First-of-its-kind study shows supervised injection facilities can help people quit drugs
UBC Public Affairs
News Release
September 13, 2010

Huffington Post (US Web)
www.huffingtonpost.com
13 September 2010

Reducing Penalties for Crack and Peyote... But When Marijuana?

Rob Kampia, Executive director, Marijuana Policy Project

As California voters prepare to vote on Proposition 19, which would bring a much-needed end to nearly 100 years of failed marijuana prohibition in that state, it's important to pay attention to the arguments that proponents use to persuade the electorate to vote in favor of taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol ( T&R ). How an issue is framed can make or break it, as seen by efforts to reduce penalties for crack cocaine and peyote.

On August 3, President Obama signed a bill into law that reduced the federal sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1. This was done by reducing the penalty for crack cocaine, not by increasing the penalty for powder cocaine.

Years in the making, this law was signed with barely a whimper from the usual prohibitionists. How can it be that Congress and the president reduced the penalty for crack in 2010, but it's inconceivable that they'd do the same for marijuana in 2010? The answer is that the lobbying campaign to reduce the crack disparity appealed to politicians'
core values.

The crack penalty wasn't reduced by analogizing important arguments in the marijuana policy debate, such as "crack is safer than alcohol" or "crack has medicinal value." Rather, because people who have been sentenced to five-year, mandatory-minimum prison sentences for crack are overwhelmingly black, the debate was framed as one of racial justice.
Then, once that ball got rolling, others joined in by saying that reducing the crack penalty was about fundamental fairness, e.g., let the punishment fit the crime ( which meant reducing the crack-cocaine penalty rather than increasing the powder-cocaine penalty ).

Regarding peyote -- a drug that can cause hallucinations far exceeding those of the best marijuana in the world -- Congress and President Clinton enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, which included an amendment that allowed people who have at least 25% Native-American blood to use peyote legally. The peyote amendment passed with a non-controversial, unanimous voice vote on the floor of the U.S. House, and by a vote of 97-3 on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

The peyote vote wasn't won by arguing that "peyote is safer than alcohol" or "peyote has medicinal value" either. Rather, the argument was framed as being about religious freedom, as protected by the First Amendment.

And with medical marijuana, we have won and will continue to win our ballot-initiative campaigns not by running TV ads featuring a budding marijuana plant, but rather by featuring patients and family members of patients. This is because the debate isn't about a plant, but about compassion -- compassion for cancer patients, AIDS patients, MS patients, and chronic-pain patients who are being forced to choose between suffering without marijuana or breaking the law with marijuana.

Because no one has succeeded in enacting a T&R law in the history of the world ( including in Holland, where wholesale cultivation of marijuana is still illegal ), we don't yet know what "frame" we should be using to win the T&R debate.

Because a disproportionate number of the more than 800,000 people who are arrested for marijuana offenses each year are young men of color, it could be that the T&R issue should be framed as one of racial justice.
In June, the Drug Policy Alliance released a report showing that in California's 25 largest counties, blacks are arrested for marijuana possession at double, triple, or even quadruple the rate of whites.

Or, looking at the success of MPP's marijuana-decriminalization initiative in Massachusetts -- which passed with a stunning 65% of the vote in November 2008 -- it could be that the T&R issue should be framed as being about public safety ( letting police focus on violent crimes ) or fairness ( we shouldn't be saddling young people with lifelong criminal records just for marijuana ). Both of these arguments resonated with Massachusetts voters, as exemplified by these two TV ads we ran.

There are also people in our movement who believe we'll win the T&R debate by emphasizing that marijuana is safer than alcohol ( which it is ), and therefore, adults should be able to choose the safer substance.

And while the financial argument has been gaining a lot of traction since the U.S. began its "Great Recession" two years ago, we won't win the T&R debate solely by framing the issue around saving money on enforcement costs and generating new tax dollars. I got a sense of this when I debated Asa Hutchinson, the former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, on national TV on March 20, 2009.

In that debate, Hutchinson made an admission that I had never heard before from a leading prohibitionist. He said, "If your motivation is to bring revenue to the government, legalize, regulate it. But if your motivation is to reduce the usage, to save teenage lives, to reduce dependence, to strengthen our culture, then the cost is worth it and the revenue should not be a motivation." In other words, he said that when you're fighting a holy war, the financial cost of the war is irrelevant.

In the months and years ahead, those of us in the marijuana policy reform movement should aim to win the T&R debate by using some combination of the aforementioned five arguments -- racial justice, public safety, fairness, marijuana's relative safety, and the potential to generate tax revenues while reducing costs for law enforcement. As to which of these arguments will prove to be the most salient, perhaps the November 2 election in California will provide guidance.

--
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

see study attached 

 Media Release | Sep. 13, 2010

First-of-its-kind study shows supervised injection facilities can help people quit drugs

A study led by researchers at the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE) at St. Paul’s Hospital and the University of British Columbia has found that supervised injection facilities such as Vancouver’s Insite connect clients with addiction treatment, which in turn resulted in greater likelihood of stopping injection drug use for at least six months.

The study, recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, is the first ever to examine the link between a supervised injection facility and injection cessation.

“Extensive research has already shown that supervised injection facilities lead to increased uptake into addiction treatment, but no one has ever examined whether this translates into stopping injection drug use,” says Kora DeBeck, a PhD candidate at UBC and researcher at the BC-CfE. “This study found that after Insite staff help people who use drugs enter addiction treatment, they are more likely to stop injecting.”

The study followed 902 Insite clients who visited the supervised injection facility between December 2003 and June 2006. During this time, 95 of these individuals reported quitting injection drug use for at least six months. Approximately 78% of participants (or 74 participants) that reported injection cessation were recently engaged in addiction treatment.

The study also showed that Insite clients who went into addiction treatment were more likely to have regularly visited Insite and had contact with on-site addictions counselors. This group was subsequently more likely to stop injecting.

“Many people benefit from supervised injection facilities, which have been shown to increase addiction treatment, reduce rates of crime and incidence of HIV, prevent drug overdoses, and now help people who use drugs quit injecting,” said Dr. Julio Montaner, Director of the BC-CfE and Chair in AIDS Research at UBC’s Faculty of Medicine. “These new study results are yet another reason the Canadian federal government should stop their current efforts to shut down Insite.”

The study found Aboriginal participants were less likely to enter addiction treatment. This finding is consistent with past studies, which indicated that Aboriginal people who use drugs may be less likely to enter conventional forms of addiction treatment. These findings highlight the importance of engaging with Aboriginal people who use drugs to determine why this group is not benefiting from addiction treatments to the same extent as non-Aboriginal clients and develop strategies to engage this population into treatment.

“Aboriginal people who use drugs need to be involved in the planning and delivery of addiction services. We have been excluded for too long,” says Lorna Bird, President of the Western Aboriginal Harm Reduction Society and study co-author.

Study authors note that addiction is recognized as a chronic relapsing condition, and the definition of “injection cessation” was restricted to a period of six months.

The abstract for this study can be found here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20800976

About the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS

The BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS (BC-CfE) is Canada’s largest HIV/AIDS research, treatment and education facility. The BC-CfE is a program at St Paul’s Hospital, Providence Health Care,  a teaching hospital of the University of British Columbia. Located in Vancouver, Canada, the BC-CfE is dedicated to improving the health of British Columbians with HIV through the development, monitoring and dissemination of comprehensive research and treatment programs for HIV and related diseases.

 

San Jose Mercury News
September 10, 2010

Opinion: Legalizing marijuana will make Californians safer

By Joseph D. McNamara

The primary mission of the police is to protect life and property by reducing crime. By passing Proposition 19 this November, voters can help themselves and the police by instantly preventing between 40 million and
208 million crimes a year in California. In comparison to marijuana crimes, the number of murders, robberies, rapes, burglaries, and aggravated assaults total fewer than half a million combined.

Voters can achieve these massive crime reductions without any costly new programs. By passing an act to control, regulate and tax marijuana, the election will actually significantly reduce police and criminal justice spending. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst, Proposition
19 will also increase tax revenues by $1.2 billion by taxing marijuana, which currently escapes taxation because it is illegal.

Marijuana crimes are only recorded when the police make an arrest or seizure, and marijuana use can only be estimated by research.

Estimates by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that between one-tenth and one-third of the population in California uses marijuana; a staggering ballpark figure of between 3.8 million and 12.5 million people. The estimates may be low because marijuana use is consensual, unlike murder, robbery, rape, burglary, stalking and assault, where victims or witnesses alert the police. Using an estimate of 4 Advertisement million marijuana users -- on the extremely low end of the scale -- if the individuals used marijuana only twice a week, it could amount to as many as 208 million marijuana crimes per year.

It is a no-brainer to greatly reduce crime, save police resources and produce new revenue by taxing marijuana, all by a single "yes" vote on Proposition 19. The $19 billion state budget deficit means that police will have to cut services. People are not terrified by the thought of pot smokers in their neighborhood, but voters who are justifiably concerned that violent criminals threaten their safety, as well as that of their children and families, will vote for Proposition 19.

Opponents of Proposition 19 change the subject instead of focusing on facts. One leading politician said, "We have to compete with the Chinese; we can't do that if we're stoned." California's robust wine industry is a social and economic blessing. Wine has not led to a state full of drunks unable to compete with China's economy.

Similarly, arguments that passing Proposition 19 means that more will drive under its influence are false. The proposition expressly forbids it, and relieving the police of other marijuana enforcement will allow them to focus more on intoxicated drivers.

Furthermore, government-funded research proves that marijuana is not the "gateway" drug leading to addiction. If there is a "gateway" it is beer, or busting young people for minor offenses and putting them into a criminal justice system with a 77 percent recidivism rate.

No rational person believes we are winning the war against marijuana, or can win it. The ensuing violence is not because people are under the influence of the drug. Drug cartels and criminal gangs derive 60 percent of their funding from the enormous profits resulting from criminal prohibition. Growing numbers of innocent people are hurt or killed in the black-market trade.

Alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous drugs than cannabis, but no one is being killed in an alcohol or cigarette black market because those drugs are legal, regulated and taxed.

Continuing to do more of what has not worked for a century will enrich marijuana drug producers and criminals. But a "yes" vote on Proposition
19 will make all of us safer.

JOSEPH D. McNAMARA, retired police chief of San Jose, is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He wrote this article for this newspaper.
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

U.S. weapons fuel drug violence, Mexico's president says
CNN
September 11, 2010

The Washington Post
Thursday, September 9, 2010

Calif. to vote on legalizing marijuana

By Michael W. Savage
Washington Post Staff Writer

OAKLAND, CALIF. - For those who have long argued that smoking marijuana should not be a crime, a potentially historic turning point is just weeks away.

Voters in California will decide Nov. 2 whether to make their state the first to legalize the growing, selling and recreational use of marijuana. And polls here - the nation's most populous state - suggest that residents are about evenly split on the issue.

Proposition 19, as it is known, would take away criminal penalties for people 21 and older for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.

If it becomes law, it would mark yet another legal milestone for the state. Fourteen years ago, California became the first to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Since then, 13 other states and the District have followed suit.

Advocates for legalization say they hope the vote in November will set off another trend across the nation.

"If and when this passes," said Jeff Jones, a longtime cannabis advocate who was arrested a decade ago for opening a medical marijuana dispensary, "you will see stories around the world saying this was a major shift in drug policy."

Supporters of Proposition 19 argue not only that legalization could help dismantle violent Mexican drug cartels, but also ease the state's crippling $19 billion budget deficit with new taxes on the sale of marijuana.

But opponents warn that passage could unleash a legal nightmare: They say the referendum would bar employers from firing stoned workers without proving first that they were impaired. That would mean school bus drivers, for example, could get high before climbing behind the wheel, according to critics.

An unlikely coalition has formed, with medical marijuana dispensary owners and marijuana growers joining law enforcement to oppose the measure. That camp also disputes the promise of a new stream of cash into state coffers.

Proposition 19 is on the ballot largely because of one man: Richard Lee, owner of Oaksterdam University, which trains medical marijuana growers and dispensers. Lee has bankrolled the campaign, donating $1.46 million.

"A lot like alcohol prohibition repeal came about because of the Great Depression, now we have the great recession," he said. "We've got budget problems, and Al Capone-style violence in Mexico."

As is often the case, both sides argue that money is the motivating factor. Lee's opponents say he stands to make millions if marijuana becomes legal, with added business to his university and coffee shops in his "Oaksterdam" neighborhood adding pot to the menu.

He disputes that he would cash in, and counters that the major California growers who now supply marijuana to medical dispensers and the black market are opposed because they fear the inevitable fall in price that would come with legalization.

Early on, opponents campaigned on the simple argument that cannabis should not be legal. But they have refined their message over time, telling voters even if they support legalization in principle, the current initiative is not the way to do it.

"I think a lot of people were anticipating that this was going to be the great sociological debate and it's turned out to be something quite different - mainly because they've made some quite significant errors in drafting the initiative," said Wayne Johnson, head of strategy for the "No" campaign, which has been largely bankrolled by the California Police Chiefs Association.

Opponents cite the language prohibiting employers from firing pot-smoking workers until the bosses could prove there was a problem.
Drafters saw it as a way to keep disapproving superiors from sacking employees who smoke pot in their spare time. But opponents argue the clause creates a protected class of workers who can't be fired.

"It would prohibit employers from having a no-drugs policy," said Allan Zaremberg, chief executive officer of the California Chamber of Commerce.

He contends that businesses may be forced to violate a federal law requiring employers to maintain a drug-free workplace, making them ineligible for federal funding.

Meanwhile, there have been setbacks within the "Yes" campaign.
Proponents are struggling to pull in the tens of millions in funding they had hoped for.

Some supporters initially disagreed with Lee over timing. Ethan Nadelmann, the founder of the influential Drug Policy Alliance, an organization at the forefront of earlier legalization efforts, said he had urged Lee to wait for 2012, when the presidential race would bring out more liberal voters.

But Lee said he did not want to wait. "To me this is a war, and we have to win it as soon as possible," he said.

In the end, he believes everyday folks who have smoked pot will support him, and he points to hundreds of small donations he has received from teachers, bank workers, lawyers and retirees around the country.

Among them is Michael Baldinelli, a retired risk manager from Plymouth, Calif. "I'm 58 years old," he said. "I'm a retired professional. I've raised a family, and I've smoked pot all my life. Making it illegal just criminalizes normal behavior."

Both sides agree that the vote could be decided by the "soccer mom"
contingent, and both are shaping their messages for that audience. The No camp has targeted them with a stark image of stoned school bus drivers who couldn't be fired.

"That is the worst-case scenario," said Laura Preston, legislative advocate for the Association of California School Administrators. "But it paints the picture."

Among the opponents are some medical marijuana dispensary owners who argue that the measure would hurt patients by taxing the marijuana they now get without paying taxes.

"It's kind of an odd thing for us, because if it passes, we stand to make millions of dollars," said Lanette Davies, owner of the Canna Care dispensary in Sacramento. "However, it's not the right thing to do for patients."

While the outcome of the vote is in the balance, advocates believe the 2010 push will be just the first in an increasing number of legalization efforts. A plan for a vote in Washington state next year is being drawn up.

"Whether or not this wins or loses, we will see many further attempts to legalize marijuana in the next four to six years," said Nadelmann.

"When the dust settles, we'll find that there are a lot more people, significant people, who have come out and openly supported legalization.
It has changed the terrain for the future."
_______________________________________________
Dd-world mailing list
https://lists.tni.org/mailman/listinfo/dd-world

 

 

 

A friendly reminder that the Kaiser Foundation's "Call for Nominations for the 2011 National Awards for Excellence Program" is open until November 30, 2011. Please see details below from our July announcement.

 

Many thanks.

Deborah

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Hello,

 

I am very pleased to forward information on the Kaiser Foundation’s Call for Nominations for the 2011 National Awards for Excellence Program.

 

A national organization, founded over 25 years ago, the Kaiser Foundation works with mental health and addiction issues by raising awareness and promoting “best practices” in the field. To advance this cause, the Kaiser Foundation established the annual National Awards for Excellence Program five years ago to recognize the work and extraordinary achievements of individuals and/or organizations in the area of mental health and addictions.

 

Every year the Foundation announces seven award winners from across Canada.  Each recipient receives a $10,000 grant for a registered charity of their choice.   A presentation is organized locally for each recipient where they are honoured by a local or national dignitary together with the Founder of the Kaiser Foundation, Mr. Edgar Kaiser Jr. 

 

To nominate someone or to apply for an Award yourself is easy.  All the information is located on our website at www.kaiserfoundation.ca including our Awards criteria, categories and downloadable copies of the nomination forms.  To help get you started and for nomination ideas, check out past winners on our website as well.

 

Also, please feel free to share this information with as many individuals and organizations that you think might be eligible for one of our Awards. 

 

Nominations must be completed and sent to the Kaiser Foundation by November 30, 2010, the deadline for the 2011 National Awards for Excellence Program.

 

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via email or toll free at 1-866-926-9766 (local number 604-904-9994) at extension 23.

 

Thank you for your time and we look forward to receiving your nominations in the near future.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Deborah Tucker

Executive Director

Kaiser Foundation

404-2609 Westview Drive

North Vancouver, BC V7N 4M2

Tel:  (604) 904-9994 ext.23 

Fax: 1-866-265-5906

execdir@kaiserfoundation.ca

www.kaiserfoundation.ca

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3121 - Release Date: 09/09/10 06:34:00

"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power."
P.J. O'Rourke

 

 

 

 

 

Chris Selley: America’s devotion to a bad drug law
National Post
September 9, 2010

Dear All,

 

 

An amazing blast of an editorial and 2 articles from the UK Observer:

 

 

 

A unique chance to rethink drugs policy [Editorial]

Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg are perfectly placed to launch a national debate on whether we should try legalisation

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/08/leader-drugs-legalisation-reform-marijuana

 

 

 

War on drugs: why the US and Latin America could be ready to end a fruitless 40-year struggle

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/drugs-legalise-mexico-california

 

 

 

 

Drugs: the problem is more than just the substances, it's the prohibition itself [retired Brazilian judge]

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/08/drugs-latin-america-legalisation-karam

 

best wishes,

 

Alex

 

 

 

Dr. Alex Wodak,
Director, Alcohol and Drug Service,
St. Vincent's Hospital,
Darlinghurst, NSW, 2010,
AUSTRALIA

Telephone: (61+02) 9361 8012
If no prompt answer, try 9361 8014
Facsimile: (61+02) 8382 4738
awodak@stvincents.com.au