• Letter of the Week

    Letter Of The Week

    WAR ON DRUGS NO ANSWER

    Thank you for the editorial, Insite’s proven benefits ignored in
    political fray (SP, April 25). The safe injection site operates in
    Vancouver with the support of local and provincial governments, but is
    under continual assault by the federal Conservatives.

    Insite has kept operating only through repeated victories in the
    courts – victories based on clear evidence that it saves lives and
    reduces drug use.

    While some people foolishly believe that harsh measures are the only
    way to deal with the drugs we have made illegal, that approach has
    been tried in many places and had led only to more drug use, crime,
    death.

    Over the decades-long drug war, drug use rates have risen while drug
    costs have fallen and drug purity has risen.

    We are in the midst of an inquisition run by fanatics who believe that
    drugs can be eliminated and drug users saved if only we can make their
    world painful enough. There is simply no evidence to support this
    belief. How many more people must die, spend their lives in prison, or
    be corrupted and destroyed in the drug underworld before we bring this
    insanity to an end?

    Legalization and regulation is the answer.

    Ken Sailor

    Saskatoon

    Pubdate: Thu, 5 May 2011

    Source: StarPhoenix, The (CN SN)

    Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v11.n285.a11.html

  • Question of the Week

    What are model laws?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 5-11-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 5-11-11. http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3382

    Question of the Week: What are model laws?

    According to a 2007 review in the American Journal of Public Health,

    “Model and uniform laws have a long pedigree. The original impetus for US uniform laws was the provision of the 1878 constitution of the American Bar Association that it promote “uniformity of legislation throughout the Union,” leading to the creation of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws [NCCUSL] …

    “The NCCUSL defines a uniform law as “one in which uniformity of the provisions of the act among the various jurisdictions is a principal and compelling objective” and a model law as one whose “principal provisions . . . can be substantially achieved even though it is not adopted in its entirety by every state.

    “The NACCSUL issued more than 200 “uniform laws,”

    The Office of National Drug Control Policy funds the National Alliance of Model State Drug Laws. In 2010, the Alliance’s budget request equaled $1.25 million for a mission to

    “prepare and conduct state model law summits and assist state officials in the promotion and adoption of summit-based laws.”

    The Website for the Alliance contains links a number pre-composed model laws such as the Underage Alcohol Consumption Reduction Act, Revocation of Professional or Business License for Alcohol and Other Drug Convictions Act, Model Drug-Free Private Sector Workplace Act, and the Model Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol and Other Drugs Act, among many others.

    However, the American Journal of Public Health reviewed many of these laws, concluded,

    “It is striking, in this digital age, that [the sponsors of these laws] present little information on methods, adoption, and effectiveness…” of them.

    These facts and others like them can be found in the United States chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 4-20-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 4-20-11.

  • Drug Policy - Hot Off The 'Net

    VANDU v. AG Canada – Insite Case

    On May 12, 2011 an historic case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. As many of you know, Canada permitted the operation of a “safer injection site” for those using unlawful injection drugs under
    supervision. This facility, which is known as “Insite” was originally a scientific experiment permitted pursuant to section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The Harper Conservative government declined to allow Insite to continue to operate after the initial exemption ran out despite overwhelming evidence that it
    reduces overdose, saves lives, reduces unsafe injection practices and a host of other good results. Accordingly various people and organizations went to court.

    The battle was won at trial, won again on appeal and now heads to Canada’s highest Court. There are a number of arguments being advanced including that it is drug prohibition itself that causes the most harm to those dealing with the disease of addiction and that, therefore, the prohibition laws violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and are invalid.

    You can watch the arguments live, commencing at 9:30am EST, streamed over the web:

    http://scc-csc.insinc.com/web/scc_live_stream.php?lan=EN&resolution=HI

    Please see the Supreme Court of Canada website for more information about the case:

    http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=33556.

    Kirk Tousaw
    Executive Director
    Beyond Prohibition Foundation
    www.whyprohibition.ca

  • International

    Following Arab World’s Lead, Mexicans Rise Up

    The men and women took to the stage in the Mexico City’s vast plaza and tearfully told stories of how they lost their loved ones: how a son was kidnapped, tortured and dumped dead in a car trunk; how a brother was killed for standing up to gangsters; how a child died in crossfire.

    But while such stories have become tragically common in Mexico, this was the first time the mourners could vent their grief in front of tens of thousands of sympathizers and TV cameras from across the world.

    And in this media spotlight, the protesters made a new demand — amid the failure of the government to provide security, they cried, the Public Safety Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna must resign.

    “We don’t want more dead. We don’t want more hate,” protest leader Javier Sicilia told the crowd. “President Felipe Calderon — show you are listening to us and make the public safety secretary resign.”

    The demand announced at Sunday’s rally gave a new edge to a movement that has been steadily rising amid the massacres and mass graves of Mexico’s drug war.

  • Letter Writer of the Month

    Letter Writer of the Month – April

    ROBERT SHARPE

    DrugSense recognizes Robert Sharpe for his 11 letters published
    during April, bringing the total number of published letters archived
    by MAP to 2,475. Robert spends about an hour a day after work
    sending out letters. Where appropriate Robert references specific
    Drug War Facts http://www.drugwarfacts.org . Robert’s tips for letter
    writing success are at http://www.mapinc.org/resource/tips.htm

    You may read Robert’s published letters at:
    http://www.mapinc.org/writer/Robert+Sharpe

  • Letter of the Week

    Letter Of The Week

    MARIJUANA NON-THREAT

    Marijuana is medicinal, but it’s not for everyone. Pills aren’t for
    everyone either.

    Suffering with chronic pain in my pectoral muscle is not cancer, but
    it’s not enjoyable for me to be hurting, either. If I take too many
    pills to alleviate the pain, there’s a great chance of getting ill
    (or even dying), but if I smoke too much marijuana, I will merely
    relax and get a good night’s sleep.

    Michigan residents who choose to use marijuana (legally for medicine)
    are threats to no one.

    Donna M. Paridee

    Warren

    Pubdate: Tue, 26 Apr 2011

    Source: Detroit Free Press

    Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v11/n259/a07.html

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Is Asset Forfeiture taxation?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 4-20-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 4-20-11.  http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3355.

    Question of the Week: Is Asset Forfeiture taxation?

    According to the U.S. Justice Department,

    “Civil forfeiture is a proceeding brought against the property rather than against the person who committed the offense. Civil forfeiture does not require either criminal charges against the owner of the property or a criminal conviction.”

    “…forfeiture can be used to seize and forfeit the following:
    • any amount of currency;
    • personal property valued at $500,000 or less, including cars, guns, and boats;
    • hauling conveyances of unlimited value.

    Real property cannot be forfeited administratively.”

    In 2009, U.S. Attorneys seized over one billion dollars in assets, roughly four times more than in 1989. During that 21 year span, the value of forfeited assets totaled 11 billion dollars, five billion short of the 2011 federal drug control budget.

    The Justice Department readily admits that,

    “… civil forfeiture expanded greatly during the early 1980s as governments at all levels stepped up the war on drugs.”

    The department goes on to claim,

    “… asset forfeiture can assist in the budgeting realm by helping to offset the costs associated with fighting crime. Doing what it takes to undermine the illicit drug trade is expensive and time-consuming. Forfeiture can help agencies target these difficult problems, sometimes without the need to seek additional outside resources to offset their costs.”

    In its 2010 report, the Institute for Justice called asset forfeiture

    “… legal fiction that enables law enforcement to take legal action against inanimate objects for participation in alleged criminal activity, regardless of whether the property owner is guilty or innocent—or even whether the owner is charged with a crime.”

    I have to ask, is asset forfeiture for merely alleged drug crimes taxation without representation?

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Asset Forfeiture Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.

  • Drug Policy - Question of the Week

    Do drug courts work?

    Drug Policy Question of the Week – 4-12-11

    As answered by Mary Jane Borden, Editor of Drug War Facts for the Drug Truth Network on 4-12-11.  http://www.drugtruth.net/cms/node/3343.

    Question of the Week: Do drug courts work?

    A new report called “Drug Courts Are Not the Answer” from the Drug Policy Alliance defines drug courts as,

    “an application of therapeutic jurisprudence theories in which the judge does not ask whether the state has proven that a crime has been committed but instead whether the court can help to heal a perceived pathology.”

    The report goes on to say,

    “The judge is the ultimate arbiter of treatment and punishment decisions and holds a range of discretion unprecedented in the courtroom … The defense lawyer, no longer an advocate for the participant’s rights, assists the participant to comply with court rules.”

    The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers asserts,

    “Under the traditional drug court model, an individual must waive significant rights when entering drug court.”

    “Most drug courts require a guilty plea as the price of admission.”

    While drug courts have been praised for reducing recidivism and yielding positive cost/benefit ratios, the Congressional Research Service found,

    “Drug court evaluations have been widely criticized for methodological weaknesses and data inconsistencies. … the majority of drug court program evaluations (1) have either no comparison group or a biased comparison group, … (2) report outcomes only for participants who complete the program, … and (3) use flawed data-collection methods, such as drug court participants’ self-reported surveys.”

    District Judge Morris B. Hoffman concluded in the North Carolina Law Review,

    “… drug courts are not satisfying either the legitimate and compassionate interests of the treatment community or the legitimate and rational interests of the law enforcement community. They are, instead, simply enabling our continued national schizophrenia about drugs.”

    These facts and others like them can be found in the Drug Court Chapter of Drug War Facts at www.drugwarfacts.org.