Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

COMPASSION, YES!   CRUDE, DANGEROUS DRUGS, NO!
By: Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP
Chairman, The International Drug Strategy Institute

It is a great stretch of the imagination to consider marijuana or other street drugs safe and effective enough to be called medicines.  Crude marijuana is unreliable in its absorption, and the dose delivered is unpredictable.  The major active ingredient, THC, is already available as an oral prescribable medication (Marinol), and the delivery route can be reformulated as a suppository or inhaler.  Numerous safe and effective medications preclude the need for marijuana or THC.  Suggesting that marijuana be smoked as a medicine would be like proposing tobacco use for anxiety and weight control or smoking the foxglove plant to treat heart failure.

Regular marijuana use causes changes in memory, coordination, and concentration.  Its use is associated with trauma and 30 to 60 percent of non-alcohol DUI offenses.  Chronic use, such as that necessary for glaucoma treatment, multiple sclerosis, or chronic pain, is associated with respiratory damage, and higher levels of carbon monoxide and tar than tobacco use.  It is associated with head and neck cancers, bronchitis, chronic cough, abnormalities in lung immunity, and precancerous changes.  It has been recently shown that marijuana causes difficulty with "executive" functioning (a form of prioritization of problems) and persistent memory defects, even after marijuana use ceased.  Marijuana is addictive.

Numerous contaminants have been identified in marijuana smoke, making use by immunosuppressed cancer or AIDS patients very risky.  Marijuana decreases both male and female sex hormones.  The effects on the unborn include decreased birth weight and length, neurologic irritability, and birth defects.  Recent evidence has demonstrated behavioral abnormalities, learning difficulties, and sleep disturbances in three to four year olds after exposure during pregnancy. 

Several authoritative medical groups have struck down the notion that crude marijuana is an acceptable medicine.  The National Institutes of Health reviewed the issue and determined that crude marijuana adds nothing to currently available medicine and creates increased risk to patients.

The American Medical Association determined that smoking was not an appropriate route of administration for a medicine.  A study of 1,500 oncologists demonstrated that only one percent had recommended crude marijuana more than five times per year to patients.  Most recently, the Institute of Medicine determined that any research on the use of smoked THC medically should take place under tight research protocols, and as a last resort, when all other interventions have failed.

An inescapable fact is that the "medical marijuana" movement is driven by those who seek to legalize marijuana for their own use or profit.  Unfortunately, they have recruited well meaning but poorly informed supporters for their cause.  The voters of several states were sold a bill of goods advancing marijuana as a "compassionate" medicine.  Voters were used as pawns in a game of legalization, financed to the tune of several million dollars by individuals or organizations seeking the legalization of marijuana and other illegal drugs.

We must have compassion for the sick and suffering, and we must offer them reliable and quality medicine, not crude substances that threaten their well-being.  Crude marijuana is not medicine. 

QUESTIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF SMOKED MARIJUANA AS A MEDICINE

Drug Watch International and the International Drug Strategy Institute do not support the smoking of marijuana or any other substance for medicinal purposes. Marijuana is a dangerous drug, and its increased potency over the past 15 years has made it a leading cause of drug-related emergency room episodes. The recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report in the United States concluded there is no scientific evidence that smoked marijuana provides any advantage over currently available medicine, including synthetic oral THC (tetrahydrocannabinol-dronabinol). The report only discussed trial use of marijuana for short-term use, less than six months, and did not support use for glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, or other chronic medical conditions.

Several U.S. states and various countries have passed laws that allow for the unproven medicinal use of smoked marijuana for a wide range of alleged medical ailments. Before implementing medicinal marijuana laws in defiance of federal and international drug statutes and treaties, Drug Watch International would ask that the following be considered:

1.  Does the proposed law take into account that before prescribing any addictive medicine, medical ethics require that a determination must be made as to whether the patient considering smoking marijuana cigarettes as medicine is already a user of marijuana or other psychoactive and addictive drugs?

2.  Does the proposed law allow for periodic drug testing of the patient who has been prescribed smoked marijuana and the exclusion of any who are found to be using other illicit drugs? Who will determine who does the drug testing and by what means? Should the prescribing physician be drug tested for the personal use of marijuana?

3.  Are there any criteria for documenting that the patient has had no success using conventional medications to treat his or her ailment?

4.  If the use of smoked marijuana is part of a study, will the monitoring of that use be under the supervision of an investigational review board consistent with guidelines for investigational review boards?

5.  Are there any criteria for careful examination and consistent follow-up of patients who use smoked marijuana as a medical treatment, including pulmonary function testing, evaluation of immune status, and presence of any superinfection, and is there periodic random drug testing for illegal drugs?

6.  Has any attention been given to the standardization of the THC potency content of the marijuana to be considered for medicinal use and whether it is free of microbial contaminants?

7.  Since smoked marijuana contains more carcinogens than tobacco, has careful review been given to which patients should be allowed to use this extremely dangerous drug? And for what length of time?

8.  Since marijuana is a federally controlled substance, has a system been established to track all patients, their physicians, and their source of marijuana as with other controlled substances?

9.  Will the prescribing physician or caregiver be required to be licensed by the state or federal government?

10.  Will physicians be required to demonstrate knowledge, training, or certification in addiction medicine and have demonstrable knowledge of the physiological effects of marijuana, its side effects, and its interaction with other drugs before being able to prescribe it? Will certification, licensing, and other attendant requirements, as applied to other therapeutic drugs, be required?

DRUG PREVENTION IN THE CITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL
By:  Mina Seinfeld de Carakushansky
Drug Prevention Coordinator of the City of Rio de Janeiro

In Brazil, a continental country with 160 million people, only state and federal police agencies have law enforcement arrest power.  Regarding the drug issue, Brazilian cities deal only with prevention and treatment.

Rio de Janeiro (Rio) has 11 million people living in its metropolitan area, 1,033 public elementary schools, and 120 municipal public hospitals and clinics.  To address the city's drug problem, Luiz Paulo Conde, the Mayor of Rio, created a Drug Prevention Coordination Unit, which is bonded to his office.   It promotes drug demand reduction through involvement of public servants, parents, teachers, entrepreneurs, jurists, health care professionals, religious leaders, the media and, above all, young people.  The Unit's clear message is: "Rio says NO to drugs!"

"Total Health! Follow Rio's Trend!" is the main drug prevention program. Many segments of citizens are actively involved.  The attractive informal method of drug prevention education makes community prevention activities possible with little outside assistance.

Following are examples of programs established this first year:

• Documentation Center, videos, and written materials available for drug prevention
• Student contests for best slogan and best image for drug prevention
• Free drug prevention artistic presentations (visual and performing arts) and theater play contests for school students
• Sports contests and outdoor activities for children and adults, where drug prevention is implied or openly discussed
• Involvement of neighborhoods, landlord associations, and social clubs
• Interaction with television networks to broadcast drug prevention issues on TV programs (debates, youth-oriented programs, and soap operas)
• Interaction with the Brazilian Army, regarding children exposed to drug risks
• Creation of networks with universities to enhance professional development of drug prevention counseling as a career
• Conferences, articles, and speeches
• A new Web page (www.rio.rj.gov.br/livre_das_drogas) describes the comprehensive work under way in Rio and collects citizens' suggestions and needs.

For the development of Rio's Drug Prevention Coordination Unit, information and contacts provided by Drug Watch International were essential and saved much time that otherwise would have been spent on trial and error.

DRUG PREVENTION AT THE CROSSROADS
By Alan Markwood, M.A., CAGS,
Prevention Projects Coordinator, Chestnut Health Systems, Inc.

E. Joe Wiese, M.S., LPC, CPS
Director, Office of Prevention, Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse

The relatively young field of professional substance abuse prevention is facing a challenge that it must overcome and defeat in order to have a future.  Privately funded drug legalization advocacy groups are widely disseminating false information (particularly a benign view of marijuanaÌs effects) that undermines the efforts of preventionists.  Most preventionists have been hesitant to respond to the pro-legalization movement, and few states have pushed prevention professionals to be more responsive to the threat.

There are at least four reasons for the current situation.  These must be addressed and overcome if effective youth alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs (ATOD) prevention is to survive.
1. A constricted understanding of prevention
2. Slowness in recognizing a changing environment
3. Misguided compassion
4. Fear of violating prohibitions against government-funded lobbying.

  A Constricted Understanding of Prevention

Many preventionists operate under a narrowed definition of primary prevention.  Some think that prevention is just talking about drugs.  Others see prevention as simply teaching our youth about the development of positive attitudes, coping skills, self-esteem, and good decision making. Still others believe prevention should be driven by the implementation of only scientifically validated "programs."  Instead of seeing drug information, coping skills, or validated programs as "means to an end," these tools become the "ends."  From such a point-of-view, countering legalization advocates is seen as outside the purview of professional prevention.  Prevention is considered an "objective" pursuit, while legalization issues are "subjective." This subjective viewpoint enables legalization advocates to say that they are merely stating an opinion. Counter to what pro-drug advocates say, those of us familiar with pro-legalization efforts are aware that much more than a policy debate is taking place.  To further their goals, legalization advocates have advanced assertions about marijuana, and other drugs, that fly in the face of both scientific study and broader human experience.  Drug users who perceive no problematic results of their "own use" are leading the charge.  Civil libertarians who believe that only drug users, if anyone, are hurt by drugs, promote the "users" with both financial and other support.  The result is not only a debate but also a substantial distortion of public information about drugs.  We cannot ignore the fact that these partnerships and distortions of facts create a major barrier to effective prevention practices.

  Slowness in Recognizing a Changing Environment

Some preventionists might be willing to address the impact of legalization rhetoric, but they haven’t yet recognized the magnitude of the public change in the past seven years achieved by a variety of legalizers’ efforts, including a huge presence on the Internet, a determined pursuit of sympathetic media coverage, and strategic ploys such as the notion of "harm reduction."  Pro-drug legalizers are successfully taking the term harm reduction, which has been used for many years within the medical profession to indicate facilitating wellness, and have begun to apply it to the legalization of drugs as a responsible and caring way to assist drug users to lead a more safe and healthy lifestyle while still using drugs.  Smaller-scale prevention education efforts being carried on by our schools and communities cannot be expected to maintain positive effects in the face of such massive promotion of misinformation.

  Misguided Compassion

An appeal to compassion is one of legalization advocates’ favorite approaches.    Preventionists, like other social service professionals, tend to have an abundance of compassion. Unfortunately, legalizers have become very effective at preying on compassion.  Only when one becomes familiar with the way legalizers use compassion as a tool to advance their personal interest in abolishing controls on drug use does one realize that drug laws with sanctions proportionate to the destructiveness of the behavior involved are much better expressions of compassion than the "leave them alone" approach.  Verbal images of long-incarcerated marijuana users can jar sympathy, unless one recognizes how rare it now is for marijuana use to result in a prison term (unless use is accompanied by drug sales or other crimes).  Giving drug-using youth a choice between treatment and jail is far more compassionate than letting them succumb to addiction or other ATOD problems.  Drug legalizers advocate treating drug use only as a personal sickness.  This is an appealing approach if you forget the impact of drugs on society and forget the importance of appropriate legal sanctions for maintenance of effective prevention and treatment programs.  The capacity of prevention and treatment efforts to make progress in decreasing drug use would be seriously impaired without the power of law to compel non-use.

  Fear of Violating Prohibitions Against Government-Funded Lobbying

Governmentally funded preventionists have to be careful to obey prohibitions against lobbying on the job, but they can do much to counter the worst distortions from legalization advocates without disobeying the law.

Preventionists can and should give the public, including legislators, the true and complete facts about marijuana and other issues distorted by the legalizers.  We can save our opinions for personal communications off the job, but our work on the job should have everything to do with correcting misinformation about drug issues.  In the past, we were not interested in issues such as industrial hemp and the medical application (or, lack of application) of marijuana.   Now, we have a professional obligation to educate our constituents and communities about methods used by legalization advocates.  Education about their methods is not enough; we need to know how to counter their misinformation, which is a major part of their legalization efforts, with correct and factual information.

In summary, legalization advocates are not just talking about legalization: Through action and advocacy, they are determined to change the way people view drugs.   Drug prevention training organizations, credentialing groups, and funding bodies need to embrace and elevate the knowledge needed to promote anti-legalization efforts to the highest levels of priority.  Until now, we have typically treated the legalization movement with the same denial and "ignorance is bliss" attitude that we abhor when we see people exhibiting those feelings related to alcohol or other general drug issues.

Communities are asleep.  Time is running out for those who believe abstinence-based prevention is the best policy.  If the field of professional ATOD prevention fails to recognize and effectively counter pro-drug efforts to effect social change, our voice and prevention efforts will become ineffective and superfluous. Communities must wake up to the fact that a well-organized effort is underway to change citizens’ perception of the ill and long-term harmful effects caused by the use and abuse of illicit drugs.  Time is running out for us to engage the reality that is already present in our communities.  The question is, "Can we meet this challenge?"

DRUG WATCH EYE-OPENERS
Underage drinking

"Mom, Dad, no one will come to my party if we don't have a keg!"  How many parents across the United States hear this plaintive cry and give in to teen pressure to serve alcohol at parties, believing that if they just collect the kids' car keys, everything will be OK?  It's hard to know where to begin with the list of things that can, and often do, go wrong in spite of the fact that parents take the keys.  But let's give it a try.

First of all, it's illegal to serve alcohol to minors.  If your neighbors don't like the ruckus your partygoers are causing and call the police, you may be arrested and charged with breaking the law.  Parents of partygoers who didn't realize you were serving alcohol to their children may seek to bring criminal or civil charges. If teens attending bring marijuana joints along, as they often do, you could be brought up on drug charges. 

To cite a hideous example, a teen at a Connecticut party took his car keys, drove away drunk from the party, and ran over and killed another partygoer.  The town-wide uproar that ensued became so acrimonious that the teen who killed the partygoer then killed himself.  The host of the party was sued, lost, and paid over $600,000 in damages without help from his insurance.

But let's talk about what happens to teens who have been given the go-ahead to drink.  Addiction takes hold roughly five times faster in a developing adolescent than in an adult.  Given the present climate in which drinking has become a rite of passage, parents who condone drinking may be setting up their children for a life of addiction.  Worse yet, hundreds of teens die every year from alcohol overdose. 

Children who have been encouraged to drink will often drink wherever or whenever they get the opportunity.  Furthermore, since it's illegal and nobody seems to care, they may feel free to smoke cigarettes or pot, try LSD, pop amphetamines, snort cocaine, or eat "shrooms" (psychedelic mushrooms). 

Mixing marijuana with drinking is a common practice that can be deadly.  Because marijuana suppresses the brain's vomiting center, youth who have drunk too much and smoked pot may not throw up as they should and are in danger of alcohol poisoning.

A recent survey reveals that, by college, 40 percent of students are serious binge-drinkers, meaning that they drink five or more drinks at a sitting, and many binge-drink during the week as well as on weekends.  Furthermore, drugs are available at many booze parties.  Reported consequences range from hangovers and cutting classes to property destruction, assault, arrest, unplanned sexual encounters, and driving accidents, not to mention death by overdose.

To teens who carry on about buying a keg, parents should ask, "What kind of friends do you have, anyway?  Let's have an alcohol- and drug-free party, and see who your friends really are."

THE DUTCH SOLUTION — A CANCER THAT IS SPREADING
By:  David Mann
Victoria, British Columbia, Police Department
Drug Watch International Delegate from Canada.

During the last two weeks of September, I was fortunate to be involved in two activities that enlightened me about the drug situation in the Netherlands. 

On the first occasion, I hosted two German police officers who were in Canada for a two-week police exchange. We spoke at length regarding the drug situation in Europe. The topic turned fast to what they believe to be the centre of the problem, Amsterdam.

They spoke of how their youth attend weekend get aways, attracted by the lure of open drug use. When these officers visited Amsterdam, they were also appalled at the openness of the drug scene and the availability of all drugs.

When questioned about drug use in Germany, the officers indicated that each state has different regulations. They, as law enforcement, do not agree with any decriminalization. There is constant pressure by a variety of groups to have marijuana readily available.  It is often the image of what Amsterdam has become that defeats the efforts of pro-drug decriminalizers.

The second experience was my attending the Western States Vice Officers Training Conference. While sitting through a lengthy training session about child pornography, it was interesting to note the centre of this industry.  Once again the Netherlands came to the forefront in the worldwide distribution of pornographic material. Of particular note was an interview shown with their Attorney General, who spoke of the tough laws in the Netherlands governing this behaviour.  This news footage was ended abruptly when the government was challenged on their lax laws in both drugs and pornography, feeding a worldwide problem.

I learned from both experiences that most people, especially those who have been there, do not agree with the Dutch solution.  It clearly shows that because of the lack of enforcement, their harm reductionist approach to drug policy has become a cancer that is spreading worldwide.

EUROPEAN CITIES AGAINST DRUGS IS ON THE MOVE!
By:  Peter P. Rigby, Chairman, ECAD Advisory Board

It is now five years since European Cities Against Drugs (ECAD) was started in Stockholm by then Mayor, Carol Cederschiold, who felt that something had to be done to counter the pro legalisation lobby of Frankfurt.  The Stockholm Resolution opposing legalisation and promoting education, treatment, and prevention was agreed to by the Mayors of leading European cities.

It is clear that the problems of drugs have not gone away in Europe and, indeed, in the world.  At the recent Presidential Conference at Tampere, Finland, the resolve of the European Union (EU) in addressing the drug problem was clearly stated.  The European Council was called upon to adopt the action plan agreed in Brussels on 20 May 1999, namely the EU "Fight Against Drugs," before the European Council meeting in Helsinki.

It is worthwhile for us to remember the political declaration and the guiding principle of demand reduction of the Special General Assembly of the United Nations in New York last year.  Some cities and organisations need reminding that their country was a signatory to the U.N. declaration; they should be working to that agenda and not some other agenda of their own choosing, an agenda that weakens the resolve and goal of a drug-free Europe.  Drugs are decimating our communities, and the fight is international in scope.

ECAD is continuing to recruit cities that support the Stockholm Resolution.  Currently, there are 220 cities and towns covering some 30 countries in Europe, with over 75 million people, who are signatories.  We are firmly behind the U.N. conventions and policies on drugs.

Last year, ECAD conducted a series of regional conferences, including Norway, Sweden, Lithuania, and Bulgaria.  Conferences are being discussed for the United Kingdom, Latvia, and Finland.  We have opened an office in St. Petersburg, and we are working in Vilnius with a special training project for dealing with drug problems at various levels.

ECAD helped establish American Cities Against Drugs and South American Cities Against Drugs.  We have been active in helping establish a similar organisation in Australia.  Recently, an ECAD director spoke to parliamentarians at the university in Rome.

We continue to hold an annual conference for city mayors.  This year it was in Malta; next year it is in Cork, Ireland.  As Chairman of the London Drug Policy Forum, I can assure you that the current British Government is as opposed to drug legalisation as was its predecessor, and this is one topic on which both political parties are totally united.

Although some media stories would make us believe otherwise, the majority of young people are not drug addicts.  Unfortunately, the media normally prefers stories about a drug addict and not a drug-free adolescent.  This does not help drug prevention efforts. 

The pressure on our children and our communities is enormous, from what I can only describe as evil men who want to make money from destroying another human's life.  Drugs are now the second-largest trade in the world, after arms, equaling $400 billion annually, and eight percent of world trade.  This is a truly frightening statistic.

ECAD will continue to crusade in Europe towards a drug-free society.  It will continue to oppose those who want to make drugs freely available.  It will continue to promote treatment, education, and prevention.  ECAD will continue to recruit cities and peoples to join with it in its crusade.  It will not put up its hands in despair.  ECAD will continue to do what it can to help human beings achieve the quality of life to which they are entitled.

HEMP IS PRUNED BACK IN WISCONSIN, BUT ROOTS REMAIN
By:  Bill Walluks 
Chief, Strategic Intelligence Section, Division of Narcotics Enforcement, Wisconsin Department of Justice
Drug Watch International Wisconsin Delegate

Marijuana hemp grown for fiber contains THC, the same psychoactive chemical found in drug abusers' marijuana; therefore, a state authorizing marijuana hemp production could increase the capacity for marijuana abuse among its citizens.

On September 10, 1999, the Wisconsin State Council on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) voted to oppose an assembly resolution being considered by its Agriculture Committee requesting the U. S. Congress to authorize production of "industrial" marijuana hemp.  The council noted that a variety of Wisconsin law enforcement associations had rejected the production of hemp and had instead adopted the Drug Watch International Anti-Hemp Resolution. 

The AODA Inter-Departmental Coordinating Committee had previously reviewed the hemp issue and voted unanimously against hemp production.  Strong opposition to hemp in Wisconsin was spearheaded by top managers of the Division of Narcotics Enforcement in the state's Justice Department.  Drug Strategy Institute members Dr. Joseph Atchison and Dr. Eric Voth provided critical testimony.

The Coordinating Committee explained:

        There is an absence of a proven market for hemp.

        Any THC content of marijuana hemp remains an issue of great concern.

        It is very difficult to distinguish between low THC content plants and high THC plants.

       Legalization of marijuana hemp for commercial purposes would send a confusing message to society   and young people, in particular.

       It is expected that legalizing marijuana hemp production would add significant financial costs to society, in particular to law enforcement agencies.

The law enforcement community must be educated and energized, and it must register clear opposition, if hemp initiatives are to be defeated.  Police should understand that growing marijuana hemp substantially complicates enforcement of drug laws.  Some farmers might insert high THC marijuana plants among their low THC marijuana hemp crop.  Marijuana and marijuana hemp plants look similar as seedlings and smokable product, and marijuana hemp grown for seed has the same planting pattern as high THC marijuana. 

Police need to think ahead about how drug enforcement could be substantially hamstrung if marijuana hemp is ever grown commercially.  Drug field-testing confirms only the presence, not the level, of THC.  Anyone caught with "a green leafy substance" could claim it was low THC "fiber" marijuana hemp, and police would have to send a sample to a crime laboratory for a full THC potency test before charging marijuana possession.   The only other option would be to charge "possession without a growing license," which possibly would be merely a minor civil forfeiture action.  Possession of THC is now a crime with much more substantial penalties.

Many Drug Watch International members contributed vital information to the Wisconsin Justice Department.  Research on the hemp issue was, in fact, what first brought Drug Watch International to the department's attention.  The citizens of Wisconsin were well served by the many Drug Watch members who generously gave of their time and information.

Wisconsin is a key battleground for hemp, due in part to its being one of the few states that actually grew the product during World War II.  Additionally, the director of the Wisconsin Agriculture Department's farming diversification support operation is also chair of the North American Industrial Hemp Council, a pro-marijuana hemp legalization lobby. 

It is unknown if the hemp advocates will attempt further action, but if it occurs, the Wisconsin Department of Justice will likely again turn to Drug Watch International for information and strategies with which to refute hempster propaganda.

HEPATITIS C — THE NEW THREAT
By:  Joe Santamaria, M.D.
Australian News Weekly, Aug. 26, 1999

Since the introduction of needle and syringe exchange programs in the 1980s, there has been a dramatic increase in Hepatitis C infections in intravenous drug users (IVDUs).  The two main blood borne infections in such drug addicts, in Australia and most parts of the world, are the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and the Hepatitis C Virus (HCV).  The development of AIDS in persons infected with HIV is recognised as being fatal, but the significance of Hepatitis C infection is not so well known.

It is much easier to become infected with HCV than with HIV, when the mode of transmission is by contaminated needles and syringes.  The National Health and Medical Research Council estimated in Aug. 1997 that more than 70 percent of past and current intravenous drug users were infected with Hepatitis C.  The consequences of Hepatitis C infection are serious, especially in the long term.  Although most acute infections are sub-clinical (with minimal symptoms), in 80 to 85 percent of cases, the infection persists and usually leads to chronic hepatitis, often resulting in cirrhosis of the liver and possibly liver cancer.

In 1998, the British Medical Journal reported a study of a group of IVDUs attending a needle exchange agency in central Sydney.  This group showed a high conversion rate of Hepatitis C infection, especially among those under the age of 20.  This means that many of them will die in their late 30s or early 40s. 

Thirty percent of IVDUs in this and similar studies admit to sharing injection equipment, even when on the needle exchange programs.

Many consider that the present programs of needle and syringe exchanges foster the intravenous mode of drug taking.  Studies in Canada and the United States support the prediction that an increasing number of new intravenous drug users will contract Hepatitis C.  Reports from Baltimore, Vancouver, and Montreal confirm that the numbers using drugs intravenously are increasing and that significant sharing of injecting equipment occurs.

These findings are not surprising.  Providing injecting equipment can help convert casual users into a state of dependency and consolidate the addicted state.

Although the proposal to establish needle and syringe exchange programs sounded plausible in the mid-1980s, our subsequent experience with the blood-borne infections in IVDUs is now cause for alarm, because we are committing an increasing number of young people to die young from the complications of Hepatitis C transmission, even if they become abstinent from drugs.

Another feature of the needle exchange programs that requires close attention is the spate of heroin deaths.  The exchange programs have made possible more frequent use of intravenous heroin.  Dealers have more openly frequented the sites of needle distribution, where heroin users have become more deeply addicted.

There is significant prima facie evidence that we should strongly discourage the intravenous use of drugs, not facilitate this mode of drug use by safe injecting rooms, heroin trials, and the free distribution of needles and syringes. 

LET’S PREVENT DRUG USE IN THE FIRST PLACE
By:  Torgny Peterson, Executive Director
European Cities Against Drugs (ECAD)

To discuss, decide, and implement measures to combat the drug problem are challenging tasks that require a lot of consideration of the various issues involved.

Millions of young people are involved in, and affected by, drug-related problems.  Unemployment, poverty, and a lack of perspective for the future are part of everyday life for many young people in Europe.  To make drugs more easily available would make the situation worse for many people.

Too often, we take it for granted that every citizen in our societies, politicians, members of various organisations, and law enforcement want to prevent the use of drugs.  However, this is no longer necessarily true.

A growing movement in some European countries, and in some countries in other continents, is now discussing how to reduce drug-related harm, or how to manage the risks involved when using drugs.  Some even propose to decriminalise and/or legalise certain drugs.

It is necessary to realise that to prevent the use of drugs is something completely different than reducing drug-related harm.  Trying to reduce drug-related harm is quite often the consequence when you have failed to prevent drug use in the first place.  ECAD believes in and works for a drug-free Europe.

Drugs are not a basic part of our culture.  A number of cities and countries have been successful in the combat against drugs by combining restrictive policies with a wide range of preventive measures and offering drug users various forms of care and treatment.

It is possible to introduce changes to reduce the spread of drugs.  In doing so, it is most important to actively encourage young people to reject all drugs.

ECAD does not believe in making a distinction between "hard" and "soft" drugs.  Drugs are dangerous.  Consequently, the use of cannabis should be opposed with much the same vigour as other drugs.

ECAD supports the existing U.N. drug conventions, the Political Declaration, and the Guiding Principles of Demand Reduction approved at the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on Drugs in New York in June 1998, and we urge intensified national and international cooperation to fight drugs.  The United Nations should be given power to control flagrant breaches of conventions and international agreements wherever they emerge.

If some countries allow drugs to be made freely available, they undermine the possibilities of other countries and cities to curb the spread of drugs.

RIO LEADS THE WAY IN PREVENTION
By:  Mayor Luiz Paulo Fernandez Conde

As an architect and urbanist, I have strived to achieve beauty and functionality for the residents of my city, Rio de Janeiro.  Among the projects I have done, the one of which I am particularly proud, is the Favela-Bairro, through which many of the slums of our city have been provided with infrastructure, providing more dignified living conditions.

Rio de Janeiro, a city famous for its natural beauty, music, and architecture, has ten million people living in its metropolitan area.  Only a few years ago, I awoke to the problems caused in our beautiful city by drug consumption and trafficking.  Since then, these issues have been a major source of worry for me, as I am sure, for most of Brazil.

In many advanced cities or countries, the repercussions of drug use on the health, the family, the work, and the citizens have caused public authorities to join efforts in the search of some type of solution.  I longed to be able to do something in this area.

By Brazilian Law, the city government does not have power over the police.  However, as the Mayor elect of Rio, I felt that I must do something dynamic to lead the way in the search for a drug-free society, where our people could work and enjoy life without the nightmares of crime and violence, produced in great part by drug use and trafficking.

Two years ago, I established the Drug Prevention Bureau, headed by my Special Advisor, Professor Mina Seinfeld de Carakushansky.  Since then, a great variety of drug prevention projects have been undertaken in many different segments of society.  We have initiated many partnerships between governmental institutions and the private sector.

We began by adapting and implementing projects that had already been proven effective.  These would be accompanied by massive training programs, using accurate technical and scientific material provided to us by existing drug prevention organizations, among which Drug Watch International must be recognized as outstanding.

Now, in Rio we have municipal drug prevention legislation mandating drug prevention studies from the fifth through the eighth grades in all of our 1,029 municipal schools with 670,000 students.  We provide drug prevention through sports and cultural activities.  We have drug prevention at the workplace.  We have training programs for teachers and other interested professionals.  We train youngsters, who then become mentors to other children.

One hundred and sixty community housing agents from the Favela-Bairro program were trained and are doing drug prevention in their communities.  A program for training thousands of building managers is also under way.  The private sector paid for media campaigns on billboards and buses. Famous artists, such as TV and movie star XUXA, work closely with the Drug Prevention Bureau to promote to our children that a healthy life should not, in any way, include the use of drugs. 

Hopefully, our programs can be replicated by others, and made even better.  The bureau's Web site (www.rio.rj.gov.br/livre_das_drogas) offers information on drug prevention, activities, and events.

It seems as if we have done a lot, but I know that there is much more we must do, if we are serious about rectifying the desperate drug situation in many Latin American countries.  I believe that drug prevention is the intelligent position, and we must have the courage to open roads in the enemy’s territory and support clear no-use messages. 

The public and private sectors have united to achieve drug demand reduction, and "Say NO To Drugs" is blossoming in Rio.

Luiz Paulo Fernandez Conde, an architect and city planner, is Mayor of the city of Rio de Janeiro.  He graduated from the National Faculty of Architecture at the University of Brazil.  He is the author of architectural projects in Brazil and abroad.  Mr. Conde has been President of the Institute of Brazilian Architects, Director of the Faculty of Architecture and City Planning of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, and City Planning Secretary of the Municipality of Rio de Janeiro.  As Mayor, he has accumulated noteworthy positions, among them the Presidency of CIDEU, Ibero-American Center for Strategic Urban Development.

WHERE THERE’S ROPE, THERE’S DOPE!
 By:  Jeanette McDougal, MM, CCDP
Drug Watch International Minnesota Delegate

A number is being done on young people today concerning "industrial" hemp. Knowing the respect teens and other young adults have for the environment, the advocates of industrial Cannabis (marijuana) hemp have promoted "hemp" as a one-of-a-kind wonder crop that will save the environment, the rain forest, and the family farm.  That is dangerous nonsense.

According to Dr. Robert Robinson, University of Minnesota professor emeritus, hemp is an annual crop, which means that every year the soil has to be prepared.  The soil must be cultivated and plowed, leaving no vegetative cover on the ground to give off oxygen into the atmosphere.  Field crops such as corn, sorghum, alfalfa, and many others produce more tonnage per acre than hemp.  In fact, compared to crops like alfalfa, hemp is very inferior in not only yield, but in preventing erosion.  Corn and other grass crops do a better job of preventing erosion, because they have more extensive fibrous root systems.

Dr. Joseph E. Atchison, eminent non-wood pulp and paper consultant, said that hemp's potential use as a major paper-making raw material in the U.S., or in any other country, is almost nil.  Even when it was legal to grow industrial hemp in the U.S., it was never seriously considered as a major raw material by the paper industry.  In countries where hemp stalks are still available, their use is extremely limited for the manufacture of paper products.

True, Washington and Jefferson both raised Cannabis sativa hemp on their plantations, but according to marijuana hemp expert Ernest I. Abel, both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lost money trying to raise hemp.  Hemp is an extremely labor intensive crop, and, at the present time, every country that grows Cannabis hemp for industrial purposes is either:

1.  Looking for a market to sell their crop

2.  Subsidizing the crop up to about $300 per acre, or,

3.  Has such low labor costs that subsidizing is unnecessary.

High Times, a prominent drug culture magazine, takes credit for starting and energizing the current movement to use marijuana hemp for industrial purposes.  They have said, "The way to legalize marijuana is to sell marijuana legally."

Although proponents of "industrial" marijuana hemp claim that it is low in THC content, government records verify that the marijuana smoked at Woodstock contained the same level of THC as does today's "industrial hemp" (1% or less).

As Jack Herer, a pro-hemp activist, said, "Don't forget that the joints you smoke and the fiber you make into clothes are the same plant."  Herer is right about that.  "Where there's rope, there's dope."

We don't need it!

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
(Winter, 1999)

  It's estimated that for every $1 spent on addiction treatment programs, there is a $4 to $7 reduction in drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft alone.  When savings related to health care are included, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.  (Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Oct. 1999)

  Side effects of synthetic THC (Marinol):
Possibly increases the risk of death of the fetus in pregnant women (studies in animals);
Passes into breast milk, possibly causing serious effects in the nursing infant;
Effects on the mind of special concern in children;
Effects on the mind of special concern in the elderly;
Possible dizziness, lightheadedness, or fainting;
Taken with alcohol, antihistamines, sedatives, tranquilizers, seizure medicine, muscle relaxants, or anesthetics — including some dental anesthetics — may lead to severe mental effects;
Amnesia; change in mood; confusion; delusions; feelings of unreality; hallucinations; mental depression; anxiety; pounding heartbeat;
Clumsiness; dizziness; drowsiness; false sense of well-being; nausea; trouble thinking; vomiting;
Changes in vision; dry mouth; feeling faint or lightheaded, flushing of face; restlessness; unusual tiredness or weakness.  (MEDLINE, Advanced Medical Database, 11-1-99)

  Over three million urine samples from workers across the United States were drug tested.  Five percent of all tests conducted in the first six months of 1998 were positive for at least one illicit drug, compared to nine percent in 1991.  Thirty-five percent of the positive tests in 1991 contained marijuana, compared to 60 percent in the first six months of 1998.  The percentage of positive tests containing cocaine declined from 29 percent to 17 percent over the same period.  (CESAR FAX, 11-30-98)

  The more frequently adolescents used marijuana in the past year, the more likely they were to report delinquent and depressive behaviors, according to recently analyzed data from the 1994, 1995, and 1996 National Household Surveys on Drug Abuse.  Of the delinquent behaviors examined, being on probation, running away from home, and physically attacking people had the strongest relationship with frequency of marijuana use; marijuana users were two to 20 times more likely to exhibit these behaviors than nonusers.  Adolescents who used marijuana were also more likely to report behaviors symptomatic of depression, such as thinking about killing themselves.  (CESAR FAX, 11-9-98)

  Six major airports will soon get new high-tech scanning machines that will let U.S. Customs Service inspectors see whether a passenger may be concealing illegal drugs or other smuggled materials.  (DREAM, 10-99)

  A new report by the Chicago Crime Commission shows that more females are joining gangs and committing violent crimes.  The report found that girls as young as eight years old are being recruited by gangs to act as lookouts or carry guns and drugs for older gang members.  (DREAM, 10-99, UPI, 9-17-99)

  The Vatican has rejected plans for a safe house, run by the Sisters of Charity in Kings Cross, Sydney, Australia, where heroin addicts could inject themselves.  The Vatican feared the nuns' involvement would be seen as condoning drug use by the Catholic Church.  The Archbishop of Sydney notified the Sisters of Charity that the proposal was unacceptable.  (AP, WR 10-30-99)

   In the summer of 2000, 1,000 teenagers from Europe are scheduled to meet in Iceland for one of the largest drug prevention campaigns ever arranged and hosted by young people in Europe.  For information contact: Pallas Athena-Thor, Hitt Husid, Adalstraeti 2, 101 Reykjavik, Iceland;  phone +354 551 553;  fax + 353 562 4341;  E-mail:  pallasthor@islandia.is   (ECAD Newsletter, 9-99)

  "Pray For The Children" was founded in 1998 by individuals seeking assistance from the faith community to raise awareness of drug prevention issues.  The group received a letter of endorsement from General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the U.S. National Office of Drug Control Policy.  On October 22-24, 1999, "Pray For The Children" held its second international prayer weekend.  Activities were held throughout the United States and in over a dozen other countries.  Religious newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV disseminated drug prevention information to millions of people around the world.  The Web site www.prayforthechildren.com and the fax-on-demand 800-899-7279 have received thousands of requests for information.  (Beverly Kinard, co-founder, "Pray For The Children," Nov. 1999)

  A British study conducted by the National Teratology Information Service of 136 babies exposed to Ecstasy in utero indicated that the drug may be associated with a significantly increased risk of congenital defects.  Cardiovascular anomalies and musculoskeletal anomalies were predominant in live births.  U.S. researchers have previously shown that Ecstasy damages nerve endings in the brain.  (PR McElhatton, DN Bateman, C Evans, KR Pughe, SHL Thomas, The Lancet, Vol. 354.  Oct. 23, 1999.  Reuters, 10-22-99)

  Drug use is down in the United States, but it's up in Europe.  The latest report of the International Narcotics Control Board said that preventing illegal drug use is difficult on a continent "where it is increasingly being viewed as an almost normal cultural phenomenon."  (David Briscoe, AP-NY 10-21-99)
Ed. Note — Considering the permissive drug policies of harm reduction that are being embraced by a number of European countries, the sharp rise in drug use should come as no surprise.

  High rates of first-time marijuana use, coupled with aging baby boomers, could result in more than five million U.S. residents needing drug treatment by the year 2020, according to an analysis of data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.  The need for future treatment is expected to increase 57 percent because of problems among the aging cohort of drug abusers who first started using illicit drugs during the 1970s.  This is of particular concern because of the comorbidity of drug abuse problems with other health and social problems associated with aging.  (CSAT by Fax, 10-20-99)

  A UCLA study found that cells from both marijuana smokers and cocaine smokers were severely limited in their ability to kill bacteria and tumor cells.  The cells involved, alveolar macrophages, are part of the immune system of the lung and are responsible for the elimination of foreign substances, such as tumor and infection.  Dr. Janet Lapey said, "These results help explain why AIDS patients who smoke marijuana have an increased incidence of pneumonia."  (Drs. Gayle Baldwin and Donald Tashkin, UCLA Medical Center, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 156, 1997)

  Non-injecting heroin users who believe that smoking or snorting the drug makes them less vulnerable to its harmful consequences may be kidding themselves.  A research team headed by Dr. Alan Neaigus of National Development and Research Institutes found that non-injecting heroin users are at considerable risk of becoming drug injectors, thereby incurring risks for HIV, hepatitis, and other serious diseases.  Even those who don't inject are found to be at high risk of contracting hepatitis.  (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 8-31-99)

  Recent studies suggest that cocaine's euphoric effects may involve not just one but several chemical sites in the brain.  (NIDA Notes, Vol. 14, No. 2)

  A Harvard study found a strong association between cocaine use and heart attack; cocaine users are 24 times more likely to have a heart attack during the first hour after taking the drug.  (DREAM, 8-99)

  A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that non-users who live with those who use drugs are 11 times more likely to die violently than those in drug-free homes.  (Don Feder, Boston Herald, 10-13-99.  Barry McCaffrey, Director ONCP, Albuquerque Journal, 10-7-99.)

  Health Canada will conduct long-term, double-blind, randomized design clinical trials on 250 patients regarding the therapeutic value of smoking pot.  Health Canada stated that evidence of potential therapeutic effectiveness of marijuana is heavily anecdotal and inconclusive.  (Times Colonist Newspaper, 10-7-99)

  Fifty-eight percent of the world's heroin supply passes through Tajikistan, a mountainous and wild country on the northern border of Afghanistan, surrounded by China, Kyrguzstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan.  The location, which is the gateway to Central Asia and Europe, has made Tajikistan a lucrative highway for drug trafficking.  If one of our sons or daughters or a member of our family is killed by a heroin overdose, there will be a 58 percent chance that the cause of that death has passed through Tajikistan!  (Ian Oliver, UNDCP adviser on Drugs Control Agency, 10-99)

  Young adolescents who initiate substance use early and engage in it frequently are more likely to carry guns and other weapons to school.  (American Medical Association, ARCHIVES Pediatrics Adolescent Medicine, Vol. 153, No. 1, Jan. 1999.  RH DuRant, Ph.D.; DP Krowchuk, M.D.; S Kreiter, M.D.; SH Sinal, M.D.; CR Woods, M.D.)

  A recent study by Kaiser Permanente, America's leading nonprofit integrated health care organization, found that the risk of getting an STD (sexually transmitted disease) is doubled for those who smoke marijuana once a week.  (Laura H. Marshall, Kaiser Permanente Media Relations, 9-99)

  Kids who learn about the risks of drugs from their parents are 36 percent less likely to smoke marijuana than kids who learn nothing from them.  Research has shown that people who smoke marijuana before the age of 15 are over seven times more likely to use other drugs than people who have never smoked marijuana.  (ONDCP and Partnership for a Drug-Free Illinois and America, 9-99)

  In 1997 in the United States, 19 percent of food-preparation workers, waiters, waitresses, and bartenders; 14 percent of construction workers; and 10 percent of transportation and material moving workers used illegal drugs.  (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report, 9-99)

  In 1997, over three million children were reported for child abuse and neglect to child protective service agencies in the United States.  The link between substance abuse and child abuse has strengthened over the years.  In 1997, 88 percent of respondents named substance abuse as one of the top two problems presented by families reported for maltreatment of their children.  Substance abuse is again surfacing as a primary contributor to child maltreatment.  (Wang, C.T. and Daro, D. (1998).  Current Trends in Child Abuse Reporting and Fatalities:  The Results of the 1997 Annual Fifty State Survey.)

References available on request.  Please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope, and send to:  Drug Watch World News, P.O. Box 318, Carlinville, Illinois  62626  

QUOTES – WINTER 1999

FROM THE DESK OF SANDRA BENNETT
President, Drug Watch International

Drug policy and common sense – regardless of how the debate is framed, it boils down to "How should society address the use of psychoactive and addictive drugs?"

Those who use drugs claim that having restrictions on drug use irrationally "harms" or takes away the rights of drug users who, they insist, are "innocent" of anything other than wanting to get high, or who were born "pre-addicted" to illicit drugs.

Those who endorse sanctions against drugs, many of whom have had the life of a loved one irreparably damaged or destroyed by drug use, point out that drugs not only harm the user but also the innocent.  Drug use imposes enormous economic loss on society through impaired health, lost productivity, and increased crime.

The truth is that there is no debate here.  Common sense is all that is needed.  After all, who has the best interests of a child at heart – his or her parents, or the neighborhood drug dealer?  No matter how the argument for legalization is concocted, it remains without merit.

Drug policy "reformers" (the legalizers) point to the damaging effects of tobacco use and claim that psychoactive drugs are far less harmful.  The potential of a substance to cause harm or death after prolonged use is one measure of destructiveness, but the seriousness of the harm caused by smoking tobacco should not be allowed to overshadow the wide range of devastation caused by drugs that are both addictive and psychoactive.  Tobacco does not alter one's conscience, values, or perspective.  Psychoactive drugs do.