-------------------------------------------------------------------
A Mother's Advice About Drugs (An Op-Ed In 'The San Francisco Chronicle'
By Marsha Rosenbaum, Director Of The Lindesmith Center-West,
A Drug Policy Institute In San Francisco, Shows What A Drug Policy
Reform Activist Might Reasonably Say To Her Son As He Enters High School)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 13:51:28 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: OPED: A Mother's Advice About Drugs
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Contact: chronletters@sfgate.com
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Pubdate: Monday, September 7, 1998
Author: Marsha Rosenbaum
A MOTHER'S ADVICE ABOUT DRUGS
Marsha Rosenbaum, director of The Lindesmith Center-West, a drug policy
institute in San Francisco, wrote this letter to her son, an Urban High
School freshman.
DEAR JOHNNY,
This fall you will be entering high school, and like most American
teenagers, you'll have to navigate drugs. As most parents, I would prefer
that you not use drugs. However, I realize that despite my wishes, you
might experiment.
I will not use scare tactics to deter you. Instead, having spent the past
25 years researching drug use, abuse and policy, I will tell you a little
about what I have learned, hoping this will let you to make wise choices.
My only concern is your health and safety.
When people talk about ``drugs,'' they are generally referring to illegal
substances such as marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine (speed), psychedelic
drugs (LSD, Ecstasy, ``Schrooms'') and heroin. These are not the only drugs
that make you high. Alcohol, cigarettes and many other substances (like
glue) cause intoxication of some sort. The fact that one drug or another is
illegal does not mean one is better or worse for you. All of them
temporarily change the way you perceive things and the way you think.
Some people will tell you that drugs feel good, and that's why they use
them. But drugs are not always fun. Cocaine and methamphetamine speed up
your heart; LSD can make you feel disoriented; alcohol intoxication impairs
driving; cigarette smoking leads to addiction and sometimes lung cancer;
and people sometimes die suddenly from taking heroin. Marijuana does not
often lead to physical dependence or overdose, but it does alter the way
people think, behave and react.
I have tried to give you a short description of the drugs you might
encounter. I choose not to try to scare you by distorting information
because I want you to have confidence in what I tell you. Although I won't
lie to you about their effects, there are many reasons for a person your
age to not use drugs or alcohol.
First, being high on marijuana or any other drug often interferes with
normal life. It is difficult to retain information while high, so using it
-- especially daily -- affects your ability to learn. Second, if you think
you might try marijuana, please wait until you are older. Adults with drug
problems often started using at a very early age.
Finally, your father and I don't want you to get into trouble. Drug and
alcohol use is illegal, and the consequences of being caught are huge. Here
in the United States, the number of arrests for possession of marijuana has
more than doubled in the past six years. Adults are serious about ``zero
tolerance.'' If caught, you could be arrested, expelled from school, barred
from playing sports, lose your driver's license, denied a college loan,
and/or rejected for college.
Despite my advice to abstain, you may one day choose to experiment. I will
say again that this is not a good idea, but if you do, I urge you to learn
as much as you can, and use common sense. There are many excellent books
and references, including the Internet, that give you credible information
about drugs. You can, of course, always talk to me. If I don't know the
answers to your questions, I will try to help you find them.
If you are offered drugs, be cautious. Watch how people behave, but
understand that everyone responds differently -- even to the same
substance. If you do decide to experiment, be sure you are surrounded by
people you can count upon. Plan your transportation and under no
circumstances drive or get into a car with anyone else who has been using
alcohol or other drugs. Call us or any of our close friends any time, day
or night, and we will pick you up -- no questions asked and no consequences.
And please, Johnny, use moderation. It is impossible to know what is
contained in illegal drugs because they are not regulated. The majority of
fatal overdoses occur because young people do not know the strength of the
drugs they consume, or how they combine with other drugs. Please do not
participate in drinking contests, which have killed too many young people.
Whereas marijuana by itself is not fatal, too much can cause you to become
disoriented and sometimes paranoid. And of course, smoking can hurt your
lungs, later in life and now. Johnny, as your father and I have always told
you about a range of activities (including sex), think about the
consequences of your actions before you act. Drugs are no different. Be
skeptical and most of all, be safe. Love, Mom
1998 San Francisco Chronicle Page A23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA Searches Of Clinic Ruled Unreasonable - News Crews Violated
Doctor's Rights, Judge Says ('The Associated Press' Says US District Judge
Lynn Hughes Ruled August 28 In A Partial Judgment For Dr. Tommy E. Swate
Of Houston, Texas, That The Presence Of Television News Crews
During Drug Enforcement Administration Searches Of The Doctor's Clinics
Was Unreasonable And Violated His Rights)
From: "W.H.E.N. - Bob Owen" (when@olywa.net)
To: "-News" (when@hemp.net)
Subject: DEA searches of clinic ruled unreasonable
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 16:27:34 -0700
Sender: owner-when@hemp.net
DEA searches of clinic ruled unreasonable
News crews violated doctor's rights, judge says
09/07/98
Associated Press
HOUSTON - The presence of TV news crews during Drug Enforcement
Administration searches of a Houston doctor's clinics was unreasonable and
violated his rights, a federal judge has concluded.
"Including wholly extraneous outsiders in a search unreasonably exceeds the
legal scope of the warrant, violating the owner's rights under the
Constitution," U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes ruled Aug. 28 in a partial
judgment for Dr. Tommy E. Swate. The Houston Chronicle reported the decision
in Sunday's editions.
"In the hands of the . . . [DEA], the tradition of public service in law
enforcement has gone from 'one riot - one Ranger' to 'one search warrant -
one regional press officer, six assistants and a television crew,' " Judge
Hughes wrote.
DEA agents searched two clinics operated by Dr. Swate in 1992 for the
illegal distribution of methadone, the synthetic opiate used to treat heroin
addiction, after an undercover officer obtained the drug there. Crews from a
Fox TV station and CBS' 60 Minutes went along.
Dr. Swate sued DEA Agent Teresa Hayth Pack, contending that he was subjected
to an unreasonable search. A pretrial conference to consider awarding
damages to the doctor is set for Oct. 13.
Houston Fox affiliate KRIV accompanied the agents into one of Dr. Swate's
clinics during the first search for its City Under Siege program. A 60
Minutes crew tagged along when the DEA shut down another clinic, making Dr.
Swate the first doctor in the United States to have his methadone license
suspended on an emergency basis.
At the time, officials said the two clinics posed a threat to public health
because of numerous violations of state and federal laws. However, the DEA
agreed not to pursue additional action in exchange for promises that Dr.
Swate would stop using methadone in his clinic practice.
KRIV news director Denise Bishop said the opinion concerned her but will not
affect news-gathering at the station.
"City Under Siege is no longer a go-along-with-the cops type show, but
purely investigative," Ms. Bishop said. "But for those other shows like Cops
and Wildest Police Chases and others that are tremendously popular with the
public, it may have a chilling effect."
60 Minutes spokesman Kevin Tedesco said he was uncertain how the opinion
would affect other television shows that depend on following law enforcement
officials around during arrests, searches and seizures.
"We don't do a lot of that [accompanying law enforcement]," he said. "It's
occasionally warranted, but so many programs use it now that it's almost
become a cliche."
Judge Hughes' opinion counters several legal precedents in favor of letting
the media show the public how searches are performed.
"This opinion is showing law enforcement that it is not in their best
interest to encourage any media coverage," said Jane Kirtley, executive
director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington,
Va. "The media serves the purpose of telling and showing God-fearing,
law-abiding people what happens to a subject of a search. They need to see
the tactics."
The judgment specifically named the DEA officer in charge of the scene,
Agent Pack, as ultimately responsible for allowing the media to intrude.
She contended that she should not be held responsible for the presence of
outsiders because they were alerted and brought by her supervisors.
Judge Hughes disagreed, noting that ". . . excesses of superiors do not
justify excesses of subordinates."
Media law expert Bill Ogden, a Houston lawyer, called the opinion poorly
researched.
"There have been courts in six states as far back as 1980 that expressly
held journalists can accompany officers serving warrants or on ride-alongs,"
Mr. Ogden said. "Most courts have rejected arguments that the U.S.
Constitution forbids the media from encroaching on private property during a
police search."
U.S. attorney's office spokesman John Lenoir said government lawyers were
studying the opinion and had no comment.
Patrick Gilpin, Dr. Swate's attorney, said his client still has both a
medical degree and a law degree but is no longer practicing in Houston. He
declined to say where his client is practicing.
But he said he was pleased with the ruling.
"It was a very scholarly opinion," Mr. Gilpin said. "They did him [Dr.
Swate] a very big injustice."
***
When away, you can STOP and RESTART W.H.E.N.'s news clippings by sending an
e-mail to majordomo@hemp.net. Ignore the Subject: line. In the body put
"unsubscribe when" to STOP. To RESTART, put "subscribe when" in the e-mail
instead (No quotation marks.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Holding Drug-Raid Loot ('The Cincinnati Enquirer' Version)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 22:10:44 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US OH: Police Holding Drug-raid Loot
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Richard Lake (rlake@mapinc.org)
Source: Cincinnati Enquirer (OH)
Contact: http://Enquirer.Com/editor/letters.html
Website: http://enquirer.com/today/
Pubdate: Mon, 7 September 1998
Author: ANNE MICHAUD The Cincinnati Enquirer
POLICE HOLDING DRUG-RAID LOOT
Millions not being spent on deterrence
Law enforcement agencies throughout Ohio are sitting on millions of
dollars seized from drug dealers instead of spending it to put more of
them behind bars.
Agencies explain the surpluses by saying they want to keep reserves or
because they can't find anything to spend the money on.
But one of the state's top law enforcement officials says the whole
point of drug seizure and forfeiture laws is to reinvest proceeds in
drug-fighting equipment and programs.
The Cincinnati Enquirer examined drug money in the three biggest
agencies in Ohio's six largest counties, and three smaller counties in
the state's southwestern corner.
As a group, the agencies have taken in $33.5 million since 1993. They
spent or invested $26 million. They have a balance of $7.5 million, or
about 22 percent of the money confiscated.
Cincinnati and Cleveland police and the Hamilton County sheriff top
the chart for unspent drug money. Cincinnati has an average balance of
$1,015,499 at the end of each year; Cleveland's is $949,966; the
sheriff's is $828,840.
The balances are growing each year, as agencies continue to confiscate
more than they spend. The unspent money languishes, even while
departments request annual budget increases and fight for higher taxes
on the ballot.
What's more, few agencies are meeting the only spending requirement
written into state law: that a percentage of drug money confiscated
each year be used for anti-drug education in the community.
Among the Enquirer's findings:
The Cincinnati Police Division should be spending up to 100 times more
on community drug education. The department spent $1,000 a year from
1993 through 1996, when drug receipts indicate spending should have
reached $119,810 annually.
Cuyahoga County Sheriff Gerald McFaul has invested $1.2 million of
drug money in interest-earning accounts, including U.S. Treasury
bills. According to the sheriff, only the interest is returned to the
central drug fund. The rest appears to be kept in separate bank accounts.
Agencies provide detailed records of the money and property they
confiscate. But nobody monitors the spending, including such potential
watchdogs as the state attorney general, state auditor or state Office
of Criminal Justice Services.
The ramifications of unspent money go far. With leftover money each
year, Cincinnati could put five more police officers on the street,
and Hamilton County could pay the salaries of three more.
The large drug money balances and investment accounts worry Ted Almay,
superintendent of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and
Investigation.
"That's a lot of cash," Mr. Almay said. When told about the
investments, he responded, "I've never heard of anybody doing that."
Drug forfeiture laws emerged from a belief that drug dealers were not
being punished forcefully enough. Dealers were hiding assets in other
people's names, and they had the money to mount well-paid legal
defenses. Or they could start up business again after serving jail
time.
A 1984 federal law allowed police to seize the "tools" of the drug
trade, including cash, cars and things bought with drug profits:
homes, boats, jewelry, artwork.
Also, the law was intended to promote cooperation among law
enforcement agencies, which can share the confiscated money and goods.
Ohio, like other states, copied federal law in 1990 and began allowing
local agencies to collect drug money, even when federal agents were
not involved in the capture.
"We were finally able to tap into the assets of the bad guys, and, in
turn, use them to fight drugs," said former Assistant Police Chief Ted
Schoch, who oversaw drug money for Cincinnati police until July. He
now heads the police training academy.
Cincinnati police confiscate an average $1.4 million annually in state
and federal seizures; the Hamilton County sheriff, $661,947. Cleveland
police collect $711,145 each year in state cases alone.
With the money, many departments contribute to regional narcotics
teams. Departments also supply undercover operations with training,
offices, vehicles and electronic surveillance equipment. Often, the
drug money serves as a ready pool of money to match federal grants.
Except for salaries, Cincinnati pays for its entire 17-officer
undercover street corner unit with the drug money. The department also
finances its pharmaceutical diversion unit, which polices phony
prescriptions, and the department's share of the multijurisdictional
Regional Enforcement Narcotics Unit.
"The whole idea is to make sure the money is being put back into
fighting crime so the citizen is the beneficiary of it," Mr. Schoch
said.
The department does not pay salaries with the money, which is
permissible under state law but not federal law. Most departments keep
two funds: one for cases charged under federal law, the other for state law.
Mr. Schoch said that relying on drug arrests is too irregular to pay
salaries. "This money is not guaranteed. It could stop today," he said.
Cincinnati police have maintained an average balance of $375,993 since
1994 in the state forfeiture account alone. The unused balance could
put five more officers on the street and still leave a federal fund
balance of $487,211.
But Mr. Schoch argued he liked to keep a surplus on hand. Offices for
undercover agents are leased, for example, and he has to cover future
payments.
Also, when the federal or state government has a grant to bestow, the
department can dip into the drug fund to match the grant without
jumping through political hoops.
Recently, the department was able to contribute to a $40,000 piece of
hospital equipment -- a videocolposcope -- that aids in rape
investigations, Mr. Schoch said.
While state law gives departments broad spending discretion, it
requires just one minimum payment from law enforcement agencies: It
says anti-drug education programs such as Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (DARE) must receive 10 percent of the first $100,000 an
agency receives, and 20 percent of any amount over that.
Most law enforcement agencies in Ohio are not meeting those legal
requirements, according to the Enquirer's investigation. Mr. Schoch
said he didn't know there was such a requirement and instructed his
staff to look into it. They came up with a 1992 solicitor's opinion
that said the department must contribute only part of the
"forfeitures" it seizes, not the "contraband."
The opinion's author, assistant city solicitor John Hanselman Jr.,
said contraband is what is seized immediately at the scene, and
forfeiture is property that police are able to trace as the fruits of
drug profits, such as a painting or a bank account.
But no one is keeping track of which is which.
"It's all put in the same fund," Police Spc. David Kelly said. "I
don't think there's ever been a breakdown."
Other law enforcement agencies also fail to distinguish between
"contraband" and "forfeiture" money in their public reports. Using
their total receipts, the Enquirer found most agencies are not meeting
the law's requirements.
For example, Cleveland police spent $47,452 in 1995 when its total
receipts indicate it should have spent $166,943. Columbus, Akron and
Toledo police did not show any drug education donations when they
submitted annual reports to the attorney general.
Clermont County Sheriff A.J. "Tim" Rodenberg said he has increased
DARE spending as a way to make better use of a $128,304 surplus
collected by his office and a regional drug task force he
administers.
The Office of Criminal Justice Services warned Sheriff Rodenberg, he
said, that the surplus was too high. "They want that money to keep
moving. They don't want it just sitting there," he said.
In his nearly two years on the job, he has searched for new,
drug-related ways to spend the money: on a K-9 unit, for DARE
graduation awards, to buy Breathalyzers.
Other departments said they like to keep money on hand, as much as
$100,000, to use as "buy money" or "flash money" for undercover agents
posing as drug customers.
Annual reviews by the state auditor look at a small sample of
transactions to make sure they are following accounting procedures. A
spokeswoman for the office, Kate Buchy, said it cannot vouch for the
propriety or legality of each expenditure.
"It would be impossible to look at every transaction," she said. "The
idea is we're looking at a representative sample."
Two other departments, those of Summit County Prosecutor Maureen
O'Connor and Hamilton County Sheriff Simon L. Leis Jr., are investing
in certificates of deposit, $175,110 and $1.1 million,
respectively.
Sheriff Leis refused an interview to explain his department's
expenditures and investments, and the unspent balance of $828,840.
But he did supply spending records. They show he has built several
crime-fighting units with the money, including a marine patrol, a SWAT
team and a computer crime division. Area agencies depend on the
sheriff's helicopter for search and rescue.
Over five years, the sheriff also paid $120,209 to build, carpet, tile
and equip gymnasiums; $27,987 for kilts, bagpipes, drums and other
expenses of the Sheriff's Bagpipe and Drum Corps; $18,137 to construct
bathrooms; $12,246 for landscaping.
"The statutes are quite clear in that these funds are expended at the
discretion of the law enforcement agency," Sheriff Leis wrote in
response to a request for an interview.
Hamilton County Commissioner John Dowlin, who is often at odds with
the sheriff over spending, said he trusts the sheriff is using the
money for good programs.
But Mr. Dowlin said he would use some of the money to expand drug
court, which fast-tracks drug offenders through the court system if
they participate in rehabilitation. It costs about $200,000 to equip a
courtroom for a year and an additional amount for the treatment
services associated with a drug court.
Money also could be used for rehabilitation, said John Young, who
retired in July after eight years as director of Hamilton County's
Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services. Ohio law recommends police
consult with someone in his position about the spending.
"We have waiting lists for virtual every service in our system," Mr.
Young said.
The underspending worries Ohio House Speaker JoAnn Davidson,
R-Reynoldsburg.
"If the question is dollars not being used for a specific purpose that
was the intent of the legislature, that would cause me some concern,"
she said.
Most law enforcement officials said nobody has ever questioned their
use of the drug money. That is possibly because no one is watching.
Agencies file annual reports to the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Ohio attorney general. The reports do not have to give details, just
total dollars.
At the state level, filing the report is strictly voluntary. Some
departments simply don't send them. And nobody in the attorney
general's office reads the reports.
"There is really no entity that monitors that spending beyond the
press and local governments," said Mr. Almay of the state
investigations bureau, a branch of the attorney general's office.
During its last session, the General Assembly amended the law to
eliminate copies of annual reports for the Senate president and House
speaker.
Not that it mattered.
"When I took over the speaker's office, there were boxes of these
things around, and I had no idea what they were and why they were
here," Ms. Davidson said.
"If we find more oversight is needed, we've got to have a better
method than boxes in legislative leaders' offices."
[SIDEBAR]
Drug forfeiture funds
Numbers are an annual average for the past five years in selected law
enforcement agencies. Spending includes state and federal accounts
combined, except where noted. In some cases, the unspent money is
greater than what was received because a balance has built up over
time.
Cincinnati Police Division Average receipts: $1,351,933 Average
spending: $951,973 Average unspent: $1,015,499
Hamilton County prosecutor Average receipts: $178,632 Average
spending: $75,964 Average unspent: $456,721 (no federal funds)
Hamilton County sheriff's office Average receipts: $661,947 Average
spending: $562,712 Average unspent: $828,840
Clermont County sheriff's office Average receipts: $94,139 Average
spending: $90,293 Average unspent: $128,304 (no federal funds)
Clermont County prosecutor Reports not provided
Union Township Police Department Reports not provided
Hamilton Police Department Average receipts: $23,294 Average spending:
$20,886 Average unspent: $20,412 (no federal funds)
Butler County prosecutor Average receipts: $27,151 Average spending:
$14,743 Average unspent: $22,102 (no federal funds)
Warren County prosecutor Average receipts: $29,194 Average spending:
$19,850 Average unspent: $52,162 (no federal funds)
Mason Police Department Average receipts: $9,059 Average spending:
$5,999 Average unspent: $30,469 (no federal funds)
Warren County sheriff's office Average receipts: $6,257 Average
spending: $147 Average unspent: $36,586
Sources: Ohio attorney general's office, individual departments
Copyright 1998 The Cincinnati Enquirer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Winning The Drug War Isn't So Hard After All ('The New York Times Magazine'
Responds To Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's Campaign Against Methadone Maintenance
Programs With A Lengthy Background Piece That Explains How
Americans' Penchant For Punishment Has Blinded The Country
To The Most Effective Strategy For Combating Drug Use - Offering
Comprehensive Treatment To Every Addict Who Requests It)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 10:47:26 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: Winning the Drug War isn?t so Hard After All
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Chris Lanier http://harmreduction.org/
Source: New York Sunday Times Magazine
Pubdate: 7 September 1998
Contact: magazine@nytimes.com
Mail: Letters to the Editor, Magazine, The New York Times, 229 West 43rd
Street, New York, NY 10036
Author: Michael Massing
WINNING THE DRUG WAR ISN'T SO HARD AFTER ALL
Don't let Rudolph Giuliani fool you: methadone works. Since its
introduction in the mid-1960's, studies have consistently shown that the
synthetic narcotic cuts addicts' craving for heroin, enabling onetime
street junkies to restart their lives. In so doing, methadone helps boost
employment, inhibit the spread of H.I.V and cut crime. That's why the New
York City Mayor's recent attacks - he denounced methadone as 'a chemical
that's used to enslave people' and promised to abolish it from the city
over the next few years - have left experts scratching their heads.
The Mayor appears driven by a moral conviction that complete abstinence
from drugs is the only acceptable course. Yet if Giuliani were truly
interested in promoting abstinence from drugs, he would have not simply
condemned methadone but also announced a major expansion of treatment
programs whose express goal is to wean addicts from the substance. (The
city has virtually no such programs now.) He would also have announced the
creation of more residential programs that seek to change addicts'
behavior. The Mayor's failure to do any of this raises the suspicion that
it is not just methadone he dislikes, but drug treatment in general.
In this respect, Giuliani reflects a national mood. For nearly 20 years,
the United States has waged a relentless war on drugs, with treatment
discounted as a weak weapon. Instead, the Government has sent spy planes
swooshing over the Caribbean, built a paramilitary base in Peru, mounted
coca-eradication programs in Bolivia - and invaded Panama. On the home
front, narcotics agents have infiltrated hundreds of drug gangs and busted
countless drug dealers. In 1996, more than 1.5 million people were
arrested for drug offenses; the nation's prisons, which in 1980 housed
fewer than 30,000 drug offenders, today harbor nearly 300,000.
But this punitive approach has failed. Cocaine is cheaper than ever, and
heroin is selling at purity levels three times greater than those of the
mid-1980s. And drug abuse remains rampant. In 1996, the number of
cocaine-related visits to hospital emergency rooms topped 144,000, an
all-time high. This despite an increase in the Federal antidrug budget
from $1 billion in 1981 to $16 billion in 1998.
Looking at numbers like these, it may seem as if the nation's drug problem
is all but intractable. But it isn't. Our penchant for punishment has
blinded us to the most effective strategy for combating drug use: offering
comprehensive treatment to every addict who requests it.
Unfortunately the case for expanding our commitment to treatment programs
frequently gets drowned out by more extreme voices. Law-and-order types
like Giuliani call for ever more police dragnets and undercover
investigations. On the opposing side, reformers push for drastic measures
like drug legalization. Legalize drugs, they say, criminal networks that
traffic in them will disappear - much like the repeal of Prohibition led to
the demise of speakeasies and bathtub gin. The end of Prohibition, however,
also led to a sharp rise in alcohol use. Between 1934 and 1944, per capita
consumption in the United States rose from 0.97 gallons to 2.07 gallons.
(Today it is 2.25 gallons.) If illicit drugs were suddenly legalized, might
not consumption similarly rise?
By now, the risks of legalization have become so evident that many one-time
advocates have flocked to a new standard: harm reduction. Drugs, it is
argued, are here to stay, and society needs to learn how to live with them.
Our goal should be to reduce the harm that drugs cause. To that end, they
advocate a variety of reforms, like expanding needle-exchange programs and
creating "safe injection rooms" as alternatives to shooting galleries.
Some of these ideas clearly make sense. Needle-exchange programs, for one,
have been shown to reduce the transmission of H.I.V. Yet harm reduction
has serious limitations. For the most part, it does not seek to get people
off drugs but merely to help them use drugs more safely. To express
disapproval of addiction would, in the harm reductionists' view, reinforce
society's intolerance of drug addicts. While promoting tolerance is
admirable, the harm reductionists take it too far: if you should not
stigmatize addicts, neither should you condone addiction. And with its
learn-to-live-with-drugs approach, harm reduction offers no guidance on how
to bring down the appallingly high levels of drug addiction in this country.
Harm reduction does, at least, acknowledge one key fact: helping chronic
users should be the target of drug policy. Washington doesn't understand
this. From recent actions in the nation's capital - like Congress's
decision to earmark $1 billion for antidrug advertising aimed at teenagers
- you might logically conclude that the threat drugs pose to the nation
consists mainly of adolescent use. In fact, teen-age drug use, while up
some in recent years, remains well below the peak levels of the late
1970's. What's more, most of that increase consists of marijuana use. And
while pot is not harmless, and young people should be discouraged from
using it, it is not the problem heroin and cocaine are.
In contrast to teen-age pot smokers, adults who regularly use heroin,
cocaine and crack do pose problems: they commit muggings, abuse children,
suffer overdoses and spread disease. In all, there are an estimated 3.6
million hard-core users in the United States. While these addicts
constitute only 20 percent of all drug users in the country (most of the
rest being casual, occasional users), they consume about three-fourths of
all the cocaine and heroin used here.
Who are these problem users? Contrary to the many media accounts of
strung-out stockbrokers and models, addicts tend to be found not in posh
condominiums or suburban split-levels but in the housing projects of urban
America. Heavy users are disproportionately poor, unemployed and members
of minority groups. No headway can be made in alleviating the nation's
drug problem without finding a way to get such users off drugs. A good
place to begin is suggested by a 1994 RAND study. The researchers C. Peter
Rydell and Susan Everingham set out to compare the effectiveness of four
types of drug-control programs: source-country efforts (attacking drug
production abroad), interdiction (seizing drugs in transit to the U.S.),
domestic law enforcement (arresting and incarcerating sellers and buyers)
and drug treatment. How much additional money, they asked, would the
Government have to spend on each approach to reduce national cocaine
consumption by 1 percent? Rydell and Everingham developed a model of the
national cocaine market, then fed into it more than 70 variables, from
seizure data to survey responses.
They were amazed at the results. Relying solely on domestic law
enforcement, the Government would have to spend an additional $246 million
to reduce U.S. cocaine consumption by 1 percent. Relying on interdiction,
it would have to spend $366 million, and on source-country programs, a
whopping $783 million. Relying solely on drug treatment, however, the
Government would have to spend just $34 million more. In other words,
treatment was 7 times more cost effective than domestic law enforcement, 10
times more effective than interdiction and 23 times more effective than
attacking drugs at their source.
Such results contradict the conventional wisdom that treatment does not work.
Many Americans know of someone who entered a program and did well while in
it, only to relapse afterward. Nevertheless, failed treatments do not cost
very much and so do not dilute the cost-effectiveness of treatment overall.
More important, study after study has demonstrated the efficacy of treatment.
In one recent analysis, the Government tracked the performance of 4,400
clients who entered treatment between July 1993 and October 1995. Those
clients were interviewed at the time they began treatment, at the time they
finished and a year later; the accuracy of their responses was checked by
random drug tests. Seeking to study the most severe cases, the researchers
concentrated on programs serving people in public housing, on welfare and
in the criminal-justice system. The number of clients saying they used
crack dropped from 39.5 percent prior to treatment to 17.8 percent a year
later; for heroin, the number went from 23.6 percent to 12.6 percent. All
told, drug consumption decreased by roughly 50 percent.
Well, skeptics will say, treatment might be effective for addicts who
receive it, but how many really want it? junkies, it's commonly believed,
simply do not want help. And to an extent, that's true. Drugs not only
impart intense pleasure but also provide great comfort to people coping
with various crises in their lives. Yet for many, the point eventually
comes when the drugs themselves begin to cause problems, from physical
ailments to family quarrels to legal troubles. And when that happens,
addicts are often open to help. That openness, however, is usually quite
fleeting, and unless it is exploited immediately, most will end up back on
the streets.
Alas, help is rarely available immediately. Consider the situation in New
York State. An estimated 1.6 million residents have a drug or alcohol
problem serious enough to require treatment. In any given year, roughly 25
percent of that number, or 400,000, will seek help. To serve them, the
state has 121,000 publicly funded slots. With those slots turning over
throughout the year, the state can accommodate nearly 300,000 people
annually. That leaves more than 100,000 people a year unable to get help.
Scarcity is just the start of the problem. In the world of New York health
care, drug treatment is the Balkans: a chaotic realm full of internal
strife and rivalries. Each treatment program features a different regimen
and serves distinct populations. Not every program is right for every
individual. Yet the city has no central place where addicts can go to
apply for admission. There is not even a registry listing openings. If a
Holiday Inn is full, it will at least call the Ramada down the street to
see if it has a vacancy; not so two treatment programs. As for addicts who
do enter the system, there's no one to monitor their progress and make sure
they stay on course.
Fortunately, there exists a remedy to such problems: 'central intake
units,' places where addicts can go to get immediate attention. Appearing
here, addicts would meet with the first available counselor to discuss the
nature of their problem and the best way to address it. After deciding on
the proper therapy - a detox, a methadone program, a residential facility -
the counselor would consult a computerized directory of openings. Once a
specific program was selected and the client accepted for admission,
central intake would arrange transportation and assign an escort. If a
program didn't work out, central intake could arrange an alternative.
While such units might seem to constitute yet another layer of bureaucracy,
their coordinating role would actually help reduce red tape.
In addition, central intake could dispatch outreach teams into drug markets
to recruit addicts into treatment. Approaching users on the street, such
workers would inform them of the services available and encourage them to
visit central intake. If these teams worked in the early morning hours,
when many addicts are coming down from their drugs, they could
significantly boost the number of people entering the system.
Of course, recruiting addicts into treatment will accomplish little if
there is nowhere to put them. And sadly, the treatment shortages present
in New York are common throughout the country. According to the U.S.
Office of National Drug Control Policy, fully half of the nation's
hard-core users - 1.7 million people - cannot get help due to the lack of
slots. (Methadone is in particularly short supply, with just 1 1 5,000 of
the 800,000 chronic heroin users receiving it. In New York City, only
35,000 out of 200,000 users do.)
During the 1992 Presidential campaign, Bill Clinton promised to rectify
this. "In a Clinton/Gore Administration, Federal assistance will help
communities dramatically increase their ability to offer drug treatment to
everyone who needs help," he wrote in "Putting People First." Six years
later, the nation is no closer to reaching that goal. Under Clinton, fully
two-thirds of the Federal drug budget goes for law enforcement and
interdiction, with the remainder going for treatment and prevention - the
same proportion as under the Bush Administration. The current drug czar,
Barry R. McCaffrey, is a retired four-star general who before taking office
had no experience with drug treatment, and while he has frequently
acknowledged the importance of treatment, he has made this a low priority.
And so the treatment gap persists.
That a focus on treatment can work is apparent from the one time it was
actually tried - during the Nixon Administration. A staunch advocate of
law and order, Nixon deferred to no one in his strident pronouncements on
drugs, but during the 1968 campaign he promised to bring down the nation's
crime rate, and once in office, he faced the need to deliver.
At the time, the nation was in the throes of a raging heroin epidemic; if
something could be done to sap it, Nixon's advisers believed, the crime
wave might abate. One obvious approach was to try to reduce the flow of
heroin into the country. At the time, the main conduit was the French
Connection, a 5,000-mile pipeline originating in Turkish poppy fields and
passing through France. The Nixon Administration began pressing the French
and Turkish Governments to crack down on local drug trafficking.
But the more Nixon's drug officials looked into the problem, the more they
became convinced that reducing the supply of drugs would prove futile
unless something was also done to reduce the demand. On that front, a new
weapon was available: methadone. Early studies showed that addicts
maintained on methadone were much more likely to hold jobs and far less
likely to commit crimes. At the time, methadone, like drug treatment in
general, was largely unavailable in most cities. An exception was Chicago,
where a young psychopharmacologist named Jerome Jaffe had set up a network
of treatment programs that was helping get addicts off the streets. A
central intake unit was opened in downtown Chicago, and addicts appearing
at it were assigned to the type of program they needed - detox,
residential, methadone maintenance, methadone-to-abstinence and so on.
Impressed, President Nixon announced in 1971 the creation of a Drug Abuse
Prevention office; to head it, he brought in Jaffe from Chicago. Once in
place, Jaffe found that about 30,000 people were on treatment waiting
lists; resolving this problem became his top priority. He faced resistance
from many quarters, including Congress, the bureaucracy and his fellow
mental-health professionals, but Jaffe - a brilliant if prickly iconoclast
- managed to outmaneuver them all. By the fall of 1972, treatment was
available to all those who wanted it.
The impact was immediate. In New York City, the crime rate in 1972 dropped
18 percent, and in Washington, 26.9 percent. Nationally, the crime rate
fell by 3 percent, the first decline in 17 years. Declines were also
recorded in the rate of heroin overdose deaths, hepatitis transmission and
drug-related hospital visits - strong testimony to the efficacy of a
national treatment system.
Yet from the moment it was created, that system came under attack. And so
in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Nixon began shifting the focus back
toward drug enforcement. During the Ford and Carter years, the treatment
budget suffered from the effects of both 'inflation and neglect. The real
turning point came under Rea gan. In his view, addicts were morally
responsible for their behavior and therefore undeserving of Government
help. As Nancy Reagan toured the country, urging Americans to "just say
no" to drugs, her husband slashed the funding for drug treatment and
boosted it for drug enforcement. By the time crack hit in the mid-1980's,
the treatment system Jaffe built had been gutted, and addicts - showing up
at clinics desperate for help - were regularly turned back onto the
streets, there to commit more crime.
It was not until the late 1980s that the Federal Government finally began
pumping more funds into treatment. In fact, the nation's treatment budget
is now larger than it was in the 1970's. Sadly, our drug problem is larger
as well, as long waiting lists attest. It is time to follow the example of
Jerome Jaffe and make elimination of those lists a top priority.
But how much would that cost? According to in-house calculations by the
drug czar's office, filling the nation's treatment gap would require
increasing the Federal treatment budget by $3.4 billion a year. Of the $16
billion Washington now spends to fight drugs, $10.6 billion goes for supply
reduction and $5.4 billion for demand reduction. If the overall budget was
held constant but the allocation for these two areas equalized at $8
billion, the demand side would receive an additional $2.6 billion - close
to the sum in question. But the Clinton Administration - worried about
looking soft on drugs - seems little interested in making such a transfer.
By itself, of course, such a change would not "solve" the nation's drug
problem. Rooted as it is in low-income communities, that problem is
inseparable from the nation's other social ills, like inadequate housing,
poor schooling and unemployment. Until these conditions are addressed,
drug abuse will remain a fixture of American life. But by following the
public health approach outlined here, Washington could reduce that problem
to a far more manageable scale. When it comes to drug policy, Americans
need not choose between their hearts and their heads; in this area,
compassion is itself cost effective. Clearly, the war on drugs is not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Users Take Risks Coming Into City ('The Washington Times'
Rails Against Washington, DC's Laissez-Faire Market For Illegal Drugs
Created By Prohibition)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 11:18:08 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US DC: Drug Users Take Risks Coming Into City
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: compassion23@geocities.com (Frank S. World)
Source: Washington Times
Contact: letter@twtmail.com
Website: http://www.washtimes.com/
Pubdate: Mon, 7 Sep 1998
Author: Kristan Trugman
DRUG USERS TAKE RISKS COMING INTO CITY
Suburbanites drive into crime-infested D.C. neighborhoods every day to
score drugs. If they're lucky, they drive away. The unlucky buyers are
mugged, robbed, beaten or killed.
But still they come, looking for easy buys and cheap drugs, enticed by city
laws that are more easy on drug buyers and users than tougher suburban
codes. They burden the city's police force, contribute to the demise of
troubled neighborhoods and put themselves at grave risk. "Nothing matters
to them but the next hit," says Lt. Gary Fitzgerald who supervises the 1st
Police District's vice unit that fights drugs in many Capitol Hill
neighborhoods and others in Northeast.
Michael Peterson, 29, a Vienna, Va., resident injects heroin as he sits in
a Southeast alley in the Arthur Capper public housing community. "It's all
about the addiction and how strong it is," says the blond-haired blue-eyed
auto mechanic who rode Metro to the city to buy heroin one recent warm
Sunday.
"This is where the drugs are. It's where [drugs] are easiest to get," Mr.
Peterson said.
"It's the only available place I know," said a 23-year-old Fairfax County,
Va., resident who drove his Volkswagen into a Southwest neighborhood called
Greenleaf to buy a $20 bag of marijuana.
Marijuana dealers stand on street curbs for drive-through service. The
business is so competitive that two dueling dealers this particular Sunday
run up to an unmarked police truck in hopes of selling a bag to
Investigator Mike Jewell, 30, of the vice unit.
The seller soon realizes he has approached a police officer and darts off.
Cocaine and heroin dealers are more discreet. Their customers, clutching
small wads of cash, jump out of cars parked along the street and scramble
into apartment hallways to quickly swap money for drugs. Undercover vice
police Investigators Sherrie Forester, 38, and Robert Clark, 33, confiscate
the drugs from the Fairfax man in the Volkswagen. "Get back in your car and
return to Virginia," Investigator Forester says to the man, sending him on
his way at dusk. Most young suburban drug users don't realize the danger of
trekking into unfamiliar neighborhoods to buy drugs, police say.
Older drug users are addicts who know the risks, but need the fix. Police
say the suburban drug shoppers exact a toll on the city as police stop
droves of buyers, lecture them about the dangers and then usually send them
home.
"It's a drain on our resources to have to deal with not only the people
involved in the drug trade in D.C., but with the added problems of people
coming in from the suburbs to buy narcotics," said Commander William P.
McManus, who heads the 1st District.
The drug business ruins neighborhoods and keeps some residents prisoners in
their homes. On the corners, drug dealers swarm, selling their wares to the
middle class, who ride into the inner city from their safe communities far
from the violence fueled by drugs.
"There are decent people who live in these neighborhoods and are tired of
it. I've had people at their windows saying, 'Please, please, help me.'
It's like they're under siege," Investigator Forester says. "It's a city
under siege."
D.C. prosecutors require a minimum seizure of eight or nine $20 zip bags --
each about one-sixth of a gram -- to bring a felony charge, police say.
To charge suspects with a felony, prosecutors must be able to prove that a
defendant possessed the drugs to distribute or with the intent to
distribute, said Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's
Office in D.C.
"You have to have evidence that it's not [just] for personal use. It's
easier to convince a judge or jury when you have eight or nine bags.
Otherwise they will knock it down to a simple possession," Mr. Phillips
said.
Detained suburbanites might, at most, see a temporary holding cell, where
they are held for a brief court appearance in D.C. Superior Court. Once
they pay an attorney and court fees, their arrest might end up costing
$1,000.
Despite complaints by police officers that prosecutors do not pursue some
drug cases, prosecutors say they are aggressive against drug sellers and
buyers in the District. But they can work only with laws on the books.
"Under the D.C. code, selling marijuana is a misdemeanor no matter how much
you sell. Only in federal court can you charge it as a felony," Mr.
Phillips said. "The risk level is much lower in terms of sentences" for
selling marijuana than for heroin or cocaine. "But it also has made
[marijuana sales] more competitive and has been associated with a lot of
violent crimes because it's territorial."
Law enforcement officers believe about 20 people were murdered as a direct
result of the drug trade in the Greenleaf area of Southwest and about 20
others died indirectly related to drug trafficking in the neighborhood,
where mostly marijuana is sold.
News of the violent crimes in that neighborhood apparently did not spread
into suburban homes. One recent Friday afternoon in Greenleaf, a man on a
bicycle cruised Delaware Avenue watching for police. He was on the
drug-dealers' payroll, police said.
It was a big day for drug sales -- payday for many workers and the
beginning of the weekend. Cars, many sporting Virginia tags, moved slowly
along the street.
Knowing two police officers are watching, the dealers instruct buyers to
drive into a parking lot shielded by buildings. "This is an open-air drug
market all day long," Investigator Clark said.
A few blocks away on I Street SE, a woman got out of a van and hurried
across the street until she was intercepted by vice officers. "Tell me the
truth.
What are you doing here?" Officer Clark asked. "Looking for my sister," the
woman replied. "They will tell you every lie in the book," Investigator
Forester.
The woman eventually admitted she was in search of heroin. "You need to go
back to Virginia," Investigator Forester told her. "And be careful. You're
in a dangerous neighborhood."
Moments later at Potomac Garden public housing complex, a 39-year-old woman
from Arlington, Va., sat behind the wheel of a rusty car with her
15-year-old son in the back seat, her swollen hands an indication of heroin
use.
"This is really sad. What kind of life are you showing him?" Investigator
Forester asked her, looking at the teen-ager. "I should lock you up for
bringing a 15-year-old boy down here to buy drugs. I wish there was a
charge like that."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Backpacks Becoming Casualty Of School Violence ('The Associated Press'
Says 90 Percent Of Youngsters Ages 12 To 17 Have A Backpack And Use It
Almost Every Day, But School Officials In Isolated Districts
Around The United States Are Beginning To Ban Them As Potential Hiding Places
For Guns, Knives And Other Contraband - The News Service Doesn't Mention
The Number Of Homicides At Public Schools Has Declined
Over The Last Five Years From 55 Annually To 45)
Associated Press
found at:
http://www.oregonlive.com/
feedback (letters to the editor):
feedback@thewire.ap.org
Backpacks becoming casualty of school violence
The Associated Press
9/7/98 4:59 PM
By MARTA W. ALDRICH
Associated Press Writer
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Educators who once looked on backpacks as little
more than a tidy way for students to carry books and papers now are
surveying them warily as a potential arsenal for guns, knives and other
contraband.
After a year of schoolhouse bloodshed that shook the nation and left
administrators searching for ways to prevent more violence, the humble
backpack has made some lists of threats to school safety.
In Paris, about 90 miles northwest of Nashville, Lakewood Elementary School
pupils are allowed this year to carry only transparent backpacks made of
mesh netting or plastic.
The same goes for elementary school students in Marshall County, Ky., which
has banned backpacks for students in grades 6 to 12. In Westmoreland, N.Y.,
backpacks were prohibited on the last day of school last spring.
"Backpacks are an ideal place for children to hide a weapon, drugs, cellular
phones, beepers or anything else they don't need," said Marshall County
schools superintendent Kenneth Shadowen.
"We know that someone wanting to bring a weapon in school will get it in one
way or another, but we hope to make it as difficult as possible."
An incident in May -- when a student pulled an ice pick from her backpack
and threatened a classmate -- crystallized the issue for Shadowen.
"We can't go around searching backpacks and book bags all day," he said.
"This approach isn't trouble-free and it punishes a lot of good students,
but we think it's best for the system."
The backpack of 15-year-old Kip Kinkel, the suspect in a May 21 school
shooting that killed two students and wounded 22 others in Springfield,
Ore., contained several ammunition clips, fully loaded, and an assortment of
loose ammunition, police said.
Also in May, a 5-year-old kindergartener in Memphis brought a loaded pistol
to school, a 16-year-old in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, was charged with carrying a
concealed weapon and an eighth-grader in Hereford, Md., hid a handgun. All
the incidents involved backpacks.
In Chino, Calif., a fifth-grade girl caused havoc at her school on May 18 by
writing "B-O-M-B" on her backpack, which was accidentally left in the wrong
classroom. Authorities evacuated the 950 students at Alicia Cortez
Elementary School and detonated the bag, only to find it contained school
supplies and books, including a library copy of "Old Yeller."
"We banned backpacks on the last day of school ... in response to these
various incidents and acts of violence across the nation," said school
superintendent Marilyn Pirkle in Westmoreland.
Market research by manufacturers shows 90 percent of youngsters ages 12 to
17 have a backpack and use it almost every day.
School administrators say backpacks -- with their monster clips, daisy
chains and special compartments for CD players, laptop computers and roller
blades -- have become status symbols for kids.
JanSport Inc., the nation's leading backpack manufacturer, developed the
mesh packs after schools started changing policies. But the transparent
styles still make up less than 2 percent of the company's sales, spokeswoman
Gigi deYoung said.
"Different schools have taken different approaches to the safety concern,"
deYoung said. "Some schools have abolished lockers rather than backpacks
and, to meet those needs, the kids are asking for larger backpacks to carry
their things all day."
Boston-based Eastpak, the second-largest U.S. backpack manufacturer,
developed its mesh-style Malibu line two years ago for the beach but has
begun selling more as school bags, spokeswoman Julie Mazzman said.
"We have noticed that we keep selling out of that bag, particularly in the
Southeast. But I don't think it's necessarily a trend yet," she said.
Lakewood officials asked the local Wal-Mart to stock more transparent
backpack styles during the summer to accommodate the ban on conventional
packs that went into effect when school resumed Aug. 10.
"I'm not aware of any negative reaction (to the policy) at this point,"
principal Doug Mosley said. "Frankly, I think people are more worried about
the violence right now."
(c)1998 Oregon Live LLC
Copyright 1997 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican Congress Takes Aim At Illegal Guns From US ('The Los Angeles Times'
Says Mexican Lawmakers Who Are Angry About The Flow Of Arms Coming South,
Many Linked To Drug Trafficking Cartels, Are Expected To Approve
Harsher Penalties For Smugglers)
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1998 14:12:29 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Mexico: Mexican Congress Takes Aim At Illegal Guns From U.S.
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jim Galasyn
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Pubdate: 7 Sep 1998
Author: James F. Smith, Times Staff Writer
MEXICAN CONGRESS TAKES AIM AT ILLEGAL GUNS FROM U.S.
Weapons: Angry over flow of arms coming south, many linked to drug
trafficking cartels, lawmakers are expected to approve harsher penalties
for smugglers.
MEXICO CITY--Next time you pop across the Mexican border for a visit,
remember to leave your AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle at home.
This year, 123 U.S. citizens have been arrested in Mexico on weapons
charges, according to the U.S. Embassy here, and about 70
Americans--including an Orange County man--are now being held, accused or
convicted of violating the country's strict Firearms and Explosives Act.
In some cases, people honestly forget that they have a gun in the trunk or
bullets in the glove compartment, U.S. and Mexican authorities acknowledge.
But other cases are more sinister: Mexico is awash in guns smuggled in from
the United States and used by organized crime syndicates, many of them
linked to brutal drug cartels.
The Mexican Congress is close to giving final approval to a new law that
would give border officials more discretion in cases in which visitors
obviously have inadvertently brought weapons with them. But be warned: The
law also will make the penalties even harsher for those who do try to
smuggle arms into Mexico. Already, those convicted face up to 30 years in
prison. The law will make more weapons offenses subject to such tough
prison terms.
Just as Washington is dismayed about illegal drugs flowing north from
Mexico, so the Mexican government is angry over the flood of illegal
weapons coming south. More than 1,000 illegal weapons a month were seized
from 1995 to mid-1997, nearly 40% of them linked to drug trafficking
cartels, according to the Foreign Relations Ministry.
Pointing to the flow from the north, Mexican officials like to note, for
example, that the gun used to assassinate presidential candidate Luis
Donaldo Colosio in 1994 was traced to Texas.
"Just as the Americans pressure us on certain issues, we are going to do
the same thing and make this fair," Jesus Silva Herzog, a former ambassador
to the U.S., told a radio interviewer last year. "While there has been a
lot of racket about the movement of drugs from Mexico to the United States,
we have been insisting on the need to study the movement of arms into Mexico."
His comment came just days after customs officials in San Diego seized two
truckloads of illegal weapons, including grenade launchers and automatic
rifles, that were about to be smuggled into Mexico.
Scott McClung, the Orange County ship captain arrested last month on
charges he transported two AR-15 rifles and three shotguns into Mexico,
doesn't fit neatly into either common profile: forgetful, innocent or
purposeful gun-runner. Yet his case illustrates the potential dangers for
U.S. citizens who bring guns to Mexico.
In a jailhouse interview hours before his indictment on the weapons charge,
McClung, who runs deep-sea religious voyages for youths, said he knew the
Mexican gun and maritime laws and complied with them. Ships may dock with
arms aboard if the weapons are declared upon landing, but they may not be
brought ashore.
The 36-year-old skipper said he declared his guns--aboard for protection
against pirates, he said--as soon as his ship reached the harbor of the
resort island of Cozumel on Aug. 10 during an unexpected stop because of
engine trouble. He collapsed and was hospitalized after being ordered to
stand trial.
McClung, who remains in an island hospital while awaiting trial, charges
that he is the victim of a local prosecutor who thought he could solicit a
quick bribe. The prosecutor argued that McClung made no declaration of
weapons aboard. Beyond that, the prosecutor has said he is prohibited from
commenting on the case, including the accusations against him, other than
to note that a trial judge considered the evidence presented by both sides
and ruled that McClung must stand trial--and be held without bail until then.
McClung's 71-year-old father, Eugene, who also was jailed with his son for
nine days until charges against the elder man were dropped, said: "I don't
have any problem with them controlling the flow of guns into the country.
All they need to do is abide by their own laws."
The gun issue has long been a sore point in U.S.-Mexican relations, to the
extent that Mexican officials prepared the legal change earlier this year
to alleviate some of the irritants.
"There are different perceptions [about weapons] in the U.S. and Mexico," a
senior official in the attorney general's office said. "In Mexico, we
believe that carrying a gun implies the potential to commit a crime.
Historically, the U.S. has had greater political stability. Here, since the
'60s and '70s, there have been guerrilla uprisings, and there is more and
more violent crime, with firearms, that ends up in killings."
The Mexican Senate approved the bill in April, and the lower house is
expected to give its assent by November. Among other provisions, the law
would allow nonresidents who are considered innocent bearers of arms to be
turned back or fined rather than face automatic arrest and prosecution.
"We have found ourselves faced with some cases where Americans who are
accustomed to carrying guns forget them and bring them into Mexico," said
Sen. Jose Alvaro Vallarta, a retired general who is head of the National
Defense Commission in Congress.
But Vallarta noted that the leniency is limited to first-time offenders who
have brought in no more than a single weapon. Furthermore, the weapon must
be among those that may legally be owned in Mexico and are not restricted
to military use. In Mexico, guns larger than .38-caliber are defined as
being for military use only.
Therefore, McClung would not have been eligible for leniency, because he
had more than one gun and the AR-15s are for military use only in Mexico.
The charge against McClung is particularly severe: clandestinely
transporting weapons reserved for military use into Mexico, with conviction
bringing a prison term of five to 30 years. Lawyers are mounting dual legal
and political campaigns to get the charges dropped, arguing that McClung
and his millionaire father are hardly arms smugglers.
In May, Mexico formally ratified an inter-American convention against arms
trafficking, adopted last year by the Organization of American States. The
convention requires member states to monitor arms sales strictly, mark guns
clearly for easier tracing, share information on weapons and work together
to track down stolen arms. The U.S. has not yet ratified it.
The official in the attorney general's office described two categories of
arms smugglers: the major organized crime syndicates, often linked to drug
traffickers, and the "ant smugglers" who slip a gun or two and a few
bullets into the country each time they cross the border.
"What we've seen is that all the drug cartels are involved in the
importation of illegal arms," he said. "It is obvious that these criminal
organizations arm themselves with smuggled guns to carry out their wars.
And once these guns arrive, they filter into regular street-crime gangs."
A U.S. Embassy official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the
Mexicans are concerned not only about major arms trafficking but also "this
bit-by-bit smuggling, one or two bullets at a time." He said the U.S.
government has mounted a broad publicity campaign, including prominent
signs on highways leading to the Mexican border, warning U.S. citizens not
to bring guns into Mexico.
The nine consular districts in Mexico frequently respond to calls from
people arrested on arms and other charges, although the diplomats' powers
to intervene are severely limited. Consular officials visit suspects,
provide lists of lawyers and seek to ensure that detainees are decently
treated, but they cannot provide legal advice.
A week before McClung's arrest in Cozumel, the State Department issued a
warning to U.S. citizens saying, "The Mexican government strictly enforces
its laws restricting the entry of firearms and ammunition along all land
borders and at air and seaports."
It noted that the only way to import certain firearms legally is to get a
permit in advance from a Mexican consulate. Such advance permission is
sometimes given for hunters and gun collectors.
In its "Tips for Travelers to Mexico," the State Department notes that
Mexico traditionally has the highest prison population of U.S. citizens
outside the United States and that the Mexican judicial system regards
accused people to be guilty until proved innocent.
The document adds, "The U.S. Embassy has noted an increase of Americans
being detained for illegally smuggling arms into Mexico" and points out
that "some Mexican cities have ordinances prohibiting the possession of
knives or anything that might be construed as a weapon."
The pamphlet's advice is blunt: "Do not bring firearms."
This story did not appear in all of Sunday's editions of The Times
because of a late-breaking story.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I Know My Father Died Of Drink - I Watched Him (An Op-Ed
In Britain's 'Independent' Says British Physicians And Statisticians
Cover Up The Number Of Deaths Caused By Alcohol, As Well As
The Horrible Effects Of Alcoholism)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 12:25:52 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: UK: I Know My Father Died Of Drink. I Watched Him
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Martin Cooke (mjc1947@cyberclub.iol.ie)
Source: Independent, The (UK)
Contact: letters@independent.co.uk
Website: http://www.independent.co.uk/
Pubdate: Mon, 07 Sep 1998
Author: Rosie Brocklehurst
I KNOW MY FATHER DIED OF DRINK. I WATCHED HIM.
My father died from chronic alcoholism but I cannot prove it. I cannot prove
that in July 1982, when my father had been in intensive care for three days
and the plug was pulled on his life, alcohol was the cause of his death. I
cannot prove it because nowhere on his death certificate is alcohol even
mentioned.
My father's death is not included in the statistics of alcohol-related
deaths in England and Wales for 1982. In that year, the official number of
alcohol-related deaths in England and Wales was put at the very low figure
of 2,624. Those statistics are not going to put alcoholism very high up on
anybody's agenda, or shock the nation for that matter, but those statistics
are wrong.
Alcohol is no respecter of persons, of internal organs or of bodily
functions. But although research has improved since 1982, and official
statistics have risen, there still exists a web of denial, ignorance and
confusion in assessing the true picture of alcoholism, illness and
mortality. Difficulties in collection of data, collusion between families,
individuals and the medical profession which incorporates the stigma still
associated with the word "alcoholic" are factors in masking the problem's
real nature. If someone dies from alcohol-related causes, it is unlikely to
appear on the death certificate.
The debate within the medical profession - and within society as a whole -
about the effects of alcohol abuse is based on poor understanding fuelled by
inadequate research; an area as murky as the dregs in the bottom of a bottle
of inferior plonk.
How do I know what killed my father? Because I was there. I was there for
years. I brought him his last bottle of strong liquor. He was not eating
then. He could not. He was in terrible physical and mental pain. I witnessed
his physical and mental decline over a period of years as he drank his way
through a minimum of two bottles of Scotch a day. He never mentioned
suicide, but his life was ebbing away pitifully each day. It was not just
the physical disintegration but also the mental degeneration that was so
horrific. His spirit was atrophying.
In the two years before his death, my father's body was bloated, and his
skin a greyish colour. His face was jowly and ill-kempt. His eyes were
bulbous and yellow. He could not walk without extreme pain in his legs. He
smoked, but this was not all to do with smoking. It is known that chronic
alcoholism causes polyneuropathy - tender calf muscles, discomfort in
walking, numbness, weak legs, tingling in feet and hands and can lead to
paralysis of the legs.
His name was William, and he had once, some 30 years before, been a fit and
wiry fitness instructor in the RAF. At the age of 45 he was made redundant,
and dealt with his anxiety and disappointment in life with drink. He moved
the family to a house next door to a pub and when he was not drinking there,
he was brewing up pear wine and consuming it before it had fermented. It was
the kind of stuff you used to get under the counter in the Gorbals.
Moonshine. 100 per cent proof that could also be used as paint stripper.
The violent mood swings, such a consistent pattern in the early years of his
drinking, in the later stages, changed to an all-enveloping depression. As
his body and his mind weakened he withdrew into a space few could penetrate.
He spent most of his last days in a council bungalow, staring into the
middle distance. His memory came and went.
He began to believe that he had fought in the Second World War, when in fact
he had not been old enough to do so. This type of confabulation is
documented. Extreme cases are known as "Korsakoff's Psychosis".
On a hot July day in 1982, my father was found by a friend of the family who
was passing by his home. He was sitting naked and shivering on a kitchen
chair. He had removed all his clothes for they, like every sheet and towel
in the house was covered in a foul bloody liquid, which he was passing from
his bowel and mouth. The family friend recalled the look of abject fear on
my father's eyes as the ambulance took him to hospital.
That was the last time anyone saw him conscious. Soon after arrival at the
hospital his oesophagus ruptured and his stomach erupted. His brain was
monitored in intensive care. It had been severely damaged. He was 56 years
old when he died.
In the Liver Unit of King's College Hospital, it is the nurses who witness
most of the agonising death throes of the alcoholic patients; the foaming at
the mouth in alcohol-induced epileptic fits, the swelling of the brain from
inflammation. If the patient survives then he or she may become one of those
placed in a psychiatric hospital, the so-called "wet brains" who do not know
who they are or where they have come from, and whose brain damage is
irreversible. For those with chronic liver disease who are in physical
agony, a painkiller may not always be administered because death may be
caused by the drug itself.
All death and its details make grim conversation but there is a particular
aura of shame and taboo which surrounds the subject of alcoholic death.
Moreover, the medical terminology used to describe physical states leading
to death shrouds the subject further with clinical objectivity, and removes
the emotional shock from a general public who might wish to avoid hearing
about the gruesome details. The horrific nature of the alcoholic death -
from cerebral atrophy or liver disease for example - is confirmed by Dr
Sarah Jarvis of Alcohol Concern's medical committee. "It is, without doubt,
one of the most unpleasant deaths imaginable," she says. "Of course it is
the hardened alcoholic who ends up in hospital - the hopeless case - and I
think this gives doctors a very distorted view of the whole subject of
alcoholism in our society."
But why is it the case that accurate statistics are so hard to come by? Dr
Peter Anderson of the World Health Organisation says: "There is reticence on
the part of the medical profession to put alcoholism down as a cause. This
is perhaps partly to do with a certain ambivalence in the profession,
because of the way alcohol is used by the profession itself. There is also
the added desire to protect the family afterwards from the associated social
stigma."
Dr Jarvis agrees and says that collusion has meant it is hard to come up
with accurate statistics. Researchers have had to develop systems of
analysis of an epidemiological nature, by looking at the relationship
between drink and ill health or accidents related to alcohol consumption.
"A lot of death certificates are written out in the primary health care
setting where the doctor will have known the family. The truth might strain
the doctor-patient relationship." There may also be financial reasons. Lucy,
is an example of what often happens. Her husband died in a London hospital
at the age of 29. He had fought a battle with drink for nine years.
Lucy accepted he was dying of alcoholism, but it did not appear as the cause
of death. If it had, it may have jeopardised the life insurance which
enabled her to pick up the pieces of her shattered life after his death.
Statistics do matter. 100,000 a year is the figure for smoking-related
deaths. But Drs Jarvis and Anderson agree it is easier to assess
smoking-related illness, and even with changes in attitudes, there is not
the same social stigma associated with smoking oneself to death. Part of the
problem is recognising early signs in the pathology of the patient. Many
illnesses caused by alcohol could have been caused by something else.
Despite the commonly held belief that the consequences of alcohol misuse are
well understood, expert evidence suggests this is not true. Figures vary
between 4,000 and 40,000 deaths per annum in England and Wales. Dr Anderson
quotes a figure of 28,000 deaths (Lord President's Report, Action on Alcohol
Misuse, 1991).
It is these statistics, of course, which when waved in front of Government
Health Departments influence the importance assigned to any particular
health problems.
Since the University of York's Centre for Health Economics report in May
1992, which put the annual alcohol-related mortality rate at between "8,700
and 33,000", there has been no change in the statistical data. But more
recently the Government has proposed, in its Healthier Nation White Paper, a
strategy designed to tackle the whole issue. Alcohol Concern is in the
process of developing a body of work which will help to inform that
strategy. Perhaps the key statistics here are financial. Alcohol misuse
costs British industry an estimated UKP2bn per annum; and alcohol-related
crime costs an estimated UKP50m a year.
It is to be hoped that financial considerations will influence strategy in
such a way that death and alcohol become a more transparent subject. We must
overcome our squeamishness and shame. It is the tragic human consequences of
such illness and death which needs to be revealed if more lives are not to
be wasted.
to the 1998 Daily News index for September 3-9