-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two Bullets In The Back ('The Houston Press' Describes The Case
Of A 10th-Grade Boy, Travis Allen, In Bellaire, Texas,
Killed In Police Custody While Allegedly On LSD - A $25 Million Lawsuit
Filed By His Parents Against The Bellaire Police Department And Two Officers
Alleging Excessive Use Of Force Goes To Trial On August 17 -
When A Grand Jury At First Absolved Police, One Juror Told
The 'Houston Chronicle' That Another Politically Connected Juror
Had Applied Pressure Not To Indict, Which Led To District Attorney
Johnny Holmes Jailing The Reporter And Indicting And Prosecuting
The Juror Who Spoke Out)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 10:11:30 -0700
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US TX: Two Bullets in the Back
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project
http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Tammera Halphen
Source: Houston Press
Contact: feedback@houstonpress.com
Website: http://www.houstonpress.com
Author: Randall Patterson
Pubdate: July 9-16, 1998
TWO BULLETS IN THE BACK
The fear began. At 1:35 a.m., Carolyn Deal was wakened by the sound of
shattering glass. She roused her 62-year-old husband, Jack, who told her to
get dressed, lock the bedroom door. She heard coughing just outside as she
turned the lock. Jack, fighting the haze of sleep, put the telephone to his
ear. "Uh," he said, "there's someone in our house."
Over the Bellaire police frequency, the dispatcher sent the call for a
burglary in progress. The alarm was screaming when Bellaire police officer
Dan Shelor arrived at 1:36. Officers Michael Leal and Carle Upshaw were
close behind. The Deals by then had retreated through a bedroom door to
their roof. Crouching in the bushes, the police could see that most of the
windows around the front door had been smashed. Leal and Shelor took
positions in the front of the house, and Upshaw headed for the rear.
Then through a front window, a bicycle came crashing out. For an instant, a
white male stood in the window frame. The officers shouted, "Get the fuck
out of there!" And the man stared at them and disappeared inside. Through
another window, Upshaw saw him coming fast toward the rear. Upshaw, too,
shouted for the man to come out, and this time, the man turned to the glass
door and collided into it. The glass held, but his arms were already
covered with blood. Staring at Upshaw, he tried to unlock the door. He
couldn't. He walked away, leaving the glass smeared with blood.
Leal came back to help. Together, he and Upshaw yelled into the house for
the intruder to lie down. The man emerged from the shadows then and began
complying. The officers kicked more glass out of the window, and charged in
after him.
They found him between the long white couch and an antique table. Down the
barrel of a gun, Leal discerned that the intruder was only a teenager.
Upshaw saw that the boy was not very big. Holstering his pistol, Upshaw
began putting handcuffs on the boy.
Five, maybe ten minutes later, Skip and Becky Allen were wakened by the
ringing telephone. It was a friend of their son's. "Uh, Mr. Allen?" said
Mike Morgan. "I think Travis is in trouble with the police."
It was quickly decided Mrs. Allen would stay home with Gracie, their
two-year-old. Mr. Allen snatched on his clothes and jumped in his truck. He
found Mike at Trevor Ayer's house, and they sped through Bellaire. When
Mike told him to turn onto Acacia Street, most of the Bellaire Police
Department was already there, and a large clapboard house had been cordoned
off with yellow police tape.
Mr. Allen pulled over and said he'd heard his son was in trouble here. When
the officer asked how he knew this, Mr. Allen pointed at Mike, and Mike was
taken away. The officer told Mr. Allen to wait. He stood by his truck and
waited.
It began to rain. Mr. Allen stood in the rain, asking the passing policemen
what was going on. At last, one of them answered: There was a deceased
person inside.
Mr. Allen said his son was supposed to be inside, and couldn't he go in
there? The officer asked him if he needed a priest or something. Mr. Allen
said no, and he was told to wait.
The hearse came. A bag was carried away. Still, Mr. Allen gazed at the
house and the landscaped lawn. He kept thinking his son would come running
out, saying, "Daddy! I'm okay. I was in trouble, but I'm okay."
Instead, after three hours, a Bellaire policeman cameout. He said there had
been a struggle, and an officer's weapon had discharged. It had discharged
into a person, and that person's name, according to the driver's license,
was Travis Allen. He had then died. Mr. Allen could go now. "We don't need
you anymore," the officer said.
The Deals went to a neighbor's house. Mr. Allen drove home alone. And
Bellaire police detectives stayed up all night July 15, 1995, trying to
explain how a 128-pound, unarmed boy on LSD had been shot twice in the back
by a police officer as the boy lay on the floor beneath another officer's
boot.
In the days and weeks that followed, the local crime-solving community bent
to the task. The medical examiner examined; Bellaire investigators
investigated.
A grand jury heard the evidence and deliberated.
The result was no indictment.
The entire criminal investigation was wrapped up within two months; the
officer who pulled the trigger was required to take only two days off work.
He was absolved so quickly that Skip and Becky Allen were left breathless.
They knew their son had deserved a great punishment; they couldn't accept
the necessity of death. They lost 60 pounds between them. They went to
church, joined grief-recovery groups. Determined to wring justice from the
justice system, they finally found themselves in the office of a lawyer.
In December 1995, they filed a $25 million lawsuit against the Bellaire
Police Department and officers Michael Leal and Carle Upshaw, alleging
excessive use of force. The lawsuit has forced the Allens to relive their
son's death, but has also uncovered many new details about it. Efforts to
dismiss the case have been themselves dismissed. Last week, U.S. District
Judge David Hittner scheduled the case for trial on August 17.
Travis grew up near the Heights, in an old neighborhood called Magnolia
Grove. Skip became a safety director over construction at a Baytown
refinery, Becky a therapist for disabled children in the school system.
They lived together in a Victorian home with latticework trim and a yard
just big enough for lush tomato vines.
He was five foot nine and growing. Travis was the one who unloaded the
dishwasher, vacuumed the house, mowed the yard, raced motocross with his
father, picked up his mother when he hugged her. And laughed. Puberty hit
him like a hurricane, but after tenth grade, his clothes and hair had begun
to settle down, and instead of skipping classes, he enrolled in summer
school to get ahead.
He came home that Friday in July at about 2 o'clock and began playing with
his sister Gracie. They rolled around in the grass, and two hours must have
passed before Travis finally got the lawn mower out. He had mowed only a
small section when rain began to fall, at which point he gave up on the
grass and put Gracie in a laundry basket. From the porch down the walkway
and back, he ran in and out of the rain. Skip remembers that you could hear
the laughter all over the block.
Then Becky came home, and she wrapped Gracie in a towel and began making
dinner. Travis went up to his room. He called his friend Trevor, who said
Tony Patt had just called: A neighbor of a friend of Tony's was throwing a
party in Bellaire.
At dinner, Travis announced that he would be sleeping at Trevor's this
evening. "No!" said Skip, because the yard was not mowed, and they were
going to get up early the next morning to ride dirt bikes.
So Travis finished his dinner and went back to his room. Becky told Skip
that Travis hadn't been out all week. Why not let him go? She went upstairs
to tell him the news. When she saw his face, she knew he wouldn't mind
staying home. But she let him go anyway, "and that's the saddest thing,"
she says.
The city of Bellaire is an enclave town, entirely surrounded by Houston.
Most law violations are committed by intruders, and most of these intruders
are simply speeding motorists. But every now and then, said Chief Randall
Mack, someone comes into Bellaire to rob a bank or something, and "you've
got to be ready to do it all."
One officer who can always be counted on to go "above and beyond the call,"
according to Mack, is Michael Leal (pronounced lay-al). Legal concerns
prevent Leal from talking to reporters (and Mack, too, wouldn't discuss
the case), but Leal is said to be 33 years old now, a resident of Katy and
the father of two young daughters and a son. Ten years ago, he joined the
department, and in 1991, he was named Bellaire Police Officer of the Year.
He long ago became a department instructor in both firearm use and
defensive tactics, and also is a founding member of Bellaire's volunteer
SWAT team equivalent, whose drills consist of wearing camouflage and
shooting one's fellow officers with paint-ball guns.
The state requires peace officers to take 40 hours of continuing training
every two years, but Leal usually takes triple that in a year. In the
summer of 1995, some of his recent courses were "ASP Baton Refresher,"
"Officer Involved shooting Investigation" and "Mental Preparation for Armed
Confrontation," which consisted of video footage of officers getting
killed.
By July 15 of that year, there had not been a police shooting in Bellaire
in 20 years, and there had never been a fatal one. But the record shows,
before his shift, Leal took the precaution of checking out two shotguns.
When Travis got to Trevor's, James Burns was there, and one of them
produced the acid. Weed and ecstasy were the usual choices; acid, said
Trevor, was kind of a special occasion.
This acid was called Blue Shield, and the dealer had said the paper was
dipped three times, instead of once. James and Trevor each took one hit,
and Travis, who was a little bigger, took two. When Meaghan Welzbacher came
over to pick them up, Travis showed her what was on his tongue. "You be
careful now," she said, and Travis smiled.
None of them knew the host of the party or cared that she was only 12 years
old. Tony said the magic words were "parents not home." The house was small
by Bellaire standards, and the party left it much reduced. Punk rock
blasted through the air. In the garage, by the keg, someone smashed a
mirror. Before long, the guests were running through the house punching the
walls. One climbed the roof and hurled a gallon of paint onto the walkway.
The whole evening became a blur to James. Trevor saw a lot of flashing
lights and moving people. And Travis, who was usually "a grinning fool"
when he was tripping, grew terribly frightened.
He was seen at the start of the evening in a chair in the back yard with a
beer, "just chilling." Later, Jessica McCracken saw him standing very stiff
and asked him what was wrong. "Bugs," said Travis. She offered him bug
repellent, but it didn't seem to help. With his hands jammed in his
pockets, Travis soon began shaking. Someone told him that there were bears
in the backyard. He seemed to believe it. He became afraid of the people
around him. Most of them were strangers, and he got the notion they were
going to jump him for the $20 in his pocket. His friend Mike Morgan finally
decided to get him away from the party. They would take a short walk to the
end of the street and come back.
Along the way, Mike asked what Travis was seeing. "Colors," said Travis.
Then he quit responding. They hadn't gone far when Tony Patt and Ben
Steinberg pulled up behind them. Travis saw the headlights, and his friends
believe he thought these were the people who had come to rob him. Travis
flung his money on the ground, and he fled as fast as he could -- over the
soft grass and under the trees and into the side of the house that was Jack
and Carolyn Deal's. At his feet, there was a 50-pound paving stone; he
heaved it through a full-length window and heaved himself after it.
Mike, who had chased until this point, heard the burglar alarm and ran the
other way. Travis was alone then, and like something wild that has flown
inside and can't get out, he knocked over plants and banged against windows
until his arms were wet with blood, and he heard voices telling him to lie
down.
Officer Upshaw put his gun away and was handcuffing Travis when he realized
that maybe he should be using gloves. He sent Shelor to get them from the
car. Then, unable to think of anything else to do, Upshaw placed his
cleated boot in the square of Travis's back and proceeded to wait.
The gloves were not in the first car; Shelor searched the second. Inside,
Leal kept his gun trained on the suspect. They had sent Shelor away without
searching the suspect or the house, or even turning on the lights. The
suspect, meanwhile, had begun to resist again. Beneath the boot, he would
not lie still. Travis flailed his arms and pushed against the boot, and the
more weight Upshaw pressed into him, the more Travis writhed and pushed
against it. All the while, he was making an awful grunting sound, which to
the neighbors next door, behind closed windows, sounded like roaring, and
which Leal described later as "this noise you make when you're exhausted."
Leal and Upshaw never reached for the batons that hung at their waists.
Leal recalled glancing again and again over his shoulder, shouting to
Travis, "Let us see your hands!" And then Upshaw, trying to help, stepped
on Travis with both boots and all of his 190 pounds. Again, Travis put his
hands beneath him, and the officers swear he pushed himself off the ground
with Upshaw on his back. Upshaw reverted then to the one-foot hold, but
Leal found himself shouting, "You're going to get shot! You're going to get
shot!" It is for moments like this that police officers drill and drill
again, so that instinct overrides emotion. Leal's first shot missed
Upshaw's foot by less than an inch, but after the recoil, Leal had the
presence of mind to aim before shooting again.
Under the vaulted ceiling, Travis lay still at last, hemorrhaging onto the
Oriental rug.
Then the house filled with new horror. Shelor arrived with the gloves. Leal
told him to handcuff the suspect, now lying in an expanding pool
of blood. Shelor did so and fled the house, and was later referred to a
counselor for emotional distress. Leal stayed inside, comprehending in the
light that he had shot an unarmed man.
The legal standard by which police shootings are judged is whether the
officer feared for his life or other lives, and whether that fear was
justified. When the house was filled with Bellaire detectives, Leal
consulted with his union lawyer and agreed to describe what had happened.
He said he had fired when Travis reached into his right pocket. Only when
asked what other move Travis had made did Leal add, "I guess he would be
rolling to his left. Basically looking at me."
The media were handled by Randall Mack, then the assistant chief. "It was
obviously a life-threatening situation," he told the Houston Chronicle. In
his first press releases, Mack never mentioned that Travis was shot while
on the floor with a policeman's boot on his back. The assistant chief only
said the suspect had refused to lie down, there had been a struggle, and
the suspect had persisted in putting his hands in his pockets. Mrs. Allen
had the impression her son was shot while attacking.
Bellaire detective Don Hazelwood supplied the Harris County medical
examiner an account that was equally vague, much more exciting and wrong:
The officers had "wrestled" the suspect to the floor. The suspect had
knocked one of them off. He had risen and was reaching into his pocket,
when "the second Bellaire officer saw his partner down and fired two
rounds of Winchester .45 caliber, Super X-silver tips, 185 grain."
Thereafter, the suspect became known as "the decedent."
Pathologist Eduardo Bellas went about his work with three Bellaire
detectives standing by. "The body was that of a well-nourished,
well-developed, thin-framed Caucasian male," he noted. The eyes were hazel;
the hair, short and brown-red. The hands were covered with bruises and
cuts. There were "brush burns" over the nose and chin, as though the face
had been pressed into carpet, though Bellas didn't suggest that. Finally,
beside a pattern of bruises, there were "gunshot wounds (2) of the back."
The bullets perforated the spinal cord, esophagus, trachea and aorta,
passing through all the corridors of life before coming to rest in the
upper chest. The heroic tale of the shooting offered no explanation for
gunshot wounds to the back. Bellas doesn't seem to have been curious. He
concluded that yes, the decedent had died of gunshot wounds.
As time passed, Leal apparently became more sure of his own story. After he
and Upshaw consulted their union lawyer, they gave their written
statements. Upshaw confirmed that under his boot, the suspect had indeed
been rolling left. Leal now testified that, "the suspect seemed intent on
fixing his gaze on me for the express purpose of whatever was going to
happen when he removed his hand from his pocket." Eventually, what was
initially described as "basically looking at me" became known as Travis's
"target stare."
Leal's description of Travis became even more threatening. At first, Leal
said they entered the house when Travis had lain down. Later, he said that
Travis had never lain down completely. Detective D.L. Oglesby, in his
official Bellaire Police Department report, recorded that Leal issued
commands to Travis "with no apparent effect."
Leal claimed he was crouching to the right of Travis when he fired, but
Oglesby later said in his deposition that he thought Leal had leaned over
the couch. The report reconciled the difference by avoiding any reference
to Leal's position.
With Upshaw on his back, and his right arm in his pocket, Travis would have
had difficulty rolling onto his left side. If Leal were leaning over the
couch above him, it would have been nearly impossible for Travis to have
given that "target stare" and still to have been shot in the back. Oglesby
initially wrote in the report that Travis had been lying on his stomach
when he was shot. But the report had been given to Leal, who sent Oglesby a
memo, a copy of which was forwarded to Randall Mack: "I noticed some
mistakes that I feel should be corrected," Leal wrote. And though what he
said didn't make sense, Oglesby nonetheless changed the report: With a boot
on his back, the suspect was rolling onto his left side when he was shot in
the back. Oglesby sent a memo informing Leal of the revisions. "You are
welcomed to review the report again if you like," he wrote.
When the investigation was complete, the case was presented to a grand
jury. The judge who presided over the grand jury, Debbie Mantooth
Stricklin, was a former prosecutor who had worked for District Attorney
Johnny Holmes, and whose husband was Holmes's chief assistant.
Prosecutors routinely work with the police and might be expected to
sympathize with them. Holmes himself said, "Not a whole lot of people have
much sympathy with a burglar in a house." In this case, he said Assistant
D.A. Belinda Hill had his absolute confidence. According to his memory,
Hill's presentation to the grand jury consisted of the autopsy report and
the testimony of Leal, Upshaw and Shelor. Hill made no recommendation for
or against indictment, according to a juror. The juror later told the
Chronicle that another, politically connected juror had applied pressure
not to indict. In the end, the 11-member grand jury missed indicting Leal
by two votes.
Holmes wouldn't present the case to another grand jury (it wouldn't be
fair, he says), but he pursued with great vigor the name of the juror who
violated the grand jury secrecy law. For refusing to disclose that juror's
name, the Chronicle reporter briefly went to jail. The juror was eventually
found and prosecuted. Holmes explained that the grand jury system can't
work if its secrets are told.
When they heard the FBI was investigating the shooting, the Allens were
relieved. "We were beginning to feel that we were the only ones who thought
something was wrong," Mrs. Allen said then. An FBI agent went by the
Bellaire Police Department to pick up Oglesby's report, but neither Oglesby
nor Upshaw nor any of Travis Allen's friends or family were ever
interviewed by the FBI. The results of the inquiry were forwarded to the
Justice Department, and after waiting months, Skip and Becky Allen made an
inquiry of their own as to the status. The reply they received was
addressed to Travis, informing Travis that "after a careful review," no
evidence could be found that his rights were violated. "Thank you," the
letter concluded, "for bringing this matter to our attention."
They had never hired a lawyer before and didn't know where to look. The
Allens wound up around the corner from their house, in the firm of Richard
"Racehorse" Haynes. Their lawyer, Graydon Wilson, claims to have no concept
of the word justice." He says there is only the system, and you pour facts
into the system, and sooner or later, you get a result. But everything
depends on the facts.
The lawsuit provided access to internal papers of the Bellaire Police
Department, and also to the officers themselves. The Allens sat across a
table in the depositions, gazing at the officers' faces. Leal and Upshaw
avoided eye contact but otherwise were courteous enough. The only exchange
between the parties occurred in the men's room during a break. Skip was
standing at the urinal when the officers walked in. Turning to Skip, Upshaw
ended an awkward moment. "This thing is taking so long," he said, "they
ought to have piss pots by the table." Skip flushed and left.
Shelor was not present at the shooting; he had little to say in his
deposition but fought tears as he said it. Michael Leal answered the
questions directly, addressing his interrogator as "sir." He claimed to be
unaware of any department policy changes prompted by the shooting, or even
any discussions on how to handle such situations better. It had been dark
in the house, he said, and in the shadows between the couch and the table,
it was hard to see Travis -- though not hard to see him rolling, reaching
into his pocket, staring. "I went forward, bang, bang," Leal testified. He
was afraid, but he denied that he had panicked. If he had shot Upshaw in
the foot, "he would have recovered," said Leal.
When it was Upshaw's turn, he said it never occurred to him to reach for
his baton. He couldn't kick Travis because "my foot was busy," he said.
Upshaw couldn't remember the size of a baton, or when he had been taught to
use it, or whether there was or wasn't a department policy on batons. But
this was not to say that he had forgotten his training; it was just that
"here today there's nothing triggering my memory for me to remember it."
It squeaked out that Upshaw had never really been afraid that night. He was
being sued for failing to stop the shooting, which he says he couldn't have
done, since he didn't expect it. "I don't know what Officer Leal considered
a threatening move," said Upshaw. "In my view, I didn't see anything
threatening."
Chief Mack later said that he thought the officers "did the best job they
could, under the circumstances." But at his deposition, Mack was unsure
what these circumstances were. He couldn't recall whether the department
hired an outside investigator for the shooting, or whether in 21 years as a
cop, he had ever restrained a suspect by standing on his back. ("I may
have," he said.) He said his press releases hadn't mentioned the boot or
the fact that Travis was on the floor, because he may not have known these
things. In fact, he still did not know them, he said, nor did he have any
"personal knowledge" regarding the location of Travis Allen's wounds. When
pressed, he admitted he had heard the rumor about the back -- but he didn't
find it especially significant. He could not judge what had happened
because, he said, "I wasn't there."
The reluctance of police to judge other policemen finally forced the use of
outside experts. Wilson said several local peace officers expressed dismay
over the shooting, but none were willing to testify publicly. Wilson
brought in from New Hampshire a police instructor in the use of lethal
force named Massad Ayoob; and from the University of Texas Medical Branch
in Galveston, a pathology instructor named Sparks Veasey.
It was Ayoob's expert opinion that "standing upright with both feet on a
person's back is more akin to riding a surfboard than to any method of
stabilizing a resisting person that I am familiar with." Upshaw's choice
not to carry gloves on his belt should not have interfered in the
performance of his job, according to Ayoob. If Upshaw had finished
handcuffing Travis, the death could have been avoided, he said.
Then, looking at pictures of the body, Ayoob noticed that where the bullets
protruded from Travis's chest, the outer skin seemed abraded. He and Sparks
Veasey came to the same conclusion. If Travis had even been partially on
his left side, Veasey reported, "one would expect the wounds would be
oblong in character," but they were circular. This trajectory, Veasey
determined, "would be more consistent with the decedent being flat on the
floor" when he was shot from a distance of about 18 inches.
The lawyer for the defense also hired an expert, of course. In the view of
David Grossi, a police instructor from Illinois, Travis was an "aggressive,
drug-laced, superhuman felon." Assuming the truth of Leal's version, Grossi
called the shooting "totally justified, completely necessary and
objectively reasonable."
The last motion to dismiss the case was denied. In April, the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals returned the case for trial, calling it "a significant
fact-related dispute."
The glass was replaced, and the blood was covered up with paint and new
carpet, but the Deals could feel something down below. After a while, they
left their home in Bellaire. They settled in an artists' colony in Mexico.
For Travis's friends, acid became a symbol of sadness. Many of them gave it
up, and said Travis was responsible. Also, they said, you grow out of it.
"You got better things to do," said Meaghan, "than deal with an entire day
on a drug."
They've become econ majors, store managers, waitresses and slackers.
Prosecutor Belinda Hill has become Judge Hill.
Assistant Chief Mack became Chief Mack. He quietly oversaw a drastic change
in Bellaire's use-of-force policy; the policy manual now includes a section
called "Use of Force Continuum" listing all the tactics an officer might
consider before deciding to shoot.
But none of this had anything to do with the shooting, said the chief. Last
year, he promoted Michael Leal to sergeant. Leal was put in charge of
criminal investigations, supervising everyone who had investigated him.
As for the Allens, they filed the lawsuit, they say, to find out how their
son died. They know that now. Last year, they had a giant portrait of
Travis painted on the southern wall of their house. An inscription reads,
"The laws sometimes sleep but never die."
Contact Randall Patterson at his online address
(rpatterson@houstonpress.com). Or call him at 713.280.2478.
Got a comment/compliment/beef? Send us your feedback.
(feedback@houston-press.com)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking Stock On The War On Drugs (Transcript Of The Lengthy
Cable News Network Version, Including A Brief Debate Between
General Barry McCaffrey And Mike Gray, Author Of 'Drug Crazy')
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:02:46 -0400
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
Subject: MN: US: Transcript:
Taking Stock On The War On Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project
http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Paul Wolf (paulwolf@icdc.com)
Pubdate: Thu, 09 Jul 1998
Source: CNN
Contact 1: cnn.feedback@cnn.com
Contact 2: cnn.onair@cnn.com
Website: http://www.cnn.com/
Note: Aired July 9, 1998 - 3:00 p.m. ET
TAKING STOCK ON THE WAR ON DRUGS
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is what happens to your brain after starting
marijuana.
BARRY McCAFFREY, DRUG POLICY DIRECTOR: At the end of the day -- and really
this comes lock, stock, and barrel out of Partnership for Drug Free America.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is what your family goes through.
McCAFFREY: What we're trying to do is change youth attitudes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And your friends.
REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R) HOUSE SPEAKER: When you have the courage to say, "No,
I'm not going to do drugs and you shouldn't do drugs either," when you have
the courage to turn in somebody who's a drug dealer, when you have the
courage to insist that you want to go to a drug-free school, live in a
drug-free neighborhood, when you turn to your younger brother and sister and
say, "Don't you do it," you may literally be saving their life.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: These ads are designed
to knock America up side the head and get America's attention and to empower
all of you who are trying to do the right thing. Please do it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Any questions?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOBBIE BATTISTA, HOST: Will new government ads keep your kids off drugs? Ask
drug policy director Barry McCaffrey why he thinks they work. Also, a man
some call Dr. Vomit offers a more graphic deterrent. And this man suggests
the government is in denial. Are you? Get ready to talk back.
Hello, everybody, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE, CNN's interactive talk show.
I'm Bobbie Battista, and we are taking stock of the war on drugs as the
government releases a new series of public service announcements today.
With us in our studios, General Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy and a member of the National
Security Council. With us as well from Dallas, we are joined by Dr. Larry
Alexander, an emergency room physician who has earned the nickname, Dr.
Vomit. And we will get into that a little bit later in the show.
General McCaffrey, good to see you. Nice to have you on the show.
McCAFFREY: Good to be here, Bobbie.
BATTISTA: The ad that we saw just a few moments ago is pretty much the sum
and substance of what you hope will be a $2 billion, five-year advertising
campaign aimed at keeping kids off drugs. Why do you think these ads will work?
McCAFFREY: Well, we're going to begin what we launched today with President
Clinton. And we had Attorney General Janet Reno here and Secretary Donna
Shalala and the Speaker to try and indicate this is a bipartisan effort.
We're going to talk to children, particularly middle school youngsters,
about the dangers of drugs, but not just on television, that beautiful
Partnership for Drug-Free America work, we're also going to be on the
Internet, radio, print media, a very sophisticated five-year effort.
BATTISTA: So it's a saturation campaign for the most part?
McCAFFREY: We're going to try and talk to every young person four times a
week in prime time access.
BATTISTA: OK, now how will you know that this kind of an ad is getting to
the people it needs to reach?
McCAFFREY: We're going to have to evaluate it. We went out to 12 test cities
in the last four months and ran these ads, a $20 million effort, saw
dramatic feedback of 500 percent increase in telephone calls to these
community coalitions, which is really the heart and soul of what we're
doing. We think it will work, and we're going to have to evaluate it,
though, step by step.
BATTISTA: What do you think now of critics who say, "How about taking the $2
billion and spending it elsewhere?"
McCAFFREY: Well, one of the nice things is we don't have to make an
either/or determination. We've increased the amount of money in drug
prevention activities by more than 15 percent just in the coming year. We're
going to do a lot of things. We're going to support boys and girls clubs,
Pride, DARE Program, a lot of efforts to try and engage young people after
school, between 3:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. and on weekends and in the summer.
BATTISTA: Let me ask you something. You've got a gold bracelet on your wrist.
McCAFFREY: Yeah.
BATTISTA: And there is special significance to that. Could you tell us about
that?
McCAFFREY: Well, this is a very special thing. It's Tish Elizabeth Smith's
(ph) memory bracelet. She died in her first year at college, this beautiful
young woman, a straight "A" student. Her mother is here today, Deborah
Padgett Barr, and we're going to talk to her of an overdose of heroin which
she took smoking, probably one of her first drug uses in her life. It's a
tremendous reminder to people like me of why we're doing this.
BATTISTA: Let me talk to Mrs. Barr. You're right, she's right behind you
here in our audience. And I see you have pictures of your daughter. Can you
share her story with us?
DEBORAH PADGETT BARR, MOTHERS WITHOUT CHILDREN: Tish was 18. She had been a
very good student in high school. She graduated an honor roll student, went
off to college. I encouraged her to take college classes outside of the
city, and she would say jokingly, "Mommy, I'm not big enough to leave you."
But just a few months later, she left me forever.
With the end of her high school days and the beginning of college, there
were new people in her life, new situations and challenges. And I think
Tish's need to fit in outweighed the logic she used to have. She was very
anti-drug as a child.
The new friends in her life gave her some drugs, and she started out smoking
marijuana in the fall. And I don't think she got the message that I got as a
child. That's why this campaign is very, very important. Just like we would
immunize our children against measles or diphtheria, this is an opportunity
to take information vaccine all across our country and save our children's
lives.
BATTISTA: Let me bring in Dr. Larry Alexander now, because unfortunately,
Dr. Alexander, you see quite a number of cases just like this, don't you?
DR. LARRY ALEXANDER, BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER: Unfortunately, we do.
BATTISTA: Can you tell us about a few of those?
ALEXANDER: Well, even just this past weekend, we had two overdoses in the
hospital that I work in now. And I have changed hospitals since really
becoming involved in this. And it's just an example of how this is beginning
to spread throughout the entire metroplex areas. I don't think any suburban
area is safe anymore.
And I agree with Mrs. Barr. I think many of these kids who are trying this
are doing it to fit in because their friends are doing it, because they want
to belong. And unfortunately, many of them, when they're trying heroin this
time, aren't aware that the chieva (ph) that they're using is truly heroin.
BATTISTA: All right, let me take a couple of questions here from the
audience. Jennifer, go ahead.
JENNIFER: I just wondered why the money wouldn't have been split more
between community-based programs and programs that work from the ground up,
as well as the sort of top down media campaign. It seems like often,
children are affected by their peers and what's around them and their
environment as much as they're affected by what they see sort of far off in
the media. And I was wondering if there would be a way for the money to be
allocated both from the top down and bottom up.
BATTISTA: General?
McCAFFREY: I think your point is right on target. This is an either/or
proposition. Tremendous increases in funding, three years in a row, have
been the biggest drug budgets in history. The amount of money that's
actually going to this piece of it, the youth media strategy campaign, is
under one percent of the total.
So we don't have to choose. We're going to support broad-based drug
prevention programs, including things like safe and drug-free schools money.
So I think you're quite right. We have to build community coalitions if we
expect to make any progress in this.
BATTISTA: Let me scoot over here real quick. We do have to take a quick
break, and when we come back, a man who says the drug war is a dirty,
rotten, miserable failure. We'll be back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: My brother nearly died from a cocaine habit. And I've asked myself
a thousand times: What kind of fool was I that I did not know this was going on?
You know, I got myself elected president. I'm supposed to know what people
are thinking, what's going on in their minds. How did this happen that I
didn't see this coming and didn't stop it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ANNOUNCER: In today's "New York Times," the first of many anti-drug ads
encouraging parents to talk to their kids about drugs appears. A mother
says, "My kid doesn't smoke pot. He's either at school, soccer practice,
piano lessons, or at a friend's house." The son says, "I usually get stoned
at school, after soccer practice, before piano lessons, or at my friend's
house."
BATTISTA: Welcome back, everybody. We are talking about the war on drugs
today. Let's take a phone call now from Joe in West Virginia. Joe, go ahead.
JOE: Yes. Over two million people admit to using cannabis in the United
States. Roughly 200,000, that's two percent, were caught last year.
Conversely, 98 percent were not caught. This to me shows a complete failure
of the government's drug policy. The fact is that people who want to use
drugs will continue to do so regardless of the laws in place.
BATTISTA: Well, General, we had an Internet message there a few minutes ago,
too, someone criticizing the effort because it's going after the users
rather than the suppliers.
McCAFFREY: Of course, what we're talking about today is we're talking about
drug prevention, focusing on young people in middle school years, and
reducing the likelihood of using cigarettes, alcohol, the most dangerous
drug affecting our children, and marijuana. That's 90 percent of the drug
abuse problem. And it produces the four million chronic addicts in our
country today. So prevention is the heart and soul of this strategy.
At the same time, we've got to recognize that we want to support local law
enforcement. We want high rates of social rejection of drugs, and law
enforcement is part of that equation.
BATTISTA: I thought it was interesting a few moments ago when Deborah, whose
daughter overdosed on heroin trying it the first time, you said that she was
brought up who was very anti-drug as a child and obviously was getting that
message from those around her but then tried drugs anyway. So, I mean --
Crystal, go ahead.
BARR: I'm not sure that I adequately prepared my daughter for the drugs she
would be facing. The drugs of today are not the same drugs that I grew up
with, and I did not understand -- For example, I didn't know that kids were
smoking heroin. My image of a heroin user did not fit my daughter, so I
didn't prepare her for that. I think in her mind, smoking heroin must have
seemed much less serious
BATTISTA: The PSA we're looking at now as you talk is one, as a matter of
fact, that addresses parents and the fact that they should talk to their
children about drugs.
All right, joining us now is Mike Gray, a writer and filmmaker. He authored
the film, "China Syndrome," among others. His latest book is entitled, "Drug
Crazy, How We Got Into this Mess and How We Can Get Out."
Mike, welcome to the show. Let me ask you, first of all, how you even got
into this topic. I mean, how did this book even come about?
MIKE GRAY, DRUG WAR CRITIC: Well, I've been aware of the fact, as I think 75
percent of the American people are aware of the fact, that the drug war is a
failure. And so six years ago, I decided to start digging into this. And the
deeper I got, the more horrified I became. And this book was the result of that.
I tried to cover the entire drug war and then shrink it down to 200 pages.
So it's basically a two subway ride read, and you can get through the whole
thing and understand what went wrong and why.
BATTISTA: Well, tell us if you can in a capsule.
GRAY: Well, in capsule, we didn't have a drug problem in this country prior
to 1914. These wounds are totally self-inflicted. And the terrible tragedy
that happened to Mrs. Barr and her daughter and the stories that Larry is
talking about, the emergency room heroin overdoses, this all occurred during
the most stringent prohibition this planet has ever seen. We enacted it in
1914. At that time, we did not have a drug problem. There were a couple of
hundred thousand addicts in the country, and there was no teenage addiction.
The teenage addicts were absolutely unheard of.
Prior to 1914, for all practical purposes, children didn't have access to
drugs. Now, of course, they can get anything they want from the neighbor's kid.
BATTISTA: What do you think of this new ad campaign, Mike?
GRAY: Well, I'm strongly in favor of prevention messages going out to
teenagers. The problem with this ad campaign, like the previous ad
campaigns, is it's based upon very flawed premises.
Let me tell you, about three years ago when I was in the middle of the
research for my book, "Drug Crazy," I got a call from one of my son's former
high school buddies. And he said, "I understand you're working on a book
about drugs. I need help. I'm a heroin addict." Well, I was blown away. And
I couldn't understand what had happened to this kid who was, you know, had a
scholarship to college and was on the way to a brilliant career as an
artist. And I asked him, "How did you stumble into this hole?" And he said,
"Well, they lied to us about marijuana, and I figured they were lying to us
about this stuff as well."
Well, it turns out we weren't lying about heroin. We were telling the truth.
But how is this kid supposed to know? And that's the underlying flaw that
permeates this campaign and others is in the attempt to rope marijuana in
with these hard drugs: heroin and cocaine.
BATTISTA: So you're worried the kids won't take these ads seriously?
GRAY: Well, the problem is in attempting to equate marijuana with the evil
of heroin, the message that we send them is that heroin is no more dangerous
than marijuana. And that's a terrible message to send to these kids, and we
are now reaping the message -- the harvest that that message sowed.
McCAFFREY: Bobbie, I wonder if I could add something.
BATTISTA: Yeah, go ahead, General.
McCAFFREY: I think Mike actually has a lot of good points, one of which I
would certainly underscore is that we've got to read history. And Professor
Dave Musto up at Yale University is a good place to start, probably our
prominent historian about drug abuse in America.
GRAY: That's where I started.
McCAFFREY: We've had a terrible drug problem in America during the early
part of this century. Cocaine and opiate use was widespread. We had a
terrible drug use problem in the 1870s. We've been here before. And what
happens when we get energized and reject this substance abuse, it goes down.
So, you know, to some extent, Mike and I may agree on it.
Now second thing you've got to clearly argue is that when I'm asked what the
most dangerous drug in America is, I don't talk about methamphetamines and
heroin. I talk about a 12-year-old smoking pot regularly and using beer.
And Bobbie, the reason we say that is that when we look at this Columbia
University data, Joe Califano and his associates, a 12-year- old smoking pot
is 79 times more likely to end up as a chronic drug abuser than one who
isn't. So gateway behavior is a threat.
BATTISTA: Let's ask our medical person to get in on that. Dr. Alexander.
ALEXANDER: Thank you. I was just about to jump in on that. I agree with a
lot of these points that are being made. I do like the fact that we're going
to be doing this campaign where people are actually able to see some of
these things on television.
The problem I have with it, I think, is sometimes it's off target for the
kids. They have been hit with so many different things on the media that
many times they'll tune these things out. And the message that they get from
their friends is that this isn't bad. The message that they sometimes get
from their parents who smoke, who drink, who may or may not use marijuana
is: "This isn't bad." And then when they do eventually get around to talking
to them about the heroin or something other that's harder, then they may not
often put this all together.
And I think that we need to be working harder to educate these younger kids.
The general mentioned that many of these kids now are ten, 12 years old are
smoking pot. I have seen that, and it's very, very frustrating when they
come in. It's really frightening when you have an 11-year-old who is so
drunk that they can't stand up. And you know that they're getting it either
at school or after school. And their parents come in and deny it, and then
parents have to leave to go out and smoke a cigarette. I think this is
really bad behavior.
BATTISTA: We have to interrupt for just a second. We will continue our
discussion here with our guests. We have to go back to the newsroom now and
Natalie Allen.
(BREAKING NEWS COVERAGE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: We work more with countries where drugs are grown and processed to
try to stop the drugs from coming into the United States in the first place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BATTISTA: And welcome back, everybody, to TALKBACK LIVE. The topic is drugs
today. Let's take a look at a couple of faxes from Mark: "The government is
spending money on an ad campaign that causes most of our youth to go into
convulsive fits of laughter. The kids know that these ads are largely
comprised of half truths and fabrications. The fact has sabotaged our
credibility as adults and authority figures."
And from Thomas in Arkansas: "Drug prohibition can never work for the simple
reason that it creates a criminal black market that is impossible to
control. It is time to end a brain dead, self-defeating policy that causes a
hundred times as much trouble as the drugs themselves could ever do." I
guess we would have to ask Thomas what the alternative is. But anyway, let's
go to Peter in our audience.
PETER: Great. I'm a New York City school teacher in Staten Island, New York,
and I have found that one of the most difficult problems in discussing drugs
-- I had the opportunity to teach a sociology course this year, and many of
the students said to me, "The president of the United States has been on
MTV, and he told us that he smoked pot. And therefore, we can do it, too."
And they even asked me as their teacher, "Did you ever smoke pot?" And I
said, "No, I've never used drugs. I didn't use them in school. I still don't
use them today," and they don't believe me. They say, "If the president has
done it, why can't we?" And I just feel, General, that we've taken a great
step backwards as opposed to the Nancy Reagan campaigns which stated, "Just
say no to drugs," that told kids that they could say no and they did have an
option. What are your feelings on that?
McCAFFREY: Well, you know, what we've got to recognize in our country is
that one out of three adult Americans has used an illegal drug: marijuana,
cocaine, LSD. We had a revolution in the 1970s which almost wrecked America,
our economic efficiency, our homes, the armed forces. It was a disaster.
Those 72 million Americans, the Speaker of the House, and others, it depends
on how old you are and where you were during that period of time whether you
encountered this. But they've rejected drug use. And so you've got people
like our president, who is a great father and a parent who doesn't want his
daughter using drugs and doesn't want a society that's stoned and dazed. So
I think all of us shouldn't say, "Let's look back at the 1970s." Let's say,
"Who commits to creating a drug-free country."
BATTISTA: Well, maybe it doesn't go far enough with these ads. Let's ask Dr.
Alexander why he has been nicknamed Dr. Vomit, for one thing, because,
Doctor, you do take a bit more graphic approach to this, don't you?
ALEXANDER: I do. I feel a lot of times that these ad campaigns really don't
do enough for kids. And after having been through quite a few situations
that really just made me angry and actually really hurt me where I had to be
the one to call parents to tell them their child had died of a heroin
overdose, I decided I wanted to do something about it. And I was asked by
the schools to come talk to the kids about drugs.
And the first time I went, they didn't seemingly get anything out of it
because I went in my suit and tie and I talked to them as a physician. I
changed my tactics after that and started dressing down. I dressed in blue
jeans, a shirt, tennis shoes, and I started telling them the stories about
what I did in the emergency department, what I was seeing. And I found that
they began to listen. And I started relating some of the stories about some
of the kids that they knew who had died.
And in the end, I wound up finding that the thing that really got them was
the dramatic approach using the example of what it felt like to die from
heroin. And most people who die from heroin die because they stop breathing.
And most of the time the reason they stop breathing is because they vomited
due to the narcotic effect of the drug. They swallow all the vomit back into
their lungs and basically drown on their own vomit. And that seemingly
struck a large nerve with most of the kids I talked with.
And as the word got around, the kids starting talking more about the vomit
doctor. And that's how that name came about. But it seems to work.
BATTISTA: And Mike Gray, I read in the research also that you were
expounding a bit on how they do things overseas, certainly places in Europe.
GRAY: Well, Bobbie, the Dutch don't have this problem. I mean, the Dutch
realized a long time ago that a certain small segment of the youths are
going to experiment with drugs regardless of what we do. And they felt that
it was better for them to experiment with marijuana than with heroin and
cocaine. So they erected a barrier between these drugs. They made marijuana
available in coffee shops to anyone over 18. And as a consequence, they have
an aging heroin population. In other words, the number of the heroin users
in Holland are getting older and older, which means that they are not
getting new recruits.
General McCaffrey informs us that here in the United States, the greatest
jump in use is among eighth graders. And this is during this incredibly
stringent prohibition.
The Dutch have a much more tolerant policy, and their results are better
than ours across the board.
McCAFFREY: Mike, if I may, let me say again, I think we ought to agree to
disagree on the facts. The Dutch experience is not something I would suggest
we want to model. It's been an unmitigated disaster...
GRAY: General, General, General, let me...
McCAFFREY: Let me finish, if I may, Mike.
GRAY: OK, all right.
McCAFFREY: I would argue instead... Let me just take the title of your book,
"Drug Crazy." It seems to me you've got to be crazy to use drugs or to make
it easier for young people to do that. And that's essentially what some of
us argue the Dutch have tried to do.
GRAY: General, let me caution you that your deputy, Jim McDunna (ph), told
me that the situation in the Netherlands was a disaster during one of our
recent debates. So yesterday, I checked with the Dutch embassy in
Washington. And hopefully, they are monitoring this broadcast, and you may
get a diplomatic protest from the Dutch embassy because they are quite
concerned...
McCAFFREY: They've done them from the French, also, I might add, diplomatic
protests, and the Germans and others who are concerned about their example
in Europe.
GRAY: General, let me finish. The French have a higher addiction rate than
the Dutch. We have a higher addiction rate than the Dutch. And the worse
thing that we have is a decreasing age among the heroin users.
McCAFFREY: Actually, you know, I probably would again dispute you on the
facts. The rates of drug abuse among young people in Holland have tended to
go up dramatically during this period of time, while ours were going down.
So I really don't agree with what you're saying.
GRAY: Bobbie, I hope for the sake of settling this argument once and for all
you will check with the Dutch embassy, because the Dutch embassy is going to
issue a formal protest against this...
BATTISTA: Mike, unfortunately, hold on to that thought and others. We do
have to hit a break very quickly here. We'll be back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TERRI: Yes, I'd like to respond to the gentleman who asked the question, is
the fight on drugs -- is it going to be harder now that the president has
used drugs. Well, I'd like to answer that question. I feel that the answer
to that question is no, simple because we're not only here to preach the
drug-free message to our young adults, we're also here to teach them that
they need to learn from their mistakes.
Now, I believe if the president of the United States can actually admit on
national TV that he has used pot, but now, he's here to fight against it --
now I do believe if students, like the gentleman said early, if the students
may look up to the president, and say he has used it, why can't we. If they
can look up to him to say that, why can't they look up to him now being that
he has made a mistake and say well, he admitted that he made a mistake, why
can't we stand up now and say, hey, we don't want to do this.
BATTISTA: And welcome back everyone, I'm Bobbie Battista, we're talking
about your children and drugs today. And right before we went to the break,
Mike Gray, you made a couple references to legalization. And I know Dr.
Alexander wanted to comment on that.
DR. ALEXANDER: Yes, Mike, I just waned to say I am against legalization for
a number of reasons. I think legalizing it takes some of the money aspect
out of it, but you've got to realize there's a lot of other things involved
-- the emotional, the psychological, the physical addictions that can occur.
And legalizing is not going to take care of anything.
In regards, the General's comments, I do think that this is on the rise in
all levels. I'm a member of the American College of Emergency Physicians --
that's 20,000 physicians across the country, and I've been talking with my
colleagues and we're seeing this in the rise everywhere. It's not just in
suburban areas anymore, it's spreading out to rural areas. It's not just in
the inner cities. And legalizing this is not going to take care of it. I
really think we've got to educate these kids more.
GRAY: Absolutely, I agree with you that we need to educate.
McCAFFREY: You're right on target, I think doctor.
GRAY: Let me say the problem with this approach is there are basically only
three ways to get a handle on this problem, to get drugs under control and
out of the hands of children, which I think we all agree is the primary
objective. First, you can either have the federal government control the
distribution through careful regulation and taxation to cover rehabilitation
of people who fall off the wagon, or you can turn it over to private
industry with a regulatory controls and taxation or you can leave it in the
hands of the mob.
Now mob doesn't check for ID and what I want to know, is why -- what reason
do we possibly have for leaving drug distribution in the hands of the mob?
We did not have this problem prior to 1914, when we passed this prohibition
law. McCAFFREY: You know Bobbie, I wonder if I could interject.
BATTISTA: I don't think it matters when we had this problem or when it started.
McCAFFREY: Let me add to Mike's point.
GRAY: Well, there is cause and effect, you have to understand.
BATTISTA: We're dealing with the problem now. We want to deal with the
problem now.
McCAFFREY: When I hear people say, let's make it look like alcohol and
tobacco, I'm astonished. These two mildly addictive substances -- alcohol
kills 150,000 people a year. Tobacco kills 440,000 people. They're
available, they're legal, they're widely used. Thank God we're cutting down
on both those dangerous drugs but we certainly don't want to add the power
of commercial interest to hawking methamphetamine and crack cocaine. That's
silly.
GRAY: That's an absurd idea, general. Nobody is talking about advertising
amphetamines to children. The situation that we have now is children have
access to this stuff. Not only have we created a situation where children
have access to drugs, we've created a situation where they have to be the
front line runners in a marketplace so dangerous they have to be armed with
automatic weapons.
And I have to tell you, I interviewed a prosecutor in one of the lead
prosecutors in night drug court in Chicago, and he said if you want to use
Vietnam as a metaphor for the drug war, we're at the point where the
helicopters are leaving the embassy roof.
BATTISTA: All right let's go to our audience now. James, go ahead.
JAMES: The gentleman from Los Angeles, I'm hearing in his solution that if
we take it off the streets and put it in the private industry of the
government that might help solve the problem. I have friends who have been
in -- involved in violent crimes and have gotten shot because someone was
high, not because they got it legally or illegally.
People want to be high. They're committing crimes while they're high. We
need to address the problems that come from people using drugs, not where
they're getting the drugs from, how they're getting the drugs. The fact that
they are getting high and they're committing crimes and it's hurting our
society.
GRAY: That's a fundamental mistake by the way in the assumption -- Al Capone
did not kill people because he was drunk. Al Capone killed people because
they were infringing on his market franchise or because they were late on
payments. He had to settle all business arrangements violently because he
couldn't very well call the cops.
BATTISTA: Let me get a comment from Dr. Alexander then on what people are
capable of doing under the influence of drugs.
DR. ALEXANDER: I think people are capable of doing anything at anytime and I
think drugs will lower inhibitions and allow feelings and actions to occur
that might not always occur when people are thinking clearly. The problem
is, I think, that we're wanting to find a point to put the blame on. This is
a multifactorial problem. It's not that you're going to find one problem and
that's going to take care of it. We're going to solve it in this fashion.
Education has got to be the important thing, but taking it from the
government, taking it from the mob, putting it in private industry. We've
already seen a lot of these haven't worked in any fashion. I don't know that
I have the right answer, but I think we've got to change the way we're doing
it now, otherwise we're going to lose the battle all together.
BATTISTA: Let me take a comment from Tom and then we've got to go to break.
TOM: My comment is, wake up America. You've got 68 million young people that
are strong, caring, and capable. Let's use them as teachers to their peers.
BATTISTA: We'll take a break here. When we come back, is it possible to have
a drug-free America?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: Welcome back to TALKBACK LIVE. Let's take a phone call. Darryl
from Georgia's on the line with us. And Darryl, you don't necessarily feel
this is a national problem?
DARRYL: No, I don't. I believe that the problem is that we try to make it
into a national problem and we try to take everyone's tax money and things
like this, when not most of us -- most of us don't have a drug problem, and
we shouldn't have to pay for other people's stupidity. It should be
controlled by the family and friends of individual drug users, and they
should be held responsible for their own stupid actions and not the whole
nation held responsible for one person's mistakes.
BATTISTA: All right, Darryl, thanks very much. General, I'm just curious as
to whether we're spitting in the wind to some degree. Is it possible for us
to have a drug-free America?
McCAFFREY: No. But on the other hand, in 1979, 14 percent of the country
were using drugs. Today, it's 6 percent. We're sure we can cut it by half.
We do have something at stake. You know, your caller is quite correct. Most
of us don't use drugs. Fourteen million Americans do and they're causing
16,000 dead a year and what we say is $110 billion in damages, so he and I
and you, we've all got something at stake and someone else's child who's
dead from a drug overdose.
BATTISTA: Mike Gray, do you agree with that, that it's not possible to have
a drug-free America?
GRAY: We've been at it now for 80 years, and we've made the problem steadily
worse year by year. And while General McCaffrey says that since 1980 we've
cut casual marijuana and cocaine use by half. That's true, but look what we
gave up in return. Prior to 1980 we had never even heard of crack cocaine.
We had not heard of -- the chief of police of Omaha tells us that in 1985
the crips came out from Los Angeles and discovered this fertile market their
in Omaha. A few months latter the Bloods discovered it and all of the sudden
they have gang warfare and crack in Omaha. I don't consider that a success.
BATTISTA: All right, Rod.
ROD: Yes, I have to say that I agree with the general that I don't think
there could ever be a drug-free America, because just like in the
prohibition back in the early 1900s when they were making alcohol legal and
people were still smuggling it in and using it, and we have the same problem
today. So until everybody comes together and has some unity and try to stop
this and realize that drugs are destroying our communities and destroying
our homes and families, then we'll never be able to stop it.
BATTISTA: And Jocilyn.
JOCILYN: Yes, my question is for the general. Everyone talks about the
prevention and prevention. What about those people who have already done
drugs and are trying rehabilitate themselves. What are we doing to help
those people?
McCAFFREY: Boy, I tell, that is right on the money, because we've got four
million Americans who are chronically addicted to drugs. We've got probably
half the drug treatment capacity we need. Secretary Donna Shalala, Dr. Alan
Leshner, the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and others, are pumping more
money into creating the drug treatment capacity we need. In particular, we
have to hook it to the criminal justice system.
But one of the other things that Attorney General Janet Reno is doing, we're
starting up drug courts all over the country. There were 12 of them three
years ago, today there are over 200 -- before we leave office we hope there
will be over a thousand -- where we put people addicted to illegal drugs
into mandated treatment, get them back to their families and keep them from
prison. That's where we're going with this problem.
ALEXANDER: Bobbie, this is Larry.
BATTISTA: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Larry.
ALEXANDER: I have a problem with that. Hooking this into the criminal system
is not going to solve anything. Addiction is a physical problem. It's just
like diabetes, hypertension, things that you're going to have to live with
every day. I do agree with general that I think we're not doing enough for
rehab. I have kids that we try to get in when they come in in an overdose
situation, and we can't find placement.
There's not an open bed. Or, the get accepted -- there insurance will cover
it three days, or 10 days; that's not enough to get them off of their
problem -- get them through this. They've got to learn to deal with this, to
cope with it. You can't do that in 10 days. And until this country realizes
that when we have someone who's addicted and has a problem and we're willing
to fight with them to help them get rid of this problem, we're not ever
going to hook this. There will never be a drug-free America.
McCAFFREY: Larry, I think we're probably agreeing with each other. I think
you're right on target. When I say hook it into the criminal justice system,
Joe Califano, of Columbia University and his colleagues, think that probably
50 percent of the people behind bars, the 1.7 million who are there, have
some sort of an alcohol or drug problem, maybe as high at 80 percent. So
we've simply got to get that group, who are in there for burglary, robbery,
other crimes of violence. We've got to get them into drug treatment, or we
can never return them to their community. That's what Secretary Shalala and
I and Janet Reno are working on.
GRAY: Bobbie.
BATTISTA: Yes, Mike -- You know what, we have to take a quick break, but I
promise you the first word when we come back. And, as we go to the break, we
have a question also from the Internet. From Robert, who asks: What makes
this approach more effective than previous drug war approaches? We'll try to
look at that too, when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BATTISTA: All right. We're back, and in the short amount of time that we
have -- General, we went into the break with an Internet person asking us
how this particular approach to fighting the drug war is any different than
previous ones?
McCAFFREY: Well, I think one of things that's different is we've got a more
coherent approach. We understand that it can't be just law enforcement. It
has to be drug treatment programs. It has to be fundamentally dependent upon
prevention efforts. We have to work in cooperation with the international
community.
So let me just close by coming back to this issue of the youth media
campaign. We're going to provide scientifically, ethically, sound advice to
young people, and let them make their own decisions. We're going to be on
the Internet, radio, TV, print media. We're going to stay at it for five
years. We care about children, and we're convinced that our sales force,
which is parents, doctors, ministers and coaches, can get out there with our
message.
BATTISTA: OK, and a last quick word from Dr. Alexander and Mike.
ALEXANDER: I agree with the general. I think it's going to take a combined
effort, and I think more people who are experienced in this need to get out
and speak, so that kids understand our viewpoint on this, and they can make
an informed decision. Our kids aren't stupid, but if they don't have all the
facts, they may make the wrong choice, and if they do, they may not survive.
BATTISTA: All right, Mike -- about 15 seconds.
GRAY: I'm in lock step with the general on the issue of treatment for
addicts in prison. We have 50,000 addicts here in prison in California, and
only 400 in treatment. But I question whether or not enforced treatment will
help. I was addicted to tobacco for many years and like all chronic
addictions I had to quit five times before it finally took. But I wouldn't
have been helped at all by being in jail in between those times.
BATTISTA: All right, we are out of time. We thank all of our guests today,
and for you, too, joining us. I'm Bobbie Battista. We'll see you again
tomorrow on TALKBACK LIVE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Horror Story From Canadian Border (A List Subscriber Forwards A Letter
From A Non-Pot-Smoking Canadian Woman Who, Along With Her Husband,
Had Her Rights Violated And Was Barred From Entering The United States
To Visit Relatives Due To US Border Agents' 'Zero Tolerance' Policy)
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 22:08:03 EDT
Errors-To: manager@drcnet.org
Reply-To: ammo@levellers.org
Originator: drctalk@drcnet.org
Sender: drctalk@drcnet.org
From: ammo (ammo@levellers.org)
To: Multiple recipients of list (drctalk@drcnet.org)
Subject: Horror Story from Canadian Border
------ Forwarded message ------
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 13:59:51 -0700
From: Carla Fry (mckayfry@sprint.ca)
To: bhip@cygnus.com
Subject: Just sharing a little horror story that demonstrates ignorance
about hemp. Share the story with who ever you like.
WHAT ABOUT THE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF THE 'DRUG WAR'?
Recent articles and news stories report the efforts that Canadian and
American customs inspectors have instituted to stop the drug trade between
our two countries, but I'm here to ask "what about the innocent by-standers
that get 'gunned down' in the cross-fire?"
I am writing from experience. Unfortunately. My husband and I unwillingly
took part in the efforts to combat the export of marijuana from B.C. to the
U.S. last week. On July 1st, after a drive from Vancouver through southern
British Columbia, we attempted to cross into the U.S. at the Laurier
crossing for a surprise reunion with my husband's family, who were having a
fun-filled vacation in Sand Point, Idaho. When we came up to the customs
agent, all seemed to be going as usual, with questions such as, what were
our citizenships, where were we going, for how long, and were we bringing
liquor or fruit across the line. Then, something changed. For some reason,
which I can only speculate upon now, we became public enemy number one, and
during the next two hours of our lives, events occurred that will forever
be burned into our memory, and will forever change our lives.
We were asked to open the back of our half-ton truck that has a topper on
it that we use as a camper & my husband often uses to haul hardware for his
various home-improvement projects. After that, we were asked to step inside
the U.S. Customs & Immigration building, while another customs agent went
through our vehicle in more detail. We could only guess what they were
looking for and what would happen next. While the agent was going through
all of our bags and searching the cab and box of the truck, the first agent
asked us where we worked and had us fill our a customs form. We told him
that my husband works for the parks department, and that I have my
doctorate in clinical psychology and work with children. We filled our the
forms and assumed that we'd be on our way. That was most definitely not the
case.
In a few moments, the second agent came in and said that she had tested
some residue in our truck and that the test indicated positively for
marijuana. As you can imagine, my heart jumped to my throat and my husband
& I exchanged panicked glances. I was wondering if she was joking, or if we
were on candid camera, or if maybe we had been transported somehow into a
parallel dimension, because neither my husband nor myself smoke pot. Ever.
Not only that, but we've owned the truck for 3 years and never had anyone
in the truck who ever smoked or carried pot. Ever. I was certain, thinking
about what she had said, from my scientific background, that the test must
have been a false-positive. That it was a mistake. It just couldn't be. And
certainly not now, with two customs officers staring at us with disgusted
frowns, and two immigrations officers coming over from the other side of
the building to do the same. I was frightened about what was going to
happen next. It turns out I had good reason to be scared.
We were instructed not to leave the building, and both the customs
officers went back out to the truck, while the other two stood guard over
us. Two regular, hard-working, ordinary Canadians had suddenly become
America's Most Wanted. Although I was concerned, I had full confidence that
they would come back empty-handed and that everything would be cleared-up,
as we had nothing to hide. Much to our horror, they came back in claiming
that they had two more positive marijuana tests. The second officer showed
us the pin-head sized residue that she purported to be marijuana while the
first customs officer waved a piece of paper in the air, demanding to know
'What is this!?'. Bad luck for us is what it was.
A few weeks earlier I had been at a flea market that sold second-hand
goods and some new products as well. Being an environmentally aware and
concerned person, I stopped at a booth that had a write up on hemp as an
alternative paper, clothing, and petroleum product. The booth was selling
hand cream, hemp T-shirts, and various jewelry items that were made from
THC-free (the psychoactive & illegal chemical in marijuana), and perfectly
legal hemp. I took a business card from the people at the booth, as they
had their website address on the card, and I wanted to read up on the
advantages and disadvantages of hemp as a renewable resource. This was the
card that the customs agent found. This was the card that turned the
ice-cold stares of the agents from disgust to hatred.
'Zero tolerance! Zero tolerance!' was thrust at us time and again. The
first customs agent, ignorantly informed us that 'marijuana is marijuana'
in any form and that obviously, if I supported and condoned hemp products,
I believed in the pot-smoking way of life. He was not interested in hearing
about whether products contained or did not contain THC. Our ship was, as
they say, sunk.
The next thing we knew, the agents were sifting through our wallets,
pouring over everything from my cheque book, to receipts, to lint, looking
for some evidence of wrong-doing. Two agents asked my husband to step into
a back room & I panicked, thinking of all the B-movies I had seen where
small town cops roughed-up who ever they wanted for no reason at all. I was
relieved when I was finally informed that they were only going to search
him. Only. I don't know about the average person, but I'm assuming that
most people have never been told to put their hands up against the wall,
spread their legs, and have some stranger pat down their whole body. Well,
we've certainly never experienced it before. But we both did that day.
Throughout this whole ordeal, a giant sized picture of the agents' esteemed
leader Bill Clinton hung on the wall above us. I couldn't help marveling at
the irony of it all. Now, I don't have anything against Bill, myself, but
in the midst of the demands for Zero Tolerance from the great Canadian
criminals of the year (which is how we were being treated) were being
supervised by the "I tried it, but I didn't inhale" president of the
country. I almost laughed out loud at one point. But I couldn't laugh. Not
at all.
We were then given a choice. Our choice was to pick the lesser of two
evils. Not much of a choice, if you ask me. But of course they didn't ask
me. We were allowed to chose between being arrested for the dreaded
marijuana residue, or signing a form that admitted that they had taken
marijuana residue from our vehicle. We were very nervous about signing, but
did not want to get arrested either. When we asked about the implications
of signing, what seemed to be basically an admittance of guilt, the agents
all came over and stood around us and said that they could just as easily
arrest us. We signed. I still don't know if we made the right decision.
Fear and pressure had their way with us. Then we were asked to sign a form
saying that we were treated fairly and were not harassed. No. We weren't
harassed. Not at all. Four burly border agents breathing down our necks,
threatening to arrest us for something we didn't do, asking us to say they
'played-nice'. Again we signed. At that point we just wanted to get out of
there. It wasn't to be though.
The customs agents were done with us, but the immigration agents were not.
Again they asked my husband to step behind the counter. Because he was
driving and the truck is under his name, he was targeted for the next round
of interrogation. He was read his rights ('You have the right to remain
silent...), asked to raise his right hand and swear that he would 'tell
nothing but the truth...', while another agent stood over him ensuring that
he behaved and answered appropriately. He was asked about 45 minutes worth
of questions, fingerprinted, his mug-shots were taken, and he was asked if
he would like to leave the country willingly, or be arrested and removed
forcefully. I think you know what he chose. Then he was informed that he
was banned from the United States for life. At this point we were thinking
that all future travel to this country should be forever avoided anyway,
but they just thought they would make it official, I suppose.
Somewhere in between the photocopying of our driver's licenses, birth
certificates, and the business card of the hemp company, we began to wonder
if the agents planted the residue that they claimed they had found. As you
sit here and read this, you may wonder, if we weren't being a wee bit
paranoid. At that point we had every reason to be feeling paranoid. It
seemed like the only reasonable explanation. That for some reason, we were
being set up to 'take the fall', as we all so often hear about on good
detective movies-of-the-week. We wondered if they had a quota of 'bad guys'
to fill and that we were the closest they could find. Unlucky us.
Then, my husband remembered one foreign object that had been in the back of
the truck earlier that week. He had been to one of those auto wreckers
where you can go in and take a part off of a car & pay a minimal amount of
money for the used product. He is restoring a car right now and had found a
rug from a car that fit the one he's working on, purchased it, threw it in
the back of the truck and brought it home. Of course, when we went through
the border crossing, we did not have the rug with us, or the receipt for
the rug, and even though we mentioned the possibility that the rug may have
had something on it that fell off and was tested by the agents as positive,
they didn't really care. It didn't matter to them whether we had never had
pot into the truck ourselves, or if we had a 1000 pound bale of it there to
sell to small children. They had their residue as evidence and nothing else
mattered. Zero tolerance.
Just at the point that I thought that nothing could shock me any more, they
said that we could not enter the country to visit our family. I couldn't
believe it. Then we found out that my husband's finger prints were being
sent to the FBI. I couldn't believe it. The crowning moment was certainly
when he was told that he was banned from the country for life. Residue.
Could this possibly be candid camera, I still found my self wondering. No,
this was far from a joke.
We were then informed of what I suppose they considered the good news.
Besides the fact that he was 'lucky that he wasn't getting arrested', he
was told that he would be allowed to apply to enter the U.S. for yearly
passes that the immigration administration may or may not grant. All he
would have to do is send $100+ plus his finger prints and a criminal record
check from an a local police station, plus another round of finger prints
from a U.S. border crossing. They also kindly let us know that if he tried
to cross the border without this pass, that he would be immediately
arrested and the vehicle he was traveling would be permanently impounded.
Happy Canada Day (July 1st is our version of your 4th of July). Was
someone, somewhere trying to send us a message about leaving our great land
on her birthday? I don't think so. The facts are simple, we were treated
like criminals and put through a ludicrous amount of stress and pressure,
and I cannot believe, even now, a week later, that my husband's finger
prints are at the FBI and he is banned from the country. We were told that
they were giving us an example of the American Justice system at work.
Truth, Freedom & the American way? Innocent until proven guilty?
Until now, I had thought of our two great countries, practically as one. I
spent three years of my life in the U.S. going to graduate school. Some of
my best friends are Americans. We vacation there regularly. My attitudes
have changed completely. This won't change my relationships with my
American friends, but it will change our behavior. There's limitless
amounts of things to see and do here in Canada. Looks like we'll be seeing
and doing all of our vacations up here from now on. Or we can explore
Mexico, Australia, or many other more welcoming countries. I do not need to
be treated like a common criminal. I will not.
So what's the moral of the story? Should every Canadian dip themselves in
bleach and sanitize their vehicles, making sure to never drive a used car
or have any particles of dust & debris that they cannot identify in their
car before going across the line? Should we sit back and allow ourselves to
be treated this way? You can be sure that we're not the only ones this has
happened to. One thing I do know, is that if the American customs &
immigrations agents continue to behave in this way, Canadians will not
stand for it, and our peaceful relations, trade and openness will suffer.
My way of not feeling like a victim is to let others know, so that maybe
they will join in our outrage & send a message that we will not be
victimized.
Residue. Ya right.
Carla Fry
e-mail: mckayfry@sprint.ca
Vancouver, B.C.
to 1998 Daily News index for July 9-15