Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

AUSTRALIA — AN UPDATE
By:  Jill Pearman, Director, Prevention Resource Centres, Australia
 and Secretary, Board of Directors of Drug Watch International

Since 1985, harm reduction has been the lead policy in Australian drug policy. It is clear that this policy has done nothing to reduce drug use.

The latest statistics from the Australian 1998 National Household Survey demonstrate an alarming increase in drug use across the population and particularly with our young people. Some highlights include:

·        Teenagers recently using heroin increased from 0.6 percent in 1995 to 1 percent in 1998.

·        Teenagers recently using marijuana increased from 20 percent in 1995 to 35 percent in 1998. The largest increase in recent use of marijuana was with adolescent girls where the increase was 18 percentage points.

·        Teenagers who had ever used marijuana increased from 36 percent in 1995 to 45 percent in 1998.

Parents and community members throughout Australia are now mobilising to attempt to reduce drug use in their communities.

In June of this year, a number of Non-Governmental Organizations combined to stage a drug summit in New South Wales State Parliament.  Some 20 organisations sponsored the Summit, an extremely successful event.  The Prime Minister, John Howard, sent a supportive opening address to be read on his behalf.  Over 180 Australian delegates attended, including many politicians from various states.  Quite a few of the MPs responsible for blocking injecting rooms in Canberra and Victoria were in attendance.   Representing Drug Watch International was Jack Gilligan, Ph.D., from the United States.  Also in attendance were Malou Lindholm, former member of the EU, Borge Dahl, a treatment specialist from Sweden, and drs. Frans Koopmans from Holland.  National speakers represented the best in drug treatment, ethics, and prevention from around Australia.

The attention paid by the media to the three-day summit was significant.  The events were profiled in many of the papers in Sydney and other states.  Our Swedish speaker was asked to write a one-page open letter in the Telegraph, the tabloid with the largest circulation in Sydney.   This type of press coverage meant that the issue of “harm prevention,” as opposed to “harm reduction,” was out before the general public. 

There has been a small but vocal lobby in Australia calling to implement shooting galleries.  On the eve of the injecting room votes in Canberra, Australia’s capital, and Victoria, a delegation from the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) visited Australia.  An extract of their report of their visit states:

“The Board...underlines its conviction that injecting rooms will not contribute to the reduction of drug abuse and trafficking.  The Board is particularly concerned that some of those authorities propagating this approach clearly see it as a further step toward their aim of making the non medical use of narcotic drugs and psychotic substances legal.” (H. Schaepe, Secretary of the Board, United Nations INCB. 8 July 2000)

The attempt to establish shooting galleries in Canberra failed when it was blocked by two independent members of parliament.  Similarly, in Victoria, the attempt to muster the necessary support failed when the Liberal Party voted unanimously not to support the move.

Australia is at a crossroads.  Its people have to choose whether to stand up and demand a less permissive drug policy, or to slide further into the harm reduction mire by continuing to support the current failed drug policy, which is now seeking to implement shooting galleries and other drug-enabling policies.  Based on the positive events over the past three months, it appears that Australians are now realising that there is a superior policy, one that will protect our children – and that policy is the one that embraces drug prevention and rehabilitation.

BUPRENORPHINE
By:  Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP
Chairman, The International Drug Strategy Institute, a division of Drug Watch International

Dealing with over 3 million serious addicts in the United States is a huge enigma.  For some time, methadone has been used for opiate addicts with mixed results. On the horizon is the use of a new agent, buprenorphine, which may be helpful in reducing drug craving in addicts without some of the abuse and addiction problems associated with methadone. A federal move exists to streamline the ability of physicians to provide buprenorphine. This has been advanced through a process largely of tagging onto the methamphetamine legislation through S486, HR 2987, and HR 2634. Unfortunately, there are some major problems that exist with the legislation as drafted.

These problems include:
Regulatory framework:
A lack of authority to revoke a prescribing waiver eliminates ability to enforce a continuing oversight role.
DEA authority is limited to act on registration under only one of six existing authorities, including the existing authority to act on a registration specific to utilizing narcotic substances in the treatment of narcotic addiction.
State role in controlling prescribing is preempted.
DEA authority to register relies on state registration.  Since the state role is preempted, the waiver may be "guaranteed."
HHS authority to regulate can be preempted by requiring voluntary practice guidelines (the TIP) at the same time providing discretionary authority to develop guidelines or regulations.
Physician may commence treatment if HHS does not act on application within 45 days. 

Delivery system:
There are no requirements to provide assessments, referrals, or counseling.
There are no limitations on the amount of "take-home" medications that may be prescribed until experience after approval of the drug indicating an "adverse determination" is noticed in the Federal Register.
There are no criteria regarding eligibility for treatment, such as definition of addiction, history of addiction, or age requirements.

Qualifications of physicians:
Prohibits federal control over the practice of medicine, the basis of the federal Controlled Substances Act and DEA authority to regulate the use of controlled substances.
For physicians deemed eligible by training, no specific curriculum required, no minimum amount of training required.
No continuing medical education required for any physician.
Additional standards permitted only after approval of the drug indicating an "adverse determination" is noticed in the Federal Register.
Alternative training options would permit physicians to provide addiction treatment prescribing narcotics to narcotic addicts without any training or experience specific to the treatment of addictions.

Hopefully, our lawmakers will slow down and create a framework which does not backfire and create more problems than it solves.

OH CANADA! WHERE ARE YOU GOING?
By:  Charles Perkins
Director, Lambton Families In Action for Drug Education

Each day I become more saddened by the direction my country is taking in dealing with its ever-increasing drug problem. The Canadian government has adopted a misguided approach and is basically doing nothing.  Intense pressure from harm reductionists has fostered the attitude that Canadians should give up and learn to live with drugs.

“Harm reduction" is a term co-opted by individuals and organizations that advocate “drugs on demand,” i.e., open drug use with no prohibiting laws.  The harm reduction movement is international and plays a significant role in increased drug use.   It is financed by a small number of wealthy and influential individuals, plus tax dollars.

How did this happen in Canada?  When the Federal Liberal Party came to power, it first legalized marijuana hemp and then passed the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  The Act made possession of 30 grams of marijuana (60-100 joints) a non-indictable offence, i.e., a fine upon conviction, but no traceable record.  In other words, de facto decriminalization of marijuana possession.

The Act also gave extraordinary and unchecked powers to the Health Minister, who can arbitrarily revise the list of illegal substances in the Act and can exempt individuals from drug possession prosecution for claimed but unproven medical “necessity.”  He has exempted at least 35 users.  Additionally, Canada’s Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister for life or until age 75, whichever comes first.  This non-elected Senate has wide legislative powers and is preparing legislation to be presented to the House of Commons to decriminalize possession of all illegal drugs. 

In Toronto, Ontario, on May 13, 1988, a 16-year-old boy disappeared after taking LSD at a rock concert and was later found drowned in Lake Ontario.  The public was outraged.  Parents demanded that Canada’s drug problem be brought under control.  Federal, provincial, and municipal governments agreed, as did the media, and the parent movement began to grow.  Over the next decade, teen drug use declined from over 30 percent to 17 percent. Then, the permissive philosophy of “harm reduction” was introduced into Canada.  Almost overnight, things changed.  The media embraced “harm reduction,” and the government’s attitude toward drug use started softening.

How bad have things become? Canada is now a marijuana-exporting nation, with 25 percent of its marijuana going to the western United States. Organized crime in Canada smuggles the chemicals required to produce methamphetamine into the United States, where they are traded for enough LSD to supply Canada.  Crime syndicates control Canadian drug markets, and turf wars have erupted.  Officials fear a blood bath in the province of Ontario between two rival drug-dealing motorcycle gangs.

Ecstasy (MDMA) has become a serious drug problem.  Several years ago, I was involved in an effort to warn government and law enforcement about the coming problem of rave parties and Ecstasy.  Those warnings fell on deaf ears.  In the last 18 months in Toronto alone, 12 people have died from Ecstasy-related deaths, a fact which does not seem to concern those in power.  At a recent inquest into the Ecstasy-related death of a 20-year-old at a rave party, it was recommended to let raves flourish and rely on education to decrease the use of Ecstasy.  If not checked, Ecstasy will soon replace marijuana as the most commonly used drug of abuse in Canada. 

Where will these permissive attitudes toward drug use end?  The future looks ominous for Canada.  What a sad commentary on our times.

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, Drug Watch World News is publishing it in three parts.  Part Two follows.

The International Scene
Fighting the drug war on the international front is in many ways more difficult than in the domestic arena. We can influence but not control the efforts of other governments. Corruption and violence in a number of drug producing and transit countries undermine the political will of governments to tackle powerful trafficking organizations. Since drugs flow across borders without regard to sovereignty, multilateral cooperation is necessary to stem their flow, but the mechanisms and will to do so are often lacking.  Finally, there is such an over production of drugs worldwide that the losses our and other countries’ efforts inflict on the drug traffickers often seem marginal.

The United States made steady progress in reducing drug use through the eighties and early nineties; despite a disturbing increase in teenage drug use since 1992, overall drug use is down in this country. Unfortunately the trend is not as encouraging in some other countries. In particular, cocaine use in Europe and Russia is steadily rising as increasing U.S. resistance has turned the traffickers’ eyes to the European market traditionally a high-use heroin area. Policy shifts that have entailed higher tolerance of so-called soft drugs have resulted in huge increases in drug use. Holland has suffered an increase in marijuana use since the softening of their marijuana policy.  The Dutch are also now one of the major exporters of Ecstasy (MDMA). Several countries are considering accepting marijuana for medicinal purposes despite clear evidence of problems associated with smoking for medicinal applications. Since the liberalization of the marijuana enforcement policies, Holland has found that marijuana use among 11-18 year olds has increased 142% from 1990-1995. Crime has risen steadily to the point that aggravated theft and breaking and entering occurs 3-4 times more than in the United States.

Australia is also suffering widespread drug policy activism geared toward softening drug policy. As a result of such soft policy changes, major problems are developing. This is most dramatically represented in comparison to Sweden, a country that employs a successful restrictive drug policy (figure 1). Lifetime prevalence of drug use in Australia in 16-29 year olds is 52% as compared to 9% in Sweden, a country with restrictive drug policy. This difficult situation is not cause to abandon our international efforts. For one thing over the past ten years more countries have come to realize that drug trafficking and abuse are not just an American issue and that their own societies are suffering the consequences of their previous denial that they had a problem. European countries are now more vigorous in their efforts abroad both bilaterally and through UN programs, often in cooperation with the U.S. The body of international law, particularly the 1988 Anti-Trafficking convention that the United States sponsored and pressed forward, has brought a stronger anti-drug ethic to international affairs, which only outlaws and outlaw states ignore. The UN Drug Control Program has become more pervasive and effective and even formerly resistant agencies like the World Bank and the UN Development Program are beginning to understand that drugs undermine development as well as democracy.

The Reasons for International Efforts
While developments in the international drug arena present a decidedly mixed picture, there are good reasons for the United States to have a strong country-narcotics component in its foreign policy:

     First and most obvious, our efforts to reduce demand for illegal drugs in the United States will be undermined if an unrestricted flow of these drugs comes across our borders. Illegal drugs will be cheaper, purer, more widely available and consequently more abused. Even if we cannot cut off the flow of narcotics, we can continue to work with other countries to contain it and make it more difficult for the drugs to get to the street. There is, in fact, good evidence of a correlation between heightened drug control efforts overseas and the price, availability, and use of drugs in the U.S. (see especially the study, Empirical Examination of Counter drug Interdiction Program Effectiveness published by the Institute of Defense Analysis in January 1997). Without a strong supply reduction effort, prevention, and education programs will suffer.

       Similarly helping other countries reduce their own demand can make an important contribution to building international resistance to drug use. Virtually every country in the world has obligated itself to fighting drugs through the ratification of the 1961, 71 and 88 drug conventions. International cooperation to stem drug abuse will help make international laws and the obligations stemming from them a reality Conversely, allowing drug use to grow without counter efforts will simply provide more markets for drug traffickers and make them more powerful.

        A broader reason to attack the drug trade lies in the fact that the illegal drug industry undermines our broad foreign policy goals of building democracy and responsible, effective governments worldwide in order to promote global peace and stability. Drug organizations corrupt civil institutions through bribery and intimidation, while drug use attacks the basis of democracy – an alert, enlightened and involved citizenry. Besides, the proceeds of illegal drugs undermine economies throughout the world through devices such as money laundering, ownership and management of financial institutions and the skewing of exchange rates and financial flows.

Increasingly the illegal drug trade is seen by a number of governments as a national security threat, which attacks the moral fiber of society and undermines civil institutions. This is particularly true in our hemisphere, which is at once the host to major drug trafficking organizations and the victim of their activities. A closer look at the situation in the Americas is warranted.

DRUGS AND PRISON:  MYTH AND REALITY  
By:  James McDonough, Director, Florida Office of Drug Control 
From 1996 to 1999, Mr. McDonough was the Director of Strategy, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, D.C.

By the end of 1999, the total number of Americans in jails and prisons surpassed two million for the first time.  The long-forecasted figure marks a threshold that has been seized upon by those who would decriminalize harmful drugs to make the rhetorical case that the “drug wars” have failed, other than to imprison multitudes for the essentially victimless crime of enjoying an illicit substance.  That charge, a mixture of sophistry, myth, and polemic, is wrong on all counts.

The use of the term “drug war” is an old refrain, used to conjure up visions of street-scene battlefields depicting weapons as the major tool in the anti-drug arsenal.  Notably, the National Drug Control Strategy explicitly rejects the notion of a war and emphasizes treatment and prevention as the keys to reducing drug abuse in America.  Supply reduction is also a part of the strategy, but it is the drug traffickers who are the focus, not the addict or the “casual” user.

So too is the descriptor “failure” a stretch.  In 1982, there were 5.7 million casual users of cocaine in America (at a time when at least one Harvard “expert” was decreeing cocaine “non-addictive”).  Today that number is now 1.7 million, down by 70 percent.  In 1979, over 14 percent of the population were “current” users of illegal drugs; that figure now sits at six percent, down by over half.  To characterize such results as failure is akin to walking away from the fight against illiteracy because some people remain illiterate.

And what of the notion of otherwise peaceable citizens, guilty of nothing more than smoking a toke in the quiet of their homes, placed for endless years behind bars?  A recent report (August 2000) by the Justice Department found that allegation to be false.  Indeed, the data contradict the assertion that the increase of prisoners stems from drug arrests.  Of last year’s increase (at 3.4 percent the lowest since 1979), over half resulted from convictions for violent crimes.  Another third were a result of property crimes and “other crimes.”  Less than one in five were incarcerated as a result of drug arrests.

Of  those incarcerated for drug arrests, most are repeat offenders with other serious crimes on their rap sheet.  Simple possession is seldom the driving force behind sentencing.  In 1998, for example, of the approximately 100,000 prisoners in the federal system, only 33 individuals sentenced for federal drug crimes involving marijuana were convicted for base offense levels involving less than 5,000 grams.  In the same time period, 1,299 were convicted for marijuana offenses involving between 100,000 and 3,000,000 grams.

My own state of Florida shows similar data.  Of the more than 68,000 prisoners in the corrections system (as of July 1999), only 40 were there for a primary offense of marijuana possession.  All of them had previous criminal histories – many for cocaine and other drug offenses, some with violent offenses such as homicide, aggravated battery, and armed robbery.  Of the 40, over 60 percent had been in prison before.  All of the others had prior probation sentences, and over 80 percent of them had violated their probation for offenses, including concealed weapons, resisting arrest, burglary, grand theft, and so on.  Indeed, the Department of Justice reports that the national increase in prisoners during the 1990s comes largely from revocation of parole for technical violations. 

So should we legalize dangerous drugs?  James Q. Wilson makes a convincing case that doing so would cause the consumption of drugs to increase dramatically (he cites the experience of Britain and Holland).  While the average user might commit fewer crimes, the total number of crimes committed by a larger population of drug abusers would go up, as many who could not hold a steady job would turn to crime to provide their incomes and support their habits.  As it is today, 60 to 80 percent of all crime in America is related to substance abuse, virtually none of which is “victimless.”

Drug addiction is seldom voluntarily admitted.  An addict normally seeks treatment only when coerced – by a spouse or parent, but more normally by a judge or probation officer.  It is no surprise that drug courts offer the best records of successful treatment.  When the choice is stay clean or go to jail, greater numbers stay clean.  Interestingly, prisoners receiving treatment cite the drug laws as either about right or too lenient.

So the claim of the legalizers that we have only the drug wars to blame for the record numbers of prisoners is a canard.  We do have drugs to blame for crime, and the proper response is to break the cycle between addiction and crime, not to pretend there is no linkage between one and the other.

DRUG WATCH EYE-OPENERS 
The Truth About Ecstasy and Raves
By:  Sheila Fuller

Time Magazine did a cover article on Ecstasy and raves in its June 5,2000, issue, which described the extreme effects Ecstasy has on the human brain and noted the dozens of deaths among rave attendees caused by the drug.  But then it came to the unfortunate and irresponsible conclusion that Ecstasy "has few negative consequences" and "...it appears to be a safer drug than heroin and cocaine...and appears to have more potentially therapeutic benefits."  It went on to describe controlled rave settings where users are guaranteed pure unadulterated Ecstasy for their protection!  Ecstasy has serious negative consequences, and raves are not safe places.  Below are the facts.

Ecstasy is a neurotoxic drug, taken in pill form, which causes brain cells to disgorge all of their serotonin in a rush.  It has both stimulant and psychedelic effects.  It's popularity has risen simultaneously with that of "raves" which are all-night dance marathons where users take the drug to feel “high” and affectionate and to keep themselves going until daybreak.  "Are you rolling" ravers are asked, and if they answer, "no," they are offered Ecstasy to get them "rolling."  Raves usually are an underground activity held in abandoned warehouses or other empty buildings, or in remote outdoor areas with the venue moving from week to week. Young people learn of raves through the Internet, by word of mouth, or by passing out colorful flyers with rave information.   Sometimes teens pass a telephone number around to call to find out where a rave will be held.  Although Ecstasy and raves have traditionally gone together, pushers are now dumping large quantities of Ecstasy on the market, and police are discovering the drug in schools and at non-rave get-togethers.

In the early 1990s, Ecstasy was not yet on the radar screen.  Abuse of marijuana, heroin, LSD, cocaine, and methamphetamine were all down from previous decades, and it appeared that a large block of American youth was "just saying no."  Unfortunately, a sea-change in attitude toward drugs swept over the nation's youth during the 1990s, and this past decade has seen a frightening rise in the use of many drugs, including Ecstasy.  Nearly 8 percent of high school seniors have used Ecstasy, and in isolated areas use is much higher.

Ecstasy is a methamphetamine compound known chemically as MDMA, and its street names are XTC, X, e, Adam, Clarity, and Lover's Speed.  Its appeal appears to be that it makes users feel warm and affectionate toward others.  Some have referred to Ecstasy as "the hug drug."  However, the harm of Ecstasy cannot be overstated.  Its use can increase body temperature as high as 110°, causing muscle breakdown, kidney and cardiovascular system failure, heart attack, seizure, and in some cases, death.  Emergency rooms surveyed in 1998 reported more than 1,000 Ecstasy visits due to dehydration or psychological trauma.  The high of Ecstasy lasts from three to six hours, but some users have suffered confusion, depression, sleep problems, anxiety, and paranoia for weeks after the drug is taken.

There are tell-tale signs that youths are headed for a rave where Ecstasy and other drugs are passed around.  Ravers often wear wide-bottom jeans, or trousers, or brightly colored clothes. They carry glowsticks, water bottles (to keep the Ecstasy from de-hydrating them), and lollipops or pacifiers to soften the involuntary teeth-clenching that follows Ecstasy use.  Flyers with twists on corporate logos (e.g., MasterCard becomes MasterRave) with 3-D images and electric hues announce raves.

There seems to be reluctance on the part of law enforcement to crack down on raves and the sale of Ecstasy at them, and far too many parents are willing to cave in and allow their youngsters to attend raves.  All need to overcome this reluctance, because Ecstasy kills.

NETHERLANDS PARLIAMENT DEBATES FURTHER LEGALIZATION OF SOFT DRUGS 
By:  drs. F.S.L. Koopmans
Public Relations Director of ‘De Hoop,’ A Christian-based psychiatric hospital for addicts in the Netherlands

The discussion in the Netherlands about further decriminalization of the cultivation and sale of cannabis plants has risen to the forefront in the past few months.  Attention was focused on the problem by some parliamentarians who advocate semi-legalized delivery of Nederwiet (marijuana).   A policy already exists by which a coffeeshop may sell up to five grams of cannabis without being prosecuted as long as the shop abides by certain rules:  no advertising, no hard drugs, no disturbance of the public order, no selling to youngsters under the age of 18, and no wholesale trade quantities.  Because the “front door” is semi-legal, drug criminals have no hold there; however, the “back door” delivery of cannabis is illegal, still in secret, and in the hands of hardened criminals. 

Some parliamentarians want to end the hypocrisy and allow “back door” trade.  They feel that the local government and police should get a grip on the cannabis market.  These parliamentarians suggest allowing delivery by selected growers of Nederwiet (marijuana), all of whom must meet specific criteria. 

It is unclear what the results of this further liberalized drug policy would be; however, in my opinion, this would result in more acceptance and more use. 

In 1996, the former Minister of Justice, Winnie Sorgdrager, said that she would respect local government initiatives to try to regulate the delivery of cannabis to coffeeshops.  Last year, sixty mayors proposed an initiative to further relax restrictions on cultivation and sale of marijuana.  Now the Social Democratic Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, and the Greens have moved that the government develop guidelines outlining the basis upon which production and distribution of Nederwiet in coffee shops would be regulated.  The Public Prosecutor, the Chief Constable, and local mayors would oversee quality control of the product, environmental compliance, and zoning.  Rules would forbid exportation, control packaging, and corporate practices.  The rules would also require participation in prevention programs by coffeeshop owners.

Opponents of the motion included the Christian Democrats, Democrats, and the smaller Christian parties, who felt the motion bore testimony to great naiveté.  They questioned the government's ability to control the proposed system and emphasized that the Netherlands is not an island unto itself.  The Dutch could not implement such a program without disturbing the rest of Europe.

A recent vote resulted in 73 votes for the motion and 72 against, certainly not a convincing victory.  However, the minister of Justice, Benk Korthals, made it clear that the government would not implement the motion, because it would isolate the Netherlands from the international community.  Korthals doubted that it was possible to implement the proposals in the motion and suggested that even the present system of limited coffeeshop sales needs more control.

Those who proposed the motion were upset.  One parliamentarian called it a "debunking of a democratic majority."  A mayor declared that he would continue to pursue semi-legalizing back door coffeeshops, anyway.  However, Prime Minister Wim Kok responded that every mayor must comply with the law and that Justice will not tolerate experiments with supply of marijuana to coffeeshops.  Kok stated that the drug policy of one local community/city may not differ greatly from the drug policy of another community/city, adding that he does not want “a patchwork quilt.”  He said that other countries are very sensitive to what the Netherlands is doing and that the international climate does not give the Netherlands much space to deviate from its present policy.  “That space is much less than members of parliament think it is.”  Kok does not want to disturb the delicate balance between the Netherlands and Europe.

The camps are still divided.  The illegal but tolerated sale of marijuana in coffeeshops continues and has more or less become the rule.  Reversing that situation will be extremely difficult.  The Netherlands has reached the limit with its liberal drug policy.  Going further would lead to a government without credibility, and that is unthinkable.

NONPROFIT LOBBYING — WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
By:  Bob Smucker, Co-Director, Charity Lobbying in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C.

Unfortunately, too many lawyers or accountants give overly cautious advice regarding lobbying by U.S. nonprofits.  Some even believe that lobbying by nonprofits is illegal.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Congress and the IRS encourage lobbying by nonprofits.  Congress enacted exceedingly generous provisions under the 1976 lobby law.  The IRS sent the same message when it issued regulations in 1990 that supported both the spirit and the intent of the 1976 law.  Together, the law and regulations send a very clear message that lobbying is not only absolutely legal, but it is also encouraged by the federal government.

Nonprofits need to recognize that programs and services of almost every nonprofit are affected by legislation.  To neglect the development of skills related to lobbying is shortsighted at best.

Under the 1976 lobby law, you can spend 20 percent of your first $500,000 in annual expenditures on lobbying, 15 percent of the next $500,000, 10 percent of the next $500,000, and so on up to an expenditure of one million dollars.

It is also important to know that under the 1976 law, lobbying never occurs unless there is an expenditure of money.  Volunteers can lobby as much as they want, and it does not count as lobbying as long as the nonprofit is not picking up any of the cost for the volunteers’ lobbying.

It is quite simple to file to come under the 1976 lobby law.  An authorized officer signs a one-page IRS form and checks the box “election.”  All nonprofits, whether they elect to come under the 1976 law or not, are required to report annually to the IRS regarding how much they spend on lobbying.  Those using the 1976 lobby law are not required to include detailed descriptions of their lobbying activities, only how much is grassroots and how much is direct lobbying paid for by the organization.  It is important to note that nonprofits can use general-purpose foundation grant funds to lobby, but a foundation cannot earmark funds for lobbying. 

Millions of volunteers of nonprofit organizations lobby, and the number will grow as more organizations elect to come under the 1976 lobby law.

Lobbying is the right thing to do.  Lobbying is about empowerment.  It is about empowerment of the individual who, working together with others in a group, make their collective voices heard on a wide range of human concerns.  Much of the social change in America had its origin in the nonprofit sector. 

As Brian O’Connell, president of INDEPENDENT SECTOR said, “Lobbying is sometimes a nonprofit’s best service.”

PREVENTION IDEAS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

Twice yearly for one month, three thousand street light poles on the main avenues of Rio de Janeiro are covered with huge banners bearing the picture of two Olympic winners and the anti-drug message: "Take advantage of your life:  Don't use drugs!"  The banners are sponsored by WIZARD, a private language school with dozens of schools all over the city.  The school's logo, the logo of City Hall, and the name of Rio's Drug Prevention Bureau also appear on the banner.

This is a WIN-WIN situation.  WIZARD gets wide exposure and is shown to offer serious Language Courses where drug use is not approved, and this type of advertisement is tax-free.  Additionally, City Hall benefits from a prominent association with the No-Drug message, and the Drug Prevention Bureau benefits from this highly visible anti-drug media campaign.  Additionally, the Drug Prevention Bureau receives ONE THOUSAND one-year English course scholarships at WIZARD as soon as the banners are exhibited.  These scholarships will be distributed among those students and teachers who have been outstanding in the Bureau's drug prevention activities.

These beautiful drug prevention campaign banners bring excitement and joy to the residents of Rio de Janeiro who want a healthy and drug free society.

For more information contact:
Mina Seinfeld de Carakushansky, Head
Drug Prevention Bureau of the City of Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
Office Tels: + 5521-503-2835; + 5521-503-4045 
Fax: 5521-503-3121

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
Fall, 2000

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

      One third of the cost of the shadow conventions, held concurrently with the Republican and Democratic Party conventions, was provided by organizations funded by George Soros. (Time Magazine, July 31, 2000)

        The Soros-funded Lindesmith Center and the Drug Policy Foundation merged to become the largest pro-drug legalization organization in the United States.  (Cannabis News, July 14, 2000)

        Drug Policy Foundation provided funding for a safe crack cocaine smoking kit. (Symposium, December 29, 1997)

        Research has shown that MDMA, “Ecstasy,” can cause damage to the parts of the brain that are critical to thought and memory.  It can also cause damage to the liver and destroy the neurons that play a role in regulating aggression, mood, sleep, and sexual activity.  (ONDCP FACT SHEET, July 2000)

        Ketamine, PCP, and alcohol trigger widespread cell death in the brains of developing rats.  Though conducted with animals, the study raises concern, not only about the effects of illegally using these drugs during pregnancy, but also about the legitimate use of ketamine and similar anesthetic medications during pregnancy and early childhood. (NIDA NOTES, June 2000)

        Studies conducted with smoked marijuana with THC concentrations of 1.8 percent or 3.1 percent showed that long-term marijuana users experience withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, stomach pain, and aggression with both high- and low-concentration marijuana. (NIDA NOTES, March 2000)

        In a recent survey of 1,028 adults nationwide, roughly two thirds of those responding did not think that marijuana should be legalized.  Those from large cities and young people were more apt to favor legalization.  Whites and blacks were equally supportive of retaining the ban on marijuana, as were men and women. (Reuters/Zogby, 2/27/00)

        The detrimental effects of heavy cocaine use on an individual’s manual dexterity, problem solving, and other skills can last for up to a month after the drug is taken. (NIDA, Substance Abuse Letter, Vol. 6, No.1 reported in DREAM, Feb/Mar 2000)

        In kids’ minds, marijuana is less and less associated with popularity.  An increasing number (40 percent) of teens strongly agree that “really cool” teens don’t use drugs.  Only eight percent said they believe marijuana users are popular.  (Partnership for Drug-Free America study reported in DREAM, Feb/Mar 2000)  

        Researchers continue to regard marijuana as a gateway drug and have demonstrated continuing patterns for the risk of marijuana use.  The risk of marijuana initiation spans the entire course of adolescent development. (Kosterman et al. American Journal of Public Health 2000;90: 360-366)

        A study published in the journal “Thorax” said that doctors in Scotland found that smoking marijuana just once or twice a day for a number of years can lead to serious lung disease. (Dr. Martin Johnson, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 3/23/00)

        Columbia is the source of 90 percent of the cocaine and 65 percent of the heroin seized in the United States. (NYT, 3/31/00)

        In a scientific magazine devoted to kidney disease, researcher van der Would writes, “Apart from having mood-elevating properties, cocaine is capable of causing myocardial infarction, arrythmia, sudden death, stroke, seizures, bowel necrosis, and numerous other complications.  A retrospective study has suggested that cocaine exposure in utero leads to an increased incidence of hypospadia and an increased incidence of renal (kidney) tract abnormalities.” (Nephrol Dial Transplant, 2000, 15:299-301)

        The British governmental department that oversees law enforcement said it would not reduce criminal penalties for possession of Ecstasy, LSD, marijuana, cocaine, or heroin.  “We see no justification for it.  It would not improve the situation.  It would make it worse,” said government drug czar Keith Hellawell. (London AP, 3/28/00)

        A state of Wisconsin study found that costs attributed to the negative impacts of substance abuse amount to 25 percent of total workers’ salaries.

         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.

        According to data from the national Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine all had approximately the same percentage of references related to overdose (around 18 percent). (Cesar FAX, 7/24/00)

        A recent study stratified marijuana use groups.  Of the total population studied by the researchers, 45 percent had at some time used marijuana on a near-daily basis.  More significant is the fact that 23 percent were still using marijuana by ages 34-35, suggesting a clear pattern of persistence of use. (Kandel DB, Chen K. – Types of marijuana users by longitudinal course.  Journal of Studies on Alcohol. 2000;61:367-378)

        On Friday, July 28, 2000, a jury in San Marcos, Texas, convicted a marijuana legalization advocate of possession.  He had been arrested after a DPS helicopter spotted 15 plants growing on his property.  The defendant’s use of the “medical necessity” defense did not sway the jury. (N. Wright, 7/31/00)

        A recent DEA study found that Baltimore, MD, the home of Needle Exchange Programs (NEPs), has one of the most serious drug problems in the nation.  Baltimore leads the nation in heroin use, has one of the most severe crack cocaine epidemics in the nation, and use of Ecstasy has rapidly increased.  Baltimore continues to lead the country in both heroin- and cocaine-related hospital emergency room admissions, according to the DEA. (AP, 7/29/00)

        The New York Transit Authority revealed that the motorman involved in the terrifying B-train derailment in Brooklyn, New York, on June 20, 2000, which injured 95 people, tested positive for cocaine. (NY Post, 6/26/00)

        Alcohol, marijuana, and/or other drugs are important risk factors in sexual assault.  A recent study examined the relationship of alcohol and drugs, including the newly identified “date-rape” drugs in victims of sexual assault.  Urine samples obtained from sexual assault victims suspected of drug use were sent for testing.  As of March 1999, a total of 2,003 specimens were analyzed.  Nearly two thirds of the samples contained alcohol and/or drugs.  Alcohol was present in 63 percent; marijuana was present in 30 percent.  (Medline record, PMID:10845178, UI: 20303597)

        In 1991, 14.7 percent of high school students used marijuana.
In 1999, 26.7 percent said they used.
In 1991, 1.7 percent of the students said they used cocaine at least once in the prior month.  By 1999, that figure had risen to 4 percent. (Centers for Disease Control, 6/16/00)

        Heroin contaminated with a bacteria from the clostridia family is believed to be behind the deaths of 30 heroin users in England, Scotland, and Ireland in May and June 2000. (Reuters, 6/9/00)

        A survey of French adolescents found that 41.1 percent reported using marijuana occasionally or regularly.  Among regular or occasional users, 47.2 percent fulfilled substance dependence criteria. (Chabrol H, Callahan S, Fredaigue N. – Cannabis use by French adolescents.  Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2000;39:399-400)

        Land dedicated to coca production in Columbia increased by 150 percent over the last four years. (Christian Science Monitor, 4/12/00)

        The United Nations estimated that 200,000 million heroin addicts live in Pakistan, the largest heroin population in the world. (NYTimes, 4/19/00)

        Under marijuana’s influence, drivers have reduced capacity to avoid collisions if confronted with the sudden need for evasive action.  In combination with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .05, a moderate amount of marijuana caused a significant drop in the visual search frequency. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 808.939.  Annals of Emergency Medicine 2000:35;398-3)

        A new British study, “Hidden Heroin Users,” performed by Manchester University researchers, found that the average age at which teenagers begin experimenting with heroin has fallen to only 15, which is two years younger than in the late 1980s.

        Nightclub and rave cultures are mixing Viagra with illicit drugs, despite warnings that users could be setting themselves up for heart attacks. (Calgary, Canada, CP, 5/22/00)

        Jaw clenching and teeth grinding usually accompanies the use of the club drug Ecstasy and is causing cracked teeth and dental damage. (Maryland Center, Liverpool, England study, 1999, as reported in DREAM, July 2000)

        Authorities say New York City has become the epicenter of a booming trade in the illegal import of Ecstasy. (AP, 4/3/00)

        A USA Today survey found that employees of defense contractors were given security clearance by a Pentagon agency, despite long histories of drug use, alcoholism, sexual misconduct, financial problems, or criminal activity.  Employees were given sensitive clearances by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals, even though they had repeatedly lied about misconduct to Defense Department investigators (AP, 12/28/00)

        For more than 15 years, Dr. Peter A. Fried, professor of psychology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, has studied mother-child pairs to determine whether prenatal exposure to marijuana, cigarettes, or both affects the development and behavior of children and adolescents.  The researchers have evaluated the children annually, since their first year, to look for developmental and behavioral problems that might be related to prenatal exposure.  The researchers’ findings suggest that marijuana exposure is associated with impaired executive functioning, the ability to make decisions and plan for the future, in the children at 9 to 12 years of age. (NIDA NOTES, April 1999)

        Marijuana-like compounds called endo-cannabinoids may influence early pregnancy.  In addition to inhibiting the growth of embryos prior to implantation into the wall of the uterus, researchers have found that marijuana may actually prevent implantation. (NIDA NOTES, March 2000)

        A 1999 poll taken by the Children’s Institute International (CII) found that a majority of Americans view exposing an unborn child to alcohol or illegal drugs as forms of child abuse.  Seventy-one percent say that if an infant is born with alcohol or illegal drugs in its system, the mother should be prosecuted.  Eighty-one percent feel it is child abuse when a woman smokes crack cocaine during pregnancy.  Seventy-five percent say it is child abuse when a woman drinks alcohol during pregnancy.  Seventy-five percent say it is child abuse when a woman smokes marijuana during pregnancy. (Los Angeles, June 3, 2000, PRNewswire)

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

Dear Friends:

With the U.S. Presidential election just around the corner, it is important that parents and concerned citizens examine the positions of their representatives regarding drug issues in order to make informed decisions in the polling booth.

With this in mind, Drug Watch International has developed a questionnaire that it will send to all the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to solicit their views on critical drug policy issues.  It is our hope that you will use the questions as a guide when you contact your own representatives at the local level.

Our elected representatives should maintain a strong stance on the drug Issue, if we are to continue our steady progress over the past decade in reducing levels of illicit drug use throughout the United States.  In some countries, politicians have caved into pro-legalization groups by weakening drug laws and policies under the guise of “harm reduction” or “harm minimization.”  The consequences of “harm reduction” drug policies are often catastrophic in terms of increased drug use and drug related deaths. 

Legislators in Sydney, Australia recently approved the first injecting room despite protests from federal leaders and the International Narcotics Control Board.  Rather than offering hope and recovery to addicts and improving the health of the community, injecting rooms provide a stark image of despair and slavery to drugs of addiction – a dead end approach to the drug problem that will come back to haunt the elected officials who voted to support it.  In the meantime, however, the problem worsens, and overseas visitors to the Olympic Games will be treated to a gruesome example of how NOT to try to solve the drug problem.  While harm reductionists and many in the media continue to sound more and more like "Tokyo Rose" with their "The War on Drugs has Failed" mantra, figures actually support the opposite.  In reality, it is “harm reduction” that has failed, and while drug use has steadily declined over the past decade in the United States, it has risen dramatically over the same period in Australia, a country which seems helpless to unshackle itself from its own decade long experiment into “harm minimization.”

Make sure your elected representatives understand that we do not want to adopt failed policies from overseas and that we wish to continue using successful drug laws and policies to reduce the drug problem in our communities.  Find out if they will support adequate funding for prevention, treatment, law enforcement, and interdiction.  Have they heard of “harm reduction”?  If they understand what it is, do they subscribe to it?  How do they view drug legalization gateway strategies, such as marijuana cigarettes for medicine and needle handouts?  Where do they stand on hemp products, and lastly, what do they think about the performance of the President's Office of National Drug Control Policy and its Drug Czar?

The answers to these questions will help determine a candidate's ability to provide leadership in the war on drugs at a critical juncture in our history.  It is our responsibility as citizens to make sure our leaders have what it takes to protect the future of this great nation.

Return to Drug Watch International Homepage

This page was last updated on September 04, 2002
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