HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/drugs/harvard.drug

Text File | 1996-05-06 | 15.2 KB | 259 lines

Bob Cain asked about the recent Harvard Law/Harvard Medical-sponsored
conference titled "Drugs, Health, and Crime, Unchaining the American
Way of Life" :
>Was there any good new news coming out of the conference?  How's about
>a brief report for us ignorati?

I attended the conference.  I took some notes, but they're packed
away as a result of moving last weekend.  I'm going to list some
impressions that I came away with in bullet-item form.  I would like
to compose a comprehensive report on the conference, but I cannot,
owing to time limitations, and the enormity of information presented.
It was an exhilarating, though exhausting, day.  A saying that I have
often heard regarding one of the fine technical institutions in Cambridge
seemed appropriate: "Trying to learn something there was like trying
to get a drink of water from an open fire hydrant".  There were at least
fifty speakers in 16 or more panels, held in four time slots, with
opening, luncheon, and closing addresses.

Yes, Bob, there was good news presented at the conference.  I left
feeling very optimistic about changes, for the better, in the nation's
drug policy by the end of the century.  Most of the hard information
presented was the sort of stuff that is well-known to regular readers
of alt.drugs and talk.politics.drugs.  For that reason, the following
not-so-brief list of impressions and recollections may not be all that
informative, but I'll try to convey a sense of the collective attitude
present at the conference.

o First impression: of the 250 or so people at the opening talk,
at least a third were over the age of 55.  This surprised me.  I
anticipated mostly young people, mostly ACLU-members and libertarians,
all preaching to the choir.  I was pleased and surprised to find
support for re-legalization among older folks.  (minor point:
I don't think I heard reference to "re-legalization" all day, in
the panels I attended.)

o The opening speaker, Dr. Thomas Sasz, author of "Ceremonial Chemistry",
and "The Right to Take Drugs", enlightened us about the reality that
illegal drugs aren't just the ones we usually talk about here, they
are all the drugs that we cannot go to the store and purchase.  Valium
is an illegal drug in this regard.  We live in a capitalist society
where we are entitled to have anything we wish, as long as we have
the means to purchase it and don't use it to harm others or their
property.  (I'm paraphrasing here)  When you go down to the automobile
dealer, he doesn't ask why you need a new car, or why you need six
cylinders.  You shouldn't have to justify to anyone why you want a
bottle of Valium, and you shouldn't have to go visit a member of
the government sanctioned mononpoly to get a piece of paper, at
considerable expense, which grants you the privelege to purchase
Valium.

o The first panel I attended featured Rufus King, a lawyer from
Washington; Mr. Salerno, retired chief of detectives, NYC;
and Chief of Police Pastore of New Haven, CT.  Mr. King is
an older gentleman, and mentioned that he had been counsel to
the Kefauver Committee in 1952, and has been knocking on doors
for four decades talking about legalizing drugs to anyone who
would listen.  (If anyone is familiar with the activities of the
Kefauver Cmte., please enlighten me.)  He is the author of a book,
the title of which I cannot recall, which is frequently referred to
my R.L. Miller in "The Case for Legalizing Drugs".  He said something,
not at that panel but later in the day, that made a big impression
on me.  Paraphrasing, "I may be the only one here old enough to remember
what happened after Prohibition was repealed.  People didn't go
out and start drinking immediately.  Those that had been drinkers
continued to do so, but a great deal of social stigmatism had become
attached to drinking in the previous couple of decades.  It took
a few years before drinking became socially acceptable."  Mr.
Salerno was a terrific speaker.  He pointed out that he had once
believed in the drug war.  In the 60's the Federal law agencies
(paraphrasing) "told us if we could just get the Turkish farmers
to stop growing opium poppies, and just put the handful of heroin
'mills' operating around Marseilles (the French Connection) out of
business, and just take out the few top men in the organization
that was importing and distributing heroin, we could wipe out the
heroin problem.  Well, we did all of those things."  He went on to
liken that line of propoganda with the 80's when "they told us
if we could just put the Medellin cartel out of operation, we
could eliminate the cocaine problem.  Well, we have, and the Cali
cartel stepped right in and took over".  He called for immediate
legalization of marijauna as a first action.  He said you could
buy bags of pot on Broadway right now, in sight of a cop, no
problem.  Small pot transactions were effectively decriminalized
in NYC.  Chief Pastore was the first cop I ever met that I
respected.  He talked about a role for the police in which they
helped the community in positive ways.  He fought the system and
got a needle exchange program implemented in New Haven.  I *think*
the police may even be handing them out in the areas where heroin
users congregate, but I may have that wrong.  Someone asked him
about civil seizure, he replied "yeah we're all forfeiture junkies."
He didn't elaborate any more, and the panel was breaking up.  I
asked him about forfeiture in the hallway, he said very emphatically
"Oh, we'll lose it.  We have to, there's no way it can continue the
way it's being abused"  Hoo-ray, I thought.

o The next panel I attended was chaired by Eric Sterling, head of
the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation.  Mr. Sterling is another
terrific and inspirational speaker.  The point with which he most
impressed me was that Congress has no authority to assume
jurisdiction over "our brain cells, any more than they have
jursidiction over our genitalia or our lips".  I wish I could
remember more from that panel, but I cannot.  I believe it was
at the end of this panel that Chris Palmer, who posted previously
about this conference, held up a copy of the Pittsburgh Press reprints.
Mr. Sterling gave a brief summary of the series, praising the reporting.
The subject of forfeiture raised a lot of interest.  It seemed clear
that many people in the room were unaware of how it works.  Kudos to
Chris for bringing his copy of the reprints and mentioning it.  Many
folks wanted to know how to get a copy.  Also, there was discussion
about mandatory minimums sentencing guidlines.  A woman stood up in
the back of the room, mid-40's in age, and valiantly told how her
22 y.o. son, senior at Brown, no previous arrests, had just that
week been sentenced to 10 years for selling LSD.  I believe it was
at the Dead shows in Boston last September.  He plead guilty, because
he was threatened with prosecution of a more serious charge which
would carry a 30 year mandatory minimum, and prosecution of his
girlfriend.  Effectively, the prosecuter determined the sentence,
not a judge.  There were many misty eyes in the room as the woman
recounted the story, mine included.

o  After lunch all attendees convened for addresses by U.S. District
Judges Thomas C. Paine and Robert Sweet.  The things they said were
consistent with most of the debate that goes on here in alt.drugs
and talk.politics.drugs, which is to say they mentioned nothing that
you wouldn't know about if you read a.d or t.p.d for a few months.
One thing that Judge Paine said stuck in my mind.  Paraphrasing,
"I've been told that my advocating for legalization is just the
result of frustration.  Well, frustration is a rational response in
the face of futility."  Judge Paine came to his position of advocacy
for legalization only in the past two years, and, interestingly,
independent and ignorant of Judge Sweet's similar change of position.
I had spoken with Judge Paine in the morning before the conference
began, and he told me that he had only recently learned of Judge
Sweet and had only spoken to him by phone for the first time that
week.  I think it is significat that members of the Federal judiciary
are arriving at this position independently of one another.

After lunch, I attended two panels, and they're mixed up in my mind.
Here are a few highlights.

o  Arnold Trebach, head of the Drug Policy Foundation, said that "a lot
of people"  were very pleased with the work his group had done and were
now encouraging him to do more, to go further.  He didn't say who these
people were but gave the impression that they were deep-pocketed
supporters of DPF.  The odd thing about Mr. Trebach's talk was that
he said little that was specific but successfully coveyed the impression
that there was much to be optimistic about and that we could anticipate
bold action in the near future.  Okay, I thought.  I asked what "we",
meaning really the DPF, could do in the face of the massively-funded
PDFA propaganda and mis-information campaign.  He apparently understood
me to mean myself and the others in the room, and quickly said that
rebutting the PDFA was what the DPF was trying to do, and to support
the DPF.  He also mention a television program or series of programs that
the DPF either produces or is associated with, and urged us to lobby
our local PBS outlet to broadcast it.  I didn't catch the name.  Any
DPF members know more?  I suppose if I had been more familiar with
the DPF I would have a better sense of why Mr. Trebach is optimistic.
I mean no disrespect to him, he was a fine and motivating speaker.  As
I said, I came away with little specific knowledge about what he plans
to do.  In fairness, I have to point out that *all* speakers *all* day
were under a tremendous time constraint.

o  Dr. Nancy Lord made what I thought was a campaign speech.  A good
speech, a rehash of all the well-known legalization and libertarian
viewpoints that have been expressed in this forum.  She made a good
point in rebuttal to someone's proposal for licensing drug use that
no one needs another license.  Driver's licenses, as an example,
do nothing to guarantee good and sober drivers.  She also made a
succinct response to someone in the audience who started on a wandering
thread about how we need a new government and a new spirit of citizenry
and a new constitution and so forth.  "I agreed with about 70 percent
of what you said, till you got to the part about a new constitution."

o  A professor of economics from Boston University presented a brief
summation of research he'd done about the economic growth previous
to the start of drug-prohibition, which he dates from 1914 (Pure Food
and Drug Act).  He pointed out that the U.S. economy had grown
tremendously in the 70 years previous to 1914, with the country
expanding across the continent, and industry spanning it with
railroads and telegraph.  The U.S. was poised on the threshold
of being a dominant world power when prohibition of drugs began.
All this was accomplished during a time that morhphine, cocaine,
and cannabis were widely available and widely used.

o  A state senator from New York talked about the legalization (all drugs)
bill he introduced into the NY state senate very recently.  He related an
anecdote about how a cop in his district (the Bronx) stopped him on the
street and said that only one quarter of his constituents supported his
bill.  "Twenty five percent?  That's terriffic!  I never thought it'd
be that many!"  The bill is still in committee, and probably will die
in committee, but a courageous state legistlator is taking positive
action.

o  Mark Kleiman, professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard,
was a dissenting voice.  I beleive he was a member of the Reagan
adminstration in the area of drug policy.  Does anyone recoginize the
name?  He proposed the drug use license mentioned above.  He took the
podium saying that he appreciated the conference organizers allowing
a dissenting voice to be heard from someone who was not on the
legalization bandwagon, "yet".  He made a great deal about needing
a model to handle the practical details of legalization, rejecting
the existing alcohol model.  "Alcohol, as has been mentioned several
times already, kills over 100,000 Americans each year.  You're proposing
this as a model for the legalization of drugs?"  A valid point, I think.
Dr. Lord rebutted by pointing out that the pattern of alcohol use
since the end of Prohibition has shifted from spirits to light/low-
alcohol beer and wine coolers, and cigarette use is shifting to
low tar brands.  Extrapolating from that model, we could expect
the use of powdered and rock cocaine to diminish and see an increase
in the consumption of coca tea and weakly cocaine-based soft and alcoholic
beverages.

o  A Cambridge city councillor talked about the recently enacted
Mass. medicinal cannabis legislation.  I had thought that this was
a dead issue, since it clearly allows for the prescription of medicinal
mj in accordance with federal guidelines.  (The legislation was passed
late last year, before the feds said no more medicinal mj).  He apparently
feels otherwise, and said that his group which was influential in
securing passage of the legislation was very close to testing it in
court, by find a "brave doctor to presribe it and a brave farmer to
supply it".

More recollections are coming back as I type this, but I must wrap it
up.  I apologize for the length.  I reiterate that as a long-time
reader of these appropriate newsgroups I learned little new "factual"
information.  For me, the benefit was to meet and hear some of the
the heavy-hitters in the War: Eric Sterling, Rufus King, Arnold Trebach,
Judges Paine and Sweet, Dr. Sasz, Detective Salerno, Chief Pastore,
Dr. Lord, et al.  The overall impression I came away with was that
there is a group of influential people out there who are firmly
committed to acheiving a change in this nation's drug policy.  I don't
yet know what I can do as an individual except to write letters to
legislators and representatives, and support, with dollars, the DPF,
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, Families Against Mandatory Minimuns,
and the like.  Most important, educate the people around me.

I'll close this on a final note.  Det. Salerno, an irrepressible optimist,
thinks we've already won the battle for the hearts and minds of the people.
He pointed out that two years ago, you couldn't pick up a copy of Time,
Newsweek, any major newspaper, or turn on any network news show without
a headline concerning the War on Drugs.  Now, what little mention the WoD
recieves is increasingly negative.  Why?  The other side has given up.
He can't get Bob Martinez to debate him.  Why do you suppose Bill Bennett
got out that job in a hurry?  It's a loser.  The position is favor of drug
prohibition is indefensible.  The public is beginning to realize it, and
support for it is steadily eroding.  Det. Salerno cautioned, however, that
when the bandwagon is still out on the outskirts of town, and stuck in
the mud, those of us who are on it now have to get off and muscle it free
to get it rolling.  As it gets in to town, people begin to jump on, and it
gets crowded.  More folks jump on, space gets tighter, and those of
us who were pushing it out of the mud now get squeezed off the back.  When
that happens, he advised, just get up, dust each other off, and pat
ourselves on the back.  A whole different bunch of people will take credit
when the battle is won, but that isn't important now.

Joe Harrington