Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

ALERT: CYBERSPACE AND DRUGS
By:  Steve Gersten, Attorney-at-Law
California, U.S.A.

While the Internet is an important new tool for exchanging democratic ideas, educating people, and even assisting law enforcement, this international computer network is also being used by the pro-drug movement.  Certain dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia are sold online.  The World Wide Web, chat rooms, e-mail, listservs, and newsgroups are frequently used to promote drug legalization, decriminalization, harm reduction, needle handouts, "medical" marijuana, and  "industrial" hemp.  Many sites use glossy interactive cartoon characters, especially appealing to young people.  Cybercitizens can also encounter instructions about various illegal drug-related activities.  The Internet can even be used to electronically launder illegal monies.

Using the Internet to support weaker drug laws, glamorize illegal drug use, or to facilitate illegal drug related transactions sends an erroneous message that drugs are cool and acceptable, when in fact, they are dangerous and sometimes deadly.  For this reason, children, their parents, and concerned professionals need to be educated to say no to illegal drugs in cyberspace!

Meeting in Washington, DC, last May, the Drug Watch Board of Directors unanimously adopted a resolution to work to abolish Internet sales of (1) illegal drugs, (2) legal drugs when sold in an illegal manner, and (3) illegal drug paraphernalia.  The resolution was adopted in response to concerns that modern technology is being used to circumvent national and international restrictions on the production and distribution of drugs and paraphernalia.

Other individuals and organizations have issued similar admonitions.  For example, according to the report of the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board for 1998:
"International and national regulatory controls are increasingly being threatened by misuse of emerging technologies such as the World Wide Web.  Drugs of abuse and related paraphernalia are blatantly sold on Web sites.  Governments . . . should work in close cooperation with the Internet industry, community organizations, families, and educators to set up a framework that will ensure that such emerging technologies are not misused for the proliferation of drug abuse."

Speaking before Congress in July 1997, U.S. Senator Charles Grassley warned that the Internet purveys "in the most direct way drug use themes to kids of all ages" and that if we fail to respond, we will likely see another drug epidemic.  Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced S. 1428, legislation supported by Drug Watch, to make clear that it is unlawful to use any communication facility, including the Internet, to advertise certain drugs and drug paraphernalia.

In July 1998, Senator Dianne Feinstein asked Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate the sale of drug paraphernalia over the Internet.  Selling such paraphernalia has been illegal since 1986, when President Reagan signed a law making most sales of drug implements a federal crime.  The law was unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994.  Anti-drug paraphernalia laws are also in effect in 48 states and in certain other countries.

The sale of certain legal products via electronic communication has also raised concerns.  Consumer advocates and physicians worry that patients may be purchasing certain medications online (1) without receiving individual, face-to-face counseling from a practitioner and (2) that may have been promoted in a misleading manner.  Also, Senator Hatch has warned that "if a thirteen-year-old is capable of ordering [alcohol] and having it delivered by merely 'borrowing' a credit card and making a few clicks with his or her mouse, there is something very wrong with the level of control being exercised over these sales."  Hatch has introduced S. 577, a bill endorsed by Drug Watch, to allow federal courts to issue orders blocking the sale of alcohol (via the Internet or otherwise), when the ultimate delivery violates State law.

We know that keeping alcohol, illegal drugs, and drug paraphernalia away from youth helps cut youth drug use, and it is essential to send a clear message that the Internet cannot be used to evade the law.

Steven Gersten is an attorney and the founding director of the Drug Watch International Committee on Internet Policy.  He is also webmaster of the site, "Fighting Drug Abuse into the 21st Century," located at http://members.aol.com/fightdrugs/law/home.htm  In 1986, Gersten led a successful campaign to enact federal anti-drug paraphernalia legislation.  Nothing in this article is intended to provide legal advice about particular situations.

A DISTORTED REPORT
By:  Margaret Hemenway
Senior Advisor to U.S. House Representative Mark Souder
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
April 19, 1999

The recently released report on marijuana by the Institute of Medicine has often been distorted.  The study should be seen as a sound defeat for advocates of smoked marijuana. It clearly attacked smoking as a delivery system for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

As with cigarette smokers, chronic marijuana smoking is associated with abnormalities of cells lining the human respiratory tract.  Marijuana smoke is associated with increased risk of cancer, lung damage, and poor pregnancy outcomes.  Cellular and genetic studies all suggest marijuana smoke is an important risk factor for the development of respiratory cancer. 

Domestic violence, child abuse, and traffic accidents are all connected to marijuana use.  Marijuana is the primary illegal substance of abuse mentioned in autopsies of children and adolescents (Medical Examiner Data, US Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, 1998).

The IOM Report directs that future research should be conducted with the clear intent towards the ultimate use and development of either isolated or synthesized cannabinoids. The study highlighted cognitive and behavioral effects of marijuana and the fact that especially older patients may have trouble with side effects and dysphoria, pointing out that marijuana is addictive, and there exists evidence of withdrawal.  The study also confirmed that there are other available and probably more effective medications than THC.  Thousands of federal studies have shown that marijuana is not safe or effective as medicine, which is why the FDA refuses to approve marijuana as medicine.

With regard to the gateway effect, according to recent research by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana "primes" the brain for harder drugs.  It's worth noting that marijuana used today is on average, thirty times more potent than the marijuana that was smoked in the 1960s.  Half of young people in drug treatment are there for marijuana addiction.

Ballot referenda that exploit the condition of sick and dying people are shameful, especially when pot proponents know that the referenda approve marijuana, without a doctor's prescription, for "any ailment for which marijuana provides relief."  As drug czar McCaffrey has pointed out, this could include writer’s cramp, memory recall, and hangnails.  The obvious goal of the drug legalizers is to make illegal and dangerous drugs more accessible to our young people. 

The prestigious Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University has shown a strong statistical relationship between tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use and the use of harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and LSD.  Examining data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Survey of 11,000 ninth- through 12^th graders, CASA found compelling correlations: The earlier and more often an individual uses marijuana, the likelier that individual is to use cocaine.  According to CASA, the IOM ignored significant findings of prestigious organizations, such as the Scripps Research Institute in California and the Cumplutense University in Madrid, of marijuana's potential for physical addiction.

EUROPEAN CITIES AGAINST DRUGS MAYORS' CONFERENCE

The following Resolution, unanimously agreed upon at the 6th Mayors' Conference of the European Cities Against Drugs held in Malta on May 28-29, 1999, will be sent to the Prime Minister of the Australian Federal Government, the New South Wales Premier, and The Olympic Committee in Lausanne. Copies of the Resolution will be forwarded to all delegates, from 19 countries, who participated at the Malta Conference.

ECAD RESOLUTION

At the plenary meeting of the 6th Mayors' Conference of the European Cities Against Drugs (ECAD), held in Malta on 28 May, 1999, the delegates had their attention drawn to the drug political proposals, including distribution of heroin, and other measures facilitating drug use, which were being discussed at the recent Drug Summit in New South Wales, Australia.

Such proposals would be in contradiction of the principles of the UN Conventions on drugs, the 1990 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Political Declaration and the Guiding Principles on Drug Demand Reduction of the UN General Assembly Special Session in June 1998, of which the Australian Government was a signatory.

The ECAD delegates unanimously requested that their concerns at these proposals be drawn to the attention of the Australian Federal Government and the Government of New South Wales, particularly bearing in mind that the Olympic Games are to be held in Sydney in the year 2000.

DRUG WATCH EYE-OPENERS

Like a good teacher, music can instruct and inspire.  How do children learn their ABC's?  They sing them.  Teach a child Frere Jacques, and he begins to parlez Francais.  Music therapy incorporates the power of music and is considered a “science.”  Movie makers heighten the glory, the horror or the romance of their movies with music.  There are many inspiring popular songs, as well as romantic and funny ones, not to mention songs that literally get the audience jumping.

The power of music to influence has not been lost on the hard rock business, in which many songs have been written attempting to recruit fans to a pro-drug position.  A recent study from the Office of National Drug Control Policy reveals that nearly one fifth of rock songs and two-thirds of rap songs contain illicit drug messages. ⁽¹⁾

In 1995, the Black Crowes, Cypress Hill and several other groups joined forces to record an album called “Hempilation” to benefit the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law (NORML), the international pro-drug lobby.  The collaborators insist that their support for marijuana hemp is purely environmental (a scientifically questionable position).  If that is so, why do the songs in the “Hempilation” album sing of smoking pot and getting high?  Why did they choose groups dedicated to legalizing smoking marijuana recreationally?  A second album was released in 1998, again glorifying toking.  The groups involved in the two albums have recorded songs called “Legalize It”, “Let's Get High,” and “One Toke Over the Line,” among others. ⁽²⁾

It is not unusual for drug-using rock stars to be featured at rock concerts.  Their influence on their fans is apparent to most observers.

A group of parents from San Antonio, Texas, attended 15 rock concerts and afterwards issued a shocking report.  "Youth, some as young as first grade, were being manipulated to chant sexually explicit and vulgar incantations.  Other rock acts enacted brutally violent scenes and symbolism of the occult.  Youngsters were cheering on performers, holding “signs of Satan,” and openly passing marijuana joints, multicolored “poppers,” and flasks of whiskey.  Some were fondling one another; others were throwing bottles and fireworks from upper balconies." ⁽³⁾

The July, 1999, return to Woodstock was an appalling scene of drug use and anarchy.  The McGlaughlin show reported rampant drug and alcohol use, three dead, and four reported rapes, which were witnessed by people who did nothing to stop them.  Five hundred riot police were called in to stop the looting of concession stands and supply trucks, and to halt arson, which produced out-of-control fires. ⁽⁴⁾

Sex, drugs and rock 'n roll ran horribly amok at Woodstock '99.  It was the most explosive in a long line of similar incidents stretching over three decades.  Surely, there are better songs to sing.

References:

(1)     ONDCP and HHS, Roberts, Henriksen et al, May 199.9

(2)     Ken Krayeske, Hartford Advocate, 12/1/98.

(3)     Committees of Correspondence, Drug Prevention Newsletter, May 1990.

(4)     The McGlaughlin Report, Sunday, August 1, 11:00 a.m., PBS. 

FDA ALONE DOES NOT GIVE APPROVAL FOR STUDIES

A recent news release from NORML announced that the Federal Drug Administration granted approval to Ethan Russo, MD, a Montana neurologist, to study the effects of smoked marijuana as compared to oral dronabinol (Marinol (R) and injected sumatriptan (Imitrex (R) ).

Comments at the end of the release were by Rick Doblin, a long time pro-legalization advocate who supports recreational use of psychoactive and addictive drugs, particularly the party drug MDMA (ecstasy).  Doblin, whose education is in public policy, is neither a physician nor a medical academic researcher.

Scientific protocol for research and approval of all drugs has long been established.  In order to receive marijuana for research in this country, research protocols must be approved by NIDA, the FDA, and the DEA.  The FDA alone does not give approval for marijuana research.

William M. Bennett, M.D., who is a widely published academic physician and clinical researcher, a practicing nephrologist, and a clinical pharmacologist commented on the NORML release:

1) "Is the study of two groups, one receiving oral THC (dronabinol) and the other smoking marijuana, with all patients in both groups also receiving Imitrex, or is there an Imitrex alone study, indicating a third group?"

2) "What are the end points of efficacy and safety, i.e., number of migraines per month, severity of each migraine, how will this be judged, the percentage reduction in migraines, days missed from work because of migraines, etc."

3) "40 patients is probably not sufficient if there are two groups, and even less sufficient  if there are three groups, to  tell the difference.  If both forms of marijuana are to have placebos, are there not more than three groups?,  for example:
Smoked + oral + imitrex
Smoked + placebo + imitrex
Smoked + placebo + placebo
Placebo + oral + imitrex
Placebo + placebo + imitrex
Placebo + oral + placebo"

4) "Is the statistical analysis by "intention to treat," which is the most rigorous form of analysis, and if not, what other method of statistical analysis is being used."

5) "What is the baseline frequency of migraines, i.e., number of migraines per months and how long are they to be observed."

6) "Are treatments randomized, i.e., patients have no choice in which substance they will be receiving.”

‘HARM REDUCTION’ INVADES EDUCATION
By:  Calvina L. Fay
Florida, U.S.A.

As the term "harm reduction" has emerged in society, it has filtered into curricula for drug education.  Harm reduction assumes that people are going to use illegal drugs no matter what, and we should teach them how to use in a "responsible" and "safe" manner.  Those who sell drugs and those who advocate the use of drugs, drug "pushers" one and all, have promoted this approach by attacking the "no drug use" message and claiming that it doesn't work.

The harm reduction shift began over 10 years ago, when supporters of liberal drug policy began printing articles and presenting papers at conferences worldwide.  A few excerpts from a 1988 paper entitled "Drug Education: A Basis for Reform," by noted harm reductionists Pat O'Hare, Julian Cohen, and Ian Clements, presented at the International Conference on Drug Policy Reform in Maryland, include:
  "There is no evidence of drug education having an effect on drug use in the USA.
  "The aim is to encourage sensible, less damaging use."
  "Drug education should be about drugs and not education against drugs."
  "Young people's experimental drug use should be accepted as a fact.  They should be supported to enable them to use drugs in a less dangerous way."

Marsha Rosenbaum, another harm reductionist, outlined the goals for harm reduction in drug education at a Drug Policy Foundation conference in 1992.  One goal is to utilize "successful" drug users in classrooms to teach children how to use drugs without developing problems.

As parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts, we should be outraged at the mere thought of drug users being allowed to serve as role models in classrooms and to teach children how to use drugs "successfully"!  We need to take a united stand and stop this nonsense.  Harm reduction has no place in drug education.  We absolutely cannot allow those who push the use of drugs to promote drug use to our children.  We must demand that public monies for drug prevention be restricted to programs with a "no drug use" message.  The personnel recruited for this work also cannot, in all common sense, be from a background known to favor harm reduction.

Drug educators, school officials, parents, and others concerned about the welfare of our children should routinely monitor drug education curricula.  When evaluating prevention materials, it is important to do the following:
  Ensure that only "no use" drug messages are used.
  Check the date of the publication.  Materials published in the 1980s are probably out of date.
  Research the author's affiliations.  Association with organizations such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Drug Policy Foundation (DPF), International Anti-Prohibition League (IAL), Lindesmith Institute, Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse (MAMA), Family Council on Drug Awareness, or being on the editorial board of such publications such as the International Journal of Drug Policy, indicates that a prejudiced view is likely.   In many cases, the hidden agenda will be drug legalization.
  Ensure current, accurate facts.  The latest information on the harmfulness of cannabis is particularly important since, together with cigarettes and alcohol, it is most often the first drug used by young people.
   Be alert for contradictory messages.

Calvina L. Fay is the executive director of Drug Free America Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit organization engaged in educating the public about the efforts of drug pushers to legalize drugs world-wide through the promotion of strategies such as medical excuse marijuana and needle giveaway programs.  She is the director of the International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Abuse, a brain-trust of the world's leading physicians and researchers who are speaking out against the tactics of the drug pushers who wish to legalize drugs.  Ms. Fay is the former president of Drug Watch International.

JUST ANOTHER MYTH!

Persons supporting drug legalization and other pro-drug advocates often claim that prisons are overflowing with vast numbers of Americans who are unjustly sentenced there for only minor, small-quantity, possession/personal use-type, drug crimes.  The facts, however, show this assertion is just another myth, an exaggeration of reality and readily disproven, that is being used to create sympathy and advance the pro-drug agenda.

Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (the Nation's "Drug Czar"), recently took issue with the New Mexico Governor's call for drug legalization and cited federal prison statistics relating to drug offenders.  McCaffrey also noted the New Mexico Governor labeled cocaine "wonderful" and vetoed drug treatment funding for his state.

McCaffrey dispels the allegation that small-scale marijuana users, for example, are sentenced to long terms in federal prisons.   He notes that during 1998 only 33 persons sentenced for federal drug crimes involving marijuana were convicted for base offense levels involving less than 5,000 grams (less than approximately 11 pounds)!  On the other hand, over 1,200 persons were convicted for marijuana crimes involving between 100,000 and 2,999,999 grams.  These persons are clearly not being convicted of only "personal use"-type amounts.

A 1991 federal report showed that 74 percent of federal drug offenders and 59% of state drug offenders had been sentenced for trafficking, as opposed to possession.  By 1997, these trafficking proportions were higher:  86 percent in the federal system and 70 percent in the states.  The 1997 report also noted that more than two-thirds of all these state and federal drug offenders admitted to possessing or trafficking cocaine or crack at the time of their current offense.

Questions regarding this article may be directed to William R. Walluks, Chief, Strategic Intelligence, Division of Narcotics Enforcement, Wisconsin Department of Justice, 608/267-1318.

NEEDLE HANDOUTS – A RISKY APPROACH
By:  Eric Voth, M.D., FACP
Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A.

Early supporters of NEPs concluded that needle handouts reduced disease; however, the evidence is continuing to mount that needle exchange programs (NEP’s) probably do not work and may actually increase disease transmission.  Early studies were not designed properly, had very limited numbers of participants, relied on self-reporting and self-assessment, and were biased in their design.  Despite the numerous flaws and limitations in early study designs, the public health community has continued to embrace needle handouts as sound public policy.

The most recent volley in the mounting evidence against needle handouts is from the Seattle NEP.  Hagan et al. ⁽¹⁾ found that the rate of testing positive for hepatitis B virus (HBV) in regular NEP users was 1.81 times higher that in those addicts who did not participate in the NEP, and among sporadic NEP users the rate was 2.4.  The hepatitis C (HCV) risk among regular users was 1.3, and among sporadic users the risk was 2.6.  Despite the clear evidence in this study that both HBV and HCV risk were increased among the NEP users, Hagan concluded that the handouts will still remain a central part of the public health programming in Seattle!

From Montreal, Bruneau ⁽²⁾ found that the HIV seroconversion rate was over twice as high among NEP participants than non-participants (7.9 per 100 person-years vs. 3.1 per 100 person-years in non-participants).  Again, the researchers later tried to rationalize and diminish the significance of their research, instead of embracing the more logical conclusion: Perhaps needle handouts don’t work.

Less direct, but nonetheless compelling, evidence has been seen in Vancouver, where the HIV prevalence is 23 percent among IV drug addicts.  Prior to the initiation of their NEP, the HIV conversion rate was only 2 percent. ⁽³⁾

The compelling issue in Vancouver, Montreal, and Seattle is that the entire concept of  “Harm Reduction” appears to be a dreadful failure.  Harm reduction accepts drug use and tries to work around it to minimize the harm to the user.  We see in these stark examples that harm reduction policy has resulted in harm production.

The major reason that NEP’s (or needle handouts, as I prefer to call them) do not work is that they do nothing for the underlying drug use.  NEP’s may even provide a haven away from police interference, where drug users can commune and develop liaisons.  NEP’s are also a waste of funds that could be better utilized on outreach programs and abstinence-based treatment.

The risk of needle handouts to the innocent public should be a real health concern. Addicts are not typically users of sterile needle disposal units.  Only a fraction of needles handed out are returned or exchanged.  Many needles end up in trashcans and on the street to jeopardize the public by needle sticks.  It is quite surprising that needle stick sufferers have not filed lawsuits alleging that needle handout programs increase their risk of disease.

Finally, we must ask the probing question of why such a failed policy continues to be supported.  Is it because there are vested interests at stake?  Is it because public health officials are afraid to admit their mistake?  Is it because of the profits made from NEP’s?  Is it because we fear forcing tough intervention upon drug addicts?  Is it because the legalization lobby has been successful in putting a “happy face” on the concept of harm reduction and soft drug policy?  Along the same line, we must ask, who profits if drug addicts continue to consume drugs, rather than becoming abstinent?

I contend that policies of prevention, intervention, and treatment with the goal of abstinence will prove to be far more successful than risky approaches such as needle handouts.

References:

1. Hagan H, McGough JP, Thiede H, Weiss NS, Hopkins S, Alexander ER. Syringe

Exchange and Risk of Infection with Hepatitis B and C Viruses. American Journal of Epidemiology.  1999;149:203-23

2. Bruneau J, Lamothe F, Franco E, Lachance N, Desy M, Soto J, et al. High rates of HIV infection among injection drug users participating in needle exchange programs in Montreal: results of a cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146(12):994-1002.

3. Strathdee SA, Patrick DM, Currie SL, Cornelisse PG, Rekart ML, Montaner JS, et al. Needle exchange is not enough: lessons from the Vancouver Injecting Drug Use Study. AIDS 1997;11(8):F59-F65.

Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP, is a board certified specialist in Internal Medicine and Addiction Medicine working at Stormont-Vail HealthCare in Topeka, Kansas. He is Chairman of the Drug Watch International Drug Strategy Institute, is recognized as an international authority on drug use, and lectures nationally on prescribing, pain management, and drug-related issues.

TESTIMONY OF SANDRA S. BENNETT
President, Drug Watch International
House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
Hearing on Drug Legalization, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
The Drug Decriminalization Movement in America
June 13, 1999

Good morning, Chairman Mica, members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to provide testimony on this critical issue, one that is so important to the welfare and strength of our nation and particularly important for the quality of the future we want for our children.

The organization I represent, Drug Watch International, together with its advisory division, the International Drug Strategy Institute, is an ALL volunteer organization composed of a worldwide group of recognized medical, legal, educational, and drug prevention activists and researchers.  The members of Drug Watch are dedicated to providing accurate information on psychoactive and addictive drugs. As a part of this international drug research and policy network, I've had access to an extraordinary knowledge base relating to illicit drugs, and for this I'm extremely grateful. 

First and foremost, I'm a mother who, because of illicit drugs, has been subjected to every parent's worst nightmare and ultimate horror, the death of their child.  And it's from that perspective that I'm going to address you today.

Though it would seem that much of the public is still in the dark, the harmful effects of drugs on the body, the mind, and on society itself, are well documented in scientific research and history.  However, here we are again, for the umpteenth time over the past 20 years, being forced to debate this inanity.

It's been said that those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. With this caveat in mind, I fervently pray that you'll do everything in your power to prevent this country from returning to the permissive drug policy of the 1970's, which embraced "responsible use" of dangerous drugs.

It was in this permissive environment that drug use flourished, and decriminalization of marijuana became the mantra of the pot smokers. Drug use, particularly among students, ran rampant, and the United States raced far ahead of the rest of the world in consumption of illicit drugs.

Police Chief Reuben Greenberg of Charleston, South Carolina, wrote, "With few exceptions other than the drug traffickers themselves, faculties and administrations of our nation's colleges and universities are the most hostile elements to the enforcement of our nation's drug laws."  It was this permissive campus drug environment that led to the death of our son, Garrett.

My testimony today is for Garrett and all those young men and women whose lives have been irreparably damaged by drugs, or who did not survive their encounter with marijuana, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, and LSD, and other psychoactive and addictive drugs.  And it's for the parents of those children who must face the rest of their life knowing their child's death or disability was a completely preventable tragedy, a tragedy that likely would not have happened had sanctions against drug use been enforced.

So, what is "decriminalization?"  "Decriminalization," as embraced by the drug culture, is simply the notion that those who use illicit drugs are blameless and that all criminal legal sanctions against use should be removed.  As a bereaved parent, I can tell you that I would rather my son be shaken to his senses with a little jail time, than to have him lose his life, or lead a useless debilitated one. 

Decriminalization is actually part of a back door effort to ease society into accepting legalization of all psychoactive and addictive drugs.

"Harm Reduction," a cover-all term coined by the legalizers, is a euphemism encompassing legalization and liberalized drug policy and can best be defined as "a variety of strategies for making illicit drug use safer and cheaper for drug users, at the expense of the rest of society, regardless of the cost." 

Included in those strategies are decriminalization, medicalization of marijuana, "industrial" marijuana hemp, distribution of free needles to injecting drug users, free drugs to addicts, and a host of other tactics designed to enable and protect drug users. The media and our educational institutions are rife with harm reduction propaganda.

Speaking for the hundreds of thousands of parents who have lost children to drugs, I cannot understand how this country can listen, for even one moment, to those who advocate making illicit drugs easier to come by, particularly when most of the leaders of this effort are admitted drug users.

Unfortunately, credibility is given to these disingenuous scofflaws when they are invited to the podium, paraded on TV, glorified on PBS, and asked to serve as consultants to Government agencies and the media, who then parrot this misleading, deceitful, and dangerous propaganda.

The pro-drug advocates are allowed to operate out of our universities with impunity, and their deceptive and dangerous rhetoric fills the Internet, where it is readily available, even to our primary school children.

The media, which could be part of the solution, is instead a tremendous part of the problem. It plays a significant role in the way people think, whether it is about political, business, health, or community issues.  Many journalists and commentators have bought into the notion that using psychoactive and dangerous drugs is a personal right.

Although adolescent drug use is half what it was in the late 1970s, the media echoes the claims of the legalizers that, despite having spent billions of dollars fighting the war on drugs, it has failed and should be abandoned in favor of permissive drug policies.

Complaints about spending too much money on the war on drugs have no basis in fact.  It's simply pro-legalization rhetoric as espoused at a Drug Policy Foundation media workshop in 1992, where attendees were coached to "Use Economics . . . Paint ridiculous extremes, then go for logical moderate alternatives." 

If spending billions to reduce drug use is such a "waste," where is their outcry against the War on Poverty?  Declared in 1964, the War on Poverty has already this country over $5 trillion.  Yet, more than 20% of American children between the ages of six and 11 STILL live in poverty…a condition worsened by the impact of illicit drugs.  And, according to the Children's Law Center, 80% of child abuse cases are a result of drug-using parents.

How does all this relate to my son's death?

In 1980, President Carter's Blue ribbon panel on drugs, the Drug Abuse Council, issued a report stating that America really did not have a drug problem, that it was mostly hysteria, and it called for

decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana.  The report went on to lament that "By adhering to an unrealistic goal of total abstinence from use of illicit drugs, opportunities to encourage responsible drug-using behavior are missed."  Responsible use of an Illegal Drug?  Is this akin to driving "responsibly" while drunk, or wearing boxing gloves to assault your spouse? One does not act responsibly under the influence of a mind-altering drug!

That same year, 1980, Lester Grinspoon, M.D., associate professor at Harvard and an outspoken proponent of drug legalization, wrote in the Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, "Used no more than two or three times a week, cocaine creates NO SERIOUS PROBLEMS,"  Respected medical researchers believe that this article fueled the rise of cocaine use in this country.  Nevertheless, Grinspoon continues to repeat this nonsense.

To my family and me, Grinspoon's statement is nothing short of criminal. Our son, Garrett, died of cardiac arrest, and though the only abnormality found on autopsy was a "trace of cocaine in his urine,” we learned later than even a small amount of cocaine is known to trigger this sort of fatal cardiac event.

Lester Grinspoon is but one of many individuals and organizations that want to see drugs decriminalized as a first step toward full legalization.  People like Grinspoon, Ethan Nadelmann, Rick Doblin, Eric Sterling, John Morgan, Kevin Zeese, Keith Stroup, Andrew Weil, Tony Serra, all of whom have publicly attested to their personal use of illicit drugs, are at the forefront of the drug legalization/decriminalization movement in America.

And let's not forget Mark Kleiman.  Kleiman was a consultant to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.  He not only advocates legalization of marijuana, but also indicated publicly that he agrees with Canadian psychiatrist John Beresford that "Everyone has the right to use LSD."

Eric Sterling, the admitted pot-smoking head of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, talking to a pro-legalization audience about how to legalize marijuana under the guise of medicalization, said, “Packaging is important, and messages get packaged.”

In an article about the marijuana hemp, Sterling was quoted as saying,  "It's the leaky bucket strategy.  Legalize it in one area, and sooner or later it will trickle down into the others."

This notion was taken up by international entrepreneur George Soros, who offered to fund the legalizers, if they would "target a few winnable issues, like medical marijuana and the repeal of mandatory minimums."  Consequently, the pro-drug lobby has cut up its agenda into a dozen smaller packages and is busy trying to dupe the public into accepting the whole pie, one bite at a time.

Perception of consequences or danger is key.  When drug users suffer no consequences, the behavior appears safe and acceptable, and it spreads unchecked from friend to friend, sibling to sibling, parent to child.

Decriminalize drugs. Not on your life — and, please, not on the lives of our children!

TESTIMONY OF KEVIN SABET
Student, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
Submitted to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
 Hearing on Drug Legalization, June 16, 1999.

The dialogue regarding illegal drug use, and whether or not drugs should be legalized, is one that I feel should rest largely with youth.  As a 20-year-old college student at the University of California, Berkeley, I have seen the effects that drugs harbor in a large community, on many disinherited individuals, on the family unit, and especially on a college campus.  Youth offer a unique perspective and remind us that they will be most greatly affected by the policies shaped today that aim at improving tomorrow.

We know what drugs do to our body.  Sound scientific research has shown that our current illegal drugs -- heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana, LSD, and others -- have disastrous effects on our bodies.  At the same time, social research has shown the effects that drugs have on our communities; the criminal element they very much quicken, the environmental disintegration their use enhances, and the feeling of helplessness they give to all in their way.

The youth of today have grown up in a generation – the first of its kind – where drug use was explicitly denounced and rejected.  We have been led by parents, teachers, and other concerned individuals in thinking rightfully that drug use is wrong, unnatural, and should be prevented.  A concerted movement in the 1980s reduced drug use on all levels, taught my generation of the harms it entails, and even stopped the horrible statistic of the late 1970s, where people my age were the only age group whose death rates actually increased, according to a guide put out by the American Psychiatric Press and Robert DuPont.  Thus, this movement shaped attitudes, which in turn altered behavior.

However, as of late, many individuals and well-funded organizations have advocated policies that are a slippery slope toward destruction and away from any further progress.  This outrages me.  This outrages me that there are people out there claiming to care for my generation -- in light of understanding what drugs can do to a community and to an individual -- who support policies that accept its use as a natural part of growing up, just another element of being a "free" kid growing up in the land of liberty.  Well that's wrong.  And it’s a sham.

Come to my school, in Berkeley, and you will see the crowning glory of something some call "harm reduction," where organizations like the Drug Policy Foundation fund groups like the Berkeley Cannabis Consumers Union and the Cannabis Action Network.  These organizations not only don't reject drug use, they claim that its use is beneficial.  Or the Drug Policy Foundation's funding of the needle-exchange and handout programs in the Bay Area.  All part of something in a neat little package that they call "harm reduction," that they define as "reducing the harm that drugs do to an individual," but any subjective, fair-minded individual would call it drug legalization.

This isn't fair.  It's not fair to my generation to be tricked with legalization euphemisms like harm reduction or medicalization.  It's not fair to the hundreds of thousands of individuals in this country who work day and night to help shape attitudes to stop drug use.  And it’s not fair to youth as Americans.  At its core, drug use threatens the root of democratic life and destroys any sense of liberty that will guide us to a brighter tomorrow.

It's often been said that our drug laws and strategy – prohibition – take away from our rights as citizens.  However, do we forget that our rights come with responsibilities?  The right to speak to someone cannot be divorced from the responsibility that the speaker has in not being slanderous.  The right to marry cannot be separated from the responsibility one spouse has to the other to not hurt them.  Similarly, the right of freedom of expression cannot be untied from the responsibility of being unhurtful to all.  Drugs, however, rob us of any kind of sense of responsibility.  We have no right to do them.

As a student from California, I have seen the disastrous effects of another trick on my generation, when citizens legalized smoked marijuana for so-called medical purposes.  I have sat and listened to hundreds of my peers talking to me about the merits of smoking pot.  When asked where their information came from, they reply TV and the media.  Dr. James Fleming, superintendent of a school district in Orange County, California, noted that he had received a significant increase in the amount of marijuana offenses from school youth the first month after marijuana was legalized from November to December 1996.  This is wrong, and it is shameful to our youth and to my peers, the leaders of tomorrow.

Harm reduction is a policy with the words “inevitable” and “hopeless” etched deeply in its definition.  I don't think drug use is inevitable.  We have seen prevention work, and we know it can.  So why then, on the brink of the 21st century, are we not united in a belief that drug use is harmful and that all should be done to stop its use?  Why does this dialogue continue to occur?  At this stage, when many others and I have seen our best friends die from drugs, our sports stars fall to it, and our entertainment icons crumble because of it, why must we continue this dialogue?

If we truly want to lower the body count that drug use will stack up by the time my generation no longer makes up the young people in America but, in fact, composes our work force and leaders, we need to stand united in our belief that drug use is wrong and that it is our responsibility to prevent it.  America's future generation of leaders deserves no less.  If we don’t take this issue seriously and unite behind the science and common sense that guides our current drug policy, millions of new addicts and a new generation of drug abuse victims await.

Kevin Sabet is a 20-year-old junior at the University of California, Berkeley.  He is the founder and President of "Citizens for a Drug Free Berkeley" and a California delegate to Drug Watch International.  This summer he worked in the public policy department at the Community of Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA).  In the fall of 1999, he begins his second term as an elected senator for the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC).  

UPDATE ON CURRENT DRUG POLICY IN SWITZERLAND
By:  Ernst Aeschbach, M.D.
Zurich, Switzerland

Since the mid-1980s Switzerland has abandoned well-proven drug political principles which were in accordance with the United Nations Drug Conventions and which prevented the country from having a considerable drug problem.  A massive pro-drug campaign and the introduction of harm reduction measures led to open drug scenes in all large Swiss towns, higher crime rates, and more drug related deaths.  Switzerland attracted drug addicts from all over Europe, because or low drug prices and the fact that the low was not strictly enforced anymore.  Other countries referred to the so-called "Swiss model" as a new way to cope with addiction problems.

Forced to live with open drug scenes, a group of concerned citizens launched a peoples referendum in 1993, demanding an abstinence-based drug policy in Switzerland.  The purpose was to stop to all attempts to legalize drugs in Switzerland.  Unfortunately the referendum was defeated in September 1997, due to a strong misinformation campaign by media and government officials.

Switzerland was the first country to introduce a heroin distribution project on a large scale. More than 1,000 heroin addicts were entitled to receive state-provided heroin in 18 different clinics all over the country.  From the beginning, the scientific soundness of this trial was challenged and disclosed as a subterfuge to get people accustomed to a more liberal drug policy with the ultimate goal being to legalize all narcotics.  Recently, a World Health Organization (WHO) panel published an evaluation severely condemning the Swiss heroin distribution project and said that such projects should not be considered as a proven treatment alternative for heroin addicts.  The report even stated that the scientific design of the heroin trial was not likely to show whether any changes in health status or social functioning of the participants was related to the heroin that was prescribed.  Despite these clear conclusions, the WHO report was shamelessly misused in Swiss newspapers, saying that the Swiss heroin trial was considered to be feasible.  Misled by this information, 54 percent of Swiss voters said "yes" in the beginning of June 1999, to continue the heroin distribution to addicts.

Certain Swiss government officials plan to convince Swiss citizens to change the narcotic law permanently.  They say that heroin distribution should be accepted as a well-proven treatment option; heroin should be registered as a medicine; and consumption, possession, and dealing for personal needs of all types of drugs should not be punished anymore.  The officials say that cannabis (marijuana) should be cut out of the law totally, which is equivalent to legalization of this drug, whose harmful effects have been played down for years.

But there is still hope.  According to the democratic system in Switzerland a referendum will give Swiss citizens another opportunity to vote on this issue, and therefore, they can urge Swiss government to return to a more reasonable drug policy.

Ernst W. Aeschbach M.D., 1953, specialized in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. He is a member of the Board of Directors of Drug Watch International, a member of the International Drug Strategy Institute, and advisor to parliamentarians and opinion leaders.  Invited testimony: U.S. Congress and Health Committees.  He has participation as a speaker at international conferences and has numerous publications in the fields of Epidemiology, Prevention, and Therapy.

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
(Summer 1999)

  Tanzania's Director of Criminal Investigation said that 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)

  The National Assn. of Boards of Pharmacy will post a list of Internet pharmacy sites that meet standards set by state boards of medicine and pharmacy, to counteract a proliferation of Web sites making potentially dangerous prescription drugs freely available. (Internal Medicine News, 3/15/99)

  Drug users are more frequently involved in crime and are more likely to have criminal records than nonusers.  As drug use increases, so does the number of crimes a person commits.  (ONDCP 1998, IDEA, Winter 1999)

  Scientists have known for 30 years that heavy marijuana smoking has a drastic effect on sperm production within the testis, which can lead to higher rates of infertility.  New findings suggest that THC in marijuana smoke may also affect fertilization in the female reproductive tract.  (Herbert Schuel, et al., American Society of Cell Biology, 12/16/98)

  Of 9,000 daily users of marijuana, 35 percent of the adolescents and 18 percent of the adults met the American Psychiatric Association's criteria for dependence, suggesting that teenagers are much more vulnerable than adults to developing an addiction to marijuana.  (Chen, et al., Drug and Alcohol Dependence p. 46, 1997)

  Marinol, a pharmaceutical containing synthesized THC, the main psychoactive  ingredient of marijuana, is addictive both psychologically and physiologically.  Eleven withdrawal symptoms are listed for Marinol.  (Physicians' Desk Reference, 1998

  CEWG, a U.S. network of epidemiologists and researchers who monitor current and emerging substance abuse problems, reported that in most of the city emergency departments monitored, marijuana mentions have increased dramatically, as have treatment admissions and arrests.  (CESAR Fax, NIDA release, CEWG Advance Report, 1999)

  About 80 percent of all illicit drug users reported using marijuana – 60 percent used marijuana only, and 20 percent in conjunction with some other illegal drug.  (National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1998.  DREAM, Mar. 1999)

  Teens who drink, smoke cigarettes, and have used marijuana at least once in the past month are 16 times as likely to use another drug like cocaine, heroin or LSD.  (National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse study, Wall Street Journal 3/28/99)

  Prenatal cocaine exposure costs at least $352 million per year in the U.S. (NIDA Notes, Vol. 13, No. 5, Feb. 1999)

  In June 1998, NIDA, WHO, and the U.N. established the Global Research Network to facilitate rapid exchange of information on HIV patterns and trends in drug-using populations.  (NIDA Notes, Vol. 13, No. 5, Feb. 1999)

  A newly released study shows that some children as young as nine years old are already involved with drugs and alcohol.  The percentage of students who use marijuana progressed from 0.8 percent among fourth graders to 3.7 percent among sixth graders.  (PRIDE Survey, 4/7/99)

   In 1992, the economic cost to U.S. society of drug abuse (not including alcohol abuse) was $97.7 billion, or $383 for every person in the United States.  In 1995 — estimated cost, $109.8 billion.  (NIDA Notes, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 1998)

   Marijuana psychoses are easily confused with other psychiatric disorders, particularly schizophrenia.  In the United States, increasing use of marijuana has been accompanied by a rise in cannabis-related emergency room visits, 22,800 in 1990 and 50,000 in 1996. (Dr. Joel Jeffries, Journal Clinical Psychiatry News, March 1999)

  The American Psychiatric Association lists harmful mental effects caused by marijuana, including psychotic disorder, hallucinations, anxiety disorder, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, perceptual disturbances, impaired motor coordination, delirium, memory deficit, depersonalization, delusions of persecution, disorientation, and others. (J. Lapey, M.D., 7-23-98: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC, 1994) 

  A Massachusetts hospital study found that people who smoke marijuana at least two out of every three days may have trouble paying attention and performing simple tasks even a day after going without the drug.  These effects might result from drug residue in the brain, from drug withdrawal, or from actual damage to the nervous system.  (Chicago Tribune, 2/21/96)

  On March 26, 1999, Colombian police seized kg of cocaine at Bogota's international airport.  The shipment was bound for the United States through Guatemala.  (HNN 3/28/99)

  Marijuana is the primary illegal substance of abuse mentioned in autopsies of children and adolescents. (Medical Examiner Data, U.S. Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, 1998)

  Ninety-eight percent of parents would be upset if they discovered their teens were using marijuana.  However, only 40 percent advised teens not to use it!  Eighty-four percent of parents believe marijuana can be addictive, but only 19 percent communicated that message with his/her teen.  (National survey reported by Hazeldon Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, 7/99)

   "Marijuana creates serious consequences.  About 100,000 people seek treatment for marijuana use each year in the United States."  (Carol Falkowski, senior research analyst, Hazelden, 7/99)

  According to statistics from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health (SAMSHA), of 182,000 people under 20 admitted to substance abuse programs in 1996, 48 percent (87,360 young people) were treated mainly for marijuana use and dependence, more than for any other drug, including alcohol.  (CASA study as reported in Narcotics Enforcement & Prevention Digest, 7/99, Boston Globe 8/99)

  European Cities Against Drugs (ECAD) has 285 member cities. (HNN, Sweden, 8-14-99)

  Preliminary results of a study conducted at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, MO, U.S.A., revealed a high mortality rate among Vietnam vets who were drug users while in the service.  Three groups were compared:  male Vietnam vets whose drug use was confirmed by a drug test when they were coming home; returning vets who tested negative; and civilian controls.  "The differences are striking," says principal investigator, Rumi Kato Price. (Special from Washington University School of Medicine, Jim Dryden, January 1995)

   From 1975 to 1990, Alaska decriminalized the use of marijuana for private use in the home.  During the 15 years of decriminalized adult usage, young people in Alaska were using marijuana at twice the rate of the national average.  (Lynda Adams, as reported in IDEA, Winter 1999)

  A search of the published literature from 1994 to the present through the National Library of Medicine's Medline cites more than 200 articles on needle exchanges, none of which provides data clearly supporting the effectiveness of needle exchange in reducing HIV transmission among those injecting drugs.  However, data from Amsterdam, Montreal, Vancouver, and Seattle found the incidence of both types of hepatitis to be highest among users of needle exchanges. (Fred J. Pane, Medical Adviser, Children's AIDS Fund.  Washington Post, 7-23-99; Page A28)

  A risk assessment done for Health Canada warns that new food products and cosmetics made from hemp – the marijuana plant – pose an unacceptable risk to the health of consumers.  The report says that even small amounts of THC may cause developmental problems, including neurological effects and long-term effects on brain development, the reproductive system, and the immune system. (Anne McIlroy, Globe & Mail, Toronto, Canada, 7-27-99)

QUOTES

Return to Drug Watch International Homepage

This page was last updated on July 22, 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