• Focus Alerts

    #382 Medical Marijuana Pro-Con

    Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Subject: #382 Medical Marijuana Pro-Con

    MEDICAL MARIJUANA PRO-CON

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #382 – Monday, 18 August 2008

    Today the Los Angeles Times printed in its Monday Health Section four
    articles about medicinal marijuana, below.

    Yesterday the Los Angeles Times printed an OPED by Kenji Yoshino,
    Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law
    titled ‘Pot Power Play – Should State or Federal Law Prevail on
    Medical Marijuana?’ as featured in the alert at http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0381.html

    The weekday readership of the newspaper is slightly over two million
    people.

    The Los Angeles Times advises that published letters typically run 150
    words or less and may be edited.

    You may use the newspaper’s webform at http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo
    to send letters or email them to [email protected]

    There are many sources of information about medicinal marijuana. One
    that makes the pro-con arguments far better than any newspaper could
    is at http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Jill U. Adams

    MEDICAL MARIJUANA: WHAT DOES SCIENCE SAY?

    A Look at the Pros and Cons of Medical Marijuana Use, a Topic That
    Inspires Strong Opinions on Both Sides.

    DEPENDING ON whom you ask, marijuana is a dangerous drug that should
    be kept illegal alongside heroin and PCP, or it’s a miracle herb with
    a trove of medical benefits that the government is seeking to deny the
    public — or something in between: a plant with medical uses and
    drawbacks, worth exploring.

    As the political debates over medical marijuana drag on, a small cadre
    of researchers continues to test inhaled marijuana for the treatment
    of pain, nausea and muscle spasms.

    All drugs have risks, they point out — including ones in most
    Americans’ medicine cabinets, such as aspirin and other pain-relievers
    or antihistamines such as Benadryl. Doctors try to balance those risks
    against the potential for medical good — why not for marijuana as
    well, they ask.

    The truth, these researchers say, is that marijuana has medical
    benefits — for chronic-pain syndromes, cancer pain, multiple
    sclerosis, AIDS wasting syndrome and the nausea that accompanies
    chemotherapy — and attempts to understand and harness these are being
    hampered. Also, they add, science reveals that the risks of marijuana
    use, which have been thoroughly researched, are real but generally
    small.

    Dr. Donald Abrams, chief of hematology and oncology at San Francisco
    General Hospital and professor of clinical medicine at UC San
    Francisco, says he sees cancer patients in pain, not eating or
    sleeping well, experiencing nausea and vomiting from treatment, and
    being depressed about their situation. He says he is glad that he
    lives in California, where use of medical marijuana is allowed by
    state law, although federal officials continue to raid cannabis
    dispensaries in the state and scrutinize practices of physicians who
    specialize in writing cannabis recommendations for patients.

    “I can talk to patients about medicinal cannabis [and] I’m often
    recommending it to them for these indications,” Abrams says.

    Read on to learn what science has to say about the medical pros and
    cons, and some mitigating factors, of Cannabis sativa.

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Jill U. Adams

    PRO: MARIJUANA USE FOR CHRONIC PAIN AND NAUSEA

    Smoked Marijuana Can Bring Relief To Sufferers Of Neuropathic Pain
    Comparable To That Of Other Painkiller Drugs, Some Studies Show.

    Medical marijuana use has a history stretching back thousands of
    years. In prebiblical times, the plant was used as medicinal tea in
    China, a stress antidote in India and a pain-reliever for earaches,
    childbirth and more throughout Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

    In recent decades, medical researchers have investigated marijuana’s
    effects on various kinds of pain — from damaged nerves in people with
    HIV, diabetes and spinal cord injury; from cancer; and from multiple
    sclerosis. Marijuana has also been hypothesized to help with nausea
    induced by chemotherapy and antiretroviral therapy, and with severe
    loss of appetite as seen in people with the AIDS wasting syndrome.

    The weed’s actions are due to the active ingredients
    tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and some 60 other cannabinoids, which mimic
    the action of chemicals — known as endogenous cannabinoids — that
    exist naturally in the brain. Those cannabinoids activate receptors in
    our nerves, triggering physiological responses.

    A legal prescription form of THC (Marinol) exists, yet researchers say
    it’s far from a perfect drug. Taken orally, its absorption is highly
    variable and unpredictable and often delayed, says Dr. Igor Grant, a
    UC San Diego psychiatrist who directs the university’s Center for
    Medicinal Cannabis Research. “Smoking is a very efficient way to
    deliver THC,” he says.

    As a result of its federally illegal status, medicinal use of
    marijuana is restricted to carefully vetted clinical research studies
    or to patients in states such as California that have passed laws to
    allow for personal medical use. Research on the medicinal use of
    marijuana relies on government-issued marijuana cigarettes, which come
    in different strengths and are supplied by the National Institute on
    Drug Abuse.

    The UC Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research in San Diego helps
    coordinate clinical studies to investigate the safety and
    effectiveness of marijuana. Here’s what they’ve found.

    Neuropathic Pain

    Recent research suggests that marijuana can assuage this chronic-pain
    syndrome in which burning sensations occur and simple touch can feel
    like hurt. It is unaffected by aspirin-like drugs and fairly resistant
    to stronger analgesics such as opiates.

    In a 2007 study on neuropathic pain related to HIV infection, 50
    patients smoked marijuana cigarettes three times a day or marijuana
    cigarettes from which active ingredients had been extracted. Subjects
    then rated their pain on a scale ranging from “no pain” to “worst pain
    imaginable.” The results, published in the journal Neurology, showed a
    34% reduction in ratings of pain in the marijuana group compared with
    17% in the placebo group over five days of treatment.

    Another study in 44 patients reported in June in the Journal of Pain
    found that marijuana alleviated neuropathic pain arising from a
    variety of conditions, including spinal-cord injury and diabetes.
    Participants smoked marijuana on a set schedule — first two puffs,
    then three puffs an hour later, then four puffs an hour after that —
    from a single cigarette containing either 0%, 3.5%, or 7% THC. Average
    pain ratings before smoking were 55 on a 100-point scale and decreased
    by 46% in both treatment groups and by 27% in the placebo group one
    hour after the last puff.

    Analgesic drugs are often tested against experimentally induced pain.
    Such studies have been conducted for marijuana too. In one 2007 report
    in the journal Anesthesiology, 15 healthy volunteers received skin
    injections with capsaicin — the chemical behind that fiery spice in
    chile peppers — and then smoked different-strength marijuana
    cigarettes. The medium dose, with a 4% THC concentration, lessened the
    burning pain.

    These three pain studies all concluded that smoked marijuana can bring
    relief to sufferers of neuropathic pain comparable to other analgesic
    drugs. It is not a cure, Grant says: “It’s like other pain medicines,
    you have to keep taking it.”

    Study subjects did feel high, an effect that varied among individuals.
    Marijuana also affected thinking, shown as problems with tasks of
    memory and complicated reasoning after the strongest marijuana
    cigarettes were used. Potentially problematic, these effects were
    tolerated by subjects — no one opted out of the study because they
    couldn’t think straight.

    Grant says it’s important to have a choice of treatments because not
    everyone responds to or can tolerate the available drugs.
    Antidepressants are used for neuropathic pain but cause dry mouth,
    constipation and urinary problems, and must be avoided by people with
    conditions such as glaucoma. Others can’t take aspirin-like drugs.
    “Having an alternative compound is always good,” Grant says.

    Multiple Sclerosis

    Patients with multiple sclerosis suffer muscle spasms, pain and
    tremor. Anecdotal reports suggest that marijuana may be helpful, but
    controlled studies are few. One, presented at an April meeting, had 51
    multiple sclerosis patients smoke 0% or 4% THC marijuana cigarettes
    daily for three days. Intensity of spasms was reduced by 32% and pain
    ratings by 50% after smoking marijuana, compared with 2% and 22%
    reductions after placebo cigarettes. Five subjects withdrew, citing
    side effects: feeling too high, dizzy or fatigued.

    Other studies in patients with multiple sclerosis used a cannabis
    extract that can be taken orally. In a 2007 European Journal of
    Neurology study, nearly half of 184 patients experienced at least 30%
    improvement in muscle spasms.

    But a 2004 Neurology paper showed no reduction in objective measures
    of arm tremor with cannabis extract, although five subjects out of 13
    reported feeling improvement. This might have resulted from
    mood-altering effects of the drug or from some aspect of tremor not
    measured.

    Nausea

    A 2008 review published in the European Journal of Cancer Care
    analyzed 30 clinical studies using cannabinoid drugs synthesized in
    the lab and concluded that they were better than standard antinausea
    drugs in alleviating the nausea and vomiting that accompanies
    chemotherapy. One such drug is Marinol, a THC preparation approved by
    the Food and Drug Administration for precisely this purpose.

    Survey studies suggest that some people with HIV smoke marijuana to
    counteract nausea caused by antiretroviral therapy. Researchers at the
    UC Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research have tried to study the
    effect of smoked marijuana on nausea and vomiting in patients
    undergoing chemotherapy but have struggled to enroll enough subjects,
    Grant says.

    Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy
    Project — a group that lobbies for the decriminalization of marijuana
    — says he is all for research on the chemical components in marijuana
    with the goal of making more-purified and perhaps more-targeted drugs
    that do not deliver a “high,” but does not see “criminalizing use of
    that plant by people who are ill when you are making its main
    psychoactive ingredient legal in the form of a very expensive pill.”

    Tom Riley, a spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug
    Control Policy, says marijuana advocates are seeking a free pass.
    “They want to be exempted from the regular [drug] approval process,”
    he says.

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Jill U. Adams

    CON: MARIJUANA’S DAMAGING EFFECTS

    Scientists Say Pot’s Health-Related Risks Are Real but Small in Some
    Instances.

    Marijuana is the most widely used illicit drug in the country — an
    estimated 25 million Americans smoked it within the last year and
    close to 100 million have smoked it at least once in their life,
    according to the most recent National Survey on Drug Use and Health by
    the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration.

    Rates and severity of marijuana addiction pale in comparison to that
    of legal addictive drugs, alcohol and nicotine, according to the
    Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, a panel of independent
    experts advising the British government, in a rare head-to-head,
    scientific comparison.

    Yet, the fact is, recreational use can lead to addiction, and inhaling
    marijuana smoke is unhealthful for the lungs. Some researchers argue
    that marijuana may predispose heavy users to mental illnesses such as
    psychosis and depression.

    How big are these risks and how should they be measured against health
    benefits? “The FDA has ruled that marijuana has no medical benefits,
    but its harms are well known and proven,” says Tom Riley, a spokesman
    for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, referring
    to an April 2006 statement released by the FDA and several other
    federal agencies concluding that smoking marijuana was not of
    medicinal use.

    For comparison’s sake, Riley cites the prescription drug Vioxx. The
    FDA, he notes, pulled Vioxx off the market in spite of its proven
    efficacy, because it created problems in a small number of people.

    Then, too, the number of people adversely affected by marijuana use is
    large, Riley says. “There are more teens in drug treatment for
    marijuana dependence than for alcohol or any other drug,” he says.

    Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug by the Drug Enforcement
    Administration’s Controlled Substances Act, a classification reserved
    for drugs carrying the highest risk for addiction and no medical benefit.

    Scientists have reviewed the weed’s risks and find them to be real,
    but small. Ten years ago, the Institute of Medicine reviewed the
    scientific evidence about marijuana at the request of the Office of
    National Drug Control Policy. The 1999 report states that, “except for
    the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana
    use are within the range of effects tolerated for other
    medications.”

    In February, the American College of Physicians, the nation’s
    second-largest physicians group, released a position paper in support
    of medical-marijuana research, protecting doctors from criminal
    prosecution and rescheduling marijuana as a less harmful drug.

    A British advisory group this year found no evidence to reclassify
    cannabis as a more harmful drug in that country. In contrast to the
    U.S., the U.K. puts cannabis in the lowest category (Class C) in terms
    of criminal penalties for possession or sale, although government
    officials are campaigning to move it to Class B.

    To investigate the risks of marijuana, researchers typically use heavy
    marijuana smokers as subjects. Though such a study design may be
    convenient, it makes interpretation tricky because heavy users may
    have traits in common besides smoking pot. Thus, says psychologist and
    marijuana researcher Stanley Zammit of Cardiff University in Wales, it
    is not easy in these kinds of studies to separate out the contribution
    of marijuana to any measurable effect in the group.

    Psychosis

    Claims of a link between marijuana use and psychotic episodes came
    under scrutiny after the U.K. downgraded cannabis from Class B to
    Class C in 2004. In 2007, Zammit was asked by England’s Department of
    Health to survey the existing evidence to determine the long-term
    risks for mental illness from using cannabis. After researching the
    literature and including only those studies that satisfied certain
    criteria, he combined the results in a 2007 Lancet paper.

    He concluded that marijuana use was associated with an increased risk
    of psychosis — ranging from self-reported symptoms such as delusions
    or hallucinations to clinically diagnosed schizophrenia.

    The risk is small, he adds. Cannabis use was associated with a 40%
    increase in risk overall and up to a twofold increase in heavy users.
    Because the risk of any person developing psychosis in their lifetime
    is about 2% to 3%, cannabis use at worst increases that to 5%. “So 95%
    of the people are not going to get psychotic, even if they smoke on a
    daily basis,” Zammit says.

    Zammit adds that “the main limitations of these studies is that you
    can never be sure that it’s the cannabis itself that’s causing this
    risk.” Heavy users of marijuana may differ from nonusers in other
    traits — including those that lead independently to increased drug
    use and risk of psychosis. The studies he reviewed tried to take into
    account this possibility but could not rule it out entirely.

    The bottom line? “The evidence is probably strong enough that people
    should be aware of this risk,” he says.

    Even if it’s real, the risk of developing psychosis because of
    marijuana use is smaller than with use of some other drugs —
    including legal ones such as cigarettes, says Mitch Earleywine, a
    psychologist at the State University of New York University at Albany.

    Grant says that numbers of schizophrenia cases have not increased
    since before the 1960s, when widespread marijuana use began. “The data
    are variable to be sure, but most studies have found that over the
    years the rate of schizophrenia has been stable or even declining,” he
    says.

    Depression

    In an American Journal of Psychiatry study, 1,920 adults were assessed
    for marijuana use and depression and followed for 15 years. In those
    subjects who had no depressive symptoms at the study’s start,
    marijuana abusers were four times more likely to develop depressive
    symptoms down the road. But Zammit, who reviewed this paper and 23
    others in his 2007 Lancet paper, says the data overall are even
    murkier than for psychosis. Most of the studies he reviewed did not
    assess symptoms of depression before marijuana use, and so didn’t rule
    out the idea that depression makes someone more likely to smoke
    marijuana — and not the other way around.

    Thinking

    A review of the scientific literature published in the Journal of the
    International Neuropsychological Society in 2003 looked at whether
    marijuana smoking had lasting effects on cognition after THC has left
    the body. Marijuana use was found to have small effects on memory in
    long-term users — measured by asking subjects to recall words, for
    instance — but no differences were seen on attention, verbal skills
    and reaction time. “We were actually surprised,” says Grant, an author
    on the study. Even if the marijuana itself wasn’t causing such things,
    he expected marijuana users might have other less-than-healthful
    behaviors — they may drink a bit more, or use some other drugs, and
    “you might expect them to do a little worse.”

    A 2002 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn.
    found that a group of 51 heavy marijuana users (two joints per day)
    recalled two to three fewer words on average than nonusers in a memory
    test with a list of 15 words.

    A second study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in
    2001, found a similar deficit in 63 daily marijuana smokers who hadn’t
    smoked for up to a week. After 28 days of not smoking marijuana the
    effect disappeared.

    Children

    Studies on brain function and mental illness cited above were
    conducted in adult marijuana users. How the drug affects adolescents
    is not completely resolved, but the data are more troubling.

    A 2000 paper in the Journal of Addictive Diseases recruited 58
    marijuana users and found structural changes in the brains of those
    who had starting smoking marijuana before age 17 but not in those who
    didn’t start smoking until they were older.

    “There’s also a modest decrease in IQ if teens use heavily, though
    weekly users and folks who quit don’t seem to show it,” Earleywine
    says. Adolescence, he says, is a time when brain neurons are making
    oodles of new connections, and it’s possible that a psychoactive drug
    such as marijuana may adversely influence that process.

    Lungs

    Before it has any effect on the brain, marijuana smoke enters the body
    through the lungs. Dr. Donald Tashkin, professor of medicine at the
    UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, has studied the pulmonary
    consequences of marijuana use for 25 years, recruiting a group of 280
    heavy habitual pot smokers in the early 1980s, including some who also
    smoked cigarettes. (Subjects averaged three joints per day for an
    average of 15 years.) For comparison, he also recruited cigarette
    smokers who didn’t use marijuana and people who didn’t smoke anything.

    Tashkin has done a number of studies over the decades comparing these
    groups. “I began with the hypothesis that regular smoking of marijuana
    would have an impact on the lungs qualitatively similar to the impact
    of regular tobacco smoking,” he says. That’s because the smoke of both
    plants are more similar than different.

    Tashkin and his colleagues did find symptoms of chronic bronchitis in
    his marijuana-smoking group. In a 1987 study in the American Review of
    Respiratory Diseases, they reported that incidence of chronic cough,
    sputum production and wheezing was similar to that in cigarette smokers.

    In a second study in the same subjects published in the American
    Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in 1998, examination
    of the airways and the cells lining the airways found swelling,
    redness and increased secretions in marijuana users. Biopsies showed
    “extensive, widespread damage to the mucosa,” Tashkin says, similar to
    what was seen in tobacco users. “This is amazing, because the
    marijuana smokers average three joints a day, but the tobacco controls
    smoked 22 cigarettes, suggesting that on a cigarette-to-cigarette
    basis, marijuana may be more damaging.”

    But marijuana smokers differ from tobacco smokers in other,
    potentially more important ways, Tashkin adds. They do not seem to
    develop more serious consequences of cigarette smoking, namely chronic
    obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) — the fourth leading cause of
    death in the U.S., killing 130,000 people each year — or lung cancer,
    the most common cancer in Americans and responsible for an additional
    160,000 annual deaths, according to 2005 statistics from the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention.

    To study lung cancer, Tashkin looked at more than 600 lung cancer
    patients and more than 1,000 control patients matched for age,
    socioeconomic class, family history and other alcohol and drug use
    (along with many other potential influences).

    The results, published in a 2006 paper in Cancer Epidemiology
    Biomarkers and Prevention, found a large number of regular marijuana
    smokers were present in both groups, but statistically there were no
    more in the cancer group than control group, suggesting no association
    between marijuana use and lung cancer. Tobacco smokers, on the other
    hand, showed a dose-dependent increase in risk: with a 30%, 800% and
    2,100% increased risk of lung cancer in those who smoked less than a
    pack, one to two packs or more than two packs per day,
    respectively.

    Other studies have found increased cancer risk. A study of 79 lung
    cancer patients and 300 controls published in the European Respiratory
    Journal this year found a fivefold increased risk in the heaviest
    marijuana users (daily use for 10 years) and no effect in less heavy
    users.

    But Tashkin says this conflicting report was much smaller in scale,
    having fewer than 20 subjects in the group of heaviest marijuana
    users. “My critique would be: It’s a small study. I think that their
    small sample size is responsible for vastly inflated estimates,” he
    says.

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Jill U. Adams

    VAPORIZERS CAN CUT MARIJUANA SMOKE, RETAIN SIMILAR MEDICAL EFFECTS

    Smoking anything is perceived as bad these days, says Dr. Donald
    Abrams, chief of hematology and oncology at San Francisco General
    Hospital and professor of clinical medicine at UC San Francisco. So he
    devised a pilot study to evaluate a novel inhalation method conducted
    in 18 otherwise-healthy subjects. “We used a device that heated
    cannabis below the point of combustion — basically, a heating element
    and a fan. The fan filled up a balloon from which the patients could
    inhale,” he says.

    The findings, published in Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics in
    2007, showed that levels of THC were “virtually identical,” as were
    patients’ reports of subjective “high.” No increase in exhaled carbon
    monoxide was observed with vaporized marijuana, as was the case with
    smoked marijuana, and patients preferred vaporization to smoking.

    “The fact is that whole marijuana, particularly when vaporized and not
    smoked, is a safe and effective delivery system,” says psychiatrist
    Dr. Igor Grant, director of the UC Center for Medicinal Cannabis
    Research in San Diego.

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

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

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #381 Pot Power Play

    Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008
    Subject: #381 Pot Power Play

    POT POWER PLAY

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #381 – Sunday, 17 August 2008

    Today the Los Angeles Times printed an OPED by Kenji Yoshino,
    Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law.
    Note that Professor Yoshino demolishes the “federal law supersedes
    state law” myth that is so often stated in the media as fact.

    The Los Angeles Times is Southern California’s Sunday newspaper – with
    a circulation of 1.1 million copies and 3.3 million readers.

    The Los Angeles Times advises that published letters typically run 150
    words or less and may be edited.

    You may use the newspaper’s webform at http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo
    to send letters or email them to [email protected]

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

    Pubdate: Sun, 17 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Kenji Yoshino

    POT POWER PLAY

    Should State or Federal Law Prevail on Medical Marijuana?

    Just because a majority of Californians voted to make marijuana
    available for medical purposes does not mean it is legal. Charles
    Lynch, the owner of a Morro Bay medical marijuana dispensary, learned
    this lesson the hard way on Aug. 5 when he was convicted of violating
    the federal Controlled Substances Act. His lawyers defended him in
    part by saying his business had the blessing of elected officials in
    Morro County. But the jury convicted him under federal drug laws; in
    October, he will be sentenced to a period of five to 85 years in
    prison, though he has vowed to appeal.

    Federal and state laws with respect to medical marijuana have been in
    tension for years. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act of
    1970, the distribution or possession of marijuana is a crime, with no
    exceptions for medical use. Under California’s Compassionate Use Act
    of 1996, however, individuals who meet certain criteria may distribute
    or use marijuana for medical purposes without running afoul of state
    law. In 2003, the Legislature further bolstered the medical marijuana
    movement with a law requiring counties to provide patients with an
    identification card that protects them from state prosecution.

    This places dispensers of medical marijuana, such as Lynch, in an
    untenable position. From the perspective of the federal government,
    they are no different from common drug dealers, susceptible to Drug
    Enforcement Administration busts and substantial prison sentences.
    From the perspective of the state government, they are running
    legitimate businesses that pay taxes and otherwise comply with
    California law.

    The courts have yet to resolve this controversy. Under the supremacy
    clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law supersedes state law when
    the two conflict. But it is not as obvious as it might seem that they
    do. Language in the federal Controlled Substances Act specifies that
    it only preempts state laws that create a “positive conflict” with it.
    A court could find that because California law does not expressly
    prevent the federal government from enforcing its own drug law, the
    two sets of laws are consistent.

    Indeed, on July 31, the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal took a
    step in that direction. It held that the Controlled Substances Act
    does not preempt California’s requirement that counties give medical
    marijuana users identification cards. The court expressly declined to
    go any further, but proponents of medical marijuana rightly viewed the
    ruling to be a significant win. If the decision withstands appeals, it
    will ensure that federal law will not completely wash out the state
    program.

    But it seems unlikely that courtrooms are where this legal dissonance
    will be resolved. This is especially true since 2005, when the U.S.
    Supreme Court heard a federal constitutional challenge to the
    Controlled Substances Act. In that case, Californians sought to
    protect the use of medical marijuana by stating that it is a purely
    intrastate matter, and thus beyond Congress’ reach. The high court
    rejected that argument, ruling that, as a whole, the drug law was a
    proper exercise of Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

    After that decision, the legislative and executive branches of
    government are best equipped to make federal and state law consistent.
    The remaining question is which side — federal or state — should
    give way in this standoff.

    In this instance, the federal government should cede. Under our
    federal system, the states are supposed to serve as laboratories of
    experimentation (to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis)
    that permit a variety of policy approaches that suit local mores.
    Moreover, the areas implicated by medical marijuana — crime and
    health — have traditionally been areas of state sovereignty. This
    perhaps explains why — flying in the face of the Controlled
    Substances Act — 13 states have passed some form of medical marijuana
    law.

    Under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is grouped with heroin
    and mescaline in the set of drugs subject to the most stringent
    regulation. Congress or the U.S. attorney general has the power to
    reclassify marijuana so it can be dispensed by a physician.
    Alternatively, the U.S. Department of Justice could use its discretion
    and stop prosecuting medical dispensation and use in states that have
    legalized it. California’s Legislature has supported both
    alternatives, and Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic
    presidential nominee, has expressed support for the latter. John
    McCain was equivocal early in the Republican primaries, but the
    candidate has since said he would not end the federal raids on medical
    marijuana dispensaries.

    State medical marijuana laws should not be seen as an attempt to flout
    the authority of the federal government. These laws are a proper
    exercise of a state prerogative to which the federal government should
    defer.

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

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

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #380 Drug War Madness

    Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008
    Subject: #380 Drug War Madness

    DRUG WAR MADNESS

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #380 – Monday, 11 August 2008

    Today the Los Angeles Times printed a superb OPED by Vera Leone, an
    Internet communications associate with the Drug Policy Alliance

    Homepage

    The OPED references a Los Angeles Times July 12th article
    ‘Strip-Searched Girl Wins Appeal’ http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n000/a067.html
    and a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which is at
    http://drugsense.org/url/SYiKN2It

    The country’s fourth largest circulation newspaper is always a worthy
    letter to the editor target. The Los Angeles Times advises that
    published letters typically run 150 words or less and may be edited.

    You may use the newspaper’s webform at http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo
    to send letters or email them to [email protected]

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

    Pubdate: Mon, 11 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Vera Leone

    DRUG WAR MADNESS

    Federal Courts Took Far Too Long to Rule That It’s Wrong to
    Strip-Search a 13-Year-Old Girl Suspected of Carrying Ibuprofen.

    She was a 13-year-old honor student. She may or may not have given her
    friend prescription-strength ibuprofen, though the girl certainly
    didn’t have any on her. An assistant principal, acting on the word of
    a scared fellow student, brought the eighth-grade girl into his office
    and subjected her to a strip search. In the presence of the school
    nurse and the assistant principal’s administrative assistant, this
    young woman was forced to strip off her clothes including her
    underwear, exposing first her breasts and then her pubic area, on the
    erroneous suspicion that she was hiding . . . ibuprofen. At this
    Arizona middle school, students are prohibited from carrying drugs —
    even over-the-counter medication — into school.

    Last month, The Times reported that a panel of judges on the U.S. 9th
    Circuit Court of Appeals overturned (in a 6-5 decision) previous
    rulings that condoned the actions of the assistant principal, who is
    now finally considered liable for damages.

    The student was searched by women, the nurse and the administrative
    assistant. It’s still abuse. I’ve been through these searches.
    Regardless of your gender or that of the people searching you, it’s a
    violation of your rights.

    I spent six months in federal prison for civil disobedience a few
    years ago. What vividly remains far and away the worst part of the
    experience was being strip-searched. After receiving a visit, I ran
    the random (sometimes not so random) risk of having to strip off all
    my clothes, including undergarments — just in the way this
    middle-school girl was forced to strip — and bend over and cough. As
    a survivor of sexual abuse, these strip searches were particularly
    traumatic. Given the percentage of incarcerated women who are also
    survivors of abuse, these strip searches were traumatic for most
    women. Some guards used their power punitively. Such searches can
    re-traumatize survivors, and even for women and girls on the outside,
    sexual abuse and assault are far too common.

    Until this recent successful appeal, school officials, supported by
    not one but two previous sets of judges, had (almost) gotten away with
    an unfathomable violation. In their zeal to completely eliminate
    student access to all drugs, in what will forever remain a failed
    endeavor (we can’t keep drugs out of prisons, so how can we keep them
    out of schools?) that neither teaches our children about fact-based
    decision-making nor builds trusting relationships with them, those
    fighting the drug war have unapologetically crossed a very serious
    line. There is no moral defense for their reprehensible actions. They
    were not protecting the safety of students. What are we doing to our
    students by treating them in such a manner? Why are we doing things to
    13-year-old girls that appear to be preparing them for prison?

    While the Arizona assistant principal might be exposed to a civil
    liability, it’s not nearly enough. Everyone who stood by should be
    fired for the unconscionable abuse of this student. Everyone who
    participated in this horrific violation — including the nurse and the
    secretary — deserves nothing short of being expelled from our public
    schools immediately. They should be nowhere near our children, ever —
    let alone responsible for their protection.

    Thanks to the drug war, middle-school administrators are behaving like
    prison guards — and that scares the hell out of me. It horrifies me
    that an assistant principal, his administrative assistant, a nurse,
    five of the 11 judges in this case and two previous sets of judges all
    thought this act was acceptable.

    Is no one — not even 13-year-old young women and their bodies — safe
    from drug war zealots?

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

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

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #379 California’s Medicinal Marijuana In The News

    Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008
    Subject: #379 California’s Medicinal Marijuana In The News

    CALIFORNIA’S MEDICINAL MARIJUANA IN THE NEWS

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #379 – Saturday, 2 August 2008

    Today the Los Angeles Times printed a column about the latest Drug
    Enforcement Administration raid of an area medicinal marijuana
    dispensary. This follows Friday’s article about the raid MAP posted at
    http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08.n745.a02.html

    The country’s fourth largest circulation newspaper is always a worthy
    target for letters to the editor. The newspaper provides instructions
    for writing letters to the editor at http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo

    The past week has also see three California Court of Appeals decisions
    that impact California’s medicinal marijuana laws. Newspaper reports
    have focused on various aspects of the decisions. The decisions are on
    line at

    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B196483.PDF

    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/D050333.PDF

    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C056881.PDF

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

    Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/bc7El3Yo

    Pubdate: Sat, 2 Aug 2008
    Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
    Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
    Author: Sandy Banks

    POT DISPENSARY RAIDS PUT TACTICS IN QUESTION

    I don’t know what the flak-jacketed federal agents expected to find
    during their commando-style raid Thursday on the Organica Collective,
    a pot dispensary with such a mellow vibe that its business card
    features a dove and a cross, and a promise to provide “the best
    quality, price and selection of medical marijuana on the Westside.”

    Drug Enforcement Administration agents cut open a safe and hauled off
    boxes of records, a pair of flat screen monitors listing available
    varieties of weed, and the contents of an ATM. The place was left a
    mess, with receipts dumped on the floor and empty bottles and vials
    scattered around.

    And they frightened the customers and employees by storming in “in
    full combat gear,” customer Clyde Carey told Times reporter Tami
    Abdollah, “like literally an episode of ’24’ when they bust in on a
    terrorist cell.”

    One employee was so angry when he was uncuffed after four hours, he
    likened the raid to being “robbed by a bunch of thugs downtown.” Then
    he scrounged around and found a bud of marijuana the agents had
    missed, stuffed it in a bong, took a puff and calmed down.

    The feds didn’t say what made them target Organica, a warehouse
    operation on a industrial stretch of Washington Boulevard, not far
    from Venice Beach and across the street from Starbucks, the supplier
    of choice for caffeine addicts. DEA spokeswoman Sarah Pullen told me
    Friday that she can’t comment because the warrant is under seal.

    Maybe it was the 74 strains of marijuana Organica lists for sale on
    the giant flat screens in its lobby. Or the bongs scattered around its
    “smoking lounge,” where customers can test the product. Or the outdoor
    garden, where a few marijuana seedlings seem to have taken root among
    the vegetables. Or that the business has been growing so fast, dozens
    of new “patients” sign up each week.

    Any of those would be red flags to me.

    “I’m not sure what to make of it all right now,” Organica employee
    Abby Boles told me on Friday by phone from Venice Beach. The
    dispensary reopened for business, she said, but she was taking a day
    off to recover.

    Boles, 23, has worked at Organica for eight months. She was at the
    counter Thursday weighing out a gram of Purple Kush for a customer
    when the raid began.

    “It’s been like a hidden sanctuary in the chaos of Los Angeles,” she
    said. But now, “I’m leaning toward liking it less.”

    She doesn’t know whether neighbors or others complained about the shop
    or its operations.

    “We haven’t had any robberies or crime problems,” she said. “Our
    clientele is not sketchy people. . . . It’s cancer patients, hippie
    types, people you wouldn’t expect to go in there. Business sort of
    people. Our security guard isn’t even armed!”

    She said the agents confiscated 50 pounds of marijuana.

    “That’s $100,000 of inventory,” she said.

    Boles asked what I thought was a logical question: Why, when medical
    marijuana distribution is legal in California, did federal agents
    burst in “and just take all of our stuff?”

    It’s simple: Even though Californians voted to make marijuana
    available to people with medical needs, federal law still makes it a
    crime to grow, sell or smoke the weed. Two appellate court decisions
    in California said federal laws don’t take priority, but that hasn’t
    stopped federal authorities.

    I’m sure there are some dispensaries that ought to be shut down. They
    have made a cash cow out of the “compassionate use” decree and ignored
    rules aimed at protecting teens. Last year, federal officials indicted
    a dispensary owner who reportedly made more than $1.7 million in
    marijuana sales a month, and a doctor accused of writing
    recommendations for minors.

    The feds aren’t going after patients or employees, but trying to put
    the squeeze on growers and the owners of dispensaries, to blunt the
    growth of California’s burgeoning marijuana industry.

    I think an orderly crackdown is overdue. I’ve visited several
    dispensaries and have seen too many healthy-looking young people go in
    and out. But I’ve also heard from too many seriously ill patients who
    lost safe sources of pain relief when their dispensaries were shut
    down indiscriminately.

    Compassion aside, is that any way to treat an industry that generates
    $100 million in tax revenue each year, in a state so broke that some
    government workers now make minimum wage?

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

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

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #378 Insite Works

    Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008
    Subject: #378 Insite Works

    INSITE WORKS

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #378 – Monday, 28 July 2008

    Today Canada’s second largest national newspaper reprinted from the
    Canadian version of Reader’s Digest two opposing viewpoints about
    Insite, Canada’s supervised injection site.

    The future of Insite is in doubt. Your letters to the editor will help
    keep the issue in front of the Canadian public. The National Post has
    printed letters as long as 250 words. The average printed letter is
    about 135 words in length.

    Canadians may also wish to contact their MP to express their
    views.

    You may read much more about the Insite debate here
    http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Insite

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

    Contact: [email protected]

    Pubdate: Mon, 28 Jul 2008
    Source: National Post (Canada)
    Copyright: 2008 The Reader’s Digest Canada Magazines Limited.
    Reprinted by permission from the August 2008 issue of Reader’s Digest.
    Author: Anne Mullens

    INSITE WORKS

    By Giving Drug Addicts a Sterile Syringe and a Warm Place to Shoot Up,
    Are We Saving Lives or Condoning Substance Abuse?

    To illuminate the double standard surrounding “harm reduction,” Dr.
    Stephen Hwang, a medical researcher and associate professor of
    medicine at the University of Toronto, offers the following scenario:

    Suppose that an innovative but controversial intervention is launched
    to reduce complications of Type 2 Diabetes, and 7,000 subjects take
    part in a trial. Researchers, funded by Health Canada to study the
    intervention’s effectiveness, find that while not curing diabetes, the
    intervention improves health, reduces infections and prevents
    premature deaths — with no adverse effects. The findings are
    published in the world’s leading medical journals.

    But the federal government deems the findings inconclusive and says
    the only acceptable therapies for diabetes are those that either
    prevent or cure the condition — even though no such therapies exist.
    Columnists, community leaders and national organizations expound that
    the intervention “enables” bad lifestyle choices, and that without the
    dire complications of diabetes, people with the condition would eat
    more, exercise less and become increasingly obese. And those who
    didn’t have diabetes would forgo healthy diets and exercise because
    they’d no longer fear the disease. The government considers banning
    the intervention.

    Sound far-fetched? Not, says Hwang, if you replace the word diabetes
    with drug addiction, and the word intervention with Insite, the
    safe-injection site pilot project that began in Vancouver’s Downtown
    Eastside in 2003. Insite has allowed addicts to inject drugs under
    secure, clean conditions, and all under the supervision of a nurse.

    “I wanted people to see how hypocritical we are in the way that we
    treat two chronic conditions that have a lot of associated harms,”
    says Hwang. A specialist in inner-city medicine, he wrote the diabetes
    scenario for the peer-reviewed online journal Open Medicine, arguing
    that when it comes to drug abuse, ideology trumps science in a way
    that would not be tolerated with other chronic health conditions.
    Hwang’s treatise was endorsed by more than 130 prominent Canadian
    scientists, doctors and public-health professionals.

    Think there’s a huge difference between drug addiction and diabetes?
    There isn’t, says Hwang: Both arise through a complex mix of
    predisposed genetic and environmental factors — triggered by
    lifestyle choices, behaviour and bad luck — that result in disorders
    of body chemistry. Both have potentially severe complications, such
    as infections or premature death, that can be reduced with good
    medical care. Just as some addicts can kick their addictions, some
    people with diabetes, through weight loss, gastric bypass surgery or
    extreme exercise, can eliminate their symptoms and their need for
    medication — though drug-free addicts and insulin-free diabetics
    both risk relapse. Yet do we refuse to treat the health complications
    of people with diabetes who cannot wean themselves off medication? Never.

    “A heroin addict needs heroin as much as a diabetic needs insulin,”
    says Norm Stamper, a former chief of the Seattle police department.
    “That need is real. It is physiological.” After witnessing the failure
    of the United States’ strict “war on drugs” to stem narcotic use and
    its associated problems, Stamper is now a leading advocate of
    safe-injection sites, methadone-treatment, needle-exchange and other
    harm reduction programs that aim to refocus efforts from policing to
    medical management.

    Here’s what more than 20 studies –all by independent evaluators,
    published in prominent journals — have found: Insite has reduced
    instances of needle sharing and drug injecting in public places, and
    there has been a decrease in the amount of injection related litter.
    In the Insite neighbourhood, there have been no increases in drug
    trafficking or assaults, and instances of vehicle break-ins and car
    theft have decreased. Despite almost 900 overdose events at Insite —
    a common hazard of drug use — no overdose deaths have occurred at the
    facility, compared with an average of 60 a year in Metro Vancouver.
    Additionally, since Insite began, the number of drug addicts who have
    entered detox programs, addiction counselling and drug-addiction
    treatment has increased by over 30%.

    Dr. Perry Kendall, the B. C. Health Officer, says opposition to Insite
    is not based on evidence of effectiveness but on the notion that drug
    addicts have made bad choices and must change or live with their fate.
    “The belief,” he says, “is that if health providers remove or lessen
    the harms of addicts’ behaviour, addicts won’t hit bottom and
    therefore won’t have the motivation to go clean.”

    “The issue is not whether the addict would be better off without his
    addiction–of course he would–but whether we are going to abandon
    him to illness or death if he is unable to give it up,” says Dr.
    Gabor Mate, who has served as staff physician at Insite and is the
    author of In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with
    Addiction. Mate’s book is a must-read for those who reject harm
    reduction as “coddling” drug addicts or who believe “Just Say No” is
    a realistic policy. In his book, Mate shows his patients’ struggles
    and demons, how they became addicts and how they found a way out. The
    book illustrates a central premise of HR: accepting those with drug
    addictions and trying to move them along the continuum to better
    health — keeping them alive and well long enough to have a chance to
    quit later.

    Some who were once adamantly against Insite have come to support it.
    One such person is George Chow, former president of the Chinese
    Benevolent Association of Vancouver. Chow successfully ran for city
    councillor on a ticket of rejecting Insite — the centre was on China
    town’s doorstep — gathering some 18,000 signatures from the Chinese
    community. Yet, after Insite had been in operation for three years, he
    changed his mind. “I am keenly aware of the debate surrounding
    [Insite]. But I am pleased to say that the initial fears of the
    community — a potential increase in crime and public disorder — have
    not materialized,” Chow wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Stephen
    Harper in the fall of 2007.

    If only more of us were willing to change our positions based on
    evidence, we might finally begin to make progress against this
    terrible affliction called drug addiction.

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

    Contact: [email protected]

    Pubdate: Mon, 28 Jul 2008
    Source: National Post (Canada)
    Copyright: 2008 The Reader’s Digest Canada Magazines Limited.
    Reprinted by permission from the August 2008 issue of Reader’s Digest.
    Author: Barbara Kay

    THE SOLUTION IS ABSTINENCE

    By Giving Drug Addicts a Sterile Syringe and a Warm Place to Shoot Up,
    Are We Saving Lives or Condoning Substance Abuse?

    Prevention, treatment, enforcement: These traditional policies were
    announced in 2007 as the pillars that would uphold Canada’s National
    Anti-drug Strategy. Pointedly excluded from the government’s plan is
    the continued reliance on harm resistance, the philosophical darling
    of liberal stakeholders in addiction management. Designed as a fourth
    pillar to focus on public health and order rather than usage
    reduction, harm reduction is defensible as a handmaid to a balanced
    portfolio of approaches, supplementing treatment and prevention. But
    in Vancouver, it has emerged in the last decade as a free-standing
    pillar, now teetering under an unwieldy social burden it cannot sustain.

    Harm reduction’s social laboratory is the municipal quagmire of
    Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. Here, the mentally ill, the culturally
    uprooted and the psychologically dysfunctional appease their demons in
    a squalid cycle of illicit-drug torpor and crime. Drug consumption is
    high — nearly a third of the 16,000 residents are addicts — but
    evidence of faith in the drug abuser’s power to reclaim his portion of
    the human estate is low. Funding allocations approved by a series of
    mayors speak volumes about priorities. Money abounds for needles,
    crack-pipe kits and opiate-giveaway trials, but extended waiting lists
    for long-term rehabilitation centres attest to a scarcity of available
    beds.

    Insite — the first public facility in North America where addicts can
    legally inject illicit drugs under professional supervision — started
    up in 2003. In keeping with harm reduction’s non-judgemental ideology,
    Insite’s detox resources were made available only to those who asked
    for them. It’s just as well that few have done so, since there are
    only 12 detox beds for several hundred daily inject ors. And because
    they wouldn’t have been using Insite, the neighbourhood’s 5,000
    crack-smoking addicts have been denied even that faint hope of
    breaking the vicious cycle.

    Harm reduction-friendly researchers claim success for Insite. But
    observers of addicts in crisis demur: Dr. Stan de Vlaming, former head
    of addiction services at Vancouver’s St. Paul’s Hospital– the main
    provider of hospital services to Downtown Eastside residents — says,
    “The people who refer to Insite as a ‘safe injection site’ are
    perpetuating a dangerous misunderstanding. There is nothing safe about
    repeated daily injections that bypass a person’s normal defence
    systems.” He notes that from 2002 — one year prior to Insite’s
    inauguration — to 2005, the number of hospital days utilized for
    infectious complications directly attributable to injecting had
    escalated from 16,042 to 18,848. Moreover, after evaluating the
    most-cited harm reduction studies, Garth Davies, assistant professor
    at Simon Fraser University’s School of Criminology, also was
    unconvinced. In his article A Critical Evaluation of the Effects of
    Safe Injection Facilities, published in the Journal of Global Drug
    Policy and Practice, Davies concluded that “all claims regarding the
    benefits of harm reduction remain open to question.”

    Many people who find themselves up close and personal with addicts
    –law enforcers, judges, treatment professionals, ministering
    volunteers — see the human wreckage that human wreckage perpetuates.
    Retired Vancouver policeman Al Arsenault patrolled the “chemical
    gulag” of the Downtown Eastside for more than half of his 27 years on
    the job. He calls Insite — and the needle-exchange program, in
    particular –an “abject and utter failure.” If injectors were
    responsible enough to return needles, he observes, they wouldn’t be in
    the Downtown Eastside. Ironically, the program has augmented the
    presence of used needles in the area. Arsenault wryly sums up the
    experiment: “The rich get treatment, the poor get harm reduction.”

    Pastor Gloria Kieler concurs. She has ministered to addicts since 1984
    and deplores “the total disregard for those addicted persons
    desperately wanting to escape the Downtown Eastside.” Rehabilitation
    is the solution she tirelessly urges, acknowledging facilities can’t
    spring up where there is no moral impetus to build them.

    Advocates of harm reduction continue to push the drug-normalization
    envelope. Through a volunteer-based research trial for addicts —
    overseen by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, among other
    agencies — chronic addiction substitution treatment is poised to
    offer addicts prescriptions-on-demand for the consumption of legal
    opiates such as Dilaudid (hydromorphone hydrochloride) — virtually a
    heroin clone. And selected hard-drug users who “do not benefit from
    methadone maintenance therapy” — as explained on the Canadian
    Institutes of Health Research Web page on this topic — have
    participated in the North American Opiate Medication Initiative, where
    they were given heroin daily, setting the bar for the addicts’ moral
    agency even lower.

    Harm reduction proponents seem to view addiction as an incurable
    disease — and addicts as victims not only unaccountable for, but
    entitled to, their “lifestyles.” Do militants truly believe that the
    war on drugs is lost, and that containment of crime and of
    needle-based Hepatitis C, HIV and AIDS is the best society can hope
    for?

    Harm reduction is therefore the opposite pole to the traditional
    abstinence model, which insists that, while the war against the dark
    side of human nature can never be won completely, partial victory is
    preferable to surrender. Abstinence initiatives have proven to be
    effective over the long term. A consistent and persistent message that
    cigarettes are unhealthy and would not be socially tolerated cut the
    number of youth experimenting with tobacco by half between 1994 and
    2004. And the anti-drunk driving campaign has cut the incidence of
    drunk driving by 65% since 1981.

    Successfully recovered addicts are harm reduction’s harshest critics.
    Saskatchewan MLA Serge Le-Clerc reversed a lifetime of drug-related
    dysfunction and crime following an inspirational encounter with a
    prison Samaritan. LeClerc earned two university degrees while behind
    bars and has become a passionate crusader for preventive drug
    education in schools. He is contemptuous of harm reduction, under
    whose rubric he would still be an addict. “The disease model negates
    choice, but there is no one who is beyond redemption,” he says. In
    fact, according to the Portage Rehabilitation Centre in Elora, Ont.,
    at six months following discharge from their facility, there’s a
    nearly 86% decrease in drug use among adolescents and a 92% decrease
    for young adults.

    Ironically, as Vancouver’s infatuation with harm reduction waxes, some
    critics are concluding that the program was a costly mistake.
    Amsterdam, one of harm reduction’s earliest adopters, is mired in
    squalor from escalating usage and attendant drug-related evils. Dozens
    of European cities, including Athens, Stockholm and Oslo, have signed
    a declaration against drugs — including using safe-injection sites as
    a surreptitious way to try to legalize drugs. And all but renouncing
    harm reduction outright, Sweden instituted compulsory drug treatment
    in a limited number of cases and criminalized the purchase of sex. The
    country now boasts some of Europe’s lowest drug-related rates of
    crime, disease and social problems.

    We cannot take pride in a society that chooses to accompany an addict
    to the abyss; only in a society that pulls him back from it. True
    compassion is expressed through prevention and treatment. It is time
    to end the false compassion of harm reduction.

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

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

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #377 DEA Agent Does Dallas Wrong

    Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008
    Subject: #377 DEA Agent Does Dallas Wrong

    DEA AGENT DOES DALLAS WRONG

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #377 – Tuesday, 22 July 2008

    This morning the special agent in charge of the Dallas Field Division
    of the Drug Enforcement Administration, James Capra, delivered the
    polemic below to the over a million readers of the Dallas Morning News.

    The polemic is a response to the OPED ‘War on Drugs Undermines the
    Safety of Our Children’ http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n694/a07.html

    The Dallas Morning News suggests that letters to the editor be under
    200 words. The average published letter is 165 words.

    Every letter sent to the newspaper is important. Even letters that are
    not printed send a message to the Dallas Morning News editorial board.

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

    Contact: http://www.dallasnews.com/cgi-bin/lettertoed.cgi

    Pubdate: Tue, 22 Jul 2008
    Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)
    Copyright: 2008 The Dallas Morning News, Inc.
    Author: James Capra

    LEGALIZING POT IN NO WAY MAKES US SAFER

    The column last week by the local CEO of Mothers Against Teen Violence
    once again highlights the misguided understanding and myths about
    marijuana legalization. Joy Strickland is on point when she writes,
    “every child deserves a safe and supportive home, school and
    community.” But how does decriminalizing marijuana ensure that this
    will happen?

    There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that legalization or
    decriminalization would reduce crime in our communities. However,
    ample evidence suggests that such action would result in more users
    and health costs.

    Many advocates of decriminalization or legalization consistently point
    to The Netherlands and other European nations as an effective model
    for nirvana-like drug control. But these statements border on fantasy.
    Officials in The Netherlands blame the rise in crime in the past
    several years on their lax drug policy. Addicts are blamed for 80
    percent of all property crime, and Amsterdam’s burglary rate a few
    years ago was twice the rate of Newark, N.J.

    The Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention stated that marijuana
    use among students increased 250 percent in eight years. Most Dutch
    towns have adopted a zero-tolerance policy toward coffee shops that
    sell marijuana due to growing opposition to the idea that it is a
    relatively innocent soft drug. The Dutch have instituted new policies
    requiring 27 coffee shops in Rotterdam that sell marijuana within 200
    meters of schools to close down by 2009.

    The other myth intimated by Ms. Strickland is that the prisons are
    filled with drug users, in particular, marijuana users. This is an
    illusion that has been perpetuated by drug advocacy groups seeking to
    relax or abolish our marijuana laws.

    The vast majority of inmates in state and federal prison for marijuana
    offenses have been found guilty of much more than simple possession.
    Some were convicted for drug trafficking and some for marijuana
    possession along with one or more other offenses. Also never mentioned
    is that many of those serving time for marijuana have plea-bargained
    down to possession in order to avoid prosecution on much more serious
    charges. Most criminals are repeat offenders with a lengthy history of
    other crimes.

    For Ms. Strickland to suggest that she “is not aware of one single
    death directly caused by marijuana” or that it “is irrational to lock
    up an individual because of what he chooses to put into to his own
    body” as justification to decriminalize is disturbing logic. Ongoing
    scientific research continues to prove the harmful effects of
    marijuana on the body. More young people seek treatment for marijuana
    abuse than for any other substance.

    In addition, many serious motor vehicle accidents and fatalities have
    occurred where the drivers have been charged with being under the
    influence of marijuana.

    The United States has had tremendous success in our fight against drug
    use and abuse:

    . According to the most recent survey, 860,000 fewer teenagers are
    using illicit drugs now than in 2001 a 24 percent decline.

    . Between 2001 and 2007, marijuana use by teens dropped by 25 percent.
    Methamphetamine use by teens plummeted 64 percent. The current use of
    Ecstasy has been slashed by 54 percent.

    . Overall, drug use among workers is at its lowest levels in 19 years.
    Since 1988, positive work place drug tests have fallen by 72 percent,
    from 13.6 percent in 1988 to 3.8 percent in 2007.

    We would do well to continue our comprehensive drug enforcement
    strategy, to ensure that the next generation of Americans are free
    from the trappings of drug use and abuse and that they are afforded
    the blessings of liberty that are rightfully theirs. Legalizing or
    decriminalizing marijuana would hamper this progress and cause great
    harm to our schools and neighborhood communities.

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

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

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #376 Legalization In Disguise

    Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008
    Subject: #376 Legalization In Disguise

    LEGALIZATION IN DISGUISE

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #376 – Saturday, 19 July 2008

    The Globe and Mail is the leading Canadian national newspaper –
    available everywhere in Canada. With a circulation of about two
    million copies the newspaper reaches an audience which is about seven
    times larger as a share of the population than that of the largest
    United States newspaper, USA Today.

    Today the Globe and Mail printed the fourth column, below, of a series
    started last Saturday authored by columnist Margaret Wente.

    The first column of the series, titled ‘They’re Sick of Watching
    People Die’ is at www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n668/a05.html

    The second ‘We Still Await the Scientific Proof of Harm Reduction’s
    Success’ www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n683/a02.html

    The third ‘Europe’s Approach to Drugs Is More Enlightened … It’s
    Tougher’ www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v08/n687/a03.html

    Letters to the editor should address either the column below or the
    entire series.

    Letters published by the Globe and Mail are short and pointed. The
    average printed letter is about 100 words. Printed letters that exceed
    200 words are very rare.

    Every letter sent to the newspaper is important. Even letters that are
    not printed send a message to the Globe and Mail editorial board.

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

    Contact: [email protected]

    Pubdate: Sat, 19 Jul 2008
    Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
    Copyright: 2008 The Globe and Mail Company
    Author: Margaret Wente

    LEGALIZATION IN DISGUISE

    VANCOUVER – Billy Weselowski has seen it all, and he hates what he
    sees on Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside. “You can’t go a block without a
    bicycle pulling up and giving you all the syringes you want,” he
    growls. Mr. Weselowski knows this world all too well. He grew up here.
    His childhood was a nightmare of violence and abuse. At 13, he blacked
    out from booze for the first time, and quickly wound up on the
    streets. He injected, snorted, stole, pimped women, stabbed men and
    became an accomplished felon. He was the hardest of the hard core.

    Today, he runs rehab programs for drug addicts that borrow from the
    tough-love model of AA. He has successfully treated thousands of
    people, using an approach that emphasizes structure, personal
    responsibility and abstinence.

    But this approach to addiction is deeply out of fashion. The experts
    who make drug policy, allocate public money, dispense research funds,
    advise politicians and push for reform aren’t interested in hearing
    from people like him. Instead, they’re interested in “harm reduction”
    – which, among other things, means giving people all the syringes they
    want.

    In Mr. Weselowski’s view, harm reduction is a farce. “They’re killing
    people by the truckload,” he says.

    Canada’s official drug policy is known as the Four Pillars approach:
    prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. In practice,
    prevention and treatment have been neglected, while harm-reduction
    measures have steadily gained ground. Free needle and methadone
    programs are now widespread. (The term “needle exchange” is obsolete;
    needles are now handed out by the boxful.) Hundreds of addicts a day
    visit Vancouver’s supervised injection site, which has become ground
    zero in an angry war of words.

    Yet, harm reduction remains the orthodoxy of the day. “The supervised
    injection site is beyond questioning,” says one Vancouver resident.
    “You are branded unprogressive, unfeeling and everything else ‘un’ if
    you criticize it.”

    David Marsh, the Vancouver region’s medical director for addictions,
    says harm-reduction policies are often misunderstood. “Essentially,
    harm reductions are interventions that help reduce the harms
    associated with drug use, without necessarily requiring that drug use
    be decreased or stopped.” They are a compassionate way to help the
    most addicted and marginalized of them all, to tide them over until
    they’re able and willing to seek help. “It’s part of Canadian
    tradition not to turn our backs to people at their lowest.”

    Harm-reduction advocates now rule the drug policy establishment. They
    dominate Health Canada, addiction research centres, drug policy
    groups, and the public health services of local governments. Nowhere
    is this more true than B.C., where social attitudes toward drugs are
    the most liberal in Canada. Public officials have fought tenaciously
    for the supervised injection site. For some, it represents a crucial
    step toward a far more sweeping form of harm reduction –
    legalization.

    Many harm-reduction advocates believe the real harms are done by drug
    laws, not drugs. Prohibition is impossible, prevention is futile, and
    abstinence is unattainable for many. Therefore, if we stop
    criminalizing drugs, we’ll get rid of most of the drug problems – the
    international gangs, the billions wasted on interdiction and
    enforcement, the crimes committed by addicts who need drug money, the
    imprisonment for petty drug crimes, and so on.

    It’s an attractive theory, at least on paper. Drug-law reformers have
    ideological allies around the world, in think tanks and at major
    universities. Among them is financier George Soros. Because of his
    deep pockets, he’s been called the Daddy Warbucks of drug
    legalization.

    All of this is spicy stuff. Harm reduction is a hot research field
    that attracts major money and offers major career opportunities. At
    Vancouver’s international drug conference last year, no one was
    interested in reactionary things like 12-step programs, rehab or recovery.

    The noisy marijuana lobby provides a lot of fuel for this crusade,
    despite the fact that pot is not the issue. Marijuana use is not what
    creates the lion’s share of crime, public disorder, massive costs to
    the health system, and ruined lives. The real problem is hard drugs,
    especially cocaine.

    Vancouver’s last three mayors have been outspoken advocates for
    legalizing marijuana (and the source of a certain civic pride for
    Vancouverites). The current one, Sam Sullivan, has called for medical
    versions of hard drugs to be available to addicts. The city’s official
    drug policy calls for the federal government to legalize marijuana,
    and also to review its prohibition policies for other illegal drugs.

    Three years ago, B.C.’s public health officers – the same ones who’ve
    cracked down on smoking – released a detailed report calling for
    “government controlled supply” for formerly illegal drugs.
    “Harm-reduction strategies have not been as effective as possible due
    to their implementation within the prohibition model.” It laid out an
    ambitious model for “post-prohibition harm reduction,” where the
    government, guided by its wise public health officers, would supervise
    the production and distribution of legal heroin and crack.

    Cuckoo? Not so much. Top health officials in B.C. already endorse the
    use of medical heroin, and a trial program has just wound up. Some of
    them belong to groups lobbying for legalization, and least one
    influential official is a vocal advocate for the benefits of
    psychedelic drug use.

    Not surprisingly, the group that runs Insite, Vancouver’s
    safe-injection site, stridently opposes current drug laws, as does the
    publicly funded drug users’ lobby, VANDU. These two groups are
    notorious for the noisy lengths they go to in order to silence their
    critics. They’re also good at high-profile PR stunts, such as the
    recent demonstration on Parliament Hill where they planted 868 wooden
    crosses to symbolize the 868 people who overdosed at Insite.

    “Insite was about people dying – friends and neighbours!” spokesman
    Mark Townsend told me in an interview. In fact, the research found
    that Insite averts around one overdose death a year, not 868. When
    asked about this discrepancy, Mr. Townsend brushed it off as irrelevant.

    Given the current government in Ottawa, it’s unlikely that the push
    for legalization will make headway any time soon. There’s also another
    obstacle: the public. Health officials have faced citizen revolts in
    cities where people don’t want free needles passed out in their
    neighbourhoods.

    Sadly, all this theatre has deprived Canadians of a genuine debate
    over drug policy. The question isn’t whether Insite is good or bad.
    The question is what steps we can take that really will reduce the
    harm drugs do.

    Despite the shouting, it’s not too hard to guess where the moderate
    majority stands on drugs. They don’t want people prosecuted for
    smoking a little weed. (After all, plenty of them do it, too.) But
    hard drugs are different. We don’t want to decriminalize them. But we
    also don’t want to punish addicts by throwing them in jail. We want a
    humane drug policy that will help them get better – and if that means
    giving them a choice between rehab or jail, then maybe that’s okay.

    So maybe what we need is not more Insites but more Billy Weselowskis –
    people who can give drug addicts a shot at dignity and a life. Mr.
    Weselowski knows that even hard-core junkies can recover. After all,
    he did. “We help get them connected to a spark of hope inside their
    soul.”

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

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

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #375 Get-Tough Policies Cause More Crime

    Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008
    Subject: #375 Get-Tough Policies Cause More Crime

    GET-TOUGH POLICIES CAUSE MORE CRIME

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #375 – Sunday, 11 July 2008

    The Sunday Detroit Free Press reaches nearly 1.7 million readers
    through-out Michigan.

    Please write a letter to the editor about the editorial below. Letters
    the newspaper prints are short, averaging only 115 words.

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

    Contact: [email protected]

    Pubdate: Sun, 13 Jul 2008
    Source: Detroit Free Press (MI)
    Copyright: 2008 Detroit Free Press

    GET-TOUGH POLICIES CAUSE MORE CRIME, DENY INMATES A FUTURE

    U.S. taxpayers spend at least $60 billion a year on a growing body of
    state and federal prisons, county jails and local lockups. With jail
    and prison populations that have increased nearly eightfold over the
    past 35 years, the United States has become the world’s leading jailer.

    More than one in every 100 U.S. adults is locked up — and 5 million
    more are on probation or parole. At any given time, one in 32 adults
    is under the supervision of the criminal justice system.

    Tough-on-crime policies, not increases in crime, are mostly
    responsible. Mandatory drug sentences, three-strike and so-called
    truth-in-sentencing laws, as well as high recidivism rates, have
    created our Incarceration Nation. Even so, violent crime rates are
    higher than when the nation’s prison building boom started more than
    three decades ago.

    It’s time to reverse failed sentencing policies, restore certain
    social and legal rights for ex-felons, and slow the revolving doors of
    the penal system with better re-entry, education and training
    programs. Fully funding the Second Chance Act, which provides money
    for state and federal re-entry programs, would keep more ex-inmates
    out of prison.

    Criminal justice reforms are critical to the health of the nation’s
    cities, and they must become part of the next president’s urban
    agenda. Most of the more than 600,000 people a year leaving U.S.
    prisons and jails return to disadvantaged urban neighborhoods. They go
    home poorly educated, lacking job skills, and socially and legally
    disabled by felony records.

    Going to prison has become a norm in certain big-city neighborhoods,
    even a rite of passage. While mass incarceration has aimed to reduce
    crime, it has actually increased it by breaking up social networks and
    removing financial and emotional support from families and
    communities. Nearly half of the 2.3 million adults locked up are
    African Americans, who make up less than 13% of the U.S. population. A
    stunning one in nine black males between the ages of 20-34 is behind
    bars.

    Felony convictions, whether or not they carried prison sentences,
    attach lifetime penalities to tens of millions of Americans. Roughly
    1.8 million people in Michigan, for example, have criminal records, or
    nearly one in four adults. Most are felony offenders, with all that
    entails for future prospects. These staggering statistics hold true
    for the nation as a whole, with more than 55 million people with
    criminal records.

    Kansas Sets an Example

    Nationwide, nearly two of three offenders who get out of prison go
    back. Reducing recidivism is one of the best, and least controversial,
    ways to lower the prison population. With bipartisan support, many
    states are developing programs to help released inmates find jobs,
    housing and treatment. Such efforts have helped Kansas become one of
    the few states to lower prison populations, from a high of 9,181 in
    2004 to 8,671 today.

    Low-risk offenders in Kansas who violate parole conditions are no
    longer automatically sent back to prison. Instead, many are supervised
    and assisted in the community at a fraction of the cost.

    Carlis Rogers, 23, was released in December, after serving 2 1/2 years
    on a drug possession charge. During a traffic stop in January, a
    police officer discovered a small amount of cocaine in the glove
    compartment of a car he was driving but didn’t own. Rogers said he
    didn’t know the drugs were there, but the incident would have, five
    years ago, resulted in revocation.

    Instead, Rogers was assigned in February to a day reporting center in
    Wichita, one of two such programs in Kansas run under contract by
    Colorado-based BI Inc. The centers, supervising 140 offenders at a
    time, are part of a successful effort by the Kansas Department of
    Corrections to keep low-risk offenders in the community, despite
    parole violations.

    Parolees like Rogers are assigned to the reporting centers for six to
    nine months. The intense supervision includes curfews, electronic GPS
    monitoring, mandatory reporting three to six days a week, random drug
    tests, community service projects, group therapy sessions, and help
    with substance abuse, mental health and employment problems. Most
    offenders also work or attend school full-time.

    “If you come into this with an open mind, you can really get something
    out of it,” Rogers said after a group session on critical thinking.

    The center helped Rogers get enrolled in a local community college and
    line up financial aid. He’s taking a 12-week aero structure technician
    course in sheet metal work. After he earns a certificate this month,
    he’ll make about $15 an hour in Wichita’s thriving aircraft industry.

    Even more important, Rogers is learning to think about his decisions.
    “I can choose to do something to go back to prison or not,” he said.

    New Ways of Thinking

    In Kansas, more offenders are choosing to stay out of
    prison.

    Five years ago, an average of 203 parolees were sent back to prison
    each month. By last year, the number dropped to 103 a month — and the
    improvement was not due to lax enforcement. The number of absconders
    and parolees with convictions for new crimes has also dropped. “People
    posing significant risk to the community still go back to prison,”
    said Kent Sisson, a regional parole director. “But we think that,
    historically, a lot of folks we sent back to prison weren’t posing
    that kind of risk.”

    Kansas also started re-entry programs two years ago that helped reduce
    recidivism from 60% to less than 45%. The number of parolees going
    back to prison for parole violations has dropped from 3,100 in 2000 to
    less than 1,300 last year.

    Twelve to 18 months before they’re released, high-risk inmates meet
    with employers, housing providers, social service agencies and medical
    providers. They also meet with cognitive specialists that emphasize
    personal responsibility and self-control.

    The aim is to help inmates on their way out develop new ways of
    thinking, as well as line up housing, social services, education and
    jobs.

    Kansas has hired a business developer to inform employers about the
    advantages of hiring ex-offenders, including federal tax credits. It
    also has drug and alcohol specialists who help assess substance abuse
    problems and coordinate community treatment, and a housing specialist
    to work with landlords who might not otherwise rent to parolees. Too
    often, parolees have been virtually forced to return to housing that
    puts them near criminal activity.

    All parole officers are now trained in so-called motivational
    interviewing techniques that help them get inmates to think through
    problems, develop goals and make better choices. A few parole officers
    derisively called the change “hug a thug,” but most understand that
    the new approach works.

    The department has set up accountability panels made up of corrections
    staff and community members, including ex-inmates, who meet with
    offenders upon release and during parole. The panel provides tough
    talk, when needed, but also celebrates successes.

    “That’s something corrections isn’t known for,” said Sally Frey, a
    Kansas re-entry director. “But as human beings, we’re motivated more
    by reward than punishment.”

    Private Industry Helps

    Private industry programs in Kansas also better prepare inmates for
    freedom, easing budget problems that would otherwise increase idleness
    and jeopardize vocational programs in the state’s eight prisons, said
    Rodney Crawford, director of Kansas Correctional Industries.

    Nearly 30 companies employ more than 800 inmates — 530 of them in
    leased shops and factories inside prisons. Most inmates in private
    industry programs make prevailing wages of up to $12 an hour, and all
    make at least the federal minimum wage of $5.85 an hour. That compares
    to other prison jobs that pay as little as 40 cents a day, and no more
    than 60 cents an hour.

    Industry jobs inside Kansas prisons include embroidering sportswear,
    cut-and-sew leather products and cabinet manufacturing.

    The state deducts 25% of the wages for room and board and 5% for
    restitution. Another 10% is set aside for a mandatory savings account.
    Inmates often leave prison with more than $10,000, which enables them
    to secure housing and get a solid start.

    For some inmates, private industry jobs start careers.

    Scott Whiteman, now 36, started working as a welder at Henke
    Manufacturing in Leavenworth eight years ago as a minimum-security
    inmate, making snow removal equipment for minimum wage.

    When he finished a seven-year stretch for aggravated robbery in 2003,
    Whiteman continued working at Henke as a welder, roughly doubling his
    pay. He was recently promoted to supervisor over 20 welders, doubling
    his pay again.

    “Working and keeping up your child support make you feel responsible,”
    he said. “When you get out, you want to keep that feeling. The only
    way to do it is to keep working.”

    For other offenders like Carl Mitchell, 41, with long prison sentences
    in front of them, working provides a way to pay for college courses,
    support families and sharpen job skills. Convicted of rape, Mitchell
    might not get out before 2029.

    “This is more like a normal life and it motivates you to be
    responsible,” said Mitchell, who earns $6.12 an hour as a finisher in
    a garment embroidery and print screen shop run by Impact Design Inc.
    The company employs more than 300 inmates at Lansing Correctional Facility.

    Tight Budgets Force Solutions

    Mass incarceration has created economic and human costs the nation can
    no longer afford. Michigan spends $2 billion a year on corrections, or
    20% of its general fund. It is one of four states spending more on
    corrections than higher education.

    Community supervision and treatment, allowing offenders to continue to
    support their families, work best for many low-risk and drug offenders
    and cost a fraction of the $30,000 a year each prison inmate costs.
    Health care costs for some inmates can total hundreds of thousands of
    dollars. Severely sick and dying inmates who pose no risk should be
    released.

    Mandatory sentencing policies, including three strikes laws, have
    imposed unreasonably harsh sentences on many nonviolent offenders and
    ought to be repealed, as should disparities between crack and powder
    cocaine sentencing. States and cities must remove some of the barriers
    to employment, housing and education faced by the tens of millions of
    people with felony convictions. The good news is that budget pressures
    are forcing other states, including Michigan, to take steps to control
    their prison populations.

    Unacceptably high incarceration rates tear at the nation’s social
    fabric and divert money from education, health care, transportation
    and other needs. It’s time to build a more rational, cost-effective
    and humane criminal justice system.

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

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

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.

  • Focus Alerts

    #374 Too Many Prisoners

    Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008
    Subject: #374 Too Many Prisoners

    TOO MANY PRISONERS

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

    DrugSense FOCUS Alert #374 – Friday, 11 July 2008

    Washington Post editorials are read by a large majority of federal
    elected officials and their staff who work inside the D.C. beltway.

    Please write a letter to the editor about the editorial below. The
    average published letter the newspaper prints is about 200 words.
    About one in ten letters printed is in the 300 word range.

    Even if your letter is not printed, every letter sent sends a signal
    to the Washington Post editorial board that you think this issue is
    important.

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

    Contact: [email protected]

    Pubdate: Fri, 11 Jul 2008
    Source: Washington Post (DC)
    Page: A16
    Copyright: 2008 The Washington Post Company

    TOO MANY PRISONERS

    States Should Stop Warehousing Nonviolent Offenders.

    TWO REPORTS by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics
    show that the rate of growth in the prison and jail populations of the
    United States has slowed slightly but that the country still has the
    dubious distinction of being the largest jailer in the world. As of
    June 30, 2007, the country held roughly 2.3 million people behind
    bars, either in local or state jails or in federal prisons.

    The cost of housing and caring for inmates has been astronomical, an
    estimated $55 billion annual expense for taxpayers, according to the
    Pew Center on the States. The bloated number of inmates has been
    particularly painful for states, some of which have been forced to cut
    spending for higher education to fund corrections programs. As a
    result, California is considering an overhaul of its prison policies,
    as are Kentucky, Mississippi, Rhode Island and South Carolina.

    This fiscal crisis should be a wake-up call for all states. Tough
    sentences for murder, rape and the like are unquestionably necessary
    and contributed to a drop in such crimes over the past two decades.
    But prisons should be focused on holding the most dangerous criminals
    rather than on warehousing nonviolent, first-time offenders.

    States should consider, as New Jersey is, redirecting nonviolent,
    first-time drug offenders to rehabilitation programs. Like California,
    states should also debate early release for the most well-behaved
    inmates who have no violence in their records — an approach that
    provides an incentive for good behavior. And states should consider
    reducing harsh penalties for nonviolent drug offenses. Some states are
    considering eliminating parole and thus saving the cost of employing
    agents to provide the supervision. They should be careful; oversight
    of recently released prisoners can be critical in keeping them on track.

    On a national level, Congress should continue to press ahead with
    legislation to reduce the sentencing disparity between convictions for
    crack and powder cocaine; the guidelines call for a person convicted
    of possessing five grams of crack cocaine to serve the same mandatory
    minimum sentence as someone caught with 500 grams of powder cocaine.
    The disparity has, among other things, led to a disproportionate
    number of African Americans behind bars for possession of relatively
    small quantities of cocaine. Modest reductions in the federal
    sentencing guidelines for crack have brought some balance to the
    penalties, but more needs to be done.

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

    Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:

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

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

    PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER

    Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent
    letter list ( [email protected] ) if you are subscribed, or by
    emailing a copy to [email protected] if you are not subscribed. Your
    letter will then be forwarded to the list so others may learn from
    your efforts.

    Subscribing to the Sent LTE list ( [email protected] ) will help you
    to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or
    approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing
    efforts.

    To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form

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

    Prepared by: The MAP Media Activism Team www.mapinc.org/resource

    =.