From [t--f] at [netcom.com] Thu Nov 17 14:56 PST 1994 Return-Path: <[t--f] at [netcom.com]> Received: from netcom5.netcom.com by pwa.acusd.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4) id AA17960; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:55:31 +0800 Received: by netcom5.netcom.com (8.6.9/Netcom) id OAA10926; Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:57:59 -0800 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 14:57:54 -0800 (PST) From: Brian McInturff <[t--f] at [netcom.com]> Subject: Re: Need Prohibition causes crime references (to forward to congress) To: Jerry Stratton <[j--r--y] at [pwa.acusd.edu]> In-Reply-To: <[9411171522 AA 04690] at [pwa.acusd.edu]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 143743 This is the complete text of which LIBER_DRUGS is a subset. It is three times larger and contains much more information. It was originally called HOOVER.TXT and was compiled by Cliff Schaffer. FILE: HOOVER.TXT Contents Introduction to the Hoover Resolution Hoover Resolution The Biggest Studies of Drug Policy Basic Facts About the War on Drugs Where the Cited Facts Came From Suggestions for Strategy (revised edition) Answers to Specific Arguments Show Stopper Questions for Your Opponent Political Strategies Local Action Strategies Sources of Information Some Useful Publications on Drugs and Crime H.R. 3100 The National Drug Control Policy Act of 1993 Transcription of 60 Minutes Show - Rx Drugs Testimony of NY State Corrections Commissioner Thomas A. Coughlin Information from NORML Introduction to the Hoover Resolution by Clifford A. Schaffer July 15, 1993 On December 28, 1992 I wrote to Judge James P. Gray of Orange County, California to ask him to help me draft a letter which prominent people could sign, and ask others to sign, to show that they were united in demanding major reform of our national drug policy. Judge Gray, Dr. Clarke Smith, and I, wrote the bulk of the wording of what was to become known as the Hoover Resolution. By happy coincidence, Kathy Smith, the wife of Dr. Clarke Smith, arranged a meeting with Dr. Milton Friedman and Joseph McNamara to discuss the resolution. News of the meeting spread farther and more quickly than even we had intended and, before we knew it, we had a list of attendees for the meeting which included some of the world's most prominent citizens and internationally recognized experts on drug abuse, some of whom have been in the field for more than fifty years. On February 26, 1992 we met at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, finalized the wording, and signed the resolution which calls for an objective Federal Commission to review the evidence on drug policy and to form a new drug policy which does not do so much harm. A list of these signers is enclosed. The purpose of the resolution is to 1) draft a statement which all fair- minded people would agree with, and thus build a consensus for reform and 2) call for concrete action for reform. Reaction to the resolution has been beyond our wildest dreams. The mayors and chiefs of police of San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose held an unprecedented joint press conference to publicly sign the resolution. Major medical organizations, religious organizations, and literally dozens of judges, law enforcement officials, and others have publicly announced their support of the Hoover Resolution and the call for a Federal Commission to review and rewrite drug policy. We are also beginning to receive major support for the resolution from around the world. There will be more news about this later. The resolution has received major news coverage across the nation, including an excellent article by Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein in the NY Times, July 8, 1993, and a call for the Federal Commission by three Federal judges on Nightline on (or about) July 10, 1993. It has also received a combined total of several complete pages of coverage in the LA Times, the San Francisco Examiner, and the SF Chronicle, the Oakland Tribune, the San Jose News-Mercury, the Baltimore Sun, Newsweek (June 14, 1993), and many, many others. It has received more favorable news coverage for drug policy reform than any other single event of the last twenty-five years. Some of the original signers of the resolution support "legalization" or "decriminalization". However, we do not ask anyone to support or endorse any particular approach to the drug problem. We simply ask everyone to admit that the current drug policy has not worked and that it is time to review the evidence in an open and honest commission and to form a new drug policy which does not do so much harm -- whatever that policy may be. Let's lay the facts on the table, and let the chips fall where they may. I have enclosed a copy of the resolution, along with a list of signers, and some of the more important facts relative to drug policy. We (the signers of the Hoover Resolution), ask that you sign the Resolution and send a copy to President Bill Clinton, The White House, Washington, DC. We also ask that you ask others to sign the resolution and send it in to Bill Clinton. If the Resolution is signed or endorsed by any groups or organizations we ask that you send those endorsements to: C. A. Schaffer, P.O. Box 1430, Canyon Country, CA 91386-1430. Please remember that we are not asking you to endorse legalization, or decriminalization, or any other approach to drugs. We are simply asking you to admit that the time has come to re-examine the facts and fairly investigate other possible approaches. RESOLUTION Whereas, the overall situation regarding the use of drugs in our society and the crime and misery that accompanies it has continued to deteriorate for several decades; and Whereas, our society has continued to attempt, at enormous financial cost, and loss of civil liberties, to resolve drug abuse problems through the criminal justice system, with the accompanying increases of prisons and numbers of inmates; and Whereas, the huge untaxed revenues generated by the illicit drug trade are undermining legitimate governments world-wide; and Whereas, the present system has spawned a cycle of hostility by the incarceration of disproportionate numbers of African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minority groups; and Whereas, the number of people who have contracted AIDS, hepatitis, and other diseases from contaminated hypodermic needles is epidemic under our present system; and Whereas, in our society's zeal to pursue our criminal approach, legitimate medical uses for the relief of pain and suffering of patients have been suppressed. Therefore be it resolved that our society must recognize drug use and abuse as the medical and social problems that they are and that they must be treated with medical and social solutions; and Further be it resolved that an objective commission be immediately empowered by the President and by Congress to recommend revision of the drug laws of these United States in order to reduce the harm our current policies are causing. Name: __________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________ Address: _________________________________________ City: ______________________ State: ____ Zip: ___________ Please send to: C. A. Schaffer, P.O. Box 1430, Canyon Country, CA 91386 and send to: President Bill Clinton, White House, Washington, DC Make copies and encourage your friends to do the same. The following studies are the most significant studies of drug policy ever conducted. All of these studies recommended decriminalization. The overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization. The LaGuardia Committee Report, commissioned by Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, written by the New York Academy of Medicine, and published by the City of New York in 1944. The Baroness Wootton Report, published by the government of the United Kingdom in 1967. The Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non- Medical Use of Drugs, published by the Canadian Government in 1969. Dealing With Drug Abuse: A Report to the Ford Foundation, published by the Drug Abuse Survey Project in 1972. The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, published by the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine in 1972. This is a landmark study, a "must-read", used as a basic textbook at major universities. The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, commissioned by President Nixon, and published by the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. The Nation's Toughest Drug Law: Evaluating the New York Experience, published by the Joint Committee on New York Drug Law Evaluation, of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York in 1977. The Facts About Drug Abuse, published by the United States Drug Abuse Council in 1980. An Analysis of Marijuana Policy, published by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences in 1982. The Report of the California State Research Advisory Panel, commissioned by the State of California, and published in 1990. The recommendations in these reports were endorsed by (among others) the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, The American Association for Public Health, the National Education Association, and the National Council of Churches. In 1988, in a case involving the medical use of marijuana, the Chief Administrative Law Judge for the US Drug Enforcement Administration ruled that marijuana is "probably the safest therapeutically active substance known to man." In addition, you may want to refer to: The Drug Hang-Up, America's Fifty-Year Folly, by Rufus King. This is an excellent history of the narcotics laws. Basic Facts About the War on Drugs 1. Can we win the war on drugs this way? We could win the war on drugs if we could be successful in at least one of three areas: A. We could stop drug production in other countries. There is no credible evidence anywhere that we could stop, or even greatly reduce, the production of drugs in foreign countries. In fact, all of the Federal Government's own evidence shows that this is impossible and it is a waste of money to try. B. We could stop drugs at the border. There is no credible evidence anywhere that we could stop, or even greatly reduce, the flow of drugs across our borders. In fact, all of the Federal Government's own evidence shows that this is impossible and it is a waste of money to try. C. We could stop the sale of drugs within the United States, even though we know we cannot stop their production, or stop them from coming into the United States. There is no credible evidence anywhere that we could stop, or even greatly reduce, the sale of drugs within the United States. In fact, all of the Federal Government's own evidence shows that this is impossible and not only is it a waste of money to try, but it actually does more harm than if we did nothing at all.. 2. How many millions of people will have to go to prison in order to win the drug war with our current approach? There are an estimated thirty million current users of illegal drugs. If we imprisoned all of them, we would have to build a prison large enough to hold the combined populations of California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The cost to imprison them would be roughly fifteen trillion dollars, or about ten times the total Federal annual budget. This does not include the related costs to society which would be caused by the imprisonment of millions of gainfully employed, tax-paying citizens. 3. What is the biggest single reason for the epidemic of crime in the inner city? The biggest single cause of crime in the inner city is the fact that most black men cannot find jobs. According to Federal Government figures, about half of all of the black men in America are chronically unemployed. 4. What is the biggest single reason for chronic unemployment in black men? The biggest single cause of chronic unemployment in black men is the fact that most of the chronically unemployed black men have prison records and nobody will hire a black man with a prison record. 5. What is the biggest single reason that black men have prison records? The biggest single reason that black men have prison records is that, over the last twelve years, millions of black men have been thrown into prison on non-violent drug charges. 6. Why were the laws against drugs passed in the first place? The first drug laws against the opiates were passed because of the fear that Chinese men were luring white women to their "ruin" in opium dens. "Ruin" was defined as associating with Chinese men. Cocaine was outlawed because of fears that superhuman "Negro Cocaine Fiends" or "Cocainized Niggers" (actual terms used by newspapers in the early 1900's) would drink large amounts of Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola which would make them go on a violent sexual rampage and rape white women. There is little evidence that any black men actually did this, if only because it would have been certain death. The United States set a record in 1905 with 105 recorded lynchings of black men. At the same time, police nationwide switched from .32 caliber pistols to .38 caliber pistols because it was believed that the superhuman "Negro Cocaine Fiend" could not be killed with the smaller gun. Marijuana was outlawed in 1937 as a repressive measure against Mexican workers who crossed the border seeking jobs during the Depression and because of pressure from oil and chemical companies who feared marijuana as a competitive product. There never was any scholarly evidence that the laws were necessary, or even beneficial, to public health and safety and none was presented when the laws were passed. 7. How many people are actually killed by drugs? The number of drug deaths in the US in a typical year is as follows: Tobacco kills about 390,000. Alcohol kills about 80,000. Sidestream smoke from tobacco kills about 50,000. Cocaine kills about 2,200. Heroin kills about 2,000. Aspirin kills about 2,000. Marijuana kills 0. There has never been a recorded death due to marijuana at any time in US history. All illegal drugs combined kill about 4,500 people per year, or about one percent of the number killed by alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills more people each year than all of the people killed by all of the illegal drugs in the last century. 8. Which drug causes the greatest burden on our medical facilities? Alcohol and tobacoo are the clear leaders. Some authorities have estimated that up to forty percent of all hospital care in the United States is for conditions related to alcohol. As a medical hazard, few drugs can compete with alcohol or tobacco on any scale. A study at Rockefeller University in 1967 concluded that "Tobacco is unquestionably more hazardous to the health than heroin." 9. Which drugs are the most addictive? According to former Surgeon-General C. Everett Koop, tobacco is the most addictive drug, at least equally addictive to crack cocaine. Heroin and cocaine addicts commonly report that it is easier to kick heroin or cocaine than it is to kick tobacco. One of the reasons is that physical cravings for tobacco may be felt up to six months after the drug has been discontinued, while cravings for heroin and cocaine are usually over within the first month. 10. Do illegal drugs cause violent crime? All major authorities agree that the vast majority of drug-related violent crime is caused by the prohibition against drugs, rather than the drugs themselves. This was the same situation which was true during alcohol Prohibition. Alcohol Prohibition gave rise to a violent criminal organization which is still with us six decades later. The war on drugs will do the same. There are about 25,000 homicides in the United States each year. A study of 414 homicides in New York City at the height of the crack epidemic showed that only three murders, less than one percent, could be attributed to the behavioral effects of cocaine or crack. Of these, two were victim- precipitated. For example, one homicide victim tried to rape someone who was high on crack and got killed in the process. The drug with the clearest connection to violence is alcohol. By some authorities estimates, about two-thirds of all homicides, and seventy percent of all sexual assaults on children are alcohol-related. 11. Can we stop drug production overseas? On December 28, 1992 ABC Television aired a major special on the drug war in Bolivia which, according to the Bush Administration, is our "best hope" for winning the drug war in South America. They concluded decisively that there was no hope and that the war on drug production has already been lost. By the US Federal Government's own estimates, the entire United States consumption of illegal drugs could be supplied by approximately one percent of the worldwide drug crop. In their best year, US Drug Enforcement Agents working together with foreign governments seized about one percent of the worldwide drug crop, leaving 99 percent free to supply the US. The US Government also states that, in the unlikely event that drug production was stopped in South America, several countries would suffer a major economic collapse. There is no credible evidence anywhere to suggest that there is any possibility that drug production can be eliminated in other countries. 12. Can we stop drug smuggling at the borders? No. Any examination of the statistics regarding border interdiction shows quite clearly that border interdiction is an expensive failure. In 1990, the General Accounting Office completed a major study on border interdiction. They reported that border interdiction was a waste of money and that no conceivable increase in funding or effort would make it any better. In 1988, Stirling Johson, the Federal prosecutor for New York, stated that the police would have to increase drug seizures by at least 1,400 percent to have any impact at all on the drug market, assuming there were no corresponding increases in production. The best Federal Government evidence has concluded that there is no way to stop, or even greatly reduce, either production of drugs in foreign countries or the smuggling of drugs into the US. 13. Can we arrest all the drug dealers in the United States? No. Most of the prisons and jails in the United States are already far in excess of their planned capacity and correctional institutions in 24 states are under Federal court order to release prisoners. Arresting all of the drug dealers would require construction of at least five new prison beds for every one which now exists, assuming that no new drug dealers came along to fill the gap. In September, 1992 Sheriff Sherman Block announced that he would release 4,000 prisoners, about twenty percent of the total Los Angeles County jail population, because there was no room to keep them and no more tax dollars to build more jails. For every person who goes to jail from now on, another one will be released. Tough drug laws have done all they can do and they have not solved the problem. The "get-tough" policy is over. 14. What does it cost to put a single drug dealer in jail? The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000, composed of the following: The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000. The cost for an additional prison bed is about $150,000. It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. With an average sentence of 5 years, that adds up to another $150,000. The same $450,000 can provide treatment or education for about 200 people. In addition, putting a person in prison produces about fifteen dollars in related welfare costs, for every dollar spent on incarceration. Every dollar spent on treatment and education saves about five dollars in related welfare costs. 15. What does this drug policy do to the black community? At the present time, one-fourth of all of the young black men in America are either in prison or on parole. Most of them were arrested on non- violent drug charges. In Washington, DC, the Bush administration's "demonstration" city, half of all of the black men in the city are currently in jail or on parole. More than ninety percent have arrest records. The same is true of inner city black men in Baltimore, New York, New Jersey, and Florida. Two-thirds of all of today's black male high school students will be dead, disabled, or in prison before their thirtieth birthday. The majority will go to prison because of non-violent drug charges. For every black man who goes to college, three will go to prison. By the year 2000, about half of all black men in America will have gone to prison. Most of them will go to prison for non-violent drug charges. Most of those who go to prison will be released into society again. Because they are black men with a prison record, they will be permanently unemployable. 16. How does our policy compare with the policies of other countries? Europe is beginning to form uniform drug laws as a result of European unification. Europe is decriminalizing drugs along the lines of the programs used in England and the Netherlands. Most of the countries have already approved the Frankfort Accord, which adopts decriminalization as the primary approach to drugs. Let's compare the results of two roughly comparable major cities which both have a drug problem. The cities are New York, and Liverpool, England. In New York, heroin and cocaine addicts suffer from tremendous medical problems. In Liverpool, England, most heroin and cocaine addicts suffer few medical problems. In New York, most drug addicts are unemployed criminals. In Liverpool, most drug addicts are gainfully employed taxpayers. In New York, crime committed by drug addicts is a major problem. In Liverpool, it is a very minor problem. In New York, drug addicts often have their children taken away and live under miserable conditions. In Liverpool, most addicts live with their families in stable homes and manage to raise healthy, well-adjusted children. In New York, thousands of babies are permanently damaged every year by their mother's drug use. In Liverpool, health authorities report no cases of harm to infants as a result of their mother's drug use. In New York, sixty percent of all intravenous drug users are infected with AIDS, and they are a major cause of the spread of AIDS. In Liverpool, only one percent of the intravenous drug users are infected with AIDS and they are a very minor source of infection for the rest of the population. In the United States, drug use is illegal and the police hunt down drug users to throw them in prison. Four thousand people died from illegal drugs in the US last year and we now have more than 600,000 people in prison on drug charges. In Liverpool, England, the police do not arrest drug users any more. Instead, health care workers seek them out and encourage them to come in for counseling and medical treatment. Both counseling and medical treatment are provided on demand. The medical treatment often includes maintenance doses of narcotics under the management of a physician. Liverpool, England, has adopted the same approach as the Netherlands and has had substantially the same results. They both chose decriminalizatiion. 17. Do the illegal drugs have any legitimate uses? Heroin is a powerful pain-killer and could be used to control extreme chronic pain or the pain of severe diseases, such as cancer. The medical literature shows that heroin is significantly less hazardous than most of the drugs which are given in its place. Cocaine is used as a topical anesthetic in medicine. There are about 50,000 products which can be made from the marijuana plant. It has been used since the dawn of history for the widest variety of uses. These uses include fibers, fuels, materials, and medicine. The first American laws regarding marijuana were passed in the 1700's and required farmers to grow hemp (marijuana) because of its tremendous commercial value for dozens of uses. It was grown throughout the United States as a commercial product well into the 1940's. It was made illegal in 1937 largely as a result of pressure from oil and chemical companies who feared the competition from marijuana. Despite the laws, during World War II marijuana was considered so vital to the national interest that the US Government exempted farmers from military duty if they grew marijuana. Local 4-H clubs were encouraged to have their members grow marijuana and the US Government produced a film called "Hemp for Victory"' Marijuana produces fibers which are ideal for ropes, cloth, paper, and dozens of other products. The fiber is unusually strong, soft, absorbent and cheap to produce. If we grew marijuana solely for paper production, we could completely eliminate cutting forests for paper. Marijuana produces eighty times as much usable fiber per acre as a comparable stand of forest. Marijuana can produce several different kinds of fuel. In the 1800's and 1900's hempseed oil was the primary source of fuel in the United States and was commonly used for lamps and other oil energy needs. The diesel engine was originally designed to run on marijuana oil because Rudolf Diesel assumed that it would be the most common fuel. Mairjuana is also the most efficient plant for the production of methanol. It is estimated that, in one form or another, marijuana grown in the United States could provide up to ninety percent of the nation's entire energy needs. Marijuana is useful for a wide variety of medical problems and, according the the Drug Enforcement Administrations Chief Administrative Law Judge, "marijuana is probably the safest therapeutically active substance known to man," and "it is safer than many of the foods we commonly eat." Marijuana is often the most effective treatment for chronic pain, glaucoma, nausea from chemotherapy, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and other medical conditions. Marijuana can also be used to restore the life of depleted farmland. It grows quite readily under even extreme conditions and actually replenishes and extends the life of the soil in which it is grown. Depleted soil is now becoming a major problem in some of our most productive agricultural farmlands, such as the Central Valley of California. For much of this farmland, marijuana could be the cheapest and most effective remedy. 18. What should we do about drugs? The overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization. Every major study of drug policy in history has recommended a non-criminal approach. This is irrefutable. I recommend that you start with: The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, published by the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine. Where the cited facts came from Figure 2.1 - Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions Historical figures came from The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, available from the Clearinghouse and Data Center for Drugs and Crime, listed below. The figures for the current year to the year 2000 were projected using a simple annual percentage increase based on the changes of the last few years. The figures shown are actually a little low as an estimate of the number of people who will go to prison because it does not take into account the fact that prison sentences are getting shorter with prison overcrowding and, therefore, more prisoners are being cycled through the prisons than would be shown by a head count on a particular day. Figure 2.2 - Prisoners in State and Federal Institutions by Race Same as 2.1 Drug Deaths in the US in a Typical Year Most of the health statistics come from research monographs of the NIDA, published annually. The people in prison figure comes from the Sourcebook above. People Imprisoned for Crack Cocaine by Race Sourcebook on Criminal Justice Statistics Asset Forfeitures by Race Sourcebook on Criminal Justice Statistics Figure 2.4 Rate of Convicted Black Men Sent to Prison Sourcebook on Criminal Justice Statistics Question 1 A - "Peter Jennings Reporting: The Cocaine War, Lost in Bolivia," ABC News, December 28, 1992 US Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) (Washington: US Department of State, April, 1993 B - Sealing the Borders: The Effects of Increased Military Participation in Drug Interdiction, Peter Reuter, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 1988 "Drug Control: Impact of the Department of Defense's Detection and Monitoring on Cocaine Flows," General Accounting Office, September 19, 1991 C - Many sources, including the list of major studies and Sterling Johnson, Federal Prosecutor for the District of New York, in testimony before the House Select Committee on Narcotics and Drug Abuse, September, 1988. Question 2 - The source for the number of drug users comes from, among other sources, the Household Survey on Drug Abuse, a Federal survey, available through any of the sources listed here. The costs to imprison them are based upon figures published by the Department of Justice, available through the sources mentioned here. Question 3 - Multiple sources, including Department of Justice, Department of the Census, Department of Labor. Question 4 - Employment Problems of Released Prisoners, Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, 1992 Question 5 - Sourcebook on Criminal Justice Statistics Question 6 - Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs; The American Disease, The Origins of Narcotics Control, by Dr. David F. Musto, 1973 The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1973 Guinness Book of World Records (information on lynching) "Cocaine Fiends: New Southern Menace," New York Times, February 18, 1914 Question 7 - NIDA Annual Research Monographs; Ruling by Drug Enforcement Administration Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young, September, 1988 Question 8 - Many sources, chiefly the publications of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The quoted information is found in the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. Question 9 - Many sources. For a good discussion of the relative addictive qualities of most drugs, see the Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs. Question 10 - Many sources, including the Consumers Union Report, NIDA Research Monographs, The Nation's Toughest Drug Laws, and others. Question 11, 12, 13 See Question 1. Question 14 - The Department of Justice produces reams of documents on the costs of incarceration. These documents are available from the Data Center and Clearinghouse for Drugs and Crime. Question 15- "The Prevalence of Imprisonment," US Department of Justice, 1980, and The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. "Incarceration of Minorities," The Sentencing Project, Washington, DC, 1992 Question 16 - Many sources, including "Rx Drugs" Sixty Minutes, December 27, 1992. Question 17 - Many sources. See the list of studies for a starting point. Question 18 - See the list of major studies of drug policy. Suggestions for Strategy Persuasive strategies Do's Do your homework. There is enough information in the references I have listed to sink anyone who supports the use of jails for drugs. That's why the reports were written. Judo is better than boxing. You can beat someone with boxing, in which case you knock them down with your weight. Or, you can beat someone with judo, in which case you knock them down with their weight. Judo is always better than boxing when you have to persuade someone. Use the arguments your audience finds persuasive, not the arguments you find persuasive. For example, if you encounter a fundamentalist Christian, nothing you will say to them will have any meaning to them at all unless they believe that Jesus Christ would support what you are saying. So far most of them have believe that drug users should be thrown in prison because drug use is immoral -- that is, Jesus would not approve of drug use. I have found that the best approach to these people is to help them to understand it in their own terms. What I say is: "You are certainly a better Christian than I am so you tell me. If Jesus came down here today and we gave the drug problem to him, what do you think he would do? Would he build bigger prisons? Or would he build hospitals and schools?" When the issue is stated in these simple terms, most of them will come around right away. Avoid complex arguments The supporters of the drug war have, in keeping with their general intellectual level, made the most simple propaganda possible. The eggs in the frying pan commercial is a good example. In order to compete with them, it is necessary to make arguments which are as simple and as easily understood as possible. There are a lot of ways to get really complicated in a drug argument but two of the favorites are arguments based on civil liberties and economics. Please keep in mind that I agree with the arguments based on civil liberties and economics, I just don't find them persuasive to others. Arguments based on such topics as civil liberties or economics are not likely to be persuasive for three reasons: 1) They are complicated issues which take a lot of thought, and 2) Surveys consistently show that a large portion of the American public would readily sacrifice their civil liberties to try to solve some mythical problem. 3) The people who are likely to be persuaded are already persuaded. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, but, in general, most people will not be persuaded by philosophical arguments about civil liberties, or arcane arguments about economics. It may be sad, but it is true. One of the major exceptions to this is property owners. Property owners in California have become very sensitive to the fact that their property can be seized even though they knew nothing at all about criminal activity on the property. Property owners can be a pretty vocal group so they should not be overlooked as allies. Economic arguments, when used, should be simplified to avoid long-winded discussions which do not resolve anything. For example: With $500,000 of tax money we can put one drug user in prison, or we can provide treatment or education for more than 100 people. Which do you think is the better deal? Build agreement. Sales people know that a person is more likely to agree with you if they have already agreed with you. That is, if you can get them to agree that it is a nice day, for example, they will be more likely to agree with whatever else you may say. You get them in the habit of saying "Yes" and they will keep saying "Yes." There are certain issues on which nearly everyone will readily agree. The first is that people who are sick should get whatever medicine they need. If they understand that marijuana can help save the lives of people with AIDS and cancer, and that heroin can help relieve extreme chronic pain, and may even speed healing after surgery or injury, they will usually agree that -- for medical purposes at least -- we should allow the use of these drugs. Then point out: Sick people are suffering and dying because they need these medicines to live. If that was the only reason to re-examine our drug policy it would be reason enough. But, as you know, it is not the only reason to re- examine what we are doing. Isn't it time to examine all these problems and see what really is the right thing to do? Attack the very foundations of the drug laws. The drug laws were the product of racism and ignorance. They never did have anything to do with public health and safety. This can lead to a discussion of how the drug laws came to be (your opponent loses by default); or the fact that half of all our prison inmates are black, most of them there on drug charges; or the fact that in places like Washington, DC, ninety percent of all the black men have already been to jail, most of them on drug charges (your opponent loses by embarrassment). One standard response The following sentence works for nearly anything your opponent may say: "There is no evidence to support that assertion. Every major study of drug policy agreed that, even if it was true, decriminalization would still be a better solution." Preface your sentences Put a prefix in front of your sentences. The prefix is "Every major study agreed . . ." Without this phrase, the things you say will be interpreted as your own opinion. If you use this phrase, your opinions are seen more clearly as the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Also, this phrase will force your opponent to debate on the basis of fact, where they are the weakest, and will quickly flatten their best arguments. Attack, Attack, Attack. It is the only way you will win. Even if people believed that legalization was right, they would still support the current set of laws because they aren't certain about legalization and believe the criminal laws do no harm. They must be made to see that the current laws are worse than no laws at all. You must put your opponents on the extreme defensive and keep them there. Make them justify all of the awful facts. The subject is not legalization or decriminalization. The subject is prison. Keep it short and punchy. Know what you are going to say and trim every excess word. If you are really lucky you will get a full fifteen minutes of media air time to explain everything there is to know about drugs. Hit the major facts as rapidly as you can. Memorize what you want to say Salesmen memorize their sales pitch because, once they have it down by rote, they can say it without even thinking, thus freeing their tactical brain to get an edge on their prospect. Memorize the names of the studies so you can spit them out without thinking. Stick to the issue. Don't let the discussion stray into related social issues. You don't have time for it and most Americans don't have the brain capacity to understand the complexities anyway. The issue is that the drug laws do more harm than good and they must be changed now. Get the facts out. Most people do not know the actual statistics on things like drug deaths, the number of people in prison, the percentage of black men who will go to prison and the plight of medical patients who cannot get these medicines. When they hear the facts, they really begin to wonder about the current policy. Win by inches. Don't try to bring people too far in their thinking. The concept of legalization or decriminalization is a big intellectual and emotional stretch for a lot of people and you could easily spend years getting them to fully believe it. It is simply not practical, or necessary, to try to bring people over to the legalization side all at once. People will naturally come to the legalization point of view if you can simply convince them that our current policy is a disaster which could never work (and that is really easy!). Once they agree that the current policy is not working, and cannot work, then they will ask themselves -- if prisons don't work, what should we do? When they confront this question, they have started down the slippery slope to decriminalization. To quote Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein, "Unthinking acceptance of the current drug policy is unreasonable." If we can just get people to admit that there is a real problem with what we are doing now, and that we must look for a better solution, they will eventually agree with you. An interesting thing happened to Judge James P. Gray. A man wrote Judge Gray a letter in which he started out by telling Judge Gray how wrong Judge Gray was about legalization. The guy tried to tell Judge Gray why he was so wrong and, in the space of three written pages, wound up realizing that Judge Gray was right. He convinced himself once he just sat down and thought about it. Don'ts Don't use the "L" word or the "D" word. Don't use "legalization" or "decriminalization". These words tend to set some peoples heads on fire. If you use these words, many people will go into an immediate complete mental shut-down and they will not hear another thing you say. Besides, you don't have to use the words to win. Don't defend the use of drugs. Don't tell people that everyone has a God-given right to put whatever they want to in to their body. You may be right, but it won't play in Peoria. Many people just view this as an excuse to get loaded (and, in many cases, they are right). Don't advance your own plan for selling drugs. Do not discuss your personal plan for how legalization would work The reasons are: a) you can only sell one product at a time. First convince them whether we should change the laws. We will have plenty of time for how later. b) when you suggest how it should be done then your individual ideas become the focus. If your plan fails for any reason, then your whole argument will fail, and; c) the real secret is that there is no right answer to drug policy. Every idea you will suggest is only the lesser of multiple evils and leaves you open to violent emotional attack. Don't get tied up in debates over the health risks. First let me state that the evidence is quite clear that, by any standard of comparison, alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous than almost any of the illegal drugs. However, the relative health risks are not really the issue. Just because something is dangerous does not automatically mean that the best approach to those dangers is to throw millions of people in prison. We all know that tobacco, and alcohol, and AIDS are hazardous to your health. But we all would agree that prison is not the best public policy for those hazards. Prison, in fact, would be a terrible mistake. It is the same principle with illegal drugs. We can assume that drugs are dangerous. That is not the question. The question is: What is the best public policy for those dangers? On this question, every major study of drug policy has agreed that, whatever the dangers may be, prison is the wrong approach. Every major study recommended decriminalization because of those dangers, and because prison is the worst approach. Bigger prisons do not equal better public health policy. Don't get stuck on questions which cannot be answered. Congressman Charles Rangel likes to ask the question, "How do you propose that we go about legalizing drugs? Should we have crack stores next to liquor stores?" The trick is that there really is no perfect answer, and any answer you give leaves you open to attack. It turns the issue into one of your personal social ideas rather than the objective truth that all studies agree that decriminalization, under almost any scenario, is a better approach. Don't Overdose I generally avoid mention of overdoses because the word itself distorts the issue in a very emotional sense. The drug which produces the most overdoses is alcohol. No one thinks of a drunk high school kid puking into a toilet as a drug overdose, even when you point it out to them. Consumers Union found that there are very few real drug overdoses and none at all for marijuana. Most of the so-called "overdoses" were clearly attributable to other causes, such as impurities in the drugs. Don't get the issues stuck between you People are more likely to believe you and be persuaded by what you say if they feel that you share their same basic concerns, that is, if they feel you are "on their side." Always explain you answers in terms of their thoughts and goals. Your goals are probably the same as theirs anyway -- reducing the harm done by drugs, keeping drugs away from kids, controlling the social costs of drugs, etc. Don't let them have anything. There are many, many myths about drugs and drug use. Like for instance, the old myth that pushers spike marijuana with heroin and cocaine to get unsuspecting kids hooked. It doesn't happen. Licit and Illicit Drugs effectively explodes most of these myths. If your opponent mentions such a myth, jump down his throat and point out that there is no evidence at all to support what he is saying. Make them prove it. You can prove what you say, they can't. Answers to Specific Arguments If we legalize/decriminalize drugs then everyone will become drug addicts. Every major study of drug policy agreed that there is no evidence to support this belief and, even if drug use did increase, decriminalization would still be a better approach. In Europe, several countries have decriminalized drugs and actually seen a significant drop in drug use. We need a combined approach of education, treatment, prevention, and stiff law enforcement. We agree one hundred percent on education, treatment, and prevention. The only place where we part company is on prisons. My opponent wants to build the largest prisons in the history of mankind, and I don't. We have to keep these drugs illegal to protect our children. I agree. That's why I am looking for a better solution -- because what we are doing now is not working. In fact, the current policy is one of the main reasons that drug users find it profitable to get kids involved in drugs and distribute drugs free on school campuses. I believe that we can find a better approach which would stop this. My son/daughter was turned into a psycho by drugs so we have to stamp out this evil menace. (Keep in mind that the person who says this kind of thing is probably under tremendous emotional stress so it would not be polite or productive to suggest that their kid was probably a psycho all along. Keep a gentle, sympathetic demeanor.) We have made these drugs as illegal as they can be and these kinds of tragedies still happen. The fact that your son/daughter became a victim of these drugs shows, in itself, that the current policy did not work for you and your family. All it really does is to make it harder to provide treatment for the people who need it. I believe that there may be a better way to handle the problem, that just might have saved your son/daughter. Don't you think that we should at least explore the possibility of a better way to handle the problem? I used to be a junkie until I was saved from the life of evil and I know that drugs should not be legalized! 1) It is illegal now and that didn't stop you. All it really does is keep most people from getting help sooner because we are spending all of our money on prisons and we cannot provide adequate treatment. 2) Would you be better off if you had spent twenty years in prison? If we really did it the way you are suggesting, you would still be in prison and would not be here to talk to me. You just want to legalize it -- you commie scum! Of course, I have my own ideas about what might be a good solution to the problem, but that is not the point. The point is that we need to bring all of our best minds together to consider your ideas for a better solution, as well as mine. The only way that we will ever find a better approach is by an open and honest discussion of the evidence and all of the possible approaches to the problem. They tried this in Europe with Needle Park and it didn't work so they are going back to throwing people in prison. Absolutely not true. Europe, in general, is committed to decriminalization and we invite anyone to talk to the law enforcement officials in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, or Liverpool, and see for themselves. There have been some policies which the European officials admit did not work as well as others, such as Needle Park, but they are still committed to a non-criminal approach to drugs What do you think we should do about drugs? I have my own ideas about what might be a good solution to the problem, but that is not the point. The point is that we need to bring all of our best minds together to consider your ideas for a better solution, as well as mine. The only way that we will ever find a better approach is by an open and honest discussion of the evidence and all of the possible approaches to the problem. For starters, we might just take the recommendations of any major study of drug policy that you like and start from there. (Then hand them a list of the studies of drug policy.) Show Stopper Questions for Your Opponent Please keep in mind with all of these questions that your opponents will try their best to squirm out of an answer. If you are talking to a politician, they will typically try to put out a ten-minute smoke screen and hope no one recognizes that they never did answer the question. If they try the smoke screen, try the approach listed under Smokescreen: How many millions of people will have to go to prison in order to solve the drug problem this way? Their Answer Any answer to this question is bound to be wrong. If they mention a low number, point out that we already have hundreds of thousands of people in prison for illegal drugs and millions have been arrested and prosecuted. That obviously did not stamp out drugs, so a small increase in the prisoners will not have any good effect. If they mention five, ten, or twenty million, multiply the number they mention by $500,000 and tell them the cost of that approach. For example, the cost to incarcerate 1 million people is five hundred billion dollars; 2 million is one trillion Dollars, 10 million is five trillion dollars, and so forth. Then crucify them for wanting to build prisons larger than the Nazi concentration camps. If they say they don't know, then say, "That is precisely the problem. No one, including you, has ever sat down to figure it out. If you did, you would find out soon enough that it is just plain impossible to solve the problem this way." Smokescreen Excuse me for interrupting, but that was not an essay question. The question can be answered with just a simple number. What will it take, 5 million, 10 million, 20 million? How many millions of people will have to go to prison to solve the drug problem this way? I have here a list of every major study of drug policy in the last fifty years. Every one of them recommended decriminalization. Do you agree that the overwhelming weight of the scholarly evidence on drug policy supports decriminalization? Before you answer, let me remind you that there are only three possible answers to this question. The first possible answer is yes, you agree. The second possible answer is no, you do not agree, in which case you should be able to provide a list of studies of drug policy comparable in quality and quantity to the list I have provided. The third possible answer is that you don't have a clue what the scholarly evidence says because you have never read the most basic research on the subject. Their Answer The answers that I have gotten to this question include: The scholarly evidence is not important. (From Bob Martinez, former Drug Czar) Is the scholarly evidence not important in science, medicine, and every other field of law? Or is it not important only when it comes to drug policy? I don't think anyone really knows the answer. Can you name any major study of drug policy which supported what we are currently doing? (They probably can't.) So we have ten major studies, including the largest studies ever conducted by the governments of the United States, Britain, and Canada, which supported decriminalization and none that supported the current policy. Wouldn't you say that is the overwhelming weight of the evidence? I don't have a clue. That is precisely the problem. You want to tell us what drug policy should be when you have not even bothered to read the most basic research on the subject. Smokescreen Excuse me for interrupting, but that was not an essay question. That was multiple choice. What is your answer; yes, no, or don't have a clue? It costs about half a million dollars to put a single drug user in prison. For the same cost we can provide treatment or education for more than one hundred people. Which do you think is the better deal? Their Answer: Almost no one will attempt to argue that prison for one person is better than education or treatment for several hundred. Most often they will say, "It's not that simple, you can't just say that because you are not going to put one person in prison that you automatically have the money for treatment or education." You answer: It IS that simple. Right now, California and several other states are closing schools, libraries, and medical facilities in order to build more prisons. The money is being taken from education and treatment to fund more prisons. Political Strategies We must win by knockout. I believe that we must pick issues where we can by knockout. The odds are so stacked against us that, unless we win by knockout, we will not win at all. While I agree with the economics and civil liberties arguments for decriminalization, I do not favor the use of these issues as a primary focus. The primary reason that I do not like the arguments on economics or civil liberties is because they are highly intellectual arguments which could be debated all day with no clear resolution. They make people think too much, and that slows down decision-making. We want issues which will change people's minds forever -- and do it today. I believe that these arguments may be useful to convince other people like us, but it will not convince large masses of Americans. There are two primary issues where I believe we can win by knockout right now. They are the treatment of medical patients, and the issue of African-American men. In both cases we have clear, overwhelming arguments which would get the immediate agreement of large masses of Americans. We must build a coalition of constituencies. We must bring people of different persuasions together to support our cause. In our Resolution, we have already chosen a broadly based statement which does not use the "D" word and which could be supported by people of all persuasions. That is step one. Next we, need to formally identify our constituencies and the specific arguments which will be most relevant to those groups. Some constituencies are: Doctors - The relevant issues here are the persecution of doctors and the treatment of medical patients. Medical Patient Groups - The relevant issue is the treatment of medical patients. African-Americans - The relevant issue is the incarceration and economic destruction of African-American men. I believe that doctors and African-Americans are absolutely vital to our success and that every one of us should take immediate steps to recruit them to our cause. We must form "intervention groups" and target specific individuals that we need on our side. We have used an approach which someone likened to an Alcohols Anonymous intervention group. We assembled a group of people that we knew an important person would find persuasive. Then we all went together to that person and explained our concerns in terms that were important to that person. Then we asked for support, not for the "D" word, but for general drug policy reform. This technique is highly effective and will enable us to change the thinking of many important people, or at least start them down the slippery slope to the "D" word. I believe that we should all commit to participating in at least one of these intervention groups to change the mind of at least one important person. We must seek action. We have already asked for public hearings. As many of you have already stated, public hearings may not come about and, even if they do, they may not change anything. Therefore, we must seek other means which will also bring about clear public confrontations on the issue. When those confrontations occur, we must all respond unanimously. We must provide support for people who speak out for drug policy reform. We all know that many people are reluctant to speak out for reform because of the McCarthy-like tactics of our opposition. We must come to the defense of anyone who is criticized or vilified because of their support for a change in drug policy. Point out that people are not vilified because they are Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian, but people are vilified if they even want to discuss a different drug policy. This is McCarthyism. Local Action strategies 1. Read the newspapers and respond. Make it a point to read the largest newspapers in your area and be alert for drug-policy related news stories. Write short, punchy letters to the editor to make your views heard. 2. Contact the talk shows in your area. Most TV and radio talk shows need a steady stream of controversial subjects to make the shows interesting. Sooner or later, they will all do a show on drug policy. Go through your TV listings and locate all talk and news shows. Call the stations and ask for the producers of the show. In most cases, it will surprise you how easy it is to get through. Tell them about the resolution and the people supporting it. Let them know that there are prominent people now willing to come forward and debate this idea publicly. Producers are probably extremely busy, so keep it short, punchy, and sweet. Have some juicy "sound bites" planned to stimulate interest. Follow up with a letter and printed material such as the things I have enclosed. Keep in touch with them every ninety days or so, just to make sure that they don't forget you. If you get a spot on a good TV show and then don't know what to do -- call me. We'll work something out. 3. Develop a constituency. Contact groups and members of groups to put on a presentation and persuade them to support the resolution. There are all kinds of groups which may support this resolution, each for their own individual reasons. They include African-Americans, ministers, doctors, medical patients, law enforcement officials, AIDS groups, and many others. Pick groups that you think you can persuade and then develop the issues which are most important to them. 4. Pick one influential person at a time and persuade them. When you have persuaded them that it is time for a change, and that we should at least look at other drug policy options, get them to commit to going with you to persuade at least two more influential people. Use this technique to "move up the ladder" to more and more influential people. Use the "intervention group" approach. Assemble a small group of people whom your target will view as influential and persuasive. Arrange a meeting where all can attend and have all those people ask the person to reconsider their point of view. Don't ask them to support legalization or decriminalization, because it is unlikely that you could persuade them in one meeting anyway. Just get them to admit that there is enough of a question about the issue that it is time to re-examine the evidence and commit to the investigation of the possibility of change. 5. Enlist your friends to create a steady "rain" of resolutions on the White House. Get everyone to commit to sending a resolution a week. Keep it up until we get the commission. Let Clinton know that this resolution is not going to go away. 6. Develop phone networks to get people to respond when we need them to respond. The National Rifle Association is powerful because, at any given time, it can bombard the President and Congress with millions of letters and phone calls. We need the same type of response. 7. Put on debates and seminars at colleges. Colleges and universities often have philosophy, public administration, law enforcement, or political science professors who might like to put on a public forum or debate on drug policy. Call the local colleges and ask for the heads of these departments, or anyone else you think might be interested. Suggest the idea to them. I have enclosed a sample speech from one of the debates I was in. You can edit it as appropriate to your needs. I have never had anyone make an intelligent comeback to that speech. The enclosed charts can be blown up to 18 inch by 24 inch size by places such as Kinko's Copies for about $2.50 to $5.00 each, depending upon whether you get them on ordinary paper or on card stock. For large audiences, consider taking 35mm slide pictures of the graphs. If you are out in the middle of the woods and can't do either of those things, write to me and, if you pay for it, I will have it done for you. The biggest problem you may have with this tactic is that the local gendarmes and prosecutors are becoming increasingly reluctant to come out in public and defend the drug war. They have been getting their butts kicked far too much lately and even the most fervent drug warriors are now having a hard time with their beliefs. 8. Contact local civic organizations. In most towns, there are various local civic organizations that might want to have presentations on the drug war for any of a variety of reasons. Some of them will do it just for the entertainment value. Go through the phone book and locate the Rotarians, the Elks, etc. and ask them if they would be interested. 9. Write to and call your local Congressman. Most members of Congress are chowder-heads, but there are some out there who are intelligent enough to read the facts and stand up for the truth. We won't know who they are until people like you can find them. 10. Produce Local Access Cable Shows. You can become a producer for local access cable channels with as little as five hours of mostly free classes. Call your local cable company for information. Once you become a producer you can use their facilities to tape shows, or you can broadcast tapes which were prepared by others. We have already done this a few times and have a number of shows which can be made available to anyone who is hooked in to their local access cable channels. 11. Don't get discouraged. It may take time to build your persuasive skills and even the best of us don't persuade everybody the first time around. Keep it up, despite the setbacks, and you will eventually prevail. Sources of Information The Consumer's Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs is perhaps the best-written overall view of the drug issue. It was published in 1972 and some of the information is a little dated but it still gives a very good picture of how we got into the present situation. It also contains a lot of information on the medical problems associated with illegal drugs including a chapter on famous drug addicts. It also contains a very good list of references which can be used as a starting point for further research. It can be found in most good local libraries. The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, published in 1973, is the largest study ever conducted by the Federal Government on the drug issue. It is remarkable because it was formed by President Nixon who hand-picked every member of the commission because they agreed with his views on drugs. Furthermore, the commission refused to even hear testimony from advocates of legalization or decriminalization. Despite this, they concluded that our current policy was doomed to failure and some form of decriminalization was the only acceptable approach. It is contained in several large volumes and can be found in the better libraries, such as university research libraries. Current information on drugs and crime can be obtained through the Clearinghouse and Data Center for Drugs and Crime data at 1-800-666-3332. This is a Federal facility which provides information free to anyone who wants it, including a long list of books on drugs and crime statistics. The primary bible of crime statistics for the Federal Government is the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, published every year. This book contains several hundred pages of crime statistics including state by state breakdowns, racial breakdowns, charts, graphs, and other information. The book is available through the Clearinghouse above, or through any branch of the Government Printing Office. The cost is either free or about $20.00, depending upon how you can get it. The Clearinghouse also operates a free research service which will look up the answers to specific questions or help you compile information on a particular issue. They are generally very helpful and will lead you to a lot of other good sources of information. The Bureau of Justice Statistics maintains an electronic bulletin board which gives online access to a lot of the Federal crime statistics. The BBS number is 301-738-8895 (8-N-1) 300 to 2400 baud. It is up 24 hours a day. Further information on the BBS can be obtained by calling 1-800-732-3277 National Institute on Drug Abuse 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 NIDA clearinghouse 800-729-6686 The National Institute on Drug Abuse publishes a series of research monographs every year summarizing the research on drugs in the previous year. There is a wide variety of information published every year, including everything from short summaries of research projects to full- blown analyses of different aspects of the drug problem. Included in these monographs are the current statistics for drug deaths and other drug-related health problems (also available through the Clearinghouse above). Interesting items include a 1979 publication called "Themes in Drug Prohibition" which details the rationale and propaganda which has been used through the years to promote the drug war. Let it suffice to say that the information is not flattering to the drug warriors by any means. Another interesting piece is the 1988 study on drugs and violence which concluded that drug-related violence increased directly as drug law enforcement increased. The information is contained in several volumes which often take up five shelves or more in a typical small library. Many libraries, particularly better libraries, will contain fairly sizeable collections of the NIDA information. The Emperor Wears No Clothes, by Jack Herer contains a lot of good information about the history and commercial and industrial uses of hemp (marijuana). It contains a lot of amazing facts which are sure to make you the life of any party with a Reagan Republican in attendance. It costs about $14.95 and is available from High Times Books, 1-800-858-2665. The Drug Hang-Up by Rufus King is an excellent history of drug prohibition in the United States written by someone who was a drug policy reform activist in 1951. When you read the book, it is apparent why Mr. King became an activist. He could not stand the outright fraud perpetrated by the drug warriors. It is available in many local libraries or you can write to Mr. King at 1101 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036. It costs about $20.00. Hemp For Victory is a fifteen minute film made by the US Federal Government to encourage farmers to grow marijuana during World War II. Very interesting stuff. It is $14.95, available from High Times Books, 1-800-858-2665. The CSAP national resource center offers another source of Federal Government statistics on drug related issues: 1-800-354-8824 The Office of Minority Health offers facts and figures on health issues in the minority communities, some of which are drug-related. 1-800-444-6472 Information on AIDS can be obtained at: 1- 800-458-5231 The Bureau of the Census offers statistics and facts on the population at large, which is good for making overall statistical comparison. Some of the information is available on CD-ROM for easier access. 1-800-777-0978 The Government Printing Office can supply (for a small fee, usually) any documents published by the Federal Government. 1-202-783-3238 The National Center for State Courts can supply information regarding the status and problems of state courts. They are located in Williamsburg, VA, and their number is: 804-253-2000. The National Center for Institutions and Alternatives has a lot of information regarding prisons and alternatives to prison. 703-684-0373 Data Resources of the National Institute Of Justice, 4th Edition (Resource Directory). Wiersema, B., Huang, W.S.W., Loftin, C. 1990. 287 pp. NCJ 122224. Free. This book contains a summary of the data resources of the Department of Justice. A good place to start to answer most questions. Some Federal Publications on DRUGS AND CRIME Accountability in Dispositions for Juvenile Drug Offenders Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance 1992. 34 pp. NCJ 134224 Asset Forfeiture--Forfeiture of Real Property: An Overview George N. Aylesworth 1992. 34 pp. NCJ 134224 Deadly Force (Crime File Study Guide). Geller, W. 1985. 4 pp. NCJ 100734. Free. The Effects of U.S. vs Leon on Police Search Warrant Practices (RIA). Uchida, C.D., Bynum, T.S., Rogan, D., Murasky, D.M. 1987. 2 pp. NCJ 106630. Free. Modern Policing and the Control of Illegal Drugs: Testing New Strategies in Two American Cities (Research Report). Uchida, C.D., Forst, B., Annan, S.O. 1992. 61 pp. NCJ 133785. Free Patrol Deployment (Issues and Practices). Levine, M.J., McEwen, J.T. 1985. 64 pp. NCJ 099803. $5.80 (U.S.), $6.20 (Canada), $8.40 (other). Police Chiefs and Sheriffs Rank Their Criminal Justice Needs (RIA). Manili, B., Connors, E. 1988. 8 pp. NCJ 113061. Free. Police Response to Special Populations (Issues and Practices). Finn, P., Sullivan, M. 1987. 123 pp. NCJ 105193. $9.90 (U.S.), $11.55 (Canada), $15.60 (other). Police Response to Special Populations: Handling the Mentally Ill, Public Inebriate, and the Homeless (RIA). Finn, P., Sullivan, M. 1988. 6 pp. NCJ 107273. Free. Police-Prosecutor Coordination (Research Report). 1987. 17 pp. NCJ 101146. Free. Police-Prosecutor Teams: Innovations in Several Jurisdictions (RIA). Buchanan, J. 1989. 6 pp. NCJ 120288. Free. Search and Seizure (Crime File videotape). 1985. NCJ 097232. VHS, other formats available. $17.00 plus postage and handling. Search and Seizure (Crime File Study Guide). Stone, G.R. 1985. 4 pp. NCJ 100751. Free. Strategies for Supplementing the Police Budget (Issues and Practices). Stellwagen, L.D., Wylie, K.A. 1985. 87 pp. NCJ 097682. Free. Targeting Law Enforcement Resources: The Career Criminal Focus. Gay, W.G. 1985. 82 pp. NCJ 100129. $5.80 (U.S.), $6.20 (Canada), $8.40 (other). A Criminal Justice System Strategy for Treating Cocaine-Heroin Abusing Offenders in Custody (Issues and Practices). Wexler, H.K., Lipton, D.S., Johnson, B.D. 1988. 33 pp. NCJ 113915. Free. Drinking and Crime (Crime File videotape). 1985. NCJ 097221. VHS, other formats available. $17.00 plus postage and handling. Drinking and Crime (Crime File Study Guide). Jacobs, J.B. 1985. 4 pp. NCJ 100737. Free Drug Education (Crime File videotape). 1986. NCJ 104207. VHS, other formats available. $17.00 plus postage and handling. Drug Education (Crime File Study Guide). Goodstadt, M.S. 1986. 4 pp. NCJ 104557. Free. Drug Trafficking (Crime File videotape). 1986. NCJ 104211. VHS, other formats available. $17.00 plus postage and handling. Drug Trafficking (Crime File Study Guide). Moore, M. 1986. 4 pp. NCJ 104555. Free. Drugs: Addiction (Crime File Videotape). 1990. NCJ 123669. VHS, other formats available. $19.00 plus postage and handling. Drugs: Asset Seizure (Crime File Videotape).1990.NCJ 123670.VHS Drugs: Community Responses (Crime File Videotape). 1990. NCJ 123671. VHS, other formats available. $19.00 plus postage and handling. Drugs: Legalization (Crime File Videotape). 1990. NCJ 123676. VHS, other formats available. $19.00 plus postage and handling. Drugs: Military Interdiction (Crime File Videotape). 1990. NCJ 123672. VHS, other formats available. $19.00 plus postage and handling. Drugs: Treating Offenders (Crime File Videotape). 1990 NCJ 123673. VHS, other formats available. $19.00 plus postage and handling. Youth Crime (Crime File Videotape). 1990. NCJ 123674. VHS, other formats available. $19.00 plus postage and handling. Evaluating Drug Control and System Improvement Projects: Guidelines for Projects Supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Project Evaluation). McDonald, D.C., Smith, C. 1989. 22 pp. NCJ 118938. Free. Heroin (Crime File videotape). 1985. NCJ 097225. VHS, other formats available. $17.00 plus postage and handling. Heroin (Crime File Study Guide). Kaplan, J. 1985. 4 pp. 100741. Free. In-Prison Programs For Drug Involved Offenders (Issues and Practices). Chaiken, M.R. 1989. 87 pp. NCJ 117999. Free. Interpol: Global Help in the Fight Against Drugs, Terrorists, and Counterfeiters (RIA). Fooner, M. 1985. 7 pp. NCJ 098902. Free. Local-Level Drug Enforcement: New Strategies (RIA). Hayeslip Jr., D.W. 1989. 6 pp. NCJ 116751. Free. Multijurisdictional Drug Law Enforcement Strategies: Reducing Supply And Demand (Issues and Practices). Chaiken, J., Chaiken, M., Karchmer, C. 1990. 135 pp. NCJ 126658. Free. Prison Programs for Drug-Involved Offenders (RIA). Chaiken, M.R. 1989. 6 pp. NCJ 118316. Free. Probing the Links Between Drugs and Crime (RIB). Gropper, B. 1985. 6 pp. NCJ 096668. Free. Project DARE: Teaching Kids To Say "No" to Drugs and Alcohol (RIA). DeJong, W. 1986. 4 pp. NCJ 100756. Free. Searching for Answers: Research and Evaluation on Drugs and Crime. 1990. 115 pp. NCJ 125254. Free. Searching For Answers: Annual Evaluation Report on Drugs and Crime:1990. 1991. 76 pp. NCJ 129576. Free. State and Local Experience With Drug Paraphernalia Laws (Issues and Practices). Healey, K.M. 1988. 139 pp. NCJ 109977. Free. Street-Level Drug Enforcement: Examining the Issues (Issues and Practices). Chaiken, M.R. 1988. 55 pp. NCJ 115403. Free. Techniques for the Estimation of Illicit Drug-Use Prevalence: An Overview of Relevent Issues (Research Report). Anglin, M.; Brecht, M.; Homer, J.; Hser, Y; Wickens, T. 1992. 40 pp. NCJ 133786. Free. Use of Forfeiture Sanctions in Drug Cases (RIB). Stellwagen, L.D. 1985. 6 pp. NCJ 098259. Free. Alleviating Jail Crowding: A Systems Perspective (Issues and Practices). Hall, A., Henry, D.A., Perlstein, J.J., Smith, W.F. 1985. 95 pp. NCJ 099462. $6.40 (U.S.), $7.00 (Canada), $9.70 Avoiding Overcrowding Through Policy Analysis: The Nevada Experience (Research Report). Austin, J. 1986. 38 pp. NCJ 101846. $4.60 (U.S.), $4.60 (Canada), $5.80 (other). Dealing Effectively With Crowded Jails: A Manual for Judges (Issues and Practices). Perlstein, J.J., Henry, D.A. 1986. 69 pp. NCJ 099463. $5.80 (U.S.), $6.20 (Canada), $8.40 (other). Our Crowded Jails (videotape). 1987. NCJ 104705. VHS or Beta, $17.00, 3/4 inch, $23.00, plus postage and handling. Prison Crowding (Crime File videotape). 1985. NCJ 097229. VHS, other formats available. $17.00 plus postage and handling. Systemwide Strategies To Alleviate Jail Crowding (RIB). Hall, A. 1987. 5 pp. NCJ 103202. Free. The Police and Drugs (Perspectives on Policing). Moore, M.H., Kleiman, M. 1989. 6 pp. NCJ 117447. Free. A Comparison of Urinalysis Technologies for Drug Testing in Criminal Justice (RIA). McFadden, K., Visher, C. 1991. 6 pp. NCJ 129292. Free. Drug Surveillance Through Urinalysis (videotape). 1986. NCJ 100130. VHS or Beta, $28.00, 3/4 inch, $33.70. Drugs and Crime: Controlling Use and Reducing Risk Through Testing (RIA). Carver, J.A. 1986. 6 pp. NCJ 102668. Free. Drugs: Workplace Testing (Crime File Videotape). 1990. NCJ 123678. VHS, other formats available. $19.00 plus postage and handling. Drug Testing (Crime File videotape). 1986. NCJ 104213. VHS, other formats available. $17.00 plus postage and handling. Drug Testing (Crime File Study Guide). Wish, E. 1986. 4 pp. NCJ 104556. Free. Drug Use Forecasting: New York 1984-1986. (RIA). Wish, E. 1987. 6 pp. NCJ 107272. Free. Drug Use Forecasting Fourth Quarter 1988 (RIA). 1989. 11 pp. NCJ 118275. Free. Drug Use Forecasting, Annual Report 1988 (RIA). 1990. 28 pp. NCJ 122225. Free. Assessing Criminal Justice Needs (RIB). Gettinger, S. 1985. 4 pp. NCJ 094072. Free. Data Resources of the National Institute Of Justice, 4th Edition (Resource Directory). Wiersema, B., Huang, W.S.W., Loftin, C. 1990. 287 pp. NCJ 122224. Free. The Nature and Patterns of American Homicide. Riedel, M., Zahn, M. 1985. 74 pp. NCJ 097964. $8.40 (U.S.), $9.10 (Canada), $12.50 (other). Organization of Illegal Markets: An Economic Analysis (Research Report). Reuter, P. 1985. 43 pp. NCJ 097687. Free. Shaping Criminal Justice Policy. 1985. 28 pp. NCJ 096397. Free. TV and Violence (Crime File videotape). 1985. NCJ 097234. VHS, other formats available. $17.00 plus postage and handling. Randomized Field Experiments in Criminal Justice Agencies (RIA) Lempert, R.O., Visher, C.A. 1988. 6 pp. NCJ 113666. Free. Shaping Criminal Justice Policy. 1985. 28 pp. NCJ 096397. Free. TV and Violence (Crime File videotape). 1985. NCJ 097234. VHS, other formats available. $17.00 plus postage and handling. Analyzing Costs in the Courts (Issues and Practices). Chabotar, K., Wylie, K., Floyd, K. 1987. 131 pp. NCJ 105556. Free. BJS National Update, April 1992 (Quarterly Report). 1992. 15 pp. NCJ 135722. No. F17 BJS National Update, July 1992 (Quarterly Report). 1992. 15 pp. NCJ 137059. No. F18 Provides summaries of the most recent BJS reports and initiatives. Drug Enforcement by Police and Sheriffs' Departments, 1990 (Special Report). 1992. 10 pp. NCJ 134505. No. F24 Federal Criminal Case Processing, 1980-90, With Preliminary Data for 1991. (Report). 1992. 29 pp. NCJ 136945. No. F25 Profile of State Prison Inmates 1991 (Special Report). 1992. 10 pp. NCJ 136949. No. F26 Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1991 (Report). 1992. 800 pp. NCJ 137369. No. F27 H.R. 3100 in the House of Representatives (partial text) A Bill to establish the National Commission on National Drug Policy. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. Section 1, Short title. This act may be cited as the "National Drug Control Policy Act of 1993". Section 2. Establishment. there is established a commission to be known as the "Commission on National Drug Policy." Section 3. Duties of the Commission. (a) Study. - The Commission shall conduct a study of the unlawful production, distribution and use of controlled substances, including -- (1) an investigation into the various causes of the unlawful use in the United States of controlled substances and the relative significance of the various causes, (2) an evaluation of the efficacy of existing Federal laws regarding the unlawful production, distribution, and use of controlled substances, including the efficacy of Federal minimum sentences for violations of the laws regarding the unlawful sale and use of controlled substances. (3) an analysis of the costs, benefits, risks, and advantages of the present national policy regarding controlled substances and of potential modifications of the policy, including an analysis of what proportion of the funds dedicated to combating the unlawful sale and use of controlled substances should be devoted to - (A) interdicting controlled substances entering the United States unlawfully; (B) enforcing Federal laws relating to the unlawful production, distribution and use of controlled substances; (C) education and other forms of preventing the unlawful use of controlled substances, or (D) rehabilitating individuals who use controlled substances unlawfully; and (4) an analysis of methods of rehabilitation, including an evaluation of the efficacy of current methods and suggestions for new methods. (b) REPORT. -- Within 18 months after the date on which funds first become available to carry out this Act, the Commission -- (1) shall submit to the President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President pro tempore of the Senate a comprehensive report on the study conducted under subsection (a) and (2) shall make the report available to the public upon request. The report shall include the Commission's conclusion and recommendations which at least a majority of the Commission have agreed upon and the Commission's proposals for legislation; and administrative action necessary to carry out the Commission's recommendations. Summarizing from here on . . . Sec. 4 MEMBERSHIP (a) Number and appointment -- 13 (1) By the President -- 5 (2) By the Leaders of the Senate -- 4 (3) By the Leaders of the House -- 4 (b) Qualifications -- must be individuals representing the professions that deal with those who produce, distribute and use controlled substances unlawfully. Elected Federal officials are NOT qualified. (1) law enforcement (2) physicians (3) social workers (4) judges and attorneys (5) Drug Enforcement Agency staff (6) drug rehabilitation counselors (7) religious leaders (8) community leaders from inner-city communities (9) educators (10) academic experts (c) Pay - equivalent to GS-15 plus travel and per diem. Transciption of CBS-TV Program, 60 Minutes. Aired Sunday, December 27, 1992 Titled: Rx Drugs By: Ed Bradley (The Liverpool England Method) Ed: Can Britain teach us anything about dealing with drugs? That remains to be seen. But one thing seems certain, there is little or nothing we can teach them. They tried our hard line methods back in the 70's and 80's and all they got for their trouble was more drugs, more crime, and more addicts. So they went back to their old way of letting doctors prescribe whatever drug a particular addict was hooked on. Does it work? If they're ever going to know, Liverpool, where drugs are out of control is the place to find out. Ed: This is a gram of 100% pure heroin, it is pharmaceutically prepared. On the streets it would be cut 10 to 15 times and sell for about $2,000. But take it away from the black market, make it legal, and heroin is a pretty cheap drug. The British National Health Service (NHS) pays about $10.00 for this gram of heroin. And for an addict with a prescription, it is free. Ed: In Britain, doctors who hold a special license from the government are allowed to prescribe hard drugs to addicts. Dr. John Marks is psychiatrist who runs an addiction clinic just outside of Liverpool and has been prescribing heroin for years. Dr. Marks: If a drug taker is determined to continue their drug use, treating them is an expensive waste of time... and, really, the choices that I am being offered and society is being offered, is drugs from the clinic or drugs from the Mafia. Ed: To get drugs from the clinic rather than the Mafia, addicts have to take a urine test to prove they are taking the drug they say they are. And unlike most other addiction clinics where you have to say you want to kick the habit before they'll take you in, addicts here have to convince Dr. Marks, a nurse and a social worker they intend to stay on drugs come what may. But does Dr. Marks try to cure people? Dr. Marks: Cure people? Nobody can. Regardless of whether you stick them in prison, put them in mental hospitals and give them shock treatment, we have done all these things, put them in a nice rehab center away in the country, give them a nice social worker and pat them on the head, give them drugs, give them no drugs, does not matter what you do. 5% per annum, 1 in 20 per year, get off spontaneously. Compound interested up that reaches about 50% (50/50) after ten years are off drugs. They seem to mature out of addiction regardless of any intervention in the interim but you can keep them alive and healthy and legal during that 10 years, if you so wish to. Ed: By giving them drugs? Dr. Marks: It doesn't get them off drugs, it doesn't prolong their addiction, either. But it stops them offending, it keeps them healthy and it keeps them alive. Ed: That's exactly what happened to Julia Scott. Although she doesn't look it, Julia is a heroin addict. For the last three years the heroin she injects every day comes from a prescription. Before, she had to feed her habit by working as a prostitute, a vicious circle that led her to use more heroin to cope with that life. Julia: Once you get in that circle you can't get out. I didn't think I was ever going to get out. Ed: But once you got the prescription? Julia: I stopped straight away. Ed: Never went back? Julia: No, never. I went back once just to see and I was almost physically sick just to see those girls doing what I used to do. Ed: Julia says she's now able to have normal relation, to hold down a job as a waitress and to care for her 3 year old daughter. Without the prescription, where do you think you would be? Julia: I would probably be dead now. Ed: Once, they have gotten their prescriptions, addicts must show up for regular meetings to show that they are staying healthy and free from crime. But how can anyone be healthy if they are taking a drug like heroin? Alan Perry: Pure heroin is not dangerous. We have people on massive doses of heroin. Ed: Alan Perry is a former Drug Information Officer for the local Health Authority and now a counselor at the clinic. So how come we see so much damage caused by heroin? Alan: The heroin that is causing that damage, is not causing damage because of the heroin in it, it is causing damage because of the bread dust, coffee, crushed bleach crystals, anything that causes the harm and if heroin is 90% adulterated that means only 10% is heroin, the rest is rubbish, and if you inject cement into your veins, you don't have to be a medical expert to work it out, that's going to cause harm. Ed: Many at the clinic like George still suffer from the damage caused by street drugs. Alan Perry believes you can't prescribe clean drugs and needles to addicts without teaching them how to use them. Alan: You know the major causes of ill health to drug injectors is not even the dirty drugs they take, it is their bad technique. Not knowing how to do it. In America I have seen addicts missing legs and arms and that is through bad technique. So we show people how to, not how to inject safely, but how to inject less dangerously. We have to be clear about that, you have stoned people sticking needles in themselves in a dangerous activity. The strategy is called "harm minimalization." Ed: George's legs have ulcerate and the veins have collapsed. To inject he must use a vein in his groin that is dangerously close to an artery. Alan: When you get in there, do you get any sharp pains? George: No. Alan: If you hit an artery how would you recognize it? George: By me head hitting the ceiling. Ed: In the 70's the British were not content with minimizing the harm of drug abuse. They adopted the American policy of trying to stamp it out all together. Prescription drugs were no longer widely available. Addicts who couldn't kick the habit had to find illegal sources. The results: By the end of the 80's drug addiction in Britain had tripled. In Liverpool there was so much heroin around, it was known as "smack city". And then came an even greater threat. More than anything else, it has been the threat of AIDS that has persuaded the British to return to their old policy of maintaining addicts on the drug of their choice. In New York, it is estimated that more than half those who inject drugs have contracted the AIDS virus through swapping contaminated needles. Here in Liverpool, the comparable number, the number of known addicts infected, is less than one percent. In an effort to get addicts away from injecting, Liverpool pharmacist Jeremy Clitherow has developed what he called Heroin Reefers. They are regular cigarettes with heroin in them. "Whatever you feel about smoking," he says, "these cigarettes hold fewer risks than needles for both the addicts and the community. Jeremy: S, we then use this (hypodermic syringe) to put in a known volume of pharmaceutical heroin into the patient's cigarette. And, there we are, one heroin reefer containing exactly 60 mgs of pharmaceutical heroin. Ed: So, that, the National Health Service will pay for the heroin but not the cigarettes? jeremy: Oh, Yes,, of course, its the patients own cigarettes but with the National Health Service Prescription in it. Ed: Addicts pick up their prescriptions twice a week from his neighborhood pharmacy. And how does this affect his other customers? Jeremy: The patient who comes in to pick up his prescription of heroin in the form of reefers would be indistinguishable from a patient who picks any other medication. The prescription is ready and waiting and they pick it up just as they would pick up their aspirin or bandages. Ed: But with all these drugs available to most people plus the hard drugs that you have here, what's your security like? Jeremy: Like Fort Knox. But we keep minimal stocks. We buy the stuff in regularly, frequently. What comes in, goes out. Ed: And heroin isn't the only stuff to come in and out of here. Clitherow also sells prescriptions for cocaine and that is 100% per free base cocaine. In other words, crack. Ed: So, in fact, when you are putting cocaine in here you are actually making crack cigarettes? Jeremy: Yes. Ed: In America that has a very negative connotation, but not for you? Jeremy: Depends on which way you look at it. If they continue to buy on the street, whether it is heroin, methadone, crack, or whatever, sooner or later they will suffer from the merchandise they are buying. I want to bring them into contact with the system and let them get their drug of choice, if the physician agrees and prescribes it in a form which won't cause their health such awful deterioration. Ed: (to Dr. Marks) And you don't have any problem giving people injectable cocaine or cocaine cigarettes? Dr. Marks: No, not in principle. There are patients for whome I have prescribed cocaine, and to whom I have then stopped prescribing cocaine because their lives did not stabilize. They continue to be thieves or whatever. But, there are equally many more to whom we have prescribed cocaine, who have then settled into regular sensible lives. Ed: Michael Lythgoe is one who has settled into a regular sensible life on cocaine. He has a prescription from Dr. Marks for both cocaine spray and the cocaine cigarettes. Before he got that prescription, the cocaine he bought on the street cost him nearly $1,000 a week, which at first he managed to take from his own business, but it wasn't long before it cost him much more than that. .... so you lost your business, you lost your wife, you lost your kids and the house but you kept going after the cocaine? Michael: Yes, that is what addiction is, that is the very nature of addiction, if the fact that one is virtually chemically and physically forced to continue that way. Ed: Now, after two years of controlled use on prescription drugs, Mike has voluntarily reduced his dose, he has got himself a regular job with a trucking company and is slowing putting his life back together. Ed: Where do you think you would be now if Dr. Marks had not given you a prescription for cocaine? Michael: I wouldn't be here talking to you. And you probably wouldn't be interested in talking to me either. I'd be on the street. Ed: Dr. Marks, how would you reply to critics who say that you are nothing more than a legalized dealer, a pusher? Dr. Marks: I'd agree. That is what the State of England arranges. That there is a legal controlled supply of drugs. The whole concept behind that is control. Ed: And there are signs that control is working. Within the area of the clinic, Alan Perry says, the police have reported a significant drop in drug related crime and since addicts don't have to deal anymore to support their habit, they're not recruiting new customers. So, far fewer new people are being turned on to drugs. Ed: What about dealers around the area of the clinic? Alan: There are not any around the clinic. Ed: You have taken away their business? Alan: Exactly, there is no business there, the scene is disappearing. So, if you want to get really into a problem which presumably all societies do, there are ways of doing it. But you have to counter your own moral and political prejudices. Ed: (to Julia) What can you say to people who would ask why give addicts what they want? Why give them drugs? Julia: So they can live, to have a chance to live like everyone else does. No one would hesitate to give other sorts of maintaining drugs to diabetics. Diabetics have insulin, in my mind it is no different, it is the same. I need heroin to live. END 60 Minutes dialog; Testimony of New York State Corrections Commissioner Thomas A. Coughlin, III: "Rockefeller Drug Laws -- 20 Years Later" Before a hearing convened by the Assembly Committee on Codes Tuesday, June 8, 1993 Good afternoon. It is a pleasure to appear before this panel to formalize . . . for the record . . . my position on what has become known as the Rockefeller drug laws. Contrary to popular belief, I was not the prison commissioner when they were enacted. But this month, as I close in on 14 years as Corrections Commissioner, I believe that I offer a unique perspective on the subject before us today. Because . . . more than anyone else in State government today. . . I have seen the effects - both good and bad - of these laws. I've seen them used to lock up the right people for very, very long periods of time. But I have also seen them lock up the wrong people. . . for the wrong reasons. Let me summarize the impact of the Rockefeller drug laws. . . upon the prison population . . . and why I think we desperately need to modify our approach to the drug epidemic plaguing New York State. As of May 25, the prison housed 64,000 inmates -- 2,000 of them living in double bunks that were added as an emergency response to a bed shortage. Because of fiscal constraints and policy differences, no new prison construction has been authorized by the Legislature for several years. Nevertheless, the prison population continues to grow . . . as does the backlog of 1,700 offenders . . . waiting out in the counties, to be received into the Department's custody. If each of the 64,000 people actually belonged in prison, I would have no problem in simply asking the legislature to pay $100,000 each for all the new cells that I need. But that is not the case. And we are putting untold pressures on prison employees by crowding our prisons. And, quite frankly, we unnecessarily invite trouble when crowding forces meet to put more inmates out on the streets. . . in work release . . . than I feel comfortable with. My position has long been that prison space is a finite resource. We should be filling them with the people we built them for -- the violent predator and repeat offenders. Not the guy who got caught with a few bucks worth of crack. The time is long overdue for the Legislature to recognize this distinction and enact some basic reforms to our sentencing structure. I firmly believe that drug addiction affecting the street level addict can be far more successfully treated in community settings, instead of the prison environment. It used to be that offenders came to prison and got the high school diploma they never earned on the outside. Now, street addicts are coming to $100,000 prison cells that cost $27,000 a year to operate . . . to get the same drug treatment that could be available at $5,000 to $10,000 per person on the street. It would make far more sense -- logistically and economically -- to provide initial diversion from the prison system to community-based treatment providers in the first instance for the street level addict. Treatment, not punishment, should be our first line of defense for non- violent addicts . . . in our so-called war against drugs. We can't do that. Meanwhile, the punitive effect of the Rockefeller drug laws, as well as the rigidity of the second felony offender laws, do not deter, they do not lessen, nor do they cure drug addiction. Instead, as far as prisons are being filled with low-level drug offenders, more street level sellers and abusers appear to take the place of those individuals who get caught up in the criminal justice system. Thus, as a simple matter of common sense, if not pure economics, we are wasting valuable and limited prison space on low-level, non-violent offenders. Space that could be more appropriately utilized keeping violent felony offenders incarcerated for longer periods of time. There is no question that forcing drug offenders into the State prison system at the current rate of incarceration detracts from our ability to incarcerate violent offenders, which, in turn, only weakens our overall ability to promote public protection. And the public isn't fooled, just look at the newspaper or watching the evening news. In the early eighties, drug offenders accounted for roughly 10 percent of all new court commitments to the Department. The prison population was, instaed, dominated by those committing violent felony offenses. Since 1989, commitments for violent felonies and other coercive crimes consistently totaled just under 40 percent of the total number of new court commitments. But drug offenses consistently comprised 45 percent of commitments. If ought to be obvious, we are locking up people for their addiction, at higher rates than for those who commit violence against us. Despite the obvious, there is a near insurmountable political paralysis in relation to sentencing reform. Some of our elected officials are so obsessed with the possibility of being labeled soft on crime, that the sweep away all rational discussion of the futility of our present approach. The end result is that we all come up big losers -- the public at large, the taxpayer, and the prison employees who labor all day in crowded prisons. I am well aware of the fact that the public response to the prevalence of crime is to treat all offenders with singularity of purpose, regardless of crime. In effect, "lock them up and throw away the key." But that is the same public which voted down the Prison Construction Bond Act in 1981. I believe that common sense can prevail -- if we only take the time to communicate to the general public . . . calmly and clearly . . . what is really going on. For example, if you explain to the public that the law currently has the identical 8 to 25 year maximum sentencing range, for a person who commits a forcible rape and for a person who sells a dollar's worth of cocaine. . . I believe it would tell you that our legal sense of priorities is totally out of whack. Yet, that is exactly what the current law provides. The identical treatment of these two offenses, which have such a disproportionate impact upon their victims, borders on the ridiculous. It is for this and other reasons that the Rockefeller drug laws need to be reexamined and reevaluated in their entirety. In 1974, the year after the Rockefeller drug laws were enacted, there was a total of 713 new prison commitments for drug felonies. IN 1992, there were more than 11,000 drug felony commitments. Cumulatively through 1992, nearly 75,000 individuals have been committed under the Rockefeller drug laws. Yet, the extremely punitive aspects of the Rockefeller drug laws do not appear to have had any deterrent effect whatsoever on the drug problem. Because of widespread availability, the prices for both heroin and cocaine have recently fallen, according to media reports. Crack is reportedly sold for as low as 75 cents a hit. Heroin is down to $5 a bag, with levels of purity higher than five years ago. It appears there are so many dealers that they are cutting prices to stay in business at all. So the Rockefeller drug laws have lost any deterrent effect they might once have had. But the impact of these laws upon the Department has been staggering. A snapshot of the May 22, under-custody population reveals the following statistics: Out of a total under-custody population of nearly 64,000 inmates, 22,000 of them are doing time for drug offenses. 1,600 were convicted of a Class C, D, or E felony . . . which means they could have been sentenced to local time or probation instead of state prison. 2,000 of these inmates were convicted of Class B sale or possession, while another 2,100 were convicted of an A-II drug felony and 800 of an A-I drug felony. But of 22,000 drug offenders, more that 15,000 are second felony offenders -- which means there was no judicial discretion to impose a sentence other than state prison. I could bore you with numbers, but I won't. Suffice it to say I have them. . . and am more than willing to share them with your staffs at any time. But let me get to the heart of what these numbers mean: The totality of overall drug commitments has increased at an astronomical rate and now significantly surpasses commitments for violent felonies and other coercive crimes; Convictions for the sale of drugs predominate, particularly low-level predicate convictions, and A sizable number of first felony offenders who could have received alternative sentences instead received state prison sentences. That's where we are today. But the Rockefeller drug laws were the product of another era. They were a straight-forward representation of Legislative intent: Namely, that the severity of the punishments involved would serve as a monumental deterrent to drug trade participants and "wannabe's". These sanctions, it was thought, would keep the drug trade within manageable proportions, by imposing nightmarish penalties upon the drug lords who controlled the trade. In their worst nightmares, the writers of that legislation never envisioned cheap "crack cocaine", and they never conceived of a society where drug trafficking would occur in private residences. . . with the family in the next room. They could never have foreseen the level of violence that would occur and the massive firepower that would be employed. In short, they never imagined the drug trade as a cottage industry. . . where tens of thousands of street addicts would finance their own habits by becoming low-level drug dealers themselves. Filling the state's prisons with those low-level drug offenders has not diminished drug trafficking in the slightest degree. In continuing to allow this scenario to play out, we are squandering limited resources that could be more appropriately utilized for violent felony offenders. At the same time, resources for providing drug treatment services within the community go under-funded . . . even while we know they could, in some cases, be more effective than incarceration. The Governor's Executive Budget for 1993-94 contained several important proposals that would have amended either the Rockefeller drug laws themselves, or their effect when combined with the second felony offender law. For example, the current A-1 felony weights for possession and sale, which are set at four and two ounces respectively, would have been increased to eight and four ounces respectively. Since an A-1 felony conviction is punishable by a minimum term ranging between 15 and 25 years, such a change would have better aligned our drug laws with the current nature of the drug trade. It would recognize the difference between a dealer and an addict. Another proposed change would have amended the second felony offender law to grant discretion to the sentencing judge . . . discretion to impose probation, local jail, an alternative sentence. They could continue to impose the same incarceration, or a shorter minimum term State prison sentence in the case of Class C, D, and E nonviolent predicate felony offenders whose predicate crime was also a nonviolent offense. Regrettably, both houses of the Legislature agreed between themselves to not even consider negotiating these changes. And they have offered nothing in their place. Besides having rejected the Governor's proposal, the Legislature is telling the public that it has no coordinated approach to criminal justice. It isn't enough to tell the public, "We can prove we're tough on crime because we won't enact alternatives." And it is equally insufficient to say, "We won't build any more prisons." Instead of repeating and echoing the courses that you won't follow, the public is waiting to see in what direction you will lead. The Governor has made proposals that deserve more than the deafening silence of the Legislature. This hearing today builds upon those Executive proposals, by trying to focus public attention on the Rockefeller drug laws. They may have been the right statutes for the 1970's, but we are addressing the realities of the 1990's. I believe those realities require as dramatic and intelligent a change in our sentencing structures, as the Rockefeller drug laws were in their era. For the public to have faith in the criminal justice system, it must be seen as swift, as firm, and as equitable. When you have thousands of offenders awaiting trial and hundreds backed up in country jails, justice is not swift. When the courts are so crowded with low-level cases that 95 percent of all cases are pleaded, justice is not firm. And when the violent rapist gets the same sentence as the seller of a buck's worth of drugs, justice is not equitable. Reform of the Rockefeller drug laws is only one part of the medicine needed to cure our criminal justice system. I look forward to working with each of you to restoring the public's slipping faith and skepticism about our criminal justice system. Information from NORML The following information is provided as a public service by The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 1119 Washington, D.C. 20036 Electronic mailbox coming soon. For Free Membership Information Call (202) 483-5500 24 hours a day, leave name and address. For Immediate Information Call the 900 Line, (900) 97-NORML, for information on drug testing and other topics ($2.95 a minute, 18 years or older only). For a 12 page, hard copy of our special publication on the medical marijuana issue, call the 900 line, leave your name and address and request "medical leaflet." Your only charge will be for the call. Why Marijuana Laws Need Reform Extreme Measures Are Being Taken Which Offend Most Americans Government sanctioned Hate Groups: Organizations such as PRIDE, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, and the DARE Foundation spend millions of dollars to convince Americans to persecute people who use marijuana. These groups substitute propaganda and suppression for education and encourage children to turn their parents into the police. Their educational materials rarely cite sources, ignore scientific standards and rules of evidence, and give top priority to promoting and justifying extreme measures to be taken against marijuana users. Fighting Falling Arrest Figures: PRIDE and other anti- marijuana groups emerged as a reaction against reform of marijuana laws in 11 states during the 1970's. Their shrill attacks on marijuana users succeeded in maintaining marijuana arrests at about 420,000 from 1973 until 1984. Since then increased educational work on the part of marijuana reform activists have contributed to another cyclical fall in marijuana arrests. The average number of marijuana arrests for the period 1986 to 1990 was 370,000 a year. In 1991, marijuana arrests fell to 287,000. The intensity of anti- marijuana propaganda will increase as arrests drop and support for reform becomes even more widespread. Police Use Marijuana as an Excuse to Steal Property: By 1985 these groups, along with Reagan Administration support, created such hysteria that they were able to convince the Congress to pass strict civil forfeiture laws which would enable police to seize property from citizens based solely on suspicion of marijuana use, sale, or cultivation, even if only for personal use. Police may seize property before gaining a criminal conviction and can keep property after someone has been cleared of criminal charges. Incentives work - the police get to keep the property and cash they seize. After this legislation was passed all drug arrests increased nearly 50%, from an average of about 620,000 a year throughout the Nixon/Ford, Carter, and first term of the Reagan administration to an average of 932,000 a year during Reagan's second term. Prosecutors Use Unfair Sentencing Guidelines to Exaggerate the Severity of Cultivation Offenses: Federal Sentencing Guidelines assume that every plant will yield 5 - 6 times more marijuana than plants produce. People who grow marijuana for personal use are treated by the courts as if they were major traffickers. This makes it easier for police to justify and keep seized property and exaggerate the quality of their work. Marijuana Use is Not Dangerous to Individuals National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972: In 1972, this Commission, like every other large scale study ever done, concluded that individual marijuana users should not be subject to criminal prosecution for their private use or possession of small amounts of marijuana. This recommendation was based on their finding in "Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding" that claims about marijuana's harmful effects were exaggerated and without scientific foundation. Advocates of persecuting marijuana users have had to come up with "new evidence" that marijuana is dangerous because scientific reviews such as the Commission's repeatedly discredit "existing evidence." National Academy of Sciences, 1982: "This committee has reviewed the scientific literature surveys of marijuana effects on health and behavior . . . long term heavy marijuana use will be shown to result in measurable damage to health, just as long term tobacco and alcohol use have proven to cause such damage . . . At this time, however, our judgement as to behavioral and health related hazards, is that the research has not established a danger both large and grave enough to override all other factors affecting a policy decision." DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young, 1988: "There is no record . . . describing a proven, documented cannabis-induced fatality. First, the record on marijuana encompasses 5,000 years of human experience. Second, marijuana is now used daily by enormous numbers of people throughout the world. . . Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man." The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, 1992: Heavy marijuana use "produces some psychic dependence because of the desired subjective effects, but no physical dependence . . . Cannabis can be used on an episodic but continuous basis without evidence of social or psychic dysfunction. . .(T)here is still little evidence of biologic damage, even among relatively heavy users. This is true even in the areas intensely investigated, such as pulmonary, immunologic and reproductive functions. . . . Marijuana used in the U.S. has a higher THC content than in the past. Many critics have incorporated this fact into warnings, but the chief opposition to the drug rests on a moral and political, and not a toxicologic, foundation." Marijuana Use Is Not Dangerous to Society National Academy of Sciences, 1982: "Over the past 40 years, marijuana has been accused of causing an array of antisocial effects, including: in the 1930's, provoking crime and violence; in the early 1950's, leading to heroin addiction; and in the late 1960's, making people passive, lowering motivation and productivity, and destroying the American work ethic in young people. Although belief in these effects persist among many people, they have not been substantiated by scientific evidence." The Surgeon General, 1988: The report on "The Health Consequences of Smoking - Nicotine Addiction" concluded that "it is prior use of tobacco and not alcohol that emerges . . . as the strongest predictor of illicit drug use." The report goes on to label tobacco cigarettes and alcohol "the early gateway drugs." In the 1970's and 80's marijuana prohibition was justified because marijuana use was a "stepping stone" or "gateway" to drug addiction and the use of more dangerous drugs. The Dutch experience suggests the opposite of the stepping stone theory to be true, that legalizing marijuana would reduce the use of hard drugs. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1989: Marijuana use does not contribute to crime; marijuana users commit crimes as infrequently as the general population. There were 209 incarcerations in local jails for every 100,000 adults (or per capita) in the United States in 1989. There were 163,000 people in jail nationwide who admitted to committing their crime under the influence of alcohol, a rate of 131 per capita. While alcohol is a contributing factor to many crimes, the average drinker of alcohol gets into trouble about as often as anybody else. The same is true for marijuana. There were about 36,000 in jail who admitted committing their crime under the influence of marijuana, out of an estimated using population of 18.5 million, a per capita rate of 194. The Junk Science of Anti-Marijuana Claims Factual errors are the rule with anti-marijuana claims, not the exception. As the National Academy of Sciences report quoted on page one indicates, the lies told about marijuana change with the decades. There always seems to be "new evidence" that marijuana really is as dangerous as previously believed. In 1973, after a prestigious Commission had rejected the most recent propaganda about marijuana, new stories began to surface. In May, 1973 the Washington Post reported doctor's claims that marijuana use contributed to the growth of abnormally sized breasts on young men. Today, PRIDE warns that marijuana "sometimes leads to deficient puberty in adolescent males." There is little or no empirical or scientific evidence to support this claim. One of the symptoms offered by PRIDE of this "deficient puberty" is "loss of energy." Before it was discredited by scientific analysis, this accusation had a different name - "amotivation syndrome." This originated with the racist claim that marijuana use made Mexican or African Americans lazy and dangerous. Groups like PRIDE and the Partnership for a Drug Free America treat science like a supermarket where they can pick and choose what's useful to them. There are rules of evidence for evaluating scientific research. Single studies, for example, are not unassailable proof of scientific fact. Couching declarations with terms like "may" and "sometimes", like PRIDE does, does not address this issue of misrepresenting scientific research. For example, both the Partnership for a Drug Free America and PRIDE publicize as fact that marijuana smoke has more cancer- causing chemicals than tobacco, and therefore is more likely to cause cancer. This almost has to be true to justify criminalizing marijuana use but not tobacco use. But it is not. "Marijuana contains over 200 chemicals, and it is not clear which of them actually cause cancer or don't." admits Dr. Herbert Kleber (then) of Office of National Drug Control Policy to Washington, D.C.'s City Paper. "The evidence is not as strong as, let's say, with cigarettes." When asked if doctors actually encountered cancer cases caused by marijuana, Dr. Kleber answered "I'm not sure I want to answer that. That's all I want to say." The City Paper goes on to state that there is no solid evidence linking marijuana to cancer. The Partnership has been criticized for other lies. A famous commercial aired in 1987 featured the EEG 'brainwave' readings of a "normal" youth and one under the influence of "marijuana." Actually, it was simulated. According to High Times magazine, after a UCLA professor blew the whistle and a WABC-TV news story in Los Angeles, the false ad was pulled. The federal government offers large grants to researchers to come up with disturbing findings about marijuana. When a study or two shows up in the scientific literature, anti-marijuana groups rush to pronounce this "new evidence" as justification for the persecution of marijuana users and vindication for their own personal efforts. When professional scientist subject these findings to peer review, such as by the National Academy of Sciences and the Merck Manual, the "new evidence" does not have the weight of scientific validity. Common sense suggests another test. Where are the large numbers of infertile, large breasted young men with brain damage, and head, neck and lung cancers which prove these extremist accusations? Why Cops Aren't the Ones To Teach Kids to Stay Away From Drugs Police Officers are trained as law enforcement officials, not as teachers. The defining feature of police work is that any situation can turn into a life or death struggle where personal or public safety is at risk. Appropriately, police are trained to always assess and prepare for worst case scenarios. Education, especially in a school setting, is shaped by different concerns. Education seeks to teach about likely scenarios, and to explain differences. Police are trained to see absolutes - legal or not, safe or not, good guy or bad guy. Teachers are trained to shape broader outlooks. The only unique element that police offer in a class room setting is the 'fear of arrest.' It is the police instinct to categorize drug users as bad people. The "streetwise experience" the DARE program touts assumes that the police have experience with representative samples of all drug users. Yet arrests represent a minute percentage of drug users. They teach children to condemn drug users as a way of preventing drug abuse. Police work is an extremely stressful profession. Experience with high levels of stress does not make an individual a therapist. Training a police officer receives about teaching mental health and drug abuse resistance education is always in the context of the officer's over-all training as a law enforcement officer, if that officer is a professional. It is not surprising that as cops began to teach children about drugs, and why the cops think drug users are bad people, that reports of kids turning their parents into the police for drug use are becoming numerous, as reported recently in the Wall Street Journal. One aspect of our democratic society almost all Americans cherish is the privacy of the family. Most Americans are disturbed at the prospect of having police teach children what is right and wrong about their parents behavior. It is also disturbing that the police are teaching kids to hate drug users, and therefore provide political support for their civil forfeiture plans. Civil Forfeiture Any property can now be seized if police believe that it was bought with the profits of illegal activity or used to further a crime. The only justification they need to take property is probable cause, which includes a tip from an anonymous informant. The police get to keep the seized assets or property. To get property back, the owner has to prove in court that the money or property was legally obtained. Important parts of the Bill of Rights do not apply in forfeiture proceedings. According to USA Today, "police seize millions of dollars in cash each year because police dogs indicate money smells like drugs - even when no drugs are found and no arrests are made." Since forfeiture laws were passed in 1985, drug arrests have increased by nearly 50%, and the federal government alone is now seizing up over $640 million a year. The government claims that they only seize property from drug kingpins. In fact, they seize what they want. For example: Reclusive millionaire Don Scott was killed by a drug task force looking for marijuana plants at his ranch. Informants told them Scott's wife had been flashing hundred-dollar bills in Malibu. Scott had further refused to negotiate a sale of his property to the government. DEA agents were ready to seize the ranch, but no marijuana was found. (Ventura Times) In Florida, Alton and Joanette Godwin had their semi-trailer truck seized over a marijuana possession charge that a judge later dismissed.(St. Petersburg Times) In New Hampshire Kevin and Bridget Perry were arrested for growing four marijuana plants behind their home. They pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a fine. The government seized their 27 year old mobile home, worth $22,000, for "facilitating" a drug crime. It took a 15 month legal battle to retain their home. (USA Today) In Hawaii, four years after their mentally unstable son pleaded guilty to growing marijuana in their backyard for his own use, Joseph and Frances Lopes face the loss of their own home. (The Pittsburg Press) Prosecutors and Police defend such actions by claiming the dangers of marijuana use require that drug users pay a severe price as a deterrent. Marijuana is not a dangerous drug, and the price we pay is the loss of constitutional liberty. Erosion of the 4th Amendment Skinner v. Railway Labor Executive's Assoc. is an important case in which the Supreme Court ruled that subjecting railroad employees to urine testing for drug use was not a violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because of "special needs" to fight the war on drugs. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented, concerned about the damage this was doing to the Constitution. . "The court today takes its longest step yet toward reading the probable-cause requirement out of the Fourth Amendment. For the fourth time in as many years, a majority holds that a "special nee[d], beyond the normal need for law enforcement," makes the "requirement" of probable cause "impracticable." With the recognition of '[t]he government's interest in regulating the conduct of railroad employees to ensure safety" as such a need, the court has now permitted "special needs" to displace constitutional text in each of the four categories enumerated in the Fourth Amendment: searches of "persons" (Skinner); "houses," Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (1987); "papers," O'Connor v. Ortega, 4800 U.S. 709 (1987); and "effects," New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). "The process by which a constitutional "requirement" can be dispensed with as "impracticable" in an elusive one to me. . . Constitutional requirements like probable cause are not fair- weather friends, present when advantageous, conveniently absent when "special needs" make them seem not. . .There is no drug exception to the Constitution, any more than there is a communism exception or an exception for other real or imagined sources of domestic unrest. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 455 (1971). Because abandoning the explicit protections of the Fourth Amendment seriously imperils "the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized (people)." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting), I reject the majority's "special needs" rational as unprincipled and dangerous." (Case No. 87-1555, as published in The United States Law Week, March 21, 1989, Vol 57, No 36.) Disturbing Alliance: Police and Government Sponsored Hate-Groups In 1972 a National Commission recommended against arresting adults for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Between 1974 and 1979 Eleven states decriminalized marijuana, stabilizing arrest figures. In the late 1970's anti-marijuana groups responded to decriminalization by blaming all drug abuse on the drug culture of illegal drug users, mostly marijuana users. In 1985, responding to calls for stiffer penalties on drug users, Congress authorizes use of civil forfeiture in drug cases, including those involving personal use amounts of marijuana. Most drug arrests are made by state and local police. The federal government, though, rallies public support for police priorities, and influences these priorities through grants. All Drug Marijuana Presidential Term Arrests* Arrests* Johnson (1965 - 68) 114,200/yr 52,912/yr Nixon (1969 - 72) 430,900 206,398 Nixon/Ford (1973 - 76) 620,495 430,725 Carter (1977 - 80) 602,725 425,150 Reagan (1981 - 84) 626,425 420,550 Reagan (1985 - 88) 932,025 395,806 Bush (1989 - 91) 1,153,733** 337,892** * Four year average of FBI Uniform Crime Reports Data **Three year average of FBI Uniform Crime Report Data In 1983 the National Institute on Drug Abuse published "Parents, Peers, and Pot II, Parents in Action." The book chronicles the formation of anti-drug parents groups to fight the "drug culture" which was responsible for teenage drug abuse. Many of these groups were formed with help from PRIDE during the late 1970's, in response to fears that decriminalizing marijuana laws in eleven states sent the kids the wrong message that pot was okay for them to use. In the mid 1980's PRIDE published a major drug policy recommendation which favored placing all drug users under quarantine until they could be "cured." The paper also warned to only expect a 50% cure rate, but did not comment on the resultant lifetime imprisonment of the 50% who remain uncured. When First Lady Nancy Reagan choose anti-drug activities as her major charitable and public relations interest, providing political legitimacy to their ideology that marijuana users were to blame for teenage drug abuse. During this time, the Reagan Administration slashed funding for drug education and drug treatment programs along with many other social programs. Anti- drug programs, though, enjoyed increasing budgets thanks in part to the political support of the parents groups and the high profile of the First Lady's activities. Drug abuse was transformed from a complex mental health issue to a simple moral issue of the good intentions of non-drug users over the bad intentions of the "pro-pot" and "pro-drug" forces. As late as 1992 the Office of National Drug Control Strategy openly advanced the contagion theory of PRIDE and the parents movement: "The casual user, more than the addict, bears a major responsibility for the spread of drug use, because that person imparts the message that you can use drugs and still do well in school or maintain a career and family." It seems that if the drug is not actually dangerous, the responsibiity of law enforcement is to make it so. Consequently, we have a policy of deliberate harm-enhancement than adopting a more prudent harm- reduction approach. After 1985, when forfeiture laws were passed to allow police to seize property at their own discretion, drug arrests have skyrocketed. Unproven accusations about marijuana are being used to justify extreme measures which allow the police to seize property, determine the education of children in public schools, and steadily erode our constitutional protections against such behavior. If Usage Is Down, Then Who's Smoking All This Pot? According to the National Household Survey conducted for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, marijuana use is on a downward trend from 18 million monthly users in 1985 to 12 million in 1990, the lowest level since 1972. However, estimates of the marijuana supply from the National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee (NNICC) have increased steadily during the same period. For example, the 1987 estimate was about 21 million pounds, and in 1988 it was near 32 million pounds. In 1989 it jumped to 105 million. All the NNICC estimates are net estimates, that is, NNICC has already allowed for what has been eradicated in the host country or seized in transit. The 1990 estimate of the total marijuana supply available for export to the United States is 64 million pounds. The government never mentions, nor explains, these contradictory trends. According to the 1990 National Household Survey, 21 million people admitted to have used marijuana "in the last year. Over 66 million admit to using marijuana at least once in their life. About 1/6th of the participants in the national Household Survey do not answer the questions about their drug use. Researchers use reliable statistical techniques to estimate this "missing data" from the variations in usage among the rest of the survey sample. This is a reliable statistical assumption only if the people who don't report resemble the rest of the survey sample. They may, on the other hand, be more likely to use illegal drugs than the people who do report. This would support arguments that the survey underreports marijuana use. If one half of the 64 million pounds of marijuana "available for export to the United States" actually was exported to the U.S., that would be a pound for each of 32 million people for a year, and. that is a generous amount of marijuana given normal consumption patterns. The illegality of marijuana makes estimating the use, value, and market size of marijuana an exercise in generalities. Supply estimates, though, suggest there are 30 to 50 million regular users of marijuana in the United States. Domestic Marijuana Cultivation In 1990 NNICC estimated 12 million pounds of marijuana were grown domestically. If these figures were accurate, at $2000 per pound, the domestic marijuana crop was worth $24 billion in 1990. The DEA estimates that 25% of the marijuana consumed in the U.S. is grown here. Marijuana is widely held to be one of the largest cash crop in many states. The illegality of marijuana serves as a price support mechanism which keeps marijuana prices in excess of $2000 a pound. In the oil business, when prices are high, people drill for oil. When it comes to marijuana, when prices are high, people plant. Our current government policies serve to encourage increased marijuana cultivation. These policies also encourage the cultivation of more potent marijuana as growers try to maximize their financial stake in the crop. In 1991 funding for the DEA's domestic cannabis eradication program was tripled from previous years, and the net result was the program eradicated less plants. Domestic eradication programs have decentralized marijuana production in the United States, and contributed to intensive cultivation techniques being adopted to maximize value. The most prominent trend of late has been for individuals to grow marijuana for personal use indoors, under lights, despite harsh penalties which punish people for finding alternatives to the illegal market in marijuana. Home cultivation hurts importation of marijuana from overseas, and should be the lowest priority of domestic drug law enforcement, however the prospect of seizing people's homes provides the police with an added incentive to make this a top priority. NORML conservatively estimates that the domestic marijuana market is worth in excess of $30 billion annually. The DEA has reported decreasing incidents of violence associated with marijuana farming, and the few incidents of violence reported are not statistically significant related to general crime rates. Medical Uses of Marijuana AIDS: The health of people with AIDS is often threatened by loss of appetite and a reduction of nutrients for the body. Patients are using marijuana to stimulate their appetite. While marijuana's ability to give people the "munchies" has been known for some time, for AIDS patients this is no laughing matter, but for many the difference between life and death. Food = Prolonged Life. Cancer: Cancer patients who undergo chemo-therapy experience extremely violent nausea and loss of appetite. Marijuana use reduces that nausea and makes the therapy endurable, prolonging life. Chronic Pain: Patients suffering from chronic pain from conditions such as Spina Bifida, muscle spasms, or paralyzed people in wheelchairs with spinal cord injuries find that marijuana is an effective non- narcotic source of pain relief. Marijuana is far less debilitating than Morphine, Dilaudid, and other narcotic sources of pain relief. Glaucoma: Marijuana use lowers intra-ocular pressure, and has helped many Glaucoma patients retain their vision. Multiple Sclerosis: Marijuana restores muscle control to patients with MS experiencing spasticity problems. Marijuana use has enabled patients previously confined to wheelchairs to walk. About NORML The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is the leading voice in America calling for the legalization of marijuana. NORML has been serving the public since 1970 by providing facts about marijuana and opposition to extreme measures taken to enforce marijuana laws. NORML is a non-profit organization primarily supported by memberships and donations from the general public. A single membership helps us place information like this in the hands of thousands of people. Please join NORML today, and give generously. NORML's Educational Program NORML's Active Resistance to marijuana prohibition begins with proving these three points to the public: Marijuana use is not dangerous to an individual. Marijuana use is not dangerous to society. The extreme measures taken to enforce marijuana prohibition are not justified, and are a danger to the individual, society, and everyone's freedom. NORML's national office functions as a national clearinghouse for information related to these and other related issues such as urinalysis testing, the popularity of hemp, and the medical uses of marijuana. NORML serves the public by making information on marijuana, the marijuana laws, and the effect they have on our country available to students, researchers, governmental officials, legislators, the news media, other opinion leaders and individual members of the public. NORML's Involvement Program NORML's Active Resistance to marijuana prohibition continues with training materials to encourage our fellow American citizens to speak out against the marijuana laws, and to speak out with a persuasive, informed voice. NORML's organizing manual "Social Activism and Marijuana Reform" has been a valuable tool for organizing chapters and action groups around the country for over five years. The premier issue of our newspaper "NORML's Active Resistance" contains detailed information on how individuals can have political impact from their own homes - just by understanding the critical issues of marijuana policy and where to find reliable information to support your points. Our publication the "Ongoing Briefing" is provided to activists, chapters, and our monthly contributors to provide current information on organizational activities, business, timely background information, and updates on the marijuana reform movement's current activities. NORML's chapters work to educate local communities about marijuana and the need for reform, and also respond to misleading or incorrect statements about marijuana in local media and/or forums. NORML's Membership Program Memberships are an essential part of NORML's ability to grow as an organization. NORML relies on memberships for financial support, and membership support is crucial for many programs. NORML also relies on its members to help with important decisions and policy development. Members of the organization select the Board of Directors, and participate in surveys which influence the priorities and policies of the organization. Now NORML is not only an activist organization, it is a member-driven organization as well. NORML will routinely use surveys of our memberships to evaluate not only our programs and positions, but also those of our local chapters and affiliates. We believe that educated citizens have valuable contributions to make to both public and organizational policies. We believe that the people affected by policy decisions ought to participate in the decision making process. We believe these are sound values for our government, and that they are sound values for running our organization. Members also receive a one year subscription to NORML's Active Resistance, our newspaper. Active Resistance informs members about the issues, events, and opposition brought about by resistance to the marijuana laws. Members also receive an invitation to our annual national conference. A Message From NORML National Director Richard Cowan After so many years of the narcocracy's terrorism aimed at the cannabis community it should not be surprising that many Americans despair of our ever being able to re-legalize hemp. Consequently, the first part of our job at NORML is to let both friend and foe alike know that we intend to take back our rights as a free people. The first step in doing this is very simple, but not easy: build membership. Some reasons are obvious. Every organization needs more money, especially if it is going to fight the government. It takes money to do anything and the narcocracy has both the taxpayer's money plus what they steal directly from citizens through so-called forfeiture laws. Every organization wants more members. the more members we have, the more seriously the politicians will take us. One of the fruits of the narcocracy's terrorism has been the government's ability to get away with claiming a consensus in favor of marijuana prohibition. People who disagreed were either afraid to speak out or dismissed as nuts if they did. Of course, the mass media have gone along with this - to their shame. If we were larger, it would be more difficult for them to get away with this. There is another reason why we need a larger membership that really is different from which motivates any other organization in America. We have to grow to the point where people are not afraid to join. While most of the fears that people have about joining NORML are unfounded, too often the narcocracy's terorism works pre- emptively. If NORML's membership were large enough that our people could say "Hey, they can't arrest us all!" this would fundamentally change the character of both the organization and of the movement. I can't say with certainty what that magic number would be - perhaps twenty thousand or maybe fifty thousand - but this is what I call "critical mass". That is the point at which our membership would explode, and we would become a genuine mass movement capable of launching a million person march on Washington to demand our God-given rights just as other oppressed minorities have so successfully done. In the meantime, how can we grow and get to that magic number, the "critical mass?" First, we have to use our brains. There has NEVER been very much real risk in being a NORML activist, much less being just a member, even under Bush. With Clinton in the White House, there is even less. Of course, there are those who should never get "up front" as activists, but even they can still safely join. Use an assumed name. (It's perfectly legal when there is no intent to defraud.) Send a money order instead of a check. If you would be more comfortable use you local chapter or some other address for your membership. We, in turn, have taken steps to keep our membership list secure. We do not rent it out to others, and we send nothing out to members with NORML's name on the envelope. Most of all, we have to use our hearts. Rights are taken not given. We can do it. We are going to do it! Be a part of it! The preceding information was provided as a public service by The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 1119 Washington, D.C. 20036 Electronic mailbox coming soon. For Free Membership Information Call (202) 483-5500 24 hours a day, leave name and address For Immediate Information Call the 900 Line, (900) 97-NORML, for information on drug testing and other topics. ($2.95 a minute, 18 years or older only) For a 12 page, hard copy of our special publication on the medical marijuana issue, call the 900 line, leave your name and address on the 900 line and request "medical leaflet." Your only charge will be for the call. Drug Policy Foundation 4455 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite B-500 Washington, DC, 20008-2302 (202) 537-5005 Trans-High Publishing 235 S. Park Ave., 5th Floor New York, NY, 10003 Alliance For Cannabis Therapeutics P.O. Box 21210 Kalorama Station Washington, DC 20009 American Anti-Prohibition League P.O. Box 2062 Westminster, MD 21158 American Civil Liberties Union 132 W. 43rd St. New York, NY 10036 AZ4NORML P.O. Box 50434 Phoenix, AZ 85076 CAN 4428 South Carrollton New Orleans, LA 70119 Cannabis Research Institute P.O. Box 11008 Portland, OR 97211 Colorado NORML 137 West Country Line Road #500 Littleton, CO 80126 Emergency Coalition for Medical Cannabis 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite B-500 Washington, DC 20016-2087 The Green Panthers P.O. Box 9845 Washington, DC 20016 Hemp Environmental Activists P.O. Box 4935 East Lansing, MI 48826 Holy Hemp Sisters c/o Elizabeth Gips 3288 Union Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Institute for Hemp P.O. Box 65130 St. Paul, MN 55165 Libertarian Party 1528 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Washington, DC 20003 Maine Vocals P.O. Box 189 Anson, ME 04911 MASS CAN One Homestead Rd. Marblehead, MA 01945 National Coalition Against Prohibition 1902 Montecito, #2 Mt. View, CA 94043 National Drug Strategy Network 2000 L St. Suite 702 Washington, DC 20036 New Age Patriot P.O. Box 419 Dearborn Heights, MI 48127 New Jersey NORML P.O. Box 680 Nevesink, NJ 07752 Ohio NORML P.O. Box 771154 Cleveland, OH 44107-0049 North Idaho Teach P.O. Box 155 Sagle, ID 83860 Ohio NORML P.O. Box 36 New Plymouth, OH 45654 Save Our Constitution P.O. Box 4935 East Lansing, MI 48826 TEACH 2833 Frankford Ave. Youngstown, FL 32466 Texas NORML P.O. Box 13549 Austin, TX 78711 Cannabis Reform Coalition S.A.O. Mailbox #2 Student Union Building UMASS Amherst, MA 01003 Vermonters for Pot Peace P.O. Box 237 Underhill, VT 05489 Virginia BACH Route 1, Box 2142 Crewe, VA 23930 Washington Citizens for Drug Policy Reform P.O. Box 1614 Renton, WA 98057 Advocates for Self-Government 3955 Pleasantdale Road # 106A Atlanta, GA 30340 END HOOVER.TXT;