Drug Watch International

DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS

Vol. VIII; 2003

Number 2

 

 

Don’t Be On The Hook!

By Judy Kreamer

President, Educating Voices, Inc.

 

The Potential Medical Liability For Physicians Recommending Marijuana As A Medicine is the title of a White Paper released by Educating Voices, Inc. (EVI) at a Capitol Hill news conference in July 2003.  The White Paper cites substantial case law supporting the potential liability facing physicians and their malpractice insurers. It also reveals, for the first time, the movement of some insurers to examine their policies and add exclusionary language disallowing coverage for any claim arising from the use or prescription of drugs that have not been approved for use by the FDA for use.

 

Donald Fager, vice president of Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company, the largest medical malpractice carrier in the United States, explained in a Washington Times article (7-24-03) that companies writing medical malpractice insurance are carefully scrutinizing ways to limit their malpractice exposure. They exclude experimental drugs and those not commonly in use because “we are covering what is consistent with accepted standards of care. We don’t want to be on the hook for drugs that don’t have FDA approval,” Fager said. The Doctors Company and TIG Specialty Insurance are only two other insurance companies with similar policy exclusions.

 

Historically, physicians rely upon the Federal Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) process for approving drugs to protect themselves from liability should a drug be unsafe.  In a liability suit, a major “leap of faith” would be required of most jurors to accept a doctor’s recommendation of a non-FDA-approved drug.

 

Substantial case law exists supporting potential medical liability for physicians who recommend marijuana to patients. Physicians who recommend marijuana would find it extremely difficult to demonstrate that they had “rendered quality care” or met the “standard of care” that other reasonably prudent, similarly trained and experienced physicians would consider valid. This is because the necessary scientific research regarding marijuana and its effectiveness, risks, benefits, dosages, interactions with other drugs, and impact on pre-existing conditions is not available, and because there are no quality controls in the manufacturing process.

 

Courts across the country have looked to drug companies’ warnings and to the Physician’s Desk Reference manual for direction in negligence cases. There is no reference to marijuana as a medicine in the Physicians’ Desk Reference, and there are no drug manufacturer warnings to accompany marijuana.  In the absence of an adequate warning accompanying the product, it could be ruled unreasonably dangerous.

 

A different kind of damage claim is raised by physician errors that increases the likelihood of “future harm” to the plaintiff. Clinical trials have shown that marijuana affects all phases of the reproductive process, has more carcinogens than tobacco, is an addictive substance and is often a gateway drug to the use of cocaine, heroin and other psychoactive substances. The latent period between the start of smoking marijuana and the development of cancer, respiratory, heart or circulatory conditions is fraught with “future harm” implications. These potential implications closely follow the claims made by so many against the tobacco industry.

 

Risks associated with a particular treatment are perhaps the most important information a physician can give to a patient for consideration. A key function of a physician is as a learned intermediary between a drug manufacturer and the patient. This learned intermediary position is not possible when a physician recommends marijuana because there is no drug manufacturer, no FDA approval, no standard chemical composition (potency and quality), no standard dosage, no safe delivery system, and no knowledge of marijuana’s interaction with other drugs or its impact on pre-existing conditions.

 

Several courts have held that a physician’s relationship with the patient was sufficient to impose a duty to protect unidentifiable, unknown third parties who are endangered by a patient. Similarly, courts have held that doctors who fail to warn their patients about the possible side effects of prescribed medicines can be held responsible if a patient suffers an adverse reaction and injures someone in a traffic accident. Smoking marijuana diminishes physical and mental abilities. A study conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that smoking relatively low-moderate THC doses impairs driving. Frequently, marijuana is used in combination with alcohol. The NHTSA study found that the combination of alcohol (BAC 0.04) and a low-moderate level of THC produced “very severe effects on driving performance.”

 

Whatever the liabilities that may inure to physicians recommending marijuana, there is a very real question as to whether or not such liabilities would be covered under standard medical malpractice or professional liability insurance policies. Traditionally, such insurance policies provide a defense for claims or lawsuits against its insureds  (physicians) and indemnification for any settlements or judgments within the policy limits. There is no guarantee that these insurance policies will afford coverage for the recommendation of an illegal, non-FDA approved drug such as marijuana.

 

The EVI White Paper can be accessed online at www.educatingvoices.org and hard copies are available by emailing evi@educatingvoices.org or telephoning 630 420-9493.

 

 

 

 

INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS

References available on request. Send self-addressed, stamped envelope to:

Drug Watch World News * P.O. Box 318 * Carlinville, Illinois  62626

 

Ø      Virginia has become the first state to enact a statewide student drug-testing law.  The new law became effective July 1, 2003.  (The Chemical People, Spring 2003.)

 

Ø      Student athletes subject to random drug testing were almost four times less likely to use drugs than their counterparts at a similar school without a testing program.  (Journal of Adolescent Health, January 2003.)

 

Ø      Alcohol, tobacco, or illicit drugs appear visually in 45 percent and verbally in 33 percent of music videos, according to a study of videos aired on three U.S. music television networks.  (CESAR FAX, University of Maryland, December 16, 2002.)

 

Ø      On July 16, 2003, Philippine President Gloria Arroyo ordered weekly public burnings of illegal drugs seized by the police, as well as the publication of mug shots of arrested drug dealers.  “Let us put a face and identity to these people and get the public involved in hunting them down,” said Arroyo.  (Sunstar Bacolod, Philippines, July 16, 2003.)

 

Ø      According to police reports, at least 70 percent of all crimes in Thailand are drug-related.  Drug users number up to two million in a population of 80 million.  Authorities have said that 175 international and local drug gangs operate in the country.  (Sunstar Bacolod, Philippines, July 16, 2003.)

 

Ø      A new study shows that crystal methamphetamine use among men arrested in Honolulu is the highest in the country and rising.  “The problem is clearly epidemic,” said City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle.  (Honolulu Advertiser, June 6, 2003.)

 

Ø      Second-hand pot smoke is causing problems in Netherlands cafes, and the Dutch Health Ministry announced that, as of January 2004, cannabis cafes in the Netherlands will have to provide a smoke-free environment for their staff.  It is estimated that 200 die in The Netherlands annually from lung cancer caused by passive smoking.  (Col Parrett, Australians for a Drug-free Society, June 5, 2003.)

 

Ø      If you think hemp is not about smoking marijuana, think again!  Pure Hemp cigarette paper has added a third format to its premium range of all natural, 100 percent hemp cigarette papers — 110 mm king size for rolling blunts (large marijuana joints).  Pure Hemp is manufactured in Spain and is now poised to take off in the North American market.  (Naturalemphasis, July 30, 2003.)

 

Ø      As the result of a 10-month-long international Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force investigation into cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine trafficking, Attorney General John Ashcroft and the DEA announced the indictment of Mexican drug lord Ismael Zambada-Garcia and the arrests of over 240 individuals in the United States and Mexico.  (DEA Press Release, July 31, 2003.)

 

Ø      About 25 percent of the teens in the Portland, Oregon, metro area who report drug abuse problems say they are dependent on marijuana, compared with 15 percent who report alcohol abuse.  (John Walters, U.S. Drug Czar, AP, August 15, 2003.)

 

Ø      Recent research at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, found that cocaine causes changes in the concentrations of blood factors that regulate clotting.  Cocaine use increases the risk of sudden heart attack and may also trigger stroke, even in users who otherwise are not at high risk for these sometimes-fatal cardio vascular events.  (Siegel, A.J., et al.  Effect of cocaine usage on C-reactive protein, von Willebrand factor, and fibrinogen.  American Journal of Cardiology, 89:1133-1135, 2002.)

 

Ø      Naltrexone, an opiate treatment medication, is used to help patients make the transition from illicit opiate use to a drug-free life.  The medication blocks the euphoric effects they normally would feel if they slip and use heroin or any other opiate.  Naltrexone treatment has been successful mainly with patients who are highly motivated to stop using opiates.  (NIDA Notes, Volume 17, Number 6, April 2003.)

 

Ø      GW Pharmaceuticals, the British company that has researched possible medical uses of individual components of the marijuana plant, has signed a deal allowing Bayer AG to market one of its tinctures as a treatment for severe neuropathic pain and multiple-sclerosis symptoms under the Sativex ® brand.  (Anderson Valley Advertiser (CA), May 18, 2003.)

 

Ø      Twenty Jennings County, Indiana, parents, grandparents and wives of former OxyContin users are taking a former Indianapolis doctor to court under a state law allowing victims and their families to sue drug dealers.  The Drug Dealer Liability Act, adopted in 14 states, holds those involved in selling illegal drugs civilly liable for damages.  (Indianapolis Star, July 16, 2003.)

 

Ø      Professor Robin Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry, London, told a conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, that cannabis users are seven times more likely to develop mental illnesses than non-users and that the drug is one of the leading causes of psychoses in the UK.  Professor Helene Verdoux of Bordeaux University said that her research showed that, for families with a history of mental illness, as little as two joints a week could trigger psychosis.  (London Daily Mail, July 2, 2003)

 

Ø      Youth who consider religion an important part of their lives are only half as likely to try marijuana as kids who don’t, according to recent research. (National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, July 8. 2003.)

 

Ø      The Bush administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let federal authorities sanction California doctors who recommend pot to their patients. The U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled unanimously, “There is no medical necessity defense for marijuana.” (San Francisco Chronicle, July 11, 2003.)

 

Ø      The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld random student drug testing in the case of Joye v. Hunterdon Central Board of Education.  (Argued February 19, 2003 — Decided July 9, 2003.)

 

Ø      More than 2.4 million of the 5.6 million people who abused illicit drugs in 2001 also abused alcohol.  The more heavily someone abused alcohol, the more likely he/she was to use illicit drugs.  In 2001, nearly two of every three American teenagers, ages 12 to 17, who engaged in frequent drinking binges also abused drugs.  In comparison, only 1 in 20 young people who didn’t drink at all used drugs.  (Nora D. Volkow, M.D., Director National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIDA Notes, Vol. 18, No. 1, June 2003.)

 

Ø      Children exposed in the womb to cocaine may have memory and attention deficits that hinder their ability to learn.  They may also have difficulties completing complex tasks or tests that involve distractions, and they tend to perform poorly on visual recognition memory and attention tasks.  Prenatal exposure to cocaine may cause long-term changes in an area of the brain responsible for short-term memory.  (Morrow, B.A., et al.  Behavioral Brain Research 129 (1-2):217-223, 2002; Morrow, B.S., et al, Neuropsychopharmacology 12(3):275-285, 2002.)

 

Ø      Studies have consistently documented high rates of psychiatric disorders among adolescent substance abusers.  Recent research found that more male teenage substance abusers also had disruptive disorders, whereas females had higher rates of depression.  Girls were more likely to be diagnosed with abuse or dependence on only one drug, while boys were more likely to be diagnosed with simultaneous abuse or dependence on more than one drug.  About 68 percent of the girls and 75 percent of the boys were diagnosed with alcohol abuse or dependence, while about 85 percent of the girls and 93 percent of the boys were diagnosed with marijuana use disorders.  (Latimer, W.W., et al.  Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 10(3):310-315, 2002.  Robbins, M.S., et al. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41(4):394-401, 2002.)

 

Ø      Project NHERO (Northern Heroin Route) is an example of success through international cooperation.  The participating countries were the Baltic States, Tajikistan, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Germany, and the United Nation drug control offices in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and in Russia.  In the Baltic Sea region, the purity of heroin at street level has drastically decreased, while the prices increased.  (ECAD Newsletter, June 2003.)

 

Ø      National reports say that American Indians have the highest rate among U.S. ethnic groups of problems related to alcohol and drug abuse.  (Dorreen Yellow Bird, Herald Staff Writer, Red Lake, Minnesota.)

 

Ø      A 1987 study of 50,000 Swedish Army conscripts found that those who admitted at age 18 to having taken cannabis on more than 50 occasions were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia in the following 15 years.  (Professor Robin Murray, Institute of Psychiatry, London, England. Ananova, July 2, 2003.)

 

Ø      The number of deaths caused by toxic levels of the synthetic opiate methadone has increased ten-fold since 1997.  Methadone deaths exceeded heroin deaths in Florida during 2002.  (University of Maryland, CESAR FAX, February 17, 2003.  Times-Union, Jacksonville, Florida, June 7, 2003.)

 

Ø      According to data from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the earlier youths begin using marijuana the more likely they are to use cocaine when they are older.  Sixty-two percent of persons who reported first using marijuana before age 15 went on to use cocaine after age 26, compared to only 16 percent of those who began using marijuana at age 21 or older.  Similar results were found for later use of heroin and psychotherapeutic drugs, i.e., pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives.  (University of Maryland, CESAR FAX, February 24, 2003.)

 

Ø      Tennessee officials report that more than 600 children have been taken into state custody since January 2002, after their parents were arrested on methamphetamine charges.  The Department of Children’s Services said that the number doesn’t include children taken in by relatives.  (USA Today, August 8, 2003.)

 

Ø      Beyond the horrific human toll of 20,000 drug-induced deaths each year, illegal drugs cost the US economy more than $280 billion annually, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.  Drug users cost the country $160 billion each year in lost productivity.  Parental substance abuse is responsible for $10 billion of the $14 billion spent nationally each year on child welfare.  And drugs are involved in seven out of 10 cases of abuse and neglect…Pete Wilson, former governor of California said that advocates of drug legalization fail to acknowledge that drugs are addictive and, therefore, not just another commodity.   (Lou Dobbs, New York Daily News, August 10, 2003.)

 

Ø      Morocco is the world’s largest exporter of hashish.  Reports state that some of the profits from the cannabis trade fund Islamic terrorism. In the wake of the Islamic terrorist suicide bomb attacks in Casablanca on May 16, 2003, that killed 32 people, Moroccan authorities are no longer turning a blind eye to cannabis production and smuggling.  (London Telegraph, August 9, 2003.)

 

Ø      A study done on brain samples taken during autopsies of chronic cocaine users found serious damage to the brain circuits responsible for sensing pleasure.  (Stephen Kish, head of the human brain laboratory, Center for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada.  American Journal of Psychiatry, January 2003.)

 

Ø      Not only are teenagers more likely to experiment with drugs than other groups, the experience also has more profound effects on their brains, sometimes-permanent ones.  The changing circuitry of teenagers’ brains appears to leave the especially vulnerable to the effects of drugs and alcohol.  (Dr. R. Andrew Chambers, Yale School of Medicine, New York Times, June 24, 2003.)

 

 

 

 

A Harmless High?  Hardly!

 

Pro drug advocates contend that marijuana is a harmless high.  Perhaps they had better think again.

 

If marijuana is so harmless, why do more teens enter rehabilitation centers to treat cannabis addiction than to treat alcohol or all other illegal drugs combined?

 

If marijuana is so harmless, why are hospital emergency rooms seeing an alarming increase in admissions due to cannabis effects?

 

If marijuana is so harmless why did 35 percent of emergency room admissions at the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services test positive for cannabis, and only 34 percent test positive for alcohol?

 

If marijuana is so harmless, why did Surgeon General Richard Carmona warn that cannabis has three to five times more tar and carbon monoxide than a comparable amount of tobacco.  And why did he warn that marijuana affects the brain in ways similar to cocaine and heroin?

 

If marijuana is so harmless, why did 62 percent of persons who reported first using marijuana before age 15 went on to use cocaine and heroin after age 26?

 

If smoking marijuana is so harmless, why do studies show that workers who use cannabis have increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workman's compensation claims and job turnover?

 

And if marijuana is so harmless, why did the Louisiana Department of Public Safety report that cannabis use by a bus driver who drove his bus into an embankment, killing 22 of his passengers, was the main cause of the accident?

 

 

 

 

 

Brazil and the “Lost War”

By José Paulo Carneiro, Ph.D.

 

"Indeed, drug consumption levels are not as calamitous as the media would have us believe.  What is calamitous is their social effect.  But an overstatement about this, in addition to being false, tends to lead to desperation and inaction."

 

As in many countries, there is a growing movement in Brazil to legalize drugs, particularly marijuana.  Some politicians and government officials argue that drug use is inevitable; everyone consumes drugs today; the war against drugs is lost.

 

Should we legalize theft because we cannot prevent the existence of thieves?  Should we legalize murder because there have been murderers since mankind began?  Wars against cancer, poverty, and illiteracy seem lost; should we stop the fight?

 

The idea that "everybody consumes drugs" is based on false and alarming impressions that are contradicted by facts.  The notion is stimulated by media sensationalism and by the advocates of drug legalization, many times deliberately using false or misleading data.

 

According to the United Nation’s Drug World Report 2000, only 4.2 percent of the world population regularly uses an illicit drug, meaning that 95.8 percent do not regularly use illegal drugs.

 

What about Brazil?  According to a 1999 household survey by the Sao Paulo University Brazilian Center of Information on Psychotropic Drugs (CEBRID), in the 24 main cities of Sao Paulo State, only 11.6 percent of the population used an illicit drug once in life — or 88.4 percent had never used an illegal drug. A 1997 survey by the same Center, of students from the city of Rio de Janeiro, verified that 93.1 percent did not use any illegal drug in the previous 30 days. 

 

In 2001, the First National Household Survey about Psychotropic Drugs Use was conducted in Brazil. The survey involved Brazil’s 107 largest cities, representing 41.3 percent of Brazil’s population. The discrepancy between reality and perception were essentially the same: 81.6 percent of the population had never used an illegal drug. The most frequently used drug was marijuana.  However, 93.1 percent of the interviewees had never used marijuana, and 97.7 percent had never used cocaine.  These figures stand in contrast to the findings that 60.9 percent

of the interviewees declared that it was "very easy to obtain marijuana," and 45.8 percent declared the same for cocaine.

 

None of these data agrees with the alarming vision that  "the battle is lost.”  So why is there this perception? The phenomenon can perhaps be clarified by the 1999 survey  "Speak, folks!" conducted in the city of Rio de Janeiro by researchers from the Oswaldo Cruz Institute Foundation, a respected research center in the medical and biological areas, with support from UNESCO.  To the surprise of alarmists, the survey verified that 90.5 percent of the young people from the poorer classes and 82.3 percent of the young people from the more favored classes, had never used marijuana, while 96.4 percent and 95.4 percent, respectively, were the correspondent numbers for cocaine. And these were the illicit drugs most used by the surveyed young people!

 

The "Speak, folks!" survey interviewed the educators, of which 86.4 percent said the most consumed drug by young people was marijuana, and only 57.1 percent thought it was alcohol.  The exact opposite was true, however.  The survey verified that alcohol consumption by young people was much larger than marijuana consumption.  While 37.6 percent of the teachers thought the drug most used by young people was cocaine, the survey found that cocaine consumption was negligible. These results show that even teachers are so contaminated with alarming paranoia that they can be completely mistaken concerning their own students.

 

Some defenders of drug legalization, faced with these irrefutable data, claim the data are underestimated. True, some people may have difficulty in admitting drug use; however, serious surveys, such as the ones quoted here, take these difficulties into consideration and use several stratagems to minimize error. In a careful survey, there is no underestimation that transforms a very small number into a very large one, as the alarmists want us to believe.

 

J. Jaber, physician and researcher, interviewed 824 people during "Rock in Rio 2001."  It was a highly biased sample, as there was no shame or fear among the participants of declaring drug consumption. To the contrary, stimulated by the environment of “Rock in Rio,” it would be “correct” to admit drug use.  Regardless, the survey revealed that 74 percent of the interviewees had never used cocaine — a number that would hardly be guessed by the alarmists.

 

The fight for a society free of narcotic dependence is not lost. Perhaps the most palpable example for Brazilians has been the case of tobacco. Education campaigns about the harms of tobacco use managed to significantly decrease consumption in Brazil and have allowed the introduction of several restrictive laws regarding tobacco — solid proof that "wars," seriously fought for the betterment of human life, are not lost.

 

 

 

 

Marijuana Smoking Public Health Hazard

By Dr. Brian Graham
Source: Regina Leader-Post
July 18, 2003

 

In the Health Canada news release announcing the provision of marijuana for medical purposes, Health Minister Anne McLellan admits that the effectiveness of marijuana therapy is unknown, but she fails to mention that adverse health effects of marijuana smoke inhalation have already been demonstrated.

Marijuana smoke contains many of the same respiratory irritants and carcinogens found in tobacco smoke -- many in higher concentrations.

Will marijuana smokers be warned of both the known harmful effects and the risk of further harmful effects that continue to be found as research progresses?

Will Health Canada be liable for the lung damage that will be caused by breathing marijuana smoke, whether directly or as second-hand smoke?

The Lung Association has seen all too many cases of lung disease caused by tobacco and is working hard to reduce the carnage through denormalization of tobacco use.

It is ironic that although McLellan claims to have taken this step for compassionate reasons, she has begun the process of normalization of marijuana smoking, which has an incredible potential for damage to the respiratory health of Canadians.

For those who can only achieve pain relief from marijuana use, alternate pharmacological preparations of cannabis, which do not inflict lung damage, which have been duly proven to be safe and effective, and which are approved for medical use by prescription, could be used instead.

The Lung Association regards marijuana smoking as a public health hazard. Health Canada should not be supplying marijuana in a form that will be inhaled into the lungs with dirty, irritating, toxic, carcinogenic smoke. The minister of health should never condone smoking of any substance.

Dr. Brian Graham is president and CEO of the Lung Association of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon
http://www.sk.lung.ca/content.cfm/contact
Brian.graham@sk.lung.ca

 

 

 

Traffic, Violence, and Drug Users

By Carlos Dias

 

In Brazil, a debate has begun on how to treat drug users, a very delicate matter as they are fellow human beings.

 

Campaigns launched on television show a direct relationship between drug trafficking and violence and point out users themselves as being the funders of such evil.  This non-equivocal statement clearly connects sellers and buyers.

 

A successful anti-drug campaign cannot be established that attempts to separate the user from the natural result of the chain reaction feeding such crimes as robberies, holdups, kidnappings, child abuse, prostitution — in short, all types of violence.  Even if we admit that users have many and varied reasons for using drugs, these reasons cannot change the violence that drug users bring into our society.

 

Another relevant aspect is the dominance imposed by drug trafficking, suffocating the possibility of developing low-income communities, treating the communities as human shields, using mostly children.  Those who follow the news learned that several community-aimed projects became almost ineffective because their implementation depended on the permission of drug traffickers and drug dealers and on the presence of a straw social worker whose services depended on corrupt politicians.

 

An honest national anti-drug policy must emphasize that drug use is itself a self-destructive behavior.  Drug policy must never accept the fallacious phrase, “harm reduction,” which, in spite of statements to the contrary, divides and destroys people and society.

 

The State bears the duty of defending society against the damage caused by drug use that clearly funds guerrillas worldwide, funds peoples’ misfortunes, and destroys countries such as Colombia.

 

We have seen the wars in Turkey and in the Middle East, the poppy crops used by terrorists to fund their international market, and the drugs ingested that provide the funds and motivation to explode buildings, bomb cars, and kill people in shops and fast-food restaurants.

 

All of the above have a single funder, the naive drug user.  It is false naiveté, because no one seeks drugs except by personal choice; no one becomes dependent on drugs unless they use drugs.  The user takes drugs in spite of the health consequences, psychological problems, legal consequences, and chemical dependence.

 

Law enforcement and prevention programs must act simultaneously.  It will not suffice to remove only big traffic dealers from the scene.  The cause and effect between drug use and violence is obvious.  Indeed, in addition to continuing an effective law enforcement campaign against drug trafficking in order to break the chain between drug use and violence and liberate our low-income communities, we must emphasize demand reduction, as well.

 

The way out is not through legalization, but indeed through both law enforcement and education, showing the degradation caused by drugs and the virtues to be valued in our society: family, teaching, formal education, work — quite forgotten virtues nowadays.

 

Lastly, I send a warning to those who think themselves free to choose to use drugs:  Understand the type of people who manufacture and intermediate drugs; learn who are the cocaine manufacturers and dealers here and abroad.  In Brazil, learn who the marijuana growers are.

 

These are slaughterers, extorters, and agents of corruption.  Are we going to promote and use such “unholy” people’s products?  To do so would promote the dependence and alienation levels resulting from drug use.  Drug trade and use undermines the pillars of peace, which are truth, justice, freedom and solidarity.

 

 

 

 

Chronos' Society

By Mario Kupferschmidt , Psychologist

Buenos Aires, Argentina

 

Greek mythology tells us a cruel story about the world's origins: Chronos was the youngest son of Mother Earth, and he killed his father, Uranus, in order to take his place. Afraid that his sons would do the same to him, Chronos devoured each one after his birth.

 

A paradox thus was born: A father, supposed to take care of his youngsters, killed them instead.

 

I have thought on many occasions about this myth and how it sadly seems to represent our society. Why am I saying this? I believe that our society, instead of protecting our youngsters, is devouring them just as Chronos did. By keeping silent, society is an accomplice to the destruction of our youth caused by drugs and alcohol.

 

We live in an anomic society: a society that lacks clear distinction between good and evil, between what’s well done and poorly done, between what is for the good of the community and what jeopardizes it.  Our society begets crises because we have lost the connection between generations.  No longer do the oldest introduce the youngest into society, teaching them values and social norms, introducing them to the world.  We are facing a desertion of roles in the family and the community, and when there is a vacuum, it will most certainly be filled, often by something evil.

 

We speak about family desertion because, as Argentinean philosopher Jaime Barylko said, there seems to be a fear of parenthood. We delegate our authority to others. Therefore, socialization is done, not by a father, a mother, or an elder, but by the media.

 

 It is strange, but if we hear on the radio that a storm is approaching, we take the necessary precautions. This is prevention. Yet, it seems difficult to take preventive measures with our children. We seem to believe that the school, or the state should take that responsibility.  However, prevention must start at home.  The critical responsibility of infusing values and ideals must not be delegated.

 

We must act preventively, and, as parents, we must teach healthy standards that will promote the development of our children. But should we, as citizens, be content with only teaching our children?  I believe that, as citizens, we must assume another level of participation, as important as the role of the family.

 

The concept of citizenship includes rights and obligations in relation to others. It implies transcending individual rights in order to think collectively. It seems that many times we tell ourselves, "Nothing will happen to me or my family," as if this were permission to ignore the social problems that addictions cause.

 

Unfortunately, there is always a silent majority that does not intervene, that does not enter into the debate, that prefers to keep quiet, watching while others take the initiative.

 

Those of us who work in the addiction field know the terrible effects caused by drugs to people and their families. Many times we ask ourselves, during discussions on behalf of the legalization of certain psychoactive substances, why the community doesn't intervene more actively.  This lack of participation is used many times in debates as proof that the majority of the population is either not interested in the issue or supports the use of drugs. But when we ask parents if they would be OK with their kids using drugs, the answer is an emphatic NO!

 

To live in a socially healthy society is a basic right, where parents and children can grow in an environment that allows for the integration, development, and full potential of each family and the community as a whole.

 

As members of a free society, we cannot remain silent. We must discuss, defend our principles, and participate.  We must assume responsibility for our families and for all of society.

 

The Chinese believe that crisis means danger but brings opportunities as well. We face, therefore, an opportunity to reverse many of the current trends. We can become useful in our community, transforming ourselves into a link in a chain that will reach out to all society, propagating healthy social and personal values.

 

Each individual must transmit his or her ideals, participate in and engage others in the prevention of addictions, and gather to influence agendas. If we don't, others will. And then, we will all have become “Chronos” — or at least a silent partner in the destruction of our youth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drug Courts and Their Emerging Role

By Judge Geraldine E. Rivera

 

Drug and alcohol abuse is one of the most serious problems facing our youth.  Seldom does a child who is not involved in the use of illicit substances enter the juvenile justice system.  Alcohol and marijuana, which are as life threatening as other "hard” drugs, remain the most common illegal substances afflicting our children.

 

Typically, children who have entered the juvenile justice system are placed on probation. However, traditional probation with supervision and surveillance is insufficient.  Parental intervention is insufficient because many parents fear appearing old fashioned or distrusting.  Improper intervention and treatment can set the stage for a continuing life of crime, making the child a danger to himself and the community.  The strong link between crime and drug addiction is irrefutable. 

 

Courts looked for sentencing alternatives to the costly, time-consuming, and often-inappropriate revolving door approach in dealing with nonviolent substance-abusing offenders.  It became apparent that, if treatment reduced drug use, it would also reduce criminal activity.  Research proved that forced treatment was as effective, if not more effective, than voluntary treatment, and in the late 1980s, drug courts were developed. 

 

In 1994, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals was established.  The founding drug court judges numbered a mere 12, but by December 2001, there were more than 700 adult, juvenile, and family drug courts in the United States, in addition to 31 tribal drug courts in Native American communities. 

 

Drug courts merge the treatment and criminal justice systems, creating a dynamic that at times turns therapists into enforcers and judges into therapists and social workers.  When judges and therapists join with probation officers, public defenders, district attorneys, and administrators, the result is a collaboration intended to make it possible for offenders to eliminate their illicit drug use and their repeated criminal behavior.  The drug court approach is extremely effective in helping both children and adults bring about positive change.  Incredibly, positive changes begin to occur within the families of drug court participants, as well as in the participants.

 

Key characteristics of drug courts include a variety of approaches:

§         Integration of substance abuse treatment with justice system case processing

§         Use of a non-adversarial approach

§         Early identification and prompt placement of eligible participants

§         Access to a continuum of treatment, rehabilitation and related services

§         Frequent drug testing

§         A coordinated strategy between the judge, prosecution, defense attorney, and treatment provider

§         Ongoing judicial interaction

§         Monitoring and evaluation

§         Continuing interdisciplinary planning

§         Partnerships with public agencies and community-based organizations to generate local support

 

Experience has taught us that accountability through treatment can be effective in deterring crime and changing negative behaviors.   This is not to say that drug offenses should never be punishable by incarceration, or that drugs should be legalized.  Incarceration has its place, and breaking the law should be punishable by incarceration when appropriate.  However, incarceration doesn't cure drug addiction; it merely takes the drug addict off the streets.  For some that's enough; for others it merely prolongs the need for treatment, squanders resources, and has little effect on recidivism.  Incarceration does not solve the problem.  Incarceration with treatment, or treatment as an alternative to incarceration through a drug court model, is more promising in changing drug-offending behavior.

 

Drug courts are an effective and cost efficient way to motivate non-violent drug offenders to follow a rigorous drug treatment program in lieu of prison.  By leveraging the coercive power of the criminal justice system with escalating sanctions, drug courts can alter behavior through a combination of judicial supervision, case management, mandatory drug testing, and treatment to ensure abstinence from drugs. 

 

Drug courts may not be a silver bullet in eliminating drug addiction, but they hold great promise

 

 

 

 

Drug Use: An Issue Against Human Rights

By Dra. María Isabel Pérez de Pio, Argentina

 

Some groups that falsely claim to promote a "drug reduction" strategy say that 2003 started with a strong debate and a renewed global effort in defense of a citizen’s right to use psychoactive and addictive drugs. They state that the subject must be discussed from a rigorous scientific and human rights viewpoint, stating that the State cannot put obstacles in the way of citizens’ self-determination of what they want to put in their bodies.

 

Relative to the defense of human rights and analyzing the problem from a judicial and legal perspective, it is important to mention the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", adopted by Resolution 217 -A- (III) of the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948, which is the primary reference on this subject. The Preamble considers that freedom, justice and peace in the world are based on the recognition of the intrinsic dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all the members of the human family.

 

In addition, the American Convention on Human Rights (San Jose de Costa Rica Pact, 1969, Article 32.2) states that, in a democratic society, an individual’s rights are limited by the rights of others, the safety of everyone, and the common well-being.

 

Drug abuse is a problem that goes beyond the sphere of human private actions because it affects not only the addict but also the entire community. With reference to health, there is evidence that the drug addict is susceptible to HIV infection, not only by sharing syringes for intravenous injections, but also, because drugs affect the sense of risk, and the addict often fails to take even minimal preventive measures in sexual relations.

 

In addition, most intravenous drug addicts, even if they participate in programs providing syringes, are infected with hepatitis C virus, which is disseminated very rapidly. The HIV virus and the hepatitis B and C viruses are transmitted through blood and blood products. This has created very serious public health problems regarding blood transfusions and organ transplants, especially in low-income countries where systematic control of blood and organs is not carried out. This situation affects the likelihood of survival for many people.

 

A society that functions normally requires that its citizens focus not only on individual rights but also focus on and comply with obligations necessary for common well-being. The security of the social system can function correctly only if the active working class is larger than the passive or system-dependent class.

 

Many drug addicts cannot lead a productive life and must be assisted by social and health services, to which they do not contribute, thus increasing the burden for the rest of the population. This situation is contributing to the bankruptcy of the social systems based on solidarity.

 

Therefore, the argument justifying drug abuse as the full exercise of human rights and self-determination is a fallacy. To the contrary, drug addiction is a genuine violation of human rights.  It affects the equal and inalienable rights of all the members of the human family and creates a risk for everyone’s security as well as for freedom, justice, and peace in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smoking Pot For Health Reasons...? I Don't Think So...!

By Ron Godbey, Esq., President, Drug Watch International, Inc.

 

 

 QUOTES FROM THE DRUG CULUTURE:

 

"We'll be using the issue [smoking marijuana for medical purposes] as a red herring to give marijuana a good name." 

 

"Key to legalization is medical access [to marijuana] because once you have hundreds of thousands of people using marijuana medically under medical supervision, the whole scam will be blown.  Once there is medical access and we continue to do what we have to...and we will, we'll get full legalization..."

 

The first quote is credited to a NORML executive in 1979!  A senior member of a pro-legalization organization made the second in 1995.

 

Throughout the marijuana legalization journey, the message has been the same: “Legalize marijuana based upon science, compassion for the sick and dying, health, and human rights.”  The message is pure fabrication, concocted by legalizers to wrap harmful and addictive drugs with a cloak of acceptability.  Neither the US Congress nor the federal courts bought their rhetoric.  Legalizers then took their cause to state legislatures, claiming it to be a "states rights" issue.     

 

Unfortunately, ten states bought into the legalizers’ propaganda and allow physicians to recommend smoking marijuana cigarettes (prescribing marijuana remains illegal) for "medical" purposes.  They did so by very clever, well-financed media campaigns stressing "compassion for the sick and dying."  This, notwithstanding the fact that marijuana has not been shown to be a safe or effective treatment for anything, has not been endorsed by any legitimate medical organization, and there are pharmaceuticals on the market that effectively treat precisely what legalizers claim smoking marijuana treats. Marijuana as “medicine” is a scam and deliberately designed to be an incremental step toward full legalization. 

 

When the drug legalizers came to my state, we were ill-prepared to counter their drive.  Legislators expect lobbyists to be forthright and honest in their efforts to influence votes.  Legalizers will come to your state with vast sums of money.  They will open an office and hire staff, public relations experts, and local high-profile Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian lobbyists.

 

They will wage slick media campaigns.  They will conduct "polls" with questions like, "Do you believe the sick and dying should have access to the full array of drugs to ease their pain and suffering?"  Most will answer, "Yes."  Based on bogus polling, legalizers will contact legislators and argue that 80 percent of those polled support "medical" marijuana.  They will bring in "experts" from pro-drug organizations to hold press conferences and invade your state capitol to lobby their cause.  Legalizers are well financed, articulate, persistent, focused, coordinated, and organized.  But, they can be defeated as was shown in New Mexico and Vermont.

       

We can prevent the further spread of "medical" marijuana cigarettes.  It will take work, time, and effort on our part.  If the legalizers have not yet come to your state, they soon will.  Now is the time to get organized and raise funds. Identify your state legislators.  Get to know them.  Educate them.  Arrange a lunch or breakfast with a legislator and several of his/her constituents.  Ten well-informed voters are far more effective than ten “experts” flown in from elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

Study Examines Impact On Tracheobronchial Health Of Habitual Smokers Of Crack Cocaine, Marijuana and/or Tobacco

 

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of smoking cocaine, marijuana, and tobacco — either alone or in combination — on the trachea, larynx and bronchial tube lining. A secondary purpose was to determine whether the effects of smoking two or more of these substances at the same time were additive. The study group included 241 smokers and non-smokers from the Los Angeles area. After carefully screening the patients with routine lung function tests, all the subjects underwent a bronchoscopy examination with biopsies of the lining tissue of the trachea and bronchial tubes. Smokers of the illicit substances and tobacco all exhibited frequent abnormalities in bronchial linings. Patients smoking all three substances did not show more frequent abnormalities than those smoking both cocaine and tobacco or marijuana and tobacco. The effects of marijuana and tobacco appeared additive while cocaine, when smoked alone, led to the fewest abnormalities.  Some changes were similar to abnormalities seen in bronchitis, while other changes were pre-malignant in nature. (Fligiel SEC, Roth MD, Kleerup EC, et al., Chest 1997 112:319-326.)

 

Comment: The authors note that "despite the growing evidence that smoking is hazardous to health" the practice of smoking, whether of tobacco, marijuana, and/or cocaine, "continues to attract new users." The smoking status of the participants in the study was based on self-reporting, which suggests using caution in interpreting the results. However, the researchers were quite careful in analyzing the data from the study, which indicated that the negative effects, using various combinations of marijuana, cocaine, and tobacco, is additive, increasing the risk for long-term lung complications. The results of this study further indicate that smoking would be a very poor vehicle for delivery of any medicinal substance.

 

 

 

 

Marijuana — The Biggest Area Of Ignorance

 

The big