The Beatles: (00:03)
Your birthday, your birthday's birthday. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (00:22)
It is indeed my birthday, and it's the 23rd anniversary of the Drug Truth Network. So with today's program, we're going to celebrate the decades of being on the Airwaves of America. I Hi folks. I am Dean Becker. Reverend Most High, this is Moral High Ground, soon to be a cultural baggage program as well. And I want to thank you for being with us for these 23 years. I guess some of you are that old. We're gonna reach back to 2002 because the files for 2001 are just too raggedy to play on the airwaves these days. Let's begin with, uh, this interview with Al Robinson, the guy who showed me I wasn't insane to believe the prohibition was a stupid way to go, Stacy. 

Dr. Al Robison: (01:11)
Okay. I'm proud to welcome to the studio the, uh, as I said, the distinguished professor of pharmacology at the UT Health Science Center and the Executive Director of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas, the best dang drug reform outfit in the world. Dr. Al Robinson. I dear, it's good to be here. Yes. Uh, Al, I, I know, uh, you were perhaps the first to determine that, uh, uh, uh, there is no lethal dose of marijuana. Could you give a brief, brief explanation of that discovery? Uh, well, Dean, that was way back when, uh, that was back in the sixties. Uh, can the, am I audio here? We're, we're doing good. Okay. That was back in the sixties, uh, just shortly after KHC had been synthesized. Mm-Hmm. and the back in those days, the federal government actually was there, so didn't know what this stuff did. 

Dr. Al Robison: (02:05)
So we pretty much had a lifetime supply of this pure stuff, uh, which is an only liquid. It's pure state, as you probably know. And, uh, well, you know, the first thing that any pharmacologist does when you get a new toy like that, it's never been studied in the lab. You try to identify its toxicity, which you do by calculating the LD 50, the lethal dose 50, the dose that will kill 50% of a population of animals, uh, usually use, uh, a highly inbred, uh, uh, mice, uh, laboratory mice, sometimes rats, but experiment on of one story or another. You can usually extrapolate from there to human. In any event, to make the long story short, uh, we were unable to calculate NLD 50 for this new substance tetrahydrocannabinol, because no matter how much of it we injected into a mouse, we couldn't kill it. 

Dr. Al Robison: (03:06)
So there is no toxicity. Right. I'm sure it might have knocked a couple of 'em silly with the doses you were giving 'em, I guess, but maybe, but you inject that much volume of anything all in oil or not, it would probably make him pretty sick. Yes, sir. Um, he wouldn't die though. Okay. I, uh, you know, that, that flies totally in the face of Mr. Uh, Hutchinson's statement, that it's so harmful that you cannot kill somebody. But, um, as a director of DPFT, do you see some areas where we in Texas can, uh, make progress this year in changing or at least altering some of the drug laws? Well, Dean, we are hoping that next year and the Texas legislature is in session, we can, we're hoping we'll get at least three measures passed 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (03:50)
Next up from the Cultural baggage show from May 9th of uh, oh three. We have my first medical marijuana, Dr. Dr. Thomas O'Connell, as well as the District Attorney of San Francisco, Terrence Hallinan. 

Dr. Tom OConnel: (04:05)
We found that their so-called initiation rates were astounding. So this is a population that had, uh, come to try drugs very aggressively at a very young age, uh, really starting in junior high school or the middle of high school for most of them. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (04:23)
Yes, sir. And, uh, Mr. Lenin, if I may ask, you know, he, he's talking, talking about, uh, medical marijuana users. I mean, I realize that people that are up too long on speed or down too long on heroin can become a public nuisance. Uh, uh, some, 

DA Terence Hallinan: (04:37)
Yeah. Although usually when they stop, then that stops too. The heroin is a different problem because of the need to get the money for addictions, although, I guess that applies to crack too. 

Rev F Dean Becker (04:48)
:Well, sure. And if it were legal, the, uh, the ramifications of, you know, if it costs a penny on the dollar would be a whole lot less. Yeah. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (04:55)
Well, they do that in Switzerland, I believe. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (04:58)
Yes, sir. Uh, in, in, uh, you know, dealing with, uh, looking at the law enforcement side, you don't get calls for, uh, domestic abuse or whatever for marijuana users. I wouldn't think. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (05:12)
No, I, I definitely don't expect the combination of those two things, although it, you know, it's possible. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (05:19)
Well, at random, a situation could develop, but it's not a trend, I wouldn't think. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (05:23)
No. Uh, alcohol is the main one. And, and then crack cocaine. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (05:29)
Well, Tom, let, let, let me ask you this. If, uh, if, if your study proves what you're saying, that this is more like a, a cycle that these me medical marijuana users do, uh, that they go through, uh, to, if you will mature and, and come to the conclusion that the, the medical marijuana is, is the, the right medicine to help with their, their pain, their anxiety, their stress, uh, what could this, what kind of response is this to the authorities that say, you know, it leads to criminality, insanity, and death? 

Dr. Tom OConnel: (06:04)
Well, Dean, there's, there's absolutely, there are no clinical studies that demonstrate this at all. Yes, sir. That the clinical evidence is lacking. These are, are assertions that are conjured up by somebody's imagination. And actually, 

DA Terence Hallinan: (06:19)
Sorry, sorry. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (06:20)
Oh, go ahead, Terry. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (06:22)
I I was just gonna say what Dr. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (06:24)
O' O'Connell Yes, sir. 

DA Terence Hallinan: (06:26)
Said about, uh, people clearly self-medicating definitely strikes a bell with me. I, my experience seems to indicate that, uh, anybody who's been a long-term marijuana user, or a great number of the people who are, are, are dealing with some kind of a painful thing in their life, that they use marijuana to deal with arthritis or an old injury, or something along that line. It's, uh, otherwise it's something people do and give up. But when people stick for it for a long time, it seems to me there's some kind of underlying medical problem there. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (07:02)
The following from the September 7th show of oh four, 

Nick Gillespie: (07:05)
Let's hear from the senior editor of Reason Magazine, Mr. Nick Gillespie. 

Nick Gillespie: (07:11)
As we approach this anniversary of September 11, I see many parallels between the War on Drugs and the War on Terror. And I'm wondering if you, uh, see, uh, much the same, uh, yeah, there are a couple different ways that, uh, these things intersect, but let me just point to two. Uh, one is that the War on Drugs and the War on terror are both what I call structuring events in American life. Um, in that they, uh, they end up becoming background to everything that we do in society in ways that are similar to the Cold War, where, um, for instance, so the drug war, you see, the drug war is built into, uh, grammar school curricula. It's built into video games where we used to have, uh, at the end of, uh, video games, uh, a message would come out and say, you know, real winners don't use drugs at almost every moment. 

Nick Gillespie (07:59)
And in every aspect of American life, some, there's, there's a moment where people stop and deliver some kind of anti-drug message. Something similar is going on with the War on Terror, where it like a, uh, kind of tamp down or a junior varsity version of the Cold War, has become a structuring event where everything that we do, whether we're talking about going to a football game or taking an airplane ride, or, um, leaving the country, you, you have to pay attention to the War on terror. So in that way, I think there's some similarities in a more concrete way, one of the ways in which these things have intersected is that a number of drug warriors, people who have been in high governmental positions in terms of fighting the drug war, have shifted into the homeland security apparatus. And, uh, for instance, uh, ASA Hutchinson, the former head of the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration is now under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security within the Department of Homeland Security. 

Nick Gillespie (08:55)
And, uh, another XDA Chief Robert Bonner is commissioner of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection there. And John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for, uh, president, has already told us that he wants, uh, Rand Beers to become his Homeland Security advisor. Beers is a drug warrior who, uh, was involved in the, uh, uh, both the Clinton and the Bush administration. Well, that brings us full cycle to, uh, the original reason I called you. There's an article in Reason Magazine, this is Carrie on Drugs, and it speaks about Rand Beers and, uh, uh, carrie's history in, uh, supporting, uh, further war in Columbia and so forth. That's right. Well, uh, you know, you, you shouldn't, I mean, this is one of, if, if you care about the drug issue, if you care about drug legalization, if you care about fairness towards people who use drugs and medical marijuana and things like that, this election is particularly frustrating because you don't have, between the major parties, you don't have a clear choice of a person who will be better about the drug war than the other. 

Nick Gillespie (09:56)
Um, and and this also goes back to the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration was, you know, was as bad as the first Bush administration on the drug war. Uh, and in many ways, the, uh, George w Bush's administration is merely following up on a number of policies that have been put into place by the Clinton administration, including domestically going after medical marijuana, uh, clubs where they have been, um, made legal through state law. Uh, John Ashcroft is doing nothing that, uh, Janet Reno didn't do when he's threatened cannabis clubs. Uh, and then internationally, or in terms of foreign policy, uh, the Clinton administration put into play, uh, play Plan Columbia, which was a crop eradication, and, um, a coca reduction program that, uh, has had very little effects other than to, uh, really hurt subsistence farmers. And the Bush administration has pursued that as well. And Rand Beers, who has again, been named as Kerry as his, uh, advisor for Homeland Security, uh, was one of the architects of that plan. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (10:56)
The following from the Cultural baggage Show from December 23rd of oh five. This is the infamous San Francisco attorney, Tony, Sarah, 

Atty Tony Serra: (11:06)
They raided 13 pot clubs. Well, God them, you know, so, you know, my, my disdain for the executive when they overreach and when they seek ultimately, you know, to repress the people's will and the really, the free flow of de democratic process, I, I am always outraged. So what's my attitude toward it? It is, you know, from my perspective, uh, with ulterior motive, uh, secondly, it's completely overkill. They could have, uh, as they do on occasion and have done in the past, they can always go by injunction. If they have a bonafide, you know, uh, concern, they can go by injunction, civil injunction. So when, when they raid, like they raided three Asian clubs here in San Francisco, there are alter motives. Sometimes it's racist, and sometimes it's political. So, you know, I think it's a disgrace. I think, however, it's a manifestation of this Bush administration, uh, more and more resources, you know, toward phony, you know, uh, a war on drugs and, and, you know, enlarging, let's call it the police state, enlarging the informant, uh, doctrine and ultimately squeezing the life out of the fourth and First Amendment. 

Atty Tony Serra: (12:27)
So you see, I, I, I just see it as, as part of a pattern. And, uh, San Diego is known to be conservative, and therefore they strike hard there on medical marijuana up here in San Francisco, we're known to be just the opposite. On the other hand, out of approximately 41 clubs, they rated three in the recent past, and as I said, all Asian, and, and, and I think they had an ulterior motive there. So, you know, I'm not surprised because Bush administration is, you know, trying to gather as much power and resources as it can and strengthen the executive at every, at every, uh, you know, move. So, I, I'm not, uh, surprised, but I am, you know, I remain outraged. So, you know, I've been fighting, uh, perjurious informants all of my career. They had 'em in the Ha Ashbury, they still have 'em, the government out there every day of the week is coercing someone psychologically into becoming an informant or cooperating witness. 

Atty Tony Serra: (13:33)
Uh, it, uh, is a disease. It hits in high places. You'll see people in government and or in these corporate scandals, oh, they're rolling on each other as fast as they can, and every time they testify, they testify, you know, for leniency. And so it's much like the government is paid. That is, if I went out and I bought a witness, if I said, Mr. Witness, I need someone, you know, I pay you $10,000. If you saw this, did you see that? Oh, yeah, I saw that. Well, here's your 10,000. Let's go in and testify. What would happen? Oh, we'd all be, I'd be disbarred. I'd be prosecuted. The witness be prosecuted. What does the government do? The only thing more precious than money for many is freedom years off. We'll give you 15 years off. Did you see X do that? Oh, yes, I saw X do. 

Atty Tony Serra: (14:27)
It says, the person, you know, he's facing draconian time, you won't see his family again. His children will be old. They, they know how to psychologically, you know, coerce you and that kind. So we're a judicial system that relies at the base of it when it comes to drug cases, for the most part, and more in the federal and in the state system, we rely on painted evidence psychologically tortured people who are given freedom and which is more valuable in money. And it's all legal if they do it. It's legal, and it is a disgrace. It's a blemish on our system of justice. It's a blemish on, on, on the whole Constitution is something we shouldn't continence. We should not have an informant. We shouldn't have a spy system. It is George Orwell's, you know, prophecy. They're the, the, ultimately, you know, it, it becomes like Hitler's Youth Corps. They used to inform on their parents. It's, it's this Judas syndrome. It's been, you know, the kind of repulsed by all cultures and American judicial process embraces it. So, you know, I have nothing for but disdain for it. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (15:45)
You are listening to the 23rd anniversary show of the Drug Truth Network appearing on the airwaves of North America from August 4th, 2006, from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. This is Lynn Paltrow. 

Lynn Paltrow: (16:02)
Yes. Will you, you have the convergence of two highly politicized issues, the drug war and the war against abortion. And the problem is that, um, they're both extremely emotional. They're both often characterized by misinformation, and they both rely on issues of, um, prohibition, which we know just doesn't work in either context. 

Rev F Dean Becker (16:28)
And, uh, if I may, uh, get you to summarize some of these, um, situations, some of the laws and some of the, the prison sentences that are being levied against, uh, women accused of using these illegal drugs. 

Lynn Paltrow: (16:41)
Right. And it, it's hard for me to, to make a simple example, because it's unclear whether they're being charged because they're women who use illegal drugs, although those are the easiest to start with. Or is it because they've continued to term in spite of having a drug problem? Is it giving birth or using drugs? And it's really both together and, and both separately. We, for 30 years, we've heard all of this anti-abortion, uh, stuff that talk describes pregnant women who have abortions as murderers, killers, terminators. And one of our observations is you can't talk about people that way without it expanding, spreading beyond the original border, so that now there are women who are sitting in jail for first degree murder, for having suffered a stillbirth. Theresa Hernandez in Oklahoma has been sitting in jail waiting trial for two years. The claim is she suffered a stillbirth as a result of, uh, drug use during pregnancy, methamphetamine use. 

Lynn Paltrow: (17:37)
It's highly unlikely that, um, her stillbirth has anything to do with her drug use. But you take that, uh, that drug in the, in this incredibly, um, politicized non-medical world. And, and you take it in a state where you have a senator who says that doctors who provide abortion services should get the death penalty. You put the two together and you have first degree murder for a woman who just suffered a stillbirth, uh, Regina McKnight in South Carolina. South Carolina is the only state that has actually said these kinds of prosecutions are legitimate. She suffered a stillbirth, unintentional, no desire to end her pregnancy. Uh, there was a positive drug test, uh, convicted of homicide by child abuse. And even the case is still being challenged, but even with testimony that her defense attorney was inadequate, that there is no connection between her drug use and the stillbirth. She had a common infection that's related to stillbirth, unrelated to drug use. She is serving 12 years on a 20 year sentence 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (18:39)
From the Cultural Baggage Show from April 20th of oh seven. This features me as well as stand first, who was then head of the high intensity drug trafficking area for this part of the world. Uh, big DEA agent 

Speaker 11: (18:54)
Mr. Baker, 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (18:56)
For nearly 500 years, colonialist power like England, Spain, and later the US made it their business to impose their will on lesser countries, to force new religions and morals on all the heathen cultures of this earth. In the process, they vilified and demonized the use of such drugs as marijuana, coca, and opium, which previously had been a recognized part of many religions, many cultures For thousands of years. In the early 20th century, corporate heads foresaw, gleaming profits in prohibiting the use of certain plants. They claim that China men on opium were a threat to a decent society, that Mexicans and blacks would rape white women after smoking marijuana. That prison or death were too good for users, and that the religious underpinnings of these drugs were sacrilegious and evil. These men of influence and wealth had the contacts to force through laws based on nothing more than rumors circulated through newspapers controlled by these same interests. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (19:52)
The American people were fooled into believing they were saved, and that the control and distribution of these herbs and their extracts should be prohibited. This prohibited drug commerce now exceeds $400 billion a year. Today, the US through its drug convention treaties, forces its ideas of Judeo Christianity and all the attendant drug laws and morals on the whole world. US media now ignores the ongoing drug reform in England, France, Spain, Portugal, Canada, and much of the rest of the world research experience and common sense have shown these enlightened countries that the medieval drug laws are simply a mechanism that if left unchecked would someday devour the meaning, the very fabric of liberty. 

DEA Agent Stan Furce (20:35)
One minute I can say I'm a Christian, and, um, I remember the last supper, and I think Christ was drinking wine, not doing a doobie, 

DEA Agent Stan Furce: (20:47)
If I remember that correctly. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (20:49)
Also, from the year 2007, March 30th, to be exact, this is Deborah Small of Break the Chains. 

DEA Agent Stan Furce (20:58)
What puzzles me? I mean, I weakened weak out, uh, try to expose the harms of the drug war, try to motivate people to, uh, to change this because I think we own the moral high ground now, and it's time to move on this, what what's your thought to those who are sitting on the fence, um, knowing the truth about this, but not doing anything? Well, 

Deborah Small (21:20)
You know, quite frankly, the way that I see it is that, um, there aren't too many Americans who aren't aware of the fact that our experiment with alcohol prohibition failed miserably. And one of the reasons that the public ultimately agreed, and quite frankly, was willing to give up alcohol prohibition, was because what it generated was a level of political corruption and lawlessness that hadn't been seen in communities before that point. Well, we've seen the same thing with drug prohibition, that what it's produced is a much higher level of criminality, particularly in those communities, which for economic reasons, have embraced, um, the drug market as a legitimate form of economic activity. And so, as long as we're willing to allow this to continue, we'll continue to see the amount of, um, violence and criminality associated with drug trade, because there's no other place for people to, to settle their disputes. 

Deborah Small (22:23)
The whole reason for having legal markets is to provide an opportunity for the law to help people to negotiate their differences around stuff like this. But with the drug war or with any other commodity that's prohibited, you're basically leaving it to the most violent, the most ruthless, the strongest elements to have control of that. And that's exactly what we've done with the drug war. And every time the government, um, pats itself on the back for smashing yet another major drug cartel, what we end up seeing at the after the, in the aftermath of that, is increasing levels of violence. Because what you're doing is constantly creating a situation where people then have to engage in even more ruthless behavior in order to protect their turf and their profits. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (23:11)
This next segment is from, uh, June 11th oh eight. It's, uh, node 1924. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (23:17)
Today we're going to talk a little bit about the mothership of the Drug Truth Network, and that is in fact, KPFT, uh, one of the five Pacifica affiliates right here in Houston. And today we're having, uh, one of the founders of this station on the air with us. Today, Mr. Ray Hill is in studio. He's the patriarch of this station. He has, uh, uh, done his prison show talking about prisoner rights. And over the years he's talked about gay rights and human rights and civil rights, and he's worked on our behalf low these many years. And with that introduction, I wanna welcome Mr. Ray Hill. 

Ray Hill (23:53)
Thank you, Dean. It's good to be in here amongst the baggage . 

Nick Gillespie: (23:57)
Indeed, it is. Now, Ray was the one who, uh, I guess heard me squeaking when I showed up here at the station, and he gave me my very first chance. 

Ray Hill (24:05)
You got mistreated when you got here. Well, they wouldn't give you any air time. And I said, we'll, take him. And, and because it's our issue, I, you know, I, I've been struggling for human civil rights for a long time. I was secretary of the NAACP when I was 18 years old. My parents were labor organizers, so getting people treated right and equally has been most of my life. And, uh, uh, so, uh, when we got to the radio station, we were so much on that, that Ku Klux Klan bonded off the air a couple of times. , uh, left us in ashes and about old Sparkies up there at the stairwell for, uh, visitors to the station. We hope you do that. We'll come by and take a peek. But, uh, uh, it just seemed naturally since you were coming with this struggle against the drug war that you needed and deserved access to an audience of people to listen to alternative ideas. Because every other form of the media, though, they may once in a while, wander off topic and get into some alternatives. It's constant drumbeat of buying the whole banana of drug war, incarceration, incrimination, uh, imprisonment. It just goes on and on, and there's virtually no end to it. 

Rev. F Dean Becker:(25:28)
There's always that search for the demon. There's always that search for the, uh, the one that we can, uh, lock up and feel better about. Letters 

Ray Hill (25:36)
Look down 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (25:36)
On, look down on you. Bet you. You bet you. And, and the, the reason, main reason I wanted to bring you in here today is that I started thinking about it and I started seeing many parallels between this war on drugs and the war on, uh, gay people over the decades 

Ray Hill (25:52)
Actually, or black people, or any discrimination issue. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (25:54)
Exactly. Exactly right. And, uh, you know, I, I mean, it's gotten better still not, uh, where it needs to be, uh, but in the day it was, uh, considered somewhat normal to go gay bashing. Sure. Uh, I used to 

Ray Hill(26:08)
Ride, I, I went to Galena Park High School, so I lived way out in the suburbs, so I used to ride into town with the gay basher so I could see my gay friends. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (26:16)
I Ms. Ray. He was my best friend. Hell, my only friend from May 13th of oh nine, node 2 4 1 6. This is Maya Salviiitz, uh, author of many great books, uh, internationally renowned expert on the drug war. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (26:32)
It was, uh, what, 93 years ago, they passed the Harrison Narcotics Act. And in so doing, they took away the rights of adults to choose for themselves. They handed it over to doctors to, uh, make that decision. But over the decades, it's now to the point where they won't even let the doctors make that recommendation, right? 

Maia Szalivitz (26:52)
Yeah. I mean, there has, there have been a lot of doctors who have been prosecuted for what they call over-prescribing a pain medication or prescribing to drug addicts. Um, and the thing is that you can't define over prescribing because opiates cause tolerance. And so, if you're going to be on opiates for a long time, you're going to need a high dose. And people who are large or overweight, or have a fast metabolism may need doses that would kill other people 10 times over. But that doesn't mean that they're drug addicts. But people don't understand the basics of pharmacology, like tolerance and dependence. 

Rev. F Dean Becker:: (27:30)
Well, your, your reference to, you know, a, a standard dosage, if you will, the, the fact is, if I recall, I think it's been three, perhaps four years ago, the DEA actually posted standards, and then they realized that some of the people they had under indictment, uh, were within those standards. So they took them down. Right? 

Maia Szalivitz (27:48)
That's right. And it was a real outrage because they had worked for a long time with the pain prescribing the doctors, the, um, patients, uh, the people in the community to, um, you know, primarily doctors actually, but to develop these guidelines. And then as soon as William Horowitz used them in his defense, they immediately retracted them and said that they were no longer official and hadn't been approved. Wow. And it had gone through this long process of committees and arguments and back and forth and the whole bureaucratic thing, but suddenly it was no longer approved. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (28:21)
Well, it, it is reminiscent of the fact that when DEA law Judge Francis l Young said, marijuana is one of the safest therapeutic agents known to man. They, uh, they just didn't believe him or, or just wouldn't accept his statement. Right. 

Maia Szalivitz (28:33)
Yeah. I mean, unfortunately, the entire history of the drug war has been a history of data and evidence being rejected in favor of prejudice and preconceived ideas. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (28:44)
We're speaking with Maya svi, she's author of Help at Any Cost, how the Troubled Teen Industry, Khan's Parents and Hertz Kids. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (28:52)
The following is from, uh, what is that, September 5th of 10, node 3 0 5 9 featuring Alexandra Natapoff But we start off with a little clip from Tony Ser. 

Tony Serra (29:03)
We swim in a sea, a snitches nowadays, 

Rev. F Dean Becker:(29:07)
Tony Serra speaking to a normal conference. But our guest today, Alexandra Natap, has written a great new book. I highly recommend, uh, as I told her in an email, it almost brought me to tears. I know about this problem, but when you see the detail and the, uh, the elaborate web of this as it reaches across America, it just, uh, it hurts. But, uh, let's go ahead and bring in our guests. Alexandra Na, are you with us? Hi, how are you? I'm well. Thank you for joining us here on Century of Lies. Alexandra, you have written a, uh, very profound book, one that, uh, exposes this, uh, this stain, if you will, on on America. Why don't you, uh, tell us a little bit about what brought you, uh, what brought Focus to Bear, and why, why did you write this book? 

Alexandra Natapoff(29:53)
Well, I, uh, over the past decade or so, working in and around our criminal justice system, I started to see just how pervasive and crucial the use of criminal informants really is. Uh, the, the book is entitled Snitching, which is, uh, as everyone knows kind of slang for criminal informants. But I, I think we have not as a community, and as a society, really thought deeply about, um, what it means when the government uses a criminal informant, or we're used to the stories. But when the government uses a criminal informant, the government is cutting a deal. It's cutting a deal with an offender or a suspect. And the government is saying that in exchange for your information, whether or not it's reliable, we are going to forgive you your guilt. We are going to, uh, relieve you of liability. We're gonna cut your sentence, maybe we'll turn you loose on the street. 

Alexandra Natapoff (30:48)
Uh, in effect, what we have is a massive black market in the trading of guilt run by the government. Uh, it's completely unregulated. It affects every city in this country, every rural community it affects. Our entire criminal justice system is everywhere. And we, uh, know almost nothing about it. The public almost never sees these deals. They can take place on street corners in the back of police cars, and of course, in courtrooms and in other kinds of other kinds of deals. But we don't know. And our criminal system has no mechanism for letting the public know how pervasive these secretive arrangements are. So when I started to see how powerful these deals were, how many offenders were really working off their liability in this way, how heavily the government was relying on these deals, as well as on the information gotten through these deals, uh, I, I was really moved to try to research it, to delve deeper, and then to tell the story, this important piece of the story of how our criminal system really works. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (31:57)
Next up from, uh, June 5th of 11, node 3, 4, 1 8, we have the author of Sicario, Charles Bowden. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (32:06)
So that's kinda the point. There used to be, well, the, the plaza, I guess that's like the, the market or the, uh, the farm to market, uh, avenue where these drugs go through. And it used to be that, uh, you know, people were respected that, uh, there was a process whereby you paid your, your cut to, uh, the, the, the barons, I guess. But, uh, it's, it's, it's just gone hog wild, hasn't it? Uh, Charles, your thought, oh, 

Charles Bowden 16: (32:31)
Look, it, there was a system, the system's broken down. It wasn't really wonderful when the system operated the plaza, but the plaza means was the connection between the government and the criminal world. And the government would seek out people in the criminal world who would run the criminal side and pay them their share. This is dis disintegrated all over the country. And part of it is because of pressure on these organizations. We like to talk about cartels. Like there's a half a dozen corporations down there doing this. There's a lot of mini cartels, meaning, or little organizations. This thing has no center anymore. There's nobody, the president of Mexico, no matter how corrupt he or she might be, can meet with, have coffee and say, now we have a deal. Let's have peace. It's escape. It's beyond that. The genie is out of the bottle. We have created a nightmare world down there, and so is President Cal on, and it isn't gonna get nice soon. 

Rev. F Dean Becker:: (33:37)
Yeah. And, and I guess that's the point. I mean, uh, just what, three or four days ago, there was a global commission on drugs in New York City, uh, proclaiming the need to end this madness. And the, the response from the US government was that it was misguided. Uh, these are former p 

Charles Bowden (33:52)
They swatted away like it was a fly. 

Rev. F Dean Becker:33:54)
Yes, sir. And, and, and I guess the, the point is that with one word, they can discount the word of current and former presidents and, you know, Paul Volcker and George Schultz and all these guys, as if they were, as you say, a fly. 

Charles Bowden (34:07)
Well, if you come out for changing our drug policy, and let's be blunt, there's no change that's gonna make much difference, shy of legalization, you're instantly cast into outer darkness. And when I say that, I mean, if you decriminalize, all you've done is taken the user and say, we won't bother you, and left all the profits and all the cash flow with murderous scum that are running it. Now, that's not a solution. So that, uh, this is a sacred cow. I used to say this in speeches when I gave up. There's something strange about living in a country where there's bipartisan support for gay marriage, and not one man or woman will stand up for legalizing drugs. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (34:50)
Next up, recorded while I was on the, uh, caravan for Peace, justice and Dignity, uh, from Baltimore, we have the former mayor Kurt Schmoke from March 16th, 2012. This is no, 4 0, 3 3. 

mayor Kurt Schmoke: (35:07)
I wanted to highlight for you though a comment by a man who was a police chief and the president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police back in 1936. His name was August Volmer. He was an outstanding, progressive law enforcement official. And he said at that time, and I quote him, drug addiction is not a police problem. It never has been and never can be solved by policemen. It is first and last a medical problem. That was in 1936. And yet we are still continuing to fight the battle today of trying to get our country and our policy makers to understand that the war on drugs is complicated. It is not a single silver bullet that will solve it, but most importantly, it is a health problem and not a crime problem. You bring to our attention. And I know that our, our hero, uh, senior Cecilia has understood this, that there is, it is an international problem, and not only international, but interconnected. 

mayor Kurt Schmoke (36:32)
That is what happens in this war in one country, affects what happens in, uh, this, uh, war on drugs in another country. We have seen the terrible, terrible impact of the war on drugs in Mexico recently, not only in the large number of deaths, the rise in the cartels, but unfortunately in watching American policy, particularly the so-called Fast and Furious policy of selling, uh, weapons, uh, and a and trying to track those weapons, a very bad policy that it's done more harm than good. We have seen what's happened in Columbia with the United States policy. So-called Plan Columbia that was supposed to help that country, but in fact, all that it did was to buy large numbers of helicopters that could be used by the military, not only to attack civilians, but to spray poisonous, uh, material in the areas of a civilian population 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (37:42)
From June 9th, 2013. Node 4, 3 8 1. This is Dr. Carl Hart, author of High Price. 

Rev. F Dean Becker (37:51)
You know, you, you've done the investigation on people using methamphetamine. And I, I wanna speak to that because I had about a two and a half year dalliance with, uh, methamphetamine myself. Started with the Air Force, by the way, who, who, uh, handed it out like candy in the beginning. And it, it became, you know, methamphetamine or a life. And I chose life because, uh, too many people get caught up in chasing down those drugs and finding the drugs and in, uh, spending their lives chasing drugs. And I think that's the biggest, uh, uh, failing, if you will, of methamphetamine users. Your thought there, Carl Hart? Well, see, 

Dr. Carl Hart (38:34)
One of the things that I tried to do in the book, I tried to point out that actually most of the people who use methamphetamine don't have that type of relationship with the drug. There are, of course, there are people who do have that relationship, but the problem for me is that most of our attention is focused on the people who have trouble with the drug, people who have a pathological relationship with the drug, when in fact, the majority of the people don't. And so, the folks who have a problem with the drug, we certainly want to pay attention to that, and we certainly wanna make sure we help them to the best of our ability, but we certainly shouldn't be making policy based on a select group who have a problem with the drug when the majority of the people don't. Now, that's not to say that, um, methamphetamine does not have the potential for harmful effects and those sorts of things. 

Dr. Carl Hart (39:26)
It's not to said at all. But if we think about another drug that we are all familiar with, let's say alcohol, there is 10 to 15% of the people who use alcohol, who have a pathological relationship with that drug. But you don't see the society making laws based on that 10 to 15%. We tried to do that in, in 1919 with prohibition and so forth, and, uh, until 1933. But the people, the other 90, 85% was like, Hey, look, I don't have a problem with this drug. I know how to use it. I'm, and I'm fine. I do. I, uh, know how to enhance the positive effects and, and minimize the negative effects. Why should I be punished because of that? And so I'm just in the book, I'm trying to get the public to realize that's what we have done with cocaine. That's what we've done with methamphetamine. 

Dr. Carl Hart (40:17)
That's what we've done with heroin. Now, it doesn't mean that we can all, uh, just, uh, all of a sudden change the way that we are regulating those drugs today. That doesn't mean that it means that we need to change the way that we're educating about these drugs and then think about changing the way we regulate these drugs. And so I put forth that we should decriminalize all of these drugs first and then have this sort of corresponding amount of increase of education. And then if people want to think about legalizing all these drugs, that's fine, but first, we have to be reeducated because previously we talk, uh, currently we're talking to the country about drugs like the whole entire country, our adolescents, and I'm trying to have an adult discussion about drugs. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (41:04)
Next up, we're gonna hear from the man whose band of activists kicked me in the butt and forced me to become an activist as well, from April 13th, 2014. This is Node 4 8 1 oh, featuring Mr. Kevin Zeese, now deceased. 

Rev. F Dean Becker (41:20)
Kevin, I, I want to throw in this thought there, that what has happened from my perspective is a diffusion, a diffraction of information. And a classic example, you know, tens of thousands of people are dying in Mexico. We'll have both sides of the story at 10 o'clock. The it is the need to support the fallacies that, that are existent, that, that somehow are given, uh, sway are, are given, um, not reverence, but, but a recognition that perhaps they're necessary. What, what's your thought there? 

Mr. Kevin Zeese (41:59)
Well, I think there's no question that one of the keys to, uh, developing mass movement that's occurring right now, and there really is a, a mass movement that's growing on all these different sub-issues. Uh, what's one of the keys is really media. And, uh, we're seeing a, a real transformation of media, you know, corporate media, the, you know, the CNNs and MSNBCs and Fox News, A, B-C-C-B-S. Those kinds of media outlets are losing a number of ways, first off, and most importantly, they're losing credibility. Only one in four Americans believe the mass media gives them the, the whole story of the truth. That's a time that's the lowest. That's been, uh, you know, since, since we've done those kind of surveys. And that's done by Gallup. Uh, at the same time, mass Media is losing resources. They're losing money, they're losing personnel. And while that's all going on, we're seeing the alternative, the independent media, uh, citizens Media, citizens Radio, uh, all that's growing. 

Mr. Kevin Zeese(42:52)
And people more and more get the information from social networks and fellow citizens and from independent media outlets. And so I think we're in a phase where, uh, we are closer than we realize to independent and Citizen media actually overtaking the corporate media. It already has more credibility in the corporate media. It just doesn't have the, um, organized effort behind it to really, um, impact, uh, the thinking of people as clearly as mass media, current mass media does. If we, you know, all work together and realize how close we are at taking over as far as the information, uh, battle goes, we would realize that the citizens and independent media is a key to our future. And having that, right, getting people, uh, uh, the, the, the truth, the full story about issues is the first step to, uh, educating them, uh, activating them and mobilizing them. 

Mr. Kevin Zeese: (43:46)
And that's what's critical. We need to mobilize a certain percentage, a small percentage of the population actually to be successful. There's actually research that shows it's a tiny percentage of the population being mobilized that causes transformations in society. Uh, over the last a hundred years, research on resistance movements has found that if you mobilize 3.5% of the population, the resistance movement has never lost. That resistance movement has to represent a majority view, but if 3.5% of people are mobilized, it always wins. And so I think that's, that's a critical thing. Human mind, we're not that far away from actually being strong enough to, to send the country in a, in a much better direction. 

Rev. F Dean Becker (44:26)
Diane Goldstein, former Lieutenant Goldstein, is now the President of Law Enforcement Action Partnership, formerly known as law Enforcement against Prohibition from the February 10 of 15 show node 5 2 8 8. This features Diane Goldstein. 

Rev. F Dean Becker (44:44)
For those who may not know what's going on down there, it's not that the cartels are just violent and deadly. They are colluding with in alignment with the law enforcement, the government itself, and, and the corruption extends from just extorting money from vendors to stealing and children and, and putting them to work as sexual slaves or otherwise. And the, the death toll down there is 10 and 12 times more than it is in the United States. It is, it's an outrageous situation. 

Diane Goldstein (45:19)
You know, the last four years now, almost five years that I've been with Lee is, you know, you've seen the, um, Mexican death rate. You know, as always alluded to, you know, when I first started, it was at 40,000. Well, now in 2015 is I think we can legitimately say that we are over a hundred thousand American drug war victims in Mexico that have not just been killed by the cartels, but have been disappeared by the Mexican government as well. And the most recent example is obviously the 43 students out of Iguala, you know, corruption from the top on down. Those kids were killed and kidnapped on the cartel's orders, and, um, law enforcement was part of it, 

Rev. F Dean Becker (46:08)
Did their part. 

Diane Goldstein (46:09)
And, and so, you know, the sooner we end the total drug war, not just the war on marijuana, and we know that ending drug prohibition is going to work, all you have to do is take a look at what the legalization in Colorado has done. You know, one of the, the articles that I read this last year that was so important and not widely talked about is how the Mexican growers are now supplanting what they formally grew with the marijuana coming across our border. And they're now growing opium because legalization has taken the market away from them. So if it works for marijuana, we know ending drug prohibition and controlling and regulating the market, we'll also do exactly what we did to the mafia during alcohol prohibition. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (47:05)
Don Winslow, the author of many great books, including The Cartel, has lived south of our border for many years and has a great, uh, understanding of what goes on down there. This segment also from the year 2015, July 10, to be specific, and node 5 4 0 7. This segment features Don Winslow. 

Rev. F Dean Becker (47:26)
And perhaps it's just my focus as I was just talking about it, but it, it seems that media everywhere is starting to recognize this futility of the drug war and is starting to expose it for what it is. And that is hopeless. Your your thoughts, sir? 

Don Winslow (47:41)
Well, listen, uh, we've been doing the same thing for coming on now, 45 years. And not only is it not working, it's made things worse. Drugs are more plentiful, more potent, uh, cheaper than ever. And again, it's had a, a hideous effect on American society in terms of the number of people we in prison, uh, in terms of the alienation of our police forces with our inner city communities. I think the militarization of police really began with the war on drugs. And of course, it's, it's had the worst effect on the people of Central America, uh, particularly Mexico. So if something after 45 years has not improved the situation, but made things worse, then I think it's time that we look at a different solution. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (48:34)
Indeed. 

Don Winslow (48:34)
And I think that that's pretty obvious, really. 

Rev. F Dean Becker (48:37)
Yes, sir. If you will allow me, um, I wanna read just a, a, a paragraph here from your book. This is from Alvarado. He states, you, north Americans are clean, because you can be. That is, that has never been a choice for us either as individuals or a nation, you're experienced enough to know that we're not offered a choice of taking the money or not. We're given the choice of taking the money or dying. We've been forced to choose sides, so we choose the best side we can and get on with it. What would you have us do? The country was falling apart, violence getting worse every day. The only way to end the chaos was to pick the most likely winner and help him win. And you, north Americans despise us for it. At the same time, you send the billions of dollars billion and the weapons that fuel the violence, you blame us for selling the product that you buy. It's absurd. Uh, your response, Todd. 

Don Winslow(49:29)
Well, uh, you know, I, I don't know how to respond to my own writing. I, I, I think it's the truth. A couple of thoughts. You know, we we're very good up here at, at wagging the finger of corruption in Mexico. Is there corruption in Mexico? Of course. And I, I write a lot about it, and I'm not alone in that. But as, as that passage indicated, what we don't understand is that that police and journalists and, and average citizens are not offered the choice, uh, take the money or leave it. They are offered the choice, take the money, or we kill you. And, and very often, or we kill your family. And, uh, you know, the, the so-called Mexican drug war, I think is one of the most tragic misnomers of the last half centuries. It's not the Mexican drug problem, it's the American drug problem. We're we are the buyers, and it's the, the simultaneous, uh, appetite, American appetite for drugs and prohibition of them that creates the power of the cartels and that fuels this violence. And, um, if I were on the other side of the border looking north, uh, I'd talk about corruption. I, I would ask, what kind of corruption exists in American society that makes you Americans, the, the largest drug market in the world at a rate of five times your population 

Rev. F Dean Becker (50:55)
And the world's leading jailer? Oh, God. The, the list goes on. Does it not the, uh, the 

Don Winslow: (50:59)
World's leading jailer, not only the world's leading jailer team, the, the, in the history of the world, we have the largest prison population. 

Rev. F Dean Becker (51:08)
Yes, sir. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (51:09)
Alright, uh, about time to wrap up this, uh, 23rd year anniversary show, uh, from August 12th, 2016, node 5 9 4 1. We have, uh, a wonderful author, Michelle Alexander, who wrote 

Rev. F Dean Becker(51:25)
The, the New Jim Crow, mass Incarceration in The Age of Colorblindness. And it is my privilege, uh, heck, a distinct honor to once again welcome Michelle Alexander. How are you? Good, 

Michelle Alexander: (51:38)
Good. Thanks so much for having me on your show. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (51:41)
You have made a difference. You have awakened, uh, politicians and pundits. You have, uh, given many people reason to reexamine this policy of drug war, have you not? 

Michelle Alexander (51:54)
Well, that was certainly my hope, and prayer in writing the book that, um, it would help to lead to an awakening about what we as a nation have done, um, in this drug war, particularly to poor communities of color. There's so much mythology about the drug war, um, its history, its reasons, its consequences. And I hoped that by pulling back the curtain and offering some history data and closer analysis, that it would help to have others, uh, achieve the same awakening about, um, the cruelty of this drug war, um, that I finally did. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (52:37)
Well, even the, uh, NAACP has, um, kind of embraced the knowledge that you've relayed as well along with other organizations. Am I right? 

Michelle Alexander: (52:46)
Yeah. You know, when I first started writing this book, I was dismayed that so many of our nation's civil rights organizations were not making, um, ending the war on drug a top priority, given the devastating consequences of the war in poor communities of color, not just by imprisoning, um, millions of folks, but by branding them criminals and felons and rendering them, um, permanent second class citizens, you know, stripped of the right to vote, you know, automatically excluded from juries and legally discriminated against, denied the very right, supposedly won in the Civil Rights Movement. Um, and what I've just been so gratified by is that over the years, um, since I began writing the book and since it's been released, um, many, um, of the leading civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, are dev awarding more time, attention and resources, um, to the issue. And the NAACP did adopt a resolution condemning, um, the drug war and, um, putting the, you know, organization officially on record as opposing it. Um, so there are signs, um, that things are moving in the right direction, but I fear that there is still not enough, um, being done at a grassroots level, um, to mobilize public opinion. Um, because politicians today across the political spectrum, still are very reluctant to publicly, uh, reconsider, um, drug war policies. And, uh, you know, until we, you know, galvanize, um, real momentum and put a lot of political pressure on these folks, I think that all we'll get from them, um, is kind of shifting rhetoric on these issues, but more of the same, 

Rev. F Dean Becker (54:35)
You know, he's not alone among the pundits. Um, several noted columnists around the country, heck around the world, have, uh, made mention of your book and, and the truths contained therein. But one of the more recent, uh, uh, write-ups was from, uh, nationally syndicated columnists, Leonard Pitts, who actually offered, uh, 50 copies of your book to his readers, uh, to encourage them to share this same information, right? 

Michelle Alexander: (55:05)
Yes. I was so thrilled by that. I had no idea he was planning to do that, to offer free copies of the book, um, to those who were willing to actually read it. That was his caveat, , that people had to agree to actually read the book, um, and be willing to, um, you know, take it seriously enough to read it and hopefully do something about the problems that are described therein. You know, I think one of the reasons that, you know, the book has created some shock waves, um, in many communities is because the data is just so jaw dropping. You know, um, there are more African Americans on African American adults under correctional control today in prisoner jail, on probation or parole than were enslaved in 1850, you know, a decade before the Civil War began. And the stunning increase in black incarceration in the United States can't be explained, um, simply by crime or crime rates. 

Michelle Alexander: (56:03)
It's due in large part to a war that has been declared on poor communities of color, a war on drugs, um, a war that, you know, despite, you know, studies consistently showing for decades that people of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than whites. This war has been waged almost exclusively in poor communities of color, resulting in some states, um, where 80 to 90% of all drug offenders sent to prison have been one race, African American. And when we see the data and see how flimsy the excuses and rationales, um, for the war have been over the years, and the trillion dollars that have been invested in this war, uh, dollars that could have been in, invested in education or job creation in the communities that needed it most, um, it really, I think, leads one to wonder, um, why in the world we would have chosen this path. And unfortunately, I believe we've chosen it, um, because we've abandoned many of the ideals that, uh, we claim to embrace. Um, namely that, uh, you know, we actually are on the same path that Dr. King, um, and so many racial justice advocates were traveling, you know, a few decades ago, I think we've made a dramatic U-turn and the war on drugs is a major part of that detour. 

Rev. F Dean Becker: (57:30)
So I just turned 76 years of age, I'm, uh, approaching my 10000th radio show, which is gonna happen later this month. And, uh, I'm gonna make it at least through, uh, uh, the installation of the next president before I leave the airwaves thinking about it, folks. But I wanna remind you once again, that because of prohibition, you don't know what's in that bag. And please be careful and always remember that, uh, euphoria is a blessing, not a crime.

CENTURY OF LIES

APRIL 29, 2018

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.

The Scottish Parliament is currently debating a proposal to establish supervised injection facilities in response to growing numbers of overdose deaths. Needle exchange and syringe service programs are already well-established in Scotland as well as other parts of the UK, however the public health situation there, as in the US, requires a more expansive and innovative approach.

On April Nineteenth, the Scottish Parliament debated a motion to create a safe consumption space in the city of Glasgow. We’re going to hear parts of that debate now. First, let’s listen to Aileen Campbell, Scotland’s Minister for Public Health and Sport. Ms. Campbell is a member of the ruling Scottish National Party, and she introduced the motion.

AILEEN CAMPBELL: In 2016, 867 individuals lost their lives through problem substance use, and countless others were devastated by the loss caused by its impact. Alongside such loss of life, problem substance use can inflict pain, trauma and suffering on individuals, families and communities right across the country.

At a time when we are updating our national drugs strategy to take into account changes that have happened in the past 10 years, we have a chance to review and improve the services that we offer to people and the methods by which we engage with and support them.

Since coming into this post, the rising number of drug-related deaths has weighed heavily on me, I've very aware, given the nature of the population that we are talking about, and the allied challenges of austerity, that this pain will remain in Scottish society for some time.

Each number represents an individual loss of life, potential unfulfilled and a family devastated by grief. We cannot tolerate that, and therefore we need to examine what we are currently doing to help and support some of the most vulnerable people in our society and consider what we can do differently, even if it is unpopular or uncomfortable.

Sadly, we are not alone in facing that challenge, with other countries also needing to find ways to cope with problem substance use. However, the treatment and harm-reduction approaches that are taken vary, as do the results, so it makes sense to explore further those for which the evidence suggests that they can make a positive difference.

I have recently returned from Australia, where I was supporting our fantastic sportsmen and sportswomen at the Gold Coast Commonwealth games. Like Scotland, Australia has seen recent increases in the number of drug-related deaths. Between 2012 and 2016, the number of heroin-related deaths in Melbourne, Victoria doubled.

In an effort to seek a solution, the Victorian state Government looked to the successes seen in Sydney, which had introduced a safer drug consumption facility—SDCF—in 2001. In the 16 years in which the Sydney SDCF has been open, it has had more than a million visits from individuals who seek to use its facility. During that time, it has treated more than 7,000 overdoses without there being a single death.

It has also recorded an 80 per cent reduction in the number of ambulance call-outs to the area, the number of used needles and syringes discarded in public has halved and nearly 80 per cent of local residents say that they support the facility.

I have spoken with officials from the Victorian state Government about their recent decision to approve an SDCF in the North Richmond neighborhood of Melbourne. Like us, Victoria has chosen to treat the problems associated with substance use as a health issue rather than a justice one, which means taking a health-led response to the situation.

For the Victorians, that meant looking at the evidence for what works and what would reduce the number of deaths. They did not have to look far to see the impact that an SDCF could have.

Closer to home, just before I left for Australia, I addressed the Dundee community forum as it launched a drugs commission to explore the problems that it faces on problem substance use, amid a growing number of drug-related deaths, and to look for potential solutions.

At that forum, I explained that such solutions might initially seem controversial or unpopular, but we owe it to families who have lost loved ones and to those who have lost their lives to try something different, as the status quo for those furthest away from services is not working.

I am well aware that, for some, the idea of an SDCF is unpalatable and that the idea of offering a safe space for individuals to consume drugs seems wrong. However, I am clear—as is the Government—that our vision for this country is one in which all our treatment and rehabilitation services are based on the principle of recovery.

Indeed, that commitment lay at the heart of our 2008 publication “The Road to Recovery: A New Approach to Tackling Scotland’s Drug Problem”. For some people, the possibility of recovery or abstinence is a long way off. In the meantime, it is important that we focus on keeping them alive and in touch with services that may provide them with the support that they require eventually to take further steps towards their own recovery.

JOHN MASON: I agree with all that the minister says on the health aspect, but so far she has not touched on the supply aspect. It seems to me that the proposed model is built on people buying and selling drugs illegally, which is linked to organised crime. My main reservation about the policy is that we are building crime into the system.

AILEEN CAMPBELL: I do not agree with that assessment. It is about taking a public health approach to a public health issue. We currently do not have the powers to enable that to happen legally. That is why I am seeking Parliament’s agreement to enable us to ask the United Kingdom Government to give us the opportunity to take a public health response to the public health need in the city that John Mason represents.

An SDCF can offer a place where individuals can go and a safe space where they can be treated with respect, but it is also a place where they can build a relationship with treatment workers so that, if and when an individual decides that they want to make a change to turn their life around, they will have support on hand to do so.

An SDCF would be a real shift in service provision. It would be a service that has no barriers to engagement and one that provides a highly marginalised population with a place to engage with staff, build trust and get support to address some of the wider issues that they face.

Following a recent debate on the topic at Westminster, the UK Government minister came under attack for misrepresenting some of the evidence on such facilities, and I am keen not to make the same mistake.

Instead, I will defer to a 2017 report from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, which summarizes some of the evidence on these facilities. The report found that the evidence that SDCFs can “reach and stay in contact with” highly marginalized individuals is “well documented”.

The report says that “This contact has resulted in immediate improvements in hygiene and safer use for clients ... as well as wider health and public order benefits.”

Such facilities are associated with increased uptake of diverse types of dependence care such as referral to an addiction treatment center, initiation of detoxification programs and initiation of methadone therapy.

The report also states that evaluation studies have shown that there has been a “positive impact” on the communities in which the facilities are placed, including a “decrease in public injecting ... and a reduction in the number of syringes discarded in the vicinity”.

That is an important point in response to John Mason’s question. Surely those outcomes deserve exploration to ensure that our communities feel supported.

DANIEL JOHNSON: I hear much of what the minister has to say. If there is evidence, we should indeed look at it, but what she is saying is focused on intravenous drug use. What about the wider services and the engagement that goes beyond that cohort of intravenous drug users in tackling the wider drug problem?

AILEEN CAMPBELL: I am talking about that specific group and a problem with drug-related deaths. There are examples from across the world where countries have taken up the opportunity to proceed with such facilities, which has resulted in a reduction in the number of drug-related deaths.

I do not pretend that the measure would be a panacea for all the issues of drug and substance misuse in Scotland, but I am seeking agreement for us to try to initiate dialogue with the UK Government through which we can try to take forward a public health response to the growing and very real public health need that is felt keenly in Glasgow.

The evidence from the Sydney facility shows that it has had support from the local residential and business communities, because they have witnessed a positive change in the area as a result of the success of the SDCF. In Melbourne, locals actively campaigned for a safe injecting facility.

From the interventions that I have had, I am aware that, for some, the argument will be that there is no safe way to take a class A drug such as heroin. My answer to that is that SDCFs do not claim to make drug use safe; rather, they are based on the premise that it is safer to use drugs under supervision than to do so in a disused building or on the street or in any other place where an individual might take them and not be found should anything go wrong.

We rehearsed the arguments previously when setting up needle and syringe exchange programs. We did not claim that doing so would make injecting safe; instead, we claimed that the programs would make injecting safer by reducing the chances of the transmission of blood-borne viruses and bacterial infections.

An SDCF would also provide the opportunity for individuals to access the health and social care services that are usually out of their reach. On that point, evidence from the Sydney facility shows that about 70 per cent of the people who registered had never accessed any local health service before and that, since the introduction of the SDCF, almost 12,000 referrals have been made, connecting people to health and social welfare services in a way that never happened in the past.

ALEX COLE-HAMILTON: The minister is absolutely right to say that there is a link between safe injecting rooms and use of other healthcare facilities. A key service in that regard is the alcohol and drug partnership. Will she take this opportunity to confirm that budgets for ADPs will be protected in future? They have not been protected in the past under this Government.

AILEEN CAMPBELL: We have invested record levels in ADPs, and in the previous budget we committed to invest a further £20 million, to ensure that we can deliver on our new and refreshed approach to drugs.

Closer to home, the UK Government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs published a report in December 2016 in response to the growing number of drug-related deaths in the UK. In that report, the council recommended that consideration be given to the establishment of SDCFs in areas with a high concentration of injecting drug users.

The council reported that in addition to the evidence that SDCFs reduce the number of drug-related deaths, there is evidence that they reduce the transfer of blood-borne viruses while improving access to primary care and more intensive forms of drug treatment. The council was clear that the evidence showed that the facilities did not result in an increase in injecting behavior, drug use or—I address this to John Mason—local crime rates.

All that leaves me wondering just how much more evidence in support of SDCFs the Westminster Government requires before it will act. How many more people need to die before the UK Government agrees that such facilities save lives?

The issues that I am talking about affect individuals and communities throughout our country, but it is Glasgow that leads the charge for Scotland in its attempt to open an SDCF. For that reason, I want to take a moment to focus on the current situation in the city.

The most recent statistics that I have seen indicate that the HIV epidemic in the city continues unabated. The outbreak among injectors in greater Glasgow involves about 120 people. Such a level of HIV infection is unacceptable in our society, and I am adamant that we must offer some solution to the situation.

If one in five of the people who inject drugs in and around Glasgow city center is involved in the outbreak, it seems essential that we should have a service that gives those people regular contact with services so that they can get effective HIV treatment.

In addition, Glasgow has had the largest number of drug-related deaths in the country in recent years, with 170 such deaths recorded in 2016. Again, the figure is unacceptable and the situation demands action.

I was encouraged by Glasgow City Council’s recent discussion on the issue. The discussion was initiated by Scottish National Party councilor Mhairi Hunter, but agreement was sought from members of all political parties on the need for a safer drug consumption facility to be introduced in Glasgow, and the discussion ended with a unanimous vote to pursue the provision of an SDCF in the city.

In addition, a Conservative councilor invited Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, to come to Glasgow to see the situation for herself. The invitation was backed by the rest of the council, and I add my voice to those who are calling for the Home Secretary or her minister with responsibility for drugs, Victoria Atkins, whom I am due to meet next month, to discuss the pressing and urgent issues to do with substance use on which we are unable to act due to powers being reserved.

My officials have been involved in discussions with Glasgow health and social care partnership, which has been developing the proposal from the start. They will continue to engage with the partnership as things progress. I will also soon meet Susanne Miller, the chair of Glasgow’s ADP and chief officer of the health and social care partnership, to get a further update on the situation in the city.

We are currently working to renew our national drugs strategy. The current strategy has achieved a great deal and I pay tribute to the hard work of the people who were involved in delivering it: the ADPs, drug services, professionals, clinicians, people with lived experience and people from the third sector who introduced the world’s first national naloxone program, presided over a decline in drug use among our young people, supported more than 120 independent recovery communities and greatly reduced drug and alcohol waiting times.

NEIL FINDLAY: I support much of what the minister has said about injecting rooms. She is right to focus on that today, but will she bring to the Parliament a debate in Government time to allow members to discuss the whole issue of drugs and the holistic approach that we need to take to drugs policy?

AILEEN CAMPBELL: I am always happy to engage, indeed, I have sought to engage, with parties across the parliamentary chamber, to ensure that members feel a degree of ownership of our drugs strategy. We took forward our road to recovery strategy in that way.

I will happily engage with the member, who takes a keen interest in the issue, and I hope that he takes that commitment in the spirit in which it is meant, so that we can get something that delivers for people who are marginalized and vulnerable in the here and now, and make progress on safer injecting facilities.

Our refreshed strategy will seek to build on the achievements of the road to recovery strategy. It is also important that it seeks to rectify the gaps and shortfalls that have become all too evident. The new strategy must be innovative in its approach.

It must be guided by the evidence of what works and it must be unafraid to suggest approaches that might make some people uncomfortable, at first. That will include ideas such as SDCFs or heroin-assisted treatment. Against the backdrop of rising numbers of drug-related deaths, those bold ideas could be what makes the difference.

It is important, however, that we do not view such approaches as a panacea for all the challenges that we face with problem substance use in Scotland. Again, I would welcome all members who want to contribute to the refreshed strategy.

The strategy will be backed by an additional £20 million each year during the current parliamentary session, and I have been clear that that money is not just to produce more of the same. Instead, I want it to encourage new thinking and approaches, and to encourage ambitious and innovative front-line responses.

Unfortunately, at this time, we are, to an extent, curtailed in what we can do as a nation in response to the problems that we face from substance abuse. The options that are available to us under current legislation are limited, but the situation in Glasgow is serious enough to warrant considering alternative approaches, including a supervised consumption room. I am pushing for a change in the legislation to let that happen.

There are SDCFs in more than 70 cities around the world, but not one in the UK. Such a position is no longer tenable and I seek the consensus and agreement of Parliament to help change this.

DOUG MCVAY: That was Aileen Campbell, Scottish National Party and Scotland’s Minister for Public Health and Sport, introducing a motion in the Scottish Parliament to set up a supervised injection facility or safe consumption space in the city of Glasgow.

Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. There was an attempt not long ago to establish Scottish independence, however that referendum failed narrowly. The UK government made several major concessions to Scotland before the vote in order to scupper the vote, and some powers have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament from the UK government.

Unfortunately, establishing a supervised injection facility falls somewhat outside the scope of the Scottish Parliament's power. That’s why Alison Thewliss, a member of the UK Parliament from the Scottish National Party, has introduced legislation to allow Scotland to set up supervised injection facilities.

Several nations around the world, including Canada, Australia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, and many more, already allow these safe consumption spaces. The research is clear. Supervised injection facilities and drug consumption rooms do not lead to increased use, nor to crime, nor to public disorder.

Supervised injection facilities and drug consumption rooms do prevent people from dying. They prevent people from getting sick, and from spreading disease. They bring people into contact with healthcare and mental health services, people who may otherwise be disconnected from those systems.

The research is indisputable. The real world experience is undeniable. It’s clear what works. It’s also clear what doesn’t work, and our current policies, based on prohibition, do not work.

Change can happen, it does happen, it will happen, because we make it happen. Our voices matter. Our votes count. Never let anyone tell you otherwise.

The prohibitionists, the people against reform, know that they can only succeed is if they can get us to shut up, and that’s just not going to happen. Not so long as there is still breath in my body to be able to say these words: You are listening to Century of Lies, 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.

Now, while I climb down from my high horse, let’s continue listening to that debate in the Scottish Parliament over supervised injection facilities and safe consumption spaces. Now, let’s hear from Anas Sarwar, he’s a Labour Party member of the Scottish Parliament who represents Glasgow.

ANAS SARWAR: The increase in drug-related deaths is a tragedy—it is a tragedy for the individuals concerned, for their friends and families, and for society. Scotland tops the league table in the European Union for drug-related deaths, and the position is getting worse, not better. In the past decade, the drug-death rate has doubled. Drug deaths in Scotland are 160 per million of population, while the EU average is 21.

It is not just an issue of ageing drug users. Drug use among young people is, I believe, as prevalent now as it has ever been. The substances might not all be the same, but we are kidding ourselves on if we believe that young people are not using drugs. MDMA, legal highs, cannabis, cocaine and others are rife in communities across our country.

We cannot allow ourselves to be viewed as distant “suits” who are out of touch with reality. Sadly, much of what we see on our television screens and at the cinema continues the glorification of some forms of drug use.

That is why we must, with honesty and in good faith, consider whether the current approach is working. This is not a political attack on the Scottish Government’s current drug strategy; it is a candid reflection that we are failing as a nation. I say that in full recognition that drug deaths have been steadily increasing since 1995. For long periods since then, my party has been in power.

I want to make it clear that I do not believe that we can continue as we are. That is why, today, we will support the Scottish Government’s motion. I hope that the Government will recognize the good faith of our amendment and support it, too.

This is far too serious an issue, with far too many lives being lost and families affected, for it to be used as a political football or as a proxy for constitutional conflict between the Scottish and UK Governments. We should not allow it to become that.

Whatever position we agree today, we have to be honest enough to say that safe injection facilities are not the answer in themselves. Whatever benefits they may bring, they are not the magic bullet for solving Scotland’s drug problem. Nobody in the chamber is seriously suggesting that one injection room in one part of one city is an adequate response to Scotland’s very serious drugs problem, but it may well have a part to play,

We believe that, if necessary, powers should be devolved if all other avenues have been exhausted. In supporting the Government’s motion, however, we are not willing to give the Government a free ride. There are serious questions to answer—not the least of which is how the minister believes that cutting the funding to drug and alcohol partnerships will make things better.

A budget that was more than 69 million pounds in 2014-15 is a budget of less than 54 million pounds now. It cannot simply be written off as a coincidence that, over that period, the number of drug-related deaths has increased sharply, and it cannot simply be a coincidence that the health impacts of dirty needles are increasing when needle exchanges are closing down. I would therefore welcome the minister’s explanation of how the cutting of budgets has made a positive difference, if it has.

I come back to the motion. Labour supports the Glasgow safe injection space proposals, but it is clear that we need a wholesale change in the approach to our drug strategy. Why? It is because the evidence that is before us is stark: whatever else our drug strategy might be, it is not a success. Our drug strategy is failing: it is failing individuals, families, whole communities and our nation.

AILEEN CAMPBELL: I appreciate a lot of what Anas Sarwar has said and how he has articulated it. However, I worded the motion as I did in order to ensure that we focus on one element of drug policy so that the issue does not become a constitutional issue and we could achieve consensus.

However, on the reference to a “failing” strategy, will Anas Sarwar concede that there have been successes, and that many people do not want to rip up the current strategy but to build on it? We have had the first-ever national Naloxone roll-out program, we have seen a reduction in numbers of young people who are taking drugs, and we have a flourishing recovery community.

All those can trace their roots back to the road to recovery strategy. We know that the strategy has shortfalls, but we want to plug any gaps. However, that does not suggest that the entire strategy and approach has been a failure. In fact, saying that it has been a failure does a disservice to the many people who are working incredibly hard to deliver it.

ANAS SARWAR: I emphasize that what I am saying is not an attack on the Scottish Government, the existing strategy, the minister or the people who are doing lots of very important work across the country. What I am saying is a reflection on the stats and facts, the numbers and the evidence on the ground.

I note what the minister says about young people’s use of drugs, but I am sorry to say that that is not what I understand from my experience of talking to young people the length and breadth of our country. Young people are now seeing drugs in a much more normalized way.

There seems to be increased drug use among crisis individuals and people in crisis families, but what worries me is that there are lots of people right across the country who would not be regarded as crisis individuals or as being in crisis families who are normalizing use of drugs.That might not be about intravenous drugs like heroin, but about legal highs, MDMA, cannabis and cocaine. That is why I think that we need a fresh approach.

There is a large degree of consensus across the chamber on the issue, and some of that has been articulated. I think that there is a large degree of consensus among people who work with drug issues every day across our country. That is why we are committed to taking a fresh and wide-ranging approach to dealing with our country’s drug problems.

ALISON JOHNSTONE: Will the member take an intervention?

ANAS SARWAR: I am willing to, but I think that I am running out of time.

CHRISTINE GRAHAME: The member is coming into his last minute, but I will give him a little extra time as he took a long intervention previously.

ANAS SARWAR: Thank you.

CHRISTINE GRAHAME: Your intervention must be brief, Ms Johnstone.

ALISON JOHNSTONE: I am not entirely clear about whether Anas Sarwar sees substance misuse as a public health issue or as a criminal justice matter, so I would be grateful if he could clarify that.

ANAS SARWAR: I am just coming on to that. I see substance misuse as a public health issue. The complex nature of substance abuse means that it must be addressed across portfolios. We should look not only at our justice system, but at policing, housing, local government and, more important, the impact of poverty, inequality and austerity on the prevalence of drug use.

That is why Labour will hold a wide-ranging cross-sector and cross-portfolio drug summit to consider innovative ways to improve the policy and political response to Scotland’s addiction problems. I think that Alison Johnstone and I are probably very much on the same wavelength in terms of making the issue less about a criminal justice reaction and more about public health.

We should seek to learn lessons not only from around Scotland and the UK but from all around the world, so that we can see how other countries have changed their approach and, as a result, changed levels of drug use. There are bold and innovative examples, Portugal being one, but I will not go into detail, given the time that I have left. However, we need to be brave enough to consider innovative proposals in a cross-party way.

Simply doing the same things over and over again, with the same forlorn hope that things might be different in the future is not the definition of an effective evidence-led policy.

So I close by urging the Scottish Government to do as the minister has said and not use our support for the motion as a proxy for a different disagreement, but to use it, and the willingness of members across the chamber, to take a fresh look and to consider new ways so that, years from now, people can look back and say that today, in the Scottish Parliament, we began the process of turning around Scotland’s place as the drugs-death capital of Europe.

DOUG MCVAY: That was Anas Sarwar, a Labour Party member of the Scottish Parliament from the Glasgow constituency.

At the end of this debate, votes were taken on amendments and then on the motion itself. All amendments were rejected. The motion passed by a vote of 79 in favor, 27 opposed, with one abstention.

Now, loyal listeners will recall that we heard part of the debate in the UK Parliament on its supervised consumption facility bill on a recent show. Parliament will soon have its second reading and debate over that legislation, to allow Scotland to set up that safe consumption space. When the time comes, I’ll bring you that audio.

Until then, I just 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 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 drug policy reform and the drug war. For now, for the Drug Truth Network, this is Doug McVay saying so long. So long!

DOUG MCVAY: 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.