Drug WarRant

Workshop: Beyond Prohibition: Describing a Drug War Exit Strategy

(l-r)
Alex Wodak, Australia
Fredrick Polak, Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation
Steve Rolles, Transform, UK
Moderator: Roger Goodman, Seattle
Maria Lucia Karam, retired Judge, Brazil
Eugene Oscapella, Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy
Cliff Thornton, Efficacy
Note: This is a very abbreviated post, just listing some points that were made, without full details.
Questions:

1. What does “regulation” mean?
2. How do we get there?

Alex Wodak: Reduce and minimize the costs
Six principals of effective drug policy

1. Must be evidence-based
2. Treat drug problems as social and health problem
3. Respect Human Rights
4. Must hear the voice of those who use drugs
5. Respect the international treaties (including human rights conventions)
6. Preventing further social marginalization

Polak: Drug policy should also protect children. Today’s does not.
Goodman: Five principles

1. Protecting families and children
2. Make wise use of scarce public resources
3. Reduce public disorder and Crime
4. Promote personal and public health.
5. Civil Rights

Maria Karam:
– Additional principle: FREEDOM
– We’re exchanging freedom for security. And when we do that, we exchange democracy for totalitarianism and we lose our freedom, but do not gain security.
– There must be respect for all people, including drug users and drug dealers.
– We must bring back this notion of liberty.
Eugene Oscapella:
– We’re trying to prevent death
– We’re trying to reduce social disfunction
Wodak
– We need the objective of reducing police and government corruption
Regulation
Goodman: We don’t have to re-invent the wheel. We have tons of regulation models in place that can be used (alcohol, explosives, pharmaceuticals, and on, and on). First step is get rid of Schedule 1, which is nonsensical — perhaps the other schedules would still be workable.
Rolles: Definition of regulation: Important to note that: Some activities would remain prohibited (ie, sales to minors). Different regimes would be in place for different drugs in different environments. Implementation would be phased over a number of years. You’d probably start with stricter models of regulation. Don’t dictate — lay out a series of options and let local areas choose their approach.
Goodman: Why can’t we just give doctors information about heroin and let them prescribe it?
Eugene: We need to help people understand the difference between drug use under prohibition and drug use under legalization.
Commercialization
Eugene: To what extent do we allow commercialization? Advertising?
Goodman: Suppose Cannabis growers were licensed by the state, sell it to the state, but not allowed to advertise.
Wodak:
Another principle: Legal supply has got to go a long way to meeting strong demand. (not necessarily all the way, but most of the way)
– Sensible approach for marijuana is to tax and regulate like alcohol and tobacco.
– Advertising ban would be good, but problem in the U.S. because of first amendment.
Goodman: The future world of drugs beyond prohibition, reduces the harm by reducing the toxicity of drugs.
Maria: Criminal justice control system sells the false notion that everything will be OK if you arrest people, and this is not true. Eliminate the false control of criminal justice, the social control will come more easily than now. We are not prepared to think about all the forms of control that will certainly appear when prohibition ends.

Drug Policy Conference – Saturday noon
Workshop: To Snitch or Not to Snitch? Diverse Viewpoints on the Role of Informants in American Drug Law Enforcement

(l-r)
Matthew Fogg, LEAP (not part of the panel) (Bigots with Badges website)
Troy Buckner-Nkrumah, National Hip Hop Political Convention
Ethan Brown, Author of Snitch: Informants, Cooperators, and the Corruption of Justice
Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University
Moderator Davey D. Berkeley
Marc Hill
– An anthropologist who is on the streets every day, balancing stopping deaths on the street, yet also analyzing it.
– “Stop Snitching” is too often viewed as a two-dimensional sign of a morally bankrupt hip-hop movement.
– As people of color, the relationship to the state is complicated, and the notion that contacting the police means that the right person will be sought, caught, and jailed just isn’t reality.
– There is a distinction between snitching and witnessing. Stop snitching doesn’t mean that people stand by while grandma is hit over the head and her loaf of bread is stolen.
– There is a conflict in different anti-snitching positions.
Troy Buckner-Nkrumah
– Corporate media is helping to define the Stop Snitching movement, and is keeping it skewed to the morally bankrupt approach
– Historical effects related to views of snitching in the African American community — think back to the house negro and the field negro pitted against each other on the plantation (with the house negro snitching on the field negro).
– Stop Snitching is not about ignoring problems — it’s about not depending on the police to solve the problem. “It makes no sense for us to call upon them to protect us.”
Ethan Brown
– Traces the stop snitching movement to the sentencing guidelines in the 80’s, which established extraordinarily harsh prison sentences for small amounts. Section 5k1.1 of the law provides that the only way to get a downward reduction in sentencing is to cooperate with the government against someone else. This has established a cottage industry in snitching, which leads to a blowback against this kind of government intrusion.
– The media has interpreted the Stop Snitching as being about an existing code of silence. The Stop Snitching movement is coming about because everyone is snitching.
– Rule 404b Evidence related to uncharged acts can be introduced into the courtroom. Power has been shifted to the prosecutor into a he-said, she-said enforcement.
– All these laws were passed without a second of thought, reflection, or study.
– Since the guidelines were passed, efforts have been made to change these unfair guidelines, yet nothing changes. In the 2006 sentencing hearing, the Justice Department essential said that they don’t care if the sentences are unfair. They need them to be harsh in order to get cooperation.
Troy
– I’m more of a conspiracy theorist. I think they did think about those laws and saw it as a though-out plan to go after unrest in the country.
Matthew (LEAP) (a former U.S. Marshall who worked with the DEA)
– He brought up, to colleagues, the fact that there was a disparate emphasis on locking up black people for drugs. And they said: ‘We’re making money. Why are you bringing this up? If we start locking these [white] people up, there will be a phone call and they’ll shut us down. And there goes the overtime.’
Ethan
– Often the most dangerous people out there are the cooperators. They get out for cooperating and go on killing people. Prosectors and police are only looking at numbers, not at dangers.
…There was then some discussion regarding Madisonville, Texas with an organizer from that area. A beautiful black woman snitch named Dawn was used to seduce black men and then frame them for drug sales. Since there was no evidence, the feds needed more, so they went into the town and threatened people to cooperate against these defendants. ‘Give up some information or we might come after you.’ Then someone in government leaked transcripts of these informant testimony and now the whole town is now at war against each other.
– The whole informant process is a government action to destabilize the community.
Regina Kelly talked about her situation getting arrested for drugs from an informant who lied about everyone. The informant – a drug-using mentally challenged man who was told to get a specific 15 people and that anyone extra that he identified would be extra money for him.
Regina was identified as someone named Jennifer (she’s never been called Jennifer), and arrested. She spent three weeks in jail and took two years to get her record expunged. She is a single mother of four.
Marc Hill
– The Bill Cosby nonsense about ‘sentencing guidelines aren’t an issue if you don’t do drugs’ ignores the fact that: If you have a ghetto snitch industry, then even if people don’t do something wrong, they can still end up in jail or having their lives ruined.
Ethan
– A disturbing development is, related to the terrorism war, the notion of pre-emptive indictments, which say that we will indict based on intentions, not actions. Informants have been given huge incentives to find people this way.
Audience comment: – The primary reason for having snitches is to keep freedom in check. We know damn well why this is happening. This is a racial justice problem.

Workshop: Europe and Drug Policy Reform: Stepping Forward or Falling Back?
Moderator: Craig Reinarman, UC-Santa Cruz,

(l-r)
Michael Jourdan, Centre of Alcohol and Drug Research, Copenhagen
Sebastian Saville, Release, London
Peter Sarosi, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union
Joep Oomen, ENCOD, Antwerp, Belgium
Sophie Pinkham, Open Society Institute
Paul Thewissen, Royal Netherlands Embassy
Sebastian Saville: UK
– There are now quite a number of reports are showing that UK drug policy is a mess. However, evidence has little affect on political action.
– There is, perhaps, an opportunity to further discuss the difference between use and abuse.
– Treatment is more openly accepted, but more of it is focused through the criminal justice system.
– Cannabis remains high on the press agenda. Lots of propaganda from the Daily Mail and the Independent.
– Celebrity obsession – Kate Moss, Amy Winehouse, George Michael
Peter Sarosi: Hungary (website)
– Hungary’s civil liberties union is based on the ACLU model
– The Freedom of Information Act is used heavily to help drug policy reform in Hungary.
– Civil Obedience Movement [this is pretty interesting]
In 2005, a whole bunch of activists turned themselves in to police to confess having used illicit substances in the past, with HCLU there to represent them. Lots of press attention. There were some controversial police decisions — young drug users were prosecuted but police rejected the confession of a 64 year old grandmother. The HCLU represented one man who went to trial in a very interesting case. In Hungarian law you have to prove that a crime harms society, and the young man showed up in court with his own cannabis plant – to prove that nobody else had been involved in his drug use, so society had not been harmed. Lots of press attention again. The HCLU fully expected that the man would be arrested when he left the court with his cannabis plant, but the guards forgot to arrest him (which the press really enjoyed).
Sophi Pinkham: Russia, Georgia and the Ukraine
– Large scale HIV epidemic connected to injected drug use.
– Lot of the same policies in the former Soviet Union as in the United States.
– Drug use is seen as something that makes women ineligible for motherhood. Doctors will lie to women drug users (claiming that medically speaking, their child will certainly be deformed) to encourage abortion, even late term. Those who refuse to follow the advice end up not getting medical assistance in their pregnancy.
– Harm reduction is difficult to implement because of hyper-criminal laws. Police may choose to prosecute needle-exchange workers for the residue in the used syringes.
– Police extort very large bribes from drug users.
Paul Thewissen: Netherlands
– Asked how many of the audience had been to a coffee shop in Amsterdam (lots of hands raised)
– Use of cannabis is lower in the Netherlands than the U.S.
– In the Netherlands, health is the leading focus in drug policy. Department of health is responsible for drug policy.
– Any use of drugs is not a punishable offense. Selling, manufacturing can be, but there should be no barriers for users to find help, so no punishment.
– Cannabis is considered a soft drug
– Easier to do research in the Netherlands because drug policy is more open, so they can actually do detailed research on THC levels, etc.
– Coffee shops are fine if they sell less than 5 grams to a person, no hard drugs, and no cannabis to minors.
Michael Jourdan: Denmark
– Closer to the Dutch model than the United States, but still far from the Dutch model.
– Lots of stepping forward and falling back in Denmark.
Falling back…
– Narcotics Advisory Council provided advice to the government for years, but the recent government abolished it.
– Zero tolerance has become “political tender.” It has been imported. Young people are being prosecuted for the minutest amounts of drugs.
– Ketamine has been criminalized.
– Christiana in Copenhagen (open cannabis market) for 30 years, has now seen a severe crackdown. So now we’re getting more crime involved in the drug market, etc.
On the other hand…
– Government provides large amount of free treatment for drug users.
– Habitual users will no longer be prosecuted for small quantities.
– Move to re-classify heroin into the pharmacopaedia, so it can be prescribed.
What causes this strange dichotomy?
– Drug policy is subject to a constant dove/hawk conflict, leaving many laws strangely ambiguous, or else two different laws completely inconsistent with each other will be passed.
Other interesting point
– Swedem has tried to influence Denmark, with its hard core prohibitionist views, but in fact, the reverse is happening.
Joep Oomen: Much of Europe
– In the north of Europe (protestant tradition), you find the more rational-based policies and more transparent policy making
– In the south (catholic tradition), you find more moral-based policy making.
– Two tendencies in the Eurpoean union. 1. And increasing cooperation between drug agencies, exchanges of information, etc. and therefore an improvement by learning (that harm reduction policies are effective, for example.
– Regarding harm reduction, most countries have decriminalisation, maintenance-based treatment and needle exchange. A few have pilltesting, user rooms and controlled heroin distribution. The best overall in his harm-reduction chart are Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland. The worst overall are Greece and Sweden.

[Note that this is only in western Europe — Peter Sorosi indicated that the meeting of demand for needle exchange and treatment is far behind.

Another good day of eating in New Orleans…
Lunch was at Mother’s Restaurant — a little hole-in-the-wall that’s been around since 1938. Stand in line to order your food and then find a table. Great food, fresh ingredients — really popular. I had a Grilled Shrimp Po’ Boy and Jerry’s Jambalaya.
Each year, Mother’s serves up:

• No less than 175,000 pounds of ham and roast beef
• More than 40,000 pounds of turkey
• A staggering 30,000 pounds of homemade sausage
• Quarter of a million biscuits (and even more eggs!)
• A whopping 90,000 pounds of jambalaya
• Some 25,000 soft-shell crabs and even more shrimp
• Nearly 250,000 pounds of cabbage
• An incredible 150,000 loaves of French bread
• As many pies as there are ships passing through the port of New Orleans (3,500)
• A spicy 1,500 gallons of Creole mustard
• And an honest ton of hot pepper sauce

Dinner was at the Gumbo Shop – a delightful place. We were seated out on the patio on a beautiful evening. Our waiter was excellent and allowed us all the time we wanted, and the food was delicious traditional creole.
I had Seafood Okra Gumbo, Crawfish Etouffee, Garlic Mashed Potatoes, and Hot Bread Pudding with Whiskey Sauce. Outstanding.
Bourbon Street is a zoo, even in December. I just passed 30 drunken santas (one wearing one red and one green stockings).
So why am I in my room blogging? Hmmm… I better get back outside.

“bullet” I just finished the Elevator Arguments workshop I conducted with David Guard and Doug McVay, and I thought it went very well. Lots of enthusiastic participation with a good range of people. What a blast! Thanks to everyone who came.
“bullet” I haven’t blogged yet about the plenary session this noon: Black America: The Debate Within. I need to think about it a little bit more, first. It was extremely unsatisfying. It came across as a group of very intelligent, passionate panelists making a sincere effort to do… nothing.
“bullet” Just a side rant in general — I’ve gotten several emails from people disavowing themselves of Drug Policy Alliance because of differences of opinion on strategy, or lack of invitations to be part of the group up front. Guess what? I’m not part of the Drug Policy Alliance. I’m not part of any reform group. I blog. I am drug policy reform. If you’ve got problems with Drug Policy Alliance, take it up with them — don’t ask me to bad-mouth them for you.
I don’t come here to be part of a drug reform group. I come here because of the people. Excellent, passionate, committed people from a wide variety of viewpoints and backgrounds, many of whom are doing this for nothing because they care. If you don’t want to be part of that network, then fine. I’m enjoying every minute. Even when I have major disagreements. I’m learning and teaching.
“bullet” Antonio Maria Costa’s prepared speech to the conference is now available online at the UNODC site. [Thanks, Steve!]
“bullet” I keep getting to meet more old friends here at the conference. I got to meet Scott Henson and Ben Masel today. Such a delight to finally put actually physical people with the people I’ve known online for so long.
“bullet” Consider this an open thread

“bullet” “drcnet”

Workshop: Building Momentum in Congress
Aaron Houston (MPP), Kris Krane (SSDP), Jesslyn McCurdy (ACLU), Daniel Raymond (Harm REduction Coalition), Eric Sterling (Criminal Policy Justice Foundation), Nkechi Taifa (Open Society Institute), Sanho Tree (Institute for Policy Studies). Moderator: Bill Piper (DPA)
I know many of these panelists (either online or in person), so I thought it would be enjoyable to attend their panel.
Aaron Houston: Regarding the Hinchey amendment. The Democratic leadership does not want drug policy reform to get any kind of win — not even a moral victory. They have so many of their members to whip in line, that they won’t allow anything (particularly something controversial like drugs) to mess things up.
Kris Krane: Talked about the Congressman who reneged on his promise to modify the bill relating to financial aid denial for students, but the hope is that there may be some possibility that something will happen in conference.
Nkechi Taifa: – With the Democrats in Congress, I can’t say that I’m optimistic about even getting a hearing.
Several other panelists agreed with the pessimism. 2008 will be a tough year for drug policy reform in Congress.
Daniel Raymond: No movement until at least 2009. Possibility at that time that Congress will shift from Iraq to domestic issues. Best likelihood may be to tie in to health care.
Sanho Tree: Interesting discussion regarding history. Things may look bleak now, but historians may see this time as the time of dramatic change.
Nkechi Taifa: Holds up 5 packets of Sweet and Low. If that’s crack, that’s five years. Holds up a Mr. Goodbar candy bar. If that’s crack, that’s 10 years. Talked about the Sentencing Commission, reporting 4 times that this law needs to change. Congress has thumbed their noses at their own Commission.
Jesslyn McCurdy: What has happened regarding crack is an adjustment in the sentencing guidelines. When crack sentence mandatory minimum was 5 years, the actual sentence, due to the guidelines was more like 5 years 3 months to 6 1/2 years. Congress brought crack guidelines down two levels so it’s down to the still way too high mandatory minimums. The
Eric Sterling: “This 100:1 discrepancy had its beginnings in my word processor.” Eric’s pretty good about giving his mea culpas for his role in this back when he was working for Congress in the 80’s. Crack has become the boot camp for ambitious federal prosecutors. It’s retail prosecution being done by the feds. Crack cases shouldn’t be in federal court.
Aaron Houston: The Bush administration and DOJ lied to Congress and claimed that retroactive sentencing reform for crack would mean that 19,000 crackheads would be immediately released on the streets. But in fact, since it’s only a small reduction in the total sentence, it would be a trickle effect over 30 years time.
Sanho Tree: We have managed to cut a fair amount of money to the aid package related to the drug war — about 10&, including a shift away from eradication. Both Democrats and Republicans are pissed off at the Bush administration for the lack of information on Plan Mexico. Afghanistan, there is a push in INL (State Department) for, well… “They have a real hard-on for fumigation in Afghanistan” The Democrats are resisting.
Regarding the temporary spike in cocaine prices. Drug cartels are not in the business of addicting Americans. They’re in the business of making money. The U.S. dollar is worthless, so cartels are selling in Europe.
Aaron Houston: Back to Hinchey — believes the Democratic leadership actually may have encouraged some of their members to vote against the Hinchey amendment to avoid any kind of look like drug policy is getting any improvement that could be considered as being due to the fact that the Democrats are in charge.
In the Q and A, I asked the following question on behalf of you, the readers…
“Having watched years of failure in Congress for drug policy reform, my readers would like to know why we’re wasting so much money on lobbying Congress, when we could be focusing our efforts on grassroots organizing.”
A rather unsatisfying answer from Aaron Houston about the need to get Congress considering these ideas, and unfortunately time was up so others didn’t have a chance to respond.
I got to talk to Bill Piper afterward and he agreed that there are discussions about allocation of resources every day and it’s a difficult decision. Do you just cut out of having a presence on Capitol Hill and re-direct your resources? Strike a balance? Something else?

One of the great things about the conference is that I get to see all these people who I know very well online, but hadn’t met yet in person. I got to meet jackl and several other members of the Drug WarRant community. Loretta Nall was there in her cowboy hat and it was a delight to chat with her. And, of course, a lot of those who I met last year — Daniel, Scott Morgan, David Guard, etc., etc.
Howard Woolridge’s wife arrived last night sporting a “Moms say pot should be legal. Ask me why” T-shirt to go along with Howard’s “Cops say drugs…” shirt.
Attended a fun workshop: Dream About a Reefer 50 Feet Long: 50 Years of Marijuana in Music by Dr. John Morgan — should actually have been titled 100 years of marijuana in music. He had video of all sorts of music that featured marijuana references from the early jazz music to rock, country, broadway, rap, and reggae. It was delightful.
I’ve asked Dr. Morgan to send me his song list. If I get it, I’ll share it with you.
Went to dinner at Emeril Lagasse’s NOLA Restaurant — a very special treat. The maätre d’ smiled at my marijuana button and the waitress said she loved my Dark Side of the Moon tie. Food was amazing. I had:

Chicken and Andouille Sausage Gumbo
Grilled Pork Tenderloin
with Banana Whipped Sweet Potatoes,
Tamarind Glaze, Rapini and Green Chile Mole

Time to get ready for the next day’s activities.

This is one I’ve definitely been waiting for.
Ethan Nadelmann started off the session by indicating that every year, the Drug Policy Alliance sends invitations to the head of the DEA, the drug czar, the head of the UNODC etc., but this is the first time someone of this stature has ever accepted. Costa surprised them by calling back a few weeks ago and said he’d be happy to speak.
Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime (effectively the U.N. drug czar).

Mr. Costa started out very amiable and at various times throughout his presentation, acknowledged that most of the people in the room might disagree with him, but that it also was more than that…

From both sides of the aisle, there have been noises about my presence here.

– Is there a common ground between those who insist on a world free of drugs and those who insist on a world of free drugs? Perhaps the following…

1. Desire for health and security.
2. Reducing the harm caused by drugs.
3. Drug policy should be evidence-based, not based on political considerations.
4. Prohibition vs. Legalization is too simplistic a way of referring to the policy issues.

– There are signs of world market stability in drug “containment” over the past few years (he exempts the 78% of Afghanistan opium production “controlled” by the Taliban)
– Despite containment, there is still a huge drug problem. However, it’s important to note that for those with serious drug problems, that problem still represents less than 0.6% of the world’s population.
– The world seems to be in agreement that with all the damage caused by alcohol and cigarettes, a tightening of controls is appropriate for those two.
– So if we tighten controls on alcohol and cigarettes, why decrease the control on drugs when they are now such a small percentage of the problem? Why make them a bigger problem?

It sounds counterintuitive to me to call for a tightening of control on alcohol and cigarettes, but to release controls on other drugs.

He realizes that some U.N. statements are ridiculed.

I am not the author of the “drug free world” slogan.

Yes, he admits that his office (prior to his tenure) did put out posters with that slogan on it.

Is a drug free world attainable? Probably not.
Is it desirable? Probably yes. [boos]

In the same way, we wish to eliminate poverty, sickness, etc. we should wish to eliminate drug use.
– He does some “dreaming.”

• 1st dream: Seize all the drugs. Reality: If every bit of drugs was seized, a new supply would simply come the next year. So obviously that doesn’t work.
• 2nd dream: Lets say we convince all the farmers to stop growing drugs. Reality: Even that wouldn’t solve the drug control problem. Other sources of supply would open up.
• 3rd dream. Reduce the demand for drugs. Prevention, treatment, harm reduction combined in a comprehensive way. That’s the solution.

Some people say that drug use is a personal choice and nobody else’s business. [cheers] I have a few problems with this. First there is a health issue…

And then he conflates drug abuse and use — a common tactic. THen:

“Drugs are illegal because they are dangerous.”
[1,000 people booed.]

Health and security….
– He has heard the discussions about legalization providing a solution to organized crime. He agrees with this to a point, but says that legalization will result in greatly increased abuse, causing worse security issues.
– Human trafficking is hard to stop — is that a reason to give up on it?
– His office is putting a stronger emphasis on treatment. Let us replace criminalization with treatment (cheers)
– If drugs are legalized, people will be condemned to a life of addiction without help.
– Imagine legalization in developing countries without the resources of treatment. Terrible
– Help us balance international policy by pushing the emphasis toward treatment and harm reduction measures. [applause]
– Join me as an extremist of the center. [laughter]
[Disruption as the fire alarm went off. It was a test.]
– Most importantly, make drug policy a society-wide issue. It requires society-wide engagement.
He did relatively well, considering the strong opposition he faced in this hall. It took courage. But it had many of the standard drug warrior flaws, even though he seemed not to see them. His nods toward treatment were still within the context of prohibition and enforcement, and he was unable to consider anything past that.
Kasia Malinowska-Sempruch, Director, IHRD Open Society Institute
The problems she wished to address were:

1. Law Enforcement, at the expense of health and safety
2. Major HIV epidemics
3. Lack of drug treatment and abuses in the name of drug treatment
4. What about women?

She talked about drug addicts being arrested in countries who were trying to get help for their drug problems.

“In china, police are known to wait by syringe distribution points to arrest drug users.”

She talked about abuses in China, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukrain, Thailand, etc.
A good presentation with strong data about the increases of harm for drug addicts and the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in countries who follow high prohibition-style tactics.
– The U.S. federal ban on needle exchange is exported to the rest of the world. 15 billion is spent worldwide on HIV, but none of it is being spent on needle exchange.
– U.S. is very pushy about making their views known to the rest of the world.
Powerful stuff.
Then the lunch session ended and we adjourned to a smaller room for the Costa follow-up session.
Question and Answer period with Antonio Maria Costa
Note: after the conference schedule was printed, it was decided to not make this simply a Q and A, but rather offer a chance for several panelists to respond to his talk. I’ll just hit on some of the points.
First speaker. Alex Wodak, President, Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation
– Drugs are a very important problem, not because of drug consumption, but because of death, disease, crime and corruption. Many feel that those problems are primarily due to the fact of drugs being distributed by the Al Capones of this world.
– High marks to the UNODC for changes in recent years to increase interest in harm reduction.
– The scientific discussion regarding harm reduction is over. Harm reduction is proven.
– International drug treaties that exist today can be used as a reasonable tool to move forward without re-doing everything.
– It’s ridiculous to assume that Swaziland and Sweden should have the same policies.
– Move forward from prohibition, by allowing individual countries more freedom to interpret treaties for their own value (just as U.S. ended alcohol prohibition and sent it to the states).
– The problem is allocated deficiencies. Too little money goes to what really works.
– The ONDCP is still too close to the war on drugs. We have to accept that supply control doesn’t work.
– Costa’s comment that ‘drugs are illegal because they are dangerous’ cannot be ignored. It is wrong.
– Drugs should be controlled.
Second Speaker. Professor Craig Reinarman from UC Santa Cruz
– Congratulates Costa for his wit and charm — “If you’re wrong on most of your arguments, it helps to be charming.”
– Costa said: If alcohol and tobacco kills so many people, why would we want to legalize drugs. Response: I don’t think availability is so specifically related to drug problems, abuse, addiction. The notion that there is a correlation between repressive drug policy and reduction of abuse is wrong.
– Costa said: Treat those who use drugs. Response: This is wrong. The vast majority of those who use illicit drugs do not have the disease of addiction. And the idea of forcing treatment on those who don’t want it is bad medicine.
– Your agency could fund a study where you study oppressive regimes and see if there is any correlation between that and addiction/abuse, etc.
Third Speaker. Nanna W. Gotfredsen, Street Lawyer, Copenhagen
Health worker in Copenhagen who works with victims of drug policy, including refugees of the Swedish drug policy. She said that Costa speaks differently here than in some of his other speeches.

“Mr. Costa. You have, I hate to say it this way, a Swedish fantasy. Please stop the Swedish fantasy.”

– Criminalization leads to further exclusion.

Punishment, as a tool to prevent them from potentially harming themselves, is without meaning.

Very powerful and moving.
Fourth Speaker. Pat O’Hare, Honorary President of International Harm Reduction Association
– Most of your comments, Mr. Costa, flew in the face of reality.

“I would be prepared to accept slightly increased drug use for a load less harm.”

– The deficit model of drug use (desperation, etc.) doesn’t explain most drug use — only a small amount of it.
– It’s easy to criticize this thing called harm reduction, because it’s not being done well by the countries in this world.
Question: Given the supremacy of the human rights convention over the drug convention, isn’t that an avenue to pursue changes in drug policy? After all, drug policy damages human rights.
Question: I’d like to hear your comments on the role of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), that seems to think it is an autonomous agency unaccountable to anyone.
Fifth Speaker. Martin Jelsma, Transnational Institute, Netherlands
Consumption rooms versus Injection sites (a terminology issue) came up. Not sure what this means.
He did a little more of a speech regarding his views about drug policy than directly addressing Costa’s comments.
Costa responds (he also brought a colleague to help him answer questions).
– He is limited in his decisions regarding the allocation of funds because all funds he receives from the United Nations are tied to specific uses.
– Regarding the U.N. Convention and flexibility — true, there is some flexibility there. The INDCB offers interpretation, but there is flexibility or countries to follow.
– The Netherlands has poisoned the rest of the world. It is a primary source of amphetamines. People take amphetamines because they are sick. [This was his way of answering a question about cannabis use in the Netherlands.]
He wandered around making a number of small non-substantive comments, but it wasn’t all that coherent. Hard to blog this part.
During this session, he started to get testy.
Costa’s colleague, former member of INCPB then talked a bit. Talks too fast with too strong an accent for me to share much of it
– Drugs are used by some to cover real problems.
– Exposing more people to drugs, exposes the more vulnerable people.
Ethan then opened it up to questions on the floor and selected about 7 of us to comment or ask questions with Costa waiting until the end to respond.
Questions:
Sanho Tree had a really great comment about prohibition being the price support for drug criminals. Law enforcement catches primarily the stupid. Only the most efficient drug traffickers succeed.
I was given an opportunity to comment as well. I brought upthe two statements he had made in OpEds and talked about being evidence based and not using provocative demonization like this..

“Today the harmful characteristics of cannabis are no longer that different from those of other plant-based drugs such as cocaine and heroin,”
June, 2006
“Amid all the libertarian talk about the right of individuals to engage in dangerous practices provided no one else gets hurt, certain key facts are easily forgotten. … Would even the most ardent supporter of legalisation want to fly in an aircraft whose pilot used cannabis?”
March 2007

Howard Woolridge (LEAP) – Drug policy doesn’t make us safer.
John Gilmore “I’m one of the very few who would actually unregulate all drugs.”
John made a very interesting point that compared the persecution of drug users with the persecution of homesexuals, noting that homosexuals were considered morally wrong, and required treatment/adjustment. We have the same attitude toward drug users.
Note: There were a couple of other questions as well, but I didn’t get their names. Someone asked what he had against Kate Moss. There was no proof that she did cocaine.
Costa (some scattershot responses to the questions):
– I don’t judge. It’s not my task. I follow the rules. I am just the executive director. We try to execute ways and means to reduce problems of all kinds, but we don’t judge.
– Netherlands coffee shops are poorly conceived and implemented.
Then he kind-of responded to my question:
– Regarding the articles in the Independent. If you look at THC content today compared to what it was, the amount active dangerous drug is similar to those other drugs. I stand by my statement.
– Regarding: What about cannabis for medical purposes. I don’t believe in joints as medicine. You don’t prescribe mold, you prescribe penicillin.
– Regarding Kate Moss. I never said she was snorting cocaine. I said she was snorting. I was careful.
– No country will ever unilaterally legalize drugs.
– Terrorism being funded with drug money. Best way to solve that is don’t buy drugs.
By this point, he was just pissed off and seemed anxious to leave. The crowd got unruly at times responding to his ridiculous statements, but they really tried to give him the chance to respond.
One last round from the panel, which included:
Craig:
– Costa is the only economist in the world who doesn’t believe in the law of supply and demand.
– Regarding the U.N. convention — that is primarily a result of bullying by the U.S.
Update: See also Transform’s coverage

Quite a buzz of excitement in the hotel this morning, with all sorts of people here for the 2007 International Drug Policy Reform Conference at the Astor Crowne Plaza in New Orleans.
Everybody’s mingling around the continental breakfast, getting registered, peering at nametags to see who they know. 1,000 people pre-registered for this conference, so it’s huge, and the grand ballroom is packed for the opening welcome.
Pretty much every reform organization is represented here — some with information tables in the lobby. LEAP is here in force, and the bold “Cops Say Legalize Drugs – Ask Me Why” T-shirts are everywhere around the hotel, including Howard Woolridge with his great cowboy hat. I saw Irv Rosenfeld – a great guy, and one of the very few medical marijuana patients actually supplied by the federal government. Of course, people from DPA, MPP, NORML, ACLU, ASA, and on and on, but also some excellent international groups, including Transform (their “Tools for the Debate” publication was included in our welcom packets).

As I blog this conference, I’ll be working without internet access during the sessions, and then coming out to the lobby to actually post (unfortunately, the only option). So I’m a bit handicapped without having access to links or being able to look up information online while blogging. Statements beginning with (-) dash are paraphrases of the speakers’ comments. Sometimes these will be less than coherent as a whole (if you want the whole speech, buy the CD). But I’ll try to provide some highlights and focus of major presentations.
Opening session led off (after housekeeping stuff) with Norris Henderson of Safe Streets, Strong Communities – a local partner for the conference. Norris works with people in NOLA and is hoping this conference will help “change the frame.”
He talked about the fact that New Orleans police brag about the number of people they arrest to show that they’re restoring order, but the vast majority are paraphernalia/marijuana/drug possession arrests.
There are drug problems in New Orleans, but they aren’t solved by the drug war.
As far as the bigger picture:

“The casualties of this war are greater than any other war we’ve engaged in.”

He also talked about the fact that New Orleans is in serious shape and is far from being a liveable city for many of its residents.
Ira Glasser, former head of the ACLU, was next.

The war on drugs has violated two main principles from the very beginning.

1. Personal autonomy and freedom
2. Racial Equity and Justice

He talked about the racial aspect to the beginnings and continuation of prohibition for all the major illicit drugs. Interestingly, the only major drug that was made legal was alcohol, the drug of the white majority.
With that opening, Glasser set up the fact that race and the drug war was going to be a key focus of this conference.
— In New York 92% of all the people in state prison for drug offenses are black or latino.
— In many states in the south, 30% of blacks are disenfranchised from voting, due to felony convictions. At the same time, they are counted toward population figures for getting the states more representatives in Congress.

“This war on drugs is the greatest source of the violations of both personal freedom and racial justice… It is long past time to end it, and it is long past time to be patient about ending it.”

Ethan Nadelmann, Drug Policy Alliance

– We need to build a movement for freedom and justice, for science and compassion, for human rights.
– There are so many different kinds of people here with different perspectives: cops and those arrested, those who love drugs and those who have been damaged by drugs. We can’t agree on anything, except the conviction and belief that the war on drugs, this policy of punitive prohibition, has got to go.
Ethan really gets on fire when he gets in front of an audience. You can’t help but getting a little bit swept up in his enthusiasm.
Ethan follows up with more on the race issue, following up on Ira’s start.
– Ignorance, fear, prejudice and profit drive this system. The thing that rises to the top is the element of fear. The war on drugs is a fear-based paradigm. It’s about fear. We need to uproot that fear.
– While the drug war is very much about race, it isn’t a struggle of white against black. This is a struggle of justice and freedom versus oppression.
– We’ve developed a theocracy of drug war prohibition in this country and around the world. An orthodoxy, and a set of rituals, and we forget why they were started.
– It’s not just enough to talk about harm reduction. We are fighting for freedom and liberty.
– What does the American flag mean? Doesn’t it represent our freedom? We have to stand up and say “Wait a second — this flag is ours, too.”
Ethan addressed the point of having a vision, yet having to talk the language of little steps.
– While I’d rather say ‘legalize,’ when talking to legislators, sometimes I have to say ‘That 20 year penalty should be 10 years, or 5 or 3.’
– We’re not just fighting for the bigger picture, but we’re also fighting for people today.
– But it’s not enough to just do that. We have to be careful that we do not lose sight of that ultimate vision. Freedom.
Ethan talked about the new surveillance society and how that may affect us.
He also talked about the fact that we must all be teachers.
We cannot carry prejudices into other areas (fighting for marijuana, but demonizing meth in the same way). We have to lose our own fears and prejudices. We should not say that my way is the right way and the only way in drug policy reform, but rather encourage and work with all the people in various areas of reform.

Most drug treatment does not work most of the time for most people. But dollar for dollar, it’s a far better investment that locking those people up.

– What every works for you is right.
– We have to, and must, fight amongst ourselves in the reform community about everything, and then hug each other at the end.
We must assert and fight for this fundamental principle:

We believe that no one deserves to be punished solely for what they put into their bodies if they don’t hurt another soul. We must be sovereign over our bodies. My body doesn’t belong to the state or to an employer.

… on to the next session.

“bullet” This is interesting… [link fixed]

Zogby polling data released today asked 1,028 likely voters, “If hard drugs such as heroin or cocaine were legalized, would you be likely to use them?” Ninety-ninety percent of respondents answered, “No.” Only 0.6 percent said “Yes.” The remaining 0.4 percent weren’t sure.
The results are similar to usage rates occurring under today’s “drug war,” as measured by the federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health (formerly the National Household Survey). The 2006 NSDUH found 0.3 percent of the population had used heroin in the past month and 2.4 percent had used cocaine. Even for cocaine, the numbers are compatible, because Zogby surveyed persons aged 18 years and up, while NSDUH begins with age 12; and because of the poll’s statistical margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

Sure it’s a poll, and sure, polls should always be taken with at least a few grains of salt (and who knows how attitudes would change post-legalization/regulation), but this clearly doesn’t support the prohibitionists’ claim that, with legalization, everyone will suddenly decide to immediately become some kind of druggie addict burden on society.
“bullet” Welcome to the more than 300 visitors that came to Drug WarRant today from this site
“bullet” I’m a little late for this, but happy End of Prohibition Day

On December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment to the U.S Constitution is ratified, repealing Prohibition.

“bullet” Nice OpEd by David Servatius…

The dirty little secret that the big pharmaceutical companies fear most is that marijuana actually helps a lot of people with a lot of things that these companies would rather sell people an expensive pill for. It provides a lot of harmless enjoyment and social lubrication for a lot of people, without the added toxicity of alcohol.