Drug Policy Alliance

September 25: Free Conference in Los Angeles Will Explore Effective Responses to Crack Cocaine and Methamphetamine Use

September 19, 2017

Los Angeles -- While opioids have understandably received a lot of attention recently, stimulant drugs -- including powder cocaine, crack, methamphetamine and Adderall -- are often overlooked. In fact, nationally, more people use stimulants than use heroin. While many people use stimulants without problems, excessive stimulant use can put people at risk for a number of health issues, including heart issues, psychological distress, and blood-borne diseases.

Despite these risks, not much is known about best ways to reduce the harms associated with stimulant use and to treat those with problematic use. On Monday, September 25th, over 100 researchers, services providers, students, and policy advocates will come together at a free one-day conference in Los Angeles entitled, Stimulant use: Harm reduction, treatment, and future directions.

“It’s time to take a fresh look at the research and innovative practices for stimulant use so we can better understand why people use these drugs and help to reduce the harms associated with their use,” said Jules Netherland, PhD, Director of the Office of Academic Engagement at the Drug Policy Alliance and one of the event organizers. “By bringing together such a wide array of experts, this conference promises to generate important solutions to problematic stimulant use.”

The conference will generate a series of recommendations for service providers and policymakers on how to better address the needs of people who use cocaine and methamphetamine, an otherwise underserved population.

“It is critically important to sort out myth from fact when it comes to people who use stimulants because they are such a highly stigmatized population,” said Lindsay LaSalle, Senior Staff Attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance. “Myths play out in many negative ways that end up hurting people who use drugs – they perpetuate shame and blame, restrict access to services, and keep people in the shadows rather than encouraging them to seek help. This conference is an opportunity to look beyond the stereotypes so we can better understand who uses stimulants, their motivations for use, related risks, and strategies for mitigating these risks.”

The potential harms from stimulant use can be different from those of other drugs, and so this conversation promises to expand understandings of harm reduction, which is often focused on providing clean syringes to opioid users. Panelists will discuss a wide range of harm reduction strategies, such as the need to create safer consumption spaces for people who smoke crack cocaine, transitioning injection stimulant users to smoking as a lower-risk route of administration, and the need for low-threshold housing and supports.

Treatment for stimulants has also been poorly understood. The conference will feature a panel to discuss evidence-based strategies like contingency management and innovative approaches such as medication assisted treatments and substitution treatments for stimulant use.

The event is free, but participants must pre-register here.

Stimulant Use: Harm Reduction, Treatment, and Future Directions

Monday, September 25, 2017
8:30 AM – 5:00 PM PDT

Japanese American National Museum
100 North Central Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90012

PRELIMINARY PROGRAM & SPEAKERS
8:00-9:00am Registration & Sign In

9:00-9:10am

Welcome/Opening Remarks –

Lindsay LaSalle, Senior Staff Attorney, Drug Policy Alliance
Jules Netherland PhD, Director of Office of Academic Engagement, Drug Policy Alliance
Ricky Bluthenthal PhD, Professor, Kent School of Medicine, University of Southern California

9:10-9:25am: Overview of Epidemiology/Prevalence/Trends in US and abroad -

Thomas Freese PhD, Co-Director, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs

9:25-9:40am: Stimulant use and its public health impact in California -

Gary Tsai MD, Medical Director and Science Officer, County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health

9:45-11:15am: PANEL – People who use Stimulants: A Diverse Population

Kaston Anderson-Carpenter PhD, Michigan State University
Jennifer Lorvick PhD, RTI International
Elise Szabo, Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Alice Cepada PhD, University of Southern California
Melynda Mindy Vincent, Utah Harm Reduction Coalition

11:15-11:30am: Break – coffee/tea/snacks

11:30-11:45am: Overview of harm reduction strategies in US and abroad-

Katie Stone, Research Analyst, Harm Reduction International

11:45-1:15pm: PANEL – Harm reduction interventions with people who use stimulants

Brandie Wilson, Humboldt Area Center for Harm Reduction
Kat Humphries, Harm Reduction Action Center
Ryan McNeil PhD, University of British Columbia
Anna Palmer and Peter Higgs, Burnett Institute
Shilo Murphy, People's Harm Reduction Alliance
Liz Evans, Washington Heights Corner Project & New York Harm Reduction Educators
Cristina Temenos, University of Burmingham

1:15-2:00pm: LUNCH PROVIDED FOR ALL ATTENDEES

2:00-3:30pm: PANEL- Treatment Options for People who Use Stimulants

Diana Valentine, Center for Harm Reduction Therapy
Joe Schrank, High Sobriety
Glenn-Milo Santos PhD, University of California San Francisco
Rick Andrews, The Stonewall Project
Kanna Hayashi PhD, Simon Fraser University

3:30-5:00pm: PANEL- Lessons on the ground and future directions

Isaac Jackson, Urban Survivors Union
Michael Siever, Founder, The Stonewall Project
Terrell Jones, New York Harm Reduction Educators
Charles McWells
Magalie Lerman, Reframe Health and Justice Consulting

5:00-5:15pm: Closing Remarks -

Steven Shoptaw PhD, Executive Director, Center for Behavioral and Addiction Medicine (CBAM) UCLA

The conference is being hosted by the Drug Policy Alliance, along with local partnering organizations, including academic research centers, advocacy and service organizations, and public health agencies. Panels will be comprised of researchers, direct service providers, and people with a history of stimulant use in order to draw upon the various forms of expertise in this area, provide attendees with a more holistic view of the issue, and create richer dialogue about possible solutions. International experts will be featured via video.

Author:
Date Published: September 19, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Top 5 Reasons You Should Attend the 2017 International Drug Policy Reform Conference

Melissa Franqui — September 18, 2017

More than 1,500 people will gather in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 11 – 14 for DPA’s biennial International Drug Policy Reform Conference (#Reform17) at the Omni Atlanta Hotel @ CNN Center. It’s the largest gathering of policy makers, activists, health advocates and reformers in the world. Check out the website for a full listing of the program and special events.

It’s not just a conference – it’s the convening of our movement, and here are just a few of the many reasons you should join us.

5. Michelle Alexander is delivering a keynote.

In case you haven’t heard, Michelle Alexander, visionary, scholar, activist, and author of the bestseller The New Jim Crow (basically, the call to action to end the war on drugs) will speak on a plenary about the drug war, mass incarceration and the unjust criminal justice system. Most recently featured in Ava DuVernay’s epic documentary, 13th, Michelle Alexander will speak at the Reform Conference for the first time.

So even if you have been to Reform before, this is something you do not want to miss!

4. Drug Policy Alliance has joined forces with AFROPUNK.

DPA will be continuing its exciting new partnership at AFROPUNK Atlanta, which is being held October 14 - 15 – the same weekend as the Reform Conference! We will be programming social salons at their Carnival of Consciousness and engaging attendees at the DPA tent, providing information and materials.

Come to Reform 2017 and AFROPUNK Atlanta to feel the music, free your mind, and see an incredible lineup of groundbreaking music and activist icons.

3. While Trump is in office, no one is safe.

The upcoming conference is taking place at a paradoxical moment in the fight against the war on drugs. On one hand, marijuana legalization is moving forward rapidly, and there is bipartisan support for reducing the numbers of people behind bars and expanding health-based approaches to reducing the harms of drugs. At the federal level, however, the new administration is escalating the drug war by undermining civil rights, bolstering white supremacists, and rolling back much of the progress made under the Obama administration. Now, more than ever, reformers need to organize and take action.

The president believes that building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border would alleviate the recent surge in overdose deaths. We know how to prevent overdose deaths, and that’s not a solution. From immigration reform activists and racial justice organizers, to law enforcement, libertarians, faith leaders, academics, and marijuana entrepreneurs, this conference is a gathering for everyone who is working to uproot the drug war.

2. Over 55,000 people died of a drug overdose last year.

More than in car accidents. More than from gun violence. Drug overdose is the leading cause of death among Americans under 50. This sobering tragedy is marked by the heartbreaking truth that most of these fatal overdoses are preventable.

In addition to a plethora of sessions dedicated to policy solutions that will work to end the overdose crisis, there will also be a candlelight vigil on Thursday night at the Museum of Civil and Human Rights to honor those who have perished as a result of the drug war.

1. You should CARE ABOUT THIS because the drug war harms us all...even if we don't use drugs.

The drug war diverts resources from real and needed social supports that ensure healthy people, families and communities. It shames and stigmatizes when people who are struggling deserve compassion and care. The drug war is a failure making our children and all of us less safe. Help us end it.

Watch the video and register to attend at reformconference.org.

Melissa Franqui is the manager of communications and marketing for the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Melissa Franqui
Date Published: September 18, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Police are Fueling Increased Overdoses, Transmission of HIV and Viral Hepatitis

Alexandra Olsen — September 18, 2017

Every day there is a new headline highlighting the devastating effects of the current opioid crisis on individuals and their communities – from record overdoses to widespread transmission of hepatitis C. This has started a dialogue, urging public officials to treat drug use as a medical issue rather than a criminal one. States across the U.S. are responding to this as a public health matter – passing 911 Good Samaritan and naloxone access laws, opening of syringe exchanges, and increasing access to Medication-Assisted Treatment. It seems that, now more than ever, we are amidst a shift in how society deals with problematic drug use.

So then why, in the midst of a public health crisis, are police around the United States confiscating clean syringes and naloxone from the most vulnerable drug users – the homeless? This may sound absurd, but across the United States there have been reports of law enforcement seizing clean syringes and naloxone from homeless drug users that were lawfully obtained at health service providers.

Imagine being a homeless intravenous drug user who’s trying their best to prevent the contraction of HIV or Hepatitis C. To get to the needle exchange, you first have to make arrangements so your possessions aren’t stolen, then you take public transit, make sure you get to the exchange on time, wait in line for services, and then trek back to your camp. You put in the effort to keep yourself healthy, only to have these same supplies confiscated by police a few hours later. Confiscation of your consumption equipment forces you to resort to sharing syringes and other hazardous consumption practices. The end result is increased risk of fatal overdose, HIV and hepatitis C transmission – all thanks to law enforcement improperly enforcing laws designed to protect drug users, not hurt them. It’s easy for people to blame drug users for their health issues, but it’s becoming even clearer that, like most of the enforcement of the failed drug war, often it is the police fueling these adverse consequences of drug use.

The role of police in addressing the opioid epidemic and its effects has been highly contested. While some agencies are getting behind harm reduction, many continue to see users as criminals who must be shamed if they have any hope to recover. These issues are pushed into the spotlight when we talk about homeless opiate users. Similar to users who are not homeless, this group is susceptible to criminal and health problems as a result of their use – but these harms are magnified because of their living situation. They are subject to interactions with law enforcement more frequently – especially in big cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco where homeless encampments are frequently being torn down to make way for new high rises. They are also at higher risk for HIV, hepatitis C, and accidental overdose, while simultaneously having few financial resources to prevent these health issues on their own.

Consequently, research has shown that this group has benefitted greatly from reforms that have made syringes and naloxone more accessible and free of charge. But, when police confiscate these items in their routine interactions with the homeless, they actually discourage effective harm reduction practices and policies that minimize the health risks of drug use, leading to adverse health outcomes.

Police confiscation of these supplies is not only morally abhorrent, but directly related to increased overdoses and transmissions of infectious disease. This lesson was already learned in Vancouver back in 2003, where mass crackdown on homeless users and confiscation of their property (including clean syringes and naloxone) led to a “new wave of transmission of HIV and other blood-borne and sexually transmitted diseases as well as to increase the risk of complications from overdose, including death.”

Do we really want to repeat these mistakes in the midst of the one of the most serious drug-related public health crises? If we are really going to address these public health issues, protect our communities and save lives, we need the police to focus on properly enforcing harm reduction policies, not interfering with them in the name of the failed drug war.

Alexandra Olsen is an intern with the Drug Policy Alliance.

Photo via Matthew Zalewski / Wikipedia.

View more blog posts.

Author: Alexandra Olsen
Date Published: September 18, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Major Drug Sentencing Reform Bill Passed by the CA Legislature, Heads to Governor's Desk

September 12, 2017

Sacramento, CA— Today, the California State Assembly passed a bill to repeal sentence enhancements for prior drug convictions by 41 to 25 vote. Senate Bill 180, authored by Senator Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles and Ricardo Lara of Long Beach, repeals a three-year sentence enhancement for prior drug convictions, including petty drug sales and possession of drugs for sales.

The bill passed the State Senate in June, and now goes to Governor Brown for his signature or veto.

“This was a huge effort, and great thanks to Senators Mitchell and Lara for leading on an issue that is incredibly important to low-income families most impacted by the war on drugs,” said Eunisses Hernandez with the Drug Policy Alliance. “This bill also frees up tax dollars that have long been wasted on lock-em-up policies that had no positive impacts in terms of public health or public safety.”

Current law provides for a penalty of up to five years in jail or prison for sales of even the smallest amount of cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine. The enhancements add 3 years for each prior conviction, and according to data from the state sheriffs is a leading cause of sentences of over 10-years in county jail.

Public defenders, drug treatment providers, and racial justice advocates say that current law ensnares low-income and addicted people in overlong and unjust sentences. These penalties fall overwhelmingly on blacks and Latinos, although surveys show that whites use and sell drugs at rates equal to those groups.

The bill leaves base sentences intact, as well as other enhancements such as selling to a minor, or selling to an adult or minor within 1000 feet of a school.

“This sentencing enhancement has been on the books for 35 years and failed to reduce the availability or sales of drugs within our communities,” said Hernandez. “These extreme and punitive polices of the war on drugs break up families and don’t make our communities any safer.”

Sentencing enhancements were meant to reduce the availability of drugs and deter drug selling, however like many drug war policies, they are a proven and costly failure. In addition to depleting state and county funds that could be spent on schools, health, and social services, sentencing enhancements are a major contributor to jail overcrowding. As of 2014, there were more than 1,500 people in California jails sentenced to more than five years and the leading cause of these long sentences was non-violent drug sale offenses.

Although rates of drug use and sales are comparable across racial lines, people of color are far more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated for drug law violations than are whites. The drug war has devastated families, low-income communities, and communities of color who are disproportionately incarcerated. If signed into law by Governor Brown, the RISE (Repeal Ineffective Sentencing Enhancements) Act would help restore balance in the judicial process, address extreme sentences, and reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

The RISE Act would free up taxpayer dollars for investment in community-based programs and services that improve public safety like mental health and substance use treatment. Advocates applaud the State Assembly’s passage of SB 180 and see the bill as an opportunity for California to demonstrate its commitment to criminal justice policies that prioritize safety instead of punishment.

This bill is co-sponsored by the ACLU of California, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Drug Policy Alliance, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, California Public Defenders Association, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and Friends Committee on Legislation of California.

Author:
Date Published: September 12, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Google is Capitalizing off Duterte's Horrific Drug War in the Philippines

Derek Rosenfeld — September 12, 2017

When a sitting president likens himself to Hitler, it should get your attention. Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines, has proudly said he’d “be happy” to exterminate 3 million people who use or sell drugs in his country. His horrific campaign to rid the Philippines of drugs has led to the extrajudicial murders of more than 12,000 people in the last year. Meanwhile, the Google Play store is hosting all these games (some rated “E” for “Everyone”) glorifying the president’s sickening, murderous drug war. It’s time for Google to take down these games.

Sign this petition: Tell Google Play to Remove Games That Glorify Duterte’s Horrific Drug War in the Philippines

We first noticed this after our friends at Release pointed it out on Twitter, and it was amplified by Transform’s Steve Rolles.

Why is @GooglePlay promoting a game that is based on Filipino President #Duterte's extrajudicial killings https://t.co/F2RJDlPKDc #shocking

— Release Drugs (@Release_drugs) September 3, 2017

Grotesque to see so many games on @GooglePlay glorifying (for kids) Philippine president #Duterte campaign of extrajudicial murder.
. pic.twitter.com/zr17TCoyLp

— Steve Rolles (@SteveTransform) September 5, 2017

There are several games pitting Duterte against “zombies,” capitalizing on his stigmatizing and inhumane reference to people who are struggling with addiction – people he was saying he wanted to get rid of en masse should he become president. He actually said this last year: “If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful.” The top game (below) has over 1 million downloads and 33,000 reviews.

Photo via Google Play

Here’s another game where you “help Duterte eliminate people infected by drugs.”

Photo via Google Play

After you look at these photos captured by The New York Times (see one below) you can begin to feel the gravity of the situation in the Philippines. Parents are losing their children, children are losing their parents, and out of the 12,000 murdered, 3,800 were killed by police. Three teens have been killed in the last month, two at the hands of police. Duterte has vowed to pardon police who kill in the name of his drug war. More than a million people have turned themselves in out of fear they might be killed, and are being subjected to overcrowded, horrendous conditions. Duterte even had Senator Leila de Lima, the country’s most vocal political opponent to Duterte’s drug war, arrested –– a terrifying sign that he will do nearly anything to silence those voices speaking out in defense of human rights.

Photo via New York Times

Before he became President of the United States, Donald Trump praised Duterte for his war on drugs. Just last week, the U.S. pledged $2 million to the Philippines to help fights its drug war, ostensibly not just to fight limit the supply but also to help reduce the demand.

It seems pretty clear that these games violate Google Play’s policy, which says “We don’t allow apps that lack reasonable sensitivity towards or capitalize on a natural disaster, atrocity, conflict, death, or other tragic event.” In that vein, we are demanding that Google recognize the ongoing atrocity happening in the Philippines and that they remove these apps from their store immediately.

Join us and sign this petition telling Google Play to remove these despicably insensitive games.

Derek Rosenfeld is the manager of social media and media relations for the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Derek Rosenfeld
Date Published: September 12, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Rescinding DACA was Not about Immigration Reform

Melissa Franqui and Eunisses Hernandez — September 8, 2017

Since the election, time and time again, Trump and members of his administration have touted “law and order” rhetoric, to advance an agenda that aims to expand criminalization, deportations and promote white supremacy.

While many of the public was still reeling from the shocking news of the presidential pardon of America’s most notorious Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, infamous for his self-described “concentration camps” and illegal persecution of Latino residents, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced this week that the Trump Administration will rescind DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA is a program allowing young people without documentation who were brought to the United States as children to live, learn, work, and contribute to the communities they call home. A bi-partisan consensus agrees that DACA has strengthened our nation, enabling the full participation of nearly 800,000 talented young “Dreamers” around the country.

In a speech full of false, racist, and nativist claims about DACA recipients, the Attorney General made good on Trump’s campaign promise to enact mass deportations by pen and by force, including by repealing any amnesty programs for immigrants.

We’ve long seen officials use similar language to defend the abusive and inhumane tactics of the war on drugs. The Trump administration is now broadening its use to justify policies—like mandating that local law enforcement provide ICE with arrest records of non-citizens for minor offenses, like marijuana possession, and now repealing DACA—that will make it easier to persecute immigrants.

Although often portrayed in the media as an issue that affects only Latinos, our friends at the Black Alliance for Just Immigration remind us that DACA provided support to many communities, “BAJI stands with the millions of young undocumented immigrants whose lives are on the line, including those protected under DACA. Until dignity, justice, and human rights protections can be afforded all oppressed communities in the U.S., we remain undeterred and emboldened in in our fight against this administration’s racist and xenophobic policies.”

For decades, the war on drugs has served to systematically eliminate communities of color from political, social, and economic spaces in society. Today, we see a continuation of that political agenda directly though such actions such as calling on federal prosecutors to seek the maximum punishment for drug offenses and through new means such as the elimination of DACA. The war on drugs has long been used as a rationale to profile, arrest, incarcerate, prosecute and deport people of color. Eliminating DACA in effect represents a war on drugs 2.0, one that is specifically directed at immigrants and closely tied to the mass criminalization of communities of color we see today across this country.

Because of these grave consequences, advocates for drug policy reform and defenders of immigrant rights have teamed up to demand humane reforms to both drug and immigration policies. Central to our demands is that no one be arrested, incarcerated or deported for merely using or possessing drugs.

Such steps are critical for dismantling the war on drugs and ending the war on immigrants – a fight that is, in many ways, one and the same. To learn more on how to support the 800,000 Dreamers impacted by this cruel policy reversal, go to the United We Dream website and take action.

Melissa Franqui is the manager of communications and marketing for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Eunisses Hernandez is a policy coordinator at the Drug Policy Alliance.

Photo via Trevor Stone / Wikipedia.

View more blog posts.

Author: Melissa Franqui and Eunisses Hernandez
Date Published: September 8, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Manhattan District Attorney Announces New Policy to Reduce Impact of Marijuana Possession Arrests, Citing Collateral Consequences

September 6, 2017

New York, New York — Today, Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. announced a shift in his office’s policy for New Yorkers arrested for low level marijuana possession. This policy change was created in an effort to reduce the number of New Yorkers, mostly young people of color, who face lasting collateral consequences as the result of a marijuana possession arrest and conviction.

The new policy expands the use of a pre-existing judicial tool, the Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD). The ACD has previously been offered following a person’s first arrest for low-level marijuana possession. If granted an ACD, an individual would not have to plea to a criminal misdemeanor or violation charge. However, the ACD would appear as a pending case on a person’s criminal record for a year and would only be dismissed and sealed should that person not get re-arrested in that year.

"Until the legislature makes progress on marijuana, we are making these ACDs as short as practicable in order to reduce these harmful collateral consequences," Vance said. "No one should be denied a home or a college education for something as trivial as pot possession."

The new policy will reduce some of the impact that marijuana prohibition enforcement has on New Yorkers by reducing the amount of time that a person has to retain the ACD on their criminal record and by allowing people who have been arrested for a second time for marijuana possession to also be granted ACDs. Under the new policy, people arrested for marijuana possession can receive an ACD for three months for the first offense (instead of 12 months) and an ACD for six months for the second offense.

“We applaud the District Attorney’s recognition of problematic and harmful marijuana possession enforcement, and the collateral consequences that result, as a significant issue. Yet this policy shift is a band-aid solution to a bullet wound. The NYPD continues to use marijuana prohibition as a justification for massive violations of civil and human rights. As we work toward ending marijuana prohibition, it is imperative that other District Attorneys across the city and state recognize the human toll that marijuana law enforcement has collected and do more to stop the bleeding. If there are District Attorneys who agree with the majority of New Yorkers that marijuana should be made legal, they can and should also decline to prosecute all low-level marijuana possession arrests,” said Chris Alexander, Policy Coordinator at the Drug Policy Alliance.

Marijuana prohibition enforcement has been, and remains, a priority for the NYPD, who have arrested over 800,000 New Yorkers for low-level marijuana possession over the last 20 years and 17,000 New Yorkers in 2016 alone. Manhattan had more arrests than any other county in New York City in 2016.

“We commend the Manhattan District Attorney for this change. As this City’s primary public defender we see the obstacles that arrest and prosecution for marijuana cause our clients, who exclusively come from communities of color,” said Tina Luongo, Attorney-In-Charge of the Criminal Practice at The Legal Aid Society. “But to fully address the problem, NYPD must end its overzealous and discriminatory enforcement of marijuana possession on communities of color and Albany must take legislative action. While we wait for that, the other three DAs should follow Manhattan and Brooklyn.”

Many of these arrests were the product of unconstitutional stops and searches of overwhelmingly young people of color. Some of these individuals were granted ACDs on their first arrest, but continued racially-biased policing practices, as evidenced by persistent racial disparities, will likely impact the overall success of this adjudicative policy shift. Previous policy changes by the NYPD and the current Mayoral Administration have resulted in a small reduction in arrests but did nothing to curb the racial disparities present in those arrested for marijuana possession.

The District Attorney also announced that his office would be launching a new diversion program in 2018 for individuals given Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs), in lieu of an arrest, when found to be in possession of illicit substances by law enforcement. A low-level drug possession arrest and conviction can result in the loss of access to housing, licensing, employment and educational opportunities, and a person’s status and ability to stay in the country should they not be a citizen. Entrance into the Manhattan Hope program for people given a DAT will result in the DA declining to prosecute the charges against them and will thus alleviate many of these potential collateral consequences.

“The District Attorney’s promise to decline to prosecute New Yorkers for low level drug possession is a very positive step. What is most important moving forward is ensuring that all New Yorkers who could benefit from diversion programs are given the opportunity to do so regardless of their arrest record. If the District Attorney is serious about helping to end these collateral consequences then he should consider expanding the eligibility for the diversion program from those receiving DATs to any New Yorker who is charged with possessing small amounts of drugs,” said Alyssa Aguilera, Co-Executive Director at VOCAL-NY.

“Low-level drug possession remains the lion’s share of all drug related arrests in this country and state. These arrests are the product of legislators and decision makers failing to address head on what is, and has always been, a public health issue. The Manhattan Hope diversion program is a good start for the DA but it is also time for the New York State Legislature to take a new approach by putting science based research and compassion first and decriminalize drug use and possession.” said Kassandra Frederique, New York State Director at the Drug Policy Alliance.

Author:
Date Published: September 6, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance | Legal Aid Society | VOCAL-NY

Trump's Racist Law Enforcement Agenda

Morgan Humphrey — September 5, 2017

*Editor's note: In this monthly blog series, the Drug Policy Alliance will examine the nexus between the war on drugs and law enforcement practices that result in the mass criminalization, incarceration and dehumanization of communities of color. These pieces will reflect on the ways in which the institutions of policing and prosecution - both driven by calls for “law and order” in the wake of the war on drugs - continue to function as instruments of reinforcement for the overarching structural racism on which the drug war was founded.

Earlier this month, Trump declared his plans to ramp up law enforcement to combat fatal opioid overdoses. Less than a week later, there were violent protests in Charlottesville, VA that left a woman dead and several people seriously injured. Today, one question lingers: where were the police? Instead of the tanks, rubber bullets, tear gas and other forms of “crowd control” deployed during the conspicuously nonviolent Ferguson protests, there were police standing by as white supremacists and neo-Nazis marched the streets chanting “blood and soil” and violently attacking counter protestors in their midst.

Despite these tragic happenings, there were no calls for increased law enforcement at these protests, nor was there championing of police “roughing them up a little.” Instead, Trump ultimately opted to place blame on the people who showed up to demonstrate their belief that America should not be the home to hateful, white supremacist ideology and its various manifestations. His decision made it very clear that his racist rhetoric is more than just talk—it reflects the principles that inform his agenda. Against the backdrop of violence in Charlottesville and his silence on the lack of an adequate response by law enforcement, the Trump administration’s calls for more policing in response to the opioid crisis is emblematic of the racist double standard underlying the strategies used to perpetuate the war on drugs.

Historically, the institution of policing in this country has continuously operated as a tool for the enforcement of racist policies. From the actions of plantation overseers and slave patrols during slavery to the enforcement of the “black codes” that played an integral role in the creation of the prison industrial complex that plagues our society to this day, law enforcement has consistently been synonymous with the control of black people. The use of law enforcement to ensure the efficacy of racist policies was a necessity during the Jim Crow era and segregation, and even more so after segregation was ruled unconstitutional. Many states and local governments refused to cooperate with the highest court in the land, and the police were present to make sure Jim Crow laws and traditions were followed, protecting racism and bigotry instead of the lives of black Americans. Now, in the wake of the “new Jim Crow” that is the drug war, law enforcement has functioned as an instrument of reinforcement for the overarching structural racism on which the drug war was founded.

For those of us who have witnessed the devastation that enforcement of the drug war has inflicted on communities of color, the Trump administration’s call for greater “enforcement” is clearly a dog whistle for the arrest, incarceration, and criminalization of black and brown people. The Trump administration has used the opioid crisis to justify his racist attacks on Mexican immigrants and to roll back the criminal justice reforms of the Obama era. Trump has very explicitly placed the blame for the opioid crisis on the “thugs,” gangs and cartels rather than the conditions created by the failed war on drugs. For black and brown people, who have been criminalized and demonized by this type of “tough on crime” messaging for many decades, these words signal a future tainted with more state sanctioned violence at the hands of an increased police presence in the name of “law and order.”

While Trump’s rhetoric is deplorable and his policies are proven ineffective, costly and racist, none of this is new. Trump did not invent the racism that grounds the institution of policing just as he did not invent the racist war on drugs. Like the presidents before him, rather than investing desperately needed resources into increased access to naloxone and comprehensive drug treatment, Trump intends to invest $15.6 billion in law enforcement and interdiction. Despite bi-partisan calls for criminal justice and police reform, and a “gentler” drug war, the Trump administration is clearly committed to maintaining the status quo: the surveillance, harassment, arrest, incarceration, and criminalization of communities of color by the police in the name of the drug war. Instead of saving lives, Trump is committed to destroying the lives of black and brown people, and increased law enforcement appears to be the next weapon in his arsenal.

Morgan Humphrey is a policy coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance, based in California.

Photo via Gage Skidmore

View more blog posts.

Author: Morgan Humphrey
Date Published: September 5, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Trump's Pardon of Sheriff Arpaio, Who Leaned on Drug Laws to Deport So Many, is Malicious and Unconscionable

Melissa Franqui — September 1, 2017

With the unprecedented pardoning of America’s most reprehensible Sheriff, Arizona’s Joe Arpaio, the Trump administration doubles down on its blatant disregard for human and civil rights and bull horns its support of racists, racial profiling, border militarization, and white supremacy.

Summarized best by our friends at the Opportunity Agenda, “In 2011, the U.S. Justice Department sued then Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a 'pattern of unlawful discrimination' against Latino Arizonans that included discriminatory and unjustified stops, searches, and detentions. As a result, a federal judge ordered him to stop these practices. Last month he was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to do so, opting instead to continue his harassment and intimidation of Latino Arizonans.”

Not one week after the terrorism in Charlottesville, where Nazi and Klu Klux Klan members charged the streets in riot gear and with weapons, leading to the death of one woman and dozens more critically injured, the President, under the cowardly cloak of a Friday night news dump, announced that he will use his first official pardon to give impunity to a notorious violator of equal justice and our Constitution. But the pardon is not final yet. As of Wednesday, The Washington Post reports “two surprising developments relating to the pardon of ex-sheriff Joe Arpaio: a challenge to the president’s pardon power and a court’s decision to hold a hearing rather than summarily dismiss the case.”

Nevertheless, by pardoning him, the president sends a message that civil liberties are only for some, and that he is fine with law enforcement flouting the very laws they are meant to uphold. What’s more, on the heels of defending hateful demonstrators in Charlottesville, the president continues to use the highest office and his broad presidential pardon powers to absolve, excuse, and protect someone, who described his inhumane detention facilities as “concentration camps.” By stark contrast, the Obama administration used the presidential office to signal sentencing reform and granted clemency to 1,715 federal prisoners who were serving outrageous terms for non-violent drug offenses. In other words, reform and compassion were guiding principles in Obama’s use of presidential pardons and clemencies.

(For a better look at Joe Arpaio’s long-time record of human rights abuses, see the Phoenix New Times' reporting highlights.)

The drug war is a war on immigrant communities. It fuels racial profiling, border militarization, violence against immigrants, intrusive government surveillance and widespread detentions and deportations. Arpaio’s police department notoriously used drug laws to stop, search, detain, and justify deportations – ripping apart families and attempting to extinguish communities.

In Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio waged his cruel, inhumane, and unconstitutional campaign against Latinx communities, because, simply, no one cared about the people suffering under the Arpaio regime. Aptly stated in this Phoenix New Times’ article on the alarming rate of alleged suicides in his jails, “The sheriff's charnel house is accepted because the victims are not members of a 4-H club. They are late on child support, use drugs, smoke cigarettes, drive without licenses, have problems with authority, sport ink with gang affiliations.”

But we care. The Drug Policy Alliance cares. We advocate for drug policies rooted in science, compassion, health, and human rights. We actively pursue policies that reduce contact between the police and immigrant communities, which helps reduce vulnerability to deportation. We increase opportunities for and accessibility of retroactive relief, like pardons, expungement and records sealing.

This country can and will move forward – if we unite and collectively resist hatred, bigotry, and systemic racism, and if we hold criminals like Joe Arpaio accountable for their crimes against humanity.

Melissa Franqui is the manager of communications and marketing for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Photo via Gage Skidmore

View more blog posts.

Author: Melissa Franqui
Date Published: September 1, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) is a proven method of recovery

Dionna King — September 1, 2017

It is common knowledge that America has the highest incarcerated population in the world, with 2.2 million adults incarcerated in local, state, and federal jails and prisons. Of the 2.2 million incarcerated, about 300,000 have a history of heroin use, and 80,000 identified as dependent on narcotics. Despite the staggering population of opiate-dependent incarcerated individuals, many of the nation’s jails and prisons fail to provide evidence-based treatment widely available in the community setting.

In August, the New York Times reported on the lack of medication assisted treatment programs in U.S. prisons, highlighting that out of the nation’s 5,100 jails and prisons, fewer than 30, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance, offer opioid users the most proven method of recovery. Several c ounty and s tate prisons are gradually integrating Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) as an option to address the growing need. New York State, home of DPA’s headquarters, has yet to fully embrace in-prison MAT, despite the effectiveness of Riker’s long-running Key Extend Entry Program (KEEP) and recommendations made in the Ending the AIDS Epidemic report.

Failure to provide efficacious drug treatment options and transitional support has deleterious effects on reentrants who resume use upon release. Research on reentrant mortality revealed that newly released individual are particularly vulnerable to fatal overdose due to their diminished tolerance. In Bronx County, 63% of those who died from fatal overdose in 2016 have a history of criminal justice involvement – mainly substance related. This staggering statistic reveals a significant treatment and overdose prevention gap; resulting in deaths that could have been prevented.

To reduce the risk of fatal overdose, New York State provides naloxone training, and distributes kits to reentrants in three facilities. While this is a welcomed step forward, incarcerated drug users endure painful withdrawal, receive inadequate, abstinence-based treatment and are at risk of overdose while incarcerated or upon release.

More than 80 percent of people in the New York’s state prisons are in need of substance abuse treatment, and about 10 percent are heroin users. According to correctional health experts, most incarcerated individuals in the United States receive substance abuse education rather than evidence-based treatment, and that is true in New York State correctional facilities as well. New York has the largest methadone treatment system in the US and over a 1,000 of buprenorphine prescribers. Yet, only two New York jails offer methadone and buprenorphine. In refusing to provide MAT, prisons in New York and throughout the nation are denying individuals the most effective treatment for their condition, as well as failing to provide health care that is comparable to what’s available in the community setting – needlessly placing thousands of people at risk of overdose.

Dr. Ross MacDonald, the medical director of New York City’s correctional health program, declared that every person who enters New York City’s main jail with an opioid addiction represents an opportunity for treatment, and the possibility of saving a life. For over 30 years, Rikers Island has provided opioid dependent detainees with MAT through the KEEP program. Studies on KEEP patient outcomes show that those on the maintenance programs were more likely to complete treatment, and follow-up with aftercare post-release. Efforts to improve the KEEP program will benefit those begin maintenance and continue in the community setting; however, a number of individuals sentenced to prisons upstate are tapered off effective medication.

To address the dearth of evidence based treatment options in New York State prisons, The New York Office of the Drug Policy Alliance, in partnership with Legal Action Center and John Jay’s from Punishment to Public Health consortium will host a one-day on drug treatment and harm reduction options for drug users incarcerated in New York’s prisons.

This convening will serve as an opportunity to learn about the efficacy of evidence-based treatment options and harm reduction resources from those with direct experience working in the correctional setting both nationally and internationally.

In light of the growing opioid epidemic, it is imperative to ensure that evidence-based, effective drug treatment and harm reduction resources are available to all.

Dionna King is a policy coordinator with the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Dionna King
Date Published: September 1, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

5 Policy Solutions Proven to Prevent Fatal Overdoses

Morgan Humphrey — August 31, 2017

Today marks International Overdose Awareness Day, a day to commemorate those whose lives were cut short by drug overdoses. As we remember these loved ones – sons, daughters, sisters, mothers, fathers and friends – let us pledge to shift our approach to drug use from policies that champion enforcement, criminalization and punishment to policies that value life, liberty and humanity.

Below are 5 policy solutions that are proven to prevent fatal overdoses.

Increase 911 Good Samaritan Laws & Naloxone Access
The chance of surviving an overdose, like that of surviving a heart attack, depends greatly on how fast one receives medical assistance. By providing limited immunity from prosecution for drug users who seek emergency medical assistance in an overdose situation, 911 Good Samaritan Laws give drug users less reason to hesitate in calling for the help that is necessary for preventing overdoses from turning fatal.

As well, increasing drug users’ access to naloxone will prevent fatal overdose. A number of states have already made it legal to buy naloxone over the counter, but that is not enough. Drug users are, oftentimes, the first people at the scene of an overdose. Consequently, they are often in the best position to administer naloxone and reverse an overdose before it becomes fatal. We need naloxone in the hands of every drug user, and that means providing access to free naloxone at syringe exchanges, drug treatment centers, and even jails and prisons.
Drug checking at syringe exchanges and/or pharmacies
Given the increasing numbers of instances involving the adulteration of heroin and other drugs with fentanyl, there is an even greater reason to increase access to drug checking services. When drug users are able to check their drugs, they are able to make more responsible consumption decisions as well as inform others of the risks of the tested substance.
Safe Consumption Services
With over 100 safe consumption service (SCS) sites worldwide, the evidence supporting their efficacy in preventing HIV & Hep C transmissions and fatal overdose is too great to ignore. SCS are places that drug users can take their pre-obtained drugs to use in a monitored setting where service providers do everything from provide sterile consumption equipment to connect users with treatment services to reverse drug overdoses. We need to increase and support efforts to establish SCS across the country, such as in Seattle and San Francisco, where organizers are moving forward with plans to open SCS sites. As well, California’s groundbreaking legislation, AB 186 (Eggman), which is currently up for vote in the CA Senate, would make CA the first state to authorize SCS through state legislation. Efforts such as these need to be championed as we find alternative ways to combat overdose.
Heroin-Assisted Treatment (HAT)
HAT programs provide substantial benefits to long-term heroin users who have not been responsive to other treatment. Studies have shown that those enrolled in HAT demonstrate a reduction in drug use and an improvement in overall physical and mental health. As well, by being administered unadulterated heroin, we minimize the risk of fatal overdoses that happen as a result of unknown drug combinations and potencies.
All-drug decriminalization
All drug decriminalization is the elimination of criminal penalties for drug use and possession, as well as the elimination of criminal penalties for the possession of equipment used for the purpose of introducing drugs into the human body, such as syringes. Decriminalizing drugs would improve the cost-effectiveness of limited public health resources, create a climate in which people who are using drugs problematically have an incentive to seek treatment, and remove barriers to the implementation of practices and policies that reduce the potential harms of drug use, such as drug checking and sterile syringe access.

And check out the first episode of Drugs & Stuff, the Drug Policy Alliance's podcast, which was dedicated to Overdose Awareness Day and solutions to the opioid overdose crisis.

Morgan Humphrey is a policy coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance, based in California.

View more blog posts.

Author: Morgan Humphrey
Date Published: August 31, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

CA Lawmakers, Experts Support Safe Consumption Room Pilot on International Overdose Awareness Day

August 31, 2017

WHAT: Press Conference on AB 186 to Pilot Safe Consumption Services 

WHEN: Thursday, August 31 at 9:30am

WHERE: Governor’s Press Room, Room 1190, First Floor, State Capitol, Sacramento, California. LIVESTREAM here or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUYBlXyQfIo

WHO:

Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman, (D-Stockton) author of AB 186
State Senator Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco), coauthor of AB 186
Assemblymember Laura Friedman (D-Glendale), coauthor of AB 186
Alex Kral, PhD, researcher; author of A Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Potential Supervised Injection Facility in San Francisco, California, USA published in Journal of Drug Issues
Lora Schroeder, Parent, Board Member of Sacramento Harm Reduction Services
Laura Thomas, MPH, MPP. Drug Policy Alliance, Member of San Francisco Safe Injection Services Task Force

Drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death in the State of California and the United States. The American Medical Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, California Association of Drug and Alcohol Program Executives, AIDS Project Los Angeles, among others, have called for the piloting and evaluation of Safe Consumption Services (SCS) as part of a continuum of care to prevent fatal drug overdoses, prevent transmission of HIV & hepatitis C, and to provide a low-threshold entry point for drug treatment, medical care, social services and mental healthcare. Even President Trump’s nominee for Surgeon General has said SCS should be piloted in the United States pursuant to local control.

AB 186 (Eggman/Wiener/Friedman) would create a legal framework for local governments in 8 counties to pilot and evaluate Safe Consumption Services, if they so choose. There are almost 100 programs existing in 60 cities of Europe, Canada and Australia, and the evaluations have been impressive. San Francisco and Seattle appear poised to be the first cities in the US to pilot SCS.

August 31st is International Overdose Awareness Day.

Author:
Date Published: August 31, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

AFROPUNK and the Drug Policy Alliance Join Forces

Melissa Franqui — August 30, 2017

AFROPUNK and the Drug Policy Alliance have teamed up for this year’s Brooklyn and Atlanta festivals to collectively unite our voices and say, “NO MORE DRUG WAR!”

This past weekend, the two-day AFROPUNK Brooklyn festival kicked off at Commodore Barry Park. While attendees arrived in droves ready for the sounds of Solange, SZA, Gary Clark, Jr. and more, they also came dressed fresh-to-death and discovered new opportunities to take action against the drug war.

DPA staff provided information, ways to get involved, and lots of DPA swag on Activism Row. We spoke to attendees about our marijuana legalization campaign in New York, Start Start SMART, our #SaferPartying campaign to keep festivalgoers informed about drugs and promote harm reduction, and our upcoming International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Atlanta on October 11th – 14th.

Many attendees were passionate about why marijuana should be legalized. From stopping the racist enforcement of drug laws in communities of color to making marijuana more accessible to people with illnesses or in pain, AFROPUNK revelers told us why these issues are important to them.

If you weren’t able to make it to Brooklyn this year, don’t fret. DPA will be continuing this exciting new partnership at AFROPUNK Atlanta, which is being held October 14 & 15 – the same weekend as the Reform Conference! We will be programming social salons at their Carnival of Consciousness to further push forward the discussion about the movement to end the drug war.

Come to Reform 2017 and AFROPUNK Atlanta to feel the music, free your mind, see an incredible lineup of groundbreaking icons, and work to end the war on drugs!

Melissa Franqui is the manager of communications and marketing for the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Melissa Franqui
Date Published: August 30, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Handcuffs will not solve the overdose crisis

August 30, 2017

Tell Congress to adopt health-based solutions to prevent overdose deaths.

Author:
Date Published: August 30, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Santa Fe Mayor to Introduce Resolution to Establish A Municipal Drug Strategy Task Force

August 30, 2017

Santa Fe, NM – Tonight at the Santa Fe City Council meeting, the Mayor of Santa Fe, Javier M. Gonzales, will introduce a resolution establishing a Municipal Drug Strategy Task Force charged with recommending innovative public health and safety approaches to problematic drug use in the City of Santa Fe. As communities face increasing problems with drug overdose, the Municipal Drug Strategy will offer locally-based solutions grounded in evidence that could help prevent drug use and sales, reduce overdose deaths and drug-related illnesses, lessen incarceration, and decrease racial disparities and the over criminalization of families. The Santa Fe Municipal Drug Strategy project is based on the city of Ithaca’s year-long process involving a wide array of stakeholders ranging from the Police Chief and treatment providers to people who use drugs and parents. The City released The Ithaca Plan: A Public Health and Safety Approach to Drugs and Drug Policy. The plan marks a radical departure from punitive responses to drugs rooted in law enforcement that characterize much of U.S. drug policy. The Ithaca Plan instead focuses on public health, economic development, and harm reduction, including expanding access to medication assisted treatments, such as methadone and buprenorphine; increasing youth employment programs; and opening the nation’s first supervised injection facility.

“This isn’t a problem we can solve by simply declaring a new, top-down policy. It has to be something we take on together, and the strategy has to come from the community. From harm reduction, to law enforcement, to prevention, to treatment, there is a huge range of expertise already developing in Santa Fe, and to find success we will need every one of those voices at the table,” said Mayor Gonzales. He added, “So we’re doing what we often can do best – bringing people together.”

“Santa Fe can be another example of bold municipal leadership and demonstrate how cities can step up and implement innovate drug policies rooted in science, compassion, and public health,” stated Emily Kaltenbach, State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “We need to find a way to depart from punitive responses to drugs – responses that have proven over and over again not to work. We continue to see our families cycle in and out of jail without getting the treatment and social supports they need to address their problematic drug use. Instead, Santa Fe needs: treatment on demand that does not punish people for relapsing; access to treatment such as methadone and buprenorphine in our County jail; more supportive housing that does not deny people based on their drug use; economic development opportunities, including youth employment programs; and, exploring new evidence-based treatments like heroin assisted treatment. Let’s prioritize public health over costly criminal justice strategies. Even when federal and state government fail to act, cities can.”

The Resolution will create a task force with the purpose of collaborating across different areas of focus, including harm reduction, prevention, treatment, and law enforcement in order to recommend long-term solutions to address the issues arising from persons struggling with problematic drug and alcohol use. Although, there continues to be a concern regarding Santa Fe’s opioid overdose death rate, this task force will look at all drugs, not just heroin and prescription drugs. The Resolution also calls for the City to convene a series of focus groups around the city to learn how drug use is affecting communities, families and individuals and how current drug policies can be improved. Problematic drug use and dependence is a complex issue that requires innovative approaches to harm reduction in drug use.

In 2016, 45 people in Santa Fe County died of a drug overdose. Overdose death rates now outnumber traffic fatality rates. Also, from July 1, 2016 and May 31, 2017 there were 229 arrests for possessing a controlled substance other than marijuana and 156 arrests for possessing drug paraphernalia by the Santa Fe Police Department.

The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) is the nation's leading organization of people who believe the war on drugs is doing more harm than good. DPA fights for drug policies based on science, compassion, health and human rights.

Author:
Date Published: August 30, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance | City of Santa Fe

Because of the Drug War, There is Virtually No Heroin without Fentanyl in Many Places

Derek Rosenfeld — August 30, 2017

August 31st is Overdose Awareness Day, and there is a huge disconnect happening right now. Without doing any real analysis of the problem, some lawmakers are rushing to pass new harsh penalties against people who provided fentanyl-laced heroin to someone who then died from it, even if they were unaware that their supply of heroin contained fentanyl. If these lawmakers looked closely at the issue they might realize their approach will do nothing to reduce opioid-related deaths.

For starters, they’d see that fentanyl is virtually ubiquitous in the heroin supply in parts of the Northeast and Midwest. People who use heroin have very little control over whether that heroin has been adulterated, so if we don’t address the root causes of problematic drug use, fentanyl-related overdose deaths will persist.

Fentanyl is a legal synthetic opioid used to treat serious pain. Discovered in the 1960s, fentanyl was only used for surgery, but its clinical use expanded in the 90s when an extended release skin patch was developed to treat chronic pain. When fentanyl is prescribed it’s a safe and effective pain reliever as long as the recommended dosage is followed.

So why is it becoming harder to find heroin without fentanyl? Where is the fentanyl coming from? Why is it being added to heroin? I used to imagine people who sold heroin at lower levels of the chain would add fentanyl to their heroin to try to spice up their product to make it more attractive, but that’s not the case at all.

Most of the fentanyl on the black market isn’t from medical supply, it’s produced illicitly. It’s important to know that virtually none of the heroin being consumed in the U.S. is actually produced in the U.S. It’s almost entirely produced in Colombia and then shipped to Mexico, where fentanyl is being added before it comes to the U.S. Not only does fentanyl make the product stronger, until very recently it was imported cheaply in bulk from China. This provides financial incentive for suppliers to stretch their product further.

This adulterated heroin enters the U.S., giving people who will then sell it no choice of what kind of heroin to supply their customers – their seller likely only carries fentanyl-laced heroin and is unaware of this fact. Unknowingly, a person at the lowest level buys heroin that has fentanyl in it and the risk increases.

Most users don’t appear to be seeking fentanyl, and they aren’t prepared to protect themselves from its risks. It’s hard to test for fentanyl, but in some limited places, syringe access programs are making attempts. Additionally, because of drug-induced homicide laws, if they share with a friend who overdoses they can be charged with manslaughter. So how are these new laws solving anything or keeping people safe?

If we really want to reduce opioid dependence and overdoses we should look at the concrete policy steps outlined in the Drug Policy Alliance’s opioid response plan.

We need to expand access to treatment, including methadone, and to make sure the GOP doesn’t pass a healthcare bill that takes away these options. The overdose-reversal drug naloxone should be more available. We need supervised consumption services, where people can use pre-obtained drugs in controlled settings, potentially have them checked for adulterants like fentanyl using high-level drug checking technology, and consume the drug under the supervision of trained staff with access to sterile injecting equipment, health care, counseling, and referrals to health and social services, including drug treatment. There has never been a single overdose death at current sites like these.

Allowing heroin-assisted treatment (HAT) for those whom have a long and protracted history of problematic drug use is another sensible approach. Every published evaluation of HAT has shown extremely positive outcomes and more than a half dozen countries in Europe and Canada that have implemented such programs.

Overdose deaths are preventable, and we need to raise awareness for these proven harm reduction strategies this August 31st. Prohibition doesn’t work, and a wall on the border will do nothing to stop the flow of drugs. Until we fundamentally change our approach, the problem in the U.S. will only get worse.

Derek Rosenfeld is the manager of social media and media relations at the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Derek Rosenfeld
Date Published: August 30, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Can Drug Checking Help Solve the Overdose Crisis?

Stefanie Jones — August 29, 2017

The opioid overdose crisis is a multi-layered and complex problem, and one that won’t be solved by any single solution. In addition to efforts that support naloxone and syringe access, as well as expansion of on-demand treatment, a new tool that deserves more attention is emerging: drug checking.

“Drug checking,” or testing a substance in order to provide information about contents and purity, is a crucial and potentially life-saving harm reduction intervention already well known in nightlife and festival settings. But until very recently, those trying to keep people who use heroin and other opioids safe didn’t consider it one of their top tools. That may be starting to change.

The main reason why? Fentanyl.

Fentanyl has changed the landscape of opioid, and particularly heroin, use. Although approved and used as a pain-reliever in many settings, when produced illicitly, this highly potent whitish powder can be cut into heroin (as long as it’s also powder form and not tar) or even added to counterfeit pills made to look like Oxycontin and other prescription opioids. And because it takes far less fentanyl than it does heroin or other opioid to trigger an overdose, it has caused deaths to surge in several areas all over the U.S. and Canada.

The proliferation of fentanyl has pushed those in the opioid-using community to think far more urgently about how they might test a substance. But it hasn’t been easy – fentanyl doesn’t show up on reagent drug tests, the most common drug checking method available to the public, and those used most often by people in nightlife or festival settings.

They say necessity is the mother of invention: it was the Canadian supervised injection facility, Insite that first began experimenting with repurposing fentanyl test strips designed for urine testing and instead using them to test heroin before use. The idea has since spread to syringe exchanges and drop-in centers in the U.S.

The worry has crossed over between communities. The western Canadian festival Shambhala, known for its long-running onsite drug checking, recently found alarming results showing fentanyl in substances they checked at their event. Reflecting this growing concern that fentanyl could show up in any substance, the festival-oriented harm reduction organization DanceSafe is now selling these test strips as well as reagent kits on their website.

Questions remain about the efficacy of the fentanyl test strips, how realistic it is to expect heroin and other opioid users to use them, and what resources exist to support expanded distribution of the strips in any case. Despite these questions, the underlying promise of drug checking’s role in reversing the overdose crisis is growing clearer to both the opioid and nightlife harm reduction communities.

Interested in hearing more about this issue? The conversation will continue at DPA’s Reform Conference in Atlanta this year, on a roundtable session Checking Out Drug Checking: Can It Solve the Overdose Crisis? to be held on Friday, October 13 from 4:30 – 6 p.m.

If you haven’t yet, consider joining other reformers from around the world at this meeting. Early bird registration ends on Friday, September 8.

And if you can’t join, keep in mind that although drug checking won’t solve the overdose crisis on its own, we should be loudly advocating for everything that has a chance of helping reduce the number of these tragic and often preventable deaths.

Stefanie Jones is the director of audience development for the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Stefanie Jones
Date Published: August 29, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Drugs & Stuff: The Drug Policy Alliance's Podcast

Derek Rosenfeld — August 28, 2017

We’re launching a podcast today!

Click here to listen to our introduction episode.

I’m really excited about this. Our main host will be our multimedia director, Tommy McDonald, who’s based in Oakland, CA. He has been on DPA’s media team for 12 years, and worked in journalism and radio before coming to DPA. I’ll also be joining him from New York most of the time – I've been the voice behind DPA's social media for seven years and I'm looking forward to using my actual voice now!

This is the Drug Policy Alliance’s newest outlet for bringing you our take on the issues. DPA’s blog has been a go-to source for our public education efforts and responding to what’s in the news. Now, we want this podcast to bring you conversations around drugs, drug policy, and all the issues it intersects with in a down to earth way.

As Tommy says in the introduction, “What we want to do with this program is entertain, educate and enlighten you. Often times we know drug policy reform can be a little stuffy – it’s the domain of policy folks and legal types and scientists, which is exactly the domain in which it should lie, but what we want to do is present that information and the access that DPA has to some of the world-renowned experts in this field.”

So subscribe from any app you already use to get your podcasts from, follow us on Twitter at @drugsnstuffDPA, and stay tuned for more to come!

Derek Rosenfeld is the manager of social media and media relations for the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Derek Rosenfeld
Date Published: August 28, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Borderland Injustice: The Tragedy of Cruz Velazquez Acevedo

Eleanor Knauss — August 28, 2017

Donald Trump made headlines in June 2015 when he announced his candidacy for president, running on an anti-immigration, tough on crime platform, asserting that “[Mexicans] are bringing drugs. They're bringing crime.” However, while Trump and his administration have brought immigration and the war on drugs to the forefront of public discourse in recent years—promoting racist travel bans, mandatory minimums on drug law violations, and increased border militarization—his administration did not create the drug war; it thrived under the Obama Administration and has been alive and well since the 1980s, manifesting in horrific events like those in November of 2013 at the San Ysidro border checkpoint when deported migrants tried to cross the border en masse and were met with tear gas and rubber bullets.

However, footage released by ABC last month reveals a level of misconduct by Customs and Border Patrol agents that is even worse. The video paints a haunting picture of the series of events that led to the death of Mexican teenager Cruz Velazquez Acevedo at the hands and direction of Customs and Border Control Officers Valerie Baird and Adrian Perallon.

On November 18, 2013, Acevedo attempted to cross from Tijuana to San Diego carrying two bottles of what he claimed to be full of apple juice, but actually contained liquid methamphetamine. In the video, Officer Baird pulls out and suspiciously examines a bottle, conferring with Officer Perallon before setting it in front of the 16-year-old, motioning for him to drink from it. Shortly after obeying the officers, Acevedo began convulsing and screaming. Only then did CBP follow protocol and test for controlled substances. Two hours later he was dead of a methamphetamine overdose, having drunk four sips, ten times the lethal dosage.

The tragic death of Cruz Velazquez Acevedo is far from isolated and is merely an example of the way CBP officers dehumanize and commodify immigrants and non-citizens, treating them as less than human, and subjecting them to brutal treatment. In 2010, at the same border checkpoint, Anastacio Hernandez, an undocumented immigrant who had lived in the United States for 27 years with his wife and five young kids, was beaten to death by CBP agents as he and his brother tried to cross back into the United States. In neither case were the agents responsible disciplined or held accountable in any way, though earlier this year the U.S. government paid $1 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the Acevedo family.

The nation is progressing when it comes to destigmatizing and decriminalizing drug use. However, humanity beginning to be shown to people—or rather, U.S. citizens—struggling with problematic substance use or arrested for non-violent drug offenses is not extended to those who sell drugs, regardless of situation or circumstance, often validating inhumane treatment of these people simply because they committed a crime. Additionally, white Americans who deal or smuggle drugs are let off the hook easier than migrants and people of color for the same—or even worse—infraction. Sarah Furay, for example, made headlines in 2015 as the "Adorable Drug Kingpin" who smiled for her mugshot after getting arrested for possession with intent to deliver large amounts of cocaine, methamphetamine, LSD, and marijuana. Meanwhile, people of color are labeled as thugs and criminals or killed on the spot for much less.

Smuggling drugs from Mexico to the United States is a crime, making it harder to excuse and sympathize with those responsible. However, many are people who are coerced by cartels into trafficking drugs—as Acevedo was by the Sinaloa Cartel—exchanging their safety for money, aid for their families, or sometimes, nothing.

Our nation is at an important crossroads: give into populist propaganda and succumb to a reinvigoration of the drug war and crackdown on immigration, or combat bigotry and stand for compassion and humanity over violence and policing. The drug war works to silence, terrify, and subjugate; so while the choice might be easy, the fight is not. It is, however, our duty to continue pursuing justice if we want to heal our communities, end the drug war, and train public safety and border control officers to honor human dignity. Rest in peace, Cruz Velazquez Acevedo.

Eleanor Knauss is an intern with the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Eleanor Knauss
Date Published: August 28, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Tuesday, Aug. 29 Press Teleconference: What Can Be Done to Reduce Skyrocketing Overdose Deaths?

August 28, 2017

More than 59,000 people died from a drug overdose last year, making this the leading cause of death among Americans under 50. And these record-high numbers are only getting worse. In anticipation of International Overdose Awareness Day on August 31, the Drug Policy Alliance will host a press teleconference to address why this problem has gotten out of control, who is impacted, relevant pending legislation, and viable solutions.

President Donald Trump has been criticized for failing to deliver on his promise to increase access to opioid treatment. Instead he is backing health care legislation and proposing major cuts to Medicaid that cumulatively would decimate access to opioid treatment and mental health services for those most impacted. At the state level, some legislators are considering bills that would allow prosecutors to charge people who provide the drugs that ultimately contribute to an overdose death with homicide – which would only cause more harm.

Experts in the upcoming press teleconference will discuss these dangerous proposed policies and address the following questions:

How has criminalization contributed to the overdose crisis? What exactly is the opioid pain medication, fentanyl, and the role that it plays in the crisis? Why are mandatory minimums not the answer? How will people’s access to treatment be impacted by the proposed Republican health care bill? How has the current opioid crisis engendered a different set of responses than past drug crises that were seen as primarily affecting Black and/or Latinx communities? What is the role of supervised consumption services in reducing overdose?

WHAT: Press Teleconference in Advance of International Overdose Awareness Day

WHEN: Tuesday, August 29 at 1pm (ET) / 10am (PT)

HOW: Contact Tony Newman for call-in information (646-335-5384)

WHO:

California Assemblywoman Susan Talamantes Eggman, sponsor of California’s supervised consumption services legislation.
Lindsay LaSalle, Senior Staff Attorney, Drug Policy Alliance
Bill Piper, Senior Director of National Affairs, Drug Policy Alliance
Kassandra Frederique, New York State Director, Drug Policy Alliance
Denise Cullen, Executive Director of GRASP (Grief Recovery After a Substance Passing) and Broken No More, an outspoken advocate for drug policy reform after losing her son, Jeff, to an overdose in 2008. Her organizations serve over 2,500 families who have lost loves ones to an overdose, and have 85 chapters across the U.S. and Canada. See her story here.

The Drug Policy Alliance recently released a comprehensive action plan to address increasing rates of opioid use and overdose. The plan marks a radical departure from the punitive responses that characterize much of U.S. drug policy and instead focuses on scientifically proven harm reduction and public health interventions that can improve treatment outcomes and reduce the negative consequences of opioid misuse, such as transmission of infectious diseases and overdose.

Author:
Date Published: August 28, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Advocates to Hold Funeral March to Demand Government Action on Overdose Awareness Day

August 25, 2017

On August 31st, International Overdose Awareness Day, overdose prevention advocates will unite in their grief to demand more action from local and State government to decrease drug overdose deaths. Overdose takes the lives of more New Yorkers than traffic accidents and homicides combined. In 2016, NYC had 1,374 drug overdose deaths, a 46% increase from the previous year. From 2013 to 2015, New York State lost 7,213 residents to overdose and the State’s overdose fatality rate has more than doubled in the five years that statistics have been reported, with rates in suburban and rural counties exceeding those of NYC.

Advocates will march with the Demolition Brass Band in a jazz funeral procession across midtown Manhattan to the NYC Morgue to demand the immediate expansion of existing community overdose prevention services and implementation of new public health interventions to reach people most likely to experience an overdose. On the street in front of the NYC Morgue, community members and elected officials will publicly memorialize New Yorkers who have died of overdose and highlight specific government actions that can save lives.

WHEN: Thursday, August 31st, 9:30 am to noon.

WHERE: The march will begin at the Harm Reduction Coalition office, 22 West 27th Street, 5th Floor, at 9:30 am, and the rally will begin at 10:45 am, once the marchers reach the NYC Morgue at Bellevue Hospital at 462 1st Avenue (between 26th and 28th Streets).

WHO: Drug Policy Alliance, BOOM! Health, Harm Reduction Coalition, Housing Works, VOCAL New York, GMHC, Rise and Resist, Families for Sensible Drug Policy, and people from across NYC who want to take action to prevent overdose fatalities.

Author:
Date Published: August 25, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

The Kids are Alright - Colorado Adolescents Did Not Increase Marijuana Use in the Year after Retail Sales

Sheila P. Vakharia — August 23, 2017

“But what about the kids?”

Most of us drug policy reformers have been asked this question (or one like it) by a well-meaning adult concerned that marijuana legalization sends the ‘wrong message’ to our youth. And we get it – people worry that legalization could lead young people to start using marijuana at an earlier age or make it more socially acceptable for them to use.

A study published on August 17 with data out of Colorado adds to the growing body of literature which could allay some of these fears. The researchers were curious about whether the onset of retail marijuana sales in Colorado in 2014 had an impact on adolescent use, attitudes towards marijuana, and access to marijuana. They analyzed responses from over 20,000 public middle and high school students who completed the Healthy Kids Colorado Survey (HKCS) and compared their 2013 responses to their 2014 responses in order to detect any possible changes.

So what did they find? There was no sudden increase in reported rates of marijuana use after retail sales began in 2014. Rates remained essentially the same as 2013. The portion of adolescents who thought that smoking marijuana was harmful also did not change. The majority of the sample (over 60%) continued to believe it was wrong for young people to use marijuana. And, although slightly more students said they could ‘easily’ get access to marijuana in 2014, the researchers found that having a marijuana store within two miles of the school could not explain this increase in perceived access. Interestingly, this study’s results diverge from research in the areas of alcohol and tobacco, which has long suggested that stores which sell these products close to schools are associated with increased use among students. It didn’t appear to be the case for marijuana in Colorado in 2014.

As the country continues to weigh the benefits and risks of marijuana legalization, studies such as these tracking the impact on adolescent attitudes and behaviors are critical. We know that prohibition has been harmful to youth, particularly young people of color. With less risk of criminal justice involvement and no increase in rates of youth, for now anyway, it seems that the kids are alright indeed.

Sheila P. Vakharia is the Policy Manager of the Office of Academic Engagement for the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Sheila P. Vakharia
Date Published: August 23, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Trump and Sessions Unmask Historical Links Between the Drug War and White Supremacy

Bill Piper — August 18, 2017

President Donald Trump’s defense of white nationalist groups in the wake of Charlottesville is shocking, but not really surprising to anyone who has been following his Administration.

From appointing Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, to his war on immigrants, to his embrace of recently-ousted strategist and ethno-nationalist ideologue, Steve Bannon, to his efforts to double-down on the failed war on drugs Trump, has consistently sought to increase the criminalization and incarceration of people of color. The history of U.S. criminal justice policy is the history of white supremacy; and Jeff Sessions is Trump’s Bull Connor.

Dozens of civil rights groups opposed Trump’s nomination of Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General. Sessions has a long record of hostility to justice and civil liberties. He was denied a federal judgeship in the 80s because the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee found that he had a record of racist statements and actions. A black colleague testified at the time that Sessions referred to him as "boy." Sessions referred to the NAACP and other civil rights organizations as un-American groups that "forced civil rights down the throats of people." He even reportedly said he thought the KKK was "OK" until he found out its members smoked pot.

This is the guy Trump chose to be the nation’s top law enforcement official. Already – just six months into the job – Sessions has rolled back decades of criminal justice reform. He has urged prosecutors to seek the highest punishment possible, even in nonviolent drug cases, rolled back efforts to prevent police brutality, increased the use of civil asset forfeiture (the process by which police can take people’s money and property and keep it for themselves without having to even convict anyone of a crime), and re-interpreted civil rights laws to be applied as narrowly and rarely as possible.

Sessions isn’t a case of Trump having chosen the wrong person for the job. Whenever Trump talks about drugs, crime, and criminal justice, he paints a picture of black and brown communities as violent hell-holes that require more police and less protections for civil liberties. For a president who believes that police officers should racially profile suspects and rough them up and torture them, Sessions is the perfect Attorney General. His racist past is an asset, not a liability.

The war on drugs has a long history of being a cover for racial injustice. The first federal marijuana laws were passed to target Mexicans. Opium laws were passed to target Chinese immigrants. The campaign to ban cocaine painted images of black men using cocaine to woo white women and becoming impervious to bullets (the New York Times referred to them as “negro cocaine fiends”). Lest you think this is ancient history, police and media still cite marijuana and others drugs as a reason they shoot unarmed suspects (see for instance, Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, Keith Lamont Scott, Terence Crutcher, and Philando Castile.)

It’s not a coincidence that President Richard Nixon declared an outright war on drugs in 1971, just as the civil rights was making major gains. In Nixon's words (paraphrased by one of his staffers), "the whole problem is really the blacks, the key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to."

It would be hard to design a system better at decimating communities of color. Once charged with a drug offense, people can be legally discriminated against in housing and employment and denied student loans and public assistance. If their drug law violation was a felony, they can even be denied the right to vote – in some states for life.

There are many reasons to end the failed war on drugs – it is a waste of money, prohibition doesn’t work, law enforcement should be focused on serious crime, etc. But the role the drug war, and punitive criminal justice policies more generally, play in perpetuating white supremacy should be at the top of the list. At the very least, policymakers who ignore the issue should be seen as suspect. Racial justice requires massive criminal justice reform.

There are many steps Congress can take to undo and repair the damage done by decades of harsh drug laws. A good first start would be eliminating all the Jim Crow-style collateral sanctions. A drug conviction should not result in the denial of housing, employment, education, voting or other rights and obligations ultimately policymakers have to move beyond using law enforcement to address complicated social issues and treat drugs as health and regulatory issue.

Bill Piper is senior director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. Follow him on Twitter @billjpiper

View more blog posts.

Author: Bill Piper
Date Published: August 18, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

District Court Holds that Congressional Rider Protects Medical Marijuana Growers from Federal Intervention

Jolene Forman — August 17, 2017

Last week, a U.S. District Court blocked federal prosecutors from pursuing a case against a California duo, Anthony Pisarski and Sonny Moore, who pleaded guilty to conspiring to manufacture and sell medical marijuana.

Despite recent threats from threatened President Trump and Attorney General Sessions to go after medical marijuana, the court’s ruling in in United States v. Pisarski prevents the Justice Department from prosecuting medical marijuana actors who are complying with state law.

In his order, Judge Richard Seeborg cited the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. McIntosh, which interpreted that the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, a rider to the Consolidated Appropriations Act that blocks the Department of Justice from spending federal money on actions that prevent states from implementing their medical marijuana laws. In McIntosh, a three-judge panel—two Republican and one Democratic appointee—interpreted the Rohrabacher-Farr bar on spending federal money to include any actions that prevent states from permitting the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana. The three-judge panel further established that federal marijuana defendants are entitled to evidentiary hearings during which they may demonstrate that they acted in full compliance with state medical marijuana laws.

In Pisarski, the court conducted such an evidentiary hearing and the defendants proved that their actions were in strict compliance with California’s medical marijuana laws. The court then issued an order staying the prosecution of Pisarski and Moore.

The court ruled that the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment protects medical marijuana operators, who prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they were acting in compliance with state medical marijuana, from federal prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act.

Before the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, individuals operating in full compliance with state medical marijuana laws had no defense against federal marijuana charges. Now, under Pisarski and McIntosh, medical marijuana actors can use the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment and an evidentiary hearing to establish a defense to federal charges.

Though the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment is scheduled to expire next month—along with its protections for medical marijuana entities—it is likely to be renewed for a fourth time. A poll released this month shows that seventy-five percent of the American public opposes federal intervention in state medical marijuana programs. In addition, there is bipartisan support for the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment.

If, as expected, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment is renewed, it will be big. The court’s order in Pirarski ties the hands of the Trump administration by barring the Justice Department from prosecuting federal marijuana cases when the accused have demonstrated that they are acting in full compliance with state medical marijuana laws.

Jolene Forman is a staff attorney with the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Jolene Forman
Date Published: August 17, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Drug Defelonization a Solid Step towards Full Decriminalization

Art Way — August 17, 2017

Oregon has recently joined a handful of other states to lower criminal penalties for drug possession in limited circumstances. Advocates, legislators and the governor in Oregon should be applauded for their efforts to create a sensible drug policy that limits the overreliance on the criminal justice system to address a public health issue. Drug policy reformers look forward to the positive impact and hope such policies spread across the nation.

Technically, Oregon has defelonized drug possession for those that qualify – mostly first and second time offenders. Defelonization means that drug possession penalties have been reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor. This definition is in contrast to the common and broad use of the term decriminalization, a term defined by Drug Policy Alliance in our most recent report as the full removal of criminal penalties for use and possession not just lowering penalties or defelonizing.

Defelonization is needed and a solid step forward but it is not the final destination when attempting to establish a public health approach to drug policy.

Prop. 47 in California which also defelonized drug possession reveals and reinforces the reality that collateral consequences of a misdemeanor can often have the same impact as a felony charge. To truly limit the overreliance of the criminal justice system we must look to remove its burdensome impact as much as possible. A significant problem is that many feel a criminal hook – at least a misdemeanor - is needed for treatment or preventative purposes.

We need only to look back at recent decades to show the fallacy of trying to arrest, jail and hamper drug users with collateral consequences as a mode to address drug dependency. This is especially true for the minority of drug users who are actually dependent. This demographic buys the vast majority of drugs and costs the system the most resources and yet receives a criminal justice burden more so than adequate treatment. This demographic rarely qualifies for drug court and currently won’t be able to take advantage of the defelonization effort in Oregon because of two or more prior convictions.

We need to establish a system where collateral consequences do not hamper those who are truly dependent and justice involved from receiving the benefits of reform. A system where arrests, adjudications and convictions are not the primary tools for a user to enter into treatment. And, what’s more difficult is addressing the reality that many drug possessors do not need treatment at all.

A decriminalization policy based on the DPA definition is how we begin to establish a true public health approach. In doing so those who are seeking treatment can receive it independent of the criminal justice system. Treatment that is funded through the reallocation of funds previously spent on criminalization. We need to end up with a society where the collateral consequences of criminalization that make re-entry into society more difficult for those who are and those who are not drug dependent is nonexistent.

Art Way is a senior director for DPA’s National Criminal Justice Reform Strategy and State director for DPA’s Colorado Office.

View more blog posts.

Author: Art Way
Date Published: August 17, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Why a Drug Policy Organization Needs to Speak Out Against White Supremacy

Megan Farrington — August 16, 2017

The drug war is a tool of racial oppression.

We see this in racial disparities in arrest and incarceration rates for drug offenses that exist even though white people and people of color use and sell drugs at about the same rates.

We see it in the way stop-and-frisk policies have been used to target communities of color.

We see it in the way allegations of drug use were raised as cover for the police killings of Philando Castile, Terence Crutcher, Keith Lamont Scott, Sandra Bland, and Trayvon Martin.

And we see it in the legal marijuana industry now taking shape, which risks excluding the communities that have been most subjected to drug war enforcement by making people with past drug law convictions ineligible for licenses.

Sometimes the racial implications of drug war policies are overt, and sometimes they are more insidious. But the bottom line is that when we work to dismantle the drug war, we are working to end a tool of oppression.

So when white supremacists chant Nazi slogans and our president defends them, we have to speak out. If we fight the racism inherent in the drug war but allow it to go unchecked elsewhere, our work may take down one tool only to see it replaced with another.

We saw this when the drug war replaced Jim Crow last century, and must fight to keep it from happening again. The only way to ensure that our drug policy reforms truly end the harms of drug prohibition is to support the fight against white supremacy wherever it is taking place.

Megan Farrington is the director of digital communications for the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Megan Farrington
Date Published: August 16, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

President Trump Says He Will Declare National Emergency on Opioid Crisis

August 10, 2017

President Trump says he is preparing to declare a national emergency on the opioid crisis. This announcement comes just two days after he said that he favored “strong law enforcement” and a “Just Say No” type approach to prevention and education. He said on Tuesday, “talking to youth and telling them 'no good, really bad for you'... if they don't start, it will never be a problem.” These comments stand in stark contrast to the interim recommendations that President Trump’s own bipartisan opioid commission released last month that would prioritize a health-based response to the crisis and greater access to medication-assisted treatment and naloxone.

“An emergency declaration can be used for good but President Trump has given every indication so far he and his administration want to escalate the failed war on drugs,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “Trump’s emergency declaration is likely going to amount to very little in the way of greater access to treatment and other help from the federal government. What it could mean though is Trump and his attorney general Jeff Sessions using the emergency declaration to step up the kind of ‘strong law enforcement’ response to the opioid crisis that Sessions has been pursuing all along,” said Smith.

The opioid commission’s recommendations contrast sharply from the Trump administration’s overall response to the opioid crisis to date. For instance, President Trump made repeal of the Affordable Care Act a top priority, which would threaten healthcare and access to treatment and mental health services for millions of people living with substance use disorder.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has repeatedly dismissed the value of treatment and pursued a hardline agenda that has escalated the war on drugs. Sessions declared that the opioid crisis is a “winnable war” and urged law enforcement to pursue prosecutions for illegal possession of prescriptions just two days after the opioid commission released its interim report that called for a health-based response.

“President Trump’s bipartisan opioid commission makes clear that this crisis demands a health-based response,” said Smith. “People who are looking for this administration to use a national emergency to ramp up access to treatment and step up a health-based response to the opioid crisis are going to need to be vigilant that this indeed happens, and that the emergency declaration doesn’t give the Trump Administration more license to escalate the drug war,” said Smith.

Advocates say that the opioid commission’s recommendations reflect a dire need to treat the opioid overdose crisis as a health issue and not a criminal issue. The Trump Administration and Congress should prioritize scaling up access to the overdose-reversal drug naloxone and medication-assisted treatment, like methadone and buprenorphine, and resist efforts to expand the use of mandatory minimum sentences and criminalization.

Author:
Date Published: August 10, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

President Trump to Hold Major Briefing Today on Opioid Crisis

August 8, 2017

President Trump is expected to be briefed on the opioid crisis today by Tom Price, Secretary of Health and Human Services. Today’s briefing comes a little more than a week after President Trump’s bipartisan opioid commission released interim recommendations calling for the declaration of a national emergency that would prioritize a federal government response to the crisis and greater access to medication-assisted treatment and naloxone.

“We need to be cautious about the intentions of this administration,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “An emergency declaration can be used for good. It can help free up federal resources, help prioritize responses by the federal government, help give the administration leverage to request legislation from Congress.”

“On the other hand, declaring a national emergency could be used to further the war on drugs,” said Smith. “It could give the administration leverage to push for new sentencing legislation, or legislation that enhances drug penalties or a law enforcement response. It could give Jeff Sessions more leverage to push the agenda that he has been pushing.”

Officially there has been no reaction from the White House about the opioid commission’s recommendations, although advocates say they contrast sharply from the Trump administration’s overall response to the opioid crisis to date. For instance, President Trump made repeal of the Affordable Care Act a top priority, which would threaten healthcare and access to treatment and mental health services for millions of people living with substance use disorder.

Trump’s Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has repeatedly dismissed the value of treatment and pursued a hardline agenda that has escalated the war on drugs. Sessions declared that the opioid crisis is a “winnable war” and urged law enforcement to pursue prosecutions for illegal possession of prescriptions just two days after the opioid commission released its interim report that called for a health-based response.

“President Trump’s bipartisan opioid commission makes clear that this crisis demands a health-based response,” said Smith. “So far, Attorney General Sessions’s escalation of the war on drugs and President Trump’s attempts to take away healthcare and treatment from millions of people is extremely worrisome. To date, the Trump Administration’s response to the opioid crisis is an epic fail.”

Author:
Date Published: August 8, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Advocates Challenge de Blasio to Stop Running from His Record and to Address Racial Disparities in Marijuana Arrests

August 4, 2017

NEW YORK — Today, Mayor de Blasio’s office published a statement disputing the findings of the Drug Policy Alliance report, “Unjust and Unconstitutional: 60,000 Jim Crow Marijuana Arrests in Mayor de Blasio’s New York.” The report details that marijuana possession arrests under Mayor de Blasio continue to be marked by extremely high racial disparities, as was the case under the Bloomberg and Giuliani administrations. Drug Policy Alliance New York State Director Kassandra Frederique issued the following statement in response:

Mayor de Blasio is not disputing the data published in our report, he is trying to spin his poor record to look as though he has made some progress. In reality, New York City was the marijuana arrest capital of the world under Bloomberg and still holds that dubious title under de Blasio today. The 18,000 arrests in 2016 alone and outrageous racial disparities are a disgrace to the city and a blight on the mayor’s record. The unjust and racially-targeted arrests are devastating Black and Latino communities across the city.

The mayor’s efforts to discredit the report and the Drug Policy Alliance by calling us legalizers, is a desperate attempt to distract the public from the facts of his abysmal record. Our report is based on data from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. Rather than attack his critics, the mayor should attack the problem of racially-targeted arrests.

For the record, the Drug Policy Alliance is committed to marijuana legalization to increase access for patients and end targeted policing in communities of color. And we’re not alone; nearly 60 percent of Americans also support legalization.

It’s time for the mayor to get out of the spin cycle and back to work. Over the past two decades, more than 700,000 lives were irrevocably damaged by racially-targeted marijuana arrest policies. The mayor must end the biased policing practices that have ruined the lives of so many young Black and Latino New Yorkers now.”

###

Author:
Date Published: August 4, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Trump Called New Hampshire a 'Drug-Infested Den', Where Drugs Are Sold for Less than Candy

August 3, 2017

In a private conversation with Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto earlier this year, President Trump called New Hampshire a ‘drug-infested den,’ where drugs are sold for less than candy.

“We have a massive drug problem where kids are becoming addicted to drugs because the drugs are being sold for less money than candy,” Trump said, according to a transcript of the Jan. 27 call published by the Washington Post on Thursday. “I won New Hampshire because New Hampshire is a drug-infested den.”

Advocates say these comments are the latest example of the Trump administration’s efforts to escalate the war on drugs, both in terms of policy and rhetoric, in ways that are dramatically out of step with bipartisan efforts across the country to treat the opioid crisis as a health issue. Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions called the Opioid Epidemic a “Winnable War” and urged law enforcement to pursue prosecutions for illegal possession of prescriptions. Sessions’s remarks came just two days after President Trump’s bipartisan Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis released an interim report to the president recommending a major expansion of treatment and other health resources to address the opioid crisis. The opioid commission’s recommendations clash with the Trump administration’s efforts in recent months to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would rollback healthcare, treatment and mental health coverage for millions of people living with opioid use disorder.

asha bandele, Senior Director at the Drug Policy Alliance released the following statement:

“Trump’s comments are reprehensible and will do nothing to save lives. We who are concerned with disrupting morbidity and actually ensuring people’s lives should be worried about the language of fear and shame he promotes. At a moment when Trump has pushed to reduce healthcare, including drug treatment for millions, and his attorney general is seeking to reinvigorate the now widely acknowledged failed practices of a punitive drug war, what we should all be talking about are the solutions that actually save people’s lives. There are things we know. First, people in all societies known to us have used drugs. The question we should seek to answer, then, given this, is what has ensured their lives? The answer to that can be found in the plethora of interventions rooted in compassion and public health.

“If Trump was truly concerned about the loss of life, he would seek to promote the myriad life-saving and life-transforming interventions available. He would be working to ensure naloxone was widely available so that no one had to overdose from opiates. There would be public education campaigns – like there are about smoking and drinking – that would warn people not to mix opioids with other drugs, help people understand proper dosage and testing available so people knew what they were actually ingesting. Voluntary treatment would widely be available, no matter what a person’s economic status is. We’ve seen evidence of success in not only reducing drug related morbidity but also drug addiction in countries all over Western Europe where leaders have actually demonstrated care and concern for the citizens they serve, rather than demonstrating derision and demonization of them. Stigmatizing people as Trump does only moves them away from protocols that could not only save their lives, but elevate the quality of them. Shame on him.”

Author:
Date Published: August 3, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

United States Senate Allocates $2.5 Million for LEAD, Innovative Program that Diverts Drug Users from Incarceration

August 3, 2017

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this release stated Denver is implementing LEAD, when in fact they are currently only applying for state funding.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has approved a bill that contains $2.5 million for Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD). The funding, which appears in legislation funding the Department of Justice, is recognition of the successes of the LEAD program across the country.

“LEAD is a critical program that recognizes that arrest and incarceration are not the way to treat drug use,” said Michael Collins, deputy director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of national affairs. “This funding will be crucial in the expansion of LEAD.”

While the Senate bill includes funding, the House version does not, so advocates must work to make sure the final government funding bill includes the funding. The expectation is a bill will be passed before the end of September.

LEAD is a pre-booking diversion program that allows officers to redirect low-level offenders engaged in drug activity to community-based services instead of jail and prosecution. LEAD participants begin working immediately with case managers to access services. LEAD’s goals are to reduce the harm a drug user may cause him or herself, as well as the harm that the individual may cause the surrounding community. This public safety program has demonstrated the potential to reduce recidivism rates for low-level offenders and preserve expensive criminal justice system resources.

In early June, Senators Warren (D-MA) and Capito (R-WV) spoke at a Congressional briefing on LEAD. Others speakers included representatives from LEAD programs in Baltimore, Washington, and West Virginia. A group of Senators also sent a letter, led by Warren, to the heads of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Commerce Justice and Science, Senators Shelby (R-AL) and Senator Shaheen (D-NH), requesting LEAD funding. Sens. Warren, Capito, Shelby and Shaheen are to be applauded for their role in securing funding.

“LEAD is a topic on which police and public health experts have found common ground. We've learned together that collaborating to engage people with substance use issues in community-based case management, and only using jail and prosecution when they are actually necessary and helpful, works better than other approaches,” said Lisa Daugaard, Director of the Seattle Public Defender Association. “It's great to see the spirit of collaboration to improve outcomes reflected in the Appropriations Committee vote to fund LEAD programs.”

Author:
Date Published: August 3, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

2012 Honduras Tragedy and Subsequent Cover-up Hint at Larger Pattern Regarding U.S. Interventionism on the Drug War Front

Henry York — August 3, 2017

In 2012, Honduran police opened fire on a small passenger boat they thought carried drug traffickers. Instead, firing shots from both a police boat and a machine gun-equipped helicopter overhead, the police killed four people, none of whom were drug traffickers. Two of the victims were women, one was a fourteen-year-old boy. Several others were injured.

In the wake of a damning investigation that exposed how the DEA directed this massacre and subsequently misled investigators regarding its involvement, the New York Times asked a fundamental question – does this tragedy and the subsequent cover-up hint at a larger pattern regarding U.S. interventionism on the drug-war front?

The drug war has had no demonstrable impact on the amount of drugs available. But it has had an enormous negative impact on innocent citizens around the world. The drug war has encouraged drug operations to scale up and incentivized political corruption. As turf conflicts worsen, entire areas become uninhabitable and people are displaced. Meanwhile, innocent citizens are literally caught in the crossfire of these policies. This happens time and time again. As in Honduras, police forces under the sway of DEA directives become more militarized and less accountable as they continue to fight an interminable drug war.

Sensational coverage in the mainstream media of drug abuse and bloody cartel violence supports a false “good vs. evil” narrative. In reality, however, the lines between “good” and “evil” blur considerably. As Dawn Paley states in her thoroughly-researched Drug War Capitalism, “[t]he notion that there is a clear division between state forces and crime groups” is a convenient fiction that obscures the inconvenient truths of U.S. drug policy at home and abroad. The United States government has infamously allied itself with drug traffickers where such agreements proved politically expeditious. Likewise, as Paley’s research shows, it might be misguided to think of the drug war as “failed” if it has ultimately provided benefits to government and business elites. Displacement opens up territories for resource exploration. A militarized police force is better equipped to suppress and silence dissenting voices. And, intentionally or not, the drug war has created an industry by which elites have profited handsomely. In Honduras and elsewhere, ordinary citizens are the ones who pay the cost.

The U.S. has embarked on this cynical and ineffective mission for too long. The Drug Policy Alliance has long documented the damage wrought by the DEA. Other countries and institutions are beginning to look for new approaches. In 2016, the Caravan for Peace, Life and Justice began an international tour in Honduras, bearing witness to the innumerable damages wrought by the drug war. Just this year, the United Nations and the World Health Organization called for decriminalizing drug use and possession. More and more people are seeing that the war on drugs is a war on people.

The world is changing. It is time for the United States to follow suit.

Henry York is a legal affairs intern with the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Henry York
Date Published: August 3, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Urge your Senators to support the Marijuana Justice Act

August 2, 2017

Tell your Senators it is time to legalize marijuana and support the Marijuana Justice Act.

Author:
Date Published: August 2, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Attorney General Sessions Calls Opioid Epidemic a "Winnable War," Emphasizes Enforcement and Incarceration as Solution

August 1, 2017

In a speech in Columbus Ohio today Sessions announced a new plan to boost investigations and prosecutions of opioid prescribers and dispensers and reiterated his support for a law enforcement-led approach to drug policy. Sessions repeated his long-held skepticism of treatment saying it is “not enough” and urged law enforcement to pursue illegal possession of prescriptions just days after President Trump’s bipartisan Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis released an interim report to the president recommending a major expansion of treatment and other health resources to address the opioid crisis.

“Sessions is clearly not on the same page as the experts when it comes to the opioid epidemic,” said Michael Collins, Deputy Director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs. “His emphasis on enforcement as the only approach is directly at odds with the White House Commission’s recommendations on expanding treatment and embracing public health approaches. The Commission had some forward-thinking suggestions, whereas Sessions is keen to take us back to the failed lock-them-up and throw away the key approach of 1980s.”

Advocates say that Sessions’s comments raise questions about whether his approach to drug policy will undermine the recommendations the opioid commission has made to Trump. Indeed, in his remarks Sessions called the opioid epidemic “a winnable war,” directly channeling the language of the failed war on drugs. Sessions also announced the formation of the Opioid Fraud and Abuse Detection Unit, with twelve prosecutors to “target and prosecute these doctors, pharmacies, and medical providers who are furthering this epidemic to line their pockets.” Critics note that the DEA proposed a similar program earlier in the year, which was viewed by critics as a backdoor way of expanding the war on drugs.

In addition to his problematic statement that treatment “very often fails,” Sessions also repeated the myth-laden story of an Ohio police officer who claimed to have overdosed by touching fentanyl. The story has since been debunked by medical experts who note that you cannot overdose simply by touching fentanyl. Such scaremongering also echoes the worst of the drug war.

Author:
Date Published: August 1, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

New Report Shows Racial & Ethnic Disparities Apparent in Bernalillo County Drug Arrests and Booking Rates

Jessica Gelay — August 1, 2017

Racial and ethnic differences have been part of the fabric of the political and social fiber of the United States since it was established. The writers of the Constitution codified white racial superiority in the Constitution by specifying that an individual slave represented just three-fifths of one white individual for the purposes of a national census. A census count was required by the U.S. Constitution for the purposes of forming a representative government and for apportionment of taxes to districts.

In 1980 the Census Bureau began collecting ethnicity data in addition to race. The term “Hispanic,” which the Census Bureau defined as meaning “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race," was introduced.

Being accounted for in data matters because it means a group has a voice in a representative democracy. Numbers translate to organizing power and funding. And the way people are counted can illustrate or mask injustices, like racially biased drug law enforcement that hide in plain sight.

And, unfortunately, when it comes to race and ethnicity data collection, the criminal justice system lags far behind the Census. It wasn’t until 2013 that the FBI’s guidelines (p 111-112) started requiring states include race as a demographic marker when reporting crime statistics. Just last year, the issue of a Latino Data Gap in the criminal justice system made headline news when national organizations including the Public Welfare Foundation, the Urban Institute, Latino Justice and Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) collaborated on a project showing that many states, including New Mexico, do not report any racial or ethnic demographic data for arrests of Hispanic/Latinx people.

In order to draw attention to the Hispanic/Latinx criminal justice data gap DPA’s New Mexico office collaborated with the ACLU of New Mexico, New Mexico Voices for Children and Young Women United to research the demographic profile of adults in the criminal justice system, and racial bias in drug law enforcement. Although, New Mexico does not report any criminal justice statistics on race or ethnicity of people who have been arrested to the FBI, authors were able to gain access to data of people who were booked into the Bernalillo Metropolitan Detention Center for drug law violations from the Bernalillo County Public Safety Department.

So, what can we tell about racial and ethnic make-up of people booked in jail for drugs in Bernalillo County, New Mexico? Data unequivocally show that Black, Indigenous and Hispanic/Latinx people are locked up at higher rates than they exist in the population. And White people are locked up at rates lower than they exist in the general population.

The War on Drugs is a war on people. It is a web of laws and regulations that are enforced in a biased way. It is legalized discrimination, the New Jim Crow. The harms of drug prohibition are inflicted on more on certain groups than others. Although we know that people of all races use drugs at similar rates, drug laws are primarily enforced in certain neighborhoods and on some members of society. People of color, people who are poor or otherwise marginalized, get arrested and locked up while other people, white people, people in the middle class, are generally left alone when it comes to drug laws.

Given how much we already know about racial discrimination in drug law enforcement, New Mexico’s negligence is inexcusable. Drug criminalization fuels racial profiling, violence against immigrants and other vulnerable groups, intrusive government surveillance, and widespread detentions and deportations.

Download the report here: http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/racial-and-ethnic-bias-new-mexico-dru...

Jessica Gelay is a policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, based in New Mexico.

View more blog posts.

Author: Jessica Gelay
Date Published: August 1, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Report: Racial and Ethnic Disparities Apparent in Bernalillo County Drug Arrests and Booking Rates

August 1, 2017

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A new report released by advocates for criminal, racial and family justice shows that people of color are overrepresented in drug arrests and bookings into the Metropolitan Detention Center relative to their respective shares in the Bernalillo County population. In contrast, White people are booked for drug violations at significantly lower rates than their share of the county population.

The report, Racial and Ethnic Bias in New Mexico Drug Law Enforcement: A Summary of Preliminary Findings and Recommendations, by Young Women United, Drug Policy Alliance, ACLU of New Mexico, and New Mexico Voices for Children and the also examines the availability and accessibility of race and ethnicity data from arrests and bookings in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. The report makes the case for improving reporting on the proportion of Indigenous, African-American, and Hispanic/Latinx people involved in the criminal justice system to gain an accurate understanding of racial and ethnic disparities.

Without comprehensive data collection, the true extent of bias in drug law enforcement against African-American, Indigenous, and Hispanic/Latinx people is hidden. The report also found that New Mexico’s case tracking system does not meet current federal guidelines for race and ethnicity data collection, and the state does not report race and ethnicity figures related to arrests to the federal government. The ongoing failure to comprehensively collect and report racial and ethnic data affects the entire criminal justice system.

Recommendations from the report:

Improve data collection within New Mexico’s criminal justice system, paying special attention to racial and ethnic identifiers. Ensure arrest reporting in New Mexico meets federal guidelines for recording race and ethnicity. Support law enforcement agencies and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety in operationalizing the inclusion of these data in their record keeping. Develop data entry instructions and train officers so that race and ethnicity information are collected and reported in a uniform manner. Review and revise operating procedures for the collection of race and ethnicity data at booking and other non-arrest data collection points in the criminal justice system.
Invest in evidence-based interventions at the local and state levels to reduce racially disparate treatment and overreliance on incarceration, while improving public safety throughout our communities.

Partners had the following to share:

Young Women United

“We were disappointed, but not surprised, to establish findings demonstrating that in Bernalillo County people of color are arrested and locked up in numbers far greater than their representation in the overall population of the area,” said Denicia Cadena, Policy Director at Young Women United. “Improved data collection will allow policymakers to better understand the complexities of New Mexico’s arrest and booking patterns. Together we can be more effective in increasing public safety and addressing real racial and ethnic disparities that have impacted New Mexican families for far too long.”

NM Voices for Children

“It’s known that people of all races and ethnicities use and sell drugs at about the same rates, yet our nation’s ‘War on Drugs’ was clearly aimed at communities of color,” said James Jimenez, Executive Director of New Mexico Voices for Children. “In addition to the extraordinary injustice that has been done, the implications for families and children of color are devastating. The separation from parents caught in the criminal justice system creates an adverse childhood event for kids that has lasting implications.”

Drug Policy Alliance

“Given how much we already know about racial discrimination in drug law enforcement, New Mexico’s negligence is inexcusable,” said Jessica Gelay, Policy Manager with the Drug Policy Alliance. “Drug criminalization fuels racial profiling, violence against immigrants and other vulnerable groups, intrusive government surveillance, and widespread detentions and deportations.”

ACLU of New Mexico

“The negative collateral consequences of the failed drug war have been obvious for many years,” said Steven Robert Allen, Director of Public Policy at the ACLU of New Mexico. “People of color should no longer have to bear the brunt of this failed experiment.”

The report can be downloaded here: http://www.drugpolicy.org/resource/racial-and-ethnic-bias-new-mexico-dru...

Author:
Date Published: August 1, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Senator Cory Booker Introduces Marijuana Legalization Bill, focused on Racial Justice

August 1, 2017

Washington, D.C. – Today, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced legislation that ends federal marijuana prohibition and centers communities most devastated by the war on drugs.

“The question is no longer ‘should we legalize marijuana?’; it is ‘how do we legalize marijuana?’ We must do so in a way that recognizes that the people who suffered most under prohibition are the same people who should benefit most under legalization,” said Queen Adesuyi, policy associate at the Drug Policy Alliance. “From disparate marijuana-related arrests and incarceration rates to deportations and justifications for police brutality – the war on drugs has had disparate harm on low-income communities and communities of color. It’s time to rectify that.”

The Marijuana Justice Act would do the following:

Remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, ending federal prohibition of marijuana
Cut federal funding for state law enforcement and prison construction if a state disproportionately arrests and/or incarcerates low-income individuals and/or people of color for marijuana offenses
Allow entities to sue states that disproportionately arrest and/or incarcerate low-income individuals and/or people of color for marijuana offenses
Prevent deportations of individuals for marijuana offenses
Provide for a process of expungement for marijuana offenses at the federal level
Provide for a process of resentencing for marijuana offenses at the federal level
Create a “Community Reinvestment Fund” of $500 million to invest in communities most impacted by the war on drugs, for programs such as job training, reentry, community centers, and more. Part of the funding will come from the aforementioned cuts to state law enforcement and prison construction.

“In New Jersey, marijuana prohibition has disproportionately harmed communities of color,” said Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. “In our state, African Americans are three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites even though both use marijuana at similar rates. Anecdotal evidence suggests similar disparities for Latinos. Marijuana legalization on the federal and state level must be fair and equitable and must repair past harms to communities of color. It is time to right the wrongs of prohibition.”

Marijuana is legal in eight states, and medical marijuana is legal in twenty-nine states. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that only one percent of dispensary owners are people of color. A landmark 2013 ACLU report showed that despite similar rates of use and sale with white counterparts, African Americans and Latinos comprised nearly 80 percent of the country’s annual marijuana possession arrests. More recently, racial disparities in marijuana arrests have continued in states like New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts. Racial disparities have even continued in places that legalized marijuana, like Colorado (although overall arrests are down) and Washington, D.C. (mostly because Congress has blocked legal sales). This bill will tackle these issues.

“Ending federal marijuana prohibition would bring the law in line with the opinion of the growing majority of Americans who want states to be able to enact their own marijuana laws without harassment by the DEA. By divesting in prisons and reinvesting in job training and re-entry programs, this bill would move our country forward and prioritize building up our communities,” said attorney Shaleen Title, a founding board member of the Minority Cannabis Business Association and founder of THC Staffing Group.

Senator Booker will hold a Facebook Live event today at 12:30pm EST to discuss the bill: https://www.facebook.com/corybooker/

Author:
Date Published: August 1, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Drug Policy Alliance to Host 2017 International Drug Policy Reform Conference in Atlanta, October 11– 14

July 28, 2017

How will the Trump Administration impact drug policies in America? What will happen with states that have legalized marijuana and those that are considering similar policies? What can be done to solve the overdose crisis? How are U.S. jurisdictions continuing to move forward with innovative criminal justice reforms? What does drug policy reform have to do with racial justice?

More than 1,500 people will gather in Atlanta, Georgia, October 11 – 14 for DPA’s biennial International Drug Policy Reform Conference (#Reform17) at the Omni Atlanta Hotel @ CNN Center to discuss these issues and much more. Press are invited to attend, and speakers are available for one-on-one interviews.

"We are facing major challenges, but this is also a time of tremendous opportunity for the drug reform movement," said Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno, the incoming executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "More people than ever are realizing the need to stop arresting people for drug use, end marijuana prohibition, and take meaningful actions to stem overdose deaths."

The upcoming conference is taking place at a paradoxical moment in the fight against the war on drugs. In multiple states, marijuana legalization is moving forward rapidly, and there is bipartisan support for reducing the numbers of people behind bars and expanding health-based approaches to reducing the harms of drugs.

At the federal level, on the other hand, the new administration is escalating the drug war by undermining civil rights and rolling back much of the progress made under the Obama administration. The challenge faced by reformers was put into stark relief when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently announced new directives to increase the use of civil asset forfeiture and draconian mandatory minimum sentences. The president, meanwhile, believes that building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border would alleviate the recent surge in overdose deaths.

The Reform Conference draws attendees from all around the world who come from across the political spectrum. From those who have seen the worst of drugs and addiction, to hundreds of formerly incarcerated people, to elected officials and policymakers from all levels of government. From those who have never tried illicit drugs, but are outraged at the money and lives wasted due to the drug war, to active drug users doing political organizing in their communities. From student activists and grassroots racial justice organizers, to law enforcement, faith leaders, academics, and marijuana entrepreneurs. What unites this remarkable array of people is a passion for uprooting the drug war – and a yearning for a more just, compassionate and effective way of dealing with drugs in our lives and in our communities.

The conference will take place in Georgia, which has the fourth highest incarceration rate of any U.S. state. Black people in Georgia are incarcerated for drug offenses at twice the rate of their white counterparts, despite the fact that rates of drug use and sales are similar across racial lines.

Below is a sampling of the 50+ panels at the conference:

Cannabis Reform in Trump’s America
Nine Months In: What's Happening to Criminal Justice Reform Under Trump?
Drug War Déjà Vu: How Can Harm Reductionists Push Back Against Drug Induced Homicide, Harsh Fentanyl Penalties, and the Further Demonization of Drug Users?
Prison Without Walls: How Has the Drug War Contributed to the Expansion of Surveillance Practices Outside of Prisons and Jails?
The Fight in Asia: Drug Policy Reform in an Unforgiving Region
Vivitrol: Wonder Drug or "Shot" in the Dark?
Moving Out of the Shadows: Harm Reduction for Stimulant Users
Indigenous Voices and Experiences in the Drug War
Colonialism, Race and Psychedelics: How Do We Repair the Harms of Psychedelic Prohibition?
A Constitutional Right to Consume Drugs? Defeating the Drug War Through Strategic Litigation
Beyond the Smoke, Behind Closed Doors: What Does Legalization Look Like in Private vs. Public Spaces?
Checking Out Drug Checking: Can It Solve the Overdose Crisis?
Reallocating Revenue: Funding Reform with Reform
“Pills & Potions”: How is Harm Reduction Different for Young Black People Who Party?

Michelle Alexander, author of the bestseller The New Jim Crow, will speak on a plenary about the war on drugs, mass incarceration and criminal justice.

DPA’s Manager of Media and Artist Relations, Anthony Papa, will be exhibiting an interactive art installation which will include Nation of Second Chances, a powerful photography series of President Obama's clemency recipients by Jonathan Perri.

The installation will display narratives which are powerful reminders of the raging war on drugs that locks up hundreds of thousands of people and destroys many of our communities. It will also provide a space where conference participants can contribute to the art installation by displaying their art.

DPA will be co-hosting the 2017 International Drug Policy Reform Conference along with the Harm Reduction Coalition, Institute of the Black World, International Drug Policy Consortium, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, Marijuana Policy Project, Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Open Society Foundations, Just Leadership USA, Harm Reduction International and Students for Sensible Drug Policy.

For a full list of partners, more information on the conference, and registration details, please visit: reformconference.org

Promotional videos for the Reform Conference are available here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLf6y9tNpg8wOHPpnzHva7dytOy_GTUHYl

Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ReformConference

Hashtag: #Reform17

Author:
Date Published: July 28, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

War on Marijuana and Disparate Policing Communities of Color Must End

Cat Packer — July 27, 2017

I went into law school thinking that I wanted to be a civil rights attorney. As a black queer woman, I understood many of the social injustices experienced by marginalized communities and wanted to use my law degree to fight the many systems of oppression that plagued and terrorized the communities that mattered to me. It wasn’t until my third year of law school, that I that recognized current cannabis policies as a legitimate social justice issue – particularly due to the way marijuana prohibition is enforced.

In the United States, despite similar rates of consumption and sales across racial and ethnic lines, African Americans are 4x more likely to be arrested for a marijuana offense.

According to Michelle Alexander, legal scholar and author of The New Jim Crow, “Nothing has contributed more to the systematic mass incarceration of people of color in the United States than the War on Drugs.” During the past two decades, this war, has been fueled largely by marijuana arrests. A 2010 ACLU report exposed that almost half of all drug arrests were for marijuana and that 88% of those arrests were for marijuana possession only.

For decades police have targeted communities of color, using marijuana laws as their legal excuse to stop, search, arrest, prosecute and criminalize Black and Brown individuals while simultaneously and comparatively ignoring the same conduct happening at similar rates in many white communities. This is what is meant when folks say that the war on marijuana is a war on communities of color.

This, however, should come as no surprise as marijuana prohibition was racist from its inception. Over 80 years ago, America’s first Drug Czar, Harry Anslinger crusaded marijuana’s prohibition claiming that black people and Latinos were the primary users of marijuana, and that it made them forget their place in America’s society. The same racial stereotypes and race mongering that allowed marijuana to be made illegal are alive and well today.

Although more Americans than ever before want marijuana legalized, communities of color continue to be disproportionately impacted by its illegality. These disparities persist even in states that have made reforms to cannabis policies through decriminalization, medical legalization and adult use legalization. These continued disparities further reinforce the ‘war on communities of color’ narrative.

As long as there are penalties associated with marijuana use, and police officers are able to continue to disproportionately enforce those penalties without accountability, Black, Latino and low-income communities will continue to be harmed by cannabis laws. And make no mistake this harm is real.

In fact, the policing of communities of color for marijuana offenses can be deadly. In July of 2016, St. Anthony, Minnesota Police Officer Jeronimo Yanez killed Philando Castile after Yanez allegedly feared for his life after Castile ‘had the audacity to smoke marijuana’ in front of a 5 year old child. Apparently Castile’s second-hand marijuana smoke warranted death.

Furthermore, policing often haunts Black and Brown persons alleged to associate with cannabis even after their tragic deaths. Sandra Bland, Trayvon Martin, Freddie Gray and countless other deaths have been further stigmatized by police and media who seek to use past experiences with marijuana to convey criminality and justify what can only rightfully be described as injustice.

Even non-fatal encounters with police carry negative impacts that can last a lifetime. The collateral consequences of a marijuana offense and accompanying record affect eligibility for public housing, student financial aid, employment opportunities, child custody determinations and immigration status. Moreover the experiences that Black and brown communities have with law enforcement officials regarding cannabis have diminished faith in, and respect for the law and those that disproportionately enforce it.

Communities of color are long overdue for relief in this racially enforced war on drugs. Those who care at all about Black and brown communities must too come to realize that past, current and future cannabis policies are a social justice issue and that the war on drugs and the policing of communities of color, particularly for marijuana possession, must come to an end.

Cat Packer is a policy coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance, based in California.

View more blog posts.

Author: Cat Packer
Date Published: July 27, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Powerful Senate Committee Ties Jeff Sessions's Hands on Medical Marijuana

July 27, 2017

Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted by voice vote to approve an amendment that would block the Department of Justice from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. The amendment – led by Senator Leahy (D-VT) – is a striking rebuke of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who had personally requested that Congress eliminate the amendment and allow him to prosecute medical marijuana providers and patients. The amendment passed with strong Republican support, a sign that Sessions is isolated politically as rumors of a crackdown on marijuana businesses abound.

“The Senate is sending a clear message to Jeff Sessions – keep your hands off states that have reformed their marijuana laws,” said Michael Collins, Deputy Director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs. “Today’s vote is a huge win for the marijuana reform movement, because in the face of real pressure from the Department of Justice, the Senate has opted to block Jeff Sessions from interfering with any medical marijuana law.”

The amendment still has to make the final appropriations bill, but it has been added to the final government funding bill each year since 2014. The amendment is currently in effect after being signed into law this year, despite only receiving a vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The amendment – also known as Rohrabacher-Farr – has also been litigated in court with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that, while the amendment is in effect, DOJ cannot prosecute individuals who follow state law on medical marijuana. Currently, 29 states have full medical marijuana laws.

The vote comes one day after the Department of Justice announced that the Attorney General would implement DOJ task force recommendations on a rolling basis. It is expected that one of the task forces will develop guidance on how DOJ will deal with states that have legalized marijuana.

Author:
Date Published: July 27, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

New Jersey Medicinal Marijuana Review Panel Recommends Adding Chronic Pain, Migraine, Anxiety and Tourette's Syndrome to List of Qualifying Conditions

July 25, 2017

Trenton, NJ— Today, the New Jersey Medicinal Marijuana Program Review Panel made initial recommendations to the Health Commissioner to approve chronic pain, migraine, anxiety and Tourette’s Syndrome as qualifying conditions for the medical marijuana program.

“We are glad to see that the panel took the testimony of experts and the petitions of New Jerseyans seriously in making their recommendation to add chronic pain and other conditions to the list of qualifying conditions for medical marijuana,” said Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “Many people across the state will be helped by the addition of chronic pain. And it comes at a particularly important moment. Data shows that states with medical marijuana programs that allow access for individuals with chronic pain have reduced dependence on opioids. As New Jersey continues dealing with problematic opioid use in our state, expanding the medical marijuana program to include chronic pain is a real solution that can be immediately implemented.”

The panel’s initial recommendations are now open for a 60-day comment period and will be addressed at a public hearing before being finalized and sent to the Health Commissioner who will make the final determination on petitions to add new conditions to the state’s medical marijuana program.

The New Jersey Policy Office of the Drug Policy Alliance successfully led a campaign in partnership with medical and professional organizations as well as patient advocates to pass the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act in 2010. The coalition has been advocating for improvements to the state’s program since implementation. The Drug Policy Alliance submitted a petition in support of adding chronic pain, collected letters of support from clinicians and New Jerseyans suffering from the condition, and organized expert testimony before the Review Panel at their February meeting.

Author:
Date Published: July 25, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Kamala Harris and Rand Paul Spearhead Senate Bail Reform Effort

July 20, 2017

Today, Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced legislation to reform the country’s money bail system. The proposal – the first of its kind in the U.S. Senate – would provide grants to states to reform their bail system.

“We have a mass incarceration problem in this country, and it starts with our broken bail system,” said Michael Collins, Deputy Director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs. “There are people held in jail without trial because they do not have the financial means to post bail. Many are charged with drug offenses, and are casualties of the racist war on drugs.”

The Harris-Paul bill would provide funds for states to replace money bail with pretrial assessments, provide for the presumption of release, ensure counsel, and guarantee a speedy trial for defendants.

Currently, around 60 percent of individuals in jail in the U.S. are pretrial detainees who have not been convicted of any crime. Such a system contradicts the ethos of “innocent until proven guilty,” and has an adverse impact on low-income families and communities of color. While some states have taken steps to reform their criminal justice system, more needs to be done.

Recently, New Jersey’s historic bail reform law has been the focus of national attention as other states grapple with reforming their broken bail systems. The Drug Policy Alliance led the campaign that overhauled New Jersey’s system and the reform resulted in cutting the state jail population by a third. The reform changed the system by 1) declaring non-monetary pretrial release the default option for the majority of defendants; (2) establishing a pretrial services agency in each county to monitor low-risk individuals who are released pending trial; (3) mandating the use of a validated risk assessment tool when evaluating individuals for release; (4) permitting the detention of truly dangerous individuals; and (5) guaranteeing timelines for speedy trial for those who are detained.

Author:
Date Published: July 20, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Attorney General Sessions Expands Police Powers to Take Cash and Other Property in the Name of Fighting War on Drugs

July 19, 2017

Today, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new Department of Justice policy that increases the ability of state and local law enforcement to profit from civil forfeiture. This is a reversal of an Obama-era policy implemented in 2015 that limited state and local law enforcement from transferring seized property to federal agencies in exchange for receiving up to 80 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the seized property. Advocates say that Sessions’ reversal of DOJ policy will incentivize police to exploit the war on drugs as an excuse to permanently take cars, cash and other property from people without needing to convict or even charge the property owner with any criminal wrongdoing.

“President Trump’s attorney general has just handed state and local police greater ability to profit from the seizure of your cars, cash and other property without having to prove any criminal wrongdoing,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “The Attorney General is taking this country down a destructive and foolish path by escalating failed drug war tactics like civil forfeiture that disproportionately hurt people of color and individuals who can’t afford to fight the forfeiture,” said Smith.

Federal civil forfeiture law allows the government to seize and keep cash, cars, real estate, and any other property from persons without any proof of criminal wrongdoing. Civil forfeiture begins when a federal, state or local law enforcement agency seizes property during a traffic stop or other encounter and takes legal action against the property seized from its owner by alleging that the seized property is connected in some way to illegal drugs or other criminal activity. Property owners do not need to be charged or convicted of a crime in order for law enforcement to seize property; police need to only suspect the property of being involved in a drug law violation to seize and forfeit it. In the 1970s and 1980s, Congress expanded the use of civil forfeiture by federal, state and local law enforcement in the name of fighting the war on drugs. Numerous law enforcement agencies took advantage of these expanded policies to profit from the confiscation of cash and other property from people during roadside stops and other interactions.

In recent years, there has been strong bipartisan momentum for major civil forfeiture reform both in Congress and statehouses across the country. A growing number of states are reforming their forfeiture laws in the interest of protecting the rights of property owners and eliminating perverse incentives like those perpetuated by the Equitable Sharing Program. In October, the most populous state in the nation, California, passed sweeping civil forfeiture reform that removed the financial incentives for law enforcement to seize property and pursue forfeitures with federal agencies in cases where one is arrested, charged or convicted of a crime. California’s reform effort added to a growing list of states ― including Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Tennessee, Virginia, Wyoming ― who have taken a stance against policing for profit.

In Congress, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in the Senate and Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) in the House have sponsored the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act (S.642/H.R. 1555). This strong bipartisan bill would undo the actions taken by Attorney General Sessions today by eliminating the Department of Justice’s Equitable Sharing Program that has incentivized state and local law enforcement to transfer cash and property in circumvention of state law. Last year, the House Judiciary Committee passed a more incremental civil forfeiture reform bill. Groups that have supported comprehensive reform come from across the political spectrum.

“Congress needs to take up comprehensive civil forfeiture reform and reign in the excessive use of federal forfeiture by Sessions,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. “A major overhaul of federal civil forfeiture laws by Congress has been long overdue to help innocent people get their wrongfully seized property back from the government,” said Smith.

In 2015, the Drug Policy Alliance released “Above the Law: An Investigation of Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuses in California,” a multi-year, comprehensive look at forfeiture abuses in California that reveals the troubling extent to which law enforcement agencies have utilized the adoptive forfeiture process in violation of state and federal law.

Author:
Date Published: July 19, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Uruguay, First Country in the World to Legally Regulate Marijuana, Begins Retail Sales Today

July 19, 2017

Today, Uruguay will begin sales of legal marijuana for adult residents. The marijuana legalization proposal was put forward by former President José Mujica in 2012 as part of a comprehensive package aimed at improving public safety. Uruguay’s parliament gave final approval to the measure in December 2013, making theirs the first country in the world to legally regulate the production, distribution and sale of marijuana for adults.

“This is a historic moment,” says Hannah Hetzer, Senior International Policy Manager at the Drug Policy Alliance. “In recent years, Latin American leaders have decried the staggering human, environmental and financial costs of the War on Drugs in their region. Uruguay is boldly demonstrating that concrete alternatives to failed prohibitionist policies are possible.”

In 2013, a broad coalition emerged to support the proposal, which included LGBT, women’s rights, health, student, environmental and human rights organizations, alongside trade unions, doctors, musicians, lawyers, athletes, writers, actors and academics, united under the campaign Regulación Responsable (“Responsible Regulation”).

The Uruguayan model allows four forms of access to marijuana: medical marijuana through the Ministry of Public Health; domestic cultivation of up to six plants per household; membership clubs where up to 45 members can collectively produce up to 99 plants; and licensed sale in pharmacies to adult residents. Regulation will be overseen by the government’s Institute for the Regulation and Control of Cannabis (IRCCA). Sales to minors, driving under the influence of marijuana, and all forms of advertising are prohibited.

“Uruguay’s model will look quite different from the eight U.S. states that have legalized marijuana,” Hetzer continued. “There is no one-size-fits-all marijuana legalization system. It’s important for each jurisdiction to tailor marijuana regulation to their local needs and contexts, providing the world with different models to learn from.”

Since the bill was passed in 2013, the government has been developing regulations, registering domestic cultivators and membership clubs, and preparing for the implementation of licensed sales in pharmacies. Two companies have received licenses to produce the marijuana sold in pharmacies, which will be available next week at $1.30 per gram. Each registered individual will be allowed to buy up to 40 grams a month.

Implementing licensed sales in pharmacies took longer than anticipated, due to a presidential election in 2015, a delay in funding for the IRCCA, and the government’s commitment to moving forward cautiously.

Marijuana reform gained remarkable momentum throughout the hemisphere in recent years. Twenty-nine U.S. states have legalized medical marijuana, while eight states and Washington D.C. have legalized marijuana more broadly. Jamaica decriminalized marijuana for medical, scientific and religious purposes; Colombia and Puerto Rico legalized medical marijuana through executive orders; Chile allows for marijuana cultivation for oncology patients; Mexico recently passed a medical marijuana bill a year after their Supreme Court ruled that prohibition of marijuana for personal consumption is unconstitutional; and Canada is set to become the next country to fully legalize marijuana.

Author:
Date Published: July 19, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

The Media Needs More Than a New Style Guide to Get Them to Stop Stigmatizing People Who Use Drugs

Sheila P. Vakharia — July 19, 2017

On May 31st, the AP announced over 200 changes to their Stylebook – including some guidance on how to write about addiction. Words like ‘addict’ and ‘abuser’ were to be avoided and replaced with more person-first and less pejorative language. Many have lauded this move as a step in the right direction- to help increase compassion and understanding for people who struggle with their substance use.

However, it is apparent that not all publications are following suit and that a change in the language is not enough to shift our deeply-ingrained cultural stigma against people who use substances. We as a society still have clear ideas of who substance users are, what they are like, and whether they are worthy of dignity and respect, even though these are often inaccurate and misinformed. We don’t have to look far to find clear examples in our media that perpetuate these deep stigmas. Here are just two published within 24 hours of one another:

Last Friday Mother Jones published a piece by Kevin Drum, which was likely intended to poke fun at the not-so-surprising (in his opinion) results of a recently published study on public attitudes towards policies impacting the homeless.

The study found that, despite supporting programs to help the homeless, many respondents also backed prohibitive policies which disproportionately impact the homeless such as bans on sleeping outdoors or panhandling. The researchers believe that these opposing feelings can be explained by the feeling of disgust – that the public may have compassion, but they also have a desire to maintain a distance from this population.

In Drum’s attempt to minimize the significance of the study’s findings, he wrote: “No kidding. About half the homeless suffer from a mental illness and a third abuse either alcohol or drugs. You’d be crazy not to have a reflexive disgust of a population like that. Is that really so hard to get?” Drum’s point being- of course people with mental illness and/or problems with substances are viewed as disgusting. Not a big deal.

The New York Times is another publication not yet ready to promote changes in word usage around addiction. Just this weekend they published a piece in their Business section entitled, “The Lawyer, The Addict” in which a woman described how she spent the past several years trying to understand and put together the story of her ex-husband’s addiction after his tragic death. She wrote, “Peter, one of the most successful people I have ever known, died a drug addict, felled by a systemic bacterial infection common to intravenous users.”

The piece shifted between two main areas: one, her disbelief that someone like her ex-husband would use drugs or become addicted, and two, that problematic substance use is woefully unaddressed amongst legal professionals. While her second area of focus was an important one, my concerns lie with the assumptions embedded in her first.

Although it was apparent that she deeply cared about her ex-husband and saw him as a caring father, she struggled to see how he could also have developed an addiction. He didn’t fit the traditional narrative of a drug user she (and others) had been led to believe- he was a professional, a family man, and smart. Because of this, they never saw that he was a sensitive person working in a stressful environment who was burning out on the job and trying to find a way to cope with so many competing demands.

All of this is to say that media still has an important role to play in larger societal discourse and the choices they make can have real consequences- whether it’s a choice in language, phrasing, or even in deciding which stories to run and how to frame them. The two stories I highlighted above both reflect the same problem we have had in how we represent people who use substances- we have been taught to view them as outsiders and people from whom to maintain a distance, rather than people worthy of compassion and dignity. People like us.

Sheila P. Vakharia is the Policy Manager of the Office of Academic Engagement for the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Sheila P. Vakharia
Date Published: July 19, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

El Drug Policy Alliance Anuncia a Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno como su Nueva Directora Ejecutiva

July 18, 2017

La junta de directores del Drug Policy Alliance anunció hoy su decisión unánime de nombrar a Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno como la nueva directora ejecutiva de su organización.

McFarland Sánchez-Moreno viene con trece años de experiencia en política de drogas a nivel nacional e internacional como miembro de Human Rights Watch, donde actualmente ocupa el puesto de Co-Directora del Programa de los EE.UU.

McFarland Sánchez-Moreno sucederá al fundador del Drug Policy Alliance, Ethan Nadelmann, quien renunció el 1 de mayo luego de 17 años como director ejecutivo.

Ira Glasser, Presidente de la Junta del DPA, expresó "Nos alegra haber encontrado una persona con tal pasión por revertir y remediar los efectos destructivos de la guerra contra las drogas, que cuenta además con el conocimiento, la experiencia y la persistencia para hacerlo".

El compromiso de McFarland Sánchez-Moreno con la justicia social y con las reformas de la política de drogas se remonta a su niñez, mayormente vivida en el Perú. También la marcó fuertemente su trabajo inicial en Human Rights Watch, como investigadora encargada de Colombia, donde el dinero de las drogas ha alimentado masacres y corrupción institucional. En su puesto actual McFarland Sánchez-Moreno lidera un equipo que lucha contra la discriminación racial de la policía, la aplicación de penas excesivas, y políticas de deportación injustas que destruyen a familias, asuntos todos que se encuentran entremezclados con el manera cruel e irracional que Estados Unidos ha abordado el tema de las drogas.

Durante su período en Human Rights Watch, McFarland Sánchez-Moreno instó a su organización para que trate la guerra contra drogas más directamente como un asunto de derechos humanos. Como resultado, en 2013 Human Rights Watch se convirtió en la primera organización internacional de derechos humanos de renombre que demandó la despenalización del consumo personal y la tenencia de drogas, así como una más amplia reforma al tratamiento global de las drogas.

“La guerra contra las drogas es la raíz causal de muchas de las injusticias que he combatido a lo largo de mi carrera”, señaló McFarland Sánchez-Moreno. “Me siento honrada y encantada de aunarme a la causa de poner fin a la guerra contra las drogas, siendo parte de una organización que ya ha estado detrás de reformas significativas en los Estados Unidos y en el extranjero”.

McFarland Sánchez-Moreno asume el mando del Drug Policy Alliance en un momento paradójico en la lucha por acabar con la guerra contra las drogas. La legalización de la marihuana está avanzando rápidamente en diversos estados, y existe apoyo bipartidista a la reducción del número de personas encarceladas y a la promoción de perspectivas enfocadas en la salud para reducir los daños causados por las drogas. A nivel federal, por otro lado, la nueva administración ha pedido redoblar la guerra contra las drogas, con el llamado del presidente a una mayor puesta en vigor de leyes draconianas y penas mínimas obligatorias, argumentando a favor de la expansión del uso de cárceles privadas, rechazando la restauración del derecho al voto a millones de estadounidenses que cargan con una condena por delito mayor, apoyando la medida policial inconstitucional de la “detención y registro” (“stop and frisk” en inglés) y más aún, aduciendo que la construcción de un muro entre los Estados Unidos y México va a aliviar la reciente alza en las sobredosis por opioides.

“No podemos permitir que una cultura del miedo, la ignorancia, y la falta de honradez acerca del tema de las drogas orienten la política en los Estados Unidos”, mencionó McFarland Sánchez-Moreno. “La misión que lleva el Drug Policy Alliance de educar al público y a los legisladores, y de abogar por un tratamiento racional y compasivo al tema de las drogas es más importante que nunca en este tiempo crítico”.

Las declaraciones de McFarland Sánchez-Moreno aparecen regularmente citadas y sus trabajos publicados en la prensa nacional e internacional. El español y el inglés son sus idiomas nativos. Ha brindado testimonio ante el Congreso de EE.UU. en varias ocasiones y cuenta con amplia experiencia abogando por sus posiciones frente a oficinas del Congreso, la Casa Blanca, y los Departamentos de Estado, de Justicia y de Defensa. McFarland Sánchez-Moreno recientemente terminó de escribir un libro de actualidad titulado There are no Dead Here: A Story of Murder and Denial in Colombia (que se puede traducir al españolcomoAquí No Hay Muertos: Una Historia de Asesinato y Negación en Colombia), que será publicado por Nation Books en febrero de 2018.

Puede ver una foto en alta resolución de Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno en el enlace siguiente.

Acerca del Drug Policy Alliance

El Drug Policy Alliance es la organización líder a nivel nacional en la promoción de políticas de drogas cimentadas en la ciencia, la compasión, la salud y los derechos humanos.

El Drug Policy Alliance sostiene que la guerra contra las drogas ha generado más daños que beneficios, promueve políticas para la reducción de los daños causados tanto por el consumo de drogas como por el de su prohibición y busca soluciones que promuevan la seguridad respetando a la vez la soberanía del individuo sobre su propio cuerpo y mente. El Drug Policy Alliance busca asegurar que nuestras políticas internas de droga dejen de arrestar, encarcelar, privar de sus derechos o de cualquier otro modo afectar a millones – especialmente a gente joven y gente de color, los cuales de manera desproporcionada sufren los efectos de la guerra contra las drogas.

Las personas que apoyan al Drug Policy Alliance provienen de diversos ámbitos, de ahí que su Junta de Miembros Honorariosincluya figuras destacadas en ambos extremos del espectro político, tales como individuos reconocidos por su liderazgo en del mundo de los negocios, el derecho, la medicina, el periodismo y la política– desde Sting, Russell Simmons y Arianna Huffington, hasta personas que desempeñaron cargos de Secretario de Estado, Secretario de Defensa, Médico General, Procurador General, y Presidente de la Reserva Federal de los Estados Unidos.

Author:
Date Published: July 18, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

The Drug Policy Alliance Announces Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno as New Executive Director

July 18, 2017

The Drug Policy Alliance board of directors announced today its unanimous decision to appoint Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno as the organization’s new executive director.

McFarland Sánchez-Moreno brings nearly thirteen years of international and domestic drug policy experience from her work at Human Rights Watch, where she currently serves as Co-Director of the US Program.

McFarland Sánchez-Moreno will succeed Drug Policy Alliance founder and former executive director Ethan Nadelmann, who stepped down on May 1st, after 17 years.

Ira Glasser, Drug Policy Alliance board president, said, "We are excited to have found someone with such passion to reverse and remedy the destructive effects of the drug war, and with the knowledge, experience and persistence to do it."

McFarland Sánchez-Moreno’s commitment to social justice and drug policy reform dates from her childhood, which she spent mostly in Peru. She was strongly influenced by her early work at Human Rights Watch researching Colombia, where drug profits fueled massacres and official corruption. In her current position, McFarland Sánchez-Moreno leads a team advocating against racial discrimination in policing, excessive sentencing, and unfair deportation policies that tear families apart, all issues closely intertwined with the United States’ cruel and irrational approach to drugs.

During her tenure at Human Rights Watch, McFarland Sánchez-Moreno pressed the organization to more directly address the war on drugs as a human rights issue. As a result, in 2013 Human Rights Watch became the first major international human rights organization to call for decriminalization of the personal use and possession of drugs and global drug reform more broadly.

“The war on drugs is a root cause of many of the injustices I have fought throughout my career,” said McFarland Sánchez-Moreno. “I’m both honored and delighted to now take on the cause of ending the war on drugs, as part of an organization that has already been behind groundbreaking reforms in the U.S. and abroad.”

McFarland Sánchez-Moreno assumes the helm of the Drug Policy Alliance at a paradoxical moment in the fight against the war on drugs. In multiple states, marijuana legalization is moving forward rapidly, and there is bipartisan support for reducing the numbers of people behind bars and promoting health-based approaches to reducing the harms of drugs. At the federal level, on the other hand, the new administration is doubling down on the war on drugs, with the president calling for greater enforcement of draconian drug laws and mandatory minimum sentences, arguing for greater use of private prisons, rejecting the restoration of voting rights for the millions of Americans living with a felony conviction, supporting unconstitutional “stop and frisk” policing, and even claiming that building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border would alleviate the recent surge in opioid overdoses.

“We cannot allow fearmongering, ignorance, and dishonesty about drugs to drive policy in the United States,” said McFarland Sánchez-Moreno. “At this critical time, the Drug Policy Alliance’s mission of educating the public and policymakers, and advocating for a rational, compassionate approach to drugs, is more important than ever.”

McFarland Sánchez-Moreno is regularly quoted and published in national and international media and is a native speaker of both English and Spanish. She has testified before Congress on multiple occasions and has extensive experience advocating with U.S. Congressional offices, the White House, and the Departments of State, Justice and Defense. McFarland Sánchez-Moreno recently authored a non-fiction book, There Are No Dead Here: A Story of Murder and Denial in Colombia, which will be published by Nation Books in February 2018.

A high-resolution headshot of Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno is available here.

About the Drug Policy Alliance

The Drug Policy Alliance is the nation's leading organization promoting drug policies that are grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.

The Drug Policy Alliance believes the war on drugs is doing more harm than good, advances policies that reduce the harms of both drug use and drug prohibition, and seeks solutions that promote safety while upholding the sovereignty of individuals over their own minds and bodies. The Drug Policy Alliance works to ensure that our nation’s drug policies no longer arrest, incarcerate, disenfranchise and otherwise harm millions – particularly young people and people of color who are disproportionately affected by the war on drugs.

Drug Policy Alliance supporters come from all walks of life, and its Honorary Board includes prominent figures from both ends of the political spectrum, including individuals renowned for their leadership in the fields of business, law, medicine, media and politics– from Sting, Russell Simmons and Arianna Huffington to a former U.S. secretary of state, secretary of defense, surgeon general, attorney general, and chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Author:
Date Published: July 18, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Uruguay, First Country in the World to Legally Regulate Marijuana, Begins Retail Sales Next Week

Hannah Hetzer — July 14, 2017

Next week, Uruguay will begin sales of legal marijuana for adult residents. The marijuana legalization proposal was put forward by former President José Mujica in 2012 as part of a comprehensive package aimed at improving public safety. Uruguay’s parliament gave final approval to the measure in December 2013, making theirs the first country in the world to legally regulate the production, distribution and sale of marijuana for adults.

Uruguay’s model will look quite different from the eight U.S. states that have legalized marijuana. Since there is no one-size-fits-all marijuana legalization system, it’s important for each jurisdiction to tailor marijuana regulation to their local needs and contexts, providing the world with different models to learn from.

This is a historic moment. In recent years, Latin American leaders have decried the staggering human, environmental and financial costs of the war on drugs in their region. Uruguay is boldly demonstrating that concrete alternatives to failed prohibitionist policies are possible.

Hannah Hetzer is Senior International Policy Manager at the Drug Policy Alliance (www.drugpolicy.org)

View more blog posts.

Author: Hannah Hetzer
Date Published: July 14, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Gov. Christie OKs Racial and Ethnic Impact Statement Legislation with Minor Changes: Legislature will Need to Approve Final Language

July 13, 2017

Trenton — Today, Governor Christie OKed Senate Bill 677 / Assembly Bill 3677 with minor changes. The Governor did what is known as a conditional veto, amending certain language in the bill. The additional language requires an analysis of the public safety impact of criminal sentencing legislation along with the ethnic and racial impact statements originally required by the bill. S677 / A3677 is sponsored by Senator Ronald L. Rice (D-Essex) and Assemblyman Benjie E. Wimberly (D-Paterson). Similar to fiscal impact statements, racial and ethnic impact statements assist legislators in detecting unforeseen policy ramifications.

“This is a huge victory for racial justice,” said Reverend Charles Boyer, of Salvation and Social Justice and Pastor of Bethel AME Church in Woodbury. “Despite New Jersey’s success in reducing its incarcerated population, our state still has the worst racial disparities within the criminal justice system in the country. Racial and ethnic impact statements are an important first step to righting the wrongs of mass incarceration in our state and we are thankful to Governor Christie and the New Jersey Legislature for their support of this critical policy.”

New Jersey is the fifth state to pass a law requiring policymakers to consider the racial and ethnic impact of certain policies—Iowa, Oregon, Connecticut, and Illinois have already implemented similar legislation. If approved by the legislature, the bill will make New Jersey the first state to require the broader public safety analysis.

“Our criminal justice system has produced profoundly unequal outcomes across racial groups, despite policies that are race neutral on their face,” said Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. “Racial and ethnic impact statements are an important tool to help assess proposed legislation and prevent discriminatory outcomes. The additional public safety impact statement, if done well, will add to the information that legislators and the public have to effectively consider the merits of sentencing legislation.”

Drug Policy Alliance was part of a broad coalition of civil rights, racial justice and faith-based organizations and individuals, led by Salvation and Social Justice that supported the passage of this legislation. Salvation and Social Justice is a New Jersey-based coalition of clergy and civil rights organizations which seek to fight structural and institutional racism through policy, advocacy, education and reform.

The coalition includes the following organizations: American Friends Service Committee Immigrant Rights Program and Prison Watch Program; American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey; Anti-Poverty Network of New Jersey; Asbury Park Education Justice Collective; Asbury United Methodist Church, Atlantic City; A Better Way, Inc.; Interdenominational Alliance of New Brunswick and Vicinity; Black Lives Matter – New Jersey: Atlantic City; Bethel AME Church of Woodbury; Mount Teman AME Church; Campaign to End the New Jim Crow, Princeton/Trenton Chapter; Communications Workers of America – New Jersey; Drug Policy Alliance; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Trinity Episcopal Church, Princeton; Fair Share Housing Center; Faith in New Jersey; First Unitarian Universalist Church of Hunterdon County; Food Justice at Trinity Asbury Park; Friendship American Methodist Church; Grace and Peace; UU Legislative Ministry of New Jersey; Orange Interfaith Coalition of Pastors and Laity; Latino Action Network; Temple Shalom; Lutheran Episcopal Advocacy Ministry of New Jersey; Opportunities for All, Inc.; National Religious Campaign Against Torture; Metuchen Democrats; Mt. Zion Baptist Church, Pleasantville; NAACP – Gloucester County; NAACP – Morris County; NAACP New Jersey State Conference; National Council of Jewish Women, Essex County; National Organization for Women, Northern NJ Chapter; New Jersey Association on Correction; New Jersey Coalition to End Homelessness; New Jersey Institute for Social Justice; New Jersey Parents Caucus; Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church; Recovery Advisory Group; Reformed Church of Highland Park; Salvation and Social Justice; St. Paul AME Church; Students for Prison Education and Reform; Trenton Violence Reduction Strategy; Unitarian Universalist Congregation at Montclair; Unitarian Universalist Church of Cherry Hill; Wardlaw-Hartridge School; and Women Who Never Give Up, Inc.

Author:
Date Published: July 13, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

House Judiciary Committee Approves Bill that Gives Attorney General Sessions Unchecked Power to Ban New Drugs and Set Criminal Penalties

July 12, 2017

The House Judiciary Committee advanced today legislation that greatly expands the penalties for new drugs and gives Attorney General Sessions unilateral new powers to schedule drugs. Opponents warned that the legislation is a counterproductive approach to the opioid crisis that will exacerbate mass incarceration and enable Attorney General Sessions to ban hundreds of substances and prosecute people with long federal prison terms in violation of the new drug laws.

Committee members had received a letter from four conservative groups opposing the bill, as well as a separate opposition letter from more than 60 criminal justice groups prior to the vote today warning committee members that the bill concentrates too much power with the Attorney General to make and enforce drug laws without scientific review and relies on excessive and ineffective drug sentencing laws that expand the drug war. In late 2015, this same committee voted overwhelmingly to advance the Sentencing Reform Act of 2015, which reduced drug sentencing penalties.

“Tough sentences and expanding the drug war will not stop demand for drugs, only public health approaches that emphasize treatment and education can do that,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs with the Drug Policy Alliance.

The bill, known as the “Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017,” or “SITSA,” creates a new drug schedule in the federal Controlled Substances Act for drug analogues and gives the Attorney General sweeping new powers to both temporarily and permanently ban any substance that is chemically similar to a drug that is already banned under federal law. To do this, the bill proposes circumventing a long standing federal law that requires the Attorney General to obtain a scientific evaluation and recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services before a substance can be scheduled.

During a recent House Judiciary hearing on the bill, a witness for the Drug Enforcement Administration acknowledged in testimony that current mechanisms for prosecuting analogue cases are “workable” and existing federal laws already permit the Attorney General to emergency schedule substances.

Author:
Date Published: July 12, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Tale of Two New Yorks Endures under de Blasio as NYPD Continues Discriminatory Marijuana Arrests

July 11, 2017

New York, NY: A new report released today by the Marijuana Arrest Research Project, commissioned by the Drug Policy Alliance, shows that marijuana possession arrests under Mayor de Blasio continue to be marked by extremely high racial disparities, as was the case under the Bloomberg and Giuliani administrations.

The report, Unjust and Unconstitutional: 60,000 Jim Crow Marijuana Arrests in Mayor de Blasio’s New York, shows that despite a change in mayoral administrations and police commissioners, the NYPD continues to make large numbers of unjust and racially-targeted marijuana arrests. The report is based on data from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Despite Mayor de Blasio’s campaign promise to end racially-biased policing, in 2016 marijuana possession was New York City’s fourth most commonly charged criminal offense. Black and Latino New Yorkers continue to comprise 85 percent of the more than 60,000 people arrested for low-level marijuana possession on Mayor de Blasio’s watch. Most people arrested are young Blacks and Latinos – even though studies consistently show young whites use marijuana at higher rates.

"President Obama, Governor Cuomo, former Mayor Ed Koch and candidate Bill de Blasio all strongly criticized the NYPD's racist marijuana possession arrests,” said report author and Queens College professor Harry Levine. “Yet the most progressive mayor in the modern history of New York is unable to stop them? Really?"

Key findings include the following:

In the first three years of the de Blasio administration, the NYPD made over 60,000 criminal arrests for the lowest-level marijuana possession offense, an average of 20,000 marijuana arrests a year.
The NYPD’s marijuana arrests under de Blasio suffer from the same overwhelming racial disparities as under Bloomberg – about 86% of the arrests for marijuana possession are of Blacks and Latinos.
As in previous years, in 2016 and in the first four months of 2017, 81% of the people arrested for marijuana were age 16 to 34, 58% were 16 to 25 and 27% were age 16 to 20.
Residents of New York City’s public housing developments constitute the single largest group of people arrested. In 2016, NYPD housing police made 21% of the city’s total of 18,121 arrests for marijuana possession and 92% of those arrested were Blacks and Latinos.
Of New York City’s 76 neighborhood police precincts, 37 neighborhoods have a majority of Black and Latino residents. They have about half the city’s population but provide 66% of the marijuana possession arrests and 92% of the people arrested are Blacks and Latinos.
Police in New York also target neighborhoods in midtown and lower Manhattan with active nightlife. Although pedestrians in those areas are predominately white, police arrest Blacks and Latinos at very high rates.
In 2016, in Greenwich Village, 69% of the people arrested for marijuana possession were Blacks and Latinos. In Chelsea, 77% were Blacks and Latinos. In Soho-Tribeca-Wall St. 73% were Blacks and Latinos. In tourist-heavy Little Italy and Chinatown, 66% of the people arrested for marijuana possession were Blacks and Latinos.
In 2016, police enforcement targeted people of color, especially Blacks, everywhere in New York City. In Manhattan, Blacks are 13% of the residents but 45% of the people arrested for marijuana possession. In Queens, Blacks are 18% of the residents but 49% of the people arrested for marijuana. And in Staten Island, Blacks are 10% of the residents but 49% of the people arrested for marijuana possession.
The rates of NYPD arrests for marijuana possession per 100,000 of the population are extremely skewed. In Queens, police arrest Blacks at seven times the rate of whites. In Manhattan they arrest Blacks at 10 times the rate of whites. And in Staten Island the NYPD arrests Blacks at 15 times the rate of whites.

The report demonstrates how police precincts throughout the city have different enforcement policies and practices when it comes to lowest level marijuana arrests by comparing the rates in different neighborhoods. For example, the Upper East Side, covered by Precinct 19, is the second most populous precinct in the city, with over 200,000 residents. It has one of the highest family incomes, and is 80 percent white. In 2016 only 14 out of the 18,121 marijuana arrests were made in this precinct—four Blacks, three Latinos and seven whites—resulting in an arrest rate of 6 per 100,000 residents. Just 20 blocks north of the Upper East Side is East Harlem (El Barrio) covered by Precinct 25. Eighty-eight percent of this neighborhoods residents are Black or Latino. In 2016, the officers in this precinct made 492 of the lowest level marijuana possession arrests, yielding an arrest rate of 1,038 per hundred thousand, the second highest in the city. The report also compares the predominantly white Upper West Side with its 51 arrests in 2016 (41 of them Blacks and Latinos) with the predominantly Black and Latino West Harlem with its 677 arrests.

The report concludes that the only way to end these racially discriminatory arrests is by stopping them entirely: “We strongly recommend that police and district attorneys in the five boroughs of New York City immediately cease arresting, charging and prosecuting anyone for violation of New York State Criminal Law section 221.10, part 1.”

Efforts to end the marijuana arrest crusade in New York continue to build. In Albany, where reform proposals have been debated for years, Senator Liz Krueger and Assemblymember Crystal Peoples-Stokes introduced the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA), a bill that would establish a legal market for marijuana in New York. The bill would effectively end marijuana prohibition in New York State – and address the persistent, unwarranted racial disparities associated with the practice – and create a system to tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol for adults over the age of 21. The MRTA is supported by the Start SMART NY campaign – Sensible Marijuana Access through Regulated Trade – which is comprised of organizations and advocates dedicated to criminal justice reform, civil rights, public health, and community-based organizing.

“Prohibition has played a significant role in devastating low-income communities of color through racially biased enforcement and has often come with steep collateral consequences. We believe it’s time for a new approach and that approach shouldn’t involve criminalizing New York’s most vulnerable populations,” said Alyssa Aguilera, Co-Executive Director of VOCAL-NY.

“It is time that New York joins the cadre of progressive states that are acting smart on marijuana regulation. New York City was for many years the marijuana arrest capital of the world and the devastation that wreaked on people of color and marginalized communities cannot be overstated. We need to pivot and address the pressing needs of regulation while simultaneously eliminating the criminal consequences of marijuana possession and restoring the previous harms that prohibitionist modalities created. In short, we need New York State to help lead a marijuana revolution, because it’s just, it’s rational, and it’s time,” said Juan Cartagena, President and General Counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

“Similar to fare evasion arrests and other low-level offenses, the NYPD is racially profiling and handcuffing black and brown New Yorkers for marijuana possession at a disproportionate rate that has not changed in thirty years. Mayor de Blasio promised to boldly address these disparities that have historically marginalized communities of color. It’s disappointing that the status quo remains well into his tenure at City Hall. Not only do these criminal charges carry their own set of destructive collateral consequences but could now result in immediate removal proceedings with ICE,” said Anthony Posada, Supervising Attorney, Criminal Justice Unit, Legal Aid Society.

“The DPA findings are a powerful indictment of the system, but unfortunately not at all surprising for us frontline public defenders. This is not only a policing problem. It is also a prosecution problem. By continuing to prosecute marijuana arrests, District Attorneys and their line prosecutors are choosing to rubberstamp, knowingly, the racially disparate and damaging practices of the NYPD,” said Scott R. Hechinger, Senior Staff Attorney at Brooklyn Defender Services. “District Attorneys can and must send a message to the NYPD and decline to prosecute these discriminatory and unnecessary marijuana arrests.”

“New York’s marijuana arrest crusade has resulted in significant harms for those who are most vulnerable and has been used as a justification for the hyper-policing of communities of color. Over the last 20 years, more than 700,000 lives were irrevocably damaged by New York City’s draconian marijuana arrest policies. As New York finally sheds its embarrassing distinction of being the marijuana arrest capital of the world, we must repair the harms of prohibition and end the biased policing practices that have ruined the lives of so many young Black and Latino New Yorkers,” said Kassandra Frederique, New York State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. “There is no excuse for the New York City marijuana arrests to continue at this level in 2017. Mayor de Blasio pledged to end biased policing practices—if the end looks like more than 61,000 arrests on his watch and the same level of severe racial disparities, then the Mayor has failed to carry out his campaign promises to Black New Yorkers.”

Author:
Date Published: July 11, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

New Drug Policy Alliance Report: It's Time for the U.S. to Decriminalize Drug Use and Possession

July 10, 2017

UPDATE: Click here to listen to the teleconference.

An unprecedented and wide-ranging coalition of powerful stakeholders is calling for an end to the widespread practice of arresting people solely for drug use or possession. A press teleconference this Tuesday will be accompanied by the release of a new Drug Policy Alliance report, endorsed by over 30 organizations, that lays out a roadmap for how U.S. jurisdictions can move toward ending the criminalization of people who use drugs.

Ending criminal penalties for drug possession, often referred to as decriminalization, means nobody gets arrested, goes to jail or prison, or faces criminal punishment simply for possessing a small amount of a drug for personal use.

The emerging consensus for decriminalization comes at a pivotal moment, with the federal government ramping up the drug war in the face of bipartisan opposition and widespread public support for health-based responses to increasing opioid addiction and overdose deaths.

Polls of presidential primary voters last year found that substantial majorities support ending arrests for drug use and possession in Maine (64%), New Hampshire (66%) and even South Carolina (59%). In 2016, the first state-level decriminalization bill was introduced in Maryland and a similar version was reintroduced in 2017. The Hawaii legislature, meanwhile, overwhelmingly approved a bill last year creating a commission to study decriminalization.

Just last month, the United Nations and World Health Organization released a joint statement calling for repeal of laws that criminalize drug use and possession. They join an impressive group of national and international organizations who have endorsed drug decriminalization that includes the International Red Cross, Organization of American States, Movement for Black Lives, NAACP, and American Public Health Association, among many others.

“Removing criminal penalties for drug use and possession will increase opportunities for people to get help,” said Emily Kaltenbach, senior director of national criminal justice strategy at the Drug Policy Alliance. “Today, people who need drug treatment or medical assistance may avoid it in order to hide their drug use. If we decriminalize drugs, people can come out of the shadows and get the help they need.”

DPA will hold a national teleconference Tuesday, July 11 at 1pm ET / 10am PT (1-800-311-9402, Password: Decriminalization) featuring the following speakers:

Tess Borden, Aryeh Neier Fellow, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Juan Cartagena, President and General Counsel, LatinoJustice PRLDEF
Jag Davies, Director of Communications Strategy, Drug Policy Alliance (moderator)
Neill Franklin, Executive Director, Law Enforcement Action Partnership
Emily Kaltenbach, Senior Director, National Criminal Justice Reform Strategy, Drug Policy Alliance
Andrea Ritchie, Attorney, Researcher-in-Residence at Barnard Center for Research on Women, and Member of the Movement for Black Lives Policy Table

The criminalization of drug possession is a major driver of mass incarceration and mass criminalization in the United States. Each year, U.S. law enforcement makes at least 1.2 million arrests simply for drug possession. On any given night, there are at least 133,000 people behind bars in U.S. prisons and jails for drug possession – and 63,000 of them are held pre-trial.

“Our current laws have branded tens of millions of people with a lifelong criminal record that makes it hard to get a job or an apartment,” said Art Way, senior director of national criminal justice strategy at the Drug Policy Alliance. “The experience of the last few decades shows that criminalization has been utterly ineffective in reducing problematic drug use.”

Discriminatory enforcement of drug possession laws has produced profound racial and ethnic disparities at all levels of the criminal justice system. Black people comprise just 13 percent of the U.S. population – but they comprise 29 percent of those arrested for drug law violations, nearly 35 percent of those incarcerated in state or federal prison for a drug law violation, and roughly 35 percent of those incarcerated in state prison for drug possession.

“Decriminalizing drug use would be a huge step toward eliminating racial disparities in law enforcement,” added Way.

Drug criminalization also fuels mass detentions and deportations. For noncitizens, including legal permanent residents – many of whom have been in the U.S. for decades and have jobs and families – possession of any amount of any drug (except first-time possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana) can trigger automatic detention and deportation, often without the possibility of return. From 2007 to 2012, more than 100,000 people were deported simply for drug possession.

Many jurisdictions in the U.S. have already made successful steps toward decriminalization by reducing criminal penalties for drug possession. Some of these efforts include “de-felonizing” drug possession by reducing it from a felony to a misdemeanor (which the Oregon legislature just approved last week), decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana possession, establishing pre-arrest diversion programs such as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), and enacting 911 Good Samaritan laws, which allow for limited decriminalization at the scene of an overdose for people who are witnesses and call for emergency medical assistance. But more ambitious efforts are needed.

Several countries have successful experience with decriminalization, most notably Portugal. In 2001, Portugal enacted one of the most extensive drug law reforms in the world when it decriminalized low-level possession and use of all illegal drugs. Today in Portugal, no one is arrested or incarcerated for drug possession, many more people are receiving treatment, and HIV/AIDS and drug overdose have drastically decreased – all without any significant increases in rates of crime or drug use. The Portuguese experience demonstrates that ending drug criminalization – alongside a serious investment in treatment and harm reduction services – can significantly improve public safety and health.

Next week in Chicago, DPA will host an invitation-only two-day convening of several dozen leading criminal justice and public health stakeholders to strategize next steps in building support for drug decriminalization.

The following groups and individuals have endorsed the Drug Policy Alliance’s report, It’s Time for the U.S. to Decriminalize Drug Use and Possession:

A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Friends Service Committee Colorado
Broken No More
California Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM)
Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Center for Living and Learning
Centro Cáritas de Formación
Clergy for a New Drug Policy
Community Oriented Correctional Health Services
CURB Prison Spending
DanceSafe
Denver Justice Project
Drug Policy Australia
Drug Policy Forum of Hawai'i
Drug Truth Network
Global Exchange
Grief Recovery After a Substance Passing (GRASP)
Harm Reduction Action Center
Harm Reduction Australia
Iglesia Evangélica Protestante de El Salvador
Intercambios Asociación Civil
International Centre for Science in Drug Policy
International Drug Policy Coalition
Junot Díaz
Latino Justice PRLDEF
Law Enforcement Action Partnership
Moms United to End the War on Drugs
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
Progress Now NM
Protect Families First
Release
Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference
StopTheDrugWar.org
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Transform Drug Policy Foundation
Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago
Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA)
Women With a Vision

Author:
Date Published: July 10, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

4 Reasons Why The U.S. Needs to Decriminalize Drugs - And Why We're Closer Than You Think

Jag Davies — July 10, 2017

Half of all adults in the U.S. have used an illegal drug at some point. If this was your loved one, family member or friend, would they deserve to be arrested, jailed, and face a lifetime of punishment and discrimination?

Ending criminal penalties for drug possession, often referred to as decriminalization, means nobody gets arrested, goes to jail or prison, or faces criminal punishment for possessing a small amount of a drug for personal use. As detailed in a new Drug Policy Alliance report, there’s an emerging public, political, and scientific consensus that otherwise-law-abiding people should not be arrested, let alone locked in cages, simply for using or possessing a drug.

This is a pivotal moment. Our retrograde federal administration is ramping up the war on drugs – despite widespread public support for ending it and instead focusing our limited resources on health-based approaches to drug addiction and overdose deaths.

Since most drug enforcement is carried out at the local and state levels, not the federal level, jurisdictions across the U.S. are responding to Trump and Sessions by moving drug policy reforms forward with increasing urgency.

Here’s why the U.S. needs to decriminalize drugs – and why we’re actually closer than you might think.

1) Decriminalization benefits public safety and health.

Decades of empirical evidence from around the world shows that reducing and eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession does not increase rates of drug use or crime – while drastically reducing addiction, overdose and HIV/AIDS.

Today, as overdose deaths skyrocket all over the U.S., people who need drug treatment or medical assistance may avoid it in order to hide their drug use. If we decriminalize drugs, people can come out of the shadows and get help.

More than a million people are arrested each year in the U.S. for drug possession, but this has done nothing to reduce the availability of drugs or the harms they can cause. What we’re doing doesn’t work – and actually makes things worse.

Our current policies are diverting law enforcement resources from serious public safety issues. Hundreds of thousands of rape kits go unprocessed at the same time we're spending billions of dollars arresting and punishing people for drug possession. Our limited public resources would be better spent on expanding access to effective drug treatment and other health services.

2) Drug possession arrests fuel mass incarceration and mass criminalization – not to mention institutionalized racism and economic inequality.

Criminalizing drug use hurts families and communities, compounds social and economic inequalities, and unfairly denies millions of people the opportunity to support themselves and their families.

U.S. law enforcement arrests about 1.5 million people each year for drug law violations – and more than 80% of those arrests are for simple drug possession. On any given night, there are at least 133,000 people behind bars in U.S. prisons and jails for drug possession – and 63,000 of these people are held pre-trial, which means they’re locked up simply because they’re too poor to post bail.

Discriminatory enforcement of drug possession laws has produced profound racial and ethnic disparities at all levels of the criminal justice system. Black people comprise just 13% of the U.S. population and use drugs at similar rates as other groups – but they comprise 29% of those arrested for drug law violations and 35% of those incarcerated in state prison for drug possession.

Drug criminalization also fuels mass detentions and deportations. For noncitizens, including legal permanent residents – many of whom have been in the U.S. for decades and have jobs and families – possession of any amount of any drug (except first-time possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana) can trigger automatic detention and deportation, often without the possibility of return. From 2007 to 2012, 266,000 people were deported for drug law violations, of whom 38 percent – more than 100,000 people – were deported simply for drug possession.

3) Other countries have successfully decriminalized drugs – and the U.S. is moving in the right direction, despite Trump.

Most drug laws exist on a spectrum between criminalization and decriminalization. Some countries have eliminated penalties for possession of all drugs, while some countries and U.S. jurisdictions have eliminated penalties only for marijuana possession. Still other countries and U.S. jurisdictions have taken steps in the right direction by reducing criminal penalties without eliminating them entirely.

Some of these efforts in the U.S. include “defelonizing” drug possession by reducing it to a misdemeanor (which the Oregon legislature just approved last week), decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana possession, establishing pre-arrest diversion programs such as Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), and enacting 911 Good Samaritan laws, which allow for limited decriminalization at the scene of an overdose for people who are witnesses and call for emergency medical assistance. But more ambitious efforts are needed.

The Portuguese experience demonstrates that ending drug criminalization – alongside a serious investment in treatment and harm reduction services – can significantly improve public safety and health.

4) The American public – as well as leading governmental, medical, public health, and human rights groups – already support drug decriminalization.

To learn more, check out DPA’s new report, It’s Time for the U.S. to Decriminalize Drug Use and Possession, which lays out a roadmap for how U.S. jurisdictions can move toward ending the criminalization of people who use drugs.

Jag Davies is director of communications strategy at the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Jag Davies
Date Published: July 10, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

NPS are About to Get Their Own Schedule Under the Controlled Substances Act

Muhammad Rehman — July 7, 2017

How have our representatives still not learned anything from the failed War on Drugs? Research shows that criminalization is an ineffective response to drug use, yet our congressmen and women continue to follow the same old draconian path, especially when it comes to dealing with new drugs.

On June 8th, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) sponsored bill S.1327 to amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This bill seeks to create a new schedule of drugs (Schedule A) besides the five schedules that are already under the CSA. Schedule A will host a new category of drugs that are known as Novel Psychoactive Substances (NPS).

NPS are newly emerging drugs that seek to simulate the same effects of widely prohibited drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and opioids. The federal and state governments have rushed to ban these chemicals as soon as they find out about them, but manufacturers continue to change up the variations, so that it can skirt the ban.

Bill S.1327 will allow the Attorney General (AG) to temporarily or permanently put any new drug that has a “chemical structure that is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V” as a Schedule A drug. The temporary scheduling will last a period of 5 years. A sentence under a Schedule A classification can land a person in prison from anywhere between 10 and 30 years of their life “if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance.” That is a drastic amount of time, creating suffering just because a person made a choice to do what they wanted with their body. Incarceration will not help but will lead to a vicious cycle of criminalization.

In addition, this bill gives full discretion to the Attorney General to put almost any drug they deem harmful to the public under a ban. It takes the power away from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to classify drug scheduling, a process that – while flawed – requires scientific review and allows for interested people to submit data and public comment. The absence of a transparent process means the public is denied a forum to speak up for or against substances that can be classified as Schedule A.

Once in schedule A, scientific study of these new substances is all but impossible, meaning we will know even less about their potential harms or about their potential benefits (some NPS have shown promise in treating addiction and other medical conditions).

How does that make any sense?

One person, the Attorney General, will be making decisions for millions of people without any sort of input from them or, more importantly, the research community. AG Sessions already has a proven track record of being punitive on drugs, and this bill will provide him with another tool to go after already vulnerable communities.

This bill shows, that despite progress in some areas, some of our senators are stuck in the same mindset in which criminalization of drugs is always the first response. We know that enforcement of drug laws and criminalization leads to racial disparities, and this bill will very likely deepen those disparities, hurting vulnerable communities.

A better response by the government is to approach NPS through a public health lens. A public health approach helps people that are using drugs rather than incarcerating and demonizing them. Our focus should be on tracking, testing, and providing first responders with the health information they need to help and save the lives of those who use synthetic drugs without stigma.

For example, in Wales, they started Welsh Emerging Drugs and Identification of Novel Substances (WEDINOS) in 2009. WEDINOS provides a mechanism to collect and test unknown or unidentified novel psychoactive substances and then provide a thorough analysis, which includes dissemination of pragmatic harm reduction advice to first-responders around Europe. They also keep a database of all of the drugs that they are testing with the goal of providing the best health-related response to anyone that has used any substance. The health and safety of individuals is at the forefront. They are humanizing people by providing the help that they need without stigmatizing them.

The United States has to start doing the same by making sure that we are not disproportionately affecting or inadvertently leaving out disadvantaged communities. We have to start helping people rather than harming them. We need to make sure that punitive and draconian bills, such as S.1327, are not passed and focus instead on equitable, health-based policy that treats people with dignity.

Muhammad Rehman is a fellow at the Drug Policy Alliance's Office of Academic Engagement.

View more blog posts.

Author: Muhammad Rehman
Date Published: July 7, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Senate Bill Would Cut Millions of People from Healthcare and Escalate Opioid Crisis

Melissa Franqui — July 6, 2017

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rolled out a disastrous healthcare bill drafted behind closed doors by a small group of Senate Republicans that would rollback provisions in the Affordable Care Act that has extended access to health care to millions of people. The independent Congressional Budget Office analysis reports that the Republican bill would leave 22 million uninsured and millions left besieged because of the nearly$800 billion in proposed Medicaid cuts.

The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to millions of people who lacked health insurance, providing access to healthcare, opioid-related care and mental health services to millions of people. Having access to healthcare helps people who struggle with addiction address underlying health needs, reduce drug-related harm, reduce overdose risk and get access to evidence-based medication-assisted treatment and other care. Stripping Medicaid would have a detrimental impact on the most vulnerable and marginalized – from people with disabilities to people with problematic substance use who are in need of help, services, and healthcare.

Reports indicate that McConnell has agreed to add $45 billion in new opioid funding to the Senate Republican healthcare bill, in an implied attempt to lure Republicans in states that have been most ravaged by opioid-related overdoses to support his bill despite concerns that taking away healthcare from millions will undermine efforts to end the opioid crisis. Broken promise opioid funding will not mitigate the harm of Medicaid expansion rollback.

Advocates have repeatedly warned that rollbacks of the Medicaid expansion would strip access to a broad array of healthcare and mental health services from millions of people vulnerable to opioid relapse and overdose. McConnell has said he still plans to push for a floor vote despite these and other concerns.

It’s now up to you and me to stop this bill. Your Senators are home for recess through this weekend. Call them and go to their district offices in your state, and demand real and compassionate access to healthcare. This bill will impact you or someone you love. Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 and demand that they oppose the Senate healthcare bill.

Melissa Franqui is the manager of communications and marketing for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Photo via Gage Skidmore.

View more blog posts.

Author: Melissa Franqui
Date Published: July 6, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Vivitrol: When Corporate Lobbying Supplants Evidence-Based Policy

Iolanthe Brooks — July 5, 2017

On buses and billboards across the country, preened models with crossed arms stand next to the question: What is Vivitrol? Though a provocative question, policy makers and community members ought to be asking a more important one: why Vivitrol?

In the mid-2000s, Vivitrol (generic name naltrexone) was an alcohol and opioid addiction treatment with a fledgling market that few people had heard of. By 2016, its net sales were $209 million. Today, it is mentioned by name in multiple state legislations, from Arizona, to West Virginia, to Indiana. How did Vivitrol become so popular so quickly, especially when other effective medications for opioid dependence, such as Suboxone (generic name buprenorphine), are still struggling to find widespread adoption? Like so much of drug policy, it appears that the rush to make Vivitrol widely available is not based on research about it's effectiveness or patient preference as much as a $4 million dollar-a-year political lobby.

With 78 people dying every day in 2016 from opioid overdoses, policy makers are anxious for life-saving solutions. They are increasingly advocating for Vivitrol, a monthly injectable form of naltrexone, as a “magic bullet.” The medication, a type of opioid antagonist, works by blocking receptors in the brain, blocking opioids’ effects. It requires that those receiving shots have not taken opioids for 7-14 days prior.

Vivitrol clearly works for some people, but the evidence base for its efficacy is relatively weak compared to other medications. As recently reported by The New York Times and National Public Radio, the market strategy of the company that produces Vivitrol, Alkermes, has raised eyebrows – it is based on intense political lobbying and minimal research.

Vivitrol has been marketed in competition with methadone and buprenorphine, opioid agonists and partial-agonists. These medications use controlled activation of opioid receptors in the brain to partially replace the effects of illicit opioids. They provide a safe dosage that reduces the risk of overdosing during relapse and minimizes harmful behaviors linked to addiction. In addition, they’re between 10% and 50% of the price of a Vivitrol shot. Methadone and buprenorphine’s efficacy has a strong base of evidence, with positive results in retaining people in drug treatment and reducing illicit opioid use. When Secretary Tom Price maligned opioid agonists, nearly 700 experts signed a letter in support of these treatments.

In comparison, Vivitrol’s research base is weaker and more flawed. There have not been studies on its long-term effects, nor any published comparing it to buprenorphine or methadone, the standard of care for opioid dependence treatment. Instead, the few Vivitrol studies out there generally use control groups receiving placebos (see also here) or therapy and community program referrals. This means we don't actually know if Vivitrol works as well as, better, or worse than methadone or buprenorphine. In contrast, methadone and buprenorphine have been repeatedly compared in dozens of randomized controlled trials.

Much of the research on Vivitrol, partially funded by Alkermes though conducted by unaffiliated researchers, has recruited from incarcerated, pre-release populations (see also here). The vulnerability of such groups raises questions of coercion and comes with unique barriers, particularly when correctional facilities offer only Vivitrol treatment, rather than multiple individualized options.

Despite the discrepancy in evidence, Vivitrol has been written into 70 bills spread across 15 states. Arizona and West Virginia, for example, created Vivitrol programs in state correctional facilities through Medicaid. In Indiana, a house bill allows Vivitrol’s integration into parole and probation. Troublingly, the rhetoric of this legislation has painted Vivitrol – or medications with a description only Vivitrol fills – as an alternative, not a complement, to buprenorphine and methadone.

Meanwhile, access to and widespread use of methadone and buprenorphine continues to be restricted by burdensome regulations, from requiring daily attendance at methadone clinics to requiring doctors to take eight hours of education to prescribe buprenorphine. Policy makers, no doubt swayed by the strength of Alkermes’ lobby and their own desire to address addiction, are paving the way for Vivitrol’s widespread implementation when they should be focused on making all medication treatments more widely available.

It is not that Vivitrol shouldn’t be increasingly available for those seeking treatment. Many advocates, academics, and community members, however, are frustrated by Vivitrol’s adoption in lieu of a diverse set of evidence-based treatments. Its rise has depended on political advocacy, monopolized by a pharmaceutical corporation, not on the voices of other stakeholders nor the strength of research.

We know that opioid misuse is an urgent problem, and we know that there are good treatment options for it – researchers have the evidence to prove it. While Vivitrol may not a good example of evidence-based policy, it is a good example of how effective advocacy can reshape drug policy. Rather than let industry drive policy, we need those directly involved in drug-related research to flex their advocacy muscles more often.

If we do not actively work to bridge the gap between rigorous research and policy, companies like Alkermes will step in and do it. Vivitrol exemplifies the current divide between these worlds, and in doing so, should inspire more researchers to become better advocates.

Iolanthe Brooks is an intern at the Drug Policy Alliance.

Image via Wikipedia.

View more blog posts.

Author: Iolanthe Brooks
Date Published: July 5, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

McConnell Floats More Opioid Funding in Healthcare Bill

June 30, 2017

Reports indicate that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed to add $45 billion in new opioid funding to the Senate Republican healthcare bill. Republican Senators – most notably Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) - have pushed for the inclusion of opioid funding in the Senate healthcare bill to mitigate concerns that the proposed rollback of Medicaid expansion would worsen the opioid crisis in their respective states.

McConnell had previously offered $2 billion in new opioid funding in the initial discussion draft of the healthcare bill released last week. Advocates are deeply concerned that McConnell’s negotiation on new opioid funding could convince Senate Republicans to drop reservations about the Medicaid rollback. Advocates say that opioid funding cannot make up for the far-reaching benefits that coverage for healthcare, evidence-based treatment and mental health delivers to people impacted by the opioid crisis.

“Senators should reject the notion that opioid funding in any amount can make up for preserving the delivery of reliable and affordable healthcare and opioid-related care to millions of people impacted by the opioid crisis,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs with the Drug Policy Alliance. “Senators should not be hoodwinked into thinking promises of new opioid funding will mitigate severe harm that the healthcare bill will bring to communities hit hard by the opioid crisis,” said Smith.

The Senate Republican healthcare bill as drafted pursues a dramatic rollback of the Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care Act that has extended access to treatment and mental health services to millions of people. Senate Republican leadership continues to pursue a vote on healthcare legislation even as recent reporting by the New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press has underscored the growing urgency of the opioid crisis and the need for greater access to what continues to be scarce and underfunded treatment and other addiction recovery resources.

There is considerable overlap between states that expanded Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act and states that have been hit hard by the opioid crisis – including Ohio and West Virginia. Republican Senators from these and other states have publicly raised concerns about rolling back the Medicaid expansion. Advocates have repeatedly warned that rollbacks of the Medicaid expansion would strip access to opioid treatment and mental health services from millions of people vulnerable to opioid relapse and overdose. McConnell has said he still plans to push for a floor vote despite these and other concerns.

Today, the Drug Policy Alliance released a new video that attacks the Senate healthcare bill as a threat to healthcare coverage for millions of people who struggle with addiction and efforts to end the opioid crisis. The video urges viewers to call Senators and demand they oppose the healthcare bill pending in the Senate.

###

Author:
Date Published: June 30, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

United Nations and World Health Organization Call for Drug Decriminalization

Suchitra Rajagopalan — June 30, 2017

In a joint statement, the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) expressed their support for countries in the review and repeal of laws that criminalize drug use and possession of drugs for personal use. This joint statement, which addresses discrimination in health care settings, comes in light of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which aim to “ensure that no one is left behind”.

The WHO has previously called for drug decriminalization as a necessary measure for public health but this joint statement with the UN represents another significant step in the global movement for drug decriminalization.

There is growing support for drug decriminalization – the elimination of criminal penalties for drug use and possession – in the U.S. and around the world. Leading medical, public health and human rights groups have endorsed drug decriminalization, including the International Red Cross, the American Public Health Association, American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP and Latino Justice.

Public opinion on decriminalization has also been steadily increasing as the harms of criminalizing drugs become more apparent. Polls of presidential primary voters in Maine, New Hampshire and even South Carolina found that substantial majorities in each state support ending arrests for drug use and possession. In 2016, the first state-level decriminalization bill was introduced in Maryland and a similar version was reintroduced in 2017.

Internationally, several countries already have some form of drug decriminalization. Portugal, most notably, decriminalized drugs back in 2001 as a response to the country’s HIV crisis and has demonstrated the vast benefits of decriminalization – substantial reductions in overdose, HIV/AIDS and addiction, all without any increase in drug use or crime.

Not only does drug decriminalization drastically reduce the number of people mired in the quicksand of the criminal justice system – it also, as the UN/WHO statement highlights, vastly improve public health. It decreases the stigma against people who use drugs and addresses the discrimination they historically face.

The harms of discrimination are only exacerbated in health settings, where it is literally a matter of life and death. Decriminalization can be the difference between a loved one getting the health services they need and a loved one being stigmatized, denied treatment and in danger of losing their life.

Drug decriminalization is a rational and fiscally sound policy rooted in health and human rights. Governments throughout the U.S. and around the world have an indisputable moral and scientific imperative to pursue it.

Suchitra Rajagopalan is the research coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance

Author: Suchitra Rajagopalan
Date Published: June 30, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

New Data on Jail Population Decline Under Bail Reform Shows New Jersey’s Leadership on Pretrial Justice

June 29, 2017

Trenton — Today, the Administrative Office of the Court released statistics that show New Jersey’s jail population has continued to decline as the result of the successful implementation of the statewide bail reform on January 1^st of this year. The data shows that jail populations across the state had declined 19% by the end of May. That marks a 36% drop statewide compared to May of 2015 – with declines of as much as 49% in some counties.

“The numbers mark the success of bail reform in New Jersey, and prove the reform restored fairness to our justice system while protecting public safety,” said Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “We’re already seeing the benefits for taxpayers. The decline in jail population shows jail beds are now being used more appropriately – only for those people who judges deem too high of a risk to the community before trial.”

“Under the old money bail system, dangerous defendants were able to buy their way out of jail while poor, lower-risk people were stuck behind bars simply because they couldn’t afford their freedom. The reform corrected that glaring public safety loophole while making the system fairer.”

In the new system, judges utilize an evidence-based risk assessment tool to help them make pretrial release decision. The reform also gives judges the ability to detain high risk individuals who pose a risk to public safety, while releasing lower risk individuals with conditions and supervision. As of the end of May, 13% of individuals were detained pending trial. The use of money bail is deprioritized under the reform – only 9 money bails have been set statewide this year according today’s data release.

The Drug Policy Alliance led the coalition that won passage of this reform in 2014. They sit on the legislatively created Pretrial Services Program Review Commission, which is charged with monitoring and evaluating implementation of the bail reform law and shall report annually to the Governor and the Supreme Court.

Author:
Date Published: June 29, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

The Drug War’s Out of Fashion…but Not These Throwback Tees!

Melissa Franqui — June 29, 2017

It’s the 1970’s. The Jackson 5, Donna Summer and the Bees Gees reign over the airwaves, and velour pant suits, flared denim, and corduroy jackets are fashion forward. Disco explodes and by the end of the decade Hollywood releases the epic space opera, Star Wars. And Nixon declares a “war on drugs.”

If it feels like ancient history – it should, but it’s not. Nixon dramatically increased the size and presence of federal drug control agencies, and pushed through measures such as mandatory sentencing and no-knock warrants. These destructive polices, designed to disrupt anti-war efforts and fracture Black communities, are still very much part of our political landscape, despite the fact that they don’t end drug use, are rooted in racism and should have been left by wayside along with polyester and Pong consoles.

The drug war is stitched into the fabric of the criminal justice system and beyond, and its damaging influence has outlived Nixon’s appalling legacy. That’s why the Drug Policy Alliance and social justice apparel brand Human Intonation have teamed up to create a line of tank tops and t-shirts inspired by 70’s flair, taking note of the fact that the drug war has raged for far too long.

"With Drug Policy Alliance we were able to create a true intersect between the human rights issues that each of our brands feels so passionate about. Understanding the link between drug policy, a person’s choice to party safer and related issues such as HIV prevention, testing and treatment is just one example of how powerful an impact HUMAN INTONATION can make when collaborating with an organization truly in the trenches for social change like DPA,” said Verneda Adele White, founder and creative director of H.I.

Get retro chic and festival ready while supporting an organization working to end failed and discriminatory policies. Go to our website, and get your No More Drug War or Party Safer shirt today!

Melissa Franqui is the manager of communications and marketing for the Drug Policy Alliance

View more blog posts.

Author: Melissa Franqui
Date Published: June 29, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

The War on Drugs Places “Black Joy” in the Line of Fire

Zacchaeus Stanton — June 28, 2017

*Editor's note: In this monthly blog series, the Drug Policy Alliance will examine the nexus between the War on Drugs and law enforcement practices that result in the mass criminalization, incarceration and dehumanization of communities of color. These pieces will reflect on the ways in which the institutions of policing and prosecution- both driven by calls for “law and order” in the wake of the War on Drugs- continue to function as instruments of reinforcement for the overarching structural racism on which the drug war was founded.

Over the past several weeks, the details surrounding the tragic killing of Jordan Edwards have been revealed under the intensely watchful eye of a public that continues to face a seemingly never-ending flood of stories recounting instances of police brutality and the pervasive lack of justice for black victims on the receiving end of police misconduct.

Outside of a media sphere permeated by meticulously crafted, state-serving narratives marked by the use of coded language as a form of fear mongering that encourages brutalization in carrying out the war on drugs and cultivates public apathy towards the victims of such violence, a situation in which a police officer responding to a neighbor’s call about possible underage drinking that ends with the use of lethal force on a car full of frightened kids could not be dressed as anything other than a senseless act of violence. This murder reinforces the message that the protections associated with the assumption of innocence and positive police discretion towards instances of youthful indiscretion are not privileges extended to black youth.

Further, a failure to also identify this situation as one where the duty to protect and serve was superseded by an institutional obsession with policing and restricting the autonomy of black people would require willful ignorance of the history of enslavement and subjugation of black people in this country.

Jordan’s story is not anomalous. The explosion in exposure of police brutality across the nation and subsequent reflection on my own experiences with law enforcement while growing up in Dallas quickly led me to the sobering realization that any of the nights I enjoyed not long ago, when I was Jordan’s age, could have ended in tragedy. The price of this realization has been an existence marred by constant feelings of fear and anxiety about what could happen and how my personal relationship with drugs might be used in an attempt to strip me of my humanity posthumously.

As a result, I often find myself preemptively policing my actions, my speech, expressions of my emotions, my movements, and even my writing, but none of these things have proven adequate in protecting me from potentially volatile interactions with law enforcement or figures that have been endowed with authority to use force by whatever institution employs them.

Knowing that I am not alone is deeply saddening.

What is much more devastating, however, is reading in the Dallas Morning News that kids who occupy some of the same spaces I once did experienced such a degree of psychological trauma from Jordan’s death and similar situations that they feel they have no choice but to forfeit simple joys of youth like playing basketball and partying with friends.

Living with the psychological burden imposed by the constant threat of state violence is not freedom. We cannot begin to chip away at the hyper-criminalization of black and Latino youth until we end the war on drugs. If not, the reality most of America is privileged enough to enjoy - the assumption that an interaction with law enforcement will not end in their demise - will remain an aspiration at best.

When I was in elementary school, a large part of the school’s efforts to convince us to “just say no” to drugs involved encouraging us to “dare to be different.” As an adult, I am imploring the powers that be and those who have been complicit in cultivating this drug war climate to put the same amount of time and resources into daring police to allow all youth the space to enjoy their lives without fear of those entrusted with the responsibility of protecting them.

Zacchaeus Stanton is policy associate with the Drug Policy Alliance.

Author: Zacchaeus Stanton
Date Published: June 28, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

California's Top Newspapers Endorse Harm Reduction and Sentencing Reform Bills

Virginia Purcell — June 28, 2017

The LA Times and San Francisco Chronicle, two of California’s most prominent newspapers, came out in support of DPA sponsored harm reduction and sentencing reform bills that are currently in the California state legislature.

The LA Times editorialized in favor of safe injection site legislation and wrote:

“A bill in Sacramento would allow eight selected counties, including Los Angeles, to try the idea out. Not only is the philosophy of safe injection centers consistent with California’s efforts to treat addiction as a disease not a crime, but a pilot project would gather invaluable data. The proposal by Assemblywoman Susan Eggman (D-Stockton)comes up for a crucial vote in a state Senate committee hearing in early July.”

The editorial also highlights that the American Medical Association chose to support safe consumption sites earlier this month.These sites would help stop people from both overdosing and contracting illnesses such as HIV. The bill also would establish that the sites would "provide access or referrals to addiction treatment services, medical services, and social services."

The San Francisco Chronicle published an editorial about SB 180 (Sen. Mitchell, D-Los Angeles), which would reform sentencing enhancements for people who violate drug laws and have prior drug offense convictions. The San Francisco Chronicle took a strong stance, emphasizing that sentencing enhancements for drug offenses simply do not work.

“Rather, it’s an acknowledgment of what public defenders have testified to in legislative committees, andwhat community organizations have found in their work: The people who are most vulnerable to the harshest sentences are those suffering from not just drug addiction but also conditions like homelessness and mental illness. In recent years, California voters have consistently signaled their preference for drug offenders to receive treatment options rather than harsh, expensive jail terms.”

Today, with a 4-2 vote the California Assembly Public Safety passed SB 180 and recognizing that this enhancement has been ineffective and detrimental to California’s most vulnerable communities. SB 180 now moves to the Assembly floor.

Establishing safe injection sites and reforming controlled substance sentencing enhancements are steps in the right direction to treating addiction as a public health issue instead of as a criminal one.

Virginia Purcell is an intern with the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Virginia Purcell
Date Published: June 28, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Don't let Congress worsen the opioid epidemic

June 28, 2017

Tell your Senators not to cut life-saving healthcare access to those hit hardest by the opioid crisis.

Author:
Date Published: June 28, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

California Committee Passes Bill to Reduce Sentences for Nonviolent Drug Sales

Sacramento, CA —The California Assembly Public Safety Committee voted 4-2 to pass Senate Bill 180, authored by Senator Holly Mitchell and Ricardo Lara, a bill that would repeal lengthy sentencing enhancements for prior drug convictions.

Currently, anyone convicted for drug sale, possession for sale, or similar offenses can face an additional three years in prison or jail for each conviction for a similar offense. For example, a person facing a new conviction for possessing a very small amount of drugs for sale, which has a base penalty of up to four years, could face an extra nine years if they have three prior drug convictions. This is not an uncommon scenario for addicted, homeless drug users. These types of drug enhancements are the leading cause of sentences over 10 years in county jail, according to data from the state sheriffs association.

Enacted in 1985, this enhancement was intended to deter drug sales and reduce the availability of drugs in California’s. Experts agreed that it failed on all counts – drugs are cheaper, stronger, and more widely available than at any other time in US history.

Sentence enhancements ultimately target the poorest and most marginalized people in our communities—those with substance use and mental health needs who have struggled to reintegrate into society. While rates of drug use and selling are comparable across racial lines, people of color are far more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated for drug law violations.

“After 32 years of having this enhancement on the books, drugs are cheaper, purer, and more readily available within our communities. This sentencing enhancement has been an expensive, punitive, and racially biased policy that has led to the incarceration of generations of our communities,” said Eunisses Hernandez, policy coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance. “It has led to a build up our carceral system, but has done nothing to make our communities safer.”

This enhancement has contributed to jail and prison overcrowding, and wasted millions of California tax payer dollars. Removing this enhancement would free up funds that could be invested in programs and services that reduce crime and improve public safety, including community-based mental health and substance use treatment, job programs, and housing.

Advocates laud the Assembly Public Safety Committees passage of SB 180. The bill already passed a full Senate vote, and will now be referred to the Assembly floor vote debate and a vote. With SB 180, California moves one step closer to ending the war on drugs by repealing these unreasonable and extreme sentences born out of a racially biased and punitive era.

This bill is co-sponsored by the ACLU of California, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Drug Policy Alliance, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, California Public Defenders Association, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and Friends Committee on Legislation of California.

###

Author:
Date Published:
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Major Criminal Justice Reform Groups Announce Opposition to Bill on Sentencing and Synthetic Drugs

June 26, 2017

Today, more than 60 civil and human rights, faith and criminal justice reform organizations, including the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, NAACP, FAMM, Drug Policy Alliance, and the Sentencing Project released a letter that has been sent to the House Judiciary Committee opposing H.R.2851, the Stop the Importation and Trafficking of Synthetic Analogues Act of 2017.

The letter reads, “The proposed legislation is a backwards approach to addressing the country’s drug problem by ignoring evidence of effective drug interventions and countering the common public sentiment that embraces treatment over incarceration as the right approach to the opioid epidemic.” The bill would allow the Attorney General sweeping power to schedule new drugs, and set the corresponding penalties. It also includes new mandatory minimums.

Tomorrow, at 10am, The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime holds a hearing on the legislation. The House bill is led by Rep Katko (R-NY) and Rep Rice (D-NY). Senators Grassley and Feinstein have introduced a similar bill in the Senate.

“While we share the Representatives’ concern about the rise in fatalities linked to synthetic drugs, this bill takes the wrong approach,” said Michael Collins, Deputy Director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs. “We know that more incarceration will fail to tackle the opioid epidemic, and we know that more treatment and overdose prevention are approaches that work. Giving any Attorney General broad power to decide which substances should be banned and which penalties apply is incredibly dangerous and misguided.”

Read the full letter here.

Author:
Date Published: June 26, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Pride, Policing and a History of Radical Liberation

Alexandrea Hatcher — June 23, 2017

“There can be no pride for some of us without liberation for all of us.” These piercing words were delivered by No Justice No Pride, one of the many grass roots movements taking a stand at this year’s Pride March in DC. Elders and younger queers alike are resisting corporatization and militarization of queer space and queer expression. Their demands are simple. No police presence. Black Lives Matter (BLM) stated this brilliantly at last year’s march in San Francisco by withdrawing from pride. BLM thoughtfully expressed the harm that can occur among queer people of color by and with police presence.

Their battle cries echo from the past -- this historic month-long celebration began in response to police surveillance and police brutality resulting in the Stonewall Riots of 1969. On the eve of Pride almost 50 years later, I’ve been reflecting on how drugs, policing, and queer liberation are connected and why calls to resist police presence and militarization in queer spaces are so important.

The event we commemorate at Pride, the Stonewall Rebellion, lies at this nexus. The Stonewall Inn and many bars like it were hubs for the queer community, especially for those who are cast aside and criminalized. The LGBTQ+ community has always had a complex relationship to drugs – LGBTQ+ people use drugs for a variety of reasons and a variety of emotional needs; sometimes as a way of coping with discrimination and often as a celebration of our existence. Our relationship with law enforcement is also complex. For decades, our identities and behaviors were criminalized, and we were the targeted in the spaces we gathered to build community and celebrate. For many of us, especially those of us who are people of color, gender non-conforming, and/or who use drugs, we remain unsafe and under the surveillance and threat of the police.

Thinking about our safety and minimal space in this world makes me wonder, how we can reduce these harms inflicted by both institutional agents and in the queer community, but at same time increase unity through resistance?

We must begin with our community, a community that is intersectional in every aspect. Identities that include race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, drug use, criminal histories, gender, ability, and perceived otherness. Historically police presence (and currently) within queer community has been an issue of social control by any means necessary. Drugs are often a pretext for increased policing and surveillance of LGBTQ+ as with other marginalized communities.

So, then, it is not surprising to learn that pride started as a liberation movement. After the Stonewall riots, the community spent a great time organizing and planning what is now known as pride. What many people don’t know is that at first there were no floats, no music, no boys in briefs. Even getting permits for Marches were met with great resistance and challenges. Pride was the community taking to the streets to show their presence, their existence, and their humanity.

As I write here at the Drug Policy Alliance I think yes, No Justice No Pride, yes, BLM, and yes to the people on the ground who are taking a stance against corporate America and militarization of queer spaces. Their courageous efforts to push for a new world, a world where queer people of color are no longer patrolled, policed, brutalized and traumatized until their dying days, a world that imagines humanity before brutality. So thank you No Justice No Pride for those piercing words that “there can be no pride for some of us without liberation for all of us,” to hold us accountable and to help us push for a new way, a better way.

Alexandrea Hatcher is a research associate at the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Alexandrea Hatcher
Date Published: June 23, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Stop Justifying Police Killings Based on Alleged Marijuana Use

Chris Alexander — June 23, 2017

The June 2016 killing of Philando Castile shook a Minnesota community and the nation. Black America woke up once again to find one of our own the victim of state-sanctioned killing. Again, America was made to confront its seemingly intractable relationship to racist violence and institutional discrimination. The flimsy justifications for such killings continued, as it emerged this week that Officer Yanez said in his defense that the alleged scent of marijuana made him fear for his life and open fire on Philando just seconds after walking up to his car.

I believed that the fact that Philando was killed in front of his family would ensure a guilty verdict for Officer Jeronimo Yanez. But once again, I was proven wrong.

The “not guilty” verdict rang out from the St. Anthony, Minnesota court room and reverberated in Ferguson, Cincinnati, Walter County, and Brooklyn --just some of the recent locations where police have killed black men and women and used the slain person's alleged marijuana use to posthumously justify deadly force, or to smear their character.

This country's relationship to marijuana and to Black people have both evolved over the years. We've gone from fears of reefer madness to the excitement about the “green rush,” where the marijuana industry is projected to soon add more jobs than manufacturing, utilities, or even the government. And, in that same time, policing of Black people has gone from Jim Crow to a new Jim Crow rooted in the war on drugs -- a war in which Black people remain the primary target for marijuana enforcement, despite similar rates of use across racial lines. We see this every day in New York City, where last year 80% of those arrested for low-level marijuana possession were Black or Latino.

Eight states and the District of Columbia have now ended marijuana prohibition in their jurisdictions and created systems to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana for medical use. This policy shift has resulted in a multibillion dollar “legitimate,” well-regulated, and almost entirely white industry. We now have a Cannabis Caucus in Congress, showing that even lawmakers have evolved on the issue.

Simultaneously, however, states like New York have managed to maintain the status quo; marijuana use is still illegal, but only really enforced if you are a person of color. This is especially problematic given that current NYC policies allow police interactions with community members based on the very same justification that Officer Yanez invoked to justify killing Philando Castile: the mere scent of marijuana.

Although Mayor Bill de Blasio ran a campaign promising to end the marijuana arrest crusade in New York City, his administration continues to allow law enforcement to use the scent of marijuana to justify any interaction or arrest -- with no corroborating evidence required. Given that people of color are disproportionately targeted for marijuana possession arrests, any policies that allow increased contact with law enforcement open the door for tragedies to occur, as we have repeatedly seen.

As I work to end marijuana prohibition in New York, I am consistently reminded that legalizing marijuana will not legalize black people. The paradox inherent in this country's marijuana policy is crucial for any advocate of marijuana legalization or drug law reformer to understand.

A recent CBS poll showed that national support for marijuana legalization was now as high as it has ever been at 60%. The poll also showed that 50% of adults in the country have admitted to using marijuana at least once in their lifetimes. That is over 128 million people.

Still, Officer Yanez was able to successfully avert conviction for manslaughter by saying that the scent of marijuana justified his killing of Philando Castile.

We need to legalize marijuana because prohibition has been ineffective, costly, and racially enforced. But, more importantly, it is beyond time that we make clear that marijuana can no longer be used as a justification for police violence or murder.

Chris Alexander is a Policy Coordinator with the Drug Policy Alliance’s New York office.

View more blog posts.

Author: Chris Alexander
Date Published: June 23, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

The GOP Healthcare Bill Will Doom Millions of People Struggling with Addiction

Bethany Perryman — June 23, 2017

“You are only as sick as your secrets,” we say. People in recovery from struggles with addiction know this line by heart. To be open and honest about my years of problematic substance use, and my 4 years of recovery, is key to keeping me alive.

This morning, after weeks of backroom drafting and repeated calls for information — sometimes from their own party — the Senate released the text of their healthcare bill, an amended version of the Affordable Health Care Act passed recently in the House.

This concerning lack of transparency until the 11th hour cuts off at the knees the ability for congressional colleagues and the public to hold hearings and invite public discourse surrounding the implications of the now-released text of this long awaited bill.

Now that the bill’s language is public, Senate Republicans want to force a quick vote with no hearings or chance for amendments. The bill rolls back provisions in the Affordable Care Act that guarantee treatment coverage for millions of people, including those who have a history of struggling with addiction and other pre-existing conditions.

#Healthcarebill will take drug treatment away from millions. Demand ur Senators oppose the American Health Care Act! https://t.co/ek1ZZdiPya pic.twitter.com/c5Ymkc5gby

— Drug Policy Alliance (@DrugPolicyOrg) June 23, 2017

The Medicaid expansion would become a ghost, slashing critical funding to states for coordinated care and treatment access. States like West Virginia — with the highest per capita overdose rate in the nation — would have to shoulder these costs on their own. Every Senator knows that's functionally impossible.

I am a person in long-term recovery, and have seen what happens when sick people don’t get medical treatment. Recently, I was advocating for a young woman I know from college who is struggling with addiction. I took her to detox, and sat with her in the hospital — both of us fearing for her life. The scramble to sign her up for Medicaid almost forced her release before she had access to residential treatment. She couldn't afford private insurance, but was eligible for life-saving coverage under the Medicaid expansion in her state.

Expanded coverage access means expanded treatment, which means fewer people die. The opioid crisis is real, and fatal for far too many from all walks of life. If treatment options are suspended for the most vulnerable, substance users won’t go away. In fact, their chances of developing expensive and potentially deadly medical conditions will increase.

The insulting last minute insertion of piecemeal funding for the opioid epidemic is merely lip service, and a poor substitute for sustained treatment and access to care. A recent study out of Ohio State University proves that almost no one in Ohio who is currently covered by the Medicaid expansion would have any options for healthcare coverage following repeal of the ACA. The overdose rate in Ohio jumped 36% last year. The opioid epidemic is killing our loved ones and taking its toll on communities.

Another recent study found that there has been a 70 percent increase in Medicaid-covered prescriptions for buprenorphine – a medication critical to opioid treatment recovery – in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia that expanded Medicaid. Medications like buprenorphine and methadone are presently one of our best weapons in the fight against opioid overdose. Should the Republican healthcare bill become law those who presently rely on Medicaid risk losing affordable and reliable treatment options. For many, this could mean relapse or fatal overdose.

As a former substance user, I can tell you — having access to treatment saved my life. I have seen the Medicaid expansion save a life firsthand. Our lawmakers are only as sick as their secrets, too. As such, the GOP healthcare bill should be DOA. Instead, my people – the millions of us who struggle with addiction – could be the ones who die.

Bethany Perryman is an Administrative Associate for the Drug Policy Alliance. She is a person in long term recovery from addiction.

View more blog posts.

Author: Bethany Perryman
Date Published: June 23, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

McConnell's Draft of Healthcare Bill Confirms Dramatic Rollback of Opioid Treatment Access for Millions of People

June 22, 2017

A discussion draft of healthcare legislation released this morning confirms plans by Senate Republican leadership to pursue a dramatic rollback of the Medicaid expansion created by the Affordable Care Act that has extended access to treatment and mental health services to millions of people. The draft also proposes adding $2 billion in new opioid funding in an attempt to mitigate concerns about millions of people losing treatment and mental health coverage.

Advocates have repeatedly warned that rollbacks of the Medicaid expansion would strip access to opioid treatment and mental health services from millions of people vulnerable to opioid relapse and overdose. Advocates also emphasized that a separate opioid fund, as proposed in this discussion draft, is no substitute for keeping the Medicaid expansion in place.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said he still plans to push for a floor vote on healthcare as early as next week despite these and other concerns.

“McConnell is rushing a healthcare bill to the Senate floor that will threaten millions of lives by heartlessly cutting life-saving opioid treatment,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs with the Drug Policy Alliance. “We know that yanking away healthcare from people who struggle with addiction dramatically increases relapse and overdose rates. We know that any rollback of the Medicaid expansion will profoundly exacerbate the opioid crisis.”

Senate Republican leadership plans to bring healthcare legislation to the Senate floor next week even as recent reporting by the New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press has underscored the growing urgency of the opioid crisis and the need for greater access to what continues to be scarce and underfunded treatment and other addiction recovery resources. There is considerable overlap between states that expanded Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act and states that have been hit hard by the opioid crisis – including Ohio and West Virginia. Republican Senators from these and other states have publicly raised concerns about rolling back the Medicaid expansion.

“This proposal for new opioid funding is not a substitute for Medicaid expansion,” added Smith. “Senators shouldn’t be fooled into thinking this can make up for millions of people losing access to reliable, affordable and evidence-based treatment and mental health services.”

Author:
Date Published: June 22, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Senate Republicans Rushing Secret Healthcare Bill That Would Cut Access to Opioid Treatment for Millions

Bethany Perryman — June 22, 2017

The Senate is expected to vote on the American Health Care Act — Trumpcare — before the July 4th recess, or by the end of July. The AHCA is the Republicans' long-touted attempt to repeal and replace the previous administration's healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare. Although healthcare represents 1/6th of the American economy, the American people and their elected representatives have yet to see the language in the Senate's AHCA bill. We don't know what's in it. Reports indicate that the text of the bill might be available soon.

In addition to concerns over the future fate of pre-existing conditions and reproductive healthcare access, there are two major mysteries about the bill: What will be the verdict on the proposed rollback of the ACA's Medicaid expansion? How will the AHCA address the country's most pressing drug problem — the opioid epidemic?

As a federally administered program, Medicaid ensures a legal right to care for those who are eligible. For America's most vulnerable, the economically disadvantaged and disabled, this is typically the only access to health coverage they will have. The ACA offered states a Medicaid expansion, which provided states with care coordination resources, and began covering single, non-disabled adults without dependents at an income rate of <138% of the Federal Poverty Level. Many of these 4 million new healthcare recipients suffer from substance use disorder, mental health issues, or both. Some of these are incarcerated, as the rates of untreated mental illness and substance use disorder are disproportionately high. Before Obamacare, access to healthcare for these behavioral health services was restricted or flat out unavailable to those without private insurance coverage. Direct access to healthcare reduces recidivism, reducing fiscal waste in the criminal justice system – and positively impacting people, families, and communities.

A repeal of the ACA would mean the end of life-saving treatment for the most vulnerable Americans, particularly damning for those suffering from substance use disorders. A repeal would increase the treatment gap by over 50%, and would eliminate at least $5.5 billion per year from treatment for mental health and substance use disorders.

The implication of passing the AHCA is a reversal of the forward-looking language and funding of the 21st Century Cures Act — a bipartisan bill passed last year that addressed the opioid epidemic and mental health. The $1 billion over two years that the Cures Act provides won't even begin to stop the bleeding of losing $5.5 billion per year. Could Congress's decision to govern with pragmatism and compassion evaporate with the stroke of a pen?

The AHCA in its current form would establish Medicaid as a block grant program, which would essentially choke current federal funding rates and leave coverage up to the states. In reality, every Congressperson knows the states — particularly those ravaged by the opioid epidemic, like Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky — have no way to afford to continue this coverage. A recent study from Eric Seiber and Micah Berman, public-health researchers at Ohio State University, shows that almost no one in Ohio who is currently covered by the Medicaid expansion would have any practicable insurance option were the ACA to be repealed.

Almost 3 million people suffering from substance use disorder could lose life-saving treatment coverage in the days leading up to the July 4th recess. If the AHCA passes, we will spend this 4th of July sitting with the stark truth about what it means to be an American — turning our backs on those in need.

Bethany Perryman is an Administrative Associate for the Drug Policy Alliance. She is a person in long term recovery from addiction.

View more blog posts.

Author: Bethany Perryman
Date Published: June 22, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Senate Republicans Rushing Secret Healthcare Bill That Would Cut Access to Opioid Treatment for Millions

June 21, 2017

Healthcare legislation drafted in secret by a small group of Senate Republicans would strip access to opioid treatment and mental health services from millions of people vulnerable to opioid relapse and overdose. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he intends to reveal a draft of the bill on Thursday. Reports indicate it maintains rollbacks of the Medicaid expansion that extended eligibility and coverage for treatment and other health services to millions of low-income people.

“Mitch McConnell is rushing a healthcare bill to the Senate floor that will threaten millions of lives by heartlessly cutting life-saving opioid treatment. We know that yanking away healthcare from people who struggle with addiction dramatically increases relapse and overdose rates. We know that any rollback of the Medicaid expansion will profoundly exacerbate the opioid crisis. And we know that communities of color, where access to treatment for substance use disorders is already limited, will be hit the hardest,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs with the Drug Policy Alliance.

The Senate Republican leadership plans to bring the legislation to the Senate floor next week even as recent reporting by the New York Times, Washington Post, and Associated Press has underscored the growing urgency of the opioid crisis and the need for greater access to what continues to be scarce and underfunded treatment and other addiction recovery resources.

There is considerable overlap between states that expanded Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act and states that have been hit hard by the opioid crisis – including Ohio and West Virginia. Republican Senators from these and other states have publicly raised concerns about rolling back the Medicaid expansion. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) has led an effort to push for new funding in the healthcare bill for opioid treatment. Advocates warn, however, that emergency funding of this kind is no substitute for keeping the Medicaid expansion in place.

“Emergency opioid funding is no substitute for Medicaid expansion and the delivery of reliable, affordable and evidence-based treatment and mental health services to millions,” added Smith. “Senators should not be fooled into thinking such stopgaps will mitigate the deep cuts to Medicaid and other ACA provisions that expanded access to treatment. States can’t rely on a temporary bucket of funding that could become a bullseye for cuts later.”

Author:
Date Published: June 21, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

New Mexico Health Secretary Ignores Medical Experts, Rejects Adding Opioid Use Disorder for Medical Cannabis

Jessica Gelay — June 21, 2017

For more than two decades, New Mexico has suffered from a disproportionate rate of opioid overdoses compared to nearly every other state in the nation.

Our families are traumatized as they continue to lose loved ones, and medical and public health professionals agree that the current treatments and tools available are not enough. Almost everyone, including our state legislators, are ready to try something new to curb the rising deaths. Everyone but Governor Susana Martinez and Secretary of Health, Lynn Gallagher.

Six months ago, the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Advisory Board recommended to the Secretary of Health to add opioid use disorder (OUD) as qualifying condition under the State’s Medical Cannabis program. The petition stated that cannabis should be a first-line treatment option for people who are suffering from addiction to substances, and especially those who have problems with opioid use. It can alleviate withdrawal symptoms that come with decreasing or stopping opioid, alcohol, or use of other drugs. It makes eating and sleeping easier, has calming and pain relieving effects.

But, after more than six months of inaction, the Secretary of Health issued a decision rejecting the petition. The decision comes after the state legislature sent a bill, with strong bi-partisan support, to the Governor’s desk also adding OUD as a qualified condition. That bill was vetoed by the Governor. The Secretary’s short-sighted decision flies in the faces of the medical advisory board members who voted to recommend approving OUD (5-1).

The Board is a group of licensed practitioners who are appointed by the Governor to review and recommend adding conditions to the NM medical cannabis program. Among the board members who voted in favor of adding OUD were professionals in the fields of psychiatry, pain management, addiction medicine and family medicine. And, while the Secretary has the ultimate power to approve or deny conditions eligible for medical cannabis, why have a board if their recommendations are going to be summarily dismissed?

The Advisory Board’s recommendation was informed by mounting evidence in favor of using cannabis as one of many treatments for opioid use disorder.

When Anita Briscoe, a New Mexico-based psychiatric nurse practitioner with decades of clinical experience petitioned the Department to add opioid use disorder, she came prepared. Briscoe, raised in Española, NM where overdose death rates are among the highest in the nation, saw the devastation problematic opioid use can cause while growing up. Briscoe and two colleagues collected patient survey data from New Mexicans using cannabis to help ease pain and opioid withdrawal symptoms. Briscoe’s survey of 400 patients showed that 25% reported being able to discontinue opioid use with the aid of cannabis. And in April 2017, two faculty members at University of New Mexico released findings from a study they conducted where they observed patients who had access to medical cannabis reduced their opioid use by 31%, while people in the control group saw a slight increase in opioid use.

The Drug Policy Alliance’s report, A Public Health and Safety Approach to Problematic Opioid Use and Overdose outlines a set of steps to address this crisis, including evaluating the use of cannabis to decrease reliance on prescription opioids and reduce opioid overdose deaths.

People should be able to qualify for medical cannabis with a clinical diagnosis of substance use disorder. People suffering from addiction have enough hurdles and barriers to overcome. Requiring people to get a secondary diagnosis of chronic pain in order to access medical cannabis is a form of discrimination; it reinforces stigma and stops people from seeking help for their addiction.

Jessica Gelay is a policy manager for the Drug Policy Alliance, based in New Mexico.

View more blog posts.

Author: Jessica Gelay
Date Published: June 21, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Legislation Authorizing Safer Consumption Spaces for Supervised Injection Introduced in New York State

June 21, 2017

New York, NY: In response to New York State's overdose epidemic, Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal (D/WF-Manhattan) introduced legislation authorizing safer consumption spaces as an emergency public health tool to combat overdose deaths. Safer consumption spaces (SCS), also called supervised injection facilities (SIF), are facilities where people can legally consume previously purchased illicit drugs with supervision from trained staff who help make their use safer, respond immediately to overdoses, and connect them with medical care, drug treatment, and social services.

The bill creates a framework for supervised consumption spaces to operate, which would likely be sited within existing syringe exchange programs, which would integrate supervised consumption services into their operations. It also requires an evaluation of the efficacy of the services, and would provide legal protections for the programs and participants and allow local jurisdictions to choose to permit a safer consumption space.

The legislation is supported by a broad coalition of healthcare professionals, public health experts, advocates, elected officials and people with a history of drug use who want to ensure that New York is using every approach possible to save lives amid the overdose crisis that is on track to surpass all previous records for overdose deaths this year.

Supervised consumption spaces are designed to reduce the health and societal problems associated with drug use. Such facilities provide sterile injection equipment, information about reducing the harms of drugs, health care, treatment referrals, and access to medical staff. Some offer counseling, drug treatment, and other services. Extensive research on these facilities consistently demonstrates a variety of cost-saving public health benefits including reducing public nuisance associated with illicit drug use, such as public drug use and improper syringe disposal; reducing overdose deaths; increasing access to drug treatment; and reducing risk behaviors for Hepatitis C and HIV.

“Overdose deaths as a result of opioid use continue to increase despite our best efforts. When our success is measured in lives lost, it’s vital that we use every harm reduction tool at our disposal to prevent overdoses and help save lives. Safer consumption sites work in hundreds of other cities across the world, and if we are serious about reducing overdoses and helping people into recovery, then we have a responsibility to explore SIFs here in New York,” said Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal (D/WF-Manhattan), Chair of the Assembly Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse.

Nearly 100 safer consumption spaces exist around the world, with millions of injections having taken place at some of them. Yet, not one overdose death has been documented in these facilities.

"Our health care system has struggled to reach people who use drugs; we often see people only after they've contracted HIV or Hepatitis C, or nearly died from an overdose. We cannot continue to promote a health care model that neglects people until they hit rock-bottom, which too often means an overdose death in a public restroom or abandoned building," said Dr. Jonathan Giftos, a Clinical Instructor of Medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, where he provides clinical care for justice-involved patients with opioid use disorders. "Instead, we must invest in a continuum of harm reduction services that help people out of the shadows.Safer consumption spacesmeet people where they are at in their drug use with the goal of keeping them safe. They represent a compassionate, evidence-based approach to reduce the harms of drug use that helps people to feel safe, supported and cared for in order to engage in the challenging road to drug treatment and recovery."

“The New York Academy of Medicine sees SIFs as a promising strategy moving forward to reduce overdose deaths and to engage injection drug users in health care and drug treatment services,” said Peter Schafer, Acting Director, Center for Health Policy and Programs, The New York Academy of Medicine.

“Safer Consumption Spaces are a vital Harm Reduction tool we are missing in our work in NY. If we truly want to reduce overdose deaths and create more empowered, healthy communities, we can no longer ignore the success SIF/SCS have had across the globe and include them in our efforts to make our most vulnerable communities safer,” said Jose M. Davila, President and CEO, BOOM!Health.

"If we genuinely care about the lives of people who use drugs, our children, our friends, we will provide safe consumption spaces where overdose deaths can be prevented throughout upstate New York. It really is just that simple. The research and data is in, these sites improve the public health and prevent needless deaths throughout the world and have for decades. We must stop punishing people, it accomplishes nothing. We must get our hands dirty and join them on their journey to wellness. We know how to help, we need only develop the political will to do what is necessary. Our common humanity demands it," said John Barry, Executive Director of the Southern Tier AIDS Program.

"I want to thank Assemblymember Rosenthal for introducing this legislation. I urge all elected officials to realize this is a moral issue, not a political one. People are dying. Safer consumption spaces have proven to work around the world. The only reason a politician would not support their creation would be for political reasons or a lack of understanding. To those who have questions, we are happy to answer them. To those who will oppose, know that more will die due to your inaction," said Shantae Owens, a leader of VOCAL-NY, who spent most of the 1990s homeless and injecting in public spaces.

“We should explore all types of services and programs for people who use substances in our community,” said Emma Fabian, Director of Substance User Health Policy “Treating people with dignity and respect should lead our conversations as we explore alternative approaches that maybe beneficial for the communities we serve.”

“If an opportunity arises for ACR Health to expand our vital, life-saving services, we will seriously consider the needs of the community and our capacity to respond. Opening a Supervised Injection Facility would be in line with our public health approach, said Julia LaVere, Director of Syringe Exchange Programs at ACR Health.

“A wave of overdose deaths has hit New York and in the last year alone the lives affected has increased by 50%. Supervised consumption sites can begin to address this epidemic immediately. We have seen the evidence that sites like this work and in places like Switzerland, Germany, Australia and Canada evidence shows they save health care systems money,” said Liz Evans, former Founding Director of Vancouver’s Insite and current Executive Director of New York Harm Reduction Educators. “Millions of injections have taken place in these sites and no one has ever died. Instead people have found access to health care, support and hope. Supervised consumption sites save lives.”

“New York is in a unique position to step up and implement comprehensive, innovative, and forward-thinking approaches like safer consumption spaces, an evidence-based solution that can help dramatically in saving lives, reducing criminalization, and improving public health,” said Kassandra Frederique, New York state director at the Drug Policy Alliance. “New York previously led the nation in implementing groundbreaking drug policies rooted in science, compassion, and public health as we did with syringe exchanges. We can no longer afford to let fear and stigma stand in the way of saving lives.”

Background

This week the American Medical Association (AMA) voted to support the development of pilot safer consumption spaces. The New York Academy of Medicine and Massachusetts Medical Society also both publicly support safer consumption spaces, and the Journal of the American Medical Association recently published a review of research supporting safer consumption spaces. In April, more than 100 New York City healthcare professionals signed an open letter in support of safer consumption spaces, urging elected representatives to adopt them as a public health intervention to prevent overdose deaths.

Nationally, there were 500,000 opioid-related deaths between 2000 and 2015. In 2015, opioid and heroin overdoses killed 52,404 people across the country–more people than traffic accidents and homicides combined. Despite increased spending on treatment, in New York State deaths from drug overdoses increased 71 percent between 2010 and 2015. New York City saw more than 1,300 overdose deaths in 2016 alone–a 46 percent increase from 2015. The overdose rate among Black New Yorkers increased by 80 percent.

While safer consumption spaces do not yet exist in the United States, there is tremendous interest in opening safer spaces across the nation. California legislators passed a Supervised Consumption Services Bill in the state Assembly earlier this month and similar legislation has been introduced in Maryland, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Kings County in Washington State has approved opening the nation’s first SCS and is in the process of opening sites, and both Ithaca, NY and New York City are studying potential implementation.

As stakeholders around the state are demanding that we prioritize saving lives and recognize that “we can’t arrest our way out of this problem,” New York State must continue to shift its approach away from the failed policies of the war on drugs to evidence-based drug policies, such as safer consumption spaces, that prioritize public health over costly criminal justice strategies that produce disastrous health outcomes and major racial disparities in law enforcement. Supervised consumption spaces are an essential component of a continuum of care for people who use drugs and must be considered alongside other harm reduction tools and resources.

Learn more: http://www.drugpolicy.org/supervised-injection-facilities

Author:
Date Published: June 21, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

CA's Marijuana Law is Retroactively Reducing or Eliminating People's Records & Changing Their Lives

Eunisses Hernandez — June 20, 2017

I am what you call a policy wonk. I work to end the war on drugs and dismantle the criminal justice system through polices based on health and human rights. The best days in this work are when you pass a policy or law. It’s a feeling that reignites your passion for this work that can often be spiritually draining. For me, though, there is no greater joy than witnessing that policy save and change lives.

In 2011, my friends and I turned 21. We were excited about finally being able to go into bars, traveling, and all the wonders of finally being 21. This was an exceptional year for all my friends – except my friend Vincent. Shortly after his 21st birthday, Vincent was arrested for possession with intent to sell marijuana because it was packaged in a certain way.

At the time of his arrest, his offense was considered a felony and the penalties were very punitive. He was ultimately convicted and sentenced to serve time in LA County’s Men’s Central Jail, and placed on three years’ probation.

After being released, Vincent tried his best to reenter society and obtain meaningful employment, but was met by barriers that were nearly impossible to overcome. He earned certificates in solar panel insulation and design, but was unable to work in the field because of his marijuana conviction. That conviction prevented him from getting meaningful employment leaving him unable to support himself.

Unable to earn enough to pay for his probation fees, housing and food, Vincent ended up homeless, hungry, and barely surviving. Because he could no longer afford to pay for his probation fees he stopped checking in, causing a warrant to be issued for his arrest. For years, he lived with this warrant on his back driving him to, as he called it, “live under a rock.”

Yesterday, I witnessed his life change because of a policy that I helped pass, Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

Prop. 64 legalized the possession, transport, purchase, consumption and sharing of up to an ounce of marijuana flower and up to eight grams of marijuana concentrate for adults 21 and over. Moreover, Individuals with prior marijuana convictions on their criminal record can apply to the court where they were convicted to have prior marijuana conviction(s) designated as a misdemeanor, infraction, or have it dismissed, no matter how old the conviction(s), at little to no cost.

In the state of California, there are 4,800 barriers that exist for someone who has a felony on their criminal record. Close to a million people in California qualify for Prop. 64 relief. As of March 30, 2017, 2,515 Californians have applied or petitioned the courts to have their marijuana convictions reduced or dismissed off their criminal records, and hundreds have been released from county jails across the state.

By reducing and removing these offenses from people’s records, Prop. 64 removes thousands of barriers that prevent people from reentering society after incarceration, obtaining employment, and getting a second shot at life.

For the past six years, my friend Vincent lived in what he called a “hole.” The trauma of incarceration and homelessness made Vincent distrustful of everyone, including people close to him. It took me months of conversation to convince Vincent to go to court. After several more calls and messages, I was able to convince him to go to court and apply for Prop. 64 relief. Within minutes of being in front of a judge, Vincent no longer had a felony on his record and had his probation terminated.

After having his marijuana felony reduced Vincent said, “When I heard the judge say that I was okay, and then walking out free felt like a dream. It felt like it really didn't happen, but it did. It was surprising to know that there's actually a chance for people like me to get a second chance to succeed and continue with they were doing before the conviction, like having a life.”

He is excited about the opportunity to work in the solar panel field, getting housing, and enjoying life. The opportunities for him are endless now. Vincent will apply to get his marijuana case expunged in July, erasing the scarlet letter society places on those who are impacted by the criminal justice system.

Prop. 64 gave my friend a second chance at life.

For more information on how to reduce or remove your marijuana offense please visit www.myprop64.org.

Eunisses Hernandez is a policy coordinator at the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Eunisses Hernandez
Date Published: June 20, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Horrified and Distraught over the Acquittal of Officer Yanez, who Fatally Shot Philando Castile

Derek Hodel — June 19, 2017

Last week, Minnesota police officer Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted of all charges in the fatal shooting of Philando Castile, an African American man, during a traffic stop that took place last year. In an incident that shocked the nation, Mr. Castile’s girlfriend live-streamed the moments following the shooting on Facebook while sitting in the car along with their four-year old daughter.

We at the Drug Policy Alliance are horrified and distraught by yet another police killing of an African American man for which no one will be held accountable. While we cannot know the jury’s thinking in Mr. Yanez’s trial, we can know the context in which his trial took place, and should not be surprised by its outcome.

Indeed, police discrimination against people of color, often under cover of the war on drugs, has been well documented – Mr. Castile had been pulled over, usually for minor traffic infractions, 49 times in 13 years. Mr. Yanez’s defense argued that the officer “did what he had to do,” claiming that Mr. Castile had marijuana in his car and that “he was stoned,” a too-common rationalization in police killings, and an allegation that would appear in this case to be contradicted by dashboard video showing Mr. Castile to be compliant, alert and courteous.

We can also know that the demonization of people who use drugs gives license to the trampling of their civil and human rights, and provides a climate of impunity for law enforcement and others who commit acts of unjustifiable violence. While the Trump administration hardly invented the drug war, it has been quick to embrace this narrative – as Attorney General Sessions recently summarized, “Good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

We must all own the tragedy endured by Mr. Castile’s family and community – until Americans demand greater accountability for the discrimination and violence of a drug war prosecuted in their name, it won’t be the last. Black Lives Matter.

Derek Hodel is the interim executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Derek Hodel
Date Published: June 19, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Tuesday: Congressional Briefing on Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD)

June 19, 2017

On Tuesday afternoon, there will be a Congressional briefing on Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD), a highly successful pre-booking diversion program.

The briefing will take place on Tuesday June 20, at 1230pm at SVC 209-08. Lunch will be served.

Senator Capito (R-WV) and Senator Warren (D-MA) will offer remarks, and then we will hear from experts from the field including:

Dana Petroff - Director of Addiction Services, PARC East, West Virginia
Captain Eric Johnson – Charleston Police Department, West Virginia
Jamie Allen - Louisville Metro Criminal Justice Commission
Lisa Daugaard – Seattle Public Defender Association
Tyrone Roper – Baltimore Health Department
Najja Morris – LEAD Program Supervisor, Seattle

LEAD is a pre-booking diversion program that allows officers to redirect low-level offenders engaged in drug activity to community-based services instead of jail and prosecution. LEAD participants begin working immediately with case managers to access services. LEAD’s goals are to reduce the harm a drug offender causes him or herself, as well as the harm that the individual is causing the surrounding community. This public safety program has demonstrated the potential to reduce recidivism rates for low-level offenders and preserve expensive criminal justice system resources.

Currently, 28 states are either exploring, developing, launching, or operating a LEAD program. They include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania , Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

LEAD has been featured in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, among other publications.

Author:
Date Published: June 19, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

The Drug Policy Alliance Statement on the Acquittal of Officer Yanez, who Fatally Shot Philando Castile

June 17, 2017

Yesterday, Minnesota police officer Jeronimo Yanez was acquitted of all charges in the fatal shooting of Philando Castile, an African American man, during a traffic stop. In an incident that shocked the nation, Mr. Castile’s girlfriend live-streamed the moments following the shooting on Facebook while sitting in the car along with their four-year old daughter.

Below is a statement by Derek Hodel, interim executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

“We are horrified and distraught by yet another police killing of an African American man for which no one will be held accountable. While we cannot know the jury’s thinking in Mr. Yanez’s trial, we can know the context in which his trial took place, and should not be surprised by its outcome. Indeed, police discrimination against people of color, often under cover of the war on drugs, has been well documented -- Mr. Castile had been pulled over, usually for minor traffic infractions, 49 times in 13 years. Mr. Yanez’s defense argued that the officer 'did what he had to do,' claiming that Mr. Castile had marijuana in his car and that 'he was stoned,' a too-common rationalization in police killings, and an allegation that would appear in this case to be contradicted by dashboard video showing Mr. Castile to be compliant, alert and courteous.

"We can also know that the demonization of people who use drugs gives license to the trampling of their civil and human rights, and provides a climate of impunity for law enforcement and others who commit acts of unjustifiable violence. While the Trump administration hardly invented the drug war, it has been quick to embrace this narrative -- as Attorney General Sessions recently summarized, 'Good people don’t smoke marijuana.'

"We must all own the tragedy endured by Mr. Castile’s family and community – until Americans demand greater accountability for the discrimination and violence of a drug war prosecuted in their name, it won’t be the last. Black Lives Matter."

Author:
Date Published: June 17, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

The American Medical Association Weighs in on Drug Policy With Two Steps Forward and One Step Back

Jules Netherland — June 16, 2017

On June 12th, the esteemed, powerful, and generally staid America Medical Association came out in support of piloting safe injection facilities (SIFs), a truly encouraging sign that organization is ready to embrace research-based strategies to address drug problems in U.S. In doing so, they followed the lead of the Massachusetts Medical Society, which recently published a report that reviewed the evidence-base supporting the efficacy of SIFs.

Supervised injection facilities, also know as safe consumption spaces (SCSs), are controlled health care settings where people can more safely inject drugs under clinical supervision and receive health care, counseling, and referrals to health and social services, including drug treatment. SCSs operate in at least 68 cities around the world, but there are currently none in the U.S., though several municipalities are considering opening them.

The data are clear. SCS programs reduce overdose and the transmission of blood borne diseases and increase access to drug treatment, and there is no evidence that they increase drug use or drug-related crime. In a field where fear, misinformation, and stigma often drive policy, the AMA’s reliance on research and data are welcome.

The statement from the AMA is significant because historically many in the medical profession have shied away from addressing issues of addiction. Following the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914, when doctors were explicitly prohibited from using pharmaceuticals to treat addiction, the drug treatment system developed relatively independently from mainstream medicine. For example, methadone -- until recently the primary medication available for the treatment of opioid addiction—is governed under a completely separate and highly regulated, bureaucratic and stigmatized system from medicine.

This historical separation means that many doctors are simply not adequately equipped to address addiction. Despite the prevalence of substance use problems, separate courses in addiction medicine are rarely taught in medical school, and experts in the field have bemoaned the insufficient education and poor quality of addiction services provided by most physicians. For example, less than one percent of primary care doctors are certified to prescribe buprenorphine, a life-saving medication used to treat opioid dependence. It wasn’t until 2016 that the American Board of Medical Specialties officially recognized Addiction Medicine as a medical subspecialty. Not surprisingly, research has also documented that doctors have many of the negative attitudes and stereotypes about people who use drugs held by the general public.

In recent years, there has been a renewed effort to by some to overcome the divide between addiction treatment and medicine and move addiction treatment into the medical mainstream. More training is underway, and with the failure of the criminal justice-driven strategies of the drug war growing ever more apparent (along with the perception that the opioid crisis is affecting predominantly white communities), policymakers and the media have increasingly framed addiction as a public health and/or medical problem more appropriately addressed by medical professionals than law enforcement. In addition, harm reduction services to help people who are actively using drugs -- once seen as highly controversial -- have found growing acceptance as an evidence-based solution to drug problems, as the AMA’s recent statement on SIFs makes clear.

Unfortunately, in the same statement, the AMA also revealed the limitations of the American medical establishment in understanding drug policy and the needs of people of use drugs. Appropriately concerned about the emergence of novel psychoactive substances (NPS), drugs that seek to mimic the effects of traditional illicit substances, the AMA said that they support a “multifaceted, collaborative multiagency approach to combat NPS.” They cite some important public health measures, such as surveillance and early warning systems, but then make the misstep of supporting legislation that would “require the Attorney General of the United States to assign Schedule I classification to approximately 250 dangerous new synthetic substances identified by the Drug Enforcement Administration since 2012.”

The problem is that the prohibition of NPS has actually led to their proliferation. As soon as one substance gets banned, dozens of more substances—about which even less is known and which are potentially even more dangerous -- are developed to skirt the ban. In addition, such bans lead to the criminalization of people who use these substances saddling them with a life-long criminal record and creating barriers to education, housing, and employment. These bans also make it nearly impossible for researchers to study these substances – some of which may actually be helpful in treating addiction or other medical conditions. At a minimum, we need research to study the health impacts of these drugs. By supporting this kind of ban, the AMA is turning its back on research and turning towards strategies we know don’t work.

The AMA is to be applauded for embracing the evidence-based approach of SCSs, which if opened in the U.S., will undoubtedly save lives. But clearly the education of the medical profession regarding addiction is incomplete. When it comes to NPS and other areas of drug policy, they should do what they did in recommending SIFs -- follow the evidence, always opting to ground drug policies in public health, not punishment.

Jules Netherland is the director of the Office of Academic Engagement at the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Jules Netherland
Date Published: June 16, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

End the War on Medical Marijuana

June 16, 2017

Tell Congress: Support the CARERS Act to end federal medical marijuana prohibition.

Author:
Date Published: June 16, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

NM Health Secretary Ignores Recommendations of Medical Experts, Denies Adding Opioid Use Disorder and Alzheimer's Disease for Medical Cannabis

June 15, 2017

Santa Fe, NM – Yesterday afternoon the Secretary of Health denied the recommendation of the Medical Advisory Board to add opioid use disorder as a qualifying condition for medical cannabis in New Mexico. The Secretary’s decision flies in the face of the overwhelming support of the Medical Cannabis Advisory Board, which recommended approving both conditions when the petitions were presented in Fall 2016. The board is a group of expert practitioners who are appointed by the Governor and are tasked with review and evaluation of conditions for the NM medical cannabis program. At the board meeting November 4, 2016 members voted to recommend approving opioid use disorder (OUD) (5-1). Board members are all clinicians licensed to practice medicine in NM and, as a condition of eligibility they are also nationally board certified in their specialties.

For more than two decades, New Mexico has suffered from a disproportionate rate of opioid overdoses compared to nearly every other state in the nation. It is the leading cause of accidental death in New Mexico, far outpacing gun deaths and traffic fatalities.

“We have an urgent and ongoing crisis of opioid addiction and overdose deaths in New Mexico and the treatments and tools available are not enough.” said Jessica Gelay, policy manager with the Drug Policy Alliance. “It is troubling and disheartening that Secretary Gallagher ignored the recommendation of the medical experts whose purpose is to review the evidence and make suggest qualifying conditions. Cannabis should be a first-line treatment option for people who are suffering from addiction. It can alleviate withdrawal symptoms that come with decreasing or stopping opioid, alcohol, or use of other drugs. It makes eating and sleeping easier, has calming and pain relieving effects. People should be able to qualify for medical cannabis with a clinical diagnosis of substance use disorder. People suffering from addiction have enough hurdles and barriers to care. Requiring people to get a secondary diagnosis of chronic pain in order to access medical cannabis is a form of discrimination; it reinforces stigma and stops people from seeking help for their addiction.”

Among psychiatrists of addiction medicine and in drug treatment settings, cannabis use for combatting addiction is gaining traction, with findings indicating that cannabis can act to calm symptoms related to opioid detoxification including anxiety, nausea, insomnia, lack of appetite, and pain in people detoxing from opioids. Furthermore, compared to most FDA approved drugs, cannabis has an excellent safety profile, a lethal dose has never been demonstrated.

In the midst of the national opioid overdose death crisis raging across the U.S, lawmakers and the media have increasingly highlighted strategies that treat drug use as a public health issue. But despite the rhetoric, the overwhelming emphasis of New Mexico drug policy remains on criminalization, and deaths from opioid related drug overdose continue to rise.

The Drug Policy Alliance recently released a report, A Public Health and Safety Approach to Problematic Opioid Use and Overdose that outlines a set of steps to address this crisis. One of the steps is to evaluate the use of cannabis to decrease reliance on prescription opioids and reduce opioid overdose deaths. Although limited, for reasons mentioned, there are credible findings that show medical cannabis is not only an effective pain treatment, it can also reduce the use of opioids and interact with them safely. According to published works in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the Journal of Pain, states with medical marijuana laws are associated with a significant reduction in mortality from opioid abuse, substance abuse admissions and opiate overdose deaths are also lower in these states.

The Secretary also declined to add neurodegenerative dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease as a qualifying condition, also recommended for approval by the advisory board on a vote (5-0, with 1 abstention).

Author:
Date Published: June 15, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Senate and House Reintroduce Groundbreaking Medical Marijuana Bill

June 15, 2017

Today, a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives introduced the CARERS Act. The Senate bill was introduced by Senators Booker (D-NJ), Paul (R-KY), Gillibrand (D-NY), Lee (R-UT), Franken (D-MN), and Murkowski (R-AK). The House companion was reintroduced by Rep Young (R-AK) and Rep Cohen (D-TN).

“As medical marijuana comes under attack from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, this legislation is more essential than ever,” said Michael Collins, Deputy Director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs. “The time is now for Congress to pass legislation to protect patients, providers, and veterans.”

Just this week, it was revealed that Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a letter to Congress demanding that members end protections for medical marijuana patients. The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment prevent the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers. It has been included in the current budget and has to be renewed; Sessions wants Congress not to renew it.

30 states have full medical marijuana, as do Washington D.C., Puerto Rico and Guam. There are also 15 CBD-only states, which allow a limited form of medical marijuana.

The 2017 version of the bill has changes based on the previous version. The bill now does not reschedule marijuana to schedule 2. Moving marijuana to schedule 2 would do nothing to protect patients, and only marginally helps with research. In addition, there have been a lot of misconceptions about what rescheduling does, which distracted from the intent of the bill. The bill will end federal prohibition of medical marijuana, and let states set their own policy. The bill also has a beefed up section on removing research barriers. Additionally, the bill no longer fixes the banking issue for recreational marijuana business, but does fix it for medical marijuana businesses.

Below is a brief summary of the bill:

Ends federal prohibition of medical marijuana, allowing states to set their own medical marijuana laws, and protecting patients and providers from federal prosecution
De-schedules CBD so that individuals from states with CBD laws with no CBD production can travel to and from states that produce CBD to purchase it
Removes barriers to perform federally approved marijuana research
Allows veterans to discuss medical marijuana with VA physicians in medical marijuana states and receive recommendations from those VA physicians

Author:
Date Published: June 15, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

NJ Marijuana Legalization Hearing on New Legislation

June 15, 2017

On Monday, the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Senate Bill 3195 at 11:00 am in Committee Room 4 in the New Jersey Statehouse. Senate Bill 3195, introduced last month by Senator Nicholas P. Scutari (D-Middlesex, Somerset, Union), would legalize small amounts of marijuana for adults 21 years and older.

The Drug Policy Alliance and other civil rights and racial justice organizations have expressed concern over Senator Scutari’s proposed legislation. While they commend Senator Scutari for his leadership on marijuana reform, they are disappointed that the legislation introduced does not include essential components to create a fair and equitable marijuana market in New Jersey.

“Marijuana legalization in New Jersey must be fair and equitable and must include policies to repair past harms and encourage participation in the industry,” said Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “Marijuana laws in New Jersey have disproportionately harmed communities of color. African Americans are three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than whites even though both use marijuana at similar rates. Legislation to legalize marijuana in our state must include policies to right these wrongs.”

Richard Smith, President of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference, also supports fair and equitable marijuana legalization in New Jersey. “It is imperative that any legislation to legalize marijuana include policies that encourage full participation in the industry by communities disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition and invests some of the revenue generated by legalization back into those communities,” he said.

“Marijuana legalization must be understood from a moral perspective,” said Reverend Charles Boyer, Pastor of Bethel A.M.E. Church in Woodbury. “As an African American faith leader, I have seen firsthand how the war on drugs has disproportionately devastated my community even though all communities use marijuana at similar rates. A conviction for marijuana possession can have severe long-term consequences and can make it difficult or impossible to secure employment, housing, student loans, or even a driver’s license. Marijuana legalization in New Jersey must address these harms and repair those communities most impacted by our failed marijuana policies.”

The New Solutions Campaign of the Drug Policy Alliance is advocating to include specific racial justice elements into Senate Bill 3195 that will encourage full participation in the industry by communities disproportionately impacted by marijuana prohibition and repair past harms.These policies include:

Protections for those who apply for a license or employment in the industry who have prior arrests and/or convictions;
Access to the industry for individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds;
Requirement that the state shall actively seek to achieve a diverse industry;
Provisions intended to repair communities most harmed by marijuana prohibition; and
Civil penalties for marijuana activities that occur outside the new legal system to avoid the continuation of a criminal system that disproportionately harms communities of color.

To highlight the need for these provisions, Drug Policy Alliance released a short video, made in collaboration with Brave New Films, which explores the current and historical impacts of marijuana prohibition on communities of color. The video features racial and social justice advocates from across New Jersey.

The New Solutions Campaign of the Drug Policy Alliance has advocated for criminal justice reforms in New Jersey for nearly a decade. Fair and equitable marijuana legalization is the next initiative in its campaign to reform New Jersey’s broken criminal justice system. Organizations that have already signed onto the campaign include: Action Together – Burlington County, Action Together New Jersey, Anti-Poverty Network of New Jersey, Campaign to End the New Jim Crow, Drug Policy Alliance, Faith is Our Pathway, Immigrant Rights Program, American Friends Service Committee, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, NAACP – New Jersey State Conference, New Jersey Association on Correction, New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, New Jersey Parents’ Caucus, New Jersey Policy Perspective, New Jersey Working Families Alliance, Prison Watch Program, American Friends Service Committee, Salvation and Social Justice, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey, Volunteers of America – Delaware Valley Chapter, Women Who Never Give Up, Rabbi Rachel Kahn-Troster, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, Rev. Charles Boyer, Bethel AME Church of Woodbury, and Rev. Robin Tanner, Beacon Unitarian Universalist Congregation.

Author:
Date Published: June 15, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Governor Christie Signs Life-Saving Legislation into Law, Expands Access to Naloxone

June 13, 2017

Trenton—Last week, Governor Christie signed Senate Bill 295 / Assembly Bill 2334 into law. This life-saving legislation expands access to naloxone by making it available without a prescription in more pharmacies across the state.

After the signing of the bill, Roseanne Scotti, State Director of the New Jersey office of the Drug Policy Alliance issued the following statement.

“Drug overdose is the leading cause of accidental death nationally and in New Jersey. Most of these fatalities involve opioids such as prescription painkillers or heroin. The majority of overdose victims do not actually die until one to three hours after taking a drug, and most of these deaths occur in the presence of others. This creates a significant opportunity for witnesses to intervene and provide help. In addition to calling 911, overdose witnesses can administer the opioid overdose antidote, naloxone (also known by the trade name Narcan).”

“Naloxone is a life-saving prescription medication that counteracts respiratory depression associated with opioid overdose. Restoring the victim’s breathing as quickly as possible is the best way to prevent brain damage and death in an overdose emergency. Naloxone has no abuse potential, few side effects and is simple to administer, making it safe and easy for laypeople to use.”

“Currently in New Jersey, pharmacists can dispense naloxone without a prescription using a standing order from a physician. This has allowed large chain pharmacies including CVS and Walgreens, who have physicians on staff, to provide their customers with access to naloxone.”

“For smaller pharmacies, without physicians on staff, providing a way to dispense naloxone without a prescription gives them the option of providing the same service to their customers and the community, and will help save more lives in New Jersey.”

“We thank Governor Christie, Senator Vitale and Assemblyman Benson for their leadership on this important issue.”

The Drug Policy Alliance led the Overdose Prevention Campaign which previously advocated for the passage of the Overdose Prevention Act and legislation to expand access to naloxone. Thousands of needless deaths have already been prevented through the work of the Campaign and Senate Bill 295 / Assembly Bill 2334 will prevent more deaths by further expanding access to naloxone.

Author:
Date Published: June 13, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Albany Press Conference: New York State Legislators Renew Push for Marijuana Legalization

June 12, 2017

Albany — Today, a coalition of community advocates led by Drug Policy Alliance will join Senator Liz Krueger (New York) and Assemblymember Crystal Peoples-Stokes (Buffalo) to announce reintroduction of the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA, S.3040A/A.3506A), a bill that would establish a legal market for marijuana in New York. The bill would effectively end marijuana prohibition in New York State and create a system to tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol for adults over the age of 21.

The bill sponsors expect the significant amendments to legislation originally introduced in 2013 to fuel renewed conversation around the need for marijuana reform, as prohibition continues to take a high toll in both human and financial terms statewide.

This updated legislation incorporates lessons learned from the four states currently operating recreational marijuana markets, making this bill the new “gold standard” for comprehensive marijuana reform. By ending marijuana prohibition, the amended Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act establishes a comprehensive regulatory system geared toward improving public health, reducing criminalization stemming from use and possession, and limiting youth access.

Monday also marks the launch of the Start SMART NY campaign – Sensible Marijuana Access through Regulated Trade – which is supported by organizations and advocates dedicated to criminal justice reform, civil rights, public health, and community-based organizing. The campaign is dedicated to ending senseless marijuana arrests and citations, creating a public dialogue on collateral consequences and the hyper-criminalization of communities, and building economic power across the state.

“Marijuana prohibition is a failed and outdated policy that has done tremendous damage to too many of our communities. Allowing adult personal use, with appropriate regulation and taxation, will end the heavily racialized enforcement that disproportionately impacts African American and Latino New Yorkers, locking them out of jobs, housing, and education, and feeding the prison pipeline. MRTA is the kind of smart, responsible, 21st century policy that our communities desperately need,” said Senator Liz Krueger.

This push for reform also refutes claims that the harms of marijuana prohibition enforcement are a thing of the past – when in reality New York State has arrested 800,000 for low-level possession over the last 20 years, with arrests climbing as high as 50,000 annually in 2010 and 2011. Marijuana possession arrests still topped 23,000 in 2016 and the collateral consequences stemming from marijuana possession arrests remain. Despite the arrest decrease, the stark racial disparities in arrests remain consistent: more than 80 percent of those arrested are Black and Latino, although the rate of marijuana use is similar across racial lines.

"I introduced the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act because it’s time we reform our state’s marijuana policy to end biased marijuana arrests and drive responsible economic development across the state – both of which are especially needed in Buffalo,” said Assemblymember Crystal Peoples-Stokes. “Communities of color have been devastated by bad drug policies and hyper-criminalization for the last 40 years. Prohibition is an approach that has never worked and has caused significantly more harm than good to our communities and to our families—we can do something different, and it’s time that we do.”

The MRTA underscores marijuana legalization as a criminal justice reform initiative, as it will eliminate one of the top misdemeanor arrests from the state’s penal law; expand resentencing and reclassification of crimes for people previously convicted for marijuana, increasing opportunity for thousands of New Yorkers; and remove a positive marijuana test as justification for violating a person’s parole or probation. It will also address the devastating impacts of marijuana prohibition in the fields of immigration and family law, and protect against discrimination in housing and employment based on a prior marijuana arrest or off-the-clock marijuana use.

The updated legislation also includes substantial small business–friendly amendments. It will create a micro-license structure similar to New York’s rapidly growing craft wine and beer industry that will allow small-scale production and sale plus delivery, reducing barriers to entry for people with less access to capital and traditional avenues of financing. The MRTA also ensures diversity and builds inclusivity in New York’s marijuana industry by only explicitly barring people with business-related convictions (such as fraud or tax evasion) from receiving licenses. To increase gender diversity in ownership within the marijuana industry, the MRTA requires entities that receive a license to outline specific actions they will take to produce a workforce that resembles the community in which the license is used, in line with New York’s Minority and Women-Owned Businesses initiative.

Eight states and the District of Columbia have now ended marijuana prohibition. Revenue from the regulated marijuana market is giving those states an opportunity to rebuild crumbling infrastructure, support education, and invest in communities. Data on marijuana use and public safety from states with legal markets show that marijuana legalization has had no discernible negative impact in those areas. And, most importantly, residents of those states no longer face the threat of criminalization because of their personal use.

The potential tax revenue for New York from a legal marijuana market is considerable: it is estimated that New Yorkers spend an estimated $3 billion per year on marijuana in the illicit market. An official study by the NYC Comptroller in 2013 estimated potential tax revenue for a legal marijuana market in NYC alone would be more than $400 million, and acknowledged that the actual revenue could be much higher.

Under the MRTA, a portion of tax revenue from the legal marijuana market will be used to establish a Community Grants Reinvestment Fund, which will be used to provide job training, promote adult education, support youth development programming, establish or expand community centers, bolster re-entry services for the formerly incarcerated, and otherwise support community-focused programming in communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the drug war.

Additional funding from the regulated marijuana market will be directed to assisting the state department of education to keep public schools open and provide a quality education to New York’s children. Another block of funding will be dedicated to public health initiatives, including drug treatment programs to help combat the opioid crisis, science-based public education, and research on public health impacts of marijuana legalization.

“Ending marijuana prohibition is a proven, sound policy that would bring in revenue for the state; support business growth in an emerging industry, especially upstate; and eliminate the problem of racial disparities in marijuana arrest rates. In the first nine months of 2016, 85 percent of those arrested for trivial amounts of marijuana were black and Latino, despite similar rates of use by white New Yorkers. By legalizing marijuana, New York can replace illicit operations with regulated, taxed, American-owned small farms, all while getting rid of one of the biggest drivers of over policing in minority communities,” said Senator Marisol Alcantara.

“We need to continue pushing forward policies, like this bill, that will address the ineffective and failed drug policies that have criminalized and overburdened our families and communities for generations,” said Senator Gustavo Rivera. “This bill will not only help reform our criminal justice system, but it will also create an additional tax revenue stream that our State unquestionably needs. I am committed to continue working with Senator Kruger and my colleagues in the Senate to pass this measure.”

“We need to move beyond our completely broken prohibition model on marijuana to a sensible tax-and-regulate model,” said Assembly Health Committee Chair Richard Gottfried. “It’s widely recognized that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and our law is dishonest in how we treat it. Continued criminalization of marijuana does not prevent marijuana use. It creates an illegal drug market that costs millions of dollars in law enforcement and other resources while disproportionately affecting minority communities.”

"New York's drug laws, enacted with the purpose to keep our city safe, have had an incredibly unfortunate side effect of victimizing and targeting African American and Latino youth. Nowhere do we see this more than in marijuana arrests. It is almost exclusively African American and Latino youth who are imprisoned, when we all know that it is more than African American and Latino youth who are using and selling marijuana. I support any effort to modernize our drug laws and lower arrests which will not only improve our state economically, but keep our communities together," said Assemblymember Walter Mosley.

“I would like to thank my colleague Senator Krueger for sponsoring this bill that will decriminalize the use of marijuana as well as regulate and tax it. Marijuana related charges are one of the most popular convictions. By relieving some of the penalties associated with marijuana, use we are helping our youth and communities of color. This bill will level the playing field and help us improve our criminal justice system,” said Senator Jamaal Bailey.

“States across our nation are proving that marijuana legalization and regulation works. New York State should learn from their experience, pass the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act, and end policies that divert resources from core public protection needs. Using police time, court time, and the awesome power of our justice system against marijuana leads to arrests and records for countless people – overwhelmingly people of color – who pose no public safety threat. In fact, any one of the more than 22,000 arrests made in our state last year over misdemeanor marijuana possession could snowball into the nightmare of losing one’s job, losing a license used to make a living, or for immigrants, losing the ability to remain in our country,” said Senator Jesse Hamilton. “We must adopt a policy guided by facts and evidence – evidence that grows each day thanks to states like Colorado, Washington, Alaska, and Oregon. I look forward to the day that New York joins states that have passed sensible marijuana laws and I will work alongside colleagues and advocates to add New York to that list of states with more sensible policies.”

“The Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act is a long-awaited piece of legislation that will finally address our state’s need for a re-envisioned Marijuana policy. For decades, the prohibition on marijuana has had a disproportionate effect on communities of color, irreparably damaging countless lives and communities in New York. I strongly encourage my colleagues and fellow New Yorkers to support this historic bill,” said Assemblymember Michael Blake.

“Because our country’s harsh immigration laws mandate severe punishment for a wide range of drug offenses, New York’s senseless marijuana policies only help fuel the mass deportation agenda. The moment for New York State to end prohibition is now. It's good policy for immigrants and for all of us,” said Mizue Aizeki, Deputy Director of the Immigrant Defense Project.

“The Cannabis Cultural Association supports the MRTA because it can provide economic opportunities for people of color to work in a legal cannabis market. It's an injustice that we can fill prisons but not be allowed to take part in the forthcoming industries—that needs to change,” said Nelson Guerrero and Jacob Plowden, Co-founders of Cannabis Cultural Association.

“The MRTA is the SMART choice for New York. Only by fully ending marijuana prohibition will our citizens reap the benefits of safe and legal access to one of the safest drugs known to humankind,” said Doug Greene, Legislative Director for Empire State NORML.

“It is time that New York State joins the cadre of progressive states that are acting smart on marijuana regulation. New York City was for many years the marijuana arrest capital of the world and the devastation that wreaked on people of color and marginalized communities cannot be overstated. We need to pivot and address the pressing needs of regulation while simultaneously eliminating the criminal consequences of marijuana possession and restoring the previous harms that prohibitionist modalities created. In short, we need New York State to help lead a marijuana revolution, because it’s just, it’s rational, and it’s time,” said Juan Cartagena, President and General Counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

“New York’s marijuana arrest crusade has resulted in significant harms for those who are most vulnerable and has been used as a justification for the hyper-policing of communities of color. Over the last 20 years, more than 800,000 lives were irrevocably damaged by our draconian marijuana arrest policies. As New York finally sheds its embarrassing distinction of being the marijuana arrest capital of the world, we must repair the harms of prohibition and end the biased policing practices that have ruined the lives of so many young Black and Latino New Yorkers,” said Kassandra Frederique, New York State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. “Ultimately, the best way to address the disparities and challenges posed by prohibition is to legalize and regulate marijuana in New York.”

Author:
Date Published: June 12, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Marijuana Legalization in New Jersey Must Be Fair and Equitable

Roseanne Scotti — June 12, 2017

New Jersey is gearing up for an intense campaign for marijuana legalization. Senate Bill 3195 and Assembly Bill 4872, which would legalize marijuana in New Jersey, were recently introduced by Senator Nicholas P. Scutari (D-Middlesex, Somerset, Union) and Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Hunterdon, Mercer). The first hearings on the legislation will happen this month.

The Drug Policy Alliance commends the sponsors for their leadership on this issue and we will be working with them to ensure that the final legislation contains provisions missing from the bill that are essential to establishing a fair and equitable marijuana market and repairing the disproportionate harm that marijuana prohibition has inflicted on communities of color. To highlight the need for these provisions, the Drug Policy Alliance is releasing a short video, made in collaboration with Brave New Films, which explores the current and historical impacts of marijuana prohibition on communities of color. The video features racial and social justice advocates from across New Jersey.

Marijuana laws have had a disproportionate impact on communities of color. African Americans are three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites even though both use marijuana at the same rates. Anecdotal evidence suggests similar disparities for Latinos. In addition to the severe long-term consequences of a marijuana conviction, marijuana laws have been used to support biased policies like stop and frisk, racial profiling and the deportation of people of color.

As more states legalize marijuana, there is a growing recognition of this disparate impact and the need to address it. In Maryland, a judge recently put that state’s medical marijuana program on hold due to the lack of diversity among those granted licenses for the program. California’s law is the gold standard for fair and equitable marijuana legalization. The law mandates retroactive record expungement and sentence reduction, decriminalization of all marijuana offenses for minors and automatic record destruction at age 18, allocation of 50 million dollars of tax revenue to communities of color annually, low barriers to entry in the industry and no bar to the industry for people with most prior drug convictions.

New Jersey must learn from these other states and ensure that New Jersey’s marijuana legalization legislation contains provisions to address past harms and create a level playing field in this new industry.

As part of our legalization campaign, the Drug Policy Alliance and its partners will work to ensure policies including automatic and retroactive expungement for people previously convicted of marijuana offenses, investment of the revenue generated into those communities disproportionately impacted by marijuana prohibition, and equal opportunity to access the jobs and wealth generated by the marijuana industry are incorporated into any legalization legislation.

Reverend Charles Boyer, Pastor of Bethel A.M.E. Church in Woodbury, who is featured in the video, has said this about his approach to legalization, “Marijuana legalization must be understood from a moral perspective. As an African American faith leader, I have seen firsthand how the war on drugs has disproportionately devastated my community even though all communities use marijuana at similar rates. A conviction for marijuana possession can have severe long-term consequences and can make it difficult or impossible to secure employment, housing, student loans, or even a driver’s license. Marijuana legalization in New Jersey must address these harms and repair those communities most impacted by our failed marijuana policies.”

Kathy Wright, Executive Director of the New Jersey Parents’ Caucus and the mother of a son who has been arrested for marijuana possession, recently told Rolling Stone why she supports marijuana legalization. “Getting wrapped up in the juvenile justice system can completely derail a child’s life. Legalizing and removing the criminalization of marijuana would allow us to put funding into much-needed community services.”

The release of this new video serves to launch the Drug Policy Alliance’s campaign to legalize marijuana in New Jersey. Marijuana prohibition is costly, unfair and ineffective. New Jersey arrests more than 22,000 people a year for marijuana possession at a cost of more than $125 million to New Jersey taxpayers. This failed policy criminalizes otherwise law-abiding people and wastes resources that would be better spent on projects that support our families and communities. We will end this failed policy and ensure that marijuana legalization will be fair and equitable.

Roseanne Scotti is Senior Director of Resident States and State Director of New Jersey for the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Roseanne Scotti
Date Published: June 12, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Drug Policy Alliance Launches Marijuana Legalization Campaign in New Jersey Focused on Racial and Social Justice

June 12, 2017

Trenton, NJ - Today, the New Jersey Office of the Drug Policy Alliance launched its racial justice focused marijuana legalization campaign with a video produced by Brave New Films. The video highlights the racist history of marijuana laws and features civil rights and racial justice advocates from New Jersey who support legalization.

“African Americans are three times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than whites even though both use marijuana at similar rates,” said Roseanne Scotti, New Jersey State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “Marijuana laws in New Jersey have a disproportionate impact on communities of color. Our campaign will focus on creating a fair and equitable marijuana market that provides access to the industry and repairs past harms to communities of color.”

Senate Bill 3195 / Assembly Bill 4872 which would legalize marijuana in New Jersey was recently introduced by Senator Nicholas P. Scutari (D-Middlesex, Somerset, Union) and Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D-Hunterdon, Mercer). While the Drug Policy Alliance commends the sponsors for their leadership on this issue, it was disappointed to see certain elements missing from the bill that are essential to establishing a fair and equitable marijuana market in New Jersey. As part of its legalization campaign, the Drug Policy Alliance and its partners will work to ensure policies like automatic and retroactive expungement for people previously convicted of marijuana offenses, investment of the revenue generated into those communities disproportionately impacted by marijuana prohibition, and equal opportunity to access the jobs and wealth generated by the marijuana industry are incorporated into the legislation.

The video released today details the history of the war on marijuana and highlights the success of states that have already legalized marijuana. Advocates in the video include, Richard Smith of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference, Reverend Charles Boyer of Bethel A.M.E. Church of Woodbury, Kathy Wright of the New Jersey Parents’ Caucus, Alexandra Goncalves-Pena of the American Friends Service Committee Immigrant Rights Program, and Juan Cartagena of LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

“I support fair and equitable marijuana legalization in New Jersey,” said Richard Smith, President of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference. “It is imperative that any legislation to legalize marijuana include policies that encourage full participation in the industry by communities disproportionately harmed by marijuana prohibition and invests some of the revenue generated by legalization back into those communities.”

Reverend Charles Boyer, Pastor of Bethel A.M.E. Church of Woodbury said, “Marijuana legalization must be understood from a moral perspective. As an African American faith leader, I have seen firsthand how the war on drugs has disproportionately devastated my community even though all communities use marijuana at similar rates. A conviction for marijuana possession can have severe long-term consequences and can make it difficult or impossible to secure employment, housing, student loans, or even a driver’s license. Marijuana legalization in New Jersey must address these harms and repair those communities most impacted by our failed marijuana policies.”

Organizations that have already signed onto the campaign include: Action Together – Burlington County, Action Together New Jersey, Anti-Poverty Network of New Jersey, Campaign to End the New Jim Crow, Drug Policy Alliance, Faith is Our Pathway, Immigrant Rights Program-American Friends Service Committee, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, NAACP – New Jersey State Conference, New Jersey Association on Correction, New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Parents’ Caucus, New Jersey Policy Perspective, New Jersey Working Families Alliance, Prison Watch Program-American Friends Service Committee, Salvation and Social Justice, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of New Jersey, Volunteers of America – Delaware Valley Chapter, Women Who Never Give Up, and Rev. Charles Boyer, Bethel A.M.E. Church of Woodbury.

Author:
Date Published: June 12, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Supreme Court’s Doubts about Asset Forfeiture Continues to Grow

Theshia Naidoo — June 9, 2017

In two recent United States Supreme Court cases, Justices across the ideological spectrum cast a critical eye towards the current asset forfeiture system.

This week, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision (with Justice Gorsuch taking no part in the opinion) reining in one important aspect of criminal forfeiture. In Honeycutt vs. U.S., the Court rejected the government’s argument that a defendant should be held liable for a forfeiture judgment based on property obtained by his co-conspirator, even if the defendant did not obtain or acquire the property.

In Honeycutt, two brothers were convicted of conspiracy to distribute a product that is used to manufacture methamphetamine. After the conviction, the government sought forfeiture judgments against the two brothers in the amount of $269,751.98 as profits of the conspiracy pursuant to the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984. Tony, the owner of the store, pleaded guilty to distribution of the product and agreed to forfeit $200,000. The other brother, Terry, went to trial, was convicted and sentenced. Despite the fact that Terry worked in the store and did not profit from the sales of the product, the Government sought to hold Terry liable for the outstanding profits from the sales. The district court declined to impose a forfeiture judgment against Terry, however the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, stating that, as co-conspirators, the brothers were jointly liable for the forfeiture judgment.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Relying on the fact that Terry did not personally benefit from the sales, the Court found that Terry could not be held liable for profits obtained by his brother. The Court held that a plain reading of the statute does not permit joint and several liability for a forfeiture judgment. Justice Sotomayor, writing the opinion for the unanimous Court, illustrated this point through an example:

Suppose a farmer masterminds a scheme to grow, harvest, and distribute marijuana on local college campuses. The mastermind recruits a college student to deliver packages and pays the student $300 each month from the distribution proceeds for his services. In one year, the mastermind earns $3 million. The student, meanwhile, earns $3,600. If joint and several liability applied, the student would face a forfeiture judgment for the entire amount of the conspiracy’s proceeds: $3 million. The student would be bound by that judgment even though he never personally acquired any proceeds beyond the $3,600.

Joint and several liability is not authorized under the criminal forfeiture statute but rather has become a judicially created expansion of forfeiture. It is encouraging to see the Supreme Court rein in this practice and rule that a co-defendant in a conspiracy cannot be required to forfeit cash or other property he never obtained. In other words, forfeiture is limited to property the defendant actually acquired as the result of the criminal offense.

This case reflects the Court’s growing skepticism about asset forfeiture in general. In Leonard v. Texas, cert. denied on procedural grounds, Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion that raises important questions about “whether modern civil-forfeiture statutes can be squared with the Due Process Clause and our Nation’s history.” Pointing out that, as the law enforcement entities that seize property often are the ones to keep it, “these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” He continued,

This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use— has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses.

These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings. Perversely, these same groups are often the most burdened by forfeiture. They are more likely to use cash than alternative forms of payment, like credit cards, which may be less susceptible to forfeiture. And they are more likely to suffer in their daily lives while they litigate for the return of a critical item of property, such as a car or a home.

Unfortunately in Leonard v. Texas, the petitioner did not raise due process arguments in the lower courts and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case. But, Justice Thomas’s decision sends a clear signal that he is sympathetic to these arguments.

As has become evident in the legislative arena, asset forfeiture is a field that both those on the left and the right recognize is need of reform. Though it is rare to see Justices like Justice Sotomayor and Justice Thomas on the same side of a legal issue, we at the Drug Policy Alliance welcome their common-sense approach to curtailing abuses and overreach in the current asset forfeiture system. We hope that these two cases portend the creation of future case law that protects civil rights and property rights, and tackles the corrosive motive for profit in our law enforcement agencies.

Theshia Naidoo is the legal director of criminal justice with the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of legal affairs .

View more blog posts.

Author: Theshia Naidoo
Date Published: June 9, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Drug Education in High School Needs to be More Comprehensive

Chiara Fontaine — June 8, 2017

I was sitting on a couch surrounded by my friends a few nights ago, when I was informed that many of the people in this crowded high school party were on “bars” – a nickname for Xanax – and had been combining them with alcohol. This can be very dangerous when abused, since the combination can slow down and even stop the user’s heartbeat. Yet over the past few years, I have noticed a large increase in the number of my peers who are trying such unsafe combinations.

Do they truly understand the risk associated with their actions? In many cases, the answer is no. My high school never talked to us about it, and so people allow the experiences of their friends to influence their decision in trying substances like bars. By watching my friends make choices like this, it has become clear to me that the high school health education has serious shortcomings that need to be addressed, and education reform is an integral part in ending the national opioid epidemic.

As prescription drugs and opioids are becoming more and more common across the United States, one must take a second to examine the impact that this prevalence of pills has on the adolescent population. There is no denying that over the past few years, opioid use has seen a significant increase among young people and adults. According to a national survey, heroin use has more than doubled among young adults aged 18 to 25 years old in the past decade. While teens may not be using opioids in high numbers, they see its effects as they are losing their relatives to the opioid epidemic. Drug overdose is now the leading cause of accidental death in the United States, and the majority of Americans with problematic substance use start smoking, drinking or using other drugs before the age of 18.

The most effective way to combat these startling statistics is to use education to inform teens of the facts surrounding drug use. But unfortunately drug education is lacking where it would be most effective, in high schools across the country. The best known drug education campaign, D.A.R.E., preaches abstinence. Many students experience D.A.R.E in elementary school. They are exposed to scare tactics, including only talking only about the potential harmful side effects of drug use, in order to deter them from using drugs when they get older.

There is, therefore, no surprise that this system of education has shown no real impact on the rate of drug use in the country. Elementary school kids have only limited exposure to the drugs they are learning about and may be too young to properly understand the information they are being given. More emphasis should be put on educating high school students who do have exposure to drugs; in 2015 15% of twelfth-grade students reported using illicit drugs other than marijuana in the past year.

It’s important to understand that high school students are at a critical age where they are looking to form their own opinions about the world around them. Alcohol and other drugs are common in high school, and it is essential that students are properly educated about the facts surrounding them -- including what steps to take to reduce potential harms Many people are unaware about how preventable things such as drug overdose are, or how to help someone experiencing an overdose using something like a naloxone kit. With the knowledge of how to use drugs safely as well as how to help peers, teens will be able to make smarter and safer decisions as they enter adulthood.

Additionally, a form of open education where dialogue about drug use is purely fact based will hopefully create a population of informed parents who are more likely to talk about drugs in the same manner with their own kids. According to a 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, teens who consistently learn about the risks of drugs from their parents are up to 50% less likely to use drugs than those who don’t.

By providing comprehensive drug education to young people while their brains are still moldable, national drug use could decrease and students will find themselves more prepared for the future ahead of them.

Chiara Fontaine is an intern at the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Chiara Fontaine
Date Published: June 8, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

New York State Legislators to Renew Push for Marijuana Legalization

June 8, 2017

ALBANY, N.Y. – On June 12, a coalition of community advocates led by the Drug Policy Alliance will join Senator Liz Krueger (New York) and Assemblymember Crystal Peoples-Stokes (Buffalo) to announce reintroduction of the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA, S.3040/A.3506), which would authorize recreational use of marijuana. The coalition will also announce the launch of the Start SMART NY campaign (SMART stands for Sensible Marijuana Access through Regulated Trade).

The bill would establish a legal market for marijuana in New York and create a system to tax and regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol for adults over the age of 21. As it is estimated that New Yorkers spend an estimated $3 billion per year on marijuana, the potential tax revenue stream for the state is considerable. An official study by the NYC comptroller in 2013 estimated potential tax revenue for a legal marijuana market in NYC alone would be more than $400 million, acknowledging that the actual revenue could be much higher.

What: Press Conference for Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act

When: Monday, June 12, 2017 1:30pm

Who:

Senator Liz Krueger (D-New York)
Assemblymember Crystal Peoples-Stokes (D-Buffalo)
Key MRTA sponsors and Independent Democratic Conference (IDC) members, including: Senator Jamaal Bailey (D-Bronx), Senator Jesse Hamilton (IDC-Brooklyn), Senator Gustavo Rivera (D-Bronx), Assemblymember Walter Mosley (D-Brooklyn), Assemblymember Michael Blake (D-Bronx)
The Start SMART coalition:
- Drug Policy Alliance - Kassandra Frederique, New York Director
- LatinoJustice - Juan Cartagena, President and General Counsel
- VOCAL-NY - Nick Malinowski, Civil Rights Campaign Director
- Immigrant Defense Project - Mizue Aizeki, Deputy Director
- Cannabis Cultural Association - Nelson Guerrero and Jacob Plowden, Co-Founders
- Empire State NORML - Doug Greene, Legislative Director
- Individuals directly impacted by marijuana prohibition

Where: Senate Chamber, New York State Capitol, Albany, NY 12224

The reworked Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act (MRTA) includes substantial racial justice and small business-friendly amendments, including:

Creating a micro-license structure, similar to New York’s rapidly growing craft wine and beer industry, that allows small-scale production and sale plus delivery to reduce barriers to entry for people with less access to capital and traditional avenues of financing.
Establishing the Community Grants Reinvestment Fund, which will invest in communities that have been disproportionately impacted by the drug war through job training, economic empowerment, and youth development programming.
Ensuring diversity in New York’s marijuana industry by removing barriers to access like capital requirements and building inclusivity by allowing licensing to people with prior drug convictions. Only people with business-related convictions (such as fraud or tax evasion) will be explicitly barred from receiving licenses.

Start SMART NY is a campaign to end marijuana prohibition and repair the harms to communities convened by the Drug Policy Alliance in partnership with groups dedicated to ending marijuana prohibition.

Author:
Date Published: June 8, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

New York Times Investigation Finds Drug Overdose Deaths Reached All-Time High in 2016

June 6, 2017

The New York Times published on Monday an investigative report that found that drug overdose deaths last year reached an all-time high, suggesting that the country’s long-term opioid crisis continues to worsen and that younger age groups in the U.S. are experiencing record numbers of opioid overdoses than in the past.

The Times looked at preliminary overdose data for 2016 provided by hundreds of state and local health authorities, concluding: “Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50, and all evidence suggests the problem has continued to worsen in 2017.” The report estimates that more than 59,000 people died from a drug overdose in 2016 – an increase across of 19% from 2015. The report does not elaborate on which drugs are behind the estimated jump in overdose deaths last year, nor does the report indicate which age groups under 50 saw the largest increase in overdose deaths over prior years.

Advocates have criticized President Trump and his administration for failing to deliver on his promise of increased access to opioid treatment, as well as for backing health care legislation in Congress and proposing major cuts to Medicaid that cumulatively would make devastating cuts to opioid treatment and mental health services for populations hit hard by the opioid crisis.

“President Trump and his administration talk about expanding access to opioid treatment and ending the opioid crisis but are taking very aggressive steps to do just the opposite. Trump continues to push for a health care bill that threatens opioid treatment access for millions of people who otherwise can’t afford it. Trump’s first budget to Congress puts more money behind law enforcement than treatment, and actually proposes to cut treatment funding levels over what President Obama proposed in his last budget to Congress. It’s really difficult to take seriously Trump’s assurances it’s prioritizing a response to the opioid crisis with this track record,” said Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs with the Drug Policy Alliance.

The Drug Policy Alliance recently released a plan to address increasing rates of opioid use and overdose. The plan marks a radical departure from the punitive responses that characterize much of U.S. drug policy and instead focuses on scientifically proven harm reduction and public health interventions that can improve treatment outcomes and reduce the negative consequences of opioid misuse, such as transmission of infectious diseases and overdose.

The plan offers specific policy proposals that, if implemented, will increase access to effective treatment, expand harm reduction services, prevent further opioid misuse, reduce the role of criminalization and lessen incarceration, and decrease racial disparities. Some of the more than twenty innovative and cutting-edge recommendations in the plan include:

Increase Access to Effective Drug Treatment: There is wide consensus among experts that medical best practice requires that an individual struggling with opioid use disorder should have access to the full spectrum of behavioral, pharmacological, and psychosocial treatments.
Lift Barriers to Medication-Assisted Treatment: Medication-assisted treatment (MAT) refers to the treatment of opioid use disorder through the prescription of medications such as methadone and buprenorphine, which block the effects of opioid use and prevent or relieve withdrawal symptoms and cravings. Scientific research has established that MAT is a cost-effective intervention that increases patient retention in treatment and decreases drug use, transmission of infectious diseases, and criminal activity. However, a number of known federal barriers prevent MAT from being as widely accessible as it should be. The federal government needs to increase access to methadone and make it available in more health care settings. Congress should also repeal a federal law that caps the number of opioid patients a physician can treat with buprenorphine at any one time.
Establish Safe Drug Consumption Services: Safe Drug Consumption Services, also known as supervised injection facilities (SIFs), are controlled health care settings where people can consume drugs under clinical supervision and receive health care, counseling, and referrals to health and social services. SIFs have been rigorously studied and found to reduce the spread of infectious disease, overdose deaths, and improperly discarded injection equipment, and to increase public order, access to drug treatment and other services, and to save taxpayer money. California and Maryland, and a number of municipalities have considered implementation of SIFs.
Research Heroin-Assisted Treatment: Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) is a form of medical care that involves the carefully regulated and controlled administration of pharmaceutical-grade heroin to people who have failed other drug treatments. Research has shown that HAT can reduce drug use, overdose deaths, infectious disease, and crime, while saving money and promoting social integration.
Implement Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion: Law enforcement officials frequently act as the first point of contact for drug-related offenses, but criminalization generally results in more harm than good. Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) is a pre-arrest or pre-booking diversion program that has been piloted and evaluated in Seattle, Washington. Instead of arresting and booking people for certain petty offenses, including low-level drug possession and sales, law enforcement immediately directs them to housing, treatment, and other services.
Utilize Drug Checking as an Overdose Prevention Strategy: To reduce the number of hospitalizations and fatal overdoses related to adulterated heroin or opioid products, DPA recommends that federal, state and local officials investigate ways to make greater use of technology that tests opioids and other drugs for adulterants using GC/MS analysis or other highly accurate methods. Adulterated substances lead to higher numbers of hospitalizations and fatal overdoses. Although some types of testing, such a reagent testing or metabolite strip testing, are available to the public, health authorities could improve the surveillance of fentanyl and other opioid analogues, and community programs that serve at-risk populations could better help people avoid adulterated drugs, with the use of high-level technology.

“Opioid misuse and overdose are complex issues that require a multifaceted, comprehensive approach,” said Lindsay LaSalle, Senior Staff Attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance. “In taking some or all or the steps delineated in the plan, local, state, and federal policymakers can act to ensure healthier, safer populations while avoiding failed strategies that drive people away from care and treatment, exacerbate racial disparities, and waste scare public resources.”

Author:
Date Published: June 6, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Drug Policy Alliance and ACLU of California Sue City of Fontana Over Ordinance That Conflicts With Rights Granted by California's Marijuana Legalization Initiative

June 6, 2017

Yesterday, the Drug Policy Alliance and ACLU of California filed a lawsuit against the City of Fontana challenging a city ordinance that is in conflict with Proposition 64 (also known as the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” or “AUMA”). The challenged ordinance places significant restraints on an adult’s legal right to cultivate marijuana plants at their personal private residence. The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the ordinance because it is preempted by Prop. 64 and violates several state constitutional rights.

On November 8, 2016, the people of California voted in favor of Prop. 64, which allows adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to six marijuana plants at their private residence away from public view. While Prop. 64 allows local governments to regulate indoor personal cultivation, they cannot adopt unreasonable regulations or prohibit anyone from cultivating altogether.

Among other problematic provisions, the ordinance requires residents to register with the city, undergo a criminal background check, open their home to city officials, and pay an expensive fee before obtaining a permit that would allow them to grow marijuana plants in their private home. By the City Council’s own admission, this process is meant to deter its residents from engaging in legal conduct under state law.

“This ordinance is at odds with state law enacted by a majority of the voters in California, in San Bernardino County, and the City of Fontana,” said Joy Haviland, Staff Attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance. “Local officials cannot limit or undo what is now legally allowed in California. Prop. 64 allows adults to cultivate for their own personal use in their private homes without unnecessary intrusion from the state.”

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Mike Harris, a retired Fontana resident, taxpayer and homeowner since 1987 who seeks to cultivate marijuana at his residence.

“The ACLU of California supported Prop. 64, in large part because of our longstanding policy that possessing or cultivating marijuana for personal use should not be a crime,” said Jess Farris, Director of Criminal Justice at the ACLU of Southern California. “The Fontana ordinance – and other similar ordinances around the state – would criminalize the very conduct Prop. 64 legalized, particularly for people who are ineligible to obtain a permit because of their criminal convictions or their lack of funds to obtain a permit or to dedicate an entire room in their home to cultivation.”

Prop. 64 passed with 57 percent voter approval statewide, including a majority of voters in the City of Fontana (53 percent) and the County of San Bernardino (52 percent). The Drug Policy Alliance’s affiliated organization, Drug Policy Action, served as a co-chair of the Prop. 64 campaign committee. ACLU of California endorsed Prop. 64 among other diverse statewide stakeholders such as Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and other lawmakers, the California Democratic Party, and the California Medical Association.

Author:
Date Published: June 6, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

DPA and ACLU of CA Sue City of Fontana to Uphold Rights Granted by California's Marijuana Legalization Law

Joy Haviland — June 6, 2017

Yesterday, the Drug Policy Alliance and the ACLU of California filed a lawsuit against the City of Fontana challenging a city ordinance that is intended to effectively prevent residents to enjoy the rights granted to them by Proposition 64 (also known as the “Adult Use of Marijuana Act” or “AUMA”). The Fontana ordinance makes it unreasonably difficult and expensive for residents to cultivate marijuana at their private residence as Prop. 64 allows.

On November 8, 2016, the people of California voted in favor of Prop. 64, which allows adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and cultivate up to six marijuana plants inside their private residence away from public view. While the new law allows cities to regulate indoor personal cultivation, they must do so reasonably and cannot prohibit anyone outright from cultivating.

Shortly after the law took effect, several cities acted against the will of the voters and adopted ordinances that are so restrictive they operate as a de facto ban on cultivation. And for some groups of people, such as people with a prior felony drug conviction, it is an outright ban. In Fontana—where Prop. 64 passed with 53.5 percent of the vote and with 52.5 percent in the surrounding San Bernardino County—the Mayor and City Councilmembers even boasted that they wanted this ordinance to be the most restrictive in the state and they hoped it would to deter people from cultivating marijuana.

In addition to being unreasonable and in conflict with Prop. 64, the ordinance violates several state constitutional rights. Among other problematic provisions, the ordinance requires residents to register with the city, undergo a criminal background check, open their home to city officials for an inspection, and pay an expensive fee before obtaining a permit that would allow them to grow marijuana plants in their private home. If someone cultivates marijuana but fails to obtain the city permit they are subject to a misdemeanor even though the conduct is legal under state law.

The Drug Policy Alliance’s affiliated organization, Drug Policy Action, served as a co-chair of the Prop. 64 campaign committee. DPA is committed to making sure the measure is implemented the way that the voters of California intended.

The primary purpose of legalization is to reduce the criminalization of adults for using, possessing, and cultivating marijuana. The overwhelming majority of states that have legalized the adult use of marijuana have also legalized the personal cultivation of marijuana plants at a private residence. Personal cultivation also gives consumers a legal alternative to retail marijuana, which cannot be purchased in the state until 2018, and to marijuana in places where local governments legally choose to ban marijuana businesses. (Medical patients, however, may continue to purchase medical marijuana at dispensaries.)

City ordinances that are plainly intended to circumvent what state law now allows invite legal challenges such as this one. Local governments cannot undermine or undo what their voters and what the voters of California have embraced.

Joy Haviland is a staff attorney with the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Joy Haviland
Date Published: June 6, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Groundbreaking Supervised Consumption Services Bill Passes the California Assembly

June 2, 2017

Late Thursday evening, the California State Assembly became the first legislative body in the U.S. to pass a bill to permit safe consumption services that would allow drug users to use controlled substances under the supervision of staff trained to treat and prevent drug overdose and link people to drug treatment, housing and other services.

AB 186 by Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) passed with bipartisan support, 41-33. This historic bill sponsored by drug treatment providers, HIV and hepatitis prevention groups, the Drug Policy Alliance and others, puts California at the forefront of the national momentum towards opening supervised consumption services (SCS) in the U.S. The bill would allow local jurisdictions to choose to permit SCS and provide legal protections for the programs and participants. It creates a pilot program, allowing a limited number of jurisdictions to operate the services, and requires a report on the efficacy of the services. It now goes to the state Senate.

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, preventing transmission of HIV and viral hepatitis, and reducing street-based drug use and syringe disposal. Research has shown that people who access these programs are more likely to enter treatment and more likely to stop using drugs. Support is growing rapidly across the country for these services in the face of dramatic increases in drug overdose deaths. Similar legislation has been introduced in Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York, and Seattle, WA is in the process of opening sites.

“California is blazing a new trail toward a policy on drug addiction and abuse that treats it as the medical issue and public health challenge that it is, and not as a moral failing," said Assemblymember Susan Talamantes Eggman. "We are in the midst of an epidemic, and this bill will grant us another tool to fight it – to provide better access to services like treatment and counseling, to better protect public health and safety, and to save lives.”

“California is again leading the way, putting science and compassion ahead of fear and outdated stigma about drug use,” said Laura Thomas, deputy state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. “Assemblymember Eggman is a national leader for a commonsense approach to drug use that would help prevent thousands of Californians from losing loved ones to drug overdose.”

Emalie Huriaux, Director of Federal & State Affairs for Project Inform and Chair of the California Hepatitis Alliance said, “The Assembly’s vote is a clear signal that California is ready to stop stigmatizing and criminalizing people who use drugs and to start addressing drug use as a public health issue. As an organization that works to end the HIV and hepatitis C epidemics, Project Inform is proud to co-sponsor AB 186 because we know SCS are a compassionate and scientifically proven strategy that will help us reach our goal.”

“Harm Reduction Coalition applauds the leadership of the California State Assembly, which yesterday voted to approve passage of AB 186, a bill that would authorize communities to establish safe consumption spaces for people who use drugs. As overdose rates show no sign of slowing across the country, we need to consider bold, evidence-based public health interventions,” said Monique Tula, executive director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, one of the co-sponsors of the bill.

Al Senella, CEO of Tarzana Treatment Centers, a co-sponsor described this as “an important move, signaling a recognition that these services can aid in the reduction of drug overdose deaths, reduce the spread of communicable diseases such as hepatitis C and HIV, and provide an opportunity for health care professionals to promote treatment and other health services to those suffering from the disease of addiction.” He added, “As the president and CEO of Tarzana Treatment Centers I would like extend our deep appreciation to Assemblymember Eggman and the full Assembly for the passage of AB 186.”

David Kan, MD, DFASAM, President Elect of the California Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM), praised the Assembly action saying, “California’s Assemblymembers who voted for AB 186 voted to save lives and create a new innovative avenue into treatment in the face of ignorance and fear. This bravery is reminiscent of the first needle exchange bills pioneered by former Congresswoman Diane Watson when she was chair of the California Senate Committee on Health.”

CAADPE, the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, said “Approval of AB 186 recognizes opioid and heroin use as a community, public safety and health issue. CAADPE has long advocated use of all available tools to create paths to health care and substance use treatment. Safe consumption spaces, a well-documented, evidence-based strategy, will add to the tool kit by creating another path to treatment and overdose prevention.”

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. Public drug injection is associated with higher rates of overdose, transmission of infectious diseases including HIV & viral hepatitis, as well as a variety of nuisance and safety issues. The SCS in Vancouver, Insite, reduced fatal drug overdoses in the area around it by a third. It also dramatically reduced public drug injection in the area and syringe litter.

This bill, if passed, could be put to use soon. San Francisco just created a task force to review the issue and develop policy recommendations for the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. The task force’s report is expected in September.

AB 186 is co-sponsored by California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives (CAADPE), California Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM), DPA, Harm Reduction Coalition, Project Inform, and Tarzana Treatment Center.

Author:
Date Published: June 2, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Second Circuit Upholds Harsh Life Without Parole Sentence for Silk Road's Ross Ulbricht

Jolene Forman — June 2, 2017

On Wednesday, in a lengthy 139 page opinion, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a harsh life-without-parole sentence for Ross Ulbricht, the alleged creator of the Silk Road darknet marketplace. In 2015, a lower court convicted Mr. Ulbricht of operating the Silk Road website, on which individuals bought and sold drugs. The court sentenced Mr. Ulbricht to life without the possibility of parole, the harshest punishment short of death that our legal system allows.

The public has grown skeptical of the effectiveness of harsh punishments for drug offenses. By a ratio of nearly two-to-one, Americans favor moving away from mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. Support for health-based, rather than criminal justice, approaches to illegal drug use spans nearly all demographic groups. There is bipartisan support for ending the harsh sentencing policies of the 1980s and 90s, the heyday of the war on drugs. Yet, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has hailed a return to mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses.

In Mr. Ulbricht’s case, prosecutors asked the judge to “send a clear message” with a sentence well beyond the mandatory minimum of 20 years. As the Drug Policy Alliance noted in the amicus brief it filed in support of Mr. Ulbricht, we have long known that draconian sentences are ineffective at reducing drug use and sales and are costly to society and individuals. The Second Circuit even recognizes that these sentences do not make sense. In its opinion, the court noted:

Reasonable people may and do disagree about the social utility of harsh sentences for the distribution of controlled substances, or even of criminal prohibition of their sale and use at all. It is very possible that, at some future point, we will come to regard these policies as tragic mistakes and adopt less punitive and more effective methods of reducing the incidence and costs of drug use.

The court also recognized that first time drug offenders, like Mr. Ulbricht, are not typically sentenced to the maximum allowable under the federal sentencing guidelines. Yet the court upheld Mr. Ulbricht’s sentence because of the extraordinary facts in the case. The court found Mr. Ulbricht worthy of an atypical sentence because, unlike the vast majority of federal defendants facing first time drug offenses, he created a massive darknet marketplace on which illegal drugs could be bought and sold.

Decades of harsh federal sentencing guidelines for drug offenses have failed to return positive public policy impacts and have been extremely costly. Black and Latinx persons are particularly harmed by harsh sentencing policies. Despite similar rates of drug use and sales across racial groups, black and Latinx individuals are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and sentenced for drug crimes.

These draconian sentences also fail to deter similar activities by others. For instance, since Mr. Ulbricht was arrested, it has been estimated that hundreds of Silk Road copycat websites have been created on the darknet to facilitate illicit drug sales.

Because harsh sentences are not effective at reducing the incidence and costs of drug use, we should continue to work across the aisle to reform these outdated sentencing practices.

Jolene Forman is a staff attorney at the Drug Policy Alliance.

View more blog posts.

Author: Jolene Forman
Date Published: June 2, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Legislation (AB 1578) to Protect Californians Against Federal Attacks on Lawful Marijuana Activity Passes California State Assembly

June 2, 2017

SACRAMENTO — Last night, the California State Assembly passed legislation that would prohibit state and local agencies from using resources to assist federal law enforcement authorities with marijuana enforcement against people in compliance with California state law. The successful Assembly floor vote means the bill has cleared its first house, before today’s deadline, and now heads to the State Senate to be heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee.

The legislation, authored by Los Angeles Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer, AB 1578, will protect Californians who are operating lawfully under our state laws by providing that absent a court order, local and state agencies, including regulators and law enforcement, shall not assist in any federal enforcement against state authorized medical cannabis or commercial or noncommercial marijuana activity.

In 2016, the voters of California overwhelming approved Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, which provided that adults 21 and over could purchase and possess a limited amount of marijuana for personal use. However, President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have hinted at a forthcoming crackdown on the recreational use of marijuana in states that have approved adult personal use.

President Trump made his intentions loud and clear in recent weeks when he turned rhetoric into policy with his signing statement to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, declaring the federal government’s intention to prosecute and punish states and their residents for using medical marijuana, never mind its recreational use. Additionally, Attorney General Sessions just doubled down by re-declaring the war on drugs. He called for reinstating mandatory minimum sentences and prosecuting all drug-related charges to fullest extent of the law. These policies rollback the gains California has made in fighting mass incarceration and reducing the number of individuals in our overcrowded prisons and jails.

Black and Latinx persons have the most to lose. They disproportionately comprise the majority of individuals arrested on marijuana charges. For example, despite similar rates of drug use and sales across racial lines, from 2006 to 2015, Black people in California were five times more likely than their white counterparts to receive marijuana felonies.

“We supported and passed Prop 64 because of decades of California law enforcement applying marijuana prohibition unequally across racial lines,” said Alice Huffman, president of the CA-Hawaii NAACP. “We do not want to see local law enforcement going back down this path by supporting federal intervention into cannabis activity that is fully legal under state law.”

Approximately 92 percent of drug enforcement is done at the state and local level. Using state and local resources for the new administration’s agenda undermines the will of California voters and the state’s right to enact and enforce its own laws. California would be paying the feds to break its own laws.

In response, Lt. Commander Diane Goldstein (Ret.), executive board member of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, remarked, "The passage of AB 1578 will reduce the harms of the gray and illicit market in our communities, ensuring public safety and health. Critically, this bill demonstrates to Californians that law enforcement understands and respects that police legitimacy requires public support. Law enforcement cannot build community trust if we're undermining the law."

There is a real concern about giving the Feds access to information about California residents, especially dangerous for medical cannabis patients and industry providers. Thousands of Californians could suddenly find themselves targeted, harassed, intimidated or prosecuted by the federal government.

“Trump and Sessions’ threat to California is real,” said Drug Policy Alliance state director Lynne Lyman. “It threatens to ensnare law-abiding residents in costly—financially and personally—legal battles and possible incarceration or deportation. It is dangerous and it is expensive. Which means passing Assembly Bill 1578 is urgent.”

Author:
Date Published: June 2, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

No Humanity in São Paulo's Violent Crackdown on Cracolândia

Hannah Hetzer — May 24, 2017

At dawn on Sunday, a neighborhood in the center of São Paulo, Brazil awoke to a violent and unanticipated onslaught of nearly a thousand police officers, who descended on residents – many of whom were homeless and many of whom use drugs – with dogs, Tasers and rubber bullets. The area had come to be known as Cracolândia (“Crackland”), and the officers had been sent by São Paulo’s Mayor João Doria to destroy one of the world’s exemplary harm reduction programs, De Braços Abertos (“With Open Arms”).

Videos and recounts of the crackdown are horrific: 900 militarized police officers viciously stormed through the area, arresting people suspected of using drugs. They evicted people who had been accessing voluntary treatment services, destroyed tents and temporary housing that had become people’s homes, and even blocked health professionals from providing relief to those harmed in the operation.

Brazilian human rights advocates, drug policy reformers, psychologists, academics and treatment specialists are responding to Sunday’s violent operation against De Braços Abertos.

Brazil's Federal Council of Psychology called the mayor’s action “barbarism”. Luciana Boiteux, a law professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro said, “This police action in Cracolândia in São Paulo was a brutal war against the poor homeless people. They were disarmed and vulnerable, and were treated as something disposable, despicable.”

The city of São Paulo, under former mayor Fernando Haddad, launched De Braços Abertos in 2014 to address the neighborhood’s high prevalence of crack cocaine use. The city replaced its previous law enforcement-heavy approach with an emphasis on social reintegration by providing health care, temporary housing, employment opportunities, meals, technical training and a daily wage to over 800 people struggling predominantly with homelessness and addiction to crack. Significantly, abstinence from drug use was not a requirement for participation in the program.

De Braços Abertos has been a success. Within a month of the program’s initiation crack use had reduced in the area by 50 to 70% and within two months 10,555 health interventions had been delivered. Crime rates in Cracolândia fell in the first half of 2014, including a 32.3 percent decrease in theft. In a survey of De Braços Abertos participants, 95% said that the impact on their lives was either positive or very positive; 76% accepted jobs as part of the program (75% of which thought that the employment conditions were either good or excellent); 73% sought rehabilitation services; and 67% said that they had reduced their crack consumption. 66% of the program’s participants were formerly incarcerated, making the emphasis on social reintegration all the more significant.

Today, two Brazilian drug policy and human rights organizations, the Brazilian Platform for Drug Policy and Conectas Direitos Humanos, will denounce Mayor Doria’s crackdown in front of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Gabriel Elias, Advocacy Coordinator of the Brazilian Drug Policy Platform said, “The government is trying to find new ways to incarcerate drug users through confined and compulsory treatment. This policy is contrary to the United Nations guidelines and Brazilian legislation.”

The São Paulo government has no realistic plan for what to do with the now-dispersed residents of Cracolândia. Many of them are spending the night in jail cells or on cold, hard floors in government facilities. Mayor Doria’s decision to violently shut down an effective and compassionate program that was serving an oft-overlooked and stigmatized population was, purely and simply, inhumane.

Hannah Hetzer is the senior policy manager of the Americas for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Photo via Flickr

View more blog posts.

Author: Hannah Hetzer
Date Published: May 24, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

White House Budget Proposes More Funding for Law Enforcement Than Treatment

May 23, 2017

President Trump’s FY 2018 budget, released today, proposes to boost funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement while proposing dramatic cuts to Medicaid that has extended access to opioid treatment for millions of people impacted by the opioid crisis, as well as cuts to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the federal agency chiefly responsible for administering federal treatment grants. In a press release, the Office of National Drug Control Policy highlighted that the Trump administration’s FY 2018 budget proposes $15.6 billion for law enforcement and interdiction but only $12.1 billion for treatment and prevention. The budget released today also confirmed that the White House has dropped plans to cut the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s budget by nearly 95%.

Below is a statement by Michael Collins, deputy director of national affairs with the Drug Policy Alliance on the White House budget:

“Trump’s budget puts law enforcement ahead of treatment and public health at a time when there is broad political consensus that drugs should be treated as a health issue. This budget represents a major step backward in the fight to end the opioid crisis. Nearly five decades of a war on drugs has shown that throwing money at drug law enforcement fails to reduce neither supply or demand for drugs and only makes drug-related problems worse. Trump’s budget is the latest confirmation that this White House is engaging in a reckless escalation of the war on drugs, a losing proposition that is intensely unpopular with the public, and a tremendous waste of tax dollars that will needlessly drive up mass incarceration and put at risk the lives of people who struggle with addiction.”

Below is a statement by Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs with the Drug Policy Alliance on the White House’s reversal of plans to cut ONDCP:

“Since its inception in 1988, ONDCP’s primary mission has been the prosecution of the war on drugs. For decades, the agency prioritized hardline tactics by law enforcement that treated addiction as a crime. In the 1990s and 2000s, ONDCP was so obsessed with marijuana enforcement that it largely ignored early signs of the opioid crisis until it became a full blown public health catastrophe. Trump’s proposed budget is the clearest indication yet that ONDCP will be tasked with administering the Trump administration’s escalation of the war on drugs. Those who fought hard to preserve ONDCP need to be vigilant that the agency doesn’t revert to prioritizing enforcement-driven strategies that will only undermine efforts to treat people who struggle with addiction.”

Author:
Date Published: May 23, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Baltimore Community Organizations Strongly Condemn Policy to Treat Overdose Scenes as Crime Scenes As Overdose Victim Dies at Penn North

May 24, 2017

Update: After learning of conflicting reports regarding a recent overdose incident near Penn North station, we are issuing an update to our May 24 release. Several witnesses to the incident reported that the overdose victim died as a result of his overdose. However, after publication, MTA contacted us to state that the overdose victim ultimately recovered after medical transport to a hospital. We are currently working to obtain documentation to confirm that the victim they are referencing is the same person featured in our release, which remains unclear at this time.

That said, the incident featured in our release -- in which a bystander was prevented from administering naloxone to an overdose victim -- remains deeply troubling. Law enforcement officers should never prevent concerned individuals from acting to reverse an overdose. Maryland law (§5-603) offers clear protections for individuals providing lifesaving aid in a medical emergency, and individuals should never be discouraged from taking quick action to reverse an overdose.

Recently a new Baltimore Police Department (BPD) policy to treat overdose scenes as crime scenes was widely publicized. The new policy discourages people from calling for medical assistance for an overdose, puts overdose victims at increased risk, and further places vulnerable individuals’ health and safety at risk, particularly in black and brown and poor communities. The policy change will result in increased, and otherwise preventable, overdose deaths throughout Baltimore.

Though only a few weeks old, the policy has already resulted in confusion on how to respond to overdoses and contributed to the death of a Baltimore man near Penn North metro station last week due to law enforcement interference. Bystanders at the station identified an individual experiencing an overdose and attempted to revive him by administering naloxone, a fast acting opioid-overdose reversal drug, but were prevented from doing so by a Metro Transit Administration (MTA) officer. Multiple witnesses gathered at the scene, demanding that they be allowed to treat the individual, but were prevented from doing so repeatedly by the MTA officer. The man ultimately died.

"When we treat overdoses like crimes, it changes police priorities. Police have to be concerned about contamination of the crime scene, when their first priority should be saving the overdosing person's life," said Thomas Dargan Chairman of Communities United Quality of Life Committee. "This approach only increases the potential for harm and even death among people struggling with opioids. Officers should be carrying and administering naloxone, or at least encouraging trained civilians to do it."

Maryland has been devastated by the opioid overdose epidemic, with 1,089 opioid-related overdose deaths in 2015, almost 400 of which were within Baltimore City. The city’s 2016 figures are even grimmer; in just the first nine months of 2016, 431 individuals died of an overdose, surpassing the number of people who died in all of 2015. The state and city have responded to the crisis with interventions such as the Good Samaritan law, which provides immunity for certain drug-related offenses for people seeking help at the scene of an overdose; as well as making overdose reversal drugs like naloxone easily accessible, and increasing treatment funding. However, many jurisdictions have simultaneously adopted counterproductive criminal justice approaches instead of proven, evidence-based public health interventions while overdose deaths have continued to rise.

Baltimore’s newly announced policy of treating overdoses scenes as crime scenes and overdose deaths as homicides is such a return to drug war policies. Previously, as medical emergencies, overdose calls were left to Emergency Medical Services, but BPD will now deploy a taskforce of detectives out of the homicide unit to investigate both fatal and non-fatal overdose scenes.

“Treating a medical crisis as a crime scene sends a terrible message and is only going to make bystanders scared to call for help during an overdose,” said Dargan. “As a formerly incarcerated citizen I educate our communities about how to stop overdose deaths by administering naloxone and calling 911, but with the new policy I can’t promise them they’ll be protected even with the Good Samaritan law. This policy makes it much more difficult for us to save lives and is going to cause more overdose deaths.”

A coalition of Baltimore community based organizations is strongly opposing BPD’s decision to treat overdoses as crime scenes, and people who use drugs as criminals. Baltimore Harm Reduction Coalition, BRIDGES Coalition, Communities United, Jews United for Justice, Nurses for Justice Baltimore, Power Inside, and Maryland Community Health Initiatives Inc. are calling on BPD to immediately end this practice. The burgeoning coalition supports drug user rights and a public health approach to drug use, such as interventions like safe consumption spaces in Baltimore.

***

“Baltimore PD’s decision to treat overdoses as a crime is incredibly disappointing and there’s no doubt it will lead to more deaths. If the city wants to reduce overdoses, Baltimore law enforcement should be dispensing naloxone, educating community members about the Good Samaritan Law, and advocating for expanding law enforcement assisted diversion (LEAD) programs to keep those with minor drug offenses out of the criminal justice system,” said Kaitlyn Boecker, Policy Coordinator with the Drug Policy Alliance.

“Further criminalizing drug users will do nothing to build trust with communities that have been devastated by the War on Drugs for decades and continue to fear police interaction. We need to support harm reduction practices that reduce risk of fatal overdose and incarceration, such as creating safe spaces for people who use drugs,” said Rajani Gudlavalleti, community organizer for BRIDGES (Baltimore Resources for Indoor Drug-use Grassroots Education & Safety) Coalition.

"If the findings from the Department of Justice’s investigation and report on the Baltimore Police Department is any indication of how BPD’s practices are carried out, we are concerned that this new policy will increase the criminalization of Black residents," says executive director of the Baltimore Harm Reduction Coalition, Harriet Smith.

"Nurses for Justice Baltimore is appalled by the recent BPD policy put forth to treat overdose scenes as crime scenes. Treating individuals who struggle with substance use as criminals is contradictory to everything we know and believe as nurses. Everyone has the human right to receive care free from judgment. We know that criminalizing people for using drugs only serves to isolate, and in many cases, drives individuals further into their addiction, leading to the epidemic of overdose deaths that we see in our city every day. Criminalizing people for addiction perpetuates racial disparities and is a form of hatred and disrespect that we, will not tolerate. Overdose is a medical crisis that deserves compassionate medical attention no matter what, where, or to whom it happens," said Molly Greenberg, RN and Michaela Lindahl, RN of Nurses for Justice Baltimore.

Author:
Date Published: May 24, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

Advocates Decry Jump in Immigrant Arrests and Reported Appointment of Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke to Department of Homeland Security

May 19, 2017

On Wednesday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported a nearly 40 percent increase in immigrant arrests in the first 100 days of the Trump administration compared to the same time period in 2016, including a nearly 20 percent increase in ICE arrests of immigrants convicted of a criminal offense from 25,786 people in 2016 to 30,473 people this year. It is unclear from the data made available by ICE on Wednesday what proportion of these convictions stemmed from drug charges. However, a 2014 Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University report showed that nearly 250,000 — one-quarter of a million — people were deported for nonviolent drug offenses from 2008 to 2014. A nonviolent drug offense was the cause of deportation for more than one in ten (11 percent of) people deported in 2013 for any reason — and nearly one in five (19 percent) of those who were deported because of a criminal conviction.

Advocates stress that these numbers can be expected to continue to rise dramatically and are the latest sign that the Trump administration threatens to exploit drug war policing and prosecution tools to target and deport large numbers of immigrants for drug law violations, even in cases where drug charges are dismissed or possession is lawful under state law.

“The Trump administration is seeking to escalate the failed war on drugs as a means to further criminalize immigrants and people of color,” said Jerónimo Saldaña, Policy Manager at Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs. “Not only are immigrants more likely to be entangled in the criminal justice system for engaging in the same practice as whites, but the threat of deportations equates to an unconscionable double punishment.This double standard, along with hateful rhetoric that targets ‘felons not families’, inflicts serious harm on countless communities. ”

Last month, Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly announced that the Trump Administration would continue to use marijuana possession as a reason for deporting immigrants. “ICE will continue to use marijuana possession, distribution and convictions as essential elements as they build their deportation removal apprehension packages for targeted operations against illegal aliens living in the United States,” he said. Marijuana is currently illegal under federal law, but eight states have legalized it for adult use and 28 states have medical marijuana laws. Individuals following state law would be exposed to deportation. In 2013-2014, more than 6,600 people were deported just for personal marijuana possession, and overall, nearly 20,000 people were deported in 2014 alone for simple possession of any drug or drug paraphernalia.

“The Trump administration has made it plain they will even target immigrants who are lawfully using marijuana under state law, including for medical use. It’s outrageous and deplorable to think that our criminal justice system would subject anyone following medical advice under state law to the destructive forces of deportation,” said Jerónimo Saldaña, Policy Manager at Drug Policy Alliance’s Office of National Affairs.

Reports also surfaced this week that Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is expected to be appointed by Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly to an assistant secretary position charged with coordinating DHS enforcement activities with local law enforcement. Clarke has a track record of advocating hardline and inhumane tactics against communities of color and immigrants including the use of stop-and-frisk and police round ups of immigrants. Clarke has also come under fire for the deaths of several people incarcerated in the local jail under his watch.

According to the Immigrant Defense Project, one out of every four “criminal removals” – over 250,000 deportations – involved a person whose most serious conviction was for a drug offense. Human Rights Watch released a report in 2015 on drug deportations, noting that, “Thousands of families in the United States have been torn apart in recent years by detention and deportation for drug offenses.” In 2016, the ACLU released a report noting that veterans who have served the country as lawful permanent residents have been “subject to draconian immigration laws that reclassified many minor offenses as deportable crimes, and were effectively banished from this country.”

There have also been moves at the state level to prevent law enforcement from documenting misdemeanor drug crimes and therefore exposing immigrants to harsh deportation proceedings. The New York State Assembly passed legislation that creates a process for sealing the criminal records of people arrested for simple possession of marijuana in public view, providing a measure of protection for immigrants by making it difficult or impossible for immigration authorities to meet their legal burden of proof for a judge to find a lawful permanent resident deportable. Often these arrests were the result of stop-and-frisk encounters targeting young people of color, and immigrant New Yorkers with minor records have already been deported by ICE under the Trump Administration’s crackdown.

Author:
Date Published: May 19, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance

DPA Board Member and Neuroscientist Dr. Carl Hart Targeted by President of the Philippines

May 18, 2017

Last week, Drug Policy Alliance Board Member and Columbia neuroscientist Dr. Carl Hart left the Philippines after having been directly targeted by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte. Since last May, Duterte has waged a brutal war on people who use or sell drugs, which has led to the deaths of over 7,000 people, mostly from marginalized and vulnerable communities.

Dr. Hart was visiting the Philippines to speak at a drug policy forum hosted at the University of the Philippines. The convening brought together drug policy experts and civil society activists, and was attended by Agnes Callamard, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

At the forum, Callamard asserted that the war on drugs has been a failure and Hart called into question the false drug science being espoused by the Philippine authorities. In response,The Manila Times published a racist cartoon about Dr. Hart and President Duterte made disparaging and insulting remarks about both Callamard and Hart, calling Hart a “son of a b**** who has gone crazy.”

Within the last year of his presidency, Duterte has responded to anyone who has questioned his anti-drug strategy with insults, including former President Obama, the Pope, the International Criminal Court and the United Nations. Last November, Duterte threatened to kill human rights defenders who attempt to intervene in his war on drugs.

Earlier this month, U.S. President Trump called Duterte and invited him to the White House, praising Duterte’s drug war efforts. In the same week, a bipartisan Senate bill was introduced to rein in U.S. support of the Philippines' drug war, which places restrictions on defense aid to the country, provides additional funding for the Filipino human rights community, and supports a public health approach to drug use.

Statement by Ira Glasser, President of the Board of the Drug Policy Alliance:

“The Drug Policy Alliance condemns President Rodrigo Duterte for his implied threats against our board member, Dr. Carl Hart, the world-renowned neuroscientist who chairs Columbia University’s Department of Psychology. In light of the Duterte regime’s murderous history, such targeted statements cannot be taken lightly, or dismissed as rhetoric.

“Dr. Hart, a leading scholar in the field of drugs and addiction and a drug policy reform advocate, had been invited to present at the University of the Philippines in Manila, where he challenged Duterte’s brutal drug war, which has led to at least 7,000 extrajudicial killings of primarily marginalized people. Over the course of his presidency, Duterte has made chilling threats to human rights defenders in the Philippines, vowing to kill them if they attempt to intervene in his war on drugs.

“We call upon President Trump to denounce Duterte's threat in the strongest possible terms, and to make it unambivalently clear that such threats against the academic freedom of a renowned scholar will not be tolerated, and are incompatible with any normal relationship between our countries. We also call upon President Trump to publicly denounce Duterte’s murderous drug war and to call for immediate end to the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.”

Author:
Date Published: May 18, 2017
Published by Drug Policy Alliance