-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawmaker Takes Aim At Medical Marijuana Measure / Oregon Medical Marijuana
update (Dr. Rick Bayer, a chief petitioner for Measure 67, forwards an
undated Associated Press article about state Rep. Kevin Mannix's attempt to
gut the voter-approved law. Preceding the AP article is Dr. Bayer's
assessment of today's meeting of the Oregon Health Division OMMA Rules
advisory committee, together with an advance notice about the committee's
next rule-making meeting, 2-5 pm Thursday, April 15, at the Oregon State
Office Building in Portland. Dr. Bayer also details what physicians should
and should not do in order to help their patients comply with the OMMA while
minimizing the legal risks to themselves.)
From: "Rick Bayer" (ricbayer@teleport.com)
To: "Rick Bayer" (ricbayer@teleport.com)
Subject: OREGON: Lawmaker takes aim at marijuana law & OMMA update
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 08:54:01 -0800
Dear OMMA supporters
I cannot find HB 3052 on the 'net yet but it may show up at
http://www.leg.state.or.us/bills.html. This bill is the attempt by the
Republican controlled legislature to gut the OMMA, that Oregonians just
passed.
The Oregon Health Division OMMA Rules advisory committee met today and
things are heading in a reasonable direction. There will be a public
hearing at the Oregon State Office Building (800 NE Oregon in Portland)
on April 15 from 2 PM to 5 PM. It will probably be in room 120 but ask
at the front desk when you arrive to be sure. This will probably be the
last public meeting before the rules are ready by May 1. If you are
interested in shaping the rules that effect patients, please show up
after you read sections 4, 12, & 14 in the law. The topic will be
limited to 4, 12, & 14 and possibly, "What is a mature mj plant?"
Follow the links from http://www.teleport.com/~omr to the full text of
the OMMA. You can also write the OHD to get up to date minutes of the
meeting when they are ready and the OHD has a website where you can find
out their e-mail, etc.
The relationship between the federal government and physicians
concerning the OMMA remains cryptic and confusing and the following is
long discussion on that. You may wish to skip the rest of my part of
this e-mail and just go to the AP article below if you are not
interested in the doctor part of the OMMA.
I will explain to you my understanding but this is NOT to be construed
in any way as legal advice and I am not a lawyer (disclaimer number
one). This is ONLY my political opinion after careful deliberation and
many discussions.
The feds are paralyzed by politics. They were pit bulls in 1997 after
Calif Prop 215 and got doctors angry so doctors and patients sued the
feds and won and injunction (the case is still not final - see
http://www.maps.org - I think that is where the "Conant et al versus
McCaffrey et al suit" is). If the feds "chill out" and give doctors
"pre-clearance", then they are "soft on drugs". Don't expect a
revelation from our nation's Capitol soon. In fact, don't expect
anything.
Nevertheless, several of us have discussed the legal implications with
experienced attorneys, including the one who litigated for doctors after
Prop 215, the Calif med mj law, in 1997 and now is with national ACLU.
An attorney from the Californian Med Assoc (CMA) also accompanied him to
Oregon. She, the CMA attorney, is on the Calif state task force to
implement Prop 215, the Calif med mj law, and has had personal meetings
with Barry McCaffrey's staff about Prop 215. The CMA supports
rescheduling mj so that doctors can prescribe mj and do research.
There appears to be a low risk way for physicians to participate in the
OMMA and that is for them to not do anything other than what they
already do. If they only see patients, diagnose debilitating illnesses,
discuss what treatments might help, record the office visit in the
chart, and give a copy of the chart note to the patient, they are *not*
aiding a patient to get marijuana. They are only practicing medicine as
per usual and exercising First Amendment Rights by discussing what
treatment might help their patient. The chart note needs to legibly
list the debilitating illness and say "medical marijuana might help"
(see the OMMA, in section 4).
Under no circumstances should a doctor *aid* or help a patient to
directly get mj - otherwise doctors, just like anyone else, risk
possible *criminal* charges. CRIMINAL - not DEA administrative risk -
IS THE REAL (albeit small) RISK FOR DOCTORS. That means doctors should
never fill out forms for buyer's clubs, etc. or forms for anything that
might provide a "ticket" for a patient to get mj.
At a slightly higher risk, doctors can fill out an Oregon Health
Division (OHD) form for patients and doctors (again, a doctor should
*never* fill out ANY form for the sole purpose of aiding a patient to
get marijuana). The OHD form is not to get mj but is to exempt patients
from Oregon law as per the OMMA. It is clearly stated on the (draft)
OHD form that doctors are not "prescribing mj". The concern about the
OHD form and federal risk for doctors is that by filling out the OHD
form under OMMA, "is the doctor helping a patient to *retain* mj?" - is
this close to *aiding*? - or is all of this making me paranoid?
The lawyer representing the California Medical Association (CMA) told me
no doctor has been prosecuted by the feds for following the Calif Prop
215. One got some phone calls from the DEA and it made the Calif
medical journals and papers. Many think the feds have better things to
do than waste resources looking foolish but who can know? Washington
state and Alaska also have med mj laws effective now so the feds are
unlikely to want to conduct a war on doctors in Calif, Oregon, Wash, &
Alaska.
The *administrative* risk to doctors from the DEA for "legitimate
medical purpose" is probably minimal with Reno (Justice) over-ruling
Constantine (DEA) on Death With Dignity (and the "legitimate medical
purpose" phrase when Constantine went after Oregon doctors DEA license
in 1997 after Measure 51 was defeated).
In addition, Oregon doctors could almost certainly win an injunction
like the California doctors/patients did if the feds had a stupidity
attack and tried to rob doctors and patients of First Amendment Rights
in Oregon. The feds lost that game in Calif to the lawyer who is now
with the national ACLU and is a source for much of my understanding of
the situation. As you all know, our ACLU has an impressive track record
serving "their client", the Bill of Rights, and particularly our beloved
First Amendment.
In summary, doctors should only be doctors. The forms from the OHD will
be out soon (May 1).
Disclaimer again: I am not a lawyer and I am not giving legal advice
but sharing my political understanding of my research, experience, and
recent meetings discussing our new OMMA. I know this seems complicated
because it is - blame the feds. Nevertheless, for some of you, this is
important, and the above is the best that I can explain it at this time.
Please write to me if you have questions. No, I won't call your doctor
but I will discuss what I understand and give them a phone number for
the ACLU lawyer in Connecticut (or the CMA lawyer in Calif) if s/he
wants to call or write to me and (for at least the third disclaimer
notice), I can't give legal advice or make guarantees.
Finally, there is also a resolution in the Oregon House sponsored by the
Voter Power PAC calling for our Oregon legislature to tell the feds to
legalize cannabis as medicine (just like morphine). There is also a
bill, sponsored by Barney Frank (D-Mass.) in the US House for medical
cannabis.
There is a lot happening but when the Oregon legislative session ends
this summer, we hope to have preserved the (or close to the) law that
Oregon voters passed in November.
Sorry for the long e-mail but this "OMMA doctor thing" has been on many
people's minds and this is the best summary I can provide right now.
Obviously this and the OMMA are still evolving. As always, thanks for
your support.
Rick Bayer, MD, FACP
6800 SW Canyon Drive
Portland, OR 97225
503-292-1035 (voice)
503-297-0754 (fax)
mailto:ricbayer@teleport.com
***
LAWMAKER TAKES AIM AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA MEASURE
By AMALIE YOUNG
The Associated Press
SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- Four months after Oregon voters approved a measure
allowing medical use of marijuana, a Republican lawmaker is teaming up
with Oregon's police chiefs to make changes in the law.
Rep. Kevin Mannix said he thinks the law allows "anyone and everyone"
to smoke marijuana -- not just those who say they need it to ease the
symptoms of cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other
illnesses.
"Not all initiative measures are as skillfully crafted as they should
be," the Salem lawmaker said. "I want to get a good, clean law on the
books that will not lead to years of litigation."
Supporters of the medical marijuana law said Mannix and the police
chiefs are trying to gut the law, not improve it.
"This is an effort to thwart the will of voters," said Geoff Sugerman,
a political consultant who worked on the Measure 67 campaign last fall.
As the law is now written, those with debilitating diseases can use
marijuana with a doctor's prescription. They can grow up to three
mature plants and four immature plants at a time and can have one
smokeable ounce of marijuana in their possession.
Under the law, anyone caught with marijuana can use the "affirmative
defense" that it is medically necessary and the burden is on
prosecutors to prove otherwise.
But Mannix said if his measure, HB3052, passes, no one would be able
to automatically use the medical defense if they were caught with more
than the amount of marijuana allowed under the law.
With that provision, Mannix said he is targeting marijuana growers or
dealers who might try to hide behind the medical pot law.
Supporters of the law said those accused of exceeding the limits might
simply need more marijuana to ease their symptoms.
Besides, they said, there are enough safeguards in the law to prevent
large-scale growing operations, and they are worried the bill
represents a first step toward dismantling the law.
Liver cancer patient Tom Thompson of Portland said his life has
changed since he began smoking marijuana three or four times a day.
Thompson, 58, said doctors told him two years ago that he had only a
few months to live. Smoking marijuana is what has helped him get this
far, he said.
"It doesn't take me away from reality," Thompson said. "It makes it so
I can get along with reality."
Kevin Campbell, who lobbies for the Oregon Police Chiefs Association,
didn't return several phone calls on the matter last week.
However, other law enforcement officials have said there's little
evidence to show marijuana has medical value and that the marijuana
law is a backdoor attempt to legalize pot outright.
Another provision of the law that Mannix is targeting requires police
to preserve and later return the marijuana if it turns out the person
has a legitimate medical need for it.
However, Sugerman said that despite what critics say, it was never
intended that police agencies would have to go to all the trouble of
watering and otherwise caring for seized marijuana.
The law simply says that police must return seized lights and other
growing equipment as well as all smokeable marijuana if it turns out
the person has a legitimate medical need for it, he said.
Sugerman said that rather than immediately trying to change the law,
lawmakers should step back and see how legalizing marijuana has helped
ease the suffering of people with debilitating illnesses.
"This is all about law enforcement coming in and wanting to have
tighter reins on a law that voters passed," he said.
***
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 1999 16:35:18 -0800
To: restore@crrh.org
From: Arthur Livermore (alive@pacifier.com)
From: "CRRH mailing list" (restore@crrh.org)
Subject: Re: OREGON: Lawmaker takes aim at marijuana law & OMMA update
Cc: ricbayer@teleport.com
Dr. Rick Bayer , a sponsor of the Oregon Medical
Marijuana Act wrote:
>At a slightly higher risk, doctors can fill out an Oregon Health
>Division (OHD) form for patients and doctors (again, a doctor should
>*never* fill out ANY form for the sole purpose of aiding a patient to
>get marijuana). The OHD form is not to get mj but is to exempt patients
>from Oregon law as per the OMMA. It is clearly stated on the (draft)
>OHD form that doctors are not "prescribing mj". The concern about the
>OHD form and federal risk for doctors is that by filling out the OHD
>form under OMMA, "is the doctor helping a patient to *retain* mj?" - is
>this close to *aiding*? - or is all of this making me paranoid?
It's not paranoia when "they" are really trying to make you out to be a
criminal. I'll be really happy when my relationship with my doctor and the
medicine I use are no longer political issues. Bottom line: health is a
private part of our lives. The feds have no business being involved in
personal health decisions.
Sincerely,
Arthur Livermore
alive@pacifier.com
503-436-1882
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Detecting Teen Substance Abuse (The Washington Post notes new guidelines were
released last week by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, SAMHSA, as a free advertisement for the coerced-rehab
industry. The guidelines are designed to give physicians, teachers, coaches
and others who regularly deal with teens "screening tools" to determine who
may have "a substance abuse problem." Among the indications for undergoing
substance abuse screening are "psychological difficulties, substantial
behavior changes, hospital emergency room visits for trauma injuries as well
as for gastrointestinal disturbances, sudden changes in grade-point averages,
unexplained school absences and a general tendency toward being accident
prone.")
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 18:44:24 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Detecting Teen Substance Abuse
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Kendra E. Wright http://www.familywatch.org/
Pubdate: Tue, 09 Mar 1999
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Copyright: 1999 The Washington Post Company
Page: Z07
Address: 1150 15th Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20071
Feedback: http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/edit/letters/letterform.htm
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Author: Sally Squires, Washington Post Staff Writer
DETECTING TEEN SUBSTANCE ABUSE
New Government Guidelines Provide Screening Tools for Parents and
Professionals
The recent news stories seemed to be in direct contrast. In Fairfax County,
a worried mother told of being so concerned that her teenage son was using
illegal drugs that she placed a wiretap on his phone to confirm it. While
in Pennsylvania, the parents of five high school girls killed in a recent
car accident were stunned to learn that their children had been inhaling
dangerous chemical solvents, which played a role in the deaths.
Both anecdotes point to the need for new ways for parents, doctors,
teachers and mental health professionals to detect adolescent substance
abuse early, before parental wiretaps are necessary and fatal accidents
occur. That is the goal of guidelines released last week by the federal
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
"The new guidelines bring some rigor to the field," said Alain Joffe, head
of adolescent medicine at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in
Baltimore and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on
Substance Abuse.
The guidelines are also designed to give physicians, teachers, coaches and
others who regularly deal with teens screening tools to determine who may
have a substance abuse problem. Among the indications for undergoing
substance abuse screening are psychological difficulties, substantial
behavior changes, hospital emergency room visits for trauma injuries as
well as for gastrointestinal disturbances, sudden changes in grade-point
averages, unexplained school absences and a general tendency toward being
accident prone.
The new recommendations also offer guidance to professionals on who and how
to treat and have implications for the payment of treatment, Joffe added.
"I will use some of these screening instruments in my practice and based on
the results of how the kid scores will decide if this is someone I can
handle or is it someone I should send on to someone with more expertise,"
he said. "We've had virtually nothing to go on until now."
While there are indications that drug use among adolescents may be leveling
off, "we are concerned that our young people continue to use drugs and and
drink at an unacceptable rate," SAMHSA Administrator Nelba Chavez said in
releasing the guidelines last week.
An estimated 77,000 teens under the age of 18 were in substance abuse
treatment in 1996--nearly double the 44,000 adolescents undergoing such
treatment in 1991, according to SAMHSA.
The majority of teens enter substance abuse treatment only after they have
gotten into trouble with the juvenile justice authorities. "If adults
become aware of the warning signs [of substance abuse], they will be in a
better position to provide a timely evaluation to vulnerable teens before
they act out with criminal behavior," said H. Westley Clark, director of
the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, which issued the guidelines for
SAMHSA. "We could also prevent the risk-taking that affects their health
and well-being for the rest of their lives."
Studies show that teens who drink alcohol and use drugs are more likely to
engage in other risky behaviors that increase the odds of early pregnancy,
contracting sexually transmitted diseases such as the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes AIDS and exposure to violence or
involvement in motor vehicle accidents.
The guidelines also advocate a shift from the confrontational, heavy-handed
methods of tackling suspected drug and alcohol use in teens to a more
subtle, "motivational" approach.
"Strong-arm tactics have a high potential to backfire," said Ken C.
Winters, director of the Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse at the
University of Minnesota and chairman of the consensus panel that wrote the
guidelines. "They can likely start to create a larger gap between parents
and kids [rather] than building bridges."
In the new guidelines, adults are encouraged not to yell or use accusatory
tones, threats and inflammatory labels such as alcoholic or drug addict
when they confront a teen about substance abuse. A more effective approach,
the guidelines suggest, is simply to talk honestly and openly about
parental concerns.
"Kids don't mind being asked about possible drug or alcoholic use," Clark
said. "They just don't want to be accused or browbeaten. . . . And if we
fail to ask them questions to screen for substance abuse, then we fail the
kids."
One of the most difficult moments for parents is when children, once they
are confronted, compare their own drug or alcohol use to that of their
parents, challenging their parents by pointing to the adults' use of
alcohol or cigarettes. "Parents often feel paralyzed" when this happens,
Clark said.
All too often, he explained, that frustration leads to a breakdown in
communication between the child and parents and may result in ultimatums to
the child that rarely work and simply escalate the situation. "That's when
parents revert to saying 'You do this or else!'" Clark said.
To overcome a child's denial that often occurs with substance abuse, the
guidelines suggest helping teens focus on the way that alcohol and drug use
may be interfering with their life. Problems in school, missing work or
getting kicked off a team can help an adolescent see that alcohol or drugs
are already taking a toll.
When adolescents argue that their drug and alcohol use "is not a problem,"
parents can repeat those words to help guide them to an expert for further
evaluation. "Parents might respond that if you don't really have a problem,
then you have nothing to fear about going for an assessment with a
professional," Winters said.
Once substance use is confirmed in teens, the next step is treatment with a
mental health professional.
The guidelines underscore that teens require special treatment and often
don't do well in programs that are designed for adults. For example,
traditional 12-step addiction recovery programs usually are revised for
teens to focus on the first five steps, which are more developmentally
appropriate for adolescents, according to the guidelines. Residential
treatment programs need to be less confrontational for teens than for
adults and some teens may need treatment longer than the standard 28 days.
Family therapy for teen substance abuse should deal not only with the
teen's relationships within the family and with peers, but should also take
into account how parents monitor their children in age-appropriate ways,
according to the guidelines.
Other key issues to be explored during the counseling are the quality of
family life and the potential of sexual or physical abuse of the
adolescents within the home.
The guidelines counsel treatment providers that adolescents are entitled to
privacy and suggest that professionals honor confidential conversations to
keep open the lines of communication.
"Parents, teachers, employers, peers may not be contacted for information
about the adolescent's substance abuse without the written consent of the
patient," according to the guidelines.
More than two dozen experts spent nearly two years reviewing the latest
research on substance abuse screening and treatment before writing the new
guidelines. They are available on the World Wide Web at
www.samhsa.gov/csat/csat.htm (go to TIPs, No. 31) or by calling the
National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information at 1-800-729-6686;
TDD (for hearing impaired) at 1-800-487-4889.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nightline: Getting Straight (Dave Marash of ABC News begins a three-night
examination of U.S. drug policy based on the perspective of Michael Massing's
book, "The Fix," which in turn looks at U.S. drug policy from the perspective
of a 1994 report by the Rand Corporation that found drug treatment to be 10
times more effective than border interdiction. The latest federal survey
showed just one addict in four desiring treatment actually getting it. Over
the first seven years of the Clinton administration, the share of drug
control money spent for demand reduction has actually fallen slightly. The
White House drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, says, "I think the bigger
problem . . . is we simply lack health parity for drug treatment in the
private sector.")
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 12:46:30 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Part 1 of 3, NIGHTLINE, GETTING STRAIGHT
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Marcus/Mermelstein Family (mmfamily@ix.netcom.com)
Pubdate: Tue, 09 Mar 1999
Source: ABC News - Nightline
Contact: http://204.202.137.114/onair/nightline/email.html
Website:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/nightline/transcripts/nl990310_trans.html
Copyright: 1998 ABCNEWS and Starwave Corporation.
Note: This is an unedited, uncorrected transcript.
NIGHTLINE, GETTING STRAIGHT, PART I
COKIE ROBERTS This country's been waging a war on drugs for decades
now and so far we don't seem to be winning it. Over the next three
nights, Nightline will be examining the nation's drug policy based on
a critical assessment by Michael Massing. His book, called The Fix,
draws on a 1994 report by the Rand Corporation which found drug
treatment 10 times more effective than the interdiction of drugs at
the borders. The figures for this year's budget, two thirds of our
federal drug dollars will go to law enforcement, one third to
treatment. Joining us later to give us his status report on the drug
war, General Barry McCaffrey, the Clinton administration's point man
on drugs. But first, Nightline's Dave Marash with the story of a
possible breakthrough in the treatment of the nation's more than three
and a half million cocaine addicts.
DAVE MARASH, ABCNEWS (VO) Dr. Donald Landry of Columbia University's
College of Physicians and Surgeons hardly looks like a revolutionary.
But a new enzyme called a catalytic antibody that he has developed in
work commissioned by the federal drug czar's office could revolutionize
treatment for cocaine addiction.
DR. DONALD LANDRY Well, this is the molecular structure of cocaine and
the antibody first binds it.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Landry diagrammed what happens in the bloodstream ...
DR. DONALD LANDRY And then it has molecular machinery to clip this
spot.
DAVE MARASH (VO) When his antibody attacks and breaks apart molecules
of cocaine before they can get to the brain and turns cocaine into two
harmless substances.
DR. DONALD LANDRY And so now we have materials that are inactive. They
are not addictive, they are not toxic.
DAVE MARASH (VO) The Landry antibody has been tested on rats and mice
and has nullified the effects of what should have been a lethal
overdose of cocaine.
DR DONALD LANDRY In a model of cocaine overdose, we can give a dose of
cocaine that should kill 90 percent of the animals. If the animals are
pretreated with the antibody, 100 percent live.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Even more exciting, says Dr Landry, is what happened
when the antibody was used to preempt long-term use of cocaine.
DR. DONALD LANDRY In terms of a model of addiction, when we pre-treat
with the antibody, animals that used cocaine now can't tell the
difference between cocaine and salt water and the hope is that giving
an antibody that can persist in the circulation for weeks at a time we
might make that person relatively immune to the effects of cocaine.
DAVE MARASH (VO) So far, tests of Landry's antibody have kept rodents
off cocaine for up to 30 days, enough time to create a window of
opportunity for addicted people to undergo rehabilitation and therapy
to break their bad habits and move towards sobriety. Still to come,
tests on monkeys and perhaps within two years, on humans. If those
tests succeed, the results for treatment of cocaine could be improved
dramatically. (on camera) The problem is too few addicts are getting
treatment. The latest federal survey showed just one addict in four
desiring treatment actually getting it, which critics blame on a
federal drug fighting budget that spends twice as much on cutting drug
supplies as it does on controlling demand by treating addicted people.
MICHAEL MASSING I think we have our priorities backward.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Author Michael Massing recently published The Fix, a
history and analysis of federal drug policy since the 1960s.
MICHAEL MASSING The Rand Corporation did a study several years ago in
which they measure dollar for dollar the effectiveness of treatment,
law enforcement, border interdiction and programs abroad in Latin
America to try to reduce cocaine consumption and they found that every
dollar you put in treatment was seven times more effective than law
enforcement, 10 times more effective than interdiction and 23 times
more effective than international programs.
DAVE MARASH (VO) What Massing prescribes is going back to the policies
of the Nixon administration, when Dr. Jerome Jaffe ran the war against
drugs.
MICHAEL MASSING Basically they understood that the key to having an
effective drug policy was making treatment available to addicts at the
point when they want help.
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY This was the first time that we said the federal
government will assume responsibility for treatment.
DAVE MARASH (VO) When Jaffe was President Nixon's drug czar, he put
two thirds of the federal anti-drug budget into treatment.
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY We wrote contracts to sort of buy up the waiting
lists. When there were waiting lists we said how much would it cost
for you to expand enough to admit all of those people? And we
negotiated those costs and wrote the checks and expanded the waiting
lists disappeared.
DAVE MARASH (VO) The results?
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY If you're asking what was the impact of the
treatment itself, well, there were substantial declines in the
measures of the adverse effects of heroin use. Overdose deaths went
down. New cases of hepatitis went down. There were some reports that
in some places crime went down.
DAVE MARASH (VO) The bottom line, according to Jaffe ...
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Every additional dollar spent on treatment more
than pays for itself in terms of reduced medical complications,
reduced crime and general increased employment, even if you don't
count the reduction of human suffering that's associated with it.
DAVE MARASH The Clinton administration's latest budget for fighting
narcotics hues to the formula of the past 15 years. Roughly twice as
much will go for slash and burn raids in Mexico and Peru, for border
interdiction and domestic police work as for drug treatment. In fact,
over the first seven years of the Clinton administration, the share of
drug control money spent for demand reduction has actually fallen slightly.
COKIE ROBERTS For ex-addicts, the hard road to recovery comes easier
when they're in treatment programs. We'll have more on that when Dave
Marash comes back with his report in a moment.
(Commercial Break)
DONNA After spending 11 days in detox, I came here and I wasn't still,
physically I was, you know, detoxed, but I still, you know, had
trouble seeing and I couldn't sleep and it was, I was in a nightmare.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Donna is one of a group of recovering addicts we met
at the Smithers Treatment Center, one of New York City's best known
facilities, the place Truman Capote came to fight his addictions, the
place that also started baseball stars Darryl Strawberry and Doc
Gooden on their roads to recovery. Seven years ago, when Donna started
treatment, 11 days in detox wasn't unusual. Today, it's almost unheard
of. And so is this.
DONNA I was fortunate enough to get a 28 day program here. A lot of
people now aren't able to get 28 days.
DAVE MARASH (VO) No, they aren't. Instead, says Smithers' director of
administration, most patients now do rehabilitation in ...
GERALD HOROWITZ, THE SMITHERS CENTER Between 12 and 18 days and that's
when people are able to access the treatment at all. The commercial
insurance, for example, is much more reticent to put anybody into an
impatient program as opposed to providing outpatient benefits for the
individual.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Which worries many recovering addicts because they
insist recovery is a long, hard process.
EDUARDO Twenty-eight days inpatient was just very, very beginning
cause my treatment was over six months. I did one month in here and
then five months outpatient and it is an ongoing process.
JIM When an individual is so completely addicted to a substance,
alcohol, heroin, cocaine, it takes over that person's life and all the
person's decisions, all his planning, all his activities in the course
of the day have to be factored around getting, using, recovering and
getting again.
DAVE MARASH (VO) There's so much to replace, so much to overcome, so
much to get done in rehabilitation until slowly over time new, better
obligations fill in the structures of everyday life. Jay, as we'll
call him, asked us not to show his face.
JAY I have structure in my life. I, you know, have a routine to my
life, you know? I have a dog. I raise fish. I raise plants. I, you
know, I have a girlfriend. I have, you know, I have a lot of things in
my life that I didn't have before and that's pretty much what tells me
that it's working for me.
DAVE MARASH (VO) So are these recovering addicts right? Are the
cutbacks in drug treatment dictated by HMOs and insurance companies
undermining its success? The truth is, says Dr Alexander DeLuca, (ph)
we don't know.
DR ALEXANDER DELUCA The risks would be that there would be, perhaps, a
higher relapse rate or a lower engagement in treatment rate. To my
knowledge, that has not been demonstrated.
RESEARCHER They plug this into any phone, any phone socket in the wall
and they hit send.
DAVE MARASH (VO) If there is a relationship between time spent in
treatment and success or failure, we should know more about it soon
through another project funded by the drug czar's office now underway
at the Treatment Research Institute of the University of Pennsylvania.
Data pours in around the clock from computers placed in dozens of
treatment centers and hospitals in five cities. Already, some 2,000
addicts' case histories are on file.
DR. HARBERT KLEBER, NATIONAL CENTER ADDICTION & SUBSTANCE ABUSE We've
been following them since they entered treatment and right now we're
in the one year follow-up phase.
DAVE MARASH (VO) This database allows drug treatment facilities to
tailor their programs to ever changing needs, defined in part by what
drugs are being most abused right now.
DR HARBERT KLEBER You need to know what you're dealing with. In the
mid-'80s, the big problem was cocaine. Increasingly in the '90s, the
problem is becoming heroin again, but out of the corner of our eye
we're keeping a watch out for methamphetamine, which is moving across
the country from the west coast.
DAVE MARASH (VO) Soon, there will be 25 cities and eventually plans
call for a national network acquiring and distributing real time
information on drug treatment immediately available to every
participating drug treatment provider.
DR HARBERT KLEBER And that provider will be able to look and see what
patient characteristics and what treatment characteristics have done
best together.
DAVE MARASH (VO) This project should benefit addicts, treatment
facilities and, says Dr Kleber, above all, policymakers.
DR HARBERT KLEBER Policy should be driven by science. What we can do
with these studies is show that treatment can work, that it can be
cost effective, that a dollar spent on treatment can save money elsewhere.
DAVE MARASH The debate whether you get more bang for your bucks
through cutting off supplies or moderating demand is an old one. But
soon, as that data piles up from around the country, the decisions on
it should be better informed than ever. I'm Dave Marash for Nightline
in Washington.
COKIE ROBERTS When we come back, I'll talk with General Barry
McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy.
(Commercial Break)
COKIE ROBERTS Joining me here in Washington is General Barry
McCaffrey, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy, what we commonly call the drug czar. Thank you for being with
us, General McCaffrey. Now, that interesting report Dave Marash showed
us about a possible cocaine blocker was from a drug conference, a
conference on cutting edge technologies that you sponsored today. What
do you think about that cocaine blocker?
BARRY MCCAFFREY, DIRECTOR NATIONAL OFFICE DRUG CONTROL POLICY Well,
we're very encouraged. You know, Don Landry is a brilliant guy. We
brought together yesterday, today and tomorrow more than 400
scientists from all over the country. About 100 scientific papers were
presented and among possibly the most important a work by Don Landry,
who's taken a very unusual and creative approach to using the
bloodstream to block cocaine. We're also finding another fellow, Dr.
Mike Cuhard, (ph) Emory University, who's working against cocaine
receptors in the brain itself. So there's great promise to be able to
finally give a tool to American medicine to deal with 3.6 million
addicted Americans. We desperately need something in the field in the
hands of drug treatment.
COKIE ROBERTS That's 3.6 million cocaine addicts?
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Yeah, exactly.
COKIE ROBERTS All right, and General, though, that, of course, assumes
that these people are getting to treatment in order to be able to
receive any new technologies or treatments and you saw Dave Marash's
report saying that not enough people are getting to treatment, that
the numbers are too much enforcement, too little treatment.
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Well, I clearly agree there isn't enough
treatment. You know, we've put on almost a billion dollar increase in
the treatment since FY'96 - an increase of 26 percent in federal
dollars. I might add, thanks to the cooperation of bipartisan support
in Congress, we've increased drug prevention funding by 53 percent. So
your viewers shouldn't miss the point that we actually get the point
that this strategy simply must be based on prevention of drug abuse by
adolescents and treatment of the four million addicted.
COKIE ROBERTS Well, then why are the numbers so lopsided? Why is it
two thirds money for enforcement, interdiction, etc., and one third
for treatment and treatment of demand?
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Well, it's sort of a screwy way of counting it,
to be honest. The drug budget has gone from $13.5 billion in FY'96 to
$17.8 billion in the year 2000 and that has disproportionately been
invested in treatment and prevention. I think the bigger problem,
Cokie, is we simply lack health parity for drug treatment in the
private sector. And in addition, we've done an inadequate job of
providing drug treatment for those behind bars, 1.8 million Americans
behind bars, half of 'em have a compulsive drug using problem.
COKIE ROBERTS Well, let's talk about that for a minute because we just
heard one of these experts say that this should be policy by science.
That's something you've said several times.
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Oh, absolutely.
COKIE ROBERTS It shouldn't be - but we do have a Congress which has
year in and year out passed crime bills which say that drug offenders
must go to prison, serve minimum sentences and the prisons are getting
filled up with these people. Women's prisons are being built by the
thousands. What, I mean is this policy by science?
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Well, I think Attorney General Reno and Donna
Shalala and I all basically agreed you can't get at the problem of bad
drug policy simply by arresting people and locking them up. You've got
to have treatment available and that means not only prison based but
also follow on community oversight. That community oversight can
partially be based on the best drug program in the world, which is
Alcoholics Anonymous and NA. But still, we've got to put our money
where our mouth is and I believe the administration is now doing that
with increasing support by Congress.
COKIE ROBERTS What is the evidence of that when we see this new budget
still, as I say, with these lopsided numbers?
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Well, it's $3.6 billion, Cokie. We've never had
that much money in drug treatment in our history and in addition we've
got Janet Reno with a serious amount of money behind the drug court
program. Three years ago there were 12 drug courts. Today there are
almost 500 either online or coming online. I believe before we walk
out of this, these offices, they'll be more than a thousand. So we are
moving in the right direction. But let me tell you what the problems
are. We've got to have some form of drug treatment health parity in
the health insurance business and we've got to more effectively get at
the problem of closing this treatment gap, particularly in the
criminal justice system.
COKIE ROBERTS The, but I know that there are problems in the private
sector, but in the public sector it seems to me we've gone through
cycles here and in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations you went
to these mandated minimums, prison sentences, enforcement, all the
stuff that we're seeing now. Then in the Nixon administration, more to
treatment, we saw the Nixon drug czar earlier in the broadcast saying
treatment was the answer, and then back to enforcement. Is, do we just
not get the message? What's the problem?
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Well, again, let me say, to put it in
perspective, there's never been more federal dollars in treatment
ever. It's gone up enormously just in the last four years. In
addition, I would tell you the drug addiction problem is bigger. There
are 4.1 million Americans who are compulsive drug users, another 10
million chronic alcoholics. So the problem is immense. The dimensions
of our response are inadequate. But I think we are moving in the right
direction. We'll never get there, though, just with federal funding.
We're going to have to have some form of health insurance parity for
drug treatment.
COKIE ROBERTS And what is the administration doing to get there?
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Well, we're putting a tremendous amount of
creativity into trying to link drug treatment systems with the
criminal justice system. That's the beginning. It's called Break The
Cycle. It's a Janet Reno concept. It says if you're arrested, and you
will be if you end up as a compulsive drug user, you're going to be in
mandated drug treatment. That's one piece of the puzzle. I think the
second one is we've done a lot of analysis. We believe it's probably
the case that the health insurance industry will save money under
smart management if we provide drug treatment instead of waiting until
these people show up in hospital emergency rooms or traffic accidents
or behind bars.
COKIE ROBERTS General, we only have a couple of seconds left, but do
you see any evidence that they are willing to go that route?
Prevention's been a tough one to sell to the health maintenance people
and the health insurance people.
GEN. BARRY MCCAFFREY Yeah, well, thankfully we've gotten a lot of
support out of people like Senator Campbell and Orrin Hatch and Joe
Biden and in the House by Denny Hastert, Rob Portman and Sandy Levin.
So I think there's an increasing number of congressmen who get the
point. There's four million chronic addicts and we simply have to get
effective drug treatment into place.
COKIE ROBERTS Thanks so much, General Barry McCaffrey.
[link to Part 2, broadcast the next evening.]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cabinet Rules Out Legalising Cannabis (According to the Dominion, in New
Zealand, the New Zealand Government has rejected the recommendation of its
parliamentarian health select committee that the Government review the legal
status of cannabis. The Government has not only ruled out decriminalising
cannabis, saying that making the herb legal would send confusing messages to
young people, it also announced that it would ban drug paraphernalia such as
"bongs.")
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 06:18:11 -0800
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: New Zealand: Cabinet Rules Out Legalising Cannabis
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: David Hadorn (hadorn@dnai.com)
Pubdate: Tue, 09 Mar 1999
Source: Dominion, The (New Zealand)
Contact: letters@dominion.co.nz
Website: http://www.inl.co.nz/wnl/dominion/index.html
Author: Helen Bain - Political Reporter
CABINET RULES OUT LEGALISING CANNABIS
THE Government has ruled out decriminalising cannabis, saying that
making the drug legal would send confusing messages to young people.
Parliament's health select committee conducted an inquiry last year
into the mental health effects of cannabis and recommended that the
Government review the legal status of the drug.
The Government's response to the committee's report, tabled in
Parliament yesterday, says it does not intend to revisit the legal
status of cannabis.
However, the Government also announced yesterday, in the first round
of its national drug policy "action plan", that it would ban drug
paraphernalia such as "bongs" and educate people about the dangers of
"scene drugs" such as Ecstasy.
Health Minister Wyatt Creech, who heads the ministerial committee on
drug policy, said drugs could be "at the heart of death, suicide,
accidents, injury, violence and family and social disruption."
He said young people needed clear and consistent messages about
drugs.
"The visibility and availability of paraphernalia, in particular pipes
and bongs, specifically for illicit drug-taking, have the potential to
send conflicting messages to young people regarding the
appropriateness or safety of drug-taking," Mr Creech said.
The Government planned to ban the importation of pipes and utensils
for the use of administering controlled drugs.
A gazette notice on the ban was being drafted by the Health Ministry,
and a transition period would allow importers and sellers to clear
stocks already in New Zealand.
The ban would come into effect by 2000 at the latest, and possession
of drug paraphernalia would be penalised by a maximum three months'
jail, a $1500 fine or both.
The ministry will also produce guidelines for safer dance parties,
spurred in part by the Ecstasy-related death of a woman at an
Auckland dance club. The guidelines would tell people how to hold
safer dance parties, the dangers of "scene drugs" such as Ecstasy and
amphetamines, and how to prevent the potential harm.
The guidelines would be accompanied by information for people
attending dance parties or "rave events".
The Government's "action plan" on drugs also includes: - Drug
research, particularly into the impact of cannabis on Maori
communities. - Guidelines on drug education. - A new police
drug-control strategy.- Identifying gaps and overlaps in drug and
alcohol treatment. - Intelligence-gathering on inappropriate
prescription of drugs by doctors, with a pilot scheme to start in
Christchurch in September. - Review of classification of drugs,
including making Ecstasy a class A drug.
Health select committee chairman Brian Neeson said he was not
disappointed that the Government had not reviewed the legal status of
cannabis.
"If the Government doesn't feel it is time to look at that, fine," Mr
Neeson said.
However, he said, present cannabis laws were not working, and cannabis
use was increasing.
Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has said that decriminalising cannabis
would signal the Government was "soft" on drugs, but Police Minister
Clem Simich has said he supported decriminalisation.
to the 1999 Daily News index for March 5-11