>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <00e901bf22c5$06c18230$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Clear thinking from England >Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 03:53:38 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Pubdate: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 >Source: Guardian, The (UK) >Copyright: Guardian Media Group 1999 >Contact: letters@guardian.co.uk >Website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ >Author: Duncan Campbell > >TSAR WARS > >Clinton's General Is Arriving To Instruct Us On The Battle Against Drugs. >Don't Listen. > >He has been honoured by the governments of Colombia, Peru, Argentina, >Venezuela and France. He has been decorated by his own country for his >military service in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic and Iraq. He has taught >national security studies at West Point and lectured at the El Salvador >institute of higher defence studies, the Guatemalan senior service school >and the Honduras war college. > >Barry McCaffrey, the director of the White House office of national drug >control policy, better known as the US drug tsar, is to share his knowledge >and views with British ministers and agencies. Since the UK borrowed the >concept of the tsar directly from the US (in the person of the >increasingly-frustrated Keith Hellawell) and since McCaffrey has >responsibility for a $17.8bn federal drug control budget, his views are >likely to command attention. So how seriously should he be taken? > >McCaffrey came to his post as President Clinton's major adviser on drugs in >1996 as the youngest four-star general in the US army and a former commander >in chief of the US armed forces' southern command, effectively the chief US >military figure in Central and South America. He had been an adviser on >Latin American internal security policy and a major player in Operation >Desert Storm. His military credentials must have seemed suitably impressive >to a president lumbered forever with a reputation for having smoked cannabis >but not inhaled. Who better to tackle such a mighty issue? > >The general wasted no time in attacking those perceived to be soft on the >subject. In 1996 he announced: "There is not a single shred of evidence >that shows that smoked marijuana is useful or needed. This is not science. >This is not medicine. This is a cruel hoax." The American national >institute of health begged to differ by stating that "inhaled marijuana has >the potential to improve chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting" or, in >other words, it could be of value to cancer sufferers. > >The following year, McCaffrey stated unequivocably that "marijuana is a >gateway drug". But statistics from the department of health and human >resources showed that "for every 104 people who have used marijuana, there >is one regular user of cocaine and less than one heroin addict". > >Perhaps his most controversial claim concerns Holland, which has one of the >most liberal drug policies in the world in terms of the provision of needle >exchange for addicts and the sanctioning of the sale of cannabis in >regulated cannabis cafes. "The murder rate in Holland is double that in the >United States and the per capita crime rates are much higher than the United >States," he said last year. "That's drugs." > >The Dutch ambassador to the US responded that McCaffrey's claims had "no >basis in fact". The figures quoted by McCaffrey showed that the US had a >rate of 8.2 murders per 100,000 population compared with 17.58 murders in >Holland. In fact, his researchers had included the "attempted murders" >figure in the total by mistake. The true figure was 1.8 per 100,000 in >Holland, making the American rate more than four times as high. When >challenged on the figures, McCaffrey's spokesman responded imaginatively: >"What you are left with is that they (the Dutch) are a much more violent >society and more inept at murders and that's not much to brag about." Indeed >not. What he gave less prominence to was the fact that the US heroin >addiction rate runs at about eight times the level in Holland. > >Last June, McCaffrey told a US government criminal justice and drug policy >sub-committee in Washington that the only people who backed drug reform in >the US were "a carefully camouflaged, well-funded, tightly knit core of >people whose goal is to legalise drug use." Again, this is worth scrutiny. >Among those in favour of drug law reform are the governors of New Mexico and >Minnesota who are hardly in carefully camouflaged positions. Six states, >representing 20% of the American population, have voted for the >decriminalisation for medical use of marijuana which is some "tightly knit >core". The "well-funded" group he is probably referring to is the >Lindesmith centre, a drug policy institute which is funded by the financier >George Soros, an involvement about which Soros is perfectly open. > >Its director, Ethan Nadelmann, is able to defend himself against any >accusations, and has already done so by writing in the Los Angeles Times >that "most drug policy reformers I know don't want crack or methamphetamine >sold in Seven-Elevens - to quote one of the most pernicious accusations >hurled by McCaffrey. What we're talking about is a new approach grounded >not in the fear, ignorance, prejudice and the vested pecuniary and >institutional interests that drive current policies, but rather one grounded >in common sense, science, public health and human rights." > >Last year, 60,000 people, almost the equivalent of the entire jail >population of the UK, were locked up for marijuana offences. Almost half of >American private companies now require their employees to take drug tests. >The demonisation of people seeking reform does nothing to advance debate or >shed light on one of the costliest and most divisive issues in American >politics. > >Not all Barry McCaffrey's statements have been recanted or contested. >Shortly after coming to office he said that "we cannot arrest our way out of >the drug problem". This may or may not be of great comfort to those 700,000 >people arrested in the US last year for marijuana offences, or the 400,000 >prisoners serving time for drug offences, but is seen as an acceptance that >there are other ways of addressing the issue than the warehousing of a >percentage of the American population. But of the federal budget on drugs, >60% is used for law enforcement while only 11% goes towards reducing its use >among young people. > >"Barry McCaffrey has presided over a system where marijuana use has declined >among American youth, masking an even greater rise in the adolescent use of >crack and heroin," says Paul Lewin of the organisation Common Sense for Drug >Policies. "It is unlikely that most parents would be comfortable with a >system that replaces marijuana with crack and heroin use but then the office >of national drug control policy does not make such embarrassing figures well >known." > >Danny Kushlick of Transform, the British drug policy campaign group, who has >been asked to meet McCaffrey and is critical of his policies against >needle-exchange for addicts, says of the tsar: "He is a dangerous man. He >is denying people access to basic harm-minimisation treatment and that is >causing deaths. If he is here to tell us of his initiatives, it's the last >thing we need." > >Over the next few days, McCaffrey will have an opportunity to outline what >he believes the US has accomplished beyond turning the prison system into >the second biggest employer after General Motors. People should certainly >listen to what he has to say. But perhaps it is best not to inhale too >deeply. > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: