Organizations

11/21/23 Kassandra Frederique

Program
Moral High Ground
Date
Guest
Kassandra Frederique
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

During her time at DPA, Kassandra Frederique has built and led innovative campaigns around policing, the overdose crisis, and marijuana legalization—each with a consistent racial justice focus. Her advocacy, and all of the Drug Policy Alliance’s work, lies at the intersection of health, equity, autonomy, and justice.  (HOUR VERSION 55:50)

Audio file

11/21/23 Kassandra Frederique

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Kassandra Frederique
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Kassandra Frederique is the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a national nonprofit that works to end the war on drugs—which has disproportionately harmed Black, Latinx, Indigenous, immigrant, and LGBTQ communities—and build alternatives grounded in science, compassion, health, and human rights. 29:00

Audio file

10/24/23 Righting Wrongs Worldwide

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Samuel K. Roberts, PhD
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

This week on Century of Lies: Righting Wrongs Worldwide - #Reform2023 Highlights. The Drug Policy Alliance held its 2023 biennial international Reform conference over the weekend of Oct. 19-21. Over a thousand activists, advocates, organizers, researchers, and others were in attendance discussing human rights, harm reduction, the criminal legal system, and of course drug policies around the world. On this edition of Century we hear Professor Samuel K. Roberts, PhD, Associate Professor of History and of Sociomedical Sciences at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, on OPCs, Gentrification, and Resource Allocation in Marginalized Communities; Colleen Daniels, Deputy Director of Harm Reduction International, on the topic Cashing in on the Drug War in Daily Life: Following the Money and Motivation of the Drug War Profiteers Within and Beyond the Criminal System; and Dudu Ribeiro with the Brazilian Drug Policy Platform Network Righting Wrongs Worldwide: Drug War Reparations in a Global Context.

Audio file

10/17/23 Ethan Nadelmann

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Ethan Nadelmann
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Ethan Nadelmann, founder of Drug Policy Alliance premiers new podcast: PSYCHOACTIVE on I Heart and other outlets. Ethan and DTN host Becker discuss the podcast, overdose deaths, new US Drug Czar and much more

Audio file

DEAN BECKER: (00:01)
I am the Reverend Dean Becker keeper of the moral high ground in the drug war for the world. And this is cultural baggage.

DEAN BECKER: (00:15)
This October is going to make 20 years that I've been on the airwaves of America on my drug truth network and Pacific radio, but I'm proud to have competition just a couple of weeks ago. I was on Michael Krawitz', show a podcast, if you will. And, uh, there's some new competition that's airing today. The day we're recording this show, there's a new show that's being put out thru I heart radio. It's called Psychoactive. It features my good friend, a man, a mentor, an associate, an ally of drug reform. Mr. Ethan Nadelmann.

ETHAN NADELMANN:
Hi Dean, its good to back on, back on your show.

DEAN BECKER: (00:59)
Thank you Ethan. Let's tell the folks a little bit, uh, you were one of the founders of the drug policy Alliance. You served them for, well, I think 20 years or more to tell us a little bit about that past..

ETHAN NADELMANN: (01:12)
And Dean, let me say, I don't really regard this as competition. I see this as complimentary because I think what you've been doing for the last 20 years in terms of, uh, just interviewing really everybody involved in drug policy reform, you know, building out well, I mean, it's not just what you're doing in, in the current day and being available today, but it will, as I've said before, really stand as the leading oral archives of this movement. I mean, so you are making a significant contribution to the, to the future history of drug policy reform as well. And for that, for that, um, I'm very grateful. Um, so for, for me, basically men, as you know, Dean, I first got involved in this issue almost 40 years ago. You know, it began as a graduate student at Harvard writing a dissertation on the internationalization of policing and drug enforcement.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (02:07)
You know, back in the mid eighties, I got a security clearance to the state department. I interviewed DEA agents all around Latin American Europe. I wrote a book cops across borders and other book, um, uh, police in the globe with Peter Andreas. Um, but in 87, you know, 87, 88, I started speaking out at the height of the drug war. I was then a professor at Princeton and you know, was involved, uh, with Arnold Trebeck and Kevin's EES when they were founding the drug policy foundation in 87, 88, joined their board, helped organize their conferences. Um, and then, you know, 92 had the good fortune to get that phone call from George Soros, inviting me to lunch. We hit it off. I left Princeton. I started what was first known as the Lindesmith center, which was the drug policy project to the open society foundation. And then in 96, got deeply involved in, um, the, basically the ballot initiative work, you know, at first we could prop two 15, the California medical marijuana initiative, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (03:10)
You know, where there had been an initiative drafted by local activists in San Francisco. And I was able to come in and raise the money and turn into professional campaign and win that. Um, and then, you know, in 2000, uh, drug policy foundation had fallen on hard times. I was spinning my Lindesmith center out of open society foundation, Soros and foundation, and merged it 21 years ago into the drug policy Alliance, which then emerged over the following years as you know, far and away, the leading drug policy form organization, not just in the U S but around the world, but anyway, that's what I've been doing. And then as you know, cause you interviewed me four years ago, uh, actually six years ago, back in 2015, I I, 2016, I decided to step aside. I announced that in 2017 and in may of 2017, I did step down as head of DPA and proceeded to take life very easy for the last four years.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (04:07)
You know, you know, playing a little advisory role mentoring role here and there with some of the younger activists, including my successors at DPA, getting a fairly engaged in one semi new issue for me, the fight over e-cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction. Uh, but then an opportunity emerged, uh, last year, uh, you know what I left EPA four years ago, I actually thought the first thing I thought I wanted to do was to do a podcast. Does it seem to me no, you know, no responsibilities, which was nice after being responsible for an organization that had grown to be 75 people, uh, you know, no scheduled time things like not like teaching a course or doing a radio show, I could do it, you know, whenever I wanted to do it, but none of the right opportunities kind of emerged. And then last year, the right opportunity did a Merage, which is why I'm happy to be launching psychoactive today.

DEAN BECKER: (04:57)
Well, thank you for that. history as I asked for and thank you for that. Again, folks, we're speaking with Mr. Ethan Nadelmann, uh, uh, some folks will call this man the godfather of drug policy reform. And I won't refute that. I think there is a lot of truth in that, uh, thought. Um, the, I, I, I was thinking of the Beatles song. It was 20 years ago today. Sergeant pepper taught the band to play and it was Ethan Nadelmann that taught all us activists how to play, how to get involved, how to be part of making this change happen. And I, on behalf of all of those folks, and I don't think I'm stepping too far out of bounds in thanking you for having made that happen, uh, that education, that, uh, funding that support that, uh, just the idea that there's somebody else that thinks this way. And it's okay to say these words out loud because back when we, when I was beginning and, and certainly when you were starting out, the L word was, uh, a particular concern, uh, then many people did not want to use legalization in their speeches. Your thought, dear

ETHAN NADELMANN: (06:01)
Sir. Oh yeah. I mean, I mean, you know, I mean, Dean, I think part of my journey on this thing, you know, was how to deal with that word as we proceeded because in the early years that word was used by our opponents to basically disparage all of the incremental reforms we were trying to do, you know, we would try to do medical marijuana and they go, you want to legalize all drugs. We would tie it needle exchange. We would try to roll back hard sentencing. And they would instantly, you know, um, you know, attack us on that. And so I always had a, uh, you know, I was always, and because I've always been focused, you know, it's not just about putting out the right arguments, it's about being sophisticated about our communication strategies and our languaging. And so I would generally try to oftentimes avoid the word legalization in the late eighties and into the nineties, you know, but I remember when the first big pieces I wrote was in a conservative journal called the public interest.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (06:58)
It's no longer around, but it was one of the leading third policy journals. And I remember they wanted to call my piece, the case for legalization. And I said, don't do that because I'm not a libertarian legal ISER and it's gonna, it's going to make it seem like an extreme ideological, uh, you know, sentiment. And they said, well, he said, if you're not willing to give it that title, we're not gonna publish it. So it came out in as the case for legalization. When I published a piece in science, the following year in 89, you know, I focused on drug prohibition. I prefer to put drug prohibition in the title because I wanted that phrase of drug prohibition, which almost nobody used back. Then people use legalization, they didn't use the phrase prohibition. It was like we were getting ahead of ourselves, you know, and I wanted to, I wanted to really get that phrase of drug prohibition much more out in popular discourse.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (07:45)
And so I feel very good about the way they drug prohibition has become a much bigger part of, of the language of the recognition. And I thought it was important to use that phrase prohibition both because what really, for two reasons, I mean, what does it made the analogy to alcohol prohibition? And it got people to appreciate all the consequences, all the ways in which, what was wrong with the drug war was mostly a result of the failures of drug prohibition. Not of not a drugs per se. Right. Um, so I think there was that element. And then obviously, I mean, I'll tell you the, I remember there was a point must have been early two thousands maybe. And we were doing some, I was looking at all the different polls around marijuana legalization, and I saw that it must've been 20 years ago. So, and I thought that if you ask people, do you want to legalize marijuana, you got 30% support.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (08:43)
Then if you ask, do you support making marijuana legal, right. Dropping that hard XE and legalize, it went up to 35%. And then if you said, how about treating marijuana like alcohol will tax and regulate and control it and try to keep kids away. It went to 40%, right? So the same basic idea, but the language we used, um, really, you know, shifted public opinion. Now, ultimately the media was going to do what it was going to do, you know, but even I, in fact, one of the things I would oftentimes do on the languaging in the earlier years, I would use the word legalize in talking about medical marijuana, because to support for medical marijuana was already so strong that it could carry the negatives of the word legalized, like, oh, okay. But I would avoid using the word legalized, although you couldn't totally avoid it in talking about broader adult use legalization. Right. I would try to use, make it legal and prohibition tax and regulate or whatever. Now, fortunately we are in a day and age when two thirds of Americans say, yeah, let's legalize weed. And so I see that as a mark of our success, a real mark of our success,

DEAN BECKER: (09:57)
Chuck Schumer is going to put forward a bill in the Senate to decriminalize marijuana. Now, I, you mentioned legalized versus incremental, and I am an extreme legalizer. I hate incrementalism. I think, you know that, um, we own the moral high ground. I did a whole campaign on that, that we, we have nothing to be ashamed of and we should have just claim it and demand they defend their policy. But that's a whole other story, but I guess the point is Schumer is now wanting to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. Let's talk about that.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (10:30)
Yeah. I mean, listen, I mean, to me, there's no alternative incrementalism. I mean, I know, but I hate it. I hear you, but you know, you've heard me say the line, you know, there is no Berlin wall of drug prohibition to be torn down. There is no 18th amendment of drug prohibition to be repealed by the 21st amendment. Right. It's basically we have that, that proceeding and making sure, you know, one of the key things about having a kind of a long-term strategy is making sure that as we support and move forward, invest resources, the incremental steps that we're always taking a next step forward because there's some risks. I mean, we had some allies in the criminal justice world, you know, who saw the early versions of drug courts as good things, but those were oftentimes two steps forward and three or four steps backward.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (11:17)
So I think there were people in the early years, I remember it back in 25 years ago, there were people who, um, who supported marijuana legalization and oppose medical marijuana because they thought it would undermine support for legalization by, by skimming off the most sympathetic victims of marijuana prohibition. And conversely, there were people who were wanting to legalize medical marijuana among the activists who are hostile, their broader marijuana legalization. So, you know, for me, it was always about pursuing both incremental Strat and also keeping the longtime strategy in mind now with respect to Schumer's bill. I mean, first of all, he's, co-sponsored it Cory Booker, who's been a long champion and Ron wa Cory Booker from New Jersey, Ron Wyden from, um, from Oregon, uh, you know, Schumer's my Senator in New York. I know him slightly for many years. Um, you know, he was always quite a drug warrior, you know, kind of like the Diane Feinstein, uh, Joe Biden ill.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (12:11)
Right. But he also, unlike them was always softer on marijuana. I remember. So my conversations with him, you know, he never, I don't know whether it was cause he smoked when he was younger or he just got it. Was it here? You got a guy who is the Senate majority leader. I mean, it's hard to imagine having a busier job in Chuck Schumer these days, you know, they're trying to get the major economic reinvestment packages in. He's trying to figure out the voting rights bill. I mean, they're dealing with all this stuff and yet it feels like he told one of his aids, make sure you get a half an hour on my calendar every week to talk about the marijuana legalization bill. And I think he realized it is a win, win, win, win, win for him first because it's very popular in New York, we just legalized and he's got to watch out for a challenge from the left, you know, AOC and others are very popular.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (13:01)
So for him, it, it takes that piece. It does have a racial justice part. It's got overwhelming support from Democrats nationally and in the house of representatives, right? It even now has majority support among Republicans coming from a, either a small business perspective, a libertarian perspective. You saw the states that legalized in the last election included red states, you know, like South Dakota and Montana. And I am purple state like Arizona. And then of course, Mississippi, you know, very red legalizing medical marijuana who understands it, puts the Republicans a bit on the defensive. Some of the Republicans who come from states that have legalized marijuana are ambivalent about the whole thing, right? So I think, and by and large it's good public policy. It's good smart public policy. So I think he's very right to be out front on this issue.

DEAN BECKER: (13:49)
Thank you for that. Ethan. Now, another new, um, an adjacent story. Um, we're going to have a new drugs are, uh, here in a few days, a new head of the ONDCP, Correct?

ETHAN NADELMANN: (14:00)
We are, we are, we are going to have one on, you know, I'll tell you there was a very thoughtful piece of validate you only online journal filter. I really think it's probably the best online publication out there right now covering, you know, the drug war and harm reduction it's called filter founded by will Godfrey. Um, and there's a piece in it, um, by Zach seagull interviewing people in our world about what they think of Guppta. And they're basically focusing on the potential upsides here. I mean, people are concerned, you know, he was the West Virginia Senator Joe, mansion's a nominee because Guppta had been the, uh, the, uh, the head of the public health program in West Virginia. You know, he did do some good things on the overdose stuff and harm reduction and he did some bad stuff. He's he seems to be pretty and aware. Um, I think he said the right things on marijuana, but I'm not positive on. So, you know, at this point I'm kind of whole holding judgment on

DEAN BECKER: (15:02)
It. Thank you for that. And yeah, it is a bit early to assess much on the new guy at Ghouta. I want to remind folks we're, uh, speaking with Mr. Ethan Nadelmann he's, uh, the founder former head of the drug policy Alliance. He's going well today. He's starting a brand new, a podcast psychoactive and among the many guests he's going to have, um, you're, you're going to have president Obama. I, it looks like

ETHAN NADELMANN: (15:30)
No not Obama yet. That's one of my dreams I'd love to get Obama on. I'd love to get bill Clinton. I know I have the one former, I have former president of Columbia, one Daniel Santos right there for eight years and just stepped down a couple of years ago and won the Nobel peace prize for his efforts to resolve the civil war in Columbia with the farm. And I had a great contract. I mean, I've already prerecorded about over a dozen of the episodes. So this morning, the first two went up. Well, I did an opening monologue about 10 minutes, and then the first two episodes over the Dr. Andy Wile, you know, who's really the guru of integrative medicine. Um, but really is known to all of us for his wonderful writing. You know, his early books back in the seventies and eighties and natural mind from chocolate to morphine, the marriage of the sending the moon, his articles on all aerospace of drugs is pioneering research on marijuana use back 50 years ago.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (16:25)
So Andy and Andy, somebody who I've known since 1987, he wasn't just an intellectual influence to me. He was also played a major role in my personal life. I mean, as a kind of defacto doctor to me when I went through a very difficult time in the early nineties. Um, so that one's the first episode up and also up today. Um, you know, it was July 15th, uh, James Foreman, who is the Yale law professor, um, who wrote a book called locking up our own, uh, that won the Pulitzer prize for nonfiction three years ago. And it's about the, really the debate within the black community in this case, Washington DC, over the drug war. I mean, he was a guy who clerked for the Supreme court Sandra Day O'Connor and a little like Obama, you know, instead of going straight to some big shot, other job, he decided to become a public defender in DC the same way Obama had become a community organizer and, you know, not on the other way. And he's there saying that, you know, his work as a public defender is like, you know, the next step of the civil rights movement, but meanwhile, confronting all of this black community support and black leadership support for the drug war. And he wrote this very, really insightful and courageous book about what was going on there. So we had a great conversation. So those two are up today. Um,

DEAN BECKER: (17:41)
Another, uh, Pulitzer, winner James Foreman, Jr. Uh, oh, that's what you're just talking about. Uh, Dr. Nora Volkow, that's what I was wanting to say, director of the national Institute on drug abuse. Now she was an enemy or it felt like she was an enemy for a long time, but she's moving.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (17:58)
I got to tell you, man, I was very surprised at Nora Volkow said, yes. I mean, of all the people as they guest to me, I was really surprised because I've been highly critical of her at [inaudible], you know? Um, and she said just, I mean, look, I think, why did she say us? I don't know. It may just be because the times are changing because the Biden administration is finally using the language of harm reduction because marijuana is now basically legal, um, because the racial justice issue is, um, front and center. At this time, she just came out with a, uh, a port piece supporting decriminalization of drug possession, although with a fairly conservative definition of decriminalization, but she came on, I did grill her pretty hard. You know, I also you'd get a kick out of this one B I started off by pointing out that she is now, she's been head of night and national center for drug abuse for 18 years.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (18:52)
So the only federal, the only body who ever served longer and a federal senior federal drug control position, I believe was Harry Anslinger, you know, for 32 years, federal bureau narcotics from the founding in 1930 till he stepped down and 62, but I grilled her on a lot of things like why is she spending a fortune on all this brain disease stuff, which, you know, isn't, hasn't really produced very much as yet, and just seems a huge waste right now when we're dealing with an overdose epidemic. You know, I asked her whether or not supporting the really deep seated ethnic graphic work on that would really help us deal with the overdose phenomenon. I asked why you should not some really supporting research on psychedelics and the treatment of, of drug addiction, except for a couple of studies involving ketamine. I asked why she's not looking, why don't they do more work looking at how the majority of people who use drugs responsibly and don't have a problem with them?

ETHAN NADELMANN: (19:43)
Why is it all about abuse, abuse, abuse? So I gave her a pretty tough time, but she was very gracious. Um, and I did find places to compliment her on things where I think she has done well and played an important role. I think she's been good on, on the issues around, uh, drug treatment, methadone buprenorphine, trying to make that more available behind bars. I think I, you know, I saw even in the early years for testifying before Congress and standing up very strongly for the evidence on needle exchange to reduce HIV aids. So, you know, she she's, she's had her moments and I want her to be sure to praise her on for some of those things.

DEAN BECKER: (20:20)
Well, and that's kind of my objective when I interview the other side is to find ways to compliment them, to find means of connection to, hopefully to where they'll come back

ETHAN NADELMANN: (20:35)
To practice for the, to get a sense of how to do the bulk cat one. Cause she's the only person I really interviewed yet, um, who is really more on the other side. And what I do is I listened to David Axelrod's PAG podcast episode with the Congresswoman Liz Cheney, uh, just to see, you know, how he interviewed, I mean, you know, she obviously show quite a lot of courage and stepping up, you know, and the whole Trump thing and January 6th, but I mean, I wanted to get a sense of how he did it, you know, with somebody on this side. So, so that, that, that was a good one. I'll tell you what some of the people, the guests, you know, um, you know, some of these guests, I overwhelmingly agree. And so there I feel with my, my, my job is, is to really challenge them, um, on stuff, you know, uh, uh, I'll give you one example.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (21:20)
I had probably the, one of the most brilliant people, if not the most on the issue of e-cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction is this British expert, Clyde bakes, who headed a leading anti-smoking organization his day, but who's just brilliant and provocative. But what I did is I pulled up the entire list of what would be the most critical or hostile questions he would be asked by the folks who oppose harm-reduction the people being paid by Bloomberg and all these others. And so, you know, I mean, I think that's part of my job as a, you know, as a, you know, as an interviewer, you know, you know, unfortunately I have very much of a kind of devil's advocate kind of personality by nature. So I think, I think it's well, in that regard,

DEAN BECKER: (22:04)
One of the other breaking news stories, the highest number of overdoses ever in these United States, 93,331 up 30% from last year, 69,710 from opioids alone. And I think it was Nora Volkow had mentioned something to the effect that, uh, they're finding larger numbers of those dying from fentanyl mixed into the cocaine. You're responding. There is no logic to this drug war. That's where I come from. We own that god damned moral high ground, and we got to stop pussyfooting foot. And your response,

ETHAN NADELMANN: (22:42)
I agree a hundred percent, you know, I mean, hopefully these numbers will drop a lot now that you know, the cause the pandemic obviously had a big impact. You know, I mean, often the people were, were more likely to use a loan, which means there was no way for somebody to help him out, give him the watch or whatever. Um, part of it was people were losing their jobs. There was a lot of despair, you know, programs that could help people were shutting down because of the pandemic. So hopefully we'll see that number drops substantially this year, but then you see stuff like, you know, why is, um, you know, why is fentanyl, you know, an opioid very powerful opioid showing up in cocaine and methamphetamine. And you know, what argument will be like if the modern day speedball, you know, like old cocaine and heroin was, but there also appears to be a lot of like, uh, it appears a lot of dealers don't even know what they're cutting their drugs with.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (23:30)
And a lot of consumers don't know, and there's not all that much opportunity for checking your drugs the way they had in some European countries and such. And so, you know, one reason I'm very critical of Niagara is I think, and I said this actually in, in, uh, I testified before the Senate a few ago before the Homeland security committee, it was actually Ron Johnson, Wisconsin, Senator, who is ooze chairing it. And I said, you know, what, what we really need is an army here, but we need an army of ethnography, like hitting the field and doing what's called snowball, interviewing, interviewing drug users, people injecting drugs and drug dealers and trying to figure out what's going on. We need to know, you know, when people hear there's Federalist supply, are they going, looking for it? Are they running away from it? What, what precautions are they taking?

ETHAN NADELMANN: (24:13)
We need to know from the, the retail dealers, like, are they cutting it or is it getting cut at higher levels? And if so, do they know what they're doing? And cetera, and what kind of, you know, machine and machinery do they have for dealing with this substance, which is potent, it's such infant testimo amounts. You know, I mean, so, so I, I just think, uh, you know, I mean, you're right, like you look at the closest thing we have to legalization now is probably what, you know, British Columbia is doing unsafe supply. Basically try to put this idea here that if you use these drugs, don't take them from the black market, get them from a safe source. And I think that's where we need to be headed as well and all this sort of stuff. So I think, you know, it's not just America's particular socioeconomic crises with both kind of, you know, both poor people, both of color and white, where you see this really it's really a class issue here. Um, and that actually, it's not just class. You got a lot of, I know a lot of wealthy people whose kids have died from an overdose, quite frankly. Um, but I mean, it, you know, there's something wrong in America. That's creating this problem. Some of that's a broader problem. Some of that is just about ideology and stupidity on the policy level.

DEAN BECKER: (25:23)
Well, there it is. And that's what I'm saying. You mentioned there's no Berlin wall. There is the morals of this drug war. They can be exposed, they can be knocked down and that's where I am these days. But anyway, we got to wrap it up. Friends. We're speaking with Mr. Ethan Nadelmann, he's got a brand new, uh, uh, podcast called, uh, psychoactive it's, uh, it's, uh, premiering today. This is a Thursday when we're recording this, you can catch it out there on iHeart radio. Um, it may be Eastern will give us some more details on how to get involved, but I want to close this out with one more question for you, sir, you were talking about, you had interviewed the former president of Columbia, Juan Manuel Santos. He got that Nobel prize for helping to solve that situation in Colombia, but as with everything drug war related, it goes in cycles. And Columbia is now once again, and with the United States, quote, help is thinking about spraying that, that Monsanto product on the crops down there. And anyway, just repeating the whole thing

ETHAN NADELMANN: (26:26)
Again. Yeah, Dean, I mean, I would say, well, first of all, listen to my podcast, psychoactive, you can listen to it almost on all the major channels. It'll be on Spotify. It's on apple, it's iHeart radio. I mean, almost any places. People listen to podcasts, they can find, they can find it there and they can as an 800 number or 8, 8, 8 number, whatever, and an email address to send comments and such, you know, with respect to Columbia, you know, Santos was really brave and strategic and pushing that through, you know, his successor has not been as committed to the peace agreement. He's a little more on the drug war. Ilk Santos got elected as a bit of a drug warrior, but really turned, did a 180 and became very much, you know, a promoter, uh, you know, of drug policy reform. He's now serving on the global commission on drug policy. Hopefully they will. I mean, Columbia is dealing with massive problems now, huge protests, you know, growing poverty, a bad his time with COVID. And meanwhile, they got, you know, the peace agreement at some risk of breaking down and the government talking about wanting to be spraying crops, which is not gonna help anything. It's why Santos decided to stop doing it years ago. So hopefully, uh, we'll have to see what happens next there. But I think people in Columbia are really feeling it a semi desperate situation,

DEAN BECKER: (27:40)
Thank you for your time, Ethan, I wish you great success with your new podcast Psychoactive.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (27:46)
Dean part of Psychoactive is I have the folks I'm working with are helping to get some of these big, you know, like people like Tim Ferris, the podcast host, who's going to millions, Dan Savage, the columnists, you know, and these are people not normally on drug policy, uh, you know, high cast and stuff like that. So, so I'm getting some of those and I'm going to try to be mixing in more. So a few of the people that you would also be kind of interviewing, you know, like I did interview the head of DPA's New York office who led the New York mayor marijuana legalization effort, listen more, you know, I did interview Elia step or the Columbia professor. Who's doing research on ketamine and psychedelics. So it's going to be a mix of the famous, the political, the celebrity, the activist, the efforts, the researchers, you know, it's really going to be mixing the whole thing and just trying to have as much fun with it as I can. Thank

DEAN BECKER: (28:33)
You for listening to this edition of cultural baggage out. And again, want to thank Ethan Nadelmann. He's always a very kind to share his time. It's up to you though. You have to help in this drug war, you have to speak up, educate yourself. There's more than 8,000 radio shows available@drugtruth.net Hannigan. I remind you because of prohibition. You don't know what's in that bag. Please be careful.

04/20/22 Sheila Vakharia

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Sheila Vakharia
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

This week on Century we discuss adolescent overdose deaths, harm reduction, and recovery with Joseph Friedman, an addictions researcher and MD/PhD student at the Center for Social Medicine at UCLA, and Dr. Sheila Vakharia, Deputy Director of the Department of Research and Academic Engagement for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Audio file

11/01/21 Bill Piper

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Bill Piper
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Bill Piper passed away on October 27. Bill worked for two decades as the Senior Director of National Affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance . Bill lobbied legislatures around the nation to end the folly of eternal drug war. Bill was DPA's main spokesperson to the media to include the NY Times, FOX, BBC and dozens of other outlets. This show contains interviews with Bill along with some thoughts on Bills passing from his good friend Sanho Tree of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Audio file

07/19/21 Ethan Nadelmann

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Ethan Nadelmann
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Ethan Nadelmann, founder of Drug Policy Alliance premiers new podcast: PSYCHOACTIVE on I Heart and other outlets. Ethan and DTN host Becker discuss the podcast, overdose deaths, new US Drug Czar and much more

Audio file

DEAN BECKER: (00:01)
I am the Reverend Dean Becker keeper of the moral high ground in the drug war for the world. And this is cultural baggage.

DEAN BECKER: (00:15)
This October is going to make 20 years that I've been on the airwaves of America on my drug truth network and Pacific radio, but I'm proud to have competition just a couple of weeks ago. I was on Michael Krawitz', show a podcast, if you will. And, uh, there's some new competition that's airing today. The day we're recording this show, there's a new show that's being put out thru I heart radio. It's called Psychoactive. It features my good friend, a man, a mentor, an associate, an ally of drug reform. Mr. Ethan Nadelmann.

ETHAN NADELMANN:
Hi Dean, its good to back on, back on your show.

DEAN BECKER: (00:59)
Thank you Ethan. Let's tell the folks a little bit, uh, you were one of the founders of the drug policy Alliance. You served them for, well, I think 20 years or more to tell us a little bit about that past..

ETHAN NADELMANN: (01:12)
And Dean, let me say, I don't really regard this as competition. I see this as complimentary because I think what you've been doing for the last 20 years in terms of, uh, just interviewing really everybody involved in drug policy reform, you know, building out well, I mean, it's not just what you're doing in, in the current day and being available today, but it will, as I've said before, really stand as the leading oral archives of this movement. I mean, so you are making a significant contribution to the, to the future history of drug policy reform as well. And for that, for that, um, I'm very grateful. Um, so for, for me, basically men, as you know, Dean, I first got involved in this issue almost 40 years ago. You know, it began as a graduate student at Harvard writing a dissertation on the internationalization of policing and drug enforcement.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (02:07)
You know, back in the mid eighties, I got a security clearance to the state department. I interviewed DEA agents all around Latin American Europe. I wrote a book cops across borders and other book, um, uh, police in the globe with Peter Andreas. Um, but in 87, you know, 87, 88, I started speaking out at the height of the drug war. I was then a professor at Princeton and you know, was involved, uh, with Arnold Trebeck and Kevin's EES when they were founding the drug policy foundation in 87, 88, joined their board, helped organize their conferences. Um, and then, you know, 92 had the good fortune to get that phone call from George Soros, inviting me to lunch. We hit it off. I left Princeton. I started what was first known as the Lindesmith center, which was the drug policy project to the open society foundation. And then in 96, got deeply involved in, um, the, basically the ballot initiative work, you know, at first we could prop two 15, the California medical marijuana initiative, which is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (03:10)
You know, where there had been an initiative drafted by local activists in San Francisco. And I was able to come in and raise the money and turn into professional campaign and win that. Um, and then, you know, in 2000, uh, drug policy foundation had fallen on hard times. I was spinning my Lindesmith center out of open society foundation, Soros and foundation, and merged it 21 years ago into the drug policy Alliance, which then emerged over the following years as you know, far and away, the leading drug policy form organization, not just in the U S but around the world, but anyway, that's what I've been doing. And then as you know, cause you interviewed me four years ago, uh, actually six years ago, back in 2015, I I, 2016, I decided to step aside. I announced that in 2017 and in may of 2017, I did step down as head of DPA and proceeded to take life very easy for the last four years.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (04:07)
You know, you know, playing a little advisory role mentoring role here and there with some of the younger activists, including my successors at DPA, getting a fairly engaged in one semi new issue for me, the fight over e-cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction. Uh, but then an opportunity emerged, uh, last year, uh, you know what I left EPA four years ago, I actually thought the first thing I thought I wanted to do was to do a podcast. Does it seem to me no, you know, no responsibilities, which was nice after being responsible for an organization that had grown to be 75 people, uh, you know, no scheduled time things like not like teaching a course or doing a radio show, I could do it, you know, whenever I wanted to do it, but none of the right opportunities kind of emerged. And then last year, the right opportunity did a Merage, which is why I'm happy to be launching psychoactive today.

DEAN BECKER: (04:57)
Well, thank you for that. history as I asked for and thank you for that. Again, folks, we're speaking with Mr. Ethan Nadelmann, uh, uh, some folks will call this man the godfather of drug policy reform. And I won't refute that. I think there is a lot of truth in that, uh, thought. Um, the, I, I, I was thinking of the Beatles song. It was 20 years ago today. Sergeant pepper taught the band to play and it was Ethan Nadelmann that taught all us activists how to play, how to get involved, how to be part of making this change happen. And I, on behalf of all of those folks, and I don't think I'm stepping too far out of bounds in thanking you for having made that happen, uh, that education, that, uh, funding that support that, uh, just the idea that there's somebody else that thinks this way. And it's okay to say these words out loud because back when we, when I was beginning and, and certainly when you were starting out, the L word was, uh, a particular concern, uh, then many people did not want to use legalization in their speeches. Your thought, dear

ETHAN NADELMANN: (06:01)
Sir. Oh yeah. I mean, I mean, you know, I mean, Dean, I think part of my journey on this thing, you know, was how to deal with that word as we proceeded because in the early years that word was used by our opponents to basically disparage all of the incremental reforms we were trying to do, you know, we would try to do medical marijuana and they go, you want to legalize all drugs. We would tie it needle exchange. We would try to roll back hard sentencing. And they would instantly, you know, um, you know, attack us on that. And so I always had a, uh, you know, I was always, and because I've always been focused, you know, it's not just about putting out the right arguments, it's about being sophisticated about our communication strategies and our languaging. And so I would generally try to oftentimes avoid the word legalization in the late eighties and into the nineties, you know, but I remember when the first big pieces I wrote was in a conservative journal called the public interest.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (06:58)
It's no longer around, but it was one of the leading third policy journals. And I remember they wanted to call my piece, the case for legalization. And I said, don't do that because I'm not a libertarian legal ISER and it's gonna, it's going to make it seem like an extreme ideological, uh, you know, sentiment. And they said, well, he said, if you're not willing to give it that title, we're not gonna publish it. So it came out in as the case for legalization. When I published a piece in science, the following year in 89, you know, I focused on drug prohibition. I prefer to put drug prohibition in the title because I wanted that phrase of drug prohibition, which almost nobody used back. Then people use legalization, they didn't use the phrase prohibition. It was like we were getting ahead of ourselves, you know, and I wanted to, I wanted to really get that phrase of drug prohibition much more out in popular discourse.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (07:45)
And so I feel very good about the way they drug prohibition has become a much bigger part of, of the language of the recognition. And I thought it was important to use that phrase prohibition both because what really, for two reasons, I mean, what does it made the analogy to alcohol prohibition? And it got people to appreciate all the consequences, all the ways in which, what was wrong with the drug war was mostly a result of the failures of drug prohibition. Not of not a drugs per se. Right. Um, so I think there was that element. And then obviously, I mean, I'll tell you the, I remember there was a point must have been early two thousands maybe. And we were doing some, I was looking at all the different polls around marijuana legalization, and I saw that it must've been 20 years ago. So, and I thought that if you ask people, do you want to legalize marijuana, you got 30% support.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (08:43)
Then if you ask, do you support making marijuana legal, right. Dropping that hard XE and legalize, it went up to 35%. And then if you said, how about treating marijuana like alcohol will tax and regulate and control it and try to keep kids away. It went to 40%, right? So the same basic idea, but the language we used, um, really, you know, shifted public opinion. Now, ultimately the media was going to do what it was going to do, you know, but even I, in fact, one of the things I would oftentimes do on the languaging in the earlier years, I would use the word legalize in talking about medical marijuana, because to support for medical marijuana was already so strong that it could carry the negatives of the word legalized, like, oh, okay. But I would avoid using the word legalized, although you couldn't totally avoid it in talking about broader adult use legalization. Right. I would try to use, make it legal and prohibition tax and regulate or whatever. Now, fortunately we are in a day and age when two thirds of Americans say, yeah, let's legalize weed. And so I see that as a mark of our success, a real mark of our success,

DEAN BECKER: (09:57)
Chuck Schumer is going to put forward a bill in the Senate to decriminalize marijuana. Now, I, you mentioned legalized versus incremental, and I am an extreme legalizer. I hate incrementalism. I think, you know that, um, we own the moral high ground. I did a whole campaign on that, that we, we have nothing to be ashamed of and we should have just claim it and demand they defend their policy. But that's a whole other story, but I guess the point is Schumer is now wanting to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. Let's talk about that.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (10:30)
Yeah. I mean, listen, I mean, to me, there's no alternative incrementalism. I mean, I know, but I hate it. I hear you, but you know, you've heard me say the line, you know, there is no Berlin wall of drug prohibition to be torn down. There is no 18th amendment of drug prohibition to be repealed by the 21st amendment. Right. It's basically we have that, that proceeding and making sure, you know, one of the key things about having a kind of a long-term strategy is making sure that as we support and move forward, invest resources, the incremental steps that we're always taking a next step forward because there's some risks. I mean, we had some allies in the criminal justice world, you know, who saw the early versions of drug courts as good things, but those were oftentimes two steps forward and three or four steps backward.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (11:17)
So I think there were people in the early years, I remember it back in 25 years ago, there were people who, um, who supported marijuana legalization and oppose medical marijuana because they thought it would undermine support for legalization by, by skimming off the most sympathetic victims of marijuana prohibition. And conversely, there were people who were wanting to legalize medical marijuana among the activists who are hostile, their broader marijuana legalization. So, you know, for me, it was always about pursuing both incremental Strat and also keeping the longtime strategy in mind now with respect to Schumer's bill. I mean, first of all, he's, co-sponsored it Cory Booker, who's been a long champion and Ron wa Cory Booker from New Jersey, Ron Wyden from, um, from Oregon, uh, you know, Schumer's my Senator in New York. I know him slightly for many years. Um, you know, he was always quite a drug warrior, you know, kind of like the Diane Feinstein, uh, Joe Biden ill.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (12:11)
Right. But he also, unlike them was always softer on marijuana. I remember. So my conversations with him, you know, he never, I don't know whether it was cause he smoked when he was younger or he just got it. Was it here? You got a guy who is the Senate majority leader. I mean, it's hard to imagine having a busier job in Chuck Schumer these days, you know, they're trying to get the major economic reinvestment packages in. He's trying to figure out the voting rights bill. I mean, they're dealing with all this stuff and yet it feels like he told one of his aids, make sure you get a half an hour on my calendar every week to talk about the marijuana legalization bill. And I think he realized it is a win, win, win, win, win for him first because it's very popular in New York, we just legalized and he's got to watch out for a challenge from the left, you know, AOC and others are very popular.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (13:01)
So for him, it, it takes that piece. It does have a racial justice part. It's got overwhelming support from Democrats nationally and in the house of representatives, right? It even now has majority support among Republicans coming from a, either a small business perspective, a libertarian perspective. You saw the states that legalized in the last election included red states, you know, like South Dakota and Montana. And I am purple state like Arizona. And then of course, Mississippi, you know, very red legalizing medical marijuana who understands it, puts the Republicans a bit on the defensive. Some of the Republicans who come from states that have legalized marijuana are ambivalent about the whole thing, right? So I think, and by and large it's good public policy. It's good smart public policy. So I think he's very right to be out front on this issue.

DEAN BECKER: (13:49)
Thank you for that. Ethan. Now, another new, um, an adjacent story. Um, we're going to have a new drugs are, uh, here in a few days, a new head of the ONDCP, Correct?

ETHAN NADELMANN: (14:00)
We are, we are, we are going to have one on, you know, I'll tell you there was a very thoughtful piece of validate you only online journal filter. I really think it's probably the best online publication out there right now covering, you know, the drug war and harm reduction it's called filter founded by will Godfrey. Um, and there's a piece in it, um, by Zach seagull interviewing people in our world about what they think of Guppta. And they're basically focusing on the potential upsides here. I mean, people are concerned, you know, he was the West Virginia Senator Joe, mansion's a nominee because Guppta had been the, uh, the, uh, the head of the public health program in West Virginia. You know, he did do some good things on the overdose stuff and harm reduction and he did some bad stuff. He's he seems to be pretty and aware. Um, I think he said the right things on marijuana, but I'm not positive on. So, you know, at this point I'm kind of whole holding judgment on

DEAN BECKER: (15:02)
It. Thank you for that. And yeah, it is a bit early to assess much on the new guy at Ghouta. I want to remind folks we're, uh, speaking with Mr. Ethan Nadelmann he's, uh, the founder former head of the drug policy Alliance. He's going well today. He's starting a brand new, a podcast psychoactive and among the many guests he's going to have, um, you're, you're going to have president Obama. I, it looks like

ETHAN NADELMANN: (15:30)
No not Obama yet. That's one of my dreams I'd love to get Obama on. I'd love to get bill Clinton. I know I have the one former, I have former president of Columbia, one Daniel Santos right there for eight years and just stepped down a couple of years ago and won the Nobel peace prize for his efforts to resolve the civil war in Columbia with the farm. And I had a great contract. I mean, I've already prerecorded about over a dozen of the episodes. So this morning, the first two went up. Well, I did an opening monologue about 10 minutes, and then the first two episodes over the Dr. Andy Wile, you know, who's really the guru of integrative medicine. Um, but really is known to all of us for his wonderful writing. You know, his early books back in the seventies and eighties and natural mind from chocolate to morphine, the marriage of the sending the moon, his articles on all aerospace of drugs is pioneering research on marijuana use back 50 years ago.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (16:25)
So Andy and Andy, somebody who I've known since 1987, he wasn't just an intellectual influence to me. He was also played a major role in my personal life. I mean, as a kind of defacto doctor to me when I went through a very difficult time in the early nineties. Um, so that one's the first episode up and also up today. Um, you know, it was July 15th, uh, James Foreman, who is the Yale law professor, um, who wrote a book called locking up our own, uh, that won the Pulitzer prize for nonfiction three years ago. And it's about the, really the debate within the black community in this case, Washington DC, over the drug war. I mean, he was a guy who clerked for the Supreme court Sandra Day O'Connor and a little like Obama, you know, instead of going straight to some big shot, other job, he decided to become a public defender in DC the same way Obama had become a community organizer and, you know, not on the other way. And he's there saying that, you know, his work as a public defender is like, you know, the next step of the civil rights movement, but meanwhile, confronting all of this black community support and black leadership support for the drug war. And he wrote this very, really insightful and courageous book about what was going on there. So we had a great conversation. So those two are up today. Um,

DEAN BECKER: (17:41)
Another, uh, Pulitzer, winner James Foreman, Jr. Uh, oh, that's what you're just talking about. Uh, Dr. Nora Volkow, that's what I was wanting to say, director of the national Institute on drug abuse. Now she was an enemy or it felt like she was an enemy for a long time, but she's moving.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (17:58)
I got to tell you, man, I was very surprised at Nora Volkow said, yes. I mean, of all the people as they guest to me, I was really surprised because I've been highly critical of her at [inaudible], you know? Um, and she said just, I mean, look, I think, why did she say us? I don't know. It may just be because the times are changing because the Biden administration is finally using the language of harm reduction because marijuana is now basically legal, um, because the racial justice issue is, um, front and center. At this time, she just came out with a, uh, a port piece supporting decriminalization of drug possession, although with a fairly conservative definition of decriminalization, but she came on, I did grill her pretty hard. You know, I also you'd get a kick out of this one B I started off by pointing out that she is now, she's been head of night and national center for drug abuse for 18 years.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (18:52)
So the only federal, the only body who ever served longer and a federal senior federal drug control position, I believe was Harry Anslinger, you know, for 32 years, federal bureau narcotics from the founding in 1930 till he stepped down and 62, but I grilled her on a lot of things like why is she spending a fortune on all this brain disease stuff, which, you know, isn't, hasn't really produced very much as yet, and just seems a huge waste right now when we're dealing with an overdose epidemic. You know, I asked her whether or not supporting the really deep seated ethnic graphic work on that would really help us deal with the overdose phenomenon. I asked why you should not some really supporting research on psychedelics and the treatment of, of drug addiction, except for a couple of studies involving ketamine. I asked why she's not looking, why don't they do more work looking at how the majority of people who use drugs responsibly and don't have a problem with them?

ETHAN NADELMANN: (19:43)
Why is it all about abuse, abuse, abuse? So I gave her a pretty tough time, but she was very gracious. Um, and I did find places to compliment her on things where I think she has done well and played an important role. I think she's been good on, on the issues around, uh, drug treatment, methadone buprenorphine, trying to make that more available behind bars. I think I, you know, I saw even in the early years for testifying before Congress and standing up very strongly for the evidence on needle exchange to reduce HIV aids. So, you know, she she's, she's had her moments and I want her to be sure to praise her on for some of those things.

DEAN BECKER: (20:20)
Well, and that's kind of my objective when I interview the other side is to find ways to compliment them, to find means of connection to, hopefully to where they'll come back

ETHAN NADELMANN: (20:35)
To practice for the, to get a sense of how to do the bulk cat one. Cause she's the only person I really interviewed yet, um, who is really more on the other side. And what I do is I listened to David Axelrod's PAG podcast episode with the Congresswoman Liz Cheney, uh, just to see, you know, how he interviewed, I mean, you know, she obviously show quite a lot of courage and stepping up, you know, and the whole Trump thing and January 6th, but I mean, I wanted to get a sense of how he did it, you know, with somebody on this side. So, so that, that, that was a good one. I'll tell you what some of the people, the guests, you know, um, you know, some of these guests, I overwhelmingly agree. And so there I feel with my, my, my job is, is to really challenge them, um, on stuff, you know, uh, uh, I'll give you one example.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (21:20)
I had probably the, one of the most brilliant people, if not the most on the issue of e-cigarettes and tobacco harm reduction is this British expert, Clyde bakes, who headed a leading anti-smoking organization his day, but who's just brilliant and provocative. But what I did is I pulled up the entire list of what would be the most critical or hostile questions he would be asked by the folks who oppose harm-reduction the people being paid by Bloomberg and all these others. And so, you know, I mean, I think that's part of my job as a, you know, as a, you know, as an interviewer, you know, you know, unfortunately I have very much of a kind of devil's advocate kind of personality by nature. So I think, I think it's well, in that regard,

DEAN BECKER: (22:04)
One of the other breaking news stories, the highest number of overdoses ever in these United States, 93,331 up 30% from last year, 69,710 from opioids alone. And I think it was Nora Volkow had mentioned something to the effect that, uh, they're finding larger numbers of those dying from fentanyl mixed into the cocaine. You're responding. There is no logic to this drug war. That's where I come from. We own that god damned moral high ground, and we got to stop pussyfooting foot. And your response,

ETHAN NADELMANN: (22:42)
I agree a hundred percent, you know, I mean, hopefully these numbers will drop a lot now that you know, the cause the pandemic obviously had a big impact. You know, I mean, often the people were, were more likely to use a loan, which means there was no way for somebody to help him out, give him the watch or whatever. Um, part of it was people were losing their jobs. There was a lot of despair, you know, programs that could help people were shutting down because of the pandemic. So hopefully we'll see that number drops substantially this year, but then you see stuff like, you know, why is, um, you know, why is fentanyl, you know, an opioid very powerful opioid showing up in cocaine and methamphetamine. And you know, what argument will be like if the modern day speedball, you know, like old cocaine and heroin was, but there also appears to be a lot of like, uh, it appears a lot of dealers don't even know what they're cutting their drugs with.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (23:30)
And a lot of consumers don't know, and there's not all that much opportunity for checking your drugs the way they had in some European countries and such. And so, you know, one reason I'm very critical of Niagara is I think, and I said this actually in, in, uh, I testified before the Senate a few ago before the Homeland security committee, it was actually Ron Johnson, Wisconsin, Senator, who is ooze chairing it. And I said, you know, what, what we really need is an army here, but we need an army of ethnography, like hitting the field and doing what's called snowball, interviewing, interviewing drug users, people injecting drugs and drug dealers and trying to figure out what's going on. We need to know, you know, when people hear there's Federalist supply, are they going, looking for it? Are they running away from it? What, what precautions are they taking?

ETHAN NADELMANN: (24:13)
We need to know from the, the retail dealers, like, are they cutting it or is it getting cut at higher levels? And if so, do they know what they're doing? And cetera, and what kind of, you know, machine and machinery do they have for dealing with this substance, which is potent, it's such infant testimo amounts. You know, I mean, so, so I, I just think, uh, you know, I mean, you're right, like you look at the closest thing we have to legalization now is probably what, you know, British Columbia is doing unsafe supply. Basically try to put this idea here that if you use these drugs, don't take them from the black market, get them from a safe source. And I think that's where we need to be headed as well and all this sort of stuff. So I think, you know, it's not just America's particular socioeconomic crises with both kind of, you know, both poor people, both of color and white, where you see this really it's really a class issue here. Um, and that actually, it's not just class. You got a lot of, I know a lot of wealthy people whose kids have died from an overdose, quite frankly. Um, but I mean, it, you know, there's something wrong in America. That's creating this problem. Some of that's a broader problem. Some of that is just about ideology and stupidity on the policy level.

DEAN BECKER: (25:23)
Well, there it is. And that's what I'm saying. You mentioned there's no Berlin wall. There is the morals of this drug war. They can be exposed, they can be knocked down and that's where I am these days. But anyway, we got to wrap it up. Friends. We're speaking with Mr. Ethan Nadelmann, he's got a brand new, uh, uh, podcast called, uh, psychoactive it's, uh, it's, uh, premiering today. This is a Thursday when we're recording this, you can catch it out there on iHeart radio. Um, it may be Eastern will give us some more details on how to get involved, but I want to close this out with one more question for you, sir, you were talking about, you had interviewed the former president of Columbia, Juan Manuel Santos. He got that Nobel prize for helping to solve that situation in Colombia, but as with everything drug war related, it goes in cycles. And Columbia is now once again, and with the United States, quote, help is thinking about spraying that, that Monsanto product on the crops down there. And anyway, just repeating the whole thing

ETHAN NADELMANN: (26:26)
Again. Yeah, Dean, I mean, I would say, well, first of all, listen to my podcast, psychoactive, you can listen to it almost on all the major channels. It'll be on Spotify. It's on apple, it's iHeart radio. I mean, almost any places. People listen to podcasts, they can find, they can find it there and they can as an 800 number or 8, 8, 8 number, whatever, and an email address to send comments and such, you know, with respect to Columbia, you know, Santos was really brave and strategic and pushing that through, you know, his successor has not been as committed to the peace agreement. He's a little more on the drug war. Ilk Santos got elected as a bit of a drug warrior, but really turned, did a 180 and became very much, you know, a promoter, uh, you know, of drug policy reform. He's now serving on the global commission on drug policy. Hopefully they will. I mean, Columbia is dealing with massive problems now, huge protests, you know, growing poverty, a bad his time with COVID. And meanwhile, they got, you know, the peace agreement at some risk of breaking down and the government talking about wanting to be spraying crops, which is not gonna help anything. It's why Santos decided to stop doing it years ago. So hopefully, uh, we'll have to see what happens next there. But I think people in Columbia are really feeling it a semi desperate situation,

DEAN BECKER: (27:40)
Thank you for your time, Ethan, I wish you great success with your new podcast Psychoactive.

ETHAN NADELMANN: (27:46)
Dean part of Psychoactive is I have the folks I'm working with are helping to get some of these big, you know, like people like Tim Ferris, the podcast host, who's going to millions, Dan Savage, the columnists, you know, and these are people not normally on drug policy, uh, you know, high cast and stuff like that. So, so I'm getting some of those and I'm going to try to be mixing in more. So a few of the people that you would also be kind of interviewing, you know, like I did interview the head of DPA's New York office who led the New York mayor marijuana legalization effort, listen more, you know, I did interview Elia step or the Columbia professor. Who's doing research on ketamine and psychedelics. So it's going to be a mix of the famous, the political, the celebrity, the activist, the efforts, the researchers, you know, it's really going to be mixing the whole thing and just trying to have as much fun with it as I can. Thank

DEAN BECKER: (28:33)
You for listening to this edition of cultural baggage out. And again, want to thank Ethan Nadelmann. He's always a very kind to share his time. It's up to you though. You have to help in this drug war, you have to speak up, educate yourself. There's more than 8,000 radio shows available@drugtruth.net Hannigan. I remind you because of prohibition. You don't know what's in that bag. Please be careful.

04/14/21 Grant Smith

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Grant Smith
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

This week on Century: Fentanyl, mandatory minimums, and racism. We hear from Grant Smith, Deputy Director of Drug Policy Alliance Office of National Affairs; Nkechi Taifa, author of a new memoir entitled Black Power, Black Lawyer: My Audacious Quest for Justice, CEO of The Taifa Group, and Convener of the Justice Roundtable; and Hilary Shelton, NAACP senior vice president for advocacy and policy and director of NAACP’s Washington Bureau. Plus the US “Drug Czar,” Regina Labelle, addresses the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

Audio file

04/07/21 Kassandra Frederique

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Kassandra Frederique
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Kassandra Frederique the Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance on "claiming the moral high ground" in the drug war + DeVaughn Ward, Sr. Counsel of Marijuana Policy Project

Audio file

I am Dean Becker. Your host, our goal for this program is to expose the fraud misdirection and the liars whose support for drug war empowers our terrorist enemies, enriches Barbara's cartels, and gives reason for existence to tens of thousands of violent, new as games who profit by selling contaminated drugs to our children. This is cultural baggage.

Hi folks. I am Dean Becker, the Reverend most high. This is cultural baggage a bit later. We'll hear from Mr. Devon ward of the marijuana policy project, but first well folks it's with a great deal of pride. And I don't know, just recognition of the work of a young lady who has in the last decade or so risen through the ranks, showing her expertise, her knowledge, and her courage, if you will, and has now become the executive director of the drug policy Alliance. Want to welcome Cassandra Frederick? How are you Dawn?

I'm doing well. Thanks for having me, Dean,

Thank you for joining us now. I want to first off just commend you. I I've started this thing called, uh, you know, um, claiming the moral high ground in the drug war. And I think you have taken a similar outlook attitude into your administration. Have you not?

Yeah, I do. I think we are right. I think that if you're going to talk about what's best for community, that's what we're offering,

Right. And, and a huge component that has grown exponentially over the last year or plus or minus here is the racial implications. The, uh, um, the, the way the drug war is waste is racially motivated and has, has wound up, uh, just horribly in that direction. Has it not?

Yeah. I mean, I think the whole, the, the first drug laws were racialized tools of social control when we saw like Chinese migrants in California. And so you can always draw a direct line between the groups of people that, but I'm indented like, um, and how they use drugs as a way to really, uh, create the parameters in propaganda to make, to use drugs as a scapegoat, um, as a way to control people who are not white.

And, um, this has played out, as I said, horribly over the last year with, uh, Rihanna Taylor. And, and now with this trial of George Floyd, that's right. The truth is coming out. The truth is, is, is there for all to see? Is it not?

Yeah. You know, I think in this past summer, when we look at Brianna Taylor, you have to ask the questions, why was she not safe in her own bed? And it's like all the money that has been put forward with law enforcement and, and how that, how that money was funded by drug money and how it was based on false drug information. And George Floyd, everyone saw what happened with the police officer, having his neon, Mr. Floyd's neck and somehow, um, George Floyd's, uh, history around addiction and opioids is what is on trial, as opposed to the brute use of force that we all saw.

It's I don't, it's just so ugly. It's hard to talk about sometimes the, the belief system that exists that, um, you know, people are needing punishment. If they use drugs, they they're just unworthy of respect in this life. And that's just so wrongheaded, isn't it? Yeah,

It's really, it, it limits our ability to see each other. And so I think, um, when you talk about things around the moral high ground, it's really about getting us to see each other in our fullness so that we can be able to give people the things that they need

Right now, uh, in your time, uh, you've been executive director now a little over a year. Is that right? Or,

No, I think I'm in month seven.

This COVID has made it where it's all one long night. I got no real reference points anymore. Um, now, okay. Uh, Oh, uh, on a positive note last night on the daily show, one of our compadres, uh, Dr. Carl Hart was the main guest and he was talking about this, a similar stance to admit who and what we are and how it didn't ruin our lives to use these drugs. Um, I've done that over the airwaves for 20 years now, but for Carl to speak this doctor, this, this is a scientist to speak so openly and clearly about his drug use is a, it's a new benchmark of some sort, isn't it?

Uh, it's been great to see the conversations that Carl's book has opened for us. And I think it's really reaffirmed, uh, what so many of us have been saying for a very long time. I also think Demi Lovato, um, who's a celebrity who talked about, um, navigating coming out from overdose and recognizing that her treatment plan around abstinence based recovery, wasn't helpful for her and how she's, you know, she calls it California sober, we call it harm reduction. Um, and house she's created a treatment plan for herself that works for her, right. And it's about self-determination. And I think both Carl and Demi Lovato, the key linchpin that they're talking about is agency. Um, and I think that that is often missing and public policy and one that drove policy, um, supporters have always pushed on is that we have agency and we should build systems that respect that

Exactly right. And part of that, uh, the agency, or perhaps a redefinition of policing, we don't want to eliminate the cops. We don't want to, uh, you know, take away some of their, their work because they're necessary, but much of what they do can be replaced by people with medical knowledge or, uh, doctors, psychiatrists, others with a different set of knowledge. Am I right?

I think that, that, that premise that you started with is still up for debate. There are some people that don't want the cops, right. Um, and I think that in our world, we, you know, drug policy has the ability to show that other people can do the things that law enforcement is doing right now. And I think that this is an important opportunity for our movement to not only, you know, remove law enforcement from doing things that we think other people can do, and also give people the ability to imagine what a world would look like if we had more community support, um, and helping people in crisis.

No, exactly right. Uh, we need to redefine it somehow. I think we all agree with that. Um, you know, okay, now there are, there's always these, uh, stocking horses, or I don't know, just propaganda Wars and, and people frightened of drugs. And we now have, uh, state legislatures around the country changing or considering laws to make those who distribute fentanyl, um, major drug traffickers, worthy of a major, uh, prison sentences. When the truth be told most of the times, it's just one friend acquiring for another it's, it's blown way out of proportion, your, your response, Cassandra,

I think the neck, one of the biggest challenges that our movement has is to talk about drug sales. Uh, we haven't done it so often and oftentimes our opposition has framed it in a way so many people miss the fact that sharing substances is considered a sales. That's the way it is in my home state of New York. And we actually need to break apart what that is so we can move through the stigma, um, and, uh, navigate that together.

Now, Cassandra, you mentioned your state of New York. You are, uh, a new Yorker. You've grown up there. Have you not? Wow. Excuse me. You guys just made a major, your governor, your legislature just made a major step towards recognizing the futility of prohibition. In other words, legalizing marijuana. Let's talk about that. What, how is that going to pan out in New York?

Well, we have passed pretty progressive legislation around cannabis legalization, and now it's all really about implementation. Who's going to be in power. Who's going to be navigating these conversations. How do we move forward? Um, and so I think that that's really exciting. I, it really depends on implementation at this point. Um, we have put out some of some really good raw materials for us to build, uh, the end of cannabis prohibition in the state. And I think we're just going to have to fight to make sure that it actually fits the intense

Well, what was it? Was it North Dakota, South Dakota that the people voted for legalization. And now the legislature is trying to quash that, that movement. So let's

Yeah, that's South Dakota. And I think it just really reflects to us that, um, the people are further along than the decision, the elected officials and that we really need to figure out how we can make the way that our country is governed to be more directed by people on the ground. Um, and people that are actually living real lives, you know, it's really scary to see, um, the people of South Dakota vote for something and the courts, uh, try to quash it. Um, this is about, this is supposed to be about giving people freedom and authority and power, and we should all be worried, um, when our rights are being violated in that way.

Yeah. Just slowly you start somehow or just negated. Um, now coming back to our thoughts on, um, the drug policy Alliance, I was looking at your website and you had a couple of topic topics in there uprooting the drug war of dissecting every aspect of life in the U S I think in a way to, to re-examine, you know, I think what we were talking about claiming the moral high ground, getting down to the nitty gritty of what makes the drug war work. Um, let's talk about how it doesn't work.

Yeah. You know, so much of what we know for the drug war has really been about, um, how can we keep communities? They, they tried to do it under, like, this is what's going to keep community safe. This is what's going to, um, navigate this conversation, blah, blah, blah, blah. And what we're saying is one, it hasn't kept people safe. Two, the overdose rate is the highest it's ever been. Three mass incarceration is happening. All the things that you said would happen if we turned our backs on our loved ones, if we, um, incarcerated, I loved ones. If we punished our loved ones, none of those things have been a deterrent. And so, um, that has been, um, difficult to navigate, which is like really getting people to understand that what's happening right now doesn't work. And I think so much of that is like in the way that we often put out our solutions, folks are like, well, what if it doesn't work? And I'm like, well, what's what what's, what is actually working right now. Nothing.

No, no, I, and you've probably heard my 32nd elevator speech. Um, Mr. President whoever's in that elevator with me, is there, the fact of the matter is the drug war empowers our terrorists enemies, enriches Barbara's cartels ensures more gangs will prowl our neighborhoods and more overdose deaths will occur. So considering the horrible consequences, what is the benefit? What do we get back to begins to offset the horrors? We inflict on ourselves and the whole world by continuing to believe. And Cassandra, I look at it this way. It is a belief system. It is a religion that the drug war, no matter what must endure forever, it's, it's, it's a bad religion in my opinion.

Yeah. I mean, I think it is one, I think part of the reason why it has this feeling is that so much of it is rooted in other belief systems. And they've created the drug war to strengthen those beliefs, right? That people can't make choices for themselves. Um, you, you should not alter your current state that, you know, all these different things like, um, folks of color are not worthy. They're untrustworthy that, um, poor people can't be able to take. They shouldn't be able to take care of their kids. Like all the bare things that underlie the drug war logic and the drug war logic just fills it in and bolsters it. And they use drugs as a way to scare people into that belief system.

You nailed it. You nailed it now. Um, I want to talk about the fact that things are changing Oregon de creme to try to Portugal as their state, if you will. And, and I, I wonder how much the DPA's, I guess it's been two years, has it been three years? I don't know. We went to Portugal. We met with rugs are over there. Uh, we learned a lot we've visited their hospitals and their, their treatment centers. We learned how it really, and truly does work. This, this, uh, idea of decriminalizing and Oregon has done it. And now Washington state is seriously considering it. I think a couple of other States are looking into it as well to take away the, the hammer from this drug war. And, and to, to go a little more gently though, I, you know, legal as ice in that for me is the only way we, we really end this stupidity, but de creme is a good step along the way. Is it not?

Yeah. You know, decriminalization is the biggest thing we can do currently, um, because it makes so much sense for a lot of people. And it also builds upon the social justice movements that are going right now, as people have conversations about re imagining what a world, uh, outside of law enforcement could look like. Decriminalization is a key strategy point in that when people are talking about divesting and investing decriminalization is a key part of that when people are talking about how do we decrease the barriers for people to get access to housing, um, employment supports decriminalization is a key factor in that. And so I think that, um, you know, it's learning what happened in Portugal, but also doing our own version of that because, you know, Portugal's not perfect. Um, and so we, we can build upon that model.

Yeah, no, it wouldn't last. I spoke with Dr. Gould out there, Portuguese drugs czar, we talked about legalization and I finally got him to admit, and that legalization will be the ultimate or the necessary answer, but it's going to be necessary to convince a lot of other countries to, uh, you know, to get onboard that bandwagon and to, um, uh, just, I guess in general, um, allow people to develop a comfort with that potential. Um, it, it is, it's scary to a lot of politicians though. I think the majority of politicians, maybe even, uh, cops on the beat now know the drug war is a failure, at least in many ways, maybe they don't understand complete it's complete failure, but they do know that it's lacking. Do they not? Okay. Um, now I wanted to, um, I mentioned them as, uh, it seems like too long ago, we were in Portugal. We had the DPA, uh, meeting, where were we? Uh, New Jersey. Where did we have that? Oh, it was, uh, St. Louis. Um, and, and, um, that's the last I saw all you guys, all that has really, maybe not to change the direction, but it has impacted our work. Uh, has it not, let's talk about what has changed because of COVID.

I think over it has reinforced a lot of the things that we have thought. And I think it's also added a bit of urgency to the things that we've always been asking for. And also what COVID has shown us is that bureaucracy isn't necessary. So as soon as COVID hit, we started to see these bureaucratic red tape things that impede access come, come down, especially around, um, methadone and buprenorphine. And tele-health, we saw prosecutors say, listen, if, uh, jails and prisons are congregate houses where we can't keep people safe, we are no longer going to prosecute drug charges. You know, that was one of the things that we, um, navigate that, that we learned, and that is really influencing the way that we're moving forward.

No, and you're right. Even before COVID here in Harris County, Houston, Texas, my da, uh, wanted to quit prosecuting at least minor drug charges. He no longer, uh, sends people to jail for marijuana under four ounces, or the little corners of cocaine baggies that they used to send people to for 10 years, they no longer prosecute those either. And it is that discretion that they have realized that they have had all along and are now implementing that is, is really helping to, uh, well, make some, some changes. I don't know how major or minor, but definitely noticeable. Um, now the, the international aspects of this there's one story that just baffles my mind that we're going to spray the, the, the, the fields of Coca in Columbia. Again, the Joe Biden has approved that as far as I've read. And it just seems preposterous. We learned nothing from the, uh, the lawsuits for the, the, uh, you know, the cancers and, and the, the, the diseases that were developed in those fields where they sprayed for Coca and the farmers and their crops were ruined. Farms were lost, et cetera. Let's talk about the international implications,

The U S set up the drug war, um, exports to drug war in so many international company countries. Um, I often think that, that, um, we have to play more of a partnership role in organizations with organizations internationally in trying to disrupt the way that the us is exporting the drug war and paying more attention to us foreign policy, especially around appropriations, because we're also funding the drug war across the country. I mean, across the world and that we as American drug policy reformers need to have a more global view in the way that the drug war is impacting our families. It's not just happening in the us, it's happening all over.

No, it is, uh, it was the United States. It was Harry J Anslinger and his, his minions that I'm convinced the United States and then convinced the United nations that this drug war was to be necessary and it be waged forever and ever, and we are certainly responsible. I agree. Now, coming back to one of my original thoughts about, uh, George Floyd, we now have a new story here in Texas, where a young man named Marvin Scott was picked up for marijuana. I think it was for one joint, it's under two ounces, but I think it was the one joint, if I'm correct. And within a few hours, he was dead. He was dead in that jail cell. He had, uh, he was held down and pepper sprayed and had a mask put over his head. And then a few hours later, he was dead. Please respond to that. I don't even know what to say. It's just so outrageous.

What is so disheartening is how much, how often this happens. I think we're hearing more and more stories closer in succession, but it's not a new phenomenon that this is what is consistently happening. And that, um, in this moment of community reckoning and recognition, I think hope folks are connecting the dots a lot quicker. Um, and it's really why decriminalization is the pathway forward, because we need to remove drugs as a tool for this kind of interaction. We need to remove drugs as a justification for these interactions, and we need to remove drugs as an alibi for these interactions. And so when we hear the, uh, the details about Marvin Scott, the third, or we hear, um, what's happened to George Floyd, when we hear and see what's happened to be on a tailor, it's like we were, when we find out about Carlos Lopez, we have to like, literally be like, how, what created, what was the Genesis of this? Um, and how do we disrupt that? And, you know, that is race, that is gender that's sexuality, and it's also drugs, right? And so it's like, how do we navigate and extract that from our interactions? Um, because until we do that, this will continue to happen.

Right. And right. Marvin has got, um, maybe it was one of the more outrageous, but there are a hundred more that are not quite so outrageous happening daily across America. That don't get that recognition that maybe the people don't die, but, uh, it's, it, it is truly representative of the compassion of the drug war. I don't know what to say to it. Okay. Friends, I'll tell you what, once again, we've been speaking with Ms. Cassandra Frederick. She is the executive director of the drug policy Alliance and a courageous woman. Uh, I, I wish her great success moving forward and at the DPA can claim that moral high ground and can begin to, uh, change this equation to something more,

We'll join you on the moral high ground, because there've been a lot of people in the movement that have held the moral high ground for a very long time. Um, and I think, um, more of us are going to reinforce our position there, but bring along more people

Well with that, I guess we'll wrap it up again. Folks, if you want to learn more about the drug policy Alliance, their website is drug policy.org. Thank you, Cassandra. Thanks Dean.

You mean you're gonna let him get it. It's going to be legal. You're going to let them get leased right now. We don't let them get it. I don't want to let them get it.

Uh, my name is Davon ward and I am senior legislative counsel at the marijuana policy project. Well, that's, that's a substantial chore given that there is so much, uh, progress and or portended progress within legislatures and, uh, other governmental bodies around the nation and, uh, New York in has really cotton. A lot of people's attention. Tell us about what's going on up there. Will you,

Yeah, I mean, New York, um, you know, legalized, uh, last week, uh, you know, and essentially put into play one of the largest, um, one of the most heavily populated States, uh, for, for legalization, but you know, also it comes on the Hills of new Jersey's legalization, uh, at the top of 2021. Um, and now with Connecticut, just just moments ago, the judiciary, uh, in Connecticut advanced, uh, the governor's proposal there, um, it puts into play this entire, you know, Northeast region from Massachusetts down to New Jersey in terms of, uh, industry in a corridor, uh, of commerce related to cannabis. And so it's, uh, it's an exciting time in the cannabis space right now, you know, the more act, um, which would have rescheduled cannabis passed the house in December. Um, and then, you know, the, uh, this, this session, uh, Senator Schumer and Cory Booker and Senator Wiener are putting together a cannabis bill in the Senate as well. So, you know, that there's progress abound, uh, on this particular issue.

Things are changing. Things are staying the same as well, but, uh, there's hope on the horizon if nothing else, right?

Yeah, yeah, no, there's, there's, there's a lot to be hopeful for. Um, but you know, New York was a, was a big piece of the puzzle. Uh, and you know, New York has been a state that's been trying to, to legalize, you know, for about three years now and couldn't, couldn't reach consensus. And so, um, it, it was really great to see, to see that happen in, you know, substantively in the bill. You know, the bill goes really far in terms of equity, in terms of trying to repair some of the, um, the wrongs that were done were created because, because of the war on drugs and through prohibition, um, in new York's billboards really fall under that New Jersey bill also, also, it was a, was a strong, um, has a strong equity component as well. So, you know, to see that is really encouraging to, to, when you think about where, where, what the industry could look like in five years from now,

Hi, I live in Texas, but I still got a little bit of hope, you know, but we will. How far are you from Oklahoma? I last year went to Oklahoma and by gosh, they do have a wonderful, uh, medical program and, uh, um, just the way they went about it just makes so much sense. Um, but I hear New York has none, um, admirable job as well, making available number of plant counts and, uh, licensing fees and all of these things that will, uh, enable the industry rather than slow it down. Right, right, right. Well, yeah.

You know, the governor is moving very quickly to set up, uh, his cannabis commission. Um, and, and yeah, I think, I think the, the way, um, you know, particularly the way, the way they, um, they're directing the revenue and they're doing the licensing, you know, 50% of the licensing going towards, um, equity applicants, and, you know, those equity applicants will, will likely would receive reduce fees priority in terms of their license or review. Um, you know, and, and I think, I think that's, that's really, um, exciting, exciting to see, you know, because there's, there's lessons learned, um, and a number of States in terms of how they in about equity measures. Um, and you know, it doesn't appear that any state has, has gotten it exactly right out the gate. And so, you know, what new York's envisioning is a really strong start, um, to, to achieving some equity in the marketplace. And when I say equity, you know, specifically, um, you know, folks who have had previous, uh, cannabis convictions or immediate family members who have had cannabis convictions, or, you know, come from communities that were, um, over policed and, um, over surveillance because of, uh, cannabis prohibition. And so, you know, making sure those folks have have opportunities in a place, uh, in this new industry now that this product is being legalized is, is, is really important, uh, for a number of reasons. And so we're really happy to see that, uh, in new York's bill,

Me too. I, uh, folks, once again, we've been speaking and Mr. Davon ward is with the marijuana policy project. If you want to learn more about the work they do, please go to mpp.org. Thank you. [inaudible]

Thank you so much for having me

Well, that's about it for this week. I do want to thank Devon ward. I want to thank, uh, Cassandra Federico for her time and attention. And I want to thank you for tuning in and listening, and they'll get an, I remind you because of prohibition. You have no idea what is in that bag. So please, please be careful

To the drug truth network listeners around the world. This is Dean Becker for cultural baggage and the unvarnished truth. Cultural baggage is a production of the Pacifica radio network. Archives are permanently stored at the James aid banker, the third Institute for public policy, and we are all still tapped on the edge.

03/31/21 Kenyatta Thompson

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Kenyatta Thompson
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Katal Center Turns Five
The Katal Center for Equity, Health, and Justice turns five this year. To celebrate, they’ve begun hosting a series of public dialogues about the broad themes that drive their work: equity, health, and justice. The first of those dialogues was held March 29. On this edition of Century of Lies we hear from Kenyatta Thompson, Katal Center Director of Organizing; Lorenzo Jones, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director of the Katal Center; and Kassandra Frederique, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Audio file

03/10/21 Joy Olson

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Joy Olson
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

The state of New Mexico is considering how to authorize and open supervised consumption facilities in that state, we hear from the chief sponsor of House Bill 123, NM State Representative Deborah Armstrong, and Emily Kaltenbach with the Drug Policy Alliance. Plus we hear from Joy Olson, former director of the Washington Office on Latin America, on “Challenges in US/Mexico/Central America Policy at the Beginning of the Biden Administration.”

Audio file

08/05/20 Steve Rolles

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Steve Rolles
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Legalization, Safe Supply, and Heroin Buyers Clubs. We hear from Steve Rolles with the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Sterling Johnson with Angels in Motion and the Black and Brown Workers Cooperative, Neill Franklin with Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and Erica Thomson with the BC and Yukon Association of Drug War Survivors. They appeared on webinar entitled “COVID-19: New Opportunities to Explore Safe Supply and the Legal Regulation of Drugs.” sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance. The discussion was moderated by DPA’s Hannah Hetzer.

Audio file

05/13/20 Abbie Rosner

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Abbie Rosner
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Abbie Rosner reports for Forbes, her focus on how older adults are re-discovering cannabis & psychedelics + Kassandra Frederique Dir of DPA re What Does DPA Do During a Pandemic?

Audio file

Cultural Baggage

051220

TRANSCRIPT

----

HOST DEAN BECKER: I am Dean Becker your host, our goal for this program is to expose the fraud, misdirection and the Liars who’s support for drug war empowers our terrorist enemies and enriches barbarous cartels and gives reason for existence to tens of thousands of violent US gangs who profit by selling contaminated drugs to our children. This is Cultural Baggage.

DEAN BECKER: Hi friends. I am the Reverend Dean Becker. This is Cultural Baggage a bit later, we're going to hear from Cassandra Frederique. She's the managing director of policy for the Drug Policy Alliance. She'll be talking about covid-19. But first up; Folks today, we're going to be speaking with a freelance writer based up in the Philadelphia area. She specializes in the emerging cannabis space with a special interest in the ways that Baby Boomers and older adults are experiencing cannabis at the personal, institutional and policy levels and she also delves into other aspects including her most recent which was titled psychedelic drugs can improve quality of life and death for older adults. And with that, I want to welcome Abbie Rosner. How are you Abbie?

ABBIE ROSNER: I'm great. Thanks so much

DEAN BECKER: Abby. I don't know your age exactly but us older folks. We do have particular needs and situations that, that have to be dealt with and we find that marijuana in particular is of benefit. But now there are a lot of folks around the country talking about psychedelic drugs can also be of benefit. Tell us about your most recent article. Will you?

ABBIE ROSNER: Okay, Sure Dean. I started to become interested in psychedelic drugs when I was reading about how they're being studied to treat Mental Health Conditions and how very effective they are for issues like treatment-resistant depression anxiety, PTSD and also end of life and so after writing about cannabis and Baby Boomers and older adults for some time. One of the issues that came up really largely is the problem of polypharmacy among older adults, you know older adults in the United States take more drugs than I think anywhere else on this planet and you know, it's not unusual to talk to somebody who says. Oh, you know, I take 17 different pills a day. Now. There's something wrong with that in my opinion particularly because a lot of these medicines interact poorly with one another and end up sending people to the hospital.

So the Psychedelic drugs work in a very different way instead of taking anti-anxiety medication every single day for the rest of your life. This is a one-time treatment where you have therapy, you have a one or two or three sessions with the psychedelic drug, and then you have therapy at the end to integrate and that's it. It's over and you're what the researchers are finding is that there are really long term results that endure over time so I thought that that was pretty impressive and important for older adults.

DEAN BECKER: I would have to agree with you may not be aware of my programs but each segment each program. We introduced a segment titled name that drug by its side effects because as you're saying these drugs have so many complications may be just on their own let alone when you combine them together, and yes. If you can cut down on the number of pills a person as ingesting. You probably help improve their overall health wouldn't you think?

ABBIE ROSNER: Oh, absolutely and I think that we'll just to mention about cannabis cannabis medicine is very different from pharmaceutical drugs and from the traditional medical approach and really it's kind of driven by the patient or by the consumer because you don't when you working with cannabis medicines. You don't have a prescription from a doctor. You really have to understand the different kinds of medicines, that tinctures, the lotions, the concentrates and the different strains of flower and work with those on your own to find out what's best for you. So in a way for some people it's daunting, but for some people it's very empowering to be able to control the kind of medicine that they need for any given time. Maybe they need one med for the evening to relax and to sleep another medicine in the day to control their pain and they can achieve go that with one under the One Umbrella of cannabis medicine.

DEAN BECKER: Well, I want to jump back just a bit to the psychedelics and you know, it's not just for old folks. I am quite aware and I think many people are that Bill of the Alcoholics Anonymous Fame. Was noted for using psychedelics as he was ending his addiction to alcohol and we fought, we find that many people in this Modern Age are finding great success in limiting or stopping their use of alcohol and or tobacco cigarettes through the use of mushrooms or other psychedelics and again with long-lasting effects as you indicated earlier there Abbie.

ABBIE ROSNER: Right. Well, I think one of the interesting things to watch right now is the that there is a very very exciting new industry of psychedelic drugs that are making their way to through through Phase 2 and phase 3 studies on their way to to being released for public use and one of the exciting areas is for addiction control now, I think that one of the reasons why the FDA is so Cooperative in these studies is because there really isn't any effective strategy for treating addiction. And this is you know, as we know from the opioid crisis let alone alcohol. This is a huge problem in the United States and you know, it may seem kind of radical to have a psychedelic experience to be able to treat addiction. But what they're finding is that this is a very very effective approach.

DEAN BECKER: Well indeed, they are with great success. It's not always perfect. There is no perfect drug. I don't think in this world but where it has benefit I think we should make good use of it. Now. Let's get back to the thought that your focus is I don't know in educating older folks now many of us older folks. We use marijuana back in the 60s and 70s perhaps but gave it up for several decades couple of score years if you will, but, but we're learning that it that it still has great benefit for those older folks, right,

ABBIE ROSNER: correct. Well, well first of all you have to do beginning that you said you didn't know how old I am. Well, I'm a pure baby boomer and and I'm one of those people that you know, spoke pot when I was in high school and college and then when I had children got married and raised, you know family, I stopped for decades and then then when my children were grown, I just

I became curious to ReDiscover this plant and and I think that a lot of people who you know who did have experiences in their youth and are thinking about it. Now, they're dealing with a lot of stigma and fear and that's one of the things that I'm really interested in helping them to understand and look at their fears and see if they're rational or not. You know, one of the things that we always hear is oh, well, you know the Cannabis today is way was stronger than it

used to be and you know, it's so much more potent. And and I think that for one thing that's true, but the other thing is that doesn't mean that you have to avoid it at all costs. It just means that you have to consume it a little more thoughtfully just means that that you'll consume less and if we were used to little baggies of sticks and stems and leaf the Cannabis today is it's like it's like, you know like a fine Whiskey, it says it's cannabis today is bread very carefully and thoughtfully and there is an appreciation for the terpenes and the the different cannabinoids that are in the Cannabis.

ABBIE ROSNER: So it actually becomes kind of a connoisseur. You can even become a connoisseur. So I think that people don't need to be afraid about that aspect and the other thing is that cannabis now is the active ingredient in all kinds of medicine. So if you let's say, oh, I don't want to smoke. I'm afraid of smoking there are many other options. You can use it to show you can put it under your tongue and and get just the same kind of as well. I don't know about the same kind of effect, but certainly you can get beneficial effects from this cannabis medicine. So I would just say that for older adults that did you cannabis in the past and are concerned about using it now. I think that that they really don't have anything to be afraid of.

DEAN BECKER: No, I think for too many of us. We were lured by John Wayne and all the other movie stars and the doctors telling us that cigarettes were outstanding and mild and Etc back in the 60s and form it for many of us we wound up with COPD and it's very difficult to now smoke cannabis as you say there are other alternative means and among them cookies and other Edibles which are now on the market as well. Now one of your columns there in Forbes talked about making cannabis medicines available to the isolated elderly to institutions so it can be done and I before I get your response there I want to just say this. I know that in Israel where the United States has paid for decades of research. They have made the determination that is safe and effective medicine and each morning at their nursing homes. They hand out cannabis medicines to their elderly, but would you Please talk about the isolated elderly.

ABBIE ROSNER: Okay. Well, I just wanted to just mention that I don't think that in all Israeli nursing homes. They hand out cannabis, but I know that it is it is prevalent there and there is a very tall and very supportive approach to cannabis in Israel, but I do believe that particularly for the elderly I think cannabis has an important place and my heart goes out to really the elderly that are in these nursing homes in long-term care facilities who are given medications that are very dangerous with terrible side effects to treat their anxiety and their depression that can potentially kill them. These are medications that have black box warnings on them to try to control their agitation of patients with dementia, depression of people who are just feeling isolated and alone when cannabis medicine can be so much more effective for them. It can improve their mood it can calm them and help them to to feel to sleep better and just to in general to feel better with basically no side effects. They side effects are are trivial- dry mouth, maybe some dizziness now always there's a concern about falling but certainly the compared to the drugs that are regularly given to these older adults these elderly people in these institutions, but you can't even compare the risks that cannabis offers it has which where are so minimal. So I feel like it's really a human rights issue basically to deprive these elderly elderly patients of a medicine that could be so helpful for them and particularly in states that have medical marijuana programs. And one of the interviews that I had was with a the director of a long-term care facility in Riverside in New York, right outside of New York City and he told me he said for me the idea that, that the citizens are that the residents in my facility would be deprived of a medication that any Resident of New York State could have is discrimination and I won't stand for it. So I felt that he was really a hero. So and I'd like to I just would say that I think I was having with my article to to encourage more institutions to really consider the well-being of the residents over there over their fears and

DEAN BECKER: once again We've been speaking with Abbie Rosner she writes for Forbes. I want to I don't know just talk about you for a moment, Abby. You're not exactly unique. But you're one of a few writers that has this particular Focus. That is daring. If I dare say are there use that word to speak boldly to bring forward these ideas that we've been doing it wrong for so many years. Now what compels you Abbie Rosner?

ABBIE ROSNER: And I guess I'm not a fear driven person and I look at this plant and I think it has so much medicinal value. I just can't believe all the all the this the fear in the hype. So I feel like if there's something that can benefit so many people let's let's make it available for them. Just seems like oh also one other thing I want to mention I really feel like the turning older adults into the cash cows of the pharmaceutical industry is wrong and I believe that if there's a plant that can help our health. It's like it's like a gift from nature and why shouldn't we be able to access that and use it in a in a natural and and healing way so I guess that's really what motivates me.

DEAN BECKER: All right, you know Abbie especially with the cratering of the oil and gas industry here of late and I guess other than perhaps the weapons manufacturing, the pharmaceutical industry is the biggest gorilla in the jungle these day so to speak, they bribe the politicians and they get the laws and they keep raising their prices where the United States now pays more for these drugs than any country on Earth we have been we have been bamboozled and it's time for a new Direction. You're closing thoughts their Abbie Rosner.

ABBIE ROSNER: Well, I'm you know, this pandemic has really shaken the country to its core. I think we're going to be dealing with a lot of questioning about how we deal with the our health care and how how the country and how the, the federal government is involved in our health care and I think that we're going to probably be demanding a different approach to to caring for ourselves and our well-being and I think that that fits very well with with looking at cannabis medicines as an alternative something that that people can have more control of their own Health Care by- by using cannabis products, so I think that that's I think that that's really going to I think that as we recover from this pandemic, I think we're going to start to see more people seeking more natural solutions particularly if they're supply-side- Supply supply chain issues with getting pharmaceutical drugs. It might this might be the time that people say, you know what I'm really tired of taking my pain medications. I'm going to try cannabis and they might find that like, so many thousands of other people who manage to stop taking pain pills because they are either successfully using cannabis. They might find that that they're able to stop those medications as well.

DEAN BECKER: Once again, we were speaking there with Abbie Rosner. You can catch most of her writings on forbes.com.

It's time to play name that drug by its side effects rash, hives, difficulty breathing, tightness in the chest, yellow eyes. Swelling of the tongue hoarseness, dark urine and fainting, fever, irregular heartbeat, mental or mood changes, seizure and death time's up the answer from the UCB group Zyzall for asthma.

All right now as promised from the ongoing drug policy Alliance series “drugs and stuff”.

----AUDIO CLIP----

GABRIELLA: Thanks for tuning into drugs and stuff. I'm your host Gabriella, today we're continuing our series of content focused on responses to the covid-19.

We wanted to take a moment to share with our listeners what this time has meant for DPA specifically. So I asked Kassandra Frederique DPA’s managing director of policy advocacy and campaigns to come back onto the podcast and break that down for us. Let's listen in;

Kassandra, I just wanted to ask you I mean, obviously we're in a really challenging moment right now, worldwide. I was wondering if you could say a little bit about how DPA is responding to this covid-19 pandemic and what about our work is staying the same and what about it has had to change and what does that mean for the future of DPA?

KASSANDRA FREDERIQUE: I think this is an incredible moment just in its vastness and it's pervasiveness this moment where so many things are being elevated and excavated in society. We're seeing the role of race and class and access play out in such a dramatic way it is very difficult to wrap your head, your mind around all the different ways people are being impacted and I think that's the case for us here at Drug Policy Alliance as well. I mean personally, you know, our whole operation has moved remote. We're not seeing each other. I think some departments are having to adjust in different ways, you know, there's a large portion of our staff whose job is going to state legislators and meeting with people and seeing people face to face and you know, we're all having to figure out how can we use technology to continue to push, you know, right now, I'm like on a thread like should we do a car protest in front of this governor's office on because everyone social distancing but in New York City where no one has a car but to our programmatic work, you know, one of the things that for us we have always been an organization that has focused on decarceration; one of the first organizations focusing on getting rid of mandatory minimums and saying that people who are drug involved should not be in the criminal legal system and I think in the moment of covid that ask is being elevated everyone is talking about decarceration. I mean, this is something that we have pushed for for a while. If you look at the work that we've done Prop 36 if you look at the in California or the work that we've done in New York around getting rid of the madatorymin for Rockefeller drug laws the push for us consistently to get prosecutors to decline to prosecute drug charges in the work that we done drug policy action worked with allies around an election Oregon and in Albany and Ithaca in New York City, you know, we've been pushing these conversation about you know, drugs should not be dealt with in the criminal legal system, jails and prisons are an inappropriate place for people who are under the law and and you know, I think this moment rightfully is calling the question of jails and prisons are inappropriate place period right now and that's important and DPA, you know, our work has always focused on the fact that people shouldn't be incarcerated for what they put in their bodies, right and more recently, you know through the publishing of our report about rethinking the drug seller, you know, it's also recognizing that people who sell drugs are a part of the system around your prohibition and if we got rid of prohibition would be looking at people who deal drugs in the same way and really calling to question in our movement the arbitrary lines between Sellers and users. And like how do we actually come up with a set of Demands that's actually more responsive and reflective of the moment of the system of drug prohibition that we're advocating right? And that's a conversation. We were already having it when we published a report in December and now here in covid-19 recognizing very quickly that that's why mine is a lot shorter. Like how people who sell any drugs should not be in jail. Yeah, and that is the work that we were coming to and that arguably different parts of our organization have been but I think more organizationally and comprehensively that is the thing that people should not be incarcerated and they need to get out and so, you know, we've done the decarceration work you know, moving towards decriminalization really focusing on declining to prosecute decriminalizing marijuana pushing for the conversation around decriminalizing drug possessions and low-level drug sales, you know, we are a part of the Coalition of people in Oregon doing an exciting ballot initiative that should people in Oregon can vote in in November around decriminalizing drugs literally prosecutors across the country are saying we're not going to we're going to decline to prosecute drugs we want on law enforcement to not arrest people for drugs. We already had a ballot initiative. There there are multiple states that we're talking to right now for decriminalization of drug legislation.

KASSANDRA CONTINUED: We went to Portugal two years ago or actually like yeah two, three years ago to do a study trip on Portugal. We are having the conversations. We are talking to folks. We are in conversation around doing Hydro Mortar performing trials in different parts of the state, having study groups around regulation and save some time. These are all things that we were doing I think covid-19 creates of the urgency for us to get to a faster right? We are in the middle of a pandemic the people that we work with and the people that we are we have never had the luxury of slow stepping reform, right always pushing but we need to recognize that this moment requires a different level of urgency. And so the things that we have asked for were asking for again, and we're asking with more people and I think that's what's different about this moment. Is that more people are recognizing that we don't have time to waste, we don't have the time for Perfection. We have the time for now and I think that is a lot of what we're seeing. We're signing onto different sign on letters Public Health ones criminal justice ones user Union ones recovery ones really are getting our community here supporting our allies at harm reduction coalition,

vital strategies and Pennsylvania harm reduction conference to really push forward the kind of Health infrastructure that our folks need, you know, one of the things that we also part of our work is bringing dignity or elevating the Dignity of the people in our community and I think that you know as people talk rightfully about the health care workers that are risking their lives right now fighting on the Forefront of the pandemic in our hospitals, I think people also are recognizing that there are health care workers that are not called healthcare workers. Those are homeless Outreach folks right, the syringe exchanges those, the people around the methadone clinic. Those are the doctors that provide people knocking our movement has a shadow Healthcare System. We are another Health Care system that complements and supplements the kind of Care system that we have because our current Healthcare System doesn't recognize our folks. People who use drugs store eclis are not being respected in hospitals and in medical clinics, and so they're getting their Primary Care as soon as exchanges that getting their Primary Care at the homeless shelter. They're getting their Primary Care at the methadone clinic because these are vectors of health care for our community and I think in this moment as people recognize in this crisis, which is laying out the different structural inequities and the imbalances where people are realizing how most people can't social distance people in jails prisons and detention centers can't social distance, you know, we're having this fight in Pennsylvania where they closed the liquor stores and people are saying alcohol withdrawal is actually is one of the only withdrawals that people can die from and that's why it's supervised and we actually do have to keep alcohol stores. As a matter of public safety and a matter of public health, right? These are all the things that are being elevated to this moment because they have to take our people into account right because everyone's trying to flatten the curve and can't find the curve without finding the curve inside of jails prisons and detention centers. You can't flatten the curve. You can't ask and ask people to social distance of people are almost right and there are many drug laws that make it very impossible for people to, to get housing you can't social distance of people are congregating to use drugs or two because they don't have syringes and so they're sharing syringes which creates which exacerbates them back within a pandemic around HIV and AIDS or the overdose places. There are so many things that our community, communities health and dignity and respect is integral to us being able to flatten the curve to be able to manage Covid-19. These are the asks that we have always had right? These are the demands that we have always had and I think covid-19 gives us the ability and the urgency but also the courage and the okay for the Relentless determined Unapologetic advocacy of the idea that this is not you know, we have always said these are issues of life and death and people did not believe us until it was about life and death.

DEAN BECKER: Okay folks. I learn a lot from the drug policy Alliance and you can to please visit their website drugpolicy.org. So sad I'd have to say this, one more time- because of prohibition. You don't know what's in that bag. Please be careful.

To the Drug Truth Network listeners around the world. This is Dean Becker for Cultural Baggage and the unvarnished truth Cultural Baggage is a of production of the Pacifica Radio Network, archives are permanently stored at the James A Baker III Institute for public policy and we are all still tap dancing on the edge of an abyss.

12/25/19 Marsha Rosenbaum

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Marsha Rosenbaum
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Marsha Rosenbaum of DPA author Safety First school curriculum, Nurse Ken Wolski LTE in Trentonian + Debbie Churgain Dir of Americans for Safe Access

Audio file

TRANSCRIPT

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

DECEMBER 25, 2019

DEAN BECKER: I am the Reverend Dean Becker, keeper of the moral high ground in the drug war for the world and this is Cultural Baggage.

DEAN BECKER: Hi folks this is Dean Becker the Reverend Most High this is Cultural Baggage with one of our holiday special programs. Today we’ll hear about our forthcoming conference, I hope you will attend. We’ll hear from Nurse Ken Wolski about what is going on in New Jersey but first we are still here at the Drug Policy Alliance gathering in St. Louis it has been quite an event. Last night we had the awards presentation with a lot of good folks as well as journalists and so forth got their awards and for her work in preparing information to better protect our children from the potential harms of the drug war, we have Marsha Rosenbaum with us to talk about her Safety First endeavor and the progress being made in that regard. How are you doing, Marsha?

MARSHA ROSENBAUM: I am fine, Dean. How are you?

DEAN BECKER: I'm really good, Marsha. It has got to be heartening to know that this kind of progress is taking place right?

MARSHA ROSENBAUM: It is. It feels a little bit like coming full circle from 25 years ago just starting to think about how to deal with teenagers and drugs and really working on parent education about drugs and offering the harm reduction approach that is where the term Safety First got started. I have been writing about it and reaching out to parents - lots of parents and all of the country really mostly in California and there are two questions that have come up in workshops and online and two main questions that parents have asked one of them is advise me on how to talk to my kids about drugs and should I tell them about my own past drug use that question comes up all the time. The other question was what you have for the kids? The parent education is fine but what about the kids, what about them and what are they getting? It took about 20 years but we finally at DPA have created a curriculum that is for teenagers. It was developed from its partnership between those of us at DPA who knew about drugs themselves and the substance of what the curriculum would be but we needed to partner with educators, administrators, teachers who actually knew how to create a curriculum. We did not. So that is what we did. We have partnered with educators and just released last month a curriculum that you that you can get online for free and it’s for ninth and tenth graders. It has 15 lessons and it's called Safety First Real Drug Education for Teens. So the combination of that and the booklet that I've been writing which is now in the seventh edition. The 2019 version came out last spring. Between that kind of parent education and the curriculum for kids, it feels like completion to me.

DEAN BECKER: Like all the good folks here at DPA, I congratulate you. I am happy for you, for drug policy alliance, and for our kids because for too many years - decades in fact we've had been cracking the egg in the frying pan and this is your brain on drugs, etc. and kids know better and to just try to fool them that has not worked out very well has it?

MARSHA ROSENBAUM: No. Abstinence only drug education has attempted to get the kids just not to use substances but a significant proportion of them do anyway and so as I always have said a wanted it for my kids. I think it's Plan A – abstinence but what do you do when you have teenagers not necessarily getting in trouble with drugs but using them, experimenting. That word is so weird, it sounds like a science project but they do. So what have you got for them? How do they know how to be safe if they are going to persist in using? So the Safety First approach was our Plan B for parents.
DEAN BECKER: I figure that the pamphlets that you have got are in the Seventh Edition now. Over the years it has been distributed and absorbed perhaps by some of these educators and now with this new curriculum they have some knowledge. Some would say that this might work out for the best, right?

MARSHA ROSENBAUM: Yeah. My booklet has been distributed to at least a half million people over the years and so I think that it by itself has made an impact and still will. But it was written in a different way, it was written by a parent (me) and four other parents. Now what we did was I wanted to get parent education out into the world and so setting aside the curriculum itself starting 18 years ago we began to partner with the million member California State PTA, which is the second largest parent organization in the world, because the largest parent organization is the National PTA, which includes California which of the PTAs in the country, it's the largest with a million members. So that was the goal was to partner with them so that they could let their membership know of this resource, which they did. I go to their convention every year and I have a plenary or a workshop or something there. To be clear though getting this information across is not that easy because most of America still of a certain age still embraces the DARE mentality, the abstinence only. They still embrace Just Say No. They have parades, they have Red Ribbon Week, all of that. As I said last night I feel like I've been tap dancing for 18 years. It feels like auditions and I am just constantly having to reassure worried parents that our program is not promoting drug us; it to promoting safety.

DEAN BECKER: Safety First.

MARSHA ROSENBAUM: Yes, Safety First. That's pretty much where we are now and I'm hoping that the booklet that is already out in the world will help. I am feeling confident about that although I'd love your listeners to go online to www.drugpolicy.org under Resources and order copies of that booklet. We have thousands of them there and they are available for free. All you have to do is say you’d like some. They will send them off to you.
DEAN BECKER: Hand them out to your PTA or to your neighborhood.

MARSHA ROSENBAUM: Absolutely. If you are part of a PTA or you know people with teenagers, or you know people worried about teenagers the booklet is for them. It's very short and it has all kinds of references. It's backed up by research and science so that would be my goal is to get it out there and if you have listeners who are teachers or administrators they can also go online and look at the curriculum. It is offered online, we just released it a month ago you can download it for free, so that's another resource that we have. So we have parent education and then we have education for high schools. www.drugpolicy.org/resources.

Dean Becker: It’s time to play Name That Drug By its Side Effects. Nausea, heartburn, development of bleeding ulcer, vomiting, swelling of the brain, extensive liver damage, difficulty with mental functioning, Reye’s syndrome, and death. Times Up! The answer: Aspirin. Another FDA approved product.

DEAN BECKER: You know the more things change the more they stay the same. There was a recent article in the Trentonian newspaper up there in New Jersey talking about the supposed problems of marijuana the portended horrors that may befall us if people were to use it but my good friend who is a nurse, Mr. Ken Wolski read that and was able to put forward a letter to the editor that thoroughly debunked what was put forward and with that I want to welcome my friend, Mr. Ken Wolski. Hello, Ken.

KEN WOLSKI: Hi, Dean. Thanks so much for having me again on your show. It is always a pleasure to speak with you.

DEAN BECKER: Same here, Ken. Now if you will tell the folks a little bit about the letter that prompted your response, please.

KEN WOLSKI: Sure. There is a prohibitionist who produces an amazing amount of misinformation about marijuana from time to time in a local newspaper called The Trentonian here in Trenton, New Jersey and each time he does it I do respond to these letters, Dean. I think it is very important not to let the prohibitionists have the last word or to let them say untruths that remain unchallenged so the important thing is to challenge it and typically a letter to the editor is about 250 – 300 words but the article I was responding to was about 700 – 800 words so the Trentonian allowed me to send a letter that was almost 600 words and I was very pleased that they did that. They also told me after I published it that that they were looking for more information about marijuana from my perspective. So I was very pleased to not only have this letter published but also to establish an ongoing relationship with this local newspaper. Dave Neese’s original column talked about medical marijuana as snake oil. So here is a man who doesn’t even believe the medical benefits of marijuana and he calls it a fake. So I did respond to it but I wasn’t able to respond to everything he said because so many of the prohibitionists throw one thing after another and hope that something sticks and has people support the continued prohibition of marijuana but I did attack the notion that marijuana caused mental illness and that it led to an increase in violence here in America. These are outrageous statements that needed to be addressed and I think that I did address them in the letter.

DEAN BECKER: You were able to thoroughly refute what has been the standard for nearly a hundred years now that marijuana leads to an static and criminality and death and as if that hasn't been broken by just millions of users daily use are ready to go it can now insanity, criminality, and death as if that hasn’t been proven by millions of users daily use already but go ahead, Ken.

KEN WOLSKI: Right. 110,000,000 Americans have used marijuana so to try to convince them that marijuana use leads to insanity and violence that is a tough bar to reach. The original prohibition in 1937 was a result of propaganda by the federal government and especially by Harry Ainslinger and people associated with him that said that marijuana was associated with insanity, criminality, and death and they did it in the exact same way that this resurgence of prohibitionists are doing it by taking anecdotal information about individuals who may have used marijuana and did some terrible crime and trying to make that association evidence of causality the evidence that the marijuana caused the violence, caused the mental illness and really nothing could be further from the truth. Even in 1937 we knew that marijuana did not cause insanity. It has really been one of the most studied issues of all about marijuana. The India Hemp Drug Commission in the late 1800s had a very thorough examination of the issue of marijuana and how it related to both physical and mental diseases and also how it related to activities. The findings of the India Hemp Drug Commission was that marijuana was not a cause for mental or physical disease and it there was no difference in people’s achievements or intelligence of those who used marijuana versus those who did not use marijuana and the only real difference between the people who used marijuana and the people who did not use marijuana was the use of marijuana. That was the final analysis of the India Hemp Drug Commission, and that was a very good scientific review for the day. Of course marijuana at the time was a recognized medicine here in the United States. It was used from about 1840 to 1940. It was in the U.S. Pharmacopeia as a medicine for about a hundred different conditions and people cite Mr. Berenson’s book, The Truth about Marijuana, and that it somehow causes mental illness and violence but I cited the letter that was written in response to Mr. Berenson’s book by over a hundred scholars and clinicians that signed this letter that refute the inaccurate claims in Berenson’s book and the letter said, “Berenson irresponsibly and dangerously claims a causal link between marijuana use and increases in rates of psychosis and schizophrenia”. So I did my own research on this, Dean, and I said that you don’t have to rely on studies just use your common sense and you can see that this is not true because if you look at the worldwide rate of schizophrenia it is remarkably stable at about two percent. About two percent of the population in the entire world is schizophrenic regardless of what country they live in and regardless of how much marijuana is used in that country. So a country like Canada that has a very high rate of marijuana use has the same rate of schizophrenia as a country like Japan that has a very, very low rate of marijuana use. Even here in the 1960s in America there was an explosion of marijuana use and the mental health rate of psychosis and schizophrenia stayed stable. To try to manipulate the statistics to show now that marijuana use is causing mental illness is just completely wrong.

DEAN BECKER: Well I got that right about Berenson but I do want to bring forward a sentence you put within your letter to the editor. It goes like this, “even the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) acknowledged in the federal register back in July of 2011 that “extensive research and data do not suggest a causative link between marijuana use and the development of psychosis”. If the DEA has got it wrong or I should say if the DEA has it right where the heck does this author/opinion writer get off proclaiming what he thinks he knows?

KEN WOLSKI: Exactly. When the DEA published that in relation to turning down the petition to reschedule marijuana. So obviously marijuana has been a Schedule 1 drug since 1970 when the Marijuana Tax Act was declared unconstitutional Congress rushed through this Controlled Substances Act in 1970, and they made marijuana a Schedule 1 drug. That has been very controversial since then. A Schedule 1 drug has no accepted medical uses in the United States and it is unsafe for use even under medical supervision and it has a high potential for abuse. I was a sophomore in college when that happened and I remember the outrage in the American community when marijuana was put in the same schedule with heroin. We knew that that was not true. We knew that even back in 1970 that there were valid scientific uses and medical uses for marijuana. In the oncology wards in hospitals the nurses would allow patients to use marijuana back in the 60s right in the hospital they would allow them to smoke it because they could see how much it helped these oncology patients who were undergoing chemotherapy. Not to mention the entire thousand year history or so of marijuana as a medicine but the DEA has insisted since 1970 that marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug and they do the same kind of cherry picked research. They look at the only research associated with harms but they did acknowledge in the federal register in 2011 that marijuana does not cause psychosis and they also mention that marijuana was not a gateway drug. We really need to review this carefully and even though they acknowledge it doesn’t cause psychosis and that it’s not a gateway drug, they still said it is a Schedule 1 drug because enough tests haven’t been done to prove otherwise but the DEA are the very ones who are stopping the tests from being done that would prove otherwise. It really is kind of an Alice and Wonderland world that we live in when we allow federal police to guard and monitor our scientific and medical borders, Dean. We really need to resolve this as a nation to stop this from happening and to allow and never let it happen again. To let science and medicine research proceed unfettered by federal handcuffs on which tests can be done.

DEAN BECKER: You know it. Well friends we have been speaking with Nurse Ken Wolski, my friend up there in New Jersey. He is the Executive Director of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana. Is there a website or another link you might want to share with the listeners?

KEN WOLSKI: Sure, Dean. We are the Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey and our website is: www.cmmj.org, we are also active on Facebook at The Friends of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey.

DEAN BECKER: Its a few months away but I wanted to alert you to an event that sadly I haven’t been able to attend the last couple of years but I think it's very important. It’s a means for people to educate their elected officials. It’s a means for up many of our youngsters going to college to band together to work toward a very positive development and by that I'm talking about an organization called Safe Access Now we have with us their interim director, Debbie Churgain. Hello, Debbie.

DEBBIE CHURGAIN: Hello.

DEAN BECKER: Thank you for being with us. For those who don’t know, tell them what Safe Access Now is all about. I think it is an important organization.

DEBBIE CHURGAIN: Sure. Americans for Safe Access has been around since 2002, and we have been working to change legislation across the country but we also like to educate patients, medical professionals, legislators, and the community about cannabis as an option for therapeutic use and research and we really want to help ensure safe and legal access to cannabis across the country.

DEAN BECKER: Was I correct in stating that it is in many cases college chapters, youngsters who are educated and motivated that are moving this forward?

DEBBIE CHURGAIN: We don’t have college chapters but we do have chapters all around the country in different states and because we are a national organization we are located in Washington, D.C. so that we can go to Capitol Hill almost every week and talk face to face with legislators but because we care so much about these state issues we have chapters all across the country and we really rely on those chapters to get the state legislation pushed forward.

DEAN BECKER: Debbie, as I indicated in the beginning there is a conference that is coming up in about three months as we speak, but I like to buy my tickets early and make sure I get the discount and get myself set up to be there on time. Tell us about that forthcoming conference, please.

DEBBIE CHURGAIN: Yes, I appreciate it. This is actually our Eighth Annual National Medical Cannabis Unity Conference. We have been having this for eight years. This year our theme is called Campaigning for Cannabis – Making Policies Work for Patients. Because 2020 is an election year, we are really going to be focusing on the importance of voting and making our voices heard as patients for our needs for making cannabis legal but also making it accessible for patients because there are now 37 states with cannabis programs it doesn’t mean that patients are still getting that access so our conference is different from other conferences in that it is actually for patients and about patients. We actually have a scholarship program thanks to our sponsors – and we are still looking for sponsors. We usually have about 100 scholarship recipients that we bring in from all across the country and every single participant of our conference we schedule a face to face meeting with their legislator and usually people go in groups depending on your state. We have one day where we lobby on Capitol Hill together and then we have all of these meeting with patients and their legislators and not just patients. They can be researchers, doctors, lawyers, or just concerned citizens. Then we have one day of educational panels and all of the panels are about patient issues so we know this is the only time that patients can usually go to conferences and learn about what is going on around the country and internationally regarding patient access to medical cannabis. The conference is March 25 – 28, 2020 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C., and we are also going to have two days of workshops as well. We have a lot going on this year for the conference.
DEAN BECKER: Yes you do, Debbie. If you would please share your website where folks can tune in and get hooked up to attend.

DEBBIE CHURGAIN: Thanks. Yes it is: www.asaunity.org, you can also find a link to the conference on our website which is: www.safeaccessnow.org. Our organizational website has a ton of free information for patients which includes reports, educational information, and state legal information all free for patients. We encourage people to use it and share it with others. You can also get a link to the conference that way as well.

DEAN BECKER: And the hope is that I will be attending that conference in D.C. coming up in March and reporting on it to you good folks listening here on the Drug Truth Network. I want to thank you for the 18+ years of your listenership. I want to wish you a safe and happy holiday season.
Again, I remind you that because of prohibition you do not know what is in that bag of black market commodities. Please be careful.

Drug Truth Network transcripts are stored at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy More than 7000 radio programs are at www.drugtruth.net.

12/04/19 Howard Josepher

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Howard Josepher
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Howard Josepher drug reform pioneer, Rafael Torruella Puerto Rico Harm Reductionist, tribute to passing of George McMahon Federal Marijuana patient + DTN editorial

Audio file

TRANSCRIPT

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

DECEMBER 4, 2019

DEAN BECKER: Hi, folks. This is Dean Becker the Reverend Most High, and you are listening to Cultural Baggage on Pacifica Radio and the Drug Truth Network. We’ve got some more segments to share with you from our trip to St. Louis and the big Drug Policy Alliance Reform ’19 Conference. We start with Mr. Howard Josepher.

HOWARD JOSEPHER: The work I have done for many years is to help inner city substance users including people coming out of prison, living with or at risk for HIV, and hardcore drug misusers.

DEAN BECKER: We area speaking with Mr. Howard Josepher who is a lifetime resident of New York City and has been involved up there for decades in helping to save lives, futures, and possibilities. Is that a good summation?

HOWARD JOSEPHER: Yes it is a good summation.

DEAN BECKER: Tell us a bit about some of the organizations and the processes that made that progress possible.

HOWARD JOSEPHER: I am a person that has a long memory and long experience in the substance misuse and drug treatment field. I overcame my own addiction to heroin 50 years ago by being forced/coerced in to going in to a newly formed program called Phoenix House, to do something about my drug habit. That turned out to be a great opportunity and it did turn my life around, I was about 30. Since then I have gone back to school to become a clinical social worker in New York State where I worked as a consultant in many drug programs and started my own private practice which I have been doing now for over 40 years. I took on a piece of consulting work in 1988 at the height of the AIDS epidemic when we were first becoming aware of what was happening in the drug injecting community. Until that point there was absolutely no attempt to engage them other than a few clandestine needle exchange programs. There was a research study that a group of researchers in New York obtained from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to create an experimental model and deliver it to the intended target which was people who were coming out of prison and injecting drugs; the vulnerable population. They wanted us to create this model, put however many people we could on the model within the three-year timeframe that the grant covered and see what happened with our ability to modify or change their behaviors. I put together the original curriculum and taught that curriculum which was started in a church basement. Seven guys just out of prison and we created a brief intervention. What I hoped for from people understanding from my own treatment process was that if there was any ability to get a commitment from a person to do something you have a chance at a good outcome.

DEAN BECKER: Good follow through.

HOWARD JOSEPHER: Yes. Exactly. I wanted to make it a brief program and what we created was something that looked like a three-credit college course. It met three times a week for eight weeks and they graduated, and they were allowed three cuts. It was a different form of engagement. We were not exactly treating as much as we were educating them in self-management and skills to handle the many, many challenges they had in their lives including stress reduction, meditation, and mindfulness. This was in 1988. Five guys graduated from that first group and we did another group with about 12 people who came and nine graduated.

DEAN BECKER: Good numbers.

HOWARD JOSEPHER: Right. The numbers went up exponentially and by the time the study needed to close down so the reports could be written on the outcome they told me and others who were with me at that time to shut it down.

DEAN BECKER: For what reason?

HOWARD JOSEPHER: The funding was given for a specific purpose which was to create an experimental model and then write a report. This is all that was funded even though the model was successful. There was great word of mouth out there and people kept coming so we decided to keep it going which we did.

DEAN BECKER: Seek more funding but keep it going?

HOWARD JOSEPHER: Right. At that point which was 1990, we incorporated in the State of New York as a nonprofit helping the population. We were somewhere in the middle between the traditional treatment people who looked at us as enablers and harm reduction people who looked at us more like treatment because they understood harm reduction as syringe exchange and treating people better but we were a program. We had something to deliver.

DEAN BECKER: Let me ask you a question, we have the modern concern now and needle exchange is becoming accepted in most states it is being implemented rather successfully but we now have these safe consumption facilities in Seattle, San Francisco, Ithaca, New York, and other cities are wanting to at least attempt that approach in order to save lives. Personally I think this is a wonderful thing and I hope it is successful in these cities and that others can then copy that progress.

HOWARD JOSEPHER: That is exactly my hope because I see that we came across an effective way to engage people and transmit very useful information with a classroom setting. It is a whole different way to engage drug users. I see it as another form of treatment but it is harm reduction practices and principals as well as what it takes to create an experience that could be of benefit and make a big impact on their lives. From that program, my agency grew from traditional drug treatment, Suboxone treatment, which is a licensed component of our operation in New York. We are also licensed by New York State to provide training for people to become certified alcohol and substance abuse counselors (CASACs) as well as peer support systems. We are providing a lot and it is an opportunity for a better life. It is our job to provide the opportunity – our job meaning society. It is their job to take advantage of the opportunity and if they don’t they are going to get kicked in the head until maybe they wake up.

DEAN BECKER: The experience and knowledge I have gained over the years tells me that a lot of these addictive behaviors began at an early age and by the time people get in to the mid to late 20s, they’ve got a wife, kids, obligations and many begin to walk away. This is not true of everybody but it holds true that if we can get folks through those years they stand a better chance of living a longer life. Your thought on that?

HOWARD JOSEPHER: I bet if they did a study they would find a lot of people made their turnaround in their early 30s. For me it was in the 29th year that I went in to treatment and completed it when I was 30 I think. I wasn’t really young when I started using drugs. I was a college graduate the first time I tried it.

What we also have to do is really understand how good an opiate can feel.

DEAN BECKER: I have heard it is something like being held by Jesus or something like that.

HOWARD JOSEPHER: Right. It is uplifting. When I was younger I was so insecure and going in to a club or something like that was awkward for me but if I was high I did not feel in the least insecure.

DEAN BECKER: Howard, we are here at the Drug Policy Alliance Reform ’19 Conference and you are one of the pioneers who took this on and showed us some examples and got us started in the right direction. What is your thought on these young kids who are mostly marijuana-centric and don’t have a lot of toward harder drugs or the complications that go along with it but there is a bigger drug war to be fought, am I right?

HOWARD JOSEPHER: Sure. It is interesting what you are saying because you do see at this conference a representation of what I would consider young kids with the saying ‘where there is weed, there’s need’. It is all about need though, isn’t it? For some marijuana is enough, it is all they need. They don’t need to go in to other stuff but that is probably all related to the pain the individual feels. The more the pain the more the need to self-medicate and the more at risk they become.

DEAN BECKER: I have heard that a lot of the people that are in to the opiates have had some abuse in their life – something that has driven them in that direction. You would know this better than anybody.

HOWARD JOSEPHER: A lot of people have brought attention to the idea of trauma and what that causes. Freud certainly did that. It is that something went wrong in their youth and it creates something. The way that I experienced it was that something was missing. Use of the words avoid, emptiness is the feeling of depression and nothing does it like an opiate for most people.

DEAN BECKER: I guess I could say that I was lucky in the sense that I tried heroin with some friends a few times and it just wasn’t for me. I was a speed freak for years but heroin just had no appeal to me. I guess to each his own, right?

HOWARD JOSEPHER: Yeah. I don’t get speed. I don’t get it, man. I do get the madness though.

DEAN BECKER: Well Howard, we are gonna wrap it up but I want to thank you for taking time to speak with us here and I want to thank you for blazing some trails, showing us there is a better way, and saving lots of lives along the way.

HOWARD JOSEPHER: Moving forward with the lives we would like to be able to save now the medications are very helpful but we also need to find a way to ignite hope in people and to inspire them to be more at peace and hold more esteem for oneself in order to become a real human being.

DEAN BECKER: Is there a website you want to recommend?

HOWARD JOSEPHER: Certainly. The organization that I have been with for many years is Exponents and that website is: www.exponents.org.

It’s time to play Name That Drug By its Side Effects. Hives, fainting, pain, swelling, tiredness, headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, itching, bruising, stomach ache, shortness of breath, chest pain, swollen glands, weakness, tiredness, seizure, blood clots, and death. Times Up! The answer: from Merck and Co., Gardasil which may help prevent cervical cancer in your teenage daughter.

MALE VOICE: My name is Rafael Torruella, and the work that I do is a broad and interesting question. I guess the best way to say it is that we are a harm reduction organization. That means that harm reduction is not just a way to do services that reduce HIV and Hepatitis C, it is more of a way to conceptualize the problem. So we do service from a harm reduction perspective; we do policy from a harm reduction perspective; we do advocacy from a harm reduction perspective. We also do technical networking from a harm reduction perspective in order to have other organizations understand what harm reduction is and from there they can provide services such as overdose prevention, syringe, exchange, and thinking about next steps to make service delivery better as well as how to push government to think more openly and more humane toward people while having less of a stigma. So the thinking that we need to just catch people and then prison will give them better services is just not true. Putting a drug user in prison is not the right approach. So we approach the things that we do from a harm reduction angle.
DEAN BECKER: I want to underscore what you are saying in that there is a diverse set of processes and applications that you try to do to make that harm reduction work. I would like to submit that harm reduction is growing; it seems to be finding new avenues of approach or new means to accomplish those goals, am I right?
RAFAEL TORRUELLA: Yes and at the same time it is being used in wrong ways and some call harm reduction something that is not actually harm reduction. So there is more growth and diversity and there are also people saying that they do harm reduction but they don’t. Some say that they work in Public Health and that this is a public health measure and the first part of it is to roll out the cops and criminalize people which is not public health.
DEAN BECKER: No.
RAFAEL TORRUELLA: That is actually criminalization which is the wrong way to go; we have done it and it doesn’t work. Harm reductionists are saying the same thing and now it is now in vogue to be harm reductionists in a way because there is this whole opiate overdose crisis. We should come back and talk a bit more smartly about it because it is not just an opiate overdose crisis because it is contained to the United States and Canada mostly so it is more of a policy thing. If it were a global thing, it would be everywhere but it is not. It is a policy problem, a lack of access problem, a criminalization problem, a stigmatization problem of a drug user and that is the wrong approach and something that has created the symptom or the outcome of an opiate overdose crisis.
DEAN BECKER: Sure.
RAFAEL TORRUELLA: Harm reduction can be used in incorrect ways; for example, just doing overdose prevention with cops when cops and drug users don’t get along so why throw the money at cops to do overdose prevention when people who are drug users don’t call cops when there is an overdose. I am not saying that cops shouldn’t do it but a first line should be redefining that first responder as a drug user and that is where the main response is because we’re all hiding in order to use drugs because we are being persecuted and criminalized. Who can help me if I am overdosing? My buddy, my friend, my family member that knows that I use – but not the cops. Let’s start with what we know works.
A wrong way to do harm reduction would be if you have ten dollars for opiate overdose prevention and you gave that ten dollars to the cops and not to a community based organizations and harm reduction organizations that are already in contact with active drug users because mostly active drug users will die of using. Giving that money to the cops may look like harm reduction from far away but when you get down to it is not policy based on evidence and focused where the need is and what harm reduction should be.
DEAN BECKER: Okay folks, we have been speaking with Rafael Torruella and we have kind of overlooked the elephant in the room. Where are you doing your work, Sir?
RAFAEL TORRUELLA: I am doing my work in Puerto Rico. I was born and raised in Puerto Rico but received my education in the United States where I did overdose prevention, harm reduction, and syringe exchange and now I have this beautiful chance of being a part of an awesome team in Puerto Rico, so I have gone back to my home and I work from there at a harm reduction organization providing services including syringe exchange and with the behavioral side as well as a biopsychosocial harm reduction outreach model for people who use drugs including sex workers and homeless individuals, advocacy and policy change, and technical (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on the island and in the Caribbean and in Latin America when I get a chance.
DEAN BECKER: I mentioned earlier that perspectives are changing here. Are perspectives changing there on your island with regard to the cops and the top dogs?
RAFAEL TORRUELLA: Sadly not as much as we need in order to create sustained change. There is this new consciousness that is out there but what do you do with consciousness once it is there? You have to give it shape, form, teeth, background, and policy as we as ideas. It is not just this consciousness that we should be better to drug users and that the war on drugs doesn’t work. What are we going to do with the knowledge that we have? We specifically have policy that includes basic stuff. Don’t put drug users in prison or jail. The criminal justice system is not the intervention these people need. Additionally, everybody deserves access to healthcare including drug users.
DEAN BECKER: Appropriate medicine when required.
RAFAEL TORRUELLA: Yes. Also this should be approached from a civil and human rights angle. The black, brown, and poor communities need to stop being criminalized. The war on drugs has created a massive human and civil rights problem mainly in the United States. We also need to regulate the markets and use the best of science to lead the way and we need to create a plan. Most of the United States doesn’t have a plan.
We have strategies, techniques, and things we know we want to do in place of the failed drug war. Some people are listening. After Hurricane Maria some people have been listening, but the top dogs are still too invested and I think there is enough corruption with the war on drugs that lubricates the system that doesn’t work.
DEAN BECKER: One last thought, you mentioned the hurricane. Are funds less available because of that?
RAFAEL TORRUELLA: The hurricane only took the lid off the mess that the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States has. A lot of people are asking if they need a passport to go to Puerto Rico and I explain that they don’t because it is a Colony of the United States, and yet we can’t vote for a President. Trump is our President but we can’t vote for him because we don’t have the right to vote. You gave us this messy President to begin with so –
DEAN BECKER: Not me! Well, Rafael, I want to thank you for your insight and your effort because we all do what we can and I thank you. Is there a website you might want to share with the listeners?

RAFAEL TORRUELLA: Our websites are: www.intercambiospr.org, and www.descriminalizacion.org, and thank you for your work and all that you do.
DEAN BECKER: Thank you, Sir.
DRUG TRUTH NETWORK EDITORIAL:
Conscientious objectors to drug war I submit my objection to the injustice of our nation’s drug policy, especially the incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders. I state that my belief and actions henceforth in regards to the control of supposedly controlled substances will align with common sense, modern science, truth, and reality itself via modern science and reporting. It is now easy to discern that the war on drugs is a failure of immense proportion and a century of horrible lies with misfiring propaganda. The majority of the harms ascribed to drug war are actually caused and exacerbated by the mechanism of the drug war itself. In recognizing the truth of this matter, I seek to be recognized as embracing rationality and common sense. I therefore state that my conscience compels me to commit to ending the war on drugs. As a conscientious objector to drug war I am logically compelled to reach out to others, to humanity to join in this conscientious objection to this irrational war on plants and plant products via an embrace of one or more of the following reasons to end this eternal assault on human dignity and life.
The following comes to us courtesy of celeb stoner and medical marijuana pioneer, George McMahon who passed away in Algona, Iowa on November 30. He was 69 years old. McMahon was one of a handful of federal patients who received 300 joints a month from the government’s secret Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program. He had been receiving that marijuana since 1990. He was hospitalized in 1988 when he was 38 years old and he was offered a joint by an orderly there at the hospital where he “noticed that when I did smoke marijuana I didn’t get sick”. But McMahon said the government weed was “not very good, and not very potent”. He stopped receiving the federal stash in 2013 when his doctor retired. McMahon who ran for Vice President as a grassroots party candidate in 1996 and 2012. He wrote a book in 2003 called Prescription Pot: A Leading Advocates Heroic Battle to Legalize Medical Marijuana. He is survived by his wife Margaret and their three children.
I was able to dig out a 2002 interview I did with George. It is very rough, but he makes a very valid point. Please listen.
GEORGE MCMAHON: I know that there are things out there that are much more effective for me. I can smoke much less. I would like to do that. I am one of the people that you’ll meet that would only want to smoke less. I smoke a lot every day, seven days a week. I just don’t like to do it as it is just too much. If I could do it less I would be happy.
DEAN BECKER: In this day and age when even Willie Nelson is cutting back, if not quitting his smoking of marijuana George makes a strong point that we need to make this stuff stronger and purer and easier to use. We need to stop making people smoke bullshift.
Again, I remind you that because of prohibition, you don’t know what’s in that bag. Please be careful!

Cultural Baggage is a production of the Pacifica Radio Network, archives are currently stored at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, and we are all still tap dancing on the edge of an abyss.

11/13/19 Ethan Nadelmann

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Ethan Nadelmann
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

REFORM conference in St. Louis with Ethan Nadelmann Drug Policy Alliance founder, Rev. Edwin Sanders of Metropolitan Church in Nashville & Chad Sabora of St. Louis harm reduction group Monetwork.org

Audio file

TRANSCRIPT

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

NOVEMBER 13, 2019

DEAN BECKER: Hi, folks. This is the Cultural Baggage program on Pacifica Radio and the Drug Truth Network. I am your host, Dean Becker, the Reverend Most High.

The following was recorded a few days ago in St. Louis at the Drug Policy Alliance Conference (DPA).

EDWIN SANDERS: I am Edwin Sanders, I am a Senior Servant at Metropolitan Interdenominational Church in Nashville, TN., we are a congregation that is committed to radical inclusion but also we are a congregation that is very much committed to addressing social justice issues in a way that allows us to have to respond to what is happening as it relates to issues of drug policy, and health with regard to infectious disease, HIV, mass incarceration, reproductive rights, and we could go down the list in terms of economic opportunities and developments. One of the things that I always insist upon people appreciating is this is not a single-issue dynamic. There is a way in which what we do in terms of drug policy reform is very much connected to all of the other ways in which the injustices are being perpetrated upon communities that are most disproportionately impacted. One of the things that we are trying to do is to make sure that the divisive and fragmented forces that are very often at work as a primary agenda to keep the efforts of the collective body of people that bring the compassion, concern, and dedication. There is a way in which all of those things come from a place within that allow us to be able to transcend the ways in which we often have things defined to us as being impossible or somehow out of reach in the realm of reasonable. It is only the people who move beyond the ways in which logic and reason have been misused thinking that does not lend itself to an openness that takes one beyond the ordinary.

DEAN BECKER: Let me interject a thought here. What you began is a list, if you will, of problems – situations that we are having to deal with in our society, many of which do spin off from this “belief” in the drug war that was developed 100 years ago that has unfolded itself over the years and being more draconian, more time behind bars, etc., but that is beginning to unwind I think. More and more areas of concern that you are addressing are being exposed as less than perfect. They are being shown to be in need of change and it is giving a lot of people like the good folks here at DPA the courage, motivation, and inspiration to work harder to expose and end these fallacies. Can I get your thought there, Sir?

EDWIN SANDERS: I think one of the things we have come to realize in our societal reality is that whenever you hear the word war, you need to just look and begin to try to see and understand where the money is because we historically have had a war economy. Whenever you hear the language of war people talk about a war on poverty but we know that the war on poverty was no more than a way in which dollars were put in to the economy in a fashion that allowed it to pass through the hands of people who desperately needed resources, but have no way to develop and use those resources other than to put them back in to the same system that had been a part of what created a need for the change. This is true whenever you see the word war. We now know that the war on drugs translated in to mass incarceration, it translated in to the ways in which there was the undermining of the opportunity for economic development and growth within a sector of our community and the people within that community who have always been disenfranchised, disinherited and left outside of the equation of inclusion. One of the things you have to do is appreciate the fact that in too many instances we have not been able to deal with the obstacles that are before us in terms of change because we have gotten sucked in to the notion of believing that the ways in which the measures of success are driven by the factors that are no more than a part of what is an extension of that economic reality, which ultimately has never been in the interest of those who are marginalized and those who are on the periphery and have been systematically left out of the circle of inclusion in our society. You see that whether it comes under the name of immigrant, under the name of lack of education, under the names of all kinds of labels, but the fact is it is the way in which there has not been a welcome for those persons who have been outside of that circle. There has never been a welcome mat there. It began with the various ways in which people have come to this place that we call America, and also the ways we dealt with indigenous people that were here when the first Europeans arrived here. There has always been a dynamic at work that has systematically undermined the viability of long-term opportunity for people who are not included in which the idea of what was to be. You hear people talk about America being America again. America being America again means looking at the ways in which the issues of segregation, disenfranchisement in terms of citizenship. There have been people over and over again who were victims of a mentality that was driven by an idea of development, the things you get taught and the misinformation like the language of manifest destiny was part of the development of this country. All of that is a part of what we are still dealing with to this day. This is the aftermath, this is the remnant of that mentality but the remnant is now becoming the building block of another dimension of the same kind of perpetual exploitation and oppression of people.

DEAN BECKER: Reverend Edwin Sanders, thank you Sir. That was Reverend Edwin Sanders with the Metropolitan Interdenominational Church in Nashville, TN.

We are in St. Louis at the Drug Policy Alliance gathering – major event, lots of wonderful things going on. There are a whole lot of folks with important information to share and who did I run in to? The previous Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, Mr. Ethan Nadelmann. How are you doing, Ethan?

ETHAN NADELMANN: I am doing great! I am enjoying my retirement, Dean.

DEAN BECKER: We know you are never really retired, but I know you are slowing down. We will just go along with that. Now Ethan, it seems prohibition is always creating new problems, it is always finding a way to make things worse. There is a new situation that is happening to us now, these vape pens. They are killing some people; injuring a lot of folks and there is a lot of concern as to why and or how we can do anything about it. You have been looking in to that a lot, have you not?

ETHAN NADELMANN: Well I tell you, Dean, what really got me – I have been following this issue around e-cigarettes and tobacco/nicotine harm reduction for a long time. Sometimes I organize the sessions on this at the DPA biennials in the past because nobody in the organization was doing it so even though I was the ED, I would do that. It always seemed to me there was a lot in common between the tobacco harm reduction stuff and the other harm reduction work we are doing. It is all about meeting people where they are at; it is taking people who are engaged in a risky or dangerous behavior who are unable or unwilling to stop doing what they are doing, and to give them some alternatives that reduce the risk to their health and to their wellbeing. This all seemed fine and good, but then what has happened is that the opposition to e-cigarettes and to tobacco harm reduction is flabbergasting to me. It seems at this point we are in a new drug scare and moral panic around the issue. There was the issue with JUUL becoming immensely popular among young people and that is a real issue – teenager’s vaping.

DEAN BECKER: They are colorful, have flavors and galore, right?

ETHAN NADELMANN: Flavors, and even more than the flavors it is this handy little device. It is discreet and it became cool and hip. JUUL unfortunately did some marketing that was teen friendly early on but I think even if they hadn’t done that marketing this thing probably would have taken off before a whole set of reasons. The amazing thing about JUUL, and a lot of these other e-cigarette devices and vaping devices is that they are the most effective way for cigarette smokers to quit. Cigarette smokers who have tried doing things like patches, gums, and pharmaceuticals – the evidence is now showing that basically e-cigarettes can be twice as effective as these other things. The second thing is that by in large, e-cigarettes (although we don’t have the 40-50 year longitude studies but there are a lot of toxicology reports and studies – Publish Health England, which is the British equivalent of our Centers for Disease Control (CDC) came out two years ago saying that e-cigarettes are probably 95% safer than is smoking cigarettes. Even our own National Academy of Science Engineering Medicine came out and said they didn’t know if it was 95%, but clearly a lot safer in terms of reducing exposure to all of the things in cigarettes that kill you. Even the CDC acknowledge this! Put it this way, if one could snap one’s fingers and tomorrow all 35 million people in America who smoke cigarettes were to entirely switch to vaping and keep vaping for the rest of their lives it would be one of the greatest advances in national or global public health history. The fact of the matter is that number of Americans who believe that vaping is as or more dangerous than smoking cigarettes has gone from a third of the country to 60-70% now, so there is massive misunderstanding, massive miseducation all sorts of people who might benefit from switching from smoking to vaping aren’t doing it or their families are discouraging them because they think it is actually as bad or worse. The majority of Americans think that nicotine is why cigarettes cause cancer. Nicotine doesn’t cause cancer, it is what hooks you. It is the burnt particle matter, the tars and all of the other crap in combustible cigarettes that kills you. So I am concerned with this massive misinformation campaign and then along comes the scare with these lung injuries and deaths. We are in mid-November right now and there has been 1500-2000 hospitalizations and three dozen deaths. The evidence is suggesting that at least 85% of these cases involve people getting sick from using THC cartridges that were obtained either illegally or from friends, which are being produced by gangsters who should be behind bars.

DEAN BECKER: Kids in their garage.

ETHAN NADELMANN: Kids in their garage or maybe not kids, but other people who are cutting it either carelessly or intentionally with things like Vitamin E oil, which is fine to eat but not good to mix and then vaporize or there may be other issues. So we know that the major part of this problem and maybe the vast majority of this problem involves illicit THC cartridges. What is the government doing right now? They are going out there and saying this is the reason we need to ban flavored e-cigarettes, which has nothing to do more or less with this whole thing. This is the reason that Massachusetts Governor Baker is saying that they are going to ban the THC vapes – the ones that have been sold in stores for years with no problem. The government is instituting bans, i.e. prohibitions on legal products which will thereby push people more to the black market which is where the problem was to begin with, right? For me I feel like it is Drug War 2.0, so I have a new hashtag on Twitter, #TheNewDrugWar, #DrugWar2.0. I am seeing the whole thing happen. We feel like we almost won the battle on marijuana legalization and now I am witnessing the new prohibition on another drug. Although many people in the illegal harm reduction area (which is yours and my world) get it, my political allies – the people in politics (Liberals, Progressives, Democrats) who have been our allies on drug policy reform and harm reduction are typically the ones on the other side of this issue so that is very disillusioning.

DEAN BECKER: I want to throw this thought back to you, Ethan, the fact is that those 2,000 hospitalizations – the few dozen deaths that have occurred – lets stack that up against the 200,000 people who have died from using actual tobacco in these last six months. It is so out of proportion, is it not?

ETHAN NADELMANN: It is totally, wildly out of proportion and I think that people in power understand tobacco harm reduction. For example, the FDA just approved Snuts which is a tobacco pouch that you can put in there that is proven effective. Sweden introduced this years ago and it became popular among men; not women. The rate of cigarette smoking among Swedish men dropped to the lowest in the entire European Union and it is almost impossible to explain that without the uptake and the use of Snuts. There is another thing called Ikos, which is a heat not burn device in which you put the tobacco like the old packs or something, except a more sophisticated version. The FDA hasn’t allowed the makers of Ikos to promote it as a harm reduction device but they are allowing it to be sold. So people are accepting to some level of harm reduction. The fact that JUUL took off like wildfire among kids freaked everybody out but then I see the arguments they are using. They are talking about e-cigarettes being a stepping stone to smoking cigarettes and while it is true that kids who smoke e-cigs are more likely to try cigarettes than kids who don’t try e-cigarettes but when you look at the ones who go on, the vast majority are not going on to smoking and for those that do they just try a cigarette and the ones who are trying a cigarette are typically the ones who might have smoked a cigarette before they ever used an e-cigarette; or kids who would have gone to cigarettes but for the existence of e-cigarettes so you are talking about – I used to say about the marijuana gateway hypothesis is that an ounce of truth is better than a pound of BS It is the same thing about this stuff – an ounce of truth is better than a pound, or in this case an ounce of truth is better than a kilo of BS. Then they talk about the adolescent brain. We know that you don’t want kids getting addicted to nicotine it is a powerful substance but we heard this on the marijuana thing, too. There was some element of truth to it, but to exaggerate these risks? Then they say that e-cigarettes and the adolescent brain and I am thinking 50% of America’s greatest generation were smoking cigarettes and nobody ever talked about the brain damage of all of our parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. The hypocrisy of it! You see the headlines, “25% of All Teens Are Vaping E-cigs”. Read the small print. What is their definition of a vaper? A person who tried an e-cig at least once in the past month. That defines it? If I am somebody who eats red meat once or twice a month that defines me as a meat eater but I look a lot more like a vegetarian or a pescatarian then a daily meat eater. The distortion is –as you see I am getting animated here.

DEAN BECKER: This is wonderful news for all of us really. Ethan, this organization – Drug Policy Alliance has been the leader, it has been the respected organization that has drawn attention from educators like Marsha Rosenbaum has done here recently and from politicians at every level; state, federal, local because you guys have the clout. You have the knowledge, the experience, the people and you have made one hell of a difference over the decades now and I wonder if you might give us a brief summary of what has been accomplished during your tenor here at DPA?

ETHAN NADELMANN: I go back to teaching at Princeton and speaking publicly in the late 80s, early 90s. In 1994 I left the university and created the Linda Smith Center. I built that up for six years while also being on the board of the Drug Policy Foundation and then in 2000, we merged the two to create Drug Policy Alliance so I sort of date my days going back to the mid-90’s or even earlier. Obviously the most dramatic success was on marijuana and one of the things I take the greatest pride in is having played a role in moving the country from 25% support for legalizing weed to over 60% and from zero states legal for anything to over 35 states legal for medical and 11 states legal for all adult use. That is a monumental transformation and to do that in the country which was the global drug war leader for most of the past century – to poke those holes and move strategically and advance the medical marijuana issues state by state thereby transforming the imagery and the public discussion around marijuana at large and then to shift public opinion – all of that stuff I take enormous pride in. At this point, I think we basically won. The bigger fights are over what the marijuana market going to look like and given that we live in the most dynamic capitalist society in history are we really going to be able to build the significant social and racial equity part in this and I think we have to try. For me I think that is something for the next generation to focus on. It is something that I care about, but for me the big picture was ending marijuana prohibition. That was a third of our work.

You take the second third of the work which was really about ending the role of the drug war and mass incarceration and thereby driving down mass incarceration as much as possible, and in that respect, just as the war on drugs drove mass incarceration in the 80s, 90s, and early 00s so drug policy reform was the cutting edge of criminal justice reform beginning in the late 90s and in to the 00s and in to this decade. You look at Rockefeller drug law reform in New York, you look at reform of mandatory minimum sentences at the state level and the federal level. You look at our work to get rid of these bogus drug-free school zone laws which are basically mandatory minimums with better marketing. We really led the way on all of these things. Our ballot initiative in Arizona ’96, and California treatment instead of incarceration. At this point there is still a huge amount to go. Drug arrests unfortunately are still going back up again but at least we are bringing down the numbers of people locked up in state prisons and such on drug charges. You look at places like New York, New Jersey, California, which really drove the big increase in numbers – those have come down the fastest.

DEAN BECKER: Texas is still hanging in there.

ETHAN NADELMANN: Texas is hanging in there but even there it has come down somewhat on the drug numbers. I think that now the criminal justice reform field where for decades, apart from Soros there was very few other people funding. Now there is oodles of funding coming in to this movement. People are taking on everything from bail reform to other elements of sentencing reform, to taking on the deeper structural issues around this stuff, to taking on bad prosecutors in their own races so it is a much broader field where drug policy reform still plays an important role, but where I think the niche is much more focused on ending the criminalization of drug possession because it is still the #1 cause of arrest in America, it is still filling if not state prisons, definitely local jails.

DEAN BECKER: I would think you would take to heart in what just happened in Oklahoma where they took 450 former felony cases, mostly drug related and dropped them to misdemeanor and let those folks out of prison just this week.

ETHAN NADELMANN: That is right. I think Oklahoma had a ballot initiative not long ago that was successful as well so even a place like Oklahoma – some of the people in Oklahoma have a senator who looks like a right-wing Neanderthal to the right of Jeff Sessions almost except with maybe a prettier face. You have got some bad stuff going on there but it is really encouraging to see even in Oklahoma, Mississippi, Louisiana you have good stuff happening. Then you look at the last third of our work which is really around harm reduction. We kind of led the way with some allies on legalizing access to sterile syringes through pharmacies and needle exchange programs in the 90s and in to the 00s. In the big states like New York, New Jersey, California and elsewhere I got Soros to be the #1 private funder of needle exchange for many years back in those days with still a long way to go. We organized the first international conference of preventing overdose fatalities in Seattle, Washington in January 2000; almost 20 years ago when overdoses doubled from five to ten thousand at that time. We have been committed to this issue for ever and ever. We have led the way in drafting better Naloxone access legislation, 911 Good Samaritan Laws trying to take those steps. Now it feels like all the people who were hesitant (cops, drug czars, etc.) are now really embracing Naloxone and 911 Good Samaritan Laws as the right way to go. There is still a lot to do on that front. There are the safe injection facilities where it looks like safe consumption rooms was going to move forward. I am perpetually disappointed that we haven’t made more progress on allowing access to legal pharmaceutical grade heroin in clinics the way the Europeans and Canadians are doing. The greatest frustration is that the basic ethos of harm reduction, the basic notion that you should not be putting people behind bars for simple drug use or drug possession no matter how many times they use if they are not getting behind the wheel of a car or hurting somebody. We are still struggling to get the public to really accept that. The public goes along with the view that we don’t want to throw somebody with a drug addiction the first couple of times they get caught or do something bad but if they aren’t going to get clean we gotta lock them up. In trying to go to that Portugal model, the more European model I was mentioning you never lock somebody up for simple drug use or possession. Getting people to understand that the 12-step model, the AA model – while it helps a lot of people, there are other ways that work for other people often times more successfully. We are making a lot of progress in breaking through that paradigm but we have a long way to go still.

DEAN BECKER: I promised you a short interview – we have about gone four times over what I had thought we would but I want to thank you once again – not just for Drug Truth Network, or my listeners, but for everybody in the United States and worldwide for the work you have done. Thank you, Mr. Ethan Nadelmann.

ETHAN NADELMANN: Dean Becker, than you very much and for you who I describe as the person who will go down in history as the oral archivist of this movement. I think you play an incredibly valuable role in talking to everybody involved in this thing for decades now and it is going to make a big difference. Historians are going to rely very heavily on the stuff that you are producing, never mind the people who benefit probably right here today and now. Thanks, Dean.

DEAN BECKER: We are here at the Drug Policy Alliance gathering in St. Louis, Missouri. I am speaking with Mr. Chad Sabora, he is with MoNetwork based here in St. Louis. He has many packages sitting on his table of Narcan, the nasal spray. Hello Chad.

CHAD SABORA: Hello.

DEAN BECKER: Tell us about the work you do.

CHAD SABORA: We run a hybrid harm reduction recovery community center. We treat people and engage them at wherever there are at in their journey whether they are still actively using with no intent on stopping, still using with the intent on stopping, along with early recovery and long-term recovery. It doesn’t matter – we take a look at the individual and help them accordingly to reduce harm to themselves, harm to society and sustain their current recovery or offer them alternatives if that is what they are seeking.

DEAN BECKER: That is unique – a new hybrid perspective that is being accepted more and more; that you meet people where they are at.

CHAD SABORA: We are one of the first hybrid recovery community center models in the country that encompass the whole spectrum.

DEAN BECKER: Tell us a little bit of the history behind that?

CHAD SABORA: We have been operating this recovery community center since 2015. We have been an organization since 2013. We are heavily involved in policy reform, we wrote all of the Naloxone laws in Missouri including 911 Good Samaritan Law. I personally wrote all drug policy law in Missouri. I was a heroin user up until 2011, I was also a former prosecuting attorney in Chicago as a drug user so I had an interesting perspective on our drug laws and our war on drugs so when I found recovery I dedicated our work toward more policy reform.

DEAN BECKER: That is marvelous news. Sometimes it takes people hitting rock bottom to find themselves again – to recreate themselves, does it not?

CHAD SABORA: I hate to use the words rock bottom because –

DEAN BECKER: I did, too.

CHAD SABORA: --That is death considering that Fentanyl has poisoned our drug supply, but yes. It takes what it takes for somebody to want recovery and even in they just want to use they are still human beings and should still be treated with dignity and often healthcare and other resources. So for people listening, your views on drug use, drug addiction are not your fault. We have had broken drug policy in this country since Chinese immigrants brought over opium in the 1840s so your understanding of drug use, drug policy, criminalization was almost subconsciously implanted in to you by your dad, your grandparents, your great-grandparents during the early 1900s when they passed the Harrison Narcotics Act to make all drugs illegal. A couple of Supreme Court cases that dictated what treatment was legal and what treatment wasn’t legal so everything we have done on this country so far has built a faulty foundation based on criminalization, prohibition, and arrests. We have to tear down this foundation and rebuild it in a public health setting.

DEAN BECKER: Folks, if you want to learn more I would urge you to go to www.monetwork.org. Chad Sabora, thank you very much.

CHAD SABORA: Thank you.

DEAN BECKER: Well that’s about all we can squeeze in this week. I want to once again thank the Reverend Edwin Sanders, I want to thank Ethan Nadelmann, Chad Sabora from MoNet, and I want to thank you for listening. We are going to have about six or seven of these shows from St. Louis, I urge you to tune in during the coming weeks. I gotta wrap it up folks.

Again I want to remind you that because of prohibition you don’t know what’s in that bag. Please be careful!

Cultural Baggage is a production of the Pacifica Radio Network, archives are currently stored at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, and we are all still tap dancing on the edge of an abyss.

08/28/19 Jasmine Budnella

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Jasmine Budnella
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

This week on Century of Lies we hear portions of hearing and roundtable discussion held by the New York State Senate Joint Senate Task Force on Opioids, Addiction and Overdose Prevention on August 9 in The Bronx. Speakers include Jasmine Budnella, Drug Policy Coordinator with VOCAL New York; Mike Selick, Hepatitis C Training and Policy Manager with the Harm Reduction Coalition; and Ken Robinson, Executive Director, Research for a Safer New York.

Audio file

TRANSCRIPT

CENTURY OF LIES

SEPTEMBER 28, 2019

DEAN BECKER: The failure of the drug war is glaringly obvious to judges, cops, wardens, prosecutors, and millions more now calling for decriminalization, legalization – the end of prohibition. Let us investigate the Century of Lies.

DOUG McVEY: Hello and welcome to Century of Lies. I am your host, Doug McVey, Editor of drugwarfacts.org. The New York State Senate’s Joint Senate Task Force on Opioids, Addiction and Overdose Prevention is holding a series of hearings and roundtable discussions across the state. The task force plans to carry out a holistic review of New York’s overdose crisis and the states approach to drug use with a focus on saving lives and improving individual and community health. They’ll be holding discussions with stakeholders and carrying out a review of best practices to identify gaps in the current system and develop short and long term legislative and budgetary solutions. The first hearing took place on August 9th, in the Bronx. Subsequent hearings and roundtables are gonna take place in Central New York, Buffalo, Staten Island, The Hudson Valley, Long Island, and Albany.

On today’s show we’re gonna hear a portion of that first hearing. A panel on harm reduction, syringe exchange, and supervised consumption sites. The speakers are introduced by State Senator Gustavo Rivera, Chair of the New York State Senate’s Health Committee. They are in order of appearance, Jasmin Budnella, Drug Policy Coordinator with VOCAL New York, Mike Selick, Hepatitis C Training and Policy Manager with the Harm Reduction Coalition, and Ken Robinson, Executive Director of Research for a Safer New York.

STATE SEN. GUSTAVO RIVERA: Next we will be joined by Ken Robinson, Executive Director for Research for A Safer New York, Inc., Mike Selick, Hepatitis C Training and Policy Management at Harm Reduction Coalition, and Jasmine Budnella, Drug Policy Coordinator with VOCAL NY. (CLAPPING). Welcome. Why don’t we go from left to right, Jasmine how about you kick it off?

JASMINE BUDNELLA: Okay. I would like to start by thanking Senator Rivera for his relentless leadership and commitment to elevating the voices of the Bronx as well as his legacy for fighting for compassionate and evidence based solutions for the overdose crisis. Also special thanks to Senator Harcum, and then Senator Carlucci for prioritizing this issue. This gratitude comes not just from me but from the members, leaders and our statewide team at VOCAL New York, as well as the End Overdose New York Coalition statewide.

To be clear, my testimony and the testimony you heard today as far as care throughout the state is directed at the whole entire New York State Senate. We are in a defining moment of history. One that will forever be judged and seen as an opportunity for those in power to show leadership and course-correct the decades long humanitarian disaster that is the war on drugs. The overdose crisis demands urgency in order to heal our communities, dismantle deadly stigma, and ensure that the thousands of lives we’ve lost throughout the state are not lost any more.

Taking action to confront this crisis can be the great unifier of our state or it can be the great divider. Today we lay that responsibility at the Senate’s door and challenge all of you to choose courage and heed the words of evidence to not fall back on failed tactics that have proven to perpetuate poverty, incarceration, and death in our communities.

Many of us here have already testified at hearings, participated in statewide roundtables and brought in experts to educate elected officials as well as engaged in deep dialogue with state agencies on evidence-based solutions. With that, I will leave the ethic plan with you all. This is a blueprint that is by no means exhaustive, right? But it just does demonstrate that we’ve done this before and we’re ready to move to action.

So what we need from you all is immediately increase funding for Harm Reduction agencies and services across the state. You’ve heard this time and time again today. Gov. Cuomo’s recycled talking point of $200 million dollars is not true. We need more funding. We demand the overdose prevention – the approval of overdose prevention centers and the pilots. Ken will talk more about them. We’ve heard a lot about them and today we need them. We need universal access to medication assisted treatment and when we say that, we mean Buprenorphine and methadone. When we say universal access – we need it in the community, in emergency rooms, in shelters, and in prisons and jails across the state. While we urge the state to move towards decarceration, until we get there we cannot forget about our brothers and sisters on the inside. That means we must also remove Medicaid barriers. You heard from a lot of doctors today about the barriers that exist under Medicaid for universal access to (UNINTELLIGIBLE). One being prior authorization, but thank you to Senator Harcum for his leadership on helping us pass this bill this session. To remove prior authorizations for all formularies of MAT, for people on Medicaid. We are still waiting for the Governor to sign that.

We also need to have fair reimbursement rates for providers. We heard a lot about what it is, what are the barriers that providers are experiencing; one is reimbursement rates. We’ve heard from providers across the whole entire state that they’re trying to keep their lights on because they’re not getting reimbursed enough. We need to change that. We also need fair reimbursement rates for pure educators who are so critical in this work and need to get paid a living wage. We demand that decriminalization of public health tools. We have been fighting alongside Senator Rivera for over a decade for a bill to remove the criminalization of syringes and expand syringe access across our whole entire state – this year, let’s get it done!

We need to rapidly increase and fully fund the 20,000 units that the Governor promised of supportive housing. Housing is a huge issue in this crisis and we must address homelessness. We need to fight back against failed drug war tactics. We know this doesn’t work. Criminalization will never decrease the overdose crisis. In fact, what it will do is dismantle critical public health responses and interventions to the crisis and inevitably will always harm communities of color and poor and low income New Yorkers.

Proposals like scheduling Fentanyl in the Controlled Substance Act, increasing penalties for possession and sales and drug induced homicide laws like Senator Armador’s Laurie’s Law must end today. That does not work. We see the last 40 years proves that and it’s actually dangerous to our addressing this crisis.

The road to accomplishing these proven interventions cannot end with a statewide tour or a report. We need the whole entire Senate to carry our voices and center them into the next legislative session. We need the whole entire legislature to stop asking why did this person do this to themselves, but instead to ask; how did we let this happen to our people?

We look forward to working with all of you and thank you for letting me testify today.

STATE SEN. GUSTAVO RIVERA: Thank you, Ms. Budnella. Mr. Selick?

MIKE SELICK: Good afternoon, Co-Chair Senators Rivera, Harcum, and Carlucci, and thank you to the entire Senate Task Force on Opioids, Addiction, Overdose for this opportunity to testify. My name is Mike Selick, I am the Hepatitis C Training and Policy Manager for the National Harm Reduction Coalition, a national organization with offices in New York City and Oakland, California that promotes the rights, dignity, and health of people who use drugs. As part of my role at Harm Reduction Coalition, I coordinate the injection drug user’s health lines or a DUHA, which is made up of all health department waivered Syringe Exchange Programs in New York City.

In my testimony today I will briefly outline a variety of ways to further reduce drug related harms and overdose deaths in New York State. As you’re all well aware we are currently dealing with a crisis of overdose deaths in this city and in this state. Although overdose death rates increased only 6% from 2016 – 2017, that increase would likely have been significantly higher had it not been for all the important harm reduction and overdose prevention work across the state. The highest rate of overdose deaths in New York City are right here in the Bronx. Clearly more needs to be done to address this issue. The Bronx has been hit hard by decades of racialized drug policies and biased policing and prosecutions that have contributed to increased harms from drug use to individuals in the community. Our responses to opioid use and overdose deaths must keep our history front and center in order to deal with the harms caused by punitive response to drug use. The gold standard of interventions for opioid use disorder is medication as treatment. A note about the language there; we keep calling it medication assisted treatment. I’ve heard multiple doctor’s talk about the need for counseling, for inpatient treatments – those are all great supports. However, the medication works on its own. You shouldn’t be required to go to a group once a week in order to get Bupe if you’ve been on it for 10 years. All the research points to that and I just want to be clear about that now.

There has been much work to expand MAT through the city and state which is one of the many reasons the death rate from opioid overdose has not climbed even further. However, we cannot realistically end overdose until MAT is easier to access than buying drugs on the street. In order to make that a reality we need to lower barriers to treatment by changing policies, regulations, and modes of delivering services that better fit the needs of people who use drugs. I think I heard Dr. Shinazo talking about mobile methadone vans, which they have in many other countries but not here. That’s one more thing that we could do to add to this. Harm Reduction Coalition has been working with the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, as well as the ADUHA agencies to implement low threshold Bupe prescribing, which early research has shown can engage and retain some of the hardest to reach people in treatment. This modality is promising because it connects people at local syringe exchange programs where they are already receiving services and built up trust with providers. It’s a way to give people Buprenorphine on demand with clear instructions on how to do a home induction, bypassing a lot of the barriers faced in more traditional treatment centers that have been outlined throughout the day so far. More emphasis on this type of low barrier prescribing is an important avenue to explore.

One of the biggest risk factors for death from accidental overdose is reduced tolerance and people released from prison or jail have a risk of overdose forty times greater than the general population in the first two weeks following incarceration. MAT helps reduce overdose deaths substantially. One more (UNINTELLIGIBLE) study found that the provision of MAT prior to release resulted in a 60 percent reduction in overdose deaths in the six months following their incarceration. Although there is a MAT program that has been supporting incarcerated individuals at Riker’s Island for many years, this program has not been expanded in to all prisons and jails statewide. Some efforts have been made with the state budget last year to fund local jails to add this service and Harm Reduction Coalition supports the full expansion of MAT to all incarcerated people in New York State who are interested in receiving this service without preconditioned or restrictive punitive policies.

There are currently 12 drug user health hubs across New York State funded by the Department of Health AIDS Institute. The state funding helps syringe exchange programs integrate higher threshold medical care, mental health, and MAT services for people who use drugs. These services can be provided onsite or through facilitative linkage to culturally competent care and treatment services so it’s great that there are 12 of them, we would like to see these programs better funded and we would like to expand it from 12 to all of the syringe exchange programs that are waivered by the Health Department in New York.

The final intervention I want to highlight which is one I’ve been happy to hear. Everyone has been supportive or at least not willing to come out against of it this hearing. We would like to see the syringe exchange programs be able to implement supervised consumption services. New York has an opportunity to be a leader in the United States by passing this legislation to allow for already obtained drugs to be administered under the supervision of program staff in a hygiene that’s a safe and controlled environment and it would do a lot to reduce deaths and connect people to the care they need. Thank you.

SEN. GUSTAVO RIVERA: Thank you very much, Mr. Selick. Last but certainly not least, Mr. Robinson.

KEN ROBINSON: Good afternoon. My name is Ken Robinson and I am the Executive Director of Research for A Safer New York.

Research for A Safer New York is a consortium of harm reduction providers that has been established to oversee a pilot research study in the form of the operation of 5 overdose prevention centers, or OPCs in New York State – four in New York City and one in Ithaca. The 24-month pilot study will evaluate the efficacy of OPCs as a crucial strategy to prevent opioid overdose fatalities, reduce public drug use and needle sharing, create a pathway to addiction treatment and recovery and mitigate the HIV and Hepatitis C epidemics.

Senators, we must pass the Overdose Prevention Center Act, this bill, Senate Bill 5289A, sponsored by Senator Rivera, and Assembly Bill 7813, sponsored by Linda Rosenthal is currently in committee in both houses. It does not ask for blanket authorization of overdose prevention centers. It will authorize the previously mentioned 24-month Senate pilot. The 5 overdose prevention centers will be paired with well-established harm reduction and syringe exchange programs. Dr. Holly Hagan, a world renowned Epidemiologist at NYU has already been recruited to conduct the research.

It is very important that all of the committee members and the public understand that New York State currently has one of the most extensive syringe exchange networks on the planet. The amazing success of syringe exchange programs as a public health intervention is widely known and accepted. However, under current law when we give someone a clean syringe we must send them out the door to consume their drugs. Many of these folks are gonna go to public restrooms, parks, playgrounds, and alleyways. We are just asking for one small additional step that we be allowed to offer IV drug users a clean and safe place to consume their drugs where they will be monitored by staff to prevent overdose and where they will be offered a pathway to life saving services. There is nothing radical or nefarious about this. This is an evidence-based, best practice and medical intervention that saves human lives.

Many of you will have heard – and we heard a little about them today – heard of the Insight Overdose Prevention Center in Vancouver. Insight was the first OPC in North America and is widely viewed as one of the most successful OPCs in the world. On their website they say that in 2017, they engaged in 1,983 overdose interventions and in 2018, they engaged in 1,466. On July 31st, just a week or so ago I had the opportunity to speak with their current Director, Elizabeth Holiday. I asked Elizabeth if she would say that each one of these interventions was a life saved. She replied quite emphatically that she knew with a high level of certainty that each of those 3,449 interventions was a human life saved. Think about that. That’s 3.449 families that did not have to bury their son, daughter, brother, or sister. 3,449 mothers that didn’t have to suffer the crushing grief of burying a child.

I am saddened to say that one life that was not saved out in Binghamton, New York was the life of Jeff Dugan. Jeff died of a heroin overdose in 2014. I had hoped to introduce you all to Jeff’s mother, my friend, Alexis Pluce, but unfortunately she had to cancel her trip to join us at the last minute.

Alexis channeled her grief – a grief that most of us can only imagine – in to founding the extraordinary nonprofit organization, Truth Harm. But Alexis did offer me this quote to share with you all – I want to make sure I do this justice. “As a mother who has lost her son I am experienced in contemplating what could have happened to produce a different outcome for Jeff. There are a lot of things that might have helped but in the end, a safe place to use is the only thing I know for sure that would have”. There is a saying that we advocates use in this campaign to authorize OPCs – dead drug users don’t recover. Please think about that.

SEN. GUSTAVO RIVERA: Thank you so much, Mr. Robinson.

DOUG MCVEY: You are listening to Century of Lies, I am your host, Doug McVey, Editor of drugwarfacts.org. We’re listening to portions of a New York State Senate Joint Senate Task Force on Opioids, Addiction and Overdose Prevention that was held in the second week of August at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx. The speakers you just heard were Jasmine Budnella, Drug Policy Coordinator with VOCAL New York, Mike Selick, Hepatitis C Training and Policy Manager with the Harm Reduction Coalition, and Ken Robinson, Executive Director of Research for A Safer New York. They were introduced by New York State Senator Gustavo Rivera, Chair of the Senate’s Health Committee.

Now let’s hear some questions from the Senators. The first question will come from Senator Rivera, then we’ll have Senator Peter Harcum, Chair of the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Committee, and they are followed by Senator Jamal Bailey.

SEN. GUSTAVO RIVERA: I wanted to ask two quick questions. The first one – and I want to make sure that all of you have an opportunity to answer this. It is not a secret that I am obviously a big supporter of if you’re talking about overdose prevention centers with conservative facilities. That is not a secret. Let me step for a second and be a devil’s advocate and give you an opportunity to respond. To a concern that I have heard from some of my colleagues and some other folks who might not be policy makers and for some less – much less educated people out in the universe that creating this would actually encourage people to use drugs and that creating such a thing would be saying that it’s okay to use drugs and that it’ll be just saying to people it’s okay – you should use drugs and that that’s terrible and we should not do it. What would be each of your responses to anyone who makes an argument like that?

JASMINE BUDNELLA: I would say do seat belts make people drive more? Do condoms make people have sex more? Do bars make people drink more? I mean it’s a conversation that there’s a lot of stigma around this issue. This is about public health. It’s not about encouraging drug use and in fact if we look up what encourages drug use, its trauma. So we should really identify that as the issue of what would enable somebody to use. Its trauma, its housing, its mental health issues, its income disparities. So that would be my answer.

SEN. GUSTAVO RIVERA: Mr. Selick?

MIKE SELICK: The only thing that we’re enabling is for people to take care of their health. A lot of the other issues people from communities raise like syringe litter, overdoses, and public drug use in public are all mitigated by having a place that is not public. Nobody wants to be shooting up in a park where the cops might find them or no one’s gonna help them if they die. So it doesn’t make anybody want to use drugs. It makes people want to use drugs in a more safe way and also gives them connections to opportunities to change if they want.

KEN ROBINSON: I would say two things. One, we know that this group of folks – regardless of what any of us in this room do or do not do are going to be consuming these drugs. So number one I would say that. Number two, I would say there is good, good science that refutes what you just proposed, Senator Rivera.

SEN. GUSTAVO RIVERA: Well, the person I was playing. It wasn’t me.

(LAUGHTER)

KEN ROBINSON: Yes, sir. I understand. But there is good science – there is so much empirical evidence that supports the efficacy of these. It just blows my mind that we can’t wrap our arms around and embrace that we have evidence based – this is supported by the American Medical Association, by the Preventive Medical Association, even by – I forget the name of the organization – but the family docs and their organization ad they tend to be pretty conservative. All of those guys do appreciate the science.

SEN. GUSTAVO RIVERA: Thank you so much. Senator Harcum?

SEN. HARCUM: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all so much for your testimony. It was really important. I have a question for you, Mike, of particular. There has been a lot of talk today about how we expand medication assisted treatment. A lot of it focusing on barriers to physicians, others on requirements within insurance plans and whatnot, and you took it to another level. You spoke about lowering the barriers almost, I think it was with home use if I am not mistaken. Talk more about that if you would. Educate me please.

MIKE SELICK; ADUHA and the Medical Director for Harm Reduction Coalition in tandem with DOHMH have been doing a low threshold Bupe prescribing program at a lot of the syringe programs. So councilors and peers will get people prepared to know what it will take to start Bupe. You need to be in a little bit of withdrawal before you’re able to start. So it’s not that it’s home use, it’s more of a home induction. You meet with our medical director or some of the other programs have other medical services that they’re bringing in if it’s not our medical director and they’ll counsel somebody on what it takes to induce on Bupe, get all the insurance in line gets you a prescription for 7 days right there, right then. Then you go home and then can induce on your own later that day when you’re at the appropriate time instead of multiple day waiting periods to get on it. For a lot of these prescribers – they’re doing one week of Bupe, because they don’t have the capacity to have ongoing caseloads, but that’s the way a lot of harm reduction programs work. Somebody comes in very low threshold, gets what they need and then gets referred to ongoing treatment somewhere else and that gets you around the limit on your caseload. You do 1 week for somebody and then transfer them to a longer term treatment and now you can go and do somebody else – and get them on. So it’s also been called Medication First, Lowe Barrier, Low Threshold – new on this treatment, but its reaching people that are not gonna be reached by any other means and seems to be engaging them in care so it’s a model that we’d like to keep pursuing and expanding across the state and city.

SEN. HARCUM: Terrific. Thank you.

SEN. RIVERA: Senator Bailey?

SEN. BAILEY: That was a quick hello. I am wondering who it is?

(LAUGHTER)

SEN. RIVERA: We talk about the entrance that Senator Bailey made – so we’ve been joined by Senator Bailey who will be asking the next set of questions.

SEN. BAILEY: Thank you, Senator Rivera, thank you to the Co-Chairs, Senators Rivera, Harcum and Calucci and all of my colleagues in government and thank you for those who have testified prior to my arrival and those who are here today. I just want to thank you, Ms. Budnella, for your advocacy for the MAT bill during session and I truly appreciate that. My question for you is rather nebulous, so bear with me. We see bill numbers, we know that there are legislative fixes and we know there are funding fixes. Those are two givens. As legislators who are not necessarily experts on these subject matter areas. How can we help break down the stigma that Senator Rivera spoke about – what can we as legislators do as people who are not necessarily as well versed as you may be in this matter. What can I do as an individual who is not trained medically or trained in harm reduction, or trained in anything related to substance abuse? What can I do to let my constituents know that this is not what it may appear to be?

JASMINE BUDNELLA: You are talking about constituents and the senate or just your colleagues?

SEN. BAILEY: I am talking at large – individuals who believe that we should not be doing harm reduction methodology – that we should not be doing MAT because of cost. Whoever it may be – whether it’s a colleague, whether it’s a constituent, whether it’s somebody that’s watching that doesn’t believe in the work that you are doing. What can I do to make sure that people understand it better?

JASMINE BUDNELLA: I think it’s about what we can do, right? I think it’s about there is a large network of folks not only here, but other folks who aren’t here who are working on this issue and have for decades and a lot of that work started here in the Bronx. So we are happy - I am speaking for the whole community but I am sure that they would be happy as well to do a joint forum with you, to do a teach-in, or a community forum to have listening sessions with your community or even just do a one on one with you. I think there is also a ton of information but people who have dug in to this work for years and years and years – it comes. I think that we are willing as not only here in the Bronx, not only across the whole entire state but we are willing and wanting to work with you all in the community, outside the community, in the senate. Do briefings for the senate – all of those things. I don’t know if anybody else wants to –

KEN ROBINSON: One thing that I would like to add and I have given this offer to some of you and some of your staff. I have met with a lot of you, if not you individually – with your staff and I am willing to come to you – to your district and help you with some kind of town hall or constituent forum. I don’t know if you guys know who Jenny Shubert is, she is one of the co-founders of Housing Works, and Jenny is one of the pioneers of harm reduction in New York State and in the world, and Jenny and I put together what I think is a really good presentation to educate people about this and I would be happy to come to you guys and help you in any way I can and give a presentation and talk to your constituents – at any time.

SEN. BAILEY: You wanted to add something, Mr. Selick?

MIKE SELICK: Yeah. I think all of us would be happy to do that. In addition, I appreciate the question. One thing is to elevate the voices of people who are using drugs to help de-stigmatize this and humanize the issue – share the evidence. But also I think it is good for you all to come out in favor and support us. We see terrible New York Post articles saying syringe litter which is caused by over policing and lack of services – not by the services. We write press releases and try to speak out against that but at the end of the day, we are the freaks who give out needles and it doesn’t sound so good coming from us because of course we care about the work we do. Hearing it come from you all saying this is why we fund these services – this is why we’re leading these bills to help educate your communities is gonna mean a little bit more than the people whose livelihood and entire passion is based on doing this work because of course we support what we do. Why would we do it if otherwise? It’s not the money. (LAUGHTER)

SEN. BAILEY: Thank you, Mr. Selick.

DOUG MCVEY: That was a portion of a New York State Senate Joint Task Force on Opioids, Addiction and Overdose Prevention Hearing and Roundtable Discussion that was held the 2nd week of August at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx. You heard Jasmine Budnella, Drug Policy Coordinator with VOCAL New York, Mike Selick, Hepatitis C Training and Policy Manager with the Harm Reduction Coalition, and Ken Robinson, Executive Director of Research for A Safer New York.

That’s it for this week. I want to thank you for joining us. You have been listening to Century of Lies, we are a production of the Drug Truth Network for the Pacifica Foundation Radio Network, on the web at drugtruth.net. I have been your host, Doug McVey, Editor of drugwarfacts.org.

For now, for the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVey saying so long.
For the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVey asking you to examine our policy of drug prohibition, The Century of Lies. Drug Truth Network programs archived at the James A. Ba

08/07/19 Michelle Alexander

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Michelle Alexander
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

This week we hear from Michelle Alexander about building the movement for racial justice and drug policy reform. Michelle Alexander is a highly acclaimed civil rights lawyer, advocate, and legal scholar, and the author of The New Jim Crow. She delivered a keynote address at the Drug Policy Alliance's International Reform Conference.

Audio file

CENTURY OF LIES

DECEMBER 10, 2017

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: The failure of drug war is glaringly obvious to judges, cops, wardens, prosecutors, and millions more now calling for decriminalization, legalization, the end of prohibition. Let us investigate the Century Of Lies.

DOUG MCVAY: Hello, and welcome to Century Of Lies. I'm your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

Michelle Alexander is a highly-acclaimed civil rights lawyer, advocate, and legal scholar. She's the author of The New Jim Crow, and at the 2017 Reform Conference, Drug Policy Alliance's international drug policy reform conference, Michelle Alexander delivered the opening keynote address. Let's give a listen.

MICHELLE ALEXANDER: And yet, at the same time, in the same very moment, we face an unprecedented drug crisis in this country. Drug overdoses are at a record high, making the crack epidemic seem somewhat mild by comparison. A recent report by the Police Executive Research Forum revealed that drug overdose deaths totaled more than 64,000 last year, a 21 percent increase over 2015.

About three quarters of all those deaths involved opioids. America has four percent of the world's population and 27 percent of the world's overdose deaths, and many experts predict that we haven't seen the worst of it yet. Already drug overdose deaths are more numerous than HIV deaths were in 1995, the worst year ever of the AIDS epidemic.

Drug overdoses last year alone outnumbered American fatalities during the entire course of the Vietnam War. And yes, there is outcry over the opioid crisis, but it's relatively muted considering the magnitude of the crisis at hand.

And I know that I am not alone in being struck by the drastic difference between the two recent drug epidemics that have swept this nation, opioids and crack. Now the crack epidemic killed just a tiny fraction of those who are dying of opioid overdoses today, and yet a literal war was declared on poor people of color, a purely punitive, militaristic response prevailed.

And today, even though the opioid crisis is much, much worse, there's no wall to wall media coverage demonizing and shaming opioid users and dealers, there's no live TV coverage of drug addicts and dealers rounded up in mass raids or parading into courtrooms. There are few politicians blasting the mostly white opioid addicts, portraying them as people worthy of care and compassion, not despicable scum of the earth that have to be gotten rid of by any means necessary.

Things are very, very different this time around, and we all know why. Whiteness makes a difference. If the overwhelming majority of the users and dealers of opioids today were black, rather than white, we wouldn't have police chiefs competing with each other over whose department is showing more compassion to people struggling with drug addiction or drug abuse.

Now, I am glad, I want to be clear that I am very glad that the Police Executive Research Forum is actually bragging in its recent report that many police departments are sending officers to the home of addicts to pay them kind visits and invite them to treatment and offer support.

But I'm not as optimistic as some of my friends about the future of drug policy in this country. I'm told that this newfound tolerance and compassion for white users and abusers of illegal drugs will translate into a permanent ceasefire in the drug war, and that the shifts in law and policy will inevitably benefit people of all races and classes in the long run.

I have my doubts about this. Now, clearly, the victories for marijuana decriminalization and legalization have benefited people of all colors, as arrest rates have declined dramatically in many states, even though severe racial disparities do remain. Discriminatory enforcement hasn't changed much, but at least the total number of people arrested and criminalized has declined, a positive development for all people of all colors.

Now, my concern lies elsewhere. I'm concerned about the cyclical nature of reform and retrenchment in this country, particularly with respect to race. The great legislative victories to legalize marijuana in several states did not occur in a vacuum. They occurred on the very same night that Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, an election that was made possible in no small part by deliberate, explicit appeals to white racial resentment and anxiety.

Now, some have said this is a very, very strange paradox, progressive drug policies sweeping the nation at the very same moment that Donald Trump is elected president of the United States, and a fierce drug warrior is appointed attorney general. How do we explain this crazy state of affairs?

Yet, from where I sit, there is no paradox, no mystery at all. There's a common denominator underlying both the drug reform victories and the election of Donald Trump. It's called whiteness.

It's called whiteness. Over and over again, throughout American history, our nation has unleashed a wave of punitiveness whenever drugs came to be associated with black and brown people, and then predictably, you can set your watch to it, when the color of drug users and dealers fades to white, our nation suddenly reverses course, often quite abruptly. Attitudes change, policies change, compassion bubbles to the surface of the public discourse. Numerous historians have documented this unmistakable pattern.

And by the same token, throughout our nation's history, there has always been fierce, overwhelming backlash against even the appearance of great racial progress. Always. You can set your watch to that one, too.

And while some might argue that the racial justice gains offered by Obama's election were mostly symbolic, the symbolism was powerful, and deeply disturbing to millions, helping to incite an electoral backlash that we should have seen coming.

Now, of course, I don't mean to suggest that the presidential election and the drug policy victories last year were solely about race. But at the same time, can we honestly imagine that the drug reform victories last year in all those states would have been possible in the midst of the crack epidemic?

Just for a moment, try to imagine our nation legalizing any drug of any kind in the middle of any drug epidemic that was affecting primarily black or brown people. Imagine pot being legalized near the peak of the crack epidemic. And then try to imagine that all of the new legal drug empires that are being launched are being led by young black men with wild Afros and tattoos rather than hipster white men with cute ponytails and beards.

No. It wouldn't happen. It wouldn't happen, just no. Changing attitudes and policies became possible in recent years in large part because the media was no longer saturated with images of black and brown drug dealers and addicts. The color of drug users and dealers got whiter in the public imagination, and so we as a nation got nicer.

Now that's not to say these changes were inevitable. That's not what I'm saying at all. An enormous amount of hard work, blood, sweat, and tears went into those victories. I just am asking us today to pause long enough to absorb the truth that the white face of medical marijuana in the media, and the white male face of legal pot entrepreneurs, and the white male face of drug users and abusers in this current opioid epidemic, and the white face of drug heroes in the media, such as those featured in Breaking Bad, made it possible for mainstream white voters to feel a kind of empathy that was utterly lacking for black and brown folks just 20 years ago.

Again, my point isn't to minimize these legislative victories in any way. Rather, it's my hope that we'll interrogate these victories, and consider what they might teach us about the future of our movement. As I see it, this movement, this movement convened right here in this room, stands at a critical crossroads. What path we take in the months and years to come will likely determine whether our movement succeeds or fails in the long run.

And I don't think it's an overstatement to say that the path that we ultimately choose may have enormous implications for the success and failure of our democracy as a whole. I hope it's not controversial to say, in this room, that our democracy is in a state of crisis. The gravity of the situation can be overwhelming, and it's tempting at times like this to narrow one's focus, and to think small. To think narrowly and very, very pragmatically, even defensively, about what can be done to advance a single issue in this complex and worrisome political environment.

But I want to challenge all of us here today to think big. To go big, or stay home.

We're going to go big. And now, I certainly don't mean let's be reckless, or let's throw reason to the wind, no, not at all. When I say think big, go big, I mean we must begin to think bigger. Much, much bigger, beyond drug policy, and consider more carefully how drug policy fits in to the bigger picture of American democracy.

We must think big enough so that our victories truly become victories for all of us. All of us, or none. Yeah.

As I see it, any victory that is dependent on whiteness, in whole or in part, is truly not a victory for us all. Black and brown folks may benefit so long as the face of drugs is white, but the minute that changes, all bets are off.

Now you know, when The New Jim Crow was first released, and nobody was reading it except Dorsey, and a few other folks, I had a meeting with a very influential leader and thinker in the drug policy reform movement. And he said to me, you know, I've read your book, and I agree with just about everything you say here, but, you know, there's one thing that bothers me. It seems like you're arguing here that we need to end racism in order to end the war on drugs, and you know, I don't think so. I think we can win this war on drugs without ending racism, and I don't think we're going to end racism in our lifetime, and I intend to end the war on drugs with or without ending racism.

Shortly after Trump was elected, and a drug warrior was appointed attorney general, amidst a white supremacist attempted revolution, I sent an email to this individual, and I said, well, remember when you said we didn't have to end racism in order to end the war on drugs? What do you think now?

Now, I was, you know, half joking. I'm not so naive as to think we're going to end racism just by having better organizing strategies, or by waving a magic wand, but I do believe that we must be committed to placing race and racial justice at the very center of the drug policy reform movement, at the very center. Yeah.

DOUG MCVAY: You're listening to Century of Lies. We're a production of the Drug Truth Network for the Pacifica Foundation Radio Network, on the web at DrugTruth.net. I'm your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org. This week we're listening to the keynote address delivered by Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, at the Drug Policy Alliance's 2017 International Drug Policy Reform Conference, which was held in Atlanta, Georgia. Let's get back to that.

MICHELLE ALEXANDER: Lately, I find that when I talk to drug reformers and say things like that, racial justice must be central to our movement building and advocacy, people nod and say, oh yeah, oh yeah, that's so right. Oh yeah. And for a while I was just really encouraged by these platitudes, until I started asking some follow-up questions. And then, I discovered that this newfound commitment to racial justice was a little thin in practice.

For some advocates, making race central means quoting a lot of racial disparity data and press releases. It means posting to social media the latest horrific thing that Donald Trump said. And I'm not a fan of this approach. Nearly all of the available research suggests that merely sharing racial disparity data without a great deal of political and social and historical context and lots of storytelling only confirms pre-existing racial stereotypes and bias, especially about blacks and crime.

There's a deeper problem lurking here, and the deeper problem has nothing to do with what doesn't work to change people's minds. The bigger problem is what does work, and people do change their minds when the victims of drug policy are white. That's a fact, and people do become far more punitive when the face of drugs or crime is black or brown. That's a fact.

And these facts are not merely inconvenient. The implications are profound. Taken together, these facts mean that so long as the progressive public consensus about drugs is rooted in compassion for white people, the consensus will not last for long. Why? Because sooner or later, the face of drug abuse will change. It always has. No racial group has ever had a permanent monopoly on drug addiction, and the minute the color of addiction changes, that so-called consensus will begin to unravel, and we'll be back to full-out war.

Now this dilemma is not limited to drug policy, of course. In every area of public policy, there is the risk that progressive gains that are made with white people in mind will vanish the minute black and brown people become the primary beneficiaries. Yep, that's right.

You know, research shows that white people are more generous and forgiving with each other than those who are perceived as others. Cognitive science teaches us, they can't help it most of the time. We're all primed to value and prefer those who seem like us, though the preferences white have for themselves are remarkably greater, no doubt due to centuries of brainwashing that have led them to actually believe, often unconsciously, that they are in fact superior.

Now, Mark Mauer in this excellent book Race To Incarcerate cites data showing that the most punitive nations in the world are the most diverse. The nations with the most compassionate or the most lenient criminal justice policies are the most homogeneous. You know, we like to say that diversity is our strength, but it may actually be our Achilles Heel.

Researchers have reached similar conclusions in the public welfare context. The democracies that have the most generous social welfare programs, universal healthcare, cheap or free college education, generous maternity leave, on and on, are generally the most homogeneous. Socialist countries like Sweden and Norway are overwhelmingly white. But when those nations feel threatened by immigration, by so-called foreigners, public support for generous social welfare begins to erode, often quite sharply.

It seems that it's an aspect of human nature to be tempted, to be more punitive and less generous to those we view as others. And so in a nation like the United States, where we are just a few generations away from slavery and Jim Crow, where inequality is skyrocketing due to global capitalism, and where demographic changes due to immigration are creating a nation in which no racial group is the majority, a central question we must face in this movement is whether we, the people, are capable of overcoming our basic instinct to respond more harshly, more punitively, with less care and concern, for people we view as different.

Can we evolve? Can we evolve morally and spiritually? Can we learn to care for each other, across lines of race, class, gender, and sexuality, and all forms of difference, in times like these? Clearly, these questions are pressing in the age of Trump. But they're also the very questions that we must be asking no matter who is president.

On the home page of the Drug Policy Alliance website, the mission statement says, the first sentence says, we believe drug policies should be based on science, compassion, health, and human rights, not fear and stigma. Now I read that mission statement as challenging us, as a nation, to alleviate each other's suffering rather than multiplying it. To respond with reason and compassion rather than fear and stigma, and to honor basic human rights. It's a mission statement that points to something bigger, much bigger than just drug policy reform.

Now let me cut to the chase, because I know my time is running short. The fate of our democracy depends in no small part on what happens in spaces like this. Whether and how we learn to build movements that re-imagine ways of seeing, and relating to one another, will determine the future not only of drug policy, but the future of our democracy.

And in so many ways, the fate of the global community hangs in the balance. Now the good news is that drug policy presents incredible opportunities for re-imagining what our democracy and global community can and should be. We have the opportunity in this movement to educate people of all colors about how our ugly racial history harms us all.

White folks today would have a much better public health infrastructure and more treatment options available to them if it wasn't for the birth of a racist drug war. Many white folks are suffering and dying today because of a drug war declared with black folks in mind.

Thousands of immigrants are being locked up, warehoused in private detention centers that would not even exist today but for the anti-black racism of the drug war, which gave birth to the private prison industry. Yeah. That industry is a hungry beast with an insatiable appetite.

We have the opportunity to demonstrate, through our movement, how the same forms of racially divisive politics that helped to birth the drug war and mass incarceration are playing out all over again in a strikingly similar fashion, this time leading to a system of mass deportation on a scale rarely seen in human history. We can do that through this movement.

And few issues, few causes, few movements, provide a better opportunity to practice reparations. And yes, I say practice. Because we have a lot to learn as a nation. We don't have a lot of practice at repairing historical harms that have been caused to poor people and to people of color. But we can get started in a real way, in this movement, right here and right now.

And I think it's fair to say that this movement, as much as any other, provides an extraordinary opportunity for us to practice with one another and with the communities we serve what it means to show care and compassion across lines of race, class, and difference. People of all races and backgrounds are losing loved ones to this drug war, some to fatal overdoses, others to addiction, and millions more to prison and jail cells.

Finally, this movement gives us a chance to talk about capitalism in a way that's long overdue. We have a chance to raise important questions about global capitalism, our culture of ruthless competition and individualism, and its possible role in creating so much of the despair that makes the United States the world leader in drug addiction as well as incarceration.

By interrogating capitalism in the context of drug policy reform, we can also ask important questions, such as, what really does a fair market look like when some groups have been systematically denied access to markets and capital? How should we structure opportunity in this new trade or in this new business? And when, if ever, should the free market be trusted, particularly when dangerous drugs are the commodity?

These essential questions regarding race, capitalism, economic justice, criminal justice, and reparations, are all bound up in drug policy reform debates, making this movement extremely fertile ground for beginning to re-imagine what kind of democracy and global community we aim to co-create.

Now, none of this will be easy, as Maria said, and I won't pretend to have the answers to many of the most vexing questions. But what I do know is that simply citing racial disparity statistics and retweeting racists won't build a sturdy foundation for a truly transformative movement. Nor will efforts to capitalize on the empathy for white folks in the midst of an unprecedented drug epidemic.

Now, if we choose to think big, really big, and deliberately align our drug policy with the work, the larger work, of building a thriving multiracial, multiethnic democracy that truly honors the lives of all of us, a whole new world of possibilities begin to emerge.

Suddenly we're not just fighting isolated drug policy reform battles anymore, but we're steadily, brick by brick, building the foundation for a new way of life, a new way of life together, for our democracy.

Now if we go down this revolutionary road, and it is a revolutionary road, we're going to have to build a multiracial, multiethnic, multifaith, multigender, grassroots movement from the bottom up. There's no way around it. We're going to have to learn to reach across the lines that have divided us, not just for decades, but for centuries. And we're going to have to learn to listen to each other and argue with each other and work together to build this sturdy foundation, and we're going to have to learn to listen, and accept leadership from, the people who have been most harmed, most stigmatized, most discarded, in the wars that we have waged upon them.

But no matter who you are, or where you find yourself in this work today, I hope that you will eventually come to see this beautiful vibrant raucous movement as being about much more than drug policy, because it can, if we let it, become a movement that is fundamental to the remaking of our democracy.

I hope and pray that one day, when the history of this movement is written, that it will be said that we, those of us in this room today, vowed to do more than win kinder, fairer, more compassionate drug policies. Instead we committed ourselves to a revolution, to placing racial justice at the center of our work, to re-imagining our democracy and our economy, and birthing, with all the courage and strength we can muster, a new America. Let the movement begin. Thank you.

DOUG MCVAY: That was Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, she's a civil rights lawyer, advocate, and legal scholar. And that's it for this week. Thank you for joining us. You have been listening to Century of Lies. We're a production of the Drug Truth Network for the Pacifica Foundation Radio Network, on the web at DrugTruth.net. IÔÇÖm your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

The executive producer of the Drug Truth Network is Dean Becker. Drug Truth Network programs are available via podcast, the URLs to subscribe are on the network home page at DrugTruth.net.

The Drug Truth Network is on Facebook, please give its page a like. Drug War Facts is on Facebook too, give its page a like and share it with friends. Remember: Knowledge is power. Follow me on Twitter, I'm @DougMcVay and of course also @DrugPolicyFacts.

We'll be back next week with thirty more minutes of news and information about the drug war and this century of lies. For now, for the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay saying so long. So long!

For the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay asking you to examine our policy of drug prohibition: the century of lies. Drug Truth Network programs archived at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

06/19/19 Deborah Small

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Deborah Small
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

JUNETEENTH: Deborah Small of Drug Policy Alliance and Neill Franklin of Law Enforcement Action Partnership discuss racism in America, from time of Lincolns freeing the slaves, till the current date.

Audio file

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

JUNE 19, 2019

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: I am Dean Becker, your host. Our goal for this program is to expose the fraud, misdirection, and the liars whose support for drug war empowers our terrorist enemies, enriches barbarous cartels, and gives reason for existence to tens of thousands of violent US gangs who profit by selling contaminated drugs to our children. This is Cultural Baggage.

This is Dean Becker, the Reverend Most High, and boy do we have a show for you today.

Folks, this is June Nineteenth, that's the first day this show is broadcast on KPFT, the mothership of the Drug Truth Network. It's a date that the information filtered down that President Lincoln had freed the slaves back during the Civil War, and it's a time to kind of reflect on, that was a good idea, it was not the solution to the full situation, that racism certainly still exists today.

It's best expressed I think through our nation's drug war, but we have with us today a woman who has studied this for decades, who worked extensively with the Drug Policy Alliance. She has her own organization, her own mindset, the Break The Chains perspective, and with that I want to welcome my sister in drug policy, a woman I greatly admire for her expertise, Ms. Deborah Small.. Hello, Deborah.

DEBORAH SMALL, JD: Hi, how are you?

DEAN BECKER: You know, I don't think we need to talk too much about Juneteenth exactly, but we do need to talk about the fact that it has -- that racism still exists quite widely across our nation. Right?

DEBORAH SMALL, JD: Well, I think that it's important to talk about Juneteenth, because the way that it's been framed and defined as if that was the date that the news filtered down that the war was over, but in reality, the plantation owners kept the news from the formerly enslaved people until after the harvest.

DEAN BECKER: Back in that day, they even had bibles that were built excluding certain items and focusing on other items, which kind of led the slaves to believe that the bible was, you know, appropriate for slavery.

DEBORAH SMALL, JD: Well, I mean, I'm not that much of a bible reader, so I'm going to leave off commenting about that because a lot of people take that very seriously. What I would say though is that, you know, those who write history get to control the perception of it.

And so I think that one of the things that is part of the American myth, that, where, [inaudible] right now, is the fact that while we legally ended the practice of holding other people as property, we haven't gotten rid of a lot of the policies that allow us to continue to do that.

And that's true whether you're talking about the system of mass incarceration that targets, you know, people of color, particularly black men, for long prison sentences for relatively minor crimes, to what we see happening at the border, where migrants fleeing violence, trying to save their lives, are being called criminals and put behind bars, children as young as under a year ripped from their parents because they've been charged with the ostensible crime of illegal border crossing.

It's a particular mindset that allows people to be treated as less than human, and while we got rid of the formal legal recognition of that, when slavery was abolished, we have not changed that mindset, and it's been able to mark itself and manifest itself in many different ways over the period since the end of the Civil War, and we're seeing some of the most ugly and brutal aspects of that in our current politics today.

DEAN BECKER: Yes, we are. You know, many folks don't realize that, when someone gets locked up, somebody pays for it. Most often if it's in a county jail, then the state is providing money in support of that, and it, you know, it winds up in somebody's pocketbook. It's always a means to manipulate people and currency. It's an evil construct in my opinion. Your thought.

DEBORAH SMALL, JD: Well, I don't think that the fact that the public has to pay for prisons is the biggest problem with prisons, because the truth is that the public has made a choice to prefer to invest in prisons rather than invest in education and housing and healthcare.

But that's a separate conversation. I think what's particularly remarkable, given our current situation, is that we see crimes being committed on a major scale by businesses, by people who run businesses, by people in government, by people who run our government, and yet that behavior, of ruining the environment, raiding our pension plans, undermining the health and well being of the majority of the people, is not considered criminal.

We'd rather fill our jails and prisons with people whose major problem is that they have a substance abuse problem or a mental health problem.

DEAN BECKER: Wow. That's why I call on you, Deborah. Look, the whole point of my program over these decades I've been doing this now is to educate and to embolden Joe and Jolene Citizen out there to recognize the failure, the horrors we create, and to do something about it, and I guess, Deborah, this is probably an impossible question to answer, but, what more can we do to motivate those folks, to get on board, to be a part of the solution to this problem?

DEBORAH SMALL, JD: Well, I think that this is an opportunity for us to really look at the sickness in our culture, as it, to me, it relates to the issue of Juneteenth, because the original sickness in our culture was believing that it was okeh to acquire wealth through the rape of your land, through the genocide of its original people, and through the exploitation of people who were brought over here and forced to work the land in order to make a few people wealthy.

That's the original sin, the original capitalist enterprise upon which the United States was built, and until we're willing to reckon with the reality of that, and all of the things that have flowed from that over the years that we're still dealing with, we're not going to be able to create the kind of economy and society that works for everyone.

DEAN BECKER: Look, Deborah, we have, and by that I mean drug reformers, we have made progress over the decades, but I look at some older interviews and I see where we have been saying the same thing for decades, that the truth that we see writ so large, but is still being ignored by others. Are people just too in tune with their television, with their work, with their kids' school, to actually recognize what we have crafted, what we have maintained, all these decades?

DEBORAH SMALL, JD: Well, I mean, you know, I think it goes back to what I was saying. It's like we don't have a society and a culture that values the worth of the whole. We have a very individualistic culture in which people focus on what it is that they can get for themselves, regardless of its impact on the broader society, the broader culture, and the broader world.

In many ways, I feel that Donald Trump is America's Dorian Gray. For those who are familiar with the story by Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray was about a man who managed to stay young and beautiful and handsome and charming throughout the years, much to the surprise and dismay of his friends.

But he had a secret portrait in his closet, which over the years manifested every horrible thing that he did. And as the time went by, and he did more horrible things, the portrait got uglier and uglier, while he continued to look young and beautiful.

Well, in many ways, America is like that. We've maintained a view of ourselves as being young and innocent and pure and virile and all sorts of good things, and ignored all of the horrible things that we've done in terms of human exploitation, in terms of resource exploitation, in terms of marginalizing whole communities of people, and basically having an economic system that relies and based its focus on consumerism, individual consumerism, as opposed to a more communitarian form of living.

And in many ways, Donald Trump is that picture, out of the closet. You know, in many ways, he represents and manifests for us all of the things about ourselves that we've kept hidden, and pretended weren't so.

And so for me, this is an opportunity for us to look and say, what kind of people do we want to be? What kind of country do we want to be?

Do we want to be ignorant bullies that think that you can somehow threaten your way to success? Or do we want to look for a more cooperative form of interacting with each other and our -- the rest of the world that enables all of us to have the potential to thrive instead of our current course that basically is going towards mutual destruction.

DEAN BECKER: Whoa. I couldn't sum it up any better, I could not focus near as well as you have on that issue. Deborah Small, I want to thank you for being our guest here on Cultural Baggage. I want to offer you the chance to share some closing thoughts, perhaps a website. Your close, please.

DEBORAH SMALL, JD: Well, I'm thinking about, you know, the fact that in many ways we celebrated and should celebrate the ending of slavery the same way that we celebrated and should celebrate the granting of voting rights to women and the extension of civil rights and civil liberties that we see throughout the last thirty, fifty, a hundred years.

But right now we're faced with a time that many of those rights are under threat, and I think that when we think about the jubilation that the newly freed people felt when they learned that slavery was over, we need to ask ourselves, is there anything that's happening currently that makes us feel that level of elation and jubilation, and if not, why not, and if not now, when?

DEAN BECKER: You just knocked it out of the park, Deborah, thank you very much.

DEBORAH SMALL, JD: You're welcome.

DEAN BECKER: All right, my friends, you've seen the news about this drug. It's no longer on the shelves, and soon the only place you'll be able to see this particular product is in a court room near you.

It's time to play Name That Drug By Its Side Effects! Weakness, nausea, skin rash, unexpected weight gain, swelling of hands and face, difficulty breathing, flu like symptoms, sluggishness, dark urine or pale stools, double the chance of dying of heart attack or stroke. Time's up! The answer: Vioxx.

Friends, I'm proud to be bringing you the voice of one of my friends, my allies, one of the boldest, staunchest supporters of ending this war on drugs, heads up Law Enforcement Action Partnership here in these United States, a longtime friend and ally, my compadre, Major Neill Franklin. How are you, Neill?

NEILL FRANKLIN: I'm well, Dean. Thanks for having me on. I really appreciate every time you bring me on your show.

DEAN BECKER: Well, Neill, I'm proud, you know, we're up well past seven thousand shows we've done over the years, and we bring a particular focus to various aspects of this drug war.

But one that, well, we delve into quite frequently but it needs more recognition, this is airing today on Juneteenth, June Nineteenth, here in Houston on the mothership station of the Drug Truth Network.

Well, Neill, we are celebrating Juneteenth, especially down south here, I think, in recognition of when the word of the slaves being freed by President Lincoln filtered down south, and it's been recognized for well over a hundred years now, and it just brings to mind that it's not over yet, is it?

NEILL FRANKLIN: Well, see, this is why it's kind of emotional for me, because, you know, we always hear people talking about, well, you know, we ended slavery back in the 1800s, you know. You always hear the conversations about, you know, you've got to move forward, you've got to get over it.

You know, we ventured through the civil rights movement, always a struggle, you know, the -- just for equity, man, you know, just for opportunity. And, you know, it seems like around every corner there's something else that you have to watch out for.

We've never had the proper indepth conversation about racism yet in this country. One of the things that we really try to do is keep an eye on policy that prohibits, you know, African Americans from obtaining equity, of being able to move forward.

And as you know, Dean, the war on drugs was significant, a significant piece of policy, prohibition, that greatly affected, still greatly affects the black community to this day, and will, unfortunately, in the unforeseen future.

You know, and there continue to be policies. I mean, at one time -- here, I want to have a conversation with you about what we're beginning to see with other pieces of policy that are being proposed, such as the ban on menthol tobacco products, and people are, like, probably listening and saying, well, what does that have to do with, you know, this conversation?

But, if you -- just give me one quick second here, I've got to talk about this, because here is, we're trying to unravel the war on drugs, and all the devastating effects of that, especially in the black community, from incarceration numbers to many other issues.

Right now, in communities all across this country, San Francisco, Oakland, it's being proposed in LA, New York City, they're trying to ban menthol tobacco products. Now don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone smoking cigarettes. We know we lose thousands of people every year due to consumption of tobacco.

But, here's the thing. Of all the blacks who smoke cigarettes, 78 percent of blacks prefer and use menthol tobacco products. Dean, what do you think would happen if we were to ban tobacco, menthol tobacco, in a city like Baltimore, where close to 70 percent of the population of Baltimore is black? You know?

DEAN BECKER: Well, you give me a chance to answer that one. I will say this, in the beginning, it will create shortages, it will create a black market, hell, it will lead to violence before it's over.

NEILL FRANKLIN: Thank you very much. And this is what's happening. People aren't doing their due diligence, the -- to say, okeh, what would be the effects? What would be the problems? You see, because right off the bat, people who don't have jobs, people who have criminal records, you know, from the war on drugs, they're going to do whatever it takes to make money.

So what are they going to do? They're going to go to Richmond, Virginia. They're going to bring cigarettes up from Richmond, Virginia, into Baltimore, you know, they're going to create and establish an underground market for menthol tobacco products.

See, we're just not going to stop smoking menthol cigarettes. We're going to create our own underground market, and when that happens, Dean, law enforcement, the police, will be roped into it. Go find the cigarettes, go find the menthol cigarettes, by any means necessary, and we know what happens then.

So, I mean, so I just had to say that, just to make a point, that, as we talk about Juneteenth, you know, at every turn, around every corner, there seems to be another piece of proposed policy that will adversely effect the black community.

And we really have to keep an eye out for it, we really have to keep our ear to the ground, and examine every piece of proposed policy, especially when it has something to do with our criminal justice system.

DEAN BECKER: Well, I would throw this into this equation as well. We have Eric Garner, a black man, selling cigarettes --

NEILL FRANKLIN: Yes.

DEAN BECKER: -- single cigarettes --

NEILL FRANKLIN: Yes.

DEAN BECKER: -- on the streets of New York. He was singled out, the police found time to focus on him, selling cigarettes one at a time, and killed the man.

NEILL FRANKLIN: This is a time when we finally recognize, you know, what bad policy can do to a community, especially our communities of color. This is a time when we should really pay close attention to these proposals and make every effort that we can to move the police from trying to solve, for instance, health issues with criminal justice strategies and practices.

So, this goes to the place of police should be protecting people from people, not being concerned with consensual adult behavior that may be harmful to your health.

I'm sixty years old. If I want to go smoke a menthol cigarette, I should be able to do that. If I want to go smoke marijuana, I should be able to do that. If I want to use any of these drugs that are out here, I should be able to do that. As far as the government is concerned, just make it as safe as possible for me if I decide to do that, like we do with alcohol.

DEAN BECKER: Very good points. Friends, we are speaking with Major Neill Franklin, now retired, he's the executive director of Law Enforcement Action Partnership.

Neill, I think about -- what you were talking about kind of brings to mind that this is oversight. This is babysitting every adult in America. This is -- this is, you know, protecting us from ourselves at the point of a gun, and it's just -- it's gone off the rails, has it not?

NEILL FRANKLIN: Well, it definitely has.

DEAN BECKER: What we have right now is a lot of agencies, a lot of media, even some politicians in certain countries talking about legalizing drugs, actually controlling these drugs, the distribution, the purity, robbing the gangs and the cartels of their source of income.

What we have been talking about, what we have preaching about all these years, now decades, it's starting to get the focus it deserves. Am I right?

NEILL FRANKLIN: It really is. We're really seeing it actually, the end of prohibition of marijuana, of cannabis, in this country. Canada has already taken a huge step forward, and now we're starting to have those needed conversations about opiates, you know, we're really starting to talk about medical assisted treatment, you know, where we are going -- you know, and this is how it should be.

The primary focus here should be the sanctity of life. Right? So what do we need to do regarding these policies to keep people alive, okeh? You know, countries in Europe have recognized this years ago, decades ago. So they have medical assisted treatment in Switzerland.

They, you know, they have programs where if you're addicted to something like heroin you can go to a center, you know, multiple times a day to get pharmaceutical grade heroin so that you stay alive, so that you can receive counseling, so that you can receive wrap around services, and when you find out that you're ready, you know, you can then, you know, make the attempt to become drug free.

And if that doesn't work for you, you know what, it might be heroin maintenance for the rest of your life, but, at least you are alive, at least you are no longer in a position where you feel you have to commit crimes to satisfy your need to get the money for the drugs that you crave.

You know, you can live with your family, you can live a chaos free life, just as someone who might be on insulin for diabetes for the rest of their life.

This is what we're beginning to realize, and we've got the momentum and we've just got to keep it going.

DEAN BECKER: Well, we still have the die hards, the recalcitrant bastards like we do here in Texas, where they just absolutely refuse to even recognize medical marijuana. They're still spouting hundred year old propaganda, reefer madness, as if it were still valid.

But we do have many others that are stepping forward, and what I'm really thrilled about is that nearly every one of these Democratic candidates is talking about legalizing marijuana. They talk about ending the war on drugs without many specifics, like we were talking about, with like the heroin maintenance.

But, they're at least broaching the subject. The future looks a little brighter. Your closing thoughts there, Major Neill Franklin.

NEILL FRANKLIN: Well, so, you're absolutely right. I think we've finally turned the corner regarding our elected officials, that if you do not support ending the prohibition of marijuana, if you do not support leading this effort of drug abuse with health solutions, health centered solutions, you know, you're not going to get elected.

So, the people, by far, are looking for leaders who are willing to end all of this madness in some way. If you are, as you said, one of the die hards, one of the dinosaurs that's still hanging around and you're still spouting this, you know, the warmongering about, you know, for instance, you know, marijuana being the gateway drug to other things, and if you're still hanging onto those positions, you know what? You're not going to be elected, or reelected.

I do believe it's a new day, and I'm really looking forward to this next presidential election because, I'm going to tell you right now, if you don't support what people are now pushing for, you're not going to be one of the final candidates for the presidency.

DEAN BECKER: All right. Neill, it occurs to me, you know, this is a show that recognizes, or is aligned with, or recog -- you know, dealing with Juneteenth. The freedom of the black community, and, I hate to say this, but it's true, we have, by that I mean the whites, have taken it upon themselves to control the blacks for their intakes. That's what started a hundred and fifty years ago, or hundreds of years ago, and it's like blacks cannot be trusted so the police give major focus to black communities, black neighborhoods, black kids, and it's -- it's horrible. Your response there, Neill.

NEILL FRANKLIN: Yeah. You know it is. Back in 1865, you know, it may have been, you know, this may be a celebration of emancipation, but I'm telling you, and freedom, but we're far from it, Dean. We are really far from it.

And I think one of the things that we're seeing, at least with this administration, is that a lot has been, and continues to be, in shadows of, you know, regarding policies and regarding true freedom for blacks in this country.

So we still have a lot of work to do. We still have a long way to go. And we've just got to keep on fighting, and again, I appreciate what you and the station are doing regarding this, and bringing this to the forefront in your conversations, so I really appreciate it. It's really important.

DEAN BECKER: All right. Once again, that was Major Neill Franklin, now retired, heads up Law Enforcement Action Partnership, out there on the web at LEAP.cc. If you want one of us, one of us who has worn the badge or pounded the gavel or otherwise worked in the criminal justice system to come talk to your organization, please get in touch with us.

Neill, thank you, sir.

NEILL FRANKLIN: Thanks a lot, Dean.

DEAN BECKER: The following is a Drug Truth Network editorial.

Major media is a whore, a prostitute, a sleazy gathering of mindless idiots, putting forward two sides of an equation as if the drug war had a reason to exist, as if we were not allowing terrorists to make billions of dollars each year because of our fear of flowers.

The media continues to spread lies and innuendo on behalf of eternal drug prohibition, pretending logic and controlling the supply of drugs, and pretending it is possible despite a history of well documented failures.

Drug war corruption happens every day in America, it is given blessings at every level of government. The supposed morals of those who believe in drug war should give everyone concern.

Those who believe in eternal prohibition are not concerned that five hundred billion dollars are gathered each year by terrorists, cartels, and vicious gangs. They do not care that drugs are now cheaper, more available to our children, and deadlier than ever before.

They have claimed the moral high ground, and must be thrown off their perch, forever denied the bully pulpit. Incrementalism makes a lot of folks feel they're doing all they can for reform. Not true.

Until we challenge their morals, their methods, the madness will continue to increase because they need the madness to turn on its head, to justify their declaration of an eternal war on the law of supply and demand, a war they know that can never be won, but that pays so very well.

Please be sure to join us next week. I hope to have Mister Ray Lakerman, he's a British citizen who lost two of his sons to drug overdoses, but a man who now wants to legalize all drugs. Again I remind you, because of prohibition you don't know what's in that bag. Please, be careful.

To the Drug Truth Network listeners around the world, this is Dean Becker for Cultural Baggage and the unvarnished truth. Cultural Baggage is a production of the Pacifica Radio Network. Archives are permanently stored at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. And we are all still tap dancing on the edge of an abyss.

05/08/19 Lindsay LaSalle

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Lindsay LaSalle
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

This week on Century of Lies, we talk to Lindsay LaSalle with the Drug Policy Alliance about harm reduction, alternatives to coercion, and the DPA's upcoming conference in San Francisco May 16 and 17; and with Teressa Raiford, a community organizer, social justice activist, and mayoral candidate in Portland, Oregon.

Audio file

TRANSCRIPT

CENTURY OF LIES

MAY 8, 2019

DEAN BECKER: The failure of drug war is glaringly obvious to judges, cops, wardens, prosecutors, and millions more now calling for decriminalization, legalization, the end of prohibition. Let us investigate the Century Of Lies.

DOUG MCVAY: Hello, and welcome to Century of Lies. I'm your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

The 2019 Global Marijuana March took place May Fourth in cities and towns around the world. Thousands upon thousands of people taking to the streets to protest for social justice, civil rights, and the legalization of marijuana.

I attended the GMM event in Portland, Oregon. We had a great crowd there in Pioneer Square. I got some great audio, we’ll get to some of that later in the show. But first:

LINDSAY LASALLE: I am Lindsay LaSalle, and I'm the Director of Public Health Law and Policy for the Drug Policy Alliance, which is a national nonprofit organization that's headquartered in New York but has offices throughout the country, that is focused on repairing the harms of the war on drugs, and ensuring that we are moving away from the criminalization of people who use drugs and instead toward a public health approach that prioritizes their health and wellbeing.

DOUG MCVAY: And, you have an event coming up May 16 and 17, which sounds really exciting. It's down in San Francisco, and, could you tell the folks about this?

LINDSAY LASALLE: Sure. We're hosting a conference that is free for attendees at UC Hastings College of Law on May 16 and May 17, that is focused on coerced treatment.

And in particular, as we start hearing rhetoric around, for instance, treatment instead of incarceration, we need to really be having a critical eye on what we mean by treatment. And in fact, most often, the treatment that people are talking about very closely mirrors incarceration itself.

It doesn't prioritize consent, it is premised on the disease model of addiction, which punishes people, for instance, or relapse, it allows family members and friends to civilly commit their loved ones against their will, and so this conference is an effort, indeed, to look at forced treatment or coerced care in the context of drug policy and in the context of drug addiction.

But also, you know, positioning it in an intersectional movement around the course care of people with mental health issues, with disabilities, and really looking at how all of these movements intersect, and how if we address one, hopefully we can address others, also.

DOUG MCVAY: You know, it's been interesting watching the evolution of drug policy reform. I mean, twenty years ago, drug policy reformers were arguing for treatment alternatives to incarceration and for drug courts, we were involved in, you know, in Prop 36.

At the time, we didn't really view that as, well, I don't know, but, you are -- we are talking about moving beyond those sorts of coerced -- a lot of people expressed concern at the time, I shouldn't be coy about it, I'm one of them, but a lot of others did as well, the idea of net-widening, of cherry-picking, of resource diversion.

LINDSAY LASALLE: Exactly, right.

DOUG MCVAY: And I'm -- personally, I'm really glad to see Drug Policy Alliance moving in this direction, and taking this kind of -- taking this kind of a stand. So, talk more about the -- even reading from your press release, the, you know, reducing the role of criminalization in drug policy, that harmful and coercive drug addiction treatment interventions, like forced detox, civil commitment, and drug and other treatment courts, are proliferating. Could you -- just talk for a moment about the problems of continuing the criminalization while the, at least, with this diversion to treatment.

LINDSAY LASALLE: Sure. Yeah, absolutely. So, I think, I mean, you're right with respect to Prop 36 in California. That was a Drug Policy Alliance drafted and supported initiative, and I think at the time, certainly, a shift away from incarceration was really powerful in narrative.

But what we're seeing more recently is that as we're shifting the narrative, we're not shifting in practice, and so the treatment ends up looking like an extended version of criminalization.

And so if you take drug courts, for instance, certainly there are some drug courts that indeed provide some benefits. But they are not uniformly regulated, their standards differ dramatically from drug court to drug court, even within very similar jurisdictions.

And, in fact, you have a number of truly, you know, medical ethics violations, human rights, violations, when the patient has a relationship with a doctor that is not confidential, when the doctor is not accountable to the patient but instead accountable to the courts, accountable to a judge, has to report everything that the patient tells them, has to report relapse.

And the types of harms that you talked about earlier, with respect to net-widening and cherry-picking, et cetera, that's exactly what we've seen play out in practice, where the people who actually need treatment aren't able to get it because of very low, you know, low -- actually, a very high barrier, right, to get into these types of drug courts, where you have to have a very low level crime, may or may not actually have a substance use disorder, and if you do have a substance use disorder, then the principles by which these drug courts are operating are not based in evidence.

So many drug courts deny the gold standard of care, which is medication assisted treatment with methadone or buprenorphine, just don't allow their participants on it at all. This is the most rigorously evaluated treatment for substance use disorder, as I mentioned before, punishing people for relapse.

So it doesn't end up being treatment instead of incarceration. It's rather this kind of hybrid that often ends up with people spending more time incarcerated than they would have if they had just taken the initial appeal, because every time they relapse they are sanctioned with time in jail.

And so I think it's both that it extends the criminalization that we're already seeing, but also it really has co-opted our voluntary treatment system, such that now, people cannot get treatment on demand.

They cannot get treatment if they want it, if they're ready for it, if they need it, because all of their resources have been poured into the treatment within the criminal justice system, so within drug courts, or within civil commitments, which is slightly differently, not based on any underlying criminal conduct, but something that we have seen proliferate, really dramatically, in the last few years.

So as just one example, Massachusetts has a law that's been on the books for a long time but has sat relatively idle. This was enacted in 1970, but it allows family members to petition the court to civilly conduct their loved ones for a substance use disorder.

From 2010 to 2015, there was a fifty percent growth in the number of people that were civilly committed in Massachusetts for a substance use disorder. There are 6,500 patients a year.

When you actually look at the facility, you would not be able to tell the difference between it and your stereotypical jail or prison. People are in orange jumpsuits, it is in fact in an old jail, and again, they're not receiving the type of evidence-based care that we would want people to be able to receive.

So there's just a host of issues with coerced care, all of which we're going to be exploring at the conference, the ways that coercion manifests itself not just in these kind of stereotypical, you know, drug courts or civil commitments, but also even looking at residential facilities. What does coercion look like there? Is it truly voluntary? Is it truly evidence-based?

Who is being coerced? And what those -- you know, why those populations are so vulnerable, particularly people who are experiencing homeless, LGBTQIA, trans people, people of color, all of these populations that are already experiencing marginalization for a number of reasons, means that they are more likely to be forced into coerced care.

And looking at what the impact is. We're going to have people that have been coerced into care themselves. We're going to be having people on panels that have researched extensively and worked with a lot of these different programs, to both show what the personal impact is on someone's life, but also what the broader impact is.

So we're really excited to just be bringing people together from all different walks of life and all different backgrounds to talk about these various issues.

DOUG MCVAY: I'm just -- I'm just, I'm really excited about this. I'm really glad to see you moving in this direction, DPA moving in this direction, I think it's terrific. I mean, I worked at NORML in the 1980s, and we would only say "decriminalize," we wouldn't use the "L" word as we called it, legalization.

LINDSAY LASALLE: Right.

DOUG MCVAY: We didn't want to scare people, we didn't, you know, it was what we would settle for, it's what we thought we might be able to get, and it was, you know, that was then. And, you know, people, drug policy reform has evolved, and I'm so glad that you're evolving in this direction. It's just, I'm really pleased with what I've seen at DPA over the last few years.

Now, this, May 16 and 17, it's "Coercive Treatment: Moving Beyond 'For Your Own Good'". They can -- tell me, now, well, yeah, if you have another minute or two, could you tell me about some of the people you have coming to speak?

LINDSAY LASALLE: Yeah, of course. So, we start out with kind of a double keynote, Ari Ne’eman and Maia Szalavitz. Ari is an adviser for the ACLU, and he also works as an adviser on a host of disability rights issues.

So he's going to be kind of giving an overview of the institutionalization, the history of institutionalization as people who are disabled or who have been diagnosed with various behavioral health conditions, and kind of explore the ways in which that institutional framework then set the stage for the mass imprisonment of people who use drugs, and also for their coerced care.

And Maia is going to focus then on kind of exploring the current war on drugs and kind of the different manifestations.

On the other panels, we have, I mean, this is just an absolute amazing range of people, from academics, we have Leo Beletsky with Northeastern Law School, Erin Kerrison with Berkeley School of Social Welfare, Jennifer Murphy at Penn State Berks, Rebecca Tiger from Middlebury College.

So, you know, researchers, we have people, attorneys, people on the front lines who are doing this work every day, Jennifer Friedenbach with the Coalition on Homelessness, Bethany Lilly with the Bazelon Center for Mental Health. Just, I mean, just an absolute range of people. Imade Borha from Mental Health Association of San Francisco and Depressed While Black.

So we're really trying to bring in a full intersection lens here for people who have worked in different movements, including, as I mentioned before, the mental health and disability rights spaces, where we can see what can we learn from those movements? What can we learn from institutionalization and the de-institutionalization that we can apply to our fight in the drug policy context against coerced care?

I'll also mention that we are having the first day of the conference, which consists of the keynotes and then a series of panels. The second day we're having more interactive workshops, so for people who really want to dig in on these issues, there will be three workshops.

One is a group discussion on just what I was talking about, the intersectionality of these different movements: Harm reduction, mental health, disability, and others, and how we can start building community and common goals that we can all support.

The second is a training on alternatives to suicide, mental health harm reduction and the drug harm reduction settings. So specifically looking at, for people who are working for instance at a syringe exchange or at an overdose prevention program, how can they help triage acute mental health issues. And so we're providing that training.

We also have a session where we're going to be looking very specifically at a particular type of law, and examining one in California in particular around issues of conservatorship, for people who are homeless and for people who are experiencing substance use disorder.

And so that is going to be a break-out session to really do some legislative planning and brainstorm practical strategies for pushing back against those types of policies and letting -- providing people an opportunity to brainstorm and then take those strategies back to their own community.

DOUG MCVAY: It sounds like it's going to be a terrific, and again, that's Thursday May 16, Friday May 17 in San Francisco. They can find the details on your website. One of the details, I was taking a look, one of the details I noticed, this is free.

LINDSAY LASALLE: It's free, yes. We welcome everyone to come, even if you can only come for a portion of it. That is fine. While each of the panels builds on each other, you will be able to get a really good snippet if you attend any one of them or any one of the trainings.

We do on our website have a registration -- a link to register, so that's great to just give us a headcount, but also feel free to just show up on the day of.

DOUG MCVAY: And, okeh, here we go. And again, the, so -- I know your website, but for -- DrugPolicy.org, of course. Where, let's see, so, it's at the UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, May 16 and 17. Yeah, what else should people know?

LINDSAY LASALLE: Well, I think that's, I mean, I think that's about it. The -- oh. Well, this always brings people out: they should know there's free food. That's an important detail, right?

There will be breakfast, lunch, and the other really amusing thing that we're doing on the first day that may interest people is we are having a networking reception around 5:30, so hopefully you'll have been with us the whole day, but if you haven't and you just want to come at 5:30 for a glass of wine and to be able to chat with some of our amazing speakers, or get to know other people who are working in this space, then you can also join us for that, to just do a little networking, meet with some like-minded folks, and have some fun and interesting discussions.

DOUG MCVAY: That was my conversation with Lindsay LaSalle. She's Director of Public Health Law and Policy with the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of Legal Affairs. She's an expert and strategist in the areas of harm reduction and treatment as it relates to drug policy.

I was speaking to Lindsay wabout the DPA’s upcoming conference on “Coercive Treatment – Moving Beyond ‘For Your Own Good’. It will take place in San Francisco on May 16 and 17. It is free to register and attend. More information is at the DPA website, DrugPolicy.org.

You’re listening to Century of Lies. I’m your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

Well as I mentioned, the 2019 Global Marijuana March was held May 4. Tens, even hundreds of thousands of people around the world demonstrated that day for marijuana legalization, drug policy reform, and social justice.

I attended and spoke at the Global Marijuana March event here in Portland, Oregon again this year. Got some great audio that I’ll be sharing with you over the next couple of weeks. Today, we’re going to hear from Teressa Raiford. She’s a community organizer, social justice activist, and mayoral candidate in Portland.

Teressa Raiford, you are running for mayor?

TERESSA RAIFORD: That's right. That's right. Uncontested so far, I registered in December of 2017, and, yeah, uncontested.

DOUG MCVAY: Portland could certainly use you. Now, you're going to be speaking here in a few minutes at the Global Marijuana March, it's really good to see you here by the way. What do you hope people take away from your talk?

TERESSA RAIFORD: Well, I hope that people refer to not only the new petition that Madeline Martinez and the sisters from NORML have, but they also need to recognize the outcomes in the latest audit, that showed where our dollars were going for our marijuana use.

You know, we're out here, we're working with the industry. We kind of did the work, and our elders did the work, to get it legalized, and some of the money, the majority of the money is not going to the services that we wanted to do.

We were trying to decriminalize poverty, and right now what I'm seeing with the lack of resources that went into houselessness and into, you know, youth and rehabilitation and all kinds of social services that people need that aren't -- that don't need to be police related that are actually health related. There wasn't a lot of funding that went to those services.

We spent a big chunk of the change on more policing of people that are using cannabis, and that's to the detriment of public safety at this point, because people are already feeling very anxious about things.

And even my son, last week I was at the hospital with him up in Vancouver, and he was on life support because he had a seizure. He can't smoke weed outside of his house, on the balcony. You know? He can't smoke on the inside, he can't smoke at any local parks, and then him being a black boy, he can't even take a walk and smoke without having to worry about what could happen to him.

You know, in Vancouver last month they shot three different people, so, their drug task force that they have is targeting people that are using narcotics. They're calling weed a deadly gateway drug, even though it's been legalized. But I guess, you know, if you're a person that lives in poverty, then it's still a gateway to criminalization, so we have to stop that.

We have to destigmatize it. And I believe that it starts in City Hall, because then that position as a city leader, you get to educate the community on destigmatizing, and educating them on the health benefits, and also the benefits that our city can utilize, if we're engaged in the process.

I don't think that people that voted it in would have agreed that so much money went to police and so little went to social change. We can do better. I'm ready to serve us.

DOUG MCVAY: I wish you all the luck in the world, I think it would be terrific to have you in City Hall down here, it's a -- I mean, yeah, the rich get richer, the poor go to jail. It's got to change. It's just got to change.

TERESSA RAIFORD: And our babies are inheriting all of this, and they don't deserve that. We've worked too hard and spent too many decades, too many generations. It's time for us to get it right.

DOUG MCVAY: Now, give me the, please give me your website and also your social media. I follow you on Twitter, but, what's the ....

TERESSA RAIFORD: My website is [teressaraifordformayor.com]. We're also, there's an ActBlue site at Raiford2020.com. And we're on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, all of the same tags, @teressaformayorpdx.

And really, a lot of people I see, we invested in these politicians that we knew weren't going to serve us well. I'm just hoping that our community can help invest in our campaign, because even though we're uncontested right now, I believe that someone's looking for a way in, and when they come in, they're going to have what capital they need in order to try to beat us.

I don't believe that they can win, because we've been committed to community, and I believe that we want a public servant that knows that it's a privilege to serve. But we can't -- we have to be mindful, and we have to be strategic.

This is an opportunity for all of us. People know who I am, they know that my commitment is real. I just hope that they can help me serve us in a better capacity.

DOUG MCVAY: Great. Any closing thoughts for the listeners?

TERESSA RAIFORD: Register to vote.

DOUG MCVAY: Teressa Raiford, thank you so much. Thank you for everything.

TERESSA RAIFORD: Thank you.

DOUG MCVAY: That was my interview with Teressa Raiford, she’s a community organizer, social justice activist, and mayoral candidate in Portland, Oregon. We met up at the Global Marijuana March event in Portland on May 4. She spoke shortly after our interview. Here again is Teressa Raiford.

TERESSA RAIFORD: Because we just got an audit a couple of weeks ago that kind of showed the outcomes of the money that we've been spending on this industry. Right? And we're seeing that the community that we want to decriminalize and that we want to stand up for in the legislature, that they're not being well-represented by the funding that's coming through, the capacity that we built.

The capacity that we stood on the front lines for, the capacity that people like Paul Stanford, people like Madeline Martinez, people like all of the engineers of the legal language that made it possible for us to have a choice of recreation over medication. Right?

So if those people are not being represented, and we're still supporting the politicians that we elected and put in those seats, it's time for change. It's time for change, it's time for change right now.

I've been standing on this front line, and I heard something that Samantha said in her speech about positivity, and how women need to speak out, and how they need to own their right to smoke. They need to own their right to get high, to make themselves feel better, to be medicated, to give them energy where it needs to be.

Because I don't like pharmaceuticals. I'm not a narcotics type person. Right? I like my medication, and I like it smooth, and I like to know what my outcome's going to be, and I like to know that my body and my mind is not going to be influenced in a way that's going to have me misjudging my existence and my reality. And marijuana does that for me.

My son, this past week I had to spend five days at the hospital with him in Vancouver, Washington, because he had another one of his grand mal seizures, and he was on life support for 24 hours. He stayed in the hospital for five days. It's the medications that are off. It's not the opportunity for him to remember to take his medicines. Those medications aren't working and the doctors keep telling him that.

The neurologists, they can't find the problems that are causing the seizures, and all they know is to tell these people to give up on life. I'm trying to find ways to decriminalize and destigmatize outside public use and consumption, because the people in my life that are dying from deadly diseases, and a lot of them are caused by environmental racism, we know that, a lot of them are caused by the trauma of discrimination in this country. We know that.

But we're not doing enough to help them. We're not doing enough from our platforms to build the movement that we invested in thirty, forty, fifty years ago. This movement didn't start yesterday, and it's not going to end tomorrow. We've got you. Vote! Vote! Vote! End stigma! Okeh? End the stigma, now! Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just want to say, thank you so much, Teressa, for, you know, acknowledging, you know, a sense of city, a sense of community, the black community, being on the front lines, have always had to deal with looking our shoulders.

I moved back to Portland in 2014, and I had the honor of meeting Teressa Raiford at a rally after my Mike Brown was shot, killed, and murdered, and laid on the floor, laid on the ground, for four hours.

This woman sent out a call to her community, for us to step up and band together. Teressa's never -- she accepts and welcomes all communities, LGBT community, the black community, the white community, the any and everybody inbetween community, the houseless community, and that's where my activism, my advocacy, my passion, and my forefront became, because this woman gave me the platform, put a horn in front of my face and told me that it was my turn to speak.

We believe in the city of Portland, that we can all live in the city of Portland. We believe that in 2020, we should not be having conversations much longer about racism, exclusionary zones, discrimination, practices like the sister just stated, that, it was a hundred years ago.

I am proud to say I am 42 years old today standing on this platform before you, when they told me that I would not be living after the age of 10 years old, coming up in Los Angeles California, in Watts, sleeping on the floor, when there were gunshots, being overpoliced in my community.

I had the opportunity, I'm going to say, and the privilege, to gain my strength in 2014 after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a crippling disease. When I heard that Portland was medicated, I was like, I'm back on my way. But when I got here, I also started to hear that it was going to become recreational. And that I could be able to go into a dispensary, or have a part of a conversation that would allow me and my family to not be stigmatized for taking care of our mental health, and our mental wellbeing, for all of the racism when we go back to the conversation.

So today, I have joined in this moment with this universe, the universe definitely brought us together, because I had no idea that this was happening. I've been on the front line as well, dealing with housing issues in the community, worked for the Urban League of Portland, worked for join [sic], been with Sisters of the Road, been with Right 2 Survive, building a black village, working at the first hiphop dispensary in Portland, Green Hop.

Can we just give Green Hop, Karanja Crews, for giving us another space to be able to walk into the door and community when he put his career on the line as an educator to continue to keep educating his community, for economic development, economic power.

So, we ask you to just look out for us, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2025, we here, we're in the building. Shout out to these sisters and brothers that put this together. Shout out to all the amazing people that got us here today. And shout out to you for being here. Much love, much respect. I'm out.

DOUG MCVAY: That was Teressa Raiford, a community organizer and mayoral candidate in the city of Portland, speaking at the Global Marijuana March event in Portland, Oregon on May 4.

And that's it for this week. I want to thank you for joining us. You have been listening to Century of Lies. We're a production of the Drug Truth Network for the Pacifica Foundation Radio Network, on the web at DrugTruth.net. I’m your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

The executive producer of the Drug Truth Network is Dean Becker. Drug Truth Network programs, including this show, Century of Lies, as well as the flagship show of the Drug Truth Network, Cultural Baggage, and of course our daily 420 Drug War News segments, are all available by podcast. The URLs to subscribe are on the network home page at DrugTruth.net.

The Drug Truth Network has a Facebook page, please give it a like. Drug War Facts is on Facebook too, give its page a like and share it with friends. Remember: Knowledge is power.

You can follow me on Twitter, I'm @DougMcVay and of course also @DrugPolicyFacts.

We'll be back in a week with thirty more minutes of news and information about drug policy reform and the failed war on drugs. For now, for the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay saying so long. So long!

For the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay asking you to examine our policy of drug prohibition: the century of lies. Drug Truth Network programs archived at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

04/24/19 Ethan Nadelmann

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Ethan Nadelmann
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Ethan Nadelmann the founder and former Exec Dir of Drug Policy Alliance + Chris Whitener supporter of Patients out of Time & Exec Dir of Magical Butter.

Audio file

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

APRIL 24, 2019

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: I am Dean Becker, your host. Our goal for this program is to expose the fraud, misdirection, and the liars whose support for drug war empowers our terrorist enemies, enriches barbarous cartels, and gives reason for existence to tens of thousands of violent US gangs who profit by selling contaminated drugs to our children. This is Cultural Baggage.

Hi, folks, I am the Reverend Dean Becker, this is Cultural Baggage. Some program notes before we get started. Still have some leftover segments from my visit to St. Louis with the Drug Policy Alliance folks, got another show to build from that, and we have one or two more that we can do from our visit to Florida, the Patients Out of Time conference, but we've got a special guest today.

Well folks, today I have the privilege of talking to one of the few people I feel have a knowledge base about this drug war that are better than mine. He was the founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, the executive director for, I'm thinking 15 or 20 years, he's now retired, but he's never really going to retire from drug reform.

I want to welcome my friend, my ally, Mister Ethan Nadelmann. Hey, Ethan.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: Hey, Dean, it's great to be back on your show, and I really so much appreciate the work that you've been doing in just really providing both the radio voice and in some respects this can ultimately be the archives of the drug policy reform movement. So thank you for doing this.

DEAN BECKER: Well, thank you for that. Yeah, you know, Ethan, I think about it, the work you have done over the decades now, the little bit I've helped along the way, and many of your allies within Drug Policy Alliance and elsewhere have opened this situation, have exposed the fraud, the misdirection, of this drug war.

More and more people, more and more publications, politicians, scientists, are agreeing with what you put forward those years ago, and they're speaking more boldly of the need for change. Am I right, sir?

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: Well, I think that's right, Dean, I mean, look, on the one hand, I'll tell you that when I first got going on this mission, you know, decades ago, I remember, you know, going to visit a very wise man named Ram Dass, a sort of spiritual thinker and leader, and one piece of advice he gave me was, look, in the end, you have to let go of your attachment to the things that you're fighting for.

In other words, that, whether we win or lose, that the struggle we're engaged in to end the war on drugs and to promote a drug policy grounded in positive values, science, compassion, health, and human rights, that ultimately that's what matters in life. Right? For each one of us who are engaged.

You know, at the same time, there is no denying, it's good to win. Right? Most of us are competitive souls who want to win, we want to lock up the victories, we want to change things in the real world, just -- not just fight the good cause.

And in that sense, I feel very lucky and proud, because I think if you look back over what's happened, especially and most dramatically on the marijuana issue, I mean, moving the country, moving from 25 percent support for legalization back in the '80s to sixty percent now, and from zero states legal to thirty-plus legal for medical and ten on broader recreational adult use, and more going forward.

I mean, I just take enormous pride and pleasure in having played, you know, a role in making that happen.

When you look at the broader efforts to end mass incarceration, and especially our particularly piece of it, which is ending the contribution of the drug war to mass incarceration, clearly we have begun to turn things around.

But in many respects, it's like turning around an ocean liner, right, you can point it in the right direction but it takes a long time until you finally see this new direction emerging.

But we are, and we have been making progress, and I think that's going to accelerate, and we've got to smart and savvy and strategic about the next steps to make sure the counterattacks don't trip us up.

And then on the third area of our work, about making commitments to treating drug use and addiction as a health issue, not a criminal issue, I think there, too, we're making a lot of progress, sometimes driven by tragedy. First it was the spread of HIV AIDS, and now it's been the overdose crisis, but we're clearly making progress there as well.

But, this is, as we all acknowledge, a multigenerational struggle, and we are now into the second generation of this struggle, and it's going to have to continue for a ways to come.

DEAN BECKER: Oh, I agree with you. You know, I've come to the conclusion that at 70 years of age, I may not live to see pot legal in the state of Texas because of who we have firmly entrenched here.

But the fact is we are making progress, slow, incremental stuff here, and larger progress being made around the country.

I want to bring forward an idea that I shared with Doctor João Goulão when I was in Portugal last year, along with many of the folks from the Drug Policy Alliance, and he was talking about how we don't have a moral attitude towards drug users. He's talking about how they're less than, they're not quite human. Well, that's not the words he used, but, we demonize folks, kind of cast them aside as being unworthy. Your response to that, Ethan.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: Well, you know, oftentimes you hear people involved in drug policy reform saying we've got to keep the morality out of drug policy, right, because we tend to say that morality is about the pseudo-moralism of the drug war folks, of the anti-drug folks, the assumption that using drugs is immoral per se and that the people who use, make, produce, sell, whatever, consume, are somehow fundamentally immoral.

And so many drug policy reformers will say -- will say that we should take the morality out. But I think the point is very well taken, what João Goulão said, is we really need to put the morality back into drug policy. This is about recognizing the fundamental humanity of everybody, and not making exceptions in our principles about the worth of every individual based upon the fact that they consume one drug or another.

It's interesting that people who struggle with addiction, and sometimes wreak havoc in the lives of people around them, where we rightfully, understandably get furious and angry at them, yet at the same time understanding that we need to dig deep to deal with this in as moral a way as possible, even when that's tough on -- even when it's tough and difficult for us to do.

So I think that's right, that the stigma against people based upon the drug they put in their body, even people who do no harm to others, remains very powerful all around the world. I mean, I'll tell you, Dean, I was at a gathering last week on the cannabis issue, and, you know, there's a lot of focus, correctly so, and including in my own comments, about the racism that permeates every piece of the drug war, from its origins to the way it's implemented to, well, you know, the public's view of it.

I mean, all of it, I mean, racism just permeates the drug war, especially in the US, but many other countries as well.

But the point I made was that even as we need to understand as deeply as possible the role of racism, there's another ism there, and it doesn't sound right, it's not a great word, I won't want to run with it, but let's call it drugism. In other words, the irrational prejudice, and stigma, and fear, and hatred of people based upon the substance they put in their body.

The assumption that anybody, because you put in drug X or Y as opposed to drug A or B, that you are therefore less than, that you are therefore worthy of being punished or discriminated against.

I mean, that thing just persists in our society in a very powerful way. We can talk about, you know, junkies or druggies or pushers, in a way we don't allow that kind of prejudicial talk about other people based upon race or gender or things like that anymore, at least in mainstream or conventional society.

And so I think identifying and uprooting that element of, for lack of a better word, drugism, is fundamentally important to putting the morality back into drug policy.

DEAN BECKER: Well, Ethan, I run into that ism quite frequently, you know, online in particular, you know, people talk about, well, if they hadn't had the meth with them then it would be fine, let's lock them up forever because they were using these harder drugs. But let's bless our sacred weed, and, you know, go after those people who take the pills and the powders.

Little realizing, I think, that by endorsing prohibition, they're delaying progress overall for marijuana as well, by giving it validity. Your response there, Ethan.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: Well, I mean -- well, I think with marijuana, we're really getting there, and I realize it's slow going in Texas and other parts of the country on this, but ultimately I think the end of marijuana prohibition in the United States and many other countries is -- we can't drop the ball now, and we're unfortunately becoming over reliant now on industry and for-profit forces to make this happen.

But it is going to ultimately end prohibition, and those who are hanging onto prohibition, they're touting its supposed benefits in terms of reducing drug use or problems like that, I think they're fundamentally missing the immorality of the prohibitionist policy.

Now, when you start talking about the prohibition of cocaine, and heroin and methamphetamine, drugs where there's remarkably little progress in terms of the broader population endorsing some form of legal control or regulation, there it's a much tougher challenge.

And I think, you know, on some level it's acknowledging that the sort of, whether it's a libertarian model or a tougher regulatory approach that would allow the over the counter sale of drugs like heroin and cocaine and methamphetamine, is in a very distant future if at all.

And therefore the way we need to think about this is, A, we have to focus on ending the criminalization of drug use and possession. Right? Just being very clear about that. It's the Portugal model, the way the Portuguese made a commitment to saying we're not going to put anybody in jail for simple possession of any drug.

If they're really a bad guy, they say, we'll catch them with something else, but we're not going to use the taxpayers' resources, we're not going to punish people simply based upon the fact that they're taking a substance. We're going to do our best to help them, but if they reject our help, we're not going to lock them up.

Moving forward in the US, towards reducing the criminalization and ultimately ending the criminalization of drug possession for one's own use is pivotally important from a moral level and a policy level.

And the further we advance in that regard, we then come to the next level challenge, which is how do we come up with ways that allow people who are addicted to drugs, or even many of those who just want them and are not addicted, how do we come up with ways that allow them to obtain legal access to the drugs they want in a way that does not undermine broader public health. Right?

DEAN BECKER: Yeah.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: What are the things in between criminalization and over the counter model that could actually work? It's the heroin maintenance programs one sees in Europe and Canada, it's finding the ways to knock out the criminalization.

And so I'm very attracted to what the folks in British Columbia are talking about right now, they're talking about safe supply. Right? They're trying to go beyond the heroin maintenance model, the limited clinic model, to something that talks about how do you allow people who want to get drugs to get them in a safe form, and do it in ways that do not endanger the broader public health.

That's the next two level challenges in the US and many other parts of the world.

DEAN BECKER: Yes, sir. Ethan, and by the way, folks, we are speaking with Mister Ethan Nadelmann, he's the founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, the former executive director, now still working in drug reform.

Ethan, each week, I go to the courthouses here in Houston. I wear a different shirt each week, I hand out these cards that, you know, encourage people to get involved, et cetera.

Last week I wore the one that said "Cops Say Legalize Heroin. Ask Me Why." And a few folks came up and asked me why, but some folks when I started to tell them about what I learned in Switzerland last year, from Doctor Christoph Buerki, he designed a program where they have, it's not that many, I think it's in the few thousands of Swiss citizens, who get pure heroin every morning and every evening from the government.

Twenty-five years they've been doing it, twenty-seven million times, and they've had zero overdose deaths. And I think it is the fear of these drugs that helps to exacerbate the problem, that creates the harms. Your thought there, please.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: I think, I mean, Dean, I'll tell you, by chance I happened to be in Switzerland back in 1992 on the day that their federal government gave the approval for Zurich and a few other cities to go forward with the heroin trials, so I've followed it very closely throughout these years.

It's not just eliminating overdose fatalities, it's also reducing the likelihood of the transmission of HIV AIDS and other infectious diseases, it's reducing criminality associated with drugs, helping people get their lives together even when they're continuing to use pharmaceutical heroin.

It's actually a net benefit economically to the taxpayer because the cost of these programs is less than the amount of money saved on the public health and public safety side. So it's very clearly the right way to go.

I remember back in the late Nineties, I think, cover story of Der Spiegel magazine, you know, the German version of -- the best selling news magazine in Germany, Der Spiegel, and the cover story was, majority of big city German police chiefs support legalizing heroin, or heroin maintenance.

And the reason was, was that once the cops were able to get past their initial response, which was, how can you be giving junk to the junkies, how can you just do that?

Once they began to realize that providing pharmaceutical heroin in clinics to people who are addicted to street heroin, where they cannot take it home but had to use it there, that it was good for them, the users in terms of helping stabilize their lives and being safer, it was good in terms of crime reduction, and it was also good in terms of certain, you know, diminishing the overall illicit drug market, that it was a win-win-win for them.

So, I think there's a lot of police chiefs in the US who would get this after a thirty-minute or sixty-minute conversation. A lot of DAs, a lot of politicians, you know, there are ways to do this, the organization that I ran for many years, Drug Policy Alliance, has been making a major effort to engage researchers, in getting research trials going in universities, to get this going in the US.

So we will see it happening in the US in coming years. And it's all the more important now because of the incredible jump in overdose fatalities as a result of adulterated heroin, you know, stuff cut with fentanyl.

DEAN BECKER: Yes sir. Now, all those benefits you listed that the cops could recognize, there's one that I've been trying to bring forward, and it's seldom addressed, and that is, were these drugs to all be legalized, we would suddenly have tens of millions of American citizens who could then align themselves with the cops, who could, in effect, report serious and violent crimes without the worry of, you know, being hassled by the man, so to speak, for having broached the subject to them. Your thought.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: Well, I mean, I think it's important, you know, that ending the drug war and some form of legalization is not going to be any panacea in terms of addressing the underlying issues of racism and other things that drive over-policing in communities. Right?

It's not going to be a panacea, but it is true, you know, so long as, you know, young people, and young people of color, know that they're especially vulnerable to being stopped by the cops and arrested solely because of the substance they may have in their pocket?

I mean, that's what drove the marijuana arrests, these record levels in recent years, it creates a feeling of suspiciousness, you know, it generates crime in ways that certainly cause people to be wary of calling the police. Right?

It's the whole issue you have right now where you have marijuana quasi-legalized in many places, but not fully legalized, and so when a marijuana seller is victimized by a real criminal, they can't call the police and complain. Right? So, clearly, ending the criminalization of drugs in this way and putting people in a safer position, where they feel calling the cops will not basically make themselves suspect or possibly arrested, will definitely be a key step forward.

DEAN BECKER: I think you're right. Now, Ethan, I know we're running out of time here, I want to bring up something.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: Yeah.

DEAN BECKER: The -- I'm going to mention Law Enforcement Action Partnership, formerly Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Americans for Safe Access, the list goes on, these are not all exactly founded by the DPA [sic: SSDP and ASA were founded before DPA was incorporated], but they have been supported and embraced, and encouraged to grow over the years.

It feels good to have those stepchildren, does it not?

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: Well, I'll tell you something, I mean, the way I thought about there's, like, four major types of organizations working out there.

One are basically issue specific organizations, like ASA working on medical marijuana, like Harm Reduction Coalition working on harm reduction. The old North American Syringe Exchange Network, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Rick Doblin's MAPS, working on the psychedelics issue.

You have all these issue specific organizations that are doing spectacular work, some quite successfully, some growing quite successfully. So that's one group.

The second type are the geographically specific ones. You have state drug policy reform organizations in different states or communities around the county, right? There's a New York group, there's a Connecticut, there's a group in this state and that state, some are working on just some issues, some working across the board, but you know the old saying, you know, that, you know, all politics is local, and think global, act local?

Well, that's really true. When people ask me how to get involved in drug policy reform, I say, educate yourself as much as possible, but then get engaged locally.

The third type of group are different constituencies. Students for drug policy reform, SSDP. Law enforcement, that's LEAP, that you just mentioned. Clergy against the drug war, doctors against the drug war, each of these constituency based groups also playing a role in terms of educating their own: cops, students, what have you.

And then lastly, you have the Drug Policy Alliance and some much smaller organizations that are taking the whole thing, looking for the opportunities to end the drug war more broadly, still trying to build something resembling an allied and conscious drug policy reform movement, because ultimately that's the way change is going to happen.

And I think, Dean, with that, I need to sign off. But, it's been wonderful talking with you, and I look forward to doing it again, and to seeing you at the Drug Policy Alliance biennial in St. Louis this fall.

DEAN BECKER: Well, real good, Ethan. Please, one last question, sir.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: Okeh.

DEAN BECKER: I think the majority of people -- cops, citizens, everybody, knows the truth, enough of the truth of this matter, the drug war is failing, but they're afraid to talk. Give them a little impetus to stand up and do their part, please.

ETHAN NADELMANN, PHD: Well, look, I mean, ultimately, people have legitimate fears about speaking out when they may be at risk of being fired for it, at risk of being ostracized, you know, by neighbors and people who belong to associations to which they belong, but ultimately, you know, we all have an obligation not just to learn and understand the truth, but to speak truth, and ultimately to speak truth to power.

And so, you know, one has to find a way to do that. I've seen people who kept their views secret for many, many years, and then finally found the moment or opportunity where they felt compelled, or they felt safe, to speak out.

Sometimes it's just on one piece of the drug war. But I think, you know, more and more people are finding that courage.

It's a lot like the way people were hidden about their homosexuality, either their own or family members', and as more and more people found the courage to speak out, and, you know, as images change, as the media played a new role, the entertainment media, what have you, you know, basically, more and more people became comfortable to the point where this has become less and less an issue.

We're seeing that increasingly now around the use of marijuana, and even around the use of psychedelics. So I think it's about coming out about one's own personal life if one can, one's own views. Things have changed a lot, I mean, it's very different now than it was in the late '80s, early '90s, when I was getting started and when there was a culture of fear, and a sort of, you know, a drug war that I've described as McCarthyism on steroids.

We really have come a long way. We have to make sure we keep going and things don't roll backwards, as they did back in the '80s.

DEAN BECKER: If you'd like to learn more about the Drug Policy Alliance, just go to DrugPolicy.org. I understand Ethan's headed to Portugal to attend the International Harm Reduction Conference. Hope to hear some good things from that event.

I guess, to be fair, after that interview I should play something in support of eternal wars.

[MUSIC]
He’s the Drug Czar,
Wages an eternal war
On free will.

He knows all,
The Drug Czar knows all.
He’s in charge of the truth
So he tells nothing but lies.

He professes such great sorrow
For the thousands of his minions who died.

He’s the Drug Czar
Waging his eternal war
On our free will.

All right, as I indicated at the start of the show, we'll have more from the Florida gathering of the Patients Out of Time, but I want to say this, there's a group that funded many of the events, many of the locales where they were able to hold this conference, and they were the high bidders on all the paintings and the marijuana tin canisters from the federal patients, et cetera. I want to share an interview I did with their spokesman,

CHRISTOPHER WHITENER: Christopher Whitener, executive director of MagicalButter.com.

DEAN BECKER: Now, Christopher, we're here at the thirteenth Patients Out of Time conference, it's a gathering of knowledgeable folks, folks who have been at this for a long time, and have delved deep into the cannabis product and its potentials. Tell us about Magical Butter. What's it about?

CHRISTOPHER WHITENER: Well, thank you for your time. Really honored to be here at the Patients Out of Time conference, and Magical Butter's been a longtime supporter of Patients Out of Time, and patients in general.

We provide people with the essential tools they need to be successful in the kitchen. In 2012, Garyn Angel invented the Magical Butter machine. It's a countertop appliance similar to an immersion blender combined with a slow cooker.

It's microprocess controlled, it's simple, you just put your herbs in there, you need to decarboxylate your botanicals and combine them with either butter, cooking oils, or you can make tinctures and lotions.

Once you have your measured ingredients, you select the temperature, and the time, and the machine is going to heat up, mix, stir, grind, and extract, and leave you with an infused butter or oil.

We have a full line of accessories that help make that process easy, from extraction to infusion to baking. And you can make fully extracted cannabis oils, coconut oils, butters, and topical skin lotions easily at home.

DEAN BECKER: Sounds amazing, truthfully. Now, I went by your table and there were several accessories, I guess, if you will, that look like maybe they work in the freezer or in the fridge or something. Tell us about some of those accessories, please.

CHRISTOPHER WHITENER: Yes, so, you may have noticed we have several different molds and trays. A butter tray that gives you perfectly measured ingredients. When you pour your infused butter in there, you're going to have tablespoon amounts, and when it comes time to use that in your daily diet or recipes, it makes it real easy to measure.

We also have a full line of candy trays. They're simple silicone molds that enable people to make candies and treats very easily. They're marked with a 21 and up emblem, and that's to protect people who are not adults and also so people will understand that it is a medicated treat, and not just a standard candy.

We also have a set of silicone spatulas, and a silicone box that is made to go inside your oven, comes complete with a thermometer, and this is going to help in the decarboxylation process to make sure you're not overheating your herbs. Overheating it can degrade the potency in the activated compounds.

DEAN BECKER: Now, this has been on the market for quite some time. You guys seem to be doing quite well. I saw your Magical Butter mobile last night, out in the front of the hotel. Tell us about that vehicle, what's its purpose, how is it serving your company?

CHRISTOPHER WHITENER: Well, that's the Magical Butter limousine, and it's been there since the beginning. Not only does it serve as transportation that looks cool, but it's a moving billboard, and we've driven the limousine across the country three different times.

We've taken part in, you know, patient activism, traveling from Washington state to Washington, DC, and now the limousine is used for private use, but it also makes for a great area for business meetings.

DEAN BECKER: Well, I'm sure it does at that. Chris, I appreciate your time, I appreciate the work you guys are carving out there at Magical Butter. And, you know, across the country, there are folks, old folks like me who smoked Marlboros for way too long, can hardly choke down anything, let alone some cannabis.

But, edibles are the way to go for us old folks. Wouldn't you think?

CHRISTOPHER WHITENER: You know, yes, I would say so. It's a way that's healthy and it's not going to have any harsh side effects that smoking or vaporizing could cause.

DEAN BECKER: All right. Well, Chris, thank you for your time. Share your website one more time, for the listeners.

CHRISTOPHER WHITENER: Yeah, for all the listeners out there looking to check us out, go to www.MagicalButter.com. Thank you so much to Pacifica Radio, and thank you Dean for your time.

DEAN BECKER: It's time to play Name That Drug By Its Side Effects! Responsible for countless overdose deaths, uncounted diseases, international graft, greed, and corruption, stilted science, and immense un-Christian moral postulations of fiction as fact. Time's up! And this drug is the United States' immoral, improper, bigoted, unscientific, and plain f'ing evil addiction to drug war.

All approved by the FDA, absolved by the American Medical Association, and persecuted by Congress, the cops, and in obeyance to the needs of the bankers, the pharmaceutical houses, and the international drug cartels. Five hundred fifty billion dollars a year can be very addicting.

I guess we've got to wrap it up, but as you heard with my discussion with Ethan, I was talking about probably never see legal weed in the state of Texas, but there's a chance, a strong chance we'll see legal hemp being grown in the great fields around Hempstead, Texas, and maybe even in my back yard. Heck of it is, hemp is good stuff, hell it will help you quit tobacco cigarettes, calm you down, is the way I understand it, and it shouldn't cost very dang much.

Again I've got to remind you, because of prohibition you don't know what's in that bag, I urge you to please, my friends, be careful.

To the Drug Truth Network listeners around the world, this is Dean Becker for Cultural Baggage and the unvarnished truth. Cultural Baggage is a production of the Pacifica Radio Network. Archives are permanently stored at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. And we are all still tap dancing on the edge of an abyss.

04/03/19 Gretchen Burns Bergman

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Gretchen Burns Bergman
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

This week on Century: The FDA has announced that it plans to hold a public hearing on cannabis and cannabis derivatives; FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, is questioned by a Senate subcommittee about CBD; plus we hear interviews with Gretchen Burns Bergman from A New PATH, Art Way from Drug Policy Alliance, and Shiloh Jama from People's Harm Reduction Alliance.

Audio file

TRANSCRIPT

CENTURY OF LIES

APRIL 3, 2019

DEAN BECKER: The failure of drug war is glaringly obvious to judges, cops, wardens, prosecutors, and millions more now calling for decriminalization, legalization, the end of prohibition. Let us investigate the Century Of Lies.

DOUG MCVAY: Hello, and welcome to Century of Lies. I'm your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

Well, the executive producer of the Drug Truth Network, my good friend Dean Becker, was at a Drug Policy Alliance event and he brought back some great audio, so much great audio that he's kind enough to share some of it with us, so we're going to be hearing some interviews in the later part of the hour [sic: half hour] with Shiloh Jama of the People's Harm Reduction Alliance, with Gretchen Burns Bergman from A New PATH, and with Art Way from the Drug Policy Alliance.

But first, the Food and Drug Administration is announcing that it will be holding a public hearing at the end of May to gather scientific data and information about products containing cannabis or cannabis derived compounds. It's a public hearing and a request for comments.

At the time of this recording, their announcement is not technically official. The draft which is right here on my computer screen in front of me tells me that the public hearing will be held on May 31, 2019, that requests to make oral presentations and comments at the public hearing have to be received by May 10, electronic or written comments will be accepted until July 2 of 2019.

You will be able to find all of this at the Federal Register, which is FederalRegister.gov, and on GovInfo.gov. Probably there will be something at the FDA's website about it. It's, as I say, at the time of this recording, still in draft, so, there's always a chance that by tomorrow, when the publication is made final, they may make some changes, they may adjust the dates, who can say.

But at the moment, according to this in front of, the FDA will be holding a public hearing to gather scientific data and public information about the safety, manufacturing, product quality, marketing, labeling, and sale of products [containing cannabis and/or cannabis derivatives].

On March 28, Scott Gottlieb, who is leaving the office of Commissioner of the FDA, testified before an appropriations subcommittee, talking about the 2020 budget request for the FDA. He was asked about CBD and CBD products and regulation by Democratic Senator from Vermont Patrick Leahy. Here's that audio.

SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Doctor Gottlieb, I'm going to miss having you here. I do appreciate your availability when I've called, and when we've had questions.

I suspect there are four people in Westport who will be glad to have you back, your wife and your three children, and you probably won't mind that, either. That's safe to say.

SCOTT GOTTLIEB, MD: I'm going to miss this position, this has been a wonderful, wonderful journey.

SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Well, let's go to a couple of things, and I realize everybody's got different questions, but, we did a bipartisan 2018 Farm Bill. I was pretty proud of it, Republicans and Democrats did things the way they should do. The Chairman was a member of that Committee, and we passed the Farm Bill, overwhelming margins, both the House and the Senate.

We had some significant wins for Vermont families and dairy farmers, organic producers, but also, what I was mostly concerned about, rural communities across the country, and also we classified hemp as an agricultural product, rather than a controlled substance.

I've had farmers, processors, retailers in my state, most states, want to enter this market, they want to leverage the potential. They have significant regulatory and enforcement uncertainty, including the FDA. You recently stated the FDA, if I've got this correct, could take years to create a formal pathway for hemp derived CBD products to be sold, despite the fact they're widely available in the market.

How do you think the FDA should use its enforcement discretion on the use of CBD as an ingredient?

SCOTT GOTTLIEB, MD: Well, we're using enforcement discretion right now. I will take enforcement action against CBD products that are on the market if manufacturers are making what I consider over the line claims.

So if you're marketing CBD and you're claiming it can cure cancer or prevent Alzheimer's disease, we're going to take action against that, because that could mislead a patient into foregoing otherwise effective therapy.

But there are products on the market right now that, you know, given our enforcement priorities and our limited resources, we haven't taken action against. That's not an invitation for people to continue marketing these products. We're concerned about it, but we heard Congress loud and clear here.

We know you want a pathway under our regulatory scheme. It's a challenging route, because this not exists as a drug in the marketplace, but it also is under substantial clinical investigation. So even if there was an improved drug, because it was never previously in the food supply, we don't have a clear route to allow this to be lawfully marketed short of promulgating new regulations.

That's why in closing one of the things that the working group that's headed up by Amy Abernathy, who's here with me today, our Principal Deputy Commissioner, is going to be looking at, is what options we could propose to Congress to potentially legislate on this issue in a specific manner.

SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT): Well, that's going to take a legislative fix. I don't envy you trying to figure out a regulatory one, because you have other agencies with regulatory. Would you please, as you continue on this, make sure my staff and I are kept apprised of what type of legislative fix there might be.

I think between the various committees members of this serve on will probably be where the legislative fix will go, and I would just like to get some certainty here. I'm not diminishing the complexities, but I'd like to get some certainty.

DOUG MCVAY: That was US Senator Pat Leahy asking some questions of FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb at a hearing of the Appropriations subcommittee covering the Food and Drug Administration's budget. They were discussing the fiscal year 2020 budget request for the FDA.

Again, FDA will be holding a hearing on cannabis and cannabis derived products. Details will be at the FDA website, and will be published in the Federal Register on April Third.

You're listening to Century of Lies. I'm your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

Now, as I said at the top of the show, the executive producer of the Drug Truth Network, Dean Becker, who's also the host and producer of Cultural Baggage, was fortunate enough to attend a Drug Policy Alliance event recently. Got some terrific audio, and he's kind enough to share that with us.

So today's show, we're going to be hearing from some folks. Let's start off with someone from the Drug Policy Alliance, here's Art Way, Colorado State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance.

ART WAY: I'm Art Way, State Director in Colorado for Drug Policy Alliance, also a part of our criminal justice reform strategy team. So essentially the work that I do falls along, you know, the traditional ways in which DPA kind of breaks up its work.

You know, we promote harm reduction, we promote broader sentencing reform, when it comes to drug policies and in criminal justice, and, you know, we're looking to establish, you know, marijuana laws that take that substance out of the criminal justice toolkit for law enforcement, so that's legalization as well as medical marijuana.

DEAN BECKER: Art, let me ask you this. You are one of the main cogs in an effort called LEAD, Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion. It's working in Colorado, but still being refined, as I understand it.

It's beginning to wind around the country a bit. There's some dabbling of it in Houston, as I'm aware, but, tell us about LEAD. How does it work?

ART WAY: Yeah, LEAD ideally is a public health approach to deal with drug use and possession, addiction, that is essentially a pre-booking diversion program that uses law enforcement to be the first responders and the first people to provide for services as opposed to simply arresting people.

So, it's, ideally it's a way to create harm reduction wrap around services drug treatment infrastructure that is independent of the criminal justice system but still utilizes police to be that bridge to get people into those services.

DEAN BECKER: What type of tactics, or perspective, understanding do you have to develop within those police officers?

ART WAY: Well, they need to understand harm reduction. They need to understand that relapse is a part of recovery. They need to understand that you can increase somebody's life whether or not they become abstinent. You can increase somebody's quality of life, whether or not they become abstinent.

So, you know, they need to understand that it's not simply about, oh, I put you into this program, now you should get your life together overnight. You know, it takes time for people to become drug dependent. It takes time for people to find themselves, experiencing homelessness. It takes time for people to realize that they may have some mental health issues, and anything that we do needs to recognize that it may take time.

And I think police are the slowest to realize that this is a marathon and it's not a sprint. You know, they don't want to see the same people twice. Somebody that they put in LEAD in February --

DEAN BECKER: They find it insulting.

ART WAY: Yeah. They find it insulting to see that person back on the street doing the same thing in March. But the reality is, you're looking to figure out ways to increase people's quality of life through the harm reduction lens, and LEAD, if done properly, can be done -- can be used that way.

It takes a lot of faith, when it comes to law enforcement and district attorneys, to properly do LEAD in a harm reduction way.

DEAN BECKER: And, I was going to just throw this bit, the fact of the matter is, the difficulty involved can easily be discerned by just observing people trying to quit tobacco. It's, sometimes it takes a hell of a lot.

ART WAY: It's a journey. It's a journey, you know, it's rare that this stuff happens overnight. You know, most people quit three or four or five times before they finally are able to put that whole thing behind them.

And of course, it's the same thing with a lot of our illicit drugs. But you know, the great thing about LEAD, if done properly, it's not just about drug treatment. It's not just about diverting people away from the criminal justice to put them into drug treatment. It's about individualized case management.

So, ideally, you ask what does this person need to improve their quality of life? Drug treatment might be a part of that, but they also may need assistance with housing. They may need assistance with employment. So LEAD is ideally about wrap-around services with drug treatment just being one part of that.

DEAN BECKER: There are communities, I don't know if it's directly involved with LEAD or not, but there are communities around the country where in order to lead people towards that, finally recognizing or ending their addiction, that they've -- they're given housing at times, given a stipend in some locations, able to start to rebuild the life, start to have a little respect for their own dignity, and move it forward. Your thought there, Art.

ART WAY: Yeah, I mean, ideally LEAD deals with what many people call the 'frequent flyer' community, so any local jail, you'll have the same people going in and out of that local jail, every week, whether it's on drug charges, transient charges, loitering, trespass.

So these are the people in our community that could benefit the most from, you know, for the lack of a better term, safety net type policies and procedures and practices that we really don't have.

So, you know, LEAD looks to build this type of policy infrastructure, find this type of wrap around services, and limit our over-reliance on the criminal justice system to provide such things.

You know, we depend on the criminal justice system to provide mental health, and we need to figure out a way to at least have the same amount of services outside of the criminal justice system, and I think LEAD can slowly start to not only make that paradigm shift, but make that resource allocation shift that's needed to deal with public health issues that the criminal justice system is not ideally situated to deal with.

DEAN BECKER: And I would think given time, given the ability to prove the validity of this transition, from criminalization to, you know, support, it would prove itself.

ART WAY: Yeah, yeah, you know, it's -- it's a definite mind shift for many actors involved. I mean, not only police, but even, you know, most of our people within the treatment community aren't really fans of harm reduction like we think they should be.

So, it not only shifts the paradigm for police, but it shifts the paradigm for those in the treatment community.

But yeah, it's going to take some time to work out because we've been doing it one way for fifty years, and we've been putting a lot of money into jails and prisons, and we've been trying to create services within jails and prisons, but for whatever reason, we haven't done the same thing outside of the criminal justice apparatus, and I think LEAD is one way to slowly start to begin to walk down that path of establishing community based supports that do not require a conviction in order to take part.

DEAN BECKER: Okeh. Now, once again, folks, we've been speaking with Mister Art Way, he's with the Drug Policy Alliance, they're out there on the web at DrugPolicy.org. Art, is there a subsection where folks can learn more about LEAD there on the DPA website?

ART WAY: Yeah, you could just search for LEAD, and some resources will come up. There's a national LEAD bureau that I think has the most detailed information on the LEAD policy. I'm not quite sure of that website, but google National LEAD Bureau, and you'll get a lot of information on the LEAD program specifically. [sic: https://www.leadbureau.org/ ]

DOUG MCVAY: That was Dean Becker's interview with Art Way, Colorado state director for the Drug Policy Alliance. They were at a Drug Policy Alliance event recently, and as I say, Dean was kind enough to bring back a lot of really great audio.

So now, let's hear another interview from that event. This is Gretchen Burns Bergman, she's director and co-founder of A New PATH, Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing.

GRETCHEN BURNS BERGMAN: So I'm Gretchen Burns Bergman, and I'm co-founder and executive director of A New PATH. That stands for Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing, and we advocate for therapeutic rather than punitive drug policies, and we -- I'm also the lead organizer of Moms United To End The War On Drugs, which is now in 35 states, and we work to -- also partners with six countries, and we work to end the stigmatization and criminalization of people who use drugs or people who struggle with substance use disorders.

DEAN BECKER: You know, the idea is being respected more, more than ever before, I think. The implementation of change, hopefully we'll soon follow more rapidly than it has been, but, the truth of it is, is that more and more people are realizing that these newspaper headlines about the opioid deaths are friends and sometimes family, and worthy of more respect, and reinterpretation. Right?

GRETCHEN BURNS BERGMAN: They're not just statistics. They're not just numbers. They're people, and they leave in the wake of their oftentimes accidental opioid overdose grieving families, parents, communities, whole communities are devastated by this.

You know, it's interesting, because I talk about the opioid crisis, well, it's not the opioid crisis, it's the opioid overdose crisis. It's the number of people who are accidentally losing their lives.

DEAN BECKER: Well, you know, Gretchen, I close my half hour show the phrase because of prohibition you don't know what's in that bag, to please be careful. And it is the policy of prohibition that creates this situation where gangsters make it and gangsters cut it with all kinds of c***, for lack of a better term, and sell it, many times to our children. Right?

GRETCHEN BURNS BERGMAN: And it's that black market that's created by prohibition that is really at the base of this. It's the war on drugs, you've, we've all said it many times, but it's not a war on drugs, it's a war on people, and people, precious human beings, are getting caught up in the crossfire of this.

So, you know, our kids are at the forefront of this war on drugs, and are losing their lives, and oftentimes if not losing their lives, losing their liberties, being caught up in mass arrest, mass incarceration.

And this is why we're working to try to enlighten the general public about this, and that we are losing our human rights and dignities. It's been eroded at such a pace that people are not necessarily aware of the need to stand up for their rights.

Parents, mothers, like me, need to speak out about what our basic human rights to nurture and protect our kids are. Right? For the sake of, not just our own children, but future generations.

DEAN BECKER: Well, it has a, I use the term, it's a quasi-religion. It's a belief system that allows one group of people to go to war against another group of people because they don't like their habits, their morals, their use of certain products. And, I try to be careful. It's not -- it's charlatans, ah, hell ....

GRETCHEN BURNS BERGMAN: It's about judgment. I mean, how dare we judge what people, what other people put in their bodies, you know. How dare we judge them. And yet we've built a whole system of control over people, like a moral authority over people, that is ridiculous.

DEAN BECKER: I see great similarities to that of the tactics of the Taliban, if you will, that you go with the, our dictates, or we will punish you.

GRETCHEN BURNS BERGMAN: Yeah. And there's a, very much of an us and them separating of people, which is so dangerous. I'm very worried about mankind. Right? When this happens, and it's happening all over the world, this othering of people. You know?

DEAN BECKER: Yeah. And I think it's, you know, it's a means whereby, you touched on it, our rights are slowly being eroded, and handed over to no-knock warrants and SWAT teams and other new tactics to modern policing that never existed before but they're justified through this fear of drug users and their quote "tactics."

GRETCHEN BURNS BERGMAN: And it's very interesting that we allowed the criminal justice system to take over what is really a healthcare concern, and it's a parental concern. You know? And perhaps teachers' and instructors' concern.

But it's not a criminal justice concern. Why did we do that to our own people, to our own family members, you know?

DEAN BECKER: Well, we're here at the Drug Policy conference in St. Louis, and yesterday I tried to bring up what I thought is the answer to what you just posed, and it is that it was charlatans pretending to be moralists who put forward the idea that blacks shouldn't be allowed to use marijuana, they'll rape white women and so on and so on.

And it was embraced within, well, the Jim Crow era, it was put in place, and it has been, this war has been waged for over a hundred years, depending on which initial law you speak of, but it's, it has no, no real defenders in public. They'll do it to TV camera, or from a pulpit or whatever you call it in DC, but they will not submit to an open public debate about the validity of usefulness of this policy.

GRETCHEN BURNS BERGMAN: Well, at the core of it is racism, and it's also not just a war on race, it's a war on poverty, so it's the haves and the have nots, and the greater divide between the two. It's power and money. That's why it's hard to get an honest debate going.

DEAN BECKER: They can't do it. Well, Gretchen, it was wonderful to see you here in St. Louis. I'm sure we'll be seeing each other this November, back here in St. Louis, where the major Drug Policy Alliance conference will be held, and, some closing thoughts? Your website, share that with the audience, please.

GRETCHEN BURNS BERGMAN: It's easiest to go to the Moms United website, which is MomsUnited.net, and the two sites are interconnected so that you can check around our different campaigns.

We're coming up to our Mother's Day campaign, a time where we can really speak out about our mom's rights to nurture, protect, and defend the rights of our families and our children.

So, I hope that we get a big crowd here when we come back in November. The Drug Policy Reform Conferences are really, really thought provoking, inspirational, and reinvigorating, you know.

DOUG MCVAY: That was an interview with Gretchen Burns Bergman, director and co-founder of A New PATH, Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing. Drug Truth Network's executive producer Dean Becker was at a Drug Policy Alliance event recently, ran into Gretchen, and was kind enough to share that audio with us for today's show.

Now, let's hear from Shiloh Jama, a longtime harm reduction advocate and director of the People’s Harm Reduction Alliance in Seattle, Washington.

SHILOH JAMA: I mean, I think, you know, some of the trends that are going forward now is, you know, we've been talking around things like syringe exchange programs for a long time, you know, and since our last kind of conversation, when we were in Portugal, we've been doing a lot more work towards getting smoking services.

And something that I was really impressed, when we went there, is a lot of young people don't inject, that they do, they're a lot more smokers, and you know, I think that's where a lot of people, people can talk about, that's how people start or whether or not, but, you know, if, it's one of those things about drugs, is if you don't do enough, they're not very fun, but if you do too much, they're really scary.

And so your just right place? That actually might be smoking compared to injecting, and I think a lot of places we've kind of forgotten that, and we've forgotten that, you know, people do inhalant systems, and, you know, talking to a lot of our people we've been serving is they're becoming a lot more responsible because they've been able to use a lot less and it's been a means for them to recover.

You know, one of the other things I think that people aren't talking a lot around is, you know, some of your listeners might know what dabs are. You know, it's a concentrate of THC, and there's a lot of opiate users in Seattle, because of the legal market of marijuana, who've been using, who've been turning to smoking heroin and they've been now using, mixing it in with dabs to slowly do a detox formula, to stop using opiates and start using marijuana.

There's also, you know, and there's been some advocacy work around getting low income folks some free marijuana in order to facilitate that.

I think, you know, it's, like anything, you know, the system hasn't really caught up yet to those recovery systems through marijuana. And I think, you know, but again, it's like that smoking system, when you give people the opportunity and you give people the means, they, you know, some people want to use drugs the rest of their lives, and that's great. We just don't want them to be in chaotic use.

DEAN BECKER: Sure.

SHILOH JAMA: Right? People who are in stable use, you know, some stable use can look like a lot of different ways. Right? It can be that you've decided to use marijuana over opiates. It also can mean that you decided to use opiates on the weekends.

And it's around creating those opportunities for folks to do that. You know, and when we're dealing with a larger concentration of heroin, that's fentanyl laced, so quality, or I should say, you know, the potency, is not an issue as it used to be. So there used to be a lot of weaker opiates, so you didn't want to smoke, but now that it's a lot stronger because it's laced, smoking becomes a safer means of ingesting your drug.

DEAN BECKER: Well, and even like with marijuana, they talk about you can titrate, you can determine how much you want to intake, and how much of an effect you want to create for yourself, and I'm sure that's true with smoking the opiates, I don't know, is it pills, is it the powders, what the heck are they smoking? The opium's certainly not around, is it?

SHILOH JAMA: Well, it's the tar heroin that people are smoking, and you know, I think one of the things for a long time there wasn't really many ways to smoke.

People, you know, the old opium pipes aren't readily available, let's just say, and so we've been having to develop more and more different systems and like creating these dab rigs, and a lot of people, if you know what a dab rig is, that can be, you can use tar or powder, you can smoke out of those same systems. They're well designed for that. You know, not everyone can afford, you know, the hundred dollar version of that.

DEAN BECKER: Little, yeah, rig.

SHILOH JAMA: Yeah, rig, where, you know, a lot of this, essentially, I mean, it's basically a bong with a little more high tech top, and it's, and the reason they call it a dab rig is because it has this little nail that you put down on it.

DEAN BECKER: To provide the heat, provide it first from the blow torch, mostly.

SHILOH JAMA: Yeah, yeah, it's a high heat, you dab, you put it in, the concentration turns to smoke really quickly, you inhale it really quickly, and it works really well with using with heroin, and so a lot of opiate users are reducing their use through adding marijuana to it.

DOUG MCVAY: That was Shiloh Jama from Seattle, Washington, where he directs the People's Harm Reduction Alliance, in an interview with Dean Becker, host of Cultural Baggage and of course my good friend and colleague, the executive producer of the Drug Truth Network. They met up with each other at an event that was sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance recently.

And well that's it for this week. I want to thank you for joining us. You have been listening to Century of Lies. We're a production of the Drug Truth Network for the Pacifica Foundation Radio Network, on the web at DrugTruth.net. I’m your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org.

The executive producer of the Drug Truth Network is Dean Becker. Drug Truth Network programs, including this show, Century of Lies, as well as the flagship show of the Drug Truth Network, Cultural Baggage, and of course our daily 420 Drug War News segments, are all available by podcast. The URLs to subscribe are on the network home page at DrugTruth.net.

The Drug Truth Network has a Facebook page, please give it a like. Drug War Facts is on Facebook too, give its page a like and share it with friends. Remember: Knowledge is power.

You can follow me on Twitter, I'm @DougMcVay and of course also @DrugPolicyFacts.

We'll be back in a week with thirty more minutes of news and information about drug policy reform and the failed war on drugs. For now, for the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay saying so long. So long!

For the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay asking you to examine our policy of drug prohibition: the century of lies. Drug Truth Network programs archived at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

04/03/19 T Dubbb O

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
T-Dubb-O
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

St Louis Drug Policy Conference I - Ferguson rap artist T-Dubb-O, Chad Sabora of Monet, Rodney Holcombe DPA Atty + Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke visits Houston

Audio file

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

APRIL 3, 2019

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: I am Dean Becker, your host. Our goal for this program is to expose the fraud, misdirection, and the liars whose support for drug war empowers our terrorist enemies, enriches barbarous cartels, and gives reason for existence to tens of thousands of violent US gangs who profit by selling contaminated drugs to our children. This is Cultural Baggage.

This is Cultural Baggage, I am Dean Becker, the Reverend Most High, just returned from St. Louis. We're going to produce four new shows with the interviews I gathered with the nation's top drug reformers there in St. Louis, half on the Cultural Baggage show and half with Doug McVay on the Century of Lies program. Here we go.

T-DUBB-O: My name is T-Dubb-O, I'm from St. Louis, Missouri.

DEAN BECKER: What do you do here, man, what's your profession?

T-DUBB-O: Well, I'm a hiphop artist, that's what I get paid to do. But I also help run an organization that's called Hands Up United, which started around the death around Mike Brown, out of the ashes of Ferguson, we rose, and we do a lot of programs in the community to attack the issues that we face on a daily basis.

DEAN BECKER: And, we were talking in the elevator on the way here, that it's kind of representative, it's a good perspective on the drug war in America, how it unfolds and in particular how it unfolds so ugly sometimes.

T-DUBB-O: Definitely. Definitely. I think a lot of people separate the drug war from just the issues that people face in the inner city, period, not knowing how the drug war can directly effect a lot of those other types of oppressionistic issues that they're going through.

I personally think the drug war, just the psychology and politics behind it, is one of the reasons that black people get murdered by police officers for no reason when they're unarmed, because you have officers that automatically look at black people and assume that they're either carrying drugs or carrying a weapon.

And all of that stems from the drug war, whether it came from Nixon or Reagan, it started from that.

DEAN BECKER: Yeah, and I to, I use the phrase that drug users are considered to be unconditionally exterminable, lesser than, better off dead, and that applies I'm sad to say more towards the black community as well.

T-DUBB-O: Definitely, which, if you look at the statistics, it's not necessarily true, you know, some of those statistics are higher, but let's -- people always bring up Ferguson, let's talk about Ferguson.

If you look at the numbers, you would see that more white people were pulled over and found with paraphernalia, drugs, more often than black people were. However, black people were arrested more or cited with citations more than our white counterparts.

And it's the same thing with limbo laws, where you see a black person being charged and thrown the book at, when their white counterparts get a slap on the wrist for the exact same crime. It could be their first offense or second offense, typically white people walk off without a scratch when black people are just thrown into jail.

So, I mean, it -- you have to tie in the factors of racism and classism. People like to talk about classism, but classism and racism along with white supremacy and oppression fueled with the drug war creates the catalyst for everything that we've got to go through as a black community here in this country.

DEAN BECKER: And, part of the discussion that you and Chad were putting forward this morning, you were talking about he fact that there ain't a heroin problem anymore. It's a fentanyl problem.

T-DUBB-O: Yeah, it's fentanyl, definitely. A lot of the overdoses that you're seeing out here, not even people that just use heroin, even, I know people out in LA, they, cocaine is the thing out there, and a lot of them are falling asleep on cocaine. Like, how do you fall asleep on cocaine? It doesn't make any sense.

And they have no idea that it's fentanyl that you're getting. So, fentanyl is becoming a part of everything, whether it's MDMA, Molly, ecstasy, like, it's being put into everything, so, when you finally, like, now, we're finally, in the black community, being educated on things, around Narcan and how to save people from overdosing, and those kits are now about to be brought into the community.

But now, we're not dealing with a heroin issue, or an opiate issue, so to speak. It's fentanyl that people are injecting or snorting or ingesting, and nine times out of ten, sometimes, the Narcan, or these different things don't work when you're dealing with an overdose. So it's a whole 'nother beast that we're dealing with right now.

DEAN BECKER: Yeah, that's the fact, that sometimes Narcan, one dose is not enough to counter the effect of the fentanyl, and sometimes two won't even do it.

T-DUBB-O: That's true. And, I mean, just in the last year, I know five people personally, five friends, that have overdosed. And it was because somebody gave them fentanyl when they thought they were getting heroin.

So since it's not a medical issue, as far as drugs in the black community, it's a criminal issue, when somebody overdoses, everybody wants to run, you know, because you may have warrants, the police are going to come there and arrest you.

You may have more drugs. They're going to arrest you. You may have a gun. They're going to arrest you. Or they may just arrest you and pin you with the murder. That's the issues that we face.

I've seen somebody overdose and they're on the ground about to die, and I've seen police handcuff them and search them while this person is overdosing, and this is the reality in the black community versus in white communities where it's a medical issue, it's addressed differently.

So when everybody has the answers at conference like this, because they say, well, we just need to get Narcan in the community, and you stay there and you administer it, and you save their life. No, it's going to be different.

You can do that, but in my community, if I stay there and try to administer some Narcan, the police are going to come and they're probably going to give me six warning shots in my back. I might not survive and this person may not survive either.

So it's just different animals that we're dealing with.

DEAN BECKER: Well, even if you survive that encounter without the six bullets in the back, there is a new mindset sweeping the country that those who supply drugs to other users now can be considered as murderers and convicted of a crime. Your thought there, please.

T-DUBB-O: Definitely. So, I can go to jail, and that's absolutely ridiculous. But, again, it comes down to, and a lot of people hate when I say this, but, black oppression is the most profitable idea this country has ever created.

So many people earn a living off of black oppression, whether you're doing work in the not for profit industry, there's people that are making two hundred thousand dollars a year off of doing nonprofit work using statistics of what takes place in the black community, and they've never seen the black community in their life.

Here in St. Louis alone, there's ninety different municipalities in St. Louis County. On average, about twenty percent of their physical budget comes from traffic tickets. Who are they primarily pulling over? Black people. Who are they arresting? Black people. So, this country, since the days of slavery, the most profitable thing this country ever created was black oppression.

So, when you've got -- you're killing two birds with one stone, you've got a drug user that nobody cares about, that you deem is useless, that's dying, and then you have a black person that you can arrest and make some money off of, that you can charge the murder with, who can't afford to provide themselves with an attorney or proper legal counsel or bond out of jail, and the judge is nine times out of ten going to be some racist asshole and they're going to throw the book at them. And they're not going to get a fair trial.

You're killing two birds with one stone.

DEAN BECKER: It is representative. I mean, again, we were talking about Ferguson being kind of the example for the nation.

T-DUBB-O: Definitely.

DEAN BECKER: That it's the focal point, if you will. And let's talk about what's happened since Michael Brown was killed there on the city street for being uppity, I guess is the word, maybe. It's that simple, in a way, that he just had an attitude that was not being respect --

T-DUBB-O: He was having a bad day. I mean, he walked home from the store, he's walking in the middle of the street, the cop has, again, some of the things that the drug war has influenced, racism, classism, so on and so forth, has influenced, he sees two little black boys in the street.

Instead of him having some type of respect or approaching them as a way an adult should approach a child, hey young man, you know, why are you in the street? It's dangerous, get on the sidewalk for me, please. He approaches them with disrespect immediately: get the f*** out of the street, what are you doing? All types of racial slurs.

At that point, this young man, you don't know what type of day he's had, or what he's going through. He's not having it. He says, man, oh f*** you. And that results in him being shot in the head.

DEAN BECKER: Yeah. I tell you what, T-Dubb, we have in this country a moral crisis, if you will, that, and I like to look at it like the alcoholics have just taken over, and they consider drug users, as I started out saying, as to be unconditionally exterminable, unworthy of any respect whatsoever, and that is played out daily in our nation, has it not?

T-DUBB-O: Definitely. The nation, our government, they don't even respect the veterans that go and fight for them, that come away from war with undiagnosed mental issues, PTSD, so on and so forth, that need support. They don't even provide that type of support, so a lot of them turn to self-medication.

So if they won't even wink an eye of respect or support towards people that are over there carrying out their agenda, and putting their lives on the line for this country, and they're American citizens, you can't expect any type of support or respect from a government if they're dabbling in the use of drugs.

DEAN BECKER: Now, last week, I had a gentleman on my show, I can't think of his name at the moment, but he was talking about, they did an indepth study, they determined that 45 percent of the households in American have a relative who has been arrested for drugs, forty five percent. [sic: the guest was Christopher Wildeman, who found that 45 percent of Americans have had an immediate family member jailed or incarcerated for at least one night.]

You would think that would have enough impact to swing the cat, so to speak, but thus far, it's just being ignored. Your thought there, T-Dubb.

T-DUBB-O: Of course it's being ignored. This is a capitalistic government. A lot of people think we live in a democracy. This is not a democracy. It's a capitalistic government. If 45 percent of people have been arrested in a household for drugs, that's about half, that's about half percentage. Do you know how much money that is? Trillions of dollars.

Our government isn't smart enough or creative enough to find another way to offset that type of income.

DEAN BECKER: Well, there you have it. I mean, we, by that I mean the reformer group, the folks who have studied this, who have had their conscience bothered by this situation, who have determined to align themselves with others and to try to make a difference.

Again, we own the moral high ground. We don't want to support cartels and terrorists and gangs, we want to stop the madness, the overdose. It seems that government officials could embrace that idea and get reelected forever. Your thought there, T-Dubb.

T-DUBB-O: I agree, but again, they don't serve the people, they serve the dollar. A lot of people don't understand, I implore a lot of people to watch the movie Kill The Messenger. It goes into depth a lot about the Reagan administration and the Contra conflict, and the influx of how the CIA and the American government actually taught people how to rock up cocaine and create freebase, and helped distribute it through the communities of the inner cities, in return to help fund a conflict overseas.

And people think that it's a conspiracy theory, but it's actually true. Nobody just magically decided to up and create crack. Cocaine was a rich man's drug. How do you make more money off of it? You get the poor people to start using it.

Poor people can't afford it, so you had a scientist create a way to freebase it. Then you teach the people in the ghetto how to do the exact same thing. You put people in position, like Freeway Ricky Ross, who was also a known CIA associate, and you distribute the s*** through the 'hood, and you get people addicted to crack, and then you arrest all the black people who are selling it after you put it in the 'hood.

And you use the money from both aspects, not only are you getting money from the actual sale of the drugs, you're getting money from the people who are fighting the cases for being locked up for selling the drugs that you gave them to sell.

DEAN BECKER: Yeah. Classic example, Ricky Williams [sic: Ricky Ross], I got a chance to interview him a few years back, and we were talking about how at one time he had closets full, rooms full of cash money, sitting around, until the CIA and the government decided they were through with him, and then they sent him to prison and took away all his cash. It's amazing.

T-DUBB-O: Exactly. But, that's the type of government, I mean, that we have, unfortunately. America can be a beautiful place, but being completely honest, our government are pirates. That's all they are, that's all what all they always have been.

What was Christopher Columbus? He was a pirate. He came here, raped and pillaged the land, and stole, and they pretty much just took it over. And unfortunately to this day we're still living the exact same way.

DEAN BECKER: All right, folks, we've been speaking with Mister T-Dubb-O, here in St. Louis, talking about the situation in Ferguson, the situation around the United States. They're going to have a major conference coming this November here to St. Louis. It's October? I'm sorry, we're going to have a major conference coming this October here to St. Louis. [sic: DPA's upcoming conference in St. Louis will be Nov. 6-9, 2019]

Should be quite an event. What are you going to do in preparation for that event?

T-DUBB-O: I'm going to get some local people that I know that could be a huge benefit to this conference, and get them involved with the breakout that I'm planning. This is the second time that I've been involved in the DPA conference. I did a breakout with them out in, I think it was DC, a couple of years back, and we had a great reaction from it. This was during the peak of the Ferguson movement.

We had a great reaction from it. I'm excited to bring this conference here in St. Louis, because we didn't have any type of access to this type of information and this type of network as far as the drug war as well as support on things like overdosing or working with legal -- working with agencies, government agencies around legalization and things of that nature.

So having the DPA here is big for this city, because it's going to definitely mean a lot to our community as far as education and opportunity.

DEAN BECKER: Right. I think it will bring more respect, perhaps, to the work you do, to know that you have this national organization as a backbone, so to speak, or a support, for the work you do.

Is there a website you might want to share, folks can learn more about the work you're doing?

T-DUBB-O: Yeah, of course. You can always follow us on social media. My name is T-Dubb-O. The organization is Hands Up United. If you search Hands Up United it will come up, and you can also visit www.HandsUpUnited.org.

DEAN BECKER: It's time to play Name That Drug By Its Side Effects! Depression, pain during sexual intercourse, reduced libido, suppressed fertility, progesterone deficiency, spontaneous abortion, metabolic disorders, fever, starvation, and chemical castration. Time's up! The answer: Depo Provera, another FDA approved product.

CHAD SABORA: I'm Chad Sabora, executive director of Mo Network. We're a harm reduction hybrid recovery community center that focuses on policy reform towards the war on drugs.

DEAN BECKER: Well, Chad, we're here in St. Louis. You were here speaking to the Drug Policy Alliance, talking about St. Louis and the obstacles and the successes. If you can, briefly give us a summation of the report you gave today.

CHAD SABORA: We've been very successful in St. Louis City with implementation of federal dollars in order to combat the deaths from opiate use, and we've done that through very progressive harm reduction policies: Low barrier access to syringes, naloxone, flooding our streets with naloxone, low barrier access to buprenorphine and methadone, and also Vivitrol, if people choose to take that route.

Recovery from the housing, that will allow people on medication assisted treatment to live there, understanding, you know, the nature of one's journey through recovery, so having a reoccurrence of use does not mean you've failed or are kicked out of housing or treatment.

We reengage individuals and treat them like human beings, and to offer continuing supportive services. So, our philosophy here, and what's worked, is the continuum of care starts while somebody's actively using, and that's when we start caring for them and treating them for whatever they're doing to themselves that could be harmful.

DEAN BECKER: You know, what you're doing is, I don't know, kind of unique. There are many different ways, different implementations, or harm reduction strategies going on around the country, various cities doing different things.

Do you consider what you're doing a success, and is it leading you to more success?

CHAD SABORA: Our little eight hundred square foot office puts about a hundred people a month into some form of treatment. We also are responsible for close to fifty percent of all overdose reversals in the state of Missouri, so I'd say without a doubt it's a success and we just have to build on it.

DEAN BECKER: Right. And, that's what impressed me. You and your associates here have worked very hard to carve out territory, some respect, within the community, from the community leaders as well. Right?

CHAD SABORA: Yes. I had to just force myself to the table, I was not invited.

DEAN BECKER: If you could give some advice to other harm reductionists, other reformers around the country, what gains traction? How could they gain traction in their community?

CHAD SABORA: Collaboration and persistence, and, you know, for people that want to follow this model, myself, a few others from around the country, with the help of Harm Reduction Coalition, are working on coming out with a toolkit for this model of the intersection of harm reduction and recovery.

So, stay tuned.

DEAN BECKER: All right. Is there a website, closing thoughts you might want to recommend?

CHAD SABORA: MoNetwork.org, 844-RebelUp is our cell phone number. If you ever need anything, we're just, we're there, call us.

RODNEY HOLCOMBE: My name is Rodney Holcombe, I'm a staff attorney at Drug Policy Alliance. I engage in legislative advocacy and policy advocacy to advance drug policy reform generally, but more specifically I engage in marijuana legalization and implementation work, particularly with respect to equity in the cannabis industry and repairing the harms wrought by prohibition.

DEAN BECKER: Well, we are a gathering of very brave people, I think, to, it's not so much a challenge these days to take on legalizing drugs, but it still requires a commitment to go counter to the beliefs of many people who are still embracing old, ancient ideas and hysteria, and to educate them. That's really the issue, is it not?

RODNEY HOLCOMBE: It totally agree with you there. Public education is central to the work that we're doing. We have to continuously get people to understand the facts about these substances, about drugs generally, and about marijuana specifically.

There are so many health benefits, but there are also places for concern, so I just think we need to have a more whole conversation, one where we can bring all folks to the table so that everyone gets a chance to speak their piece, but so that we can also create and regulate -- create regulations, rather, for this substance and for regulating this substance that are sound, that are based in science, and that are compassionate.

DEAN BECKER: Right. And, you know, we have many folks here in St. Louis for this drug policy gathering that deal with so many aspects, so many looks and means of changing laws that have been so injurious to certain communities in particular, and to the whole civilization for a hundred years.

RODNEY HOLCOMBE: I agree with you there. I mean, it's so fascinating to just see so many people doing this work. I'm doing a lot more just legislative advocacy, so I'm doing a lot of drafting and amending of legislation and testifying at hearings, but it's always so good to see that there are people actually out doing the work, actually handing out syringes, and actually helping to give people the information they need to save their lives, to provide life saving medicine and treatment.

That's so fascinating to me, and I think these sorts of convenings need to happen quite frankly more, and in more contexts, really just pulling in all other movements, because this movement is one that intersects with near everything else that we engage with.

DEAN BECKER: And then there are those that, whose work has more of a, has a different slant, that they do die-ins. They stand in the doorways of those officials who cling to those ancient beliefs, who touch the heart, truthfully, to help those changes begin to move in the right direction.

RODNEY HOLCOMBE: And that is honestly the activity, the sort of noise and noise creation, rather, that helps to push the policies that we fight so hard to create, and I think that's so important.

What's so interesting about this work is that it requires such a multidisciplinary approach, so we need people at the die-ins, we need people writing policies, we need people in schools teaching youth, we need people in jails giving out treatment. We need so many different folks. And it's just so great to know that this community exists.

DEAN BECKER: I think it's indicative of the fact that the harms of prohibition, the harms of believing in prohibition, are being shown, are being exposed, and challenged.

RODNEY HOLCOMBE: Yeah. The harms are definitely rearing their ugly head, and I think more and more people, as the overdose crisis ensues, are beginning to see this.

Quite frankly I wish they'd seen it decades sooner, when problems existed around heroin and around crack cocaine, but, you know, here we are, and I think this is just a tremendous opportunity to really write some of those wrongs, and to create safer spaces for people to exist who do use drugs, whether it be problematic use or recreational use.

We need to ensure that all folks have the education, they have the resources available to them, so that they survive and so that we can all live great lives.

DEAN BECKER: You know, I like to use the phrase that all the harms of drug war are caused and exacerbated by the policy of prohibition itself. It's such an evil conundrum, is it not?

RODNEY HOLCOMBE: Prohibition has been quite frankly one of the worst things to ever occur. What we know is that prohibition will never work. We know that drug use will happen, just like most other things, and we need to just create a safer environment where people can use these substances and not be criminalized and pushed off into the corner for their habit or for their use generally.

I mean, there are so many forms of use that I think we need to explore more and to have just more conversations around it, and for me, I think it's also a conversation around normalizing drug use generally, and that's important if we want to ever really end prohibition.

We have to tell people that, hey, you drinking your coffee, or person using another substance, that's totally fine, here's some ways to reduce the harms, and we can move forward.

But until we're able to really normalize that behavior, until we're able to stop criminalizing people for their use, and for their skin color, quite frankly, there's really no moving forward.

So I'm just really hoping that that is central to this conversation and that we continue to center people who have been most impacted, who've dealt with, you know, substance use disorder, who've dealt with criminalization. That's so important.

DEAN BECKER: The last, a year ago, basically, we were in Portugal, we were in Lisbon, we were going to their treatment hospitals, talking to their doctors, learning from their drug czar, Doctor João Goulão. We learned quite a bit. I think it gave us a little more courage, a little more motivation, to do our work back here in America.

But, you know, through the good graces of the DPA and their grants program, we have these dozens of people doing these great works all around America, and the good thing is, how far is that off, seven, eight months, in November, we're going to be back here in St. Louis for a major event. Tell us a bit about that, if you will.

RODNEY HOLCOMBE: I mean, we're bringing together over a thousand folks from around the globe to really delve into some of the issues at the forefront of our movement. I mean, we have safe consumption on the horizon, decriminalization, so many things to really discuss and to delve into.

It's going to be, quite frankly, a powerful convening, one that folks need to attend if they ever want to see prohibition end, if they want to see this movement advance, and if they want to see more of the intersections that this movement has.

There will be panels on immigration, on criminal justice reform, on harm reduction, on just near every topic that you could imagine, and I think these are just opportunities for us to pull even more folks into this movement, to just show them, hey, prohibition is not working. People are literally dying. People are literally being caged. And we have to do something different.

DEAN BECKER: Yeah. Immigration, it's really come to the fore, in the last go around, we had the caravan, the invaders, coming, you know, the people fleeing the drug war violence, that, where these barbarous cartels take over villages and run rampant, raping and murdering with relative impunity. And no wonder the mothers want to bring them kids northward.

RODNEY HOLCOMBE: Makes sense, right? And, I mean, this movement can't be a siloed one. We have to incorporate that. We need to ensure that folks are safe, and that they are escaping violence, and that we're able to come to a place where we're regulating substances in a way that protects both public health and public safety, and right now, that's just not the case.

DEAN BECKER: Well, Rodney, to this old reporter's eyes, this has been quite a gathering here in St. Louis, with all our grantees and the work they're doing. It inspires, each of inspires the other to work a little harder, I think. Your closing thoughts, please, Rodney.

RODNEY HOLCOMBE: Honestly, coming to these sorts of events makes me want to go back and work even harder, just to know that there are people on the opposite side of the country, even on other sides of the world, who are doing this work, who care, who care about people who use drugs, people who are affected by drug use, and that's inspiring.

So I'm so looking forward to coming back in November, and to just learning more and to connecting more, and to really ending this terrible, terrible war.

DEAN BECKER: All right. I want to remind you that next week we'll have more from St. Louis, and this week and next we'll have more from St. Louis with Mister Doug McVay and Century of Lies. We're going to close this out with a segment I captured when Beto O'Rourke came to Houston last weekend.

BETO O'ROURKE: Let's make sure that we look squarely in the face the largest prison population per capita on the planet today, one disproportionately comprised of African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and people of color.

So many there for nonviolent drug crimes, and though we know that Americans of all races use illegal drugs at the same rate, only some are more likely than others to be arrested, to do time, to be forced to check a box on every employment application form making it less likely that they're going to get that job.

There's a few things that we've got to do. One, end the prohibition on marijuana. No one should be doing time.

Two: for every one of our fellow Americans arrested for possession of a substance that is legal in more than half the states of the Union, expunge their records. Make sure that they can move ahead in their lives.

And then Houston, we're going to follow your lead. Let's end cash bail. Let's end for-profit prisons. And let us once and for all end the war on drugs.

All of this becomes possible when all of us show up, and Houston, Texas, you showed the way in 2018.

DEAN BECKER: Beto's right about one thing, we didn't elect one Republican this last election. Folks, once again I remind you, because of prohibition you don't know what's in that bag, please be careful.

11/14/18 Doug McVay

Program
Century of Lies
Date
Guest
Jules Netherland
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Dean Becker joins COL host Doug McVay who shares audio with Jules Netherland with Drug Policy Alliiance speaking about medication assisted treatment before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and we hear from Ann Fordham with the International Drug Policy Consortium speaking about the state of international drug control before the Commission on Narcotic Drugs on November 8

Audio file

TRANSCRIPT

CENTURY OF LIES

NOVEMBER 14, 2018

DEAN BECKER: The failure of drug war is glaringly obvious to judges, cops, wardens, prosecutors, and millions more now calling for decriminalization, legalization, the end of prohibition. Let us investigate the Century Of Lies.

DOUG MCVAY: Hello, welcome to Century of Lies. I'm your host Doug McVay, editor of DrugWarFacts.org. And this week, we come to you as a co-production of the Drug Truth Network, little sister comes home and hangs out with the executive producer of the Drug Truth Network, Dean Becker, and the flagship show Cultural Baggage.

This is a co-production of sorts, and it's the first time, and this is a great time. We had a lot of good stuff in the last, I was unfortunately off air for part of it, but got to hear Paul Armentano. Now, we're going to be moving onto some other things.

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs was holding intersessional meetings recently. They were talking about progress toward the political goals that were set back ten years ago, 2019 is their target year for these goals, and we're going to hear some of the -- something from that. We're also going to hear from a recent meeting, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a workshop on methadone -- excuse me -- medication assisted treatment.

So, we're going to hear a portion of that, Jules Netherland from the Drug Policy Alliance is going to talk about policy and treatment effectiveness.

It's good to get people who have lived experience, and who have solid policy experience, and who have that kind of, sort of -- breaking down the silos is important, and so to have people with a mixture of stuff in their background is really great.

But first, I want to say, hey, Dean, so, good show so far.

DEAN BECKER: I hear you, Doug. Thank you for allowing me on your show this week. Yeah, folks, and I just want to explain something. It was five years ago, I, hell, I'm getting old, I gave it up for several reasons, but Doug's been producing Century of Lies for the last five years, more or less, and I just want to thank him. I want to thank his audience for continuing to listen to the Drug Truth Network stuff, and I hope you'll continue to support the work we do and, I don't know, keep rattling the cage, because them politicians are tired of hearing that rattling, I think. Anyway, back to you, Doug.

DOUG MCVAY: I'm just -- yeah, I'm just following from what Dean was just saying. This -- not quite twenty years ago, Dean started broadcasting with Cultural Baggage, and then set up his second show, both of them airing out of the Pacifica station, produced out of KPFT -- pardon my stammer -- but then also syndicated through the Pacifica Foundation Radio Network and through the site, and so there are loads of stations out there that carry Drug Truth Network programming.

It's getting these ideas out to the public. They're not the most popular, and yet they are so very important. I mean, it's the intersection of criminal justice and public health and civil rights, and throw in some individual health care, too, and economics, and education, all of these things that get affected because of drug policies.

And so, drug policy reforms, they're necessary, and they affect our lives in so many different ways. And, I'm just grateful to heaven that Dean has been able to get this kind of programming on the airwaves. These are important discussions, and unless there's somebody out there starting that conversation, it just doesn't happen.

And, yeah, I'm just -- it's a great honor to be part of this whole thing, and I just want to thank Dean for keeping the torch going for so long. It's -- yeah.

DEAN BECKER: Doug, look, you were going before I was going. You were in more the print media. It was nice to see you adapt so well to audio, to radio, as well, and, folks, it really boils down to this: there's nobody on the other side. By that I mean nobody willing to come on the show, and defend this drug war.

They fear the truth that me and Doug are bantering about. They know their side's losing, their side has lost. It's all over but the dying or something, but, you know, it's happening. But, Doug, you said you had a couple of segments you wanted to share with the folks. Which one were you thinking of doing first?

DOUG MCVAY: Yes, indeed, well, let's go with the Commission on Narcotic Drugs first, and a presentation from the Director of the International Drug Policy Consortium, that's Ann Fordham. Ann Fordham -- the IDPC does some terrific work coordinating the progressive reform oriented NGOs that are active in these United Nations processes.

There are lots of us around Europe and around the world, and we starting to have some real impact. Change at the international level, it's true what Paul Armentano said earlier on the show, it's slow, if it ever happens, it's incremental and that's being kind and generous.

DEAN BECKER: Yeah.

DOUG MCVAY: On the other hand, in these nations, things do happen, and it's, you know, ideas, they do have impact, and when we see something happening in one country, that encourages folks here, and, you know, I mean, Uruguay legalized marijuana a few years ago when we were talking about legalizing in Colorado and Washington, and, you know, I believe truly that that had an impact.

All of these things, policies don't happen in a vacuum. Anyway, let's get on with Ann Fordham, she's the executive director of the International Drug Policy Consortium, she was addressing the Commission on Narcotic Drugs on November Eighth, specifically talking to them about the progress that the world has made towards its goals that they're supposed to review next year.

ANN FORDHAM: Firstly, as a civil society representative, I would like to thank you, Madame Chair, and the CND Secretariat for your continued commitment to the meaningful engagement of civil society in this forum.

The practice of civil society engagement at the CND is increasingly held up as a good practice example, and the great strides that have been made on that front in the last ten years is strongly welcomed, and appreciated.

The role of civil society, part of the role, indeed, is to bring the realities on the ground to bear in these important discussions. In formulating social and public policy, it is fundamental to consider the impact on the lives of people and communities, on public health, and on human right, both at the core values of the United Nations.

Thank you in particular, all of you, for your collective support to the civil society task force, of which I am a member. We have continued our work after the UNGASS to engage global civil society from all regions of the world in the lead-up to 2019.

We have just closed the global online consultation to seek new inputs from civil society on their views on the last decade of drug policies and ideas for the future. The results of that consultation will be presented here in Vienna, on the Fifth of December, and we invite you all to attend.

My intervention today however is on behalf of the International Drug Policy Consortium, IDPC. We are a global network of a 105 civil society organizations from over sixty countries. The majority of our members are working at the national level, and include networks of people who use drugs, representatives of farming communities, and other affected populations.

We come together to promote open and objective debate in drug policy making and call for evidence based policies that are effective at reducing drug related harm, that are based also in the broader priorities of the United Nations: human rights, development, peace, and security.

In Resolution 60/1, member states agreed to take stock of the implementation of the commitments made to jointly address and counter the world drug problem. As a contribution towards this critical discussion of taking stock, and in the absence of a comprehensive formal review process, IDPC has produced a civil society shadow report that reviews progress towards the overarching goals from the 2009 Political Declaration and Plan of Action.

In addition, the report also seeks to evaluate whether, and how, the implementation of the Political Declaration has contributed to the broader priorities of the UN, of protecting human rights, advancing peace and security, and promoting development. 

And finally, our report offers recommendations for new goals and metrics for the next decade of drug control, focusing on the UNGASS implementation and the achievement of the sustainable development goals.

In terms of the methodology used, in addition to looking at the progress on the targets from Operational Paragraph 36, we selected 33 actionable and measurable actions out of the 234 actions in the Plan of Action.

We looked at the best available data between March 2009 and July 2018. The data are largely taken from UNODC and supported by other UN data from WHO, OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, and others, as well as academic and civil society research. Our report is supported by 685 references.

There is a great deal of data in the report and I invite you to read it. We have hard copies here with us today. It's available at the document center but also available online as well.

For now, I'll briefly just share some of the headlines, with specific references to the targets from Operational Paragraph 36, and this is just a really brief snapshot, and also Angela Me presented some of these data today, and as I said, we took a lot of this from the World Drug Reports.

On Target One, which seeks to reduce or eliminate the cultivation of certain plants, data from the UNODC shows us that over over the last decade, there has been an increase in opium and coca cultivation, which are now at record levels.

On Target Two, which seeks to reduce both illicit demand as well as health and social risks, we note, as stated this morning, an average increase by thirty-one percent in the global demand for all drugs.

With respect to reducing health and social risks, we have not seen a reduction in HIV, hepatitis C, or TB prevalence amongst people who use drugs. Overall infection rates have remained stable, but in some regions are still increasing.

There's a worrying increase in drug related deaths, with WHO reporting some 450,000 deaths in 2015. Around one third to one half of these are fatal but mostly preventable overdoses, and the rest of them complications related to HIV, hepatitis C, or TB infection, which are also to some extent preventable and treatable.

On Target Three, which seeks to reduce the availability of psychotropic substances, including synthetic drugs, there has been a huge increase in the number of new psychoactive substances on the market.

In addition, the available data shows increasing production and expanding markets for methamphetamine, and the record levels of the illicit use of prescription drugs in some parts of the world.

On Target Four, which seeks to eliminate and reduce the diversion and trafficking of precursors, despite the best efforts of member states, the INCB reports an increase in the use and number of precursors.

On Target Five, to eliminate or reduce money laundering, again, despite tighter controls, estimates are that less than one percent of all money being laundered is currently being seized.

In parallel, we looked at the impact of drug policies on the fulfillment of human rights, and in particular the right to health. Globally, only one in one hundred people who use drugs live in countries -- who inject drugs, I should say, live in countries with adequate coverage to both needle and syringe programs and opioid agonist therapy.

While for evidence based treatment, there is reportedly little increase in the availability of drug dependence treatment between 2010 and 2016, and coverage remains low for many key treatment interventions, such as detoxification, opiate substitution treatment, peer support groups, cognitive behavioral therapy, to name just a few.

We've discussed this already today, also in terms of access to controlled medicines, around 75 percent of people remain without access to adequate pain relief, and this is primarily in the global south. The WHO has estimated that 92 percent of the world's morphine is consumed by only 17 percent of the world's population.

In terms of other human rights impact, we see continued use of the death penalty for drug offenses, and a very troubling increase in the number of extrajudicial killings in the name of drug control.

With respect to human rights associated with incarceration and disproportionate punishment, according to UN data, one in five prisoners worldwide is incarcerated for a drug offense, the overwhelming majority of whom are incarcerated for drug possession -- a possession offense alone.

In certain regions, the proportion is even greater for women, who are the fastest growing prison population in many parts of the world.

Finally, in terms of advancing development, there has often been too great a focus on eradication measures at the expense of a broader development focus that takes into account the particular issues faced by communities in both rural and urban contexts.

In formulating the next phase of drug policy, we call on member states to honestly consider the progress, or lack thereof, that has been made towards the overarching goal in the 2009 Political Declaration to significantly reduce or eliminate the illicit drug market, as well as the progress made towards the implementation of the UNGASS outcome document.

As our shadow report states, it is difficult to credibly claim progress given the reality of a robust and growing illicit drug market, coupled with both -- a rise in both drug related harms as well as devastating policy harms.

Ten years ago, the previous UNODC executive director, Mister Costa, referred to the unintended negative consequences of drug control as part of that previous ten year review. That paper is as unfortunately relevant today as it was ten years ago.

In addition to offering up our shadow report as a key contribution to this important phase of taking stock, the IDPC network has come together and elaborated four key asks for the 2019 process.

Firstly, the international community should consider adopting more meaningful goals and targets in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the UNGASS outcome document, and international human rights commitments, and move away from targets that are focused solely on eliminating the illicit drug market.

Secondly, member states should meaningfully reflect on the impact of drug control on the UN goals of promoting health, human rights, development, peace, and security, and adopt strategies that actively contribute to advancing the 2030 Agenda, especially for those most marginalized and vulnerable.

Global drug policy debates -- sorry. Thirdly, global drug policy debates going forward should reflect the realities of drug policies on the ground, both positive and negative, and discuss constructively the resulting tensions with the UN drug control treaties and human rights concerns associated with drug control efforts.

Finally, beyond 2019, member states should end punitive drug control approaches and put people and communities first. This includes promoting and facilitating the participation of civil society and affected communities in all aspects of the design, implementation, evaluation, and monitoring of drug policies.

Thank you very much for your consideration, and your continued commitment to civil society.

DOUG MCVAY: That again was Ann Fordham, the International Drug Policy Consortium, addressing the Commission on Narcotic Drugs. That was on November Eighth. Those meetings go on in Vienna, Austria, at the UN International Centre, and they don't -- they don't maintain an archive.

I mean, there's a video, which is live, webcast live, but there's no archive of these proceedings. Whatever happens at the CND is what they say happened at the CND. A few years ago, the International Drug Policy Consortium was working through civil society in trying to get a voice from NGOs inside these proceedings, and one of the things that they worked on was a project to track what actually happens there, and to make it known publicly.

They have a thing called the CND Blog, which is on the web at CNDBlog.org. The Commission on Narcotic Drugs is a UN agency, it's part of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. There's no technological reason that they don't have an archive, and the idea that it's about finances is more insulting than it is laughable.

I mean, there is no other reason that they fail to maintain an archive of their proceedings, there's no other reason than the fact that they want to avoid transparency. The international drug control apparatus is opaque, and that's how they get away with doing nothing.

And meanwhile, in the United States, we talk about being unable to make these changes or this or that because of international treaties and the Single Convention. And, yet, a lot of countries are trying to move in a better direction.

We find out about this through the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, through these meetings, but, again, unless you want to stay up overnight and watch a live meeting out of Vienna, whatever happens there is what they say happens there. That's one of the reasons I do stay up overnight and record this stuff, because, you know, it's important. Light, it's a great disinfectant, you know?

DEAN BECKER: Can I jump in here a second and say this, that, am I on here or what's going on? Okeh --

DOUG MCVAY: I think you are. I hear you.

DEAN BECKER: You hear me, okeh. Yeah, what I'd like to say, I guess, is that Doug is a little younger than me, he's able to stay up more often, and certainly he drinks one hell of a lot of coffee. I'm just going to say that, because he is -- he's just a man in action, and, you know, my hat's off to him for his perseverance in grabbing this stuff, early in the morning like that.

VOICE: Okeh, let's say drug prohibition does support terrorism.

DEAN BECKER: And murder.

VOICE: And murder.

DEAN BECKER: Torture.

VOICE: And torture.

DEAN BECKER: Corruption. Bribery.

VOICE: And, whatever.

DEAN BECKER: What's your point?

VOICE: Change the law.

DEAN BECKER: I got you. Make it cheap. More available. Everywhere. Like soda, or cheesy puffs.

VOICE: Exactly.

DEAN BECKER: Cocaine at the playground. Crack stands at the laundromat. Heroin at the mini-mart. Like that?

VOICE: Face it, old man. That's what we've got now.

DEAN BECKER: Please, visit the website of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, LEAP.cc.

DOUG MCVAY: And Dean has seen me at conferences doing coffee well into the late afternoon, into the evening. It's -- you know, I live in Portland, Oregon, and this place chose me. What can I say?

DEAN BECKER: Well, yeah. I would agree with that. Yeah, we have, you know, you and I have been to a lot of conferences together, we've interviewed, good lord, hundreds and well thousands of people at this point, and I guess, what we're looking for is that one chance to strike a blow to the logic of this drug war. Am I right?

DOUG MCVAY: Absolutely, absolutely, and that's why some of these are so important. Folks, well, our next segment, in fact it's a good segue, for instance our next segment is Jules Netherland from the Drug Policy Alliance. They were speaking at the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, at a workshop that was going on regarding medication assisted treatment for opioid use disorder -- basically methadone, suboxone, and buprenorphine.

Last week, we heard Maia Szalavitz, who was brought in to speak. This week we're listening to Jules Netherland from Drug Policy Alliance, and what is -- I mean, the content is important, it's very -- it's thought provoking and it's incredibly informative. It's also worth noting that it happened.

DEAN BECKER: Well, Doug, if we're going to squeeze --

DOUG MCVAY: They can't say that "we didn't know," you know?

DEAN BECKER: If we're going to squeeze it in we've got to start.

DOUG MCVAY: Okeh.

JULES NETHERLAND: I approach this as someone whose background in public health research but mostly someone who's working in the arena of policy now, and so, I'm going to sort of take a broader, more macro view.

I want to suggest that as we think about education and training, we need to broaden our scope and help clinicians and others see addiction within a broader context, and sort of move beyond specialty training and put the issue of addiction and drug use into a much wider context.

I also want to suggest that when we're thinking about education and training, we really need to think about providers beyond clinicians, and other sectors that folks are going to intersect with and interact with, especially if we want to think about innovative policy ideas to expand access to MAT.

So, in particular, when I think about this, and think about a public health approach to expanding access to medication assisted treatment, I want to talk a little bit about the social determinants, and think about how are we providing people the supports they need to get healthy, regardless of their current drug use, whether they're on medication assisted treatment or not, and so housing, jobs, and the kinds of social support that people need.

I also want to suggest that part of what we need to be addressing, if we want to address stigma, is ending the criminalization of drug use entirely, and setting aside strategies that rely on punishment and coercion. I don't see how we can talk about any stigma on the one hand and continue those practices and punitive policies on the other.

I also want to suggest that part of the conversation about access to medication assisted treatment also needs to include attention to harm reduction services. If we believe that relapse is part of the course of addiction, then we need to be giving people support when they relapse and when they use, and keeping them safe and healthy, and I think we've done a terrible job at integrating treatment services with harm reduction services. Those two silos hardly ever speak to one another and are not well integrated, and that doesn't serve patients well at all.

The other thing I want to suggest as we think about education and training is that we really need to be listening to people who use drugs, whether they're current users or former users, they need to be in these rooms, they need to be part of our education and training, they need to be part of our policy development.

I will tell you as someone who's done a lot of policy development, when you don't include people directly impacted, you end up with really poor policies that have a lot of unintended consequences and are not well liked by the people that we're trying to help. So I really want to emphasize that.

Obviously, MAT is only a piece of the puzzle, and it won't succeed if we're not addressing these other social determinants in broader context that make up people's lives.

I also want to suggest one way to do that and make that shift is to start looking at outcomes other than abstinence, but to really be focusing on things like quality of life, family reunification, sort of stabilization and normalization of everyday living. Getting jobs, housing stability, that kind of thing.

And then talking a little bit about other arenas that I think we need to pay attention to in terms of education and training, and I apologize that I wasn't here for the first part of this session, but I think obviously correctional settings are a huge area where we could do a lot more to expand access to MAT, whether that's continuing MAT for those entering correctional facilities, screening and assessment for those entering who may or may not be on MAT, compassionate withdrawal for those who choose not to stay on MAT while they're incarcerated.

Offering people inductions prior to release, creating warm hand-offs to community providers upon release, and obviously there's some jurisdictions that are doing this quite well. And then, making sure that people have naloxone and harm reduction referrals upon release as well as referrals to treatment.

So, obviously, if we're going to do that, the impact on education and training is that we need to do a much better job training all the folks in that sector, from drug court personnel to correctional personnel, to probation and parole.

And then finally I want to talk a little bit about some of the innovations, service delivery model innovations, that are being floated and piloted in some jurisdictions and thought of in others, so this also has implications for workforce training.

So, one is office based methadone, delivering methadone and buprenorphine in pharmacies, induction and maintenance in emergency departments, homeless and housing programs, street based medicine and harm reduction programs. These are all areas and programs that are ripe for reaching people that are hard to reach. Telemedicine and the ECHO model for rural areas, the hub and spoke model, mobile delivery.

So there are lots of different innovations around expanding access to MAT, but that's obviously going to mean -- have implications for workforce development. That means we need to be training pharmacists, we need to be training primary care, family medicine, emergency medicine, rural providers, housing providers, homelessness service providers. Right?

It really means an incredible expansion of the kind of education and training we're doing, including frankly harm reduction providers as well.

DEAN BECKER: All right, folks, got to interrupt there, we're flat out running out of time. Doug, I wanted to give you -- we're producing this at the mothership, KPFT, this week, but this is Doug's show. We've got you about a minute left, Doug, wrap it up if you will, please.

I don't know where Doug has disappeared --

DOUG MCVAY: Sorry, hey there. Just want to say that was Jules Netherland from Drug Policy Alliance, she was speaking at a workshop on medication assisted treatment at the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, and just thanks everybody for joining.

DEAN BECKER: Well, and I thank you. Doug, we'll fine tune this, hopefully maybe once a month we'll do this cross-pollination, both go live back to back for our network. I appreciate you hanging in there. We've got, well, I cut it a little short, it seemed like a good place to interrupt, but you've got about 45 seconds, you got some info you'd like to share?

DOUG MCVAY: Well, you know, just to remind folks to give our facebook pages a like, the Drug Truth Network has a facebook page of course. You can also catch these programs by podcast, the URLs are at the network home page. Follow me on Twitter, I'm @DougMcVay, and mostly just want to thank you all for joining us.

We'll be back in a week, and, yeah. This is Doug McVay saying so long. So long!

For the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay asking you to examine our policy of drug prohibition: the century of lies. Drug Truth Network programs archived at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy.

10/03/18 Beto Orourke

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Beto O'Rourke
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Eunessis Hernandez of Drug Policy Alliance, CA Gov Brown vetoes Safe Injection, Charles Hawthorne of Harm Reduction Coalition re forthcoming conference in New Orleans Oct 18, Texas Governor Debate on Cannabis, Abbott Vs. Valdez, US Congressman Beto O'Rourke in Wash DC and in Austin + Willie Nelson's new song Vote 'Em Out

Audio file

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

OCTOBER 3, 2018

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: Hi folks, this is Dean Becker. Thank you for being with us on this edition of Cultural Baggage. We've got so much stuff, we've got to get started now.

In a tale of, in essence, two governors, there's a situation going on in California. One story we'll cover here in a little bit, but we have the good side of this first, to discuss with Eunisses Hernandez. She works with the Drug Policy Alliance, and I'll let her tell you about the positive thing the governor did just last night. Would you please explain to the audience what he did, Ms. Hernandez?

EUNISSES HERNANDEZ: Yes, of course. So, last night, the last day of the California legislature, in the last couple of hours, he signed Senate Bill 1393, by Senator Holly Mitchell, which restores judicial discretion to the application of a five-year sentence enhancement that can be applied for each serious felony someone has on their record at the time of their sentencing for a new serious felony.

DEAN BECKER: Now this is, I guess, an undoing, if you will, of some of the vindictiveness that was put forward back in the 1980s, would you agree with that thought?

EUNISSES HERNANDEZ: Yes. Back in the 1980s, when this enhancement was actually created, it was not mandatory. It wasn't until we started coming further into, you know, California's tough on crime era that the legislature actually amended the prop -- because it started out as a proposition. They amended the proposition, so that the enhancement became mandatory.

And so since then we've seen that there's been about a hundred thousand years of this enhancement applied to people's sentences within CDCR [California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] custody right now.

DEAN BECKER: A hundred thousand years. Good lord. You know, there were similar enhancements, if you will, put forward by the federal government, by states around the country, mandatory minimums and so forth, to teach those druggies a lesson, I suppose. What do you think?

EUNISSES HERNANDEZ: Well, we know that it hasn't worked. We know that right now the drug availability within our communities is higher than it has been, you know, in previous years. We've seen that safety has also not been increased in our communities with these enhancements.

What we have seen is that millions of dollars annually have been used to incarcerate these folks with these enhancements instead of actually investing in, you know, a system of care that can support these folks get jobs, housing, and, you know, all the other things we need to be successful to reenter our communities.

DEAN BECKER: And, I think that is the point, that many of these folks, they spend years behind bars, they come out, and they have that black mark on their record. They sometimes can't get housing, can't get credit, can't get a job, and too many of them fall back into this mess again, wind up behind bars another time. Your thought there, Ms. Hernandez.

EUNISSES HERNANDEZ: Yes. So, what we've seen is actually last year we were able to pass a bill called Senate Bill 180, also by Senator Holly Mitchell, which completely repealed a three-year enhancement that a person got for each prior drug conviction that they had on their record.

And so under this, we saw folks with like twelve additional years, just because of this three-year drug enhancement. And what we saw is that the recidivism rate with those folks didn't change, like, the long sentences didn't make them not commit crime again, it only added to the barriers that they faced trying to reenter the community.

DEAN BECKER: And, that --

EUNISSES HERNANDEZ: And in --

DEAN BECKER: Go ahead.

EUNISSES HERNANDEZ: Oh, sorry, just to add on, that in California, if you have a criminal conviction on your record, there are literally 4,800 policies that prevent you from getting some of those things you talked about, such as employment, educational opportunities, and even housing.

DEAN BECKER: Lord, I mean, you know, it's -- I hate to draw the parallels, but there's, it's almost like persecuting witchcraft or something, just trying to destroy the possibility of success. What do you think?

EUNISSES HERNANDEZ: Agreed. Destroying the possibility of success and also taking away the resources that could be actually invested in a model like that. We spend in California, at minimum, $70,000 a year to incarcerate someone for one year, and when we know and recognize that treatment and reentry programs cost a lot less money, but when we're incarcerating these folks, all the resources are put into that instead of reinvested in our communities where we know we can really support people.

DEAN BECKER: It just seems like such a squandering, such a waste, that $70,000 a year, imagine what they could do to help build a life, a viable life for people with that kind of money. Your closing thoughts there, Ms. Hernandez.

EUNISSES HERNANDEZ: Well, you know, these -- this is a modest step, really, in achieving real sentencing reform in California. California's sentencing structures and penal code system is a mess in regards to this, and so we hope that in the following years we move away from reforming these enhancements and actually towards more repealing them, because we know that long punitive sentences have been ineffective at increasing safety in our communities, and drug availability in our communities, and it's taking away from the resources that we can actually use to help people reenter and reduce recidivism.

DEAN BECKER: All right. Once again, we've been speaking with Eunisses Hernandez, she works with the Drug Policy Alliance. Their website, DrugPolicy.org. It's time for you to get involved, dear listener, it's time to end this madness.

Again I want to thank Eunisses for her thoughts, and here's the downside from California's Governor Jerry Brown. He vetoed Assembly Bill 186, which would have allowed San Francisco to open an overdose prevention service that would let drug users use controlled substances under the supervision of staff, trained to treat and even prevent drug overdose, and it would link people to drug treatment, housing, and other services.

The bill was authored by Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman, and it passed the California Assembly and Senate earlier this year. Quote, "I am shocked that the Governor turned his back on the science and the experts, and instead used outdated drug war ideology to justify his veto." End quote. So said Laura Thomas, the interim state director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Quote: "He cited long-disproven ideas about substance use in his veto message rationale. It's disturbing that Governor Brown apparently believes these myths about the need for coercive treatment, and even more disturbing that people will die because of his veto. Drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death in California. How many people have to die before Governor Brown is willing to listen to the science and evidence and experience? How many families have to lose a loved one?" End quote.

The negative health and social consequences of drug use remain staggeringly high in California, despite strong investment in treatment and prevention. Drug overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death in California, and nationwide, killing more people than motor vehicle accidents, and is the leading cause of death for people under 50 in the US.

Public drug injection is associated with higher rates of overdose, transmission of infectious diseases, including HIV and viral hepatitis, as well as a variety of nuisance and safety issues. The safe consumption site in Vancouver, Insite, reduced fatal drug overdoses in the area around it by one third. It also dramatically reduced public drug injection in the area, and syringe litter.

The bill was sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance, California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, California Society of Addiction Medicine, Harm Reduction Coalition, Project Inform, and Tarzana Treatment Center.

Overdose prevention services, or supervised consumption services, are proven harm reduction services that are effective at linking people who use drugs to treatment and other services, reducing overdose deaths.

There is broad support in San Francisco for opening these programs. The mayor and board of supervisors, plus the elected law enforcement officers, the sheriff and the district attorney, supported AB186. Groups ranging from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and SF Travel to the San Francisco AIDS Foundation, Saint Anthony's Foundation, and Glide Foundation support opening such services.

Public support polled at 66 percent earlier this year. Mayor London Breed has said that she will move forward with opening these services.

The following discussion is with Mister Charles Hawthorne of the Harm Reduction Coalition. We start off talking about Donald Trump's recent visit to the United Nations to once again declare an eternal war on drugs.

And that is the fact that, I think there was 112 nations that were there at the UN, signed in support of Trump's new effort, and that's kind of been the leading force, if you will, the United States, has, pays most of the dues for the UN and demands respect, if you will, from these other countries, and many of these other countries sign on board.

But they don't really ratchet up their mechanism of drug war, they don't go about it as draconian as we do here in these United States. I think they just went along to get along. Your thought there, Charles.

CHARLES HAWTHORNE: I definitely agree with that. I think a lot of people -- I think there's a very special history in the United States around things like prisons and police forces that doesn't really exist in other countries, and makes it kind of different, where we have a long history of police forces and prisons being directly related to things like slavery, and a long history of that.

Now, I think other countries, they kind of see us going out and they see us -- they see like our leadership, like President Trump, going to the UN and demanding these types of things, it's easier to just say yeah, whatever, because you're not really going to come and shut down anything down in our country, rather than, like, push back on it.

But I think ultimately people also recognize that it's like, putting more people in jail isn't going to solve a problem, or spending more money on police officers isn't going to solve a problem, and so I think it's just one of those things where sometimes countries might feel like they have to sign on in order to just kind of continue things on.

DEAN BECKER: Okeh. I agree with you, sir. I mean, you know, we -- we're beginning to expose the fraud, misdirection, of all this, I think, it's sure taking its time, it's aggravating as hell, if you ask me, but we're getting there.

Again, we're speaking with Charles Hawthorne, he's with the Harm Reduction Coalition. Let's start talking about this conference, because I've been to, I think, five or six of these. I really enjoyed the people you meet, the attitudes, the perspectives, the energy, is just amazing, and I would encourage folks to sign up and attend. Please, tell them where it is, when it is, and how they can get involved.

CHARLES HAWTHORNE: Yes, so, we have our conference every other year, and our next one is going to be coming up next month -- this month in October. It's going to be from October 18 through October 21 in New Orleans, Louisiana, which is a super exciting location for it to be, there's some really cool harm reduction work happening in that area.

And, it is, it's an awesome conference. I attended my first one last year, actually as a student, where I was going around my college actually trying to get grant money to go out when it was in San Diego. And it was an honestly life changing experience. I mean, I guess, flash forward, two years later when I'm actually working at the Harm Reduction Coalition, this says a lot.

But it's probably one -- it's the coolest conference I have ever attended. It has, like, informational sessions for, like, every bit of the world that you never thought of exploring, and exploring the ways that it's impacting people. And it's also some of the most fun and genuine, awesome people you'll ever meet, and so that makes it really awesome as well.

DEAN BECKER: No, I agree, Charles, it's just energizing. If folks want to get involved, they're having the conference at the Marriott, if I recall, when I spoke to Monique a couple of weeks back she said something about it was closing fast, that the, you know, the rooms were disappearing.

CHARLES HAWTHORNE: It's right in the middle of the French Quarter, there's lots of hotels all over that you can access as well.

DEAN BECKER: Charles, one last thought here, I'm, you know, I'm a LEAP speaker. I believe that the drug war is a complete fraud, it never had any basis in reality. And, that, you know, we just -- we've screwed the pooch, I think is the term a lot of folks like to use, that we have just done this so wrong for so long, and we have so many politicians and even many in the media that have in essence made their bones by believing drug war to be so necessary, and it's so hard for them to back down now.

What's your thought in that regard? Do you think I'm hitting that nail on the head?

CHARLES HAWTHORNE: I think admitting that the drug war's a failure is also people admitting that they really don't see people who use drugs as people deserving of life. That's really a lot of it. This is the argument, is harm reduction isn't about -- isn't really about, like, any particular opinion besides the fact that people who use drugs are still human and still have their human rights, and still deserve, like, dignity and respect, and to have access to improving their health.

And so the war on drugs has kind of in direct opposition to that, because what it's about, it's about criminalization and locking people up, and moral failings, and all of those things instead.

And so I think people, it's like, when they feel like they have to back down, what they have to admit is, they were wrong. And they were not just wrong, like, on an opinion piece, but wrong morally, as well, and that's a little harder for people.

DEAN BECKER: Right. No, I like to use the term that they consider drug users to be unconditionally exterminable. Anyway, Charles, let's wrap this up for now. I do appreciate you taking time to talk with us. Once again, we're speaking about the Harm Reduction conference coming October 18 through 21 in New Orleans.

I hope to attend, I hope to see you while I'm there, Charles, and any closing thoughts you'd like to share with the audience?

CHARLES HAWTHORNE: I would just say, like, if you have neighbors that are homeless, neighbors who are navigating drug use, reaching out, saying you care, supporting them, doing what you can to help them live better, is always great.

People are still our neighbors, people are still our friends, people are still, even in navigating a lot of challenges in their life. Something that my executive director, Monique, always likes to say is the opposite of addiction is bonding, and I really believe that, and I think that a lot of times, what we -- what the war on drugs really needs to be on is a quest to bond and create communities, and create connection with people.

And sometimes that just starts with one person at a time.

DEAN BECKER: All right. Well, Charles, thank you sir, I appreciate your time.

CHARLES HAWTHORNE: All right, thank you so much. Have a great day.

DEAN BECKER: All right sir, bye bye. You can learn more by going to HarmReduction.org/conference.

It's time to play Name That Drug By Its Side Effects! Changes in sex drive, pounding heart beat, shortness of breath, chest pain, difficult speech, dizziness, seizures, believing things that aren't true, feeling suspicious of others, hallucinating, mania, and hostile behavior. Time's up! The answer, from Shire Richwood, Incorporate: Adderall.

The following is part of a recent debate between Texas Governor Greg Abbott and his challenger, Lupe Valdez, the Democrat.

MODERATOR: Thank you. We've got another question from Twitter tonight. This is from UFC Titan Fans, he wants to know, what's your stance on marijuana legalization?

Right now in Texas, only the sale of a specific cannabis oil for intractable epilepsy is legal. Sheriff Valdez, are you in favor of expanding the use of medical and recreational marijuana in Texas? You have sixty seconds.

SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ: I'm in favor of expanding medical marijuana. Alcohol has no medical benefits, yet it's taxed and fined. We know that medical marijuana has some health benefits. Why can't we tax and fine those also? And as far as recreational marijuana, I think it's up to the people. The people need to decide whether that's going to be in Texas or not. I think every other state has let the people decide. We should do the same thing. Let the people decide whether we should accept other than medical marijuana.

MODERATOR: Governor Abbott, you have sixty seconds.

TX GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT: Parents with children who have epilepsy approached me a couple of sessions ago about the possibility of what's called CBD oil for their children. I was moved by what they had to say, I agreed with them, I'm the governor who signed into law the legalization of CBD oil.

More recently, I've had discussions with veterans as well as parents of autistic children and others who make a very strong, compelling case about legalization of medical marijuana. I have seen however in other states that authorized that, abuses take place that raise concerns. So I'm still not convinced yet.

However, one thing I don't want to see is jails stockpiled with people who have possession of a small amount of marijuana. What I would be open to talking to the legislature about would be reducing the penalty for possession of two ounces or less from a class B misdemeanor to a class C misdemeanor.

MODERATOR: Sheriff Valdez, you have thirty seconds for a rebuttal.

SHERIFF LUPE VALDEZ: We agree on something. I believe in decriminalizing marijuana, and I honestly believe that often we have more in common than we have differences. And, speaking of veterans, you know, I've heard plenty of doctors say they would much rather give the veterans, the mentally ill, and others, marijuana than give them opioids, which are now legal.

You can write a prescription for opioids, and therefore have more problems with the people you prescribe that to than the medical marijuana.

MODERATOR: Governor Abbott, thirty seconds for a rebuttal.

TX GOVERNOR GREG ABBOTT: Again, we want to make sure that, if this is done, it's going to have controls on it so abuses don't place -- take place. We need to observe what's going on in other states. I do agree that we need to take all steps possible to make sure that we reduce opioid abuse.

MODERATOR: Thank you both for your answers.

DEAN BECKER: You know, it doesn't seem that long ago, and then it seems like forever, but four years ago, my son and I went to Washington, DC. We held a press conference in the Rayburn Building. We had several speakers in support of my book To End The War On Drugs: A Policy-Maker's Edition.

One politician did drop by, and speak his mind about my book, and about the drug war.

All right. While he's here, I think we should take advantage of the fact that we have a Congressman from the Texas Sixteenth District, Beto O'Rourke with us. Beto, would you come up and say a few words, please?

[applause]

BETO O’ROURKE: Well, thanks. You know, what kind of politician would I be if I didn’t accept an opportunity to speak into a microphone?

So, but, I really can’t add and hopefully won’t take away anything from what Dean has done with this book. I’ve known Dean for, you know, at least since 2009, and I've got to tell you that I’m very grateful for him and others who've been working in the trenches on this issue, on an idea, whose time has finally come. And, you know, as the old saying goes, “There’s nothing more powerful than that.”

And, Dean has written something here that is critically important for me and my colleagues and just, and our staffers, to digest and understand, and when we do it’s really hard to escape the conclusion that the war on drugs has failed, there's something far more rational, humane, and arguably fiscally responsible should take its place.

And, you know, recent events, whether it’s closing in on half of our states have adopted or are considering adopting measures to allow the, either medicinal or recreational use of marijuana, or the New York Times' editorial board taking this unprecedented step in campaigning for a federal end to the prohibition policies when it comes to marijuana, or people like me who, prior to my exposure to this issue, because of the drug violence and prohibition-related violence in Ciudad Juarez, this was something that I didn’t really think about, care about, didn't think it affected me.

And it wasn’t until it, you know, came to my attention from the violence in Juarez, and then I got a chance to listen to people like Dean and others who pointed out that we imprison more of our own fellow citizens than any country on the face of this planet, that we spend billions and now well over a trillion dollars on this war on drugs, and that something like marijuana today is just as available, if not more so, to young kids, middle schoolers, elementary school kids, than it was before we spent the first dime, and we're nowhere closer to reducing its access, reducing its potency, keeping money out of the hands of criminals, thugs and cartels.

For every reason and anyway you can measure it, the right thing to do is now before us and that is to end the prohibition on marijuana and replace it with a much more logical, sensible, rational, humane plan to regulate and control its sale, keep it out of the hands of kids, help those who may need help if they have issues with addiction or its use, and make sure that we take the least bad option before us.

So, Dean, I just want to just thank you, and just commend the representatives of my colleagues to pick up a copy of this book, read it, make sure, if you can, to get your boss to read it. And then let’s do the right thing. I think the choice is very clear, it's before us right now.

And, it used to be we wondered if in our lifetimes we would see the right decision made. I think it's going to be within the next term or two in Congress that we will see historic change here, and it will be thanks to people like Dean and others who have been pursuing this issue in the trenches and on the front lines. Dean, thank you. I’ll turn it back over to you and just listen. Thanks.

[applause]

DEAN BECKER: During this time of eternal war, I find it my somber duty to report the death toll from the drug formerly known as marijuana is zero.

Last weekend, in Austin, Willie Nelson held a fundraiser for US Congressman Beto O'Rourke, who's running for Ted Cruz's Senate seat. Beto has created a bit of a firestorm talking about those who kneel during football games being patriots. He's got a lot more to say about war.

BETO O'ROURKE: And what if, for those women and men serving tonight in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Niger, what if we made this commitment, that we will not start another war, nor will we renew the wars we are in, unless we can define victory, the strategy, and why it is we asked our fellow Americans to put their lives on the line and to take the lives of others?

And if we cannot answer those questions, then let's bring those women and men back home to these communities, and let's end these wars!

And for the wars that we are fighting within this country, a war on drugs, which has become a war on people, and some people more than other people, this country, the largest prison population per capita on the face of the planet, disproportionately comprised of people of color, only some are getting arrested, only some are doing time, only some are checking a box on an application form that makes it that less likely that they'll get that job, only some will not qualify for Pell Grants, for possession of a substance that is legal in most states in this country.

What if we decided that instead of waging war, we were going to treat addiction as a public health issue instead of a criminal justice issue?

That those pharmaceutical corporations that push opioids on the American public and said it would not be addictive, are held accountable and that we have justice for everyone, even the most powerful, even the wealthiest, even those corporations with their political action committees?

And what if we ended the prohibition on marijuana, and expunged the arrest record for everyone arrested for possession of something that's legal in most of the country today? Allow you to get on with your life, take that job, go to school, be everyone that you are supposed to be!

DEAN BECKER: For years, I've had zero luck getting Raphael Edwardo Cruz to come on my show. Ted, if you want to come on the show, please do, I would really appreciate it. Contact me: Dean@DrugTruth.net.

After Beto got done speaking at last week's fundraiser, Willie Nelson did a great concert, and finished up with these thoughts, this song.

WILLIE NELSON: Here's a new song I want to spring on y'all tonight. Take it home with you, spread it around.

[music]
If you don't like who's in there, vote 'em out.
That's what election day is all about.
And the biggest gun we got
is called the ballot box.
If you don't like who's in there,
vote 'em out.

Vote 'em out,
(Vote 'em out),
Vote 'em out,
(Vote 'em out),
And when they're gone
We'll sing and dance and shout.

And to bring some new ones in,
And then we'll start the show again,
And if you don't like who's in there,
Vote 'em out.

DEAN BECKER: Well, that's all we can squeeze in, so once again I remind you, because of prohibition you don't know what's in that bag. Please, be careful.

WILLIE NELSON: [music]
And if it's a bunch of clowns you voted in,
Election day is coming 'round again.
And if you don't like now,
You can change it anyhow,
And if you don't like who's in there,
Vote 'em out.

Vote 'em out,
(Vote 'em out),
Vote 'em out,
(Vote 'em out),
And when they're gone
We'll sing and dance and shout.

And then we'll start the show again,
And bring some new ones in,
And if you don't like who's in there,
Vote 'em out.

Vote 'em out,
(Vote 'em out),
Vote 'em out,
(Vote 'em out),
And when they're gone
We'll sing and dance and shout.

08/16/18 Geoffrey Guy

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Geoffrey Guy
Tony Papa
Organization
GW Pharmaceuticals
Drug Policy Alliance

Geoffrey Guy, Chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals discusses Epideliex their cannabis medicine soon to be sold in the US, Irv Rosenfeld a man supplied with 300 cannabis cigarettes every 28 days by the FDA & Tony Papa of the DPA whose art will be included in a Houston Museum art show

Audio file

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

AUGUST 16, 2018

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: I am Dean Becker, your host. Our goal for this program is to expose the fraud, misdirection, and the liars whose support for drug war empowers our terrorist enemies, enriches barbarous cartels, and gives reason for existence to tens of thousands of violent US gangs who profit by selling contaminated drugs to our children. This is Cultural Baggage.

Hi folks, I am Dean Becker, the reverend most high, this is Cultural Baggage. Thank you for being with us. Today we're going to hear from Geoffrey Guy, he's the CEO of GW Pharmaceuticals, based in the UK. They're going to be selling cannabis medicines here in the US soon.

We'll hear from Mister Irv Rosenfeld again, he's going to talk about that same scenario. And we'll hear from Mister Tony Papa of the Drug Policy Alliance, who is going to be participating in an art show in Houston, Texas.

Doctor Geoffrey Guy is the chairman of the board and founder of GW Pharmaceuticals, based in the UK. They have a new product, Epidiolex, coming forward for approval within the United States. This is a cannabis-based product, should be available by the end of 2018. Early estimates that it will cost the patients approximately $32,000 a year to fill their prescription.

DR. GEOFFREY GUY: Well, I'm Doctor Geoffrey Guy, I'm a pharmaceutical physician, that means I've spent about 23 years in clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry, developing drugs, and I founded GW Pharmaceuticals right at the end of 1997 and early 1998.

I founded the company really in response to a debate that was beginning to become more pressing in the UK during 1997, and that was mainly that a number of patients were finding themselves in front of judges in court, having used cannabis, marijuana, for certain debilitating conditions, mainly multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and other neurological conditions.

But the courts were taking pity on them and letting them off, and this presented a quandary to the British government, and certainly civil servants at the Home Office, because the law was being brought into disrepute.

And therefore, a solution was sought, to find a way in which the patients could be treated, but with a legal prescription pharmaceutical. And I led that program, and developed the plan, which was then accepted by the UK authorities and the UK government.

DEAN BECKER: I understand that you have developed a couple of products under the brand name Sativex.

DR. GEOFFREY GUY: Well, Sativex is one particular product. That is a cannabis based extract, which is made from an extract of two cannabis plants. The plants have been bred specifically to exhibit one or other of the major cannabinoids in abundance. So one plant exhibits very high levels of THC, and the other plant exhibits very high levels of CBD, which is cannabidiol.

And we make extracts, pharmaceutical grade extracts, from each of these plants, and then we blend them in certain ratios.

DEAN BECKER: Again, that was Doctor Geoffrey Guy, the chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals in the UK. Next up we'll hear from Irvin Rosenfeld, he was with us a couple of weeks back, you may recall. Every 28 days, he gets a tin of 300 pre-rolled marijuana cigarettes, courtesy of the US government.

He's the number one expert I could think of to respond to this situation with GW Pharmaceuticals, and their impending release of this new cannabis medicine. My friend, Mister Irvin Rosenfeld.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Well, what GW is trying to do, okeh, just so you know, is, once the government schedules Epidiolex, which will probably be Schedule Three, is what I'm guessing, GW's going to try to say that they now have a drug for a CBD product. Okeh?

And they're going to say that everybody else is infringing upon their prescription, meaning, okeh, and they're going to try to stop everybody in the country from selling CBD. That's what they're going to try to do.

Therefore, they have a right to, you know, use a prescription for, you know, two decades, whatever, and anybody else is infringing upon their prescription [sic: patent]. Therefore, they're not allowed to do that.

DEAN BECKER: We had you on a couple of weeks back, we were talking about progress, you know, around the country.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Right. Right.

DEAN BECKER: The -- Oklahoma's coming around, I think, they're at least --

IRVIN ROSENFELD: They are.

DEAN BECKER: -- medical. The governor, or some board, is trying to limit it to on smoking and no home growing, and, you know, there's always --

IRVIN ROSENFELD: That's what they're trying to do in Florida, that's what they're trying to do in Florida. You know, and no -- no flower, and no home grow, unless we get this ballot initiative in 2020. Yes, same thing.

DEAN BECKER: And, I even hear rumors here in Texas, we just had a seminar last weekend that the thought going around there is that there may be progress here in Texas next year, but it would once again limit it to no smoking and no home grown. And that's -- that means that the big boys, the dollar makers, are going to be in charge.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Exactly.

DEAN BECKER: That, you know, the little guy's going to be behind the eightball once again.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Exactly. Which is wrong.

DEAN BECKER: What is your thought? I mean, I've seen this over the last twenty years kind of unfolding, and we were all so --

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Well.

DEAN BECKER: -- we were all so focused on the fact that progress was being made, we weren't watching what was happening behind the scenes, where the big money guys are really in charge of regulations and how we move forward. Your thought there, Irv.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: My thoughts are, the sad part is it comes down to patients. And patients are going to suffer. And the point is, it's a regulated industry like it's been down in Florida and Ohio, I mean, it's a vertical situation where they grow, you know, dispense, and the lab, they don't do laboratory testing.

The point is that prices are expensive because it's not a regulated market. It's not -- it's not something, again, we're based, in the United States, we're based with competition. That's what we've [unintelligible] with, and they're trying to stop competition in this, you know, market, and that's wrong. That's totally wrong, especially for patients, because again, real patients are on disability. They cannot even afford hardly their food or their rent, and they're supposed to spend all this money on a dispensary to go get their medicine? They can't afford.

So therefore it needs to be unregulated to where, you know, you have more people growing, and especially, hopefully, the individual growing it, to where they can sustain and grow their own medicine for themselves.

DEAN BECKER: Irv, it's -- it's been almost fifteen years ago, I got the opportunity to speak to -- to interview Geoffrey Guy, who was then and may still be the executive director of GW Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of this product. [Note: That interview aired September 16, 2003 http://www.drugtruth.net/files/audio/FDB_CB091603.mp3 ]

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Yes.

DEAN BECKER: And then, I was thrilled with that opportunity. I --

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Yes.

DEAN BECKER: I still feel it was one of the high points of my career, if you will, because I don't think he's given an interview to others, at least not as indepth as he did with me. And, the point I'm getting to is that, what they were presenting at that time, fourteen, fifteen years ago, was a whole lot different than the equation that's now being unfolded for this pricing, because that was not a topic of discussion back then. Your thought there, Irv Rosenfeld.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: You know, that's very true. I mean, you know, Geoffrey Guy, who I met in '98, '99, and, you know, while I own stock in GW, I still do, you know, the point was that, you know, they demonized marijuana so bad that I was hoping that a prescription, a legal prescription, for some sort of cannabis, whether it's GW, whatever, other companies but GW's the one who's done it, would be beneficial because a lot of patients, and all -- that's all I care about is patients -- a lot of patients, if a doctor goes to them and said, you know, I want you to use marijuana now for your, you know, for whatever, I mean, it's been approved for -- Epidiolex is for epilepsy for children so it's not going to help adults, or whatever.

But, if they get, you know, Sativex, if they ever get it approved for, you know, anti-nausea from chemotherapy or whatever, or for pain from chemotherapy, then, it would be beneficial because a doctor could say, look, you know, I want you to use marijuana. And it's been demonized so much, for, you know, eight decades, that a patient's going to go, well doctor, I already have cancer, what do you want, to kill me sooner?

They're not going to do it. They're not going to do it. But if a doctor says I want you to try Sativex for your anti-nausea from chemotherapy, they would get it with chemotherapy, they're going to use it, because they're not going to know that Sativex is real marijuana, they're not going to know that. They're going to do a drug that a doctor's prescribed.

Therefore, I've always been in favor of GW because of the demonization of cannabis in this country. So if a doctor can say use this prescription, they may do it, versus, you know, versus a doctor saying, well, I want you to use marijuana, or cannabis, and, you know, and the patient's going to go, doc, I'm already dying of cancer, what do you want, to kill me sooner?

DEAN BECKER: Ah, yeah.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: So, you know, so therefore I'm happy, you know, with that, the point is, once they get it approved, it gives me a soapbox to stand on to say, hey, look, I've been saying this for four decades, that cannabis is a medicine, and if you're finally approving it in a certain form, then other forms are the same medicine. It's the same plant.

And what GW's going to try to say, which, especially with Epidiolex, is, they're going to say that, you know, we control CBD. And they're going to try to say that all CBD use is an infringement upon their prescription. And therefore, you know, they're not going to allow to be doing that, because it's an infringement, it's like a generic drug.

And they've got a prescription, it's going to be allowed for twenty years, and therefore a generic drug is not going to be allowed. So they're going to try to stop CBD use in the entire country.

DEAN BECKER: Wow.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Which, states are not going to live with that. They're not going to live with that.

DEAN BECKER: Well, and I want to --

IRVIN ROSENFELD: But that's the whole point.

DEAN BECKER: Yeah, and thank you for that, Irv. I want to clarify something, that Epidiolex is one of the new medicines being brought forward by GW, it is the CBD side, and you mentioned Sativex, that is the THC side, which --

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Correct.

DEAN BECKER: -- would have -- would present some type of euphoria, if you will, to many of its users, and, they -- which brings to mind, there is another gentleman, Rick Simpson, who put forward the idea that by making these concentrated extracts from cannabis, that it, you know, I'm not going to say that it necessarily helps those suffering from cancer, but there is a lot of indications that it does, but that it is also of great benefit for many people.

And it's a homemade product, it's something that you can make by growing cannabis and doing a very minimal type of extract. Your thought in regards to Rick Simpson's oil.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: My thought on that is, you've got to be in a state where it allows you to grow it, and very few states allow you to grow it, and that's the problem. Okeh? And that's the whole situation that we're fighting, is again, we've come a long way, but we're not there yet, because we've got to allow patients to grow their own. We really do.

They grow their own medicine, and to make it to where, you know, they can do this and to make the best extracts for their disorder. I mean, that's what this whole thing is about, it's about patients. That's the thing, it's not about money. And that's what the states are doing, it's about money, that's what the states are saying, it's about money. We want to -- you know, we wanted to, you know, only have certain companies that are allowed to grow it, and dispense it, whatever, it's about money and tax and whatever. I'm sorry, it's about money. That's not what Bob Randall and I did in '82.

What we said was that we want this medicine to be for patients, and to make it the best patient -- you protect this, you know, medicine, and that way they get the best medicine, the best prices. And then what states are trying to do now is they're trying to say, well, we won't do that, but we're going to regulate it, and we're going to only allow certain, you know, companies to do it, and you've got to pay the price.

And that's not what we want to be, because it can -- people on disability cannot afford their food, afford their rent, and they're going to go to a dispensary for their medicine? They can't do it. So that's what we need to change.

DEAN BECKER: And, the heck of it is, these dispensaries, controlled through, by the state, only have to compete with the black market. Only have to be within shouting range, if you will, of that black market price, which is highly inflated and was making these patients suffer in the first place, over the decades. Am I right?

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Correct. You know, one of the things is, you know, which, I want to compliment Oregon. I really do. Oregon's done fantastic, because what did they do is they allowed -- they allowed companies to grow their own, and they let everybody grow their own.

So what has happened? Three years ago, two, three years ago, cannabis sold for two to three thousand dollars a pound on the black market, or, you know, to legalized. So Oregon allowed everybody to grow it. And this past growing session, pounds instead of two to three thousand dollars, was a hundred to three hundred dollars a pound [sic: the average in Oregon at the end of 2017 was approximately $900, ranging from around $200 to around $1200], because there was an overabundance of marijuana, overabundance of cannabis.

Therefore, the price dropped. Now, as a stockbroker, which I am, that's horrible. You know, the price dropping like that. As a patient, I think it's fantastic, because patients now can afford it. And that's really the bottom line for me, is patients, patients, patients. So therefore, this should not be a commodity where states are, you know, are regulating it to where they can make money off of it, taxes and everything else. I'm sorry, but I'm not that way, I'm -- you know, this is the only medicine that's taxed. There's not another medicine in this country that's got a tax on it, but marijuana.

And it's a medicine. Therefore, there should not be a tax on it, and states should not be able to make money off of it, and it should be regulated to where patients are allowed to grow their own and make their own medicine, because that would be the cheapest price, and that's what I want to see.

DEAN BECKER: You mentioned that cannabis, being the only medicine that's taxed, that's treated differently, that's --

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Yeah.

DEAN BECKER: -- not given the, I guess respect that other medicines get. But it brings to mind that it, in many ways, cannabis is treated almost as if it's nuclear, you know, product, uranium or something, that it's so dangerous and feared by these politicians, when there's no legitimacy or reason for that attitude, that perspective, is there?

IRVIN ROSENFELD: There's none, so we've got to overcome that stigma. We've got to overcome this, and the states are saying, well, fine, you know, let's overcome this and make it, you know, a legal drug or whatever and tax it.

I'm sorry, you know, it's a medicine, and if you're not going to tax other medicines, you shouldn't be taxing this. You know, if you want to put a tax to it, then put a small tax to it, you know, to make, you know, and make it pay for itself for the states, but the point is, don't make money off the backs of people who are legitimate patients. That's the point.

DEAN BECKER: I'm with you there, I would even put forward the thought that any tax should be utilized to provide free medicine for those who cannot afford it in any fashion.

IRVIN ROSENFELD: Well, that's a point, too, and especially people on disability. I mean, you know, most patients, real patients, okeh, are on disability and they can't afford it. So therefore, they never do, and states haven't set that up. States could care less about these patients. You know? And that's the sad part.

DEAN BECKER: Yeah. No real compassion there at all. Well friends, we've been speaking with Mister Irvin Rosenfeld, a stockbroker down in Florida. Irv, closing thought, a website you might want to share?

IRVIN ROSENFELD: You know, if you want the history of the medical movement in this country, you know, get my book, which is My Medicine, it's at MyMedicineTheBook.com, repeat, www.MyMedicineTheBook.com, you can order a copy of my book, which will be signed, and also, you know, what we try to do is patient navigation, meaning cannabis is great but a lot of -- a lot of states only allow oil or things like that, and they take out the terpenes, and they don't have essential oils, and so what we try to do is help patients, you know, with that, to add to it, add to the essential oils and to the terpenes, and that's through MyMedicineConsulting.com.

DEAN BECKER: It's time to play Name That Drug By Its Side Effects! Confusion, changes in breathing, heartbeat, or blood pressure, unusual changes in behavior, agitation and irritability, worsening depression, suicidal thoughts, leaking or enlarged breasts, impotence, stroke, and death. Time's up! The answer, Latuda, from Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated. For depression.

Over the last few years, the focus has really been shifting. Television, radio, and the newspapers have been changing their focus, have been speaking more openly, about the need to change our drug laws, to change the focus, the penalties, the means, the way that we go about all this, and I'm real happy to say that there's going to be an event that kind of proves how that focus, that change, is expanding.

The Contemporary Arts Museum of Houston is having a major art show titled Walls Turned Sideways: Artists Confront The Justice System. And one of the gentlemen who has been the focus of our show several times before, a man who was sentenced to fifteen years to life for hauling a bit of cocaine across town, who now works for the Drug Policy Alliance, my friend, Mister Tony Papa, will be represented at this gathering at the Contemporary Arts Museum, and I want to welcome him to the program.

Tony Papa, how are you, sir?

TONY PAPA: Dean, thanks so much for having me on your show. Yeah, this is going to be a huge event. It's a happening, actually. Risa Puleo, the curator, contacted me a few months back, and she asked if I would like to participate in the show, because she knew my history as a person who was subjected to the criminal justice system, and I was sentenced to two fifteen-to-life sentences for a first time nonviolent drug offense.

While I was in prison, I went to Sing Sing, I discovered my talent as an artist, and I used my art actually to literally paint my way to freedom. In 1996, Governor George Pataki granted me executive clemency based on my art. I did a self portrait, I painted a self portrait, Fifteen To Life, which is going to be shown at this exhibit.

And it, basically, we showed it at the Whitney Museum of American Art while I was in prison, it got a lot of publicity, and the governor heard about my story, and I got my freedom through my art.

Art is a great vehicle to fight for justice. The artist has a -- has an opinion, the individual that becomes concerned with social justice is a very powerful individual. There's going to be forty artists in this show, and they range in their work and what they do, but they all have one common link: they're fighting the criminal justice system, fighting mass incarceration, and my part, I'm fighting the war on drugs.

For many years, I tried to make the connection between the drug war and the prison industrial complex, and I did it through my art, having exhibits, showing my art. If you look at my art, it's all about the prison experience, and, you know, what happens when you're subjected to arrest and then confinement, and then actually being in prison. You can see it through my art. I've managed to capture the whole prison experience.

DEAN BECKER: And, Tony, if I dare put words in your mouth, it was that experience that gave you the commitment for your now, I think, lifelong commitment to work with the Drug Policy Alliance to expose this situation for what it is, and to expose it as a failure. Am I right, sir?

TONY PAPA: Definitely, you're definitely right, Dean. You know, I commend you on your work, you've been doing these many years, and using the arts as a vehicle, you know, and a media vehicle, to get the issue across, is a very powerful tool.

I think now, in this -- with mass incarceration, many artists are speaking out, using their art as a vehicle to talk about the injustice that exists in the United States. So this show is a groundbreaking show. It's the first of its kind, I think, in the history of art. I've been trying to make that connection, like I said. Drug Policy Alliance, we used to have reform art shows, we had five of them, and we, you know, got artists to contribute art in the show, and we talked about the war on drugs.

This show is going to talk about many social justice issues, those that affect individuals, the criminal justice system. It's going to be a great show. Hopefully people can attend it. It's going to be open -- it opens on Friday, August Twenty-Fourth, and it's going to stay open until January of 2019.

So there's an opportunity to go see this show, and hopefully people will support these artists and come out to the show and see it.

DEAN BECKER: Well, again, this is at the Contemporary Arts Museum, I think it's at the Brown Foundation Gallery, and --

TONY PAPA: Right.

DEAN BECKER: And Tony's right, it's going to be August 25 through January 9 of 2019, I'm looking at the list of artists, they're from all over the country, even from the United Kingdom. This is a chance for folks to see the feelings of this -- this drug war, of the failings of this criminal justice system, expressed through paintings and statuary, and other means, through these great artists.

Tony, I want to come back to you for a second. You have, I think, stood forth for others, given them the courage to perhaps follow in your footsteps, and to join in creating this exhibition.

TONY PAPA: Yes, I've used this vehicle, my art, for many years, at different shows, different venues, and major galleries, you know. It's a great vehicle because it gets together people that talk about this issue. You know, right now, Sessions and the Trump administration want to bring back the war on drugs from the '80s and '90s, it's a big mistake, and mandatory minimum sentencing, and this show is going to talk about this issue, and many other issues concerned with the criminal justice system.

So I hope people can come out and see this show, and enjoy the art from these fantastic artists that are going to be in the show.

DEAN BECKER: All right, folks, once again, we've been speaking with Mister Tony Papa with the Drug Policy Alliance. I urge you to go to their website, you can learn not just about the artistry of Mister Tony Papa, but of the work and the endeavors of many of the good folks at the Drug Policy, and that's at DrugPolicy.org.

The following is a Drug Truth Network editorial.

So many citizens dabble, part time, in ending prohibition. Usually the prohibition of their drug, their medicine. They feel slighted, thinking they deserve better. They're seeking absolution because of how bad they've been shafted by marijuana prohibition.

These cannabis saints would do well to stand for the other fifty percent who have been busted, those who use heroin, cocaine, pills, et cetera, who get longer sentences and less sympathy.

Prohibition does not work anywhere, and it never will. Potheads would look a lot more serious and less self-centered if they dared to broach the full subject of drug prohibition head on with their elected officials.

We are currently and eternally empowering terrorists, cartels, and gangs, we're providing billions to banks that money launder, ensuring record number of overdose deaths and diseases being caught, of being the world's leading jailer.

I want to ask one question: what is the benefit of drug war? That is the question, the only question, that will end this eternal war on logic, freedom, progress, and sanity. Just being a good pothead is slow, plodding, very incremental work. But being a knowledgeable citizen, ready, willing, and able to discuss the abject failure of the whole of the drug war is certain to move things much quicker.

Compared to funding terrorists, cartels, and gangs, filling prisons, ensuring more overdose deaths, disease, and children's access, we must realize there is no benefit whatsoever to this prohibition. We must own this discussion, we no longer can pussyfoot around. We've been doing that for decades. We must own it.

There exists a quasi-religion we call drug prohibition, based in lies, racism, intolerance, and hard hearted evil that persist until such time that the number of activists can expose, embarrass, belittle, and otherwise force the intolerant believers of prohibition to realize they're on the wrong side of this issue.

This drug war continues because it creates massive power where none should exist. We only need to ask the one question to expose and eventually end this eternal prohibition, this madness: What is the benefit?

All right, that's about all we can squeeze in. Thank you for being with us, and again I remind you that because of prohibition, you don't know what's in that bag. Please, be careful.

To the Drug Truth Network listeners around the world, this is Dean Becker for Cultural Baggage and the unvarnished truth. Cultural Baggage is a production of the Pacifica Radio Network. Archives are permanently stored at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. And we are all still tap dancing on the edge of an abyss.

08/09/18 Inge Fryklund

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Inge Fryklund
Organization
Law Enforcement Action Partnership
Drug Policy Alliance

Inge Fryklund, LEAP board member re reason for migration, Mary Jane Borden re Ohio medical cannabis situ, Jag Davies of Drug Policy Alliance re success of decriminalization in US

Audio file

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

AUGUST 9, 2018

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: I am Dean Becker, your host. Our goal for this program is to expose the fraud, misdirection, and the liars whose support for drug war empowers our terrorist enemies, enriches barbarous cartels, and gives reason for existence to tens of thousands of violent US gangs who profit by selling contaminated drugs to our children. This is Cultural Baggage.

I am Dean Becker, the reverend most high, this is Cultural Baggage. Today we'll hear from Jag Davies, he's with the Drug Policy Alliance, regarding drug decriminalization. We'll hear from Mary Jane Borden regarding legalization of cannabis in Ohio.

But first up, Inge Fryklund is a former assistant state's attorney in Cook County, Illinois. She's a former policy adviser regarding Afghanistan. She's now an executive board member for Law Enforcement Action Partnership, LEAP, otherwise known as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, and she's with us now to talk about this situation on our border, what is driving family migration to these United States. Hello, Inge.

INGE FRYKLUND: Hello, thanks for having me on again.

Well, the question that I've raised is, even though we're focusing on sort of the current facts of children being separated from their parents at our border with Mexico, we haven't really asked the question why are so many people so desperate to leave their home countries, especially in Central America and Mexico, that they would take risks of having their families torn apart and maybe losing their children.

And I think that's the question we need to be focused on, rather than these short term fixes about, hey, how do we reunite these families.

DEAN BECKER: They're willing to take their kids, many of them travel a thousand miles or more, riding on top of freight trains.

INGE FRYKLUND: Yes. They obviously seem desperate to escape their home countries, and these people are not fleeing some act of god, like a hurricane or a earthquake, that no one has any control over [sic: earthquakes, volcanoes, and hurricanes have from time to time been responsible for some refugees]. Most of what they're fleeing is government's failure and the violence and the corruption.

The New York Times article that you referred to, the reporters had interviewed some parents, and their answer almost uniformly was, my kids are in danger of being killed by the drug cartels, and that's what we're trying to escape.

And, my argument, as I put in this article, is that it is the US that in the pursuit of our war on drugs has insisted that these poor Central and South American countries and Mexico fight our war on drugs. And we don't seem to care how much crime, corruption, and violence results from that. And if we, you know, really cared about what was happening with the people in this country and stopped the war on drugs, that takes market share away from the cartels right there.

Now, we already know that the marijuana industry in Mexico is dropping, because of competition from legal production in the US. So, my argument is that a lot of the problems that these poor families are fleeing from are caused by US policies, very specifically our failed war on drugs.

DEAN BECKER: It was charlatans, I think they were moralists, considered to be at the time, but they toured the world and proclaimed the need to do this, they insisted that the United Nations join forces with the US, and make this a global jihad, if you will, against the use of drugs, and it just hasn't panned out. There has been no benefit to speak of, has there been?

INGE FRYKLUND: I can't think of any benefit, and the downsides are there for everyone to see. But, it's particularly interesting, I think, if you compare the drug war situation with our war on alcohol, back during the days of prohibition, 1920 to 1933. Remember Al Capone and all that violence in our big cities.

Back then, we never attempted to get the rest of the world to join up with our crusade. In fact, European countries and Canada were happily shipping liquor into our three mile limit. And all of the violence and corruption came home to roost, you know, with massive corruption of our own big city politicians and police.

I think that's one of the reasons why prohibition of alcohol lasted only 13 years. Whatever we thought the benefit was, the downside, and we suffered from that, was a lot more than anybody had counted on.

But with the war on drugs, there's really not all that much drug related corruption within the US [sic]. I mean there's kind of minor stuff, you know, police taking stuff from evidence lockers, and extorting some criminals, but the big violence, where the cartels are, are in the producer countries, you know, the people who produce the cocaine, opium poppy, marijuana, and the transit countries, and the full weight of the violence comes down on them.

And the US government has essentially held a stick over their governments. You know, you either fight our war on drugs or we're going to withdraw all the foreign aid you're getting. So this is also undercutting democracy. Citizens there can't vote to stop this nonsense. The US has got too big a hold on them.

DEAN BECKER: It often seems that the criminals are running both sides of this equation, I mean, I don't know how true that may be, but --

INGE FRYKLUND: Certainly a lot of profit to be made in this country by illegality.

DEAN BECKER: Yes. Yes.

INGE FRYKLUND: Think of all the people employed by DEA, the police getting surplus military equipment, the grant money that goes to fight drugs, the private prison industry, which seems to be booming.

DEAN BECKER: Right.

INGE FRYKLUND: A lot of people have a financial interest in keeping this nonsense going, no matter how many people are dying.

DEAN BECKER: We have this situation in those transit countries where one gang will round up the wives of the competing gang and take them on a dirt road somewhere and chop them into little pieces and put that video on the web to show their domination. We don't have that in these United States, but, that's what's driving these people northward, am I right.

INGE FRYKLUND: Right. But those people and those practices are what's essentially necessary to feed the drug habit in the US. If we would legalize, which then makes it possible to regulate, we could do something about the quality control on these substances. You know, when we say heroin overdose, people aren't actually overdosing on too much good heroin, what they're really dying of is all the stuff it's cut with, like fentanyl.

In an illegal market, the seller has every incentive to cut the quality in order to inflate his profits. And then our citizens die.

DEAN BECKER: It has no solution, without some type of decriminalization, legalization, of these drugs, because otherwise we leave control of the manufacture and distribution in the hands of inept criminals and we're just not going to win this war that way.

INGE FRYKLUND: No, and I think we should just recognize that human beings are susceptible to these substances. You know, if you look back through a couple thousand years of history, if there is any product, or fruit, or grain, which can be smoked, distilled, brewed, in order to produce a high, people have done it. That's just who we are as a species, and rather than pretending that we can be a drug free America or drug free world, let's acknowledge who we are and figure out how to manage it, and that requires legalization.

Can't regulate something if it's illegal. So legalization in order to regulate, I think would deal with a lot of this, cut our fentanyl deaths, cut the cartel violence, cut the police corruption in Central America and Mexico.

DEAN BECKER: And do away with much of the violence in our cities like your city, past city of Chicago, where it kind of resembles the situation under Al Capone once again.

INGE FRYKLUND: Yes, people shooting each other trying to divide up the drug territories. I remember back when I was a prosecutor in Chicago in the '80s, we'd point out that when the violence level dropped, that was something to be nervous about, because that meant somebody had consolidated territories.

Violence went up when they were all squabbling with each other. But, inevitably, lots of bystanders, very often children out on the streets, were getting killed in the midst of this warfare.

DEAN BECKER: Well, I guess as long as euphoria remains a crime, we're going to have these types of problems. We've been speaking with Inge Fryklund, former state's attorney in Cook County. Inge, any closing thoughts you'd want to share?

INGE FRYKLUND: No, just keep pushing at legalize for the purpose of regulating, and instead of putting all our money into locking people up, let's put the money into some of those problems, especially in our rural areas, that drive people to start using heroin. If they didn't have lives that seemed otherwise empty, there might not be the demand that's being fed by the cartels right now. So, there's nowhere to go but up if we legalize, regulate, tax.

DEAN BECKER: All right. Again, Inge's a member of the board of Law Enforcement Action Partnership, out there on the web at LEAP.cc. I urge you to please check it out.

It's time to play Name That Drug By Its Side Effects! Lightheadedness, difficulty concentrating, changes in sex drive, seizures, hallucinations, memory problems, confusion, problems with speech, thoughts of suicide. Time's up! The answer: Xanax, for anxiety.

Over this past year, we've kind of looked into what's happening in the various states with their medical or recreational marijuana laws. Today we're going to take a look, take a listen, to my friend up in Ohio about what's going on up that way. I want to introduce Mary Jane Borden. Hello, Mary Jane.

MARY JANE BORDEN: Hi Dean, let's see, this would probably be my hundred and third or fourth radio interview with you.

DEAN BECKER: The fact of the matter is, you have been attuned, ear to the ground, so to speak, to what's going on in Ohio. Please tell us what's happening, or not quite happening, up there.

MARY JANE BORDEN: Well, in 2016, the Ohio legislature passed HB523, which went into effect on September, I believe Eighth, 2016, and the legislature gave the state of Ohio two years to set up a program and have it operational.

The program in Ohio consists of three entities. There's part that's managed by the Ohio Department of Commerce, part is managed by the Department of Pharmacy, and then part of it is managed by the Medical Board, and of course the Medical Board, as you can well discern, is the entity that certifies the physicians recommending marijuana in Ohio.

I think things are rolling on pretty smoothly. This time last year, I was very optimistic that the state would meet its deadline. I was pleased to see that they had the rules set up by September 2017. They had submitted -- had cultivation license -- licenses for applications out, they had processing, you know, procedures and testing procedures out, there's testing sites, they had a bunch of information out on the website that I thought was pretty comprehensive.

November of last year, they announced the cultivation licenses. The state of Ohio has two tiers of cultivation licenses. They have a tier two, which is up to three thousand square feet, and a tier one, which is up to 25,000 square feet. Now, what I'm talking about is the announcement of the level one cultivators, which are the big guys.

Well, they -- you look at the list, and it has disqualified, oh, I'd say most, it appeared, of the applicants. They were to issue twelve licenses, it seems like they wanted to award -- issued licenses were mysteriously quote unquote "disqualified."

I think that just started a tumble, whereby the state found out that -- they found out that the state's scoring methods were problematic, they -- there were all kinds of very weird things going on there and ultimately stalled the issuance of the actual licenses, and the start-ups, the ones that did get licenses, kind of have put barriers between them and being able to get the operating licenses that I think were just awarded to maybe three cultivators within the last month or so.

So one month from now, one month from now, we're going to have a fully operational program, with, you know, cannabis that is grown, processed, and available to patients. I think it's pretty clear that's not going to happen.

When it's going to happen now, when this is actually going to be implemented, there will be products on the shelves? That's an open question that the Department of Commerce does not want to answer. It's really, it's an open question.

Fifty six provisional dispensary licenses were issued in July, so they're -- dispensaries are doing build-out, and, you know, setting themselves up to serve patients. But to do that, you have to have the product, and then the product has to be processed, the product has to be tested. So it's -- it's problematic.

I guess the only way I can sum it up, Dean, is to say, you know, we're coming out of a situation where we had just total, complete prohibition. Think about where we were when we started doing this work, Dean, maybe 20 years ago.

DEAN BECKER: Right.

MARY JANE BORDEN: Think about how far we've come, when we're debating cultivation facilities of 25,000 square feet. You know, when I see the problems in Ohio, I back up a little bit and I think to myself, wow, this is really cool.

I guess I'd say start with Ohio Rights Group. And so that's OhioRightsGroup.org.

DEAN BECKER: Jag Davies is the director of communication strategy at the Drug Policy Alliance, based up there in New York, but he recently had an opinion piece published in the Washington, DC newspaper, The Hill. It was titled up A Push For Drug Decriminalization Surges In Countries Around The World; Could The US Be Next? With that, I want to welcome Jag Davies. How are you doing, sir?

JAG DAVIES: I'm doing good, thanks so much for having me, Dean.

DEAN BECKER: Well, Jag, last week I had Mister Dana Larsen out of Canada saying very much the same thing. It's having a great impact, influence, around the world, this thought, is it not?

JAG DAVIES: Absolutely. I mean, so many people have heard of Portugal now. Portugal's the best example of decriminalization, and that implement -- they implemented probably the most comprehensive version of it, but a lot of other countries, particularly in western Europe, have some form of drug decriminalization.

The Netherlands, the Czech Republic has a very impressive system that's been quite successful with decriminalization, Switzerland and several other countries as well, and now, the past year there's a whole bunch of other countries where, at the senior levels of government, they're making serious moves towards drug decriminalization.

These countries include Norway, which has got quite a bit of press in the US, France, even some countries outside of Europe and North America, like Ghana in western Africa. And then, it's -- I've been amazed the past few months how much progress has been going on in Canada. You have two of the three main political parties in Canada all of a sudden endorsing and campaigning on decrim.

You have the public health authorities in Toronto and Montreal, over the past month, calling for drug decriminalization. The city of Vancouver and their mayor have called on the federal government to decriminalize drugs.

Now, Justin Trudeau, as Dana probably said last week, has not come out in support of drug decriminalization. He's been asked about it pretty regularly in recent months, but just even the fact that the prime minister is getting asked about drug decriminalization seems pretty significant.

And what's, I think, striking about all of this is that, in a lot of the ways, where, you know, a lot of the conditions that have led to this, these calls for decriminalization in Canada, are similar in the US, and a lot of people might think that, you know, drug decriminalization sounds like this pie in the sky idea for the US, but actually in the United States already, this is a concept that a majority of the public already supports.

You know, you always hear politicians saying things like we can't arrest our way out of the drug problem, and we need to treat addiction as a health issue, but we haven't quite just taken that next step of saying, well then let's just stop arresting people who use drugs. We're still arresting as many people who use drugs as ever, 1.3 million drug possession arrests we're making a year here.

So, it kind of seems like really an opportune moment right now to really generate public debate and put it out in front of people, and this is an issue that, you know, the Drug Policy Alliance is going to be exploring in future years, potentially doing ballot initiatives or legislative campaigns at the state level for decriminalization.

I mean, at the federal level, the federal government's always the last one to move forward with drug policy reforms, but, there's a lot of states and cities and municipalities around the country that have already taken significant steps towards decrim, and I think it's likely in the next few years we're going to see a lot of movement at the local and state level towards decriminalization.

DEAN BECKER: A lot of politicians are getting this. It's kind of hard to maneuver when state and federal legislators don't open up the possibilities. Your thought there, please.

JAG DAVIES: Well, there's actually a lot that can be done at the local level without state and federal support. One of the closest things we have in the US to decriminalization is a program called Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion, also known as LEAD, or also known as pre-arrest diversion programs.

And it's not an ideal situation, because it still gives the police some discretion in some situations to make an arrest, but there's a whole handful of countries [sic: municipalities] around the country that have already implemented this program and there's another twenty or thirty cities, and Houston is one of those cities, that are in the process of developing a Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion program, and, which are already up and running in more than a dozen cities.

So, it's -- so yeah, we're moving pretty close towards that. The district attorneys have a lot, and local law enforcement have a lot of discretion over, you know, low level misdemeanor drug possession arrests. I think, you know, when it comes to marijuana, even in places, you know, cities in the south or in places that may have lagged behind the northeast or west coast on marijuana policy, they're starting to catch up now.

But, I think the next step is also going to be, you know, dealing with other drugs, because in some ways, you know, the, about half of all drug arrests are for marijuana possession, so eliminating that is a huge part of it, but the harms of drug possession arrests, for drugs other than marijuana, you know, in some ways are even more harmful and insidious, because, you know, with drugs where, you know, like opioids or stimulants, where, you know, there's a risk of overdose, criminalization drives people into using drugs in more isolated and unsafe environments, makes it less likely that they're going to -- people are going to call 911 for help in the event of an overdose.

So in some ways, drug decriminalization, you know, is one of the factors -- or you know, the criminalization of drugs, I should say, is one of the factors, you know, contributing to the overdose crisis.

Decriminalizing drugs alone wouldn't save, you know, by itself, end the overdose crisis. What's so significant about what Portugal has done is that at the same time they stopped arresting people for drug possession, they also significantly ramped up their health and harm reduction services, so that's also important too, to be able to redirect those resources into health and treatment services.

But, I -- yeah, there's already, you know, there's nothing really stopping a local municipality at this point from moving forward with, you know, with decriminalizing drugs. And another step actually that a lot of states are taking that I should mention, that's a really important incremental step, is what's called de-felonizing drug possession. It's something in about 30 states around the country, possession of drugs other than marijuana is still a felony.

So, there were a few states that never made drug possession a felony, but a number of states in the past few years, Connecticut, California, even some conservative, more conservative states like Oklahoma, have passed laws or passed ballot initiatives to reduce the penalties for drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Which is, you know, it's an incremental step, but it's an important one, because right now in most states, you know, you can get hard prison time and really get, face a lot of criminal punishment just for small possession of drugs.

As I mentioned in my piece, there was an ACLU and Human Rights Watch report a couple of years ago on drug decriminalization, and they found that there's about a 130,000 people behind prison bars -- behind bars, you know, simply for drug possession, which is out of about half a million people behind bars for drug offenses overall, so it's a, you know, it's only maybe a third or a quarter of the overall number of people behind bars for drugs, but, it's the majority of the arrests, you know, and there's a huge amount of churn of people cycling through the criminal justice system, and getting stuck in -- with collateral consequences and under criminal justice supervision due to drug arrests.

So, you know, it's -- yeah, I think part of it is about reframing what we're doing too, from talking about mass incarceration to also talking about mass criminalization more broadly. You know, incarceration is so massive in this country, we have 2.3 million people behind bars [sic: just under 2.2 million according to the most recent data], but then you look at the total number of people under some form of criminal justice supervision and control, and that's seven and a half million people [sic: just over 6.6 million according to the most recent data].

That's another five million people who, you know, if they miss an appointment with a parole supervisor, if they simply fail a drug test for marijuana, anything like that, they're back in jail again, and cycling in and out, which of course is incredibly detrimental to people's lives, their ability to support themselves and their families.

DEAN BECKER: Well, and not to mention very costly to the government to keep them locked up and, you know, feed them and house them and take care of their medical problems. It's outrageous.

Once again, we're speaking with Mister Jag Davies of the Drug Policy Alliance. You know, earlier this year I got the chance to go to Portugal and to Switzerland to talk to the head of the heroin injection program there in Switzerland, and to meet with Doctor João Goulão, the, in essence the drug czar of Portugal.

And we talked about, you know, what has happened once they decriminalized, and the number of gangs has diminished, the number of violent crimes has diminished, the number of overdoses has diminished, the number of diseases being shared has diminished significantly.

It seems like a win win win, and with no downside. Your closing thoughts, there, Mister Jag Davies.

JAG DAVIES: Yeah, I mean, we need to be careful not to overstate the benefits of decriminalization. It's not a panacea for all of our drug policy problems. It doesn't address the problem of, you know, adulteration in the drug supply. It does make test -- checking drugs for fentanyl easier. But, so it does help to some degree with that, but it doesn't completely solve the problem of, you know, adulteration of unregulated drug supplies.

And of course it doesn't deal with the problems around people who sell drugs, and respecting their humanity. A lot of the devil is in the details. DPA released a very comprehensive report on decriminalization last year, called It's Time For The US To Decriminalize Drug Use And Possession. You can find that by going to DrugPolicy.org/decriminalize.

We have the political support for this here in the US, we have the scientific support. We just need to compel our policy makers and our leaders to start taking up this issue, because we have the winning hand here, we just need to play it.

DEAN BECKER: I've been sitting here with a royal flush, nobody from the government wants to play with me. Again I remind you, because of prohibition, you don't know what's in that bag. Please, be careful.

To the Drug Truth Network listeners around the world, this is Dean Becker for Cultural Baggage and the unvarnished truth. Cultural Baggage is a production of the Pacifica Radio Network. Archives are permanently stored at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. And we are all still tap dancing on the edge of an abyss.

07/19/18 Mitch Earlywine

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Mitch Earleywine
Organization
NORML
Drug Policy Alliance

Dr. Mitch Earlywine on cannabis science/progress, Chris Alexander of the Drug Policy Alliance re legal weed in New York, Heather Fazio re forthcoming cannabis conference in Austin, Colorado widow losing death benefits over legal cannabis

Audio file

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

JULY 19, 2018

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: I am the Reverend Dean Becker, keeper of the moral high ground in the drug war for the world and this is Cultural Baggage.

Hi, this is the Reverend Dean, please put your ears on. Here we go.

You know, it's been a while since we talked to our next guest. He's a professor at the University of Albany, he's very much an expert on the subject of marijuana, he works high in the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws group, and an old friend ,and I want to welcome, Doctor Mitch Earleywine. Hello, Doctor Earleywine.

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Thanks so much for having me on the show, Dean, it's delightful to be back.

DEAN BECKER: Well, Mitch, since we last talked there's been a lot going on. I've got a segment today talking about the mayor of New York and many of the high officials in that state are now thinking of legalizing marijuana. It's happened in a couple of states since we last talked. There's some good points, some bad points, some price points, and all kinds of things going on, and, what's your thought? We're making progress, are we not?

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Indeed we are. I do really hope that the entire state takes a careful look at this, and understands that there's a whole lot to gain and very little to lose. Right now we have a medical program that, in all honesty, is kind of frustrating for a lot of folks so there aren't a ton of approved conditions, and unfortunately there's really no flower available, so if you do go to a medical dispensary here, they have some tincture and they have vape pens that are pretty much just THC or CBD, you don't get the benefit of some of the nice combinations of terpenes and other cannabinoids that are present in some of the flower that we have available out west.

And I know plenty of folks who, you know, could really benefit, who have ailments that are relatively rare or just not on the list, and if we had a taxed and regulated market, there'd be plenty of cash to be made, a whole lot of law enforcement time to save, and a lot of happy people.

DEAN BECKER: Well, and, as kind of an alternative situation, the state of Oklahoma just legalized medical, but they wrote the bill in such a way that it almost parallels what they did in California, where a doctor's recommendation is all that's really required, no specific malady, no other specific hoops to jump through, I guess, but then, the state authorities said, the voters legalize but we're going to curtail it and we're going to prevent flowers from being sold in the stores, kind of like what happened in New York.

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: It's such a heart breaking thing, too, because I know I was not alone in really being [inaudible] when Oklahoma went that route, and it does really seem like everybody's different, each of our illnesses are different, so you work it out with your physician and have it go great guns, and then to pull away the opportunity to have different flowers, different strains, and the chance to really appreciate this neat synergy among all the different terpenes and cannabinoids, just is ending up making folks who could benefit lose out on their chance.

DEAN BECKER: Yes, sir, and, I'm aware of at least a few instances where certain children who have benefited from a certain grow, perhaps their father grew, a neighbor grew, but when they are denied that, when the police stopped them from accessing that one particular strain, they have a heck of a time finding the right mix, finding the right strain, to help them in the same way that they were helped by that prior strain. Your thought there, please.

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Well, it's such an odd predicament, too, because we are in, you know, this weird single molecule model, where we're accustomed to thinking, hey, if there's one ailment there's got to be one single chemical that's going to provide the relief, and it's -- it's just naive, when you think about something like broccoli is good for you, broccoli's a plant with hundreds of chemicals in it, and we don't need to isolate the individual one, just to go get some broccoli.

We're in that same sort of predicament here with cannabis where, yeah, we do happen to know some of the effects of a handful of cannabinoids, but now we've identified over a hundred of them. Clearly, we could, you know, wait decades and decades and isolate the exact one that might help each individual ailment, or we could just let folks have the freedom to use whatever strain works for them, and save a whole lot of agony in the long run.

DEAN BECKER: Well, you know, I've been doing -- I've been smoking cannabis for over fifty years, and even, I reach back to the old days, when I was first starting out, here in Texas we got, you know, Mexican weed, and mostly you had to smoke a lot of it to feel anything, to be truthful, but, as time went by we, the Mexicans started growing a better strain, we got this stuff that was called Oaxacan, and it was more of a, you know, a Christmas time, if you will, it was very enlightening, bubbly stuff, if you will.

We had stuff come, I heard it was from Panama, Panama Red, and it was almost like a tranquilizer, it would just knock you down in the couch. That, the stuff came in from Thailand, and the Thai sticks, and it was more of a dreamworld, that it would lead you to see mandalas in the trees and all of this kind of stuff, almost hallucinogenic.

And even back then, we saw, we knew, there were these various strains with various components that did various things for your body and your mind, and over the years, the decades, there's been plenty of science looking into these possibilities, these strains, what they do, but the government tries to quash that or at least ignores that when writing the laws. Your thought there, Doctor Earleywine.

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: It's strange, because it's -- the ignorance that leads to the fear, so, a completely harmless terpene like limonene, literally the thing that's present in lemons and oranges and tangerines and things like that, we're slowly discovering that by itself has a nice impact on comfort and can be mildly arousing. What a surprise it's in a lot of the sativa like strains, and seems to be a helpful contributor to making sure you can have, for example, pain relief and a very functional day.

Do we really want to sacrifice that, and just limit folks to no you can only have supplemented THC and that's it? It seems so counterproductive, and, you know, really undermines the whole ideas behind medicine, which is often to get folks functioning again so that that way they can be proud, be happy, do the sorts of things that they enjoy, and get back in the workforce, which puts -- we, you know, we seem to love it in this country so much, generate those tax dollars, make sure you're out there fulfilling obligations as a citizen.

And then to shortchange folks, simply because of these naive notions of a single molecule as a cure for any ailment, it's just naive.

DEAN BECKER: Well, and then there, let's switch over for a moment to the edibles, which I think are allowed in most states, but again I'm certain probably not in some, but, the edibles have other properties, other impacts, on the body and the brain, one that I ought to say it out loud, I think edibles are really great for having sex with because it just enhances the hell out of the experience, but, there are other proponents, components, and other situations. Your thought there, please.

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Absolutely. So the key issue with edibles is, THC gets into the GI tract, eventually ends up in your liver, and is broken down into what's called 11-hydroxy-THC. 11-hydroxy-THC crosses the blood-brain barrier more rapidly than fine old THC, and tends to create that more dramatic, somatic experience, and tends to have it last a long time, so edibles have a big advantage when it comes to things like sleep aid.

If you really need to make sure you're going to sleep all the way through the evening, nothing like an edible or a tincture right before bed so that it can kick in and metabolize slowly and make that kind of thing happen.

Unfortunately, folks have been frightened of the edibles, in part because of some highly, you know, glamorized, I'm not sure how else to describe it, incidents where folks had a bigger dose than they realized, and we're doing all we can to spread the word that, you know, you want to be super careful about dosage with these kinds of things.

But again, we only have tinctures here in New York, and we've got some hugely talented chefs here in our state who could make some delightful chocolates or cookies or lemon drops, or things along those lines, which I think would be intriguing for folks who don't want to have, you know, every edible experience feel like you're mowing your lawn or something.

And then the hope would be too that if we give folks the opportunity to experiment with these, with different dosages, and get a feel for their own responses, if you had a whole plant extract instead of THC by itself, you'd have a better opportunity for doing more good.

DEAN BECKER: Well, folks, we're speaking with Doctor Mitch Earleywine, he's a professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Albany, and a true expert on marijuana, medical marijuana. Doctor Earleywine, are there any gender specific thoughts we should be discussing as well?

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: It's intriguing because right now my lab is entirely women, so I'm getting into some delightful issues in women's health. We've got new data published on cannabis and PMS, pre-menstrual syndrome, as well as some intriguing data on cannabis and responses related to menopause.

I've got to admit, these were brand new areas for me, but, as many female users have sworn for years and years, we really do have some delightful expectations about how cannabis could help PMS symptoms, for example.

Now, it's kind of a long term joke, but of course, cannabis is not going to intervene on things like over-eating or food cravings, which is sort of stereotypical of PMS, but folks report a lot of good responses to other symptoms related to PMS including some of the moodiness, the discomfort, the tendency to feel bloated, the depression, the insomnia, even some of the joint pain, and it's just delightful to get some confirmation.

We had over a hundred women report on this, and report almost uniformly that cannabis, particularly at the right dosage, is super helpful for PMS and then the extreme version, what they're calling pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder, as well as the menopause crew, so, again, there are, you know, certainly some symptoms where cannabis isn't going to help, but the intervention for that has often been this rather controversial hormone replacement, which, you know, any time you're adding hormones to your body, there -- the potential for some negative health consequences, whereas cannabis is markedly easier on your body for those kinds of things.

It's certainly not going to help things like vaginal dryness, but all the other symptoms that often go with it, including the intensity of hot flashes, some of the discomfort, irritability, joint pain, and swelling associated with the menopause symptoms.

It's, again, we've got over a hundred people reporting, and they claim that this has a ton of potential. It was just really delightful to get into the women's health area with the medical cannabis world.

DEAN BECKER: All right, Doctor Earleywine, now, what am I leaving out? What am I, as I'm just a layman here, what am I forgetting?

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Well, so what's intriguing, it's kind of an intense story, but my student Rachel Luba lost her father recently to cancer, and it was super sad, but she really turned it around and tried to make good use of it, and ended up gathering data on cannabis in end of life care.

And, what we all sort of knew was that everybody thought, certainly on our very last days, we ought to have access to whatever we can have in order to just make things easier, and she found almost uniformly, folks who are really in the thick of it there, folks who do that end of life care, which is an admirable task and I've got to admit I'm not sure I could do it, they almost to the person think that cannabis availability would be just a big plus for folks who are really nearing the ends of their lives.

But they emphasize that it's just not available, and not available in an easy way, for folks who are, you know, literally stuck in hospice. And, it's, you know, it's great to know that people are recognizing that this could be helpful, but it was also super sad to realize how hard it is for anybody in hospice to get access to a plant that could really make their last days so much better.

DEAN BECKER: Well, and it brings to mind a situation, a couple of years back, a woman who lives in Tennessee was here on my show, emailed me, asked me if I would help her brother who lives down near Galveston. He's dying, he's about 84 years old, he's got brain, bowel, and liver cancer. He's on his way out.

And, but, she convinced me, and she actually drove down, and I met her, and we met her brother, and I brought them some cookies and some cannabis and some butter. And --

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Ah, man, what a great deed.

DEAN BECKER: And he -- he had been on the opiates, and he didn't want to die on his couch, you know, incapacitated so to speak. He switched over to cannabis. He only lived two more weeks, but he died on the living room floor playing with his great granddaughter, and I just -- I take great pride in helping that man reach that situation.

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: That really warms my heart, I mean, what a pleasant way to envision going out, when the contrast would have been really sad, of him, you know, stuck in some hospital bed around people he doesn't know and who may not care a whole lot for him. So, that's a really, a charitable act on your part, man, I've got to tip my hat to you.

DEAN BECKER: Well, it still feels good, thinking about it, what I heard from his sister. I --

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Sure.

DEAN BECKER: In the end, he couldn't eat the cookies, but he could still take a little spoonful of butter, and --

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Oh, good.

DEAN BECKER: And, I don't know. Compassion. We talk about --

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Exactly.

DEAN BECKER: -- compassionate conservative Christians. Where are they, really? That's what comes to mind.

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Well, I understand the fear, and unfortunately the biases against both cannabis and people who use it are still there. One of my grad students, who was here for years but who now has a lab or her own, out at University of the Pacific, has started studying what she calls marijuana stereotypes "jadar," as we used to call it, when High Times used to run that portion of the magazine.

And she's showing that neuropsych assessors and just lay people tend to have these stereotypes about anybody who they think might be a cannabis user, and they tend to think that their short term memory's going to be poor, or their working memory isn't going to be as good, and then unfortunately it shows up then on the way they seem to administer some of these memory related tasks, so that the subtle communication of this bias actually shows up in some of the scores on these neuropsych tests.

So by all means, if you are a cannabis user and you're in a situation where you're going to be tested for anything, I hate to say it, but do all you can to make it so you're not with somebody who could be basically biased against you.

DEAN BECKER: And that's, you know, there's so many weird complications. I think I was working for a major oil and gas company, they wanted to hire me full time, I was doing contract, but I had to take a urine test. And, I tried my best, I drank water, I took the kidney rinse from the head shop, all of this stuff.

I was actually getting paychecks. Two weeks later, they kicked me out. I couldn't even get my stuff out of the desk, Mister Becker you've failed your urine test. The next week, someone from that same company called me back and hired me back on a contract basis.

The -- that still hurts. That still hurts. Just to realize that my work is good enough, but my urine is not. It's just -- it's --

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: It's heartbreaking. So, I have a colleague who literally was just joking about giving an edible to a manager after he had returned from the west coast, and the next thing he knew, he got an intention to distribute meeting with human resources, and lost the job.

And I'm thinking, wow, you know, this is the twenty-first century, and we're still judging people by, you know --

DEAN BECKER: Nineteenth century.

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: -- casual references and jokes.

DEAN BECKER: Yes, sir. Well, friends, we've been speaking with Doctor Mitch Earleywine. Again, he's a professor of psychology at the [State] University of New York at Albany. Doctor Earleywine, is there anything you'd like to share with the audience as we part ways here, perhaps a website?

MITCH EARLEYWINE, PHD: Folks are always welcome to check out my website at the University at Albany, State University of New York, but, what I'm really hoping to do is have folks head to amazon, if they're willing, and check out my book Understanding Marijuana by Oxford University Press, and I'm just hoping it's the kind of thing you might hand off to somebody who may be riding the fence, whether they can decide do they want to support us or not.

By all means, have them read a chapter or two, and I bet you they'll come to our side.

DEAN BECKER: It's time to play Name That Drug By Its Side Effects! Clammy skin, pinpoint pupils, shallow or absent breathing, dizziness, sedation, loss of consciousness, nausea, vomiting, weak or absent pulse, heart failure, death, thousands of deaths. Time's up! Designed to sedate adult elephants, this drug is one hundred times more deadly than fentanyl, ten thousand times deadlier than morphine, a portion smaller than a grain of salt can be fatal, the drug lord's dream fulfilled: carfentanyl.

The following comes to us out of New York City, courtesy Spectrum News.

NICK REISMAN: New York Department of Health released the results of a long awaited report concerning marijuana legalization, findings that say the positives far outweigh the negatives. From taxation, prospects in proper regulation, Governor Cuomo is on board. Supporters are also happy as they say it will further erode [sic] policing policies and arrests that unfairly target communities of color if the legislature follow through on the recommendations.

Joining me now from New York City is Chris Alexander. He is the policy coordinator with the New York policy office of Drug Policy -- of the Drug Policy Alliance, he's here to talk more about these findings and what they mean for New Yorkers. Chris, welcome, thanks for being here.

CHRIS ALEXANDER: Thanks for having me.

NICK REISMAN: So, what I found very interesting about the report was it didn't kind of go deeper than just simply we are going to recommend, you know, the legalization of marijuana for recreational, commercial purposes. It kind of goes into, you know, kind of the business side of this, the taxation of something like this, hypothetically, what this could mean potentially in terms of revenue for the state.

When you looked at this report, what -- what sort of conclusions did you draw from what the DOH found?

CHRIS ALEXANDER: Well, I mean, I think the first thing is that it made very clear that the state is concerned about a lot of things, but they also did their due diligence, not just looking at the other states who are regulating marijuana currently for adult use, but really taking a deeper dive into what's the certain lessons that have been learned from those states.

You know, what are the challenges that they've had and how do we address those head on here in New York?

NICK REISMAN: So, what sort of challenges have we seen in other states? I mean, you know, one issue that I've heard from some state lawmakers is how it was rolled out, say, in Colorado, where there was some concern about just how a commercialized recreational marijuana program there had occurred, and how there was some concern about people who had imbibed and then had gotten behind the wheel of a car.

I know a lot of people are watching Massachusetts, what Massachusetts is ultimately going to do here, just, what sort of lessons should New York learn in terms of, were this to be allowed to happen in New York, what New York could do differently.

CHRIS ALEXANDER: Absolutely. I think one good example that came up in the report was, a good deep look at what happened in Oregon as it relates to tax rates. You know, Oregon was one of those states that set a pretty high tax rate initially for marijuana that was coming to the market, and they realized that, you know, individuals saw that it wasn't cost effective, and so they continued to visit the illicit market to access their marijuana.

But when they dropped the tax rate a bit, they saw a lot more people coming into those stores, they saw their revenue jump, but they also saw the illicit market side shrink.

[sic: This is incorrect. Prior to implementation of the law, Oregon lawmakers changed the system from an excise style tax imposed on producers, based on weight, to a percentage sales tax paid by the consumers. The initial rate was set at 25 percent to be lowered after a short period of time to 17 percent with the option of an additional 3 percent imposed by the local city or county government.]

And those were one -- that was one of the key things, that kind of thing came up. I think related to public safety, what is evidenced in the report was that the sky hasn't fallen. That roads are no less safe, that, you know, there's no increase in crime in our communities and in communities across the state where marijuana's being regularly -- regulated and legally sold.

And so I think that also was a concern but something after some research, the state has concluded is not as harmful as prohibition has been on our communities.

DEAN BECKER: This pot's so good that when I smoke it, the government freaks out.

HEATHER FAZIO: I'm Heather Fazio, I'm the coalition coordinator for Texans for Responsible Marijuana Policy, which is a diverse group of individuals and organizations working to advance sensible changes to our marijuana laws here in Texas.

And, in just a few weeks, August 10 through 12, we're hosting the first statewide marijuana policy conference. It's going to hosted in Austin, Texas, downtown near the capitol at the Sheraton. And we're looking forward to a full weekend event featuring keynote speakers, breakout sessions, and an awards banquet where we look forward to honoring the legislative sponsors who have championed sensible and compassionate reforms to marijuana laws here in Texas.

The public opinion on this issue has shifted dramatically over the years, and we're seeing Texas is no exception. We just saw the University of Texas and Texas Tribune release the results of their recent poll, where they found that 53 percent of voting Texans are in favor of repealing prohibition entirely.

And that is exciting news for those of us who know that prohibition has failed, and we need to replace it with sensible regulation so that it can be a market that is regulated, much like other markets for responsible adult consumption.

But what maybe is more exciting is the consensus that we're seeing built around at least stopping the bleeding when it comes to prohibition. Let's stop arresting people for low level possession. Not only are 70 percent of Texans in favor of that, according to the UT poll, but we just saw the Republican Party of Texas include in their platform for the first time a call on the legislature to replace criminal penalties for low-level marijuana possession with simple civil penalties, making it a ticketable offense, and eliminating the threat of arrest and jail time, and most importantly getting rid of the criminal record that's currently associated with even small amounts of marijuana.

And that means that we're going to be able to mitigate the harms caused by this offense, and the collateral consequence that currently come with it, with regard to hindered access to education, employment, housing, a person's driver's license is currently suspended, and their license to carry, their right to self defense, is suspended for five years even just upon being charged with a marijuana possession case under current law.

And we're seeing people coming together and calling for a change to these laws. We've seen momentum building in the legislature. And 2019 is going to be a great year for people uniting on an issue upon which we agree, which is reducing penalties for low level possession of marijuana.

DEAN BECKER: All right folks, once again we've been speaking with Heather Fazio, she's with Texans for Responsible Marijuana Policy, and I guess the main driver of this forthcoming conference. Please, tell the folks the details, when where and how they can get involved, please.

HEATHER FAZIO: The conference is going to be over the weekend of August 10 through 12. The website with more information including discounted registration earlybird prices is TexasMarijuanaPolicyConference.org. And again, that's August 10 through 12, the TexasMarijuanaPolicyConference.org is the website.

DEAN BECKER: Pulling the plug on the prison industrial complex, DrugTruth.net.

The following courtesy ABC Denver.

MARC STEWART: Using pot may be legal, but a Colorado widow and her children are paying the price, denied thousands of dollars in death benefits because her late husband legally smoked marijuana.

ANNE TRUJILLO: And she reached out to Contact Seven, and tonight, Chief Investigative Reporter Tony Kovaleski introduces us to Erika Lee, and her fight to protect her family's financial future.

ERIKA LEE: I'm very scared. I have no idea how we're going to make it.

TONY KOVALESKI: She's a widow, a teacher, and a mother.

ERIKA LEE: We don't even know if we'll get any money at all.

So, I'm looking at right now, maybe just trying to survive. I'm very frustrated with the system.

TONY KOVALESKI: A frustrating journey that started 20 months ago.

DISPATCHER: Loveland Valley CPR in progress.

TONY KOVALESKI: Her husband Adam died on the job, an electrician at the Loveland Ski Area.

AMBULANCE DRIVER: Georgetown, Medic One, confirming, he's stuck in the magic carpet.

TONY KOVALESKI: He was crushed under the ski conveyor belt.

ERIKA LEE: He got caught in the magic carpet, and when the magic carpet stopped, they just started it again, and again, and again, and again, seven times total.

TONY KOVALESKI: The pain of losing her husband magnified when she learned that a state law will now greatly impact her monthly family budget.

I mean, the story here is your husband's smoking of legal marijuana is now hurting your family.

ERIKA LEE: Yeah.

TONY KOVALESKI: Does that make sense?

ERIKA LEE: No.

TONY KOVALESKI: Let's take a moment to really understand this issue. Toxicology reports after Adam's death here at the Loveland Ski Area showed high levels of marijuana in his system. But here's the critical point: current science and the testing were unable to confirm if Erika's husband was impaired or intoxicated at the time of his death.

Despite that critical fact, current Colorado law allows state workers comp to cut Erika's benefit in half.

DEAN BECKER: So, which is worse, the harms of marijuana, or the harms of marijuana prohibition. I remind you once again that because of prohibition you don't know what's in that bag. Please, be careful.

Drug Truth Network transcripts are stored at the James A. Baker III Institute, more than 7,000 radio programs are at DrugTruth.Net, and we are all still tap dancing on the edge of an abyss.

11/18/16 Ethan Nadelmann

Program
Cultural Baggage Radio Show
Date
Guest
Ethan Nadelmann
Organization
Drug Policy Alliance

Ethan Nadelmann Exec Dir, Asha Bandele Sr Dir, Lynne Lyman CA State Dir, Tamar Todd Dir Legal Affairs, Drug Policy Alliance Conf on new cannabis laws

Audio file

CULTURAL BAGGAGE

NOVEMBER 18, 2016

TRANSCRIPT

DEAN BECKER: Hi, this is Dean Becker. Thank you for being with us on this edition of Cultural Baggage. Following on the heels of the elections, the Drug Policy Alliance held a conference to talk about the impact on particularly marijuana around the US, and here to open it up is Asha Bandale of the Drug Policy Alliance.

ASHA BANDALE: This is Asha Bandale. I'm a Senior Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Let me first just begin by turning the phone over to our executive director, Ethan Nadelmann, to give us an overview of what has happened in the world of marijuana law reform. Ethan?

ETHAN NADELMANN: Okeh, thank you very much, Asha. Yeah, it was really a remarkable set of victories last night. To see the victories for medical marijuana across the board, and on marijuana legalization. Just some of the details of this, you know, California was obviously a monumental victory, and my colleague Lynn Lyman will talk about that shortly. Nevada and Massachusetts also won handily. In Maine, it looks like we won, but there's still a possibility of a recount, so we're calling it a victory but it remains to see, and then Arizona was the only state that lost.

On medical marijuana, Florida, North Dakota, and Arkansas all legalized medical marijuana, and Montana passed a sort of fix-it initiative. They had legalized medical marijuana back in '04. It had almost been wiped out by the legislature, and so this was, you know, getting medical marijuana back on the rails.

The one way to look at these initiatives politically is that medical marijuana won in four essentially red or reddish states, and marijuana legalization won in four blue or bluish states, with only Arizona the one sort of red state rejecting it. And I think that shows us a trend for what's going to be coming up ahead, which is we can see marijuana legalization prevailing in a growing number of states. The next state to legalize marijuana may well be in New England, such as maybe New Hampshire or Vermont, both of these states, and that those would be the first ones where marijuana legalization was put forward through the legislative process rather than the ballot initiative process.

And I think given the national public opinion polls showing between 55 and 60 percent of Americans now favor legalization, and those numbers spreading not just in the coasts, but even the central parts of the country, I think we will see other states like Michigan, maybe Ohio and others, moving forward on legalization as well, with ballot initiatives in 2018 and 2020.

So, there's a massive sense of momentum in this regard. I think Americans have become persuaded by and large that marijuana prohibition makes no sense, that it's better for police to focus on real crime rather than arresting young people for marijuana offenses, and it's better for the government to collect the tax revenue and use it for beneficial purposes instead of letting gangsters and others collect the revenue instead.

So, this will of course put a lot of pressure I believe on the federal government. California's got a lot of Congressmen, and even some of the Republicans who were elected have been good on marijuana reform in the past, so I think it's promising in that area. It's worth pointing out that in Congress, marijuana reform fared relatively well in the last couple of years, notwithstanding the Republican dominance. But what gives me real concern is some of, is really the lesson of Donald Trump and some of the folks around him who are in positions of influence.

I mean, Donald Trump is totally unpredictable on this issue. There was a moment years ago when he said he was interested in legalizing all drugs, but he was also seen using drug war rhetoric during the debates with Hillary Clinton. He did however say pretty clearly I believe during the primaries that he had promised to respect state marijuana laws, and to leave the issue of legalization up to the states. So, he very much needs to be held to that.

What really worries me is some of the folks like Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, who could well be nominated for Attorney General, or for positions on the Supreme Court. Rudy Giuliani is a drug warrior going back to the early '80s. Chris Christie has been highly unpredictable. He's worked cooperatively with us and recently signed a medical marijuana expansion bill, but he's also the one who during the Republican primaries basically told people to smoke their weed now because he planned to enforce federal law to the full extent if he became president.

So I'm very worried about this. I think it's important to recognize that the move made by the White House and the Justice Department in the summer of 2013 really helped to provide a kind of qualified green light for marijuana legalization to proceed, both with the implementation in the states that have legalized, and elsewhere. And, I don't think we're going to have quite the same green light coming out of the new administration. So that's what really concerns me the most.

And secondarily, on Capitol Hill, you know, oftentimes, even when you have a majority of the votes on your side, Republican chairs will oftentimes appear reluctant to approve votes and to allow these things to move forward. So I think the nationa l results of the election of Trump and the sort of one party Republican government that we will be having for the foreseeable future suggest that there are still various ways for the feds to throw a wrench in the works when it comes both to implementing marijuana legalization and to other states doing it.

I'd say the momentum is strong, the wind is at our backs, but it is not a lock as yet given the national political results.

ASHA BANDALE: Thank you so much for that very clear overview, Ethan, and then please, let me turn to Lynn Lyman, our director for California, our state director for California, and please talk about the victory that we had here last night.

LYNN LYMAN: We did something really significant last night in California. And we did it in a huge way. Forty, nearly forty million people now live in a place where they can, adults can legally use, purchase, sell, transport, and consume cannabis legally without the threat of arrest and incarceration.

And what does that mean for California? We know that it means that up to 20,000 fewer people will be arrested this year, and saddled with the lifelong consequences that come with an arrest in this country, certainly in California. More than 6,000 people currently serving time in county jails across the state will be eligible to petition for resentence, and possibly be released. And over a million Californians will have the opportunity to have their record cleared, reduced, and expunged.

And most importantly, children will never again be arrested for a marijuana offense in California. We have protected children 17 and under from the criminal justice system. And we did this in a big way, as I said. It was pretty obvious, pretty immediately when the polls closed in California, that we had won. We, last, we ended up with 56 percent of the vote, taking 37 of 58 counties, and I think most significantly, all the hard work we did in the Inland Empire to try to turn out unlikely voters in some of those swing counties like Riverside, San Bernardino, we won, we won in those counties where marijuana certainly never fared as well in the past.

So, we ran a great campaign, really powered by people on the ground, partners, and what we've done in California is significant for people who care about just the basic elements of justice.

ASHA BANDALE: I'm going to now turn to our senior director for legal affairs, Tamar Todd.

TAMAR TODD: You know, following up on Ethan and Lynn, DPA also was involved in the drafting and providing financial support for a number of the other measures that passed last night. Significantly, as was mentioned, we doubled the number of US states that have decided to end marijuana prohibition within their state, adding California, as Lynn just discussed, in addition to likely Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada. Those other three state initiatives do not actually contain the type of retroactive sentencing reform that Lynn noted for California, but they are models that we have seen from the other states, from Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and Alaska, and in some ways are unique and improve upon those models as well.

Maine's initiative is unique in that it allows, it legalizes a larger amount of marijuana, two and a half ounces, and a larger number of plants for folks to cultivate at home than the other initiatives. It also was the experience of the states that have gone before, and allowed for the licensure of retail social clubs where people will be able to purchase and consume marijuana on the premises in areas that are just for adults 21 and older.

Maine and Massachusetts both brought in the protection not just from arrest but for protection in other areas, such as parental rights. The Massachusetts initiative looks, is forward thinking in terms of how California was and was not just ending prohibition but trying to undo some of the harm that was caused under marijuana prohibition and mandates the regulatory agency in establishing this new legal regulated system to find ways to create inclusion of women and people of color in the licensing of these new businesses.

And Nevada as well very much builds upon Nevada's existing medical marijuana system. They all allow for home cultivation. Nevada's is slightly different in that you're only allowed to cultivate at home if you live, if you don't live within 25 miles of one of the new retail marijuana stores that will be licensed.

There also as we know were four medical initiatives on the ballot, adding three new states, two new states in the south, and I think one thing just to note about these medical initiatives is that they're more meaningful laws when they're passed by the voters typically than what we've seen passed by state legislatures, so there are a number of states who have enacted some form of medical marijuana law that we don't even count in the list of what's an effective law, because they're so narrowly construed in terms of who's allowed access, for the very small number of conditions, and very restrictive in terms of the type that of marijuana -- of marijuana is allowed, that is allowed, that, but when voters enact these measures, they're meaningful.

And, the North Dakota, Florida, and Arkansas measures all allow access to the whole plant for people from a variety of medical conditions. You know, Florida even includes PTSD, as does North Dakota. So they are not just in new areas of the country, but they are very meaningful laws that will allow access to a large number of people and I think as we've seen with these four states that support for access to medical marijuana by sick and suffering people is overwhelming across party and across regions in this country.

DEAN BECKER: Hi, this is Dean. Let me interrupt for just a second. We're going to name that drug by its side effect, but when we come back, we'll hear some questions from reporters around the nation about these changes to the drug law put forward to the good folks at the Drug Policy Alliance. We'll be right back.

It's time to play Name That Drug By Its Side Effects! Agitation, paranoia, hallucinations, face chomping, lip eating, heart devouring, brain slurping, ecstasy, suicidality, zombieism. Time's up! The answer, according to law enforcement, from some crazy ass chemist somewhere: Mephedrone, otherwise known as bath salts.

Should be noted, besides these laws for recreational and medical marijuana, there were some nuanced laws including this one in Denver. We got NBC Nine out of Denver to fill us in on some details.

KYLE CLARK: Do Colorado a favor, would you? Tell your out of state friends that the new marijuana social use ordinance does not allow people to just light up anywhere anytime. First, Denver won't have hash bars. Not like the ones in Amsterdam. Under Colorado state law it's illegal to allow people to use pot at a pot shop. In theory, you could open a social use business right next door to a pot shop, but they'd have to be separate.

Aside from that, there aren't many restrictions on what kind of business can apply for a marijuana area. You might see pot areas in bars, coffee shops, restaurants, maybe even a book store for deep reading. If the business is going to allow smoking pot, that needs to be out of sight. The law says outdoor smoking at street level can't be visible from sidewalks or streets, or anyplace kids group together.

It's unlikely you'll see a business that allows smoking pot indoors. A cigar bar is about the only kind of business that could even try. But vaping and eating edibles could be allowed indoors. Businesses need to partner with one of roughly 200 official neighborhood organizations in Denver to apply for a license. They can agree on ground rules about hours, alcohol, and more, which means the rules might be a little different at each social pot place that opens.

DEAN BECKER: Once again, Asha Bandale of the Drug Policy Alliance.

ASHA BANDALE: We'd like to open up the call at this point.

STEVE WISHNIA: Hi, this is from Steve from -- Wishnia from the Independent in New York. I have one factual question for Lynn, which is, which county in California was the only one that voted against the initiative? Then I have two more questions. One, how does this effect us in New York state, which I guess would be included in the states that don't have effective medical marijuana laws, and would, and the second one after that would be that, you know, legal marijuana in this country in places like Colorado seems to rest on the Ogden memo, and you know, would an attorney general Rudy Giuliani respect that, or would he say, you know, this is illegal under federal law and I'm not going to let all these people flout federal law.

LYNN LYMAN: Yeah, so, I'll address the first question. We actually lost in, well, we won in 37 of the 58 counties, and trying to do math in my head --

STEVE WISHNIA: Oh, 37 of 58, not 37 of 38.

LYNN LYMAN: Yes, 37 of 58 counties, and so we, we lost in, you know, the more conservative inland areas, but not in southern California, where more of the, you know, Merced County, Madera County, and Kern County, sort of the in the middle of the state, and then we lost in some of the northern parts of the state by a small margin in like Trinity County and Shasta County, but we did win in the other growing counties of Humboldt and Mendocino, so it was kind of split, but, yeah, that was a win in 37 of 58 counties.

ETHAN NADELMANN: Yeah, and I think, with the other two questions, Steve, I think in New York, and it's related to your question, New York is related to what Trump might do with respect to the Cole memorandum, which is the August 2013 memorandum that provided that qualified green light for Colorado and Washington to implement their initiatives. And it's really, I think, a, there's some momentum across the country, and the fact that the neighboring state of Massachusetts is now legal, will be a legalization state, and Maine is close by, and given the public opinion polls in New York show a majority support for legalizing marijuana, given what came out of California, all these suggest that the momentum for moving forward with marijuana legalization in New York is very strong. And our organization, Drug Policy Alliance, is going to be leading that effort. We've already been laying the ground work over the last year or two, with sponsors on both sides.

On the other of this however are two considerations. One is the possibility of, as I said before, a Giuliani, a Christie, somebody like that as attorney general. The possibility that they may repudiate the Cole memorandum, the possibility that they might start to approve a greater number of raids in states that have legalized marijuana and get a lot tougher. All of these are going to have a chilling effect on some of the momentum to move forward. And then the fact that we're being, you know, right now, it looks like the chance, if the Democrats had taken the state senate, they've had the assembly for a long time, if they had taken the state senate, I think our prospects would have also leaned, much -- I would have been much more optimistic about our prospects. To the extent that the Democrats don't control the senate, I think that all sorts of initiatives are possibilities.

TAMAR TODD: Can I add one thing on that Ogden memo piece about sort of the ability of the federal government to interfere, should, you know, there be an attorney general who chooses to take that approach, and that is just to remember that there's really two elements to these laws that have passed. There's the piece that legalizes conduct under state law, and in California reduces penalties across the board under state law, and that piece, given that 99 percent of all marijuana law enforcement happens on the state and local level, there's very, very little that I think the federal government can do that piece. They don't have the ability to take over 99 percent of low level, you know, marijuana arrests and enforcement, and they have no legal basis for challenging or trying to force the states to make a conduct illegal under state law.

The piece where they could really cause, you know, disruption and uncertainty, is around trying to interfere with the regulatory piece, the pieces of the state laws that set up a system to regulate and control marijuana within the state, and how it's produced and how it's sold, and to ensure that that's done safely and responsibly. That's the piece where they, you know, could choose to move off the Ogden memo and come in and start to interfere. Given that the piece about, you know, regulation control and how the industry operates safely and smoothly, it's something that is, you know, a very meaningful piece no matter how you feel about, you know, marijuana and whether it should be legalized, then, I think a lot of the impetus for the approach that the federal government has taken so far is that it's really in everyone's interest, you know, if you legalize marijuana, to allow it to be regulated. You know, that hopefully, wise policy will prevail as well.

TELECONFERENCE HOST: And our next question will come from Bart Schaneman with the Marijuana Business Daily.

BART SCHANEMAN: I was wondering if someone could speak specifically to some of the, you know, perceived opportunities for the business community with the election results and maybe how the results will impact the economics of the industry.

ETHAN NADELMANN: Thank you, Bart. This is Ethan. I mean, I think obviously the market opportunities are going to be extraordinary. I mean, the California population and market by itself is larger than the four states that have already legalized marijuana, you know, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Alaska, and the four states that had legalization on the ballot this year, including Arizona, I think it's 38 point something million to 34 point something million. So California's going to be a massive market, obviously Massachusetts has got six or seven million people. Nevada, you know, has got a substantial population as well. The Florida medical marijuana initiative is going to represent a very major opportunity as well.

I think the real question, you know, for the business community is less about are these opportunities fantastic, amazing, and incredible. The bigger question is the business community going to do everything it possibly can and be effective in terms of pushing the Trump administration to do the right thing here. That's the fundamental question. I mean, so far the industry has not really, you know, it's only beginning to come together. It's not fully distinguished itself in terms of the effectiveness of its advocacy, especially on the national front. There's a host of concerns, not just the 280e tax issue, and the banking issues, but a range of other ones where a lot more is going to need to happen, and that can take the form of direct lobbying and influencing with the federal government. It can also take the form of providing much more substantial support to organizations like the Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, and others that are deeply engaged in this work.

TELECONFERENCE HOST: And our next question will come from Will Godfrey with The Influence.

WILL GODFREY: I have a question for Ethan. I just wondered what his feeling is about the impact that these victories could have on the international stage, both in terms of other countries potentially following suit, and in terms of the US government's ability to continue promoting drug war policies internationally.

ETHAN NADELMANN: Yeah, and I think, Will, it's, I mean on the one hand, obviously, you know, when I talk to allies and government officials in Mexico, and I ask them, what's it going to take to break open the drug policy debate in your country, the answer overwhelmingly has been, when California legalizes marijuana. And when I say, what about Colorado and Washington, they say that helped. What about Oregon and Alaska, that helped. But California, that's the thing that looms so large in the Mexican imagination. You could do Texas too, they say, that would be great, but they understand that California's the big one.

So I think that this is going to cause a major transformation of the drug policy discussion in Mexico. I think that when President Pena Nieto of Mexico came to speak at the last minute at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on drugs in New York earlier this year, he was driven to do that almost entirely by the prospect of marijuana being legalized in California, and really bringing to a head the question about why is Mexico continuing to spend large amounts of money and lives and resources trying to enforce an unenforceable prohibition, when right across the border California's regulating and taxing this.

I think even beyond Mexico, Will, that the impact of California will be felt throughout Central and Latin America, throughout the Caribbean, and even internationally. But we have to keep in mind that many people around the world don't really know what Colorado or Oregon are, they don't know that Washington is also a state, but almost everybody has heard of California. So I think that this part of what happened yesterday is really going to resonate internationally in a major way.

And the only caveat to all that is once again the Trump administration, and how they're going to deal with this issue, in terms of what will happen internationally, it's going to be a highly hostile relationship with Mexico, a fairly unpredictable and belligerent foreign policy, so really hard to say. Hopefully Trump's kind of, you know, let's the states decide what they want to do, go over to let other countries decide what they want to do, and so that the emphasis will be all on the positive, not the negative.

TELECONFERENCE HOST: Okeh. Next we have a question again from Steven Wishnia

STEVEN WISHNIA: Yeah, how do you think that Trump's racial attitudes might affect this, both he and Giuliani, you know, still think that the five kids who were framed for the rape in Central Park in 1990 are still guilty, even though they were officially exonerated, and, you know, that kind of racial attitude towards crime is what drove, you know, the stop and frisk and the mass arrests in New York under Giuliani and Bloomberg, so, how do you think this might affect his national policy on the issue?

ETHAN NADELMANN: Let me start off on that one and then ask my colleagues to jump in. I think that the impact of that element on marijuana reform is not going to be significant. I think where we're going to see it much more deeply is in terms of the broader drug war rhetoric of Donald Trump, together with Giuliani's record and others during the campaign. I mean, he was reviving a lot of the old drug war rhetoric and the demonization, playing off old images that, you know, both he and others try to raise people's fears, the fears around race, you know, not just kids. I think that the prospects of sentencing reform in the federal government have diminished now, that there will be less enthusiasm for moving forward with that. So, I'm really, I think, the impact on marijuana reform may be not that great. The impact on other drug policy reform, I think, is a really profound concern.

ASHA BANDALE: Yes, thank you, Ethan. Lynn, let me turn to you because this is arguably the most racially justice -- racial justice oriented marijuana law reform ever.

LYNN LYMAN: We have chosen something different in California, and we have not chosen a Donald Trump, and the laws that we chose to govern us and the people that we chose to govern us in this state are people and laws that uphold the values of equality, justice, and fairness. And I think that he's going to have to change his tune if he's going to be able to have any resonance with California voters. You know, we overwhelmingly went against him, and we overwhelmingly went for many progressive candidates and progressive measures, and, you know, I certainly don't want to be part of a political body that is represented by, you know, hate, racism, and sexism, and, you know, and no regard for justice, so I don't really know what to say other than that's not the choice we made here, and that Prop 64 really represents a different kind of choice, and not just one that's about doing things differently moving forward, but is also about looking back at the harms that our policy has caused and beginning to put real things, real tangible pieces in place to repair some of the damage that we've caused, and I guess at this point, we just need to try to kind of hold it steady.

ASHA BANDALE: Thank you so much, and hello Dean.

DEAN BECKER: I want to ask, how far reaching the tentacles of progress can be. My city of Houston just elected a sheriff and a DA who are basically calling for the end of drug war. This movement is expanding exponentially. How fast can we move?

ETHAN NADELMANN: Yeah, I mean, in the races for DA and sheriff there, sort of progressive forces, Democrats were mobilized and funded, including the race involving Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Phoenix who was defeated, another one. In those cases, Democrats and progressives prevailed. But I think if you look around the country, they're still overwhelmingly dealing with a law enforcement establishment that is disproportionately Republican, disproportionately white, in ways that I think are going to take a lot of long, hard work to do something about.

DEAN BECKER: Well, that's all we have time for. I urge you to go to the Drug Policy Alliance website, that's DrugPolicy.org, and as always I remind you, because of prohibition you don't know what's in that bag. Please be careful.

To the Drug Truth Network listeners around the world, this is Dean Becker for Cultural Baggage and the unvarnished truth. Drug Truth Network archives are stored at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Tap dancin' on the edge of an abyss.