------------------------------------------------------------------- Crusader's Image Takes Hit ('The San Jose Mercury News' Continues To Act As A Mouthpiece For Santa Clara County Law Enforcement Officials - Now The Newspaper Quotes Secret Grand Jury Testimony By Two Former Co-Workers Police Believe Is Damaging To Peter Baez, Co-Founder Of The Defunct Santa Clara County Medical Cannabis Center) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:12:38 -0700 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (MAPNews) Subject: MN: US CA: Crusader's Image Takes Hit Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family
Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Pubdate: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 Author: Raoul V. Mowatt - Mercury News Staff Writer CRUSADER'S IMAGE TAKES HIT Under scrutiny: Testimony by two former co-workers is damaging to the co-founder of a defunct pot center. In little more than a year, the authorities' image of medicinal cannabis crusader Peter Baez has dramatically shifted. To them, he's gone from a good Samaritan trying to supply the seriously ill with much-needed medicine to a con man who ripped off his clients and sold far more marijuana than he can account for. Baez's point of view on the accusations is as clear as it is contrary: He believes himself an innocent target of an effort to discredit the medicinal marijuana movement. But a recently unsealed grand-jury transcript contains new damaging testimony, some of it from people once close to the 34-year-old Gilroy activist and co-founder of the now-defunct Santa Clara County Medical Cannabis Center. Awaiting trial on seven felony charges as well as surgery for his colon cancer, Baez still is convinced he can beat the rap. ``They basically took cops and paralegals in the DA's office and made them doctors, accountants and lawyers,'' Baez scoffed. ``It's politics that are screwing me in San Jose.'' In a three-day proceeding in mid-May, Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Denise Raabe called 22 witnesses to support charges that Baez sold marijuana to five patients without obtaining a prerequisite doctor's recommendation, ran a drug house and committed grand theft. Baez faces up to nine years in prison if convicted of the seven felonies. The 350-page transcript veers from extremely technical financial information to anecdotal evidence that Baez's business practices were suspicious. But perhaps the most interesting testimony came from two people who left the center long before it closed last month. One of them wants to establish a new marijuana dispensary and the other had once planned to. Baez alleges the two were ``disgruntled'' and their interest in setting up pot centers prompted them to perjure themselves. ``Why? Because they want money,'' Baez said. ``I think they are very weak witnesses.'' But one of those said he was telling the truth and that it was typical of Baez to deny responsibility for his own actions. ``He's got a chip on his shoulder the size of Mount Rushmore,'' said Dennis Augustine, the center's former medical director, in an interview. ``It's not surprising to anyone who has worked there.'' Doctors' orders at issue One former employee, Judy Brunner, testified she became increasingly uncomfortable with Baez during her four months at the center. As many as a dozen times, she said, Baez claimed to have confirmed a doctor's recommendation soon after receiving a file -- although she saw from her master telephone console that he had not made a call. Brunner said Baez would also recruit marijuana growers, giving them slips of paper to signify that the cultivators were working for a pot dispensary -- and to give a veneer of legality. In exchange, Brunner said, Baez would demand a pound of free pot. Brunner said Baez also once bought marijuana from her at $150 an ounce and sold it at $520 an ounce -- despite his promise to sell it at a reduced rate. ``I felt that he was betraying everyone that had supported him in doing this for the people who are very ill,'' Brunner testified. Brunner said Baez wrote her a three-page letter defending himself against her allegations. `Buy low and sell high' Responding to the accusation that he was overcharging clients, Baez said in the alleged letter that he priced pot the same as Dennis Peron, the controversial San Francisco-based medical marijuana advocate. ``His motto to us was to buy low and sell high,'' Baez allegedly said in the letter. Augustine, who is still hoping to start his own medicinal marijuana center in San Jose, also testified things seemed awry during his stint with Baez. In July 1997, he gave a $10,000 donation to the center on the condition he join Baez and co-founder Jesse Garcia on the dispensary's board of directors. His pledge was largely meant to pay back a loan the center had incurred, Augustine said. But soon after the donation, Baez bought a Toyota sport utility vehicle that cost about $9,600, according to testimony. Later, Augustine said Baez told him he never paid off the loan. Baez, a former bank employee who now lives on disability because of colon cancer and AIDS, has said he bought the vehicle with the help of his father. He also says he has financial records that prove that's how the vehicle was purchased. As part of fundraising efforts, Augustine said he repeatedly asked to see the center's books so he could provide potential donors with bona fide information. But he said Baez responded by dismissing the requests. Augustine also testified he later got a treasurer's report from Baez that showed the center's profit from April to October of last year was less than $200. But according to testimony from authorities, the center sold about $150,000 in marijuana in its first year, some $74,000 of which couldn't be accounted for. Investigators created a database out of the center's financial records. Their days-long effort included several assumptions in Baez's favor, prosecutors said. ``We were very careful in coming up with the numbers,'' Raabe said in an interview. Expenses scrutinized According to testimony, Baez illegally supported himself with center funds -- paying for amenities such as satellite service, bowling and beer. He also allegedly used center money to pay his rent, which would mean he was not entitled to about $14,000 in federal subsidized housing aid that he received. Baez denies those charges and complains the lead investigator on the case, Sgt. Scott Savage, always had been against Proposition 215 and eventually tried to intimidate both him and at least one other center worker. But in early press reports, Baez said he and partner Garcia got along well with Savage. ``We were obviously stupid back then, thinking we were working with someone who was honest and sincere,'' Baez said. ``There are some bad cops in the San Jose Police Department, and unfortunately, I think I've got one climbing all over my back.'' Police spokesman John Carrillo said Savage did not wish to comment, but added that Savage was innocent of any wrongdoing. Raabe also had a series of doctors testify for the grand jury that they did not recommend marijuana for the five patients at the center of the prosecution's case. In some instances, the doctors said they never spoke to anyone affiliated with the center. But in one case, a doctor acknowledged it's difficult to advocate the use of marijuana in today's political climate -- a sentiment Baez says has kept some physicians from supporting him during his legal troubles. ``Now, did you ever approve the use of marijuana for Buyer Number 3?'' Raabe asked Dr. Morton Garfield. ``I don't think so, because you know, I'm caught in this difference between the federal government and the California initiative,'' Garfield replied. ``And we've been warned that we can't do it, so I don't.''
------------------------------------------------------------------- War On Drugs Called A Waste ('The Houston Chronicle' Covers A Press Conference Called By The Drug Policy Forum Of Texas, Whose Members Denounced The United Nations' Plans For An Expanded Drug War As Counterproductive) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 22:35:26 -0400 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) Subject: MN: TX GE: War on drugs called a waste Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Tammera Halphen (email@example.com) Source: Houston Chronicle (TX) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.chron.com/ Pubdate: June 8, 1998 Author: R.A. Dyer WAR ON DRUGS CALLED A WASTE Activists say the effort is only causing crime and corruption By R.A. DYER Copyright 1998 Houston Chronicle Activists in Houston called Monday for an end to the war on drugs -- even as President Clinton was advocating a global strategy to fight illegal narcotics during his address to a special session of the United Nations. "We can teach our children personal responsibility and protect them from drugs, but we cannot protect them from the crime, violence and corruption of the black market, or from the abuse of power . . . that occur in the futile fight against that market," Jerry Epstein, the Drug Policy Forum of Texas president, said Monday. Speaking at a news conference to coincide with the United Nations' special session on drugs, which continues through Wednesday, about a dozen activists joined Epstein in expressing opposition to the drug war. The activists represented organizations -- including the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws -- that gathered outside the Houston Drug Enforcement Administration office with picket signs. Some present favored the decriminalization of narcotics, saying drugs that now are illegal should instead be regulated and taxed. Others called for a reduction in the length of drug sentences. But all agreed that existing law enforcement efforts generally are counter-productive. G. Alan Robison, Drug Policy Forum of Texas founder, said most politicians, fearful of appearing to be soft on drugs, won't discuss alternatives to law enforcement. "Our policies are misguided," said Robison, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Texas Health Science Center. "We should stop putting people in prison for using drugs -- that doesn't work. . . . Ignorance, fear and greed are the three things driving the drug war. There's vested interests that want to keep this thing going." During the U.N. General Assembly special session on Monday, Clinton called for a global strategy to fight illegal drugs and for an end to the debate over whether consuming or producing countries were more responsible for the international drug problem. The special session prompted a letter-signing campaign by the Lindesmith Center, a Washington-based think tank opposed to drug control policy in the United States. In an open message to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that appears to have been signed by hundreds of global leaders and Nobel Prize laureates, the Lindesmith Center claimed that "the global war on drugs is now causing more harm that drug abuse itself." "In many parts of the world, drug war politics impede public health efforts to stem the spread of HIV, hepatitis and other infectious diseases," states the letter, which bears the signatures of former broadcast journalist Walter Cronkite, former California Sen. Alan Cranston and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "Human rights are violated, environmental assaults perpetrated and prisons inundated with hundreds of thousands of drug law violators. Scarce resources better expended on health, education and economic development are squandered on ever more expensive interdiction efforts. Realistic efforts to reduce drug-related crime, disease and death are abandoned in favor of rhetorical proposals to create drug-free societies."
------------------------------------------------------------------- Did Feds Try To Set Up Patricia Hearst Shaw On Drug Charge? (According To 'The Associated Press,' Patricia Hearst Shaw, The Newspaper Heiress Who Was Kidnapped In 1974 And Convicted Of Robbing A Bank With Her Captors, And Who Is Seeking A Pardon, Is Quoted In The June 15 Edition Of 'The New Yorker' Saying That When She Called Police About A Package Delivered To Her Connecticut Home, The DEA Showed Up, Prepared To Arrest Her) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 10:20:49 -0400 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) Subject: MN: US: Wire: Did Feds Try To Set Up Patricia Hearst Shaw On Drug Charge? Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Patrick Henry (email@example.com) Pubdate: Mon, 08 Jun, 1998 Source: Associated Press DID FEDS TRY TO SET UP PATRICIA HEARST SHAW ON DRUG CHARGE? Patricia Hearst Shaw, the newspaper heiress who was kidnapped in 1974 and convicted of robbing a bank with her captors, claims federal drug agents may have tried to set her up. Hearst Shaw, who spent two years in jail for a robbery she said she was forced to commit, tells the June 15 edition of The New Yorker that the setup may have to do with her request for a presidential pardon. Her lawyer said someone may have been trying to discredit her and ruin her chances at a pardon. He has asked Attorney General Janet Reno to look into the matter. ``We're not ruling anything in and we're not ruling anything out,'' George Martinez told The Associated Press when asked if he believed the government was involved in the incident. ``We just don't know what's going on.'' In February, a package was delivered to her Connecticut home by United Parcel Service. Thinking the package might be a bomb, she refused to open it and called police. ``I always look my mail over because of having spent 18 months with terrorists who thought up things like this,'' she told The New Yorker. ``They would sit around and dream up ways to kill people.'' Minutes later a truck pulled up that she assumed was part of a bomb squad. A man and a woman came to her door and flashed badges identifying themselves as federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents. The agents said they did not know who sent the package, which they said contained narcotics, but were prepared to arrest Hearst Shaw for accepting them. They said they were tipped off to the delivery. However, since Hearst Shaw did not take the box into her home and contacted police right away, she had done ``everything right,'' according to the agents. The agents asked if she knew of any reason why someone would send her drugs. She claimed someone may have been trying to hurt her chance at a pardon, which had come up for consideration by the Justice Department two weeks beforehand. While Martinez would not say whom he suspected, he wrote Reno that the DEA had begun a ``campaign of harassment'' against Hearst Shaw and asked whether the government was trying to trap her. ``Has the DEA or the DOJ (Department of Justice) been involved in devising or manufacturing evidence to inculpate Ms. Hearst and Mr. Shaw?'' the letter said. The Justice Department has promised a ``detailed and expeditious'' response to his letter, Martinez said. Federal authorities declined to comment. A call late Monday to the DEA office in Washington was not returned. The Justice Department said no one was available for comment. Hearst Shaw said she still has flashbacks from the time she spent with the Symbionese Liberation Army. Her prison term was commuted by President Jimmy Carter, but she is hoping to clear her name with a pardon.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Fewer Teens Think Pot Is Harmful ('Reuters' Notes A New Survey Reported In 'The American Journal Of Public Health' Perpetuates The Myth That High Rates Of Fear, Ignorance And Intolerance Among Teens Correlate With Low Rates Of Marijuana Use - Without Citing Any Numbers, 'Reuters' Says The New Survey Indicates Teens In The 1990s Are Less Likely To Believe That Marijuana Is Harmful And Less Likely To Disapprove Of Those Using The Illicit Drug Than Teens Were 10 Years Ago)Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 10:37:32 -0400 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (MAPNews) Subject: MN: US: Wire: Fewer Teens Think Pot Is Harmful Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family Pubdate: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 Source: Reuters FEWER TEENS THINK POT IS HARMFUL NEW YORK, Jun 08 (Reuters) -- Teens in the 1990s are less likely to believe that marijuana is harmful, and less likely to disapprove of those using the illicit drug than teens were 10 years ago, according to a report in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health. These trends may explain the rise in the number of teens using marijuana in the 1990s following a decline in use of the drug among teens in the 1980s. To stem the recent rise in marijuana use, prevention programs should focus on the risks and consequences of use, conclude researchers at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Changes in lifestyle factors -- such as the prevalence of conservatism or commitment to religion among students -- do not account for these trends, according to the authors, who analyzed surveys tracking marijuana use and attitudes to its use among high school students. "(A)ttitudes about specific drugs -- disapproval of use and perceptions of risk of harmfulness -- are among the most important determinants of actual use," wrote the researchers. In light of these findings, the authors suggest that drug prevention programs focus on the risks and consequences of drug taking. Surveys of more than 230,000 students over three decades show dramatic shifts in marijuana use. Use rose during the late 1960s and most of the 1970s, declined substantially throughout the 1980s, but has been rising again for much of the 1990s. The same surveys show accompanying changes in lifestyle factors and in perceptions of and attitudes toward drug use. The study suggests that changes in marijuana use -- and drug use in general -- are due to shifts in perceptions of the risks and social acceptability of drugs, rather than lifestyle trends. "Young people did not become distinctly more conservative in the 1980s, nor did they become distinctly less so in the 1990s," the researchers note. "(I)f we want to know why marijuana use is on the rise again we need to ask why it is that (teens) have become less concerned in recent years about the risks of marijuana use, and why they do not disapprove of such use as strongly as students did just a few years earlier," they write. One possible explanation for this shift is that antidrug campaigns have waned over the last decade, the authors comment. These campaigns, emphasizing the dangers of drug use, appear to have played a key role in the decline in drug use in the 1980s. "The implication for prevention is that presenting such information once does not finish the job; the messages must be repeated lest they be lost from one (generation) to the next," the authors concluded. SOURCE: American Journal of Public Health 1998;88:887-892. Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Opiates For The Masses (An Op-Ed In 'The Wall Street Journal' By Anti-Harm-Reduction Crusader Dr. Sally Satel, Opposing The First International Conference On Heroin Maintenance Saturday, Sponsored By The New York Academy Of Medicine) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:42:21 -0700 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (MAPNews) Subject: MN: US WSJ: Commentary: Opiates for the Masses Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ NewsHawk: Mark Greer Source: Wall Street Journal Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.wsj.com/ Pubdate: Wed, 8 Jun 1998 Author: Sally Satel COMMENTARY: OPIATES FOR THE MASSES One hundred years ago, German chemists introduced heroin to the world. On Saturday the New York Academy of Medicine held a conference celebrating the drug's latest use, "heroin maintenance": medically supervised distribution of pure heroin to addicts. The academy's First International Conference on Heroin Maintenance introduces to our shores the latest example of the pernicious drug-treatment philosophy known as "harm reduction." Harm reduction holds that drug abuse is inevitable, so society should try to minimize the damage done to addicts by drugs (disease, overdose) and to society by addicts (crime, health care costs). According to the Oakland, Calif.-based Harm Reduction Coalition, harm reduction "meets users where they are at . . . accepting for better or worse, that drug use is part of our world." Its advocates present harm reduction as a rational compromise between the alleged futility of the drug war and the extremism of outright legalization. But since harm reduction makes no demands on addicts, it consigns them to their addiction, aiming only to allow them to destroy themselves in relative "safety"--and at taxpayer expense. Specious Choice The recent debate over needle exchange illuminates the political strategy of harm reductionists. First, present the public with a specious choice: Should a drug addict shoot up with a clean needle or a dirty one? (Unquestioned is the assumption that he should shoot up at all.) Then misrepresent the science as Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala did when she pronounced "airtight" the evidence that needle exchange reduces the rate of HIV transmission. In fact, most needle exchange studies have been full of design errors; the more rigorous ones have actually shown an increase in HIV infection. And so it is with heroin maintenance. First, the false dichotomies: pure vs. contaminated heroin; addicts who commit crime to support their habit vs. addicts who don't. Then the distortion of evidence. The Lindesmith Center, one of the conference sponsors, claims that "a landmark Swiss study has successfully maintained heroin addicts on injectable heroin for almost two years, with dramatic reductions in illicit drug use and criminal activity as well as greatly improved health and social adjustment." In fact, the Swiss "experiment," conducted by the Federal Office of Public Health from 1994 to 1996, was not very scientific. Addicts in the 18-month study were expected to inject themselves with heroin under sterile conditions at the clinic three times a day. They also received extensive counseling, psychiatric services and social assistance (welfare, subsidized jobs, public housing and medical care). Results: The proportion of individuals claiming they supported themselves with illegal income dropped to 10% from 70%; homelessness fell to 1% from 12%. Permanent employment rose to 32% from 14%, but welfare dependency also rose to 27% from 18%. The rate of reported cocaine use among the heroin addicts dropped to 52% from 82%. These numbers may look promising, but it's hard to know what they mean. Verification of self-reported improvement was spotty at best. And addicts received so many social services--five times more money was spent on them than is the norm in standard treatment--that heroin maintenance itself may have played no role in any overall improvement. Definitions of success were loose as well. Anyone who kept attending the program, even intermittently, was considered "retained." By this standard, more than two-thirds made it through--a much higher retention rate than in conventional treatment. But considering that the program gave addicts pharmaceutical-grade heroin at little or no cost, it's astonishing that the numbers weren't higher. It turned out that the patients who dropped out were those with the most serious addiction-related problems--those who had been addicted the longest, were the heaviest cocaine users, or had HIV--the very groups that are of the greatest public-health concern. What's more, the researchers did not compare heroin maintenance with conventional treatments such as methadone or residential, abstinence-oriented care. They abandoned their original plan to assign patients randomly to heroin maintenance or conventional methadone--because, among other reasons, the subjects, not surprisingly, strongly preferred heroin. "The risk of heroin maintenance is the incentive it provides to 'fail' in other forms of treatment in order to become a publicly supported addict," says Mark Kleiman of UCLA School of Public Policy. And in fact, once the heroin maintenance project started, conventional treatment facilities reported a sharp decline in applications, even though the rate of drug use remained steady. The Swiss heroin experiment was born out of desperation. In the mid-1980s, the Swiss government became disenchanted with drug treatment and turned to a policy of sanctioned drug use in designated open areas. But this was unsuccessful; the most visible failures being the squalid deterioration of Zurich's Platzspitz Park (the notorious "Needle Park") and the syringe-littered Letten railway station. It is telling that harm reduction efforts have evolved in countries that provide addicts with a wide array of government benefits. Rather than throw up their hands at the poor record of drug rehabilitation, the Swiss and others should acknowledge the extent to which welfare services enable addiction by shielding addicts from the consequences of their actions, financing their drug purchases and encouraging dependency on public largesse. Nonetheless, Switzerland has ardently embraced heroin maintenance. The Federal Office of Public Health plans to triple enrollment next year to about 3,000; and in 2004 the Swiss Parliament plans to decriminalize consumption, possession and sale of narcotics for personal use. Not everyone shares Bern's enthusiasm. Wayne Hall of Australia's University of New South Wales was an independent evaluator for the World Health Organization who assessed the experimental plan of the Swiss project. "The unique political context . . . of the trials . . . meant that opportunities were lost for a more rigorous evaluation," he wrote. In February, the International Narcotics Control Board of the United Nations--a quasijudicial body that monitors international drug treaties--expressed concern that "before [completion of] the evaluation by the World Health Organization of the Swiss heroin experiment, pressure groups and some politicians are already promoting the expansion of such programmes in Switzerland and their proliferation in other countries." And indeed, the trials' principal investigator and project directors have traveled to Australia, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere promoting heroin maintenance. They won a sympathetic hearing in the Netherlands, which plans to begin a heroin experiment next month. This isn't surprising; after all, this is a country that has a union for addicts, the Federation of Dutch Junkie Leagues, which lobbies the government for services. In Rotterdam last month, I visited a Dutch Reformed church where the pastor had invited two dealers in to sell discounted heroin and cocaine. He also provided basement rooms where users could inject or smoke heroin. Nothing in Return Even if heroin maintenance "worked"--if it could be proved that heroin giveaways enhanced the addicts' health and productivity--we would still have to confront the raw truth about harm reduction. It is the public-policy manifestation of the addict's dearest wish: to use free drugs without consequence. Imagine extending this model--the use of state-subsidized drugs, the offer of endless social services and the expectation of nothing in return--to America's hard-core addicts. Today the U.N. General Assembly opens a special session on global drug-control policy. Harm reduction advocates will tell the world body that drug abuse is a human right and that the only compassionate response is to make it safer to be an addict. The Swiss and the Dutch seem to view addicts as irascible children who should be indulged, or as terminally ill patients to be palliated, hidden away and written off. But heroin maintenance is wrong. As an experiment, thus far it is scientifically groundless. As public-health policy it will always be a posture of surrender. Dr. Satel is a psychiatrist and lecturer at the Yale University School of Medicine.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Remarks By President Clinton To The Special Session Of The United Nations General Assembly (Transcript Of Today's Speech In New York) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 20:45:31 EDT Errors-To: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Arthur Livermore
To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Text of Clinton's UN speech June 8, 1998 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (New York, New York) For Immediate Release June 8, 1998 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY United Nations New York, New York 10:50 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, President Udovenko, Executive Director Arlacchi, distinguished fellow leaders. Today we join at this Special Session of the U.N. General Assembly to make common cause against the common threat of worldwide drug trafficking and abuse. Let me begin by thanking my friend, President Zedillo, for his vision in making this session possible, and for his courageous resolve against drugs. And I thank all the nations represented here who are committed to fight for our children's future by fighting drugs together. Ten years ago, the United Nations adopted a path-breaking convention to spur cooperation against drug trafficking. Today, the potential for that kind of cooperation has never been greater, or more needed. As divisive blocks and barriers have been dismantled around the world, as technology has advanced and democracy has spread, our people benefit more and more from nations working and learning together. Yet the very openness that enriches our lives is also exploited by criminals, especially drug traffickers. Today we come here to say no nation is so large and powerful that it can conquer drugs alone; none is too small to make a difference. All share a responsibility to take up the battle. Therefore, we will stand as one against this threat to our security and our future. The stakes are high, for the drug empires erode the foundations of democracies, corrupt the integrity of market economies, menace the lives, the hopes, the futures of families on every continent. Let there be no doubt, this is ultimately a struggle for human freedom. For the first time in history, more than half the world's people live under governments of their own choosing. In virtually every country, we see the expansion of expressions of individual liberty. We cannot see it all squandered for millions of people because of a perverse combination of personal weakness and national neglect. We have to prove to the drug traffickers that they are wrong. We are determined and we can make a difference. Nations have shown that with determined and relentless efforts, we can turn this evil tide. In the United States, drug use has dropped 49 percent since 1979. Recent studies show that drug use by our young people is stabilizing, and in some categories, declining. Overall, cocaine use has dropped 70 percent since 1985. The crack epidemic has begun to recede. Last year, our Coast Guard seized more than 100,000 pounds of cocaine. Today, Americans spend 37 percent less on drugs than a decade ago. That means that over $34 billion reinvested in our society, rather than being squandered on drugs. Many other nations are making great strides. Mexico set records for eradication in 1997. Peruvian coca cultivation has been slashed 42 percent since 1995. Colombia's growing aerial eradication program has destroyed tens of thousands of hectares of coca. Thailand's opium poppy growth is steadily decreasing, this year alone down 24 percent. The United States is also a partner in global law enforcement and interdiction efforts, fighting antidrug and -- funding antidrug and crime training for more than 82,050* officials last year. In 1997, Latin America and Caribbean governments seized some 166 metric tons of cocaine. Better trained police, with improved information sharing, are arresting more drug traffickers around the world. Joint information networks on suspicious financial transactions are working in dozens of countries to put the brakes on money laundering. By the end of the year 2000, the United States will provide assistance to an additional 20 countries to establish and strengthen these financial intelligence units. We must, and we can, deprive drug traffickers of the dirty money that fuels their deadly trade. We are finding strength in numbers, from the Anti-Drug Alliance the Western Hemisphere forged at the recent Summit of the Americas, to the steps against drugs and crimes the G-8 leaders agreed to take last month. The U.N. International Drug Control program, under Executive Director Arlacchi's leadership [# 8,250 officials] is combatting drug production, drug trafficking and drug abuse in some of the most difficult corners of the world, while helping to make sure the money we spend brings maximum results. I applaud the UNDCP's goal of dramatically reducing coca and opium poppy cultivation by 2008. We will do our part in the United States to make this goal a reality. For all the achievements of recent years we must not confuse progress with success. The specter of drugs still haunts us. To prevail we must do more, with dynamic national strategies, intensified international cooperation and greater resources. The debate between drug supplying and drug consuming nations about whose responsibility the drug problem is has gone on too long. Let's be frank -- this debate has not advanced the fight against drugs. Pointing fingers is distracting. It does not dismantle a single cartel, help a single addict, prevent a single child from trying and perhaps dying from heroin. Besides, the lines between countries that are supply countries, demand countries, and transit countries are increasingly blurred. Drugs are every nation's problem, and every nation must act to fight them -- on the streets, around the kitchen table, and around the world. This is the commitment of the United States. Year after year, our administration has provided the largest antidrug budgets in history. Our request next year exceeds $17 billion, nearly $6 billion of which will be devoted to demand reduction. Our comprehensive national drug control strategy aims to cut American drug use and access by half over the next 10 years, through strength in law enforcement, tougher interdiction, improved treatment, and expanded prevention efforts. We are determined to build a drug-free America and to join with others to combat drugs around the world. We believe attitudes drive actions. Therefore, we wage first the battle in the minds of our young people. Working with Congress and the private sector, the United States has launched a major antidrug youth media campaign. Now, when our children turn on the television, surf the Internet, or listen to the radio, they will get the powerful message that drugs are wrong and can kill them. I will be asking Congress to extend this program through 2002. With congressional support and matching dollars from the private sector, we will commit to a five-year, $2 billion public-private partnership to teach our children to stay off drugs. Other nations, including Mexico, Venezuela, and Brazil, are launching similar campaigns. I had the pleasure of talking with the President of Brazil about this at some length yesterday. I hope all our nations can work together to spread the word to children all around the world -- drugs destroy young lives; don't let them destroy yours. The United States is also working to create a virtual university for the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, using modern technology to share knowledge and experience across national borders. We will launch this effort next month in New Mexico, with an international training course on reducing drug demand. Government officials and other professionals from Mexico, El Salvador and Honduras will work with experts on drug abuse and gang prevention from the U.S. The course will be linked via satellite to the U.S. Information Agency's Worldnet system, so that anyone with access to Worldnet can tune in. Our National Institute for Drug Abuse in the United States, which funds 85 percent of global research on drugs, will post on the Internet live videotapes of its drug prevention and treatment workshops. This means that anyone, anywhere, with access to a computer and modem -- a parent whose child is addicted to drugs, a doctor trying to help, a researcher looking for a cure -- anyone will be able to obtain the latest, most advanced medical knowledge on drugs. Such sharing of information, experience and ideas is more important than ever. That is why I am especially pleased to announce the establishment of an international drug fellowship program that will enable professionals from all around the world to come to the United States and work with our drug fighting agencies. The focus will be on the priorities of this special session: demand reductions, stimulants, precursors, money laundering, judicial cooperation, alternative development, and eradication of illicit crops. These fellowships will help all of us. It will help our nations to learn from one another while building a global force of skilled and experienced drug crusaders. Together we must extend the long arm of the law and the hand of compassion to match the global reach of this problem. Let us leave here determined to act together in a spirit of trust and respect, at home and abroad, against demand and supply, using all the tools at our disposal to win the global fight against drugs and build a safe and healthy 21st century for our children. Thank you very much. (Applause.) END 11:06 A.M. EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------- Word Stats From Clinton's UNGASS Speech (A List Subscriber Notes The Top Drug Warrior Used The Word 'Children' Seven Times, But Words Such As 'Disease' And 'Science' Not At All) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:08:58 EDT Errors-To: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Tim Meehan) To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Word Stats from Clinton's UNGASS Speech Organization: Townhouse Nine Communications - http://th9.simplenet.com Number of occurrences of the following words in Bill Clinton's UNGASS speech (available at http://library.whitehouse.gov): disease: 0 sick: 0 science: 0 cannabis: 0 marijuana: 0 medical: 1 drug-free: 1 doctor: 1 youth: 1 Internet: 2 interdiction: 2 addict(ed): 2 help(ing): 5 abuse: 5 child(ren): 7 -Tim *** Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 23:57:49 EDT Errors-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz Originator: email@example.com Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org From: David.Hadorn@vuw.ac.nz (David Hadorn) To: Multiple recipients of list (email@example.com) Subject: Re: Word Stats from Clinton's UNGASS Speech I have reviewed his speech, but I'll be "evidence", "compassion", and "logic" were never mentioned either. D
------------------------------------------------------------------- Press Briefing By Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey, Donna Shalala, Janet Reno And Mack McLarty (Transcript Of The Briefing Held On The Occasion Of The United Nations General Assembly Special Session On Drugs) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 18:53:36 -0700 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: Arthur Livermore (email@example.com) Subject: CanPat> Secretary Shalala: "it's a kind of pseudo-intellectualism" Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org June 8, 1998 PRESS BRIEFING BY U.S. NATIONAL DRUG POLICY DIRECTOR GENERAL BARRY MCCAFFREY, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE DONNA SHALALA, ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO, AND SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE AMERICAS MACK MCLARTY THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary (New York, New York) For Immediate Release June 8, 1998 PRESS BRIEFING BY U.S. NATIONAL DRUG POLICY DIRECTOR GENERAL BARRY MCCAFFREY, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE DONNA SHALALA, ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO, AND SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE AMERICAS MACK MCLARTY The United Nations New York, New York 11:25 A.M. EDT GENERAL MCCAFFREY: Let me, if I may, briefly make some opening comments and begin by -- I'm Barry McCaffrey, the U.S. National Drug Policy Director; and am joined by the Attorney General Janet Reno, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and Mr. Mack McLarty, who has been our Special Envoy for Latin American issues -- underscore the participation of the U.S. national delegation this morning of Secretary Dick Riley, who is our Secretary of Education. It was an important statement for the President not only to give this address, but also to be joined by the senior officials of his government who work on the U.S. national drug strategy. Very briefly, let me comment on the President's remarks. First of all, it was our purpose to underscore that there was a year's hard work behind the three days of this absolutely enormously important gathering of 150 nations and more than 30 heads of government. And that hard work was in many ways put together not only by the active intervention of Mexican leadership and others, but also by Mr. Arlacchi of the UNDCP, as you know, based in Vienna. It is a viewpoint of many of us, to include President Clinton and our government, that he bring to bear on this subject a renewed sense of energy and vision which we think can produce some enormous good in the years to come. The President tried to make several fundamental statements; first, that there is a commonality in the problem shared in the world community, that it's no longer appropriate to talk in terms of producer nations, transit and consumer, but to recognize that there are some 200 million addicts in the world community. And in addition, we have been quick to underscore in the United States that we are now a drug producing nation, and we're seeing the rise of methamphetamines and chemically-produced drugs as part of that new threat on the drug issue in the United States. Secondly, the President made the point that this was an issue that had to be addressed through community of action. And we began that process at Santiago, Chile, a few months back, when at the second Summit of the Americas we had 34 democratically-elected heads of government in the region come together and commit to a process, using the Organization of American States as the mechanism, to cooperation on the north-south access. So it's a question of community. Third, the President committed ourselves to stand behind the leadership of the U.N. in an attempt to fundamentally change the nature of the drug threat to all of us. We believe it is possible -- this is not a war that has been fought and lost, this is the beginning of an international effort which has seen enormous beginning success in Thailand, in Pakistan, in Peru, and now we're beginning to see movement in Bolivia. We believe it is possible to very drastically slash the production of these illegal drugs, and, even more importantly, to reduce drug demand. And certainly Thailand is a model to many of us to also reduce the demand coefficient. The United States, as the President mentioned, has also successfully reduced, for example, cocaine consumption by more than 70 percent in the last decade. And, finally, I think all of us believe that the notion of cooperation is going to be fundamental to what we're trying to achieve, and cooperation not just in the obvious areas of intelligence sharing, of cooperation in interdiction, of detection and monitoring, but in the more important ways of sharing evidence and judicial extradition of those who are wanted in one country for violating the law of another, and most importantly, of cooperation on demand reduction. And I would underscore that Mexico and the United States, since we have a very special relationship, have begun that process of having very close contacts, using Secretary Shalala and others to reduce and to share information on demand reduction. Finally, the President announced that -- when you hear the number it's rather dramatic -- that he is now asking for continued bipartisan support from the U.S. Congress for a $2 billion, 5-year campaign to speak to our own children and to their adult mentors about the destructive impact of drugs. And that will go nationwide in July, and you will see on television, radio, the Internet, print media, billboards, sponsorship programs, public-private partnerships, one of the most sophisticated efforts, guided in large part by a Partnership for a Drug Free America group, Mr. Jim Burke and others, which we hope will provide another important element to the reduction of drug use in the United States. On that note, if you can, let me introduce the first of the three most important people in my life, Secretary Shalala, the Attorney General and Secretary Dick Riley. Madam Attorney General. Q What about your wife? GENERAL MCCAFFREY: Well, she didn't make the cut today -- I'm sorry. (Laughter.) ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: We defer to her. Today is a very important day, for we have seen the nations of the world come together to focus on how they, together, can fight drugs. No nation can wage this battle alone and we all need to be allies. I have long said that our efforts against drugs must be long-range and they must be comprehensive if we are to deal with the violence, the suffering, and the problems associated with drugs. We must vigorously enforce our drug laws and go after those organizations that flood our streets with drugs, with violence. We must do so by disrupting and dismantling their operations. Secondly, we must also teach our young people that using drugs is a dangerous road to nowhere, and we must enhance prevention programs in every way possible. Finally, we must continue the common sense treatment programs that are so successful in cutting down on the demand. If there is no demand, there is no drug business. And we must work together to ensure that those who go to prison for using drugs, or who abuse drugs, have the treatment that will enable them to come back to the community when they are released from prison with a chance of success. These are all important steps that can work and are working, but they must be carried out comprehensively and together by us all. No nation can sit on the sidelines; by working together, all our nations can help make our communities safer places in which to live. SECRETARY SHALALA: Thank you, General McCaffrey. One of the themes today is that all the senior members of the President's Cabinet see themselves as part of the international drug control and prevention efforts. Last month, at the World Health meetings, Dr. Gro Brundtland, the new Director General of WHO, called for more global cooperation on global health problems. And we certainly see drug abuse as a global health problem and are committed to gathering our resources and our will and our efforts to fight drug abuse together. And that's why our antidrug strategy includes sharing with other nations our most effective ways for curbing drug abuse and addiction. We've held prevention training courses all over the world, including Bangladesh and Thailand and Peru and Colombia and Japan and many of the nations in Europe, as well as Central and South America. We've also shared our drug research findings. For instance, under our bilateral health agreement, our research scientists are collaborating with Russian scientists on addiction treatment. And our guide to preventing drug use among children and teens has been translated into a number of languages, including Spanish. And several nations, including Mexico and Turkey, have launched their own high school drug use epidemiology studies, based on our monitoring the future study. In other words, our underlying research is being used around the world as models, as nations put their own surveillance systems in place and culturally sensitive translations of some of the strategies that we've used and the materials that we've used. The initiatives that the President announced today, the virtual university and the international drug fellowship program, we believe will reinforce these international efforts in prevention and in research. We've got a very good story to tell the world about fighting drug use. It's no accident that it's dropped here in the past decade. It took a lot of leadership, but more importantly, it took consistency and our willingness to be nimble and to change programs, to change materials, to change strategies, as we will demonstrate this summer, as we learned new things. But our children are still vulnerable, and the President has challenged us to cut the rate of drug use on the demand side in half within 10 years. And to reach that target, we've asked Congress for the largest antidrug budget in history -- $17 billion, including $6 billion to fight drug demand with very strong media campaigns and very solid prevention, research, and treatment programs. There is no silver bullet, as General McCaffrey has consistently pointed out. It takes a full-court press, a complex set of prevention and research and treatment programs to really have an impact, and a particular focus on young people. As we harness global cooperation, we're also asking Congress to step up and pass the President's budget, to pass his antidrug budget, which will have not only an enormous impact on our own country, but will help our international efforts, which are considerable. MR. MCLARTY: This global approach the President outlined today, as did President Zedillo and other speakers will as well, I think has as one of its critical foundational pieces the Summit of the Americas process that began in Miami, and as General McCaffrey referred to, a multilateral approach and alliance, indeed, was agreed upon at the Santiago Summit. The progress that has been made in terms of that cooperation, the President noted in his remarks, in Bolivia and Peru, where we see substantial crop eradication, as well as Mexico. And I think has changed some of the basic patterns of not only the narco traffickers' distribution routes, but also the more fundamental aspects of their business. And I think that we are making real progress in that regard. But it is clearly not only a supply, but a demand effort, indeed. I think the President's assessment that progress, real progress, which General McCaffrey, Secretary Shalala and General Reno have spoken to, should not be confused with the complete success in this very sustained effort that is absolutely critical. And I think, finally, the line has not only blurred in terms of demand and supply, which we see certainly in this hemisphere, but also in terms of foreign and domestic issues, but in terms of security and economic issues as well. Clearly, the effort we are making against narco traffickers is absolutely critical in terms of building stable and prosperous economies throughout our hemisphere. It will indeed take a community of action. I will have the opportunity to meet with a number of heads of state from Latin America who are here, in our common effort against the narco traffickers. And the United Nations is certainly the proper place to move forward in a critical endeavor in the coming months and years. Q The President said today we must and we can deprive traffickers of their dirty money that strengthens the drug trade. Apparently, that's what Operation Casablanca tried to do. But was it worth it, given what appears to be the damage it has created between the United States and Mexico? GENERAL MCCAFFREY: Well, first of all, let me begin with a fundamental understanding that the U.S. probably spends $57 billion a year on illegal drugs. So I remind people, the United States does not have the world's addict population, we have too much money. So the money out of Western Europe and the United States, to some extent, fuels this international crime threat. And that crime threat -- Secretary Rubin has provided brilliant leadership over the last three years to find common laws, particularly in this hemisphere, to combat money laundering and asset seizure. There's been enormous progress. Now, secondly, let me just underscore our enormous pride in the dedication of U.S. law enforcement -- in the Department of Treasury and Justice -- in aggressively pursuing international crime. The problem is not Colombia or Panama or the Cayman Islands or Peru or the United States. The problem is international crime that is corrosive to the democratic institution of all these countries. Now, I'm also persuaded, as are the rest of the President's team, that we have to do this in partnership with our neighbors and with absolute respect and deference for their own sovereign institutions. There's probably some room here for -- I think the Attorney General may wish to speak to it, but there's some room here for us to look through how we can even more effectively coordinate these in the future. Q -- damage done by Casablanca -- according to Mexican authorities. GENERAL MCCAFFREY: I think there is a common belief on the part of both these Presidents, Zedillo and Clinton, that one of the dominant threats to our democratic institutions and our families is the drug issue. And so there's no question but that this threatens both populations and requires a mutually respectful partnership to confront it. Q They're asking the General if he will take agents and extradite them to Mexico. Is that proper? Q On behalf of the United States Correspondents Association, we welcome you here, ladies and gentlemen, to this briefing. The first question, as it should have been, is -- as you've been watching television lately, you've been seeing some active lobbying going on which purports that the drug strategy of the United States is a failure, to put it bluntly. It seems to be backed by a good number of influential people, from this context, probably the most surprising one is Perez de Cuellar, the former Secretary General here. Is that likely to have any impact on the American strategy? GENERAL MCCAFFREY: We're listening very carefully to the viewpoints of a very diverse community and we have great respect for the insights of some of the people that are represented in that ad. We've tried to share as widely as we can that the administration's strategy does take into account a fairly comprehensive approach that is based fundamentally on the reduction of drug demand. So I think in many cases, this is a 1990s reaction to a 1950s perception. Having said that, in addition, I think there are probably mixed agendas out of some in this debate. I think we are -- certainly Secretary Shalala and I, and Secretary Riley believe that the heart and soul of the U.S. strategy is watch our budgets, the 1999 budget. And if you go back three years ago, it has a 33-percent increase in drug prevention funding. There is a dramatic increase in drug treatment funding. And now we're linking it to the criminal justice system. Let me, if I can, defer to the Attorney General and Secretary Shalala, to talk to about just the nature of our own approach. ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I think in the last several years we have focused on a balanced approach that includes prevention, education, treatment and enforcement. For example, in enforcement we have shown significant results with drug courts which use a carrot and stick approach of cooperate with us in treatment or face a more serious sanction each step of the way. And I think balanced approaches like this, provision for treatment, thoughtful follow-up with after-care are making a significant difference. SECRETARY SHALALA: There are no substitutes for the initial prevention strategies -- and that is parents and teachers and the institutions in our society at the community level sending a consistent message to young people and reinforcing that message and helping young people go through that transition through to adolescence drug free. And there's no silver bullet for this and there's not a chance that we're going to give up and throw up our hands and walk away from what we think is a fundamental public health issue. GENERAL MCCAFFREY: And one which, I might add, we're actually doing in the 15-year context quite well at. We're dissatisfied with it. We think -- in 1979, 14 percent of the population was regularly using drugs. Now it's 6 percent. But it's still historically unacceptably high. And so the President has committed us to a long-term approach to grind it down by more than half. And we are persuaded we can do that. Q I have a question for the Attorney General. The foundation that Mr. Sorros, George Sorros backs is in favor of legalizing drugs. I'd like your attitude on that. And I have a question for Secretary Shalala, if the U.N. is to be a focal point for this war on drugs worldwide, shouldn't the U.S. pay its dues of $1.6 billion to the organization? ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I'm opposed to the legalization of drugs because I have seen so many instances in which people who were abusers were motivated into treatment by the threat of sanction. And I think the balanced approach that includes vigorous enforcement and focus on traffickers and appropriate sanctions against users, coupled with treatment can have a dramatic impact. SECRETARY SHALALA: In particular, we believe that public health issues ought to be based on science. And there is clear evidence that marijuana is dangerous to our health and, therefore, we ought not to be making public policies, particularly in this area, that do not reflect the danger of those drugs -- no matter what those drugs are. There is no such thing as a soft drug, and there is no such thing as a drug that is illegal that is not dangerous. And the new research on marijuana in particular makes that very clear. Q The program laid out by Mr. Arlacchi includes an important element, the idea of inducing countries that are drug producers to go into crop substitution that would eliminate their production of narcotics. There have been reports in recent days that the United States government is unwilling to contribute funds to the carrying out of this program in certain countries, particularly Afghanistan and Myranmar. Could you shed some light on this and tell us if that is correct or not? GENERAL MCCAFFREY: Let me begin by saying that the plan is not on the table yet. Mr. Arlacchi's evolving thinking on the elimination of coke and opium production in the coming decade is not yet in the form of a plan that's on the table -- never mind with an attendant cost estimate package to go with it. So much of this is sort of presumptuous thinking. Now, the second assertion many of us would make is that it is not clear to me that resources will bulldoze the solution. We've had dramatic successes in Peru with somewhat modest help from the international community. The most important ingredient at stake was Peruvian political will and the reintroduction of civil law and civil police into the growing areas of the Huallaga Valley, along with alternative economic development that the United States has sustained. Now, we also understand that there are problems in both Burma, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, where the U.S. has a principal foreign policy goal of this support for democratization and human rights and the status of women in society in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan. How we will sort out those other extremely important democratic principles is not yet clear. But it is clear to all of us that drug production in Burma is an enormous threat to the People's Republic of China, to Vietnam, to Cambodia, to Thailand, to Japan, and to the United States. So we've tried to make the case -- this is not a consumer nation versus producer nation. This is a regional problem in which Pakistan, as an example, has more than we think -- possibly, 3 million addicts to heroine. So it's a problem for regional community solutions, not just funding for alternative economic development. Q This is a question for the Attorney General. I wish you'd get on to the Operation Casablanca again. The Mexican President's speech had a tinge of bitterness about governments acting on their own and not respecting the sovereignty of others, and I was wondering, if you had Operation Casablanca to do over again, how would you do it over? ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: One doesn't engage in what ifs. But what one does is look to what the issues are. And clearly, the mutual problem that both nations face is what do we do about drugs and money laundering. And we will continue to focus every effort on that. We will also continue to work with the government of Mexico in every way possible. My colleague, Jorge Madrazo, the Attorney General of Mexico, has been a superb partner in this effort and we will continue those efforts. In any investigation, there may be problems that arise, but we always work through those for the ultimate goal of real impact on drug trafficking and money laundering which threaten the people of both nations. Q Attorney General Reno, we have heard how important it is for information sharing and international cooperation. The United States decided not to inform Mexican officials about the Operation Casablanca, arguing that you feared that by doing so agents could be in danger. My question is the following: Telling President Zedillo and Mexican officials like Jorge Madrazo, the Attorney General, would have increased the danger for your agents? ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: In some investigations the circumstances are such that great care has got to be taken and it's very closely held. In this instance, the investigators determined that it must be very closely held, even with respect to officials in this nation, in order to ensure the safety of the individual. Again, it is not a matter of disrespect, it is a matter of trying to do -- conduct an investigation, to focus on money laundering, to focus on those who launder the money and launder the misery, while at the same time, protecting the lives of the agents involved. Q General, with all due respect, last week Mr. Arlacchi did give us a dollar figure for the cost of his proposals. He said it would be about a half-billion dollars a year for the next 10 years, and if you factor in existing money it could come down to about quarter of a billion. Is that within the area that the U.S. could participate in if you do determine the programs are worthy of funding? And how likely is it that you would be able to get that money from Congress? GENERAL MCCAFFREY: Again, I think it's premature to speculate on a funding package to go along with Mr. Arlacchi's visionary thinking, which we are absolutely supportive of. So what we're doing this week, these three days, is building political consensus to look at the problem as one that effects us all, threatens us all and requires a sense of partnership. Now, I think there will be a discussion down the line of the mechanisms we might use. There is already, as you're aware, U.N. money going into both Afghanistan and Burma, and there is some good coming out of this. Mr. Arlacchi's last visit there resulted in probably a two-ton destruction of opium gum. But we're at the beginning stages of this. The only thing I would also ask you to consider by way of analogy is that the cost to the world community of living with this scourge is so enormous that it's not clear to me the resources required to address the problem will dominate the debate. In the United States we assert we lose $110 billion a year, direct cost to our society, from drug abuse by six percent of our population. And we've put on the table a $17 billion package to confront this issue. But in the long run we don't believe money will continue to grow in the coming years of the counterdrug effort. We actually think this will work; drug abuse will go down, we will spend less money on the national strategy. And I think Mr. Arlacchi's leadership may well lead us to similar conclusions in the international arena. Q To go back to the issue of Burma, I was wondering if there is a new thinking in the administration as to how to deal with the problem of crop eradication in Burma. It has not been a success. The government is not being particularly cooperative. There is a U.N. program for eradication -- the extent of the problem there. Other than saying that it is a regional problem, is there any new ideas and strategies within the U.S. administration to deal with that? And, two, the Burmese government has refused to extradite Kuhn Sah to the United States, nor has it brought Kuhn Sah to trial for his involvement in the drug empire there. What is the U.S. planning to do about that? GENERAL MCCAFFREY: Well, Burma is a very special case. Many of you are aware of the numbers. We believe they've produced some 60 percent nearly of the world's supply of heroin and it's become a massive threat to their regional partners. If anyone is directly a threat it's the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Thai and their other partners. And I have also suggested, in the international community we have lost sight of the fact that if you look at comparative levels of suffering, the hill people of the Burmese nations have suffered more injury from opium production than anyone else. It's been enormously destructive of their own way of life, and it's just a terrible tragedy. Now, what we do about it is not clear. There is without question a regional sense of concern and growing cooperation to confront the issue. We are aware that the Chinese are actively involved in this dialogue. We do have a modest U.S. presence in Burma that is trying to monitor the situation, and we remain supportive of U.N. efforts with rather modest programs also, which are in Burma. But I would agree, there has not been any real progress in lowering the rates of drug production, nor are we satisfied with the democratic issue or the human rights issue. So it's a dilemma for us to address. I hope you ask Mr. Abe Rosenthal at some point. MR. TOIV: Last question here. Q Can you answer the extradition question of Kuhn Sah? GENERAL McCAFFREY: I don't know that we've even answered that. ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: What is important, generally, is that we develop procedures for bringing people to justice so that there is no safe place to hide. And that's the reason it's important that we meet here today to learn how we can improve our extradition efforts, what we can do to build trust that can make sure that drug traffickers know there is no safe place to hide. Q This is to the General or anybody else. I think that most people who are in the antidrug or count ourselves in the antidrug community, whether it is journalistic or law enforcement or therapy, believe that the pro-drug, which is for the drug legalization community in America, is getting more and more powerful, not necessarily among the general public, but certainly in the intellectual and academic community as this ad and many other ads will show. They're making headway in it and they give the -- they never put forward a plan, obviously, because they don't have one. But they're making it more and more success in getting people to believe that the drug war has ended -- we don't even want to call it a "drug war" anymore, but let that go -- has ended in failure and that the community, that the people within the intellectual, literary, academic communities -- are moving towards some form of legalization either by referenda or whatever. What is it you think that the United States government or anybody else can do to arouse the literary and the intellectual and academic communities to support the antidrug movement far more than they do now? GENERAL McCAFFREY: Well, first of all, I share your concern. I am very disturbed by it. The foreign affairs article was something we've tried to refute and had some difficulty in getting our own ideas in print. Having said that, let me -- to some extent, it's the mouse that roared. If you look at the polling data of the American people, there is not s shred of support for drug legalization. That will not happen in the United States, no matter how you word the question. That's why we're seeing very subtle nuanced, indirect approaches to drug legalization -- the medical marijuana issue, hemp as a solution to the nation's textile problems, whatever. So I'm a little bit skeptical. And, in addition, when I go to the editorial boards, the most creative people in America, in television and the new media -- when we visited Hollywood, we find a great wealth of support for a non-drugged, non-stoned America. So I was very upbeat. Let me, if I can, defer to my colleagues. ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: My message to them is that's the wrong way to go. The best way to go is to join with General McCaffrey, Secretary Shalala and others in developing a balanced approach that focuses indeed on enforcement, focuses on the major traffickers, but recognizes that many people are in prison today because they had a combination of use and some street dealing. Those people are coming out to the community sooner rather than later. Let's make sure we get them treatment while they're in prison and after-care when they're out so that they can come back with a chance of success. Let's make sure we develop comprehensive intervention programs. A drug court started in Miami in 1989; there are no over 200 across the country, and they are having an impact, again through some evaluations and research that show it, not just speculation. Again, we need to focus, as the President has focused, for these next years, on prevention programs that work. If we provide that balance and if we focus on comprehensive community efforts that give our young people a chance to grow with a positive future, I think we can make a difference. And the academic world has been right there with us. We need to bring some others along. SECRETARY SHALALA: I agree with Janet. I think that it's a kind of pseudo-intellectualism, because there's no scientific base to their conclusions. These drugs are harmful and there's no way they could make the case that they're not harmful or that they won't lead to the worst kind of public health effects. And just because they have enough money to make it fashionable, it doesn't mean that they're right. And we believe that they're fundamentally wrong and that, more importantly, that there's no scientific basis for suggesting that the legalization of drugs would, in fact, improve the public health. GENERAL MCCAFFREY: A viewpoint that we are joined in by Harvard University, University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, Pennsylvania Medical College -- this is an awfully widespread academic support for what we're trying to achieve. I think that's probably about the last question. Thank you. END 12:00 P.M. EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------- Bull**** On Parade - From Today's White House Press Briefing (A List Subscriber Highlights Comments By McCaffrey And Shalala Suggesting The Reform Cause Is Pseudo-Intellectual, Without Scientific Basis - Yeah, The Same People Who Endorsed Not Funding Needle Exchange In Spite Of The Science - To Read All The Major Studies Of Drug Policy, None Of Which Endorsed A Criminal-Justice Approach, Follow This Link) From: email@example.com (Tim Meehan) To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Bull**** on parade - From today's White House press briefing Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 22:52:37 -0400 Organization: Townhouse Nine Communications - http://th9.simplenet.com (From http://library.whitehouse.gov/ - choice cuts from today's press briefing from McCaffrey & co) GENERAL McCAFFREY: Well, first of all, I share your concern. I am very disturbed by it. The foreign affairs article was something we've tried to refute and had some difficulty in getting our own ideas in print. Having said that, let me -- to some extent, it's the mouse that roared. If you look at the polling data of the American people, there is not a shred of support for drug legalization. That will not happen in the United States, no matter how you word the question. That's why we're seeing very subtle nuanced, indirect approaches to drug legalization -- the medical marijuana issue, hemp as a solution to the nation's textile problems, whatever. So I'm a little bit skeptical. And, in addition, when I go to the editorial boards, the most creative people in America, in television and the new media -- when we visited Hollywood, we find a great wealth of support for a non-drugged, non-stoned America. So I was very upbeat. (snip) SECRETARY SHALALA: I agree with Janet. I think that it's a kind of pseudo-intellectualism, because there's no scientific base to their conclusions. These drugs are harmful and there's no way they could make the case that they're not harmful or that they won't lead to the worst kind of public health effects. And just because they have enough money to make it fashionable, it doesn't mean that they're right. And we believe that they're fundamentally wrong and that, more importantly, that there's no scientific basis for suggesting that the legalization of drugs would, in fact, improve the public health. GENERAL MCCAFFREY: A viewpoint that we are joined in by Harvard University, University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, Pennsylvania Medical College -- this is an awfully widespread academic support for what we're trying to achieve.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Clinton Challenges Globe On Drugs ('The Associated Press' Account Of Clinton's Speech At The United Nations Notes He Included Several Fund-Raising Stops In His Itinerary) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:11:13 -0700 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (MAPNews) Subject: MN: UN GE: Wire: Clinton Challenges Globe on Drugs Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family
Source: Associated Press Pubdate: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 CLINTON CHALLENGES GLOBE ON DRUGS UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- President Clinton challenged world leaders on Monday to work together attacking illegal drugs and stop wasting time ``pointing fingers'' of blame at each other. He also announced a $2 billion media campaign aimed at young people. ``The debate between drug-supplying and drug-consuming nations about whose responsibility the drug problem is has gone on too long,'' Clinton said in the opening address at a U.N. General Assembly special session on drugs in which he praised Mexico for its cooperation in fighting the movement of drugs into the United States. ``Let's be frank,'' he said. ``This debate has not advanced the fight against drugs. Pointing fingers is distracting. It does not dismantle a single cartel, help a single addict, prevent a single child from trying and perhaps dying from heroin.'' ``Let there be no doubt: This is ultimately a struggle for human freedom.'' About 150 nations were represented at the U.N. session. In his speech, Clinton announced a $2 billion, five-year media campaign against drugs, targeting young people with a message that ``drugs destroy young lives; don't let it destroy yours.'' Similar campaigns will be launched in Mexico, Venezuela and Brazil, Clinton said, adding that he discussed the issue with Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso on Sunday. Only $175 million of the $2 billion would be federal funds; the rest would be contributed by corporations and philanthropic organizations. To emphasize the importance Clinton placed on the anti-drug effort, he brought along Attorney General Janet Reno; his drug policy adviser, Barry McCaffrey; Latin American envoy Mack McLarty; and Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. Clinton said the drug problem is too severe for any nation to ignore. ``No nation is so large and powerful that it can conquer drugs alone. None is too small to make a difference. All share a responsibility to take up the battle. Therefore, we will stand as one against this threat to our security and our future.'' U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who met privately with Clinton before the session, called the drug scourge ``a tragic reality'' and appealed to member nations to work seriously to find common ground. In his 11-minute speech, Clinton described U.S. successes in reducing drug use and made a special point of thanking Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo for his country's cooperation in combating the trafficking of drugs into the United States. Clinton cited Zedillo's ``courageous resolve against drugs.'' The two presidents met later at a New York hotel and discussed the diplomatic fallout from Operation Casablanca, a major U.S. money-laundering sting that led to the arrests last month of 42 people -- including about two dozen Mexican bankers. The Mexican government strongly protested that U.S. drug agents had carried out the sting operation without prior approval or notification to Mexico City. It has suggested asking for extradition of some U.S. agents involved, although U.S. officials said extradition was not raised in Monday's meeting. After their 40-minute session at the Waldorf Astoria in midtown Manhattan, Clinton and Zedillo issued a joint statement of their intent to combat drug trafficking ``in conformity with the laws in each country.'' There was no U.S. apology or guarantee of prior notification in future operations. Zedillo told Clinton that his government was investigating whether Casablanca violated any Mexican laws but had not yet come to any conclusions, said James Dobbins, senior director for inter-American affairs at the National Security Council. Dobbins said there was ``no negative tone'' in their talks. Clinton did not mention the controversy in his U.N. speech, but his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to New York that the administration will not consider extraditing the agents. ``I think that would be a very bad idea,'' Berger said. In his address to the General Assembly, with Clinton sitting in the audience, Zedillo made a thinly veiled reference to the Casablanca controversy. He called for a ``balanced strategy'' to combat drug trafficking ``so that no one can become the judge of others and no one feels entitled to violate other countries' laws for the sake of enforcing its own.'' Critics of the session held a news conference nearby to criticize the United Nations for ``more of the same old failed policies.'' ``The U.N. drug summit is perhaps the biggest pep rally ever in the failed global war on drugs,'' said Ethan Nadelmann, director of the private Lindesmith Center, a drug policy research institute. In a letter published Monday in The New York Times, about 500 people decried the routing of resources to ``ever more expensive interdiction efforts'' without adequate attention to ``realistic proposals to reduce drug-related crime, disease and death.'' Those who signed it included former Secretary of State George Shultz, former U.N. Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar and former Greek President George Papandreou. Despite Clinton's appeal to avoid finger-pointing, other leaders suggested that U.S. demand is causing the drug problem and said they needed more money from the United States to combat it. ``How can we truly expect small, poor countries such as mine to defeat the wealthy drug lords if the rich countries, with their wealth of resources, are unsuccessful in limiting the demand?'' Prime Minister Denzil Douglas of the tiny Caribbean nation of St. Kitts and Nevis said in his speech to the assembly. From New York, Clinton flew by helicopter to Westport, Conn., to attend a fund-raising reception for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly at the studio where Martha Stewart records her syndicated television show, ``Martha Stewart Living.'' The reception was held in a tent outside the studio. A separate luncheon inside the studio raised $500,000 for the Connecticut Democratic Party. Clinton attended both events but spoke only at the reception. Later, he flew back to New York for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fund-raiser expected to pull in more than $1 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Clinton Seeks To Calm Mexico, Urges Unity On Drugs ('Reuters' Coverage Of The US President's Speech At The United Nations) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 10:28:14 -0400 From: Scott Dykstra (firstname.lastname@example.org) Reply-To: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: CanPat - US Laundering probe on Mex. soil Sender: email@example.com 07:28 PM ET 06/08/98 Clinton seeks to calm Mexico, urges unity on drugs (Adds Clinton, Zedillo meeting) By Randall Mikkelsen UNITED NATIONS, (Reuters) - President Clinton on Monday sought to mend fences with Mexico over a secret U.S. money-laundering probe on its soil, and urged international unity in the fight against drug trafficking. ``Drugs are every nation's problem, and every nation must act to fight them,'' Clinton told the opening of a three-day special session of the United Nations general assembly devoted to curbing the use and trafficking of illegal drugs. ``Together, we must extend the long arm of the law, and the hand of compassion, to match the global reach of this problem,'' Clinton said. Clinton, speaking as U.S. anti-drug tactics have come under renewed fire from Mexico and others for running roughshod over the rights of other countries, announced new domestic and international measures to fight the scourge. He praised Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo for his resolve in the fight against drugs and later met privately for more than an hour with the Mexican leader. But U.S. officials made no pledges they would not conduct another secret operation like the Operation Casablanca money- laundering sting against Mexican bankers and others which was revealed by U.S. authorities last month. At a news briefing, Attorney General Janet Reno said the United States had intended no disrespect to Mexico but acted to protect the lives of the agents involved. ``In this instance the investigators determined it must be very closely held,'' she said. Said a U.S. official, ``this has been a very difficult episode for the two governments.'' Clinton and Zedillo said in a joint statement released after the meeting that the drug battle was best fought through ''improved cooperation and mutual trust, with full respect for the sovereignty of both nations.'' The leaders also agreed to strengthen efforts to combat money laundering and improve communication. But Zedillo, still smarting from being kept in the dark about Casablanca, reminded U.N. members in his speech that sovereignty must be respected. ``We must all respect the sovereignty of each nation so that no one can become the judge of others and no one feels entitled to violate other countries' laws for the sake of enforcing its own,'' Zedillo told the U.N. immediately after Clinton spoke. In last month's operation, the result of a three-year undercover probe, U.S. agents lured Mexican bankers to a fake casino in the United States. As a result, some 150 people were arrested, $50 million was seized and three Mexican banks were indicted. Mexico has called for extradition of U.S. customs agents involved in the sting, but White House National Security Adviser Samuel Berger said, ``we think it would be a very bad idea.'' James Dobbins, a U.S. National Security Council official responsible for Latin America, said Mexico was still investigating whether its laws had been violated in the sting, and that Clinton and Zedillo did not discuss the issue. In his speech, Clinton proposed a 10-fold expansion, to $2 billion, of a media campaign funded by public and private sources aimed at discouraging drug use by American youth. The campaign would last five years, costing the government about $195 million each year. Clinton also said the United States would use the Internet to distribute international research on drug abuse prevention and treatment, and form an academic program to bring drug experts from around the world to share their knowledge. In addition, Clinton said the United States would be adding 20 countries to a list of dozens receiving U.S. assistance to track the laundering of drug profits. But officials made no pledges to financially support a proposed United Nations program to eradicate drug crops by 2008, which cost about $5 billion, or $1 billion to the United States, to implement. Clinton said in his speech that lines had blurred between nations traditionally regarded as producers, consumers, or traders of drugs, and finger-pointing over responsibility for the drug trade was counter-productive. The U.N. drug summit has drawn many groups challenging American drug policies. They say too much money is going into law enforcement rather than treating and preventing addiction. In an open letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan over the weekend, about 500 prominent figures around the world -- including former secretary-general Javier Perez de Cuellar of Peru -- said that the ``global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself. REUTERS
------------------------------------------------------------------- Chirac, Rising From Electoral Blunder, Seeks To Lead Again ('Washington Post' Article In 'The International Herald-Tribune' Notes The UN Owes The Attendance Of Bill Clinton At Its Global Drug War Session To Jacques Chirac, The Former French President And Prohibitionist Repudiated By His Own People) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:38:12 -0700 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (MAPNews) Subject: MN: UN GE: Chirac, Rising From Electoral Blunder, Seeks to Lead Again Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Peter Webster Source: International Herald-Tribune Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.iht.com/ Pubdate: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 Author: Jim Hoagland, Washington Post Service CHIRAC, RISING FROM ELECTORAL BLUNDER, SEEKS TO LEAD AGAIN PARIS---There was still a tinge of shock in Jacques Chirac's voice as the French president recounted discovering in mid-May that President Bill Clinton, Prime Minister Tony Blair and other leaders attending the Group of Seven summit meeting did not intend to go to the United Nations for the special session on the world's drug problems that begins Monday. "This seemed unthinkable to me," recalled Mr. Chirac, who immediately began lobbying the leaders of the world's richest countries and Russia to add a trip to New York "as an act of faith" and compassion. "How could we have this meeting be meaningful without the participation of the leaders of major drug-consuming countries, which contribute so much to the problem?" he asked. U.S. and UN officials confirm that President Chirac's energetic and emotional intervention at the Birmingham, England, summit meeting helped get Mr. Clinton, Mr. Blair and others to rearrange their schedules to be present at the special session on drugs in New York. Each head of government or state will speak for seven minutes at the one-day conference. "We cannot change the world in seven minutes," Mr. Chirac remarked May 29 in an hour-long interview in his Elysee Palace office. "But we can show that we will just not sit by and abandon the world' s desperate and destitute." Mr. Chirac's speech at the United J Nations and his initiative to get others to attend the meeting are big steps in his comeback from the political roadside where he was left for dead a year ago after his call for early elections led to his coalition's loss of National Assembly control. Less than a month after he took on the rest of the European Union and forced a compromise in the choice of a new head of the European Central Bank, Mr. Chirac made clear in the interview that he is finding his voice again and that he intends to claim a larger role for France on the global scene. This is likely to be a mixed blessing for Mr. Clinton, as hinted by the troublesome changes Mr. Chirac inspired in the American president's schedule for Monday. Mr. Clinton's policies face increasing challenge from the French president, who says he is acting in the name of global social justice and seeking to ease the inevitable transition " to a multipolar world, equipped with a wellfunctioning multilateral system." Throughout the interview, Mr. Chirac laid strong emphasis on his personal admiration for Mr. Clinton and on France's determination to cooperate with American global leadership where possible. But he did not hesitate to underline differences on sensitive topics like Washington's extensive use of economic sanctions, the future of NATO and the authority of the United Nations. The one subject he would not discuss was the eerie similarity between coverage by the U.S. press of the pursuit of Mr. Clinton by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr and recent headlines here raising the possibility of a criminal investigation implicating the French presidency in burgeoning carnpaign finance scandals. "I never discuss France's domestic politics with a foreign publication," Mr. Chirac said, indicating between the lines that he did not believe that the separate controversies on opposite sides of the Atlantic had impaired his or Mr. Clinton's abilities to govern. "Reason always wins out in the end," he said as a general comment. Foreign affairs have provided Mr. Chirac with a lifeboat in which to ride out a political shipwreck that would have ended the career of a lesser politician. Last June he called parliamentary elections a year early and saw his conservative coalition lose its commanding majority to the Socialists and Communists,- enabling Lionel Jospin to become prime minister and form a government. Under the French system Mr. Jospin, a Socialist who is to visit Washington June 17-20, controls the country's domestic agenda, while Mr. Chirac, a Gaullist, has a major say only in foreign policy and defense. The two men are considered the most likely candidates for president when Mr. Chirac's mandate expires in 2002, but they have worked to keep signs of rivalry out of public view. The public honeymoon may now be ending, as labor strife presents Mr. Jospin with his first serious political challenges at home and as Mr. Chirac feels comfortable in raising his profile on a number of issues, including U.S.French relations. His most pointed remarks concerned emerging differences between Washington and Paris over the future mission of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which Mr. Chirac said France wili not permit to be turned into "a Western alliance that would exercise military force anytime anywhere in the world. That would be an immense danger for world peace." Mr. Chirac discussed with Mr. Clinton over lunch at Birmingham the French misgivings about the strategic concept the United States wants NATO to adopt at its 50th anniversary sumnnit in Washington next spring. Discussions of the strategic concept were formally launched at a NATO foreign ministers gathering on May 28 in Luxembourg. The administration and its supporters in the recently concluded U.S. Senate debate on NATO enlargement have strongly indicated that they will Push for a significant widening of NATO responsibilities and "power projection," including missions outside Europe. "If NATO gives itself the right to intervene where it wants and when it wants, other powers would immediately start doing the same thing, with as much justification," Mr. Chirac said. To pre-empt that, France will insist that NATO military operations outside the alliance's European zone of selfdefense be approved by the UN Security Council.
------------------------------------------------------------------- UN Aide Would Fight Drugs With 'Alternative Development' ('The New York Times' Notes Pino Arlacchi, The Director Of The UN International Drug Control Program, Is Proposing A Glorified Crop Substitution Program To Eliminate The Cultivation Of Opium And Coca In 10 Years, As Well As Substantially Reducing Marijuana) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 23:58:14 -0400 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) Subject: MN: UN GE: U.N. Aide Would Fight Drugs With 'Alternative Development' Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: email@example.com (Dick Evans) Source: New York Times (NY) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Pubdate: Mon, 8 Jun 1998 Author: Christopher Wren U.N. AIDE WOULD FIGHT DRUGS WITH 'ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT' UNITED NATIONS -- With President Clinton and other world leaders coming here Monday for a special session of the General Assembly on the world's drug problems, the U.N.'s top anti-narcotics official has submitted a two-pronged strategy that moves beyond the conventional approach of intercepting illegal drugs and arresting traffickers. Pino Arlacchi, the executive director of the U.N. International Drug Control Program, proposes the ambitious target of eliminating opium poppies and coca plants, the raw ingredients of heroin and cocaine, in 10 years as well as substantially reducing marijuana. To achieve this, he advocates so-called alternative development programs that would induce opium and coca growers to switch to less profitable legal crops by bringing roads, hospitals, schools and a better life into remote rural areas that depend on drug crops to survive. Additionally, Arlacchi has proposed that nations reduce the demand for drugs by half over the next decade through prevention and treatment programs. Neither idea is new, but Arlacchi said they had proved promising enough to try on a broader scale. "These two cards have not been played in full," he said in an interview. Alternative development has sometimes been viewed as costly and unrealistic, since opium and coca growers are reluctant to grow legal crops that would earn less income and be harder to take to market. Middlemen make the rounds of peasants to buy their raw opium and coca paste. What is needed, Arlacchi said, is political authority to enforce eradication and development involving more than crop substitution. "We would propose an alternative way of life," he said. "They can be rich peasants if they grow opium, but they can die if they don't have roads and hospitals." Peru and Colombia have tried alternative development, Arlacchi said, and Peru has reduced its coca fields by 40 percent in two years. Bolivia has promised to phase out its coca over the next five years, he said. Arlacchi said the cost would run far less than potential donors like the United States anticipate. With some programs already in place, he estimated that alternative development would require an additional amount of less than $250 million a year over the next decade. In comparison, the U.S. government's annual drug control budget exceeds $16 billion. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the Clinton administration's anti-drug chief, said that he agreed with demand reduction, but was not persuaded that it would be easy to get Afghans and Burmese, who together grow 90 percent of the world's opium, to change to other crops. But McCaffrey added in a telephone interview from Washington, "We're supportive of Pino Arlacchi's focused high-energy leadership." Arlacchi, whose enthusiasm belies a tough reputation earned fighting the Mafia in his native Italy, cited what he said were some conspicuous successes against drug trafficking in the last decade. "We destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the drug cartels," he said. He said that the Medellin and Cali cocaine cartels in Colombia had been crushed and that some Asian opium warlords surrendered by striking deals with the military government in Burma that let them keep their freedom and money. Thailand virtually eliminated opium production through alternative development, he added, and Pakistan had sharply cut back opium growing as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------- Drug Crazy And The UN Drug Summit (A Press Release From Fenton Communications, Issued In Conjunction With The United Nations Special Session To Expand The Global War On Some Drug Users, Gives A Timely Plug For 'Drug Crazy,' The Blistering New Expose Of The War On Drugs By Mike Gray, Screenwriter For 'The China Syndrome') Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 10:54:47 -0700 (PDT) To: email@example.com From: Kelley (firstname.lastname@example.org) Sender: email@example.com Monday June 8, 7:59 am Eastern Time Company Press Release SOURCE: Fenton Communications Drug Crazy and the UN Drug Summit NEW YORK, June 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Fenton Communications issued the following statement: President Clinton and 25 heads of state are gathering at the United Nations, June 8-10, to expand the war on drugs. The same policies that have been failing for over 80 years will be blindly celebrated without any serious dialogue. Meanwhile, there is growing public awareness that this war is a disaster on every level. On Monday, a two-page ad will run in the New York Times signed by hundreds of world leaders and experts pleading with the United Nations to open up the debate. Television spots attacking the drug war are now running on CNN and other networks. And a new book has just been released that dramatically exposes the futility and stupidity of the drug war. 20 years ago, writer Mike Gray blew the lid off the nuclear power industry with his screenplay, ``The China Syndrome.'' For the last six years, the drug war became his obsession and the result is ``Drug Crazy'', the most blistering expose of the war on drugs ever written. Published by Random House and available now in bookstores, the book is a vivid accessible portrait of decades of failure, corruption and confusion. ``Anyone who thinks the war on drugs is succeeding should read this book,'' wrote Elliott Richardson, former U.S. Attorney General. ``Never did I think one could learn so much about the drug crisis all in one place,'' wrote Daniel Schoor (NPR). Alvin Poussaint of Harvard Medical School wrote, ``It is an eye- opener. I highly recommend this book to everyone concerned about developing an effective strategy toward drug abuse.'' SOURCE: Fenton Communications
------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't Expect Real UN Action Against Drug Traffic (Op-Ed In 'The International Herald-Tribune' By Jeffrey Robinson, Author Of 'The Laundrymen,' A Survey Of The World Of Money Laundering, Says That By The Time Dessert And Coffee Are Served Tuesday Night At The Special Session Of The United Nations, Everything Will Return To Business As Usual, Including The Inability Of The United Nations To Have Any Effect On The Global Drug Problem) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 11:09:38 -0400 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (MAPNews) Subject: MN: UN GE: OPED: Don't Expect Real UN Action Against Drug Traffic Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Peter Webster Pubdate: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 Source: International Herald-Tribune Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.iht.com/ Author: Jeffrey Robinson DON'T EXPECT REAL UN ACTION AGAINST DRUG TRAFFIC LONDON --- A two-day Special Session of the General Assembly opens this Monday at the United Nations in New York, intended as a major assault on the global drug problem,. By the time dessert and coffee are served Tuesday night, everything will return to business as usual, including the inability of the United Nations to have any effect on the global drug problem. They have gone this route before. In 1988 the General Assembly adopted the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Ten years later, a quarter of the member states had still not signed on, and among the rest fewer than 30 bothered passing legislation that even came close to resembling the model in the convention. The United Nations' impotence stems directly from individual members' interests. Too many countries flourish in the narco-economy. Worldwide, more money is spent on illicit drugs than on food, making illicit drugs the planet's largest and most lucrative cash crop. The devastation wreaked by drugs on everything from families to democracies is too often shrouded by glass skyscrapers---witness Miami, now the economic capital of South America. Or by the dividends of international banking groups---bad loans to Latin America in the 1970s were repaid thanks to drug money. Or by the huge invisible earnings of global financial centers---witness Britain selling its sovereignty in the murky world of offshore banking. Ultimately, rhetoric is easier than turning the war on drugs into a war on the business of drugs. As in any multinational industry drug trafficking thrives on cash flow and reinvestment. Cash from the streets gets put into the world's banking system, moved in and out of shell companies and through secret banking jurisdictions, then repatriated, disguised as legitimate profit. The United Nations has conceded that as much as $300 billion worth of drug money is currently immersed in this money laundering cycle. Yet more than 50 UN member states openly sell phony shell companies. It is not just the Caribbean---the Cayman Islands, for example, with oue bank for every 57 citizens. It is also Western Europe (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Charmel Islands), the Middle East, Latin America, Eastern Euroope, Africa (Nigeria in particular) and the Pacific. Two months ago, preparing a French television film based on my book, "The Laundrymen," I phoned a company-formation agent in London to wonder, blatantly, where I could hide money. The person suggested Niue. Where is that? The person didn't know. It turns out to be a British Commonwealth sandbar in the middle of the Pacific, population 2,321. It has been put on the map by Panamanian lawyers acting for Colombian drug barons. For $135, white-collar professionals operating legally in UN member states will hook anyone into the network of countries, companies and banks used for hiding dirty money. Company-formation agents are backseat passengers on this bandwagon. Sitting up front are otherwise legitimate bankers, lawyers and accountants who have mined colossal fortunes out of brokering dirty money. The United States has the world's strictest regulations against money laundering---perhaps not surprisingly, as it is the largest consumer of illicit drugs. Yet there are no laws in the United States or in any other member state which hold white-collar professionals criminally responsible for not knowing that way down the line the ultimate beneficial owner of the money turns out to be a drug baron. Relying on "plausible deniability," these professionals need only look to their immediate client to claim: "I'm not dealing with a trafficker. I'm doing business with a lawyer. Requiring them to identify everyone involved at every level back to the ultimate beneficial owner of the rnoney would effectively thwart the traffickers' ability to launder his profits. And the community of nations-should ruthlessly ostracize governments which countenance trafficking and money laundering. Shutting down businesses in member states, that rely on secret banking and phony shell companies in rogue states would send the correct zero-tolerance message. You beat the traffickers by bankrupting them. But that means taking on globally influential bankers, lawyers and accountants, and at least a quarter of the member states. Where are the politicians with the stomach for this fight? [The writer's books include an updated edition of "The Laundrymen," a survey of the world of money laundering. He contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.]
------------------------------------------------------------------- Tobacco Bill May Be Dead, Lott Says ('The Seattle Times' Says The US Senate This Week Will Make What Could Be Its Final Attempt To Keep The McCain Tobacco Bill Alive) From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: "MN"
Subject: MN: US: WA: Tobacco Bill May Be Dead, Lott Says Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 06:47:07 -0500 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: John Smith Pubdate: Monday 08 June 1998 Source: Seattle Times (WA) Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/ Author: Jim Abrams TOBACCO BILL MAY BE DEAD, LOTT SAYS WASHINGTON - The Senate this week makes what could be its last effort to keep a tobacco bill alive. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, an opponent of the legislation, says it is past revival. "At this point it's dead in the water and there may never be a vote on the McCain bill," Lott said yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition." "The problem is greed has set in." Sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the bill would raise cigarette taxes and more closely regulate tobacco. "The delay has gone on long enough," President Clinton said in his weekly radio address Saturday. "The Senate should do nothing else until it passes tobacco legislation, and it should pass it this week." Lott and other critics say the legislation, which raises $516 billion over 25 years by raising the price of a pack of cigarettes by $1.10, goes too far beyond its basic intention of curbing teenage smoking. "This is now about money grubbing, this is about taxing people and spending it on a myriad of programs, so there's the real addiction here," he said. On Friday, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other for what appeared to be the near-demise of the bill. Republicans objected to Democratic attempts to cut off debate while Democrats were angry that they were being forced to vote on GOP amendments to the bill they didn't like. Lott said there would be votes this week on an amendment aimed at cutting teen smoking and illegal drug use, and on another amendment, a top GOP priority, ending tax rules that penalize married couples. There also is a vote scheduled to cut off debate and move to final passage of the tobacco bill. White House counsel Paul Begala, also on CNN, said if Republicans block a bill now, it's going to be an issue during this fall's election. "They are either going to have a bipartisan accomplishment, which is what the president prefers, or they are going to have a partisan election-year issue. We'll resolve this from the voters, to see who is on the side of Big Tobacco and to see who is on the side of our kids," he said.
------------------------------------------------------------------- US Official Defends Mexico Sting ('The Associated Press' Notes Retired General Barry McCaffrey Defended 'Operation Casablanca' In A News Briefing With Attorney General Janet Reno And Other US Officials During A UN General Assembly Special Session On Drugs) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 10:32:58 -0400 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (MAPNews) Subject: MN: UN GE: Wire: U.S. Official Defends Mexico Sting Sender: email@example.com Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: Marcus-Mermelstein Family Pubdate: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 Source: Associated Press U.S. OFFICIAL DEFENDS MEXICO STING UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The top U.S. drug policy official defended using U.S. undercover agents in a money-laundering sting in Mexico but acknowledged Monday "there is room" for better tactics in the cross-border war on drugs. Mexico has criticized the three-year operation as a violation of its sovereignty. American undercover agents appear to have operated in Mexico without securing government approval for the sting, which U.S. officials said involved 167 arrests and led to the seizure of $96 million and several tons of drugs. Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey defended the operation in a news briefing with Attorney General Janet Reno and other U.S. officials during a U.N. General Assembly special session on drugs. McCaffrey said one country cannot fight the drug problem alone. ``We have to do this in partnership with our neighbors and with absolute respect and deference for their own sovereign institutions,'' said McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. He acknowledged, however, that ``there is room here for us to look through how we can even more effectively coordinate these (operations) in the future.'' Later, he told reporters that while the United States was proud of the job the U.S. agents did, ``we'll just have to find a way to do this better in the future.'' Reno said that the U.S.-Mexican effort to fight drugs was still on course. In a speech to the General Assembly earlier Monday, Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo referred indirectly to the operation, which has prompted Mexican officials to call for the extradition of the U.S. agents to face trial. He called for a ``balanced strategy ... so that no one can become the judge of others; and no one feels entitled to violate other countries' laws for the sake of enforcing its own.'' U.S. officials have said they needed to keep the operation secret to ensure the safety of American agents. ``It is not a matter of disrespect,'' Reno said in explaining why Mexican -- and even top U.S. officials -- were not informed of the sting. The goal, she said, was to conduct an investigation ``while at the same time protecting the lives of the agents involved.'' Also Monday, Colombian President Ernesto Samper told world leaders at the drug summit that his country, the world's leading producer of cocaine, has been unfairly criticized by the international community. Samper said Colombia spends more than $1 billion a year fighting drugs -- equal to 21 percent of what it would cost to provide education for all Colombian children.
------------------------------------------------------------------- New Chief May Scrap Drug Tests On Police (The Aberdeen, Scotland, 'Evening Express' Says That, Acting In Response To Unspecified Complaints From Senior Officers, Andrew Brown, The New Chief Constable Of Grampian Police May Scrap The 'Voluntary' Urine Testing Scheme Instituted In 1996) From: email@example.com (MAPNews) To: "MN"
Subject: MN: UK: New Chief May Scrap Drug Tests On Police Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 06:50:57 -0500 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Reply-To: email@example.com Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/ Newshawk: J M Petrie (firstname.lastname@example.org) Date: Monday June 8, 1998 Source: Evening Express (Aberdeen, UK) Contact: email@example.com Author: Ewan Cameron NEW CHIEF MAY SCRAP DRUG TESTS ON POLICE BY EWAN CAMERON Controversial random drug testing of Grampian Police could be scrapped under new Chief Constable Andrew Brown. He is re-evaluating the force's tough stance on drug use at work following complaints from senior officers. Depending on the outcome of the investigation, the scheme -- which is the brainchild of former Chief Constable Ian Oliver -- could be scrapped or revamped. Every year 10% of the force are voluntarily tested for drug use -- a move which sparked controversy when it was announced in September, 1996. Mr. Brown said: "The fact the scheme is here already demonstrates that the police service is not slow to adapt to new procedures. All the issues will be looked into in our review." When the scheme was announced two years ago, Mr. Oliver said he knew it would cause controversy among his officers and staff. But he added: "I believe the only way to address the problems which drugs now cause within our society is through a partnership involving all institutions and agencies who can in any way influence the behaviour of those likely to succumb to the menace." Screening involved sending urine samples to an outside lab where tests were carried out to detect, amongst other things, speed, cannabis, cocaine or methadone. At the moment, anyone who applies for a job with the force must agree to be tested, as must anyone who is referred "with cause" -- because their performance shows possible signs of drug abuse. Staff are allowed to decline tests "without prejudice". Anyone who fails a test is offered treatment, with misconduct action only considered if he or she refuses treatment or has a relapse. -------------------------------------------------------------------
The articles posted here are generally copyrighted by the source publications. They are reproduced here for educational purposes under the Fair Use Doctrine (17 U.S.C., section 107). NORML is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational organization. The views of the authors and/or source publications are not necessarily those of NORML. The articles and information included here are not for sale or resale.
Comments, questions and suggestions.Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at: http://www.druglibrary.org/
Next day's news
Previous day's news
to 1998 Daily News index for June 4-10
to Portland NORML news archive directory
to 1998 Daily News index (long)
This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/980608.html