FW: IDPC December 2010 Alert

Monday, December 20, 2010 | | 0 comments

 
 
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
IDPC : International Drug Policy Consortium
IDPC December 2010 Alert

Welcome to the IDPC December 2010 Alert. The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) is a global network of NGOs and professional networks that work together to promote objective and open debate on drug policy. This Alert contains news, updates on the latest publications and upcoming events relevant to international drug policy.


Top stories
News

IDPC/MAC Seminar - Options for the management of drug using offenders  
This seminar, co-organised by IDPC and the Malaysian AIDS Council (MAC), provided the opportunity to share experiences from different countries and encourage new thinking at a time where the Malaysian government has already successfully implemented harm reduction measures and is in the process of scaling these up. Read more.

Asian launch of the Lancet Special Series on HIV in People Who Use Drugs
This Series draws attention to the issues around the growing HIV epidemic in people who use drugs, including tackling the myths surrounding HIV and people who use drugs, and subjects as diverse as women and drugs to the effect of amphetamines, alcohol, and human rights on the epidemic. Read more.

Former Polish President and other prominent figures call for drug liberalisation in Poland 
Signatories of the open letter urge the government to advance proceedings on amendments to the drug policy bill that has now reached the parliament. Read more.

IDPC participates to training course on the prevention of discrimination in Switzerland
In December 2010, IDPC participated to a training course organised by the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. The training aimed to raise awareness of human rights and the right to health among Swiss professionals specialised in health, addictions and vulnerable populations. Read more.

‘Access to HIV services is a right for drug users', states UNODC Executive Director 
At the occasion of World AIDS Day on 1st December 2010, the UNODC Executive Director raised awareness of the need to target drug users in the fight to combat the HIV epidemic. Read more.

'NGOs a vital link in fight against drugs', says UNODC Executive Director
During the appointment of the new chairperson of the Vienna NGO Committee on Drugs, Mr. Fedotov, the UNODC Executive Director, declared: 'To tackle drugs, we need to keep constant contact with on the ground knowledge and expertise. Our main partner NGOs provide that context and support our work from the local to the global level'. Read more.

A War on Drugs: A War on People - Facebook Campaign! 
IDPC, along with a number of organisations, marked Human Rights Day 2010 by launching “A War on Drugs: A War on People” Facebook campaign. Each month the page will highlight a different type of human rights abuse carried out under the drug prohibition regime. Please help us by spreading the word and joining the movement!

UK's former Drugs and Defence Minister calls for drug legalisation
Bob Ainsworth MP, former Home Office drugs minister and Secretary of State for Defence, called for the legalisation and regulation of drugs during a Parliamentary debate he was leading in Westminster Hall, London, on 16th December 2010. Read more.

Youth RISE recruits volunteers for its 'International Working Group'
Youth RISE, the global youth-led network for reducing the risks and harms associated with substance use – is seeking volunteers from around the world to join their ‘International Working Group’ (IWG) in 2010. The deadline for applications is 27th December 2010. Read more.


Publications

Executive summary of IDPC Drug Policy Guide now available in 6 languages!
The Executive Summary of the IDPC Drug Policy Guide is now available in English, Czech, French, Italian, Russian and Spanish. The full version of the Guide can be downloaded on our website in English, Russian and Spanish.

Systems overload: Drug laws and prisons in Latin America - TNI/WOLA Report
This comparative study, conducted by the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) on the impact of drug policies on the prison systems of eight Latin American countries reveals that drug laws have contributed to the prison crises these countries are experiencing. Read more.

IDPC Report on South East Europe Drug Policy Network Meeting, Ohrid, Macedonia
Throughout 2010, IDPC has developed a South East Europe drug policy Network. This session was attended by 27 participants, both from NGOs and national governments and focused on two topics: harm reduction, and the Roma population. This report summarises the main discussions that took place during the seminar. Read the report 

UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic 2010 now available online!
Based on the latest data from 182 countries, this global reference book provides comprehensive analysis on the AIDS epidemic and response. Read the report.

Independent reference group to the UN calls for evidence-based approach to address HIV among IDUs
In this Consensus Statement, the Reference Group to the United Nations on HIV and Injecting Drug Use identifies key regional issues of concern and outlines recommendations for action. Read the report.

South East Asia opium survey 2010: LAO PDR, Myanmar - UNODC Report
Combining the UNODC Lao PDR and Myanmar Opium Surveys, as well as information on poppy cultivation in Thailand from that country's Office of the Narcotics Control Board, the Survey points to rising levels of opium poppy cultivation across all three countries. Read the report.

Breaking the silence - In search for Colombia's disappearances
In this report, the Latin America Working Group Education Fund and the US Office on Colombia highlight that the military aid that the U.S. government provided—and continues to provide—to Colombia strengthened an army that was responsible for thousands of forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions and has collaborated with, or at least turned a blind eye to, paramilitary violence that escalated as U.S. aid flowed. Read the report.

Drugs – Alternatives to the ‘war’
Thanks to his experience in the field, Col. Jorge da Silva is certain that repressive policies to control drug use is not only inefficient, but it is also the cause of the serious public security problems in countries like Colombia, Mexico and Brazil. Read the paper.

The limits of equivalence: Ethical dilemmas in providing care in drug detention centres
For organisations offering health education, food, or even life-saving medical care inside drug detention centres, what are the limits of providing ethical care, without risking legitimising the system or building its capacity to detain more people? This report explores how organisations might weigh the risks and benefits of their engagement. Read the report.

Opioid substitution therapy in Central Asia: Towards diverse and effective treatment - EHRN Report
New research provided by the Eurasian Harm Reduction Network (EHRN) shows that in countries of the Central Asia, shows that in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan only 5% of the estimated IDU population has got access to the OST. The report concludes that drug policies are the key constrain to the access to medical care for drug users. Similar conclusions have been reached in a mission report entitled 'State-of-the-art of opiate substitution treatment and necessary supportive structures for scaling-up'. The EHRN report is available in English and Russian.


Events

First IDPC drug policy Seminar in the Middle East and North Africa 
3 - 4 Jan 2011, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
The seminar, co-organised by IDPC and the National Rehabilitation Centre in Abu Dhabi will aim to examine the current state of drug policies in the region, identify key areas for discussion and improvement, and agree on a method of working together to developing networking and advocacy activities. Read more.

Democracy, cities and drugs conference - New challenges, new solutions 
23 - 25 Feb 2011, Vienna, Austria
The partners of the Democracy, Cities & Drugs II project will hold the conference 'New challenges, New solutions' in Vienna on 23-25 February 2011. The deadline for submitting abstracts is on 20 December 2010. For more information, visit the conference website.

10th Stapleford International Addiction Conference
25 - 28 Feb 2011, Athens, Greece
This is the only conference focusing on treatment with pharmacological and behavioural antagonists. The participants are invited to submit abstracts for oral or poster presentations on topics related to treatment. For more information, visit the conference website.

Seminar on social intervention tools for online outreach
17 - 19 Mar 2011, Padova, Italy
Correlation's main goal is to train participants in the use and implementation of the Social Intervention Tool within their own organisation. The training will focus on different aspects of the use of online strategies, including practical use of the SIT, online communication methods and conversation techniques, and guidelines for successful implementation. Read more.

22nd International Harm Reduction Conference: ‘Building capacity, redressing neglect’
3 - 7 Apr 2011, Beirut, Lebanon
The 2011 conference will have a strong focus on building the skills and capacity of civil society organisations in harm reduction implementation and advocacy, and will highlight the particular needs of women who use drugs and other marginalised populations within the overall harm reduction response. For more information, visit the conference website.

32nd Annual International Human Rights Training Programme
5 - 24 Jun 2011, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada
The 32nd International Human Rights Training Programme, organised by Equitas, will aim to strengthen the capacity of human rights organisations to undertake educational efforts aimed at building a global culture of human rights. Read more.

6th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention
17 - 20 Jul 2011, Rome, Italy
Registration and abstract submissions to the 6th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention (IAS 2011) are now open. Delegates are encouraged to register by 24 February 2010. For more information, visit the conference website.

You are receiving this alert either because you signed up at www.idpc.net or because someone has to forwarded it to you. If you have received this alert as a forward and would rather not receive it, please reply to the sender's email address as we can only unsubscribe you if you signed up at www.idpc.net.

Unsubscribe mark.haden@vch.ca from this list | Forward to a friend | Update your profile
Our mailing address is:
International Drug Policy Consortium
124-128 City Road
London, London EC1V 2NJ

Add us to your address book

Copyright (C) 2010 International Drug Policy Consortium All rights reserved.

B.C. addictions study recommends free alcohol for homeless alcoholics #harmreduction #alcohol

Friday, December 17, 2010 | | 0 comments

B.C. addictions study recommends free alcohol for homeless alcoholics
By Terri Theodore
Winnipeg Free Press
December 16, 2010

The price of getting high, stoned and drunk in BC (link to PDF, 2 pages)
Centre for Addictions Research of BC
News Release
December 16, 2010

The price of getting high, stoned and drunk in BC: A comparison of minimum prices for alcohol and other psychoactive substances (link to PDF, 8 pages)

More U.S. teens smoking pot: report #drugpolicy #cannabis

| | 0 comments

 

More U.S. teens smoking pot: report
CBC News
December 14, 2010


FW: Ed Miliband rebukes Bob Ainsworth over 'legalise drugs' call #drugpolicy

| | 0 comments

The Guardian (UK)
Thursday 16 December 2010

Ed Miliband rebukes Bob Ainsworth over 'legalise drugs' call

Former defence secretary described war on drugs as 'nothing short of a disaster' and called on government to look at other options

Hélène Mulholland and agencies

Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, said today that the legalisation of drugs would send out "the wrong message" to young people as he distanced himself from a Labour backbencher's calls for a "grown-up debate" on the issue.

Bob Ainsworth, the MP for Coventry North East, who previously served as a drugs minister in the Home Office and as defence secretary, has claimed that the war on drugs has been "nothing short of a disaster" and that it was time to study other options, including decriminalising possession of drugs and legally regulating their production and supply.

His comments were met with dismay by the party leadership, while fellow backbencher John Mann claimed that Ainsworth "doesn't know what he's talking about".

A spokeswoman for Miliband made clear that Ainsworth's comments did not have the blessing of the leadership or the wider party. She said: "These are not the views of Ed Miliband, the Labour party or the wider British public."

A party source described the legalisation proposal as "extremely irresponsible", adding: "I don't know what he was thinking."

Miliband underlined the fact that Ainsworth's views were at odds with his own as he campaigned in Oldham ahead of next month's byelection.

The Labour leader told Sky News: "I am all in favour of fresh thinking on drugs. I don't agree with him on decriminalisation of drugs - I worry about the effects on young people, the message that we would be sending out.

"I have great respect for Bob as a person. On this one I don't agree with him but he is absolutely entitled to his view and he has the freedom to say things as he sees fit."

Mann, who carried out an inquiry into hard drug use in his Bassetlaw constituency while Ainsworth was drugs minister, said: "He didn't know what he was talking about when I met him with my constituents during my heroin inquiry and he doesn't know what he's talking about now."

Ainsworth, who claimed that his departure from the frontbenches now allowed him to express his "long-held view" on drugs policy, is due to lay out his case later today at a debate in Westminster Hall.

He said his ministerial stint in the Home Office made him see that prohibition failed to reduce the harm that drugs cause in the UK, while his time as defence secretary with specific responsibilities in Afghanistan, "showed to me that the war on drugs creates the very conditions that perpetuate the illegal trade, while undermining international development and security".

He called on those on all sides of the debate to support "an independent, evidence-based review, exploring all policy options, including further resourcing the war on drugs, decriminalising the possession of drugs, and legally regulating their production and supply".

His call for a review was backed by former Conservative party deputy leader Peter Lilley, who said that it was time "for all politicians to stop using the issue as a political football".

"I have long advocated breaking the link between soft and hard drugs - by legalising cannabis while continuing to prohibit hard drugs," said Lilley. "But I support Bob Ainsworth's sensible call for a proper, evidence-based review, comparing the pros and cons of the current prohibitionist approach with all the alternatives, including wider decriminalisation and legal regulation."

Ainsworth cited the legalisation of alcohol in the United States after
13 years of prohibition to argue that after 50 years of global drug prohibition it was time for a "genuine and grown-up debate" about alternatives to prohibition, which he said had "failed to protect us".

"Leaving the drugs market in the hands of criminals causes huge and unnecessary harms to individuals, communities and entire countries, with the poor the hardest hit," he said.

"We spend billions of pounds without preventing the wide availability of drugs. It is time to replace our failed war on drugs with a strict system of legal regulation, to make the world a safer, healthier place, especially for our children. We must take the trade away from organised criminals and hand it to the control of doctors and pharmacists."

The backbencher criticised the government's new drugs strategy, which aims to shift the focus from reducing the harm caused by drugs to recovery as the most effective route out of dependency. "It is described by the home secretary as fundamentally different to what has gone before; it is not," he said.

"To the extent that it is different, it is potentially harmful because it retreats from the principle of harm reduction, which has been one of the main reasons for the reduction in acquisitive crime in recent years."

Ainsworth suggested one way to review the policy would be to conduct an impact assessment of the Misuse of Drugs Act in line with a home affairs select committee recommendation made in 2002 for the government (then
Labour) to explore alternatives to prohibition, including legal regulation.

The report by the committee, of which David Cameron was a member at the time, did not support legalisation and regulation in its conclusion at the time, but added that drugs policy should "not be set in stone".

However, one of its recommendations did urge the government to initiate a discussion within the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of alternative ways - including the possibility of legalisation and regulation - to tackle the global drugs dilemma.

James Brokenshire, the crime prevention minister, said: "Drugs are harmful and ruin lives - legalisation is not the answer.
Decriminalisation is a simplistic solution that fails to recognise the complexity of the problem and ignores the serious harm drug taking poses to the individual.

"Legalisation fails to address the reasons people misuse drugs in the first place or the misery, cost and lost opportunities that dependence causes individuals, their families and the wider community."

Caroline Chatwin, a drugs policy expert at the University of Kent, said that while it was important for people such as Ainsworth to publicise their support for changes to British drug policy, "it remains regrettable that this public support is unable to be offered by those in a current frontline position".

She added: "Ainsworth states that he is only able to express these views now that he no longer occupies a front line position and Cameron seems to have abandoned his own relatively liberal standpoint on this issue now that he is prime minister. While this suppression of the opinion of those in power continues to be the case, Britain will not be able to participate in an open and honest debate on this subject and will not be able to effect a much needed evidence-based policy."


--
Drugs & Democracy Info <drugs@tni.org>
Transnational Institute (TNI)
De Wittenstraat 25 | 1052 AK Amsterdam (The Netherlands) Tel +31-20-6626608 | Fax +31-20-6757176 http://www.tni.org/drugs http://www.druglawreform.info/ http://www.ungassondrugs.org/
Twitter: @DrugLawReform
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

MDMA: Empathogen or love potion? #MDMA

Thursday, December 16, 2010 | | 0 comments

MDMA: Empathogen or love potion?
E! Science News
December 15, 2010 
 
see attached study 

CANADA: Senator James Cowan blasts Rob Nicholson on misleading media statements about Bill S-10 #drugpolicy

Wednesday, December 15, 2010 | | 0 comments

CANADA: Senator James Cowan blasts Rob Nicholson on misleading media statements about Bill S-10

http://www.firstperspective.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1085:senator-cowans-letter-to-justice-minister-nicholson&catid=25:releases&Itemid=50

Senator Cowan's letter to Justice Minister Nicholson

December 9, 2010
The Hon. Rob Nicholson, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Justice
Room 105 EB
The House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Nicholson,
I regret that I must write to you yet again to correct statements you have made accusing Liberal Senators of "stalling" your crime bills.
In your press conference of December 8, you accused the Opposition of "stalling" on "very important bills", and, when asked for particulars, you pointed to Bill S-10, the Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. You said:
"That bill has been before Parliament for almost two years. The Senate has had it for about a year and a half."
This is incorrect and misleading.
As you know, Bill S-10 has not been before Parliament for two years.
Your government chose to prorogue Parliament last December in order to avoid difficult questions about the treatment of Afghan detainees on your watch. Parliament only returned on March 3, 2010. You then waited to reintroduce the bill for another two months, on May 5, 2010. That is seven months that the Bill has been before the Senate - contrasted to five months that your Government delayed its progress.
Seven months is an eminently reasonable period of time for the Senate to study this bill. The bill has been controversial. Yet again, you have opted to put forward illusory solutions to serious issues.
Instead of devising thoughtful policies that could work to address drug abuse, this bill - like so many in your law-and-order agenda - amends the Criminal Code to apply mandatory minimum prison sentences.
The problem is, mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime. And this is a conclusion you yourself reached.
In 1988, you served as Vice-Chair of a Parliamentary Committee that recommended that mandatory minimum sentences not be used, except in the limited case of repeat violent sexual offenders. You said they are not effective and carry prohibitive costs. Your report also noted that they cause "distortions" in the justice process.
It is not "tough on crime" to impose ineffective solutions, especially those that you have noted could cause problems for the justice system.
Frankly, it is irresponsible governing.
The costs of your crime agenda have been estimated to be in the billions of dollars - and this at a time when your government has already run up the largest deficit in Canadian history. Meanwhile, your government, which came to power promising a new era of openness and transparency, has refused to disclose the anticipated costs to Canadian taxpayers of this agenda. Most recently, you alleged "Cabinet confidences" prevent the disclosure.
I fail to understand how the costs of your policy program could be a Cabinet confidence, any more than any details of any policy reached by a government. One suspects that in fact, your government is hiding behind this spurious claim, because you are either unwilling to admit to Canadians how many billions this misguided prison spree will cost - or that you embarked on this folly of a crime policy for political and ideological reasons, and actually do not know yourself how much it will cost Canadians.
You attach titles to your bills such as "The Truth in Sentencing Act"
- yet you are not being truthful with Canadians about your crime agenda. You are not being truthful about their ineffectiveness to deter crime - and you are refusing to be truthful about the costs that Canadians will have to pay for these ineffective steps.
As I wrote to you last February, justice above all depends upon truth.
As our country's Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, your first allegiance must always be to the truth, far beyond any political or partisan gamesmanship. Our system of justice depends upon it. Needless to say, I am once again disappointed that you do not concur with this very basic proposition.
It is a simple fact that the Liberal opposition - and in particular, Liberal senators - have not "stalled" your crime agenda. Once again, the facts speak for themselves:
Your government has introduced 17 crime-related bills in the House of Commons in this session. Of these:
One passed both Houses and received Royal Assent; 4 sit at first reading in the House of Commons, all since late October or early November, without your Government having brought them forward for debate or further action; 8 are being studied in committees in the House of Commons;
*
*
One is at report stage in the House of Commons;
*
2 passed the House of Commons in the past few days, and received 1st reading in the Senate on December 7;
*
One came to the Senate on November 18, passed 2nd reading in the Senate, was referred for study to committee, and reported back to the Senate on December 8. It is now at 3rd reading. (It spent more than five months in the House of Commons.) It is clear that Liberal senators have not "stalled" any of these bills. The overwhelming majority - 13 of the 17 bills - remain in the House of Commons.
Your government also chose to initiate five of your crime-related bills in the Senate:4 of these 5 bills passed the Senate; one received Royal Assent.
* The 5th bill, Bill S-10, is currently being debated at 3rd reading.
* Fully 13 of these 22 bills had been previously introduced by this Government, some several times. They died on the Order Paper when Prime Minister Harper prorogued Parliament for his own personal reasons. In other words, their progress was delayed because of the actions of your government.
It reflects poorly on a government when its members must seek to cast blame on others for their own failings. When it is the Minister of Justice - the individual responsible for upholding our laws and regulations, and ensuring that Canada is a just country - then our justice system is eroded.
Minister Nicholson, you cannot expect Canadians to take responsibility for their actions, when you, the head of our justice system, do not.
Accordingly, I am confident that you will wish to quickly correct the record, and acknowledge that the Liberal opposition in the Senate has not in fact "stalled" your Government's anti-crime agenda.
I look forward - once again - to your clarification of these issues for Canadians.
Yours very truly,
James S. Cowan
Cc: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Cc: The Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the
Senate

February 4, 2010
The Hon. Rob Nicholson, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Justice
Room 105 EB
The House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Nicholson,
I am writing concerning several statements made by you on Friday, January 29 when defending Prime Minister Harper's appointment of an additional five Conservative Senators. In the past 12 months, Prime Minister Harper has made an unprecedented 32 appointments to the Senate - the most Senate appointments made by any Canadian Prime Minister in a 12-month period since Confederation.
I was puzzled to read press reports in which you defended the latest Senate appointments as necessary to allow your Government "to move forward on [y]our tackling-crime agenda." You accused the Liberal opposition of having "obstructed that agenda in the Senate." According to a transcript of your press conference, you said:
"The Ignatieff Liberals have abused their majority in the Senate by obstructing law and order bills that are urgently needed and strongly supported by Canadians."
I can only assume that you have been misinformed as to the progress of anti-crime legislation. In fact, as I am sure your Cabinet colleague, Senator Marjory LeBreton, would tell you, the overwhelming majority of your Government's anti-crime bills had not even reached the Senate when Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose to prorogue Parliament.
Indeed, an honest examination of the record compels one to acknowledge that the greatest delays to implementation of your justice agenda have resulted from your own Government's actions - sitting on bills and not bringing them forward for debate, delaying bringing legislation into force, and ultimately, of course, proroguing Parliament. That action alone caused some 18 of your justice-related bills to die on the Order Paper.
As a Canadian Press report described, "Indeed, [Prime Minister] Harper himself has done far more to delay his own crime legislation, by proroguing Parliament and other stalling tactics, than Liberal senators have ever done."
Your Government introduced 19 justice-related bills in the House of Commons. Of these, 14 were still in the House of Commons at prorogation. Of the five justice bills that passed the House of Commons and came to the Senate:
two passed the Senate without amendment;
*
*
one (the so-called Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime bill) was tabled by your Government in November in the Senate but not brought forward for further action after that;
*
one was passed with four amendments and returned to the House of Commons which did not deal with it before Parliament was prorogued; and
*
one was being studied in committee when Parliament was prorogued and all committee work shut down.
*
There were a further two justice bills that your Government chose to initiate in the Senate. One was passed by the Senate after 14 days, sent to the House of Commons, passed and given Royal Assent. The other was tabled in the Senate on April 1, but has not been brought forward by your Government for any further action since then.
*
*
In terms of the status of the 14 law-and-order bills in the House of Commons, that had not yet reached the Senate when Parliament was
prorogued:
Four of these bills have been sitting in the House of Commons at first reading, three in that state since October, and one since November - your Government chose not to bring any of these bills forward for second reading debate.
Another bill, Bill C-19, was tabled in the House of Commons by your Government in March, 2009, brought forward for two days of second reading debate in June, and not brought forward for any further action since then.
* Similarly, Bill C-35 was tabled in June, brought forward for one day of second reading debate in October, and no further action taken since then.
* Seven justice-related bills were being studied in Committee in the House of Commons as of prorogation. That work, of course, was required to stop immediately upon prorogation.
* One bill - Bill C-34, the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders bill - got as far as to be reported back from the House of Commons Committee on December 7, before dying on the Order Paper with the Government's prorogation of Parliament.
* I fail to understand how this factual record could lead you to say, as you did in your press conference that, "the record also shows that the Liberals are soft on crime" or that the Liberals in the Senate "obstructed" law and order bills. In fact, as I am sure you will now recognize, it is your Government that has failed to move forward a number of your own anti-crime bills. And, of course, by choosing to prorogue Parliament, Prime Minister Harper chose to let 18 of his Government's 21 "tough-on-crime" bills die on the Order Paper.
Comparing the numbers, Canadians would have to conclude that it is the Harper Conservatives who have chosen to obstruct law and order bills - while shamelessly trying to smear the Liberals and the Senate with the blame.
It is difficult to take a law-and-order agenda seriously when it is argued with so little respect for facts. Justice above all depends upon truth. As our country's Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, your first allegiance must always be to the truth, far beyond any political or partisan gamesmanship. Our system of justice depends upon it. How can Canadians have any confidence in their justice system, if the person responsible for that system - the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada - is prepared to play fast and loose with the truth?
In your press conference, you pointed to three bills as evidence of Liberal Senators' supposed "obstruction" of your Government's agenda:
Bills C-15, C-25 and C-26.
Bill C-15 was passed by the Senate with four amendments. These amendments represented our advice to the House of Commons, reflecting what we heard and concluded after listening to testimony from Canadians about the bill. That is our job as members of the second legislative House of Canada's Parliament. We fully expected to hear back from the House of Commons with that House's considered response to our advice. Unfortunately, that was not to be: instead, Prime Minister Harper chose to prorogue Parliament. The Senate's work - done in the best tradition of Canadian parliamentary democracy - was lost.
While we may disagree as to whether the Senate's amendments improved the bill (as I would say) or weakened it (as you would say) what cannot be truthfully said is that the Senate either delayed or obstructed the passage of the bill.
What "killed" the bill in the end, was not the Senate but the Prime Minister in shutting down Parliament before the House of Commons had a chance to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate.
I was particularly surprised that you referred to Bill C-25 during your press conference. That bill, which dealt with limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody, passed the Senate without any amendments on October 21, 2009, yet as of this writing, according to the Library of Parliament and the Privy Council Office, the bill has still not been brought into force by your Government - more than three months later. One is left to wonder whether you simply forgot to bring it into force? Or was the bill more about the appearance of being "tough on crime" than actually taking action? Certainly we now know that bill was not as urgent a priority for the Harper Government as was initially represented.
Finally, Bill C-26 was being studied by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee when Parliament prorogued. As of prorogation, that bill had been in the Senate for 38 days. By comparison, the bill spent 42 days in the House of Commons. Committee study of proposed legislation is what many observers say is among the best work of the Senate. I am sure you want Canada's criminal legislation to be the best and most effective it can be, and would agree that the proposed changes to the Criminal Code regarding auto theft require careful study consistent with our parliamentary system.
Unfortunately, that work had to cease because of prorogation.
As Minister of Justice, and as a personal proponent of a strong law- and-order agenda, you have a duty, which I am sure you recognize, to uphold the truth and not mislead Canadians. Accordingly, I am confident that you will wish to quickly correct the record, and agree that the Liberal opposition in the Senate has not in fact "obstructed"
your Government's anti-crime agenda. To the contrary, the greatest delays to the implementation of your agenda have been due to your own Government's actions in failing to bring bills forward for debate, dragging your feet in bringing legislation into force, and most significantly, proroguing Parliament.
I look forward to your clarification of these issues for Canadians.
Yours very truly,
James S. Cowan
Cc: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Cc: The Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the
Senate

SSDP featured in The Nation magazine #ssdp #drugpolicy

Friday, December 10, 2010 | | 0 comments

 

SSDP: Dare to resist the war on drugs

Hi Mark,The Nation Dec. 27, 2010 Cover

Have you heard about the special drug policy focused issue of The Nation magazine? 

Because of our expertise in empowering young people to change harmful drug war policies, I was invited to write a feature piece in The Nation magazine's December 27, 2010 issue about how students are motivated to work for marijuana ballot measures, here's an excerpt:

"Watching these young activists voraciously consuming information about how to win an election, just days after a historic loss, was more than invigorating. It made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. Change is coming sooner than anyone believes. And this is what it's going to look like." Read the full article here.

The cover of this special issue of The Nation couldn't drive home the point any better.  If you appreciate the work that we are doing, please consider making your end-of-year donation to SSDP's work today. 

Sincerely,

Aaron Houston
Executive Director, Students for Sensible Drug Policy
www.SchoolsNotPrisons.com

P.S. Check out our store for our "DARE to resist the war on drugs" t-shirts, stickers, and other merchandise.

Having trouble seeing this e-mail?  View it online here.

Connect with SSDP

 


You received this email because you are one of more than 50,000 people who support Students for Sensible Drug Policy and subscribe to our e-list. Please help us grow our grassroots movement to end the failed War on Drugs by inviting family and friends to join. http://www.ssdp.org/invite

Unsubscribe

Not interested in this email?
Click here to unsubscribe

empowered by Salsa

US: Obama's Drug War #drugpolicy

| | 0 comments

 

Newshawk: Richard Lake
Pubdate: Mon, 27 Dec 2010
Source: Nation, The (US)
Copyright: 2010 The Nation
Contact: http://www.thenation.com/letters-editor
Website: http://www.thenation.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/285
Author: Michelle Alexander

OBAMA'S DRUG WAR

Among the very few people celebrating our country's fiscal crisis are criminal justice reformers.

Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance, gushed recently, "Budgetary issues is where I'm most optimistic. Given the fiscal climate, there could be real cuts in the federal budget.

Next year is probably an unprecedented opportunity to defund the federal drug war." His enthusiasm reflects a confluence of somewhat surprising events.

For the first time in decades, politicians across the political spectrum, including some who were once "get tough" true believers, are wondering aloud whether the drug war has become too expensive.

The conservative Heritage Foundation issued a report on the eve of the midterm elections calling for a whopping $343 billion in federal budget cuts, including elimination of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the Justice Assistance Grant program (formerly known as the Byrne grant program), which has long provided the financial fuel that powers regional drug task forces and the drug war machine.

At the state level, where the economic crisis has been felt most acutely, at least eighteen legislatures have reduced or eliminated harsh mandatory minimum sentences, and more than two dozen have restored early-release programs and offered treatment instead of incarceration for some drug offenders.

Could this be the beginning of the end of the drug war, a war that has reportedly cost more than $1 trillion in the past few decades, with little to show for it beyond millions who have been branded criminals and felons, ushered behind bars and then released into a permanent second-class status?

More than 30 million people have been arrested since 1982, when President Reagan turned Nixon's rhetorical "war against drugs" into a literal war against poor people of color. During the past few decades, African-American men, in particular, have been arrested at stunning rates, primarily for nonviolent, relatively minor drug offenses-despite data indicating that people of all races use and sell drugs at remarkably similar rates.

In some states, 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders admitted to prison have been African-American, and when released they find themselves ushered into a parallel universe where they are stripped of many of the rights supposedly won during the civil rights movement.

People labeled felons are often denied the right to vote and legally discriminated against in employment, housing, access to education and public benefits-relegated to a second-class status for life simply because they were once caught with drugs.

Could the economic crisis finally put an end to this madness?

Is the drug war machinery that produced a vast new racial undercaste finally winding down?

* * *

At first blush, Piper's optimism seems well-founded. Bipartisan zeal for budget cutting has coincided with the Obama administration's expressed support for kinder, gentler drug policy.

Obama's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, told the Wall Street Journal last year that he would no longer refer to our nation's drug policy as a "war on drugs" because "we're not at war with people in this country." Drug abuse ought to be viewed as a public health problem, he says, with more resources devoted to ensuring that fewer people suffer from addiction. That's music to the ears of many criminal justice reformers, who have fought heroically for such reform in far less sympathetic political climates.

Kerlikowske insists that the shift is not purely rhetorical, and in a certain respect he's right.

More money is being channeled into drug treatment. But here's the rub: as the overall drug control budget continues to grow, the ratio between treatment and prevention (36 percent) and interdiction and enforcement (64 percent) remains the same as that found in the Bush administration budget in fiscal year 2009. Expenditures for "lock 'em up" approaches continue to climb.

Many well-intentioned advocates argue that the best way to push the Obama administration to move beyond kinder, gentler rhetoric to meaningful policy reform is by presenting drug law reform as a budget issue. Given the belt-tightening mood in Congress and the reluctance of the administration to show leadership on issues of race, the thinking goes, now is not the time to link drug law reform to a broader movement for racial justice.

Ending our nation's racial divisions and anxieties is pie in the sky, a utopian dream.

Better to stick with cost-benefit analyses of drug treatment versus incarceration, and show the public that it's cheaper to send a kid to college than to prison.

The problem with that strategy is that it won't work, even during a time of economic crisis.

This moment of opportunity, which Piper rightly celebrates, will inevitably fail to produce large-scale change in the absence of a large-scale movement-one that seeks to dismantle not only the system of mass incarceration and the drug war apparatus but also the habits of mind that allow us to view poor people of color trapped in ghettos as "others," unworthy of our collective care and concern.

* * *

Why the pessimism?

Two reasons.

The first, and most obvious, is that the current economic crisis cuts both ways. The same fiscal concerns that have inspired a growing number of states to reconsider harsh and expensive mandatory minimum sentences have also inspired the Obama administration to increase funding for failed law enforcement initiatives, like the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and the Byrne grant program-two programs the Bush Administration had begun to phase out.

According to Slate, Vice President Joe Biden once boasted that the COPS program, which put tens of thousands of officers on the streets, was responsible for the dramatic fifteen-year drop in violent crime that began in the early 1990s. But empirical studies proved that claim false.

For example, a peer-reviewed study in the journal Criminology found that the COPS program, despite the hype and the cost-more than $8 billion-"had little to or no effect on crime." The Byrne grant program, originally devised by the Reagan administration to encourage state and local law enforcement agencies to join the drug war, has poured millions of dollars into drug task forces around the country that are notorious for racial profiling, including highway drug interdiction programs and neighborhood "stop and frisk" programs. These programs have successfully ushered millions of poor folks of color into a permanent undercaste-largely for engaging in the same types of minor drug crimes that go ignored in middle-class white communities and on college campuses.

Despite the ineffectiveness of many of these federal programs, the temptation to revive them has proven irresistible. Putting more police officers on payroll and preventing layoffs seems politically savvy when unemployment figures remain high and key states are up for grabs. Indeed, when Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year that Byrne grant funds (now known as JAG funds) would be used to save jobs in Columbus, Ohio, the story made the front page of the Columbus Dispatch. As Holder explained in his press release: "In January, 25 Columbus police recruits learned that they would be let go rather than sworn-in; but because of Recovery Act JAG funds these police officers will keep their jobs protecting their community." Similar considerations inspired Democrats to include $2 billion in increased funding for the Byrne grant program in the 2009 stimulus package, nearly a twelvefold increase in financing.

The channeling of stimulus dollars to law enforcement may help some keep their jobs, but as New York Times columnist Charles Blow recently observed, it's a "callous political calculus.... The fact that they are ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of black and Hispanic men and, by extension, the communities they belong to barely seems to register."

For those who might imagine that the 2009 stimulus package was an aberration, Obama's proposed drug control budget for 2011 reveals that hard economic times are not translating into any scaling back of the drug war. John Carnevale, former director of planning and budget at the ONDCP, testified before a Congressional subcommittee charged with reviewing the 2011 drug control budget in April that "with the arrival of the Obama administration came the hope that a new budget would emerge that would redress the failures of the past"; but instead the new budget looks much like the old one. To make matters worse, Carnevale explained, the 2011 budget does not represent a comprehensive accounting of federal drug control expenditures. Many spending categories that have been counted as "prevention" or "treatment" are actually funding law enforcement or non-drug-related programs-calling into question the claim that treatment funding is on the rise. In Carnevale's words, "The last time this nation saw such a large emphasis on supply reduction was the Reagan administration."

Whether one believes, as Carnevale apparently does, that Obama's drug war is actually worse than his predecessors', one thing is clear: Obama is in no hurry to scale it back to any significant degree, much less end it. The drug war is now too deeply rooted in our nation's political and economic structure to be cast aside.

The war rhetoric may have ended and the song may have changed, but the system hums along.

* * *

This brings us to the second, and more important, reason fiscal concerns won't end mass incarceration: the race card will be played by those who seek to preserve the system.

In the absence of a major social movement that proactively deals with race in a constructive way, old racial divisions will trump new concerns about cost.

If you doubt that's the case, consider what is at stake.

If we were to return to the rates of incarceration our nation had in the 1970s-a time, by the way, when many civil rights advocates thought incarceration rates were egregiously high-we would need to release four out of five people currently behind bars. More than a million people employed by the criminal justice system could lose their jobs. Most new prison construction has occurred in predominantly white, rural communities already teetering on the edge of economic collapse. Those prisons across America would have to close.

Private prison companies and all the corporate interests that profit from caging human beings would be forced to watch their earnings vanish.

Clearly, any attempt to downsize our nation's prisons dramatically would be met with fierce resistance by those faced with losing jobs, investments and other benefits.

The emotion and high anxiety would almost certainly express itself in the form of a racially charged debate about values, morals and personal responsibility rather than a debate about the prison economy.

Few people would openly argue that we should lock up millions of poor people just so other people can have jobs or get a good return on their private investments. Instead, familiar arguments would likely resurface about the need to be "tough" on "them"-a group of people defined in the media and political discourse not so subtly as black and brown.

The public debate would inevitably turn to race, even if politicians were not explicitly talking about it. Willie Horton type ads would likely resurface, as would media coverage of the "pathologies" of the "urban poor." As history has shown, the prevalence of powerful (unchallenged) racial stereotypes about the undeserving "others," together with widespread apprehension regarding major structural changes, would create an environment in which implicit racial appeals could be employed, yet again, with great success.

Even if significant reforms can be won in the midst of an economic crisis without addressing our nation's racial divisions and anxieties, such gains will likely prove temporary.

If a new, more just and compassionate public consensus about poor people of color is not forged, we as a nation will not hesitate to sweep them up en masse for minor drug crimes as soon as we can afford once again to do so. Similarly, if and when crime rates rise, nothing will deter politicians from making black and brown criminals once again their favorite whipping boys. The criminalization and demonization of black men is one habit that America seems unlikely to break without addressing head-on the racial dynamics that have given rise to our latest caste system.

Although colorblind cost-benefit approaches often seem pragmatic in the short run, in the long run they are counterproductive. They leave intact the racial attitudes, stereotypes and anxieties that gave rise to the system in the first place.

The problem lies in the nature of the system itself, not the cost. And the only way to dismantle the system is by building a broad coalition of Americans unwilling to accept it at any price.

Martin Luther King Jr. could have argued that separate water fountains were too expensive, a waste of money.

He would have been right about that. But cost was beside the point.

It should be beside the point today.  
===
All private messages posted to this list are considered confidential -
not to be forwarded or redistributed without prior permission of the
original author.

US: Budding Prospects: Youth Activists Push Marijuana Reform #drugpolicy

| | 0 comments

 

Newshawk: Richard Lake
Pubdate: Mon, 27 Dec 2010
Source: Nation, The (US)
Cover: http://www.mapinc.org/images/cover1227.jpg
Copyright: 2010 The Nation
Contact: http://www.thenation.com/letters-editor
Website: http://www.thenation.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/285
Author: Aaron Houston

BUDDING PROSPECTS: YOUTH ACTIVISTS PUSH MARIJUANA REFORM

On November 7 a group of student activists gathered in a room on the University of Colorado campus to discuss strategies for how to run a marijuana legalization campaign in the 2012 elections.

Five days earlier, voters in California had defeated Proposition 19 by a margin of seven points.

Although the vote represented the largest percentage a US legalization measure has ever garnered (46.5 percent), many in the drug policy reform community were discouraged. Young activists who had spent the past several months encouraging students on California campuses to register, and who worked furiously in the final days to get out the vote, were exhausted.

There were a lot of sullen expressions in downtown Oakland on election night.

But for the students in Boulder, and in some ways for the legalization movement more broadly, the fight is just beginning.

After all the media attention heaped on the Prop 19 campaign, it should come as no surprise that the vanguard of the legalization drive in Colorado is made up of college-age activists.

Motivating young voters was a central focus of the grassroots effort for Prop 19, and to a large extent it worked.

In a postelection follow-up, the Public Policy Institute of California found that 62 percent of voters under 34 supported the initiative. The campaign I helped to organize through Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) printed more than 100,000 door hangers with bar codes that, when scanned by cellphones, directed students to their polling place.

And we didn't stop with California. We worked with our partners in the Just Say Now campaign to organize phone banks staffed by students from all over the country, who made thousands of calls for the low cost of several pizzas per night.

The training, preceded by the so-called Mile High Marijuana Summit in Denver, was convened in this collaborative spirit, and the participants aimed to be equally sophisticated in their approach. They discussed concepts such as tempo, decentralization, adapting to unforeseen challenges and exploiting success.

Students were encouraged to "plan backward," envisioning objectives such as registering 2,000 students to vote and then stepping through a timeline of how that could be achieved.

At one point the conversation turned to the possibility of direct action, as students debated infiltrating the two parties' platform committees to push for their endorsements.

Watching these young activists voraciously consuming information about how to win an election, just days after a historic loss, was more than invigorating. It made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end. Change is coming sooner than anyone believes.

And this is what it's going to look like.

* * *

In today's money-soaked politics, any campaign that seeks broad legislative reform needs a healthy war chest.

Funding for state marijuana initiatives has been building steadily in recent years, with Prop 19 raising the most by far. Sponsored by Oaksterdam University founder Richard Lee, who brought some $1.5 million to the campaign, the initiative got a major boost from several large donors in the weeks leading up to election day. On October 7 the SSDP campaign received a $75,000 donation from David Bronner, co-owner of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, and another $25,000 from longtime DC marijuana activists Adam Eidinger and Alan Amsterdam. But that was only the tip of the late-money iceberg.

That same week Napster creator Sean Parker donated $100,000 to Yes on 19, and his fellow Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz added another $70,000 to support the measure.

In mid-October philanthropist Peter Lewis poured in $200,000. Billionaire financier George Soros followed in late October with $1 million.

That funding enabled the campaign to deploy sophisticated tactics and to mount a high-profile ad blitz-thirty-second spots on Comedy Central, a wraparound ad on page one of the Los Angeles Times. It also brought legitimacy in the court of public opinion.

In the early 2000s, when I began my professional involvement with the marijuana reform movement, talking in the media about legalizing marijuana was generally off-limits. So we picked the fights we could win. Even though medical marijuana enjoyed 80 percent support at the time, I often struggled to be taken seriously.

When your coffers are full, you don't have that kind of problem.

A side benefit of running a marijuana campaign with mainstream credibility is that it brings the issue into the light.

Being a marijuana lobbyist is kind of like being a priest.

People will tell you things about their marijuana use they would never tell anyone else. It fosters the sense that a great many more people use it than admit it. As more people talk honestly about their recreational use of marijuana, the barriers to honest discussion will erode.

It is misleading to claim, however, as some opponents do, that the cannabis movement is entirely sustained by "well-funded legalizers." Large donors are responding to, not creating, the energy that fuels the cannabis campaign.

The money is just catching up with the momentous political opportunity. What we need now is better preparation, with multiyear plans focused on training activists in targeted states-the sorts of tactics employed by top Democratic and Republican strategists. That requires an investment in the future.

* * *

Colorado's political culture is strongly liberty-oriented, and the state consistently ranks near the top of the list for per-capita marijuana use. This stature was not lost on legislators, who this year made it the first state to regulate the wholesale production and retail distribution of medical marijuana.

The state legalized medical marijuana in 2000, but its cannabis culture didn't blossom until last year, when the Justice Department issued guidelines for federal prosecutors in states with medical marijuana laws. In an October 19, 2009, memo Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal resources would not be spent on "individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."

This decision did not come out of thin air; it was the result of a long struggle by cannabis campaigners to persuade leaders to align policy with evolving public standards on the issue.

California voters leaped into the fray fourteen years ago with Proposition 215, the first state ballot initiative in the country to allow medical marijuana. Over the years an increasing number of states added their own laws providing for use with a physician's recommendation, giving those states' residents a chance to see firsthand that legal marijuana will not cause the sky to fall. (Today fifteen states and the District of Columbia allow marijuana for medical use.)

By 2007 a mainstream political consensus around medical marijuana laws had formed, at least among leading Democrats. During the primaries, every Democratic presidential candidate supported an end to federal raids on medical marijuana patients, further propelling the issue into the realm of serious policy discussion. Starting in the presidential interregnum in late 2008, Obama's staff conducted three rounds of voting on the official transition team website, asking users to submit ideas and vote on them. In all three rounds-during which millions of Americans participated-questions related to taxing and regulating marijuana were the top-voted questions.

Even before Obama's inauguration, his staff could see opportunity in the marijuana constituency. In February 2009, during the president's first weeks in office, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro affirmed that Obama intended to make good on his campaign promise to restrict federal raids.

In earlier times, we could have reasonably expected a serious backlash.

This time around, none came-but then again, neither did the guidelines. On April 2, 2009, I testified before the House subcommittee that handles Justice Department appropriations, urging Congress to ask the department to issue the promised policy.

And in June, I worked with Congressman Maurice Hinchey and other Congressional leaders to get the full House Appropriations Committee to do the same.

Once the threat of enforcing the Controlled Substances Act was removed, storefront dispensaries in Colorado proliferated. According to the Denver Post, the state has collected more than $2.2 million in sales tax from dispensaries this year. And now that medical marijuana is practically a given in the state, legalization is up for discussion. This is where the activists at the Colorado campaign training come in. They aim to push that discussion to the center of debate in 2012, and recent trends suggest that they'll have a good shot at success.

According to a 2009 America Votes poll, 45 percent of "surge voters" in Colorado will be more interested in voting if marijuana legalization is on the ballot.

Also, marijuana initiatives have tended to do better in presidential election years: five of the six most recent winning statewide voter initiatives relaxing marijuana penalties were passed in such years.

* * *

Most Americans would be surprised to learn that the government came close to significantly revising federal marijuana statutes in 1978. At the time the Carter administration expressed support for decriminalizing the possession and transfer of small amounts of marijuana, as did Senator Ted Kennedy, then chair of the Judiciary Committee. Kennedy even successfully pushed for the inclusion of a marijuana decriminalization provision in the 1978 crime bill.

Decriminalization laws seemed the wisest route back then, but the current debate should focus on legalization. Although decriminalization laws keep possessors of marijuana from being arrested, thus freeing police time and resources, they do nothing to control or diminish the power of criminal organizations that move and sell marijuana.

Legalization could be a fatal blow to drug cartels, since by some estimates 70 percent of their profits come from marijuana sales alone.

For the first time in history, the legalization movement is poised to make state-based marijuana regulation a mainstream position.

Because libertarian-leaning GOP voters, including Tea Partyers, generally support allowing states to decide their own marijuana policies, the 2012 presidential primary will be unlike any in recent memory. Assuming that the majority of GOP presidential contenders adopt socially conservative positions early in the race (i.e., against marijuana regulation), a plurality of voters with libertarian tendencies will be up for grabs and could swing some states' primary elections. Even Sarah Palin has called marijuana a "minimal problem."

The most telling difference between now and thirty years ago, when the marijuana reform movement last stood at the brink of major success, is that tens of millions of Americans live in states that allow the use of marijuana, and they don't seem to mind it. The sky has not fallen, and the silenced majority is speaking out.  
===
All private messages posted to this list are considered confidential -
not to be forwarded or redistributed without prior permission of the
original author.