>From: "Peter McWilliams" <peter@mcwilliams.com>
>Subject: Another excellent article
>Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:11:54 -0800
>X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
>X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>
>San Diego Union
>Anti-war movement | Protesters say it's time for the government to halt drug
>battles
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>Mark Sauer
>STAFF WRITER
>16-Jan-2000 Sunday
>
>In 1932, Democratic presidential challenger Franklin D. Roosevelt called
>for an end to Prohibition, the ban on alcohol that Republican President
>Herbert Hoover embraced as "the noble experiment."
>
>FDR swept into office declaring "happy days are here again" and presided
>over the repeal of Prohibition as the noble experiment was declared an
>utter failure.
>
>Arguments are being made now across the political spectrum that America's
>war on drugs -- the federal prohibition on marijuana and other illicit
>substances -- has proved similarly disastrous.
>
>As with Prohibition, critics decry a lucrative black market run by ruthless
>gangsters, widespread police corruption, an explosion in the prison
>population, erosion of civil liberties and continued drug use as evidence
>that the drug war has failed.
>
>Could history repeat itself this election year?
>
>With hundreds of thousands of Americans locked up on drug offenses and 
tens
>of billions of tax dollars spent annually on the drug war, a burgeoning
>anti-war movement is screaming "enough!"
>
>The question is whether movement leaders, who call the drug war our "social
>Vietnam," are yet loud enough to be heard.
>
>They are cheered by new challenges to drug prohibition by two prominent
>Republicans, by the success of the medical-marijuana movement and by
>evidence of a greater awareness of the war's costs and consequences.
>
>"Eventually, the failure of the drug war will cause its own demise," said
>Eric E. Sterling, who from 1979 to 1989 was counsel to the House Judiciary
>Committee, which was principally responsible for anti-drug legislation.
>
>"All kinds of pressure is being exerted on the current (anti-drug)
>strategy. Even Gen. (Barry) McCaffrey (President Clinton's drug czar), has
>said the drug war is not working.
>
>"But as long as this is considered an electrified third rail -- suicide for
>politicians -- there will be no rational debate on drug policy," added
>Sterling, now president of the nonprofit Criminal Justice Policy
>Foundation.
>
>Adam J. Smith, associate director of the Internet-based Drug Reform
>Coordination Network, hopes for some kind of national drug-war debate in
>the 2000 campaign. He is not optimistic.
>
>"But by the next election cycle, we may well see at least one major
>presidential candidate, and many others in the states, running on a
>drug-law-reform platform," Smith said.
>
>Dan Baum, author of "The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure" (Little
>Brown; 1996) said that like Vietnam at its late-'60s peak, the drug war is
>vast, complex and highly resistant to a swift armistice.
>
>"We have allowed this to grow into too big a monster and we ain't going to
>kill it in one political season," Baum said.
>
>Baum's drug-war monster can be measured in several ways:
>
>  In 1980, the federal government spent about $1 billion on drug control
>and 50,000 Americans were incarcerated on the federal, state and local
>levels for drug offenses. Today, the federal drug-war budget is nearly $18
>billion (an estimated $20 billion is spent by state and local governments)
>and about 400,000 Americans are behind bars for nonviolent, drug-law
>violations.
>
>  In 1998, 1.6 million Americans were arrested for drug violations,
>compared with 581,000 in 1980. Drug arrests account for about one-third of
>all arrests in America, more than any other category of crime, according to
>the FBI.
>
>  The number of women in state and federal prisons increased from 12,300
>in 1980 to 82,800 in 1997, a rise of 573 percent. Drug offenses accounted
>for one-half of the state incarcerations.
>
>  African-Americans are eight times more likely to be prosecuted and
>incarcerated than whites arrested for drug-law violations.
>
>  By Feb. 15, 2 million Americans will be behind bars, nearly a tenfold
>increase in the inmate population in a quarter-century. Because of the drug
>war and the get-tough-on-crime climate that spawned it, the anti-war
>movement says the land of the free has become the world's largest gulag.
>
>Critics from both the right and left contend that the war on drugs has
>failed in its mission, but succeeded in damaging Constitutional protections
>against illegal search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment and the
>right to privacy.
>
>People aren't locked up for abusing alcohol, they say, why should they be
>jailed for using or abusing drugs?
>
>But the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, headed by
>McCaffrey, counters that "the first duty of government is to provide
>security for citizens."
>
>"Drug abuse, drug trafficking and their consequences destroy personal
>liberty and the well-being of communities," according to the drug czar's
>office. "Drug abuse spawns global syndicates and bankrolls those who sell
>drugs to young people.
>
>"No person or group is immune. ... When the nation fails to pay attention
>and guard against it, drug use tends to spread."
>
>War resisters
>
>In 1930, Morris Sheppard, a Texas congressman and a sponsor of the
>amendment banning alcohol, made this prediction:
>
>"There is as much chance of repealing the 18th Amendment as there is for a
>hummingbird to fly to the planet Mars with the Washington Monument tied to
>its tail."
>
>Obviously, public opinion can quickly change.
>
>But the debate 70 years ago over Prohibition seems more straightforward
>than issues and questions surrounding the war on drugs.
>
>One reason is the nature of illicit drugs and Americans' attitudes toward
>them.
>
>The federal government, in extensive anti-drug campaigns, has worked hard
>to lump all illegal drugs together. But many Americans -- especially the 75
>million adults who have admitted use of marijuana -- distinguish between
>"hard" and "soft" drugs. And many distinguish between drug use and drug
>abuse.
>
>Polls show that most people are more skeptical about easing the prohibition
>of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other "hard" drugs than they are
>about marijuana.
>
>
>Seven states, California being the first, have passed laws allowing the use
>of marijuana for medicinal purposes (though it remains illegal under
>federal law).
>
>Similar initiatives, along with proposals to reform mandatory-sentencing
>laws for marijuana and other drug traffickers, are headed for the ballot in
>several more states this year. And Alaska voters are expected to consider a
>proposal to legalize marijuana in that state.
>
>Despite such reform efforts regarding marijuana, political observers say
>the broader drug war has yet to catch fire as a mainstream political issue.
>
>"Nothing I've seen in the polling or focus groups suggests to me that the
>American public is willing to drastically change the way government policy
>deals with drug use, particularly with respect to interdiction," said Garry
>South, a Democratic political consultant and campaign director for Gov.
>Gray Davis in 1998.
>
>"The media may shine a light on this issue in the 2000 campaign. But it's
>hard to expect political candidates to go out on a limb when there is not
>broad-based support for it."
>
>Two politicians, both of them Republicans, have gone out on a limb,
>however.
>
>Gary Johnson, the lame-duck governor of New Mexico, shocked members of both
>parties last fall when he blasted the drug war on a speaking tour, calling
>for the legalization not just of marijuana, but also of cocaine and heroin.
>
>Johnson, a 46-year-old triathlete and father of two who admits to having
>used marijuana and cocaine in college, insists he is against drugs, that
>drugs "are a bad choice, they're a handicap," and he counsels kids against
>their use.
>
>But Johnson, now a teetotaller, said locking up people for using drugs is
>morally wrong, terribly costly and ineffective. "Legalization means we
>educate, regulate, tax and control the estimated $400 billion a year drug
>industry," he said in a recent speech.
>
>Meanwhile in California, Tom Campbell, the leading GOP candidate to
>challenge Diane Feinstein for her U.S. Senate seat this fall, is calling
>for a different approach.
>
>Instead of overhauling current policies and laws, Campbell proposes that
>localities be allowed to experiment with plans that would make drugs
>available for addicts at government facilities. The current U.S.
>congressman from San Jose also favors providing intravenous users with
>clean needles to stop the spread of AIDS and other diseases.
>
>Campbell said his idea, based on successful programs in Europe, is to
>eliminate the profit incentive for drug dealers while educating addicts on
>the danger of drug use and offering them treatment.
>
>"I've taken a lot of criticism," Campbell said. "But the present system is
>not working and I believe it is the responsibility of someone who wants to
>lead to present new ideas.
>
>"If all you do is repeat what's being done when it isn't working, you are
>hardly a leader."
>
>Unlikely coalition
>
>Political scientists say that because of its liberal roots, the Democratic
>Party has long been vulnerable to charges of being "soft" on crime in
>general and drugs in particular.
>
>Democrats have worked hard in recent years to overcome that image, as
>demonstrated by President Clinton's dramatic escalation of the drug war --
>his current anti-drug budget is six times that of the Bush administration.
>
>For this reason, anti-war leaders say, it will probably take a Republican
>to launch a national debate on the drug war, much as it took avowed
>anti-communist Richard Nixon to open the door to China.
>
>"It has to come from the Republicans, that's the key," said Smith of the
>Drug Reform Coordination Network.
>
>"But the interesting thing is drug-war issues touch so many constituencies.
>Libertarians and hard-core conservatives look at it and say it's not the
>government's business; fiscal conservatives are shocked at the costs;
>liberals are upset over the exploding prison population; blacks are angry
>that minorities are heavily targeted," Smith said.
>
>"People who are not philosophically aligned on anything else can agree 
on
>this."
>
>The anti-war movement is basically split into two camps: Those who want to
>legalize all drugs and strictly control their sale; and those wishing for
>reform of drug policy and laws by shifting priorities from arrest and
>prosecution to treatment and education.
>
>This latter "harm-reduction" wing appears to enjoy a much broader base of
>support, with hundreds of Internet sites devoted to position papers,
>essays, news roundups, commentary from drug prisoners, research reports,
>etc., urging politicians and the public to reassess the drug war's
>consequences.
>
>Among the most visible proponents of harm-reduction is Ethan Nadelmann,
>director of the Lindesmith Center, a drug-policy institute financed by
>billionaire George Soros with offices in New York and San Francisco.
>
>"The idea that the drug war has failed and we need to reform is becoming
>the new conventional wisdom, there's plenty of evidence of that," Nadelmann
>said. "But there is a long way to go.
>
>"The entire drug-policy reform movement in this country spent less than $15
>million getting our message out in 1998, less in '99 and will spend a bit
>more this year," he added. "We're getting outspent by, what, a hundred to
>1? A thousand to 1?"
>
>The movement's relatively meager funds, Nadelmann said, should be directed
>at scuttling the "zero tolerance" rhetoric, though he agrees that anyone
>endangering lives by driving under the influence should be prosecuted to
>the fullest.
>
>Nadelmann would replace the notion of "a drug-free America" with the idea
>that drugs are permanent in our society and ways must be found to live with
>them so they cause the least possible harm and greatest possible benefit.
>
>Harm reduction, he said, involves decriminalizing marijuana and taxing and
>regulating it; providing "honest and effective drug education rather than
>feel-good programs like DARE"; not treating adults who sell drugs to other
>adults as "predatory criminals"; and treating drug abuse as a public-health
>problem rather than a criminal-justice problem.
>
>Child protection issue
>
>One of the anti-war movement's biggest hurdles is the government's argument
>that if prohibition ended children would suffer.
>
>"Drug warriors understand the power of PR. They've convinced the public
>that prohibition is the thin blue line protecting children from becoming
>zombies," said Smith, who added that experiences running a teen center in
>New York inspired him to oppose the war.
>
>"The truth is if average middle-class parents wanted to buy marijuana now,
>they'd do well to ask their teen-age kids. But kids can't get Demerol or
>other pharmaceuticals.
>
>"Under prohibition, the decision of whether drugs are sold to your
>15-year-old is not in the hands of a physician, pharmacist or parent, but
>a drug dealer. We have yet to get that message out."
>
>Sterling, the former congressional aide, said fear "is the politicians'
>favorite drug and they are very good at exploiting it, especially when it
>comes to issues involving children. And they are afraid themselves."
>
>"On every other issue, there are at least a couple of sides. But you run
>the real risk of offending voters and contributors when you take a position
>against the drug war."
>
>In order to address voters' fears and the child-protection issue, leaders
>in the anti-war movement say that eventually they have to go beyond
>attacking the negative consequences of drug prohibition and provide
>alternatives to the drug war.
>
>"You can't beat something with nothing," Sterling said. "To say the war on
>drugs is a failure and this is the end of the war, that's not going to
>happen. But the problem exceeds my ability to describe a solution. I say we
>need to be willing to experiment."
>
>But others, notably Nadelmann, offer myriad reform proposals in speeches,
>op-ed pieces and seminars.
>
>"This is like other American political and social movements -- women's
>suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, Prohibition itself," Nadelmann said.
>"You start by using facts to educate people, you use science, common sense.
>It takes time to build consensus.
>
>"My gut feeling is that when the phrase 'drug prohibition' appears in a
>news story rather than in an op-ed piece in the newspaper, we will take a
>big step forward.
>
>"People can then make the analytical leap toward a more sensible policy." 
'
>
>
>
>-------
>
>
>
>Anti-war movement | Drug laws are a reason to run for local candidates
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>
>Mark Sauer
>STAFF WRITER
>
>16-Jan-2000 Sunday
>
>Steve McWilliams' campaign message is simple: "End the war on drugs and
>divert that money to helping people."
>
>A longtime advocate for medical marijuana, McWilliams is on the March 7
>primary ballot as a candidate for San Diego City Council from the 3rd
>District.
>
>Does he expect to win? No.
>
>But McWilliams said he is morally obliged to run and raise "people's
>awareness that the drug war is creating a narco-terrorist police state,
>destroying our social fabric and severely infringing on the freedom of
>individuals and families."
>
>"If we took the money being spent on the drug war and put it into schools
>and into grants so low-income families can buy homes and afford college
>tuition," said McWilliams, "we would be far better off as a society."
>
>McWilliams is founder of Shelter from the Storm, an organization dedicated
>to growing marijuana for people with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, chronic pain
>and other disabilities covered by Proposition 215, California's
>medical-marijuana initiative.
>
>Despite being on probation for a 1998 cultivation charge, McWilliams has
>permission from authorities to grow the marijuana he uses daily for relief
>of chronic pain resulting from a motorcycle accident.
>
>But he remains an outspoken critic of San Diego and California officials
>for failing to implement medical-marijuana guidelines more than three years
>after the passage of Proposition 215.
>
>Daniel Beeman, another council candidate from the 3rd District advocating
>the immediate and full implementation of Prop. 215, said he not only does
>not use drugs or alcohol, he doesn't even drink coffee.
>
>"But why not let people have a choice?" said Beeman. "We need to move
>society beyond arresting people and find ways to assist people who want to
>get off drugs. Government needs to stay out of the business of all adults."
>
>Joining McWilliams and Beeman in that criticism is the Libertarian Party,
>which has candidates running in San Diego for state Assembly, Congress,
>City Council and mayor.
>
>Dennis Triglia, Libertarian candidate in the 78th Assembly District,
>characterized the war on drugs as "ridiculous," but stopped short of
>calling for outright legalization now.
>
>"I'm taking a more cautious approach. Society is not going to make a change
>of this magnitude overnight," said Triglia, a research scientist at a local
>bio-tech company whose companion uses marijuana to cope with side effects
>of his AIDS medicine.
>
>"I'll settle for decriminalizing drugs, and we can start by not locking
>people up for growing and using medical marijuana. These people aren't
>ruthless drug dealers, they are sick and simply trying to use medicine that
>is legal in California.
>
>"The government has no right to say what we can put in our bodies. The real
>menace is not drugs," Triglia concluded, "it's the drug war which does
>nothing but lead to more crime, especially in low-income neighborhoods."
>
>
>
>
>---------
>
>Steve McWilliams is no relation, but we are obviously "brothers."
>
>Enjoy,
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>