(visit last week's Week Online)

or check out The Week Online archives

1. HEA Reform Campaign Gets Boost

The student campaign to repeal the drug provision of the Higher Education Act of 1998 got a boost this past week, with four new endorsements of the campaign's resolution. Student governments at the University of Wisconsin at Richland, Illinois State University at Normal, and the University of Texas at Dallas, voted to adopt the resolution; and thanks to the efforts of the student activists at Richland, the United Council of University of Wisconsin Students, representing 140,000 students at the 24 University of Wisconsin campuses, endorsed the resolution unanimously last Tuesday. Other student government endorsements include the Rochester Institute of Technology (NY), Hampshire College (MA), Western Connecticut State University, Pitzer College (CA), Western State College (CO), and the Student Association of the State University of New York. The HEA drug provision delays or denies all federal financial aid for any drug offender, and the student resolution calls for the provision's repeal.

Over 30 organizations so far have signed on to a letter to the Congress calling for passage of H.R. 1053, a bill sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank that if passed will repeal the HEA drug provision. Signatories include the NAACP, the United States Student Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Council of Negro Women, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, the Center for Campus Organizing and many more. (Visit http://www.u-net.org/supporters.html for the complete listing.)

Also this past week, students at Ohio State University, with supporters from the organization For a Better Ohio, demonstrated against the HEA drug provision. Visit http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/ohiohemp/demo.html to view photographs from the event.

Over 9,200 e-mails and faxes supporting H.R. 1053 have been sent to Congress by visitors to DRCNet's online electronic petition at http://www.RaiseYourVoice.com since it was inaugurated last week. If you haven't yet filled out the petition, please take two minutes right now to type in your name and address and let your Representative and your two Senators know how you feel! And please take a few moments to tell your friends -- visit our referral page at http://www.RaiseYourVoice.com/tellfriend.html to send a note to them or to cut and paste our referral letter into your own e-mail or mailing list or online forum posting. The e-mail your friends receive will have your name in the subject. And don't worry -- we keep no record of your friends' e-mail addresses, and won't contact them ever again, unless they decide to subscribe to our list. Many petition visitors do decide to subscribe, so sending people to http://www.RaiseYourVoice.com is a great way to build the movement too!

For further information on the HEA reform campaign and how to get involved, visit http://www.u-net.org/ or e-mail [email protected].

2. REPORT: District of Columbia Drug Policy a Disaster

The District of Columbia spends more than any other US city on drug law enforcement, yet it ranks among the worst in rates of substance abuse, drug-related disease and crime, according to a new report from Drug Strategies, a DC-based research institute. "Facing Facts: Drugs and the Future of Washington, DC" found that the District spends $1,257 per capita on drug enforcement each year, but a scant $42.45 per capita on drug treatment and prevention combined.

Drug Strategies President Mathea Falco told the Week Online that such spending priorities were not justified by their results. "Last year they only spent $22 million on treatment and $2 million on prevention compared to well over 1/2 billion for drug enforcement," she said. "Despite these massive investments in enforcement, the crime situation has not improved, because most of the offenders in the city have serious alcohol and other drug problems which have gone unaddressed." The report also blamed bureaucratic mismanagement, poor recordkeeping and a lack of cooperation between the District and surrounding counties in Maryland and Virginia for high rates of recidivism among drug-addicted individuals.

Along with recommendations for increasing funding for treatment and prevention programs, raising alcohol and cigarette taxes, and increasing support for drug courts and court ordered diversion programs, the report called for the repeal of the Congressional ban on funds for needle exchange programs (NEP's). "We believe NEP's that are well administered and carefully controlled can make a huge difference," said Falco. "In this we are joined by the American Pediatric Association, American Medical Association and the American Bar Association. This is definitely a mainstream position."

AIDS is the third leading cause of death in the District, and one in three of an estimated 15,000-20,000 residents living with HIV or AIDS caught the virus by sharing needles. Nevertheless, an amendment introduced last October by Georgia Republican Bob Barr extended the ban on federal funding of needle exchanges to include even privately funded programs run by organizations that receive federal dollars for other work they do. One of the District's only needle exchange programs, run by the Whitman-Walker AIDS Clinic, was forced to close as a result. The exchange program was re-launched in December as a separate entity, Prevention Works, with the help of a grant from the Drug Policy Foundation.

Despite the report's grim vision of the District's drug war wasteland, there may be some cause for optimism. At a press conference held in the wake of the report's release, newly-elected DC Mayor Anthony Williams and his cabinet pledged another $26 million for treatment and prevention. "We hear you," Williams said. "We will overlook this problem no longer. Left on auto pilot with these statistics, this is not a pretty picture. We cannot allow this to happen." Falco praised Williams' comments, which she called "terrific expressions of commitment." She added, "What's most needed is for them to keep their commitments." No initiatives have been announced, however, to scale back the prosecution of the Washington DC's massive drug enforcement/prison program.

The full text of "Facing Facts: Drugs and the Future of Washington, DC" is available on the Drug Strategies web site at http://www.drugstrategies.org.

3. Heroin in Australia: A Conversation with Brian McConnell of Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform

An escalating heroin problem and an attendant rise in overdose deaths have put the drug policy debate center stage in Australia. Alongside tragic stories of young, and increasingly rural people dead from overdoses, the Australian newspapers are filled with angry and frustrated letters to the editors, editorials and political opinions about the right course of action. Last year, a move by public health officials to implement a heroin prescription experiment similar to Switzerland's made it as far as the first trial phase before it was quashed by Prime Minister John Howard, after US State Department officials reportedly threatened to close down Tasmania's pharmaceutical opiate industry in retaliation. Earlier this year, Mr. Howard invited FBI head Louis Freeh to Australia to make the case for American-style zero tolerance drug policies.

But harm reduction advocates say the battle is far from lost, and point to a range of innovative programs springing up in states and territories across the country. In Queensland, for example, clinical trials are underway for Naltrexone, an opiate-receptor blocking drug that has enjoyed some success in Europe. In New South Wales, a small drug court is in the first stages of a scientific study. In several states, first time drug offenders are now given the option of treatment instead of jail. And Michael Moore, Health Minister for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has waged a very public battle with Prime Minister Howard to re-launch the heroin prescription program, and to set up "safe injection rooms" where addicts can find clean needles, access to health care and counseling, and learn about treatment options.

To get a better grasp of these developments, the Week Online spoke with Moore and with Brian McConnell, president and a founding member of Family and Friends for Drug Law Reform (FFDLR). This week we present our conversation with Mr. McConnell, who became involved with drug law reform after his son died of a heroin overdose.

WOL: How has the tenor of the drug policy debate in Australia changed over the past few years?

MCCONNELL: When Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform was formed in 1995, there was virtually no discussion of heroin as a problem. But since that time, people are more concerned about the overdose deaths. In Victoria, they have a very good system from the coroner's records of the overdose deaths, and they can tally the number of deaths very quickly, so you don't have to wait a year or two before you get the results. One of the newspapers in Victoria is running a tally of overdose deaths to road deaths, and right now they are running neck in neck. And the debate is now more robust. People are putting forward more thoughtful suggestions for how it might be dealt with. Around the time the Premieres' conference was going on [a national conference of state and territorial leaders, at which heroin policy was a hot topic this year], for that weekend and Monday papers, we had a hundred and twenty-four pages of clippings about heroin trials from newspapers from around Australia.

WOL: What influence has the US had on drug policy?

MCCONNELL: By and large we seem to be tied to US policies, and I think that is largely due to our Prime Minister. Rather than call on experts that have some evidence with success, he called on the FBI for advice on what to do. Now, to say the least, that's curious. There is no evidence that the FBI has done anything that's been successful in this area. He is also keen on the zero tolerance in New York and was keen on it with no facts, no figures. And zero tolerance is a city jurisdiction and not the FBI's, so that's curious as well.

WOL: What can be done by the federal Commonwealth government in terms of legislation?

MCCONNELL: Drug issues are basically a state responsibility -- outside of customs and border patrol type activities. It is the customs end of it that is preventing a heroin trial from taking place. But a lot of work can be done without touching the legislation, much of it in the policy area. Here in the ACT, my son's death is directly attributable to the police being involved when he first overdosed. The paramedics and police took him to hospital. When he awoke the police were at the end of his bed. He was frightened and discharged himself and went on a hurried holiday. Two weeks later he was dead. The police in the ACT and in many other states don't chase ambulances for overdoses anymore, unless there is another reason. That puts it clearly in the health arena.

WOL: Where does public opinion stand on heroin trials?

MCCONNELL: In the ACT, support for heroin trials is marginally over fifty percent, with four to six percent undecided, and its been that way for awhile now. What has changed is the opinion in the rest of Australia. Back in 1996, those in favor nationally were at about thirty-five percent, but it has now gone up to forty six percent. In Victoria, a state where the Premiere and his government are supportive of a trial and where there has been positive press, the percentage in favor has exceeded fifty percent.

WOL: What has changed people's minds?

MCCONNELL: What has turned some public opinion around is when people like myself and others have come out and said my son or daughter died of a heroin overdose, and they didn't have two heads, they weren't living in the gutter. They were intelligent and well educated and had a job and all those sorts of things. Here we are as a family and we are trying to do something about it and we would like to prevent this from happening in the future. It's a turnaround in the debate and in some people's minds.

But it's still not far enough to do something. We are only in the debate stage. We've got some action happening because we are researching other treatment options. We're certainly not as progressive as European countries because there is still a stigma and a marginalization for drug users here. A lot of the calls for changes to the drug laws and the ways policies are administered are coming from the police. The politicians are the last ones to come along.

(Visit Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform on the web at http://www.adca.org.au/ffdlr/. Next week, our conversation with ACT Health Minister Michael Moore.)

4. North Dakota Becomes First State to Legalize Hemp Cultivation

(from the NORML Weekly News, http://www.norml.org)

April 22, 1999, Bismarck, ND: Governor Ed Schafer (R) signed legislation Saturday allowing local farmers to "plant, grow, harvest, possess, sell, and buy industrial hemp." North Dakota is the first state to remove criminal penalties for hemp cultivation.

House Bill 1428 reclassifies hemp containing no more than three-tenths of one percent THC as a legal commercial crop, and allows licensed farmers to grow it. The House and Senate overwhelmingly approved the measure before the governor signed it. The Legislature commissioned a study two years ago that determined locally grown hemp could yield profits as high as $141 per acre.

North Dakota's new regulations are modeled closely after Canada's, which legalized commercial hemp cultivation last year. Bill sponsor Rep. David Monson (D-Osnabrock) said that local farmers are eager to grow hemp after seeing the crop's economic success north of the border.

Farmers who wish to grow hemp must have no prior criminal history, use certified seeds, and allow random inspections of their crop for THC content. Farmers must pay a minimum $150 fee to apply for a hemp license.

John Howell, CEO of New York City's Hemp Company of America and a plaintiff in a 1998 federal lawsuit to legalize hemp cultivation, said that "the future of hemp in America now looks much, much brighter." He noted that federal permits to grow hemp require applicants to answer whether cultivation is legal in their state. "Until now, every applicant had to check 'no' and applications were denied. Now that Catch-22 cycle has been broken by North Dakota's action."

The Legislature also approved measures allowing university researchers who have federal permission to grow small quantities of hemp, and urging Congress to acknowledge legal distinctions between hemp and marijuana. Twenty-nine nations, including France, England, Germany, Japan, and Australia allow farmers to grow non-psychoactive hemp for its fiber content.

The text of the North Dakota legislation can is online at http://ranch.state.nd.us/LR/text/BILL_INDEX/BI1428.html. More information on state-level legislation can be found online at http://www.norml.org/laws/stateleg1999.html.

5. Oregon Supreme Court to Review Forfeiture as Double Jeopardy

The Oregon Supreme Court recently agreed to review State vs. Selness, which concerns a 1994 marijuana arrest. In that case, the defendant's home was forfeited along with his receiving jail time. The defendant claims that his punishment was unconstitutional, on the grounds that it was a case of double jeopardy.

The United States Constitution protects citizens from double jeopardy: being punished for the same offense twice. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that civil forfeiture is not a punishment, and therefore does not constitute double jeopardy. The Oregon State Constitution has a wider view on double jeopardy, however, and the Oregon Supreme Court has never previously ruled on civil forfeiture as a form of punishment, leaving the possibility that the court may rule in favor of the defendant.

One day prior to the Court's agreement to review State vs. Selness, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned a previous ruling in a lower court that stated that the practice of excluding drug offenders from certain neighborhoods prior to sentencing is double jeopardy.

(Visit Forfeiture Endangers American Rights, online at http://www.fear.org, for much more information about asset forfeiture. The Cato Institute is sponsoring a half-day conference, "Forfeiture Reform: Now, or Never?", on May 3, 9:00am - 1:30pm, Washington, DC, featuring US Rep. Henry J. Hyde, ACLU's Ira Glasser, and others. For further information, visit http://www.cato.org/events/ccs99/ on the web, call (202)218-4633 or e-mail [email protected].

6. BOOK: NO Equal Justice, Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System

In recent months, various criminal justice policies and practices, and the racially disparate impacts they produce, have begun to come to the fore of public attention. Last week DRCNet reported that Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) had reintroduced the Traffic Stops Statistics Act, and had introduced legislation to end felony disenfranchisement (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/087.html#profiling and http://www.drcnet.org/wol/087.html#disenfranchisement). Five weeks ago, we reported that Rep. Charges Rangel had introduced legislation to reduce sentences for crack cocaine offenses to the level of powder cocaine sentences (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/083.html#rangel).

"NO Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System," by Georgetown University law professor David Cole, analyzes the nature and extent of racial disparities in the criminal justice system and the dynamics that contribute to them. Cole puts forward overwhelming evidence that not only do disparities exist, but the problem extends from the bottom of the system (cops on the beat habitually using racial profiles) to the top (a Supreme Court that has set unattainable standards for invoking protections against racial discrimination).

Cole doesn't attribute the disparities to deliberate racism, but rather to the unavoidable tension between law enforcement efficiency and constitutional rights. Rather than staking out a consistent position for balancing these two concerns, Cole argues, police forces and the courts have picked two different points on the spectrum -- one for the majority and another for minorities. The majority, then, doesn't pay the cost of the policies that it enacts -- a cost measured in disparate police searches, no-knock warrants, convictions and incarceration rates.

One of the reasons disparity in searches exists is that courts have given police an astonishingly free hand in conducting them. On pages 48-49, Cole lists drug courier "profiles" that drug enforcement agents have presented as "probable cause" for conducting searches:

arrived late at night
arrived early in the morning
arrive in afternoon
one of first to deplane
one of last to deplane
deplaned in the middle
purchased ticket at airport
made reservation on short notice
bought coach ticket
bought first-class ticket
used one-way ticket
used round-trip ticket
paid for ticket with cash
paid for ticket with small denomination currency
paid for ticket with large denomination current
made local telephone call after deplaning
made long-distance telephone call after deplaning
pretended to make telephone call
traveled from New York to Los Angeles
traveled to Houston
carried no luggage
carried brand-new luggage
carried a small bag
carried a medium-sized bag
carried two bulky garment bags
carried two heavy suitcases
carried four pieces of luggage
overly protective of luggage
disassociated self from luggage
traveled alone
traveled with a companion
acted too nervous
acted too calm
made eye contact with officer
avoided making eye contact with officer
wore expensive clothing and gold jewelry
dressed casually
went to restroom after deplaning
walked quickly through airport
walked slowly through airport
walked aimlessly through airport
left airport by taxi
left airport by limousine
left airport by private car
left airport by hotel courtesy van
suspect was Hispanic
suspect was black female

Cole goes on to argue that while the majority doesn't pay the cost of the criminal justice policies that it passes, over time those costs come home in the form of decreased respect for law and unwillingness to cooperate with the system, leading to a diminished ability to control crime and heightened social danger for all.

(Buy "NO Equal Justice" online -- just point your browser to http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565844734/drcnet/ and follow the instructions, and DRCNet will earn 15% of what you spend on the book! Or ask for "NO Equal Justice" at your local bookstore.)

7. REPORT: In Search of a New Ethic for Treating Patients with Chronic Pain

An article in last week's issue, "Doctor's Undertreatment of Pain Draws Penalty," discussed the issue of pain treatment and the war on drugs, surrounding the Oregon Board of Medical Examiner's decision to take disciplinary action against a physician for the undertreatment of pain, possibly the first medical board in U.S. history to take such a step. (See http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/pain.html for a general discussion of the impact of the drug war on pain treatment, and visit http://www.drcnet.org/wol/087.html#undertreatment for last week's article.)

A report published in the Winter 1998 issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics examines the "ethic of underprescribing" and steps that states and boards have taken to begin to reverse it. Author Ann Martino concludes that underprescribing for pain is the norm or prevailing standard, and describes three principles that contribute to the underprescribing ethic:

1. Just Say No -- a generalized fear of narcotics and addiction, known as opiophobia, on the part of both physicians and patients. Martino writes, "Opiophobia has been heightened in recent years by the rhetoric accompanying the government's War on Drugs. One of the central tactics in the War on Drugs has been to focus broadly on the horrors of addiction in media campaigns and anti-drug and prevention programs, without drawing distinctions between drug dependency and abuse or types of addictive drugs. It is thus not surprising that many patients fear that taking any drug in large doses for relatively long periods of time will cause addiction." Additionally, doctors who do treat pain aggressively often face the threat of investigation by medical boards or the DEA, a circumstance that can ruin the careers of doctors, even when cleared. Hence, internal values and external consequences contribute to the Just Say No ethic in pain treatment.

2. Grin and Bear It -- the conception of pain as a moral good that builds character or an inevitability that should simply be endured. Martino writes, "[A]lthough it is hard to imagine that anyone who regularly engages in the practice of chronic pain management would purposefully deny relief to a patient experiencing unrelenting pain, the available empirical evidence clearly shows that it happens all the time."

3. Avoid Risks –- the decision or tendency to not prescribe pain medication in adequate quantities, knowing that doing so can result in trouble with medical boards, insurers or enforcers. "The be investigated or sanctioned by a board could result in a loss of stature, reputation, institutional privileges, or access to insurance panels, even if no restrictions or limitations are imposed on the license to practice."

Martino discusses why efforts states have made at regulatory relief, including Intractable Pain Treatment Acts by legislatures and pain treatment guidelines by boards, have not yet succeeded changing the opiophobic climate in pain treatment. The report, titled "In Search of a New Ethic for Treating Patients with Chronic Pain: What Can Medical Boards Do?," includes illustrative quotes from doctors, pharmacists, patients and family members, as well as a chart listing the many causes of underprescribing. It can be ordered purchased for $10, including postage, from the American Society for Law, Medicine & Ethics, 765 Commonwealth Ave., 16th Floor, Boston, MA 02215, (617) 262-4990, [email protected], http://www.aslme.org.

To learn more about the pain issue and find out how to get help or get involved, visit the American Society for Action on Pain at http://www.actiononpain.org. (Use http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/asap/index.htm temporarily if you get an error message.)

8. Seminar in NYC, Friday, 5/28

Bridging the Gap: Creating a Continuum of Care for Drug Users, Friday, May 28, 1-5pm, hosted by Mount Sinai Hospital, co-sponsored by The Statewide Black & Puerto Rican/Latino Substance Abuse Task Force, The Harm Reduction Coalition, The Harm Reduction Care Network of New York, and the Mount Sinai Based HIV Clinical Education Institute. Topics include "Situating the Drug User at the Center to Provide a Continuum of Care" and "Practical Applications of Utilizing Harm Reduction Principles Within a Drug Treatment Setting."

At the Stern Auditorium, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, E. 100th Street & Madison Avenue, NYC. By subway take the 6 train to 96th Street. Stern is in the Annenberg Building on the mezzanine level. Enter Mt. Sinai at the 100th and Madison entrance, go up the stairs, then to your left through the glass doors, and follow the signs to Stern. For further information, contact Ralph Gonzales, (516) 979-7300 ext. 202 or e-mail [email protected].

(Due to staff travel schedules there is no editorial this week. All previous issues of the Week Online, including the editorials, are archived online, and can be accessed at http://www.drcnet.org/wol/archives.html.)

If you like what you see here and want to get these bulletins by e-mail, please fill out our quick signup form at https://stopthedrugwar.org/WOLSignup.shtml.

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank you.

Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Out from the Shadows HEA Drug Provision Drug War Chronicle Perry Fund DRCNet en Español Speakeasy Blogs About Us Home Why Legalization? NJ Racial Profiling Archive Subscribe Donate DRCNet em Português Latest News Drug Library Search special friends links: SSDP - Flex Your Rights - IAL - Drug War Facts StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet) 1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009 Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 [email protected]