Drug WarRant Saturday, December 20, 2003 Yann Kumin and Marc Hordon arrested for marijuana possession Via TalkLeft Oh, and their companion, an Al Gore III, was also arrested. Just three of the more than one million people arrested this year for simple possession charges. 10:22:43 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Friday, December 19, 2003 Justice Department sues Mississippi Via Atrios, this CBS news report Feds Allege Youth Camps Abuse Among the abuses uncovered: suicidal girls were stripped naked and placed in solitary confinement in a dark cell with only a drain for a toilet, boys were forced to run with mattresses strapped to their backs, girls who threw up while running in the heat were forced to eat their vomit, and youths were tied to poles or hog-tied.... According to a June letter from the Justice Department to Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, investigators found the camps also lacked proper sanitation and educational services, and violated the youths' First Amendment rights by "forcing them to engage in religious activities." The letter said youth were sometimes forced to get up in the middle of the night and walk around their dormitory with their hands on their head. Counselors were reported to have slapped and choked youths, and used pepper spray on them when they refused to exercise, or when they were tied up. Further details and reports on these youth gulags, which were apparently not only tolerated by the state for many years, but actually encouraged as a form of "rehabilitation," are available here and here. Note that many of these youngsters are there for low level drug possession charges. If you're a parent, I ask you: Would you rather your child deal with the risks and temptations of drugs under your guidance and rules, or would you have them sent to a place like this? 8:25:35 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Missouri considering drug stamp tax Senator Proposes Taxing Illegal Drugs. This isn't particularly new - 23 states have similar stupid laws. Each gram of marijuana would be subject to a $3.50 tax.  Other controlled substances would be taxed $200 for each gram or portion of a gram.  For drugs not sold by weight, such as Ecstasy, every 50 doses would be taxed $2,000. Note: for those of you who haven't converted to metric yet, for marijuana that's about $100 tax per ounce. Keep in mind that this is not an easing of penalties -- it is adding an additional penalty on top of criminalizing drugs. The idea is, once you're arrested for possession of drugs, not only do you get the jail time and fines for the charge, but they also go after you for tax evasion because you probably haven't bought the stamps (they don't really expect you to). A similar bill was passed in Kansas in 1987.  Last year it collected $883,846 in revenue from people arrested in possession of drugs without stamps and $370 in stamp sales. Most drug tax stamps are purchased by collectors, not drug dealers (the Texas one is quite entertaining). These taxes are really a kind of dishonesty on the part of legislatures. If you want a tougher penalty for something illegal, then make that part of the legal penalty -- don't go around looking for some other hook. Many of these taxes have run into legal trouble. Some of them have been termed unconstitutional due to the prohibition against self-incrimination. Others, if providing a serious enough penalty, have been determined to constitute double jeopardy (some Texas drug dealers in 1996 were getting off of their drug charges in court by putting a deposit down on their tax liability). For now, those in St. Joseph, Missouri may want to spread the word that Republican Senator Charlie Shields wants to raise taxes. That could make it interesting. Earlier this year, TalkLeft reported on a similar tax in Iowa. Protesters of the tax came up with the memorable line: No taxation without legalization. 7:44:52 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Thursday, December 18, 2003 ACLU Challenges DEA's Use Of RAVE Act To Target NORML Events Portland, OR: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Oregon recently filed a complaint with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) over the agency's effort to shut down the second annual Oregon Medical Cannabis Awards Banquet, sponsored by Oregon NORML. Though the Banquet went on as scheduled at the Doubletree Hotel, DEA officials approached the venue's management prior to the event and warned them that they could be federally fined and prosecuted under the "RAVE Act" if it took place. Under the provisions of the "RAVE Act," formally known as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, federal law enforcement may prosecute business owners if they make their property available for "the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance." ACLU of Oregon spokesperson David Fidanque said that the DEA is misusing the Act to try to silence opponents of the government's drug policies. "The only two instances the DEA has used this law have been against NORML, where NORML was publicizing medical marijuana laws and their opposition to federal law and federal policies," he said. "We think it's clear that the DEA did this for political reasons because of their political opposition to NORML's politics." Findanque also noted that uniformed Portland police officers were posted outside the banquet room doors, and that their presence may have violated Oregon laws and city policies prohibiting police from spying on the political activities of individuals and organizations. This was a bad law that never should have been passed (Senator Joe Biden for all of you in Delaware), and despite the DEA's assurance that it would not be mis-used, is bound to be used to harrass drug policy reformers. And Karen Tandy, the head of the DEA, has made it clear that she won't specify the criteria the DEA uses. 7:20:40 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] FDA Approves First Ever Clinical Trial Comparing Inhaled Marijuana To Vaporized Pot Via NORML: Washington, DC: The US Food and Drug Administration has granted permission for investigators funded by California's Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) to conduct the first ever human trial comparing inhaled marijuana to vaporized cannabis. The clinical trial, which will be conducted by Dr. Donald Abrams of the University of California at San Francisco, will commence in early 2004, according to a news release issued by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). The pending study will compare subjective effects, cannabinoid blood levels, and carbon monoxide levels in inhaled breath in volunteers following both smoking and vaporizing marijuana. MAPS President Rick Doblin said that the use of vaporizer technology in clinical research "will demonstrate that we can address all reasonable concerns about the safety of marijuana as medicine." According to a previous laboratory analysis study completed earlier this year by California NORML and MAPS, toxins in marijuana smoke produced by combustion are eliminated by the use of a vaporization device. In that study, marijuana vapors produced by the Volcano vaporizer were found to consist overwhelmingly of THC, and contained only minute amounts (less than 5 percent) of a suspected carcinogen, according to a gas chromatography mass spectrometer (GCMS) analysis of the vapor. By contrast, combusted smoke contained over 100 other chemicals, including several polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), carcinogenic toxins that are common in tobacco smoke. In general, the respiratory hazards of marijuana smoke are due to toxic byproducts of combustion, not the active ingredients of the plant, known as cannabinoids. Vaporizers heat marijuana at a temperature sufficient to vaporize cannabinoids (about 200° C), but short of the point of combustion, which is approximately 250° C. This is important, because the Drug Czar keeps using the "medicine isn't smoked" argument to negate all medical benefits of marijuana (it's all they have left). Eventually, the sheer magnitude of scientific evidence for medical marijuana has got to topple the administration's war on the sick. 7:11:03 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Bill Maher on Larry King Yesterday's Larry King show, included this exchange with Bill Maher and a caller: KING: Oakville, Ontario, hello. CHAMNEY: Hi, Mr. Maher, I'm absolutely thrilled to be speaking with you. MAHER: Well, I'm thrilled to be talking to you, too. CHAMNEY: My question for you is, do you plan on staying behind the marijuana mission? I don't know if you've realized... MAHER: I do. CHAMNEY: But you've saved peoples' lives up here in Canada and the United States. It was because of you discussing it on TV and a Web site called The Marijuana Mission that made my family understand what marijuana does for people. And it actually stopped my grandma's seizures. So, I'm no longer considered an epileptic just because I smoke it every day. And I appreciate you so much. And we talk about you up here all the time. You should run for Congress, sir. MAHER: Thank you. CHAMNEY: You remind me so much of my lawyer Alan Young, and he is the greatest one up here speaking about marijuana and you keep on talking down there, buddy. MAHER: You keep puffing as the president said, let's roll. It's a good opportunity for me to bring up Tommy Chong. Tommy of "Cheech and Chong," you know he's in jail right now. He was... KING: I didn't know. MAHER: On the anniversary of 9/11, that's how brazen this Justice Department is. On the anniversary of 9/11, they arrested Tommy Chong for selling bongs over the Internet, Larry. We cannot allow that to happen. Do you feel safer? Do you feel safer now? This is what I would like to say to the Bush administration about that. You can't have it both ways. Either 9/11 was such a transforming event and is such a dire threat that we need the Patriotic Act, the Patriotic Act II which could curtail a lot of civil liberties that we need to go to Iraq or you can bust Tommy Chung. You can't it have both ways. You can't have the Patriotic Act and curtail the civil liberties because 9/11 was that bad and also have the time to go after Tommy Chung for selling bongs on the Internet. Can't have it both ways. KING: You favor the legalization? MAHER: Of course. Another no-brainer. There's a religion out there, too, having to do with drug laws. It's also nonsense. KING: You'd legalize all drugs? MAHER: I would. Yes. But obviously other drugs, it is a different situation, because other drugs can be very dangerous... Thanks to Tim Meehan for the tip 7:03:40 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Wednesday, December 17, 2003 Drug Czar Lies and Runs From the Tahoe Daily Tribune: Czar: Drug test students Youths are more dependent on marijuana than cigarettes or alcohol, provoking the White House drug czar to call for drug testing at middle and high schools. John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, made the statement during a keynote speech at a conference attended by members of the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting at Embassy Suites on Tuesday night. Lies, lies, dangerous lies. Once again, Walters shows that he is willing to risk the health and safety of America's youth in order to further his own personal agenda against marijuana. Both tobacco and alcohol are a much greater dependency risk than marijuana (both in likelihood and severity of dependency). But Walters continually uses the fact that high numbers of marijuana users (not abusers) are in treatment (through criminal justice referral), which is not an indication of dependence, to actually downplay the dangers of alcohol and cigarettes. So did anyone call him on it? Walters was unavailable for comment afterward. He was whisked away by Secret Service to catch a flight back to Washington, D.C. The crowd was full of military officials, undercover agents with goatees and long hair and clean-cut law enforcement officers. Ah, yes. Lie to a sympathetic audience and run away. 2:01:30 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Tuesday, December 16, 2003 Medical Marijuana Victory! Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit made a major ruling, directing a preliminary injunction to prevent the Federal government from interfering with non-commercial medical marijuana activities in states where medical marijuana is legal! Thanks for the heads up from the wonderful folks at Brutal Hugs and also The Volokh Conspiracy (which has some excellent analysis). In its ruling, the 9th Circuit relied on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (an approach that I've found very appealing, though not without concerns). It's a strong ruling, and one that is likely to go to the Supremes (The Supreme Court earlier in Oakland had specifically noted that it was not ruling on Commerce Clause issues at that time). The case is: ANGEL MCCLARY RAICH; DIANE MONSON; JOHN DOE, Number One; JOHN DOE, Number Two, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, as United States Attorney General; ASA HUTCHINSON, as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Defendants - Appellees. In simple terms, the appellants had asked the court to prevent the federal government from using the CSA (Controlled Substances Act) against medical marijuana growth, distribution and use that is non-commercial. They claimed court relief was required because the fear of federal harrassment affected their ability to provide for their medical needs. Here are some quotes from the decision (pdf): We find that the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority. We decline to reach the appellants' other arguments, which are based on the principles of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment, the appellants' alleged fundamental rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments, and the doctrine of medical necessity. ...[the appellants] contend that, whereas the earlier cases concerned drug trafficking, the appellants' conduct constitutes a separate and distinct class of activities: the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient's physician pursuant to valid California state law. Clearly, the way in which the activity or class of activities is defined is critical. We find that the appellants' class of activities--the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician--is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking. For instance, concern regarding users' health and safety is significantly different in the medicinal marijuana context, where the use is pursuant to a physician's recommendation. Further, the limited medicinal use of marijuana as recommended by a physician arguably does not raise the same policy concerns regarding the spread of drug abuse. Moreover, this limited use is clearly distinct from the broader illicit drug market--as well as any broader commercial market for medicinal marijuana--insofar as the medicinal marijuana at issue in this case is not intended for, nor does it enter, the stream of commerce. The ruling also quoted one of my favorite states' rights quotes (which I've mentioned here before: ("It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.") The final result: For the reasons discussed above, we reverse the district court. We find that the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits. This conclusion, coupled with public interest considerations and the burden faced by the appellants if, contrary to California law, they are denied access to medicinal marijuana, warrants the entry of a preliminary injunction. We remand to the district court for entry of a preliminary injunction consistent with this opinion. An interesting little bit in the footnotes of the decision. Apparently the court feels strongly enough about the overall purpose of the activity being outside the scope of the Commerce Clause provisions for federal intrusion, that they wouldn't even mind if the seeds came from elsewhere (in other words, bringing in seeds from Canada or... to grow non-commercial medical marijuana would not, in itself, be enough to trigger the Commerce Clause: At oral argument, we questioned counsel for the appellants about the origin of the marijuana seeds used by the appellants. Counsel for the appellants assured us that they came from within California. Regardless, we find that the origin of the seeds is too attenuated an issue to form the basis of congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. In McCoy we discussed the fact that the film and camera in that case were manufactured out of state. We expressed "substantial doubt" that this fact (which was part of the statute's jurisdictional hook in that case) "adds any substance to the Commerce Clause analysis." McCoy, 323 F.3d at 1125. Here, the potential out-of-state production of seeds used by the appellants for their noncommercial activity is a significantly attenuated connection between the appellants' activities and interstate commerce. If the appellees sought to premise Commerce Clause authority in this case solely on the possibility that the seeds used by the appellants traveled through interstate commerce, we would conclude, as we did in McCoy with respect to the out-of-state manufacture of the film and camera, that this, by itself, "provides no support for the government's assertion of federal jurisdiction." This is all great news, and a cause for celebration, even though (and perhaps to some extent because) it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Update: Here's a quote from Angel McClary Raich for you: "Not too many people get to come up against someone who is as evil as (US Attorney General) John Ashcroft and actually win and that feels very good," she said. 7:46:58 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Monday, December 15, 2003 Kenneth Walker, Drug War Victim From the Georgia Ledger Enquirer Walker, 39, was among three other men riding inside a gray GMC Yukon when it was stopped Wednesday night as part of a drug investigation.  The unarmed man was fatally shot by a Muscogee County Sheriff's Deputy after authorities said Walker failed to comply with the deputy's commands to reveal his hands.  The three friends were not arrested and were later released.  Authorities later learned there was no information that Walker was involved in any kind of criminal activity. In some communities, black teens are told to never run down the street because their parents fear the teens may be shot by some police officer who may mistake them for criminals.... When reports of an unarmed Walker being fatally shot circulated, blacks may have been shocked, but they were not surprised.  Law enforcement has never been viewed as user-friendly in the black community. And from WTVM (beware: linked page behaving erratically, particularly in Safari). In a tearful interview, long-time best friend of Kenneth Walker says the thirty-nine year old was a role model to the community. "He was a family man. He was man of morals and principles. He lived for his daughter," says Tim Crumbley.... Walker was working at Blue Cross-Blue Shield at the time of his death. Both he and his wife were active in the St. Mary's Road United Methodist Church. The funeral for Walker is set for Tuesday, December 16 at St. Mary's church. His wife Cheryl is requesting only family and friends attend the service. 10:11:05 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Ventura nails the ONDCP on MSNBC Check out this amazing transcript from Jesse Ventura's America, which ran Saturday on MSNBC. Jesse had Rob Kampia of the Marijuana Policy Project as a guest, along with Tommy Chong's attorney, and then Jesse went one-on-one with Tom Riley of the Drug Czar's Office and tore him a new one. Really, take a moment and read it all. It's very entertaining! 8:44:50 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Presidential Nomination Endorsement Drug WarRant is officially endorsing Dennis Kucinich as the Democratic nominee for President in 2004. Mr. Kucinich has already received the highest grades possible from Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana (an A+), based on his strong positions in favor of medical marijuana and his stated willingness to sign an executive order permitting its use. He was the first candidate to support the Truth in Trials Act; he was co-sponsor of the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act; and has voted for other provisions to help medical marijuana candidates. And now, the most extraordinary issue statement to come from any major candidate -- certainly far beyond any of the other Democratic or Republican candidates. It's long, but it is unprecendented, so I am re-printing it here in its entirety. Dennis Kucinich's statement on Marijuana Decriminalization: With the enactment of the Volstead Act in 1919, America embarked on a social experiment known as Prohibition. Prohibitionists rejected the idea that people could be trusted to drink in moderation, arguing that alcohol use inevitably led to moral corruption and undesirable behavior. Accepting these premises led Congress to conclude that a federal ban on the production and sale of alcohol would go a long way toward reducing crime, and addressing a variety of other social problems. Within a decade, however, Americans discovered that the criminally-enforced prohibition of alcohol produced harmful side effects. The rise of black markets empowered organized crime to an unprecedented degree. In some of America's largest cities, local governments had been heavily corrupted by the influence of organized crime. The black market provided minors with easy access to bootlegged alcohol, which was frequently of poor quality and unsafe to drink. Faced with the disastrous consequences of Prohibition, Congress decided in 1933 to repeal the Volstead Act. Since that time, the government has implemented the much more successful policy of focusing law-enforcement efforts on irresponsible alcohol users who endanger the rights of others. Unfortunately, current drug policy fails to take into account the lessons of Prohibition. The law regards all users as abusers, and the result has been the creation of an unnecessary class of lawbreakers. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, more than 734,000 individuals were arrested on marijuana charges in 2000. This number far exceeds the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Eighty-eight percent of those arrested were charged with possession only. Convicted marijuana offenders are denied federal financial student aid, welfare, and food stamps, and may be removed from public housing. In many cases, those convicted are automatically stripped of their driving privileges, even if the offense is not driving related. In several states, marijuana offenders may receive maximum sentences of life in prison. The cost to the taxpayer of enforcing marijuana prohibition is staggering--over $10 billion annually. The harsh nature of punishments for marijuana offenses is even more disturbing if one considers the racial bias of the war on drugs. According to data collected by the National Household Survey, on an annual basis the overall difference between drug use by blacks and whites is quite narrow. However, a recent national study found that African-Americans are arrested for marijuana offenses at higher rates than whites in 90% of 700 U.S. counties investigated. In 64% of these counties, the African-American arrest rate for marijuana violations was more than twice the arrest rate for whites. Questions of racial bias affect the integrity of investigations, arrests, and prosecutorial discretion. If we truly aspire to the ideal of "Justice for All," then these unjust racial disparities are unacceptable outcomes for the American justice system. The rationale for continuing this draconian policy of marijuana prohibition is unclear. Statistical evidence shows that marijuana use follows a pattern very similar to that of alcohol. Most marijuana users do so responsibly, in a safe, recreational context. These people lead normal, productive lives--pursuing careers, raising families, and participating in civic life. In addition, marijuana has proven benefits in the treatment of numerous diseases, such as providing a valuable means of pain management for terminally ill patients. In either of these contexts, there is no rational justification for criminally enforced prohibitions. These unnecessary arrests and incarcerations serve only to crowd prisons, backlog the judicial system, and distract law enforcement officials from pursuing terrorists and other violent criminals. New Mexico's 2001 state-commissioned Drug Policy Advisory Group determined that marijuana decriminalization "will result in greater availability of resources to respond to more serious crimes without any increased risks to public safety." This finding is backed by the successful implementation of such policies in twelve states. The state governments of Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon approved these measures after the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended that Congress adopt a national policy of marijuana decriminalization. A recent CNN/Time magazine poll indicates overwhelming public support for this approach, with 72% of Americans favoring fines as a maximum penalty for minor marijuana offenses, and 80% approving of marijuana used for medical purposes. A Kucinich administration would work to implement a drug policy that removes responsible recreational users and medical users of marijuana from the criminal justice system, in order to redirect resources toward the following goals: Enforce penalties for those who provide marijuana to minors. Enforce penalties for those who endanger the rights of others through irresponsible use, such as driving under the influence. Develop drug treatment programs focused on rehabilitation, rather than incarceration. Support the efforts of state governments in developing innovative approaches to drug policy. Improve drug education by emphasizing science over scare tactics. Implement a Department of Justice program that would review the records of, and consider for sentence reduction or release, inmates convicted for non-violent marijuana offenses. Now, some of you may have concerns about this endorsement, because you don't agree with other policies, or because you consider him unelectable. (Even more so with my endorsement of Blake Ashby as the Republican nominee.) However, we no longer can afford to allow Drug Policy Reform to be a side issue in the political debate. The Drug War has grown too big and too dangerous, and ultimately overshadows all other policy with its tentacles deep in the economic and social conditions of our country, the future of civil liberties, and the relationship of the government and the people. I urge everyone to support candates based on their views on the drug war. If enough will do this, even if these candidates don't win their nomination, the support they received may elevate Drug Policy Reform to a higher place on the agenda. 7:54:59 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Presidential Nomination Endorsement')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"> Sunday, December 14, 2003 Police up Goose Creek without a paddle... (Background here in case you somehow missed it). The only good thing to come out of the police raid at Stratford High School is the fact that it has actually received a good deal of national attention and outrage. It's important that we keep a fire under the issue (so it doesn't plame out), so you'll continue to hear updates on this site. First, a strong editorial from the Rock Hill, S.C. Herald: We hope state Attorney General Henry McMaster will give due attention to the case of the drug sweep at Stratford High School in Goose Creek. A reprimand from McMaster might help prevent such highly questionable police behavior from occurring at other schools in the state... This incident has provoked outrage nationwide, and for good reason. Police conduct clearly was over the top, and officers are fortunate no students were shot or otherwise injured. In this case, the biggest threat to law and order was the police themselves. We hope McMaster will waste no time in reviewing this case. Next, some national attention: The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Thursday he wants U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to intervene and call for the prosecution of police involved in the Nov. 5 drug search at Stratford High School in Goose Creek and the fatal shooting two days later of a mentally ill black man in North Charleston. In a separate move in the drug-raid case, the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a lawsuit Monday on behalf of 20 students. It claims Goose Creek officers used excessive force, falsely imprisoned students and violated search and seizure laws, said Executive Director Denyse Williams. "We just want to make sure this never happens to any child in any school again," she said.... "We want to meet with Ashcroft on this matter," Jackson said. "The Department of Justice must assure people their basic rights will be protected."... I think it's unconscionable, bigoted and reprehensible to have unholstered guns and dogs in the presence of children..." said the Rev. Joseph Darby of Morris Brown AME Church in Charleston. "I would hope (Jackson's) visit is followed up by positive action by local leadership." Parent Sharon Smalls said she hopes Jackson's presence will unite residents. "I think the community thinks this is a black-and-white issue, and it's not," said Smalls, who said officers slammed her son to the ground. "It's a right-and-wrong issue." I'd pay money to be in the room when Jesse Jackson asks John Ashcroft to investigate drug war abuses. Finally, check out Marsha Rosenbaum's article Stop Pointing Guns at Our Kids last week at Alternet: Today's parents, like those in Goose Creek, are skeptical of policies that demonize and frighten their teenagers without ensuring their health, well-being, and safety. If total abstinence isn't a realistic alternative, we want our teens to be educated about drugs by giving them scientific, honest information, not exaggerated claims designed (unsuccessfully) to scare them. We want school policies that protect students without jeopardizing the future of those who make immature mistakes. We want counseling and support, rather than humiliation, suspension, expulsion, or, as in the case of Stratford High, violence. Our children's safety should be top priority when it comes to educating them about drugs. Pointing guns at their heads is not the answer. Update:The ACLU has an 8 minute video of the event, narrated by the principal, available here (RealAudio file), today's press release is here, and the text of their complaint filing is here. 10:17:11 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment [] Pain Public Policy You may remember my September post on Severe Pain Care as a victim of the Drug War. Some positive steps are happening now. 1. Act quickly. This is very short notice, but I just got the information this evening. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is hosting an important Hill briefing on Tuesday, and they need your help in encouraging your Congressmen to attend. So give your rep a call on Monday morning if you can. Call the D.C. offices. The main switchboard is 202.224.3121. They will patch you through to your members. It sounds like a great briefing, including 5 groups taking part in the Coalition Against Prosecutorial Abuse (CAPA): The Politics of Pain Management: Public Policy and Patient Access to Effective Pain Treatments, featuring Ronald T. Libby, PhD., Professor,University of North Florida: "DEA investigation initiatives and funding sources" Rev. Ronald Myers, Sr., M.D., Founder, President, American Pain Institute: "Effects on African-American community" James Martin, President, 60 Plus Association, "Seniors' and end-of-life concerns" Julie Stewart, Families against Mandatory Minimums William Hurwitz, M.D., J.D., Indicted pain management specialist-McLean, VA: "'Deserving' vs. 'undeserving' patients?" Jane M. Orient, M.D., Clinical lecturer,University of AZ, Executive Director, AAPS: "Opioid-phobia and reluctance to treat patients" Siobhan Reynolds, Founder & President, Pain Relief Network, "Impact on families and economic issues" DEA Diversion Program (Invited) Moderator: Kathryn Serkes, President, Square One Media Network More than 48 million people in the U.S. suffer from chronic pain, according to the National Institutes of Health. Recent high-profile news cases of opioid usage have placed the issue on the front pages, including a debate over dependency vs. addiction, who is "deserving" and who is "undeserving," of opioid treatment, and whether pain patients should be subjected to different standards of personal scrutiny than others. The DEA claims drug diversion has reached crisis proportions, justifying increased investigative initiatives that frequently circumvent the Congressional appropriations process. Physicians are prosecuted and imprisoned, and patients sentenced based on pill counts. Medical research and treatment has made tremendous advances in pain management, but is public policy keeping up? And is law enforcement discouraging patient access to treatment as a result of prosecution of physicians under the Controlled Substances Act? This distinguished panel will examine the current state of pain management, law enforcement initiatives, patient experiences, economic impact of untreated pain, funding sources, sentencing guidelines, H.R. 3015 prescription drug database act, and solutions for cooperation between lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement and the medical community.   Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2003, B-338 Rayburn House Office Building, 12 Noon-1:30 pm, (luncheon served) To register, visit www.aapsonline.org, email Jeremy Snavely at briefing@aapsonline.org, fax 520.325.4230, or call 800.635.1196 by 12:00 noon, Monday, Dec 15. 2. Start planning now for Pain Relief Network's March on Washington, April 18-20, 2004 8:35:27 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []