Corvallis Gazette Times, August 3rd, 2005 Letters: Baby death due to laws 'run amok' What saddens me as a mother about the July 20 editorial, "Parents on drugs risk the horrific,"is not what you might expect. My heart breaks for little Brody because simple drug safety and automobile safety education could have saved his life. This child died because his mother was undereducated and frightened and our society prioritizes pharmaceutical consumption and compliance over citizen education and assistance. The fact that she avoided exposing her child to drugs shows me that though misguided, Michelle Lee Fox was trying to be a "good mother," as she saw it. This loss of life is yet another inexcusable consequence of American substance prohibition run amok. Just as alcohol prohibition gave rise to organized crime and the "hypocrisy, corruption, loss of life, animosity between the citizens and government ... and the devastating effect it had upon the youth of the nation," noted by our grandmothers and great-grandmothers of the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform in 1929, our kids are suffering today all the more, for all of our good intentions. As a patient whose doctor recommends medical marijuana, my husband and I moved over 3,000 miles to Oregon, so I could be a law-abiding citizen while taking the medicine I need. I wanted to set a good example for my kids. I'm not a criminal, but thoughtless remarks like calling cannabis consumers "tokers," keep my medicine quasilegal. There are better ways to protect kids than by trying to incarcerate away that which offends us. Erin Hildebrandt Parents Ending Prohibition Lafayette |
McMinnville News Register, August 21st, 2005 To the Editor: The News-Register article ("This Mole's still for hire," Aug. 9) illustrates perfectly how flawed our system has become because of our failed approach to the war on drugs. While I generally have the deepest respect for our legal system, law enforcement has become so focused on increased conviction rates that the real goal - reduction of drug abuse - falls completely out of the equation. Our children end up suffering twice - we have no funding or dedication to education and treatment as proactive measures, so they become more at risk for a multitude of problems. In addition, as this article shows, any of our children are at risk of arrest and loss of an education simply for one mistake. Let's face it, in the last 30 years we've built a lot of prisons but only made drug abuse a larger problem. How many more of our children have to be harmed before we, as a society, demand better ways? Bill Hildebrandt, associate director Parents Ending Prohibition |
Oregonian, July 11th, 2005 War on drugs takes a victim What tremendous courage it must have taken for Dennis J. Saban to take responsibility for his actions and turn himself in to authorities he trusted ("Jail beating victim wanted fresh start," July 3). Saban made the choice to live a better life, and our government took that life and that opportunity away from him, in the name of a war on drugs. His life should not be reduced to "collateral damage." There are better ways to heal the harms caused by drug abuse than by incarcerating drug consumers with violent felons. ERIN HILDEBRANDT Parents Ending Prohibition Lafayette |
Oregonian March 7th, 2005 Be honest with kids about drugs I was greatly concerned by Kathleen Parker's column regarding President Bush's lack of honesty in discussing his "possible prior drug use" ("Bush tapes: With friends like these . . .," Feb. 23). Part of acting like a grown-up means telling the truth when it is vital to do so. Honest, open lines of communication are crucial in providing our children with the best means possible to avoid the dangers around them. Yet problems with drug abuse persist because well-intentioned parents like George W. Bush and Parker close down this necessary parenting tool in order to "protect their children." What they are doing is creating a system of distrust for authority and a recognition of hypocrisy that damages further communication. WILLIAM G. HILDEBRANDT Associate director, Parents Ending Prohibition Lafayette www.parentsendingprohibition.org |
USA Today -- Cover Story! June 6th, 2005 Patients who use marijuana fear worst if forced to stop By Joan Biskupic, Wendy Koch and John Ritter, USA TODAY Erin Hildebrandt moved her family from Maryland to Oregon last June for one reason: She wanted to live in a state where she could use marijuana legally. Hildebrandt has Crohn's disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract that gives her nausea. The 34-year-old mother of five underwent surgeries and tried various treatments, but nothing worked until she tried marijuana. Now, she's a registered marijuana user in Oregon, one of 10 states that has allowed patients who suffer from debilitating illnesses to use the drug as a pain reliever. "Medical marijuana gave me back my life," she said. "I don't do drugs. ... I'm just a mom." But the Supreme Court's ruling Monday that state medical marijuana laws do not protect Hildebrandt and thousands of other medical-marijuana users from federal prosecution has her fearing the worst. "I moved here to be a law-abiding citizen, and I'm not sure that I am anymore," said Hildebrandt, who lives in Lafayette, about 30 miles southwest of Portland. "I'm afraid I'll have the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) at my door. Yesterday, I would have told so much more (about the treatment). Now, I'm afraid." Her remarks reflected the concern Monday of medical-marijuana users who said the court's 6-3 decision had left them with a difficult choice: Break the law in order to take a drug that makes life tolerable, or give up marijuana and be miserable. The California patients behind the dispute that was decided by the court, Diane Monson and Angel Raich, were defiant Monday but hopeful that somehow a Republican-led Congress would approve a federal medical-marijuana law even though it has shown no inclination of doing so. "I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, 48, of Oroville, Calif., suggesting that she would continue to smoke marijuana to ease back pain caused by a degenerative disease of the spine. Raich, 39, of Oakland, called on Congress to show compassion for those who have found marijuana uniquely effective in relieving their pain. "Now is the time for Congress to step in to help us sick, disabled and dying patients," said Raich, who has an inoperable brain tumor and a seizure disorder. "Something will be done if it takes every last breath in my body." In Washington, the message was: Don't look for action anytime soon. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a co-sponsor of a bill that would gives Congress' blessing for states to make their own medical-marijuana laws, said the Supreme Court has "now made it clear that this is up to Congress. If Congress wants to do this, it can." But Frank and other members of Congress suggested that even in a generation of lawmakers who came of age as marijuana became popular among youths, few are willing to go on record as voting for a bill to allow pot smoking. "I think support is strong" for a federal medical-marijuana bill, said U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. "But people are still frightened a little bit by the politics of it. If you had a secret vote in Congress, I'll bet 80% would vote for it." After taking several hours to digest the ruling, officials in California and other states with similar medical-marijuana laws Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state said they doubted that the decision would lead the U.S. Justice Department to significantly crack down on individual users of medical marijuana, including those who grow the leaf for their own use. "People shouldn't panic. There aren't going to be many changes," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. "Nothing is different today than it was two days ago, in terms of real-world impact." In Oregon, officials said they would temporarily stop issuing medical marijuana cards to sick people. The cards allow patients with prescriptions to possess the drug. "We want to proceed cautiously until we understand the ramifications of this ruling," said Grant Higginson, a public health officer who oversees Oregon's medical marijuana program. Thousands of registered users The Drug Policy Alliance, a group in Oakland that supports more lenient drug laws, estimated that there are more than 113,000 registered users of marijuana in the 10 medical-marijuana states, with more than 100,000 in California alone. Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the USA. About 95 million Americans age 12 and older have used marijuana or hashish in their lifetime, according to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. About 15 million people use marijuana regularly, the survey found. The Bush administration has made marijuana a priority in its war on drugs, casting it as an entry-level drug with no scientifically proven benefits that leads many users to try more dangerous ones such as cocaine and heroin. But DEA Administrator Karen Tandy said after the ruling that the administration's focus would remain on major growers and traffickers. John Walters, the White House's anti-drug czar, said that those who flagrantly flout federal law will be punished, but he agreed with Tandy's emphasis on major traffickers. "I don't think anybody makes a career out of arresting and punishing low-level users," he said. The high court's ruling Monday came four years after it ruled that federal anti-drug laws could be used to shut down cannabis cooperatives that sell marijuana for medical purposes. The cooperative at issue in the case was set up in California after the voters there in 1996 passed the nation's first medical-marijuana law. Federal enforcement of that ruling has been sporadic, however, and dozens of clubs continue to dispense marijuana to patients. Several California cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Huntington Beach and Modesto, have cracked down on marijuana co-ops and dispensaries recently. Oakland limited the number of clubs last year, and San Francisco in April put a moratorium on new clubs while the city's Board of Supervisors decides how to regulate the more than 40 facilities in the city. Monday's case dealt with whether federal law could be used against those who possess or grow marijuana in small amounts, for their personal use. Such prosecutions are rare but are not unheard of: In August 2002, federal agents seized six plants from Monson's home and destroyed them in an incident that led to her involvement in Monday's case. Writing for the court's majority Monday, Justice John Paul Stevens called the California dispute a "troubling" case because of the legal and ethical dilemmas faced by Monson, Raich and other medical-marijuana users. "The case is made difficult by strong arguments that (Raich and Monson) will suffer irreparable harm because ... marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes," Stevens wrote. "The question before us, however, is ... whether Congress' power to regulate interstate markets ... (covers) drugs produced and consumed locally." Stevens also cited the government's argument that medical marijuana laws could inspire abuses such as unwarranted prescriptions that could lead to interstate drug trafficking violations. "One need not have a degree in economics," Stevens wrote, "to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors and family members) may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance." Relying on a 1942 ruling that permitted government restrictions on local wheat farming, the majority said Congress may regulate purely intrastate activities such as the personal growing of marijuana if it finds that failing to regulate them would harm the U.S. government's ability to regulate the commodity. Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Dissenting were two conservatives, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who is usually at the political center of the divided court. The dissenters said states should have the right to set their own course in dealing with medical marijuana. O'Connor said the majority was giving the federal government far too much authority. "The government has made no showing in fact that the possession and use of homegrown marijuana for medical purposes, in California or elsewhere, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce," she said. 'A war on patients' Despite predictions by California's Lockyer and others that the ruling's impact on the vast majority of marijuana-using patients would be minimal, advocates for medical marijuana called the ruling a huge disappointment. "In the war on drugs, we have had a war on patients," said Sandra Johnson, a lawyer and ethicist at Saint Louis University. "This is a tremendous setback. ... Untreated pain is a public health issue." Randi Webster, a co-founder of the San Francisco Patients Co-op on the edge of the city's Haight-Ashburydistrict, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling. "The first thing I thought was, what a crying shame that once again politics is taking the place of compassion," she said. "We're very disappointed," said Sandee Burbank, director of the non-profit Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse, known as MAMA, in Oregon. "It's going to make it harder for doctors and patients to have access (to medical marijuana) because of the fear." She says her group, which provides information about the benefits and risks of medical marijuana, will work harder to push Congress to resolve the issue. "My phone's been ringing off the hook," she says, describing patients who are afraid that U.S. officials will take their plants away. In Oregon, she said, many medical marijuana users grow their own plants. More than 10,000 residents have had permission from the state to do so. In Washington, Walters, the anti-drug czar, saw the ruling as a rejection of the idea that marijuana is a proven pain reliever. "The medical marijuana farce is done," he said. " I don't doubt that some people feel better when they use marijuana, but that's not modern science. That's snake oil." Ritter reported from San Francisco, Koch and Biskupic from Washington. Contributing: Donna Leinwand and Andrea Stone; wire reports |
American Bar Association Journal June 17th, 2005 LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TARGETED In "More Tokes to Come in Medical Pot Case," (June 10) John Gibeaut wrote, "[U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul] Stevens said that carving an exception for medical purposes would impede enforcement efforts ... because recreational demand ... means some state-approved pot likely would wind up on the illegal interstate market." In states where medical marijuana is illegal, all of this medicine winds up on the illegal market. Although every high school in America contains some cannabis, we law-abiding patients suffer frequently without our medicine. I'm a suburban wife and mom who got sick -- not a criminal. I moved my family 3,000 miles to Oregon just so I could be a law-abiding citizen and take the medicine that gave me back my life when every other treatment for Crohn's disease failed. Our tax dollars would be better spent in pursuit of real criminals, not sick and dying people who are forced to choose between obeying the law and their health. Erin Hildebrandt Lafayette, Ore. |
Feature: ONDCP Student Drug Testing Road Show Dogged by "Truth Squads" May 13th 2005 A four-city road show organized by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and designed to promote student drug testing as the "silver bullet" to confront teen drug use ended Wednesday in Portland, but the presence of fact-baring, question-asking, literature-providing drug reformers at all four events contributed mightily to taking the luster off the drug testers' pitch. The drug czar's "School Drug Testing Summits" are part of an aggressive push by ONDCP and the Bush administration to increase the use of student drug testing. The administration has budgeted $25 million in the FY 2006 budget for grants to "support schools in the design and implementation of programs to randomly screen selected students and to intervene with assessment, referral, and intervention for students whose test results indicate they have used illicit drugs." The summits are designed to gin up support for the measure, both among educators, who attend the summits, and the public at large, who reads about them in the press. But drug reform groups such as Drug Policy Alliance and Students for Sensible Drug Policy, which have made student drug testing a particular focus, geared up to counter the ONDCP propaganda in all four cities. They have been joined by individual activists and local groups across the country, as well as other reform groups working the issue. "This has become a central issue for the Alliance. We see it within the context of a larger movement to erode our civil liberties and maybe end up with drug testing for everybody," said Jenny Kern, DPA point person on school drug testing. "Our office of legal affairs was very involved in the Lindsay Earls case," she said, referring to the 2002 Supreme Court decision okaying suspicionless drug testing of students involved in extracurricular activities. The Supreme Court had already approved the testing of student athletes in 1995. "Out of that litigation, we decided our strategy would be to craft a campaign to give parents and educators the tools to challenge drug testing in their areas," said Kern. "We've been working very closely with SSDP," Kern said, "and the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project, and NORML is very involved in the drug testing issue, too. We are just a few small voices in opposition to drug testing, but because of our presence at the ONDCP summits, they are aware of us and they feel like they have to address our points. We are making them pause." DPA laid the groundwork for participants in the four cities, Kern said. "We sent out action alerts encouraging our members to go to the summits, we provided an online tool kit, we had fact sheets, fliers, and suggested questions all ready," said Kern. "And we created a web site http://www.drugtestingfails.org -- where people can access more material." The first stop on the summit tour was Dallas. Led by ONDCP deputy director Mary Anne Solberg and Drug Free Schools Coalition director David Evans, the panelists told assembled educators and interested citizens that drug testing was a proven means for reducing teen drug use. But while Solberg and her fellow panelists touted science, their spiels were designed to appeal to the emotions. Solberg, for example, regaled the audience with the tale of the high school cheerleader who took one toke from a joint and ended up as a heroin addict seven months later. Suzy Wills of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas was one of a handful of reformers in the audience for the day-long session. With summit organizers allowing written questions only, Wills and company submitted theirs and got a response. "They did try to answer some hostile questions from us," she told DRCNet, "but I think they did that to deflect criticism later. We asked why they continued to fight a failed drug war, and no one responded at the time, but in her closing statement, Mary Ann Solberg gave it a try. She said it wasn't a failed drug war, but a successful public health policy. Try telling that to all those people in prison," Wills scoffed. The tough questions provided an opportunity for Evans, veteran leader of the Drug Free Schools Coalition and tireless proponent of student drug testing, to stick his foot in his mouth, Wills said. "We asked them to explain why all these experts and organizations we got the list from the DPA book on drug testing -- oppose drug testing. Evans admitted he didn't know why pediatricians were on record opposing it, but then he said the only reason teachers' groups opposed was because they were afraid they would be next. That's not too smart when you're audience is an auditorium full of teachers." In terms of media coverage, the event was a draw, said Wills. "We got zero media coverage, not us, not the summit, nothing in the local press," she said. "They may have had better luck at the summit itself," Wills suggested. "We had materials at a table at the back and people picked them up, and we made educators aware that there is opposition to this. I think that may discourage them from pushing too hard for drug testing in their schools. But I think the main thing we did was make the drug czar's office aware that there is opposition." It certainly seemed like they were listening. Nine days later in St. Louis, one of the official presenters waved around the DPA booklet, "Making Sense of Drug Testing: Why Educators Are Saying No," read its executive summary aloud and attempted to refute its arguments, according to an on-scene report from Washington University SSDP member Sam Barclay. By the time the summit made its way to Pittsburgh last week, anti-drug testing forces had already scored a media coup with DPA drug education expert Marsha Rosenbaum facing off against drug czar John Walters in a battle of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette op-ed pieces. And waiting for the summiteers in the audience were SSDP communications and legislative directors Tom Angell and Ross Wilson. "Our objective was to prevent the ONDCP from being able to present itself as all-knowing and authoritative on the topic of student drug testing in front of an audience of open-minded educators and school officials who are rightly concerned with preventing substance abuse among their students," said Angell. "Since summit attendees were truly concerned with keeping their students safe, our primary argument against drug testing was that it simply does not work." Angell and Wilson came prepared with materials debunking claims of drug testing's efficacy, including the results of the largest study ever conducted on the topic. Done by researchers at Monitoring the Future, the folks who bring you the annual student drug use reports, that study looked at 722 schools and 76,000 students and found no difference in drug use between schools that test and those that don't. "ONDCP is well aware of this study and has been attacking its methodology for some time now," Angell told DRCNet. "They have a handful of studies of their own they cite as evidence testing works, but those studies are small and have their own methodological problems. With the help of DPA, we prepared a handout that describes the shortcomings of those studies." Those handouts were made available to educators, he said. As the reformers mingled, they found educators receptive to their message, Angell said. "Ross and I had encouraging conversations with school officials who were opposed to or skeptical of student drug testing," he reported. "At the conclusion of the summit, an official from the Department of Education asked how many folks were thinking of taking advantage of the federal grant money that's been made available for student drug testing. Only five or six people in the room raised their hands." When Solberg was asked at the end of the day about the arguments of drug testing opponents, she told a journalist she was "concerned," Angell said. "Clearly, our efforts are meaningful when a federal drug official tells the media that she's concerned about us." In Portland Wednesday, it was more of the same for the ONDCP School Drug Testing Summit. For Erin Hildebrandt of Parents Ending Prohibition, who attended along with three members of Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse, it was at times a "surreal" experience. "This was supposed to be about saving our kids through drug testing, but it was more like an entire industry coming in to market themselves to their potential customers," she told DRCNet. "It was a glaring and obvious attempt to manipulate these people through scare tactics." And thanks in part to the efforts of activists like Burbank and Hildebrandt, it isn't working that well. Even though Solberg touted the grants program to encourage schools to participate, educators at the conference suggested serious misgivings. "This is a very significant personal rights issue, and I would hope that where the money comes from and how the money arrives would not be an issue," Ron Naso, superintendent of the North Clackamas School District, told the Oregonian in an article published Thursday. "Our group was able to get some of its questions addressed," said MAMA's Sandee Burbank. "For instance, we were able to ask what happens if a student tests positive, where is the money for treatment? And their answer was that was up to the schools. So, they'll help with the drug testing, but then the community has to come up with the money to deal with the results. Exposing educators to those issues is very helpful from our point of view," she told DRCNet. "We think the money is much better spent by engaging with and empowering our youth, helping them to make better choices." With active, critical participation from opponents of drug testing, the summits have begun to resemble a real discussion, despite the best efforts of ONDCP. At the least, the visible, vocal opposition has put the drug warriors on notice that their distortions and misrepresentations will not go unchallenged. "We didn't let them get away with it anywhere," said SSDP's Angell. |
Daily Emerald, August 4th, 2005 Bill adds provisions to Medical Marijuana Act One of the clarifications under SB 1085 would establish a 24-hour accessible database of registered marijuana grow sites and patients Tim O'Rourke, Freelance Reporter August 04, 2005 The smoke hasn't yet cleared from the debate surrounding a medical marijuana bill waiting to be re-voted on by the Oregon Senate this week. The House Committee on State and Federal Affairs amended the original medical marijuana bill, Senate Bill 1085, to include provisions on workplace issues, and agencies like the ACLU are fuming. "When this bill passed the Senate it represented a carefully crafted compromise. Unfortunately, the House State and Federal Affairs Committee added a divisive amendment pushed by some employers that undermines the fragile balance of the bill," the ACLU said in a floor statement to members of the House. "(It) would eliminate possible legal protection for disabled workers who are registered medical marijuana patients." SB 1085 was originally passed in the Senate last month and again with House amendments Aug. 2. The bill's chief backer, Sen. Bill Morrisette (D-Springfield), was unavailable for comment. The purpose of the bill was to clarify some ambiguities in Oregon's medical marijuana law. It called for a 24-hour accessible database and clarified size restrictions on marijuana plants and grow-site definitions, amongother provisions. With the House-added provisions, SB 1085 would, in part, allow employers to fire employees because they have marijuana in their system, even when there is no evidence of on-the-job impairment. At press time, the bill was expected to be voted on by the Senate Wednesday night or Thursday, if time allowed. If it passes, the bill will head to the governor's desk for a signature or veto. SB 1085, which originally passed in the Oregon Senate unanimously July 20, and 39-14 in the House after amendments Aug. 2, clarifies some sections and makes changes to others in the voter-approved Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, which went into effect Dec. 3, 1998. Many advocates are upset, not only because of the recent amendments, but because the bill eliminates the "affirmative defense" that patients and caregivers found to be growing illegal amounts of marijuana have successfully used in court. Currently, a patient or caregiver can use the "affirmative defense" to argue that they're growing more marijuana than is permitted by law out of medical necessity, making the amount legal. An example of an "affirmative defense" would be a patient saying they're growing more marijuana than allowed by law because that's the only way they'll have enough medicine. Weather conditions only allow for one annual outdoor harvest of marijuana, therefore the patient needs to produce enough cannabis in one harvest to serve as medicine throughout the year. If the bill and its House amendments pass in the Senate once more, and Gov. Ted Kulongoski signs it into law, the "affirmative defense" would be ineffectual, and patients caught growing more than the permitted amount of cannabis could be convicted and possibly receive jail time. "They're trying to take our rights with Senate Bill 1085," said Erin Hildebrandt, a medical marijuana patient afflicted with Crohn's Disease, and a member of Parents Ending Prohibition. "Intended to solve part of the problem, (it) is an obscene attempt to further degrade our ability to remain law-abiding citizens," Hildebrandt said. Jacqui Lomont of the Compassion Center agreed with the Senate's decision to pass the bill. "I think that overall it is a good thing. It provides clearer definitions of issues that were a little muddy before. No one ever agrees completely on the total package, but it passed 30-0 (in the Senate), so that says something," Lomont said before the House amendments. Still, others believe patient's rights are being unduly sacrificed. Many hold that though parts of the legislation are positive, such as the database, other provisions are hurting sick people. "In the past law there was no limit to the number of growers. Now it's limited," said Jim Greig of Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group. "(The politicians) believe if patients grow more, they'll be facilitating the black market. But that's not the case. As it stands now, patients have to buy (marijuana) from the streets. Why can't patients help other patients?" Medical marijuana online ID system hinges on bill Medical marijuana patients will no longer have to rely on ID cards and their own verbal assurances when law enforcement comes calling. A comprehensive online database of patients is planned to be operational by summer's end, if SB 1085 becomes law. Police will be able to access the database at any time, day or night. But officers cannot arbitrarily search the system it can only be accessed when a person tells police he or she is a registered medical marijuana patient or that a property is a registered grow site. "It will benefit both sides," said Pam Salsbury of the state-run Oregon Medical Marijuana Program. "It's here to make things easier for the patient, but it also helps law enforcement." The Oregon Medical Marijuana Program is a division of the Department of Human Services. The database will be a component of the Law Enforcement Data System, which is used by police departments throughout the state. Health Services is working in conjunction with Oregon State Police in the preliminary stages of testing, but the database could be used by local departments as well. "It would be a great tool for us," said Sgt. Mike McCarthy of the Springfield Police Department. "We could pull up a name right away and see whether or not they have a card." The system was slated to be up-and-running by Aug. 1, but unforeseen complications at both Health Services and the Oregon State Police pushed the date of operation back to the end of August. A committee met to iron out differences between law enforcement, Human Services and advocacy groups. "It took a little longer on both ends," said Salsbury. "Our main concern is protecting the confidentiality of patients, caregivers and sites." Presently, the database is in the final stages of in-house testing that Human Services hopes will remove glitches from the server-based system. Testing will soon be conducted through state police systems as well. Once testing of the database is complete, law enforcement officers will be able to verify whether someone claiming his or her marijuana use is for medical reasons has current registration with the state. Just a few strikes on the keyboard and an immediate yes-or-no response will tell officers whether an individual's marijuana use is protected by Oregon state law. The database will be established in two phases. First, police will be able to check an individual's patient status through the system. The second phase will allow police to check addresses of probable grow sites. Eugene police like the idea of 24/7 access, but said this technology won't revolutionize how marijuana users are treated in the city. "There's just not going to be much impact on EPD," said Kerry Delf, of the Eugene Police Department. "It could be useful, but will probably be more of a small procedural change." The database has been in Health Services' plans for more than a year, and passage of SB 1085 would allow these plans to become a reality. The required establishment of a 24-hour medical marijuana patient identification system was only one provision in SB 1085, the over-arching purpose of which is to clear up ambiguous sections of Oregon's medical marijuana law. Although the bill has sparked controversy in advocacy groups, the registry is not the source of most debate. Not all patients are thrilled about having their names in a database that can be accessed by police, but the database should limit uncertainty regarding who is and isn't a legal marijuana user or grower. "Protection from police raids is the only redeeming quality of state registration that I can see," Greig said. |
Feature: ONDCP Student Drug Testing Road Show Dogged by "Truth Squads" May 13th 2005 A four-city road show organized by the Office of National Drug Control Policy and designed to promote student drug testing as the "silver bullet" to confront teen drug use ended Wednesday in Portland, but the presence of fact-baring, question-asking, literature-providing drug reformers at all four events contributed mightily to taking the luster off the drug testers' pitch. The drug czar's "School Drug Testing Summits" are part of an aggressive push by ONDCP and the Bush administration to increase the use of student drug testing. The administration has budgeted $25 million in the FY 2006 budget for grants to "support schools in the design and implementation of programs to randomly screen selected students and to intervene with assessment, referral, and intervention for students whose test results indicate they have used illicit drugs." The summits are designed to gin up support for the measure, both among educators, who attend the summits, and the public at large, who reads about them in the press. But drug reform groups such as Drug Policy Alliance and Students for Sensible Drug Policy, which have made student drug testing a particular focus, geared up to counter the ONDCP propaganda in all four cities. They have been joined by individual activists and local groups across the country, as well as other reform groups working the issue. "This has become a central issue for the Alliance. We see it within the context of a larger movement to erode our civil liberties and maybe end up with drug testing for everybody," said Jenny Kern, DPA point person on school drug testing. "Our office of legal affairs was very involved in the Lindsay Earls case," she said, referring to the 2002 Supreme Court decision okaying suspicionless drug testing of students involved in extracurricular activities. The Supreme Court had already approved the testing of student athletes in 1995. "Out of that litigation, we decided our strategy would be to craft a campaign to give parents and educators the tools to challenge drug testing in their areas," said Kern. "We've been working very closely with SSDP," Kern said, "and the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project, and NORML is very involved in the drug testing issue, too. We are just a few small voices in opposition to drug testing, but because of our presence at the ONDCP summits, they are aware of us and they feel like they have to address our points. We are making them pause." DPA laid the groundwork for participants in the four cities, Kern said. "We sent out action alerts encouraging our members to go to the summits, we provided an online tool kit, we had fact sheets, fliers, and suggested questions all ready," said Kern. "And we created a web site http://www.drugtestingfails.org -- where people can access more material." The first stop on the summit tour was Dallas. Led by ONDCP deputy director Mary Anne Solberg and Drug Free Schools Coalition director David Evans, the panelists told assembled educators and interested citizens that drug testing was a proven means for reducing teen drug use. But while Solberg and her fellow panelists touted science, their spiels were designed to appeal to the emotions. Solberg, for example, regaled the audience with the tale of the high school cheerleader who took one toke from a joint and ended up as a heroin addict seven months later. Suzy Wills of the Drug Policy Forum of Texas was one of a handful of reformers in the audience for the day-long session. With summit organizers allowing written questions only, Wills and company submitted theirs and got a response. "They did try to answer some hostile questions from us," she told DRCNet, "but I think they did that to deflect criticism later. We asked why they continued to fight a failed drug war, and no one responded at the time, but in her closing statement, Mary Ann Solberg gave it a try. She said it wasn't a failed drug war, but a successful public health policy. Try telling that to all those people in prison," Wills scoffed. The tough questions provided an opportunity for Evans, veteran leader of the Drug Free Schools Coalition and tireless proponent of student drug testing, to stick his foot in his mouth, Wills said. "We asked them to explain why all these experts and organizations we got the list from the DPA book on drug testing -- oppose drug testing. Evans admitted he didn't know why pediatricians were on record opposing it, but then he said the only reason teachers' groups opposed was because they were afraid they would be next. That's not too smart when you're audience is an auditorium full of teachers." In terms of media coverage, the event was a draw, said Wills. "We got zero media coverage, not us, not the summit, nothing in the local press," she said. "They may have had better luck at the summit itself," Wills suggested. "We had materials at a table at the back and people picked them up, and we made educators aware that there is opposition to this. I think that may discourage them from pushing too hard for drug testing in their schools. But I think the main thing we did was make the drug czar's office aware that there is opposition." It certainly seemed like they were listening. Nine days later in St. Louis, one of the official presenters waved around the DPA booklet, "Making Sense of Drug Testing: Why Educators Are Saying No," read its executive summary aloud and attempted to refute its arguments, according to an on-scene report from Washington University SSDP member Sam Barclay. By the time the summit made its way to Pittsburgh last week, anti-drug testing forces had already scored a media coup with DPA drug education expert Marsha Rosenbaum facing off against drug czar John Walters in a battle of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette op-ed pieces. And waiting for the summiteers in the audience were SSDP communications and legislative directors Tom Angell and Ross Wilson. "Our objective was to prevent the ONDCP from being able to present itself as all-knowing and authoritative on the topic of student drug testing in front of an audience of open-minded educators and school officials who are rightly concerned with preventing substance abuse among their students," said Angell. "Since summit attendees were truly concerned with keeping their students safe, our primary argument against drug testing was that it simply does not work." Angell and Wilson came prepared with materials debunking claims of drug testing's efficacy, including the results of the largest study ever conducted on the topic. Done by researchers at Monitoring the Future, the folks who bring you the annual student drug use reports, that study looked at 722 schools and 76,000 students and found no difference in drug use between schools that test and those that don't. "ONDCP is well aware of this study and has been attacking its methodology for some time now," Angell told DRCNet. "They have a handful of studies of their own they cite as evidence testing works, but those studies are small and have their own methodological problems. With the help of DPA, we prepared a handout that describes the shortcomings of those studies." Those handouts were made available to educators, he said. As the reformers mingled, they found educators receptive to their message, Angell said. "Ross and I had encouraging conversations with school officials who were opposed to or skeptical of student drug testing," he reported. "At the conclusion of the summit, an official from the Department of Education asked how many folks were thinking of taking advantage of the federal grant money that's been made available for student drug testing. Only five or six people in the room raised their hands." When Solberg was asked at the end of the day about the arguments of drug testing opponents, she told a journalist she was "concerned," Angell said. "Clearly, our efforts are meaningful when a federal drug official tells the media that she's concerned about us." In Portland Wednesday, it was more of the same for the ONDCP School Drug Testing Summit. For Erin Hildebrandt of Parents Ending Prohibition, who attended along with three members of Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse, it was at times a "surreal" experience. "This was supposed to be about saving our kids through drug testing, but it was more like an entire industry coming in to market themselves to their potential customers," she told DRCNet. "It was a glaring and obvious attempt to manipulate these people through scare tactics." And thanks in part to the efforts of activists like Burbank and Hildebrandt, it isn't working that well. Even though Solberg touted the grants program to encourage schools to participate, educators at the conference suggested serious misgivings. "This is a very significant personal rights issue, and I would hope that where the money comes from and how the money arrives would not be an issue," Ron Naso, superintendent of the North Clackamas School District, told the Oregonian in an article published Thursday. "Our group was able to get some of its questions addressed," said MAMA's Sandee Burbank. "For instance, we were able to ask what happens if a student tests positive, where is the money for treatment? And their answer was that was up to the schools. So, they'll help with the drug testing, but then the community has to come up with the money to deal with the results. Exposing educators to those issues is very helpful from our point of view," she told DRCNet. "We think the money is much better spent by engaging with and empowering our youth, helping them to make better choices." With active, critical participation from opponents of drug testing, the summits have begun to resemble a real discussion, despite the best efforts of ONDCP. At the least, the visible, vocal opposition has put the drug warriors on notice that their distortions and misrepresentations will not go unchallenged. "We didn't let them get away with it anywhere," said SSDP's Angell. |
Parents Ending Prohibition . . . because there are better ways to protect kids ! |