http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n636.a02.html (1)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n637.a01.html (2)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n637.a02.html (3)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n638.a01.html (4)
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n638.a02.html (5)

THE DRUG LEGALIZATION MOVEMENT IN AMERICA (continued from part two)

1. Goals of the 1999 Strategy

Goal 1: Educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well
as alcohol and tobacco.

Goal 2: Increase the safety of America's citizens by substantially reducing
drug-related crime and violence.

Goal 3: Reduce health and social costs to the public of illegal drug use.

Goal 4: Shield America's air, land, and sea frontiers from the drug threat.

Goal 5: Break foreign and domestic drug sources of supply.

2. Overview of the Strategy

The National Drug Control Strategy takes a long-term, holistic view of the
nation's drug problem. The document maintains that no single solution can
suffice to deal with the multifaceted issue, that several solutions must be
applied simultaneously, and that focusing on outcomes measured in declining
drug use and a lessening of attendant social consequences can achieve our
goals. Our Strategy focuses on those approaches that we know work in
reducing drug use.

3. Educating Young People

Our primary focus is on preventing youth drug use. Studies show that
attitudes about drugs drive youth drug use rates. Preventing drug use
before it starts is more effective and cost efficient than trying to break
a person free from an already established addiction. By reaching young
people before they try drugs, we can help them reject these deadly
substances and go on to full, safe, and productive lives.

Our commitment to prevention is backed by significant resources. With the
support of Congress in passing our FY2000 counter-drug budget, we will
increase federal drug prevention funds by 55 percent since FY1996. Your
continued support for our drug prevention efforts is critical to protecting
our nation's children and will build upon our common efforts to date.

For example, with the bipartisan support of Congress, we have launched the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, a five-year $2 billion
public-private partnership. The Media Campaign is using the full power of
modern media -- from television to the Internet to sports marketing -- to
educate children, parents, and other adult influencers about the dangers of
drugs.

Already, the Campaign is producing results:

! Phase I of the Campaign achieved our objective of increasing awareness.
Our evaluation shows that youth and teens demonstrated significant
increases in ad recall in the target versus the comparison sites -- youth
increases ranged from 11 to 26 percent, teens ranged from 13 to 27 percent.
Parents in target sites had an 11 percent gain in awareness of the risks of
drugs and said that the Campaign provided them with new information about
drugs (a 7 percent increase).

! The Campaign's initial target for "reach and frequency" was to reach 90
percent of our overall teen target audience (young people ages nine to
eighteen) with anti-drug messages four times per week.

! The Campaign is already reaching 95 percent of our youth target audience
6.8 times per week.

! With respect to our reach, we are reaching nearly every single American
child on a regular basis with anti-drug information. With respect to
frequency, we are putting this information in front of them at a rate of
roughly twice our goal.

! We are buying advertising in 2250 media outlets nationwide (newspaper,
TV, radio, magazines, billboards, movie theaters, and others). By any
standard, the Campaign is the strongest multi-cultural communications
effort ever launched by the federal government and rivals that of most
corporate efforts.

! Among African American youth within the target age audience, we are doing
even better -- reaching 95 percent of the young people 7.8 times per week.

! Within the Hispanic youth target group, we are reaching 94 percent of our
audience with messages in Spanish 4.8 times per week -- not to mention the
substantial impact of messages in English on bilingual young people.

! The Campaign delivers $33 million worth of anti-drug messages per year to
ethnic young people and their adult influencers (e.g., parents,
grandparents, coaches, teachers, civic leaders, the faith community, and
others).

! We are now developing campaign materials in ten additional languages.

! We are the largest governmental advertiser in African American newspapers
and are among the top advertisers on Black Entertainment Television.

! The Campaign's target is a one-for-one match; for every taxpayer dollar
we spend, we require an added dollar's worth of anti-drug public service,
pro bono activity.

! The Campaign's private sector match is now at the 109 percent level (or
$165 million) for the broadcast industry (matches of ad time on TV and
radio). Overall, the corporate match for all Campaign efforts is at the 102
percent level (or $175.4 million).

! Since last July, over 47,000 thirty second PSAs have run on television
and radio because of the Campaign.

! In addition to the pro bono match, we have received over $42 million of
corporate in-kind support. Companies, such as Gateway and UPS, were quick
to join our team.

! Thirty-two network television episodes have aired -- on the shows our
young people most watch, using the stars they most know -- that have
included the Campaign's strategic anti-drug message points.

! Our corporate efforts are as diverse as the rest of the Campaign. We have
productive partnerships in place with BET, Univision, Telemundo, and
numerous other specialized ethnic media outlets.

The messages of the Media Campaign serve as a vital counter-force to the
pro-drug use messages that buffet our children. For too long, the
unfiltered Internet has been the media province of the legalizers.[98]
Legalizers not only use the Internet to push their policy views,[99] they
also use it, for example, to tell young people specifically where the best
drugs can be bought at the best price in their city.[100] Some of these
websites even provide young people with direct access to drugs.[101]

However, today, through the Media Campaign, when a young person enters
search words that relate to drugs -- from straightforward words like
"marijuana" to slang, like "bud" or "stone" -- our advertising messages are
keyed to respond with accurate drug prevention information. We are also
developing web content that will give young people the information they
need about drugs in a manner that is interesting and eye-catching. For
example, working with Disney, a leader in reaching young people, we
recently launched a new teen anti-drug website.

Our web presence is now substantial enough to balance that of the drug
legalization community.

For example, our two youth websites, "ProjectkNOw" and "Freevibe.com" have
respectively received 4,721,249 and 866,833 page views since each went
online. Through web advertising (e.g., Internet "banner" ads) our Campaign
has generated 221 million impressions.

Prevention, however, requires more than just mass media messages.
Prevention begins with parents and families, and requires the support of
schools and communities.

The most important tool we have against drug use is not a badge or a gun,
it is the kitchen table. Parents can prevent drug use by sitting down with
their children and talking with them -- honestly and openly -- about the
dangers of drugs to young lives and dreams. While parents often doubt the
impact they have on their children's drug use, the fact is young people
listen to their parents. For example, recent study by the Partnership for a
Drug-Free America found that 65 percent of young people (ages thirteen to
seventeen) believe that "a great risk if you use marijuana is upsetting
your parents."[102] This same study found that 80 percent of our youth
(ages thirteen to seventeen) believe that "an important reason for not
smoking marijuana is so that your parents will respect you and will feel
proud of you."[103]

To help parents we are reaching out -- across the Internet, in newspapers,
on the airwaves, and through community groups -- to provide them with the
information they need to be able to help their children make the right
decision and stay drug-free. For example, through a Media Campaign alliance
with AOL, we have created a Parents Resource Center, that can provide
information at the click of the mouse. The Department of Education has also
recently published Growing Up Drug-Free: A Parents Guide to Prevention to
give parents the facts and arm them with what to say to their children.

As part of this comprehensive prevention framework, Secretary Riley has
recently sent Congress the Administration's proposal for a revamped Safe
and Drug Free Schools Program. If adopted this new program will improve
accountability, require schools to adopt programs proven effective, and
hold the entire system -- from the federal government to the local school
- -- accountable for producing real results for our children.

Through the Drug Free Communities Grant Program we are also providing local
anti-drug coalitions with support in working to protect young people in
their communities from drugs. In the first year of the program we made
grants to 92 communities, from across 47 states and the District of
Columbia. These groups are helping mobilize grassroots efforts to prevent
drug use.

4. Combating Normalization

With attitudes being so critical in shaping drug use trends, it is vital
that we ensure that drug taking never is perceived as "normal" behavior
that is accepted or even tolerated by our society. The imperative to fight
the normalization of drug use has played a critical role in the development
of federal policies with respect to both medical marijuana and hemp.

With respect to medical marijuana, the recent Institute of Medicine (IOM)
report, Marijuana and Medicine, Assessing the Science Base, is the most
comprehensive summary and analysis of what is known about the medical use
of marijuana.[104] The report emphasizes evidence-based medicine (derived
from knowledge and experience informed by rigorous scientific analysis), as
opposed to belief-based medicine (derived from judgment, intuition, and
beliefs untested by rigorous science). ONDCP is delighted that the
discussion of medical efficacy and safety of cannabinoids can now take
place within the context of science.

The IOM report concludes that there is little future in smoked marijuana as
a medically approved medication.[105] Although marijuana smoke delivers THC
and other cannabinoids to the body, it also delivers harmful substances,
including most of those found in tobacco smoke. The long-term harms from
smoking make it a poor drug delivery system, particularly for patients with
chronic diseases. In addition, cannabis plants contain a variable mixture
of biologically active compounds, therefore they cannot be expected to
provide a precisely defined drug effect. Medicines today are expected to be
of known composition and quality. Even in cases where marijuana can provide
relief of symptoms, the crude plant mixture does not meet this modern
expectation. If there is any future in cannabinoid drugs, it lies with
agents of more certain, not less certain composition. The future of medical
marijuana lies on classical pharmacological drug development.

The study also provides a detailed analysis of marijuana's addictiveness.
It concludes that marijuana is indisputably reinforcing for many people. It
states that a distinctive marijuana and THC withdrawal syndrome has been
identified, but it is mild and subtle compared to the profound physical
syndrome of heroin withdrawal. The study notes that few marijuana users
become dependent but those who do encounter problems similar to those
associated with dependence on other drugs. Slightly more than four percent
of the general population were dependent on marijuana at one time in their
life. After alcohol and nicotine, marijuana was the substance most
frequently associated with a diagnosis of substance dependence.

In response to the study's recommendations that "clinical trials of
marijuana use for medical purposes should be conducted," on May 21, 1999,
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released new guidance on
procedures for the provision of marijuana for medical research
purposes.[106] "To facilitate research on the potential medical uses of
cannabinoids, HHS has determined that it will make research- grade
marijuana available on a cost-reimbursable basis ..." However, pursuant to
this guidance, HHS will only provide research cannabinoids for studies that
strictly meet the conditions contained in the guidance, including that such
research must: meets good clinical and laboratory research practices;
examine the use of cannabinoids only "in the treatment of serious or life
threatening condition[s]"; and will address "unanswered scientific
questions about the effects of marijuana and its constituent cannabinoids
or about the safety or toxicity of smoked marijuana."

ONDCP endorses the Department of Health and Human Services' decision to
facilitate further research into the potential medical uses of marijuana
and its constituent cannabinoids. Such research will allow us to better
understand what benefits might actually exist for the use of
cannabinoid-based drugs, and what risks such use entails. It will also
facilitate the development of an inhaler or alternate rapid-onset delivery
system for THC or other cannabinoid drugs. Advisors to both the National
Institutes of Health and the Institute of Medicine have concluded that such
research is warranted. This decision underscores the federal government's
commitment to ensuring that the discussion of the medical efficacy and
safety of cannabinoids takes place within the context of medicine and science.

Research toward the development of cannabinoid-based medicines is a medical
and scientific question that America's health and science establishment
must address. However, there are those who want to use medical marijuana as
a wedge issue to drive open a hole in counter-drug programs. For example,
Richard Cowan, a member of the Advisory Board of an advocacy group called
the "Drug Policy Foundation," in 1995 stated: "Key to legalization is
medical access [to marijuana] because once you have hundreds of thousands
of people using marijuana medically under medical supervision, the whole
scam is going to be blown. Once there is medical access and we continue to
do what we have to, and we will, we'll get full legalization."[107]

While we must exercise compassion and move ahead with the development of
treatments that can relieve human suffering, we cannot and will not allow
progress on the medical front to jeopardize the futures of millions of
young people.[108] Regardless of developments with respect to the use of
cannabinoid-based medicines, we will continue to fully enforce the full
range of Federal laws pertaining to the non-medicinal use of marijuana.

We face a similar challenge with hemp. Growing numbers of farmers,
rightfully or wrongfully, believe that hemp may offer a new crop that can
help the farm economy. However, there are those who want to use de-
regulation of hemp to erode America's disapproval of drugs. Still others
with criminal intent see hemp as providing a new way to conceal the
production of marijuana plants.

If we allow farmers to test the viability of this crop in the marketplace,
we must not do so in a manner that allows the normalization of marijuana.
Products that market their hemp content with marijuana leaves do so only to
sell their products relationship to marijuana. The appeal of these products
is not that they are made of hemp but that they are marijuana-related. The
hype built around these marijuana-related products serves only to glamorize
the counter- culture appeal of a drug that has serious consequences for our
young people who use it. We cannot allow our policies toward hemp to
directly or indirectly increase the use of marijuana among our youth.
America's farmers, who have long been among the most steadfast supporters
of our counter-drug programs, will help us police their own. Similarly,
ethical farmers seeking solely to make an honest living off a viable legal
crop should be more than willing to take the necessary security steps to
provide the public with confidence that they are growing hemp and not
marijuana.

5. Expanding Treatment

Drug treatment is proven to reduce drug use, drug-related crime, and other
related social ills. Studies show that for people who have successfully
completed a drug treatment program, even one year after treatment, drug use
drops 50 percent, illicit activity falls by 60 percent, drug selling drops
by nearly 80 percent, arrests fall by more than 60 percent, homelessness
drops by 43 percent, dependence on welfare decreases by 11 percent and
employment increases by 20 percent.[109] In short, treatment works. Our
FY2000 counter-drug budget requests $3.5 billion for drug treatment and
treatment research programs, representing a 5.5 percent increase from our
FY1999 budget. Overall, assuming our FY2000 request is approved, we will
increase federal spending on treatment by 25 percent since FY1996. Yet, we
still have a long way to go to close the treatment gap. In 1996,
approximately 4.4 to 5.3 million people were estimated to need drug
treatment.[110] Slightly less than two million people currently receive
drug treatment.[111] These figures show that we continue to have a
significant treatment gap. Expansion of the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration's drug treatment and block grant programs,
as called for in the Administration's proposed counter-drug budget, will
add much needed treatment slots. However, even these gains will not nearly
close the current treatment gap.

In a move that will help close this gap, on June 7, 1999, the Office of
Personnel Management sent a letter to the 285 participating health plans of
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan informing them that they will
have to offer full mental health and substance abuse parity[112] to
participate in the program. This step will provide full parity for nine
million beneficiaries by next year and will ensure that the Federal
government leads the way in providing parity.

Additionally, we are developing new guidelines for methadone treatment,
which will expand access to this treatment for those who can benefit from
it. These new guidelines will also improve the quality of methadone
treatment programs by shifting them to a clinic-based modality. Properly
administered, methadone treatment can offer drug-addicted people an
important bridge to a drug-free lifestyle. By expanding and improving on
existing methadone treatment programs we can offer addicted individuals the
hope of a brighter, more productive, drug-free future.

6. Breaking the Cycle of Drugs and Crime

Drug dependent people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of our
nation's crime. According to the 1998 ADAM report, roughly two- thirds of
adult arrestees and more than one-half of juvenile arrestees tested
positive for at least one illicit drug.113 In 1997, one-third of state
prisoners and about one-in-five federal prisoners said they had committed
the offense that led to their imprisonment while under the influence of
drugs.[114] Nineteen percent of state inmates said they perpetrated their
current offense leading to incarceration in order to obtain money to buy
drugs.[115]

Drug-law offenders are filling our nations prisons and imposing tremendous
correctional costs on our society. The nation's incarcerated population is
now over 1.8 million people. Under the present system, far too many
addicted individuals enter the cycle of drugs, crime, and prison only to
spend the rest of their lives caught in this cycle.

We cannot arrest our way out of our nation's drug problem. We need to break
the cycle of addiction, crime, and prison through treatment and other
diversion programs. It costs the American taxpayer $25,000 a year to
imprison a drug-addicted criminal.[116] By comparison, a year of outpatient
treatment costs less than $5,000, and the cost of even more comprehensive
residential treatment programs range from $5,000 to $15,000 per year.[117]
Evidence also shows that drug treatment programs are effective at reducing
crime. For example, treatment programs administered by the Delaware
Department of Corrections have reduced the recidivism rate for drug-related
crimes by 57 percent.[118] Birmingham, Alabama's "Breaking the Cycle"
program is also producing promising results. Since its inception in June of
1997, two thousand offenders successfully completed this program as a
condition of their release. To date, their rearrest rate is about 1
percent.119 Breaking the cycle -- through diversion programs and treatment
- -- is not soft on drugs, it is smart on defeating drugs and crime.

In 1991, the number of federal inmates receiving substance abuse treatment
numbered only 1,236. By 1998, that number reached 10,006. While this is a
substantial step forward, it is still only a first step. We estimate that
the number of arrestees who require drug treatment may be as high as two
million a year.[120] If we are to reduce the burdens of drugs and crime on
our nation, we need to expand dramatically the treatment opportunities in
the criminal justice system.

Similarly, we also need to expand the number of drug courts, which offer
nonviolent drug-law offenders supervised treatment in lieu of jail.
Defendants who complete a drug court program either have their charges
dismissed or probation sentences reduced. In 1994, there were roughly a
dozen drug courts nation-wide. In October 1998, 323 drug courts were
operating nationwide, and more than two hundred were in planning
stages.[121] Even with their growing numbers, today's drug courts still
only reach 1 to 2 percent of the population of nonviolent drug offenders.[122]

The counter-drug budget now before the Congress seeks to expand current
programs in both of these areas. The Administration's request seeks an
additional $100 million to provide drug abuse assistance to state and local
governments in developing and implementing comprehensive systems for drug
testing, treatment and graduated sanctions for drug offenders. The request
also seeks an added $10 million for drug court programs, to bring the total
support for these programs to $50 million in FY2000.

7. Helping Communities Fight Drugs

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program provides
assistance to regions of the nation with critical drug trafficking problems
that impact wider areas of the nation. HIDTA funds support expanded
cooperation between federal, state and local law counter-drug enforcement
authorities. HIDTAs strengthen America's drug control efforts by forging
partnerships among federal, state and local agencies; and facilitating
cooperative investigations, intelligence sharing and joint operations.
There are presently 21 HIDTAs. Through funds provided by the Congress in
our current budget, soon we will announce the creation of five new HIDTAs.

Local counter-drug law enforcement also benefits greatly from federal
efforts to increase the number of police officers on our streets and better
equip them to combat today's high-technology drug traffickers. The
Community Oriented Policing Services program, known as COPs, has funded
over 92,000 new and redeployed police officers to help protect our
communities and streets. Through the work of the Counter-drug Technology
Assessment Center (CTAC) we are also helping local law enforcement
authorities obtain the most up-to-date drug fighting tools.[123]

[continued in part four]