BLOG

If you haven’t watched Aaron Gunn’s documentary titled “Vancouver is Dying”, you should. You can find it on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT8OU8Yhs_s

Is the San Francisco Harm Reduction approach working? Take a look at an insiders perspective: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6318692837112

First Aid for Drug Overdoses. We share information from another organization: https://www.cprcertified.com/blog/first-aid-for-drug-overdoses

Former DPNC Director Al Arsenault is a retired Vancouver Police Officer and one of the principals behind Odd Squad Productions, an award-winning film & video house. Al is also a great collector and sharer of news, information and press releases on all things drug-related.

All that follows flows from the watchful eye of Al Arsenault. Here is the latest:

Here are three new articles that Al feels you should peruse:

1. Medical Marijuana – a Dopey Idea?
Dr Gregory K Pike
Director, Adelaide Centre for Bioethics and Culture

Read this here.

2. IDAHO CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION
“Collaborating for a Safer Idaho” Established 2005
C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER

Read this article here.

3. National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
Position Statement on Marijuana

Read this piece here.

Drug user dies at Vancouver’s supervised injection site/housing facility
Staff discovered man in bathtub around 2 a.m.

By Mike Howell, Staff writer October 10, 2012 Vancouver Courier

A 46-year-old chronic drug user has died in the housing facility attached to
the city’s supervised drug injection site on East Hastings Street.

The death occurred Sept. 14 and marks the first time someone died in the
building that houses a detox centre, the injection site and temporary
housing for recovering drug users.

The B.C. Coroners Service is investigating and hasn’t concluded the cause of
death, although operators of the housing facility say the man had a long
history of drug use.

Mark Townsend of the PHS Community Services Society, which operates the drug
recovery facilities and the injection site in conjunction with Vancouver
Coastal Health, said staff discovered the man in a bathtub around 2 a.m.

The previous evening, the man was playing his guitar in a lounge and decided
to have a bath before going to bed, said Townsend, adding there was no
evidence the man was using drugs.

The man was a regular user of the Insite injection site and recently
completed detox on the second floor of the facility. He was then given a
room in the housing wing on the third floor.

“The guy was well behaved, had a good plan for what he was going to do and
had some hopes and dreams,” Townsend said.

The Vancouver Police Department attended the scene Sept. 14 and determined
the death not to be suspicious, said Const. Brian Montague, a VPD media
liaison officer.

Onsite opened in 2007 as an extended service of the drug injection site,
which opened in 2003. Insite is still the only legal injection site in North
America and staff say they have yet to have someone die of an overdose
death, despite an average of 600 injections per day.

Onsite has two floors, the first with 12 beds for detox, the second with 18
beds for people focused on preparing for a life of sobriety.

There, they receive visits from a doctor and have access to drug counselling
and mental health workers. Acupuncture, yoga and meditation, along with
three meals per day, are included.

When the Courier visited Onsite and Insite for a day in April 2009, the
statistics then showed almost 600 people had stayed at Onsite since
September 2007. More than 100 were successful in entering long-term
treatment programs and housing, the staff said at the time.

In February of this year, the Courier reported the number of heroin users at
the injection site requiring the use of a potentially life-saving medication
to counter the effects of an overdose had steadily increased since
September.

Coupled with the increased use of Narcan at Insite was the B.C. Coroners
Service’s investigation into 28 suspected illicit drug overdose deaths in
Vancouver since September, eight of which occurred in January.

At the time of the story, staff at Insite said they noticed about a 25 per
cent increase in overdose interventions over a 12-month period. An
intervention can range from a nurse give a user oxygen to Narcan being used
to revive a person from near death.

The Coroners Service recorded 66 drug overdose deaths in Vancouver in 2011,
although some are still under investigation to determine the exact cause of
death.

Last year’s 66 deaths were an increase over the 44 in 2010. There were 62 in
2009, 40 in 2008 and 60 in 2007. A total of 454 people died of a drug
overdose death in Vancouver between 2004 and 2011.

“More Americans now die each year from prescription drug overdoses than from cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs.”

The Wall Street Journal’s Saturday Essay is called PRESCRIPTION FOR ADDICTION and it’s a very strong piece. Read it here.

Why we shouldn’t legalize marijuana

By Charles Stimson | Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation | 7/19/2012

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/why-we-shouldnt-legalize-marijuana/#ixzz217DdSy4o

Marijuana is an addictive, gateway drug. It significantly impairs bodily and mental functions, and its use is related to increased violence. These are facts.

Yet proponents of legalizing the drug studiously deny or downplay the well-documented dark side of marijuana trafficking and use. Instead, they promise benefits ranging from reduced crime to additional tax revenue.

Marijuana advocates have had some success in arguing that marijuana is a “soft” drug, similar to alcohol, and fundamentally different from “hard” drugs like cocaine or heroin. To equate alcohol with marijuana, however, is both uninformed and misleading. Their similarities run only skin deep.

A glass of wine with dinner, for example, has been shown to actually improve health. Not so with marijuana. Though it may have some palliative effects, marijuana has no known general healthful properties.

Instead, clinical studies reveal that long-term, moderate consumption of the drug impairs short-term memory, slows reaction time, increases the risk of heart attack, and can result in birth defects, strokes, and damage to the respiratory system and brain.

Lacking curative or preventive powers, marijuana — unlike alcohol — is usually consumed to the point of intoxication. Prolonged use has a negative effect on cognitive ability that persists beyond the period of intoxication.

What about addiction? Legalization advocates note that alcohol and tobacco are addictive, yet legal. Yes, but marijuana is more likely to cause addiction. One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana in the course of a year became dependent on it, exhibiting compulsive behavior and signs of withdrawal.

But think of the benefits to society, pot proponents then argue. Legalizing marijuana would slash drug-related crime, they assert. Yet if and when states legalize marijuana, local demand will increase. Meanwhile, some reputable growers, manufacturers, and retailers will refuse to produce or distribute the drug because of standing federal laws and the tort liability that attend to such a dangerous product. The vacuum will be filled by illegal drug cartels and a black or gray market.

Furthermore, the National Research Council has concluded that the “long-term use of marijuana may alter the nervous system in ways that do promote violence.” No place serves as a better example than Amsterdam. Though often touted as a well-functioning city with a relaxed attitude toward drugs, Amsterdam is also one of the most violent cities in Europe. In California, as well, the areas around cannabis clubs have experienced exponential increases in crime rates.

Pot pushers also offer pie-in-the-sky economic arguments on behalf of their cause. Taxes collected from marijuana sales will easily outweigh the social costs of legalization, they say.

In encouraging Californians to vote for the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) predicted a billion-dollar windfall for the state in tax revenues and enforcement savings. A RAND Corporation study subsequently found these projections were riddled with unfounded assumptions. To date, no realistic cost-benefit analysis has been done, yet proponents keep repeating these groundless claims.

Finally, regardless of state law, marijuana remains illegal under federal laws, which states have no authority to allow their citizens to contravene.

Legalizing marijuana is not the answer. Rather, sound national drug policy includes international cooperation, research, strengthened law enforcement, treatment, and prevention and education. When President Ronald Reagan adopted a similar strategy, illegal drug use by young adults dropped by more than 50 percent.

Thus, the best option going forward is for states to commit to a comprehensive, unified approach aimed at preventing illegal drug use and reducing the number of drug users.

No state will likely be allowed to legalize marijuana on its own due to negative cross-state spillover effects. Yet even if a state could do so, legalizing marijuana would serve little purpose other than to worsen the drug problem.

Charles “Cully” Stimson is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

28 June 2012 9:14 PM Daily Mail
The use of drugs is not a statement of freedom. It may be a dependency.
Dr. Robert Lefever

Not all users of mood-altering drugs are addicts. Some use simply for transient pleasure. Some use because of peer pressure or because they think it’s clever. Others – maybe ten to fifteen percent of the total population – have an addictive tendency. We can stop our addictive behaviour for a time but then we return to it.

A compulsion is not merely a habit taken to extremes.

The danger of libertarianism in drug use is that addicts do not recognise this addictive state in ourselves. We believe that our problems lie in the outside world rather than inside ourselves.
Those of us who do eventually recognise our addictive nature come to see that we cause our own difficulties and we have no right to call on other people or the State to bail us out.

I was myself a board member of The Libertarian Alliance. I resigned over the issue of legalisation of drugs. I saw the immense damage caused in – and by – people who have problems with addiction. They were not free. They were trapped and, most significantly, they did not see that.
They tended to focus their attention on side issues such as the legalisation and medicinal use of cannabis. These become a cause célèbre.

They point, justifiably, to the dangers of alcohol but fail to see that cannabis is a dangerous drug in its own right, affecting mood and memory and motivation, three fundamentally valuable aspects of a positive, rational and creative life. As with alcohol and nicotine and other mood-altering drugs, cannabis is a ‘gateway’ drug, lowering the resistance to other addictive behaviour.

Legalisation of cannabis would be a catastrophe. Dealers would love it. They already love the legal status of alcohol. It enables them to fuel resentment over artificial divisions in the legal status of various mood-altering substances. Even more, they would love the legalisation of all drugs. Dealers and cartels want to see the social normalisation of their activities. Then, like the Mafia, they can get down to serious business.

Already the value of the illegal drug industry in the USA is estimated to be the equivalent of several of the top ten companies combined in the Fortune 500 list of the largest companies.
No government can manage the legal sale and distribution of drugs at that level without taking its focus of attention off health care, education, welfare, defence and everything else that we expect our elected representatives to provide in our society.

The pharmaceutical industry is already immense, occupying many of the top Fortune 500 places. They make their profits largely from the sale of mood-altering drugs such as tranquillisers, antidepressants and sleeping tablets. Doctors are their legalised pushers.

I left the NHS and subsequently, with my wife, created a rehabilitation centre when we recognised the sheer extent of this problem and saw that nothing of any significance was being done to understand and combat the demand, rather than supply, side of addiction problems.

I had tried to influence the NHS from within but I totally failed.

I have taken twenty five years of adulation or abuse since then. It has no effect on me other than to get me to consider where my ideas might be right or wrong, sticking to them or changing them. What matters to me is whether or not ideas work in practice.

For twenty three years, my wife and I chose not to take an income from the rehab that we created. Yet there is no shortage of people abusing me for leaving the NHS, which has no time for Twelve Step treatment ideas, based upon the principles of Alcoholics Anonymous.

Henry Kissinger describes AA as the greatest social and spiritual movement of the twentieth century. I agree with him on that.

But, of course, the NHS is ‘the envy of the world’ – which is why no one in the world has copied it. Therefore, unlike the rest of us, it doesn’t need to see where its ideas might be misguided or just plain wrong.

With a supplicant or even captive population, the NHS could do something about the drug problem if doctors were to be educated on the nature of addictive disease and recovery and if substantial rehabs were to be established in all prisons. Keeping drugs illegal would then ensure that addicts would get effective treatment, and idiots would get a wake-up call, if people who broke the drug laws were mandated to receive NHS Twelve Step treatment.

After that – or at the same time because the principles, and often the addicts, are the same – we can focus our attention on the problems caused specifically by addiction to nicotine, sugar and alcohol.

In view of the carnage caused by these substances (in round figures, alcohol kills one hundred people a day, sugar two hundred and nicotine three hundred, whereas all illegal drugs kill fifteen) there would be a case for making all these substances illegal. The legal problems would be immense but at least there would be consistency.

Ours is an addictive society, like many others. We are riddled with it and with rationalisations and even justifications for continuing our own form of addiction in ourselves, if not in other people. We are not all as free from these destructive drives as we might like to believe.

Some of us have been fortunate to attain that freedom on a day to day basis. We now try not to lose sight of the need of others to achieve similar freedom. By helping them, if they so wish, we help ourselves to remember where we came from.

We may not have the financial capacity to help others in significant numbers but we do have the good will, the understanding, the commitment and the patience to do so. If we are abused in the process, we make no complaint. After all, we ourselves were abusive in our time as active addicts.
It does us a lot of good to learn what it is like to be on the receiving end of abuse. We knew what it was like to dish it out. If we are to remain in continuing recovery, we have to learn how to take it. We maintain our freedom from dependency by being tolerant of the behaviour of others, even while opposing ideas that we know, from our own experience, don’t work in practice.

*******************

Marijuana and other cannabis products aren’t going away. Neither is organized crime, nor small grow-ops. But blithely passing off that society would benefit from state-sanctioned cannabis products is just irresponsible. The group of four – and Mayor Robertson – would do better to remind people of proven dangers associated with the consumption of pot.

LANCET STUDY ON INSITE EXPOSED AS BAD SCIENCE & BAD REPORTING

Australians Help Expose Vancouver Injecting Room Research Errors
Three Australian doctors are part of an international team which has exposed major, inexcusable errors in a highly influential 2011 Lancet study on Vancouver’s Insite injecting facility, errors which nullify the study’s claim that it has demonstrably reduced overdoses in its immediate surrounding area. The international team’s analysis has been sent by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada to the Ethics Committee of the agency which funded the Lancet study with questions regarding research fraud and professional misconduct.
The Lancet article, published online on 18 April 2011, claimed that drug overdose deaths within a 500 metre radius around Insite reduced by 35% while the rest of Vancouver reduced by 9%. The article was influential in the Canadian Supreme Court hearings of May 12 this year, where the court reserved its decision on whether the Canadian Government is rightfully able to close the facility. The Canadian government has been trying to close Insite since 2006, but has been hampered by court action by harm reduction activists. A decision by the Supreme Court is expected late this year or early 2012.
The international analysis team, including four Australians, a Canadian PhD and Dr Robert DuPont, the first President of the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), found that claims of decreased deaths in Vancouver were not supported by the British Columbia Coroner’s data, which clearly indicated increased Vancouver drug deaths from 2002-2007, despite Insite’s commencement in September 2003. The Lancet researchers were found to have manufactured an appearance of overdose mortality decreases by including 2001 in their pre-Insite comparison years, a year of significantly higher heroin availability and overdoses than the remaining years within the Lancet study’s focus. Other journal studies by three of the researchers reveal that they very well knew that 2001 was markedly different to subsequent years.
Of greatest concern was the disclaimer by the Lancet researchers that they knew of no policing changes around Insite between 2001 and 2005 which might have affected overdose deaths. In fact 66 police were added since 2003 to specifically patrol the 12 block area around Insite, the greater part of the area declared to have the 35% decreases in deaths. So significant were these changes that activists lodged complaints with all levels of Canadian government as well as the United Nations, with three of the Lancet researchers collaborating in a 2004 journal article which described the ‘displacement’ of drug dealers and users to other parts of Vancouver as a result of the policing.
Drug Free Australia’s Research Coordinator, Gary Christian, said, “These researchers cannot truthfully claim they knew of no policing changes in the immediate area around Insite when some of their number produced an indignant study condemning the changed policing. Inexplicable errors and memory lapses is the price the Canadian government has paid for entrusting injecting facility lobbyists with its scientific evaluation. Activists are never likely to provide objective science and there are dozens of other Insite studies that must now be under a cloud as a result.”
Full analysis at http//:www.drugfree.org.au ________
Media Enquiries Gary Christian
0422 163 141
?
BACKGROUNDER

Legalisation of Illegal Drugs A Policy in Search of a Disaster.

Neil McKeganey
Professor of Drug Misuse Research
University of Glasgow

Judging by the flood of articles calling for the decriminalisation or legalisation of illegal drugs in the media over recent months one could be forgiven for assuming that the liberal intelligentsia have only a single position on this issue. It is striking though that those who are the most vociferous in support of legalisation are also those who live at greatest distance from the reality of the drugs problem they are commenting upon. I have rarely come across loud calls for decriminalisation from those who are living cheek by jowl with the reality of the UK drug problem. Living next door to a dealer is hardly the rosy road to drug liberalisation.

For those who support legalisation the case is largely made up of the claim that a) our drug laws have failed b) the some level of drug use will always be with us, c) that it is the right of individuals to choose to use whatever drugs they wish and d) that it is quite wrong of the state to seek to intervene in this area of personal freedom. In almost every respect those reasons are misplaced. Heroin use within the UK involves around one percent of the adult population. Compare that to the consumption of our legal drugs alcohol and tobacco and you see that the illegality of heroin is likely to have played an important part in its use remaining relatively low.

Some forms of drug use may indeed be an inevitable facet of human existence but that does not mean that we should open the flood gates of legalisation or decriminalisation. Bear in mind too that if we agreed to legalise heroin within the UK it would make no sense to not extend this to every other currently illegal drug. Bear in mind that this would also mean legalising any future drugs that may be developed by eager entrepreneurial chemists.

Whilst it may be conceded that drug use in at least some respects is a realm of free will we would also have to recognise that addiction undermines that element of free will more forcefully than anything else. And as for the claim that drug use should be a state free zone one might also wonder whether those who argue for that view would eschew their access to free, state provided addictions treatment when they fall from the precarious perch of recreational drug use into the dark realm of drug addiction.

The real worry around legalisation though is the possibility that levels of drug use might increase in the event that the policy were implemented. Within the UK the leading drug legalisation lobby group Transform recognise that there could be a 100% increase in the number of drug users in the event of legalisation. In the case of heroin this would represent an increase from one per-cent to two per-cent of the adult population. The reality though could be much worse and we might see an increase in heroin use from one per-cent to say ten or fifteen per-cent or even higher. Such an increase might not be very likely in the short term but the policy of legalisation needs to be considered over many years. Seen in these terms it is a risky strategy and it must surely lie with the legalisers to say why in their view a marked increase in drug usage would not follow on from a policy of decriminalisation or legalisation.

Neil McKeganey is the author of Controversies in Drugs Policy and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.

Facing chronic pain without drugs
By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN Senior Medical Correspondent

This is an excellent article well worth the read.

——————————————————————————–

Why Barney Frank and Ron Paul are wrong on drug legalization
By William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor

Bill Bennett is a former drug czar for the U.S.

(CNN) — From certain precincts on the left, notably Barney Frank, to certain precincts on the right, notably the editorial page of National Review, we are witnessing a new push to end the so-called war on drugs and legalize drug use, starting with marijuana. Indeed, Ron Paul, Barney Frank’s co-sponsor in the latest legislative effort, said recently he would go so far as to legalize heroin.

It’s a bad idea. My friends at National Review begin their case by stating the illegalization of drugs has “curtailed personal freedom, created a violent black market and filled our prisons.” But the legalization of drugs, including marijuana, would exacerbate each of these problems.

Starting with the basics, keeping drugs illegal is one of the best ways to keep drugs out of the hands — and brains — of children. We know three things here: First, children who don’t use drugs continually tell us one of the reasons they don’t is precisely because they are illegal.

For example, since at least 1975, report after report has found that “perceptions of the risk and social disapproval of drug use correlate very closely with drug taking behavior.” When those in the drug prevention community ask teens who don’t use drugs why they don’t, time and again, the answer comes back “because it’s illegal.” This, of course, explains why a greater percentage of teens abuse legal substances like tobacco and alcohol over illegal drugs such as marijuana — even when they say marijuana is easily accessible.

Second, keeping drugs out of the hands of children is the best way to prevent drug addiction generally, as study after study has confirmed that if we keep a child drug free until age 21, the chances of use in adulthood are next to zero.

Third, we don’t need to guess at hypothetical legalization schemes. Our experience with legally prescribed narcotics has already proven it, and we now have an epidemic. This, despite doing everything the theorists have asked, from oversight to regulation to prescription requirements.

Normalizing, de-stigmatizing, and legalizing illegal drugs lowers their price and increases their use. As a recent RAND study on California found, legalization of marijuana there would cut the price by as much as 80% and increase use from as little as 50% to as much as 100%. Just what California, just what our society, needs.

As for the current drug policies curtailing personal freedom, the question is: “Whose freedom?” The drug dealers’, sure — the drug consumers, no.

As any parent with a child addicted to drugs will explain, as any visit to a drug rehab center will convey, those caught in the web of addiction are anything but free. And it is not because of their incarceration or rehabilitation, it is because of the vicious cycle of dependency, waste and brain damage addiction and abuse cause.

Let us make no mistake about this, either: Marijuana is much more potent and causes much more damage than we used to know. Today’s marijuana tests on average at more than 10% THC (the psychoactive ingredient). We are even seeing samples of more than 30% THC. This is compared to the relatively lower levels of THC most legalizing proponents were more familiar with in generations past (under 4% in the early 1980s, even lower in the 1960s).

Chronic adolescent marijuana use has been found to be associated with “poorer performance on thinking tasks, including slower psychomotor speed and poorer complex attention, verbal memory and planning ability.” We are seeing study after study finding adolescent marijuana use responsible for “disrupted brain development” in teens. Worse, we are seeing more and more studies showing teen marijuana use linked to psychosis.

As for the high incarceration rates for simple marijuana use and possession, it is a myth. As government documentation actually shows, over 97% of sentencing on federal marijuana-related charges is for trafficking, less than 2% is for simple possession. Indeed, the only National Review authority with federal prosecutorial experience that I know of backs this point up: “Actual enforcement is targeted at big distributors. People who merely possess drugs for personal use well know they are substantially safe no matter what the statutes say.”

We have had a fair amount of experience with legalization and decriminalization schemes. What are those communities now saying? Citizens are trying to put the genie back in the bottle, from Northern California (where residents have complained that medical marijuana has “spawned crime, drug cartels and teenage pot use”), to the Netherlands (where drug tourism, use by minors, and border trafficking has increased), to England (where apologies have been made for endorsing decriminalization in light of the subsequent growth of teen drug treatment needs), to Colorado (where easy access has increased demand, “made a mockery” of the legal system, and is increasingly endangering public safety).

We have an illegal drug abuse epidemic in this country and it has not been given enough attention. But the cultural messages, as much as the law, matter. When we unified on this, as we once did, drug use went down. When we let up, as we now have, use increases.
The libertarian experiment promoted as a novel theory by some will only make things worse. More legalization equals more damage, waste, crime and abuse. Not less. That is why it is no time to surrender.

Study Shows Illicit Drug Use Costs U.S. Economy More Than $193 Billion

Than $193 Billion
Illicit drug use in the United States is estimated to have cost the U.S. economy more than $193 billion in 2007, according to a new study by the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC).
The Economic Impact of Illicit Drug Use on American Society, released May 26, estimates the economic impact of illicit drugs for 2007, the most recent year for which data are available.
“The study’s finding that the economic cost of illicit drug abuse totaled $193 billion reveals that this Nation’s drug problem is on par with other health problems,” said NDIC Director Michael F. Walther.
A 2008 study by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases found that diabetes costs the United States more than $174 billion each year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that from 1995 to 1999, smoking accounted for at least $157 billion annually in health-related economic costs.
The NDIC study is the first comprehensive assessment of costs associated with drug use in almost a decade. The statistical findings presented in the study integrate economic costs in three principal areas:
? Crime: Criminal justice costs, crime victim costs, and other Federal costs
for activities including intelligence production, interdiction, source nation assistance, and research and development.
? Health: Specialty treatment costs, hospital and emergency room costs for non-homicide and homicide cases, insurance administration costs, and other health costs.
? Productivity: Labor participation costs (for those who are employed but are not as productive as they might be due to illicit drug use) and incapacitation costs attributable to specialty treatment, hospitalization, incarceration, premature mortality (non-homicide-related), and premature mortality (homicide¬related).
The National Drug Intelligence Center’s mission is to provide strategic drug-related intelligence, document and computer exploitation support, and training assistance to the drug control, public health, law enforcement, and intelligence communities of the United States in order to reduce the adverse effects of drug trafficking, drug abuse, and other drug-related criminal activity.
Additional information about NDIC, a component of the Department of Justice, can be found at:
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/
A complete copy of the NDIC study is available online at:
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs44/447 31/44731p.pdf

International Drug Policy Experts Comment
on United Nations World Drug Report

On June 23rd, the United Nations released its 2011 World Drug Report outlining an international inventory of drug trafficking, manufacturing and production, illicit use and drug-related deaths. Drug policy experts from around the world earnestly reviewed the results and concluded that the report findings revealed that drug legalization is not the answer.

“This year’s World Drug Report clearly shows that the so-called War on Drugs has not been lost. It indicates that global markets for cocaine, heroin and cannabis declined or remained stable. If the same were said about the global battle against other societal issues such as terrorism, arms trafficking, human trafficking, or even AIDs, no one would declare these campaigns a failure. Do we need to do more? Absolutely! But is it a failure? I think not. The report also clearly shows that legalization is not the answer since abuse of prescription opioid drugs and new synthetic drugs rose. While prescription opioids and many of the synthetic drugs are legal, we clearly have not made progress with them. Making more drugs legal would only result in more spikes in drug problems,” said Calvina Fay, Executive Director of Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.

“It is essential that we provide abstinence-based treatment, effective drug prevention and vigorous enforcement if we are to meet the challenge of illegal drugs. Our goal must be a massive reduction in the prevalence and impact of our drug problem and we must resist the counsel from those who are urging us to accommodate that problem and liberalise our drug laws,” said Neil McKeganey, FRSA, Professor of drug misuse research in Scotland.

“Drug addiction is a modern form of slavery that kidnaps the free will of drug users, creates massive social burdens, and promotes hostile and dangerous behavior. To eliminate this problem, as the world community has pledged, we need balanced and restrictive policies including prevention, treatment, law enforcement, and research focusing on both demand and supply reduction,” concluded Mr. Sven-Olov Carlsson, President of the World Federation Against Drugs.

Illegal drug use and trade

Pfenninger: Nothing medical about medical marijuana
Pfenninger: Nothing medical about medical marijuana By Dr. John L. Pfenninger
Posted: Sunday, June 19, 2011 8:15 am | Updated: 8:16 am, Sun Jun 19, 2011.
Midland Daily News
A note from Dr. Pfenninger: Michigan has passed a medical-use marijuana law. The psychiatric department at MidMichigan Medical Center contacted me and asked if I would comment on it for the readership. Instead, I asked them to write this week’s column and it is included below. I thought you would be interested in this information.
The column was written by MidMichigan Physicians Group Psychiatry, which includes Marina Bogdanovic, M.D., Kerry Pierce, M.D., Dianne Plath, M.D., Kathleen Regan, M.D., Katherine Zimmermann, CNP.
Marijuana is a crude drug obtained from the plant Cannabis sativa. The plant contains more than 60 active compounds. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC is the main active ingredient. Michigan has passed a law making possession of the plant and its derivatives legal if used for medicinal purposes. In our outpatient psychiatric practice we are seeing growing numbers of people with Michigan medical marijuana cards and many more still in the Midland mental health inpatient unit. This rise in marijuana use has led us psychiatrists and mental health practitioners to voice some of our concerns.
There is nothing “medical” about Michigan’s new medical marijuana statute. Let’s review some facts.
First, it is customary for any new visit to a physician to start with a thorough history and physical exam followed by appropriate labs and x-rays. No such initial assessment occurs when an application is made for the medical marijuana card. The request for the card is sufficient in itself to obtain one. No questions, no prior treatment history and no laboratory results are necessary. We learned this in our interactions with our patients. Ask anyone who has obtained a card. There is nothing medical about Michigan’s new medical marijuana.
Second, when an intervention or treatment is ordered, a thorough explanation of the risks and benefits of traditional prescription medicine must be given, but not for marijuana obtained through the new law. The wording of the law states you cannot operate a car or machinery if using THC but even this essential issue is rarely if ever explained.
Third, a follow up visit to assess the results of the intervention is also part of and standard medical treatment, but this does not occur after starting “medical marijuana.” All a person has to do is pay several hundred dollars, profess an ache or pain, and that person will be issued a plastic card with a name on it. There is no picture identification required to obtain a card (apparently one is “never available”). Thus, people can use another person’s card. Current cards/registrations are being issued primarily for 23 to 25 year olds and the primary diagnoses have been “pain” in 57 percent or “spasms” in 24 percent. Again we want to emphasize that there is nothing “medical” about Michigan’s new medical marijuana law.
An even greater concern is the public’s seemingly nonchalant attitude that “marijuana is safe.” There is the feeling that “this simple weed can do little harm.” However, the medical literature is replete with hundreds of studies about the physical and emotional harm that can come from this plant. Recent studies reveal that psychosis, the most severe form of mental illness, is much higher in people who begin using marijuana at or before 15 years of age. Amotivational syndrome (characterized by a person who has no initiative, no drive and no energy) is well documented in people who use this drug regularly. Increased problems with depression and anxiety have also been documented. Let us not forget that marijuana is also very addictive. The same dose that “works” today won’t work forever and increased amounts are needed to obtain the same effect. This is what defines chemical dependence.
The physical consequences of chronic marijuana use are also potentially grave. Significant weight gain, which likely comes from overeating and reduced physical activity, is common and presents a major health hazard. The tar and carcinogens in smoked marijuana are just as dangerous as cigarettes or even worse since many cigarettes have filters. The smoke is an irritant to the lining of the nose and lungs, which can cause chronic cough, sinus irritation and lung diseases such as emphysema and lung dysplasia. Decreased testosterone in males and altered menstrual cycles in females are other adverse effects. The brain is also affected negatively with a decrease in both the memory capacity and the ability to think, along with an increase in seizure risk. Slowed reaction times are also clear consequences of marijuana use and can have significant detrimental effects on driving skills. A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that even a moderate dose of marijuana can affect driving by slowing reaction times and decreasing defensive practices such as checking of mirrors and side streets.
Marijuana plants are much more potent today than they were 40 years ago, which increases the risks and the side effects from its use. The average amount of THC in a plant was 1 percent in the mid 1970s, and rose to 6 to 13 percent in samples from the last two decades. Buyers are not able to know exactly what concentration or amount of active drug they are purchasing since there is no regulation or quality control over the growing and selling of this “medicinal” product. Once again, there is nothing medical about Michigan’s new medical marijuana. Who would ever take any drug without knowing the dose they are consuming?
Although some people may benefit from this product such those with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), multiple sclerosis (MS), glaucoma, chronic cancer pain and other severe wasting syndromes, please be aware that the parameters of this law are very much outside the recommendations of most of Michigan physicians. It has not been endorsed by any of the major medical societies including the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Osteopathic Association (AOA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) or the Michigan State Medical Society (MSMS). Please consult your regular doctor before embarking on virtually unsupervised use of a potent drug that can have severe adverse effects on your life and well being.
Dr. John L. Pfenninger’s column appears on Sundays. His office, Medical Procedures Center, is located in Midland

http://www.ourmidland.com/accent/article_fac6783a-c06b-54c6-a31c-e5f98aa28c40.html

Below is the letter that I submitted to the WSJ in response to an article they published by George Shultz and Paul Volcker, followed by a copy of their article. I encourage all of you to take a few minutes to send your own letter to the WSJ to rebut their article. The email is wsj.ltrs@wsj.com.

Thanks,

Calvina

June 14, 2011

Dear Editor:

The article “A Real Debate About Drug Policy” by George Shultz and Paul Volcker is riddled with false statements and misconceptions which must be clarified. It is based upon the false premise that the global war on drugs has failed. Important facts found in the UN Office on Drugs and Crime data, conveniently omitted by the report of the self-proclaimed Global Commission on Drug Policy, show that only 5.7% of the world’s adult population used drugs in the past year; there was a 23% drop in global opium cultivation in the past two years, a 28% drop in coca cultivation in the past decade, and a 75% drop in U.S. cocaine consumption since the 1990s as well as a tremendous drop in methamphetamine use since 2006. At one point, we actually reduced overall drug use in the United States by greater than 50%. Clearly, this type of reduction in any other societal ill would not be considered a failure.

Shultz and Volcker paint a false picture of individuals crowding our prisons for possession of small amounts of drugs with no other criminal offenses, conveniently ignoring the fact that most low level drug offenders actually never serve time in the U.S. but, rather get probation, community service or referral to one of our nation’s very effective drug courts where they receive treatment.

The authors state that it is no accident that members of the so-called commission included former Presidents of Latin American nations. It was no accident indeed since 2 of the 3 former Presidents allowed their countries to be overtaken by murderous drug cartels. One of them blocked the extradition of the head of the notorious Medellin Cartel, Pablo Escobar, to the U.S. to stand trial for drug trafficking. It is not at all surprising that these former leaders participated in this biased group sponsored by George Soros, the Granddaddy Warbucks of drug legalization, and Richard Branson, an admitted drug user.

It is not illegality of drugs that leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials. Weak laws or lack of laws are the culprits. This is very obvious in third world countries that are lawless and in countries where drug laws are ignored, such as The Netherlands where failure to enforce their marijuana laws resulted in the drug cartels moving in and setting up business. We have seen a 50% rise in all drug consumption in Portugal since decriminalization in 2001.

Since the end of Prohibition, the use of cigarettes and alcohol has exploded and addiction has skyrocketed. In spite of their legal status, we have been utterly impotent in keeping these drugs away from our children. Black markets for moonshine and cigarettes still exist with over 600 billion cigarettes sold every year illegally. The drug category of abuse that is growing fastest today is that of prescription drugs and having a legal status clearly has not stopped this epidemic. Why would we expect legalization of any more drugs to work?

We need to return to what we know works. Tremendous progress was made when former Presidents took leadership roles on the issue, when parents got involved, and when employers said no to drugs in workplaces. The answer is a comprehensive one that includes prevention, treatment, and the judicial system – not submission to drugs that destroy our families and communities.

Sincerely,

Calvina Fay

Executive Director

Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.

5999 Central Ave. Ste.301

St. Petersburg, FL 33710

727-828-0211

A Real Debate About Drug Policy

George P. Shultz and Paul A. Volcker on why the ‘war on drugs’ has failed—and what to do next

By GEORGE P. SHULTZ And PAUL A. VOLCKER

“The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.”

That is the opening sentence of a report issued last week by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. Both of us have signed on to this report. Why?

We believe that drug addiction is harmful to individuals, impairs health and has adverse societal effects. So we want an effective program to deal with this problem.

The question is: What is the best way to go about it? For 40 years now, our nation’s approach has been to criminalize the entire process of producing, transporting, selling and using drugs, with the exception of tobacco and alcohol. Our judgment, shared by other members of the commission, is that this approach has not worked, just as our national experiment with the prohibition of alcohol failed. Drugs are still readily available, and crime rates remain high. But drug use in the U.S. is no lower than, and sometimes surpasses, drug use in countries with very different approaches to the problem.

At the same time, the costs of the drug war have become astronomical. Inmates arrested for consuming drugs and for possessing small quantities of them now crowd our prisons, where too often they learn how to become real criminals. The dollar costs are huge, but they pale in comparison to the lives being lost in our neighborhoods and throughout the world. The number of drug-related casualties in Mexico is on the same order as the number of U.S. lives lost in the Vietnam and Korean wars.

Throughout our hemisphere, governance and economic development have suffered because of drugs. It is no accident that the initiative for this global commission came from former presidents of Latin American nations. These countries, sometimes with American support, have made strong efforts to reduce drug supplies. But they have increasingly concluded that drug policies in the U.S. are making it more difficult for their people to enjoy security and prosperity.

The problem starts with the demand for drugs. As Milton Friedman put it forcibly over 20 years ago in the pages of this paper: “It is demand that must operate through repressed and illegal channels. Illegality creates obscene profits that finance the murderous tactics of the drug lords; illegality leads to the corruption of law enforcement officials.”

We do not support the simple legalization of all drugs. What we do advocate is an open and honest debate on the subject. We want to find our way to a less costly and more effective method of discouraging drug use, cutting down the power of organized crime, providing better treatment and minimizing negative societal effects.

Other countries that have tried different approaches include Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal and Australia. What can we learn from these varied experiences, some more successful than others? What can we learn from our own experience in reducing sharply the smoking of cigarettes or in the handling of alcohol after the end of Prohibition?

Simple legalization is by no means the only or safest approach. One possibility is to decriminalize the individual use of drugs while maintaining laws against supplying them, thus allowing law-enforcement efforts to focus on the drug peddlers. Some of the money that is saved can be spent on treatment centers, which drug users are more likely to seek out if doing so does not expose them to the risk of arrest.

The situation that confronts us today is dangerous. After 40 years of concentrating on one approach that has been unsuccessful, we should be willing to take a look at other ways of working to solve this pressing problem. As the global commission concludes: “Break the taboo on debate and reform. The time for action is now.”

—Mr. Shultz, former U.S. secretary of state, is a distinguished fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Mr. Volcker, former chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, is professor emeritus of international economic policy at Princeton University.

Telling statistics omitted from drug policy manifesto
Published: June 11 2011 03:20 | Last updated: June 11 2011 03:20

From Ms Kathryn Gyngell.

Sir, Would Martin Wolf explain how decriminalisation could achieve anything other than an increased demand for drugs; and how that could possibly help, here or abroad? (“We should end our disastrous war on drugs”, June 4.)

Would he also ask the Global Commission on Drug Policy, on whose 24-page manifesto he relied, why the following UN Office on Drugs and Crime data were omitted from the statistics assembled to tell their story:

? 5.7 per cent (upper estimate) of the world’s adult population used (any) drugs (once) in the past year;

? 23 per cent drop in the global area under opium cultivation in the past two years;

? 28 per cent drop in coca cultivation in the past decade;

? 75 per cent drop in US cocaine consumption since the 1990s (hence Mexican cartels’ battle over a shrinking market) and a drop in methamphetamine use since 2006;

? 50 per cent rise in all drug consumption in Portugal since decriminalisation in 2001, including cocaine, amphetamines and heroin (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction statistics).

It may surprise Mr Wolf to know that here in the UK, young people’s cannabis use has dropped by about 25 per cent in recent years; that rates of custodial sentencing for supply and possession of drugs, even of class A, are minuscule (796 cases in 2006) and only one-eighth of cannabis cases come to court (warnings, the main response, do not involve legal sanctions); finally that treatment, an option in national and international law, is one that the UK has invested heavily, but not wisely, in, for in so doing has sponsored further drug and welfare dependency.

It is convenient to think that decriminalising or legalising drugs would solve the problems caused by as yet small levels of use. Could we afford these to be higher?

Kathryn Gyngell,

Research Fellow,

Centre for Policy Studies,

London SW1, UK

FYI re health problems with MJ…Al

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/24/3225675.htm

Mexico: Catholic bishops denounce legalization of marijuana

The Catholic bishops of Mexico have rejected the request of some Latin American leaders to legalize the consumption of marijuana. “The fight against drugs must be a global effort, not a unilateral action. Therefore, if a country allows the use of a drug, many people from other countries will feel free to go to that country, and the State in question would not be able to face the serious health problems that would arise, “said Archbishop Carlos Aguiar Retes of Tlalnepantla – the current president of the bishops’ conference.

Serving also as the president of the Latin American Episcopal Council (LAMEC), he declared that the legalization of marijuana in Mexico now, would be inappropriate, as the government is committed to fighting drug-dealing.

During a press conference during the 91st plenary meeting of the Conference, the leading representative of the Catholic hierarchy praised the fight against drug-dealing initiated by President Felipe Calderón. The bishops of the country expressed their concern over “rising criminal groups” and reaffirmed their support for the government to combat them.

In these days The Global Commission on Drug Policy urged for the adoption of models of legalization and regulation of drug use ,” especially marijuana, in order to “eliminate the power of criminal organizations and provide security and safeguard people’s health.”

In a statement, the Commission stated that “the war against drugs has not reduced consumption, but has filled the prisons, costs millions of dollars, increased organized crime and caused thousands of deaths. “

Excellent and thought-provoking article on Medical Marijuana

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2011/06/one_nation_unde.html.

No support for argument to legalise drugs in UK
Published on 8 Jun 2011
The Report by The Global Commission on Drug Policy has received much media attention.
Sadly this grossly inaccurate document is certain to appeal to those who hope for a simple way of addressing a massive social problem.
The report is one of a series of misinformed initiatives to legalise drugs because the so-called war on drugs is thought by some to have failed. Simplistic statements combined with deliberate misrepresentations by those who wish to legalise drugs for their own purposes add to public confusion and misunderstanding.
The report wishes to address “common misconceptions” about drug policies but is guilty of perpetuating them. The majority of people in the UK do not wish to see drugs legalised and only 6% of the global population between the ages of 15-64 use drugs. Some of those who have supported legalisation have done so because they assert this would “take the profit out of crime” thus putting criminals out of business would ensure “a supply of pure substances that could be taxed” which would diminish public health problems and prevent prisons being packed with recreational drug users. Perhaps it is not widely known that there is a global movement to overturn the United Nations conventions driven by people who see huge profits in marketing addictive substances.
No consideration is given to the fact that there is a thriving black market in the legal drugs of alcohol and tobacco and no awareness of the huge administrative burden that would be created by setting up a Government department to tax and administer drugs if legalisation occurred. There was no awareness of the devious ways in which drug traffickers would circumvent the legislation, they would not suddenly become good citizens; no acknowledgement that people would find ways of avoiding taxes and no thought given to the increase in addiction/dependency and mental illness that would follow such an ill-advised move. The tax burden would rocket and short of the Government distributing free drugs, those who commit crime now to obtain drugs would continue to do so if they became legal.
It is unclear which drugs the legalisers are referring to and to whom they should become available. Do they wish to legalise crack and will all people, regardless of age and mental condition, be able to buy it? Doctors would be reluctant to prescribe. The implication that cannabis is a benign substance is dangerous and inaccurate.
The cumulative effects of prohibition and interdiction combined with education and treatment during 100 years of international drug control have had an impact in stemming the drug problem. Control is working and we do not know how much worse it would become without it. Legalisation would convince people that legal activity cannot be harmful; it increases the availability of drugs and their consequences and removes social sanctions normally supported by the legal system.
All drugs, including those on prescription, can be dangerous if taken without medical advice; new research is informing us about the dangers associated with misuse. Instead of calling for legalisation, the compassionate and sensible approach should be that we do everything possible to reduce addiction and drug abuse.
Sadly this report, supported by people who seem not to have done any research into the subject, alleged that successes in places like Portugal and Canada are justification for their recommendations when the reverse is true. No mention is made of the fact that after over 30 years of toleration the government of the Netherlands has recognised the error, actively seeking to abolish the cannabis cafes and has moved to prevent access to them by foreigners.
The policy must be “first do no harm” and Sweden is an excellent role model. The UK Government has no intention of legalising drugs but the damage done by the publication of reports such as this should not be underestimated.
Ian Oliver is a former chief constable of Grampian Police, and now a consultant with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. His book, Drug Affliction, is published by Robert Gordon University.

FYI…Al

This new article is revealing on two levels, being not only more informative regarding the effect of marijuana on the brain but perhaps more compelling is the evidence that such brain impairment appears in fact to be reversible, offering users desiring to break that habit the new, added incentive of hope as well.

Gary Brown
ON-SITE MOBILABS
Dallas
http://www.dotmed.com/news/story/16256?utm_campaign=campaign&utm_source=2011-06-09&utm_medium=email

Dear friends

Since the Global Commission report cites Portugal as a “success” and a reason for legalizing drugs, I wanted you all to have a copy of the attached document that Roger Morgan prepared with the help of Dr. Manuel Pinto Coelho who is from Portugual and knows firsthand the sitatuation there. Clearly, the Portugual experiment is NOT a success!!!!

Calvina

PORTUGAL
THE TRUTH ABOUT DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION
As reported by Manuel Pinto Coelho, Chairman of APLD, Portugal
Written by Roger Morgan, Exec Director of the Coalition for a Drug-Free California www.drugfreecalifornia.org

Drug use was decriminalized in Portugal in the year 2000. Was it a resounding success? Not according to Manuel Coelho, Chairman of The Association for a Drug-Free Portugal and member of the International Task Force on Strategic Drug Policy. He reports the following:

• Portugal remains the country with the highest incidence of IDU (Injection Drug Users) related AIDS and is the only country in Europe with an increase; 703 newly diagnosed infections followed from a distance by Estonia with 191 and Latvia with 108 reported cases.

• The number of new cases of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C in Portugal recorded 8 times the average found in other EU countries.

• Homicides related to drug use have increased 40%, and is the only EU country to show an increase from 2000 to 2006.

• Portugal recorded a 30% increase in drug overdose deaths, and along with Greece, Austria and Finland has one of the worst records in the EU, one every two days.

• The number of deceased individuals that tested positive for drugs (314) in 2007 registered a 45% rise, “…..climbing fiercely after 2006 (216).”

• Behind Luxembourg, Portugal is the European country with the highest rate of consistent drug users and IV heroin dependents. (Portuguese Drug Situation Annual Report 2006)

• Drug use increased 4.2% between 2001-2007, with life time use going from 7.8% to 12% (66% increase.) Individual drug use grew as follows:

Cannabis 12.4 to 17% ( 37% increase)
Cocaine 1.3 to 2.8% (215% increase)
Heroine .7 to 1.1% ( 57% increase)
Ecstasy .7 to 1.3% ( 85% increase)

• While cocaine and amphetamine consumption rates have doubled, drug seizures of cocaine have increased sevenfold between 2001 and 2006, sixth highest in the world. (World Drug Report, June 2009)

Says Coelho, “The statistical results have been insidiously manipulated by institutions controlled by the government. The banner of “harm reduction” cannot be an ideology and an end in itself. It is extremely disturbing to promote the correct use of drugs safely…..” He goes on to say that 70% of Portuguese addicts are in treatment programs that simply substitute one drug for another, and subject countless addicts to a life of dependency.

SO MUCH FOR HARM REDUCTION