Drug Watch International
DRUG WATCH WORLD NEWS
|
Vol. VIII; 2003 |
Number 3 |
Pro-Drug
Advocates Market Marijuana To State Legislatures
"Medical" Marijuana is a Hoax!
Since the early 1970s, there have been repeated attempts to legalize marijuana cigarettes for personal recreational use. In the 1970s and 1980s, these efforts, typically staged by counter-culture organizations, were poorly funded, poorly organized, and met repeated failure.
In the late
1970s, the drug culture began an attempt to gain acceptance of marijuana by
clothing it in the wraps of legitimacy, calling it "medical"
marijuana. In 1991, at a conference of
the National Organization of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Eric Sterling, an
outspoken advocate for legalizing marijuana and other drugs, told the audience
that they would have to change the politics of the people. "Packaging is
important and messages get packaged!" He told them, "...we're
talking about medical marijuana, which I think our key focus issue ought to
be.”
Sterling's
words were given impetus in 1994 when international entrepreneur and
billionaire George Soros advised the Drug Policy Foundation (DPF), a "drug
policy reform" group formed in 1986 to give the pro-legalization effort a
"more professional look, that he would fund their efforts if they would
"...target a few winnable issues like medical marijuana..."
Drug
legalizers heeded Soros's advice and in 1996 orchestrated the ballot initiative
in California (Proposition 215) to allow Californians with certain medical
conditions to grow and smoke marijuana as medicine. The successful passage of Proposition 215 typified how
successfully a well-funded media campaign, regardless of the message, can win
acceptance. This is particularly so when the message is packaged as an appeal
to the human capacity for caring and compassion. The successful advertising campaign responsible for the passage
of Prop 215 was made possible by a tremendous influx of out-of-state money from
George Soros and his wealthy cohorts, Peter Lewis and John Sperling.
Voters were deluged with misleading media messages of compassion for the sick
and dying, and they responded by approving the smoking of marijuana cigarettes
as “medicine.”
After the
success in California, legalizers, using this same strategy, took their message
to several other states that had initiative procedures, and they were
successful in effecting passage of "medical" marijuana cigarette
initiatives in an additional eight states.
Proponents of
legalization next targeted state legislatures and succeeded in passing statutes
in Hawaii and Nevada that allowed citizens to grow and smoke marijuana for
“medical” purposes. States like
Connecticut, New Mexico, and Wyoming, however, were not so easily fooled and
rejected similar legislative efforts.
Numerous other
states are currently being targeted with various forms of legislation designed
to medicalize, decriminalize, or legalize marijuana. Marijuana advocates count on legislators being ill-informed on
this issue. However, the facts remain
irrefutable. Smoking marijuana
cigarettes or inhaling marijuana smoke is not medicine!
Since the
1970s, the US Government has operated the Marijuana Research Center at the
University of Mississippi. There they
grow and process marijuana for research, monitoring marijuana research all over
the world. The marijuana they provide
is standardized, free of contamination, and consistent in potency. By January
2001, over 15,000 scientific, peer-reviewed research studies of marijuana had
been published, and not one has shown marijuana to be a safe or effective
medicine for any condition.
Smoking
marijuana has been promoted as a "compassionate" move for the sick
and dying...to assist people with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, and Multiple
Sclerosis. Yet, for each of these
conditions, there already exist numerous safe and effective FDA approved
medications.
Legitimate
medical organizations such as the American Medical Association, American Cancer
society, National Multiple Sclerosis Association, American Academy of
Ophthalmology, National Eye Institute, National Cancer Institute, National
Institute for Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Dental
Research, and the National Institute on Allergy and Infectious Diseases state
that marijuana has not been scientifically shown to be safe or effective as
medicine.
Legalizing
marijuana through the political process bypasses the safeguards established by
the Food and Drug Administration that have been established to protect the
public from dangerous or ineffective drugs.
Medicine must not be determined by political debate, but approved only
after rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific research shows that it meets the legal
criteria for therapeutic use.
Regardless of
what a state may do toward legitimizing marijuana, the substance is still a
Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, (21 USC 812), meaning, as
a matter of law, (A) the drug has a high potential for abuse; (B) the drug has no current accepted medical
use; and (C) the drug lacks accepted safety for use even under medical
supervision. Possession, cultivation,
and distribution remain illegal acts under federal law and international
treaties to which the US is a signatory.
Dr. Robert
DuPont, the former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, succinctly
observed, "...Never in the history of modern medicine has burning leaves
been considered medicine. Those of the
medical marijuana movement are putting on white coats and expressing concerns
about the sick. But people need to see this for what it is...a fraud and a
hoax."
One Person Can!
A Connecticut Legislator's Successful Fight to Defeat Legalization of "Medical" Marijuana
With a billion-dollar budget gap looming and the 2003 session in its final two weeks, Connecticut House members spent the better part of a day debating and defeating legislation to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.
For three hours, legislators debated the pros and cons of allowing people to possess, grow, and smoke marijuana if a doctor certified that it would help ease pain or nausea. Others passionately questioned the message it would send to our children, especially given evidence that marijuana itself is harmful and often leads to use of increasingly dangerous drugs. Still others raised legal concerns that the state legislature would contradict federal law that still outlaws marijuana as a controlled dangerous substance.
In the end, the House rejected Connecticut's move toward limited legalization of marijuana for medical use by a 79-64 vote. As a former member of the state and town boards of education, a former member of the legislature's Education Committee, but most of all as a mother of three I felt strongly compelled to oppose the legislation.
Just a week after passing stringent new laws to ban tobacco smoking in nearly all public places, I believe it would have been counterproductive to relax the use of marijuana.
Recent medical advances have derived drugs from the marijuana plant that can be administered without the impure toxic chemicals contained in crude, smoked marijuana. We can be compassionate to sick people by encouraging the use of safe, effective medicines recommended by modern pharmaceutical science, the medical profession, and the FDA.
During the debate, I related the tragic experience and courageous words of Norwalk mother Ginger Katz of the Courage to Speak Foundation, who has contacted me often to help spread a warning to kids all over our state and the country:
"I am pleading with you because I believe legalizing so-called medical marijuana will only make marijuana more available to Connecticut's children. I lost my beloved son on September 10, 1996. He was a college student and athlete. He had a bright future ahead of him, but it turns out he had started using a little bit of pot at age 14. By the time he was 18, he was using cocaine and, at age 19, heroin. He died in his sleep of an overdose. He was 20 years old.... The implicit message this bill sends to children is that marijuana is OK because it's 'medicine'."
After all the debate, one wonders why the legislature consumed so many precious hours and so much staff time and expense on this ill-fated legislation, when more critical issues of public health, economic vitality, jobs, and livelihood of the state's 3.5 million people are still unresolved.
Clearly, our nation's legislatures have more pressing priorities than to expend precious time debating the issue of medical marijuana use, especially at a time when we need to send a clear message that illicit drugs are not medicine but are dangerous and destructive.
MARIJUANA AS
MEDICINE?
The hoax of using a smoked weed as medicine is the Trojan Horse of the new millennium. The claim that marijuana can be used as medicine is proving to be one of the worst scams drug legalizers have perpetrated on the American people. In reality, smoked marijuana is far too complex, unstable, and harmful a substance to be approved as a medicine.
In every instance claimed by legalizers as a use for smoked marijuana, there exist far better, legitimate, scientifically approved medications. Any argument supporting a smoked material as a medicine is dubious — even ridiculous! The purpose of proposals to use marijuana as medicine is simple: make marijuana and other illicit substances more available to individuals and communities in our country.
Before joining the Bush Administration as Deputy Director for Demand Reduction, I ran Interventions, the largest and oldest adolescent treatment system in Illinois. Children entering treatment routinely reported that they heard that "pot is medicine" and, therefore, believed it to be good for them.
"Medical marijuana" is a broadly used but ill-defined term. Smoked marijuana delivers harmful and unspecified substances to the body, cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect, and has a high potential for abuse. In short, smoked marijuana is unsafe for use -- even under medical supervision.
Nevertheless, voters in several states have passed referenda making marijuana available for a variety of medical conditions. The resulting laws are in conflict with the Controlled Substance Act and with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Science, not public opinion, must drive the practice of medicine.
Marijuana legalizers want to set the clock of modern medicine back to a time before the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act in 1907, when Americans were exposed to a host of patent medicine "cure-alls" -- everything from vegetable "folk remedies" to dangerous mixtures with morphine
DRUG USE THRIVES ON MYTHS AND LIES. The real problem exists where wealthy advocates for drug legalization mislead well-intentioned and compassionate voters into passing local referenda to allow the use of a smoked weed as medicine. These efforts subvert the integrity of the scientific process, upon which 21st century medicine is based.
As an American physician with more than 20 years of experience, I have practiced medicine in the most advanced medical system in the world. Americans today receive care in the world's safest, most effective system of medical practice, built on a process of scientific research, testing, and oversight that is unequaled. Medical science is at risk if we do not defend the proven process by which medicines are brought to the market.
Pockets of well-funded individuals and organizations pursuing a political agenda are behind the efforts to legalize drugs and are using the pain and suffering of patients to gain the attention of people in many communities across the country. It is a well-known and established fact that the same people who want to legalize marijuana and other drugs outright are behind the "medical marijuana" movement.
Medicine is at its most compassionate when patients know that they are getting the best that modern science can provide to ease suffering and cure the cause of that suffering. Marijuana is not medicine.
(Taken from a presentation to the New England Governors' Summit on Drug Use, October 8, 2003.)
The Drug Dealers Liability Act...Another way to Curtail Drug Dealers.
By Dan Bent, Esq.
State legislatures are
passing a unique new statute that provides redress for those injured by illegal
drugs. This new law, known as the Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA), makes drug
dealers civilly liable to those injured by a driver under the influence of
drugs, families who lose a child to illegal drugs, and others injured by
illegal drugs. It is essentially a products liability act for illegal drugs.
The states of Michigan, Oklahoma, Illinois, Hawaii, Arkansas, California, South
Dakota, Utah, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Colorado, South Carolina, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and New York (in that order) have passed the Model Drug Dealer
Liability Act. Existing law in the remaining 36 states does not clearly
establish a means by which drug dealers can be made to pay damages for the
injuries they cause. The Drug Dealer Liability Act fills that void.
The first lawsuit brought under the Act resulted in a judgment in 1995 of $1
million in favor of a drug baby and more than $7 million to the city of Detroit
in expenses for providing drug treatment to inmates in Detroit jails. Two
Detroit dealers were ordered to pay the damages to the drug baby's siblings,
because the baby was born addicted to cocaine and was later bludgeoned to death
by her mother who was high on drugs. In Utah, the wife of a drug-using
professional brought a Drug Dealer Liability Act case against her husband's
dealer of six years. The defendant in that case settled after losing his
pretrial challenges to the Drug Dealer Liability Act. In South Dakota in 2000 a
jury returned a verdict under South Dakota's Drug Dealer Liability Act in the
amount of $268 Million in favor of a woman whose husband was killed in a head
on collision with a driver under the influence of drugs. The defendant was not
the driver of the car but the dealer who supplied drugs to the driver.
The Drug Dealer Liability Act offers an added new approach to illegal drugs.
Since it would be impossible to identify each person in a chain of illegal drug
distribution, the Act establishes a form of "market liability." A
plaintiff need only prove that a defendant was distributing illegal drugs
in the community of the user who caused the plaintiff's injuries, that the
distributor was distributing the same type of drug used by the user, and that
the defendant's distribution in that community was during the period of time
that the user was using. The plaintiff need not prove that the drug user
received a specific defendant's illegal drugs.
The Act promises a new avenue for those who have suffered because of the sale
of illegal drugs in their communities — those who just "don't want to take
it anymore!"
More information on the Act can be found at: www.ModelDDLA.com.
Dan
Bent is a member of the International Drug Strategy Institute and a former
United States Attorney for Hawaii. He
currently resides in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
HEMP FICTION: You could smoke a hemp cigarette as big as a telephone pole and you wouldn't get high. You'd only get a headache.
HEMP FACT: Low potency cannabis (.3%), similar to that at Woodstock, was able to produce a high when experimenters smoked two one-gram cigarettes. This formed the basis of the cannabis culture that developed in the 1970s.
“Industrial”
Hemp…A Legislative Deception
Policy makers in several states are being pushed by activists, many with direct or indirect links to the drug culture, to support legislation that encourages farmers to grow “industrial” hemp (Cannabis sativa) as a commercial agricultural crop. Several things are wrong with this proposed policy shift. First, the US Department of Agriculture and other agricultural institutes disagree with this legislation and report there is virtually no market for hemp as an agricultural product. Second, the US Department of Justice warns that hemp is a low-grade form of marijuana and is prohibited under the US Controlled Substances Act.
Consider:
A 2000 United States Department of Agriculture study, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and Market Potential, concludes, "Uncertainty about the long-run demand for hemp products, and the potential for oversupply in the small, thin industrial hemp markets, discounts the prospects for hemp as an economically viable alternative crop for American farmers." The report estimated that the US imports of hemp fiber, yarn, fabric, and seed in 1999 could have been produced on less than 5000 acres. (The size of the average American farm is 400 to 500 acres, so 10 to 12 farms could supply the entire market for US hemp.)
The University of Kentucky, Department of Agriculture, reports in a 2001 legislative briefing that even if hemp were a legal crop, there is virtually no infrastructure for processing hemp in the United States; there is not anyone interested in investing the money to build one; and "none of the (European Union) countries have a thriving hemp industry." In describing the challenges of making hemp processing more competitive, a University of Kentucky agricultural economist states: "...large multinational paper, textile, and oil companies are not stupid. Nor are they shortsighted. If they can't make hemp work in the marketplace, what type of costs and return differential might small farmers and businesses work towards? That is the crux of the great hemp debate." The agricultural economist emphasized, “US farmers would have to compete with low-cost producers (such as China) on the one hand and subsidized producers (European Union) on the other.”
The US Drug Enforcement Administration banned ingestible hemp products for humans because they contain the toxic, psychoactive drug THC. As of this writing, the ban has been Stayed by the US 9th Circuit Court, and is being appealed. Because alternate products already exist for hemp's non-food applications, a ban on hemp food products would substantially eliminate any economic advantage for cultivating hemp in the United States.
The Canadian government sanctioned hemp production in 1998 in an effort to aid its farmers with what was touted as an economically dependable crop. The reality was quite different. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture conducted a cost/return per acre analysis in 2000 and concluded there was a $107 loss per acre for fiber only; a $24 loss per acre for grain only; and a dismal $48 per acre profit for grain and fiber variety. The report warned that farmers could lose $600 per acre. After legalizing hemp crops in 1998, Canada immediately faced a massive glut in supply. Only 108 Canadian farmers applied for and received a license to plant 6,750 acres of Cannabis hemp in 2003, down from 544 farmers and 35,000 acres in 1999.
A Canadian Government 1999 Risk Assessment report concluded that even with the THC content limited to 10 ppm, "inadequate margins of safety exist between potential exposure and adverse effect levels for cannabinoids in cosmetics, food, and nutraceutical products made from industrial hemp." The report states, "hemp products may not be safe because even small amounts of toxic THC may cause brain and sexual developmental problems in the developing fetus, nursing infants, the young child, and adolescents."
Several US states have considered agricultural hemp and, for good cause, have rejected its application.
Arizona Governor Jane Dee Hull vetoed a 2001 bill providing for the study of hemp. She cited the numerous studies that have already been done and stated the need for further studies was "dubious."
In Hawaii, a privately funded experimental hemp farm was shut down September 2003 due to lack of investor support. In his annual report (2001), Project Director David West stated: "To have a chance of success, the level of funding must be on the scale of $500,000 to $1 million/year, for 10 years.
Illinois Gov. George Ryan vetoed a bill authorizing an industrial hemp study and production for research. He said there have already been many studies showing hemp is unlikely to be more than a small niche crop.
The South Dakota Department of Agriculture has carefully analyzed the research regarding industrial hemp and cannot support the efforts to legalize its cultivation. It is especially difficult to justify when no proven market for the product exists.
The Wisconsin chair of the State Assembly's Agriculture Committee investigated the viability of the domestic industrial hemp market (2001). Findings confirmed the "lack of a strong market for industrial hemp in the United States, at least in the near future.” The study cited problems with high production costs, small demand, competition from international hemp producers, and from other well-established crops. Rep. Ott concluded, "...industrial hemp is not going to be a quick fix for the issues and problems faced by the agricultural economy."
The New Mexico legislature, over the past decade, consistently rejected hemp as an agricultural product. This, despite assurances from the drug culture that the plant required little water — a proposition most agricultural experts found ludicrous in that high-desert region.
Finally, under federal law 21 USC 844, possession of 100 kg of marijuana, which “industrial” hemp is considered to be, can bring a prison sentence of five to 40 years. Encouraging farmers to subject themselves to such high legal and economic risks reflects the idiosyncratic lack of conscience of the drug culture.
References and additional information available on www.drugwatch.org.
Cannabis-based
Medicine?...It's all in the Delivery System.
Over the coming months we should expect to hear heated debate on the need to distinguish the benefits of various delivery systems used to administer cannabis-based medicines.
Let's begin with the proposition that most advocates of legalization have little or no true concern for "medicinal" use of marijuana. This simply is a convenient argument to attract support for their cause and to paint those in opposition as not being compassionate or concerned about desperately ill people.
In the 1980s, when cannabis researchers proposed aerosolizing THC so that its medicinal benefits could be delivered rapidly via the lungs, the pro-drug advocates cried foul, stating that synthesized THC was a poor substitute for the real thing. They argued over potency levels of the manufactured versus the natural plant material and dismissed out of hand any "medicinal" use of the former.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse has studied the influence of delivery systems on reinforcing behaviors associated with abusable psychotropic drugs. Drugs having fast-onset of effects are more likely to be addictive, NIDA researchers report, because they reach and excite the target zones in our brains rapidly and thus produce, within the drug-taker, an incentive to repeat the pleasurable activity.
At present, there are two synthetic cannabinoids that are FDA approved for medical treatments in the US: Marinol (dronabinol), a C-III drug, and Nabilone, a C-II drug. Both contain synthesized cannabinoid compounds that are structurally similar to the active components of the vegetative form of marihuana. Not surprisingly, those promoting legalization of marijuana often dismiss these drugs as worthless. If nothing else, their protestations reveal that their interest lies not with compassion for the ill but with advancing their own furtive ambitions.
We should always assume that the drug legalizers will accept nothing short of full and open use of marihuana in all of its forms. Their interest in the medicinal uses of the drug is minimal, except insofar as it advances their goal of legalizing the drug for recreational use.
We must be mindful that those who argue for smoking pot as medicine are not acting on the basis of facts. As they come to realize that the medical model has only limited potential for reaching their goal, they will, no doubt, move on to aggressively challenge the delivery systems and potency of the approved forms of the drug. However clever their arguments may be, they
cannot overcome the conclusive data showing how toxic the use of inhaled marijuana smoke is for both well and sick people and how strongly such use is identified with dangerous and anti-social behaviors, particularly among teenagers and young adults.
Ireland’s Drug
Crisis Worsens
Heroin addiction is rising at an alarming rate in Ireland and millions of Euros are flooding into the coffers of drug barons. The total amount of the drug seized in the first half of this year is equal to the total amount seized in 2002.
Ireland has an estimated 15,000 users. This is an increase from previous figures of 14,000 published earlier in the year. It is estimated that one in every 100 Dubliners has sought help for heroin addiction since 1997.
Ireland has one of the highest drug-related death rates in Europe, up from seven in 1990 to 90 in 1999, despite the introduction of needle exchange and methadone clinics. Irish Police have revealed that, although the amount of heroin seized by them this year is more than that seized in the previous year, it accounts for only approximately 12 percent of the drugs that reach the addicts in the streets. This is no criticism of the Irish Police seizures; they are, in fact, in line with international figures.
Ireland’s spiraling heroin problem is being equaled by a rise in cocaine and cannabis, which are now finding new markets. The disclosure of Cormac Gordon, Chief Superintendent of the Irish National Drug Squad, on drug seizures has come at a time when concerns that the European Union’s failure to entice Afghan farmers away from harvesting poppies will add significantly to the increasing availability of heroin on the streets of Ireland and other countries. An estimated 80 percent of heroin seized in Ireland and in many other European cities has its origins in the poppy fields of Afghanistan.
Based on this information it is unacceptable that the European Union will not spend any money next year to deter farmers from involvement in opium production, which has increased dramatically since the fall of the Taliban. In 2003, the European Union allocated ten million Euros to deal with this problem. This must raise the question as to why no money whatsoever is being put aside for the coming year.
Dublin and other European cities are being devastated by heroin (in spite of the introduction in many cities of so-called harm reduction strategies). So it is now essential that Afghan farmers be provided with a viable alternative to opium production. Without this the reality will be a greater supply of heroin on the streets of Dublin, London, New York, and other cities.
With these alarming facts in mind, it must be stressed that heroin is not the only problem. Cocaine and cannabis use, along with synthetic amphetamine-type drugs, are also wide spread, and in April 2003, speakers representing their governments at the "Mid-term Governmental Review" at the United Nations in Vienna warned that synthetic amphetamines would become the major drug problem world wide.
Physicians
"Recommending" Marijuana as Medicine Run The Risk of
(1) Personal
bankruptcy, (2) Denial of Malpractice Coverage, and (3) Jail.
Usually when drug legalization advocates score what they believe is a victory in a court of law, they widely publicize the particulars. So, when the US Supreme Court recently declined to hear the government’s appeal from a 9th Circuit case, (Conant v. Walters), that barred federal agents from revoking a physician's license for prescribing marijuana as medicine, I expected the usual cries of "victory" from the pro-pot crowd and was surprised when they never came. I wondered why. So, like every good trial lawyer, I obtained a copy of the 9th Circuit's opinion, and in it I found why there was little joy in Potsville, USA. The world should not misunderstand this court decision. Prescribing marijuana as a medicine is not now, nor will it likely ever be, legal in the United States.
The Conant case let stand a lower court injunction that had barred the federal government from revoking the medical license of physicians who recommend the use of marijuana as medicine. But in the opinion, the court wrote "...the injunction did not bar, it did not enjoin the government from prosecuting physicians when government officials in good faith believe that they have probable cause to charge under the federal aiding and abetting and/or conspiracy statutes."
"If, in making the recommendation," the court wrote, "the physician intends for the patient to use it as the means for obtaining marijuana, as a prescription is used as a means for a patient to obtain a controlled substance, then a physician would be guilty of aiding and abetting the violation of federal law." And, "A doctor would aid and abet by acting with the specific intent to provide a patient with the means to acquire marijuana."
Thus, under Conant, a physician, who does more than discuss the use of marijuana as medicine with a patient, is subject to criminal prosecution. Certainly, if a physician writes a prescription or written recommendation or helps the patient in any way to acquire marijuana, the physician could be charged under federal aiding and abetting and/or conspiracy statutes. These are felony offenses and carry jail time. Additionally, a felony conviction usually revokes professional licenses.
Further complicating the lives of US physicians who "recommend" pot as medicine, is the recent practice of medical malpractice insurance companies excluding coverage for claims arising out of "medical" marijuana recommendations. Educating Voices, Inc., a respected Illinois based counter-legalization organization, recently made national headlines on this issue. Their report can be found at www.educatingvoices.org.
Still another risk that marijuana-prescribing or "recommending" physicians run in the US is personal third party tort liability for injuries others may suffer because their patients, while under the influence of marijuana, cause injury or property damage to others.
Because of malpractice insurance coverage exclusions, physician third party tort liability potential, potential criminal charges under aiding and abetting, and criminal conspiracy statutes, a physician considering recommending marijuana as medicine pursuant to state law should have a frank discussion with his/her attorney about unintended consequences under civil tort law and federal criminal statutes.
George Soros...
Who is he and why is he pushing drug legalization?
From news accounts, billionaire George Soros has weighed in heavily against the "war on drugs." Various reports propose that Soros, through the Drug Policy Foundation and the Lindesmith Center (now merged into the Drug Policy Alliance), has contributed millions to legalization initiatives in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington. So, who is George Soros, and why is he financing efforts to legalize drugs like heroin, cocaine, and marijuana?
From various reliable sources, George Soros was born in Budapest in 1930, spending much of his youth under Nazi and Soviet occupation. He migrated to the United States in 1956, and became a citizen five years later. Since then, he has amassed a personal fortune estimated at $6.8 billion, through hedge funds under the Quantum Fund, a company he founded in 1969, and a variety of other funds under other names.
Soros founded the Open Society Institute, a New York-based organization that has funneled many millions globally into promoting what Soros calls "open societies." Soros bases his concept of "open society" upon the writings of Karl Popper, an economist whose quasi-socialist theories have largely been deemed irrelevant.
Oddly, Soros pronounces the United States an "open society," but he stresses the need for reform in a number of areas. These areas include its political system, judicial system, print and broadcast media, medical profession, legal profession, financial system, foreign policy, immigration policies, and practically every other American institution.
In shaping society into his ideological image, Soros emphasizes drug policy reform. He proposes a system that would make most dangerous, psychoactive drugs legally available on demand. In proposing drug legalization, Soros makes the same tired arguments..."If we legalize drugs, we'll cut crime, reduce drug consumption, cut addiction, reduce the prison population, reduce AIDS, and reduce discrimination against minorities."
Soros obviously is not a student of global drug history. Were he so, he would know that America, Europe, Asia, Central and South America, and much of the rest of the world have experimented with lenient drug policy, and the results were disastrous. He would know that in the early 1900s drug availability and use of dangerous drugs was unregulated, legal, and epidemic in the United States. At that time, approximately 70 million Americans consumed 300,000 lbs of dangerous drugs annually. By contrast, 60 million Germans were consuming a mere 17,000 lbs annually, and 33 million Italians were consuming only 6,000 lbs annually. Why the vast difference between Europe and American consumption? Perhaps because Germany and Italy had strict drug controls.
Thus, in 1914, the Harrison Narcotics Act was passed. It was not passed in a vacuum. It was passed for a reason. Americans realized that whenever and wherever drugs are readily available, they would be used and abused. The United States could not afford the loss of lives and the skyrocketing costs of enabling more and more drug addictions.
Not only is Soros badly informed regarding drug history, his paradoxical positions suggest a level of hypocrisy as well. For example, he proposes open and honest elections. Yet, his organization-backed Committee for Forfeiture Reform paid $4.21 per signature to individuals who stood outside Massachusetts' malls gathering signatures on a petition, attempting to create the impression of broad-based support for a ballot initiative on drug "reform." Another example: Soros has long supported so-called campaign finance reform. He has lobbied for limited contributions to a political party. By doing so, he cleared the path to make himself the biggest bankroller of an individual candidate in the next presidential election. He and his pro-drug cronies have pledged to raise and spend $75 million to elect the next president, a person of their political persuasion.
Drug Watch is composed of distinguished members of the scientific community, attorneys, educators, law enforcement officials, and drug prevention and treatment specialists. So-called “scientists for hire” who promote marijuana cigarettes as medicine on the basis of shallow “scientific” studies dismay us. The fact is, although there are more than 15,000 credible marijuana studies, none have supported marijuana cigarettes as having medical value. On the other hand, numerous studies have conclusively demonstrated that inhaling marijuana smoke is extremely harmful. Yet, Soros continues to fund organizations that promote smoking marijuana for "medical" purposes.
Under accepted scientific protocol, when a researcher advances a hypothesis, it is subjected to rigorous scrutiny. If the observed data does not substantiate the hypothesis, the postulation is discarded. But to the drug legalizers, if the data does not substantiate the postulation, the data is discarded. This is an incredible bastardization of the scientific method that has served mankind for thousands of years.
The tragedy is — Mr. Soros is financing a drug legalization effort. Ultimately, this would create a new market for federal payments that underwrite illicit drug purchases for addicts. How much better for an "open society" it would be to prevent one from becoming a drug user and potentially addicted and enslaved, than to try to rehabilitate the addicted, or worse, provide their drugs.
Equally tragic, a Soros-funded organization is working to take the message of drug use into the public school classroom. Their theory is "since kids are going to try drugs anyway, we need to teach them how to do drugs safely." Common sense exposes the idiotic premises of this approach. Common sense suggests it would be far better for an "open society" if Mr. Soros were to spend his millions, not on making drugs more readily available, but on drug use prevention.
The illicit use of dangerous, psychoactive drugs has devastating consequences. Families are destroyed; friends feel helpless; promising careers are derailed; children are neglected and abused; and lives are lost.
Whenever drugs are socially acceptable and readily available, they will be used and abused, everywhere and every time.
The solution to the global drug problem is not legalization, but prevention.
Doomed to
Success — Cannabis Downgraded in Britain
Fall in UK this year came late and glorious; the fall of cannabis law came premature and dismal. With sudden debates in the House of Commons and Lords, Home Secretary David Blunkett made sure he got what he wanted — a downgrade of cannabis from Class B to Class C next 29th January. It will still be officially illegal, but possession is not likely to provoke arrest, unless you try really hard. Dealer penalties are as before: a 14-year maximum.
There was not a free vote in the Commons. Debate time was severely limited. Government MPs were strongly shepherded into the “politically correct” division lobby, despite serious concerns expressed on all sides. Even Blunkett’s own party member, Kate Hoey, asked "Why are we doing this now?" and referred to the notorious "Lambeth Experiment" (an autonomous and local try at decriminalizing cannabis) saying it was “… ‘doomed to success’ from the beginning because the Home Office had decided it would be successful whatever the outcome.”
Some Westminster watchers have suggested that Blunkett, astonishingly, thought a concession on cannabis would silence the pro-drug lobby. Blunkett's troopers had their orders and pushed ahead, simply ignoring all the advances in knowledge made in recent years. His new litany decreed that there would be no increase in use from this relaxation in the law; that there is no “Gateway” effect with cannabis; that THC levels have not increased significantly; that criminalization and prison should not follow a mere joint or three; that no crime flows from cannabis use; that there would be no increase in use from this relaxation in the law; that young people would find this relaxation in the law "honest" and "credible"; and that voters would, henceforth, regard the Government as "brave and honorable — not led by prejudice or emotion."
But the Government was prepared to be led by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), terming it the body which "... provides the scientific evidence on which to base our decisions." From the government’s own benches came the salty rejoinder that the ACMD, being part of Mr. Blunkett's own office, is scarcely independent, has hardly any scientists on it, and, of its 32 members, 13 are known to be linked with drug-liberalizing organizations (but no opponents).
Pro-drug pressure groups may have convinced themselves that no bad will come of this law relaxation, but others are not convinced. Surveys of junior school children showed that 83 percent now believe cannabis has been legalized, and 74 percent think it must be “safe.” Other surveys show that use in the year since the change was discussed has increased amongst the young by almost 50 percent.
At the root of the Government's current philosophy is a fixation with class A drugs (including heroin, cocaine, and crack) as the only real problem. But out on the street things are very different. Cannabis psychosis is now a routine diagnosis in hospitals up and down the country, and in the aftermath of Parliament's ill-advised change in the law, BBC national radio ran a week of accounts by parents and children whose lives have been wrecked by cannabis. As ever, cannabis shows that it is not class-conscious. Victim families come from leafy suburbs or stark housing estates; users range from tanned BMW drivers to the pallid unemployed. Counseling agencies that used to ask, “Why are you bothered? It's only a bit of puff,” now know different.
In a typical story, “Alex” told Marjorie Wallace, director of SANE, a mental health charity, how he had been healthy and promising until cannabis came into his life in his late teens. By 20 he was hearing voices persecuting him and even driving him to attack his own father. Imprisoned, his initial state of psychosis worsened into schizophrenia. Even now, at 24 and apparently cured, if he smells a whiff of cannabis the voices return to haunt him.
Professors Robin Murray, Heather Ashton, John Henry, and Colin Drummond together represent the pinnacle of UK research into cannabis, and they have united to express their concerns. Their specialties span the physiological, mental, and intellectual ravages of cannabis, and no good news is forthcoming. This is conceivably why the Home Secretary has yet to agree to meeting with them. They emphasize that cannabis is a particular risk for the young and that “young,” in terms of the brain’s achieving maturity, can extend well into the 20’s. To this must be added the adverse effects in other areas: intellectual, social, emotional, and environmental health — all part of the commonly accepted definition of total health and yet strangely ignored thus far in our medicine-dominated society. We must remember that public attitudes change slowly; it took 40 years and hundreds of research papers before people recognized that smoking tobacco was not such a good idea.
No getting away from it, the liberalizers have won this battle; but it remains to be seen who will win the war, and (as has famously been said) tomorrow is another day.
Britain is not an easy country in which to practice prevention. Pro-drug enthusiasts still cite the 1960’s prescribing of heroin to addicts as a golden age. Harm reduction as a cipher for legalization was born in Liverpool; needle giveaways abound; libertarian zealots link regularly with European counterparts. Americans Ethan Nadelmann, Mark Kleimann, Arnold Trebach, and Dutchman Peter Cohen are all influential here. Cannabis liberalization is very much part of this picture. The Home Secretary may believe he has done enough to satisfy the drug advocate’s tendency, but the reality lies in the tendency to never be satisfied. There is always something extra to be sought. Legislative bodies would do well to learn from Britain's current pains and resolve not to sacrifice the long-term health of society on the altar of short-term populism.
STUDENT DRUG
TESTING - A Six Year Success Story of One High School
In 1994, I was selected to be the new superintendent of Zion-Benton Township High School (ZBTHS) in Zion, Illinois, a school today with 2400 students located 45 miles north of Chicago on Lake Michigan. Following a comprehensive analysis, the board of education set a priority goal for their new leader — "create a drug-free environment during the school day and at all school-related activities." Board members believed that the serious discipline, violence, attendance, and gang issues at ZBTHS were directly related to student use of drugs.
This directive began a journey that resulted in Zion-Benton being recognized five years later as a national "model of civility" by the International Center for Leadership in Education in the book, Achieving Civility at School: A Case Study. Although the ZBTHS civility model is very complex and comprehensive, three components are especially critical — school board policy, a Student Assistance Program (SAP), and student drug testing — a policy that was initiated in 1997. Today, nine years later, nearly 2,000 student-athletes have been randomly drug tested during the school day and approximately 100 other students have agreed to drug testing at parent expense, with the results released to the principal, as a condition of remaining in the regular school program following disciplinary action after violating school drug policies.
What has been learned about student drug testing as a result of this journey towards civility in a large, diverse high school? Here is a brief "top 10" summary:
1. Because of peer role modeling, athlete drug testing is powerful in changing the party environment of a high school. Our anecdotal evidence from athletes, coaches, teachers, parents, and the community is that the drug testing program has caused drugs of all kinds, including alcohol, to be used less.
2. If implemented properly, there will be no controversy, and the parents, students, and school staff will enthusiastically support the program. In fact, not one criticism about drug testing has been expressed to a school board member or administrator during the past six years.
3. Students are looking for a reason to say "no," and parents have accepted the drug testing philosophy as being a form of "parent assistance program."
4. Coaches will be the strongest proponents of the program. In addition, many of our graduating student athletes have publicly and privately thanked us for taking the risk of initiating drug testing.
5. Once established, drug testing merely becomes part of how a caring high school, committed to being safe and drug-free, "does business." In fact, three years ago, as the school board considered drastic budget cuts, the Student Assistance Program and drug testing were the lowest rated items to be considered for elimination.
6. The program MUST be marketed by the superintendent and principal as an effort to help, not catch, students. We always tell parents that the program will be most successful if no student ever tests positive. We care so much that we will do everything possible to insure a drug-free environment for our students.
7. All of our students, not just athletes, are encouraged to self-refer to our SAP if they are concerned about drug issues. ZBTHS has 40 staff members who have received over 80 hours of training in drug issues and conducting student support groups. Today, two-thirds of the 150 students a year who participate in a support group co-facilitated by staff members are self-referrals.
8. It is easy to expel students who are under the influence of or possess drugs at school. It is far more effective to mandate that these students, and their parents, appear in front of the school board for an expulsion hearing. And, if they exhibit remorse, have a supportive parent, agree to frequent drug testing, enroll in the SAP, plus other conditions of a tough expulsion abeyance contract, may return to school to obtain their education
9. One thing that nearly all students who use drugs have in common is that they do not tell the truth. They often claim it was "the first time." "I'll never do it again if you give me another chance." They lie to their parents about how much they use. If we are to help students, we must make them accountable. In my 33 years as a high school principal or superintendent, drug testing is the only reliable way I have found to insure accountability.
10. A program of student drug testing is a demonstration of how much we care. We care enough to want all of our students to be drug-free and to use every means at our disposal to protect the single most important resource of our nation — our children.
Gary Fields can be contacted at: garyfieldssap@hotmail.com
Voices of the
Victims
Matt’s drug of choice was heroin, although that wasn’t what he started with. He began experimenting with alcohol, marijuana, Ecstasy, cocaine, and eventually heroin. He was a full-blown heroin addict by the age of 19, and if you think that’s an easy thing for parents to admit, you are sadly mistaken. The only thing Matt could focus on was his next fix. Not being able to hold a job, he began to steal to afford his habit.
We had gone the “rehab route” with Matt so many times, but he ran from each of them, committing numerous crimes along the way. It wasn’t until he spent over a year in the county jail facing a possibility of 15 years in the state penitentiary that he realized he needed to kick the drugs.
This took a huge toll on our family life. We have three children, and in the course of all of this, we lost our oldest son to a non-drug related death. Matt was in jail at the time, and trying to help him deal with the loss of his brother was devastating. Most families are torn apart by addiction, not to mention the death of a child, but going through all of this has brought us closer together. We drew strength from and supported one another. For that I am thankful.
So you ask, “Where would our family be without the drug court?” My son Matt would either be in the state penitentiary or dead. I fear the latter. The drug court has given him a whole new chance on life. Matt has been sober now for over 20 months, and we support his “clean” lifestyle. We feel so fortunate to be a part of this program. After all, how many times in our lifetime do we get a “do over”? And that’s what Matt has gotten, thanks to Judge Doyle.
INTERNATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS
References available on request. Send self-addressed,
stamped envelope to:
Drug Watch World News * P.O. Box 318 * Carlinville,
Illinois 62626
- The
influence of family and peers on adolescent substance abuse has been well
documented; however, new studies find that family monitoring and rules had
a stronger protective effect for males than for females. (NIDA Notes,
August 2003.)
- Among ethnic groups, Native Americans are most likely and Asian Americans least likely to have used marijuana with the past month. (Wallace, J.M., et al. Addiction 98 (2):225-234, 2003.)
- Research is providing an inside look at the impact of drugs on the brain. “Imaging techniques are providing new views of brain structure and activity, allowing researchers to watch small brain structures in minute detail and observe changes over fractions of seconds after drugs enter the brain’s tissues.” (Nora D. Volkow, MD, Dir. National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIDA Notes, August 2003.)
- New MRI scans that are relatively simple and inexpensive to administer are being used to measure blood flow in the brain. The MRI scans have confirmed earlier PET scans showing methamphetamine-induced damage to brain cells, similar to that found in sub clinical Parkinsonism. MRI scans may also prove helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of drug treatment techniques as well as the long-term brain damage attributed to drug use and whether the damage can be reversed. (Chang, L., et al. Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging, 114(2):65-79, 2002.)
- The World Health organization estimates there are more than 35 million methamphetamine users worldwide, making it the most widely used illicit drug after cannabis. The United Nations says there are more meth users worldwide than users of cocaine and heroin combined. (Vancouver Sun, British Columbia, Canada, Nov. 3, 2003.)
- Recent studies in Britain revealed that some cannabis extracts might combat multiple sclerosis symptoms. The study shows hope, but the researchers stress that more research is needed. It should be noted that the pills used in the study were not “marijuana” but rather individual compounds derived from the cannabis plant. (John Zajicek, University of Plymouth, Luanne Metz and Stacey Page, University of Calgary, Lancet, Nov. 2003.)
- A study in Pakistan indicated that the passive consumption of marijuana hemp through milk products is a serious problem. Where dairy animals are allowed to graze on Cannabis sativa (hemp), the milk could result in a low-to-moderate level of chronic exposure to THC and other metabolites, especially among children raised on this milk. (McDougal & Walluks, THC in the Food Supply, 2000. Agnad GR; Ahmad, N., Journal of Toxicology, Clinical Toxicology, 1990, 28:2, 255-260.)
- Apoptosis is the scientific term for the death of human cells, a natural, specifically timed and programmed body process. However, recent research has found that THC, the main psychoactive ingredient of marijuana, induces apoptosis in cultured cortical neurons by binding to the CB1 cannabinoid receptor. Cannabis induces premature cell death in the brain! (British Journal of Pharmacology (2003) 140, 547-447.)
- New York City instituted a syringe exchange program to provide drug users with safer means of drug injection. A dozen programs, spanning all five boroughs, offer anonymous needle exchange. However, HIV has surged in New York City despite the needle exchange programs. New York City is the state’s most infected city, and Manhattan is the most infected borough. (The Columbia Spectator, Nov. 5, 2003.)
§
An
overwhelming proportion of younger drug users are not inclined to utilize NEPs
for free needles. Sixty-five percent of
injection drug users between the ages of 18 and 30 do not use needle exchange
programs, according to a new study done in Chicago, Illinois, and published in
the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. (JAIDS, 2003;34(1):67-70.)
§
German
researchers have found a synthetic version of one of the many marijuana
compounds that may safely reduce chronic nerve pain without impairing thinking
and behavior. If the preliminary
findings hold up in larger trials, capsules containing this compound might one
day be prescribed for hard-to-treat pain.
However, these are synthetic compounds in pill form, not marijuana
cigarettes. LOS Angeles Times and Erie,
PA Times News, Oct. 20, 2003.)
§
In a
joint statement published on September 24, 2003, ministers of five Nordic
countries declared that their countries will never accept the legalization of
cannabis or the distribution of free heroin to addicts – Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. (ECAD
News, Oct. 2003.)
§
The
Swiss National Council turned down a proposition, by a vote of 96 to 89, that
the consumption, possession, and dealing for personal needs of cannabis should
be legal. (ECAD News, Oct. 2003.)
§
According
to a new national survey released by Health Canada in October 2003, Canadian
teens are more likely to smoke marijuana than to smoke tobacco. Researcher Marthe Deschenes said that
marijuana has become more popular than cigarettes in recent years because it is
widely available. “Teen marijuana
smokers appear to be imitating their baby-boom parents,” said Richard Garlick,
a spokesman for the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse. (Ottawa Citizen, Oct. 29, 2003)
§
Britain’s
Parliament voted to lessen the penalties for marijuana smoking, the BBC
reported. Under the change, to take
effect in January, penalties will be lessened and become comparable to those
facing illegal use of tranquilizers and steroids. Convicted marijuana dealers, however, could still face sentences
of up to 14 years. (UPI, Oct. 29,
2003.)
§
Worldwide,
some 30,000 tons of cannabis are produced each year, in 120 countries, of which
the United Nations has identified 67 as “source countries” (i.e.,
exporters). Up to half of the cannabis
consumed in the UK is homegrown. The
rest is imported: most marijuana comes from Jamaica; 80 percent of the hashish
comes from Morocco and Southeast Asia. (The
Independent (London), May 1, 2003.)
In California, when police arrested a pot smoker and
confiscated his/her marijuana, if the user could prove that he used marijuana
for so-called medicinal purposes and had his/her lawyer file a claim for lost
property, the insurance companies paid!
No more. “We will not pay any
future claims,” says Elenore Williams, a spokeswoman for State Farm Insurance
in California. “Our
policies are such that we don’t pay claims on illegal contraband.” (Forbes Magazine, Nov. 10, 2003)
§
Many
of those addicted to pain medications such as OxyContin are turning to
heroin. They find it cheaper and easier
to obtain heroin when access to pain medications is cut off. In Ohio, five of the 10 heroin users in
Dayton investigated by the Ohio Substance Abuse Monitoring Network reported
abusing prescription painkillers before turning to heroin. (National Drug News Technical Advisory, Aug. 18,
2003.)
§
According
to the Quest Diagnostics Drug Test Index for 2002, the incidence of positive
drug tests for amphetamines within the general workforce (non Department of
Transportation regulated employees) has increased by 70 percent over the last
five years, during a period in which overall drug use in the workplace has been
decreasing. (National Drug News
Technical Advisory, Aug. 18, 2003.)
§
According
to a report on drug-related deaths in 2002, released June 2003 by the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement, cocaine is still the leading cause of drug deaths
in Florida. (National Drug News
Technical Advisory, Aug. 18, 2003.)
An October 2002 Indiana high
school student drug-testing survey showed that 85 percent of the Indiana high
school principals surveyed reported increases in student drug use during the school year in which
drug testing programs had been suspended at all high schools.
Ø 94% of principals surveyed
indicated that they believed the random drug-testing policy to be effective in
discouraging drug and alcohol use by students.
Ø 88% of schools re-implemented
random drug testing.
Ø 73% of principals reported decreases
in drug use for 2002-03 as
compared to the previous year without random testing.
Ø 51% of principals reported decreases
in alcohol use with random
drug testing
Ø 40% reported that fewer students
had been suspended for drug use from participation in athletics since
re-implementing the testing program.
(Technical Advisory, Sept. 3, 2003, www.studentdrugtesting.org
)
§
An
investigation was launched after a detective saw a police brigadier popping
Ecstasy while on a stakeout. The Dutch
government, concerned that too many of its police officers are getting stoned
on and off duty, has plans to ban them from “coffee shops” or drug cafes. (The Guardian UK, Sept.6, 2003.)
§
A
recent study in reproductive physiology at the University of Buffalo has shown
that men who smoke marijuana frequently have significantly less seminal fluid,
a lower total sperm count, and abnormal sperm behavior, all of which may affect
fertility. Does fertility return when
smokers stop using marijuana? The
author of the study, Lani J. Burkman, Ph.D., assistant professor of
gynecology/obstetrics and urology and head of the Section on Andrology in the
UB School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, said that the issue hasn’t been
studied well enough to provide a definitive answer. “I definitely would advise anyone trying to conceive not to smoke
marijuana, and that would include women as well as men.” (Report presented at the annual meeting of the
American Society of Reproductive Medicine, San Antonio, Oct. 13, 2003.)
§
Faced
with increased consumption of marijuana in schools, the education director in
Italian-speaking Ticino, Switzerland, announced the start of a “zero tolerance”
campaign. A major police crackdown
launched earlier this year on the production and sale of cannabis has resulted
in the closure of almost all the canton’s hemp shops. Shops selling cannabis proliferated in Ticino after the first
store opened in 1996. By the end of
2002, there were 75 outlets. There are now just two. (Swissinfo, Sept. 20,
2003.)
The latest report from Vancouver, BC, which boasts
the largest needle exchange program in North America, stated that both HIV and
Hepatitis C have reached “saturation” among the injection drug users, meaning
few, if any, of those who are not already infected are left to become newly
infected, and over the past decade, drug offenses have increased by 63 percent.
(Vancouver Drug Use Epidemiology
Report, 2003.)
§
Alcohol,
tobacco, or illicit drugs appear in almost one-half of music videos. CESAR Fax, University of Maryland, Dec. 16, 2002.)
§
Los
Angeles County drug court graduates are half as likely to be re-arrested. (CESAR Fax, Mar. 24, 2003.)
§
The
number of US emergency department visits related to the non-medical use of
narcotic pain medications, such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone, has
doubled in five years. (CESAR Fax, Apr.
7, 2003.)
§
Youths
who report alcohol or illicit drug use are more than twice as likely to think
about or attempt suicide. (CESAR Fax,
Apr. 14, 2003.)
Funding Evil: How
Terrorism is Financed and How To Stop It is
the title of Rachel Ehrenfeld’s newest book.
It is a MUST READ. Ms Ehrenfeld
states, “If you know where the money is coming from, and if you can stop that,
then you can stop everything else.” She points out that the terrorists are
using the drug networks for financing and to help destroy the fabric of Western
society and, at the same time, telling their followers that drug use proves
these societies are corrupt. Ms
Ehrenfeld is Director of the American Center for Democracy, a member of
International Drug Strategy Institute division of Drug Watch International, and
a former consultant to the Defense Department,
§
New
research at the University of Birmingham in England found that smoking three or
four marijuana cigarettes a week for six years could harm lung function and
destroy antioxidants that protect cells against heart disease and cancer. The study’s findings were presented at a
meeting of the British Thoracic Society held recently in London, England. (Reuters,
Dec. 5, 2003; www.brit-thoracic.org.uk)
§
In
September 2003, more than 500 delegates from 84 nations convened at the Fifth
Global Conference on Drug Prevention held in Rome, Italy. The conference delegates officially
reaffirmed their “commitment to building and protecting the Common Good (‘Res
Publica’) by creating and cherishing drug-free communities throughout the world.”
§
A
taxpayer-funded magazine is telling people how to inject drugs, use rock
heroin, and how to beat a drug test.
The magazine, Whack, is produced by the drug user
group VIVAIDS, which receives up to $580,000 a year from the Australian
government … Victorian health officials gave away 5.58 million needles in the
past 12 months, up 827,000 from the previous year. Critics claim the needles are being used for heroin start-up kits
… The Sun newspaper investigation also found that individual drug users are
taking up to 400 needles each at needle exchanges. (Herald Sun — Melbourne,
Australia — Dec. 15, 2003)
In an attempt to stop the
spread of HIV, Scottish Police will now begin giving syringes to arrested drug
addicts. “What’s next? Police giving whiskey to drunk drivers?”
Roland Foster, Staff Member, US House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources<