¿Usted es un aficionado a la DRCNet y tiene una página web que le gustaría usar para difundir el mensaje con más fuerza que un único enlace a nuestra página puede lograr? Tenemos la satisfacción de anunciar que los feeds de agregación de contenido de DRCNet están disponibles. Tanto si el interés de sus lectores está en el reportaje investigativo como en la Crónica de la Guerra Contra las Drogas, el comentario corriente en nuestros blogs, la información sobre subtópicos específicos de la guerra a las drogas, ahora podemos darles códigos personalizables para que usted los ponga en los lugares adecuados en su blog o página web y actualicen automáticamente los enlaces al contenido de concienciación de DRCNet.

Por ejemplo, si usted es un gran aficionado a la Crónica de la Guerra Contra las Drogas y cree que sus lectores sacarían beneficios de ella, puede tener los titulares de la última edición, o una porción de ellos, apareciendo y actualizándose automáticamente cuando salga cada nueva edición.

Si su página web es dedicada a las políticas de marihuana, puede publicar nuestro archivo temático, con enlaces a todos los artículos que publicamos en nuestra página acerca de la marihuana – los artículos de la Crónica, las publicaciones en los blogs, el listado de eventos, enlaces a noticias externas y más. Lo mismo vale para la reducción de daños, la confiscación de bienes, la violencia del narcotráfico, los programas de trueque de jeringas, Canadá, las iniciativas electorales, casi cien tópicos distintos que rastreamos corrientemente. (Visite la portada de la Crónica, en la columna derecha, para ver la lista actual completa.)

Si a usted le gusta especialmente nuestra nueva sección del Bar Clandestino, hay contenido nuevo todos los días tratando de todas las cuestiones y usted puede poner enlaces a esas publicaciones o a subsecciones del Bar Clandestino.

Haga clic aquí para ver una muestra de lo que está disponible - por favor, fíjese que la extensión, la apariencia y demás detalles de cómo ello aparecerá en su página pueden ser personalizados para adecuarse a sus necesidades y preferencias.

Por favor, fíjese también que estaremos contentos en hacerle más permutas de nuestro contenido disponible bajo pedido (pese a que no podamos prometer cumplimiento inmediato de dichas solicitaciones ya que, en muchos casos, la oportunidad dependerá de la disponibilidad de nuestro diseñador web). Visite nuestro Mapa del Sitio para ver lo que está disponible actualmente – cualquier feed RSS disponible allí también está disponible como feed de javascript para su página web (junto con el feed de la Crónica que no aparece todavía pero que usted puede encontrar en la página de feeds relacionada arriba). Experimente nuestro generador automático de feeds aquí.

Contáctenos si quiere asistencia o infórmenos sobre lo que está relacionando y adónde. Y gracias de antemano por su apoyo.

Si se dan oídos a los rumores en los círculos de la reforma de las políticas de drogas, la Navidad llegó más temprano este año. Para ser preciso, llegó hacia el Día de las Elecciones, cuando los demócratas recobraron el control del Congreso tras 12 largos años al relente. Hay una larga lista de cuestiones relacionadas con la reforma de las políticas de drogas de que el Congreso controlado por los demócratas puede tratar y se espera mucho que, tras una docena de años de imperio republicano en el Capitolio, el progreso suceda por lo menos en algunas de ellas. Pero, ¿será que el Congreso demócrata resultará ser Papá Noel, dando regalos a un movimiento que estuvo mucho tiempo al relente? o ¿será que resultará ser más como el Grinch, ofreciendo brindis sólo para quitárselos?

el Capitolio de los EE.UU., lado del Senado

La lista de cuestiones de la guerra a las drogas en que el Congreso puede actuar el próximo año es extensa de veras:

• La reforma de las penas – o tratar de la disparidad del polvo y piedra de cocaína o de las mínimas obligatorias o de ambos, y demás reformas;
• La marihuana medicinal, ya sea la enmienda Hinchey-Rohrabacher que impide fondos federales para allanar a pacientes y proveedores en estados en que ella es legal o el proyecto de derechos de los estados a la marihuana medicinal de Barney Frank;
• El Gabinete de Política Nacional de Control de las Drogas (ONDCP – la secretaría antidroga) tiene que ser reautorizado;
• La Ley de Enseñanza Superior [ Higher Education Act (HEA)] y su disposición antidroga tienen que ser reautorizados;
• Quitar las restricciones contra infractores de la legislación antidroga de vales de alimentación, vivienda pública y demás servicios sociales;
• El proyecto de apropiaciones de Washington, DC, en que el Congreso ha impedido el Distrito de promulgar programas de cambio de jeringas o una ley de marihuana medicinal aprobada por los electores;
• El Plan Colombia;
• La guerra en Afganistán y las políticas antiopio de los EE.UU.;
• La crisis del dolor y la guerra contra los terapeutas del dolor;
• La legislación sobre la reinserción de los presos, particularmente la Ley de la Segunda Oportunidad [Second Chance Act];
• Los allanamientos de la policía.

Aunque haya optimismo en los círculos de reforma de las políticas de drogas, está moderado por una dosis saludable de realismo. El Congreso es un lugar en que es notoriamente difícil hacer (o deshacer) una ley y aunque parte del nuevo liderazgo demócrata haya hecho declaraciones simpáticas sobre ciertas cuestiones, la reforma de las políticas de drogas no es exactamente una cuestión de alta visibilidad. Falta ver si los congresistas demócratas decidirán usar sus recursos políticos avanzando una pauta que puede ser atacada como “indulgente con las drogas” o “indulgente con la criminalidad”. Pero, de acuerdo con uno de los observadores más astutos del Capitolio del movimiento, algunos “frutos bajos” pueden estar al alcance de la mano el próximo año.

“Algunas de las cosas más fáciles de lograr en el nuevo Congreso serán la prohibición de auxilio a estudiantes con delitos de drogas de la HEA, porque los demócratas tendrán que lidiar con la reautorización de la HEA, y la prohibición del acceso al TANF (Auxilio Temporal a las Familias Necesitadas) para vivienda pública, porque tendrán que tratar de la reforma de la previdencia social”, dijo Bill Piper, director de asuntos nacionales de la Drug Policy Alliance. “También hay la oportunidad de revocar dispositivos en el proyecto de apropiaciones de DC que impiden los cambios de jeringas y la marihuana medicinal. Estos son los frutos bajos”.

Para Piper, hay la oportunidad de ver movimiento en una segunda fila de cuestiones, incluso la marihuana medicinal, la reforma de las penas y las políticas para Latinoamérica. “¿Podemos recibir los votos para aprobar la [enmienda] Hinchey-Rohrabacher en la Cámara y pasarla al Senado?” preguntó. “También hay una buena oportunidad de cambiar completamente la manera por la cual tratamos de Latinoamérica. Podemos presenciar un cambio en la financiación de los militares a programas de tipo sociedad civil y de la erradicación a la sustitución de cultivos" dijo. “Además, hay buenas chances de reforma de las penas. ¿Los demócratas pueden llegar a un acuerdo con el Sen. Sessions (R-AL) y otros republicanos sobre la disparidad piedra-polvo? o ¿será que van a intentar jugar a la política y retratar a los demócratas como si fueran indulgentes con la criminalidad? ¿Bush la vetaría si fuera aprobada?”

Claramente, a esta altura, hay más preguntas que respuestas. Pero, el terreno político ha cambiado, observó Piper. “Ya no estamos en la defensa”, debatió. “Ahora, no tenemos que lidiar con gente como Souder y Sensenbrenner y todos sus proyectos idiotas. Esto nos deja en una posición muy buena. Por primera vez en 12 años, podemos ir a la ofensiva. Y, completamente diferente de doce años atrás, los demócratas que controlarán los comités fundamentales son muy, muy buenos. Ésta es probablemente la primera vez desde los años 1980 que la reforma de las políticas de drogas ha estado en posición de pasar a la ofensiva”.

Los diputados simpatizantes de la reforma de la legislación sobre las drogas asumirán cargos fundamentales en el próximo Congreso, liderados por el Dip. John Conyers (D-MI), que será el futuro presidente del crucial Comité Judiciario de la Cámara. Quien va a reemplazar al autor de la disposición antidroga de la HEA e importante guerrero antidroga del Congreso, el Dip. Mark Souder (R-IN), como presidente del importante Subcomité de Justicia Criminal, Políticas de Drogas y Recursos Humanos del Comité de Reforma Gubernamental será o el Dip. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) o el Dip. Danny Davis (D-IL) – la designación aún no está establecida –, en tanto que el Dip. Bobby Scott (D-VA) presidirá el Subcomité de Criminalidad, Terrorismo y Seguridad Nacional del Comité Judiciario, un subcomité de suma importancia cuando se trata de la reforma de las penas.

Aunque sea demasiado temprano para lograr compromisos firmes de los presidentes de comités sobre audiencias el próximo año, un vocero del Dip. Conyers le dijo a la Crónica de la Guerra Contra las Drogas que la reforma de las condenas está definitivamente en discusión. “Por supuesto que el Congresista Conyers está interesado en estas cuestiones, él ha sido bien franco sobre esto y es algo de que tratará, pero no hemos creado nuestra pauta y aún no tenemos una agenda”, dijo el vocero del Comité Judiciario de la Cámara, Jonathan Godfried. “Pero, esto definitivamente será una cuestión para el comité”, añadió.

Conyers y el nuevo Congreso demócrata pueden aún no haber establecido sus pautas, pero el movimiento pro reforma de las políticas de drogas seguramente lo ha hecho, y la reforma de las penas, ya sea a través del trato de la disparidad en las condenas para el polvo-piedra de cocaína, ya sea mediante un ataque general contra el esquema federal de las sentencias mínimas obligatorias, es el blanco central. Quizá previsiblemente, muchos reformadores importantes dijeron que tratar de la disparidad entre la piedra y el polvo no era suficiente.

“Ha habido mucha discusión sobre eliminar la disparidad de las penas para la piedra y el polvo de cocaína o aun sobre quitar la definición de piedra de las normas completamente”, dijo el director ejecutivo de DRCNet, David Borden.”Claro, nosotros lo apoyamos, pero también esperamos que las propias sentencias mínimas obligatorias y las normas de condenación sean abordadas. Son problemas mucho más grandes, que afectan a mucho más gente que una parte polémica, pero pequeña de ellas. Puede ser que apenas pequeños cambios sean posibles a esta altura, aun con nuestros mejores amigos del Congreso en cargos importantes. No obstante, la oportunidad debería ser aceptada para alzar las cuestiones generales sobre las penas, organizarse en torno de ellas, construir el apoyo, atraer a los defensores de proyectos de revocación de las mínimas obligatorias, todas las cosas que acompañan cualquier campaña legislativa - ¿hay un momento mejor que éste?”

“Aunque seguramente favorezcamos la reforma de la disparidad entre piedra y polvo de cocaína, necesitamos parar de pensar pequeño”, dijo Julie Stewart, directora ejecutiva de Families Against Mandatory Minimums. “Necesitamos examinar la reforma de las penas como un todo. Vamos a pedir legislación para tratar de la disparidad piedra-polvo, pero también vamos a pedir audiencias sobre la abrogación de las sentencias mínimas obligatorias”, dijo. “Si podemos lograrlas es otra cuestión, pero ya es hora de pedir el cielo”.

Los sentimientos de Stewart fueron repetidos y amplificados por Nora Callahan, directora ejecutiva de The November Coalition, un grupo de reforma de las políticas de drogas que se concentra en conquistar la libertad para los presos federales de la guerra a las drogas. “Lo que necesitamos es un proyecto abarcador de criminalidad”, dijo Callahan. “De otro modo, vamos a seguir destrozando esto durante las próximas cinco décadas. Un proyecto general abriría la puerta para ampliar las audiencias en que podremos lidiar con una miríada de efectos negativos de la guerra a las drogas, de la reclusión de enormes números de personas a privar a estudiantes de préstamos y a los pobres de vivienda y demás beneficios federales, y de la corrupción policíaca a la violencia policíaca. Si intentamos tratar de todos estos problemas uno por uno, la población penal habrá doblado de nuevo cuando lo terminemos”.

Por supuesto, la reforma de las penas no es la única cuestión sobre la cual los activistas van a hacer presión el año que viene. La marihuana medicinal sigue en la pauta, con el esfuerzo más intenso girando probablemente alrededor de la enmienda Hinchey-Rohrabacher, que impediría el uso de fondos federales para allanar a pacientes y proveedores en estados en que ella es legal. “Vamos a buscar protecciones considerables para los pacientes de marihuana medicinal”, dijo Aaron Houston, director de relaciones gubernamentales en el Marijuana Policy Project. “Juzgaremos el progreso por hasta que punto los pacientes pueden usar el remedio que más les ayuda sin temor de arresto o proceso federal. Necesitamos reformas considerables, no algunas que parezcan considerables pero no son, como la reclasificación”, añadió.

“Nuestras prioridades legislativas en el pasado han sido la Hinchey-Rohrabacher, el proyecto de derechos de los estados a la marihuana medicinal y la Ley Verdad en los Juicios [ Truth in Trials Act], que permitiría la defensa afirmativa en tribunal federal”, dijo Houston. “De éstas, esperamos poder aprobar la enmienda Hinchey. El año pasado, tuvimos 167 votos y conquistamos a 19 nuevos miembros en Noviembre que creemos que nos apoyan. Y cuando el Presidente elegido Pelosi asuma en Enero, será la primera vez que tendremos un fuerte defensor de la marihuana medicinal al mando de la Cámara de los Diputados”.

Aquellos números son alentadores, pero aún no son suficientes para vencer. Son necesarios 218 votos para alcanzar la mayoría en la Cámara si todos votan.

Y como observó Piper de la DPA arriba, el proyecto de reautorización de la HEA el próximo año debería ser una buena oportunidad para derribar el dispositivo antidroga de Souder de una vez por todas. “Tenemos una tremenda oportunidad aquí con los demócratas asumiendo el control y decidiendo cual legislación sigue adelante”, dijo Tom Angell, director de comunicación del Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). “El Dip. George Miller (D-CA) presidirá el Comité Laboral de la Educación de la Cámara y es un codefensor de la Ley RISE. Además, como uno de nuestros mayores simpatizantes, el Dip. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), está listo para presidir el subcomité que trata de la enseñanza superior, que es donde la Ley RISE está ahora”.

Pero Andrews puede no terminar con la presidencia, avisó Angell. “Él es defensor de las facultades con fines lucrativos y al liderazgo demócrata no le gusta eso, entonces podría no lograrla”, dijo.

“A nosotros nos gustaría revocar la disposición antidroga de la HEA y creemos que eso es posible en el nuevo Congreso”, dijo Borden de la DRCNet. “Simplemente no hay mucha pasión de muchos congresistas para mantener la disposición, aun entre aquellos que han votado para eso. A nosotros nos gustaría tener leyes para revocar disposiciones similares en la legislación sobre el bienestar y la vivienda pública – tenemos una coalición de más de 250 organizaciones que se han inscrito para revocar el dispositivo antidroga de la HEA y activar esa rede y construirla para asumir más cuestiones está definitivamente en nuestra pauta”.

La Ley RISE (Quitando Impedimentos a la Educación de los Estudiantes) revocaría la disposición antidroga de la Ley de Enseñanza Superior [Higher Education Act (HEA)], la meta fundamental del SSDP en el Congreso. Aunque Angell estuviera optimista respecto de las perspectivas en el próximo Congreso, también estaba buscando indicios prematuros. “La presentación del proyecto, el número de codefensores y los nombres más importantes por tras de ello serán un buen indicio de la probabilidad de revocación de la pena”, dijo. “Espero que eso pase a principios de la sesión. Tuvimos 84 reuniones de presión en el Capitolio durante nuestra conferencia anual el mes pasado y vamos a acompañarlas y trabajar de cerca con el personal del comité de educación”.

Pero, revocar la disposición antidroga de la HEA no es la única meta del SSDP en el Capitolio, dijo Angell. “Esperamos trabajar con la DPA y el MPP para reducir o eliminar la financiación para la campaña mediática del ONDCP y trabajaremos para reducir o eliminar la financiación para las subvenciones a los exámenes toxicológicos de estudiantes”, explicó. “Además de la HEA, ésas son nuestras cuestiones de mayor importancia”.

Un tema que ha surgido como tópico caliente en las últimas semanas es el tema de la violencia policíaca. Con el asesinato de la ciudadana mayor de Atlanta, Kathryn Johnston, en un allanamiento antidroga “inadvertido” y la matanza del residente de la Ciudad de Nueva York, Sean Bell, unos cuantos días después en un tiroteo con más de 50 disparos hechos por los oficiales de la Policía de Nueva York, la violencia policíaca está en el candelero. Esta semana, el activista de los derechos civiles y el ex candidato a presidencia, el Rev. Al Sharpton, pidió audiencias sobre la cuestión en el Congreso. Sharpton dijo que ya ha estado en contacto con el Dip. Conyers sobre la posibilidad.

A Borden de la DRCNet también le gustaría ver algo así. “A nosotros nos gustaría presenciar acciones para refrenar a estas fuerzas policíacas paramilitares y no tener equipos de la SWAT derribando las puertas de la gente en plena noche cuando no hay una situación de emergencia. Creo que debería haber audiencias en el Congreso, bien como en las legislaturas estaduales, con las víctimas de los allanamientos antidrogas mal ejecutados desempeñando papeles importantes, así como con los expertos de la policía, de los derechos civiles y afines. Estamos pensando en lanzar una petición para todo esto”, dijo.

Entonces, hay la guerra a las drogas de los EE.UU. en el extranjero. Con el Plan Colombia a punto de adentrar en su séptimo año y con el flujo estable de la cocaína a pesar de harta fumigación aérea de herbicidas, los demócratas del Congreso buscarán cortar o reasignar el gasto estadounidense para dar énfasis al desarrollo en vez de enfatizar la guerra contra las drogas. Y pese a que el Congreso no se haya agarrado con las contradicciones serias e inherentes a hacer la guerra contra la amapola al mismo tiempo que busca hacer la guerra contra el terror en Afganistán, los hechos sugestionan que será incapaz de seguir ignorándolas.

Éste debe ser un año de cambios en nuestras políticas de drogas en el extranjero, dijo Borden de la DRCNet. “A nosotros nos gustaría presenciar el paro de los programas de erradicación de la coca y de la amapola. Son inútiles; todo lo que hacen es mudar el cultivo de un lugar a otro”, observó. “En Afganistán, eso está llevando las personas a los brazos del Talibán en busca de protección y eso es desastroso para nuestros intereses nacionales y potencialmente para la seguridad global. Hay planes creíbles en vista, de la ONU, de otros cuerpos internacionales y de expertos en el sector sin fines lucrativos, que no se fían en la erradicación; vamos a examinarlos”.

Borden también instó al Congreso a tratar de la crisis en el tratamiento del dolor en el contexto de la guerra del gobierno contra el abuso de drogas prescriptibles y los procesos de los terapeutas del dolor. “Por último, algo debe ser hecho en lo tocante a los procesos criminales de los terapeutas del dolor”, dijo. “Creo que la ley en esta área ha sido fundamentalmente afectada. Conyers ha dado su apoyo a trabajos importantes que están siendo hechos en esta área. Ahora está en posición de hacer más presión”.

Los reformadores de las políticas de drogas tienen una agenda ocupadísima para el Congreso para los dos próximos años. Los demócratas del Congreso han dicho que están interesados en las reformas; ahora que estarán en el poder, veremos si hacen lo que dicen y tendremos la oportunidad de aguijonearlos a actuar.

December 8, 1929: Col. Levi G. Nutt, Head of the Narcotics Division of the US Treasury Dept., declares, "I'd rather see my children up against a wall and see them shot down before my eyes than to know that any one of them was going to be a drug slave."

December 11, 1942: The Opium Poppy Control Act is enacted, making possession of the opium poppy plant or seeds illegal.

December 12, 1981: The report of the Task Force on Cannabis Regulation to the Center for the Study of Drug Policy -- Regulation and Taxation of Cannabis Commerce is issued, reading "It has been observed that marijuana is one of the largest tax-exempt industries in the country today and regulation would end that exemption."

December 12, 1995: Director Lee P. Brown announces his resignation as head of the US Office of National Drug Control Policy.

December 13, 1995: In response to a December 1 rally held outside the offices of Boston radio station WBCN to protest the airplay of the NORML benefit CD Hempilation, the National Writers Union and the Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression issue statements condemning the actions of rally organizers, the Governor's Alliance Against Drugs (GAAD). Both groups are highly critical of the overall nature of the protest and specifically of the alleged use of state power and finances to help institute the rally. Reports note that protesters arrived in state vehicles, attendees were encouraged to "bring their squad cars," and an individual identified as a Boston liaison to the DEA accompanied Georgette Wilson, Executive Director of the GAAD, as she entered the station. "These sort of actions, when performed [and sponsored] by government agents, are specifically [prohibited] by law," charges Bill Downing, president of NORML's Massachusetts chapter.

December 14, 2001: While signing a new anti-drug bill that expands the Drug-Free Communities Support Program, President George W. Bush makes his first official mention that the Administration would begin leveraging its political successes with the War on Terrorism back into the War on Drugs when he says "If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terrorism… It's so important for Americans to know that the traffic in drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists, that terrorists use drug profits to fund their cells to commit acts of murder."

December 9, 2002: The Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on Non-medical Use of Drugs releases reports that call for safe injection sites, pilot heroin maintenance programs, decriminalization of cannabis, among other reforms.

December 13, 2002: A disabled, deaf, wheelchair-bound British charity worker returns home after spending two years in a primitive Indian prison after being found guilty of trafficking drugs even though it was a physical impossibility. Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trials Abroad, described the case against him as absurd. "There are things that just scream out to you," he said. "I have never actually been presented with a case where the guy is physically incapable of acting in the manner suggested by police."

December 9, 2004: Rep. Barney Frank keynotes DRCNet Foundation's John W. Perry Fund reception in Boston, MA, delivering a humorous yet passionate address. He says repeal could be achieved, even in a Republican-controlled Congress, if his bill to do just that could actually get to the floor. He mentions, "This issue is ripe… My colleagues in Congress are ready to move on this and other issues." Also addressing larger national drug policy, Frank notes, "The damage done by this mindless assault on drug users is a terrible, terrible problem."

December 13, 2004: Hungary's Constitutional Court restricts the use of diversion to drug treatment for some drug offenders, narrowing the scope of reform legislation enacted in 2003. In so doing, it also explicitly rejects an argument that the laws against drug possession are unconstitutional.

Phillip S. Smith, Writer/Editor, Drug War Chronicle

The grand old man of American drug reform is at it again. Retired American University professor and head of the International Antiprohibitionist League Arnold Trebach returns to the fray with "Fatal Distraction," and a fine addition to the literature it is. While the book is a reworking of his contribution to the 1993 pro-and-con "Legalize It? Debating American Drug Policy" (with James Inciardi), Trebach has greatly expanded that material and includes much that is new. In doing so, he has created what is in essence a primer for ending drug prohibition.

Drug reform groups that refuse to embrace ending prohibition, who are afraid to say the word "legalization," are part of the problem, Trebach declares. For reformers today to avoid calling directly for full legalization is to Trebach analogous to "the Abolitionist movement of the 1800s having worked not to free the slaves, but to provide better housing and health care for them." Like slavery, Trebach notes, drug prohibition is "a true evil institution, one that needs destroying -- not improving."

Trebach spends about the first third of "Fatal Distraction" demonstrating just how and how horribly drug prohibition has failed, and as he does so, he takes the reader on a guided tour of the drug war, from the bloody streets of our inner cities to our overflowing prisons, from the damage done to the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution to the inherently corrupting asset forfeiture laws, from the crisis in pain relief to the mini-concentration camps masquerading as drug treatment centers for our kids. To all of this, Trebach brings decades of experience, observation, and thoughtful pondering, and he builds a devastating case against prohibition.

Much of Trebach's argument and many of his examples will be familiar to serious students of drugs and drug policy, but Trebach's comprehensive vision helps bring the convoluted mass of intersecting issues around drug policy into clear focus. It also helps that Trebach presents his material in easily digested, bite-sized chunks of three or four or five pages.

But, as "Fatal Distraction's" subtitle -- "The War on Drugs in the Age of Islamic Terror" -- suggests, Trebach has more on his mind that simply ending drug prohibition. Obviously deeply affected by the September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, Trebach argues that the war on Islamic fundamentalist violence is so critical to America's future that continuing to divert energy and resources into the war on drugs could threaten our very existence.

Arnold Trebach

Nevertheless, while the theme of fighting Islamic terrorism appears sporadically throughout "Fatal Distraction," most of that material appears within a handful of chapters near the end of the book. Perhaps its presence will get some new people to think about the drug laws who haven't done so before. The remainder of "Fatal Distraction" -- the distillation of a life's work in the trenches of drug law reform -- makes this a book grizzled reformers and bright-eyed newcomers to the cause alike will want to read and absorb.

RSS feeds are the wave of the future -- and DRCNet now offers them! The latest Drug War Chronicle issue is now available using RSS at http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/feed online.

We have many other RSS feeds available as well, following about a hundred different drug policy subtopics that we began tracking since the relaunch of our web site this summer -- indexing not only Drug War Chronicle articles but also Speakeasy blog posts, event listings, outside news links and more -- and for our daily blog postings and the different subtracks of them. Visit our Site Map page to peruse the full set.

Thank you for tuning in to DRCNet and drug policy reform!

To hear the buzz in drug reform circles, Christmas came early this year. To be precise, it arrived on Election Day, when the Democrats took back control of the Congress. There is a whole long list of drug reform-related issues that the Democratically-controlled Congress can address, and hopes are high that after a dozen years of Republican rule on Capitol Hill, progress will come on at least some of them. But will the Democratic Congress really turn out to be Santa Claus, bestowing gifts on a movement long out in the cold, or will it turn out more like the Grinch, offering up tantalizing glimpses of the goodies only to snatch them away?

US Capitol, Senate side

The list of drug war issues where Congress could act next year is indeed lengthy:

• Sentencing reform -- whether addressing the crack-powder cocaine disparity or mandatory minimums or both, and other reforms;
• Medical marijuana, either through the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment barring federal funds to raid patients and providers in states where it is legal or Barney Frank's states' rights to medical marijuana bill;
• The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP -- the drug czar's office) is up for reauthorization;
• The Higher Education Act (HEA) and its drug provision are up for reauthorization;
• Removing drug offender restrictions from food stamp, public housing, and other social services;
• The Washington, DC, appropriations bill, where Congress has barred the District from enacting needle exchange programs and a voter-approved medical marijuana law;
• Plan Colombia;
• The war in Afghanistan and US anti-opium policy;
• The pain crisis and the war on pain doctors;
• Prisoner reentry legislation, particularly the Second Chance Act;
• Police raids.

While there is optimism in drug reform circles, it is tempered by a healthy dose of realism. The Congress is a place where it is notoriously difficult to make (or unmake) a law, and while some of the new Democratic leadership has been sympathetic on certain issues, drug reform is not exactly a high-profile issue. Whether congressional Democratic decision-makers will decide to use their political resources advancing an agenda that could be attacked as "soft on drugs" or "soft on crime" remains to be seen. But according to one of the movement's most astute Hill-watchers, some "low-hanging fruit" might be within reach next year.

"Some of the easiest things to achieve in the new Congress will be the HEA ban on aid to students with drug violations, because the Democrats will have to deal with HEA reauthorization, and the ban on access to the TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) to public housing, because they will have to deal with welfare reform," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "There is also a chance of repealing provisions in the DC appropriations bill that bar needle exchanges and medical marijuana. These are the low-hanging fruit."

For Piper, there is also a chance to see movement on a second tier of issues, including medical marijuana, sentencing reform and Latin America policy. "Can we get the votes to pass Hinchey-Rohrabacher in the House and get it to the Senate?" he asked. "There is also a good chance of completely changing how we deal with Latin America. We could see a shift in funding from military to civil society-type programs and from eradication to crop substitution," he said. "Also, there is a good chance on sentencing reform. Can the Democrats strike a deal with Sen. Sessions (R-AL) and other Republicans on the crack-powder disparity, or will they try to play politics and paint the Democrats as soft on crime? Would Bush veto it if it passed?"

Clearly, at this point, there are more questions than answers, and time will tell. But the political ground has shifted, Piper noted. "We are no longer playing defense," he argued. "Now we don't have to deal with folks like Souder and Sensenbrenner and all their stupid bills. This puts us in a really good position. For the first time in 12 years, we get to go on offense. And unlike a dozen years ago, the Democrats who will control the key committees are really, really good. This is probably the first time since the 1980s that drug policy reform has been in a position to go on the offensive."

Representatives sympathetic to drug law reform will fill key positions in the next Congress, led by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who will be the incoming chair of the crucial House Judiciary Committee. Replacing HEA drug provision author and leading congressional drug warrior Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) as chair of the important Government Reform Committee Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources will be either Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) or Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) -- the assignment isn't yet set -- while Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) will chair the Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, the key subcommittee when it comes to sentencing reform.

While it is too early to get firm commitments from committee heads on hearings next year, a spokesman for Rep. Conyers told Drug War Chronicle sentencing reform is definitely on the table. "Congressman Conyers is certainly interested in these issues, he's been quite outspoken on this, and it is something he will address, but we haven't come out with our agenda and we don't have a timeline yet," said House Judiciary Committee press officer Jonathan Godfrey. "But this will definitely be an issue for the committee," he added.

Conyers and the new Democratic Congress may not yet have established their agendas, but the drug reform movement certainly has, and sentencing reform, whether through addressing the crack-powder cocaine sentencing disparity or through a broader assault on the federal mandatory minimum sentencing scheme, is front and center. Perhaps not surprisingly, many leading reformers said addressing the crack-powder disparity was not enough.

"There's been a lot of discussion about eliminating the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, or even removing the definition of crack from the guidelines entirely," said DRCNet executive director Dave Borden. "We of course support that, but we also hope the issue of mandatory minimums themselves, and the sentencing guidelines, are also taken up. Those are far bigger problems, affecting far more people than that one controversial but small piece of them. It may be that only small changes are possible at this time, even with our best Congressional friends in important positions. Nevertheless, the opportunity should be taken to raise the larger sentencing issues, to organize around them, build support, attract cosponsors for mandatory minimum repeal bills, all the things that go with any legislative campaign -- what better time than now?"

"While we of course favor reforming the crack-powder cocaine disparity, we need to stop thinking small," said Julie Stewart, executive director of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. "We need to be looking at sentencing reform as a whole. We will be asking for legislation to address the crack-powder disparity, but we will also be asking for hearings on the repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing," she said. "Whether we can get that is another question, but it's time to ask for the sky."

Stewart's sentiments were echoed and amplified by Nora Callahan, executive director of The November Coalition, a drug reform group that concentrates on winning freedom for federal drug war prisoners. "What we need is an omnibus crime bill," Callahan said. "Otherwise we'll be picking this thing apart for the next five decades. An omnibus bill would open the door to broad hearings where we could address the myriad negative effects of the drug war, from imprisoning huge numbers of people to depriving students of loans and poor people of housing and other federal benefits, and from police corruption to police violence. If we try to deal with all these problems one by one, the prison population will have doubled again by the time we get it done."

Of course, sentencing reform isn't the only drug policy issue activists will be pushing next year. Medical marijuana remains on the agenda, with the biggest push likely to be around the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would bar the use of federal funds to raid patients and providers in states where it is legal. "We will be looking for meaningful protections for medical marijuana patients," said Aaron Houston, director of government relations at the Marijuana Policy Project. "We will judge progress by the extent to which patients can use the medicine that works best for them without fear of federal arrest or prosecution. We need meaningful reforms, not ones that sound meaningful but are not, like rescheduling," he added.

"Our legislative priorities in the past have been Hinchey-Rohrabacher, the states' rights to medical marijuana bill, and the Truth in Trials Act, which would allow for an affirmative defense in federal court," said Houston. "Of these, we expect that we should be able to pass Hinchey. Last year, we had 167 votes, and we picked up 19 new members in November who we think are supportive. And when Speaker-elect Pelosi assumes the gavel in January, it will be the first time we have a strong medical marijuana supporter at the helm of the House of Representatives."

Those numbers are encouraging, but not quite enough to win yet. It takes 218 votes to win a majority in the House if everyone votes.

And as DPA's Piper noted above, the HEA reauthorization bill next year should be a good opportunity to finally kill Souder's drug provision once and for all. "We have a tremendous opportunity here with the Democrats taking control and deciding which legislation moves forward," said Tom Angell, communications director for Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). "Rep. George Miller (D-CA) will chair the House Education Work Force Committee, and he's a cosponsor of the RISE Act. Also, one of our biggest supporters, Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ), is in line to chair the subcommittee that handles higher education, which is where the RISE Act sits right now."

But Andrews may not end up with the chairmanship, Angell warned. "He's a supporter of for-profit colleges, and the Democratic leadership doesn't like that, so he might not get it," he said.

"We'd like to see the HEA drug provision repealed, and we think it's possible in the new Congress," said DRCNet's Borden. "There just isn't a lot of passion from very many members of Congress for keeping the provision, even among those who have voted to do so. We'd like to see legislation to repeal similar provisions in welfare and public housing law -- we have a coalition of over 250 organizations that have signed on to repealing the HEA drug provision, and activating that network and building it to take on more issues is definitely on our agenda."

The RISE (Removing Impediments to Students' Education) Act would repeal the Higher Education Act's (HEA) drug provision, SSDP's key congressional goal. While Angell was optimistic about prospects in the next Congress, he was also looking for early indicators. "The introduction of the bill, the number of cosponsors, and the top names behind it will be a good indication of how likely we are to repeal the penalty," he said. "I'm looking for that to happen early in the session. We had 84 lobbying meetings on Capitol Hill during our annual conference last month, and we will be following up on those and working closely with the staff of the education committee."

But repealing the HEA drug provision isn't SSDP's only goal on Capitol Hill, said Angell. "We are hoping to be working with DPA and MPP to reduce or eliminate funding for the ONDCP media campaign and we will be working to reduce or eliminate funding for student drug testing grants," he explained. "Besides HEA, those are our big issues."

One issue that has emerged as a hot topic in recent weeks is the issue of police violence. With the killing of Atlanta senior citizen Kathryn Johnson in a "no-knock" drug raid and the killing of New York City resident Sean Bell a few days later in a volley of more than 50 shots fired by NYPD officers, policing in America is under the spotlight. Civil rights activist and former presidential candidate the Rev. Al Sharpton called this week for congressional hearings on the issue. Sharpton said he had already been in contact with Rep. Conyers about the possibility.

That's something DRCNet's Borden would like to see, too. "We'd like to see action taken to rein in these paramilitary police forces and not have SWAT teams breaking down people's doors in the middle of the night when there is not an emergency situation. I think there should be hearings in Congress, as well as state legislatures, with victims of bad drug raids playing a prominent role, as well as police experts, civil rights experts, and the like. We are considering launching a petition calling for all of this," he said.

And then there is the US drug war abroad. With Plan Colombia about to enter its seventh year, and the flow of cocaine unabated despite massive aerial spraying of herbicides, congressional Democrats will seek to cut back or redirect US spending to emphasize development instead of drug war. And although Congress has not yet come to grips with the serious contradictions inherent in waging war on poppies at the same time it seeks to wage a war on terror in Afghanistan, facts on the ground suggest it will be unable to continue to ignore them.

This should be a year of change in our drug policy abroad, said DRCNet's Borden. "We'd like to see the coca and opium eradication programs stopped. They are useless; all they do is move the cultivation from place to place," he noted. "In Afghanistan, it's driving people into the arms of the Taliban for protection, and that's disastrous for our national interests and potentially for global security. There are credible plans put forward, by the UN and other international bodies, and by experts in the nonprofit sector, that don't rely on eradication; let's look at those."

Borden also urged Congress to act to address the crisis in pain care in the context of the administration's war on prescription drug abuse and prosecutions of pain doctors. "Last but not least, something must be done about the pain doctor prosecutions," he said. "I believe the law in this area has been fundamentally warped. Conyers has supported important work being done in this area. Now he's in a position to kick it up a notch."

Drug reformers have a mighty busy agenda for Congress in the next two years. Congressional Democrats have said they are interested in reforms; now that they will be in power, we will see if they are as good as their word and we will have the chance to prod them to act.

San Diego Superior Court Judge William Nevitt, Jr. on Wednesday threw out a challenge to California's medical marijuana law, saying there was "no positive conflict" between state and federal law. The ruling came against a lawsuit filed by San Diego County in February and later joined by San Bernardino and Merced counties. County officials in all three jurisdictions were hostile to Proposition 215 (the Compassionate Use Act) and SB 420, which set up a state Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) with a system of county-administered ID cards.

The medical marijuana defense group Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project, and the Drug Policy Alliance jointly intervened to block the lawsuit. It was a September 1 motion argued by ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford that resulted in the favorable ruling.

In his ruling, Judge Nevitt concluded that "neither the Compassionate Use Act nor the MMP is preempted by the Supremacy Clause, by the CSA (Controlled Substances Act), or by the Single Convention." Nevitt also found that, contrary to the arguments by the recalcitrant counties, the voluntary ID card program "does not interfere" with the stated purpose of the Compassionate Use Act, which is to "ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes."

ASA executive director Steph Sherer declared the decision a victory for California's medical marijuana patients. "For the tens of thousands of seriously ill Californians who depend on medical marijuana, this victory could not be more significant," she said. "San Diego Supervisors sought clarification from the courts and now, with this ruling, we encourage San Diego and counties across California to move forward with implementing state law."

Industrial hemp production becomes legal under North Dakota state law as of January 1, making it the first US state to do so. But while the state Agriculture Department is ready to start handing out licenses next month, it cautions potential farmers that they can't actually begin growing hemp until they are licensed by the state and are approved by the federal government.

Given that the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) remains opposed to legalizing the production of the marijuana relative -- the two plants are different cultivars of the cannabis plant, one grown for its oils, seeds, and fibers and the other to get you high -- North Dakota wheat, beet, and soybean farmers probably shouldn't be thinking about switching over anytime soon. That despite the fact that their cousins on the other side of that line in the trackless prairie that marks the US-Canada border in the area are growing it like crazy, sending it across the border, where it can be processed and sold as hemp products, and taking their US dollar profits back home.

In several bills passed since 1999, the North Dakota legislature has approved industrial hemp cultivation. Last month, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem gave his approval to implementing rules crafted by the Agriculture Department, whose head, Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson, has been a leading proponent of the potential new cash crop. On Monday, the rules won final approval in the legislature.

"The administrative rules committee of the Legislative Council has reviewed the rules and has not recommended any changes," Commissioner Johnson said in a press release Monday. "After Jan. 1, 2007, North Dakotans will be able to apply for licenses to grow industrial hemp."

But he also warned that the feds remain an obstacle. "Our rules clearly state that persons who hold licenses to grow industrial hemp must also obtain permission from the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). It will be up to the DEA to allow producers to compete with other countries for the profits from this potentially valuable crop."

Under the North Dakota rules, producers must consent to a criminal background check and document the amount of harvested hemp sold. Their fields must be provided with geopositioning instruments to track their location, and planted hemp seed must contain less than 0.03% THC, the primary psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

Johnson told the Associated Press he had no illusions of hempen hills in North Dakota anytime soon, but that he hoped to pressure the DEA to act. "We'll see where it goes," he said. "Hopefully, North Dakota will be the first state where producers can grow hemp for legitimate uses. Nobody has ever put something like this in front of the DEA," he said. "We want to make industrial hemp happen. We have put these rules together in such an airtight fashion that we know we are not going to have illicit drugs being grown in North Dakota," Johnson said.

The DEA doesn't care. Hemp contains traces of THC and thus falls under the purview of the Controlled Substances Act, DEA Washington spokesman Steve Robertson told the AP. "There is no differentiation between hemp and marijuana," Robertson said. "The regulations for hemp are the same as they are for marijuana." [Ed: Robertson of course is lying -- yes, lying -- the CSA clearly gives DEA the authority to grant hemp growing licenses.]

But perhaps some frustrated North Dakota farmer with a hemp license will take the agency to court. And then perhaps the US can join the list of civilized countries that allow hemp production, with North Dakota in the vanguard.

In a decision issued Tuesday, the US Supreme Court made it easier for some immigrants convicted of drug possession under state laws to avoid deportation. Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, immigrants convicted of an aggravated felony face mandatory deportation. In this case, the court held that even if a conviction for drug possession is considered a felony under state law, if it is not considered a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act, it cannot be an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.

The ruling came in the case of Lopez v. Gonzalez. Jose Antonio Lopez, who was born in Mexico, was a 16-year legal permanent resident of the US with a wife and children and a family business when he was arrested in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and charged with aiding and abetting cocaine possession. Under South Dakota law, that's a felony. Lopez pled guilty and was sentenced to five years in state prison. Upon finishing his prison sentence, he was deported to Mexico in January 2006.

Lopez appealed his deportation by an Immigration and Naturalization Service judge, but in a 2005 opinion, the US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis denied him. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and now Lopez has a chance to come back to his new home in the US.

The ruling came on an 8-1 vote, with Justice Clarence Thomas alone in the dissent.

The Bush administration argued that Congress left the door open to counting such offenses as aggravated felonies, but Justice David Souter, who wrote the opinion, and the court weren't buying it. In a passage where he accused the government of "incoherence," Souter added that "the government's way... would often turn simple possession into trafficking, just what the English language tells us not to expect and that result makes us very wary of the government's position."

With some 12 million permanent resident immigrants living in the country, the Lopez ruling is likely to affect thousands of immigrants with minor drug-related convictions.

Careful readers will have noted that there was no corrupt cops story in Drug War Chronicle last week. That's because we couldn't find any. One of our primary sources, Bad Cop News, had essentially gone silent, and my Google alerts on various drug-related words and phrases had turned up nothing. I appealed to my readers in a blog post on Friday, however, and thanks in part to their responses, we have more corrupt cops stories this week. I have revised and widened my Google alerts, but I'm still calling on readers to send me any local corrupt cops stories they come across. I may have seen them already, but maybe not. Just visit my contact page at http://stopthedrugwar.org/user/psmith and put "corrupt cops" in the subject line to send them along.

This week, it's a veritable potpourri of police misconduct with a heavy emphasis on the larcenous. Let's get to it:

In Chicago, three police officers were charged Monday in a widening probe into allegations Chicago police shook down drug suspects. Officers James McGovern, 40, Frank Villareal, 38, and Margaret Hopkins, 32, all members of the department's special operations section, are charged with official misconduct, and Villareal and Hopkins are also charged with home invasion. Four other Chicago police officers were arrested on similar charges in September. All are accused of robbing, kidnapping, and intimidating drug dealers and using their badges to gain access to homes. So far, the arrests have forced prosecutors to drop more than 100 drug cases.

In Norwalk, Iowa, an assistant fire chief is accused of stealing drugs and covering it up. Assistant Fire Chief Michael Wenger, 41, was arrested last Friday after admitting stealing opiate pain relievers used for EMS calls, including morphine, Tordal, and Fentanyl, and altering logs to hide his thievery. He is charged with fraudulent practices and two counts of possessing a controlled substance. Norwalk, which has been without a fire chief for the past year, now lacks an assistant chief, too.

In Las Vegas, New Mexico, a New Mexico Highlands University security officer has been charged with drug trafficking. Police allege they found cocaine in Officer Michelle Espinoza's purse last week. According to a university spokeswoman, Espinoza, 35, has been placed on leave pending resolution of the case.

In Scranton, Pennsylvania, a Pittston Township police officer was charged in federal court last Friday with felony drug and weapons offenses. Officer Michael Byra, 28, recently testified he had made at least 60 drug busts, but it appears he had problems leaving the evidence alone. He is charged with possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, possession of a firearm during a felony drug trafficking transaction and possession of a stolen firearm. The charges came after the DEA investigated missing evidence -- heroin, cocaine, marijuana, guns, $10,000 in cash, files, and a log book. Byra now faces up to life in prison.

In Ashland, Kentucky, a former state trooper pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges he stole $180,000 from police drug buy funds. Former trooper Louie Podunavac Jr., 41, was a sergeant responsible for the narcotics division in Boyd, Greenup, and Lawrence counties in eastern Kentucky until he retired in July upon being questioned by investigators hunting for missing funds. He admitted in court that he used his access to a state bank account to take money designated for drug buys and transfer it to an account in his own name. Podunavac will be sentenced March 12. He also faces six state charges of fraudulently obtaining a controlled substance. Podunavac's attorney, David Mussetter, explained that Podunavac broke his ankle in 2003, got strung out on Lortab, and stole the money to buy painkillers.

Near Boston, a Malden Police officer was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison on November 15 for ripping-off a drug dealer. Officer David Jordan, a 19-year veteran of the force, participated in a scheme with a local drug dealer to stop a rival dealer and steal three kilograms of cocaine valued at $81,000. Jordan's co-conspirator, Anthony Bucci, 43, of Wakefield, got 22 years the same day.

02 de Dezembro de 1993: O notável narcotraficante Pablo Escobar é caçado e morto pela polícia colombiana que fazia uso de tecnologia estadunidense. No funeral dele dias depois, dezenas de milhares de medelinenses saem para lamentá-lo.

07 de Dezembro de 1993: Durante um discurso no National Press Club, a Cirurgiã-Geral dos EUA, Joycelyn Elders, diz: "Sinto que reduziríamos bastante o nosso índice de criminalidade se as drogas fossem legalizadas, mas não conheço todas as ramificações disto... Sinto que precisamos fazer alguns estudos. Em alguns dos países que legalizaram as drogas, com certeza mostraram que houve uma redução nos seus índices de criminalidade e que não houve nenhum aumento no índice de consumo de drogas”.

03 de Dezembro de 1998: A polícia colombiana confisca cerca de sete toneladas de cocaína em Cartagena, Colômbia, destinada aos EUA via Cuba.

01 de Dezembro de 2000: O Presidente do Uruguai, Jorge Batlle, é citado em El Observador sugerindo a legalização das drogas.

06 de Dezembro de 2000: O parlamento da Bélgica descriminaliza o porte, o consumo e o comércio em até cinco gramas de maconha ou haxixe.

04 de Dezembro de 2001: O Auditor-Geral do Canadá lança um relatório sobre o papel do governo federal no trato das drogas ilícitas. Parte do relatório diz: "Onze departamentos e agências federais estão envolvidos no esforço para controlar as drogas ilícitas a um custo de cerca de $500 milhões ao ano... Mas não conhecem o tamanho do problema nem sabem se estão tendo sucesso ou não nos seus esforços".

07 de Dezembro de 2001: John P. Walters é juramentado como diretor do Gabinete de Política Nacional de Controle das Drogas.

07 de Dezembro de 2001: O Long Beach Press-Telegram (Califórnia) informa que um estudante do Colégio Secundário Poly que tocava baixo na orquestra do colégio cometeu suicídio atirando com uma escopeta na cabeça após ser autuado por acusações de porte de maconha. A tia dele disse que ele se sentia humilhado pela sua detenção. "Tudo o que ele repetia à sua mãe na volta à casa era 'me trataram como se fosse um criminoso comum'", disse.

02 de Dezembro de 2002: A Reuters informa que um estudo independente concluiu que o consumo de maconha não leva a adolescentes experimentando drogas pesadas como a heroína ou a cocaína. O estudo do Centro de Pesquisa em Políticas de Drogas da RAND rebateu a teoria de que a maconha age como dita droga inicial para narcóticos mais nocivos, um argumento fundamental que os proibicionistas usam contra a legalização da maconha nos Estados Unidos.