Thursday, May 22, 2014

When heroin use hit the suburbs, everything changed

"Clearly, new attention to heroin use in white, affluent areas is changing the perceptions and politics of drug addiction. No longer are the addicts “desperate and hardened.” Apparently, heroin use isn’t the result of bad parenting, the rise of single-parent families or something sick or deviant in white culture. It isn’t an incurable plague that is impossible to treat except with jail time. Drug addicts no longer are predatory monsters."

    

(Amanda Voisard/For the Washington Post) - A man wears a T-shirt dedicated a friend died of a heroin overdose.
By Stephen Lerner and Nelini Stamp, Published: May 16 

Stephen Lerner is a fellow at Georgetown University’s Kalmanovitz Initiative and the architect of the Justice for Janitors campaign. Nelini Stamp is the youth engagement director for Working Families.
Last month, NBC News ran a series of stories about the United States’ “growing heroin epidemic.” Two things stand out in the reports: One is their sympathetic tone; the other is that almost everyone depicted is white.

Drug users and their families aren’t vilified; there is no panicked call for police enforcement. Instead, and appropriately, there is a call for treatment and rehabilitation. Parents of drug addicts express love for their children, and everyone agrees they need support to get clean.
In one NBC report, a drug court judge kindly cajoles and encourages people into getting treatment to avoid jail time. Another shows a teacher who was shooting up in the school bathroom now off drugs and happily married. Parents talk passionately about the need to have access to Naloxone, a drug that can counteract heroin overdoses. Every user is treated as a human being who made a mistake and who, with the proper support, can go on to live a productive life.

The heroin epidemic has exploded in white America. The Post has reported on its arrival in affluent Fairfax County, where “young people are jeopardizing their futures with a drug that for decades was seen as the choice of only the most desperate and hardened city junkies.” Peter Shumlin (D), the governor of Vermont — one of the whitest states — devoted his entire State of the State address this year to the effect of opiate addiction on Vermonters and what government could do to help them.
Clearly, new attention to heroin use in white, affluent areas is changing the perceptions and politics of drug addiction. No longer are the addicts “desperate and hardened.” Apparently, heroin use isn’t the result of bad parenting, the rise of single-parent families or something sick or deviant in white culture. It isn’t an incurable plague that is impossible to treat except with jail time. Drug addicts no longer are predatory monsters.

In short, the root problem is not the degeneracy of a group of Americans. The use of heroin has spread — the National Survey on Drug Use and Health reported that America had 373,000 users in 2007 and 669,000 in 2012 — and the increase is largely attributed to heroin being much cheaper than prescription opiates, which are harder to get legally and increasingly expensive on the black market. Economics are driving white suburban addiction, not the dysfunction often attributed to communities of color when those young people abuse drugs.
You can’t help but wonder how the story of a black teacher in an inner-city school shooting drugs in the school bathroom would be characterized. Or how the heroin addiction of a single black mother with two sons would be depicted on the nightly news.

Actually, we don’t have to wonder: We know exactly how drug use has been depicted and responded to when it was perceived chiefly as a problem in communities of color. The 1973 Rockefeller drug laws in New York mandated a minimum sentence of 15 years to life in jail for selling two ounces or possessing four ounces of heroin. The federal government followed suit in the 1980s with mandatory minimum sentencing as part of its “war on drugs.”

The media responded to the 1980s crack epidemic with countless stories of incurable “crack babies” who would inevitably grow up to be criminals. The “culture of poverty” welfare queens and poor people were themselves the cause of drug abuse, and the only solution to protect society (read: white society) was swift, harsh and unrelenting punishment and long jail sentences.

We can only hope that the sympathy shown to white, often affluent, young heroin users will add momentum to the calls to roll back the wasteful incarceration policies that hurt the country as a whole and have disproportionately impacted communities of color. The district attorney for Brooklyn plans to stop prosecuting people arrested for possession of small amounts of marijuana, and marijuana is being decriminalized and legalized across the country. The Obama administration recently announced a pathway to clemency for some nonviolent drug offenders. These are baby steps in the right direction to slow and start to reverse one of the major causes of mass incarceration of people of color.
Disparate drug enforcement and sentencing is just one part of a larger story about growing economic and racial inequality in the U.S. legal system. If we want to live up to our creed of equal justice under the law, we either have to reform our drug laws or lock up all those nice Fairfax County kids and throw away the key.
 

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

To Honor Hoffman, Focus on Prevention, not the Drug War Harm Reduction
Leo Beletsky                                                                     
Assistant Professor of Law and Health Sciences, Northeastern University
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-beletsky/philip-seymour-hoffman-overdose_b_4715378.html

   911 Good Samaritan Laws, Drug Overdose, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Politics News As devastating details about Philip Seymour Hoffman's apparent heroin overdose are beginning to emerge, we are already hearing speculation about police efforts to identify the drug source. If and when the suppliers are found, authorities will likely use the full extent of the law to prosecute them on drug, and even homicide charges. Instead, the focus should be on preventing others from following Hoffman's fate.

To be sure, efforts to identify dealers (or friends or acquaintances) who supply deadly drugs to overdose victims are important. Just last week, officials in New York State and elsewhere in the Northeast linked the current spate of heroin overdose deaths to a deadly batch cut with fentanyl -- the powerful synthetic opioid. Concerted detective work to locate and destroy such lethal batches may ultimately save lives. But, despite enormous efforts by federal, state, and local law enforcement, spikes in overdoses involving fentanyl-laced heroin have popped up all over the U.S. since the 1990s. In the long run, it has proven impossible to control the supply and purity of heroin and other illicit drugs.

In the meantime, public health officials have used several straight-forward messages to avert overdose fatalities. These include: not using drugs alone, testing new batches for potency, buying drugs from a trusted source, and knowing exactly what to do in the event that overdose does occur. Although such "harm reduction" tips have stirred up controversy in some corners, public health researchers have successfully argued that this common-sense approach is the best tool we have to address risk among drug users. Especially when working on high-visibility cases, law enforcement officials can do a lot to increase awareness about these life-saving measures.

Conversely, high-profile prosecutions of people tied to drug overdoses can be counter-productive. Such strategies have been a mainstay of drug law enforcement for decades and appear to be gaining momentum, especially in regions hard-hit by overdose like Oregon and Wisconsin (where their number doubled between 2012 and 2013). Taken directly from a "war on drugs" playbook, these efforts have certainly put numerous drug dealers behind bars. In many jurisdictions, however, it is enough to have simply shared a small amount of your drugs with the deceased to be prosecuted for homicide, and there are certainly instances of such charges. 

Research suggests that fear of criminal prosecution is the single most important reason why people who witness overdoses do not seek timely emergency medical help. This is particularly true of events that involve heroin: out of all witnessed overdoses, bystanders report calling 9-1-1 less than half the time. Such delays are especially tragic because appropriate emergency response can quickly and effectively reverse most overdoses with the administration of oxygen and -- in the case of overdoses involving heroin or other opioids -- the antidote naloxone. In other words, the fear of legal repercussions likely costs thousands of Americans' their lives each year. What fuels these deadly fears? High-profile prosecutions tied to overdose events, especially like the one currently dominating the news cycle.

In order to encourage overdose witnesses to seek emergency assistance, 17 states including New York have now passed "911 Good Samaritan laws," shielding overdose witnesses and victims from drug-related charges when help is summoned. These laws hold promise, but their impact is limited by several factors. First, they only apply to a limited set of drug possession violations, typically involving small-scale drug possession (state laws also have no bearing on criminal liability under federal law). Secondly, the vast majority of drug users, the general public, and even many police officers may not be aware of such laws. Finally, aggressive and mounting application of criminal prosecutions following overdose events totally thwart any positive public health impact of Good Samaritan legislation and other efforts to encourage overdose witnesses to come forward.

Widespread adoption and aggressive enforcement of punitive drug laws in this country has done little to reduce drug abuse. Acknowledging this, last Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the Smart Sentencing Act -- a bill to reduce or remove a number of mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenses. In its current version, however, this bill does not address provisions used to impose 20-year mandatory minimums for supplying controlled substances that result in death or injury. Even if this specific provision is eliminated on the federal level, this will not affect state laws, nor will this necessarily impact prosecutorial decisions to target people who supply drugs to overdose victims -- sometimes bona fide drug dealers, sometimes friends or partners of the deceased. We need to abandon this approach, focusing instead on raising awareness about risk-reduction, widening the scope of Good Samaritan Legislation and finding other ways to save lives rather than fill our prisons.
Harm Reduction

What is Harm Reduction?

North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition
 
This section is copied from Human Rights Watch’s article: ”We Know What to Do, Harm Reduction and Human Rights in North Carolina,” with permission by Human Rights Watch. Harm reduction is a way of preventing disease and promoting health that “meets people where they are” rather than making judgments about where they should be in terms of their personal health and lifestyle. Accepting that not everyone is ready or able to stop risky or illegal behavior, harm reduction focuses on promoting scientifically proven ways of mitigating health risks associated with drug use and other high risk behaviors, including condom distribution, access to sterile syringes, medications for opioid dependence such as methadone and buprenorphine, and overdose prevention.

Emphasizing public health and human rights, harm reduction programs provide essential health information and services while respecting individual dignity and autonomy. For drug users, harm reduction recognizes that many drug users are either unable or unwilling to stop, do not need treatment, or are not ready for treatment at a given time. Harm reduction programs focus on limiting the risks and harms associated with unsafe drug use, which is linked to serious adverse health consequences, including HIV transmission, viral hepatitis, and death from overdose.

Harm reduction programs have been shown to lower HIV risk and hepatitis transmission, prevent overdose, and provide a gateway to drug treat- ment programs for drug users by offering information and assistance in a non-judgmental manner. Harm reduction also protects law enforcement officers from needlestick injuries—accidental pricks to the skin from handling hypodermic needles. By providing safe disposal of injection equipment, harm reduction programs reduce the number of contaminated syringes circulating in a community.
 

Important principles of harm reduction programs include:

  • A non-judgmental approach that treats every person with dignity, compassion, and respect, regardless of circumstance or condition.
  • Utilizing evidence-based, feasible, and cost-effective practices to prevent and reduce harm;
    Accepting behavior change as an incremental process in which individuals engage in self-discovery and transition through “stages of change;”
  • Active and meaningful participation of drug users, former drug users, and community stakeholders in shaping sensible policies and practices around drug use;
  • Focusing on enhancing quality of life for individuals and communities, rather than promoting cessation of all drug use;
  • Recognizing complex social factors that influence vulnerability to drug use and drug-related harm, including poverty, social inequality, discrimination, and trauma;
  • Empowering drug users to be the primary agents in reducing the harms of their drug use;
  • Commitment to defending universal human rights.

Harm reduction encompasses a broad range of activities and interventions designed to improve the health and quality of life of individuals and communities. These include:

  • Outreach and peer education to reduce risks associated with drug use;
  • Needle and syringe exchange programs (SEPs);
  • Opioid substitution therapies (OST) for drug dependence, including methadone and buprenorphine;
  • Confidential counseling and testing for HIV, hepatitis, and other sexually transmitted or bloodborne infections;
  • Wound care;
  • Overdose prevention activities, including Naloxone (a prescription drug to prevent overdose) and first aid training;
  • Provision of primary care and treatment for HIV and other sexually transmitted or blood-borne infections;
  • Referrals to drug treatment programs.

Friday, January 31, 2014

Harm Reduction


 Harm reduction is a public health philosophy and intervention that seeks to reduce the harms associated with drug use and ineffective drug policies.  A basic tenet of harm reduction is that there has never been, and will never be, a drug-free society. The Drug Policy Alliance advocates reducing the harms of drug use through a lens of public health, using accurate, fact-based drug education, drug-related illness and injury prevention, and effective drug treatment for problematic use.  We believe that every solution with the potential to promote public health and to mitigate harm should be considered.  We continue to seek innovative health approaches to drug use, drug treatment, and drug policy that are based on science and research.

Saturday, November 5, 2011

International Drug Policy Reform Conference Kicks Off in LA




By Ellen Komp, Cannabis Culture - Friday, November 4 2011
.
 - An estimated 2200 people, a record number, are attending this year's Drug Policy Alliance conference at the Westin Bonaventure in Los Angeles.

The event opened this morning at a rousing session lead by DPA Executive Director Ethan Nadelmann, who introduced California's Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom to an appreciative crowd.
Newsom welcomed the group to the "wacky, wonderful" state of 37 million "dreamers, doers and entrepreneurs." He recognized that California lead the way to reform in 1996 with the passage of Prop. 215, legalizing medical marijuana, and with the 2000 passage of Prop. 36, to offer drug treatment instead of incarceration to low-level offenders. Newsom said Prop. 36 has saved California $2.5 billion.
In 1980, Newsom pointed out, the U.S. incarcerated half a million prisoners; that number has swollen to 2.3 million today as the US cages 25% of the world's prisoners. In California, the prison budget has soared from 3% of the budget in 1980 to 11.2% today, even as the CSU and UC college systems, once the "tent pole" of the state's economy, receive only 6.6% of the budget. He noted that 2/3 of those imprisoned are probation or parole violators, and wondered aloud how many of those violations were for drugs.

"At what point is this not code red?" Newsom asked. "What the hell are we doing?"

Newsom, who took a huge hit from the right when he came out for same-sex marriage after taking office as mayor of San Francisco, joked that his progressive staff wondered what the hell he was doing at the DPA conference, adding that drug policy made gay marriage seem easy.
"We're risk-averse in politics," Newsom said, allowing that he fell prey to that syndrome. "We have courage after we leave office."

Newsom said he felt like he was reliving earlier federal medical marijuana raids as he mentioned the latest US actions in Fresno, Sacramento, and elsewhere in California. He called for the state to step up against federal encroachment, saying we need to move beyond the "framework of fear" with "leadership, stewardship, constancy and faith."
"If you could take record private conversations [on this issue], it would break your heart," he said. "We know better, we're just not doing better." He spoke more, but his words were drowned out by thunderous applause.

Pete White from the LA Community Action Network spoke next, opening his speech by quoting Frederick Douglas: "I spent 20 years praying for freedom, but it wasn't until I I started praying with my legs that freedom came." White added, "As we occupy our country, we are using our legs." He called the WOD "a full-scale moratorium on our civil rights." He noted that in nearby Skid Row, the "most intense and sustained war on poverty and addiction" is taking place with "tools more sinister than usual." Drug convictions in LA lead to bans on housing and other benefits, sometimes for life, because of the actions of the LA city attorney's office. Quoting Douglas again when he said slaves were expected to sing, he ended with Malcom X's quote, "Stop singing and start swinging."
Alice Huffman, chair of the California chapter of the NAACP, came out next to announce, "NAACP is in the house." Huffman, who just joined the board of directors of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), said, "I am sick and tired of my people being the pawns in a stupid war." She called for the group to "elevate your movement to embrace us and fight injustice."

Former New Mexico governor and Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson next took the stage, and brought up the recent Gallup poll that showed 50% of Americans are for marijuana legalization. "Yet, 0% of politicians are for legalization," he noted. "Is there any other area where there is this disconnect?" Johnson predicted a 75% drop in border violence in Mexico with legalization, yet the government's solution is to add even more guns at the border.

You don't see Johnson in the Republican debates because candidates are invited to those based on their poll results. However, the polls that CNN and other networks use haven't included Johnson's name. Instead buffoons like Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and Rick Perry, and relics like Rick Santorum have their silly say, and progressives must hold their noses at Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance to find a Republican candidate who supports marijuana legalization.
Nadelmann wrapped up the opening panel by sounding a theme of inclusiveness. "We are old, young and in between; black, white and in between; gay, straight and in between; drug users and non users, and in between."

"We are people who want the right to get high or have been enlightened by psychedelics; people who have seen the worst that drugs can do, and see that that prohibition only makes things worse; and also people who don't really care, they just want our fundamental freedoms back. We love, hate, or don't give a damn about drugs, but we all believe the War on Drugs is wrong."

He singled out prosecutors as the worst drug warriors of all, saying, "DAs and prosecutors are out of control in American society and have to be called out." He noted that mandatory minimum sentences take control away from judges and give it to prosecutors, who do what they will regardless of "public opinion, health, safety or decency."

Saying he dreams of someday seeing a drug war truth & reconciliation commission like South Africa had after apartheid, Nadelmann used the automobile as an example of a substance that society has learned to live with and make safer due to intelligent, harm reduction policies.
The conference continues through Saturday, with panels, breakout sessions, community meetings and field trips. An "End the Drug War" rally in MacArthur Park is taking place tonight. See more at http://www.reformconference.org/
Ellen Komp is Deputy Director of California NORML and a regular contributor to Cannabis Culture. She manages the website VeryImportantPotheads.com and blogs at Tokin Woman.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

LOS ANGELES — July 20, 2011 — Faced with a court mandate to reduce overcrowding in California prisons, a majority of the state’s voters favor shorter sentences for some offenders rather than raising taxes or cutting services such as education or health care to pay for new prison construction or prisoner relocation, according to a new USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California must release more than 33,000 inmates to ease prison overcrowding. By a 50-point margin, California voters oppose increasing taxes to pay for new prison construction or to send inmates to other states. About 73 percent of voters oppose increasing taxes to build new prisons or relocate prisoners — including a majority of self-identified Democratic, Independent and Republican voters — compared to 23 percent of voters in favor. “In these tough economic times, voters expect their politicians to make spending priorities just like their families do, and right now, spending more money on prisons is not a high priority for Californians.

When it comes to prisons, voters are looking for solutions that don’t raise taxes or take money from other priorities like education,” said Linda DiVall, president of American Viewpoint, a Republican polling firm that conducted the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll with Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner

Prisons: Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, and Evan Halper, Sacramento Bureau Chief from the Los Angeles Times, discuss how the public feels about what to do about the current prison system. For more video analysis from USC and the Los Angeles Times, visit the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll Web site http://dornsife.usc.edu/poll

When presented with a series of measures to ease overcrowding in California prisons, a majority of the state’s voters said they favor reducing life sentences for third-strike offenders convicted of property crimes, such as burglary, auto theft or shoplifting. Sixty-two percent favor reducing life sentences for property crime offenders convicted under California’s “three strikes” law, and 31 percent favor it “strongly.” Overall, 34 percent of voters opposed reducing life sentences for third-strike offenders. “Californians prefer reducing sentences for certain non-violent offenders as the best alternative to spending cuts and tax increases,” said Stan Greenberg, CEO of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

“That a smaller percentage ‘strongly’ favor early release suggests these are tough choices made in the context of the state economy and the court mandate to reduce California prison populations within the next two years.” By a double-digit margin, White voters were more likely than Latino voters to support reducing life sentences for property crime offenders. Sixty-four percent of White voters support reducing sentences for property crime offenders convicted under the “three-strikes” law, and 33 percent opposed. Latino voters were more evenly split: 50 percent supported reducing life sentences and 45 percent opposed.

Latino voters were also less likely than White voters to support releasing low-level nonviolent offenders from prison early, though a majority of both groups and voters overall said they were in favor of the measure to help reduce the prison population. Overall, 69 percent of California voters support early release of non-violent offenders, with 33 percent favoring it “strongly.” This includes 71 percent of White voters, 78 percent of Black voters, 69 percent of Asian American voters, and 59 percent of Latino voters. Twenty-eight percent of voters oppose early release of low-level non-violent offenders.

Californians across party lines oppose cutting government services to help pay for measures that would ease prison overcrowding. Overall, 84 percent of voters oppose cutting government services to pay for prisons, including 87 percent of self-identified Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Independent voters. A video of poll experts discussing these results is available on the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll Web site, http://dornsife.usc.edu/poll