Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

ANOTHER DEADLY GAME
By:  Dave Baleria, President, Personal Safety First, Inc.
Sergeant, Jackson County Sheriff's Department, retired

Managing our D.A.R.E. program, I also became very interested in the research on youth violence.  The research by Dave Grossman in particular on the link between video games and the willingness to steal guns and/or make bombs to use in school massacres was most informative.  He makes the point that these games rival the best electronic lethal force training simulators used by the military and police, but without the controls or consequences.  Kids learn how to shoot, fast and make one-shot head kills.  Yet, they hear no real screams of terror and pain, nor do they feel any consequences of real life fighting, i.e., their own pain, bleeding, and death.  What we need is electronics built into the handles, so if you loose a fight, you at least get 50,000 volts back from the game gun or handles.  Bet there would be a whole lot fewer players in the malls, especially after the first time they loose a fight and get zapped.

There is another deadly one out, "Grand Theft Auto 3."  The main problem is most parents, and especially grandparents, don't play these games and all too often naively assume that the games cannot be that bad.  Well, this one allows your kid/grandkid to "bludgeon police officers and prostitutes, commit drive-by shootings, and run murderous errands for the mob.”  It is a North American bestseller. Australia quickly banned it after it came out in late October, making it even more interesting to U.S. audiences.  Even though the manufacturers discourage selling these violent video games to kids, there are very few laws or consequences for stores that do.  Next time you are at a Target, watch the kids playing them at the electronics section demo kiosk, or in the mall video game parlor.  See if anyone really enforces any age barriers, if there even are any.

DOCTORS FOR LIFE MEDIA ADVISORY
Sober Scientific Facts Prevailed in Dagga [Marijuana] Case

The following Media Advisory is from Doctors For Life, a group of more than 700 physicians in South Africa who have been fighting efforts in that country to "decriminalize" smoked dagga (marijuana) for “medical” and religious use.     (25 January 2002)

Doctors For Life (DFL) is delighted to hear about the Constitutional Court's decision not to decriminalize the use of marijuana. DFL, who testified on behalf of the state in the case, sees the decision as responsible, sound, and based on the latest scientific evidence about the effects of cannabis on the individual and society as a whole. Such a decision should not be based on public opinion or political correctness but on scientific facts. It would have been awkward for the government to clamp down on cigarette smoking while decriminalizing the smoking of dagga. The evidence that DFL presented to the Constitutional Court shows clearly that one joint of cannabis is the equivalent of four tobacco cigarettes in terms of the amount of tar, five tobacco cigarettes in terms of the amount of carbon monoxide produced, and 10 tobacco cigarettes in respect to the amount of damage to the airways. Cannabis smokers had a 9 to10 times higher risk to develop lung cancer. Also, in many other areas of life government has passed laws to force citizens to protect themselves, e.g., laws making the wearing of safety belts compulsory.

On a social level, studies have shown that 50 percent of accidents in the work place are drug related. After smoking one joint of dagga the driver of a goods train in the United States went through three safety signals crashing into a passenger train killing 16 people and injuring 270. Economically it has been demonstrated that the proportion of those unable to work, of people on pension as well as the burden of prisoners on the taxpayer, are much higher among drug addicts than among the general population. Theft at work and medical benefit claims are tripled by drug abuse. Studies in some countries have found that employees who tested positive to illegal drugs were 43 percent more absent from work than the rest.

The fact that it may be part of the religious practice or rituals of some religions would not justify the decriminalization of cannabis. Such a decision would set a precedent and would force the government to allow other harmful practices, e.g., the making of human sacrifices, if it was part of some religions.

DFL believes that the decision will be to the benefit of all South Africans.

For more information contact:
Dr Albu van Eeden, CEO of Doctors For Life
P.O. Box 1647
Kloof
3640
South Africa
Telephone (031) 764 0443
Home page:  www.dfl.org.za                

DRUG LEGALIZERS MEET MASSIVE DEFEAT IN NEW MEXICO

January 2002

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has reviewed the bill that has been introduced in the New Mexico legislature that proposes to legalize the medical use of marijuana.  Senate Bill 8, if enacted, would establish a state program that authorizes the cultivation, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana for certain medical purposes.  This bill authorizes conduct that is contrary to the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), administered and enforced by DEA, and would have a detrimental effect on DEA's enforcement of the CSA, if it became law.

As you know, marijuana is in Schedule I of the CSA.  As a Schedule I substance, marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States under federal law.  The United States Supreme Court recently affirmed that marijuana has no accepted medical use in therapy under federal law and stated "that there is no medical necessity to the prohibitions at issue [on manufacturing and distributing marijuana], even when the patient is 'seriously ill'; and lacks alternative avenues for relief."  United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 121 S. Ct. 1711 (2001).  State laws that permit the cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana for medical use undermine the CSA and the efforts of DEA to effectively control marijuana.

The bill currently under consideration is likely to create confusion for the people of New Mexico.  The bills may lead the public to believe that marijuana is safe and effective for medical use.  Not only is such a perception contrary to the CSA, marijuana has not been approved for medical use by the Food and Drug Administration.  The belief that marijuana is safe and effective is contrary to the most recent scientific and medical findings of the Federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  The findings of HHS were made as part of a petition filed with DEA in which an individual sought to initiate rulemaking proceedings to move marijuana from Schedule I to a less restrictive schedule.  After extensive review of the medical and scientific literature, HHS advised DEA that marijuana continued to meet the criteria for placement in Schedule I: a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and a lack of accepted safety for the use of marijuana even under medical supervision.  Based on the findings and recommendation of HHS that marijuana remain in Schedule I and all other relevant data, DEA declined to initiate rulemaking proceedings to reschedule marijuana, leaving it in Schedule I under federal law.  The scientific and medical evaluation by HHS and the decision made by my predecessor are published in the Federal Register at 66 Fed. Reg. 20,038 (Apr. 18, 2001).

The bill under consideration may also erroneously lead the public to believe that marijuana used in compliance with the bill would be done so with impunity.  The bill is conspicuously silent with regard to the fact that the cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana, even in compliance with the bills, would violate federal law and subject individuals engaged in such conduct to criminal and civil penalties.  Since the Federal Government has not approved the cultivation and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes, the only source of marijuana for "medical use" (outside the approved research context) would of necessity be cultivated, distributed, and possessed in violation of federal law.

In addition to creating confusion for the public, the bill undermines the closed system of distribution for controlled substances established by the CSA.  The bill does not require the cultivators and distributors of marijuana to comply with the federal requirement that all manufacturers and distributors of Schedule I controlled substances be registered with DEA.  The federal registration process and record-keeping requirements established by federal law and administered by DEA are critical components of DEA's effort to control marijuana and other controlled substances.  The registration process is also an important aspect of the United States Government's implementation of international drug control treaties.  These treaties obligate the Federal Government to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana except by persons licensed by, and under the direct supervision of, the Federal Government.  The treaties also obligate the Federal Government to control the distribution of marijuana.  This is required even if the Federal Government determines that marijuana has an accepted medical use.

DEA historically has enjoyed a cooperative and beneficial relationship with state and local drug enforcement officers.  Likewise, the federal drug enforcement effort has been enhanced by the numerous state legislatures that have enacted drug laws that are consistent with the CSA.  We look forward to this continued cooperative effort.

Sincerely,
Asa Hutchinson
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice

DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE: PRO-DRUG ORGANIZATION
President Bush Advisor Named to Board of Pro-Drug Group

On July 1, 2000, The Drug Policy Foundation and the Lindesmith Center, two drug-friendly legalization organizations heavily financed by George Soros, merged.  In a recent Internet notice, the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation announced that it was changing its name, effective immediately, to the Drug Policy Alliance. 

The Drug Policy Alliance will promote its agenda and new name with a publicity campaign later this year involving events across the country, Web site redesign, and the creation of new outreach materials. 

Drug Policy Alliance headquarters will remain in New York City, with other offices across the country; the Office of National Affairs in Washington, D.C., the New Mexico Drug Policy Project in Santa Fe, NM, the Office of Legal Affairs in Oakland, CA, the Safety First Project in San Francisco, and the Health and Harm Reduction Project in Sacramento. The Alliance will soon open an office in New Jersey.

Drug Policy Alliance board members include:
Ira Glasser,  president of the Drug Policy Alliance Board and former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
George Soros, international financier
Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corporation*
Rev. Edwin Sanders, a member of President Bush's Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS
Robert W. Sweet (NY) and John L. Kane (CO), federal court judges
Mathilde Krim, founding chairman of the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR) 
Kurt Schmoke, former Baltimore mayor
Joseph McNamara, former police chief
Dr. Robert Newman, director of the Baron Edmond de Rothschild Chemical Dependency Institute at Beth Israel Medical Center
David C. Lewis, founding director of Brown University's Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies.
(* affiliation listed for identification purposes only)

Lest you doubt the depths to which the pro-legalization movement has wormed it's way into government, note that the Board of Directors of the Drug Policy Alliance includes Rev. Edwin Sanders, a member of President Bush's Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS.  Lindesmith has used the AIDS problem as a means to advance their “Harm Reduction” drug policy that enables drug use by giving needles to injecting drug addicts.  And the Drug Policy Alliance (Lindesmith) has now placed a Bush advisor on its board.

 
DRUG WATCH EYE-OPENERS
When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do.
When in Amsterdam...Well, Maybe Not.
By:  Hannah Tooley

We’ve all heard it. The harm reductionists shout it to the roof tops.  “Legalize pot.  Decriminalize other drugs, and we will solve the drug problem.  Look how well its worked in Holland!”  It is easy to convince people who are not in a position to see what is happening in cities across Holland that the Dutch drug experiment is a triumph.  But the rosiest optimist visiting the country and seeing the results first hand could not possibly call it a success.

It all began in 1976 when the Dutch Parliament voted to decriminalize a personal use amount (30 grams) of marijuana.  Shortly afterward, it voted to permit the commercial sale of the drug through the now infamous Dutch coffeeshops.  The coffeeshops were restricted from selling more than 30 grams to a customer, from selling other drugs such as heroin and cocaine, and from selling to minors and setting up near schools.

It didn’t take long for the situation to spiral out of hand.  For one thing, it was still illegal to import marijuana.  Therefore, Dutch entrepreneurs with a green thumb decided to grow their own pot.  Over time, they cultivated a super strain of marijuana known as Nederwiet that has a THC content of up to 35 percent (about five percent is normal).  Nederwiet has become the pot to buy, and it commands a premium price worldwide.  Today, an estimated 20,000 Dutch citizens are involved in growing and exporting Nederwiet.  One trafficker who buys Nederwiet from local growers and smuggles it to the U.K. says that a few years ago he wouldn’t have dared do it.  But today smuggling is routine.  He ships his pot in chemical containers, because dogs can’t sniff it, and the authorities are reluctant to open containers marked as hazardous.  He has grown bold enough to traffic because the Dutch penalties are so light that the worst punishment would be two years in jail, and that’s unlikely.

Dutch coffeeshops meanwhile have been observed selling the 30 gram maximum to customers coming in the front door, but kilo loads out the back door to the highest bidders.  Because it is widely available, Nederwiet has found its way to Dutch youth.  Twice as many now smoke marijuana as a decade ago, 25 percent more youths are now addicted to the drug, and juvenile crime in the Netherlands has sky-rocketed.

Clearly, Parliament’s restriction to sell only personal use amounts and its ban on selling to children did not work.  What about its restriction against the use of other drugs?  It seems the Dutch tolerance for one drug was soon interpreted as tolerance for all drugs.  Heroin and cocaine traffickers sprang up in Dutch cities like tulips, causing addiction to triple.  Recently Holland has become the world’s foremost producer of Ecstasy and the world's foremost exporter of Ecstasy and amphetamines.  U.K., French, and Belgian customs officials describe Holland as the “Drug Capital of Western Europe.”  One French official complained of an explosion of drugs coming into France from the Netherlands.  Today, the country is exporting an estimated 65 tons of marijuana and countless millions of Ecstasy pills and amphetamines produced in Dutch laboratories.  And speaking of tulips, the illegal profits from the drug trade now dwarf those from the country’s traditional bulb export business.

Tourists arriving in the Netherlands are offered a guide that explains where to go to find drug and prostitute neighborhoods that are AIDS-free.  Does "When in Amsterdam, do as the Dutch do" mean do drugs? Are people no longer visiting Holland to view the architecture?  The Rembrandts?  The flowers?  What a shame!

HEMP:  FACT AND FICTION
By:  Jeanette McDougal
Chair, Drug Watch International Hemp Committee

Separating hemp fact from hemp fiction is like separating fleas from dogs; it's hard to do, and it's temporary. Though everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they're not entitled to their own facts. Many hemp advocates (aka hempsters) ignore this and present fiction as fact.  One of their most dangerous so-called "facts" is that hemp food products are safe.

The recent DEA ban on hemp food is not a drug war issue.  It is in fact, a food safety issue.

Even in small amounts, hemp's fat-soluble cannabinoids (chemicals found only in cannabis hemp/marijuana plants) are toxic. THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) is the chemical in cannabis marijuana hemp that causes the "high" or "inTOXICation.”

Hempsters downplay the effects of small amounts of toxic fat-soluble THC in cannabis hemp, comparing it to the water-soluble opiate traces in poppy seeds.  THC accumulates in the body whereas opiates do not.  Frequent ingestion of numerous hemp foods could result in THC build up, causing chronic, low-level intoxication.

Fortunately, the United States has the benefit of a risk assessment of hemp-based food, nutraceuticals (so-called nutritional supplements), and cosmetic products conducted by Canada's national health department, Health Canada (HC).  After reviewing extensive scientific data, HC concluded in their 11/99 draft that: "New food products and cosmetics made from cannabis hemp (the same plant as the marijuana plant) pose an unacceptable risk to the health of consumers.  Those most at risk are children exposed in the womb or through breast milk, or teenagers whose reproductive systems are developing.

"On the basis of currently available data it is concluded that the present Canadian limit of 10ppm THC in raw materials and products made from industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa cultivars with less than 0.3 percent THC) would likely not protect the Canadian consumer using industrial hemp-based food, cosmetic, personal care, and nutraceutical products from potential risks of neurological (brain) impairment and neuroendocrine (hormone) disruption associated with low-level exposure to THC and other cannabinoids."

Health Canada is in the process of updating their hemp food, cosmetics, and nutraceutical risk assessment and, when completed, will make recommendations to the Canadian government.

European Union (EU) 1999 hemp regulations state, "The uses to which it (hemp) is put must NOT include human nutrition." [Emphasis added.]

In the United States, even salad oils must be examined and certified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as "generally recognized as safe."  This has not been done for hemp products.

Allowing the introduction of toxic chemicals into our food and cosmetic systems through the use of THC-containing industrial hemp products is dangerous and unthinkable.  To do so would jeopardize public health and safety. U.S. citizens and government agencies and officials should do everything possible to prevent this from happening, thus protecting future generations from both known and unknown health and genetic hazards.

The protective DEA hemp food ban deserves praise.        

HOW COULD SYMPATHY FOR DRUG LEGALIZATION GAIN GROUND SO QUICKLY IN EUROPE? 
By: Katalin Szomor, Drug Watch International Delegate from Hungary

For decades, people have ignored important incidents in Europe that signaled the pro-drug movement was gaining strength. 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the use of heroin and cannabis spread via the hippy and liberal youth movements.  In the late 1980s, the radical movement in Italy became popular and fostered the legalization of so-called “soft” drugs.  Prostitutes and porno stars were elected to public office in Rome, and Italian Radical Party representatives in the European Parliament pressed their liberal drug agenda.  In the 1990s, the International Radical Party formed, and Europeans began reading the Party’s publication, “The Radical Letters.”

Pro-drug propaganda spread, and so did drug use in Europe.  Drug users entered the policy-making arena.  Often, those in Health Ministries lacked expertise regarding illicit drugs. Aided by governments and international organizations, permissive drug policies spread, and the Netherlands was at the core.

When the European Communities criticized the Netherlands, accusing the country of feeding marijuana to other countries’ youth, the Dutch reacted by funding international projects to improve their image.  By appearing socially concerned, they glamorized their liberal marijuana policy, while masking the squalorous truth of prostitution, drugs, trafficking, and crime.  In 1995, the Netherlands limited the permitted amount of marijuana from 30 grams, to 5 grams, and only Dutch citizens could receive social support.  The restriction was partly due to external pressure, but the primary reason was the serious internal problem caused by the burgeoning drug trade.  Organized crime moved in to distribute cocaine and heroin, resulting in an explosion of use throughout Europe, and fights erupted between mafia “families.”  Dutch criminals became the biggest producers and exporters of amphetamine-like stimulants.  Police and customs officials tried, but failed, to halt the trade.  Yet, the Dutch coffee-house system of distributing marijuana is used as a model by drug legalization advocates worldwide.

People ignored the significance of the Swiss government’s so-called heroin experiment, begun roughly a decade ago.  Addicts in Switzerland are allowed to inject heroin twice daily at injecting clinics.  The addict is even provided with washing facilities and clean clothes. Although the injecting room, the washroom, the clothes, the needles, and the pharmaceutical heroin are “clean,” the opiate receptors in the brains of the heroin addicts are not “clean.”  One must question the mentality of those who would subject other human beings to such an experiment! 

Although the Swiss claim that their research proved the effectiveness of free heroin injecting clinics, their studies had no scientific controls.  Participants in the program continually fluctuated.  There was no controlled clinical trial using established scientific standards; therefore, criminality and health data were not valid.  Disregarding the International Narcotics Control Board in 1996, 1997, 1998, and the World Health Organization evaluation in 1999 in rejecting the trials, Switzerland legalized the distribution of heroin. 

The Swiss program and others like it are part of a philosophy called Harm Reduction, which stresses that addicts have a right to use whatever drugs they like, and society should protect them, particularly from AIDS.  Ideologists have convinced themselves that needle-exchange and heroin distribution programs are the best they can do for hard-core addicts. However, in many countries, including Hungary, needle distribution does not differentiate between hard-core addicts and juvenile beginners.  Every day, thousands of free needles are disseminated on request, anonymously. A Dutch study found that most drug-related death is caused by overdose, infection, or heart attack — not by AIDS.  Other studies have shown that needle-exchange programs actually increase AIDS, but needle-exchange programs still became part of European drug policy.

Electronic information networks promote the legalization of pot, the advantages of Harm Reduction, and condemn criminal law and supply interdiction work as “very costly” and “ineffective,” repeating over and over, “the war on drugs is lost.”  Under the guise of Harm Reduction, well-designed media campaigns encourage politicians to seek “expert” advice from legalization advocates, such as the Lindesmith Center, that promise short-term success and cheaper policies.  In the last two to three years Luxembourg, Belgium, and Portugal legalized cannabis use.  In Switzerland, a liberal government was able to legalize cannabis in 2001.  Now it is reported that railway conductors must allow hash smoking in the tobacco smoking cabins on trains.  

Educational materials are produced that mislead young people with terminology such as “the use of soft drugs,” or statements that “the combination of marijuana and Ecstasy” is not dangerous. The term “safe drug use” has been introduced.  Swiss heroin shooting galleries are listed in some educational materials as good examples of a “normal” drug policy, while drug policies in line with U.N. Conventions are called “repressing” or “criminalizing.”  In Hungary, the state distributed “Drug Encyclopedia,” a pro-drug compact disc (CD).  Pro-drug media campaigns and materials are dangerous, but false or misleading educational materials distributed by state agencies to schools, teachers, parents, and children are even more so. 

We must stop looking the other way while flawed drug policies grow.  When schools adopt Harm Reduction curricula, we must raise our voices in protest.  When government representatives fight Harm Reduction drug policies, we must give them our support.

‘MEDICAL’ MARIJUANA BELONGS IN ANTIQUITY!
By:  Sandra Bennett
Director, Northwest Center for Health and Safety
Past President, Drug Watch International

Congress should not lift its ban on “medical” pot.  Whatever you call it — pot, weed, ganja, dada — marijuana is cannabis, a plant that, like all other matter on earth, may have some medicinal properties.  Considering the amount of money being spent on marijuana research, hopefully science will discover and refine compounds that can be added to our growing medical pharmacopoeia. 

In antiquity, man had to rely on crude plant, animal, and mineral matter and hope for the best.  The average life span was less than 40 years.  But modern science has brought us the many wonder drugs, like insulin, antibiotics, AIDS, and cancer-fighting drugs, that have saved millions of lives.  Smoking marijuana as a medicine should stay where it belongs — in antiquity!

Although there are continuing studies into the possible medical uses of individual components of the marijuana plant, as of January 2001, the National Institute on Drug Abuse research center in Mississippi had on record more than 15,000 studies on cannabis, and none have shown the raw material to be safe or effective for medical use.  Additionally, smoking is not an appropriate delivery system for a medication.  There is no way to measure the dose and strength of smoke to the individual patient.

Dr. Stanley Watson and Dr. Benson, co-authors of the 1999 Institute Of Medicine study investigating possible medical uses of marijuana, had this to say when interviewed by the Dallas Morning News last March.  Dr. Watson said, “Drugs already exist for conditions that marijuana might help.”   “For most patients,” Dr. Benson stated, “there are better medications in every case than marijuana.  … We don’t think studies should be done on the smoked material.”  Dr. Watson added, “But on other possible routes such as pills or inhalers.”

A terrible disservice is done when the media repeats misinformation supplied by the advocates of “medicalization” of marijuana without providing accurate scientific data. 

THE NAME GAME:  CANNABIS vs. CANNABINOIDS
By: William Bennett, M.D.
Co-chair, Drug Watch International Drug Strategy Institute

In the past 35 years, through hybridization and sophisticated growing techniques, the potency of marijuana has escalated from the .5 percent THC found in 1960s ditch weed* to varieties with a THC potency (marijuana's main psychoactive compound) in excess of 30 percent.  This is manifested in a tremendous increase in episodes of psychiatric emergency associated with marijuana use.  Further, ingesting marijuana, in the form of brownies or space cakes, is associated with increased heart rate, nausea, vomiting, loss of consciousness, and anxiety, and it can be life-threatening.  Marijuana is now one of the leading causes of drug-related emergency room episodes.

Marijuana, whether smoked or eaten, is whole plant material and contains 483 compounds, including some that are carcinogenic or toxic. These compounds will affect each individual in a different way and will be magnified by any other drugs, legal or illegal, that the individual may have taken, as well as other factors such as fatigue and stress.  Without testing each batch of marijuana, which varies not only from hybrid to hybrid but from grower to grower and plant to plant, there is no way of knowing the exact potency of THC or any of the other 482 compounds found in marijuana.  Even if this could be done, it would still be impossible to determine an appropriate dose for medical use, because the combustion associated with smoking transforms the marijuana into over 2,000 compounds, each impacting the patient differently.  And, if eaten, depending on the metabolism of the individual and other drugs the person might be taking, it would be absorbed at different rates, or perhaps not absorbed at all.  And finally, because THC is fat soluable, it is retained in the body for a much longer period of time than compounds that are water soluable.  That being the case, after one or two days of self-dosing, there is no way to tell how much marijuana remains in the body with potential to interact adversely with other drugs.

Even though there are anecdotal accounts of marijuana having medicinal properties, conscientious researchers and physicians consider it extremely unwise and dangerous to suggest that an individual smoke or ingest crude marijuana to obtain possible medical benefit.

GW Pharmaceuticals, the British company doing research on cannabis with the aim of developing prescribeable cannabis-based medications, is using hybrid, high-grade marijuana as a starting point, not crude marijuana, extracting the THC and other cannabinoids, and then recombining them in various measurable strengths to test in human trials.  In these trials the patients are given a specific dose of a specific replicable compound.  They are not given marijuana plant material.  In fact, the cannibinoid compounds GW Pharmaceuticals is developing could just as easily be synthesized, bypassing the use of crude plant material as a cannibinoid source.

Just as taxol is not yew tree bark, and digoxin is not foxglove, cannibinoids are not marijuana — although Dronabinol (THC), marketed under the brand name Marinol, is often referred to as marijuana or cannabis, fueling the public's misperception.  Marinol is a refined drug, produced in pill form of varying strengths that can be prescribed by physicians for medical use.  Its interaction with other drugs is known, and the physician can warn the patient of side effects.

The public needs to understand the dangers in blindly accepting the rhetoric that crude plant material, particularly one with as many known unpleasant and dangerous side effects as marijuana, can be taken safely.  Even drugs that have been arduously tested for safety and efficacy can be dangerous when used in combination with other drugs, or when an inappropriate dose is given, or when other factors affect the patient.  Physicians prescribing such medications should be well aware of these potentials and advise the patient.  Because of its multiple compounds, there is no way a physician can safely prescribe marijuana plant material, even were the U.S. Government to capitulate to legalization of this dangerous and unpredictable substance.

* THE FEDERAL REGISTER, April 2001

NOTE: Cannabis-based medicines are made of cannabinoids that have been extracted from the raw plant material as opposed to being synthesized, much the same as vitamin C is typically synthesized but may be extracted from plant material such as rose hips.  The end product contains only the purified ingredient.  Research is currently underway by GW Pharmaceuticals plc, the company licensed by the [British] Home Office to develop cannabis extracts into non-smoked prescription medicines.  Additional information can be found at www.drugwatch.org.

REASON WILL EVENTUALLY SURFACE
By:  John J. Coleman, Assistant Administrator (ret.), U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
President of the Association of Former Federal Narcotics Agents, and a Select Member of Drug Watch International

The "Supremacy Clause" or Law of the Land provision of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution has been a source of friction between the state and federal governments since the founding of the Republic. Indeed, the Tenth Amendment was inserted to ease the fears of those in the states who objected to the feds having the last say.

In 1861, this came to a head when some states rejected the feds on the issue of slavery and decided to secede from the Union. This, of course, led to the Civil War. In the 1950s, President Eisenhower had to send in the troops to enforce federal laws in integrating schools in Arkansas and Mississippi. Although often the root of such controversy between the states and the feds, few today would argue that the principle of federal supremacy is not relevant.

With the exception of these two notable cases, the federal government is generally slow to act. There is a tradition of allowing the states to be "laboratories" for innovation, according to the opinion of one Supreme Court justice. But when pushed to act, the feds have to enforce the Constitution, and so it was that in April 2001, the court ruled that the Controlled Substance Act was indeed the law of the land and that the Cannabis Buyers Clubs in Oakland, CA, could not claim a medical necessity defense under state or federal law to possess pot.

This was an important decision because it put on the record the fact that the Controlled Substance Act is indeed the Law of the Land regardless of whatever any state law or state official may say. This is also the genesis for the recent U.S. Attorney General’s directive to prosecute federal registrants who, under Oregon state law, provide controlled substances to assist in suicides. To do so, it is argued, is contrary to the provision in the Act that says a prescription for a controlled substance to be valid must be "issued for a legitimate medical purpose." Suicide, it is further argued, is not considered a legitimate medical purpose. This is in court right now, but few believe it can overcome the constitutionality issues. Ironically, this issue is twinned with the medical pot issue; as one goes, so, too, will the other.

I’m sure the feds will sit back and let these cases wind their way up through the system, where they will be decided in due time. In the words of Judge Learned Hand, once called the Tenth Justice of the Supreme Court, "reason will eventually surface." In other words, not to worry.  This issue is all but settled.

PERSONAL STORIES:  WHERE DO THE CHILDREN GO?
By:  Debbie Lindsey
Vancouver, Washington, USA
February 2002

How often do we insulate ourselves from the harsh realities of life?  Within months of my retirement from a 25+ year career with the federal government, I started noticing the growing number of arrests of young women in my own little community.  It didn't take me long to start digging and asking questions.  Within a month, I had enrolled in a training program through the YWCA to learn how to become a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate).

My first case involved a young mother whose four children had been taken from her because of her continued "neglect."  I was shocked to learn that this is an all too frequent occurrence in my own community.  It has little to do with economics and more to do with the accessibility of street drugs.  In her case, it was methamphetamines, or "crystal." 

It was so easy to get.  At first it didn't cost her any money because a "friend" provided it for her.  But, the effects of the drug were immediate and powerful.  And instantly addictive.  She soon started using grocery money to purchase more and started ignoring the needs of her children. 

Unfortunately, this story is all too common. 

Legalizing drugs may take the criminality out of drug use, but it will do nothing to eliminate the heartache, degradation, poverty, and medical problems that use inflicts on the families of users.  All of the cases I am currently involved in have one common denominator — drugs.   

I am just one volunteer who has had her eyes opened to the prevalent use of meth.  I used to feel that in order to protect my own privacy, I must respect my neighbors' privacy.  Now, when I see a child that I feel is being neglected, I act.  Apathy toward a social problem does not make it go away.

This is the first in a series of personal story articles.  We would love to hear your story.  The length should not exceed 1,000 words.  Because of limited space in the newsletter, the News Team will edit your article to fit the existing space; however, the complete article will appear on www.drugwatch.org, “Personal Stories” section.  On request, your name will be withheld, but please include you name, address, and telephone number so that we may verify the authenticity of your article.  Please send your story to: Editor, Drug Watch World News, P.O. Box 318, Carlinville, Illinois  62626 USA

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

·        A new survey published Jan. 15, 2002, found that dancers at clubs who take Ecstasy are 25 percent more likely to have a serious psychiatric disorder than those who do not.  (London Telegraph, Jan. 16, 2002)

·        After four years of legally cultivated marijuana hemp in Canada, the oilseed acreage plummeted from 34,000 acres in 1999 to 3,200 acres in 2001.  (The Western Producer, Jan. 17, 2002)

·        A 2000 study by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) found that about 14 million people nationwide use illicit drugs, and marijuana is the choice 76 percent of the time.  A 1997 study by the agency found that of marijuana users who said they smoked pot at least 12 days in the previous year, more than half reported problems related to their drug use, including negative effects on the health and family life.  (Seattle Times, Jan. 14, 2002)

·        In 2001, SAMSHA reported that 9,109 people in Washington State were admitted to state-funded treatment programs for marijuana abuse.  These admissions were in addition to state and federal programs and countless 12-step groups that operate independently.  (Seattle Times, Jan. 14, 2002)

·        The results of a team of researchers from the United Kingdom and New Zealand, published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, found that babies of women who used cannabis at least once a week before and throughout pregnancy were 216 g. lighter than those of non-users.  They were also significantly shorter, and had smaller heads. The researchers calculated that the effect of smoking one cannabis joint a week through pregnancy is equivalent to the effect produced by smoking up to 15 tobacco cigarettes a day.  (BBC News Jan. 7, 2002)

·        Britain has the worst drug problem in Western Europe.  Under sweeping new proposals being considered by police chiefs, people caught using cocaine, heroin, and Ecstasy in England and Wales may not face court action.  Instead they would be sent for treatment, which could involve drugs prescribed under supervision, paid for by the Home Office.  David Blunkett, the home secretary, has proposed reclassifying cannabis, making possession of small quantities a non-arrestable offence.  (www.sunday-times.co.uk Jan. 13, 2002) [Ed. Note.  How will making drugs more readily available solve the drug problem?]

·        In November 2001, customs officers at SchipholAirport, Amsterdam, complained about the fact that drug smugglers were set free.  Even if the Netherlands has been the scene of a large number of drug scandals, this one takes first prize.  According to customs officers, some drug smugglers were even set free with a receipt as proof for the drug seizure!  (HNN International Centre, Jan. 9, 2002)

·        Asa Hutchinson, Director of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, told a group of lawyers on Jan. 9, 2002, that he and the Bush administration will continue to pursue a balanced attack — including treatment, education, enforcement, and interdiction efforts — to fight American drug use.  “Education and the use of treatment programs — particularly drug courts — are the mainstays of the administration’s war on drugs.” … “However, enforcement and interdiction efforts will be stepped up.”  (Morning News of Northwest Arkansas, Jan. 10, 2002)

·        Even though the Baltic states of Latvia and Estonia are seeking admission into the European Union, they are resisting the liberal drug policy advocated by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly.  Latvia’s drug policy addresses both supply and demand.  It involved prevention, rehabilitation, and cracking down on drug abusers and dealers with harsh punishment.  Pridu Pama, deputy secretary general at the Estonian Ministry of Justice, said decriminalizing drugs could have grave consequences for the rest of Europe.  Daiva Jakaite, head of the justice and interior affairs unit of Lithuania’s European committee, said, “I don’t think the Lithuanian government will allow for any liberalization when it comes to using illegal drugs, and public opinion is very much against the decriminalization of drugs.”  (Baltic Times, Jan. 17-23, 2002)

·        Beware of “medical” marijuana doctors!

Oregon State Medical Examiners have taken disciplinary action against an Oregon Osteopath for not keeping detailed medical records on nearly 900 patients for whom he signed marijuana applications last year.  In many cases, he never saw the patient until officials asked for more documentation.  (Oregonian Jan. 18, 2002)

[Ed. Note, Without seeing an individual, it would not be possible to determine whether a medical condition existed, or if it did, whether  the user was an addict, or if marijuana was compatible with other medications the individual might be taking.  It would not even be possible to determine if the individual was of legal age.] 

·        In response to concerns about the increasing influence of sponsors in medical research, several international medical journals, including the British Medical Journal (BMJ), have taken steps to restrict the publication of research that is not independent.  (Hassela Nordic Network Sept. 20, 2001)

·        There were about 50 illicit cannabis clubs in Copenhagen, Denmark.  In summer 2001, the Danish Parliament decided to take action.  After two warnings from the police, a sign will be posted on the door of the club warning the public that entering the premises is a criminal offence.  The local paper will publish the names of the landlord, informing the public that he/she is suspected of illegal activities.  Some clubs voluntarily closed down, and some closed after the first warning.  (hq@hnnsweden.com, Sept. 22, 2001)

·        Recent research concluded that:

1. Cannabinoids are no more effective than codeine in controlling pain and have depressant effects that limit usefulness. 
2. Cannabinoids should not be used for acute pain. 
3. Widespread introduction of cannabinoids into clinical pain practice is undesirable.

(Campbell FA, Tramer MR, Carroll D, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ.  British Journal of Medicine, 2001;323:13-16)

·        In 1994, Vancouver, British Columbia, experienced an explosive outbreak of HIV and hepatitis C (HCV) among injection drug users (IDUs).  A study of 1,345 subjects from a street outreach program established that 62 HCV seroconversions occurred among 155 IDUs who were initially HCV negative.  The authors of the study found that independent correlates of HCV seroconversion include being a female, cocaine use, injecting at least daily, and frequent attendance at a needle-exchange program.  (D.M. Patrick, Canadian Medical Association Journal.  Hassela Nordic Network, Oct. 3, 2001)

·        WARNING:  An Asian drug-ring made Switzerland the European test market for a dangerous new drug, Thai-pills.  Chemically, the pills are similar to Ecstasy, but they are much more dangerous, notably more addictive, and the tolerance level increases rapidly.  The pills have caused cases of extreme aggressiveness, severe psychological disturbance, loss of memory, and physical disability.  Most of the tablets seized by the Swiss police had the letters “Wy” stamped on them.  (hq@hnnsweden.com, Aug. 26, 2001)

·        In September 2001, Bangkok city police initiated the Drug Abuse Resistance Education project (DARE) to educate 1,500 Bangkok school children about the evil of drugs.  Police Lieutenant General, Anan Piromkaew, the city police chief, said that DARE would be set up in all the city’s 87 police stations, in line with the government’s anti-drugs policy and “social order” crackdown.  DARE was first introduced in Thailand in 1998 with the assistance of the United States.  (hq@hnnsweden.com, Sept. 10, 2001

·        High school athletes are increasingly using muscle-building drugs.  About 42 percent of NCAA athletes who reported in 2001 that they use steroids said they brought the habit with them from high school.  Past-year steroid use by high school seniors rose to 2.4 percent from 1.7 percent in 2000.  Dr. Linn Goldberg of Oregon Health and Science University said, “Steroid use goes along with other illicit drug use.”  Ephedrine, a weight loss drug, is a legal over-the-counter product, but it is a banned substance in the NCAA and can lead to cardiac arrest or stroke.  Fifty-eight percent of NCAA users in 2001 said they had used it in high school, compared with 34 percent in 1997.  (Monitoring the Future Survey, AP Jan. 22, 2002)

• Injecting Clinics Encourage and Maintain Addiction
  Although there are injecting clinics in Sydney, Australia, Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty, Australia’s top cop, has rejected plans for any further injecting clinics, heroin trials, or giving out illicit drugs on prescription.  He dismisses the practices as "nonsense." Keelty says such practices encourage and maintain addiction and fail to deal with the problem. They only treat symptoms but not the causes.  HNN INTERNATIONAL CENTRE  12/3/01 hq@hnnsweden.com

·        According to information released on January 23, 2002, by John Walters, Director of U.S. National Drug Control Policy, the economic damage illegal drugs inflict on the American economy is predicted to be over $160 billion ($160,000,000,000) for the year 2000.  (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov)

   “The only feasible goal for the United Nations is to maintain human rights.  As far as drug policy is concerned, the only feasible goal is a drug free society.” Swedish Minister of Health and Social Affairs, Mr. Lars Engqvist, September 2001

   “If you legalize one substance, marijuana, you’ve accomplished nothing in the economic model, because the cartels will be engaged in methamphetamine and heroin and any other type of illegal substances they can bring in. … You do not prevent the necessity for the court system and law-enforcement operation unless you legalize everything, and no one really advocates that.”  Asa Hutchinson, Administrator, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Jan. 9, 2002

   “Industrial hemp” legislation is all worthless posturing by folks pumping each other up with nonsense. The free market system forces all producers to be competitive. Hemp is backed not by good economics but by emotion and misguided idealism. If the latter counted for anything, Pan Am would still be ruling the skies, and the Queen Elizabeth II wouldn't be so alone on the seas. Like Hemmingway's bull, this movement is dead but doesn't yet know it.  John J. Coleman, Asst. Administrator, ret., Drug Enforcement Administration

HEALTH CANADA:  A Misleading Message

Health Canada is delivering a "misleading" message to the public about the health risks associated with smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes, says a doctors' group.

The charge is made in a report released Jan. 23, 2002, by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. The group says it believes Canadians being allowed to smoke marijuana — as part of clinical trials and special exemptions for the sick — are not sufficiently aware of the risk of lung disease and cancer.

"At this point in time, we know more about the harm caused by marijuana smoke than we do about the benefits," says the report.  "Numerous studies have found that marijuana smoke produces pulmonary damage similar to that produced by tobacco smoke, only more severe."  The report says that smoking two to three marijuana cigarettes a day is estimated to have the same effect as smoking 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.

Among the major findings of previous research cited by the report: 
      Marijuana produces 50 percent more tar than the same weight of strong tobacco.
      Marijuana smoke contains 70 percent more benzopyrene than tobacco smoke.
      Marijuana smokers tend to inhale the smoke much more deeply into their lungs and hold it in their lungs four times longer than with cigarettes.

The report says major health agencies, including Health Canada, the American National Institutes of Health, and the U.S. Institute of Medicine, have all explicitly recognized the severity of these risks.

Indeed, Health Canada's own public documents do make mention of the risks. Some side effects were outlined in regulations prepared last year to legally allow some sick people to smoke marijuana to alleviate symptoms of certain diseases. Among them, said the government, were respiratory problems.  "Marijuana causes lung damage similar to that caused by tobacco smoke," said the department. "These long-term risks must be considered in long-term use by patients with chronic diseases. They may be of lesser concern where short-term use of marijuana is being proposed."

However, the report by Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada says: "Health Canada's emphasis on the lack of determinate evidence about the safety of marijuana is at best misleading, at worst unethical."

Source: Vancouver Sun (CNBC)
Author: Mark Kennedy
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2002

FROM THE DESK OF CHARLES PERKINS
President, Drug Watch International  

As the newly elected President of Drug Watch International, I attended a round-table discussion with approximately 25 prevention organizations, where drug prevention issues were addressed from a variety of perspectives.  The meeting was hosted by John Walters, the newly appointed chief administrator of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). 

Mr. Walters referred to a speech by President Bush and stated that the purpose of this meeting was to discover what drug prevention strategies have worked in the past and are currently working.  Each representative briefly gave their assessment.  The consensus was that, if drug prevention is to succeed, we must reintroduce the participation of youth and parents, as has always been stressed by Drug Watch International.  Mr. Walters also spoke of the importance of involving the faith-based community as a source for relaying prevention information. 

Mr. Walters’ sincere concern and commitment to drug prevention left me hopeful that ONDCP would become more pro-active and provide the necessary leadership in the area of prevention. 

In January, I traveled across the United States meeting with various Drug Watch International board members.  In New Jersey, through board member Linda Ledger, I had an opportunity to visit a school that exemplified the positives of the Safe & Drug Free Schools Program in the United States.  If all schools in all countries were to adopt similar programs, drug prevention would be a lot easier.  For details of the Safe & Drug Free Schools Program, contact Linda Ledger through the Drug Watch International office.  (phone 402-384-9212, e-mail drugwatch6@aol.com)

I returned to Washington, where DW Public Policy Advisor Maggie Petito, DW Special Member John Coleman, and I met with Asa Hutchinson, Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  We offered the benefit of our expertise, including that of the Drug Watch International communication network and the experts in the Drug Watch International Drug Strategy Institute as the DEA seeks to reduce the demand for drugs around the world.  Mr. Hutchinson was favorably impressed with the “Drug Watch World News,” particularly the recent issue on narco-terrorism.

On February 22, I again met with Mr. Walters, privately, to discuss the work of Drug Watch International and how our international drug prevention network might be of assistance to ONDCP.

On behalf of Drug Watch International, I would like to congratulate preventionists in New Mexico for their successful efforts to halt four separate legislative bills that would have liberalized drug laws in that state.  The New Mexico victory was a great example of what dedicated people can do with little funding, even when opposed by drug legalizers with their very deep pockets.  This effort also exemplified the value of the networking abilities of Drug Watch, whose members played a major role.

In closing, I would like to share with you a quote from an e-mail that crossed my desk.  “Quackwatch” (www.quackwatch.com), a non-profit organization dedicated to fighting health-related frauds, myth, fads, and fallacies humorously advises quacks to, “Promote your theories through books and talk shows.  If challenged to prove your claims, say that you lack the money for research, that you are too busy getting sick people well, and that your clinical results speak for themselves.”  This describes quite accurately the strategy used by those promoting the medical excuse marijuana scam.    

Charles Perkins is a drug education specialist, editor of a quarterly newsletter, and a Webmaster.  He is President of Drug Watch International; co-founder and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Lambton Families In Action For Drug Education, Ontario, Canada.

Mr. Perkins has lectured internationally to students, adults, law enforcement officers, community groups, educators, and health care professionals.  He is a Resource Speaker for the Ontario Provincial Police V.I.P. (Values, Influences & Peers) Programme.  He is a speaker for the Lambton Health Unit in Sarnia, Ontario, the Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving, PRIDE conferences, Parents Without Partners Regional conferences, and Ontario Crime Prevention conferences.  He does in-service seminars for the Lambton County Board of Education.

Mr. Perkins has been a Government of Canada special witness on cannabis sativa/hemp and drug paraphernalia, and he is past Chairman of the Employee Assistance Program Committee for Suncor Energy. 

Among the honours Mr. Perkins has received are: The Canada Volunteer Award; The Governor General’s Commemorative Medal For The 125^th Anniversary of the Confederation of Canada for community service; Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General Crime Prevention Award; Addiction Research Foundation Community Achievement Award; City of Sarnia Mayor’s Honour Role; Optimist Respect For Law Commendation; and PRIDE Canada Parent Volunteer Award.

Return to Drug Watch International Homepage

This page was last updated on September 04, 2002
Copyright © 2001-2002 Drug Watch International. All rights reserved. Disclaimer
International NGO in Special Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
Please address all comments and questions to:  
Drug Watch International, P.O. Box 45218, Omaha, NE  68145-0218, USA