Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

ASK QUESTIONS.
DEMAND ANSWERS FROM THOSE ADVOCATING DRUG LEGALIZATION.
By:  John Lamp, Esq.
United States Attorney

In 1975, Alaska decriminalized marijuana and discovered that de facto marijuana legalization resulted in it having the highest rate of drug use in the country.  On November 7, 2000, California voters ignored editorial opposition from almost every major newspaper and passed a de facto marijuana legalization initiative, while voters in Alaska learned from their mistake and not only recriminalized marijuana (1990), but rejected a full-blown drug legalization initiative in 2000. 

Californians, by approving Proposition 36, virtually eliminated three of the four well-known and proven strategies to curb drug use.  They voted for unmotivated treatment as the sole source to fight the scourge of drug addiction.  Integrated prevention, early intervention, and legal interdiction were cast aside by the voters.  The 31 highly effective drug courts that offered a motivated and meaningful treatment option vs. a criminal conviction were eviscerated by Proposition 36 barring Judges from using random drug testing or jail as an incentive to get drug users to enter treatment.

By not properly researching the issue and asking questions, Californians were seduced by the uninformed and naïve endorsements of some prominent groups and individuals.  One such group, the California Council of Churches, undermined its very own laudable mission statement by its shortsighted endorsement of Proposition 36. 

What can responsible parents and citizens do to stop the legalization trend, arguably the most important domestic security issue that our country faces?  They must demand truthful answers to questions about the impact that drug legalization would have on society.

And the first question should be: If legalization, will we have more drug use or less drug use? 
The answer is obvious.  No one knows how much drug use will increase, but estimates run from 5 to 50 percent.  According to a recent study released by the Harvard School of Public Health, marijuana use by college students increased 23 percent between 1993 and 1999, and this while marijuana use was illegal!  A more recent study suggests non-college teenage marijuana use has imperceptibly dropped for the past 3 years, while Ecstasy use by the same group has nearly doubled since 1995.  Not surprisingly, the same study clearly demonstrates that the highest level of drug use now exists in those states that had previously passed so-called “medical” marijuana initiatives.

Legalization (“medical” marijuana is but a euphemistic term for the same) sends the message to our kids that drug use is just fine, regardless of overwhelming medical and psychological evidence to the contrary.  Keep a kid from using marijuana through age 16, and there is only about a 5 percent chance that he or she will ever use marijuana or any other illicit drug.

Is increased marijuana use in the Nation’s best interest?
Marijuana is a very harmful substance in itself.  There are no legitimate medical studies that support smoked marijuana as a medication, nor will the FDA likely approve any “medicine” that is smoked.  Synthetic THC, the psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana, is already available as the prescription drug Marinol.  However, Marinol doesn’t give a “high” like crude marijuana, so drug users are not really interested in using it as medicine.  Contrary to federal law, nine states have passed so-called “medical” marijuana laws by the initiative process, and the U.S. Supreme Court, at the request of the Justice Department, will shortly be hearing arguments on the validity of these initiatives.

Will increased marijuana use create more addicts and thus more need for treatment?  If so, who will pay for increased and expensive treatment?  The “harm reduction” strategy embraced by NORML and other pro drug groups is in itself an admission that drug use is indeed harmful.  Since these groups strongly suggest treatment, they cannot now argue with persuasion that marijuana is not harmful or non-addictive.  Court imposed sanctions positively motivate users, and without motivation drug treatment alone cannot and will not be successful.

Will marijuana and other drug use decrease worker productivity through increased job injuries and resultant industrial insurance claims? Will legalization increase business operating costs thus reducing profits and forcing employers to seek overseas plant locations?

Will we have more drug-impaired newborns if drugs are legalized?  Will we increase the levels of domestic violence, child sexual and other abuse, chronic poverty, hopelessness, teen pregnancies, and dysfunctional families by legalization? Will we have more impaired drivers on the roads and more gang wars and drive-by shootings?  Who will pay the costs associated with increased drug use? 

A wise friend of mine has often pointed out that we will succeed in combating the insidious nature of drug use when non-using individuals fully recognize the adverse impact that drug users have on their lives. 

Ask the questions; demand the answers; spread the word; and change the outcome.

John E. Lamp served as a United States Attorney under Presidents Reagan and Bush and was a member of the 1987 White House Conference for a Drug Free America.  He is a past member of the Board of Directors of Drug Watch International and has been a member of the International Drug Strategy Institute since its inception.  He has practiced law and served as a criminal defense attorney.  A Vietnam veteran, Mr. Lamp is currently developing public policy initiatives and prosecuting cases in the area of vulnerable adult financial exploitation.

CANNABIS HEMP THC IN THE FOOD-COSMETIC SUPPLY:
IDENTIFYING THE DANGERS
By:  Jeanette McDougal, MM, CCDP, Chair, Hemp Committee, Drug Watch International
Assisted by: William R. Walluks, Member, Hemp Committee, Drug Watch International

Most plans to use hemp fiber in other than niche markets have largely failed because hemp is neither economically viable nor technically feasible.  Hemp seed for food and cosmetics, however, is easier to process than hemp for fiber, and this seed is now being heavily promoted for use in food, nutraceuticals (so-called "nutritional" supplements), and cosmetics.  This is in spite of the fact that seeds contain THC (tetrahydrocannabinol — the main psychoactive ingredient in hemp/marijuana) and other bioactive cannabinoid residue. 

The harmful effects of THC on humans and other animals are well documented.  Since THC and other cannabinoids found in hemp are fat-soluble, they stay in the fatty tissues of the brain and body for a month or more.  Even a very small amount may be damaging, especially if ingested regularly.  The only important substance that exceeds THC in fat solubility is the banished, environmentally devastating pesticide DDT.

Cannabinoids thus accumulate in the body and have the same negative physiological (but not hallucinatory) effects as smoking marijuana.  Only three of the more than 60 known cannabinoids have been widely studied.  The potential harmful aspects of the remaining are largely unknown.

Renowned Cannabis researcher Dr. Gabriel Nahas says the most serious adverse consequences of THC and other cannabinoids occur at the earliest state of reproductive function.  These cause damage to the genetic information contained in DNA, and cell death and deletion, and thus threaten "future generations before they are conceived." 

The European Union is concerned about hemp products in food, stating in its regulations that, due to lack of research, “The uses to which (hemp) is put must not include human nutrition.”  A U.S. Food and Drug Administration official states that there is no definitive information about THC in food and cosmetics.

The hemp risk assessment done for Health Canada (Canada’s national health agency) reported, "New food products and cosmetics made from hemp — the marijuana plant — pose an unacceptable risk to the health of consumers."  The report says hemp products may not be safe because even small amounts of THC may cause developmental problems. Those most at risk of long-term effects are the developing fetus, nursing infant, young child, and adolescents.

"Hazards associated with exposure to THC include acute neurological effects and long-term effects on brain development, the reproductive system, and the immune system," the study says, "... Inadequate margins of safety exist between potential exposure and adverse effect levels for cannabinoids in cosmetics, food, and nutraceutical products made from hemp."

These findings are very alarming.  Even salad oils in the United States must be examined and certified by the Food and Drug Administration as "generally recognized as safe," but this research has not been done for hemp. Allowing toxic chemicals in our food and cosmetic systems through the use of THC-containing industrial hemp products is dangerous and unthinkable.  Our young people and future generations must be protected from health and genetic hazards. 
(Complete Drug Watch report furnished upon request.)

CONTEMPORARY DRUG POLICY

Contemporary Drug Policy was written by Eric A. Voth, M.D., FACP, 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 has published it in three parts.  The third and final part follows.

Western Hemisphere
Several factors must be taken into account:
Our hemisphere has become a network of nodes for the illicit drug industry.  Drug production, transport, and money laundering schemes are pervasive. Every country has become enmeshed in the network.

In virtually every country the drug lords have created their own mini-networks of gangsters, hired assassins, in some cases "guerilla fighters" (especially Colombia), chemists, financial experts, and middlemen to make purchases of legal property and enterprises with illegal money.

This structure threatens the institutions of most of these countries, intensifying graft and corruption and creating dishonest public officials, judges, legislators, police and military.

The threat to democracy and effective government in the hemisphere is obvious.  The Western Hemisphere presents a complex picture. As with so many segments of the drug war, successes and setbacks are prevalent throughout the area.

Latin America is the only producer and supplier area for cocaine in the world. Three countries – Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia – grow and produce virtually all of the coca, and refined cocaine. Some successes have been seen in the choking off cocaine production substrates from Peru and Bolivia. This has resulted in a decrease of nearly 50% in the coca crop. Unfortunately, Colombia has picked up most of the production; when coca supply dropped Colombian traffickers aided by their paid hired-hand guerillas, began to have their own coca planted locally. Colombian traffickers also increased opium poppy and heroin production as a means of diversification.

  Mexico is a traditional producer of opium/heroin while Colombia has only been a producer since the early nineties, but is gaining a hold on the US eastern seaboard market. Most of the cocaine for the U.S. market comes across the Mexican boarder. Corruption and violence in Mexico is rooted in the illegal drug trade.

A number of other countries in the hemisphere play important roles in transporting the product to the U.S. The so-called transit countries – Brazil, Argentina, Guyana, Surinam, Central America and the Caribbean – are also sources for chemicals needed to produce cocaine and heroin and often provide off-shore banking facilities for laundering drug money.

  Canada presents another serious enigma. While being a close trade partner, efforts are underway throughout Canada to undermine drug policy. Industrial hemp has been widely accepted, and is now presenting an importation issue for U.S. Customs officials and law enforcement. In Vancouver in 1988, HIV
prevalence in IV drug addicts was only 1-2%. In 1997 it was 23% after widely adopting harm reduction policies. Vancouver has the largest needle exchange in North America. Marijuana decriminalization and legalization is being widely considered. The steady increases in drug use in Canada present a considerable problem to the United States in light of the huge and virtually open border.

Here again, despite the apparently bleak situation, there is a brighter side to the picture. Peru and Bolivia have improved their counter-narcotics programs considerably. Peru’s policy of shooting down drug trafficker
aircraft has severely damaged the coca air bridge from Colombia. Bolivia and Peru have finally begun to decrease coca-growing areas through both repression and programs of inducement to coca farmers. While, as a consequence, coca cultivation has moved to Colombia, the U.S. Congressional pressure on the Clinton Administration to increase substantially anti-guerilla and anti-drug assistance to that country offers the hope of
major inroads into the cocaine trade.

U.S. Policy Approaches
We strongly believe the best U.S. approach toward the global drug program is first of all to concentrate on reducing the demand for drugs in our country, the world’s largest drug market. To continue our international
leadership in the war against drugs we must keep our own house in order. This means an intensification and broadening of primary prevention, abstinence – based treatment and rigorous law enforcement. Increased drug screening in such venues as schools would improve our efforts. Exposing and combating the efforts of the legalizers, "harm-reducers" and others pressing for tolerance toward drug abuse or "responsible" drug use is absolutely critical.

We must also promote a seamless drug policy in which our international law enforcement and supply reduction efforts work together with demand reduction programs in an effective, coordinated manner. Increasing our
cooperation with – as well as keeping the pressure on – the drug producing and transit countries will help advance the goal of world-wide zero tolerance. We adamantly oppose the current administration’s efforts to
weaken the drug certification laws and "multilateralize" the performance evaluation process. Such a development would only lower performance standards and cause slippage in the U.S. goal of strengthening the anti-drug political will in other countries.

Above all the United States must adopt a stronger stance of leadership in the global war against drugs. And, at home American political leadership needs to send out a more clear and consistent message of zero-tolerance to drugs as well as to work more vigorously with the Congress, the states and localities and local communities to combat drug trafficking and abuse.

Select Bibliography

DuPont RL, Voth EA. Drug Legalization, Harm Reduction, and Drug Policy. Annals of Internal Medicine 1995; 123:461-465.

Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A. Benson, Jr., Editors. Marijuana and Medicine Assessing the Science Base Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Institute of Medicine, NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS. Washington, D.C. 1999

Musto DF. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control. New York: Oxford Univ. Pr; 1987

Spanjer M. Dutch Schoolchildren's Drug Taking Doubles. The Lancet 1996:347:534

White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Strategic Writings. May 1999, ONDCP

DRUG WATCH EYE-OPENERS
So What If We Do Legalize?  Well...
By:  Sheila Fuller

The seductive arguments of legalizers, who tend not to let the facts get in their way, suggest that decriminalization of illicit drugs would give authorities "a handle" on the problem.  Give heroin users an endless supply of methadone, legalizers tell us, and they will become functional members of society.  Give junkies clean needles, and curb the spread of AIDS.  Let doctors dispense marijuana cigarettes to their AIDS and cancer patients, and their appetites will return.  All sound very humane and all have been tried.  The reality of these experiments; however, is that, in practice, they are often loosely supervised, and they quickly spin out of control, increasing the very problems they are trying to fix.

Consider what has happened in each of the following places:

1. California.  When Californians voted for "medical marijuana," many citizens believed they were voting to allow specialists to judiciously dispense the drug to their terminal cancer and AIDS patients.  But almost immediately "medical marijuana" clubs sprang up where youths as young as 16 were observed "toking" and "bonging" on the strength of notes from caregivers claiming they needed the drug to cure headaches or menstrual cramps.  In San Francisco, Internet chat sites trade the names of wellness clinic personnel who will "prescribe" marijuana.  California grocery delivery services bring roll papers to people's doors along with the cereal, milk, and eggs.  The message has not been lost on the state's youth whose use of marijuana is among the highest in the nation.  Similarly, in the Netherlands (another hot-bed of drug decriminalization), use of marijuana has more than doubled in recent years among Dutch teens.

2. The Platzspitz in Zurich, Switzerland.  When the Swiss designated the Platzspitz (a public park in Zurich that came to be known as “ Needle Park”) as the place to collect the city's many heroin addicts, they believed the move would curb the spread of AIDS and give counselors the opportunity to rehabilitate the city's many chemically dependent inhabitants.  Authorities discovered after a time, however, that they had created a haven not only for drug abusers, but for pushers and traffickers who flocked to Zurich from all points of the compass.  In time, relapses, overdoses, crime, and the sheer number of people in the park forced authorities to close the experiment down.  Studies of similar experiments in Montreal and Vancouver, Canada, surprised researchers by demonstrating that the programs were increasing AIDS and drug abuse rather than the opposite as they had supposed.

3. Seattle.  A drug-friendly climate in Washington State has led one entrepreneur to set up a RAVE venue where young people can get "pure" Ecstasy rather than the inferior tainted underground product sold at some RAVES.  How reassuring to know that Washington's youths will be ingesting a "pure" form of a drug that forces brain cells to disgorge all their serotonin in a rush driving up body temperature to potentially lethal levels and leaving users involuntarily clenching their teeth.

Proponents of drug legalization call their strategy "harm reduction."  They ought to call it "perception of harm reduction," because they increased the perception among the nation's youth that using drugs won't harm them.  In 1999, marijuana use among 12^th graders was up to 36.5 percent from 21.9 percent in 1992.  Inhalant use in 1999 among eighth graders was just shy of 18 percent, and 8.2 percent of 12^th graders now use Ecstasy, which wasn’t even on the radar screen in 1995.*   (*NIDA Household Study - 1999)

It's time to put an end to the lie of drug legalization.

"HARM REDUCTION” aka “ENABLING”
By:  Wayne J. Roques, President, Drug Watch International

A harm “reductionist” wants to make drug addicts comfortable in their addiction.  A harm “preventionist” wants to see drug addicts sober and on the road to recovery.

“Harm reduction.” What a perfectly wonderful sounding phrase.  It brings feelings of warmth and fuzziness to mind, and it is a concept that, unfortunately, has been gathering momentum as part of the drug policy debate.

Harm reduction has been defined by one of its most outspoken proponents as “reducing the amount of harm done per dosage unit to the drug user.”  This notion encompasses such concepts as maintenance on one's drug of choice, responsible use, free needle handouts, decriminalization/legalization, and eliminating forfeiture laws.  Harm reductionists claim drugs are not innately harmful, that the only problem is “abuse.”  They insist that, because drug use cannot be eradicated, society should give up and try to minimize the harm associated with the use, manufacture, and distribution of psychoactive and addictive substances.

If society enabled addiction under the harm reduction model, it would be unlikely that addicted people would wake up some morning and decide, on their own, to go through detox, shun their local drug maintenance clinic, and seek out the closest rehabilitation center to start a new drug-free life.

Psychoactive drugs interfere with the user’s ability to function normally.  More than 40 percent of drug addicts are unable to hold a job.  So for those whom a harm reduction drug policy would enable to continue in their addiction, society would also need to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical coverage, as well as supply their drugs.  Is society willing, and can it afford to do that?

For years, we have been admonishing families and friends not to enable drug users to continue their destructive behavior.  However, harm reductionists would have us believe that this was wrong, that we should have facilitated their use and occasionally asked them to reconsider their behavior. 

“Harm reduction” drug policy is just another segment in the sophistic tapestry woven by drug legalizers to lead our society to drug legalization.  It is a Trojan horse – open the door, and legalization will be next on the agenda.

According to an article in the December 1994 edition of “Drug Policy Report,” Ethan Nadelman, Director of the Lindesmith Center, a pro-drug legalization group, addressed a group of people at the home of billionaire George Soros, who finances groups that promote “alternative drug policies,” a euphemism for decriminalization/legalization.  The article quoted Nadelman as explaining to the audience the importance of harm reduction's role as an intermediate step toward legalization.  Nadelman is reported to have said, "I am a big fan of harm reduction.  It is about making prohibition work better, but on our terms." 

Wayne J. Roques is a retired Special Agent (R/SA), U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  In December 1969, R/SA Roques began his career as a federal criminal investigator with the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs in New Orleans, La.  He served as an assistant group supervisor for the New York Joint Task Force and Class Coordinator for the DEA Ten Week Police Academy in Washington, D.C.  R/SA Roques served on the vice president’s Joint Task Force in Florida from 1983–1987.  He was Demand Reduction Coordinator for the Miami Field Division serving the Florida and Caribbean area.  R/SA Roques has received extensive training in drug prevention from top national experts and has presented well over a thousand demand reduction programs to schools, workplaces, civic groups, youth groups, treatment facility staff and clientele, college and professional sports teams, and local, state, and federal law enforcement and governmental agencies.  R/SA Roques has frequently been published and quoted nationally and international on print and broadcast media on substance use issues.  R/SA Roques retired from the DEA July 1, 1995.

ILLICIT DRUG USE AND KIDNEY FAILURE:  
A DEADLY AND COSTLY COMBINATION
By:  William M. Bennett, M.D.
Co-Chair, International Drug Strategy Institute

Many Americans are rightly concerned about the explosion in the cost of healthcare in the United States and further about the solvency of Medicare as it seeks to add a prescription drug benefit to its list of covered services.  A covered service, which consumes a tremendous amount of the Medicare budget, is the treatment of kidney failure.  Kidney dialysis and kidney transplantation have been covered under Medicare since 1972. 

Kidney failure severe enough to require life saving treatment with dialysis or transplantation is called end-stage renal disease (ESRD).  Patients afflicted with ESRD are eligible for Medicare at any age.  In 1999, the cost to the federal government of caring for approximately 330,000 ESRD patients was $15 billion.  The ESRD population is growing steadily at a rate of seven to eight percent per year worldwide.  In the United States, the most common causes of ESRD are diabetes and high blood pressure (hypertension). In addition to the usual risk factors, it has recently been ascertained that there is a high instance of substance abuse, primarily cocaine, in people needing dialysis or receiving kidney transplants. 

In 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimated that one million Americans use cocaine or crack on a weekly basis.¹ Cocaine is known to cause hypertension as well as cardiac events including arrhythmias, strokes and vascular spasm.  Only recently has it become evident that cocaine use is a potent risk factor for acceleration of hypertensive ESRD.  When compared with non-cocaine using hypertensives (individuals with high blood pressure), a study of hypertensive patients in Southern California revealed that cocaine users reached kidney failure on average of 14 years earlier than did hypertensive patients who were non-users.  It is now clear that cocaine use accelerates the course of hypertensive renal disease in addition to causing it in the first place. 

Further, studies show that cocaine use leads to non-compliance on dialysis and poor outcomes.  In a recent study using California hospital discharge data, 648 patients were studied.  Hypertension precipitated by substance abuse was a potent risk factor for kidney failure for these patients.²  The average cost of a hospitalization per patient was $20,000, totaling $11.6 million over a one-year period.  Other studies from the Washington, D.C. area showed that if an individual used cannabis, amphetamines, cocaine, or psychedelics more than 100 times, their risk of progressive kidney failure was from three to nine times as high as that of non-users.³

The relevance of these data is the cost in lost productivity, human suffering, and the dollar expenditures of the federal government under Medicare for these preventable diseases.  One would not think of allowing cigarette use, a potent risk factor for complications during dialysis and transplant therapies, to go without preventive efforts to discontinue smoking, yet illicit drug use as a risk factor for this treatment has gone virtually unnoticed.

For a single year of dialysis, Medicare costs approach $40,000-45,000, while a kidney transplant costs $60,000.  The medications necessary to maintain a kidney without rejection are approximately $1,000-1,500 per month for the lifetime of the patient. In addition, substance abusers are known to be non-compliant with therapeutic regimens.⁴  Also, an increasing cause of chronic renal failure is HIV infection, largely spread by intravenous drug abuse. This leads to ESRD with HIV-positive patients being supported by dialysis at the same dollar cost. 

Hepatitis C, which is also largely spread by intravenous drug use, is a major cause of kidney inflammation, which often progresses to end-stage kidney failure.  It is also the most common cause of the need for a liver transplant, the cost of which, at $100/000 per operation, is also covered by the federal government. The most sobering aspects of this problem are the new data showing that within the United States there are probably 10-12 million people with less than 50 percent of normal kidney function.  A substantial fraction of those have high blood pressure and associated substance abuse as primary causative factors or risk factors for progression of kidney failure.

To treat substance abuse after organ failure of either the kidney or the liver would seem to be a very expensive approach to minimizing this problem.  Much more important is the education and prevention of substance use in the first place.

  References:
1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Sciences Administration Office of Applied Studies.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 1994:12-15.

2. Ward HJ, Pan D. Hypertension-related renal disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 10:162A, 1998.

3. Perneger TV. Case control study of risk factors for end-stage renal disease. Ph.D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1993.

4. Ahuja M, Piering WF, Cohen EP. Cocaine, hypertension, compliance and survival on hemodialysis. J Am Soc Nephrol.

============================

Dr. William M. Bennett is Medical Director, Solid Organ and Cellular Transplantation, at Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital, and Retired Professor of Medicine at Oregon Health Sciences University.  Dr. Bennett has authored over 350 peer-reviewed articles, five books, and multiple book chapters.  He is past-president of the American Society of Nephrology and past-governor for Oregon of the American College of Physicians.  Dr. Bennett has received numerous awards for his research and is listed in Best Doctors of America and Nation’s Best Doctors (1996 and 1998).    

MARIJUANA DAMAGES REPRODUCTIVE AND IMMUNE FUNCTIONS
By:  Gabriel G. Nahas, M.D., Ph.D.

The latest studies in molecular biology have demonstrated that THC, the active ingredient in marihuana, damages the earliest stage of reproductive function.  Thus, marihuana is gametotoxic (toxic to embryos and sperm).  It kills the reproductive cells of seven animal species, produces damage to the embryo, and retards fetal development.  All of these destructive effects of marihuana on sperm cells, embryonic cells, or lymphocytes have now been related to the early production of “apoptosis,” the programmed death of the cell.  Apoptosis production by THC in fast-growing cells is the subject of many studies.

Decreased development of sperm (spermatogenesis) and abnormal forms of sperm were first observed on volunteers studied in a clinical ward at Columbia-Presbyterian University Hospital from 1975 to 1977.  Studies in the 1970’s and 1980’s on seven animal species also reported damage produced by marihuana to the testes and embryos.

The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) sponsored sperm studies performed by established investigators and published in scientific journals, and in its mandated Annual Report to Congress of 1979 and 1980, mentioned the adverse effects of marihuana on spermatogenesis and reproductive function.  However, NIDA did not issue a formal warning on the subject, unlike Surgeon General Koop who reported in 1982 “that marihuana decreased sperm count and activity, while interfering with ovulation and prenatal development.” 

NIDA did not sponsor additional studies on this subject during the 1990s.  It did, however, fund dozens of clinical controlled studies of addicts who smoked government dispensed marihuana cigarettes and crack cocaine.  These NIDA-funded studies did not include investigations of spermatogenesis and did not explicitly warn the subjects of the potential risk to their reproductive function. 

The reproductive risks were again described in an international conference on “Marihuana and Medicine” held in 1998 at New York University Medical Center.  Reports of the 1970’s were validated and confirmed by current studies in molecular biology. 

In his summary at the New York University conference, Professor H. Schuel reported on the presence of THC receptor sites on sperm cells:  “THC is known to affect all phases of reproductive function studied thus far in humans and laboratory animals by inhibiting secretion of hormones by the pituitary gland; inhibiting ovulation; inhibiting sperm production and increasing the incidence of sperm with abnormal nuclei and acrosomes; inhibiting the motility of ejaculated sperms; affecting early embryonic development and implantation of the embryo into the lining of the uterus (uterine mucosa); and reducing the number of pregnancies carried to term.”  (Marihuana and Medicine; Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 1999, p. 336)

This warning went unheeded by the National Institutes of Health.  The American people should seriously question a federal policy that has failed to report the damaging effects of marihuana on reproductive function of women and men in the prime of life. 

In 1998, A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times stated quite rightly that, “Unfortunately, the message of marihuana’s harmfulness has not been conveyed to public opinion, which has been duped by a clever propaganda.” 

Smoking marihuana is a major public health problem, which threatens future generations before they are even conceived.  It is time that the U.S. Public Health Service reaffirm the statement issued by Surgeon General Koop in 1982 and adopt for marihuana smoking a stand at least as strong as that adopted for tobacco smoking.

Reference:  Marihuana and Medicine; Gebriel G. Nahas M.D., Kenneth M. Sutin M.D., David Harvey Ph.D., Stig Agurell Ph.D., Robert Cancero M.D., Nicholas Pace M.D.:  Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 1999.  Sponsored by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

Gabriel George Nahas received his Bachelor of Arts from the University of Toulouse, France; M.D. from the University of Toulouse Medical School (cum laude); Master of Science from the University of Rochester (Rockefeller Foundation Fellow); Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota (Mayo Foundation Fellow).  He is a peer-reviewed researcher and research professor of anesthesiology, New York Medical Center; professor of anesthesiology (Emeritus), College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University; adjunct professor, University of Paris, Faculty of Medicine; and director of research, INSERM, Paris.

Among many honors, Dr. Nahas has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom w/Gold Palm (United States); Commander, Legion of Honor, Croix de Guerre w/3 Palms (France); Order of the British Empire (Great Britain); Order of the Orange Nassau (Netherlands); Laureate, French Academy of Medicine (1976–1996); and Fulbright Scholar, D.Sc., University of Uppsala (Sweden).

Dr. Gabriel George Nahas is the author of over 700 scientific publications, 27 books, and numerous monographs.  Dr. Nahas is scientific advisor to Drug Watch International.

PREVENTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT JOIN FORCES

Two long-standing delegates of Drug Watch International, Beverly S. Preston and Marshall M. Meyers have achieved success working with Baltimore law enforcement agencies.  Both agree that prevention organizations need to work closely with law enforcement and civic groups.  Bev and Marshall were instrumental in opposing the efforts of the Drug Policy Foundation (DPF) and former Baltimore, Md. Mayor Kurt Schmoke to legalize drugs in Baltimore.  The new Mayor Martin O'Malley and new Police Chief Edward Norris are determined to abolish the permissive drug policies instituted by Mayor Schmoke and the DPF.  Baltimore was once considered to have the largest drug population in the United States, but thanks to the efforts of Mayor O'Malley and Chief Norris, and an emphasis on restrictive drug policies and drug enforcement, that is changing.  Baltimore is cleaning up its reputation as a haven for drug addicts.  Mayor O’Malley’s message is -- "If you push drugs in Baltimore, you're gonna get arrested!"

Beverly S. Preston, R.Ph.CPS
Beverly Preston is a retired pharmacist and a certified prevention specialist.  She is director of the Maryland Alliance for Drug Free Youth and has worked in drug prevention since 1979.  She is a founding member of the Maryland Association of Prevention Professionals and Associates.  Beverly is the Editor of a prevention newsletter that is distributed to every public school in Maryland, many private schools, legislators, churches, and community groups.  Beverly has been the recipient of the Anne Arundel County (Maryland) Executive’s Drug Fighter Award, the Anne Arundel County Police Community Relations Council Exceptional Service Award, the Maryland State Drug Abuse Administration’s Distinguished Service Award, A.A.Co. Executive’s Most Outstanding Volunteer Award, and the Governor’s Citation of Maryland’s Most Beautiful People Volunteer Efforts on Behalf of Children.

Marshall M. Meyer
Marshall Meyer is a certified protection professional by the American Society for Industrial Security and a retired colonel and army military police officer and former counter intelligence officer.  In addition to authoring over 150 articles published in numerous papers and professional journals, he brought together almost 300 men and women, law enforcement officers, FBI, DEA, custom agents, doctors, lawyers, prosecutors, and business executives dedicated to fighting crime and drugs emphasizing law enforcement.  The group published over 200 pamphlets warning of the dangers of drug liberalization.  Col. Meyer chaired Governor William Donald Schaefer’s Executive Advisory Council.  For 40 years, Marshall M. Meyer has been an associate member of the Maryland Chiefs of Police Association.  He has made numerous presentations and has testified before the city council and legislative bodies.

TEAMWORK AND COMMITMENT ARE KEY!
By:  Brad Owen
Lt. Governor, Washington State

As the Lieutenant Governor of Washington State, a primary focus of my office has been preventing youth from using alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.  Our commitment to this issue will continue, because the horrendous effects of drug use threatens the safety of our communities and impacts the ability of our young people to grow up healthy with the opportunity for a prosperous and meaningful future. 

It has become increasingly obvious that sharing factual information on the dangers of alcohol and drug use, promoting genuine collaboration among agencies and programs, pooling limited resources, and making a strong commitment will help our efforts to reduce the problem.  It does not matter why or how we are committed; what matters is that we find creative ways to solve this pervasive problem together.  History has shown us that when a team, or community, or neighborhood, or family pulls together, problems can be overcome.  The value of collaboration and teamwork cannot be underscored enough.  It becomes critically important when you consider that the drug legalization movement continuously attempts to downplay the seriousness of drugs, particularly marijuana.

The methamphetamine epidemic sweeping this country is one of the most troubling problems we have to look at, in terms of collaboration.  Governor Gary Locke of Washington State is making an effort to combine agency resources and bring several programs and experts in this field together.  I would also like to acknowledge Drug Watch International's extensive work to spread the message and educate the public on the dangers of drugs.  Their collaborative strategy to provide the public with factual and research-based information on the subject is a testament to their commitment. The organization upholds a comprehensive approach to drug issues involving prevention, education, intervention/treatment, and law enforcement/interdiction.

Another example of successful collaboration is our state's efforts to increase the value of drug courts.  This concept has to be applauded, and funding for these methods of treatment and prevention have to be encouraged.  Many success stories have come out of drug courts, and some of those drug offenders attribute their sobriety and success to the drug court treatment alternative.

In keeping with the message of shared information and resources, with funding from Northwest HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area), my office has compiled a list of national and statewide Internet resources that could be useful for educating you, your communities, and your families. 

My office has also produced a CD-ROM informing people about the facts on meth and marijuana.  This is also available in video format.  Copies of the Resource Guide, CD-ROMs, and videos can be obtained by calling the Washington State Alcohol and Drug Clearinghouse at 1-800-662-9111. 

With 24 years of public service, Brad Owen is a moderate Democrat known for his strong bipartisan legislative record.  Having lived in a Tacoma, Wash., public housing project during his childhood, Mr. Owen is a tireless worker for the needs of children, contending the No. 1 drain on the Washington State budget, from education to the environment, is substance abuse.

In 1989, Mr. Owen, also a versatile musician, started Strategies for Youth, his own aggressive rock’n’roll prevention program and nonprofit corporation.  During this 11-year period, he has presented to more than 200,000 students and at more than 300 schools and conferences statewide.  Mr. Owen was elected Lieutenant Governor of Washington State in 1996 on a platform of turning the war on drugs into a coordinated, community-resource focused, asset-based effort in education and prevention.

Brad Owen lives in Shelton with his wife Linda.  They have six adult children and eight grandchildren.

WE RAISED THE RED FLAG OF ALERT, 
NOT THE WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER
By:  Lea Cox, Director, Concerned Citizens for Drug Prevention, Inc., Hanover, MA
Drug Watch International Delegate, Massachusetts

Our recent defeat of Question 8, the initiative liberalizing drug dealing and trafficking laws in Massachusetts, can only be termed a miracle.  We were up against the deceptive pro-drug propaganda and “boomerang bucks” of George Soros and his two cohorts, John Sperling and Peter Lewis, totaling about $1,392,500, not counting minimal in-state money and significant “in kind” contributions.  Although there were no “headlines” around the country announcing defeat of the Massachusetts pro drug legislation, it is curious to note that the liberal drug laws passed in California got big plays in the media! 

We defeated Question 8 by teaming up with law enforcement, including all of the District Attorneys, who crisscrossed the state alerting the citizenry to the deceptive ads and rhetoric of the proponents of Question 8.  Massachusetts District Attorneys and law enforcement in general went wherever they could to address the issue.  They made the talk show circuit, addressed the editorial boards of newspapers and anyone who would give them an audience. 

Our grassroots effort also encompassed the faith community and enjoyed the support of the print media, including the Boston Globe.  A win can be accomplished by the “ripple effect” of individuals speaking out for what they believe and actively pursuing the media and the general public in every way possible. 

Karen and Bob Powell of Springfield, Bill Breault of Worchester, Connie and Otto Moulton of Danvers, and I tried to keep as many people as possible informed.  Every time Bill and I were scheduled to go to a city, we faxed pertinent information on the true contents and ramifications of the proposed legislation to as many media, public officials, law enforcement, etc., as possible.  These faxes informed many who might otherwise have had no awareness of the extent of outside money and “misinformation.”

Through the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, we followed the money trail and learned where the proponents of Question 8 received their funding, and we reported this to the public. 

Never assume anything is a lost cause.  Knock on every door.  Wear pins to encourage conversation and curiosity.  Keep family and friends informed, and invite discussion at every opportunity.  Encourage others to participate in the fight.  Believe me, it is a battle requiring an army of people singing your song, before the outcome you seek can be realized.  Our infinite thanks to all who helped defeat this liberal drug initiative. 

“In unity there is strength.”

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
(4^th Quarter 2000)

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

   A study of marijuana use by the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in London, Ontario, Canada, found that lifetime frequency of 100 to 199 uses predicted an almost five-fold higher likelihood of developing marijuana disorders when compared with infrequent use. (Prev Med 2000;31:455-464)

        According to an article by Hugh O’Shaughnessy in the December 10^th edition of “The Observer” newspaper, drug distribution to Britain and other European countries has been controlled by secret police stationed in Chilean embassies in Stockholm and Madrid. (Hassela Nordic Network (HNN) 12/17/00)

       A recent study by researchers at the Yale School of Medicine found that trauma and stress in early life increases vulnerability to cocaine addiction in adulthood, demonstrating the need to target drug prevention strategies to children with early life traumas. (Terese A. Kosten, M.D., Journal of Brain Research, 2000.  HNN 11/15/00)

       Early adolescent marijuana use is associated with 1.91 times risk of low education, 2.59 risk of violence toward others, 2.81 risk of violence toward the user, 2.49 risk of marijuana problems, 2.69 risk of other drug use, 2.49 risk of continued marijuana use, and 4.44 risk of multiple sex partners. (Brook JS, Balka EB, Whiteman M.  “The Risks for Late Adolescence of Early Adolescent Marijuana Use.”  American Journal of Public Health 1999;89:1549-1554)

        “Marijuana is an addictive, mind-altering drug capable of inducing dependency … Marijuana should not be considered an innocuous drug … There is little doubt that marijuana intoxication contributes substantially to accidental deaths and injuries among adolescents …”  Marijuana adversely affects pulmonary function, the reproductive system, and the immune system.  (Committee on Substance Abuse, American Academy of Pediatrics.  “Marijuana: A Continuing Concern for Pediatricians.”  Pediatrics 1999;104:982-984)

        In Australia, a research study found that young people are moving from cannabis (marijuana) use to injecting drugs, particularly heroin.  The study, which is conducted annually in each state and territory, serves as a strategic early warning system on drug use trends. (Australian Institute of Criminology, National Drug Trends Conference in Sydney, 11/30/00)

        A team of researchers headed by scientists from the University of Buffalo (UB), New York, found evidence that THC, the active substance in marijuana, may interfere with the cellular signaling system required for fertilization in humans.  Dr. Herbert Schuel, lead author of the study, said that this may explain observations made over the past 30-40 years that marijuana smoke drastically reduces sperm production in males. (Herbert Schuel, Ph.D., UB professor of anatomy and cell biology, American Society for Cell Biology, 12/12/00)

       On December 12, 2000, Russia announced that it will sign a U. N. treaty whose aim is to combat international crime, including money laundering and trafficking of women for prostitution.  President Vladimir Putin signed an order directing Sergei Ivanov, head of the government’s Security Council, to sign the U.N. Convention Against Transnational Crime. (HNN 12/12/00)

        Use of ecstasy (MDMA), heroin, and steroids by American adolescents continued to rise sharply this year, although significant declines were reported in adolescent use of LSD, crack, and cocaine for the first time in years. (Monitoring the Future study, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 12/00)

        Marijuana remains the most widely used of the illicit drugs by adolescents; however, there has been a decline in use by eighth graders, who have begun to see marijuana as dangerous to the user and have become more disapproving of its use. (Monitoring the Future study, University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 12/00)

        The death rate for drug-induced causes has increased every year since 1990.  While drug-induced deaths for both males and females are rising, the death rate for males is 2.4 times greater than for females and rising more steeply. (CESAR Fax, University of Maryland, 7/17/00)

        Seeking detoxification is the most commonly cited reason for cocaine- and heroin-related emergency department visits.  Marijuana and methamphetamine were more likely to be associated with unexpected reactions, e.g., hallucinations.  All four drugs had approximately the same percentage of mentions related to overdose. (CESAR Fax, University of Maryland, 7/24/00)

        The use of bidis and kretek cigarettes is an emerging public health problem among students.  Bidis are small brown cigarettes wrapped in tendu or temburni leaf that come in a variety of flavors.  Kreteks are clove cigarettes.  Bidis and kreteks are inexpensive and are often assumed to be safer than regular cigarettes.  Not so.  Like all tobacco products, they are carcinogenic. (CESAR Fax, University of Maryland, 5/22/00)

       Between 50 and 77 percent of male adult arrestees tested positive for at least one illicit drug in 1999.  Marijuana was the drug most frequently detected, followed by cocaine. (CESAR Fax, University of Maryland, 8/28/00)

        A recent study of middle school students in Washington State found that low levels of alcohol and other drug use negatively affect school performance.  Students whose peers had little or no involvement with drinking and illicit drugs scored on average 18 points higher on the state reading test and 45 points higher on math than students whose peers had low levels of drinking or illicit drug use.  Washington Governor Locke stated, “This report confirms that kids whose peers use drugs and alcohol do worse in school.  Decisions about drugs or drinking, even as early as middle school, can make a difference between academic success and failure.” (The Impact of Peer Substance Use on Idle School Performance in Washington State, University of Washington, 9/21/00)

        The military government of Burma is launching an unprecedented relocation of 50,000 people out of prime opium-growing areas under a program designed to turn one of the world’s biggest drug-producing zones into a drug-free area by 2005.  The government’s anti-drug czar, Col Kyaw Thein, and Wa leaders said they are committed to eradicating drugs from Burma. (USA Today, 1/17/00, Positive Moves Newsletter, Quarterly 2000)

        Results that are not from “blind studies” should be taken with a grain of salt.  The influence of suggestion is remarkably powerful, and phony pills produce dramatic and long-lasting results in over 50 percent of the people who take them.  As opposed to medications manufactured to specific requirements, herbs are not single chemicals.  They were recently living plants, composed of thousands of different chemicals, whose exact proportion varies widely from crop to crop. (The Natural Pharmacist, Your Complete Guide to Herbs by Dr. Steven Bratman, 1999, ISBN 0-7615-1671-9)

       “In light of current scientific evidence of the destructive consequences of using the narcotic drug cannabis in any form, our concern is the great variety of manufactured and grown cannabis, bearing in mind that hash oil is 30 to 90 percent THC, and an ounce of hash oil is enough to intoxicate over 1,000 persons.” (Herschel M. Baker, Director, Australian Parents For Drug Free Youth, 11/18/00)

        The three billionaires, whose money helped persuade voters in California and four other states to soften drug laws, now plan to take their case nationwide.  George Soros, John Sperling, and Peter Lewis have spent millions over the last four years backing liberal drug ballot initiatives.  The three spent $1.2 million each on the California initiative alone. (Don Thompson, AP, 11/8/00)

        Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States.  It is used by 75 percent of current illicit drug users.  Approximately one in every four marijuana smokers abuse other drugs in addition to marijuana. (1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse)

        Marijuana availability is related to youthful use.  Current use was reported by 12.9 percent of those who said marijuana was easy to obtain, but among those who said the drug was difficult to obtain, only 1.5 percent reported current use. (1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse)

        Of those youth who reported having stolen something once or twice in the past year, 28.6 percent were current users of marijuana.  Only 6.2 percent of those who did not steal reported current use of marijuana. (1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse)

        Researchers at Columbia University in New York City found new evidence that children whose mothers smoke as few as 10 cigarettes a day during pregnancy are at much greater risk than other children for drug abuse and conduct disorder.  The findings reinforce those of other studies spanning more than 25 years that have shown similar problems associated with prenatal exposure to smoke in children ranging from toddlers through teens. (NIDA Notes, October 2000)

        People who abuse drugs are also likely to be cigarette smokers.  More than two thirds of drug abusers are regular tobacco smokers, a rate more than double that of the rest of the population.  NIDA researchers found that craving for nicotine appears to increase craving for illicit drugs among drug abusers who also smoke tobacco. (NIDA Notes, October 2000)

        Heroin abuse and snorting of the drug continued to increase in the United States among younger populations, such as college students.  These trends were particularly apparent in East Coast cities where pure forms of white powder heroin, which can be snorted, are most available.  Heroin-related deaths also increased in many areas of the country. (NIDA Notes, May 2000, Volume 15, Number 3)

        The percentage of drug abusers whose primary drug of abuse was marijuana continued to increase in many U.S. cities.  Rates of marijuana-related emergency room visits continued the consistent, often dramatic, increases shown over the last six years.  Increases in marijuana-related problems may be tied to increased availability, higher potency, and lower prices for the drug along with perceptions that marijuana use is less risky than use of other drugs. (NIDA Notes, May 2000, Volume 15, Number 3) 

QUOTES

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