfeld’s comments on drug strategy with interest,
but they offered little comfort to me. While Rosenfeld is completely
correct to describe the inability of punitive policies to end drug
problems, his hope that treatment will serve as a magic bullet in the
drug war is misguided.

There’s no doubt treatment is less expensive than incarceration, and
it may be more effective in addressing drug problems, but that’s a
long stretch from being a final solution. As addiction researchers
like Stanton Peele have pointed out for years, more people end drug
use on their own than through treatment programs. And while it’s true
that the federal drug budget has favored interdiction over treatment
and prevention, the amount of money being spent on treatment has still
risen dramatically in recent years.

Rosenfeld and others may see treatment research only in a positive
context, but there can be a dark side. Let us not forget that
psychiatry was used as a weapon against those who disagreed with state
policies in the former Soviet Union. Will it also be used against
those who don’t respect the U.S. government determinations about which
drugs are “good” (like alcohol) and which drugs are “bad” (like marijuana)?

Rosenfeld quotes NIDA director Alan Leshner’s statements about “brain
disease” being at the root of drug use. Perhaps Leshner would be
better serving the nation by looking into the possibility that “brain
disease” among legislators is responsible for so many years of
punitive anti-drug policies. These policies have caused more damage
than drugs themselves. If science can make such politicians act more
responsibly, I’d have a lot more faith in its ability to solve all
other drug problems.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999
Subject: G.W. Bush’s Problem Represents Opportunity For Reformers

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #121 August 24. 1999

Bush’s Problem Represents Opportunity for Reformers

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #121 August 24. 1999 Bush’s Problem Represents
Opportunity for Reformers

U.S. presidential candidate George W. Bush has been taking heat from
the press in recent days over his refusal to flatly confirm or deny
whether he has ever used illegal drugs. Whether individual reformers
support Bush or another candidate in the presidential race, this issue
offers a great opportunity for us to get our message out.

With the Bush controversy, we can play both sides of the field.
Reformers have a chance to promote drug law change regardless of how
someone suggests Bush should respond.

When someone says Bush should just admit the truth, we can agree and
point out:

1. Bush’s hypocrisy for supporting zero tolerance for everyone else
even though it appears he was fortunate enough to avoid serious punishment.

2. The fact that drug use is overblown as a personal failing – here is
this guy who allegedly did use illegal drugs, but not only is he a
popular governor, he’s running for president.

When other people say Bush should refuse to elaborate, we can agree
and say:

1. Drug use is a personal matter, while noting that it’s a shame GWB
doesn’t hold that standard for everyone else.

2. The consequences for drug use allegations are too severe, and while
taking a lot of heat from the press is hardly equal to having property
confiscated, as a country we really need to analyze our priorities and
criteria for judging other people.

Whatever position someone takes, we can suggest they are correct and
that they must agree drug policy reform is in order. On the other
hand, the professional drug warriors (with the exception of Bush’s
presidential opponents) have been wise to stay fairly quiet on this
issue, since the whole episode illustrates the complete moral and
intellectual bankruptcy of American drug policy.

The story has been covered everywhere, so we have a wide variety of
targets. Please write a letter to your local newspaper or any of
several newspapers across the nation to show that any way you slice
the Bush-drug question, it’s a wake-up call for drug policy reform.

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 MAPTalk
list 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

We are doing this Focus Alert a bit differently. There are a wide
assortment of articles on the Bush dilemma (57 at this writing).Pick
any you like they have all been sorted for you at:

http://www.mapinc.org/bush.htm

Then write an LTE to that paper using the Email address provided on
the article.

Alternately since nearly every newspaper in the country has done at
least one article on this topic you can look up your local or favorite
papers Email address(es) at our media Email web page

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

then send your letter to as many as you like.

NOTE: If sending your LTE to multiple papers send a separate copy to
each one. CC’s or BCC’s are not looked on with favor in the print
media and you will lower your chances of publication significantly if
you fail to follow this procedure.

SAMPLE LETTER

Due to the diverse ways to approach this topic we decided to leave
this Focus Alert wide open without a sample LTE and let your
imagination be your guide as to what you want to cover.

Here we have posted some ideas (Duplicates of the ones
above)

When someone says Bush should just admit the truth, we can agree and
point out:

1. Bush’s hypocrisy for supporting zero tolerance for everyone else
even though it appears he was fortunate enough to avoid serious punishment.

2. The fact that drug use is overblown as a personal failing – here is
this guy who allegedly did use illegal drugs, but not only is he a
popular governor, he’s running for president.

When other people say Bush should refuse to elaborate, we can agree
and say:

1. Drug use is a personal matter, while noting that it’s a shame GWB
doesn’t hold that standard for everyone else.

2. The consequences for drug use allegations are too severe, and while
taking a lot of heat from the press is hardly equal to having property
confiscated, as a country we really need to analyze our priorities and
criteria for judging other people.

Whatever position someone takes, we can suggest they are correct and
that they must agree drug policy reform is in order. On the other
hand, the professional drug warriors (with the exception of Bush’s
presidential opponents) have been wise to stay fairly quiet on this
issue, since the whole episode illustrates the complete moral and
intellectual bankruptcy of American drug policy.

The story has been covered everywhere, so we have a wide variety of
targets. Please write a letter to your local newspaper or any of
several newspapers across the nation to show that any way you slice
the Bush-drug question, it’s a wake-up call for drug policy reform.

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

—————————————————————————-

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999
Subject: New Mexico Governor Stands By Call For Drug Reform

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #120 August 18, 1999

New Mexico Governor Stands By Call For Drug Reform
A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN THE MAKING?

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert #120 August 18, 1999

New Mexico Governor Stands By Call For Drug Reform
A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN THE MAKING?

Last month, New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson surprised many around the
country by suggesting that it is time for the nation to reevaluate its
drug policies. He raised the possibility of decriminalizing drugs.
Naturally he found little immediate support from mainstream
politicians, Republican or Democrat.

Since he first made his statements the press seems to be growing more
interested, especially as it appears Johnson has no plans to back away
from his position. Last week, the AP placed a story on the wires about
Johnson; this week he appeared on MSNBC and the Albuquerque Tribune
offered a respectful profile (below).

Please write a letter to the Tribune, other New Mexico papers, or your
own local newspaper to show support for Johnson’s brave common sense
and to encourage other politicians to come out of the closet regarding
the need for reform.

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 MAPTalk
list 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: Albuquerque Tribune (NM)
Contact: [email protected]

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

EXTRA CREDIT #1

Write other New Mexico newspapers, or your own local newspapers to
express appreciation for Johnson’s stand and to remind other
high-level politicians that the ice has been broken and it’s time for
them to join a serious debate.

NOTE: All NM papers have carried stories about Gov. Johnson’s courageous stand.
To review any or all of the recent articles and/or published LTEs on Governor
Johnson See:
http://www.mapinc.org/johnson.htm

Some other New Mexico newspapers:

[email protected] (Albuquerque Journal)

[email protected] (Las Cruces Sun-News)

To find other email addresses for other newspapers search
at:

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/email.htm

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

EXTRA CREDIT #2

Governor Johnson is undoubtedly taking some tremendous heat from drug
warriors for his courageous stand. He is the highest profile
politician in the nation calling for a national debate on drug policy.
He needs PLENTY of encouragement.

Please consider calling his office to voice your opinion or faxing a
copy of your letter to him.

CALL GOVERNOR JOHNSON’S OFFICE (505) 827 3000

FAX GOVERNOR JOHNSON (505) 827 3026

NOTE Gov. Johnson’s home web page can be viewed at
http://www.governor.state.nm.us/

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

Pubdate: Tue, 17 Aug 1999
Source: Albuquerque Tribune (NM)
Copyright: 1999 The Albuquerque Tribune.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.abqtrib.com/
Author: Ollie Reed Jr., Tribune reporter

NEW MEXICO GOV JOHNSON TODAY

Governor in spotlight, but he’s on stage alone Drug-use, voucher
issues get Gary Johnson national media attention but little political
support.

Gov. Gary Johnson — grim-faced and intent, jaw muscles tensed —
leaned slightly forward in the chair in KOB-TV’s Albuquerque studio
and stared at the television monitor a few feet away.

The governor was zeroed in on the Monday morning edition of “Hot
Wire,” a national MSNBC cable news program. In just minutes, he would
appear on the show live to talk about his controversial call for
national consideration of decriminalizing marijuana use.

In the background, KOB newsroom personnel quietly went about Monday
morning’s business. And just across the room, a couple of the
governor’s aids chatted with each other and with reporters, trying not
to sound apprehensive about the fast-approaching interview.

But the governor was alone in front of the monitor, watching MSNBC
staffers do stories on students returning to Colorado’s Columbine High
School as he awaited his turn in the spotlight.

Alone is a feeling he’s becoming accustomed to. And it’s a condition
the “Hot Wire” anchor alluded to as he introduced Johnson.

“The Republican governor says too much money is being spent to fight a
war that the country is losing. And he says the answer may lie in
decriminalizing drugs, and that stand has him at odds with fellow
Republicans.”

Ten minutes later, after the interview, after Johnson had told a
national television audience he doesn’t believe people should go to
jail for using marijuana, the governor conceded he is breaking new
political ground and exploring possibilities others fear to tackle.

“I feel out on a limb,” the governor said. “I think this is something
that needs to be said and no one else is saying it.”

In recent months, the governor’s positions on drugs and on school
vouchers have made him something of a hot topic in the media.

In April, The Economist, a respected magazine of ideas and opinions,
did a piece about Johnson and school vouchers that the magazine titled
“America’s Boldest Governor.”

He has been interviewed by the Dallas Morning News, discussed in Wall
Street Journal editorials and is expecting a visit today from The New
York Times.

Johnson said he believes there isn’t another governor, member of the
U.S. House of Representatives or a U.S. senator talking about
decriminalizing drug use as a way to refocus the war against illegal
drugs.

Certainly, he said, he has received no support from any high-profile
political figures.

But that didn’t keep Johnson from coming out swinging in Monday’s TV
interview, a session he started by asking a question himself.

“How much money does our government spend each year on incarceration,
on enforcements and on courts?” he asked.

The anchor didn’t know, but the governor thought he
did.

“Well, we’re spending about $50 billion a year,” he said, “and I would
argue that about half the resources that we spend when it comes to
incarcerations, enforcements and courts are spent on illegal
drug-related crime.”

Before the anchor could jump in, Johnson hastened to point out he was
not condoning drug use just because he thought money used to enforce
drug-use laws could be better spent in other ways.

“Drugs are an incredibly bad choice,” the governor said. “Don’t do
drugs.”

The anchor acknowledged that Johnson, a nationally ranked triathlete,
abstains from drugs and alcohol now, but he asked the governor if it
were true that he had admitted smoking marijuana while in college and
using cocaine about three times.

“Right,” said Johnson, who disclosed his past drug use during the 1994
campaign before he was first elected governor.

But then he muddied the answer by adding, “That’s my point. We’re
doing drugs. Under the right set of circumstances . . . I, along
with tens of millions of others — we’re behind bars.”

Later, Johnson spokeswoman Diane Kinderwater said the governor did not
mean he was still using drugs or that he had ever been in jail for
using them.

She said Johnson simply meant that if everyone who ever used illegal
drugs had been imprisoned, there would be millions and millions of
people behind bars.

Still, Johnson told the television audience that some 700,000 people
had been arrested in this country on marijuana-related charges, and he
thinks that’s a waste of law-enforcement energies and public money.

“We are sending people to jail today for selling even small amounts of
drugs, including marijuana,” he said.

After Monday’s interview, the governor said the public would be better
served if some portion of the billions spent fighting drugs was used
for programs to prevent drug use or to help people kick the drug habit.

He added the money could be used to fund a strong anti-drug
advertising campaign.

The governor, who is planning forums on drug-use policy later this
summer, admitted that a lot of fellow Republicans disagree with his
views on drugs, but he said a lot of them are willing to talk about
the issue.

John Dendahl, chairman of New Mexico’s Republican Party, supported
that assessment.

“In the main, the governor is getting a fair hearing,” Dendahl said.
“There are some people coming out of the woodwork in support of
decriminalization. He’s getting kudos from them — and some of them
are Republicans.”

Dendahl, who did not see the governor’s TV interview on Monday, said
the state’s Republican executive committee did send a letter to the
governor opposing decriminalization just to make sure that Johnson’s
stand was not the last word on drug enforcement or decriminalization
in New Mexico.

Johnson said he’s not worried about what his views on
decriminalization might do to his political future in New Mexico,
because he’s not planning one.

“There is no future,” the two-term governor said. “This is it. This
is the last public office I’m going to hold.

“And I’m raising the issues that need to be raised. This is good
politics. This is the job I was hired to do.”

The governor said that if nothing else, his stand has pushed the issue
of decriminalizing drug use into the national forum.

“I am hearing a lot of support from the media,” he said. “This is an
excuse for the media to write about something that needs writing about.”

One thing is for sure: The governor of New Mexico is being taken more
seriously now than he was on his only other appearance on MSNBC.

That was in July 1997 in Roswell, and the subject was the supposed
crash 50 years earlier of an alien spacecraft in New Mexico.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Governor Gary Johnson is right to provoke a debate on drug policies in
America. By consistently taking a punitive approach to illegal drug
use we have aggravated problems, not relieved them.

Johnson feels free to acknowledge this fact, perhaps because he
doesn’t plan to run for office again. If other politicians were more
honest, they would admit the same thing. Certainly they have enough
information to understand that the whole war on drugs has been an
exercise in failure, with drugs and their sellers gaining power, while
individual Americans have been losing their civil liberties. Most
politicians pretend not to understand the real issues in the way
Johnson understands them because they see such a discussion as risky.
However, the risk the drug war poses to the country is much greater
than the value of any single politician’s career. And I suspect as
more politicians offer views like Johnson, they will find broad
support among the public.

Sooner or later we must turn away from zero-tolerance, tough-on-drugs
policies. I hope it happens before we approach the level of complete
self-destruction. Thanks to truly brave leaders like Governor Johnson,
we at least have a chance of making the change sooner rather than later.

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 resources to help you in your letter writing efforts:

http://www.mapinc.org/resource/

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

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999
Subject: Chicago Tribune: Zero Tolerance For DARE

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 119 August 12, 1999

Chicago Tribune: Zero tolerance for DARE

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 119 August 12, 1999

Yet another study finding the DARE program useless was published last
week (see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n797.a09.html).
Predictably, the press offered sporadic coverage and DARE officials
sobbed about the dark forces working against them.

Studies indicating the failure of DARE to have any long term impact on
drug use are common now. Perhaps that’s why relatively few newspapers
reported the latest results. The study apparently did make a deep
impression at the Chicago Tribune, though. Trib editorialists called
for the end of DARE. No equivocations about improving it, no
acknowledgement of any positive benefits, just an outright
condemnation. As the editorial states: “What a waste!”

Please write a letter to the Tribune to thank the newspaper for its
keen insight. You might also want to mention that the failure of DARE
to achieve its stated goal is a good reason to remove the program from
classrooms, but it is far from the only reason.

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

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

CONTACT INFO

Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]

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

Pubdate: Aug 11, 1999
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/
Copyright: 1999 Chicago Tribune Comany

IT’S TIME TO SHOW D.A.R.E. THE DOOR

Year after year, about 80 percent of the elementary school districts
in the country allocate resources and classroom time for a curriculum
that simply doesn’t work, and few of them seem to care.

A recent study at the University of Kentucky is only the latest in an
impressive body of research showing that D.A.R.E., a popular anti-drug
program, does virtually nothing to keep kids off drugs. Yet thousands
of schools each year put their pupils–some as early as first
grade–through it.

D.A.R.E., which stands for Drug Abuse Resistance Education, is taught
by local police officers, who go into the schools to give kids
information about drugs, tobacco and alcohol abuse and, in theory, to
help them develop the skills necessary to resist peer pressure to
experiment with those substances. The program, which includes lessons
on self-esteem, assertiveness and stress management, uses everything
from free T-shirts to “graduation” certificates to a trendy Web site
in order to appeal to youngsters.

And if success were measured in the number of T-shirts given away or
certificates handed out, D.A.R.E. would indeed be successful. But it’s
not.

The Kentucky study, published this month in the Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, found that kids from the D.A.R.E. program
used drugs in high school at about the same rate as their peers. An
earlier study by the University of Illinois at Chicago had come to the
same conclusion.

Why don’t schools show D.A.R.E. the door? Maybe because it isn’t
costing them much–funding comes from local sources and from federal
grants–and it makes teachers and administrators feel they’re doing
something to address a very real problem.

What a waste! There’s got to be a better way to educate young people
about the hazards of substance abuse, but as long as a high-profile
pseudo-solution is available, there’s little incentive to find out
what might really work. And that’s the sad part–especially for the
kids this program ought to be helping.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

Editors:

Congratulations on taking a stand against D.A.R.E., the police P.R.
tool that masquerades as a drug education program in classrooms nationwide.

I recently moved to California from Rochester NY, where I grew up, and
where I was compelled to take part in the D.A.R.E. program in
elementary school. I can assure you that D.A.R.E. is everything its
critics make it out to be– a simplistic propaganda program that’s
supposed to “scare kids straight”, but which in reality just insults
the intelligence of the children it targets. Fortunately for my
high-school-aged brother, Rochester schools have since dropped the
program.

D.A.R.E. force-feeds lies and propaganda to our kids about relatively
benign drugs like marijuana, equating recreational pot use with
hard-core heroin addiction. When kids find out that they’ve been lied
to about pot, they make the perfectly reasonable conclusion that
everything else was a lie, too– so why not go ahead and try heroin or
speed? (Little wonder that some studies show D.A.R.E. graduates to be
more likely to use drugs than kids who didn’t go through the program.)
Even if they don’t come to that unfortunate conclusion, children’s
respect for educators and police is permanently damaged.

School officials see little reason to discard D.A.R.E., since it’s
basically free– funded largely by (unconstitutionally seized) drug
forfeiture assets. Still, one might hope that our children’s
educations would be shaped by factors beyond pure economics.

Keith Sanders

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999
Subject: California “Law Enforcement” Ignores Prop. 215 AGAIN

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 118 August 6, 1999

California “Law Enforcement” Ignores Prop. 215 AGAIN

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 118 August 6, 1999

A sadly familiar story in California was replayed again last month as
another group of medical marijuana users had their medicine taken from
them by police. This time it happened in San Diego, and two of the
providers/users were jailed overnight for exercising a right granted
by the citizens of California.

While this is mean-spirited and cruel, it is also darkly ironic, as
the chief of police in San Diego recently suggested that police are
wasting their time by investigating many routine burglary reports. He
said those police efforts would be better spent arresting illegal drug
users (see http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n777.a02.html ).

If police resources are being poorly used by investigating crimes with
legitimate victims, it’s time to analyze the costs and benefits of
harassing law-abiding citizens and confiscating their medication.
Please write a letter to the San Diego Union protesting this outrage.

Thanks for your effort and support.

WRITE A LETTER TODAY

=Just DO it!=

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 MAPTalk
list 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 Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Contact: [email protected]

EXTRA CREDIT

Send your letter or a separate letter to the mayor of San
Diego

Susan Golding Mayor City of San Diego 202 C St. San Diego, CA 92101

E-mail: [email protected]

***

Pubdate: Wed, 28 July 1999
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/
Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebX
Author: Mark Sauer, Staff Writer
Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n792.a06.html

GROUP QUESTIONS SEIZURE OF MARIJUANA

As Michael Bartelmo moved forward to address the San Diego City
Council yesterday, all that could be heard in the hushed chamber was
the whir of his electric wheelchair.

Left a quadriplegic by an auto accident when he was 17, Bartelmo, 35,
spoke “on behalf of sick people who belong to Shelter From The Storm,”
an agricultural cooperative in Hillcrest.

“Our garden was raided by police officers,” Bartelmo said. “What we
want to know is, why this happened. We were following the law. I
don’t understand why we’re being singled out.”

The garden consisted of marijuana plants. The law in question is
Proposition 215, the medical-marijuana initiative passed
overwhelmingly by California voters in 1996 and the source of great
confusion ever since.

Bartelmo, backed by a dozen other “Shelter People” who use marijuana
daily to help cope with pain, contended that while his group was
following guidelines set by the state Attorney General’s Office, San
Diego police were not.

Acting on “a complaint from a citizen,” police visited the Fifth
Avenue cooperative July 6 and encountered its founder, Steve
McWilliams, who is on probation after entering a plea bargain earlier
this year on a marijuana cultivation charge. He is allowed to use
marijuana for chronic pain, but not distribute it.

McWilliams said he invited the officers to inspect the marijuana
plants, which were tagged with the names of about a dozen shelter
members. Each member had a doctor’s letter on file authorizing use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes, McWilliams said.

Those letters are now in police possession, along with about 300 pot
plants – — more than half of which were not viable — and a variety
of high-intensity lights and other growing equipment, McWilliams said.

“Another member and I were arrested, taken downtown, strip-searched
and forced to spend a night in jail until we made $3,000 bail,” he
said. “It’s like we had no doctors’ letters, like Prop. 215 didn’t
exist.”

Group members are “trying our darndest to follow the law,” Bartelmo
told the council.

“But we can’t if police officers, the City Council or others in
authority won’t tell us what the law is,” Bartelmo said.

McWilliams said that officers went against the Proposition 215
guidelines by confiscating the plants instead of merely photographing
them and taking a sample. No charges have been filed against
McWilliams or other shelter members.

Lt. Carl Black of the San Diego Police Street Narcotics Team said in
an interview that he could not comment specifically on McWilliams’
case, but said the murky nature of Proposition 215 “puts us between a
rock and a hard place.”

“We have to make a judgment call on how many people are involved and
how many plants they’re growing,” Black said.

Particularly galling to the shelter members is that a few blocks away
in Hillcrest, the California Alternative Medical Center is buying
marijuana in bulk and selling it in small quantities to patients with
a doctor’s letter on file.

While insisting he does not want to see California Alternative Medical
Center shut down, McWilliams questioned how the it is allowed to
profit by selling marijuana while shelter members are prevented from
growing it for their own use.

Black said he could not comment on that issue other than to say his
officers are aware of the center’s storefront operation.

Deputy District Attorney Michael Running Sr. said in an interview
that he had heard of California Alternative Medical Center, “but I
haven’t been there, haven’t talked to those people.”

As for McWilliams, Running said he will study the facts and
circumstances before deciding if charges will be filed. He said he
may wait for new Proposition 215 guidelines that the state Legislature
soon could issue.

City Councilman George Stevens described confiscation of the group’s
plants as “an urgent situation,” and asked the city manager and city
attorney to report back with a clarification from San Diego police
regarding medical marijuana within 30 days.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

I was upset to learn another group of medical marijuana users in
California was left without medication after another vindictive raid
by law enforcement officers.

I’m not from California, but where I live police are directed to
enforce laws, not make them up as they go along. Even if medical
marijuana use were still illegal in the state, stopping such use would
seem to be a very low priority for police. The people associated with
Shelter From the Storm hurt no one and present no risk to other
citizens. Their existence may offend the sensibilities of certain law
enforcement officials, but that is no reason to persecute them.

The story is even more mind-boggling after hearing the San Diego
police chief suggest it is a waste of police time to investigate
certain burglary reports. If police have the resources to bust
society’s most defenseless without cause, certainly they have the
resources to investigate crimes with actual victims.

These incidents should serve as a startling reminder that the war on
drugs is really a war on all Americans. People like members of Shelter
From the Storm may bear the brunt of the attack, but when drug crimes
become the main focus of police activity, anyone who really suffers at
the hands of a criminal must be prepared to be treated merely as a
minor inconvenience to law enforcement.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999
Subject: National Journal – Mandatory Drug Sentences

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 117 July 26 1999

National Journal: Stop mandatory minimum sentences

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

*PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*

DrugSense FOCUS Alert # 117 July 26 1999
National Journal: Stop mandatory minimum sentences

While most people reading this already understand the terrible
repercussions of mandatory drug sentences, most politicians either
don’t get it, or don’t want to get it. However, increased attention to
this issue may force them to at least take a harder look at the damage
mandatory minimums cause.

This week the National Journal focused a bright spotlight on the
problem as journalist Stuart Taylor called for the abolition of
mandatory drug sentences. He rightly chastised politicians of all
stripes who have pushed the laws, writing that such legislation has
“been driven through Congress by a bipartisan stampede in every
election year since 1986, as Democrats … have vied with Republicans
in a game of phony-tough one-upmanship, with Presidents Reagan, Bush,
and Clinton eagerly jumping onto the bandwagon.”

Please write to the National Journal to thank Taylor for stating the
case against mandatory minimums so honestly and forcefully, but also
to remind editors that several other aspects of the drug war can’t
stand up under such careful scrutiny.

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 MAPTalk
list 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: National Journal (US)
Contact: [email protected]

*

Pubdate: Sun, 17 July 1999
Source: National Journal (US)
Copyright: 1999 The National Journal, Inc.
Section: Opening Argument; Vol. 31, No. 29
Contact: [email protected]
FAX: (202) 833-8069
Mail: 1501 M St., NW #300, Washington, DC 20005
Website: http://www.nationaljournal.com/
Author: Stuart Taylor Jr.
Note: Stuart Taylor Jr. is a senior writer for National Journal magazine,
where “Opening Argument” appears.

THANK GOD FOR MAXINE WATERS (NO, REALLY)

Almost Everyone On Capitol Hill Is Too Terrified To Talk Sense About Drug
Sentencing.

A striking bipartisan consensus has emerged in the House of
Representatives on the need to fix one aspect of the “war” against
drugs that has ravaged the lives and liberties of millions of
Americans over the past 25 years.

This consensus was reflected in the June 24 vote, 375-48, to reform
the Draconian laws authorizing prosecutors and police to confiscate
and forfeit money and property suspected of involvement in drug
dealing and certain other crimes–and to keep the seized assets, in
many cases, even after the owners have been exonerated of all charges.

But when it comes to an even more noxious product of the drug war–the
barbaric federal and state sentencing laws that have helped triple
since 1980 the number of incarcerated Americans, to almost 1.9
million–only 25 of Congress’s 535 members have gotten it right so
far.

They are Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and the 24 others (mostly
Congressional Black Caucus members) she has lined up to co-sponsor a
bill to abolish the federal laws that establish mandatory minimum
sentences for drug offenses.

These legally irrational, morally bankrupt statutes, together with
their counterparts in the states, have led to the long-term
incarceration of small-time, nonviolent offenders by the hundreds of
thousands. They have been driven through Congress by a bipartisan
stampede in every election year since 1986, as Democrats (including
some of those Black Caucus members) have vied with Republicans in a
game of phony-tough one-upmanship, with Presidents Reagan, Bush, and
Clinton eagerly jumping onto the bandwagon.

Vice President Gore signaled his intention to be part of the problem,
not the solution, in a July 12 speech proposing still more mandatory
sentences (“tougher penalties”) for all kinds of crimes, along with
various (more heavily publicized) gun controls.

Congress has pretty well exhausted the possibilities for cooking up
new drug mandatory minimums: five years without parole for five grams
(one-fifth of an ounce) of crack; 10 years for two ounces; twice as
long for a second drug offense (even if the first was a single
marijuana cigarette); five more years for selling (or giving) drugs to
anyone under 21 (even if the defendant is 18); and dozens more. So
Gore had to reach beyond vowing (yet again) to “crack down on drugs.”
In order to come up with new ways of stripping judges of their
traditional sentencing discretion, he proposed mandatory minimums for
crimes committed “in front of a child” or “against the elderly.”

It’s a testament to the prevalence of political cowardice that almost
everyone in Congress, excepting Black Caucus members like Waters–a
militant liberal with a safe seat whose inner-city black and Hispanic
constituents have borne the brunt of the drug war’s excesses–is too
terrified (or too ill-informed) to talk sense about drug sentencing.

There is certainly little disagreement among the experts that
mandatory drug sentences have had little impact on either the drug
trade or violent crime, while leading to cruelly excessive
imprisonment for many small-time, nonviolent drug couriers and the
like. That is the view of even the most tough-on-crime
Reagan-appointed judges and the most hard-line academic advocates of
long-term imprisonment of violent felons, notably professor John J.
DiIulio Jr. of the University of Pennsylvania, a self-described
“crime-control conservative.”

Nevertheless, many Republican politicians–while outraged by abuses of
the forfeiture laws, which affect property rights– still champion
outrageous prison sentences for nonviolent offenders, a huge
proportion of whom are black, Hispanic, and poor. Meanwhile, many
Democratic politicians join in or stand mute, their sense of outrage
deadened by fear of saying anything that could be demagogued as “soft
on crime.”

But the sudden bipartisan swing against the forfeiture laws may give
some basis for hope that drug war hysteria is receding, and that
federal and state legislators alike will come to appreciate the need
to repeal the mandatory drug sentencing laws. These laws have
devastated the lives and families of too many people who are not
killers, not rapists, not robbers, and not dangerous.

People like Bobby Lee Sothen, a 23-year-old, small-time marijuana
grower from West Virginia, who last year got five years in federal
prison. And like Nicole Richardson, a 19-year-old college freshman
from Mobile, Ala., who got 10 years in 1992 for telling an undercover
federal agent posing as an LSD buyer where to find her boyfriend to
make a payment. And like Monica Clyburn, a Florida welfare mother
with a history of drug abuse, three small children, and a baby on the
way, who got 15 years for filling out some federal forms while helping
her boyfriend peddle his .22-caliber pistol at a pawnshop. (See NJ,
8/15/98, p. 1906.)

It is difficult to overstate how dramatically the long-term
imprisonment of nonviolent as well as violent offenders has soared in
this country since 1970–thanks largely to state statutes such as New
York’s Rockefeller Drug Law and California’s “three strikes” law as
well as the federal mandatory minimums– or how deeply this has harmed
our system of justice and our inner-city communities:

* The rate of imprisonment in the United States has more than
quadrupled over the past 30 years, from about 100 of every 10,000
people to about 450.

* In recent years, as many as 77 per cent of the people entering
prisons and jails were sentenced for nonviolent offenses, according to
a study by the Justice Policy Institute.

* The federal, state, and local governments spent six times as much on
prisons and jails in 1997 ($ 31 billion) as in 1978 ($ 5 billion).

* We are locking up eight times as large a percentage of black people,
and more than three times as large a percentage of Hispanics, as of
whites. More than 70 percent of all new prison admissions are members
of racial minorities. And almost half of all young black men from
Washington, D.C. (to pick one big city), are in prison, on parole, on
probation, on bail, or wanted by police.

* Federal judges spanning the ideological spectrum, stripped of their
traditional discretion to fit the punishment to the crime and the
criminal, have for more than a decade bitterly denounced the mandatory
sentencing laws as engines of grotesque injustice.

What is there to be said in favor of mandatory minimum sentences? Not
much–at least, not in the federal system, in which prosecutors can
now appeal any unduly lenient sentences handed down by the relatively
small number of soft-headed judges.

Many prosecutors argue that they can use their virtually unchecked de
facto sentencing power to pressure small fish to finger bigger fish in
the hope of being rewarded with reduced prison time.

There is some truth in this. But even so, the prosecutors’ leverage
does not seem to have had much real impact on crime. After years of
filling prisons with small fish, law enforcement officials still find
most kingpins out of reach, and the drug trade flourishing. And as
critics of the late, unlamented independent-counsel statute have come
to appreciate, unchecked prosecutorial power is prone to abuse,
injurious to liberty, and more likely to undermine than to promote
respect for law.

Principled liberals should not need to be told this. And now comes
John DiIulio, in the May 17 National Review, to point out that “there
is a conservative crime-control case to be made for repealing all
mandatory-minimum laws now.” While stressing that he still wants to
“incarcerate the really bad guys,” DiIulio asserts that mandatory drug
sentences can get in the way of that goal, and that “the pendulum has
now swung too far away from traditional judicial discretion” in sentencing.

In short, Maxine Waters is right. And then-Rep. George Bush was
right–and wiser than he was to be as President–in 1970, when he
joined in repealing the mandatory drug sentences then on the books,
and said that letting judges fit sentences to crimes “will result in
better justice.”

Now, 29 years later, there’s evidence that many voters may be ahead of
the politicians in seeing the excesses of the prison binge. A
referendum in Arizona last year required that many first-time and
second-time drug offenders be sent to treatment programs rather than
prison.

Perhaps the time is ripe for principled conservatives like House
Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde–who united to reform the
forfeiture laws with Democrats such as John Conyers Jr. of Michigan
and Barney Frank of Massachusetts, only months after brawling over
impeachment–to form another bipartisan coalition. The goal should be
to abolish mandatory drug sentences, once and for all.

SAMPLE LETTER (sent)

I applaud Stuart Taylor for exposing the injustice and impracticality
of mandatory minimum sentences and forfeiture laws as applied to
nonviolent drug offenders. For too long, too many politicians have
been hooked on harsh anti-drug rhetoric, so hooked that are oblivious
to the unintended consequences of “tough” legislation.

At one time any government that authorized itself to arbitrarily
confiscate private property without so much as a hearing would have
been called undemocratic – and a government that incarcerated huge
segments of particular populations for failing to conform to cultural
expectations would have been called totalitarian. But for roughly two
decades most national leaders have told us such practices define the
American way.

Taylor is correct to call for the abolition of mandatory drug
sentences, but that is only the beginning of changes needed to stop
the drug war’s collateral damage. As the nation continues to wage war
on itself, the supposed enemy grows steadfastly in potency,
availability and profitability.

Stephen Young

IMPORTANT: Always include your address and telephone
number

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

ADDITIONAL INFO to help you in your letter writing
efforts

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

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

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