Addiction

RSS Feed for this category

Russian Diplomat Takes Over at UN Drug Agency

As of Monday, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is under new management. Russian diplomat Yury Fedotov , who was nominated for the post earlier this year by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, has now taken over the organization that makes up a key part of the global drug prohibition regime. He replaces outgoing UNODC head Antonio Maria Costa.

Yuri Fedotov (courtesy Voice of Russia, ruvr.ru)
The Vienna-based agency, established in 1997, is charged with fighting the illegal drug trade, as well as other international crime, such as corruption and human trafficking. It also publishes annual reports on the global drug scene, as well as regional reports, including annual surveys of Afghan opium poppy production.

"Public health and human rights must be central" to his agency's work, Fedotov said in a statement Monday. "Whether we talk of the victims of human trafficking, communities oppressed by corrupt leaders, unfair criminal justice systems or drug users marginalized by society, we are committed to making a positive difference," he said.

"Drug dependence is a health disorder, and drug users need humane and effective treatment -- not punishment," he added. "Drug treatment should also promote the prevention of HIV."

Harm reductionists and AIDS activists had earlier urged Ki-moon not to appoint Fedotov, pointing to Russia's abysmal record on human rights, the treatment of drug users, and HIV/AIDS prevention. But on Monday, the International Harm Reduction Association told the Associated Press it was willing to give Fedotov a chance based on his early remarks.

"We certainly hope this sets the benchmark for the path he'll be taking," said the association's executive director Rick Lines. "For any public official, they're going to be judged by what they do with the responsibility they're given."

Vienna
Austria

Europe: Norwegian Committee Calls for Heroin Prescription Trials, Harm Reduction Measures

A blue-ribbon committee in Norway has called for heroin prescription trials and expanded harm reduction measures, such as expanding safe injection sites. The Stoltenberg Committee presented its findings in a 49-page report (sorry, Norwegian only) issued last month.

https://stopthedrugwar.org/files/norwegianfjord.jpg
Norwegian fjord (courtesy Erik A. Drabløs via wikimedia.org)
The committee was created last year by then Health Minister Bjarne Hakon Hanssen to review the situation of hard drug users in Norway. It was tasked in particular with evaluating whether the government should allow a trial heroin prescription program because the notion was so controversial in Norway. The committee did not address soft drug use.

Committee head Thorvald Stoltenberg is a well-known and well-respected political figure in Norway, having served in the past as foreign minister. He is the father of the current prime minister. He is also the father of an adult daughter who is a former heroin addict.

Current Health Minister Anna-Greta Strom-Erichsen agreed with the committee's call for more harm reduction and expanded treatment services, but wasn't ready to sign off on prescribed heroin just yet.

"I agree with the committee that services for the most vulnerable drug addicts must be better," she said in a press release. "The committee wants greater degree of coordination of services. This is a task that is central to the work of collaborative reform, which is especially important for people with drug problems," she added.

But heroin prescribing is "a difficult question" on which the government must move carefully, Strom-Erichsen said. "The government has not reached a conclusion on the question of heroin assisted treatment. Regardless of the conclusion to this question, there is a need for an intensified effort for people with drug problems, including medical treatment, "she said.

The committee report will now form the basis for a broad dialog on its recommendations among government officials, local officials, drug users, relatives, and other interested parties. After that, the Health Ministry will send a proposal to parliament.

While the committee report is quite moderate by international standards, it represents a major break from traditional Norwegian responses to hard drug use and an embrace of the harm reduction philosophy.

UNODC: The Russians Are Coming

[Update, 6:20pm EST: Peter Sarosi at HCLU just told me Ban Ki-moon has indeed picked Fedotov. Hence I have removed the question mark from the end of the title of this article. :( - DB]

Current head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Antonio Maria Costa is set to end his 10-year term at the end of this month, and according to at least one published report, a Russian diplomat has emerged as the frontrunner in the race to replace him. That is causing shivers in some sectors of the drug reform community because the Russians are viewed as quite retrograde in their drug policy positions.

The report names Russia's current ambassador to the United Kingdom, Yuri Fedotov, as the top candidate to oversee UNODC and its $250 million annual budget. Other short-listed candidates include Spanish lawyer Carlos Castresana, who headed a UN anti-crime commission in Guatemala, Colombian Ambassador to the European Union Carlos Holmes Trujillo, and Brazilian attorney Pedro Abramovay. The final decision is up to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

If Fedotov wins the position, Russia would be in a far more influential position to influence international drug policy, and that is raising concerns because of Russia's increasingly shrill demands that the US and NATO return to opium eradication in Afghanistan, its refusal to allow methadone maintenance and its refusal to fund needle exchange programs even as it confronts fast-growing heroin addiction and HIV infection rates.

The concerns have crystallized in a campaign to block his appointment, including a Facebook group called We Don't Want A Russian UN Drug Czar!, which is urging people to send an email message to that effect to Secretary General Ki-moon. Group organizers the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union have also produced a video on the subject:

Prosecution: Kentucky Supreme Court Rules Pregnant Women Cannot Be Criminalized for Drug Use

Women who take illegal drugs while pregnant cannot be charged with child endangerment crimes for doing so, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled last Friday. The court held that such prosecutions are unlawful under the state's Maternal Health Act of 1992, which expressly forbids charging women with a crime if they drink or do drugs during pregnancy.

The case is Cochran v. Kentucky, in which Casey County prosecutors charged Ina Cochran with first-degree wanton endangerment after she gave birth to a child who tested positive for cocaine in 2005. Cochran's attorney moved to have the charges dismissed, and a Casey Circuit Court judge agreed, but prosecutors appealed to the state Court of Appeals, which held that the charges could be allowed.

The state Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals ruling, arguing that the appeals court had erred both because its decision was intolerably vague and because the Kentucky legislature had expressly held that pregnant women were not to be prosecuted for drug use. "It is the legislature, not the judiciary, that has the power to designate what is a crime," the opinion said.

In passing the Maternal Health Act of 1992, the legislature explicitly stated that "punitive actions taken against pregnant alcohol or substance abusers would create additional problems, including discouraging these individuals from seeking the essential prenatal care."

The high court cited a similar earlier case it had decided, and that quotation is worth repeating:

"The mother was a drug addict. But, for that matter, she could have been a pregnant alcoholic, causing fetal alcohol syndrome; or she could have been addicted to self abuse by smoking, or by abusing prescription painkillers, or over-the-counter medicine; or for that matter she could have been addicted to downhill skiing or some other sport creating serious risk of prenatal injury, risk which the mother wantonly disregarded as a matter of self-indulgence. What if a pregnant woman drives over the speed limit, or as a matter of vanity doesn't wear the prescription lenses she knows she needs to see the dangers of the road?

"The defense asks where do we draw the line on self-abuse by a pregnant woman that wantonly exposes to risk her unborn baby? The Commonwealth replies that the General Assembly probably intended to draw the line at conduct that qualifies as criminal, and then leave it to the prosecutor to decide when such conduct should be prosecuted as child abuse in addition to the crime actually committed.

"However, it is inflicting intentional or wanton injury upon the child that makes the conduct criminal under the child abuse statutes, not the criminality of the conduct per se. The Commonwealth's approach would exclude alcohol abuse, however devastating to the baby in the womb, unless the Commonwealth could prove an act of drunk driving; but it is the mother's alcoholism, not the act of driving that causes the fetal alcohol syndrome. The 'case-by-case' approach suggested by the Commonwealth is so arbitrary that, if the criminal child abuse statutes are construed to support it, the statutes transgress reasonably identifiable limits; they lack fair notice and violate constitutional due process limits against statutory vagueness."

Somebody ought to tell them in South Carolina, where the courts have upheld the prosecution and imprisonment of pregnant women who used drugs.

Opiate Maintenance: Prescribing Heroin to Hard-Core Addicts Keeps Them Off Street Smack, British Study Finds

In research findings reported in The Lancet, scientists monitoring the Randomized Injectable Opiate Treatment Trial (RIOTT) reported that allowing addicts who have failed to get off heroin to use injectable "medical grade" heroin resulted in lower levels of street heroin use than in addicts given either oral or injectable methadone. The research was done by Professor John Strang and colleagues from the National Addiction Center's Institute of Psychiatry at King's College in London.

Up to 10% of heroin addicts fail to respond to conventional treatments, for reasons that are unclear. In recent years, scientific evidence suggesting that providing medicinal heroin, known as diamorphine in the United Kingdom, under supervision is an effective treatment for chronic heroin addiction, has only increased. This study adds to the mounting evidence.

The RIOTT study chose as subjects chronic addicts who were receiving oral maintenance doses, typically of methadone, but were continuing to regularly inject street heroin. Subjects were provided with oral methadone, injectable methadone, or injectable heroin over a half-year period. At the end of the study, 80% of the subjects remained in treatment, with the highest figure for those using heroin (88%), followed by injectable methadone (81%) and oral methadone (69%). Among subjects who had 50% or more negative samples for street heroin -- the authors' measure of measurable improvement -- 66% of medicinal heroin users avoided street smack, while only 30% of injectable methadone users did and only 19% of oral methadone users did.

"We have shown that treatment with supervised injectable heroin leads to significantly lower use of street heroin than does supervised injectable methadone or optimised oral methadone," the authors said in a press release announcing the findings. "Furthermore, this difference was evident within the first six weeks of treatment."

Noting that the UK government's 2008 Drug Strategy had called for rolling out prescription heroin and methadone to clients who don't respond to other forms of treatment, contingent on the results of the RIOTT study, the authors said the results were in and it was time to act. "In the past 15 years, six randomized trials have all reported benefits from treatment with injectable heroin compared with oral methadone. Supervised injectable heroin should now be provided, with close monitoring, for carefully selected chronic heroin addicts in the UK," they concluded.

"Our scientific understanding about how to treat people with severe heroin addiction has taken an important step forward," said Professor Strang. "The RIOTT study shows that previously unresponsive patients can achieve major reductions in their use of street heroin and, impressively, these outcomes were seen within six weeks. Our work offers government robust evidence to support the expansion of this treatment, so that more patients can benefit."

You can watch Professor Strang discuss the findings here.

Feature: Schwarzenegger Trying to Gut California Methadone Funding in Budget Move

With California facing a $19 billion budget deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) last month proposed saving the state $53 million by cutting off Medi-Cal funding for methadone maintenance for most heroin addicts. That would cause the loss of more than $60 million in matching federal funds. The move was fiercely resisted by methadone advocates -- including a former drug czar -- and public policy analysts, and the proposal was defeated last week in committee votes in the state Senate and Assembly.

But California gives the governor the power to veto individual budget items, so advocates are not resting yet. Instead they are reaching out to the administration in hopes they can enlighten it and persuade the budget axe-wielding Schwarzenegger to aim elsewhere.

Schwarzenegger isn't the first top-tier elected official to go after methadone maintenance. Back in 1999, then New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani vowed to wean all of the city's methadone patients off it in three months. While Giuliani acted for ideological rather than budgetary reasons -- he said he wanted "drug freedom," not drug dependence -- the pugnacious mayor later changed his tune, admitting the idea was "maybe somewhat unrealistic."

https://stopthedrugwar.org/files/harm-reduction-superheroes-vancouver.jpg
superheroes for harm reduction: ''Methadone Man'' public awareness campaign during last February's Olympics in Vancouver. You're needed everywhere, Methadone Man.
Currently, nearly 150 methadone clinics provide the heroin substitute to some 35,000 addicts, 55% of whom are on Medi-Cal. Advocates and treatment providers said that clinics would be forced to close if the proposal passed, affecting not only the Medi-Cal patients, but also patients who paid out of their own pockets or through private insurance to be able to get maintenance methadone.

"Methadone isn't a cure," said Roxanne Baker, president of the National Alliance of Methadone Advocates (NAMA), "but much like thyroid medication, as long as you keep taking it, it keeps your disease in check, and opiate addiction is a disease. When you mess with your brain with painkillers, it then doesn't produce the endorphins it should. It's not a matter of will power, it's a disease. You need something to replace those endorphins, whether its methadone, suboxone, or even prescription heroin, although I doubt we'll ever see that here."

Enacting the proposed cuts would be "a disaster," said Baker. "There would be no methadone programs left. More than half the patients statewide are on drug MediCal, and they wouldn't even have a place to go. A lot of these people have their lives in order. This is somebody's brother, somebody's aunt, somebody's mom. Please don't take this from us."

Last week, Clinton-era drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey flew into the state to hold a press conference denouncing the cut. "Dumping tens of thousands of opiate addicts back on the street would be an immediate disaster to law enforcement, and to the families of people who have become stable, functioning adults" thanks to methadone, said McCaffrey, who has a consulting firm and serves on the board of directors of an organization that treats chemical dependency.

Legislators were listening, not only to McCaffrey, but to the methadone treatment community. A Senate Budget Committee hearing last week proved tough going for Schwarzenegger's representatives.

"This measure would eliminate the drug MediCal program with the exception of the perinatal and youth funding," said John Wardlaw from the state Department of Finance. "This is not an easy reduction in any way. We are at the point where we are making very difficult reductions."

Committee Chair Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego) wasn't buying it. "How much federal funding are you giving up?" she asked.

"Sixty-six million dollars," Wardlaw said.

"We save $53 million and lose $66 million?" asked Ducheny.

"That is correct, ma'am."

Ducheny just stared at him for a few uncomfortable moments before moving on to the next witness.

"There would be cost shifts in the area of corrections and child welfare services," Greg Tallivant of the legislative analysts' office told the solons. "The day the clinic closes, those people have to do something. If they can't make it to the next methadone clinic, heroin would be the next choice. You would see people arrested. You would see prison costs and child welfare costs go up."

Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) was visibly irritated by the proposal. "There is a complete lack of interest in any cost-benefit analysis here," he said. "This is reckless and cavalier. It doesn't really make much sense. We have 171,000 people addicted to drugs. This will increase our crime rate; it's a recipe for disaster on our streets. Does the governor have no interest in this or does he not believe that this will impact the safety of our children and communities? We've already zero-funded the base Proposition 36 program. The outcome of this is to have drug offenders with no jail and no treatment."

"This is really a short-sighted proposal that shifts costs from funding treatment to funding law enforcement, jails, and prisons," said Jason Kletter, a member of the Bay Area Addiction Research Team (BAART), which is in turn a member of California Opioid Maintenance Providers (COMP), a nonprofit organization representing opioid maintenance treatment centers. "It is a public safety issue, to say nothing of the humanitarian crisis it would provoke," he said.

"We think if this happened many clinics would close, and the folks who lose access to care would likely relapse and cost the system much, much more in a short time," said Kletter. "We see relapse rates of 80% within a year when clinics close, so it wouldn't even be like we'd be kicking the can three or four years down the road."

"This would have the biggest impact on programs that have a high percentage of Medi-Cal beneficiaries in treatment and would be unable to stay open because more than half their patients, and thus, their revenues, are gone," said Kletter. "You would have a fundamental dismantling of the system."

The cost incurred would be staggering, Kletter said."If 80% relapse in same year, we know that the state will incur $700 million to $1 billion in new costs in the criminal justice system," he said, citing a study from the 1990s that found each dollar invested in treatment produced a seven-dollar return. "The state wants to save $53 million by eliminating drug Medi-Cal and will also turn away more than $60 million in matching funds. That's $115 total program cost. A seven-to-one return on that is close to a billion dollars. "With 80% relapse, we could end up seeing $700 million in new criminal justice and prison costs."

"It's a terrible proposal," said Glenn Backes, a Sacramento-based public policy analyst who works with the Drug Policy Alliance at the Capitol. "California Democrats in both houses have said so. The Senate Republicans didn't do a cost-benefit analysis; they just said we can't afford to give out subsidized health care."

But in reality, the situation is even worse, said Backes. "They've killed Proposition 36 funding, drug courts are being slashed. According to the governor's finance director, that's 171,000 patients. The cost-benefit for this is worse than nil. If only one out of a thousand relapses and goes to prison, you've already lost money because prison is so much more expensive than treatment. If only one out of a thousand gets Hep C, the taxpayer loses. If only one out of a thousand gets HIV, the taxpayer loses."

It's easy to lose the human side in all the numbers, Backes said. "If only one out of a thousand ODs and dies, that's 170 California families who have lost a loved one."

And the battle continues. "While both the Senate and the Assembly budget committees have rejected the governor's proposal, in California, the governor has a line item veto," said Kletter. "We are continuing to try to work with the administration to explain the impact of this kind of proposal and get them to understand it is a public safety and cost-shifting issue. We haven't had any direct meeting with them yet, but that's next on our agenda. We want to educate them about them dire consequences of this sort of action."

Even if advocates many to salvage the drug Medi-Cal program, they would be well-advised to be searching for alternative funding sources, and how better than to take money from the drug war? Tough times call for creative solutions, and Backes has one: Use federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grants to fund treatment instead of drug task forces. Every dollar funding more drug war arrests costs $10 additional in spending for courts and prisons, he said.

"Historically, Byrne grant funds have been given to task forces to increase arrests," Backes noted. "The Drug Policy Alliance position is that Byrne funds would be better spent on almost anything other than doing low-level drug sweeps. We would rather see that money go into treatment for people in the system."

Europe: Scottish Attitudes toward Drugs, Drug Users Harsh and Getting Harsher, Annual Poll Finds

Scottish public opinion is taking a harder line toward drug use and drug users, according to the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2009. Support for marijuana legalization has declined by half since 2001, while attitudes toward heroin users are harsh, and support for harsh punishments is stronger than support for harm reduction measures.

The poll comes after several years of a full-blown Reefer Madness epidemic in the United Kingdom press, where sensational assertions that "cannabis causes psychosis" have gained considerably more traction than they have in the US. It also comes as Scotland confronts an intractable, seemingly permanent, population of problem heroin users and increasing calls from Conservatives to treat them more harshly.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, support for marijuana legalization rose in Scotland, as if did throughout the UK, reaching 37% by 2001. Last year, it was down to 24%. The decline was especially dramatic among young people, with 62% of 18-to-24-year-olds supporting legalization in 2001 and only 24% last year.

Support was down even among people who have used marijuana. In 2001, 70% supported legalization; now only 47% do. Similarly, attitudes toward pot possession also hardened among the Scots public. In 2001, 51% agreed that people should not be prosecuted for possessing small amounts for personal use. In 2009, this figure fell to just 34%.

Scots don't have much use for heroin users, either. Nearly half (45%) agreed that addicts "have only themselves to blame," while just 27% disagreed. On the obverse, only 29% agreed that most heroin users "come from difficult backgrounds," while 53% disagreed. People who are generally more liberal in their values, people who have friends or family members who have used drugs, and graduates were all more likely to have sympathetic views toward heroin users.

Fewer than half (47%) would be comfortable working around someone who had used heroin in the past, while one in five would be uncomfortable doing so. Similarly, just 26% said they would be comfortable with someone in treatment for heroin living near them, while 49% said they would not be. Only 16% think heroin use should be decriminalized.

When it comes to policy toward heroin use, Scots were split: 32% wanted tougher penalties, 32% wanted "more help for people who want to stop using heroin," and 28% wanted more drug education. And four out of five (80%) agreed that "the only real way of helping drug addicts is to get them to stop using drugs altogether."

Those tough attitudes are reflected in declining support for needle exchanges, the survey's sole measure of support for harm reduction approaches. In 2001, 62% supported needle exchanges; now only 50% do.

It looks like Scottish harm reductionists and drug reformers have their work cut out for them.

Feature: Obama's First National Drug Strategy -- The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

A leaked draft of the overdue 2010 National Drug Strategy was published by Newsweek over the weekend, and it reveals some positive shifts away from Bush-era drug policy paradigms and toward more progressive and pragmatic approaches. But there is a lot of continuity as well, and despite the Obama administration's rhetorical shift away from the "war on drugs," the drug war juggernaut is still rolling along.

https://stopthedrugwar.org/files/wasitwalters.jpg
sign of the leaker?
That doesn't quite jibe with Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP -- the drug czar's office) director Gil Kerlikowske's words when he announced in April 2009 that the phrase "war on drugs" was no longer in favor. "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them. We're not at war with people in this country."

The leak was reported by long-time Washington insider and Newsweek columnist Michael Isikoff, who mentioned it almost off-handedly in a piece asserting "The White House Drug Czar's Diminished Status." Isikoff asserted in the piece that the unveiling of the strategy had been delayed because Kerlikowske didn't have the clout to get President Obama to schedule a joint appearance to release it. His office had been downgraded from cabinet level, Isikoff noted.

That sparked an angry retort from UCLA professor Mark Kleiman, a burr under the saddle to prohibitionists and anti-prohibitionists alike for his heterodox views on drug policy. In a blog post, Kleiman seemed personally offended at the leak, twice referring to the leaker as "a jerk," defending the new drug strategy as innovative if bound by interagency politics, and deriding Isikoff's article as "gossipy."

Kleiman also suggested strongly that the leaker was none other than former John Walters on the basis of an editing mark on the document that had his name on it. But Walters has not confirmed that, and others have point out it could have been a current staffer who is using the same computer Walters used while in office.

On the plus side, the draft strategy embraces some harm reduction programs, such as needle exchanges and the use of naloxone to prevent overdoses, although without ever uttering the words "harm reduction." There is also a renewed emphasis on prevention and treatment, with slight spending increases. But again reality fails to live up to rhetoric, with overall federal drug control spending maintaining the long-lived 2:1 ration in spending for law enforcement, eradication, and interdiction versus that for treatment and prevention.

The strategy also promotes alternatives to incarceration, such drug courts, community courts and the like and for the first time hints that it recognizes the harms that can be caused by the punitive approach to drug policy. And it explicitly calls for reform of the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses.

It sets a number of measurable goals related to reducing drug use. By 2015, ONDCP vows to cut last month drug use by young adults by 10% and cut last month use by teens, lifetime use by 8th graders, and the number of chronic drug users by 15%.

The 2010 goals of a 15% reduction reflect diminishing expectations after years of more ambitious drug use reduction goals followed by the drug policy establishment's inability to achieve them. That could inoculate the Obama administration from the kind of criticism faced by the Clinton administration back in the 1990s when it did set much more ambitious goals.

The Clinton administration's 1998 National Drug Control Strategy called for a "ten-year conceptual framework to reduce drug use and drug availability by 50%." That didn't happen. That strategy put the number of drug users at 13.5 million, but instead of decreasing, according to the 2008 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse and Health, by 2007 the number of drug users was at 20.1 million.

While Clinton took criticism from Republicans that his goals were not ambitious enough -- Newt Gingrich said we should just wipe out drugs -- the Bush administration set similar goals, and achieved similarly modest results. The Bush administration's 2002 National Drug Control Strategy sought a 25% reduction in drug use by both teenagers and adults within five years. While teen drug use declined from 11.6% in 2002 to 9.3% in 2007, then drug czar Walters missed his goal. He did less well with adult use almost unchanged, at 6.3% in 2000 and 5.9% in 2007.

The draft strategy, however, remains wedded to law enforcement, eradication, and interdiction, calls for strong federal support for local drug task forces, and explicitly rejects marijuana legalization. It also seeks to make drugged driving a top priority, which would be especially problematic if the administration adopts per se zero tolerance measures (meaning the presence of any metabolites of a controlled substance could result in a driver's arrest whether he was actually impaired or not).

Still, while the draft strategy is definitely a mixed bag, a pair of keen observers of ONDCP and federal drug policy pronounced themselves fairly pleased overall. While still heavy on the law enforcement side, the first Obama national drug strategy is a far cry from the propaganda-driven documents of Bush era drug czar John Walters.

The Good

"This is somewhat of a surprise, because for the first time they have included reducing the funds associated with the drug war in their strategy, although not in a big way, they're calling for reform of the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, and they are calling for the reform of laws that penalize people," said Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Policy Alliance. "This is the first time they've included anything recognizing that some of our policies are creating harm," he added.

"The stuff about syringe exchange and naloxone for overdose prevention is pretty good. It's the first time they've embraced any part of harm reduction, even though they don't use that name," Piper noted.

"I'm also impressed with the section on alternatives to incarceration," said Piper. "They basically said most drug users don't belong in jail, and a lot of dealers don't, either. It's still wedded to the criminal justice system, but it's good that they looked at so many different things -- drug courts, community courts, Operation Highpoint (warning dealers to desist instead of just arresting them as a means of breaking up open-air drug markets), programs for veterans. They seem interested in finding out what works, which is an evidence-based approach that had been lacking in previous strategies."

The Status Quo

"Drug war reformers have eagerly been waiting the release of President Obama's first National Drug Control Strategy," noted Matthew Robinson, professor of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University and coauthor (with Renee Scherlen) of "Lies, Damned Lies, and Drug War Statistics: A Critical Analysis of Claims Made by the ONDCP." "Would it put Obama's and Kerlikowske's words into action, or would it be more of the same in terms of federal drug control policy? The answer is yes. And no. There is real, meaningful, exciting change proposed in the 2010 Strategy. But there's a lot of the status quo, too," he said.

"The first sentence of the Strategy hints at status quo approaches to federal drug control policy; it announces 'a blueprint for reducing illicit drug use and its harmful consequences in America,'" Robinson said. "That ONDCP will still focus on drug use (as opposed to abuse) is unfortunate, for the fact remains that most drug use is normal, recreational, pro-social, and even beneficial to users; it does not usually lead to bad outcomes for users, including abuse or addiction," he said.

"Just like under the leadership of Director John Walters, Kerlikowske's ONDCP characterizes its drug control approaches as 'balanced,' yet FY 2011 federal drug control spending is still imbalanced in favor of supply side measures (64%), while the demand side measures of treatment and prevention will only receive 36% of the budget," Robinson pointed out. "In FY 2010, the percentages were 65% and 35%, respectively. Perhaps when Barack Obama said 'Change we can believe in,' what he really meant was 'Change you can believe in, one percentage point at a time.'"

There is also much of the status quo in funding levels, Robinson said. "There will also be plenty of drug war funding left in this 'non-war on drugs.' For example, FY 2011 federal drug control spending includes $3.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (which includes Customs and Border Protection spending), more than $3.4 billion for the Department of Justice (which includes Drug Enforcement Agency spending), and nearly $1.6 billion for the Department of Defense (which includes military spending). Thus, the drug war will continue on under President Obama even if White House officials do not refer to federal drug control policy as a 'war on drugs,'" he noted.

The Bad

"ONDCP repeatedly stresses the importance of reducing supply of drugs into the United States through crop eradication and interdiction efforts, international collaboration, disruption of drug smuggling organizations, and so forth," Robinson noted. "It still promotes efforts like Plan Colombia, the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy, and many other similar programs aimed at eradicating drugs in foreign countries and preventing them from entering the United States. The bottom line here is that the 'non war on drugs' will still look and feel like a war on drugs under President Obama, especially to citizens of the foreign nations where the United States does the bulk of its drug war fighting."

"They are still wedded to interdiction and eradication," said Piper. "There is no recognition that they aren't very effective and do more harm than good. Coming only a couple of weeks after the drug czar testified under oath that eradication in Colombia and Afghanistan and elsewhere had no impact on the availability of drugs in the US, to then put out a strategy embracing what he said was least effective is quite disturbing."

"The ringing endorsement of per se standards for drugged driving is potentially troubling," said Piper. "It looks a lot like zero tolerance. We have to look at this also in the context of new performance measures, which are missing from the draft. In the introduction, they talk about setting goals for reducing drug use and that they went to set other performance measures, such as for reducing drug overdoses and drugged driving. If they actually say they're going to reduce drugged driving by such and such an amount with a certain number of years, that will be more important. We'll have to see what makes it into the final draft."

"They took a gratuitous shot at marijuana reform," Piper noted. "It was unfortunate they felt the need to bash something that half of Americans support and to do it in the way they did, listing a litany of Reefer Madness allegations and connecting marijuana to virtually every problem in America. That was really unfortunate."

More Good

There are some changes in spending priorities. "Spending on prevention will grow 13.4% from FY 2010 to FY 2011, while spending on treatment will grow 3.7%," Robinson noted. "The growth in treatment is surprisingly small given that ONDCP notes that 90% of people who need treatment do not receive it. Increases are much smaller for spending on interdiction (an increase of 2.4%), domestic law enforcement (an increase of 1.9%), and international spending (an increase of 0.9%). This is evidence of a shift in federal drug control strategy under President Obama; there will be a greater effort to prevent drug use in the first place as well as treat those that become addicted to drugs than there ever was under President Bush."

Robinson also lauded the Obama administration for more clarity in the strategy than was evident under either Clinton or Bush. "Obama's first Strategy clearly states its guiding principles, each of which is followed by a specific set of actions to be initiated and implemented over time to achieve goals and objectives related to its principles. Of course, this is Obama's first Strategy, so in subsequent years, there will be more data presented for evaluation purposes, and it should become easier to decipher the ideology that will drive the 'non war on drugs' under President Obama," he said.

But he suggested that ideology still plays too big a role. "ONDCP hints at its ideology when it claims that programs such as 'interdiction, anti-trafficking initiatives, drug crop reduction, intelligence sharing and partner nation capacity building... have proven effective in the past.' It offers almost no evidence that this is the case other than some very limited, short-term data on potential cocaine production in Colombia. ONDCP claims it is declining, yet only offers data from 2007 to 2008. Kerlikowske's ONDCP seems ready to accept the dominant drug war ideology of Walters that supply side measures work -- even when long-term data show they do not."

Robinson also lauded ONDCP's apparent revelation that drug addiction is a disease. "Obama's first strategy embraces a new approach to achieving federal drug control goals of 'reducing illicit drug consumption' and 'reducing the consequences of illicit drug use in the United States,' one that is evidence-based and public health oriented," Robinson said. "ONDCP recognizes that drug addiction is a disease and it specifies that federal drug control policy should be assisted by parties in all of the systems that relate to drug use and abuse, including families, schools, communities, faith-based organizations, the medical profession, and so forth. This is certainly a change from the Bush Administration, which repeatedly characterized drug use as a moral or personal failing."

While the Obama drug strategy may have its faults, said Robinson, it is a qualitative improvement over Bush era drug strategies. "Under the Bush Administration, ONDCP came across as downright dismissive of data, evidence, and science, unless it was used to generate fear and increased punitive responses to drug-related behaviors. Honestly, there is very little of this in Obama's first strategy, aside from the usual drugs produce crime, disorder, family disruption, illness, addiction, death, and terrorism argument that has for so long been employed by ONDCP," he said. "Instead, the Strategy is hopeful in tone and lays out dozens of concrete programs and policies that aim to prevent drug use among young people (through public education programs, mentoring initiatives, increasing collaboration between public health and safety organizations); treat adults who have developed drug abuse and addiction problems (though screening and intervention by medical personnel, increased investments in addiction treatment, new treatment medications); and, for the first time, invest heavily in recovery efforts that are restorative in nature and aimed at giving addicts a new lease on life," he noted.

"ONDCP also seems to suddenly have a better grasp on why the vast majority of people who need treatment do not get it," said Robinson. "Under Walters, ONDCP claimed that drug users were in denial and needed to be compassionately coerced to seek treatment. In the 2010 Strategy, ONDCP outlines numerous problems with delivery of treatment services including problems with the nation's health care systems generally. The 2010 Strategy seems so much better informed about the realities of drug treatment than previous Strategy reports," he added.

"The strategy also repeatedly calls for meaningful change in areas such as alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent, low-level drug offenders; drug testing in courts (and schools, unfortunately, in spite of data showing it is ineffective); and reentry programs for inmates who need help finding jobs and places to live upon release from prison or jail. ONDCP also implicitly acknowledges that that federal drug control policy imposes costs on families (including the break-up of families), and shows with real data that costs are greater economically for imprisonment of mothers and foster care for their children than family-based treatment," Robinson noted.

"ONDCP makes the case that we are wasting a lot of money dealing with the consequences of drug use and abuse when this money would be better spent preventing use and abuse in the first place. Drug policy reformers will embrace this claim," Robinson predicted.

"The strategy also calls for a renewed emphasis on prescription drug abuse, which it calls 'the fastest growing drug problem in the United States,'" Robinson pointed out. "Here, as in the past, ONDCP suggests regulation is the answer because prescription drugs have legitimate uses that should not be restricted merely because some people use them illegally. And, as in the past, ONDCP does not consider this approach for marijuana, which also has legitimate medicinal users in spite of the fact that some people use it illegally," he said.

The Verdict

"President Obama's first National Drug Control Strategy offers real, meaningful, exciting change," Robinson summed up. "Whether this change amounts to 'change we can believe in' will be debated by drug policy reformers. For those who support demand side measures, many will embrace the 2010 Strategy and call for even greater funding for prevention and treatment. For those who support harm reduction measures such as needled exchange, methadone maintenance and so forth, there will be celebration. Yet, for those who support real alternatives to federal drug control policy such as legalization or decriminalization, all will be disappointed. And even if Obama officials will not refer to its drug control policies as a 'war on drugs,' they still amount to just that."

England: Royal College of Nursing Leader Calls for Prescription Heroin by the NHS

The head of Britain's largest nurses' union has called for the routine prescribing of heroin to addicts by the National Health Service (NHS) as a means of weaning them from their addiction. The remarks by Peter Carter, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), came after the RCN debated the idea at its convention in Bournemouth this week. No vote was taken.

https://stopthedrugwar.org/files/petercarter.jpg
Peter Carter
Expressing his personal views after the debate, Carter, the former head of Central and North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, advocated for harm reduction measures as well as heroin prescription. He said he supported also supported needle exchanges and safe injection sites for intravenous drug users.

"The fact is heroin is very addictive," he said. "People who are addicted so often resort to crime, to steal to buy the heroin. It obviates the need for them to steal. It might take a few years but I think people will understand that if you are going to get people off heroin then in the initial stages we have to have proper heroin prescribing services. Critics say you are encouraging drug addiction but the reality is that these people are addicts and they are going to do it anyway," he added.

The most recent incarnation of heroin prescription calls began in 2002, when then Home Secretary David Blunkett first advocated for them. That call gave rise to pilot programs in London, Brighton, and Darlington in which users were provided with pharmaceutical heroin and allowed to inject under medical supervision. Those programs cut local crime rates by two-thirds over a six month period.

They also led to drug use and spending reductions. Of the 127 users involved in the pilot projects, three-quarters "substantially reduced" their use of street drugs, while their drug spending declined six-fold.

Carter's comments and the nurses' debate comes amid controversy and contention over how to deal with Britain's estimated 200,000 heroin addicts and just 10 days before British national elections. While all three parties have stressed alternative treatments for hard-core addicts, Conservatives have been attacking opiate maintenance programs, especially methadone maintenance, as morally bankrupt and are instead advocating for more abstinence-based programs.

At the RCN convention, Claire Topham-Brown, a nurse from Cambridgeshire, proposed the motion to support prescription heroin. It could be a means of harm reduction, she said, which despite some resistance from health professionals "has now become an accepted model of practice."

But not all delegates agreed. "Where would this stop, cannabis, cocaine, crack cocaine and other illicit substances? If we do this for heroin, do we have to do this for other substances, and can the NHS afford this?" asked Gayle Brooks, a member of the RCN's safety representatives committee.

Pain Medicine: Kansas Doctor and Wife Go on Trial in "Pill Mill" Case

A Kansas doctor and his wife who operated a pain management clinic in Haysville until their arrest by DEA agents in December 2007 went on trial in federal court in Wichita this week. Federal prosecutors charge that Dr. Stephen Schneider and his wife and nurse, Linda, ran a "pill mill" that illegally distributed pain-relieving drugs to addicted patients, but the Schneiders and their supporters say he is a compassionate doctor who provided high dose prescriptions to patients suffering from chronic pain because that's what they needed.

https://stopthedrugwar.org/files/schneiderbillboard.jpg
PRN billboard defending the Schneiders
The Schneiders are charged under a multi-count indictment with conspiracy to illegally distribute drugs, money laundering, and health care fraud. Prosecutors say 68 of their patients died of drug overdoses and hold them responsible for 21 of those deaths. The Schneiders' attorneys say they were not responsible for any patient deaths.

The Schneiders and their supporters, including the Pain Relief Network, a national pain advocacy group, argue that they ran afoul of an overzealous federal prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney Tanya Treadway, who is improperly prosecuting them for their prescribing decisions. This prosecution, they say, is part of a broader attack on doctors who prescribe high levels of opioid pain medications by the DEA and federal prosecutors.

Treadway has also gone after the Pain Relief Network, first unsuccessfully seeking a gag order to block the group's leader, Siobhan Reynolds, from criticizing the prosecution, and then using an obstruction of justice investigation to demand that Reynolds turn over all documents related to the group's effort in the case. Reynolds initially refused, but relented after a contempt citation and accrued fines of $36,500.

In opening arguments this week in what is expected to be a two-month trial, Assistant US Attorney Treadway portrayed the Schneiders as greedy criminals. "This is a case about money, not medicine," she told jurors. Treadway said prescriptions were dispensed when Schneider was not president (but did not mention that physician assistants employed by the clinic could legally prescribe the drugs). "This caused abuse, overdoses, and deaths," she claimed.

Treadway even used the clinic's architectural style against the Schneiders, comparing its appearance to that of a Mexican restaurant. "And like a Mexican restaurant, people lined up at the door, waiting to get in," the prosecutor said.

But Stephen Schneider's attorney, Lawrence Williamson, likened the government's case the Dan Brown novel, "The Da Vinci Code," calling it "historical fiction." Williamson argued that the Schneiders were taking in Medicaid patients no one else would and billing the government more than any other doctor in the state. "He was costing them too much money," so the government decided to shut him down, the attorney argued.

While Treadway hammered on the 68 deaths among Schneider patients, Williamson pointed out that the practice had cared for more than 10,000 patients and was not aware of the extent of overdoses until federal prosecutors filed criminal charges against them.

Kevin Byers, representing Linda Schneider, who managed the clinic, said the couple were not guilty of the conspiracy charges. "The only thing they conspired in was a marriage," he said. "They ran a business together. That's the only conspiracy."

Stay tuned for more updates on the trial as it progresses.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, 2015 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Safe Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School