Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

THE DRUG DEALER LIABILITY ACT:   An Idea Whose Time Has Come
By:  Daniel Bent, Attorney-at-Law
Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.

If you are a citizen of one of the 39 states that have not yet passed the Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA), you can have a significant impact by helping to fill a gapping hole in our civil justice system.  Let me explain.

Today, under existing law in 39 states, it is not clear that families who lose a child to drugs can compel dealers in their community to pay for the injuries they cause. This is so, even though in those states a producer of other products that injure a consumer can be liable for injuries resulting from the use of those products.  The DDLA fills the gap by making drug dealers liable under civil law for the injuries to the families of drug users.

Michigan, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Illinois, Hawaii, California, South Dakota, Utah, Georgia, Indiana and Louisiana have passed the Model Drug Dealer Liability Act.  The first lawsuit under the Act resulted in a judgment of $1 million against two Detroit drug dealers in favor of a drug baby.  The proceeds were for the baby's siblings.  You see, the baby was not only born addicted to cocaine, but at age two was bludgeoned to death.  Her drug-using mother was charged with murdering the baby.  In Utah, a wife sued her husband's drug dealer for the devastating impact that her husband's drug addiction had on her family.  That case settled just before trial.

The DDLA is a products liability act for illegal drugs.  It establishes a form of “market liability” so that the individual plaintiff need not prove a particular defendant's illegal drugs were distributed to him or her, a near impossible task.  Instead, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant was distributing illegal drugs in the community at the time of his or her exposure and injury by that dealer's type of drug. 

Current federal and state drug forfeiture laws require that money seized, even from convicted drug dealers, be returned to them, unless it is directly connected to their drug crimes.  The DDLA makes all of a dealer's assets recoverable to pay for medical treatment and injuries caused by illegal drugs in the dealer's community.  THE DDLA permits parents of children in drug treatment, state and county public agencies that pay for drug treatment and/or illegal drug related medical care, hospitals caring for drug babies, and others who are financially injured because of illegal drugs to collect damages.

In the Michigan case, the Detroit Sheriff's Office also won a judgment of over $7 million for its expenses in addressing drug activity in Detroit, recovering any assets in the hands of drug dealers who had distributed drugs in Detroit communities.  Without the DDLA it would be difficult, if not impossible, for such recovery to be obtained. 

Current laws clearly permit those negligently injured and requiring medical treatment in virtually every other aspect of our lives to recover from the negligent party.  However, in the states that have not yet passed the DDLA, laws do not provide for compensation from those who cause injury by intentionally distributing illegal drugs.

Established civil law principles allow civil recovery from manufacturers of hazardous materials for injury caused by such materials that effect health, even where a particular plaintiff cannot determine which manufacturer manufactured the particular product that caused him or her injury.  This is called “market liability.”  Yet, except for the states that have passed the MODEL DDLA, existing law does not now clearly establish such recovery for injuries caused by hazardous illegal drugs.  The DDLA would change this legal anomaly by imposing liability, including “market liability,” on dealers of illegal drugs.

When the Model Act was drafted, it was subject to review and comment nationally by more than 50 members of the legal, law enforcement, drug prevention, civil rights, business, and other communities.  It has now been closely examined by the legislative process in the 11 states that have enacted it.  The American Legislative Exchange Council has adopted the Act as its model legislation.  In addition, the Model Act is now before a number of other legislatures and is receiving growing interest in still other states.

Once enacted throughout the United States, every dealer would know that law enforcement and criminal prosecution is only part of their problem.  Injured parents and families will have the tools to make dealers with identifiable assets pay everything they own for the injury they cause, and civil justice will then be more complete.

The author is an attorney practicing in Honolulu, Hawaii, and is the former United States Attorney for Hawaii.  He can be reached at (808) 523-2545 and by e-mail at DBent@Carlsmith.com for a copy of the Model Drug Dealer Liability Act and related information.

HEMP BOYCOTT

Drug Watch has initiated a consumer boycott of products made from marijuana (Cannabis sativa) hemp.  Consumers are being alerted to the major role that hemp promotion plays in the pro-legalization movement and are asked to show opposition by avoiding hemp purchases.  Because legalization advocates have made hemp purchases a sign of support for their cause, we are asking people who oppose legalization to cast "consumer votes" against legalization by avoiding hemp products.  The boycott theme is, "Don't buy hemp. Vote against marijuana!"

Hemp products, such as clothing, cosmetics, paper products, etc., currently available in the United States, are made from hemp grown in other countries.  The boycott is aimed at all Cannabis sativa hemp products, in order to discourage both the initiation of U.S. hemp production and the promotion of current hemp products by the legalization movement.

Consumers need to know that:

1.      Hemp is not an ecological wonder crop that can save farms or even be profitable without massive government subsidies.

2.      The proposed levels of psychoactive THC in hemp are not low enough to eliminate diversion to the illegal market.  Zero THC hemp has been sought but has never been attained.

3.      Other fiber plants that don't add to illegal drug use are available.  Hemp has become a "trendy" item only because legalization advocates have popularized it, not because it is inherently valuable.  The leading hemp advocacy group, the North American Industrial Hemp Council (NAIHC), doesn't oppose the personal use of smoked marijuana! 

Even though diversion to illegal use is a major barrier to NAIHC's stated goals, the organization remains "neutral" on the topic of whether smoking marijuana is a good idea.  We think that's because the group doesn't want to oppose marijuana use, and it knows that without the allure of marijuana, hemp would be just another novelty material.

We, at Drug Watch, have collected enough information from agricultural and economic experts to know that the benefits of resuming hemp production in the United States are much too small to justify the damage that would be done to anti-drug policy.  We hope others either accept our conclusion or move far enough into unbiased study of the issues to reach this same conclusion.

RESOLUTION AGAINST "INDUSTRIAL" MARIJUANA HEMP

Whereas:  Drug abuse threatens our democratic institutions, world security, and the future of nations;

Whereas:  Families and communities are directly and heavily impacted by the tragedy and devastation of the illegal use of drugs;

Whereas:  Marijuana use by youth greatly increases the likelihood of other drug use;

Whereas:  Marijuana use endangers adults and especially children, and it has created widespread societal problems throughout the world;

Whereas:  Marijuana Hemp (Cannabis sativa), due to its psychoactive content (THC level), is the only type of various hemp plants that is illegal to grow and is the only hemp plant being proposed for new industrial production and use;

Whereas:  The threshold level of THC proposed for industrial marijuana hemp is of the same strength as marijuana sold on the streets in the 1960s and 1970s;

Whereas:  Smoking marijuana hemp with a low THC level of 0.25 percent could result in psychological effects on inexperienced users (children, for example), or on individuals with a high degree of sensitivity to THC;

Whereas:  THC accumulates in the fatty cells of the body;

Whereas:  A threshold THC concentration, below which industrial marijuana hemp would have no significant psychoactive properties, has not been determined;

Whereas:  Even the supposedly low psychoactive (THC) level proposed for industrial marijuana hemp creates the potential for problems similar to those faced in areas where marijuana hemp grows wild;

Whereas:  There is a possibility for diversion of marijuana hemp into the illicit drug trade:

• Through increasing the psychoactive content by harvesting selected parts of the plant,
• Through manufacturing a higher-potency drug product from the marijuana hemp plant using accessible recipes and combining it with other ingredients, and
• Through using low-potency marijuana hemp as a filler to increase the bulk of higher-potency marijuana sold in illicit markets;

Whereas:  Industrial low-potency marijuana hemp and high-potency marijuana hemp are often visually indistinguishable and can only be differentiated through chemical analysis, allowing marijuana hemp plants with illegally high potencies to be covertly grown in industrial marijuana hemp fields;

Whereas:  Pro-drug advocates promote the normalization and legalization of marijuana under the guise of "industrial hemp";

Whereas:  Supporting industrial marijuana hemp sends an ambivalent and harmful message to youth and others regarding marijuana;

Whereas:  Claims of economic advantages to the agricultural community from growing industrial marijuana hemp are significantly exaggerated, and the market for industrial marijuana hemp is, in fact, miniscule, with existing alternative products and raw materials being cheaper and healthier to produce and providing better market results; and

Whereas:  Claims of environmental advantages from growing industrial marijuana hemp are misleading and significantly exaggerated;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:_________________________________________

IS OPPOSED TO THE PRODUCTION OR USE OF MARIJUANA HEMP (CANNABIS SATIVA) FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS, BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL FOR INCREASING DRUG  PROBLEMS, ITS LACK OF POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT, AND ITS LACK OF POTENTIAL FOR PROVIDING SUPERIOR ECONOMIC REPLACEMENT FOR OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO BECOME MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE REGARDING INDUSTRIAL MARIJUANA HEMP AND TO REFRAIN FROM PURCHASING ITEMS MADE WITH INDUSTRIAL MARIJUANA HEMP TO SHOW OPPOSITION TO THIS AND OTHER ILLICIT DRUGS.

Please print:            Name of contact person:________________________________________

                        Phone: (     )______________________Fax: (     )____________________

Please return to:                DRUG WATCH INTERNATIONAL l PO BOX 45218 l OMAHA, NE  68145-0218

METHADONE – LAST NOT FIRST
By:  Ross Goodridge, Sydney, Australia

This year I published a paper entitled "The Methadone Conspiracy – Can Addicts Sue?", highlighting the fact that Australia currently has approximately 24,000 people on long-term methadone maintenance programs.  Patients receive daily methadone, which is ultimately supplied by the Federal Government of Australia.  The methadone is often provided without any attempt to control long-term use or to restrict the addict's use of other illicit drugs.  Most methadone is provided by way of "take-away doses," and thus an estimated 29 percent of methadone in Australia is re-sold on the black market.  Methadone has become a substantial primary drug of addiction.

Methadone is a synthetic opiate, developed in Nazi Germany in 1941, in an attempt to replicate heroin for relief of pain.  Methadone acts upon the body in a manner very similar to heroin, attaching to the same brain receptors and creating euphoria by the same chemical process.

In Australia, like most western countries, there are often many views expressed as to how society should deal with illicit drug users. There are those who promote a tougher on drugs policy, while others promote legalisation.

Since releasing "The Methadone Conspiracy," I have personally attracted much criticism by those who promote legalisation.  They believe that narcotics should be available either freely or by prescription.  They already have one drug available on this basis – methadone.

On receipt of this criticism I posed the question for myself, "Can methadone maintenance be considered a successful drug treatment program?"

The starting point in answering this question is, "What is meant by success?"

If one starts with the position that no drug addict will ever be cured, and there is no point in trying, then I suppose it could be considered a success to provide clinically pure amounts of narcotic each day to that addict each day.  This will provide lower risk of harm to the addict of HIV infection, criminal behaviour, etc.

From my prospective, I cannot, and do not, accept that the best outcome that can ever be achieved for any one addict is a lifetime of addiction.

Australia has a rapidly rising number of drug addicts, a rapidly rising number of methadone addicts, and rapidly rising crime.  Australia’s prisons are over-flowing, and it is estimated that 80 percent of all prisoners have a drug addiction, which was a cause of their criminal behaviour. The direction must be changed.

Methadone programs do little to reduce the demand for heroin.  An estimated 72 percent of people on long-term high dose methadone programs are also frequent heroin users.

Methadone addicts regularly sell part of their take-away doses in order to obtain money for heroin purchase.

Trading in methadone occurs directly outside of the methadone clinics in Australia.

Nobody involved in the field can be unaware of this fact; it is obvious and patent.

Heroin addicts buy methadone because one "done" (usually 20 or 40 millilitres), will help sustain a heroin addict until he or she can buy more heroin.  Teenagers use methadone because of a perception that it is a "safe drug."  It is less daunting to take a sip than it is to inject, and teenagers experiment with methadone as a first drug.

Notwithstanding that there are now over 24,000 long-term methadone addicts in Australia, the Government does not offer any programs to help people overcome their methadone addiction.  Drug addicts are placed in jail or given free drugs, and historically almost no funds are available to overcome drug addiction!

I am not opposed to methadone per se.  I am opposed to methadone as the first and only option provided to people who would otherwise achieve abstinence.

Ross Goodridge is a senior Barrister-at-Law practising in Sydney, Australia.  He is credited with the Australian introduction of Drug Courts and was responsible for the endorsement of Drug Courts by the AMA, most political parties and the broad community.  Mr. Goodridge has been a keynote speaker at a number of conferences and an active supporter of the Australian Cities Against Drugs movement.

DRUG WATCH EYE-OPENERS

Most adults know that the Internet contains widespread pornographic material and that predators have been discovered lurking in chat rooms.  Far fewer people seem to be aware of the many Internet sites created by people who would legalize drugs and who advocate them for recreational use.  Throughout the World Wide Web, pro-drug propagandists offer information designed to recruit people, especially young people, to their cause.  Skewed reports about marijuana and heroin findings abound, and invitations to attend drug rallies appear from time to time.  Talking points are listed for Web users who are encouraged to call radio and TV talk shows to fire pro-drug debate.  Satanic and other cults whose rituals revolve around drug use ply their trade in cyberspace.  Drug use discussions flood chat rooms and e-mail.

Marijuana, in fact, is being sold over the Internet, supposedly as medicine.  One site out of Amsterdam offers 40 varieties of cultivated "bud" and hashish with names like "Sticky Fingers," "Bazooka Joe," and "Spoetnik."  The site, which claims to be the first and only "Medicinal Cannabis Mailing List on the Internet," warns customers "don't order too much at once."  How often has your personal physician prescribed a drug with a name like "Sticky Fingers" and suggested you buy an undetermined amount over the Internet, but warned, "don't order too much"?

Is this distressing news?  It needn't be. Worried parents with computer-literate children can now block objectionable material from their computers and visit Web sites like Drug Watch International's to learn the truth. 

How are sites blocked?  Two ways: by installing software designed to make the Internet safe for children or by using your server's parental controls.  Pre-set children's packages eliminate inappropriate sites in the categories of sex, language, drugs, cults, gross-out, and extremist groups.  Further, they prohibit youngsters from divulging personal information, entering chat rooms, downloading, or purchasing premium packages.  Some programs limit log-on time.  Most control packages can be customized to add sites not already blocked by the pre-set children's program.  Internet controls are a "must" for parents and teachers, but the most important control . . . always parental or teacher supervision . . . as well as fair rules for use, and follow-up on any breaking of the rules.

You can learn the truth about "medical" marijuana, marijuana hemp, needle exchange, the recent Institute of Medicine marijuana report, the hidden agendas of various groups, and the harm of other illicit drugs by visiting the Drug Watch International Web site at: www.drugwatch.org 

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
(Spring 1999)

  Ford Motor Co. was lobbied to consider industrial hemp by “individuals with a financial stake in its expanded cultivation.”  However, Ford recognizes the social implications of legalizing industrial hemp and doesn’t want to contribute to a “social ill.”  (Ford Motor Company, WHQ, letter dated Dec. 3, 1997)

  In June 1998, U.N. Member States approved a political declaration aimed at eliminating, or significantly reducing, the illicit cultivation of the coca bush, the cannabis plant, and the opium poppy by 2008.  (HNN PR 981021)

  The U.N. International Narcotics Control Board says that a culture tolerating recreational drug use undermines prevention efforts.  "If Governments want national and international efforts to be successful in preventing the spread of drug abuse, they must be ready to confront cultural trend setters who are actively creating a 'drug-friendly' environment."  (INCB Report 1997 UN Information Service, release no. 2/9, Feb. 24, 1998, 0900 GMT)

  The U.N. International Drug Control Programme will create its own satellite-monitoring system to identify cultivation of illegal drug crops.  (HNN 3/28/99)

  New Zealand police told Parliament that one in seven killers were under the influence of cannabis at the time of their crime, and one in five were regular cannabis users.  (HNN  8/6/98)

  The New Zealand government announced that all drug paraphernalia is banned from importation and sales.  They will not consider the decriminalization of marijuana.  (V.Boswell, Drug Watch Delegate from New Zealand, 3/9/99)

  According to the Sydney Morning Herald, April 8, 1999, there are more than 300,000 Australian heroin users spending at least $10 billion a year on their addiction, consuming about 10 tonnes.  It is expected that more than 700 users will fatally overdose during 1999.  (HNN 4/8/99)

  U.S. heroin-related emergency department visits have doubled from 1990 to 1996.  Most deaths occur among heroin users who are in their late 20s or early 30s.  (Karl Sporer, MD, UC San Francisco, Annals of Internal Medicine, 4/6/99)

  A recent study of participants in a needle exchange program in Seattle, Washington, concluded, "there was no indication of a protective effect of syringe exchange against Hepatitis B or C infections.  Indeed, highest incidence of infection occurred among current users of the exchange, even after adjusting for confoundings variables."  (U.S.  Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and Tom Coburn, M.D., Letter dated 3/9/99)

  Long-term studies using sophisticated assessment techniques indicate that prenatal exposure to drugs may cause significant impairment in later behavior and learning ability, affecting social interactions and behaviors in the classroom.  (NIDA Notes, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 1998)

  The percentage of Washington, D.C. Juvenile arrestees testing positive for illicit drugs (primarily marijuana) has increased dramatically over the past several years, with greatest increase among the youngest age groups.  (CESAR Fax, March 1999)

  NORML, the international pro-drug lobby, has established a free fax service for its members to contact the U.S. Congress, encouraging messages supporting medical marijuana and legislation ending criminal penalties for the personal use and possession of marijuana. (High Times, March 1999, p. 34)

  During the 15 years that marijuana use was decriminalized in Alaska, the young people of Alaska were using marijuana at twice the rate of the national average. (Lynda Adams, Drug Watch Alaska Delegate, IDEA, Winter 1999)

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

Additional research:

  An economic analysis of the Midwestern (U.S.) indicated that every dollar spent on prevention programs saved $68 per affected family in health and social costs.  (NIDA Notes, Vol. 13, No. 5, Feb. 1999)

  Tanzania's Director of Criminal Investigation said the drug problem has spread like wild fire.  "Only concerted efforts from the individual family to the international levels can help subdue the illicit drug business."  Many African states have formed a strong coalition to wage war against drug trafficking in the continent.  (HNN 3/28/99)

FROM THE DESK OF SANDRA BENNETT
President, Drug Watch International

It is interesting that most educators will tell you even a bright child will eventually believe he is stupid if told that often enough.  Drug legalizers, with a great deal of help from the media, have used as a mantra, "the war on drugs has failed, the drug policy has failed, youthful experimenters are filling our prisons," so often that now, even some otherwise intelligent people have come to believe that it is so.

Has our drug policy failed?  Did you know that in the 12 short years from 1980 through 1992, youth drug use in the United States was cut by 50%?  This is a success by anybody's measure.  As far as the government locking up first time drug users (the rallying cry of drug legalizers) goes, U.S. Justice Department records say it isn't so.  Less than 2% of those in federal prisons are first time non-violent drug offenders.  Of that 2%, three-quarters were arrested for possession of an average 4500 pounds of marijuana, clearly a trafficking amount.

Legalizers advocate a coddling approach to drug addiction like the one in existence in the Netherlands.  Before you embrace this approach, consider Interpol's report that the Netherlands crimes of violence, aggravated theft, and breaking and entering are far greater per capita than ours.

Drug use has been on the rise since 1992.  How come?  Well, in 1992, the Clinton administration brought with it a general reputation for being soft on drugs, and some, including Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, held a recklessly permissive position on drug policy.  Emboldened and joyful legalizers began openly and systematically advocating for the right to use drugs, undermining prevention efforts.  Funding from George Soros increased the legalizers' influence, allowing them to purchase the legal and media assistance necessary to 'professionalize' their act.  Their pot-smoking leaders called their new image "wearing the android disguise," and in that disguise, they mislead us with claims about "unwarranted incarceration" or "harmless marijuana."

Sanctions for illegal drug use often emphasize treatment rather than incarceration, but laws and the threat of incarceration for those who sell drugs, or who refuse to discontinue use, are an effective and needed supplement to prevention and treatment efforts.  Although high quality drug prevention and treatment must be a key part of national drug policy, enforcement of laws against drug use and sale are equally important. 

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