'US Asks Mexico to Extradite Alleged Drug Lord'

How Prosecutors Stack Juries And Deny Justice

The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 1, 1997
By L. Stuart Ditzen, Linda Loyd and Mark Fazlollah
Inquirer Staff Writers
Jack McMahon, the Republican candidate for Philadelphia district attorney, made a training tape while working as a prosecutor 10 years ago in which he advised young prosecutors to try to keep "blacks from low-income areas" off juries.
"The blacks from the low-income areas are less likely to convict," McMahon said on the videotape. "I understand it. It's an understandable proposition. There's a resentment for law enforcement. There's a resentment for authority. And as a result, you don't want those people on your jury.
"And it may appear as if you're being racist, but again, you're just being realistic. You're just trying to win the case. The other side is doing the same thing."
McMahon, then a homicide prosecutor, also cautioned colleagues against accepting teachers, doctors, liberals, social workers or anyone "smart" on a jury. And he told the rookie prosecutors that their mission was not to "get a competent, fair and impartial jury," but to win.
"The only way you're going to do your best is to get jurors that are unfair, and more likely to convict than anybody else in that room," he said. "Because the defense is doing the exact same thing."
McMahon, now a prominent defense lawyer who recently won the acquittal of a defendant in the Center City jogger case, made the comments in a videotaped session in which he instructed assistant district attorneys on jury-selection techniques.
In an interview yesterday, McMahon said he did not intend to make racially insensitive remarks on the tape.
"My actions in my career have displayed complete sensitivity to blacks," he said. "I've been representing individuals for the last seven years, and seen their mothers cry. I've been in their homes. No one understands the injustices to minorities done in the legal system better than me."
The hour-long tape was made after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in April 1986 barring prosecutors from striking blacks from juries solely on the basis of race.
On the tape, McMahon said that:
"In selecting blacks, you don't want the real educated ones. This goes across the board. All races. You don't want smart people. If you're sitting down and you're going to take blacks, you want older black men and women, particularly men. Older black men are very good."
"Blacks from the South. Excellent . . . If they are from South Carolina and places like that, I tell you, I don't think you can ever lose a jury with blacks from South Carolina. They are dynamite."
"My experience, young black women are very bad. There's an antagonism. I guess maybe because they're downtrodden in two respects. They are women and they're black . . . so they somehow want to take it out on somebody and you don't want it to be you."
McMahon did not advocate keeping blacks off juries altogether. Rather, he said that the best juries consist of a racial mix - four blacks and eight whites, or "three and nine."
On the tape, he also said he was opposed to all-white juries because they are susceptible to "reverse racism." With a mixed-race jury, he said, "you're not going to get any of that racist type of attitude because a white guy is not going to sit on that jury and say, `Oh, these people live like this and that' with three other blacks sitting there in the room."
McMahon said yesterday that he recalled making the tape, but never watched it. And he accused District Attorney Lynne Abraham, whom he is expected to oppose in the November election, of playing politics by putting the tape in circulation.
Abraham, in a statement, said: "The sentiments and practices discussed on that videotape are repugnant to me, and they are in direct contradiction to my beliefs and to the policies of this office."
Several defense lawyers said yesterday that the tape might provide grounds for seeking new trials for their convicted clients.
Attorney Ross Begelman said he would immediately file a request for a new trial for Anthony Lewis, who was convicted in 1984 of murdering James Brown outside a North Philadelphia bar.
Begelman, a former prosecutor in New Jersey, characterized McMahon's statements on the videotape as "the most disgraceful thing I've ever seen. . . . I find it revolting."
Another lawyer, Jules Epstein, who represents Thaddeus Ford, serving life in prison for the 1980 murder of Reginald Short in South Philadelphia, said he would review the case to determine if any young black women were excluded from the jury at Ford's 1983 trial.
"My duty, and the duty of every other lawyer who has had a case prosecuted in these circumstances, is to go back and check the jury pool," Epstein said. "If there were young black females . . . who were challenged by the district attorney, then we have to petition for evidentiary hearings and seek to win a new trial."
William Davol, spokesman for Abraham, said McMahon successfully prosecuted 36 murder defendants in jury trials before leaving the District Attorney's Office in 1990. Davol said the office was notifying the lawyers for those defendants about the tape.
One of Abraham's top deputies, Raymond J. Harley, sent a copy of the videotape last week to 19 defense attorneys whose clients were successfully prosecuted by McMahon in the 1980s.
McMahon, clearly angry at the district attorney's actions, said: "I find it reprehensible that the D.A.'s Office would attempt to come to the aid of convicted murderers, to assist them in some political fashion."
"I stand on my record both as a prosecutor and defense attorney for being fair and one who understands the minority issues probably a lot better than Lynne Abraham," he said.
Officials in the D.A.'s Office denied a political motive in circulating the tape to defense lawyers. Abraham has been accused by some black politicians, including City Council President John F. Street, of insensitivity to racial bias in the justice system. The controversy has been seen as a potential liability in her reelection bid.
The decade-old tape surfaced in February. Harley, in his letter, said that when McMahon announced his candidacy for district attorney in mid-February, he was quoted in the media "regarding his sensitivity to the concerns of minorities."
McMahon's comments, Harley wrote, triggered an unnamed assistant district attorney's memory of the videotape, which was made between 1986 and 1988 when Ronald Castille, now a state Supreme Court justice, was district attorney.
Harley said the unnamed prosecutor told his supervisors about the tape, and it was retrieved from storage in City Hall. After viewing it, Harley wrote the lawyers, "we have determined, that disclosure to you is the ethically appropriate course."
Officials in the D.A.'s Office said it was unclear whether McMahon's views, as expressed on the tape, could result in new trials in any of the murder cases he prosecuted.
The 1986 Supreme Court ruling on jury selection struck down a traditional court practice in which lawyers were allowed to eliminate a certain number of jurors without any explanation.
Some prosecutors had used those "peremptory challenges" to keep blacks off juries, particularly in cases involving black defendants.
The Supreme Court concluded that the practice was widespread and had to be stopped. As a result of the court's ruling, prosecutors are required to explain their reasons for keeping blacks off a jury.
In McMahon's videotape - one of many such tapes the D.A.'s Office has produced over the years for training young prosecutors - he is forthright about his objectives in picking a jury.
"The case law says the object of getting a jury . . . is to get a competent, fair and impartial jury," McMahon said on the tape. "Well, that's ridiculous. You're not trying to get that. Both sides are trying to get the jury most likely to do whatever they want them to do."
"You are there to win," he said. ". . . If you think that it's some noble thing, some esoteric game, you're wrong and you'll lose."
He said the best jurors, from the prosecutor's standpoint, were stable, conservative individuals.
"If you take middle-class people, that are well dressed, you're going to do well," he said. "It's that simple sometimes."
But he cautioned against picking intelligent people.
"You do not want smart people. I wish we could ask everyone's IQ. If you could know their IQ, you could pick a great jury all the time. You don't want smart people because smart people will analyze the hell out of your case. They have a higher standard. They hold you up to a higher standard. They hold the courts up to a higher standard . . . They take those words `reasonable doubt,' and they actually try to think about them."
He continued:
"You don't want social workers. . . . Teachers, you don't like. Teachers are bad, especially young teachers. . . . If you get like a white teacher teaching in a black school that's sick of these guys, maybe that may be one you accept. . . . Bad luck with teachers, bad luck with social workers. Bad luck with intelligent doctors."
McMahon said yesterday that he did not recall details of the tape. "It's hard for me to comment on specific points in it without seeing it," he said. "Obviously, back then there were certain ways that people went about picking a jury."
He was instructed to explain on the tape "how it's really done," he said, and that's what he did.
Some of McMahon's tips for rookie prosecutors
Here are excerpts from a training videotape in which Jack McMahon, then an assistant district attorney, offers advice on picking a jury:
You always want to ask what section of the city they live in . . . . Let's be honest: People who live in North Philadelphia have a different perspective on law enforcement and the government than people who live in . . . Somerton or Chestnut Hill. People from Mayfair are good, and people from 33d and Diamond stink. . . . You don't want any jurors from 33d and Diamond. . . .
The case law says the object of getting a jury . . . is to get a competent, fair and impartial jury. Well, that's ridiculous. You're not trying to get that. Both sides are trying to get the jury most likely to do whatever they want them to do. If you go in there, any one of you, and think you are going to be some noble civil libertarian . . . that's ridiculous. You'll lose. You'll be out of the office.
You are there to win. . . . The defense is there to win, too. The only way you're going to do your best is to get jurors that are unfair, and more likely to convict than anybody else in that room. Because the defense is doing the exact same thing . . .
You want stable, conservative people. That's what you want. What do you do to get those types of people? You look at their married life, their background, how long they have been married, how long they have been employed . . .
Let's face it. . . . The blacks from the low-income areas are less likely to convict. I understand it. . . . There's a resentment for law enforcement. There's a resentment for authority. And as a result, you don't want those people on your jury. And it may appear as if you're being racist, but again, you're just being realistic. . . .
In my experience, you look for how prospective jurors are dressed. . . . If you take middle-class people, that are well dressed, you're going to do well. . . . Another thing I've learned over the years to look at . . . Most jurors bring to court a book. Look at that book. If they're reading Karl Marx, you know you don't want this person. . . .
My opinion is you don't want smart people. . . . Because smart people will analyze the hell out of your case. They have a higher standard. They hold you up to a higher standard. They hold the courts up to a higher standard because they're intelligent people. They take those words `reasonable doubt' and they actually try to think about them. (Audience laughter.) You don't want those people. You don't want people who are going to think it out.
Another factor, in selecting blacks, you don't want the real educated ones. This goes across the board. All races . . . If you're sitting down and you're going to take blacks, you want older black men and women, particularly men. Older black men are very good, guys 70, 75 years old are very good jurors generally speaking. . . . They are from a different era, and a different time. And they have a different respect for the law. . . .
Older black women, on the other hand - when you have a black defendant who is a young boy and they can identify, a motherly type thing - are a little different. The men don't have that same kind of maternal instinct towards them. They are a little bit more demanding, a little bit more law and order.
The other thing is, blacks from the South. Excellent. Ask where they are from. If they say I've lived in Philadelphia five years, if they are from South Carolina and places like that, I tell you, I don't think you can ever lose a jury with blacks from South Carolina. They are dynamite. They just have a different way of living down there, a different philosophy. They are law and order. They are on the cops' side. Those people are good.
Again, my experience, young black women are very bad. There's an antagonism. I guess maybe because they're downtrodden in two respects. They are women, and they're black. So they are downtrodden in two areas, so they somehow want to take it out on somebody and you don't want it to be you. . . .
You want people of all the same intellectual capabilities, all middle class, same economic backgrounds. That's the ideal jury because . . . they are cohesive. You don't want a person that's real smart, and you don't want the real dumb ones because the dynamics are not there. You're not going to have some brain surgeon from Chestnut Hill with some nitwit from 33d and Diamond. . . .
Again, some people say well, the best jury is an all-white jury. I don't buy that. Particularly with a black defendant . . . You don't want this all-white jury to go back there and say to themselves, `Who gives a expletive?'
You don't want that attitude at all. And you may get that kind of reverse racism in your case. I've always felt that a jury of eight whites and four blacks is a great jury, nine and three. . . . You're not going to get any of that racist type of attitude because a white guy is not going to sit on that jury and say, `Oh, these people live like this and that' with three other blacks sitting there in the room. . . .
You don't want social workers. That's obvious. They got intelligence, sensitivity, all this stuff. You don't want them. . . . Teachers are bad, especially young teachers. Like teachers who teach in the grade-school level. Sometimes, you get teachers. I've had good luck with teachers who teach in the public school system. . . . They may be so fed up with the garbage that they've had in their school. They may say, `I know this kind of kid. He's a pain in the ass.' If you get like a white teacher teaching in a black school that's sick of these guys maybe, that may be one you accept.

'Casualties Of The Marijuana War' In 'Salon' Magazine

It isn't just cancer and AIDS patients who are suffering because of America's anti-pot hysteria.
Hundreds of small-time users are in jail - for life.

By Lowell Weiss
Notes of sanity have begun appearing in the great marijuana debate. In the last election, Arizona and California voters passed, by wide margins, referendums allowing for the medical use of marijuana if recommended by a medical doctor. The Clinton administration, which had set its face firmly against any form of legalization, even for medical purposes, convened an expert panel under the auspices of the National Institute of Health to study the matter further. The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has editorialized for a change of policy.
If these moves signal a cooling of the war on marijuana, they could not have come at a more crucial time. As Eric Schlosser argues in a lengthy article in the April Atlantic, the war has caused enormous collateral damage - not only to those in pain, but throughout the nation's courts and prisons. Violent criminals, Schlosser writes, are being released early from the nation's prisons to make room for the swelling masses of marijuana and other petty drug offenders locked up with mandatory-minimum sentences that carry no possibility of parole. Nonviolent marijuana offenders, especially those sentenced in federal courts, often spend far more time behind bars than murderers. Some are serving life sentences.
Schlosser won a National Magazine Award for his two-part series on marijuana that ran in the Atlantic in 1994. Salon talked with Schlosser about his recent findings, which he says suggests America is "caught in the grip of a deep psychosis."
In some states, you write, the rate of incarceration for drug offenders has increased so rapidly that new prisons would have to be opened every 90 days to keep up - at a cost of more than $100,000 per cell. With government budget-cutting so in vogue, how did these huge costs escape politicians' notice?
It's simple: Policy is not being driven by reason, it's driven by political expediency. It's very similar to anti-Communism crusades of the 1950s. The only politicians who feel secure enough to question our policies are those who are out of office.
And, you say, liberals seem to be just as cowed by the hysteria as conservatives.
Yes. As I point out in my piece, last year even liberals like (Sen.) Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) lined up behind (Sen.) Phil Gramm's (R-Texas) proposal to revoke federal welfare and food stamps from anyone convicted of a drug crime, even a misdemeanor. Politicians of both parties insist on dealing with this issue almost exclusively through the criminal justice system - not through the public health system. If you're an alcoholic, there are hundreds of rehab programs available; if you're a drug abuser, the government would just as soon lock you up and throw away the key.
How many marijuana offenders are serving life sentences?
The figures don't exist. None of the usual federal data sources keep track of nonviolent marijuana cases as separate from other nonviolent drug cases. But we know it's in the hundreds.
But they would be for the big dealers, not your average user.
Not necessarily. For example, Jim Montgomery, a paraplegic immobilized from the waist down who used marijuana to relieve pain, was busted in Sayre, Okla., with two ounces of marijuana in a pouch in the back of his wheelchair. It was a first offense. He got life plus 16 years.
So, don't ever get busted in Oklahoma. Are there wide variations from state to state?
Oklahoma is by far the worst in terms of length of sentence. New Mexico is the most lenient. For less than 100 pounds, the maximum penalty is 18 months. For more than 100 pounds, the maximum penalty is three years.
When do the feds get involved?
Federal prosecutors have the right to press federal charges for any amount of marijuana. But guidelines vary from region to region. In some districts, a federal prosecutor will not press charges unless there are more than 100 plants involved, for example.
How has the Clinton administration performed in the marijuana wars?
Under Clinton, the number of marijuana arrests has gone up by more than 40 percent. In 1995, the most recent year we have data on, authorities arrested 600,000 people for marijuana offenses - more than ever before. Next year's budget for the war on drugs is the largest in American history.
Yet he's being attacked because drug use has gone up during his presidency. Should he be feeling defensive?
Yes, he does have reason to feel defensive. His law-and-order approach to marijuana is destroying thousands of lives without demonstrably reducing marijuana use. It is a failed policy. Arrests have reached an all-time peak at the same time that use has tripled. People accuse junkies of behaving self-destructively, but in the case of marijuana, the government is even more wedded to such behavior.
You write that a lot of the trouble is being caused by the mandatory minimum sentence laws. How did they come about with respect to drugs?
In some states, these statutes have been on the books for more than 20 years. But the real turning point was 1986. And one high-profile case was all it took. Two days after signing a lucrative rookie deal with the Boston Celtics, star basketball player Len Bias suddenly died, allegedly after smoking crack. The story became the nation's topic No. 1. Mid-term elections were around the corner, and (former House Speaker) Tip O'Neill knew he had to do something, so he assembled his troops and in about six weeks wrote and passed the most sweeping drug-control legislation in a generation. There was no careful deliberation. There were no public hearings on the mandatory minimum provisions. The result was devastating to the criminal justice system.
How does the law work?
At the state and federal level, a mandatory minimum sentence is triggered by the amount of drugs involved in a case - not by a person's role in the crime. Whether you're the guy driving the truck for $1,000 or you own a fleet of trucks and are making tens of millions, you are subject to the same strict penalties.
How much discretion do prosecutors have?
A lot. In many respects they now have more power to determine sentencing than judges. It's up to the prosecutor to decide how much of the drug to include in the indictment, and whether to file under a mandatory minimum statute at all. They often use these statutes to plea bargain; the ability to pile one mandatory minimum charge on top of another gives enormous leverage to the prosecutor.
In my article I give a great example of just how much discretion prosecutors have. Indiana Congressman Dan Burton, the Republican heading up the House's investigation of campaign-finance improprieties, and a supporter of life sentences for some marijuana crimes, has a son who has gotten himself into a mess of trouble. Danny Burton II was busted for driving about eight pounds of pot from Louisiana to Indiana. Six months later, police raided his apartment and found 30 marijuana plants and a shotgun. The feds did not press charges. Indiana prosecutors got his charges dismissed. In Louisiana, he got off with community service, probation and house arrest. Under federal drug laws, just for the gun alone Burton could have faced a mandatory sentence of five years in prison. Suffice it to say that most offenders don't have this kind of luck with prosecutors.
Where do you stand on the debate about the health effects of marijuana?
The Lancet, one of the most influential medical journals in the world, recently concluded - and these are the exact words - "the smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health." I'm not quite that categorical. It's clear that inhaling smoke is bad for your lungs. I also believe that people who smoke marijuana on a daily basis put themselves at risk of reversible short-term memory problems. It's also clear that young people shouldn't smoke pot. It's bad for athletic and academic performance, and it can exacerbate emotional problems, too.
So can other substances, which are legal. Why is marijuana still such a target?
I think it has everything to do with who those users are. This society does not scorn all drugs. Alcohol is very respectable. We even allow beer ads on MTV, a network aimed at people 12-24 years old. But pot is different. In America, pot has been associated with the wrong elements: Mexicans, blacks and nonconformists of all stripes. The war on marijuana has little to do with health. It has everything to do with culture. It's a moral crusade. And moral crusades often have perverse results. In this case, we're giving life sentences without parole to first offenders for small amounts of a relatively harmless substance.
Besides the successful medicinal-marijuana ballot measures, are there other encouraging signs on the horizon?
At the state level, legislators are getting fed up with mandatory minimums. As prisons get more and more overstuffed, they're starting to look at alternative sentencing - like boot camps - along with expanded drug treatment. Last year in Ohio they decriminalized the growing of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. The provision was tucked into a larger bill, but nonetheless the bill received the support of the state's conservative governor, George Voinovich.
At the national level, there's just extraordinary cowardice. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll have any constructive changes in federal marijuana policy in the foreseeable future.

March 27, 1997

Lowell Weiss is a writer who lives in Boston. He was formerly a speech writer for Vice President Al Gore and a staff editor at the Atlantic.

Families And Friends For Drug Law Reform Model New Approach

I will talk about the formation of an Australian group, FFDLR, why I am involved and my views on the stages that a person who has lost someone to illicit drugs experiences. I will also outline some of FFDLR's activities and future plans. Implicit in my presentation will be the theme that we need changes to our prohibition laws.
Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform began in the Australian Capital Territory which is located in the southern tablelands of Australia and its population is about 300,000. It is an important territory because it is the seat of the federal government of Australia. The major employer has been the federal government. The population generally is more educated and average income is higher than in state capital cities.

Why FFDLR was formed

FFDLR began early in 1995. By the end of the Easter break that year, eight people had died as a result of heroin related overdose. Unlike the previous deaths, these attracted a lot of media attention in the ACT.
For one father, the death of his son caused him to question the laws and wonder why the current 'system' had allowed a very potent drug - believed to be 70% pure - to be sold to his son with no controls whatsoever. As a result, this father met with Independent Member of the Legislative Assembly in the ACT and then President of the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform, Michael Moore and what was to be the first meeting of the Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform was held.
In 1995 over 500 young people in Australia lost their lives to opioids. This represents an unthinkable level of grief and pain for the families and friends of those young people, especially when the harm associated with heroin use is not caused by the drug itself but by other factors. Many dependent heroin users are in poor health and financial position because of the high cost of the drug. Others are forced resort to crime or have serious illnesses from sharing needles and many have overdosed and died because of a lack of quality control on heroin and its use.
One of our members whose child died from heroin has put the position very succinctly "there is no good reason to have a dead child"; especially when that death could have been prevented by better harm reduction policies.

Personal story

I am a founding member of the group and my story is not unlike the one that caused our group to form.
The first my family knew of my son's heroin use was just two weeks before he died. He was with a friend and he had overdosed on a sporting oval just near our home. His friend woke us and my daughter called the ambulance.
The ambulance arrived and administered Narcan and took him to the hospital. Unfortunately the police also arrived at the scene and followed the ambulance to the hospital. His mother, sister and I sat in the waiting room where we had been told to wait but we watched a parade of police go back and forth to the room where my son was.
My son awoke to find the police at the end of his bed. He was frightened. He was confused.
He discharged himself from the hospital and for the next two weeks we saw very little of him. He was fearful that the police would call.
We sought assistance and advice. We now know that advice was deficient and inadequate. There was no advice that we could have discussed with him that would have helped keep him alive such as don't use with alcohol, don't use alone.
My son took a hurriedly arranged holiday because he was afraid of the police. He could not find any friends to go with him on such short notice. While on holidays he overdosed and he was dead at 24 years of age. He was alone at the time.
I asked the policewoman responsible for the small town where my son died why they could not prevent such a dangerous drug being sold. Her reply was honest - that it was virtually impossible.
It was to be two years later before I felt that I was beginning to emerge from a black depression. I was not able to deal with my son's death in anything but very small bites. There were questions, there were recriminations. How had this happened? What had I done to cause this? Why was there so little help? Why was there no practical advice while he was alive?
At first I was angry with his friends who let him use heroin. Then I was angry with those who sold him the drugs and those who brought them into the country. Then I was angry with the police for not preventing this tragedy. I am now angry with governments that are blind to the fact that prohibition laws are the source of so much tragedy.
For me the realisation about prohibition at first emerged slowly. I read the various press reports of the "Mr Bigs" being tracked down, "the biggest drug bust ever" and so on. The stories of any who died were virtually non existent. No one talked about the victims, those who had died or their families. Neither did families talk about it. The strangeness of this situation did not strike me until some time after the group formed.
The memories are still painful and there are still unexpected triggers to memories over which I have little control. For example when my son died it was spring and the wattle was in full bloom. The blooming wattle brings back sad memories. My personal experience has provided a clarity. It is easy to see why there are so few families who speak out about the issues, or if they do, why they seem to support the status quo, that is prohibition.

Never heard from parents

Families almost never speak out if a loved one is currently using illegal drugs. The reason is obvious - fear of repercussions. A recent member who lost a son in the last month suspects foul play in his death because while he was alive she spoke out.
For those who have lost a loved one to illegal drugs it seems to me that there are stages through which they progress. Many never progress beyond anger and blame. It seems to me that all too often the voice of the parent that is heard is that of one who, affected by grief, demands more law enforcement - a futile call.
The issue for us is how to get all affected parents to move to the last stage of emerging awareness and action. However great courage is needed to overcome years of conditioning.
Socialisation plays a large part in society's attitudes. A simple illustration: A story in the press entitled 'Drug sale: schoolboy expelled' ('Canberra Times,' 29/6/96, p. 2) illustrates how the school was quick to cover its reputation by dismissing it as a 'very minor incident' which was 'nipped in the bud' and yet for this 'minor incident' the 13 year old child had to suffer the ultimate rejection of expulsion. This story is re-enacted many times.
Do you see the extension to wider society? If you are caught with drugs you are expelled from society. Not always, but often sent to gaol.
Prejudice and ignorance plays a significant part. Both factors emerged in the debate about the proposed heroin trial in the ACT. (Most people here will know the detail of the proposed trial.)
The decision to proceed with the trial was in the hands of the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy: Health ministers from each Australian state and territory and the Commonwealth government. At the meeting in July 1996 two states and the ACT supported the trial, the remaining five opposed. Fortunately the federal health minister kept the issue alive to be considered again this year.
The Health Ministers on the MCDS who opposed the trial, did not oppose it on health grounds, they did so on economic and moral grounds. Two areas where they obviously have no expertise.
The heroin trial, if fully implemented, would save the Australian economy about $4 billion.
The death toll from opiates is rising each year. Where is the morality of any Health Minister, when he has the opportunity but does not take action to save lives?

Development of group

I will now outline the formation of our group as a preface to a call to other countries to establish similar groups and the establishment of a network of such groups throughout the world.

Enthusiasm & commitment

In the early developmental stages of the group there was a great deal of enthusiasm and commitment but there was also a great deal of inexperience. We lacked knowledge of our subject area, we did not know all the issues, we did not know who the main players were.

Need to be informed

Our first priority was to inform ourselves. Our second was to develop a plan of action. Our third was to let others know that we existed. Our fourth was to do something to make a difference.
The early formation of this group was rather delicate. Like any group such as this great care is needed to make sure that the enthusiasm is not lost, that good ideas are not dismissed.

Keep focus

We confined our attention initially to heroin because it was the prime reason why the group formed. This proved to be a very good decision because it did provide a very clear focus.

Help and encouragement

The help and encouragement from other groups, notably the Aust- ralian Drug Law Reform Foundation and the Australian Parliamentary Group for Drug Law Reform was vital and valuable. They provided suggestions and guidance at the early formative meetings. At a later time attendance at the 7th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm also proved extremely valuable.

Take the high moral ground

As much as possible we try to not to offend. Our public image is good. We command respect because we present a rational first hand experience of the tragic consequences of current policies and practices.
The words of our ACT Chief Minister illustrate why we command that respect: "I think [FFDLR] have really made a difference quite sig- nificantly because they've mainstreamed the debate. ....I think it was an enormous change. I mean particularly Calder and Green [two of our members] and others who are so middle Australia...People who live next door to you or down the road could lose a child so tragically ... those kids weren't unloved or neglected, they were just normal everyday young people and I think that changed a lot of people's attitudes."

Money

Our funding is limited and we have deliberately set a policy of keeping subscriptions within easy reach. Our aim is to grow our membership not grow our bank account. Membership is just $5 per year (about 15 francs or œ2.50). We will of course gratefully accept donations.
The key is committed people. However with such large distances to travel between capital cities it will not be long before we need additional funding.

Action

We are an action group and that action keeps both members and the public interested. The slide shows some of our activities last year.
Our essential thrust at this time is to promote a groundswell movement of parents and friends who are aware of the consequences of the current drug policies either because they have suffered the tragedy or because they recognise the wrongs and injustices of the present policies.

Measuring Success

Have we been successful? We believe that we have: Our first public meeting entitled "Why Prohibition?" exceeded our expectations.
Our submissions supporting the proposed heroin trial obviously had an influence. We presented orally on the third hearing day of the inquiry into a possible heroin trial. The first two days of hearings were received in relative silence. Our presentation received the first round of applause. The committee inquiring into drugs in Victoria changed direction after they received both written and oral submissions from FFDLR and other families affected by drugs. It was reported in the Age newspaper that the chairman of the council said that what touched him most was "the expressions of anguish by mothers who had lost their children or who had children affected by heroin dependency." As I understand it the council's direction turned 180 degrees after these submissions.
Influence from FFDLR has meant that police in the ACT now do not attend drug overdoses unless a death has occurred. Police presence was a major factor in my son's death.
Police invited us to join them in a joint exercise.
Friends and acquaintances who have never referred to drug laws before have offered help and encouragement.
Our latest activity - a tree dedication and remembrance ceremony - had a significant influence. I would like to detail this a little more so you will see its impact.

Remembrance Tree

It came as a sad realisation to members of Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform that there was no public focus of the worth of the many who have died from the use of illicit drugs but who remain loved as friends and family members.
We established through a public ceremony a memorial for those who met their death not so much from any inherent danger of the drugs involved but from policies and practices surrounding the drug.
Our purpose was: to acknowledge our loved ones lives and publicly mourn their deaths; to raise awareness and bring attention to the number of deaths; to signify that the deaths do cause pain for families and friends and that they are not alone; to provide a means whereby others may feel that it is easier to speak out; to provide a lasting memorial.
The memorial grew from an idea of a member of the group, Bronwyn Barnard, who lost a brother to a heroin overdose in July last year. Here are her recollections: The idea for this tree came to me some time after his death, when I was standing talking to my mother in the kitchen. I looked out of the window at our home and became conscious of the old locust tree under which Dean would often sit. And my eyes were drawn to the large vicious thorns which cover this tree. It was still winter and the tree was bare, and I thought how symbolic the thorns were of his drug use. They are sharp, cruel and dangerous reminding me of the harsh reality of Dean's efforts to get control of his life, and the way in which the community treats people who become dependant on drugs.
However, my mind wandered further from these difficult memories, and I was compelled to remember the true beauty of the tree. Every year I have looked with admiration at the tree when in spring it is covered in blossoms. Large clumps of sweet smelling, white flowers cascade from its branches. The flowers attract numerous varieties of parrots which eat the nectar then drop the petals forming a magnificent white carpet beneath the tree. It is a beautiful sight. I was moved to think, yes look at this wonderful tree and remember it in its entirety. Remember Dean in his entirety, all the good things about Dean, all his good points for he was an individual with many assets and we loved him, as you will have loved your family member or friend.
The ceremony was most moving and incorporated the reading out of the names of 80 young people who had lost their life to illicit drugs (the youngest was 16 years of age).
We would have been pleased with an attendance of 50 people but we were very much encouraged by attendance of almost 200. Attending the ceremony were senior church dignitaries, representatives of many levels of government and political parties, including members of Federal, ACT and NSW parliaments.
All the local media attended and reported the event in the news. Press, radio, TV. The lot.
The residual image left with any who witnessed either in person or through the media reports was that these people who die are loved and wanted in our society.
I posted a press release on the Internet and one response was: "In the thousands of articles and e-mails that pass through my 3 dozen lists, I don't think I have seen any article having the effect of the 'Remembrance Tree' post from the Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform group from Australia.
"The dedication of their locust tree makes me think of the family and friends that we hold close and dear to our hearts that are not with us today because of this insane war on drugs.
"The Australians have a good idea and we should consider it's possible applications in America. We need a 'war' memorial too!"

Plans

FFDLR has plans for future activities that will further our aims and reduce the harm caused by illicit drugs. These include: broaden the membership base to a network throughout Australia and the world; get the issue firmly on the political agenda and make drug law reform an electoral issue; influence police to make further changes; more awareness raising such as publishing a book of personal stories; repeat the tree ceremony with thousands attending.

Conclusion

In conclusion I ask that you remember the human side of drug use during the remainder of the conference and in your professional lives when you return home. Drug users are family members and parents should also feature in any harm reduction solution. Perhaps they can make the difference.
Parents, through groups such as Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform can have a significant influence on the future course of history on drug laws. In Australia parent groups such as FFDLR have been a powerful force in promoting the message about the harm caused by prohibition.
Broadening the membership base both within Australia and beyond its shores could be the next major step forward toward raising awareness.
Finally, therefore, let me call for the establishment of a network of Families and Friends for Drug Law Reform in all countries represented here today - working together, sharing resources, raising awareness and reducing the harm.

[End]

Comments, questions and suggestions.

Reporters and researchers are welcome at the world's largest online library of drug-policy information, sponsored by the Drug Reform Coordination Network at http://www.druglibrary.org/.

to the 1997 News page.

This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/040397.html