-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Selective Passion For Truth (Arkansas Times columnist Mara Leverett follows
up on her call last week for less scrutiny of President Clinton's dealings
with Monica Lewinsky and more scrutiny of his connection to Barry Seal's
officially sanctioned cocaine smuggling through Mena airport. Republican
Arkansas U.S. Representative Asa Hutchinson, the House manager who has been
so aggressive in his prosecution of Clinton, expounding repeatedly on his
desire only to get at "the truth" of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, was the
U.S. attorney for western Arkansas back in the 1980s, when he had a chance to
prosecute Seal, the smuggler, and expose the drug trade's connections to
Clinton, Bush, and the CIA. But in fact, various witnesses indicate
Hutchinson stymied several investigations into alleged drug-trafficking at
Mena. At the time, and to this day, Hutchinson casts himself as an anti-drug
crusader.)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:44:59 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AR: A Selective Passion For Truth
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: James Markes
Pubdate: Fri 12 Feb 1999
Source: Arkansas Times (AR)
Contact: arktimes@arktimes.com
Website: http://www.arktimes.com/
Author: Mara Leveritt - Opinion Columnist
Copyright: Copyright 1999 Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc
A SELECTIVE PASSION FOR TRUTH
Feb. 12, 1999 Last week I suggested that, rather than probing ad nauseum
the president's lies about his extra-marital alliance(s), Washington could
do us a favor by turning its investigative lights onto a question with some
genuine national significance, to wit: Precisely what was the relationship
between various branches of the government, particularly the CIA, and this
country's super-cocaine kingpins, such as Arkansas's own Barry Seal, during
the 1980s? The column did not exactly provoke a stampede to pick up the
gauntlet. As I had outlined, there are powerful, bipartisan reasons why the
questions about Seal have languished.
Republicans don't want to touch them for fear of where the answers might
lead. The trail already points to the offices of former presidents Ronald
Reagan and George Bush.
Likewise, Democrats are not keen on kicking up a lot of dirt about Barry
Seal, a major cocaine smuggler who, for reasons that remain a mystery, was
allowed to base his multi-million-dollar operation in Arkansas, under the
very eye of the Arkansas State Police, for four years while Bill Clinton
was governor.
What did happen after that column appeared was that a reader called to
remind me of the role played in the Seal saga by our own Republican
Congressman Asa Hutchinson, the House manager who has been lately so
aggressive in his prosecution of Clinton in the Senate. Having listened to
Hutchinson expound repeatedly on his desire only to get at "the truth" of
the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, I am struck (as was my caller) by how
remarkably unaggressive he was -- in fact, how surprisingly hands-off he
was -- back in the 1980s when, as the U.S. attorney for western Arkansas,
Hutchinson had the chance to prosecute Seal, the smuggler. We now know that
during the time that Seal headquartered his operation at Mena he was being
watched by U.S. Customs officials, as well as by agents for the DEA, the
FBI, and the IRS. Former IRS agent William Duncan has testified that
Hutchinson, who was among the first to know of Seal's arrival in Arkansas,
called a meeting in early 1983, at which Duncan was assigned to investigate
Seal's suspected money laundering. Duncan did, and he tried to have members
of Seal's gang indicted.
But when the IRS investigator asked Hutchinson to subpoena 20 witnesses who
were prepared to testify about the alleged drug-trafficking at Mena,
Hutchinson balked. Only three of the 20 were called, and of those, two
later complained that they had not been allowed to present their evidence
to the federal grand jury. The grand jury never indicted Seal or anyone
else involved with him at Mena.
In 1991, five years after Seal was murdered, Duncan testified about his
experience. "Are you stating now under oath that you believe that the
investigation in and around the Mena airport of money laundering was
covered up by the U.S. Attorney in Arkansas," he was asked. "It was covered
up," he said.
Since then, I have spoken with Paul Whitmore, a former Chief of Criminal
Investigation for the IRS, who was Duncan's superior. He oversaw the Seal
investigation and concurs with Duncan's assessment that presentation of
Duncan's evidence was blocked by Hutchinson's office. At the time, and to
this day, however, Hutchinson has cast himself as an anti-drug crusader. In
light of that, I wrote to him after his election to Congress. I explained
that I have had a Freedom of Information request pertaining to Barry Seal
before the FBI for several years -- a request that the FBI has acknowledged
should have been filled a long time ago. In light of that, I asked
Hutchinson if he would intercede on my behalf to get the records released.
I was curious as to how hard Hutchinson would work to bring to light public
records about a politically sensitive investigation in which he had played
a significant part. As it turned out, he was not helpful at all. He replied
that he had contacted the FBI concerning my request and that when he heard
back from the agency he would "be back in touch" with me. That was more
than a year ago. He has not been "back in touch."
By contrast, Rep. Vic Snyder, to whom I placed the same request, has been
diligent in his support of my appeal. It seems to matter to Snyder that the
Justice Department can flaunt a federal law, delaying by years, if it
wants, the release of public information. The agency still hasn't budged on
the Seal records, but Snyder's push for their release distinguishes him in
this otherwise dark affair.
As for Hutchinson? I hope that some day he is held to account, as he would
hold Clinton to account, for certain events of the past -- events that even
this self-proclaimed seeker of truth might prefer would never come to light.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Diet To Combat Addiction (The Toronto Star says that when Kathleen
DesMaisons, the head of Radiant Recovery, an addiction centre in New Mexico,
seriously delved into the research about sugar, brain chemistry, mood
disorders and alcoholism, there was a lot to review. Besides scores of
scientific papers and journals linking sugar and brain chemistry to
alcoholism, there were many books published. Her research became the basis
for a diet program with an unheard of 92 per cent recovery rate for
alcoholics. This has stayed at 85 per cent in a five-year follow-up. Recovery
rates for alcoholism programs vary from as low as 25 per cent to about 50 per
cent, depending on the support available and how recovery is defined. Today
she believes that even people who are not addicted to alcohol or other drugs
can have a skewed body chemistry that plunges them into a type of sugar
sensitivity that leads to what has often been labelled "an alcoholic
personality" - prone to mood swings, poor impulse control, and excess in many
aspects of living. Her research became her doctoral thesis, then a book,
"Potatoes Not Prozac," now being released in paperback.)
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 08:00:51 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Canada: Using Diet To Combat Addiction
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Dave Haans
Pubdate: 12 Feb 1999
Source: Toronto Star (Canada)
Copyright: 1999, The Toronto Star
Contact: lettertoed@thestar.com
Website: http://www.thestar.com/
Pages: F1, F2
Author: Robin Harvey, Toronto Star Life Writer
USING DIET TO COMBAT ADDICTION
Counsellor's research focuses on changing the way we eat
For years, Kathleen DesMaisons lived with mood swings and what she calls a
``Jekyll and Hyde'' personality.
On the outside she looked successful - she was a high-achieving counsellor
for addicts and alcoholics - but inside she felt a like a fraud.
``By the time I was 40, I was highly successful, but I was coping with mood
swings and I was seriously overweight,'' she says. ``I tended to get
depressed and never knew whether Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde was going to show up.
``I thought I was going to be a bag lady,'' says DesMaisons, now the head
of Radiant Recovery, an addiction centre in New Mexico.
Then in her early 40s, DesMaisons read an article that linked alcoholism to
irregular sugar metabolism. Her interest in addiction treatment stemmed
from her childhood - her father had been an alcoholic.
Alcoholics Anonymous, the granddaddy of treatment programs for addictions,
had long suggested recovering alcoholics ingest some form of sweet - a
candy, doughnut or sugary substance - to ward off cravings for alcohol.
``I was intrigued by that, and somehow I knew I responded to sugar
strangely,'' she says. ``I craved it.''
About the same time, DesMaisons tried yet another diet to lose the excess
pounds. The number on her bathroom scale was by then reaching almost 240.
This new diet emphasized protein and vegetables.
``That got my attention because when I was eating that way, my self-esteem
went up, I was not moody or scared about the future,'' she says. ``This was
not feeling better because I was losing weight. It was a fundamental
change. And I knew it must be biological because I'd tried therapy, was a
therapist myself, and never been able to achieve those results.''
DesMaisons suspected she had inherited her father's biochemistry. She had
stopped drinking at the age of 26 after a bout with mononucleosis damaged
her liver. However, she did binge on sugar and refined carbohydrates and
felt she used food compulsively and addictively.
``I decided I responded to sugar alcoholically,'' she says.
She started on a quest to solve her own problems and possibly help others.
Today she is of ``normal'' weight, feels confident, happy and centred and
attributes this to a sensible but substantial change in her eating habits.
It started when she began quizzing her addiction clients about their diet
and found most ate the same way she did - skipping meals and bingeing on
sugars and refined carbohydrates.
That was when she seriously delved into the research about sugar, brain
chemistry and mood disorders and alcoholism. There was a lot to review.
Besides scores of scientific papers and journals linking sugar and brain
chemistry to alcoholism, there were many books already published.
As far back as about 40 years ago, health food guru Adele Davis had
advocated eating protein at each meal to regulate mood through blood sugar.
Sugar Blues, published in 1975, suggested addiction to sugar caused a host
of emotional problems. And in the mid 1980s, Seven Weeks To Sobriety
outlined a diet and vitamin approach to addiction that aimed to stabilize
blood sugar and rebalance brain chemistry to fight addiction.
``There is a whole body of knowledge that talks about carbohydrate
sensitivity (in addiction),'' she says. ``We don't know what causes it - it
is not something that has been studied intensively, but it has been
recognized in the alcoholism literature.''
DesMaisons found a wealth of studies that, when linked together, all
pointed to the same thing - some people reacted to alcohol and sugar
differently that others.
Alcohol creates a rush of beta-endorphins similar to sugar. And alcoholic
drinks like beer and wine have high levels of sugar in them, she noted.
Her research, on the similarities in the affects of alcohol and sugar
consumption in alcoholics and people who have alcoholic relatives, became
the basis for a diet program with an unheard of 92 per cent recovery rate
for alcoholics. This has stayed at 85 per cent in a five-year follow-up.
Recovery rates for alcoholism programs vary from as low as 25 per cent to
about 50 per cent depending on the support available and how recovery is
defined.
Today she believes that even people who are not addicted to alcohol or
drugs can have a skewed body chemistry that plunges them into a type of
sugar sensitivity that leads to what has often been labelled ``an alcoholic
personality'' - prone to mood swings, poor impulse control and excess in
many aspects of living.
After gathering her research she wrote her doctoral thesis on the subject
that she turned into a book, Potatoes Not Prozac, (Fireside, Simon &
Schuster, $17.75).
Now being released in paperback, the book sets out a seven-step program for
recovery from what she calls sugar sensitivity and addictions to alcohol.
The title was conceived because DesMaisons believes many people with sugar
sensitivity are placed on antidepressants in a bid to help their moods.
She believes her seven-step program can bring well-being to a huge chunk of
the population, addicted or not.
Step one is to keep a food journal to identify how your eating patterns
affect the way you feel physically and mentally.
By increasing your awareness of how food affects you, it is easier to
adjust your diet, she says.
Step two is very basic - eat three meals a day at regular intervals. Step
three is take vitamins as recommended. DesMaisons is not a believer in
megavitamin therapy and believes it is best to get nutrients from your diet
wherever possible. However, she does suggest vitamin C, a B complex and
zinc, because they have been documented to help alcoholics in withdrawal.
Eating protein at each meal is step four. DesMaisons suggests people eat
0.4 to 0.6 grams of protein per pound of body weight over the day. This
helps stabilize blood sugar, she says.
Step five is to eat more complex carbohydrates because they are broken down
less quickly into sugar. Step six is to reduce or eliminate sugars and
alcohol.
And step seven is to create a plan to maintain your new eating habits.
The program is not rigid. In fact, DesMaisons encourages people to take it
``at their own pace.
``Don't try to do it all at once or you will fail,'' she says.
Take it in sequence and adjust gradually, she cautions.
People with the sugar sensitivity syndrome, and alcoholics, often have
several distinct biological traits, she says. The first is an abnormally
reactive blood sugar curve. That means when they eat sugar or refined
carbohydrates their blood sugar peaks rapidly and goes higher than other
people, causing a massive release of insulin to counteract the sugar surge.
This causes an abrupt fall in blood sugar, bringing on symptoms of
hypoglycemia or low blood sugar - shakiness, moodiness, an inability to
concentrate among other things. The body then craves sugar to offset these
symptoms and the cycle begins again. Years of experiencing such ups and
downs wreaks havoc on the body, she says.
She also believes many who she deems sugar sensitive have chronic low
levels of some important brain chemicals called neurotransmitters.
Most have chronic low levels of serotonin - a mood regulator, which, when
present in insufficient levels, has been linked to depression and poor
impulse control.
They also have low levels of beta-endorphins - the body's natural opiates,
produced to counteract physical and emotional pain.
The brains of people with low levels of these chemicals try to compensate.
They activate more receptor cells - cells that act as sponges to soak up
and more efficiently use the brain chemicals.
Sugar increases the production of both serotonin and beta-endorphin,
DesMaisons says. And, she points out, alcohol acts similarly to a highly
refined sugar when ingested.
The problem is, though sugar gives a boost and initial rush as the extra
``sponges'' soak up the brain chemicals, after the blood sugar drops the
extra sponges are still seeking more, causing further cravings for sugar
and alcohol.
Since alcohol and sugar affect these brain chemicals in a similar way, the
craving for sugar can easily switch to a craving for alcohol, she says.
``There are three legs of the stool - blood sugar levels - beta-endorphin
levels and serotonin levels,'' she says. ``If any one is out of whack,
things don't work.''
DesMaisons believes that by stabilizing blood sugar levels and trying to
balance the brain chemistry, a person with sugar sensitivity or alcoholism
can more easily resist their cravings.
Her emphasis on the role of the body's natural opiates - which peak in some
people when they ingest sugar or alcohol - is what she considers to be the
missing piece of the addiction puzzle. Such peaks give susceptible people
an irresistible high or rush that sparks addiction, she says.
Dr. Christina Gianoulakis, a researcher with McGill University at Douglas
Hospital in Verdun, Que., has reviewed DesMaisons' thesis.
Gianoulakis studied people who come from families with a strong history of
alcoholism and found indications that they do, in fact, produce higher
levels of the brain's natural opiates when they ingest alcohol - than
people not related to alcoholics.
She says there is no dispute that many alcoholics metabolize sugar
unusually and there are several studies indicating that alcoholism is
linked to a pre-existing skewed brain chemistry.
Gianoulakis says DesMaisons' work has ``much merit'' but says it is time to
set up controlled clinical trials of her methods.
``Once this is done and if the cure rates (DesMaisons) has seen hold up in
a controlled study,'' the academic and medical community will have better
reason to use them, she says.
However, Trish Dekker, head nutritionist at the Centre for Addiction and
Mental Health, Donwood Division, cautions against any ``fad cures'' for
alcoholism.
She finds DesMaisons' approach questionable.
``There is a lot of conflicting information out there,'' she says.
``We caution people against anything too extreme. The idea is to create a
balance.''
At Donwood, staff stress eating more complex carbohydrates and following a
balanced diet with exercise. Having sugar is all right as long as it is in
moderation, she says. But abstinence from alcohol is crucial.
DesMaisons says addicted people should not attempt to treat themselves and
she also endorses self-support groups such as AA. She also says anyone with
serious mood problems should see a doctor.
However, if you are struggling with mood swings, compulsive eating and
other problems, and are sure you have no other medical problem, she thinks
her plan will help - especially if there is a history of alcoholism in your
family background.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue No. 78 (The Drug Reform Coordination
Network's original compilation of news and calls to action regarding drug
policy, including - As certification debate nears, Mexico declares "total
war" on drugs; White House releases drug strategy amid criticism from
reformers; New York state's top judge calls for rethinking of Rockefeller
drug laws; County requests federal okay to conduct medical marijuana study;
Impact of the closure of a needle exchange program; an editorial by Adam J.
Smith, Young entrepreneurs and the culture of prohibition)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 01:16:22 -0500
To: drc-natl@drcnet.org
From: DRCNet (drcnet@drcnet.org)
Subject: The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #78
Sender: owner-drc-natl@drcnet.org
The Week Online with DRCNet, Issue #78 -- February 12, 1999
A Publication of the Drug Reform Coordination Network
-------- PLEASE COPY AND DISTRIBUTE --------
(To sign off this list, mailto:listproc@drcnet.org with the
line "signoff drc-natl" in the body of the message, or
mailto:kfish@drcnet.org for assistance. To subscribe to
this list, visit http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html.)
(This issue can be also be read on our web site at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html. Check out the DRCNN
weekly radio segment at http://www.drcnet.org/drcnn/.)
PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the
contents of The Week Online is hereby granted. We ask that
any use of these materials include proper credit and, where
appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If
your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet
requests checks payable to the organization. If your
publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use
the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification
for our records, including physical copies where material
has appeared in print. Contact: Drug Reform Coordination
Network, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036,
(202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail
drcnet@drcnet.org. Thank you.
Articles of a purely educational nature in The Week Online
appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise
noted.
TECHNICAL TRAVAILS: Due to some continuing server trouble,
our alert of Wednesday night didn't make it through until
tonight, except to about 400 of you. We apologize for the
two posts in one night, and to the 400 of you who received
two copies of the alert. We are close to having these
problems resolved, and thank you for bearing with us in the
meantime.
ALERT! DRCNet's 501(c)(4) lobbying entity is running
desperately short of funds. This won't threaten our
educational programs, like the DRCNN radio show and most of
the articles in the Week Online, which are funded mainly by
grants and major gifts to our 501(c)(3) educational
foundation. But it will prevent us from issuing important
legislative alerts and from pursuing some of our key
projects, including the Higher Education Act reform project
(see http://www.u-net.org), unless members like yourselves
come through. To donate, visit our online registration form
at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html to print out a form to
mail in or submit your credit card info. Or just mail your
check or money order to: DRCNet, 2000 P St., NW, Suite 615,
Washington, DC 20036. Donations to the Drug Reform
Coordination Network are not tax-deductible. You can also
support DRCNet by participating in the iGive online
fundraising program (formerly eyegive). Register to support
DRCNet at http://www.igive.com/html/ssi.cfm?CID=1060 (we
earn $2 immediately when you do), and visit the iGive home
page at http://www.igive.com and point and click up to five
times a day to earn much needed funds for the organization!
Also, tax-deductible contributions supporting our
educational work can be made to the DRCNet Foundation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. As Certification Debate Nears, Mexico Declares "Total
War" on Drugs
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#totalwar
2. White House Releases Drug Strategy Amid Criticism from
Reformers
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#amidcriticism
3. New York State's Top Judge Calls For Rethinking of
Rockefeller Drug Laws
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#topjudge
4. County Requests Federal Okay To Conduct Medical Marijuana
Study
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#sanmateo
5. Impact of the Closure of a Needle Exchange Program
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#programclosure
6. EDITORIAL: Young Entrepreneurs and the Culture of
Prohibition
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/078.html#editorial
***
1. As Certification Debate Nears, Mexico Declares "Total
War" on Drugs
As Congress and the President prepare once again to debate
certification of the nations of the world regarding their
perceived cooperation in America's Drug War, Mexico, the
subject of fierce and bitter debate over the past several
years has announced a $500 million two-year program to
combat drug trafficking. At a briefing last week (2/4),
high ranking Mexican officials announced that President
Ernesto Zedillo is prepared to put "all the power of the law
and the government" behind the effort.
Mexico has come under fire in Congress in recent years due
to entrenched corruption and the fact that large percentages
of the drugs imported into America are transported through
that nation. Certification is the process by which the U.S.
Government approves or disapproves of a nation's anti-drug
efforts. De-certification carries a host of economic
consequences including potential trade sanctions and
restrictions on U.S. aid. Last year, under pressure from
congressional Republicans, President Clinton de-certified
Mexico but waived sanctions in the interest of national
security. Certification decisions will be made in March.
(See The Week Online's coverage of last year's certification
debate at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/036.html#mexico and
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/032.html#certification -- check
our archives at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/archives.html for
the recent history on many drug policy topics.)
Most of the money from this new initiative will be spent on
new, high-tech hardware for the detection of drugs and drug
shipments.
A spokesperson for Representative John Mica (R-FL), chairman
of the house subcommittee on criminal justice and an
outspoken opponent of Mexican certification in the last
Congress, told The Week Online that the Congressman was
taking an open-minded approach to this latest development.
"On the one hand, Representative Mica is pleased to hear the
Mexican government say that it is committed to implement
such an ambitious program and to make use of the technology
that's available. On the other hand, however, there have
been promises made in the past, when it turned out that the
Mexican government was heavy on rhetoric but light on
action. The congressman was briefed this morning on the
matter and his attitude going into the certification debate
is that he wants to wait and see what transpires."
Sources on the Hill have told The Week Online that drug
policy is an area in which Republicans hope to gain traction
against the Clinton administration this year. With rumors
circulating about the impending departure of Drug Czar Barry
McCaffrey, a towering and nearly unassailable figure due to
his military record, drug war hawks are likely to feel free
to take off the gloves in assailing the administration as
insufficiently "tough" with regard to both domestic law
enforcement and international interdiction efforts, despite
the fact that Clinton has presided over the greatest
increases in both interdiction spending and drug arrests in
our history.
***
2. White House Releases Drug Strategy Amid Criticism from
Reformers
Scott Ehlers, Senior Policy Analyst, Drug Policy Foundation,
ehlers@dpf.org
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) released its 1999 National Drug Control Strategy
this week, calling for $17.8 billion to be spent in FY 2000.
The request represents an increase of $735 million (+4.3%)
over 1999's regular appropriations, and $1.1 billion (+6.5%)
more than the projected FY 2000 budget included in last
year's strategy. (See also "Clinton's New Drug Control
Strategy Repeats Mistakes of Past," online at
http://www.drcnet.org/wol/077.html#strategy in last week's
Week Online.)
The strategy is seeking to reduce illicit drug use and
supply by 50 percent by 2007. Domestic marijuana
cultivation should be reduced by 50 percent as well, and the
Department of Agriculture will begin conducting annual crop
estimates to track the government's progress in its efforts
to eradicate the plant.
The plan received its usual lashing from reformers and
Republicans alike, but drug policy reformers dominated the
press coverage of the strategy's release. The Associated
Press quoted Ethan Nadelmann of the Lindesmith Center
(http://www.lindesmith.org) as saying, "Unfortunately, it's
just another example of throwing billions of dollars down
the bottomless pits of interdiction and failed prevention
programs." The Washington Post quoted the Drug Policy
Foundation as characterizing the strategy as being
"hypocritical and disappointing," and Eric Sterling of the
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation (http://www.cjpf.org) as
saying, "This is a betrayal of what the White House says
it's doing, promising a balanced strategy when it is
lopsided." Sterling was referring to the fact that 66% of
the strategy's budget will go to law enforcement, prisons,
and other supply reduction efforts, while only 34% goes to
drug prevention and treatment.
Oddly enough, the only Republican response came from Rep.
Rob Portman (R-Ohio), who criticized the White House for
talking about prevention and treatment, but spending the
vast majority of its budget on law enforcment. He told the
Orange County Register, "My concern is that the president's
budget priorities don't match the rhetoric from the White
House."
One area of "prevention" that the White House is supporting
is "countering attempts to legalize drugs" and "countering
attempts to legalize marijuana" (p. 52-54). Much of the
anti-legalization section is devoted to attacking harm
reduction by mischaracterizing it as a ruse for
legalization. According to the strategy, "The real intent
of many harm-reduction supporters is the legalization of
drugs, which would be a mistake... At best, harm reduction
is a half-hearted approach that would accept defeat.
Increasing help is better than decreasing harm." Assuming
that the current policy is considered to be "increasing
help," one might ask how prison, the refusal of college
financial aid and education, forced joblessness, and the
refusal to fund proven HIV-prevention programs like syringe
exchange "increase help?" The strategy failed to address
that question.
In regard to medical marijuana, the strategy claims that the
"U.S. medical-scientific process has not closed the door on
marijuana or any other substance that may offer therapeutic
benefits," but that process cannot be subverted by state
initiatives. The strategy also notes that "hemp cultivation
would result in de facto legalization of marijuana
cultivation because both hemp and marijuana come from the
same plant..." But according to the strategy, a Department
of Agriculture review of university studies shows that hemp
is unlikely to be a sustainable, economically viable
alternative crop, so, according to the government, there
really isn't a need to legalize the crop.
In order to combat "encroaching efforts to justify
legalization," the 1999 Strategy outlines ways to "counter
the potential harm such activities pose." The
countermeasures include: "informing state and local
government as well as community coalitions and civic
organizations about the techniques associated with the drug
legalization movement" and "working with the international
community to reinforce mutual efforts against drug
legalization."
Will the Clinton administration begin educating community
groups on how to counter Steve Forbes' efforts to create a
federal flat tax? Will its next target be the National
Rifle Association's attempts to allow citizens to carry
concealed weapons? Or will changes in drug policy continue
to be the only public policy reforms that the Clinton
administration actively opposes with Americans' tax dollars?
Stay tuned to find out.
The 1999 National Drug Control Strategy is online at
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/policy/ndcs.html. The
Drug Policy Foundation's press release on the 1999 Strategy
is located at http://www.dpf.org/html/prstrategy.html.
***
3. New York State's Top Judge Calls For Rethinking of
Rockefeller Drug Laws
Judith Kaye, New York State's chief judge, proposed several
changes this week to that state's draconian Rockefeller drug
laws, which are among the toughest in the country. Enacted
in 1973, the laws were among the first mandatory minimum
sentences ever enacted, requiring, among other things, a
fifteen year minimum for distribution of more than two
ounces or possession of more than four ounces of cocaine or
heroin.
Kaye's proposal would allow appeals court judges to take
into account the nature of the offense and of the offender
in reassessing sentences handed down under the current
scheme. The proposal would give the court of appeals the
option of reducing a sentence to a five-year minimum.
"We do not presume to take on the larger policy issues,"
said Kaye. "But we do seek to address aspects of the law
that can work unjustly, and to supplement the law with some
of the lessons we in the courts have learned over the past
decade on effective responses to drug based crime."
Robert Gangi, Executive Director of the Correctional
Association of New York, told The Week Online that while it
was important for Judge Kaye to take a stand on the
Rockefeller drug laws, her proposals left something to be
desired.
"We who have been studying and chronicling the destructive
impact of these laws are certainly pleased that Judge Kaye,
a public official of great standing and a politically
unassailable voice in the state, has called attention to the
problems that the Rockefeller laws have caused.
Unfortunately, her proposals were fairly weak in that they
do not seek to rectify the primary problem with the laws,
the fact that the sentencing judge has no discretion in
these cases. It is well-known that in New York State, the
political force behind the status quo are the upstate
Republicans. From here, it looks as if Judge Kaye took
politics into account in tempering her criticism.
"Judge Kaye, who ought to be speaking in the interests of
her constituency -- the judges of New York State -- doesn't
address the fact that the sentencing judge is not permitted
to decide the threshold question: whether or not to
incarcerate a particular defendant. Her proposal for the
most serious felonies, in which 4 ounces are possessed of 2
ounces are distributed, is to leave it to the appellate
court to decide if an injustice was done, and then to limit
the court of appeals in their remedy. As for lower level
felonies, she proposes that the sentencing judge have the
right to divert an offender to treatment, but only with the
blessing of the prosecutor. The problem here is that the
prosecutor is still making the determination on sentencing,
and this proposal codifies that system, which is an improper
role for the D.A., and one that has led to numerous
injustices in this state. Given the level of
dissatisfaction with these laws among New York's judges, I'm
quite surprised that Judge Kaye did not take a more forceful
stand on these issues."
(See our coverage of the Correctional Association of New
York and Justice Policy Institute's recent report -- online
at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/069.html#newyork -- on the
correlation between prison spending increases and
educational spending decreases in that state.)
***
4. County Requests Federal Okay To Conduct Medical Marijuana
Study
(article appears courtesy of the NORML Foundation,
http://www.norml.org)
February 11, 1999, Redwood City, CA: San Mateo county
officials will apply for federal permission to begin medical
marijuana trials on human patients. Officials seek approval
from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Drug
Enforcement Administration, and the National Institute on
Drug Abuse (NIDA). NIDA is the only legal supplier of
marijuana for research purposes.
Last year, the Redwood City Board of Supervisors
appropriated $50,000 to conduct medical marijuana research.
The proposed three-year study hopes to include between 500
and 1,000 patients.
County officials anticipate a federal response to their
request by April 1, 1999.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, NIDA provided medical
marijuana to state-sponsored research programs in seven
states: California, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, New
York, Tennessee, and Vermont. Through these programs,
thousands of cancer patients found relief from legal
marijuana cigarettes. NIDA discontinued supplying medical
marijuana to these programs in the late 1980s, and most
recently refused requests from the Massachusetts and
Washington Boards of Health to allow those states to permit
medical marijuana research.
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre
or Paul Armentano of The NORML Foundation at (202) 483-8751.
***
5. Impact of the Closure of a Needle Exchange Program
Social scientists with the University of Connecticut,
Storrs, have released the results of an empirical study on
the closure of an established needle exchange, and its
impact on the risk behaviors of the exchange's injection
drug-using clients and the community-at-large. The study
was conducted by sociologists Robert S. Broadhead, Ph.D.,
Yael Van Hulst, M.A. and Douglas D. Heckathorn Ph.D., funded
by a multi-year grant from the National Institute on Drug
Abuse. The study was released during a formal presentation
by the study's authors at a colloquium series sponsored by
the Yale AIDS Program on January 28, 1999. The study also
appears in the February 1999 issue of Social Problems, a
prestigious social science journal of the Society for the
Study of Social Problems.
Background
In April 1998, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, declared that, "A
meticulous scientific review has now proven that needle-
exchange programs can reduce the transmission of HIV and
save lives without losing ground in the battle against
illegal drugs." The Secretary was responding to a 34-member
Presidential Advisory Council's review of scores of
empirical studies on the effectiveness of needle exchange
programs on reducing the risk behaviors of injection drug-
using clients.
The study released by Broadhead et al. looks at the
effectiveness of such programs from a different angle: It is
the first empirical study of the impact of an established
needle exchange's closure on injection drug users' risk
behaviors, and on the community. The study was conducted in
Windham, a small city in northeastern Connecticut where a
state-sponsored needle exchange operated for several years
serving several hundred injection drug users. The exchange
was closed in March, 1997 following ten months of tumultuous
public debate and controversy. The program's opponents
succeeded in placing blame on the needle exchange program
for virtually all of Windham's drug-related problems, and
even the economic decline of the city itself. While not a
perfect program, the exchange became a convenient and ready
scapegoat by its opponents. Thus, like a storm, as the
controversy began, gained in strength, peaked, and then blew
itself and the needle exchange away, virtually all of the
problems blamed on the exchange still remain in Windham,
including a very large and active illicit drug scene.
Design of the Study
For three years prior to the closure of the Windham needle-
exchange, the Eastern Connecticut Health Outreach (ECHO)
project, directed by the researchers, conducted 330 initial
and 173 follow-up interviews on HIV risk-related behavior of
Windham drug injectors. Following the closure of the
exchange in March 1997, the ECHO project began re-recruiting
former respondents who remained in the area and continued as
active injectors. This resulted in 111 "post-closure
initial" interviews and 78 three-month "post-closure follow-
up" interviews focusing on any changes in their risk
behavior status.
The ECHO project also continued the practice, begun many
months before the closure of the needle exchange, of
systematically surveying several public outdoor areas in
Windham where high levels of drug use occur. During these
surveys, the project recorded the number of discarded
syringes found, as well as dope bags, syringe wrappers and
caps, and other injection-related debris. Both as a public
service, and to avoid recounting such items during
subsequent surveys, the ECHO project collected these
materials.
Results
The results indicate that the closure of the needle exchange
profoundly and negatively impacted drug injectors' access to
clean syringes, which proportionately increased their risk
of using syringes infected with HIV. Before the closure of
the exchange, only 14% of Windham drug injectors reported
that their primary source of "new" syringes was from family
or friends, diabetics or street sources. These are unsafe
sources because drug users cannot be sure that such syringes
are unused and sterile. At the post-closure initial
interview, respondents' rate of obtaining syringes from
unsafe sources increased to 36% -- a 165 percent increase,
and to 51% at the post-closure follow-up interview -- mostly
from street sources -- which nearly quadrupled the pre-
closure baseline rate. This change in the number of
respondents who obtained syringes from street dealers -- the
least safe source -- was more alarming. Whereas before the
closure of the exchange, only 4% of respondents obtained
their syringes from the street, after the closure the rate
increased to 38%.
Further, before the closure of the exchange, the respondents
reported that they reused syringes 3.52 times on average.
This increased to 7.68 times at the post-closure initial
interview -- a 118% increase. This findings is especially
dramatic because a relationship has been scientifically
documented between the amount of time syringes remain in
circulation and rates of HIV infection among drug injectors.
As reported by Charles Kaplan and Robert Heimer in their
highly respected "needle circulation" study of the New Haven
needle exchange, a needle exchange reduces the circulation
time of syringes, which reduces the probability that they
will become infected. After the closure of the Windham
needle exchange, there was a sharp increase in the amount of
time that dirty syringes remain in circulation, creating a
proportional increase in the probability that Windham drug
injectors are likely to re-use and share infected syringes.
The closure of the needle exchange also significantly
increased drug injectors' self-reported syringe sharing. At
their last interview before the closure of the exchange,
only 16% of Windham drug injectors' reported sharing a
syringe within the last 30 days. After the exchange's
closure, 34% of the respondents reported in their first
interview that they had shared a syringe within the last 30
days, a 100 percent increase. The respondents also reported
increases in the sharing of other HIV-related injection
materials following the closure of the exchange, such as the
sharing of cookers and water used in the preparation of
drugs.
Lastly, the surveys of public outdoor areas in Windham where
high levels of drug use occur found that the closure of the
needle exchange had no effect either on the number of
improperly discarded syringes and other drug-injection
debris, or on the robustness of the Windham illicit drug
scene.
Conclusion
All of the problems blamed on the needle exchange remain in
Windham following its closure. In fact, Windham now faces
even more problems. First, because of the controversy
surrounding the exchange, almost all of Windham's pharmacies
no longer sell syringes over-the-counter for fear of being
blamed for the city's "needle problem." This forces drug
injectors further into re-using and sharing dirty syringes.
Second, virtually all of the progress the city made over the
last several years in reducing drug injectors' HIV risk
behaviors has been lost. Finally, with the closure of the
exchange and the campaign against it -- much of it based on
assertions now disproved about the exchange causing the
city's drug problem and economic decline -- Windham has
seriously crippled its ability to protect the community
against HIV and other drug-related diseases.
***
6. EDITORIAL: Young Entrepreneurs and the Culture of
Prohibition
Adam J. Smith, Associate Director, ajsmith@drcnet.org
This week in Middletown, NY, an 11 year-old boy was charged
with selling marijuana (mixed with oregano) and soap
shavings (which he passed off as crack cocaine) to his
fifth-grade classmates. The boy was charged with criminal
sale of marijuana and the sale of an imitation controlled
substance and released to the care of his mother pending a
court appearance next week.
So here we are. Several decades and hundreds of billions of
tax dollars spent on the drug war, this moral crusade to
"protect America's children" from illicit substances, and we
are down to this. 11 year-old children selling drugs to
each other, mimicking the actions of the most financially
successful young people in their communities and taking part
in the one of the most profitable business enterprises on
earth.
Did "drugs" make this child into a dealer? And a crooked
one at that? Or is it the culture of prohibition that has
saturated our society and our children's reality? The fact
is that during alcohol prohibition, gangsters like Al
Capone, his criminal empire built on the sale of illicit
booze, were cultural icons. Bootleggers and rum-runners
were glamorous men, living life on the edge, and were, for
certain economic strata of children, the most outwardly
successful role models around. In those days, entire high
schools were shut down due to mass drunkenness, and hip
flasks were worn by trendy teens. Today, with alcohol legal
and regulated, there are no stories of pre-pubescents
selling whiskey to their classmates. Today it is drugs.
It is an easy mistake to make, really. Drugs are bad for
kids, and so we outlaw them. But that doesn't work, and so
we pass even tougher laws. The reality, however, is far
more complex. Part of that reality is the fact that
prohibition does not, cannot control contraband. In fact,
what we have done is ceded control to a criminal element,
and to our children. Another part of the reality of
prohibition is that the markets we have created, and the
wares that those markets offer are a magnet for a certain
percentage of kids. Not bad kids necessarily, but
adventurers. The ones who, in different times, dove off
cliffs into the river or who jumped their bikes over rows of
garbage cans. In clinging to a policy which assures our
children access to these substances, no proof of age
required, we have created, in the words of the law, an
attractive nuisance. And our children are drawn to that
nuisance like flies.
In Middletown, NY, an eleven year-old kid sells mostly phony
"drugs" to his eleven year-old classmates. He did not, we
can be sure, invent the idea himself. He was simply doing
something that goes on in every single town and city across
our nation, day and night, every single day of the year.
Now we must decide what to do with him. Is he the most evil
child in his school? Or is he simply the most enterprising?
And what will we do with all the others like him, thousands
and thousands of them, and most just a few years older than
he? This is the fallout from the culture of prohibition.
It is a culture that we adults have created. So that now,
in the midst of our boondoggle crusade to protect the
children, we find that we cannot build the prisons for them
fast enough.
***
DRCNet needs your support! Donations can be sent to 2000 P
St., NW, Suite 615, Washington, DC 20036, or made by credit
card at http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html. Donations to
the Drug Reform Coordination Network are not tax-deductible.
Deductible contributions supporting our educational work can
be made by check to the DRCNet Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-
exempt organization, same address.
***
DRCNet
***
GATEWAY TO REFORM PAGE http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/
DRCNet HOME PAGE http://www.drcnet.org/
DRUG POLICY LIBRARY http://www.druglibrary.org/
JOIN/MAKE A DONATION http://www.drcnet.org/drcreg.html
REFORMER'S CALENDAR http://www.drcnet.org/calendar.html
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS LIST http://www.drcnet.org/signup.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[End]
to the 1999 Daily News index for Feb. 12-18