The D'Alliance

UK Drug Advisor Sacked for Classifying Drugs Based on Science

2009-11-05T13:27:00.003-05:00

Politics triumphed over science in the UK last week when the head of the country's drug advisory council, David Nutt, was forced to resign after releasing a report in which he and his colleagues classify drugs based on their potential to cause harm rather than the legal classification assigned to them by the British government. The report groups alcohol among the most dangerous drugs and marijuana among the least.

Nutt has said that several members of the council will join him in forming an independent drug advisory group if the government doesn't reverse its position by next week.

The situation in the UK mirrors that of France in 1998, when French health official Bernard Roques released a similar report questioning that nation's existing drug classification system. That report also named alcohol as one of the more harmful substances and placed marijuana on the lower end of the spectrum. The French government made moves to reclassify drugs based on the report's findings, but, following backlash from the alcohol industry, a watered down version of the report became the basis for France's new drug policy.

Nutt's firing is disheartening because it comes at a time when other European countries (see previous posts on Germany and Portugal) are forging ahead with drug policies based on science and a genuine interest in reducing harm.

It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds and, particularly, whether it receives attention in the U.S., because the Office of National Drug Control Policy is currently working on its own three-year drug policy strategy to be released early next year. Will the U.S., like the UK, continue to ignore scientific fact and reinforce the same, failed drug war policies? Or will the new drug czar take a new approach based on science and human rights?

Want to speak out against David Nutt's firing? Join the Facebook group calling for his reinstatement.

More of the Same. Seriously?

2009-11-01T21:29:00.003-05:00

Joint Cause Commercial from Wil Wells on Vimeo.

Along the same vein of stupidity and general unwillingness to have an honest dialogue with ~~anyone who doesn't agree with them~~ youth about drug use, here is a gem of a video from Californians for Drug Free Youth (CADFY).

This "commercial" was released in opposition to California's marijuana tax and regulate bill, which had its first hearing on Wednesday. Note: CADFY's url is www.jointcause.com -- I doubt they even know why I laughed for 5 minutes when I learned that.

Of course, if you are a drug warrior, and base an argumentation on the word "seriously?", you generally make drug policy reformers who engage in science-based policy look even more legit. So to thank them, you can write on CADFY's facebook page.

That's right, drug prohibitionists are now using modern technology to disseminate antiquated ideas.

Always Clean Out Your Bong

2009-10-25T22:09:00.009-04:00

To counterbalance a more enlightened federal policy toward patients and suppliers of medical marijuana, Minnesota's highest court ruled (don't think I've linked to Fox News before) that those who possess bong water can be prosecuted for possessing a narcotic mixture.

A Minnesota woman can be charged for a controlled substance, a first-degree drug crime (25 grams or more of a controlled substance), by possessing 37 grams -- about 2.5 tablespoons -- of bong water that tested positive for methamphetamine.

The decision effectively reverses two lower court rulings that found that charging Sara Peck with 37 grams of methamphetamine-laced water as a first-degree narcotic possession is pretty much crap. The high court (pun very much intended -- although I know plenty of people that make better decisions while high) found that since the drug water counts as a "mixture" under state law, meaning "a preparation, compound, mixture, or substance containing a controlled substance, regardless of purity", Peck can be charged with the higher offense that carries a possible sentence of 7 years 2 months, while a possession of drug paraphernalia carries a $300 fine and a petty misdemeanor conviction that would not be on her record. A narcotics officer testified that drug users sometimes drink or inject the bong water (I really don't know if this is the case for people who use meth, but it doesn't seem realistic).

This decision ushers in the possibility of extracting plea deals by trumping up drug charges. It also, more disturbingly, expands the possibilities of what warrants a drug indictment. Would my blood, since it may contain controlled substances, be subject to supoena? Or my urine? If I set foot on Minnesotan soil, will police be waiting at the baggage gate to arrest my bladder?

This is a clearly terribly worded penal provision, that acts as a exploitative tool by unhinged prosecutors that seek to pile on charges to get convictions. It also may realize the possibility that those who violate parole or probation with a dirty urine could then be charged with possessing a narcotic "mixture".

This is a teaching moment for hygiene: 1) always make sure your bong is clean and 2) pee frequently!

I think we all are SOL regarding the blood issue.

The War Against Dispensaries

2009-10-22T13:03:00.004-04:00

We're all cheering the new federal medical marijuana guidelines that direct prosecutors not to arrest law-abiding patients in medical marijuana states. But of course, it remains to be seen what prosecutors will do with those guidelines.

I just read a piece in which criminal defense lawyer Allison Margolin shines a light on the Los Angeles District Attorney's campaign to shut down dispensaries in her city. The whole piece is worth a read -- Margolin makes a convincing case that prosecuting medical marijuana operators is economically foolish and legally problematic -- but one paragraph in particular jumped out at me. Regardless of whether we think California's dispensaries need more regulation, we would all do well to consider the following:

The media has focused on the fact that dispensaries in LA have mushroomed over the past year, and on the ease with which marijuana users are obtaining recommendations. No one has focused on the fact that the war against dispensaries, is another chapter in the escalation of the drug war, another excuse to send people to state prison, another mechanism to disenfranchise people whose medicine is not respected by law enforcement or the LA District Attorney's office as legitimate.

Newsweek Profiles Ethan Nadelmann

2009-10-16T22:20:00.001-04:00

Newsweek just came out with a profile of DPA's executive director, Ethan Nadelmann. It's a pretty great read. Posted here is the video profile on Ethan.

Major Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Provision Goes Into Effect

2009-10-10T20:58:00.003-04:00

On Wednesday, major provisions of the Rockefeller Drug Law Reforms signed into law in April went into effect: restoring sentencing decisions in most (but unfortunately not all) drug cases, and allowing nearly 1,500 people serving time in prison for B drug felonies under the old Rocky law to petition for resentencing.

It is the first time in 36 years that New York State drug laws place the power of sentencing decisions in the hands of judges, who can now take into account the totality of the circumstances when someone is convicted of a drug offense to fashion the appropriate sentence -- whether it be treatment or other alternatives to incarceration programs, probation, or parole -- and make a prison sentence the last resort.

You can read more about the new provisions that go into effect from DPA's gabriel sayegh here, and get more info (fact sheet) on the reforms here.

This reform of mandatory minimum drug sentencing provisions indicates a real shift that focuses drug abuse and dependence as a health issue, rather than addressing it solely as a criminal justice matter. Although there is far to go, New York can show the nation that while it was the first state in the country to adopt such misguided and racist laws, they can now become a national leader by using effective community-based alternatives to incarceration to address drugs as a public health and safety matter, not a prison one.

Stiletto Stoners and the Drug War

2009-10-02T10:42:00.010-04:00

Much has been made about the new Marie Claire article "Stiletto Stoners" that profiles several successful white women who smoke pot. I am on the fence about this article. On the one hand, it does tap into a readership and highlight a class of people that should be included in the conversation about responsible cannabis use and the need to normalize a behavior that is already...well, normal.

But on the other hand, in the larger context of the war on drugs, it is a narcissistic piece that highlights the lives of people that are not affected by the consequences of prohibition in the least. It is almost as if Marie Claire is saying SOME people can smoke pot responsibly, principally these well to do white women who appear to be the readership of the magazine, but OTHERS should probably get their lives together before they indulge in something far less harmful that alcohol.

Keep in mind that those that lead lives of privilege smoke possibly unaware that over 850,000 are arrested annually for marijuana, and 90% of those arrests are for possession only. And while every adult should be free to smoke, eat, vaporize, etc marijuana unencumbered or frightened by possible arrest, it still remains that marijuana arrests, like all drugs arrests, are racially screwed. Take New York City for insistence, where 40,000 people are arrested per year for small amounts of marijuana, and 87% of those arrested are people of color.

That being said, it is important to explore every facet of the marijuana conversation, and this is a worthwhile component. Hopefully more people are inspired to start coming out of the marijuana using closet -- and maybe even show his or her face.

And also, the story inspired a pretty great video on Today.

Len Bias law conviction in Wisconsin

2009-09-25T17:07:00.004-04:00

Nineteen-year-old Casey Gogos of Green Bay, WI was convicted yesterday on homicide charges in the death of a 17-year-old who died after overdosing on heroin allegedly supplied by Gogos. He faces up to 52 years in prison.

Wisconsin is one of several states with a Len Bias law, named after the Maryland basketball player who in 1986 famously died of a heart attack after taking cocaine. These laws allow for homicide charges to be brought against individuals who supply drugs that later contribute to the death of another person. (Bias's death also set into motion a host of other drug war measures, including mandatory minimums, crack/powder sentencing disparities and school-zone laws.)

Even though I know these laws exist, and I shouldn't be surprised considering all the political grandstanding that goes into crafting our nation's drug laws, it still shocks me every time I hear about someone being held solely responsible for a death resulting from someone else's uncoerced actions.

Especially mind-blowing is that even people doing drugs with someone who dies of an overdose can be prosecuted. These are often the only people who can call for help, and yet the law provides them with a disincentive to call 911.

Why is the reaction to drug deaths always to find more ways to put people in prison, rather than educating people about how to actually prevent drug deaths?

Marijuana Monday

2009-09-14T19:39:00.003-04:00

Even though ~~I am~~ some people are suffering from a case of the Mondays, there is some great media coverage today about the marijuana legalization debate. Four articles about marijuana legalization from large media publications were published today. Just wanted to let you guys know that these are out there.

AM New York (for those of you who take the subway) has a great front page! article about the dramatic marijuana arrest epidemic that has crowned NYC the marijuana arrest capital of the world. DPA's director or media relations, Tony Newman, is quoted within the article.

Fortune Magazine has a comprehensive story about the medical marijuana dispensaries in California. They ask the question: Is the end of marijuana prohibition among us? DPA's executive director, Ethan Nadelmann, is quoted in the article.

New York Magazine's Mark Jacobson has an excellent piece also about marijuana arrests in New York City, splicing in anecdotes and other pieces of marijuana-related culture in the Big Apple.

The Washington Post provides a nice anecdotal story about the younger generation's views on marijuana legalization. It as also invokes Maryland's little known medical marijuana defense known as medical necessity (2nd post down).

At Least Barney Fife Wasn't Dangerous

2009-09-11T16:03:00.003-04:00

Today's swat-style home invasion is brought to you by the DEA in conjunction with the New York Police Department. (author's note: when I google image searched for "NYPD cartoons", I was reminded of this -- some people are just full of hate.) The New York Daily News reports a botched raid by the DEA, backed up by the NYPD, on a reputed gang boss.

The reasoning behind the raid -- Ruiz's apartment acted as a stash house -- seems highly suspicious. The adage drug sellers try to adhere to (at least in the movies) is "you don't shit where you eat". It makes sense that this would apply to a boss in a violent drug gang. Why would he have his own apartment be a stash house? Methinks it's simply shoddy police work. This is reaffirmed for two reasons: 1) while the DEA was raiding the house, the DEA was actually arresting Ruiz elsewhere in NYC and, more importantly 2) they raided the wrong house!

The warrant listed the wrong apartment, and the article seems to indicate that while Ruiz used to live in the building, he had not lived there for a few years. Instead, the DEA scared the living crap out of a mother and daughter, ages 48 and 19 years old respectively. Not only did the two continually insist while these paramilitary were trashing their apartment that they had the wrong apartment, the NYPD even scrolled through the daughter's pictures on the computer and laughed at the two women on the beach.

The police and DEA eventually left, muttering what I would imagine was the most insincere apology ever spoken in New York. Then again, what would you expect?

What Would Prosecutors Do?

2009-09-05T18:58:00.002-04:00

Below is a Huffington Post piece that Tony Newman, DPA's Media Relations director, wrote about the NYC Manhattan District Attorney's race. At the debate, two of the candidates made some rather revealing statements about past drug use. Tony has a great commentary about the hypocrisy of it all.

Candidates Drug Use Not A Deal Breaker, But Hypocrisy On Issue Should Be!

At Tuesday's debate in the race for Manhattan District Attorney, two of the three candidates admitted to cocaine use. When the candidates were asked if they used any illegal drugs besides marijuana, both Cy Vance and Richard Aborn admitted to trying cocaine in the past.

We seem to have come a long way from when Douglas Ginsberg was bumped from consideration for a Supreme Court position because he had tried marijuana in the 70's. Now it is almost impossible to find a presidential candidate who has not tried marijuana. It has become so commonplace for elected officials to admit marijuana use that the question has progressed to whether candidates have tried an illegal drug besides marijuana.

President Obama broke ground as a candidate when he wrote openly about not only using marijuana, but trying cocaine when he was in high-school. I can't remember a presidential candidate admitting to using a "hard drug". Obama's drug use clearly had no negative impact with voters. I believe his honesty helped him by humanizing him with both young voters and baby boomers. Voters appreciated some straight talk compared to President George Bush refusing to answer questions about his "youthful indiscretions" and Bill "I never inhaled" Clinton. Ironically, the candidate who suffered the most damage from Obama's past drug use was Hillary Clinton, when Bill Shaheen, Clinton's New Hampshire co-chair, had to step down after going after Obama for his past drug use.

Another high-level elected official who admitted to cocaine use and received a public shrug in response was Governor David Paterson, who admitted to cocaine use days after he became governor following Eliot Spitzer's resignation over having patronized a prostitute. Governor Paterson has recently taken heat for a range of reasons, but his cocaine use is notably not one of them.

Now we have two candidates running for District Attorney of Manhattan, one the of the most powerful law enforcement jobs in the country, admitting to cocaine use. I predict it will not be a major issue and it shouldn't be. The reason past cocaine use by Obama and Paterson and Vance and Aborn use has not been a huge problem for them is that they don't have hugely hypocritical political views on substance abuse. All four of these elected officials/candidates have advocated for alternatives to prison for low-level drug offenders. President Obama has stated he wants drugs to be treated more as a public health than a criminal justice issue. Governor Paterson worked for years to reform New York's draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws. Vance and Aborn both opposed the Rockefeller Drug Laws and Aborn is calling for a debate on decriminalizing marijuana.

The problem for voters is when there is hypocrisy. The reason the Spitzer prostitute scandal was so damaging is because he was actively prosecuting prostitution at the same time he was enjoying the services of prostitutes.

Hypocrisy is what bothers me. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is currently running for reelection. When asked years ago if he had smoked marijuana he said yes, and even added that he enjoyed it. Yet under Mayor Bloomberg, New York has the shameful distinction of being marijuana arrest capital of the world. Last year 40,000 New Yorkers were arrested and jailed on low-level pot possession charges. More people have been arrested on marijuana possession charges under Mayor Bloomberg than any elected official in history!

It is encouraging that past drug use by candidates and elected officials are being discussed more openly and voters are less judgmental. What we need now is for voters to punish elected officials who are willing to ruin other people's lives with arrest and incarceration for doing similar things in their lives.

Maryland's Medical Marijuana Law Lacks Substance

2009-09-04T13:45:00.003-04:00

I was pleased to hear some refreshing news come out of Montgomery County, Maryland last week - judges in two medical marijuana cases handed down light sentences to patients convicted on possession charges.

William York walked out of the courthouse with a $100 fine, and Winnie Gesumwa had her fine waived, due to Maryland's medical marijuana law, which caps the sentence for marijuana possession at a $100 fine if defendants can prove they use the drug for medical purposes.
While assuring, theses rulings have also drawn attention to the tremendous shortcomings of the Maryland law, particularly its ambiguity and lack of essential protections for patients and caregivers.

The Darrell Putman Compassionate Use Act does not require the state to maintain a registry of medical marijuana patients, a resource that would help keep people using the drug for medical purposes out of the criminal justice system. The law contains no safe access provision, so patients still have to buy marijuana off the street rather than from dispensaries. And if patients are prosecuted for possession, they have no recourse to seek refunds for legal fees.

Essentially, the law is useless to most of its intended beneficiaries.

Currently, the sentences meted out to Maryland's medical marijuana patients convicted on pot charges depend entirely on the legal representation available to them and the individual judges assigned to their cases. Those who've received fines have generally benefited from lawyers familiar with medical marijuana law and capable of mounting a trenchant argument that marijuana is a medical necessity for their clients. They've also been lucky enough to have their cases heard by judges willing to show leniency toward medical marijuana patients. Not all judges are, and lawyers knowledgeable about the Compassionate Use Act are hard to come by.

Without a law that clearly outlines protections for patients and caregivers, these inconsistencies in sentencing will continue, but the Maryland legislature has been maddeningly hesitant to improve the current law. Last year, legislators failed even to pass a bill that would have created a taskforce to assemble a set of best practices for medical marijuana law that could guide reforms in Maryland.

There's a good chance another taskforce bill will be introduced this fall, and I hope lawmakers will reconsider. It's a small step toward much needed reforms, but a step forward nonetheless. Maryland owes its medical marijuana patients a law with some substance.

Argentine Court: Prison Time for Marijuana Possession Unconstitutional

2009-08-25T16:48:00.005-04:00

Argentina's Supreme Court ruled today that imprisoning people for possessing small amounts of marijuana is unconstitutional. The seven judges rule unanimously, stating:

"Each individual adult is responsible for making decisions freely about their desired lifestyle without state interference. Private conduct is allowed unless it constitutes a real danger or causes damage to property or the rights of others."

The ruling follows Mexico's decision to decriminalize drug possession for personal use less than a week earlier.

After the ruling, Argentina's Cabinet Chief Anibal Fernandez celebrated the end of "the repressive politics invented by the Nixon administration."

I'm looking forward to seeing how Argentina's drug laws change in the wake of this ruling. It's heartening to see another country denouncing the imposition of U.S. drug war policies on the rest of the world.

Mexico Decriminalizes Possession of Small Amounts of Drugs

2009-08-21T12:26:00.011-04:00

On Thursday, Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. But don't start celebrating that common sense and the freedom to put things into your body absent harm to others was the rationale for drug decrim within our southern neighbor's borders. Nope. It's simply that since the U.S. demand for drugs from Mexico has fueled unprecedented cartel violence there, arresting and prosecuting people for small amounts of drugs is just simply a stretch of U.S. complicity of human rights abuses finite resources.

After all, there have been over 11,000 drug-related deaths since 2006 -- 7,500 since the beginning of 2008 -- sparked by several cartels not only fighting the country's police forces, but also fighting amongst themselves to gain more control of the drug trade.

Now, it's apparent that this act by the Mexican government which, by the way, was also passed by the Mexican Legislature in 2006 only to be buried under pressure by the U.S., won't stem the violence by the cartels because the criminalization that drives black market profit (mostly from U.S. demand) will remain.

But it is telling that the Mexican government recognizes that criminalizing small amounts of drugs for personal use is an ineffective policy that takes vital resources away from dealing with the cartels -- although combating cartel violence will continue to be ineffective because ONDCP won't even consider marijuana tax and regulation, even though marijuana continues to be the cartels' #1 moneymaker. Portugal has decriminalized drugs for almost ten years, and by many measurements this policy has produced decreased drug use and increased treatment admissions.

Innovative drug policies implemented by our neighbors to the north, including supervised injection facilities and heroin maintenance programs, are now bolstered by decrim from the south. The mighty U.S. drug policy machine is now surrounded by some alternative approaches (how some of these approaches are implemented remains to be seen) from two countries that suffer their greatest casualties, and attempts to change their prohibition-based course are largely undermined because of, U.S. drug policy.

The next move is ours.

Study Backs Heroin Maintenance Treatment

2009-08-20T15:52:00.004-04:00

If the government is looking for a way to cut spending, reduce crime, and save lives, a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has the answer. Unfortunately, it's probably not the kind of answer most politicians will even consider.

The Canadian study shows that prescription heroin is an effective treatment for addiction when all other treatments, including methadone maintenance, fail.

Participants in the study, all heavy users who had not responded to other treatment methods, were divided in two groups with one group receiving methadone and the other receiving diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient in heroin, over a three-year period. The patients who received heroin were more likely to stay in treatment, and they cut back on illicit drug use at a higher rate than the methadone recipients.

The study shows that in addition to effectively curbing drug use in a population previously written off as a lost cause, prescription heroin treatment prevents crime because users are less likely to look for drugs off the street. And locking fewer people up for drug-related offenses saves a lot of money.

Opponents of heroin maintenance programs now have to come face to face with concrete proof that prescribing heroin does not, as they claim, encourage drug use. But doctor-prescribed heroin doesn't sell well, which is why no matter how many studies come out, we need to work toward an ideological shift on drugs and drug use if we want to bring heroin maintenance programs to the U.S.

A Warped Vision for Afghanistan

2009-08-07T16:06:00.006-04:00

There's a good article in last Sunday's New York Times about how eradication of the opium crop in Afghanistan is displacing poor farmers and their families and sending them deeper into poverty. Meanwhile, opium production is thriving in areas with a heavy Taliban presence.

"...the crackdown in the country's far north is unlikely to stop the flow of opium and money to the Taliban in the south. In Zabul - the home province of Taliban spiritual chief Mullah Omar - poppy production grew by 45 percent last year.

Helmand province, a Taliban stronghold, grew so much opium last year that if it was a separate country, it would rank as the world's top opium producer, according to Gretchen Peters, author of "Seeds of Terror," on how the Taliban is bankrolling itself through drug smuggling...

Poppy fields in Taliban areas are so dangerous that eradication teams comb them for bombs before trying to destroy them. Last year 78 government agents were killed trying to destroy fields in the south. By contrast, the worst they faced in [the northern province of] Badakshan was crying farmers."

On a related note, I was just reading this horribly uncritical article from CBS about Colombian Special Operations Forces joining U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The article quotes a "top U.S. official" as saying, "The more Afghanistan can look like Colombia, the better."

How's Colombia looking these days?

Drug war violence and chemical spraying of coca fields have led to Colombia's enormous internally displaced population, the second largest in the world behind only Sudan. Chemical spraying, in addition to decimating the fields of poor farmers and forcing them away from their homes, is also poisoning civilians and contaminating food in rural areas.

The world U.S. officials are envisioning through the lens of the drug war is truly terrifying.

Cannabis iPhone App

2009-08-03T15:56:00.001-04:00

The good folks at Ajnag (that's ganja spelled backwards), an online forum catering to the marijuana-reform community, have produced an iPhone App that helps patients track down cannabis buyer's cooperatives near them.

If you live in a state that has legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes (like California and 13 others), this app will be incredibly useful to you. If you are not as lucky, the app also gives you tips on how to advocate for medical marijuana reform laws in your state.

Open Letter to Congress on Ending the Drug War

2009-07-30T14:16:00.001-04:00

I came across this commentary recently and thought I'd pass it on. In his open letter to Congress, Carmen Yarrusso gives a compelling four-part argument against drug war policies and explains why a comprehensive overhaul of this country's drug laws is absolutely imperative. Click here to read the letter and pass it on to your members of Congress.

Can Portugal Show the U.S. the Way?

2009-07-23T14:45:00.003-04:00

What's the best way to discredit the argument that drug decriminalization will lead to increased drug use and drug tourism? Produce an example that proves the opposite.

In 2001, Portugal abolished criminal penalties for drug possession and instead began offering treatment to people found with heroin, cocaine, and other addictive substances. The decision to decriminalize drug possession came out of findings from a commission convened by the Portuguese government to analyze the country's drug problem, one of the worst in Europe at the time.

The commission came to two important conclusions, which, as it turns out, are two universal truths about drug prohibition: 1) rather than deterring potential drug users, the threat of prison time makes users less likely to seek treatment, and 2) locking someone up is much costlier that offering them treatment.

The Cato Institute in April issued a report assessing the impact of the Portuguese drug law reforms. The report found that following the reforms, the rates of new HIV cases and drug-related deaths in Portugal dropped dramatically, and more than twice as many people sought treatment for drug addiction as did prior to decriminalization. The rate of drug use has remained the same, or perhaps even decreased.

You can watch Glenn Greenwald, the author of the Cato report, explain his findings in more detail in this video from Reason.tv:

What's remarkable to me about the Portuguese model is that the reforms occurred in a nation that is socially conservative on most issues. Holland's liberal drug laws are less surprising considering the progressive leanings of its citizens, but Portugal is not a country known for pushing the envelope. What allowed the reforms to move forward was a willingness by the Portuguese government to look closely at credible, fact-based research and to trust the science behind it.

The drug policy reform movement in the United States has the advantage of having successful European models to back up its stance that people should not be sent to jail for what they choose to put in their bodies. Portugal's success in curbing its drug problem through decriminalization is the strongest evidence yet that when drug use becomes a problem, the solution is providing treatment, not locking people up.

Tom Duane Gives One Hell of a Speech

2009-07-17T22:46:00.002-04:00

I thought speeches like this only happened in movies. On Friday morning, a little after 3am (yes, they were still in session), New York State Senator Tom Duane, Chairperson of the Senate Health Committee, gave a passionate speech (to say the least) imploring his fellow Senators to vote on S2664, legislation that would "[p]rovide that certain persons living with HIV or AIDS shall not be required to pay more than 30% of the household income towards shelter costs [if they receive public assistance]".

Allied DPA organizations, New York City AIDS Housing Network (NYCAHN) and Vocal -- NY Users Union, had been working on passing this bill this legislative session. The legislation seemed like it stood little chance of passing, as it would cost the state money (although a longer-term cost benefit analysis determined that it would actually save the state money), and as a state in a deeply precarious fiscal position, NYS legislators didn't want to spend the money -- zeven though people living with HIV/AIDS are the only group that has to pay more than 30% of their monthly income on rent if receiving public assistance.

And with the cards stacked against him, Senator Duane made his moving 22 minute speech in the early hours of the morning (see video below). While working with NYCAHN and Vocal, I have met people living with HIV/AIDS that have gone through absolute hell to pay for normal household items because so much of their income goes to rent. This is a compassionate and practical piece of legislation that should be a no-brainer, but we still live in a society that is deeply entrenched in HIV/AIDS prejudices (among a great many other things).

For context: Tom Duane was the first openly gay member and person living with HIV when he was elected to the NY Senate in 1998.

Oh, and what about the vote? you ask. The Senate voted 52-1 in favor.* The power of poignant and honest words has not been lost on the legislative body despite their severe dysfunction.

*I don't want to be a party pooper, but the NYS Assembly did not vote on the bill before their recess. But this vote does send a strong message to the Assembly and Governor when they reconvene.

Missing the Point

2009-07-16T16:55:00.009-04:00

The DEA announced yesterday that it is considering classifying propofol (more widely known by the brand name Diprivan) as a controlled substance, a move that would place heavier regulations on how the drug is distributed and prescribed. DEA officials made the announcement after finding the drug in Michael Jackson's home.

One of the most prevalent themes of the drug war is the demonization and overregulation of individual drugs in avoidance of a critical examination of any of the deep-seated societal and structural problems that cause or enable drug misuse. In the case of Michael Jackson and propofol, the DEA is also ignoring the fact that Jackson's death very well could have been prevented.

Jackson's friend and health advisor Deepak Chopra recently stated publicly that, if Jackson overdosed on propofol, someone present at the time could have saved his life had they been equipped with naloxone, a low-cost drug that can reverse an opioid overdose within minutes.

By reacting to the presence of propofol in Jackson's home, rather than the absence of naloxone, the DEA is once again missing the problem and jumping to place more regulations on a drug rather than addressing all the factors that caused a tragic and, most likely, preventable death.

Working at DPA, I've had the opportunity to hear feedback from people who follow our work. During our recent overdose prevention campaign, quite a few people expressed concerns that DPA's focus on the overdose epidemic would encourage lawmakers to react by placing more regulations on the prescription painkillers that many people need to maintain productive lives. It's not an unwarranted fear considering the DEA's response to Jackson's death and recent calls to restrict acetaminophen access.

The best way to address this concern is to show legislators, law enforcement, and the public that there are alternatives to restricting access to medications.

DPA has been working with Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D-MD) to promote her Drug Overdose Reduction Act, which would enact sensible solutions to reduce the number of overdose deaths by thousands each year. The law includes provisions for naloxone distribution and 911 Good Samaritan laws that ensure that people who witness an overdose and call an ambulance will not be vulnerable to criminal prosecution.

We have overdose prevention methods available to us right now, and they work. Educating people about those methods and providing an alternative to the overregulation of individual substances is crucial to ensuring that pain patients can access the medicine they need.

The Beginning of the End for the Syringe Exchange Funding Ban?

2009-07-10T17:02:00.002-04:00

This week the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies stripped from a spending bill language barring federal funding for syringe exchange programs. The ban has been renewed every year during the congressional budget process since it was first instated over a decade ago.

The funding freeze on syringe exchange is one of the pillars of the modern drug war, and ending it is essential step in dismantling the war on drugs and restructuring drug policy through the lens of public health.

If Congress votes to lift the funding ban on syringe access it would end a more than decade-long betrayal of the American people, whose government promised it was doing everything possible to quell the spread of HIV while, year after year, it was renewing a ban on programs that could have prevented thousands from contracting the virus.

On the practical level, ending the funding ban would provide states with the resources to expand their syringe exchange programs and serve more people, more effectively. Nearly a third of HIV/AIDS cases are related to injection drug use, and currently, states can use none of the federal money allotted to them for HIV prevention to enhance syringe exchange programs.

The syringe exchange funding ban is an ugly law. It has survived because of a callous disregard for the lives of injection drug users on the part of many lawmakers, who have defended the ban without acknowledging the wealth of scientific evidence that syringe access programs lead neither to an increase in drug use nor to the recruitment of new users.

There are still some hurdles to clear before the funding ban is repealed - the appropriations bill could come up in the full House Appropriations Committee next week, and the Senate still hasn’t finalized it’s version of the legislation - but the move by the House subcommittee to take out the prohibitive language shows a promising attitude shift in Congress.

Currently, the federal government is one of the major obstacles to effective HIV prevention in the U.S. It's about time Congress stepped out of the way and allowed states to proceed with programs that protect their citizens. I'm hopeful that ending the funding ban will create momentum in Congress for a more comprehensive reexamination of failed drug war policies.

The Definition of Evil

2009-07-10T12:44:00.006-04:00

I often feel like I can sense the feelings of the people I care about regardless of words or even space. Whether the distance is a close embrace, or across the globe we are all connected in a way that transcends both time and space and I feel that all of humanity has the capacity to do this if they will embrace compassion and empathetically reach out to their brothers and sisters from the light to save them from their own personal demons and doubt. I will make no secret of my religious beliefs as a Christian Buddhist and will in fact boldly proclaim that it is this attitude that has led me to the fight for drug law reform.

I put myself into this fight for social justice for a myriad of reasons; the most basic of which was that I wanted to fight evil in the world. I had this notion that I could change the world put an end to the stigmatization of people who become addicted to one thing or another. I would like to say that I chose to get involved with drug law because it was the best field, but in fact the universe chose the field for me. I won't go into the gritty details of how I got involved but essentially a very good opportunity to get involved presented itself and so I took it, for although I did not know the issue thoroughly, I thought that it would be a very interesting and fun field to get involved in. I had no idea I would experience so much in such a short time.

I began working for lawyers who did a lot of drug law and the job was everything I expected and more. I saw the prosecution of a 73 year old medical marijuana patient. I saw the children of medical marijuana patients seized by Child Protective Services and used as bartering chips in both the child custody case and criminal trial. I saw witnesses harassed by police. I saw clients receiving death threats and broken limbs from sources that they "just didn't want to talk about." If the issue of medical marijuana is a battleground, California is the Western Front, and all the stops are being pulled out. I was in the trenches.

All of this injustice, wrong an evil that I witnessed and fought against pulled me back to some very deep philosophy discussions that I engaged in during my college days where my friends and I tried to explore the issues of good and evil. As we tried to discuss good and evil, and nail down definitions and meaning, one issue disturbed me the most. Many people who I knew and cared for believed that neither good nor evil existed. To them good and evil were simply relative abstract ideas with no basis in objective reality. I found this to be a very trenchant moral frailty.

I saw this very same moral frailty in the opposition of all of our cases. They say, "Show me a ruler that measures good and evil and I will show you an arbitrary scale." Laws determine right and wrong, regardless of compassion or reason. It is a form or moral relativism that equates to moral nihilism; this frame of mind is rampant throughout much of the world. In opposition to this phenomenon my friends and I developed a definition of evil. Despite what the naysayers had to say about our definition that day, I still rely on it to guide my moral compass in the fight for drug law reform because it is very relevant.

My friends and I determined that an act of evil is when a person or group of people act without empathy or compassion towards another person. The drug war is evil because it compels people to act without compassion or empathy towards hundreds of thousands of addicts and families each year. This is what I am fighting to change.

HIV/AIDS Activists Arrested in Capitol Building

2009-07-09T16:02:00.005-04:00

Some excitement came to the Rotunda at the Capitol building in the form of protest chants and arrest. On Thursday, a number of people from organizations comprising the Sound the Alarm coalition (they have great pictures of the action on their website) chained themselves together in the Capitol building rotunda in protest of the federal government's inaction of combating HIV/AIDS as well as lack of help to those who have HIV/AIDS. Twenty-six HIV/AIDS activists were arrested for trying to urge Congress to save lives, rather than continue to sit on their thumbs (common decency prevents me from describing what they were actually doing).

The video is awesome! I bet people were freaked out, which is a good thing -- sometimes shock and awe are necessary to move life-saving, scientifically based policy forward. In this case, the demonstrators were asking for three things:

1) Lift the federal funding ban on syringe exchange
2) Fund the HOWPA AIDS housing program at $360 million
3) Fund the U.S's fair share to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria at $2.7 billion and increase funding for the US global AIDS plan "PEPFAR" by $1 billion per year

Update: House Democrats just reversed President Obama's inaction when he failed to remove the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs. The House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies removed language from an appropriations bill that was the main mechanism for banning the funding. This is very good news, but there is still a ways to go (isn't there always?)

New Jersey Moving Forward with Syringe Access

2009-07-07T09:57:00.002-04:00

New Jersey pride runs deep, even for former residents. As a New Jersey expat living in DC, I still feel a little surge of satisfaction every time my home state does something right - even if it's a long time coming.

New Jersey is finally prioritizing its residents' heath and safety and moving forward with a syringe access program that will help prevent the spread of HIV and provide beneficiaries of the program with referrals to treatment and other social services that can mean the difference between life and death for many drug users.

With Jersey City, a community with one of the highest HIV/AIDS rates in the country, becoming the fifth NJ city to offer access to clean syringes, the state is now one step closer to fully implementing a six-city syringe access pilot program.

The five needle exchange facilities serve over 3,000 people and have sprung up just in the year and a half since the implementation process for the pilot program began. However, for years New Jersey legislators resisted any kind of syringe exchange program, even as most other states instituted their own programs.

This recent success comes after a long battle in the state legislature that dates back to 1992, when the first syringe access bill was introduced in New Jersey. DPA became involved in the effort to pass needle exchange legislation there in 2002, and in 2006, the state legislature passed a bill authorizing the pilot program now in progress. Since then, DPA has provided guidance and technical support to the resulting facilities to ensure that they are serving people as effectively as possible.

Once a sixth city is chosen to host a facility and the pilot program is completed, the next step is to amend the 2006 law to allow needle exchange programs statewide.

I hope New Jersey's progress serves as a wake up call to Congress that the federal government is out of touch on syringe exchange. With a majority of states offering some kind of needle exchange program, it's clear that these programs are making a positive impact in local communities around the country. But Congress has yet to lift a ban on federal funding for syringe access. It's time for Congress to end the funding freeze on a proven disease prevention method.