VRCO - Vereniging Rotterdamse Coffeeshop Ondernemers

Drug Policy Alliance Network News and Alerts News and information about drugs and drug policy from the nation's leading organization working to end the war on drugs.
What's Up in Upstate NY? ReconsiDer Knows

In New York, sometimes the City (as in New York City) get's all the attention. But those of us who care about drug law reform in NY--especially getting rid of the draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws-- ignore Upstate NY at our peril. Luckily, Nicky Eyle and the good folks at ReconsiDer are hard at work. They've recently launched an online outpost of reason in a sea of drug war insanity--the ReconsiDer blog. The blog covers drug policy around the world, in the US, and, of course, in NY. ReconsiDer works to

Educate the public about drugs and drug policies, including the problems caused by using criminal sanctions to regulate the distribution of drugs and alternatives to the use of criminal sanctions as regulatory policy instruments that are being employed by other democratic nations around the globe. (from the ReconsiDer website)

That sounds good to me. Check 'em out.

Posted by gabriel sayegh

We Are A Nation of Cowards

Today, newly confirmed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his first public speech, called us a "nation of cowards" when it comes to talking about race. And he's right. I had some hope after the whole Reverend Wright debacle, culminating in Obama's eloquent speech on race in the United States, that maybe the topic of race would be broached, and the 50 gazillion pound elephant in the room could begin to move towards the exit. But that didn't happen. Hell, I thought it might even happen after Katrina, after Wolf Blitzer so eloquently spoke of those left behind as "so poor...and so black." Nope. Nothing.

As the nation's top law enforcement official, AG Holder has an upper hand and the podium (literally) to start this conversation on race. It is especially relevant because he oversees the criminal justice system -- and it is painfully obvious there is a lack of racial equity within that system. And being that I work in drug policy, I have a pretty good starting point for this conversation. Hint: it rhymes with shrug shore.

As drug policy advocates, the statistics highlighting the racial disparity created by the shrug shore confront us daily. There are plenty of statistics we use to illustrate the point, which you can find succinctly listed at Drug War Facts. But while that paints a picture with broad strokes, sometimes we fail to realize that real people make up these statistics.

It honestly would be irresponsible for AG Holder to kick the elephant (ie. calling us a "nation of cowards"), but not bring up the shrug shore. While the shrug shore is only one example of the institutional racism that underlines many of our foundations, it is a profound starting point (or at least one of many). Holder is, after all, the person responsible for prosecuting people convicted of shrug shore offenses. By not utilizing his position to address the issue of race, he is really the biggest coward of all.

Note: while it is true that the shrug shore affects whites and people of color alike, there is such a stark disparity of impact that there is an urgent need for the shore to be understood through the institutional racism that the shrug shore breathes, and ultimately reinforces. This, of course, is not the only lens (one of many) through which to view the shrug shore, but to me, it is certainly one of the more obvious ones.

Posted by Evan G.

Control of Framed Issues

One of the principle problems in trying to effectuate change in the model of drug prohibition is that for the past thirty-nine years, since Nixon declared (some) drugs public enemy #1, drug prohibitionists have dominated the language and concepts behind our nonsensical approach to drug policy.

That the main stream media accepts these concepts without scrutiny, and in facts furthers them by publishing them without any requirement of proof, without any true questioning of it.

The latest piece of drivel I read from the drug prohibitionists was in Monday's (February 16, 2009) Seattle Times. It was a call to the Obama administration, concerning the possible selection of Gil Kerlikowske as Drug Czar, and how to handle drug policy. It was written by Kevin A. Sabet, a former senior adviser to drug czars in the Clinton and Bush administrations. The quotable:

"Embrace innovative ideas that have been shown to work. Drug policy is rarely a bone of contention among Democrats and Republicans. Everyone believes in prevention, law enforcement and treatment. And legalization remains (rightfully) the stuff of dreams (nightmares, really, when you take into account the heavy social costs that would result from a free, commercial market for illegal drugs)."

Let's break this down line by line, as the Seattle Times published this without telling this hack to get things straight.

"Embrace innovative ideas that have been shown to work." Decriminalization and regulation have been shown to work. Tobacco use prevention programs have been shown to work. By this first sentence, it would appear Mr. Sabet thinks we should move away from prohibition, which is now centuries old in concept, a century old in implementation, and a complete and utter failure.

"Drug policy is rarely a bone of contention among Democrats and Republicans." That much is mostly true, they're both equally bone-headed, and contend with each other to be the largest idiots on the planet in terms of drug policy. If our implementation is like calling a cop to treat somebody who has a flu, our policy development is like having a real estate lawyer plan the corrective surgery of your gaping chest wound - except even the real estate lawyer would most likely try to get expert opinion from a surgeon first (if nothing else, than just as a means of preventing counter suit).

"Everyone believes in prevention, law enforcement and treatment." Hold up a second, Mr. Sabet. You just jumped the frame - "everyone" does not believe in this. A bunch of isolated politicians in Washington D.C. and everyone on the public roll of our current policies believes in these three pillars. Really, though, they only believe in the middle ground. Prevention services are ridiculous, as the (rightly) maligned DARE program shows. Further, treatment isn't available to everyone - in fact, without law enforcement involvement, treatment is hard to come by, a counter-intuitive approach to treatment. Finally, the one you put in the middle - law enforcement, demonstrates how you're using language to bamboozle readers. An honest assessment of this sentence looks more like this:

'Everyone with a stake in the current policies, INCLUDING MYSELF, believe in INTERDICTION, INVESTIGATION, ARREST, PROSECUTION, INCARCERATION, oh, and if there's any money left over, treatment and prevention.'

The final sentence:

"And legalization remains (rightfully) the stuff of dreams (nightmares, really, when you take into account the heavy social costs that would result from a free, commercial market for illegal drugs)."

Mr. Sabet reveals the power of the frame here. He doesn't even need to justify any of these statements, he just makes them, without any evidence, without any backup, and the Seattle Times has no problem publishing it.

Legalization is the stuff of dreams? Tell that to the ex-Presidents of Latin America. While they didn't out and out say full scale legalization, they did recommend it for cannabis, and for the remainder to pursue a European Approach. The European Approach, for the most part, is decriminalization. Which leads to legalization. Which leads to regulated markets.

Which leads to the next part of Mr. Sabet's dishonesty: "nightmares, really, when you take into account the heavy social costs that would result from a free, commercial market for illegal drugs."

Whom is advocating a completely free, open commercial market for all substances? Where does this market exist for currently decriminalized substances, like hydrocodone, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, alcohol, etc.? As far as I can tell, all of them have some kind of regulation to them, and of them, only alcohol causes a large degree of social costs.

Yet Mr. Sabet isn't talking about regulating alcohol, or criminalizing it. Nor should he. The evidence has been in for decades: prohibition and free market are two ends of a spectrum. It is doubtful that either extreme end of the spectrum are appropriate for anything. Some measure of regulation keeps the consumer safe, keeps the companies that sell products safe, and everyone informed. How's that for a novel approach? Trusting people to use information, and respecting their rights to their personal liberty.

But Mr. Sabet doesn't have to address any of the above points I'm making, nor will the Seattle Times call him to task on it. Much like jumping on the bandwagon of "crack babies" in the 90's (a fabrication), the media exploits the lies of the drug war for its own gain, and become part of the "everyone" that Mr. Sabet talks about the beliefs of.

We have to seize control of the frames, if we're ever to change the battlefield to where reason, justice, and compassion rule the day, instead of the dogma of D.C. We must change the frame, not because people aren't on our side, but because before we can get the politicians to adopt more reasonable solutions, they have to start seeing drug use and abuse through the correct lens: public welfare and safety.

Want more proof? After writing the above, I paid a visit to the Seattle Times, and read the reader response. Guess how many of "everyone" supported Mr. Sabet's position? Zero. Every single comment left online called the 'drug war' for what it is: a fraud. Most had points similar to the ones I've made. Some suggested that Mr. Sabet start taking meds to control his delusions.

So while the media continues to use the distortions and outdated frames, the people are wising up. For this to translate to action requires that we give politicians the tools so that they can wisen up our drug policies to match the understanding that both experts and majority of the public have.

Posted by Malakkar Vohryzek

unity.nl Unity drugsinformatie.
Dromen van een drugsvrij feest

Festivals en politie staan niet meer lijnrecht tegenover elkaar in de omgang met pillen. Drugsvrij is het streven, maar met mate.

Dode gevonden bij terrein Solarfestival

ROERMOND - De politie heeft zaterdag bij het terrein van festival Solarweekend aan de Maasplassen in Roermond het stoffelijk overschot van een 21-jarige man uit het Belgische Retie gevonden. Dat heeft de politie zaterdag laten weten.

'Test drugsgebruik in verkeer onnauwkeurig'

Een speekseltest voor automobilisten om te controleren of ze drugs hebben gebruikt, is onnauwkeurig. Met de test kan niet worden aangetoond wanneer een bestuurder van een voertuig de drugs heeft gebruikt en in welke hoeveelheden.

Unity drugsvoorlichting: gebruik met je verstand.

Unity is inmiddels een bekend gezicht op de betere dancefestivals. Op een allesbehalve belerende maar open-minded manier proberen Unity-voorlichters het feestpubliek essentiële zaken bij te brengen als het gaat om veilig druggebruik. Charles Dorpmans van Novadic-Kentron, vandaag toezichthouder namens Unity, legt uit: "met een repressief beleid krijg je drugs het land niet uit."