Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

CONTEMPORARY DRUG POLICY

Contemporary Drug Policy was written by Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP, Chairman, The International Drug Strategy Institute, and Ambassador Melvyn Levitsky of Syracuse University, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.  It was published on January 21, 2000, in the Northwestern University Journal of International Policy.  Because of the length of this important paper, we will publish it in three parts.  In this newsletter, “Drug Policy Options” is discussed.  “The International Scene” will appear in our August/September issue. Our November/December issue will contain “The Western Hemisphere and U.S. Policy Approaches.”

Drug Policy Options
The questions facing us today are whether the U.S. drug policy can be effective on both the domestic and international fronts, and whether and how international counter-narcotics efforts can contribute to reducing drug abuse.

International drug policy faces a critical juncture in terms of fundamental policy decisions which could reduce drug use on the one hand, or conversely, risk increases of drug use and its inherent harms on the other.  Our careful assessment of drug-policy options suggests that restrictive drug policy, in which both traffickers and users are held accountable, affords the greatest potential to reduce drug use and its harms to society.  This policy focuses its law enforcement efforts on the drug-trafficking chain, and while it does not advocate locking up every first-time user of drugs, it does hold users accountable for their actions through a range of penalties and sanctions.  Dubbed “prohibitionist” policy by its detractors, restrictive drug policy seeks to find a balance among drug education and prevention, abstinence-based rehabilitation, law enforcement, and supply reduction.

At the other extreme of drug policy is drug legalization.  This type of policy draws its support from several constituencies.  The broadest group supports the notion that drug use is a personal choice, and that people should have the right to whatever intoxication and self abuse they so desire.  Much of the drive of this group is to allow personal gratification through drug use and even trafficking.  Many legalization proponents hide under the shield of political activism to gain protection for their own illegal and destructive habits and activities.  The second group consists largely of libertarians who consider that intervention upon drug use is a violation of personal liberties.  Some take a cynical view of drug use as a Darwinian phenomenon.  This group mistakenly considers drug use a victimless event.  The third group are those looking for a place to land who neither have studied nor understand the phenomena associated with drug use, and who consider legalization a fashionable alternative to fighting a concerted drug war. Their claim is that legalization will reduce both crime and drug abuse.

A new version of legalization policy is the drug policy option referred to as “harm reduction.”  The basic orientation of harm reductionists is that more harm comes to society from the drug policy than from drug use itself.  Harm-reduction policy had its origins with those who were frustrated with some of the failures of modern policy, but it also has supporters from the legalization movement.  Finding that society was not accepting of the broad legalization of drugs, legalization proponents have moved into a perceived middle ground.  This policy shift has had the net effect of breaking permissive drug policy into component parts and then selling them piecemeal to the public.

The philosophy of the harm-reduction movement is well summarized by Ethan Nadelmann of the Lindesmith Center (funded by billionaire George Soros), who is considered the godfather of the movement to legalize drugs:

“Let's start by dropping the ‘zero-tolerance’ rhetoric and policies and the illusory goal of drug-free societies.  Accept that drug use is here to stay, and that we have no choice but to learn to live with drugs so that they cause the least possible harm.  Recognize that many, perhaps most, “drug problems” in the Americas are the results not of drug use per se but of our prohibitionist policies.”  (“Learning to Live With Drugs” by Ethan Nadelmann, Tuesday, November 2, 1999, page A21, The Washington Post)

It is noteworthy that those advocating legalization rarely speak or write about the details of the regime they would see replacing zero-tolerance policies.  This is primarily because their theory involves making currently illegal drugs widely available and cheap in order to “take the crime out of drugs” and supposedly undermine criminal trafficking networks by taking away their profits.

The Drug War
We believe that the use of the “drug war” metaphor is appropriate both in terms of domestic and foreign policies.  Wars incite public opinion and action and focus attitudes on a problem.  They require mobilization and the marshaling of assets and funds.  They strengthen political will toward the elimination of a common threat.  Some criticize the drug-war mentality as exerting unnecessary violence on a medical problem.  Police who face the violence of crack houses and methamphetamine labs understand that we are facing a war.  DEA agents in South America and the policy makers and judges in countries such as Columbia understand that we are waging a war.

Domestic Efforts
We should first consider the successes and perceived failures of domestic drug policy.  Consistently, drug culture advocates assert that drug policy has failed and is extremely costly.  This assertion represents a calculated strategy to demoralize the public and turn public sentiment against restrictive policy.  The real question is, has restrictive policy failed?  To determine cost effectiveness, we can compare the costs to society of legal vs. illegal drugs.  Estimates from 1990 suggest that the costs to society of illegal drugs were $70 billion as compared to those of alcohol alone at $99 billion and tobacco at $72 billion.  Estimates from 1992 put the costs of alcohol dependence at $148 billion and all illegal drugs (including criminal justice system costs) at $98 billion.

According to National Household Survey data from 1998, there were 13.6 million current users of illicit drugs compared to 113 million users of alcohol and 60 million tobacco smokers.  There is one difference: legal status of the drugs.  The Monitoring the Future Survey data of high school seniors suggest that in 1995 52.5 percent of seniors had been drunk within the last year as compared to 34.7 percent who had used marijuana.  Yet, alcohol is illegal for teenagers.  The difference is, again, the legal status of the two substances.  One can safely make the assumption that legalized ¾ and readily available ¾ marijuana (even if illegal for teenagers) would be used by a far higher percentage of teenagers.

Permissive drug policy has been tried in the United States and abroad.  In 1985, during the period in which Alaska legalized marijuana, the use of marijuana and cocaine among adolescents was more than twice as high as other parts of the country.  In 1979, during the height of permissive drug policy in the United States, the daily use of marijuana was 11 percent among high school seniors.  Thirty seven percent of high school seniors had used marijuana in the prior 30 days.  These use rates dropped, respectively, to 1.9 percent and 11.9 percent, an all-time low, by 1992 after the institution of no-tolerance and no-use policy.  Baltimore has long been heralded as a centerpiece for harm-reduction drug policy.  Interestingly, the rate of heroin use among arrestees in Baltimore was higher than in any other city in the United States.  Thirty-seven percent of male and 48 percent of female arrestees were positive as compared to 6 to 23 percent for Washington D.C., Philadelphia, and Manhattan.

Clearly, better advances need to be made at broadening drug prevention with a focus on eliminating or delaying intoxicant use.  The current availability of effective programming is woefully inadequate.  DARE, for example, has been criticized in some arenas, although it is almost always a highly circumscribed and limited effort existing with other fragmented efforts. Often, DARE is the only prevention effort that upholds a "No-Use" message.

Treatment availability is also inadequate, and treatment is often little more than a revolving door.  It is clear that abstinence-based treatment works, but it is largely unavailable to some of the most severe addicts who fail or rapidly relapse after treatment.  Our system does not readily allow for suspending civil liberties to mandate treatment for the most severe addicts.  Sweden, on the other hand, has developed creative means to coerce treatment.  Hopefully, current efforts to enhance cooperation between the criminal justice system and the treatment community will improve treatment availability to those drug users involved in crime.  Unfortunately, some advocates of so-called drug policy reform are willing to cave in to these limitations by handing out needles or even handing out heroin to addicts.

DECOYS
By:  Alan Markwood, M.A., CAGS,
Prevention Projects Coordinator, Chestnut Health Systems, Inc.  

Decoy — “One who leads another into danger, deception, or a trap.”

This article is about people that we in prevention don't like to talk about.  We prefer to talk about the reasons not to use drugs: the dangers to users, and the costs and dangers to non-users affected physically, emotionally, or financially by drug use.  Usually, we leave to pro-drug and pro-legalization groups any mention of persons who have used alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs without getting hurt.

Of course, many drug users simply don't see the ways drugs are affecting them.  This may be true with many drugs, but it is especially so with marijuana, because it distorts perception and memory and because it lingers in effect long after users cease to perceive any effect.  For example, in a recent study of arrested male juveniles in New Jersey, only 10 percent perceived themselves to be dependent on marijuana, but 26 percent were actually diagnosed as being marijuana dependent.

With chronic use of drugs (particularly tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol), damage may be happening but not yet apparent.  Damage to the body may be accumulating toward a critical threshold.  Or, patterns of use that seemed manageable at first may turn in a surprising and harmful new direction as aging or changes in life interact with the drug use in new ways.  For example, persons who turn to alcohol to deal with stress may be able to cope until their lives take on a combination of stresses and performance demands that exceed their capacity.  Perhaps only then does the self-destructive nature of their drug use become apparent.

Even so, there are people who manage to use some drugs over time and still carry on with their lives.  These are the people who question whether drugs are harmful and that lead others to question drug harmfulness.  After all, haven't they demonstrated that drugs can be used safely?  Or, if not absolutely safely, enough so that use should be just a lifestyle decision?  Drug preventionists need to confront the reality of these users, because only by explicitly recognizing the role these people play can we help clarify that these exceptions don't disprove the rule: the rule that alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs will harm most users, sooner or later.

Laws against drug use, including youth use of tobacco or alcohol, are based on the demonstrated effects of those drugs.  Effects always differ somewhat from person to person, but given enough use by enough people, the ways that drugs can injure or kill eventually become clear.

Are some people immune to these effects?  Not absolutely, but people do differ in predisposition to addiction and in their physical capacity to withstand other effects.  Users also differ in when they started drug use.  Those who begin in childhood or early adolescence are more prone to adult drug problems.  Some persons may only use once or infrequently, and they may use small amounts at those times.  None of these people are safe from drug problems, but some are less likely to experience problems.

An analogy would be driving over the speed limit.  At some times and in some places, some people may be able to far exceed the speed limit and remain unharmed.  But, speed limits are still valid legal expressions of the public health menace of driving too fast.  Someone getting away with speeding doesn't change the fundamental truth that the more drivers who exceed speed limits (and the more over the limit they drive), the greater the likelihood of crashes.  Speed kills.  No pun on methamphetamines intended. 

So, what about those so far unharmed drug users?  They are acting as decoys to the rest of the world.  They are acting as role models for behavior that will injure or kill many who follow their lead.  What's worse, some of these decoys are strident in promoting the “freedom” to use drugs.  They demand that restrictions on drugs be removed so that they may indulge.  Never mind that the health and safety of the general public may be badly compromised by such action.  Never mind that decoys are leading many young people into lives of addiction.

Of course, it is ethically wrong to break the law, but is it also ethically wrong to use illegal drugs because of the harm they do?  Yes, absolutely.  If a person uses illicit drugs and advocates drug use or freedom to use, does it matter whether drug use has harmed them yet?  Yes.  These are the decoys.  Maybe decoys are guilty of the greatest wrong.  At least users who have experienced the pain of drugs and are truthful about it convey the darkness that awaits many new users.

Watch out for decoys.

DRUG LEGALIZERS TARGET THE WORKPLACE
By:  Calvina L. Fay
Florida, U.S.A.

Employers have cause for alarm.  There is a clandestine movement afoot to undermine and eliminate employers' rights to maintain safe, efficient, and healthy work environments for employees.

This movement is driven by those wishing to legalize drug use in our society.  The individuals and organizations behind this movement believe that people should have the right to use all drugs with no consequences and with no regard for the safety and health concerns of others.  They focus on the desires of a small percentage of our work force and ignore the rights of the majority of our employees who do not use drugs or want to be subjected to them in their work environments.

Groups such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Drug Policy Foundation, and the Lindesmith Group have teamed up with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to “fight for the rights of people” and end drug-free workplace programs.  This approach, of course, ignores the rights of the masses.

The ACLU and others claim that drug testing violates individuals' rights to privacy and is based upon “junk science”.  They ignore the accuracy of testing and the evidence presented by employer after employer that testing, as a part of an overall drug-free workplace program, has resulted in reduced accidents, workers' compensation and other insurance claims, absenteeism, and the use of health care benefits.  They even ignore the fact that the majority of employees support drug testing in the workplace, and many even consider a drug-free workplace as one of the greatest workplace benefits provided to them.

Studies have shown that drug-free workplace programs have weeded out the drug users and decreased the problems.  Indications are that drug-free workplace programs have been very effective in deterring casual drug use and detecting and leveraging addicted employees into treatment.  An added benefit is that many of these employees are also parents, which has resulted in drug-free parents raising children in this country.  Some drug-free workplace programs even include training for parents on how to keep their children off drugs.  So what is so terribly wrong with this, and why do the ACLU and other drug-legalization advocates seek to destroy employers' rights to continue these programs?

Legalizers can achieve their goal of legalization of all dangerous, addictive, mind-altering drugs more easily if they eliminate employers' rights to detect and deter drug use among the working adult population.  If legalizers succeed in normalizing drug use in mainstream America — and in the workplace — there will be a barrage of drug-impaired workers entering the work force in coming years.

Advocates of drug legalization are busy recruiting our children to use drugs.  They are promoting the concept that children can use drugs “responsibly” and “safely” if they are just taught how to do so, which may increase drug use in the future work force.  If employers lose their rights to maintain drug-free workplace programs and to enforce them with drug testing, we can expect a measurable increase in accidents, workers' compensation and other insurance claims, absenteeism, product defects, and health care costs, as well as an overall decrease in productivity in the workplace. We can also expect to see the future work force, which will be our future parents, raising many more drug-affected children who will wreak havoc on society.  We at Drug Watch and the Drug Free America Foundation hope that employers will resist the pressure from pro-drug groups to stop drug testing in the workplace.

Calvina L. Fay served as executive director of Houston's Drug Free Work Place Initiative and President of Drug Watch International.  She is presently executive director, Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.  www.dfaf.org

DRUG WATCH EYE OPENERS  
Marijuana — What the Research Really Says
By:  Sheila Fuller

It is hard these days to escape the cries of people who would legalize marijuana in one form or another.  Advocates seem to be on every corner in cyberspace, and their talking heads crop up on mainstream television shows claiming that smoking marijuana is at worst a harmless form of recreation and at best good medicine.  When presented with damning marijuana research, the standard reply is that the results are inconclusive, irresponsibly arrived at, or scanty.  Rallying behind the concept of “scanty,” legalizers demand more research believing that somehow additional delving will demonstrate that smoking crude marijuana has magical powers, showing it to be a drug that we can't live without.

The legalizers should be wary of what they wish for.  They might just get it.  Illicit drug research over the past decade has been voluminous, and new technology has allowed scientists to demonstrate what is happening on the genetic and molecular levels.  Today, the marijuana research library at The University of Mississippi houses more than 12,500 studies.  Many of the latest studies confirm what was long suspected about the harm done by smoking marijuana.  In some cases, research has uncovered new information that suggests the drug is even worse than many believed.  Consider the following examples:

1.  Use of marijuana increases the probability of schizophrenia by a factor of four.  Heavy marijuana use causes more and earlier psychotic relapses.  (National Institutes of Health ¾ Schizophrenia Bulletin, Vol. 23, Nov. 2, 1997, Page 221)

In addition, the study of Swedish Conscripts showed a six-fold increased risk of admission with a diagnosis of schizophrenia in the highest consumption category.  Furthermore, among those who reported using cannabis more than 10 times, there was a relative risk for schizophrenia of 2.3. (Swedish Conscripts, Lancet 1987;2:1483-86)

2.  The evidence of persistent, abnormal biochemical alterations (produced by THC in the brain and recorded with PET scans) was presented by scientists from Brookhaven National Laboratory.  Neurotransmitters affected are norepinephrine, dopamine, GABA, and acetylcholine.  (New York University School of Medicine international conference, March 20-21, 1998)

3.  The ability to focus attention and filter out irrelevant information was measured and found to be increasingly impaired in relation to the number of years of marijuana use, but strangely it was unrelated to the frequency of use. (Marijuana Research Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, March 1996, Solwji et al, Bio Psychiatry)

4.  Marijuana and glaucoma:  None of the studies demonstrated that marijuana — or any of its components — could safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure more than other available drugs.  Moreover, potentially serious side effects were noted, including an increase in heart rate and a decrease in blood pressure.  (National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health, Workshop on the Medical Utility of Marijuana: Report to the Director, NIH, Feb.18, 1997)

5.  Among adolescent substance abusers who have attempted suicide, the drugs of choice were marijuana and/or hashish.  (Australian Institute for Suicide Research Prevention, Belmont Private Hospital, Consequences of Acute Chronic Cannabis Use, Herschel Mills Baker, 1996; see also http://www.satcom.net.au/apfdfy/Suicide.html)

6.  “People should no longer consider THC a ‘soft drug’ and should approach marijuana with far more caution than before.”  There are “disturbing similarities between marijuana's effects on the brain and those produced by cocaine, heroin, alcohol, and nicotine.” (Science Magazine, Vol. 276, June 27, 1997)

You may have noticed that the research cited above was conducted by no less than that of the National Institutes of Health and prominent hospitals and laboratories, and that it was reviewed by The New York University School of Medicine and by Science Magazine.  It would be news to the highly trained professionals involved that their work was somehow unreliable.  The next time someone tries to tell you that smoking marijuana is good for you, ask who's doing their research.

THE NEXT GENERATION OF MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION
By:  Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP
Chairman, The International Drug Strategy Institute

As many of our readers are aware, ballot initiatives advancing the misguided notion of medical marijuana have recently been passed in Alaska, Arizona, California, Louisiana, Oregon, Maine, Nevada, and Washington State.  Setting a frightening precedent, the Hawaii legislature passed a medical marijuana bill in the most recent session.  These initiatives have been sold as “compassionate” to the public in general.  These campaigns have been heavily subsidized by legalization advocates, most notably George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling.  A new figure, Bruce McKinney, referred to as one of the Microsoft millionaires, has recently appeared on the radar screen for funding the legalization initiatives.

The real agenda of the “compassionate” marijuana movement is seen in the second round of initiatives.  In Arizona, the “People Have Spoken” initiative eliminates the requirement for treatment in drug arrests.  Possession of amounts of marijuana of less than two ounces would be decriminalized, and “medical” marijuana users would be immunized from prosecution for any drug violation.  This could include even sales of drugs to children.

The new initiative in Alaska would allow for industrial hemp and recreational marijuana use.  California would now prohibit incarceration for either first or second offenses for possession.  In Oregon, marijuana would be legal for distribution via liquor stores.

The “Personal Responsibility Amendment 2000” in Michigan would allow medicinal use of marijuana, and it also would make possession of less than three plants or three ounces of marijuana legal for adults over 21 years old.  The amendment also redirects asset forfeiture away from law enforcement to prevention programs for domestic abuse, violence, or drug awareness.  A provision within the amendment would directly negate the effect of the Drug Dealer Liability Act.

Perhaps the best evidence of the medical marijuana-legalization connection comes from the architect of the movement, Bill Zimmerman, who is a paid consultant responsible for the medical marijuana initiatives in seven states.  His approach is described at the NORML Conference 2000 in “Getting to Legalization From Here,” as “getting the camel’s nose under the tent.  I think we would all agree that whether the method is incremental or all at once, we want to get to where we're going as fast as possible.  So, I'm going to argue that the incremental approach is the fastest way to get to the goal that we all want to reach.  Now, figuring out how you get somewhere, you first have to recognize that what we're talking about is developing a political strategy and understanding the tactics that best serve that strategy.  Only when you change the minds of enough of those people will leadership respond.  Leadership isn't really leadership.  Leadership is follow-ship when leadership is run by political polling.

The only way to break this cycle of legalization is to widely expose the efforts and break down the funding.  One approach would be to introduce campaign-spending limits for ballot initiatives.  State legislatures, policy makers, and the public must be educated about this serious threat, which will further drug-legalization efforts.

QUICK DRUG FACTS
By:  Eric Voth, M.D., FACP
Topeka, Kansas, U.S.A.

“Medical” Marijuana

1.  "Medicine" is defined as meeting FDA guidelines for safety and effectiveness.  Crude marijuana in any form does not constitute a medicine.

2. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down crude marijuana as a medicine.

3. We do not smoke medications or take potions in this country. Often treatments are thought to be useful but turn out to be ineffective or dangerous when submitted to rigorous scientific study. 

4. No legitimate medical entity seeks the availability of crude marijuana as a medicine.

5. THC is available as a medicine in a pure oral preparation.

6. Nasal inhalers or suppository forms of THC could be developed.

7. The pro-drug movement seeks the legalization of marijuana as a medicine as a step toward the overall legalization of marijuana. There are physicians leading the central push for medical marijuana who smoke marijuana themselves.

8. The most recent detailed review of the issue by the Institute of Medicine stated that the only use of marijuana should be under extremely tight oversight, in a research setting, and after all legitimate medicines have failed.

Needle Exchanges
1. They do nothing for underlying addiction.
2. They have been shown to increase HIV infection in Montreal, have been shown to increase Hepatitis B and C in Seattle, and have demonstrated no reduction in needle sharing in Chicago.
3. They place the public at risk by serving as a gathering place for active addicts and by having the public exposed to thousands of needles that have been used and discarded.

Hemp
1. It is proposed as a fiber and energy alternative.  However, claims are exaggerated and inaccurate.
2. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has determined that the potential uses for hemp represent only a small niche market.
3. Evaluations from the University of Kentucky, the University of Hawaii, and the International Drug Strategy Institute have found that the international market for hemp is actually declining.
4. Most support for “industrial” hemp originated in the pro-drug movement. The movement wants the entire marijuana plant to be legal, not just the hemp stalks.
5. Smoking hemp is smoking pot.

Sentencing Issues
1. Reduction of drug sentences is a mistake.
    a.       In some state systems, roughly 90 percent of drug offense inmates are incarcerated for trafficking.
    b.      In the federal system, more than 95 percent of drug offense inmates are incarcerated for trafficking.
2. Reducing mandatory minimums puts drug criminals back on the street.
3. We should consider a rigorous separate tract for drug offenders in the penal system.

Legalization/Decriminalization
1. It risks increasing drug use.
2. It risks increasing drug-related crime.
3. It creates substantial increased burden on treatment systems with increased use and addiction.
4. In the Netherlands, it has caused increases in shootings by 40 percent, car thefts by 62 percent, hold-ups by 69 percent, and addiction by 49 percent.
5. It risks increasing use among youth where drug use is already rising.

DRUG WATCH LOSES A STANDARD BEARER

“God gives tough jobs to tough people,” Otto Moulton once said to Louise Perkins.  Louise found the thought inspiring, and said it spurred her on when “things weren’t looking so good.”  Indeed, it was when things weren’t looking so good that Louise was at her best.

When needle exchangers set up shop in Canada and insisted they were re-collecting all used (and possibly AIDS tainted) syringes, it was Louise who exposed the fact that people were sticking dirty needles in jars filled with peanut butter and tossing the open jars in the trash.

When Jacques LeCavalier, head of the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, signed on to do a workshop on harm reduction, it was Louise’s work that forced him to cancel.  Louise published a paper entitled “The Advocates of Drugs on Demand,” which chronicled the growing number of legalizers in government and pressured more than a few public servants to admit their pro-drug views.  Her paper opened many eyes in the United States as well as in Canada.

When well-financed harm reductionists began funding initiatives in Canada and the United States to legalize smoked marijuana as medicine, Louise published “The Marijuana Connection,” a comprehensive synopsis of marijuana research that clearly demonstrates the harm of marijuana and the foolishness of claims that smoking marijuana is at worst harmless and may be good medicine.  The U.S. Congress praised “The Marijuana Connection” writing to Louise, “Your study was … a strong, factually based, and highly influential resource in describing for the U.S. Congress why the policy choices of decriminalizing this drug, legalizing this drug, or following the fictitious notion …of ‘harm reduction’ are all terrible choices.”

When The Body Shop began marketing marijuana hemp products at her local mall, Louise published a picture of the huge marijuana leaf promotion in The Body Shop’s window.

Louise never shied from debating pro-drug advocates, and she loved to make them squirm by asking them “What about the children?”  Harm reductionists have no answer for how they will keep their legalized drugs out of the hands of children, and they invariably became visibly upset when Louise pressed them to explain.

It would be impossible to do justice to Louise’s accomplishments in this small space.  Her offices included Co-Founder and Director of Lambton Families in Action for Drug Education Inc., Canadian delegate to Drug Watch International and Drug Watch board member, Canadian delegate to The International Drug Strategy Institute, and Drug Watch Editorial Review Committee .  Her publications reside in the Federal Registry of the United States, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, and the United States Drug Enforcement Agency.  She spoke at the United Nations, the Swedish National Institute of Public Health, PRIDE conferences, and a host of conferences and seminars throughout her native Canada.  She received The Governor General’s Commemorative Medal for the 125^th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada for Community Service, Ontario’s Ministry of the Solicitor General Crime Prevention Award, the City of Sarnia Mayor’s Honor List, PRIDE Canada’s Parent of the Year award, and the Optimist Club’s Respect for Law Commendation, just to name a few.

Louise Perkins’ rich life deserves a book, and maybe someday it will be written.  In the meantime, it remains for us to pick up the fallen standard and follow her excellent example.  Louise loved her husband, Charles; her four children; her six grandchildren; and her community, and she loved Canada.  The lesson of her extraordinary life and untimely death is simply that a life given away out of love is the only life worth living.  We can all be sure that Louise is justly enjoying whatever reward God gives to the “tough” who tackle the “tough jobs.”  May she rest in peace. 

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
(April, 2000) 

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

Recent research published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry found those who took one Ecstasy tablet once a week performed worse in complex tests related to attention, memory, learning, and general intelligence than those who did not use the drug.  Previous studies revealed that Ecstasy could impair brain function and cause a long-term decrease in a brain chemical involved with thought and memory. (Dr. Euphrosyne Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, University of Aachen, Germany, AP 5/17/00)

Ecstasy (MDMA) is both a stimulant, similar to methamphetamine, and a hallucinogen.  It increases heart rate and blood pressure, and it may lead to an increase in body temperature that can cause kidney and cardiovascular failure.  Chronic abuse may produce long-lasting, possibly permanent, neuro-toxic effects in the brain.  Liquid Ecstasy (GHB), often called the “date-rape drug”, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless.  It can easily be slipped into drinks, rendering the victim helpless. (National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), March 2000)

The Netherlands is the No. 1 producer of Ecstasy. (Foreign Affairs, May/June 1999, ECAD April 2000)

  “Young adults believe club drugs are a harmless way to enhance their experience at dance parties and “raves.” In reality, there is no such thing as a harmless club drug.  Not only do these drugs have long-lasting, serious effects on the brain, but when used in combination with alcohol, they are even more dangerous, sometimes deadly.” (Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Director NIDA, 4/6/00)

A NIDA-funded study shows that achieving successful long-term abstinence from heroin use is more difficult for individuals who begin using the drug at younger ages.  Those who began using heroin daily at a younger age were more likely to relapse that those who started later in life.  The study also suggests significant differences in drug relapse across sociodemographic groups. (NIDA Notes, 4/6/00)

The International Narcotics Control Board’s 1999 Annual Report states that in Australia the average age of first-time use of heroin has fallen below 18 years old.  In some areas, the average age of first use of heroin is in the mid-teens. (Narcotics Enforcement & Prevention Digest, 2/29/00)

FOX News reported that researchers believe mysterious deaths among heroin users in Europe may be the result of injecting heroin tainted with anthrax. (FOX News, 5/17/00)

Results of autopsy studies show that patients with a history of chronic alcohol consumption have smaller, lighter, more shrunken brains than nonalcoholic adults of the same age and gender.  This finding has been repeatedly confirmed in living alcoholics using structural imaging techniques.(NIAAA Alert, April 2000)

  Researchers continue to regard marijuana as a gateway drug and have demonstrated continuing patterns for the risk of marijuana use. 
1.      The risk of marijuana initiation spans the entire course of adolescent development.
2.      Young people exposed to others who use drugs are at higher risk for early use.
3.      Proactive parents can help delay drug use.
4.      Clear family standards and proactive family management are important in delaying drug use. (Kosteman et al.,  American Journal of Public Health 2000; 90:360-366)

With the recent increase in marijuana promotion in music, movies, media, and the Internet, and the corresponding lack of response by adults, Nebraska has had alarming increases in marijuana use by adolescents.  There was a 68 percent increase in marijuana use by Nebraska 9^th through 12^th grade students from 1993 to 1997. (Nebraska Youth Risk Behavior Surveys, PRIDE Omaha, 2/12/00)

  The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) notes an increase in the use of cannabis among the young.  Drug cartels have increased their emphasis on distribution of cannabis to youth.  A growing number of youth find potent strains of the drug easily available because of the lenient attitudes of some governments.  The Netherlands is a worldwide distributor, and the Dutch government has only recently begun to crack down on “Nederweit” being grown in greenhouses. (Narcotics Enforcement & Prevention Digest, 2/29/00)

The INCB annual report notes that international drug traffickers are setting up operations in countries that are in political disarray or have weak law enforcement.  Impressive achievements in reducing illicit coca bush cultivation in Bolivia and Peru have increased production of drugs in Columbia.

A 30-month study of 229 cannabis users in Australia, carried out by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, found that only 10 percent of cannabis addicts were able to stop using cannabis after a series of counseling sessions.  The study found that a major problem for users trying to quit is a community attitude that cannabis is not a drug of addiction. (HNN, 10/21/99)

Professor Scott Smith said that fiber hemp with a content of 0.1 to 0.3 percent THC would have a significant potential for any narcotic application. (Dr. M. Scott Smith, Professor and Chair of Agronomy, University of Kentucky)

  According to information from the Daily Graphic, (CN MB) Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, Canada, 230 Manitoba farmers were growing hemp for Consolidated Growers and Processors (CGP), a California firm that filed for bankruptcy in February 2000, owing Manitoba farmers over $6 million.

  Law enforcement should be aware that when fiber hemp is grown for seed, the plants are discarded, and any doper caught with “a green, leafy substance” could claim it was fiber hemp, not marijuana.  Without costly chemical analysis, it would be impossible to ascertain the THC content.   (WI DOJ, 10/4/99)

On March 23, 2000, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that there is no difference between industrial hemp and marijuana.  “The mere fact that hemp may contain less THC than marijuana is of no consequence,” Justice Donald Wintersheimer wrote. (AP, 3/23/00)

A recent study by researchers at the Institute of Behavioral Research, Texas, found that employees in work groups suffer negative psychological and personal effects from co-worker substance use, especially if the job involves a degree of risk.  Problems include morale, increased chance of injury, damaged equipment, poor quality work, and poor communication in the work group. (Dr. Joel Bennett, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, September 1999)

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, drug use by employees ages 18 to 49 dropped from 17.5 percent in 1985 to 7.7 percent in 1997, with the largest decreases in companies that are drug testing on a regular basis.  General Motors calculates that its employee drug-treatment program saves $37 million a year in lost productivity. (APBnews.com, 2/7/00)

Blood samples detect marijuana metabolites within four hours of use.  However, you can detect marijuana metabolites in urine for a week or two, and even longer in hair samples. (Calvina Fay, Ex. Dir DFAF. Court certified drug testing expert, 5/23/00)

A leading San Francisco forensic toxicologist, Steven Karch, suggests that many deaths occurring in police custody that are blamed on police using excessive force in restraining difficult prisoners may be the result of prisoner cocaine abuse.  Sufferers of “excited delirium”, a condition that can be caused by the long-term use of stimulants, such as cocaine, experience a dangerous rise in body temperature, act strangely, appear terrified and yet, can show surprising strength.  Unless quickly packed in ice to reduce body temperature, they can die from cardiac arrest.  Karch presented his research at the Royal Society of Medicine in London in September 1999. (HNN, 9/24/99)

Dronabinol, synthetic THC, was approved in the United States in 1985 for nausea and vomiting in cancer chemotherapy, and in 1992 for anorexia or appetite loss in AIDS patients.  In September 1999, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration reclassified dronabinol from a Schedule II to a Schedule III drug. (HNN, 9/15/99)

The Public Security Ministry reported that in 1998 Chinese police dealt with 180,000 drug cases involving more than 230,000 people.  In June 1999, anti-drug activities were held across China to mark the worldwide movement against drug crimes.  360 volunteers in Beijing pledged to devote themselves to educational work for drug prevention and control.  A total of 320,000 primary and middle school students in Dongguan participated in an anti-drug rally, and student narcotics-control committees were set up in 686 colleges and schools. (Xinhua News Agency News Bulletin, 6/26/99)

Drug addiction is overwhelming Russia.  The average drug user is now about 14 years of age.  In 1986, there were two chronic drug addicts registered in the Tyumen region.  Now 50-60 young people apply to the center daily for help.  Eighty percent of drug addicts registered since the beginning of 1999 are heroin users.  The centre’s head doctor, Vladimir Pushkarev, said that children as young as eight years old have been registered as drug addicts. (Itar-Tass World Service, 10/6/99)

A three-year study by researchers at the Oregon Health Sciences University School of Medicine showed decreased drug use and improved nutrition behaviors among male high school athletes participating in a team-centered model program.  Use of alcohol and other illicit drugs and associated harmful activities can be prevented with a sex-specific, team-centered education. School athletic teams provide an optimal environment in which to provide drug prevention and health promotion education. (Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000; 154:332-338)

  The Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services tested 1,023 emergency room patients with major trauma during a given time frame for the presence of marijuana and alcohol.  Marijuana was found in 34.7 percent of the patients.  Alcohol was present in 33.5 percent.  (Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol 123, June 1988)

   In a white paper recently approved by the Dutch Cabinet, Justice Minister B. Korthals called for a crackdown on illegal sales and cultivation of marijuana. (ECAD, April 2000)

Speaking to Erasmus University students in Rotterdam, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, party leader for the Dutch Christian Democrats, said that Holland attracts a lot of drug tourists and has ensconced itself among the top countries in the world in the trade and production of illicit drugs. (ECAD, April 2000)

Following criticism that an Arizona ballot initiative proposed by “The People Have Spoken” was a drug legalization effort and had nothing to do with medical marijuana, on May 31, 2000, the group withdrew its support.  The group, financed by George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling ($105,000 each), acknowledged that a provision of the initiative might prevent prosecution of medical marijuana users for numerous drug offenses. (AP, 6/1/00)

On October 1, 1999, Michigan became the first state to require drug testing for all welfare applicants.  Applicants who test positive for drugs will not be denied benefits, provided they complete a treatment program.  Seventy-five percent of private employers in Michigan already screen new hires for drug use. (USA Today, October 1, 1999)

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University states that more teens are now being treated for pot than for alcohol. (www.casacolumbia.org, 7/26/99)

QUOTES – April 2000

FROM THE DESK OF DAVID S. NOFFS
President, Drug Watch International

Dear Drug Watch Friends, 

As the new president of Drug Watch International, I am keenly aware of my responsibility to lead our continuing efforts to intercept and expose the promotion of decriminalization and so-called “harm-minimization” practices by pro-drug forces.

Drug Watch International and its partner organizations have been key players in anti-drug policy decisions made throughout the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Australasia during the past year.  Without the support of hundreds of volunteers and donations from Drug Watch members and friends, these achievements would never have occurred.  Today, many prevention organizations that actively oppose legalization efforts are using materials developed either by Drug Watch or from the letters, articles, commentaries, and publications of Drug Watch members.

We depend on contributions as well as membership dues to support this essential work.  While billionaires and government bureaucrats have given pro-legalizers carte blanche to spread harm-minimization propaganda throughout many countries, our counter-efforts through our ever-growing number of volunteer supporters are being heard even louder around the globe.

As you read this, Drug Watch International members are dispelling the myths of medical marijuana throughout the United States.  They are challenging harm-minimization curricula for drug workers in Brazil.  Down under, our Drug Watch colleagues in Australia are fighting the push for shooting galleries and heroin handouts.  Our members are also engaged in fighting for legislation to ban the spread of drug and drug paraphernalia sales over the Internet. We continue to fight the promotion of hemp product propaganda, and we have sent every member of Congress a copy of the new Drug Watch Position Papers book.  Our quarterly Drug Watch World newsletter informs thousands of readers around the world about drug-legalization issues, and how they can help stop the spread of illegal drug use.  All of this and much more is done without wealthy patrons or government grants!

If you are reading this newsletter, I know you are committed to our combined efforts, and I am appealing to you to make a financial contribution to support our work at this most critical moment in time.  The Drug Watch International board of directors has set a goal of raising $50,000 by the end of this year.  As you can see by the thermometer indicator in our newsletter, some board members and friends have already contributed.  Please consider making a contribution today, and together let's see how far we can make the mercury rise by the next issue of this newsletter.

Return to Drug Watch International Homepage

This page was last updated on July 29, 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