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;