TRANSCRIPT: ERIC STERLING'S VISIT TO THE NYT DRUG POLICY FORUM

Eric Sterling:

Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, 1225 Eye St., NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20005 tel. 202-312-2015 Good evening and good afternoon, to
those in the U.S., and good morning and good day to others around the world.

Aahpat

Hi Eric; I have long been disappointed that there is not a greater focus on
constantly confronting the congress in as many ways possible regarding drug
policy. When it comes down to it the U.S. congress is the source of all of
this mess. Today our police are over-burdened with infrastructure
protection and counter-terror work. Many in their ranks have been called up
for reserve duty. The U.S. last year arrested almost 700 thousand Americans
for pot. This represents millions of police work hours in processing and
court time.

Is there some way that we can lobby our congress and state legislatures to
reduce cannabis to a civil ticket infraction to free up millions of police
hours for counter-terror duty?

By the way, thanks for linking the Ganja Report copy that I have posted
right there on your home page. I am truly tickled.

Eric Sterling:

Regarding working on Congress to make cannabis possession a civil offense:
The approach is first to make sure that you are mobilizing many people to
make that the legislative objective. But what is the case? Does it free
precious criminal justice resources that must be used to investigate
potential and actual terrorists, and other more serious crimes and
criminals? Is it simply a matter of saying that we must set priorities? But
we must also convince the public that such a change will not make it easier
for kids to use drugs in general and cannabis in particular.

Since 1991, 12th grader marijuana use has nearly doubled, and 8th grader
marijuana use has roughly tripled. Granted this has happened during
prohibition and during a period of every increasing marijuana and other
drug arrests. But can we convince the legislators that reducing penalties
will not lead to more juvenile access and use? Or can we convince them of
the even more radical notion that more juveniles access and use aren't bad
things? Not until we convince people who purport to speak for children,
i.e. parents organizations, to make such a case

Just another point -- a parallel to the age 21 drinking age in the U.S. and
the enormous teenage drinking and drunkenness problem contrasted with Italy
and France where the legal age for acquiring alcohol outside the home is
16. Wine is consumed at every lunch and dinner and young people learn
responsible drinking patterns, not covert patterns with false ID and binge
drinking. Cultural norms are the ultimate best protection for our kids to
help them learn self-control -- the goal for adult behavior.

Donald Way

Hi Eric, Was just checking out your web site, very nice. I was reading an
AP story MAPinc put up earlier
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1848/a12.html about how Nevada doesn't
expect to be harassed by the Feds in the same way California apparently is.

They seem to think it has to do with the fact that there is no distribution
taking place, that patients pretty much have to grow their own (I'm
wondering if it isn't because Nevada voted for Bush.)

Anyways, I was wondering whether this might not be a good strategy for
other states to adopt, including California, sort of a two-steps-forward
one-step-back approach. Any thoughts?

Dean Becker

Hi Eric, welcome to the forum. What is your take on the situation at the LABC?

Jo-D Dunbar

Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Centre (LACRC), eh?!

Eric Sterling:

Re: the raid on the West Hollywood cannabis center. I was not surprised but
at the same time shocked that with a critical situation facing every
Federal law enforcement agency -- maximum efforts to protect our border, to
find terrorists in our midst, and to find out who is sending anthrax
through the mails -- the DEA and Justice Department could be so politically
tin-eared.

The justification -- that the Feds need to enforce the law against
violations -- is silly. The Feds disregard numerous Federal crimes all the
time -- environmental crimes, white collar crimes, antitrust crimes, crimes
involving fraud, etc. How can these medical marijuana "crimes" -- when the
"perpetrators" are acting pursuant to state laws and local ordinances -- be
any kind of national law enforcement priority?

The drug policy reform community, however, has not yet mounted a
nationwide, coordinated response of protest to the President and the
Attorney General. >>> You don't have the first clue to find the anthrax
spreading killers, and you are raiding clubs distributing marijuana to sick
people pursuant to the law of the largest state. Are you guys nuts?!?!

Trippin19181925

HI! Eric thank you for coming to the forum.

In your remarks from Aug 1 2000 to the shadow convention you stated "I have
been following closely, if not helping to develop, our national anti-drug
strategy since 1979." Can you tell me more about your current strategy?

You also said... "I can tell you, when it comes to Congress and the war on
drugs, "it's the stupidity, stupid." But it is not only stupidity, but
cruelty and racism as well"

How can we as Americans stop this stupidity, cruelty and racism by
congress? These shysters slick tongue their way in to office on false
promises and lies and stupid Americans eat it up. Election after election,
what's the answer to stop this insanity and abuse of the people and return
our government back to the people.

Eric Sterling:

Regarding the politics, I encourage folks to also check my comments in
Rolling Stone magazine this summer that are also on our website.

The politics can not simply be the message and voices of the tiny minority
called the drug policy reform community. Look, we can't even organize the
drug users. Roughly 10 million Americans, mostly adults, smoked marijuana
recreationally last month, as they have for months and years. Yet NORML,
after 20 years has never had more than 10,000 members. Less than one in a
thousand marijuana users is politically active at the level of joining the
organization that purports to represent them. NORML and other such
organizations struggle for funds because drug users won't contribute,
although collectively they spend roughly $5 to 10 billion on cannabis each
year, and hundreds of millions on legal expenses.

The politics has to be one that reaches, touches and motivates folks who
have no truck with drug use, but who want a safe and healthy society. Our
message can't be effective as long as it is either about the constitutional
rights to be left alone (i.e., to use drugs and get high)or about the
injustice to excessively punish drug users for their vice. I think a much
stronger argument is that prohibition weakens the police, it strengthens
the criminals, it makes our schools less safe and orderly, it makes our
urban neighborhoods less orderly and welcoming.

On this latter point, it means that retailers are hurt by reduced traffic
by their doors. It means that urban real estate is less valuable. It means
that the suburbs with their traffic congestion, lack of pedestrian
facilities, etc. become more attractive for development. Drug prohibition
contributes to suburban sprawl. If you want to fight for open space, fight
drug prohibition.

Much more powerful political interests have to be enlisted: retailers,
chambers of commerce, realtors, environmentalists, etc. etc. When THEIR
voices are being heard in Congress, then our message will be heard.

Donald Way

But can we convince the legislators that reducing penalties will not lead
to more juvenile access and use? Or can we convince them of the even more
radical notion that more juveniles access and use aren't bad things?

Where do you stand on legalization of all drugs, where legalization means
we treat these drugs like we do alcohol? Wouldn't this be the easier
argument to present to the people who purport to be concerned about
juvenile access and use, that only by eliminating the black market that
caters to children can we hope to effectively begin to control access, and
as a consequence, use as well?

Dean Becker

Eric, It is my understanding that many elected officials in LA are quite
irate over the actions of the Federal government.

In that a city the size of LA might in essence pull the plug on the
cannabis inquisition by choosing to in effect legalize cannabis through
local ordinance, do you think it possible or probable?

Eric Sterling:

Naturally it would be enormously symbolic if the City of Los Angeles voted
some kind of marijuana legalization....but the issue is medical use of
cannabis. For the city council to make the link, unfortunately powerfully
makes the last ditch argument of those who oppose medical use of marijuana
- -- that is that it is a step to legitimize recreational use.

The medical use issue is completely independent of recreational use.
Indeed, it is not, in the special sense in which we use the term, drug
policy. Medical use is a patients' right, medical care issue, in which the
drug abuse boogeyman is raised to deny an effective medication to a
politically unpopular class of medical patients. I think it would be more
valuable if the City of Los Angeles announced that it would distribute
marijuana at all city health clinics and police stations to persons with
legitimate recommendations. If the City encouraged all City-employed
physicians to write cannabis recommendations if they thought it were
appropriate, and guaranteed to defend in court all such physicians.

If the City of Los Angeles, as part of its contracting for health insurance
coverage for public employees insisted that the insurers provide coverage
for purchase of medically recommended marijuana, it would have great impact.

Eric Sterling:

At the beginning of the 21st century, American society has demonstrated a
genius for regulation. We effectively regulate almost our entire economy
and most relationships . . . .with the notable exception of the use and
trade in drugs. Prohibition gives us much less control than regulation. We
call out law the "controlled substances act." This is an oxymoron. The most
out of control substances in our society are the "controlled substances."
But there are many types of drugs.

Alcohol regulation teaches us many things. One of the things is that there
is a great deal of complexity. Beer, wine and whiskey are the same drug,
but in most parts of the country are regulated quite differently. I live in
Montgomery County, Maryland where the county government controls the
alcohol distribution. It is the only county in MD that does so. County
liquor stores sell beer, wine and whiskey, but beer and wine can be
purchased in private establishments that are often open until quite late. A
few miles away in Virginia beer and wine are also sold in private
businesses, including supermarkets, but whiskey and wine are sold in state
run liquor stores. In liquor "liberal" District of Columbia, beer, wine and
whiskey are sold in privately run liquor stores, noting in supermarkets.
The rules regarding alcohol sales in taverns are complexly linked to food
sales, dancing regulation, zoning regulations, etc.

You can't sell on Sunday mornings so that worshippers are sober, nor can
you sell liquor in some jurisdictions on election day to prevent
drunkenness among the voters (or the buying of votes with booze). What this
tells us regarding "legalizing" drugs, I think, is that an honest system is
going to be fairly complicated. It also is the case, I believe, that it is
foolish to predict what the perfect system will be in advance of the end of
prohibition. Drug users and illegal drug sellers will change their behavior
to respond to the changes in regulation. Different drugs have different
effects and society has a legitimate interest in discouraging (not
prohibiting) the more harmful and problematic manifestations of drug use.

I think advertising of alcohol, cigarettes and drugs is wrong, but I don't
think the Constitution permits us to outlaw it. I think the First Amendment
contemplated commercial speech.

I would lower the purchase age for alcohol in some circumstances to age 16
to help parents and the community teach responsible use.

I would consider allowing persons 18 and older to purchase marijuana for
their own use and to allow persons to grow it for their own use and
non-commercial distribution.

I would license adults to lead psychedelic drug use experiences. Such
persons would likely organize professionally, and adopt a code of
professional responsibility. We could require malpractice insurance. I was
a licensed wilderness canoe trip leader in the State of Maine. I took
teenagers out into the woods to start fires, use axes and knives, and
paddle white water rapids, and it was my responsibility to see that they
returned as healthy as they left. I think there could be a very honorable
profession of licensed LSD trip leaders.

Regarding heroin, I think heroin maintenance for heroin addicts makes
sense. We know that addicts will work very hard, many of them illegally, to
obtain heroin. I'm not convinced they would not work hard at legitimate
jobs and taking care of their families if those were conditions for
maintaining a secure, safe supply of heroin.

Regarding stimulants, I think figuring out less harmful ways to use them
makes sense. Coca leaf tea should be sold like caffeine containing tea. I
would encourage people who are cocaine dependent to try the tea to learn
about how cocaine compulsions might be better controlled.

Criminals, of course, will respond to take advantage of new opportunities,
and there will have to continue to be drug enforcement against people who
sell contaminated or counterfeit drugs. If you saw my op-ed in March 2001
in the Orange County Register, I suggested that the police ought to
encourage drug users to turn in dealers who are threatening the safety of
users by selling counterfeit or contaminated drugs.

But I insist that I do not have all the answers. We must think of these
changes as experiments toward having a policy that seeks to balance public
safety and civil liberties.

I am torn, however, because all of this regulation at another level offends
a deep sense I have that people have a right to choose how to influence
their central nervous system. The brain is a biological processor of
chemicals, and adults ought to be able to choose to influence their
emotions and states of mind with chemicals just as they choose what music
to listen to, what poetry to read, what plays to attend, or what books to read.

Trippin19181925

You stated "The drug policy reform community, however, has not yet mounted
a nationwide, coordinated response of protest to the President and the
Attorney General."

What we need is a national alliance of all the nonprofit organizations such
as yours and other respectable members of the drug policy reform community
to band together and form an alliance that will be heard in Washington. I
think marijuana users are not represented well enough. Maybe a coalition of
various professions, i.e. Doctors, lawyers, scientist, politicians,
industrialist, business, clergy, environmentalist, economist and media
...all under one roof to represent our side in the war to reform marijuana
laws to the American voters all on one front. It should be more effective
then a loose network of organizations that independently fight the
government on our behalf. I have talked with many people about
contributions to such an effort and they seem to agree that they would be
more willing to contribute money to such an alliance. It's hard to decide
where you want to put your money when you have so many choices.

Eric Sterling:

Regarding an alliance. There is a loose alliance called the Alliance of
Reform Organizations which via the internet shares ideas.

All political and social movements have large numbers of organizations that
exist because they offer differing agendas, styles, and programs that meet
the different visions of the activists.

Trippin19181925

Sounds like a sensible and intelligent plan to me!

Trippin19181925 I

gnorant people think: Marijuana smoker...=...red-eyed slow illiterate that
poses a danger to society due to a lack off attention to the environment
surrounding them ...... Reality: Marijuana smoker....=.... a person who
chooses to alter their mind temporarily through the effects of the use of a
natural plant. The effects are individual to each user and produce
individual effects based upon each users own value of self worth and
preservation that is at the core of each individual's soul.

Dean Becker

Has the vote on Walters been postponed again? What is your take, will he
garner the votes necessary from the Senate?

Eric Sterling:

Re: Walters There is what is known as a "hold" on the nomination right now,
which delays the vote until the hold is listed.

I think Walters' response to a question at his confirmation hearing
demonstrates his unfitness for the job. He was asked what he thought about
eliminating the crack cocaine powder cocaine sentencing disparity. He
replied that change might be okay BUT we must not send a message that
normalizes drug use. His answer tells us that he is prepared to tar with
the label "normalizer" or legalizer, anyone who criticizes his policies or
advances policies he disagrees with. The next day his defenders on the
Judiciary Committee, Senators Kyl and Grassley, published an op-ed in the
Washington Times blasting the opponents of Walters as Soros-funded drug
legalizers, ignoring the American Public Health Association, the NAACP, and
the Betty Ford Clinic!

What is clear is that they will engage in chemical McCarthyism. These kinds
of attacks are like calling civil rights activists in the 1950s communists.
Essentially Walters would reduce all debates about drug policy issues to
name calling -- you are a fellow traveler of the legalizers

Richard Lake

Eric, You have been here for about an hour and a half now. You have given
us considerable food for thought which is greatly appreciated. You are
welcome to stay as long as you like, but you may say goodnight whenever you
feel you need to. We will be looking forward to your visit to the DrugSense
Chat Room.

Richard1028C

Many very good points, Mr. Sterling. It's a pleasure reading your words.

Eric Sterling:

Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, 1225 Eye St., NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20005 tel. 202-312-2015 Dear Friends, Thanks very much for
your compliments.

My three year old daughter is calling me to give her a bath and read to her
before she goes to bed. So thank you very much for your stimulating
questions, and I look forward to writing/talking with you soon. Goodnight.
Eric

Dean Becker

Eloquent phrasing, strong words, great visit. Thank you Eric.

Trippin19181925

Good night Eric. Thanks for coming and answering our questions... ....Right
On!...