Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

ALASKA:  ABOUT MONEY AND DOPE, NOT HEMP AND ROPE!
By:  Lynda Adams, Alaskan Delegate, Drug Watch International

On November 7, 2000, Alaskan voters resoundingly defeated an initiative that would have made Alaska’s marijuana laws the most permissive in the nation.

In 1990, Alaskans voted to recriminalize marijuana after 15 years of lax laws that allowed adults “personal use of four ounces” of the drug.  During those 15 years, Alaska’s youth used marijuana at TWICE the national average.  In 1998, a misguided “medical marijuana” initiative re-opened the issue.  Encouraged by their success, legalizers proposed a marijuana initiative in 2000 that even High Times, the drug culture magazine, called “far-reaching.”

The initiative, had it passed, would have been devastating to Alaska in terms of increased drug use, increased addiction, increased vehicle accidents, increased workplace accidents, and crime.

Many people said it was too crazy to pass; however, some Alaskans were aware of the flood of "outside" money that would be spent to influence the passage.  Our young people, ages 18 to 20, were already being recruited to sign up young voters who were anxious to smoke pot openly.

To fight back, we gathered Alaskans leaders who had been instrumental in the success of the recriminalization vote of 1990, including key law enforcement officers, treatment people, attorneys, educators, media consultants, and many of the original grassroots parents’ organizations.

The “No On 5” network was established to defeat the initiative.  The coalition wrote the “Opposition Statement” in the voter booklet and created model informational and publicity pieces that could be used statewide by various groups and organizations.  We developed a “Point of View/Opinion” article for newspapers across the state, "talking point" pieces, and informational handouts to be used when speaking to groups.  A sample resolution was passed by several organizations.  We created a statewide pamphlet that explained in outline form the exact points of the measure.  This pamphlet included a list of influential Alaskans and prominent organizations within the state that endorsed the defeat of this ballot measure.  We created a "Vote No On 5.  Stop the Legalization of Marijuana." poster that was heavily used and became an ongoing newspaper print ad.

Specific people were designated within our group to be the spokespersons for all media requests.  Interviews with the "other" side often revealed the truly obnoxious parts of the initiative.  This benefited "our" side and was a great way to educate the public.  Our media information was directed to the "wolf in sheep's clothing." 

We emphasized that this vote was really about the legalization of marijuana.  Even though "Hemp2000" was the title on the ballot measure, this measure was not about hemp and rope, but about money and dope!

We were outspent approximately seven to one.  Several “outside” individuals contributed large funds to support the initiative.  Many of the individuals working for its passage within the state were not even Alaskans, but had been imported from the lower 48 states.  Ballot measure 5 was not drafted by Alaskans, was not funded by Alaskans, was not paid for by Alaskans, and was not promoted by Alaskans!  But it was Alaskans who won with the initiative’s defeat!

We anticipate that the legalizers will try again in 2002, and the “No On 5” network is gearing up for the fight.  Alaskans' common sense prevailed over outside interests and their money in 2000, and we’ll do it again!  Ours was a victory for all Alaskans and a victory for the rest of the world as well. 

CONFESSIONS OF A DRUG COURT JUDGE
By:  The Honorable James Murphy

In 1995, criminal justice officials in Spokane County, Washington, secured a grant from the United States Department of Justice to establish and maintain a Drug Court project for two years.  The project was an alternative to incarceration for nonviolent, drug-dependent individuals who were neither gang related nor offenders involved with drug deliveries.

This is a county of 400,000 residents who expect their criminal justice system to deliver when it comes to keeping the streets safe.  To reflect community values, the program was planned by a team that included the prosecuting attorney, the county commissioners, law enforcement, the Washington State Department of Corrections, the courts, the public defender, and treatment providers.  The focus of the program was to address the reason for criminal behavior and provide a positive reason to eliminate the underlying motivation.

Accountability is the keystone of our criminal justice system.  Community values and public safety must be juxtaposed on a participant’s recovery.  The planners established an ambitious public education component to overcome the "Soft-On-Crime" tag that is often pinned on such efforts.  The prosecuting attorney was given the responsibility for developing screening criteria and had final veto authority over all offenders who opted into the program. 

The team concept includes a prosecuting attorney and public defender in non-traditional, non-adversarial roles.  The program integrates a full-time community corrections officer to be the eyes and ears of the court in the community.  Through the use of consent and waiver forms, this officer is at liberty to visit clients in their homes and/or in their workplaces at any time. The officer assists the individual in finding work, securing a driver's license, finding housing, and avoiding counterproductive relationships and situations.  The program also includes alternatives, such as acupuncture, a secured bed at detox, a work-release program for those who are sentenced, space at a women's program, dental and health care, and a variety of treatment options.

This all comes with a price.  Relapse and failure require payment to the piper.  The judge, who is the centerpiece of the program, plays that pipe.  A series of graduated sanctions for transgressions range from an admonition through steps including community service, home monitoring, work release, jail terms, and expulsion.

Accountability is the linchpin.  Success, which includes full and clean compliance for the four-month period prior to graduation of the normal one-year program, results in dismissal of the case.  Failure and expulsion leave the client in the same position he would have been in had he plead guilty or been found guilty following a trial. 

How has it worked?  For the average felon, it is much easier to do a few months in jail than to complete this program.  For those who truly wish to get clean, or are tired of the drug life, this is the ticket.  It requires some motivation for one to successfully complete the program, and often, the challenge to those who administer the program is to provide the necessary motivation.

Graduates of the program are monitored for five years.  From January 1, 1996, through December 31, 2000, our recidivism rate was under seven percent.  Compared to the national figure of recidivism for non-treated drug-related offenders of over 80 percent, our rate demonstrates the success of the drug court program.

Of those who initially entered the program and subsequently were removed or dropped out, the recidivism rate has been only 18 percent.  Even those who fail to complete the program take with them some fundamental values and tools that enable them to make better choices in society.

The lowered cost of prosecution and incarceration of these offenders was a tangible benefit.  The total net savings to the taxpayers was $568,988 less program costs, for the first 27 months.

While monetary considerations are a strong argument for consideration of the drug court concept, accountability, rehabilitation, and elimination of reasons for criminal behavior are more desirable goals.  When we are asked to "clean up the streets," "eliminate the drug problem," and "save the taxpayers' money," drug courts are a great method of addressing these demands.

The program has been expanded to those whose crimes were motivated by drug use, such as bad checks, vehicle prowling, third-degree theft, and any other nonviolent minor crimes which were, in fact, a vehicle for the securing of funds to buy drugs.  When small deliveries of drugs are made for the purpose of retaining a portion of the drug to support one's own habit, the offender, or “middler,” may be considered eligible for the drug court program.

This program has grown from an experiment funded by the federal government to a permanent and integral part of the Spokane County Criminal Justice System funded by the county and the state.  Its success has been demonstrated, and we find participants reunited with family, employed, legally driving automobiles, paying taxes, and becoming full-time citizens of our county as a result of their participation in the drug court program.  While the program is not for everyone, for those motivated individuals who know that it is time to clean up their lives, this is an excellent opportunity.

Judge James M. Murphy currently serves as the president of the Superior Court Judges Association in Washington State and is co-chair with the Chief Justice of the Washington State Supreme Court of the Board for Judicial Administration, responsible for all levels of court of the state. The International Amateur Athletic Federation elected Judge Murphy to the International Drug Arbitration Board in September, 2000.  He is a certified track official and officiated at the 1996 Olympic Games.

DRUG WATCH EYE-OPENERS
Adults Ought To Be Part of the Solution, Not Part of the Problem
By:  Sheila Fuller

Alcohol
About a decade ago in Connecticut, the father of a graduating high school senior threw a keg party to celebrate graduation.  The father knew he would be there supervising, so what could go wrong?  It would be hard, actually, to imagine more going wrong than did.  An inebriated 18-year-old boy decided to leave the party and killed a 17 year-old guest.  He ran over the guest with his car.  The residents of the small Connecticut town became bitterly divided over whose fault it was, the host’s or the boy’s.  Phones rang off the hook and rancorous editorials and letters filled the local newspaper. The 18 year-old found the wrangling so unbearable that he committed suicide.  Ultimately a civil suit decision prevailed, which decided emphatically that it was the host father’s fault.  He was forced to pay more than one-half million dollars in damages.  This landmark case, known as Ely vs. Murphy, set a legal precedent for social host liability that is now the norm throughout the country.

Ecstasy
The owner of a club in Washington holds Rave Parties weekly where he provides adolescent party-goers with pure Ecstasy, because he believes that Ecstasy deaths in young people have been caused by tainted versions of the drug.  Parents allow their children to attend the Washington Raves because they apparently believe that pure Ecstasy is harmless, and they are encouraged by the owner’s promise not to serve alcohol.  In the Northeast where the use of Ecstasy is mushrooming, a mother said she drives her daughter to Raves and picks her up, because by doing so she knows where her daughter is.

Marijuana and Cocaine
The recent NIDA/University of Michigan “Monitoring The Future Survey” found that 20 percent of regular teen marijuana users began using the drug with their parents.  Teachers have been arrested for sharing pot and other drugs with their students.  A New York principal was arrested along with a school nurse and a janitor after the principal was caught selling $25 bags of cocaine to an undercover policewoman on school grounds.

Drug Watch has chronicled the dangers of alcohol, Ecstasy, marijuana, and cocaine often, but it doesn’t hurt to review.  Alcohol quickly distorts judgment and coordination in teenagers, and teens become alcohol-dependent five times faster than adults.  Ecstasy forces brain cells to disgorge their serotonin in a rush leaving the user dehydrated, feverish, depressed, and with uncontrollable teeth clenching.  Scores of teens have died using Ecstasy.  Marijuana increases schizophrenia by a factor of four to six,¹ disorients the user, causes psychotic reaction, panic anxiety, hallucinations, reproductive cellular disruption, and cancer.  Brain scans done by Dr. Sabah Tumeh at Harvard show golf-ball sized dead zones in the brains of young cocaine users,² and cocaine users are 62 times more likely to commit suicide.³

Presumably, adult enablers are permissive out of ignorance, rather than because of a lack of love for the children in their lives.  Those who understand the dangers of teen alcohol and other drug use need to spread the word.  Parents and caregivers need to stick with their children and help them find better things to do, i.e., sports, games, field trips, library and computer activities and drug-free parties and get-togethers.  Finally, adults need to advocate by making a lot of noise in their communities where schools and police are looking the other way, in their states where legalizers are pushing initiatives to make drugs easily available to any age group, and nationally to argue for tough anti-drug measures in Congress. 

(1)   National Institutes of Health – Schizophrenia Bulletin, Vol. 23, Nov.2, 1997, page 221. Swedish Conscripts, Lancet 1987;2:1483-86.
(2)   Cocaine SPECT Scanning, Sabah Tumeh, M.D., Ph.D., Harvard University, 1990.
(3)   NIDA Notes, Spring 1991, National Institute on Drug Abuse.

RITALIN NEEDS SCRUTINY
By:  William M. Bennett, M.D.

Ritalin is widely used for the treatment of a specific behavioral syndrome known as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).  Eleven million prescriptions for Ritalin are written annually, primarily for school-age children.  However, Ritalin (methylphenidate) is a drug that has many long-term physical consequences for those who take it and considerable potential for abuse.

Most medical experts agree that ADHD is a biochemical disturbance of the brain that causes inappropriate hyperactivity, impulsive behavior, inattention, and other symptoms. What causes this condition has not been determined, and there is no simple diagnostic test, but the majority of experts feel that ADHD exists in 2-4 percent of the population_.⁽¹⁾ Behaviors associated with ADHD are also commonly observed in children who have no brain disease.  In fact, the vast majority of children who display one or more of these behaviors have neither ADHD nor a brain chemical abnormality.

The biochemical basis of ADHD is thought to be due to an insufficiency of brain neurotransmitters such as dopamine, which are increased by the use of Ritalin.  Similar behavioral syndromes in animal models have been modified by medications that increase dopamine and another prominent brain chemical, serotonin.⁽²⁾

Stimulant drugs are dangerous.  A prospective study suggests that the use of stimulants to treat disorders in childhood predisposes them to cocaine use in young adulthood.⁽³⁾  A controlled study showed that children diagnosed with ADHD had a nine percent risk of developing psychotic illnesses when treated with stimulants as opposed to a control group who were not treated with stimulants and who developed no symptoms.⁽⁴⁾  Ritalin and other stimulants can cause growth retardation, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.  In animal studies, permanent brain damage has occurred.⁽²⁾  Thus, while stimulants suppress autonomous and spontaneous behaviors that are often viewed as abnormal, the drugs can also impair cognitive function.

There is no evidence that Ritalin improves learning or academic performance.  It simply changes behavior, a change seen by lay observers as evidence of a therapeutic effect.  It must be stressed that response to Ritalin therapy does not imply that ADHD was present.  Data from recent studies suggest that children are often medicated for behavioral characteristics that are not ADHD, exposing them to the risks of the drug with no benefit.  In fact, those who study this field have found that as many as 10 to 15 percent of children in grades second through fifth receive ADHD medication without any verification that they have the abnormality.^(5,6)

What makes the use of methylphenidate (Ritalin) particularly worrisome is its ability to increase brain dopamine levels and the possible effect of dopamine concentrations on future behavior and neurological function.  Frequent side effects of methylphenidate use include high blood pressure, rapid heart rate, insomnia, nervousness, and loss of appetite. Less frequent side effects (one to two percent of patients) in most studies include headaches, dizziness, nausea, abdominal pain, weight loss, rash, hives, and cardiac arrhythmias. It is also well known that those who use Ritalin are predisposed to the development of tics.

Methylphenidate (Ritalin) and cocaine bind to the same dopamine receptor and compete for binding sites in the brain.  When used intranasally or intravenously, Ritalin can induce a sensation of euphoria and a high.  Oral use for prolonged periods can also cause "highs."⁽²⁾  Methylphenidate has been thought to have a much lower abuse potential than cocaine; however, the fact that it is taken regularly on a prescription basis may make it just as dangerous.

The diversion of Ritalin to the street as an illicit drug of abuse has become a major concern.  Data supporting this include the large number of prescriptions written for Ritalin and its frequent appearance in illicit drug situations. Ritalin is a "cousin" of methamphetamine and when taken for behavioral abnormalities can have long-term effects similar to methamphetamine. 

In summary, while Ritalin can have a distinct use for children with a specific type of behavioral abnormality based on brain chemical disturbances, in the absence of such abnormality giving it could be dangerous. Unfortunately, the behavioral abnormalities for which Ritalin is often prescribed are frequently diagnosed by teachers and parents who pressure physicians into prescribing it to improve class behavior instead of using it to treat a specific illness. At the same time, children who potentially could benefit from this drug are not being diagnosed, nor are they being offered the psychiatric support that makes this type of treatment most effective when the drug is correctly prescribed and used.  While the drug can be beneficial for treatment of ADHD, extreme caution should be exercised to make sure that this drug is not inappropriately prescribed or diverted for illicit use.

REFERENCES

  1. Elia J, Ambrosini PJ, Rapoport JL. Treatment of attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder. N Engl J Med 1999; 340:780-788.

2. Challman TD, Lipsky JJ. Methylphenidate: Its pharmacology and uses. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75:711-721.

3. Cherland E, Fitzpatrick R. Psychotic side effects of psychostimulants: A 5-year review. Can J Psychol 1999; 44:811-813.

4. Lambert NM, Hartsough CS. Prospective study of tobacco smoking and substance dependencies among samples of ADHD and non-ADHD participants. J Learn Disability 1998; 31:533-544.

5. Marshall E. Duke study faults overuse of stimulants for children. Science 2000; 289:721.

6. Carey WB. What the multimodal treatment study of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder did and did not say about the use of methylphenidate for attention deficits. Pediatrics 2000; 105:863-864.

SERIOUS CRIME WILL GET YOU SERIOUS TIME!
By:  David E. Risley, J.D.
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Illinois and Co-chairman, International Drug Strategy Institute

The purpose of mandatory minimum sentences is to prevent the judicial trivialization of serious drug crimes.  They do that well, to which some object.

Before the advent of mandatory minimum sentences in serious drug cases, federal judges had unbridled discretion to impose whatever sentences they deemed appropriate, in their personal view, up to the statutory maximum.  Because individual judges differ widely in their personal views about crime and sentencing, the sentences they imposed for similar offenses by similar defendants varied widely.  What some judges treated as serious offenses, and punished accordingly, others minimized with much more lenient sentences.  When serious crime becomes routine, there is human tendency to treat it routinely, and sentences often drop accordingly.

While the ideal is that sentences be perfectly personalized by wise, prudent, and consistent judges to fit every individual defendant and crime, the reality is that judges are human, and their wide human differences and perspectives lead to widely different sentences, if given completely unbridled discretion.

Such wide disparity in sentencing is inherently unfair.  But such inconsistency was welcomed by drug dealers, since it meant they could hope for a light sentence for serious drug crimes. 

Drug dealers are risk takers by nature.  Lack of certainty of serious sentences for serious crimes encourages, rather than deters, such risk takers to elevate their level of criminal activity in the hope that, if caught, they will be lucky enough to draw a lenient judge and receive a lenient sentence.  The only possible deterrence for people who are willing to take extreme risks is to remove their cause for hope for leniency.

Some counter that drug dealers are undeterrable by criminal sanctions because they sell drugs to support their own addictions; however, most dealers and distributors at any substantial level do not use drugs themselves, or do so infrequently.  They are exploiters and predators, and users are their captive prey.  Drug dealing is a business.  As in any other business, drug addicts are unreliable and untrustworthy, especially around drugs, and so make poor business partners.  Because drug dealers usually run their operations as high-risk businesses, they necessarily weigh those risks carefully, and so are deterrable when the risks become too high.  Many dealers who used to carry firearms, for example, now avoid doing so when they are selling drugs due to the high mandatory federal penalties when guns and drugs are mixed.

However, drug dealers seldom view the risks as too high when they see reason to hope for a light sentence.  Congress stepped in to take away that hope.  By establishing mandatory minimum sentences for serious drug offenses, Congress sent a clear message to drug dealers: no matter who the judge is, serious crime will get you serious time.

To those who do not view crimes subject to mandatory minimum sentences as serious, including drug dealers and their support systems, that message is objectionable.  To most, it is welcome.  Mandatory minimum sentences put steel in the spine of our criminal justice system.

In the case of marijuana, those who oppose mandatory minimum sentencing on so-called “humanitarian” grounds seldom mention that, to be eligible for even a five-year minimum sentence, a defendant must be convicted of an offense involving at least 100 kilograms (220 pounds) of marijuana, or, in the case of a marijuana-growing operation, at least 100 plants.  Such defendants are not low-level offenders.

It would be difficult to describe any offense involving between $130,000 to $440,000 worth of drugs as undeserving of even a five-year prison sentence.  Yet, those who oppose mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana and other drug offenses do just that, usually by attempting to convey the false impression that the criminals they are attempting to protect are only low-level offenders.

The debate, it would seem, should be about whether the mandatory minimum penalties for marijuana offenses are currently too lenient, not too harsh.

Ultimately, whether the effect of mandatory minimum sentences is good or bad depends upon how seriously one views marijuana use.  If a person believes a sentence of five years is too harsh for growing 100 marijuana plants capable of producing at least $28,600 and more likely $130,000 worth of marijuana, or distributing 220 pounds of marijuana worth a wholesale price of at least $132,000 and retail price of at least $286,000, the mandatory minimum sentences for marijuana should be abolished.  If, however, a five-year sentence for such crimes seems reasonable, or even lenient, the mandatory minimums should be retained, and perhaps toughened.

There is no doubt about on which side of that question the marijuana growers, dealers, users, and their supporters stand.  There is also little room to doubt on which side those who take marijuana crimes seriously should stand.

The full text of this article includes footnotes and a discussion of why mandatory minimum sentences are necessary in order for Congress to control the federal Sentencing Guidelines.  You are encouraged to view the complete article on Mandatory Minimum Sentences.

David Risley is an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of Illinois, where he serves as the Lead Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Attorney over that district’s 46 counties.  Prior to becoming a federal prosecutor 17 years ago, he served as a state prosecutor in Champaign County, Illinois.  He received a Bachelor of Science degree in finance and urban economics from the University of Illinois in 1975 and graduated with honors from the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University in 1981.

SMOKING MARIJUANA PROGRAMS HUMAN CELL AND DNA DEATH
By:  Gabriel G. Nahas, M.D., Ph.D. , Scientific Advisor, Drug Watch International

The latest scientific research provides irrefutable proof of the molecular mechanism of cannabis toxicity.  The active ingredient of this drug, THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), has the capacity to permanently impair reproductive and immune system functions by the inhibition of DNA formation in sperm cells and cells of the immunity system (lymphocytes).  These findings were reported as early as 1974 in the journal “Science.” 

This irreversible impairment of DNA in germ cells by cannabis has been demonstrated in studies reported in 12 chapters of Marihuana and Medicine.  Also described in this publication are the latest molecular studies proving that THC targets sperm cells, producing their early degeneration.  All these observations made on eight animal species, including man, report a decrease in sperm production and an increase of abnormal forms. 

The alterations of sperm production by THC have been linked to the mechanism of early apoptosis of sperm cells.  The term “apoptosis,” the process by which cell death occurs in successive stages, did not exist 25 years ago, but nonetheless we identified the particular phenomenon of “programmed” cell death, an irreversible biological phenomenon. 

It took a long time to understand the mechanism through which THC, absorbed in minute amounts, succeeds in interrupting the life cycle of a cell.  Many scientists did not understand how fractions of milligrams of THC could cause such serious damage as apoptosis.   The concentration of biologically active drugs like THC must be expressed in molecules, according to Avogadro’s Law.  Only in this way can we account for the number of receptor molecules to which the THC molecule binds.

The development of apoptosis caused by THC is directly related to storage of this drug in fat depots such as cell membranes and bone marrow.  After a single dose of marihuana, 50 percent of its active element, THC, will be stored in fat depots for five days.  THC accumulates in the body, and it will take 30 days for complete elimination of THC after a single dose.  If one takes marihuana every two days, one will have stored 10 times more than the initial dose after 10 days and after 30 days, 30 times more.

Noting that DNA is the sole vehicle for the evolution of the human species, some specialists in international law have suggested that drug trafficking and the condoning of drug consumption be considered crimes against mankind, since drug dealers and their network of associates achieve wealth and political power through advocating the use of substances that destroy DNA. 

Dr. Gabriel George Nahas 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, INSERN, Paris.  He is the author of over 700 scientific publications, 27 books, and numerous monographs.

SWISS HEROIN TRIALS
The report of the External Expert of the World Health Organization (WHO), published in the spring 1999, confirms that the heroin trials have failed.  The Swiss head of the trials was unable to prove that the distribution of heroin by doctors to addicts is superior, or at least equal to, the well-proven, recognized treatments of addictions.  The design of the trials was not suitable to establish whether the state of health of the trial subjects was improved by the distribution of heroin by doctors, whether the crime rate among heroin addicts was lowered, or whether HIV infection could be prevented.  Also, exception was taken to the lack of standardized trial protocols.

Why the distribution of heroin was nevertheless established as an acknowledged treatment in Switzerland is, therefore, incomprehensible.

At the start of the heroin trials, the International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations in Vienna expressed considerable reservation and concern.  In 1994, the board requested the Swiss Federal Council to have the trials checked for their scientific integrity.  The euphoric reports of success that appeared in the press while the trials were still in progress gave rise to skepticism among many doctors concerning scientific integrity.

In fact, the distribution of heroin has permanent, undesirable consequences.  The established treatments of addiction with proven efficacy were repudiated, thus the treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts became more difficult; science capitulated to pressure from the Swiss media and from a few trial leaders and politicians; and about 50 million CHF (Swiss francs) of taxpayers’ money was squandered for these trials.

The assessment of these trials by independent WHO experts is both embarrassing and humiliating for the trial leaders.  In spite of the unscientific working method, and in spite of U.N. International Narcotics Control Board recommendations to the contrary, the trial leaders are traveling all over the world, propagating the trials’ success, against all reason, and recommending that other countries introduce the distribution of heroin to addicts.

Scientific integrity and scientific procedures presuppose a high level of ethics and standards, which must be maintained and must not serve merely as a cloak for ultimate political aims.  Our wish is to guarantee drug addicts effective treatment in accordance with acknowledged medical standards.

Hans Koppel, M.D., Swiss Physicians Against Drugs
G. Fantacci, M.D., AIDS Information Switzerland

(The above article is taken from the Forward to “International Criticism of the Swiss Heroin Trials,” 1999.  Copies of the booklet in English are available from Drug Watch World News, P.O. Box 318, Carlinville, Illinois  62626  U.S.A.)

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
(First Quarter 2001)

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

        A scientist at The John Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health has shown that, given the opportunity, males and females are just as likely to use drugs.  Males, however, tend to have greater opportunities, and therefore, are more likely to use drugs.  The findings are consistent for marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens, and heroin. (Van Etten, M.L., and Anthony, J.C., Drug and Alcohol Dependence 54:117-125, 1999.)

        Studies show that females begin IV self-administration of cocaine or heroin sooner than males and administered larger amounts of the drugs. (NIDA Notes, Vol. 15, No. 4; September 2000.)

        Findings suggest a sex-related mechanism may protect women from some of the damage cocaine inflicts on the brain.  Studies show that women and men, given equal doses of cocaine, experienced the same cardiovascular response despite the fact that blood concentrations of cocaine did not rise as high in women as in men.  Additionally, women and men showed similar impairment in tests of concentration, memory, and academic achievement following sustained abstinence, even though women in the study had substantially greater exposure to cocaine. (NIDA Notes, Vol. 15, No. 4; September 2000.)

        In the late 1980s, evidence began to accumulate that steroids may provoke manic symptoms, such as aggression, euphoria, grandiose beliefs, reckless behavior, and a decreased need for sleep.  Reports of violence committed by people who had taken large doses of steroids began to appear in scientific literature.  New research has produced additional evidence that high doses of anabolic-androgenic steroids can produce aggressive symptoms in some men. (Pope, H.G., Jr.; Kouri, E.M.; and Hudson, J.I., Archives of General Psychiatry 57 (2):133-140, 2000.)

        The police in Finland stated that all cannabis confiscated in Finland during the last five years has contained approximately 6 – 10 % THC.  Cannabis is the main problem in Finland; amphetamine is next, though ecstasy and heroin are increasing fast. (Botho Simolin, member “Free From Drugs in Finland” and past chairman of the Nordic Countries Against Drugs.) 

        Alcohol abuse during adolescence may presage significant and potentially long-term psychopathologic dysfunction. (Dr. Paul Rohde and associates, Oregon Research Institute, J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2001;40:83-90.)

        The British Home Office stated that the classification of cannabis, LSD, and Ecstasy should not be downgraded due to “real health risks.”   (HNN Press release, 2/12/01.)

        Professor George Patton, director of the Centre for Adolescent Health, is quoted as saying that Australia’s largest cannabis study desimates “the belief that marijuana is not as addictive as alcohol or heroin.”  “The rates of addiction for cannabis are not dissimilar from the rates we’re seeing among young people for alcohol, and very much more common than heroin.  It is adding further to the evidence that cannabis use is far from harmless.  According to Professor Patton, 72 percent of 20-year-olds using marijuana daily reported clinical signs of addiction to the drug.” (“Addiction Journal,” UK, 2000, HNN, 2/12/01.)

        According to official statistics, the number of drug addicts in Russia is more than two million, a seven-fold rise in recent years.  Unofficial estimates put the total closer to three million.  There has been a jump in the number of adolescent addicts, drug-related crimes, and cases of HIV-infection. (Valerii Sudarenkov, head of the Federation Council’s Committee on Science, Culture, and Education; Upper House hearing, Dec. 28, 2000.)

        A recent report by Dr. Deborah L. Zvosec and associates, Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, warns that gamma-hydroxbutyrate (GHB)-related compounds can produce toxic effects that range from vomiting to respiratory depression to loss of consciousness and death.  These compounds are also highly addictive.  Emergency physicians are urged to collect a urine specimen and test it for GHB if a patient comes in unconscious or if the patient thinks something was slipped into his or her drink.  Dr. Stephen W. Smith, co-author of the report, said, “If you wait and collect a second specimen, that’s too late.  This stuff doesn’t stick around in the body very long.”  Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry is required to measure these compounds in body fluids.  Visit www.ashesonthesea.com/ghb for more information.  (N Engl J Med 2001:344:87-94.)

        Marijuana potency has increased within the past 10 years and now exceeds four percent for regular grade marijuana and eight percent or greater for sinsemilla grade marijuana. (Richard Schwartz, 1/29/01, as seen in the Quarterly marijuana potency monitoring report, Dr. Mahmoud ElSohley, Director, NIDA Marijuana Research Center, University of Mississippi.)

        Beverly Urbanek of the NIDA Marijuana Research Center at the University of Mississippi reported that, as of January 19, 2001, the center has over 15,000 research papers in the “Marihuana Bibliography” collection.

        Pro-drug groups have pulled out all the stops to champion drug legalization in New Mexico.  According to recent newspaper articles, NORML is committed to spending $50,000 over the next month in radio, TV, and newspaper ads.  The Lindesmith Center, headed by Ethan Nadelmann and funded by billionaire George Soros, has hired a former governor and a top Republican to lobby their cause.  John P. Morgan, M.D., a pro-drug activist who is a member of the Drug Policy Foundation and NORML, is in Santa Fe, New Mexico, lobbying legislators for legalization. (New Mexico State Representative Ron Godbey, Bemalilo County, 1/26/01.)

        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 Notes, Vol. 15, No. 5, Oct. 2000.)

        Researchers at Columbia University in New York City have found new evidence that children whose mothers smoke 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.  The study also revealed marked gender differences, with girls at significantly increased risk for drug abuse and boys at significantly increased risk for conduct disorder. (NIDA Notes, Vol. 15, No. 5, Oct. 2000.)

        The city of Randers, situated on Jutland, became the first Danish city to sign the European Cities Against Drugs (ECAD) Stockholm Resolution.  A total of 236 capitals, cities, and municipalities in 31 European countries have now joined ECAD.   (ECAD News, Vol. IV, No. 42, 12/4/00.)

        In a March 2000, article published in the Dutch daily ‘De Telegraaf’ by psychiatrist J. Buitelaar confirmed that Dutch school children have discovered the cocaine-like effects of Ritalin.  Dr. J. Kimpen at the Wilhelmina children’s hospital in Utrecht said that there are thousands of children who have been erroneously diagnosed with ADHD.   (ECAD News, Vol. IV, No. 42, 12/4/00.)

        Ritalin, the prescription drug used to counteract Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is being sold on a developing black market on American playgrounds.  According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, 30 to 50 percent of teenagers in rehab centers in Indiana, South Carolina, and Wisconsin had used the drug to produce an effect, even though it was not their principal drug.  The buying and selling is so widespread that the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, has launched an inquiry into the stealing and sale of Ritalin in schools.  (HNN press release, 11/28/00.)

        New rules have been issued for U.S. methadone programs.  Substance abuse programs that use methadone or levo-alpha-acetyl-methadol (LAAM) to treat drug addiction will soon be required to undergo accreditation.  The new system will ensure that the patient is appropriately assessed and mapped to the right treatment, and that the treatment is individualized instead of cookie cutter. (De. H. Westley Clark, Director SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Treatment:  Drug Alert, 1/21/01.)

        Scientists at the University of Buffalo’s Toshiba Stroke Research Center have found that one fourth of non-fatal heart attacks among persons under the age of 45 in the United States can be attributed to regular cocaine use.  The study was conducted by Adnan I. Qureshi, M.D., University of Buffalo assistant professor of neurosurgery, and colleagues.  Dr. Qureshi used data from the most recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted between 1988 and 1994 by the Centers for Disease Control, involving 40,000 persons two months of age or older.   (“Circulation,” January 2001.)

        Dutch researchers report that MS patients don’t benefit from cannabis.  Swallowing specially prepared capsules with either cannabis or THC did not reduce complaints of patients.  The researchers also measured muscular strength, spasticity, and fatigue.  One of the researchers, neurologist J. Killestein, said that on the basis of the results of the capsules, he doubts that smoked cannabis would benefit MS patients.  “Proofs from the literature for a possible effect, also when being administered in smoked form, are marginal.”   (Hospital of the Free University in Amsterdam and the TNO, Organisation for Applied Scientific Research; Delft, The Netherlands.  The Dutch daily “De Volkskrant,” Dec. 28, 2000.)

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT BUSH

January 20, 2001

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to urge you to provide the leadership needed to end the sale of illegal drugs, illegal sales of alcohol, tobacco and other legal drugs, and drug paraphernalia over the Internet. Although international treaties and the laws of many jurisdictions control the production and sale of such items, these items are sometimes illegally sold online. Across the globe, cybercitizens young and old can now have such items delivered directly to their mailbox simply by signing onto their computer, agreeing to pay for the item, and making a few keystrokes or mouse clicks. Moreover, many sites use glossy, interactive cartoon characters especially attractive to young children. Illegal Internet advertisements for alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and drug paraphernalia make drug abuse seem glamorous. This sends an erroneous message that drugs are "cool" and acceptable when, in fact, they are dangerous and sometimes deadly.

Restricting the unlawful marketing of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, and drug paraphernalia via electronic communication in no way compromises constitutional rights. Although the United States Supreme Court, in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) struck down certain provisions of the Communications Decency Act, it made clear in footnote 44 of that opinion that categories of speech that have traditionally been unprotected by the First Amendment, such as obscenity and child pornography, are also unprotected when transmitted over the Internet. Commercial activity proposing an illegal transaction is another category of speech that the Court has held to be unprotected. For example, in Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 496 (1982), Justice Thurgood Marshall, who devoted his life to protecting individual rights, wrote:

[the law in question] is expressly directed at commercial activity promoting or encouraging illegal drug use. If that activity is deemed "speech," then it is speech proposing an illegal transaction, which a government may regulate or ban entirely.

Moreover, the Court has consistently upheld laws controlling drugs and related paraphernalia. See, e.g., Posters `N' Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513 (1994); Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (1982); Minor v. United States, 396 U.S. 87, 98 n.13 (1969); Reina v. United States, 364 U.S. 507 (1960); Yee Hem v. United States, 268 U.S. 178 (1925). There was no intention that national and international anti-drug laws be evaded by entrepreneurs using modern technology.

Mr. President, I urge you to exercise your leadership to control this problem. I ask that you use the bully pulpit to speak out about the dangers of drugs. I ask that you work hard to prevent illegal sales of alcohol and tobacco, especially sales to minors. I ask that you vigorously enforce laws against drug smuggling and trafficking. I ask that you resume Operation PIPE or a similar program to enforce the federal anti-drug paraphernalia statute, 21 U.S.C. § 863.

(Steven Gersten, Esq., is the chairman of the Drug Watch International Internet Committee.)

FROM THE DESK OF WAYNE ROQUES
President, Drug Watch International

As well-documented in "The Success of Tough Drug Enforcement" (Robert E. Peterson, January 1996), there is a near-perfect inverse proportion (beginning in 1960) between the rate of incarceration and the rate of crime.  According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report dated May 2000, two thirds of convicted jail inmates were actively involved with drugs prior to their admission to jail.  Over half said they had used drugs in the month before the offense, and 36.6 percent were under the influence at the time of the offense.  Addiction is a public health issue, but the behavior of people under the influence of drugs is very often criminal, and individuals are in jail for those acts, not their drug use.

As necessary as treatment is to help drug users regain a normal life, it alone is not a solution.  It should also be noted that studies from UCLA have found nearly identical success rates for coerced treatment as for voluntary entry.

Mandatory minimum sentencing rules were created because of misuse of judicial discretion.  Mandatory minimums prevent a defendant in Florida with a couple of kilos of cocaine from getting probation, while a defendant in North Carolina with the same amount and circumstances gets 10 to 15 years.  Congress wisely set minimum penalties and left the judges discretion at the upper end for special circumstances.

Mandatory minimums assure racial equality in sentencing.  No longer can a young minority male with no father apprehended with a kilo of cocaine and no financial resources for high-priced attorneys stand before the bar of justice and be sentenced differently than the young white male whose father assures the judge that, if the judge allows probation for his son, he, the father, will guarantee that his son will be enrolled at Yale within the month!

Mandatory minimums reduce the potential for unjustified judicial sentencing disparities.

Prevention is the only possible solution to the drug problem.  We must find a way to rear two drug-free generations.  That would effectively end drug use in our society.  Law enforcement serves three purposes in the drug effort.  First, it exacts a high price from those who would profit from the misery and addiction of others, e.g., loss of freedom and seizure of their undeserved profit.  Second, it keeps potential drug users from falling prey to drugs by virtue of their fear of arrest and the embarrassment of being caught.  Third, it shepherds drug users/addicts into treatment through laws and drug courts that offer treatment as an alternative to incarceration.  Few people seek treatment without the impetus of a significant event, such as arrest, to propel them to that decision.  Sadly, treatment is what happens when all else fails.

Prevention, treatment, education, and enforcement are equally necessary.

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