Drug Watch International
DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS
| Vol. I; 1997 | Number 2 |
PROPOSED
HEROIN TRIAL IN AUSTRALIA BLOCKED
By: Craig Thompson
The decision by the Australian Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy to adopt a modified form of legal heroin supply has been nullified by the refusal of the Federal Government to pass legislation permitting the importation of the heroin required. This refusal was provoked by public concern and adverse media publicity. Australia's leader, Prime Minister John Howard, made it clear that he was not in favour of such a program.
Following the recommendation by Commissioner James Wood (who conducted the Royal Commission into Police corruption in New South Wales) that “shooting galleries” be established, a committee is considering their introduction. If approved, police will be directed to keep away from the galleries. As occurred in Zurich, Switzerland, and is now occurring in Frankfurt, Germany, sellers and addicts can be expected to congregate around gallery areas, selling and using with impunity (de-facto legalisation of supply and use), which would lead to corruption and community concern.
Crucially, a claimed expert on drugs in Australia noted in December 1994 that 60% of injecting drug users in Australia are hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive, stating " the implications of this, I believe, are that we must virtually eradicate drug injecting from Australia if we are to gain control of the hepatitis C epidemic." A recent survey carried out on the north coast of New South Wales found that 76% of injecting drug users were infected with Hepatitis C virus through needle sharing.
It is estimated that the state of New South Wales distributes over five million needles annually. I would seem that the policy to distribute needles has not stopped the sharing of needles and, in fact, has given rise to epidemic levels of hepatitis C and marked increases in heroin use.
LET'S THINK ABOUT "HARM
REDUCTION"
Why are there taxpayer-financed needle handouts to drug addicts when research has shown that participating addicts were twice as likely to get HIV? . . . Do drug advocates hope to facilitate drug use in the name of preventing the spread of AIDS?
Why "Marijuana as medicine" when research has
shown that crude marijuana is a dangerous drug which cannot meet a single one of
the established criteria for safety and efficacy? . . . Do drug advocates
hope to facilitate drug use by making marijuana
Why marijuana cultivation under the guise of "industrial hemp" when research has shown marijuana hemp to be an inferior product with limited commercial value? . . . Do drug advocates hope to facilitate drug use by allowing legal cultivation of marijuana?
Why teach our children, the future leaders of our world,
how to use drugs safely, when there is no research to show this policy reduces
drug use? . . . Do drug advocates hope to facilitate drug use by creating a
continuing market?
Why reduce drug enforcement and lessen drug laws? . . . Do
drug advocates hope to facilitate drug use by reducing the legal problems
for those who grow, distribute, and use dangerous psychoactive drugs?
Needles to addicts, marijuana as medicine, industrial hemp, responsible drug use education, and softening drug law enforcement are "harm reduction” policies. Isn't "harm reduction" really the old failed "responsible use" policy that got us into all this trouble in the first place? It does not seek to "prevent" harm, or to "cure" harm. It seeks to "reduce" harm – to the user and dealer – at the expense of society.
What is the force behind "harm reduction?" . . . Could it be power, politics and money?
MEDICAL MARIJUANA
REFERENDA MOVEMENT IN AMERICA
Excerpts from the Statement by General Barry R. McCaffrey.
Submitted for the Record to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime,
October 1, 1997.
The logic of the federal response is simple: Federal law remains in effect, and science must prevail over ideology. At the heart of the federal response is the preservation of the long-standing, established medical-scientific process ensuring that any substance purporting to be a medicine must undergo the rigorous evaluation of the scientific process. This process has protected American citizens from snake oils, dangerous drugs, unproven substances, and ineffective treatments for over 50 years. Because of this process, American citizens have faith that the drugs they take are both safe and effective. The government’s position is that any substance provided or sold to the American public as a medicine must withstand the scrutiny of the same medical-scientific process to which all other potential medicines are subject. To exempt any substance from this time-honored procedure will undermine the established process that has long protected the American public so well…Referenda cannot protect the American public from fraudulent claims and dangerous drugs…Marijuana has not been approved by the FDA to treat any disease or condition…Drug legalization proponents play on the sympathies all Americans share for those suffering from serious illnesses…However, anecdotal claims are insufficient grounds to subvert the protection Americans rely upon and deserve.
The preponderance of scientific evidence to date demonstrates that marijuana is a dangerous drug. Marijuana is a contributing cause of injury and death to users and non-users alike. Research shows that smoked marijuana, in addition to impairing normal brain function, damages the heart, lungs, and reproductive and immune systems.
Medical marijuana initiatives present even greater risks to our young people…Referenda that tell our children marijuana is a “medicine” send them the wrong signal about the dangers of illegal drugs – increasing the likelihood that more children will turn to drugs. Moreover, marijuana is a “gateway” drug…CASA’s (Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University) October 1994 report concluded that a 12-17-year-old who uses marijuana is 85 times more likely to use cocaine than one who does not.
Meanwhile, misconceptions about marijuana continue to abound. Confused by conflicting messages, it is no wonder that many Americans, especially our youth, do not understand what current scientific research is teaching us about the damaging effects of smoked marijuana. Current research points to serious risks to society. Marijuana smoke contains cancer-causing compounds, reduces workplace productivity, and is increasingly prevalent in automobile accidents and youth fatalities. Examples of recent findings include: A roadside study of reckless drivers not believed to be impaired by alcohol found that 45 percent tested positive for marijuana…Marijuana impairs coordination, perception, and judgment, causing many accidents…A study of 1,023 trauma victims revealed that marijuana had been used by 34.7 percent…One study found that 32.1 percent of motorcyclists treated for injuries tested positive for marijuana…A study of 182 fatal truck accidents revealed that 12.5 percent of the drivers had used marijuana...The most consistent finding from the literature on employee marijuana use is its association with increased absenteeism. It is also associated with increased accidents, low job satisfaction, counterproductive behavior, withdrawal and antagonistic behavior, and higher use of employee assistance programs and medical benefits. Treatment figures for 1995 show that 141,000 Americans were admitted to drug treatment programs for marijuana addiction. Over half (55 percent) of all youths ages 15-17 admitted to drug treatment were seeking treatment for marijuana.
WHAT’S
WRONG WITH NEEDLE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS?
By: Janet Lapey, M.D.
On August 17, 1997, billionaire George Soros announced that he will give $1 million to needle exchange programs in the US through the Tides Foundation in San Francisco. Soros is reported to have contributed over $15 million to U.S. organizations that promote the legalization/decriminalization of drugs.
Needle exchange programs (NEPs) give a green light to drug use, and police are instructed to look the other way. Many in drug prevention have long feared that the proliferation of needle exchange programs, now more than 100 around the country, would result in an increase in heroin use. In Boston, for instance, former Governor William Weld legalized and promoted NEPs, and Massachusetts now has the cheapest, purest heroin in the world and a serious heroin epidemic among the children.
These programs do not prevent AIDS. In Montreal, it's been shown that intravenous drug addicts who participate in NEPs are more than twice as likely to acquire AIDS as intravenous drug addicts who do not participate. In Vancouver, site of North America's largest NEP, where over 90% of the IV addicts use the exchange, the incidence of AIDS is skyrocketing among addicts. There is a concomitant rise in heroin use in the area, and Vancouver now has one of the highest heroin overdose rates in North America.
Communities are increasingly fed up with the increased open-air drug use and other problems caused by these programs. In Willimantic, Connecticut, a man who had no needles to exchange was given needles anyway. He overdosed and died near the exchange. His friend tried to get help from the exchange, but help was refused until it was too late. Hundreds of needles were being discarded near the exchange, and a child was stuck by a needle. Residents circulated a petition and were able to close down the NEP.
There are better, safer ways to prevent AIDS. A Chicago study showed a 71% drop in AIDS due to outreach/education alone, without needle distribution. Needle exchange programs are not safe. They are not effective. They trivialize drug use, and they should be discontinued.
IN NEW ZEALAND, THE TIDE
IS TURNING
By: Trevor Grice, MNZM, Drug Watch
International Delegate, New Zealand
New Zealand, like most Western countries, has a very powerful pro-drug legalisation/decriminalization movement. The main thrust comes from an active group all with the same well-worn, harm-minimisation approach.
The marijuana apologists are well entrenched in health, education, and other related ministries and agencies. They have taken their cue from those Australian philosophies that are now being challenged by Prime Minister John Howard.
For the past ten years, these people have had a major influence in the control of the philosophical direction of policy and money. Many prevention organisations have taken scurrilous hits from these dedicated zealots of harm-reduction policies, many of whom support NORML (National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).
The good news is that the tide is starting to turn. Disenfranchised schoolteachers and parents have witnessed a real deterioration in community standards as a result of these failed harm-reduction policies.
Drug use is rising hand in hand with crime, and there is a ground-swell movement focusing on parents’ rights and community standards. Two senior policy analysts have been severely reprimanded for questionable agenda-based behaviour, and more and more hard questions are being asked by senior government ministers.
Life Education Trust NZ has refused government money on the grounds that once received, the providers then will demand an input into philosophy. This is something that has happened to Life Education Australia, much to our sadness.
Harm-reduction/minimization defies the law of addiction by presuming that children and teenagers have rational minds when under the influence of drugs. We must remember that children and teenagers have faster drug absorption rates than adults and that they are still developing the metabolic systems to break down these substances.
The physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual development of children and teenagers is extremely vulnerable, and it is unthinkable to presume that you can teach them to use any substances safely.
New Zealand is grateful for its international contacts, encouragement, and support. Rest assured that our prevention demand reduction model is healthier than the philosophies of those people we question.
THE DRUG SITUATION IN
NORWAY –
By: Jan Krogh, LEON
Foundation, Norway
It is possible to credit Norway for being a country with a very small drug problem. At the same time, the situation inside Norway is of grave concern. The drug situation is getting worse, and the support for a restrictive drug policy seems to be less active and vocal than 10-15 years ago.
Two trends – in opposing directions – sounds too paradoxical to be true. Politicians are often blamed for not being able to keep two ideas in their minds concurrently, perhaps a challenge for others, too.
On November 6th, 1997, the first comparison between 26 European countries appeared in AFTENPOSTEN, the largest newspaper in Norway. This study proves that the relatively restrictive drug policy in Norway and Sweden shows positive results. At the same time the situation in Norway is getting worse. The people in Norway should not be blinded by comparing us with other countries.
Norway is influenced by drug trends, evidenced by the fact that the Norwegian branch of NORML (the United States’ National Organisation of the Reform of Marijuana Laws, called NORML in Norway) has recently been registered. The music industry is also reaching Norway with active "do drugs" messages. Despite legalising being exploited by media, the impact so far has not been as destructive as could be expected. Some youth are confused, but the restrictive attitude of the general public has not been undermined.
The challenge is to make the support for the restrictive drug policy more active throughout the country.
As Nils Bejerot demonstrated many years ago, Norway, as with other countries, has the drug problem our ignorance deserves. Why wait until the situation becomes worse before we begin to take action to correct the problem?
In Norway, one of the lobbyists for drug liberalisation is the influencing agent, Nils Christie. One of his latest lines runs, "The war on drugs is lost. Drugs won." This is a false statement, and the most important thing is that we are not facing a war; we are facing tide waves that are controllable. We need to keep ourselves afloat. Drugs are not new in the world. Drug epidemics have occurred in the past, and we must face the present challenges.
The drug problem amongst youth is above all a consequence of parental/adult challenges and attitudes: where to draw the line, and, ultimately, what kind of society do we want and are we willing to fight for?
Our opponents are better organised this time around than the last wave in the 70's. They have more money and use the propaganda channels more effectively.
Together we – as individuals, families, communities and countries – can make a true difference.
THE SCIENTIFIC VALUE OF
THE EVALUATION OF THE SWISS HEROIN DISTRIBUTION PROJECTS
By:
Ernst Aeschbach, M.D., specialist for Psychiatry & Psychotherapy FMH,
Switzerland
[The complete paper and references are available from Drug Watch
Summary: In February 1991, the Swiss Federal Council formulated its strategy to reduce the drug problem in Switzerland. At that time, Heroin Distribution Projects were explicitly rejected. Nevertheless, in May 1992, the Federal Council authorized, under extreme political pressure, Heroin Distribution Projects on the condition that they would be evaluated scientifically. These Projects were launched in December 1993 and were limited to an experimental period of three years. The final evaluation was to provide information about how heroin distribution could complement existing treatment for drug addicts.
According to established scientific standards, results of surveys must be published in scientific journals, thus making them available for discussion and review by experts. Yet, those responsible for the Projects presented the results to the public as success stories, and the programs have received considerable support by the mass media. Subsequently a euphoric claim of success has been spread around the world. Many interested people, who are critical of the Projects and their results, called for more comprehensive information. Those responsible have not responded.
Questions have been asked about the methodological deficiencies in the evaluation report. The data on drug addicts is based on self-reporting and raises serious doubts about reliability. Established international research standards were not followed. Serious scientific and administrative questions about the efficacy of the projects and their management have been raised.
The evaluation report does not provide an overall analysis of the prescribed substances, their forms of application, and their combinations, although all possible combinations of substances and applications were offered in the projects. The evaluation report states the higher the dosage provided, the more likely the participants were to continue in the projects. There is no further explanation for this finding than the addict's preference for heroin!
The reported data shows that 80% of the participants were in a surprisingly good nutritional state, 4% did not use heroin, and an additional 14% were only occasional users. Thus, there is good reason to doubt that these participants were really "severely addicted."
Help for the addict that is not directed to curing the disease runs the risk of creating easier access to drugs and alleviating only immediate needs. The root of the addict's problem remains unattended. Measures, to be truly helpful, must be applied within the framework of overall treatment to free the user from his addiction. Otherwise, the addict and those responsible for his treatment are in danger of being satisfied with partial results, with the addict remaining exposed to the recurring danger of drug abuse.
Conclusion: The assertions of positive results from the Swiss Heroin Distribution Projects are inconsistent with the goal of abstinence. The logical consequence of this conclusion should be the immediate termination of the Projects and a return to well-proven treatment methodologies.
Compared to the primary goal of abstinence, the 5.2% success rate of the projects is abysmal. Because of the lack of cooperation by the participants, the planned follow-up studies cannot be expected to produce meaningful data. We should not expect any significant long-term benefits from the projects.
The decrease in delinquency among the participants, an often-heard argument in support of the projects, is not borne out by the statistics. The data show that decrease in criminal activity was not unique to project participants, but it was consistent with similar patterns observed in connection with other community groups.
The objective of incorporating the "severely addicted" as participants in the projects was not achieved. The statistical evaluation made in the second preliminary report shows it was precisely the "severely addicted" who were the first to withdraw. Thus, heroin distribution does not appear to be an alternative treatment for the "severely addicted."
By euphorically and uncritically announcing success for the projects in the public media, even before the evaluation was completed, the proponents and evaluators have lost credibility. Their claims are not supported by the data. The unprofessional use of the media is illustrated by the appearance of a Project Director on a television show in Australia in which he blithely proclaimed success before the final report of the evaluators had even been presented. This is a violation of the established scientific rules of procedure, which are intended to assure the independence of evaluators from the managers of projects.
Switzerland would do well to return to established methodologies and therapies for treating and eliminating dependency on drugs. This solo experience with heroin distribution has provoked only concern and confusion in most of the world community. At the international level, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), whose members are party to the three United Nations Conventions on the control of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, has consistently and overwhelmingly rejected proposals for state distribution of heroin to addicts.
INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
(Fall 1997)
A National Institutes of Health (NIH) report stated that clinical
research on marijuana must meet the same regulatory standards of efficacy and
safety that all medications must meet under FDA and DEA guidelines. If some of the over 65 cannabinoids in the marijuana plant
prove to be medically beneficial, due to the fact that smoking plant material
poses patient dangers and dose standardizing problems, NIH encourages the
development of delivery routes other than smoking. (NIH
Executive Summary 8/97)
Babies born to mothers who use marijuana during pregnancy have 11 times
the risk of getting childhood leukemia. (Cannabis:
Dr. J Buckley, Physiopathology, Epidemiology, Detection: Dr. L Robison, Cancer.
Drug Free Eugene, OR 5/97)
Marijuana use contributed to a dramatic increase between 1993-1995 in
Minnesota adolescents seeking treatment.
(A&D Abuse Weekly)
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges has long
maintained a strong anti-drug policy. "I
am confident that it will not support legalization of drugs in your lifetime or
mine!" (The Honorable Stephen
B. Herrell, president, in a letter to Sandra S. Bennett, VP, Drug Watch
International, 9-3-97)
1992 - 1995 U.S. treatment admissions figures show increasing marijuana
and heroin use, with marijuana as the primary drug of abuse.
(DREAM 9/97)
Each year illegal drugs kill more than 16,000 Americans and cost
taxpayers nearly seventy billion dollars.
(1997 National Drug Control Strategy, Executive Overview, DREAM 9/97)
Former Drug Czar Wm. Bennett said that since the passage of California's
Proposition 215 supporting the "medical" use of marijuana, the
percentage of California youth who do not perceive marijuana as harmful has
increased 90%! He said that it is
these legalization and quasi-legalization initiatives that are driving the
increasing demand for drugs. (This
Week, ABC 8/17/97)
Poor results were shown using THC, the main psychoactive ingredient in
marijuana, to treat AIDS wasting syndrome.
(Timpone et al, AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1997, MJRR
7/97)
A study by Sidney et al. reflected double mortality in AIDS patients who
used marijuana. (Am J Public
Health 87:585-590, MJRR 7/97)
Both marijuana and cigarettes have a detrimental effect on vitamin E
status of HIV-1 infected individuals. These
findings are of particular concern in light of the important role of vitamin E
in immune processes, inhibition of viral activation, and the death of immune
cells. (Miguex-Burbano, G Shor-Posner,
MK Baum: Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1994; 34:1031)
Researchers at the University of Delaware's Center for Drug and Alcohol
Studies found that comprehensive treatment of drug-addicted prison inmates, when
coupled with post-release aftercare, reduces the probability of their being
rearrested by 57% and reduces the likelihood they will return to drug use by
37%. (NIH News Release
7-18-97)
In the Netherlands, a 1997 report from the Trimbos Institute in Utrecht
shows an enormous increase in pot smoking, alcohol consumption, tobacco smoking,
heroin, cocaine and ecstasy among young people.
The Institute pleaded for new prevention campaigns.
(HNN press release 6-19-97)
According to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, 4/3/97, the U.S,
Internal Revenue Service has revoked the charity status of the National
Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, known as NORML.
The NY Times 2-21-97, reported that the U.S. Internal Revenue
Service has ruled taxpayers cannot
deduct the cost of marijuana as a medical expense.
Mark Bradley, AP News, 8-11-97, reported that British Customs
officers and the Russian Ministry of the Interior cooperated to smash a
Russian-organized crime gang attempting to smuggle 200 kilos of cocaine into
Russia from South America. International
cooperation is vital in the fight against drugs.
The AP reported that a Lubbock, Texas hospital will pay $10.5 million to
the family of a pregnant woman who died in 1995 after she was anesthetized by a
drug-abusing doctor. (San
Antonio Express, 7-10-97)
HNN reported on 4/11/97 that the Swedish Minister of Social Affairs,
Margot Wallstroem, said the goal of the Swedish drug policy is to create a
drug-free society.
Reuters reported on 4/1/97 that the Dutch ABN-AMRO bank has declared it
will stop doing business with coffee shops.
"We don't want to be associated with illegal activities."
(press release of HNN 4-1-97)
A letter from T. Yoshida stated the World Health Organization (WHO) does
NOT support "Harm Reduction" policies that indicate safe threshold
levels of illegal drugs. (T.
Yoshida, Regulatory Control Unit, Programme on Substance Abuse, 4/11/97)
A document issued by Switzerland shows that after 18 months of free
heroin distribution to curb the use of illegal drugs . . . cocaine use was only
down 4%, daily marijuana use remained the same, almost daily alcohol use
decreased by only 1%, and 2/3 of those who began the Swiss trial were still
receiving prescription heroin. (HNN
press release 8-4-97)
Kate Shindle, Miss Illinois, has been crowned Miss America 1998. Miss Shindle, who won on a platform of AIDS awareness, is
reported to have said she opposes providing needles to addicts.
(AP-NY-9-15-97)
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to strengthen the ban on federal
funding for needles.
(JL, 9-11-97)
On 9-17-97, the US House of Representatives passed the Coburn amendment,
a tough piece of legislation that strips the authority of the HHS secretary to
remove the restrictions on needle exchanges.
(DN 9-18-97)
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control reported that more than 14 million
syringes were distributed in the U.S. in 1996 through needle exchange programs.
This represented a 75% increase from 1994.
Half of the programs are technically illegal and about half of the 87
programs surveyed in 28 states were in California, Washington, New York, and
Connecticut. (CDC report 6/19/97;
HNN 6/20/97)
The Dutch daily Netherlands Dagblad reported on 4/2/97 that J. van
der Giessen, elderwoman for social affairs in Amsterdam, wants to open
"injection rooms" where addicts can come to rest and take their drugs.
This policy is opposed by Amsterdam-Southeast and Westerpark.
(HNN press release 4/4/97)
The German magazine Focus reported on 3/97 that the German Social
Democratic Party (SPD) is in favour of allowing people to have an
"ordinary" (at least 7
grams per day) weekly ration of drugs without getting punished.
German drug czar, Eduard Linter, was reported to be "shocked"
over the proposal! (HNN press
release 3-29-97)
Findings from Vancouver, the largest needle exchange program (NEP) in
North America, support the premise that NEPs don't prevent the spread of AIDS.
When the program started in 1988, AIDS prevalence was only 1-2%.
Now it is 27%. Seroconversion
rate is now 18%. Compare the
Vancouver study to a Chicago study (Weibel, WW et al J. AIDS 12:282-289, 1996)
which showed that seroconversion rates fell from 8.4% to 2.4% through outreach
education alone without NEPs. (HNN
6/24/97)
Injection drug users who participated in Montreal needle-exchange
programs were two times more likely to become infected with HIV than those who
did not. (McGill and Montreal Universities study, The Lancet, Volume 348,
8/3/96)
Many drug preventionists have predicted that needle programs would
encourage drug use resulting in a rise of heroin use.
The Boston Globe reported on 9/15/97 that heroin use has reached
epidemic proportions in Australia. (JL
9-18-97) Reports from Sydney show dramatically rising Hepatitis-C infection
rates among intravenous drug users.
(DN 9-18-97)
"I think all the public health officials who have condoned needle
exchange programs should be held accountable for those poor souls who trusted
them and died anyway!" (David
Noffs, President Life Education Centers International, Founding President Drug
Watch International)
INTERESTING ACTIVITY . .
.
The
New York Times reported on 8-17-97 that George Soros gave $1million
through the Tides Foundation in San Francisco for clean needles to be
distributed to drug addicts. In a
few weeks, this could make as many as 10 million clean needles available.
Hassela
Nordic Network reported on 9-11-97 that George Soros is reported to own 5% of
the Sydney (Australia) Harbour Casino. Earlier
this year the casino was said to have become "a honey pot for criminals to
launder money."
The
Weekly Standard, p 13, reported on 12-9-96 that George Soros gave the
pro-legalization Drug Policy Foundation a set of suggestions to follow if they
wanted his assistance “. . . target a few winnable issues, like medical
marijuana and the repeal of mandatory minimum [sentences]."
The
AP reported on 8-25-97 that George Soros said in Time magazine that he
has spent more than $90 million in recent years to weaken drug laws.
Byron Wien, head U.S. strategist at the investment house Morgan Stanley,
and a friend of Soros' reportedly told Time, "You must understand.
He thinks he's been anointed by God to solve insoluble problems."
The
Washington Post reported on 2-2-97 that George Soros offered financial support
to efforts that could lead to a wider legalization of marijuana.
HNN
reported on 2-3-97 that George Soros, in a television programme broadcast in
Sweden in early 1995 originally made for the British Channel 4, remarked that he
wants to earn money, otherwise he is not investing; that he can influence the
course of history; and that people of his sort are not to be trusted!
"Unless Americans organize against them, legalizers
will quickly make a mockery of the national consensus against drugs through the
technique of heavily financed state-by-state creeping legalization.
Millions of new addicts await us."
FROM THE DESK OF JANET L.
LAPEY, M.D.
President, Drug Watch International
It is a great privilege for me to serve as President of Drug Watch International, especially at this crucial time. The current situation is grave as the pro-drug legalization offensive moves relentlessly onward under the guise of “medicalization” and “harm reduction.”
The U.S. House of Representatives held two important recent hearings on the legalization onslaught, and members of Drug Watch International testified at both. The hearing entitled “Needle Exchange, Legalization, and the Failure of the Swiss Heroin Experiments,” held by the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, took place on September 15, 1997.
Dr. Ernst Aeschbach testified about the “increasing number of drug addicts and an increase in drug trafficking” in Switzerland. Due to a liberal drug policy, Swiss drug use has increased markedly. As drug consumption rises, the power and influence of the drug cartels also increase.
David C. Jordan, former Ambassador to Peru and currently professor of government at the University of Virginia, testified that due to the legalization movement, Switzerland has now reached level two of “narcostatization,” which he defines as the process of becoming a narco-state. At the advanced level five, the narco-state is completely compromised by organized crime, and democracy is lost.
Dr. Matthias Erne of Switzerland testified that the drug legalizers’ intention is to “break down the resistance of the U.S. against drugs and prepare the ground for an abolishment of the three international U.N. conventions against drugs.”
Lt. Col. Robert L. Maginnis (USA, Ret.) of the Family Research Council reported that a recent national voter survey found that a majority of Americans believe government-funded needle exchanges would represent an official endorsement of illegal drug use and encourage teen drug use. Nancy Sosman described how a needle exchange program is destroying her neighborhood in the Lower East Side of Manhattan.
The second hearing, “Medical Marijuana Referenda Movement in America,” was held October 1, 1997, by the House Subcommittee on Crime, and General Barry McCaffrey, Dr. Alan Leshner, James E. Copple, Ronald E. Brooks, Richard M. Romley, and I testified that marijuana has never been found scientifically to be a safe effective medicine.
Nevertheless, the drug legalization movement has deceived voters through fraudulent advertisements, and I testified that physicians on the board of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), the pro-marijuana lobby, have downplayed the dangers of marijuana and other drugs.
Furthermore, this legalization effort is successfully targeting the youth. For instance, on September 20, 1997, 40,000 young people were lured to Boston Common where they smoked marijuana openly at a free rock concert sponsored by NORML. The youth were sold hats and cartoon T-shirts promoting marijuana and drug paraphernalia designed as toys. Children who were 12 years old and younger explained that they were smoking marijuana because it is a healthy medicine.
It is no wonder that surveys are reporting massive increases in drug use by younger and younger children.
Return
to Drug Watch International Homepage
This page was last updated on July 13, 2001
Copyright © 2001 Drug Watch International. All rights reserved. Disclaimer
Please address all comments and questions to: Drug Watch International, P.O. Box
45218, Omaha, NE 68145-0218, USA