OBAMA DRUG CZAR PICK: NO RECOVERY FROM WAR ON DRUGS?

On paper, Jim Ramstad -- who is rumored to be Obama's choice for drug
czar -- looks like the ideal man for the job . He's a recovering
alcoholic himself and a Congressman who championed legislation
recently passed to provide equal insurance coverage for addictions and
other mental illnesses.

To top it off, he's a Republican, giving Obama what looks like a
relatively harmless way to make his cabinet more bipartisan. Choosing
Ramstad would appear to make a powerful statement about addiction as a
medical, not a moral issue.

Unfortunately, Ramstad may be a drug warrior in recovering person's
clothing. There is one issue that has consistently separated those who
put science and saving lives in front of politics. That is needle
exchange programs for addicts to prevent the spread of HIV and other
blood borne illnesses.

Even President Clinton now says he was "wrong" when he ignored the
recommendations of every scientific and medical organization in the
world that has examined the question -- from the AMA to the World
Health Organization -- and refused to lift the federal ban on funding.

Needle exchanges have been shown repeatedly to reduce HIV and contrary
to the claims of opponents, they help addicts get into treatment.

But Bill Clinton had a drug czar -- Barry McCaffrey -- who said that
needle exchange "sent the wrong message," and would make him seem soft
on drugs. McCaffrey fought against it and Clinton now says he
"regrets" caving in to drug war politics.

While Obama has said that he favors federal funding, the last thing we
need is another drug czar to talk him out of it.

Ramstad looks like that person. I am awaiting comment from his office
to see if he has changed his position, but his history on the issue
isn't good. In 1992, he said, "Federal funds should be used to get
people off drugs not facilitate drug abuse...let's support programs
that save lives, not destroy lives." By then, dozens of studies from
around the world already suggested that clean needle programs not only
reduce HIV, but attract addicts into recovery.

When I was injecting drugs in the '80s in New York, when 50% of IV
drug users were HIV positive, a friend taught me to use clean needles.
She probably saved my life -- she certainly didn't destroy it. I have
now been free of cocaine and heroin for 20 years.

But people like Ramstad believe that it would have been better to deny
me the information and equipment I needed to protect myself than to
risk "enabling" my addiction. And they push this view that risks
addicts' lives regardless of evidence that shows that their fears are
groundless!

In 1999 -- with the data now overwhelming -- Ramstad voted to prevent
Washington DC from using its own money to fund syringe exchange.

DC has the country's highest HIV rate. Not coincidentally, until after
that provision was repealed late last year, it had no publicly funded
needle exchange. African Americans have been the group most affected
by the failure to prevent the spread of HIV amongst IV drug users,
their partners and children.

New York, by contrast, started needle exchange relatively early and
saw infection rates cut in half over the following years, according to
a 1998 study.

Ramstad also -- again, against the evidence -- opposes medical
marijuana and supports federal policing and prosecution of providers
and patients in the states that have made it legal. These states have
not seen the rise in teen drug use that opponents like the Congressman
predicted.

The opposite, in fact, happened -- as is the case in countries that
have decriminalized marijuana like Holland. The UK's "downgrading" of
cannabis offense to a lesser status was also accompanied by a drop in
use.

There's simply no evidence that allowing sick people to get needed
medication conflicts with helping addicts. Obama has said he does not
support these prosecutions -- will Ramstad push him in the wrong
direction here, too? In an economic crisis, do we really want to spend
federal time and money locking up medical marijuana providers and sick
people?

While Ramstad has opposed some interdiction efforts and called for
more treatment funding, someone who doesn't even believe that addicts
have a right to life if they aren't in treatment is not the kind of
recovering person that I want representing me as drug czar.

That's not change, President Obama -- that's more of the same. Don't
make the mistake that Bill Clinton did and install a drug czar who
will ignore science and push dogma.

While it's great to have a recovering person as an example, just
having a disease and talking with others who've recovered the same way
you did does not make you an expert. We need someone who knows the
science, recognizes that there are many paths to recovery -- and
understands that dead addicts can't recover.