It
is a fiscal racket that is underwriting a rising police state . No
more and no less. Thay is why not only pot, but all drugs need to be
decriminalized forthwith. In fact all behavior, however egregious
between two consenting adults and or self applied needs to be
decriminalized to just get them cleanly out of the criminal
procurement system. As we have learned, the criminal procurement
system soon becomes laviously self funded and literally out of
control.
Yet
we have ample tools to adress all the real problems if we treat it
all as a non criminal event.
The
crime is imposing or even promoting such behavior on to an unwilling
third party.
We
have long since decriminalized homosexuality, whatever one may
actually wish, but we do not tolorate promoting the lifestyle to
young boys in any form as we should.
In
the meantime clearly vested interests continue to make the false
arguments for all forms of prohibition. Yet all this has done is
provide a narrow window of profit at the expense of over taxing
society for police protection and expensive end of life medical
assistence. Applying a direct tax to the suppiers of Oxycontin to
replace the lost taxes incurred would be an excellent start and would
also sober the industry.
We
should have done just that to the tobacco industry decades ago.
Opponents of
marijuana-law reform insist that legalization is dangerous—but the
biggest threat is to their own bottom line.
Lee Fang
July 1, 2014
Patrick Kennedy, son
of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, did several stints in rehab after
crashing his car into a barricade on Capitol Hill in 2006, a
headline-making event that revealed the then–US congressman for
Rhode Island had been abusing prescription drugs, including the
painkiller OxyContin. Kennedy went on to make mental health—including
substance abuse—a cornerstone of his political agenda, and he is
reportedly at work on a memoir about his struggles with addiction and
mental illness. In 2013, he also helped found an advocacy group,
Project SAM (Smart Approaches to Marijuana), which has barnstormed
the country opposing the growing state and federal efforts to
legalize pot.
Taking the stage to
rousing applause last February, Kennedy joined more than 2,000
opponents of marijuana legalization a few miles south of Washington,
DC, at the annual convention of the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of
America (CADCA), one of the largest such organizations in the
country.
“Let me tell you,
there is nothing more inconsistent with trying to improve mental
health and reduce substance-abuse disorders in this country than to
legalize a third drug,” Kennedy boomed. The former congressman also
praised his fellow speakers for standing up to the “extremist
responses” from legalization advocates.
Given that CADCA is
dedicated to protecting society from dangerous drugs, the event that
day had a curious sponsor: Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of
Oxy-Contin, the highly addictive painkiller that nearly
ruined Kennedy’s congressional career and has been linked to
thousands of overdose deaths nationwide.
Prescription
opioids, a line of pain-relieving medications derived from the opium
poppy or produced synthetically, are the most dangerous drugs abused
in America, with more than 16,000 deaths annually linked to opioid
addiction and overdose. The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention report that more Americans now die from painkillers
than from heroin and cocaine combined. The recent uptick in heroin
use around the country has been closely linked to the availability of
prescription opioids, which give their users a similar high and can
trigger a heroin craving in recovering addicts. (Notably, there are
no known deaths related to marijuana, although there have been
instances of impaired driving.)
People in the United
States, a country in which painkillers are routinely overprescribed,
now consume more than 84 percent of the entire worldwide supply of
oxycodone and almost 100 percent of hydrocodone opioids. In Kentucky,
to take just one example, about one in fourteen people is misusing
prescription painkillers, and nearly 1,000 Kentucky residents are
dying every year.
So it’s more than a
little odd that CADCA and the other groups leading the fight against
relaxing marijuana laws, including the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids
(formerly the Partnership for a Drug-Free America), derive a
significant portion of their budget from opioid manufacturers and
other pharmaceutical companies. According to critics, this funding
has shaped the organization’s policy goals: CADCA takes a softer
approach toward prescription-drug abuse, limiting its advocacy to a
call for more educational programs, and has failed to join the
efforts to change prescription guidelines in order to curb abuse. In
contrast, CADCA and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids have adopted a
hard-line approach to marijuana, opposing even limited legalization
and supporting increased police powers.
A close look at the
broader political coalition lobbying against marijuana-law reform
reveals many such conflicts of interest. In fact, the CADCA event was
attended by representatives of a familiar confederation of anti-pot
interests, many of whom have a financial stake in the status quo,
including law enforcement agencies, pharmaceutical firms, and
nonprofits funded by federal drug-prevention grants.
The anti-pot lobby’s
efforts run counter to a nationwide tide of liberalization when it
comes to marijuana law. In 2012, voters legalized pot in Colorado and
Washington State; this year, voters in Alaska appear poised to do
likewise. Since 1996, twenty-two states and the District of Columbia
have legalized medical marijuana or effectively decriminalized it,
and a contentious ballot initiative in Florida may result in the
South’s first medical marijuana law. Meanwhile, legislatures across
the country are debating a variety of bills that would continue to
ease marijuana restrictions or penalties. On the federal level, a
bipartisan coalition of lawmakers has challenged the Drug Enforcement
Administration in testy hearings, and many have called for removing
marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act,
which puts it in the same class as heroin and LSD.
The opponents of
marijuana-law reform argue that such measures pose significant
dangers, from increased crime and juvenile delinquency to addiction
and death.3
The CADCA convention
featured a roster of federal officials and members of Congress as
well as a guest appearance by R&B singer Mario. The speakers
talked with energy about the coming showdown over marijuana-law
reform.
“We need to apply
what Hank Aaron said about baseball to our movement today,”
asserted Sue Thau, a CADCA consultant. “We need to always keep
swinging!”
Buses were scheduled
to ferry the participants to Congress for meetings, and Thau coached
the assembled activists to emphasize the potential risks for young
people, something that “everybody on Capitol Hill can agree on.”
In addition to lobbying against marijuana-law reform, she encouraged
everyone to preserve key federal funding streams, to “make sure all
the programs that fund our field, every one of them,” are protected
in the appropriations process for the coming fiscal year.
Ironically, both CADCA
and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids are heavily reliant on a
combination of federal drug-prevention education grants and funding
from pharmaceutical companies. Founded in 1992, CADCA has lobbied
aggressively for a range of federal grants for groups dedicated to
the “war on drugs.” The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, a
program directed by the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy, was created through CADCA’s advocacy. That law now
allocates over $90 million a year to community organizations
dedicated to reducing drug abuse. Records show that CADCA has
received more than $2.5 million in annual federal funding in recent
years. The former Partnership for a Drug-Free America, founded in
1985 and best known for its dramatic “This is your brain on drugs”
public service announcements, has received similarly hefty taxpayer
support while advocating for increased anti-drug grant programs.
The Nation obtained
a confidential financial disclosure from the Partnership for
Drug-Free Kids showing that the group’s largest donors include
Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, and Abbott
Laboratories, maker of the opioid Vicodin. CADCA also counts Purdue
Pharma as a major supporter, as well as Alkermes, the maker of a
powerful and extremely controversial new painkiller called Zohydrol.
The drug, which was released to the public in March, has sparked a
nationwide protest, since Zohydrol is reportedly ten times stronger
than OxyContin. Janssen Pharmaceutical, a Johnson & Johnson
subsidiary that produces the painkiller Nucynta, and Pfizer, which
manufactures several opioid products, are also CADCA sponsors. For
corporate donors, CADCA offers a raft of partnership opportunities,
including authorized use of the “CADCA logo for your company’s
marketing, website, and advertising materials, etc.”
The groups’ approach
to marijuana contrasts sharply with their attitude toward
prescription-drug abuse. In March of this year, the heads of CADCA
and the Partnership for Drug-Free Kids sent a letter to Attorney
General Eric Holder and other government officials urging them to
keep marijuana listed as Schedule I, a designation indicating that it
has no recognized medical use and is among society’s most dangerous
drugs. “We are aware of a small chorus in the United States
Congress (copied on this letter) who are calling for the rescheduling
of marijuana,” wrote Arthur Dean, a retired general and the
president of CADCA, and Stephen Pasierb, head of the Partnership.
“[O]ur groups agree with the most recent Health and Human Services
(HHS) determination that marijuana should remain a Schedule I drug.”
CADCA’s website
makes it clear that the organization—dedicated to a “world of
safe, healthy and drug-free communities”—has adopted marijuana as
its primary concern. The group’s stated policy priorities are to
preserve and expand two federal drug-prevention grant programs and to
oppose marijuana-law reform. CADCA has hosted training seminars to
instruct community organizations in the best tactics for opposing
efforts to legalize even medical marijuana. The group also offers
template letters to the editor, sample opinion columns, talking
points and other tips for pushing back against reform efforts.
Prescription drugs are
another story. In this realm, both CADCA and the Partnership favor
educational campaigns and limited pill-monitoring programs—measures
that experts on painkiller addiction say are insufficient to deal
with the burgeoning problem. CADCA’s site mentions
prescription-drug abuse primarily in the context of expanding
outreach programs funded through the Drug-Free Communities Act.
In February, the same
month that CADCA held its convention, forty-two leading
drug-prevention groups sent a letter to the Food and Drug
Administration to protest the recent approval of Zohydro. Notably
absent from the signatories: CADCA and the Partnership for Drug-Free
Kids. A policy paper posted by CADCA regarding prescription drugs
doesn’t call for a shift in how the FDA regulates painkillers,
arguing instead that federal drug-prevention grant programs should be
expanded.
Asked about CADCA’s
efforts to combat prescription-drug abuse, Thau replied that the
group supports educational programs and drug-monitoring efforts, and
also recently signed on to a bill—sponsored by Senator Ed
Markey—that offers a civil-liability exemption to those who provide
preventative medications to individuals experiencing an overdose.
CADCA has also promoted voluntary drug “take-back” events that
encourage people to bring their unused pharmaceuticals to a central
location for disposal.
It’s important to
keep in mind, however, that industry groups haven’t opposed any of
these measures. But they do oppose those restrictions that could eat
into the industry’s profits. In 2012, for example, a group of
doctors and drug-prevention advocates petitioned the Food and Drug
Administration to change the prescription labeling of opioids so that
they could be prescribed only for “severe pain,” rather than the
“moderate to severe pain” stipulated under the current
guidelines. Purdue Pharma opposed the plan, calling on the FDA to
“maintain that the current indications for long-acting opioids are
appropriate.” According to advocates who spoke to The
Nation on condition of anonymity, the Partnership refused to
join the push for new prescription guidelines. CADCA didn’t sign on
either.
CADCA and the
Partnership have also failed to call for action on current bills in
Congress to crack down aggressively on painkillers, including the
Stop Oxy Abuse Act, which would—in keeping with the suggestion of
the doctors’ advocates who petitioned the FDA—allow OxyContin to
be prescribed only for severe pain. The two anti-drug groups have not
signed on to support the Safe Prescribing Act, which would move
hydrocodone products like Vicodin and Lortab from Schedule III to
Schedule II, making the product more difficult to prescribe. Nor, for
that matter, have they endorsed any of the bills introduced by
Representative Hal Rogers or Senator Joe Manchin to block the
approval of new, stronger pain-killer drugs such as Zohydro.
“I think it’s
hypocritical to remain silent with regard to the scheduling of
hydrocodone products, while investing energy in maintaining marijuana
as a Schedule I drug,” says Dr. Andrew Kolodny, a New York
psychiatrist who heads Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing.
Kolodny notes that there are legitimate concerns regarding marijuana
legalization, particularly how the drug may be marketed and its
effect on adolescents, so “I don’t think it’s inappropriate for
them to be advocating on marijuana.
“But,” he adds,
“when we have a severe epidemic in America—one the CDC says is
the worst drug epidemic in US history—it makes you wonder whether
or not they’ve been influenced by their funding.”
In some cases, both
CADCA and the Partnership have directly promote certain opioids. In
2010, Marcia Lee Taylor, the Partnership’s chief lobbyist, signed
on to a letter with Will Rowe of the American Pain Foundation asking
the Office of National Drug Control Policy to continue Medicaid
reimbursements for so-called “tamper-proof” opioids, which cannot
be crushed or snorted but can still be abused to deadly effect. (The
American Pain Foundation has since shut down, following an
investigation by ProPublica showing that the group relied heavily on
money from opioid manufacturers and played “down the risks
associated with…painkillers while exaggerating the benefits.”) In
2012, CADCA joined with Purdue Pharma and other opioid makers in
signing a similar letter to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services.
Prescription-drug
manufacturers like Purdue Pharma, which made more than $27 billion in
revenues from OxyContin alone since 1996, have faced ethical problems
in the past. In 2007, Purdue Pharma and its top executives paid
$634.5 million in fines for deceptive marketing that played down the
addictive properties of OxyContin. Also that same year, the company
agreed to pay $19.5 million to twenty-six states and the District of
Columbia to settle claims that it illegally encouraged doctors to
overprescribe the drug. But the company’s influence over anti-drug
advocacy is less known.
Erik Altieri, a
spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana
Laws, argues that marijuana can provide a “great alternative for
treating chronic pain and other types of ailments.” Pharmaceutical
companies “don’t want to see another vendor on the market.”
In a written response
to queries, retired general Arthur Dean, CADCA’s chair and CEO,
said: “The funding CADCA receives in no way impacts CADCA’s
policy efforts or strategic direction. Prescription drugs are legal
medicines that serve a legitimate and often life-saving purpose in
our society. CADCA has utilized some discretionary grants from
industry sources, such as Purdue Pharma and several other companies,
to develop programs and tools to help community coalitions prevent
and reduce youth prescription drug abuse and the abuse of
over-the-counter cough medicine.” Asked about current proposals in
Congress to rein in the way painkillers are prescribed, Dean replied:
“CADCA has not taken a position on the proposed legislations.”
The Partnership for
Drug-Free Kids did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did
Purdue Pharma and other opioid makers, including Abbott Laboratories,
Pfizer and Alkermes. A spokesperson with Janssen told The
Nation that the company funds CADCA to support “educational
programs about the safe and responsible use of pain medicines.”
In May, CADCA sent out
an action alert to its members, asking them to contact Congress and
oppose an amendment in the House of Representatives that would block
the DEA from targeting medical marijuana operations that are legal
under state law. The measure passed later that month with bipartisan
support.
Patrick Kennedy’s
Project Sam is arguably the most visible group opposing marijuana-law
reform, with the former congressman making the rounds on HBO’s Real
Time With Bill Maherand Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, among
other cable and news programs. And yet this group, too, is rife with
potential conflicts of interest.
Some legalization
advocates have criticized Kennedy’s crusade against pot. Though the
former congressman received many second chances in his struggle with
alcohol and prescription drugs, he has opposed any move toward
marijuana decriminalization that would afford similar leniency to
others. After Project SAM began organizing opposition to Alaska’s
legalization initiative this year, demonstrators in Anchorage paraded
a giant check with the figure $9,015—the amount in campaign money
that Kennedy received from the liquor and beer lobby while in office.
Critics have also pointed out that Project SAM’s board and partners
represent many of the interest groups that stand to profit from
marijuana’s continued prohibition.
“Some of the folks
active with Project SAM appear to have a financial interest in
keeping marijuana illegal and promoting mandatory treatment for adult
consumers,” says Mason Tvert, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy
Project in Colorado. For example, Ben Cort, Project SAM’s
spokesman, leads a drug-treatment program in Aurora, Colorado.
Tvert points
out that marijuana convictions often result in court-ordered rehab,
which can provide an obvious incentive for treatment centers to
oppose reform. In filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the Geo Group—a company that manages several for-profit
treatment and detention centers—states that “any changes with
respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances
could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and
incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional
facilities to house them.” In short, marijuana-law reform can cut
into revenues.
Dr. Stuart Gitlow,
president of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, sits on
Project SAM’s board of directors and frequently speaks out against
medical marijuana. In comments to USA Today in January,
Gitlow disputed President Obama’s comment that marijuana is no more
dangerous than alcohol. “There’s no benefit to marijuana,” he
said. “It’s simply that people want the freedom to be stoned.
That’s all it is. And there’s a great deal of risk.”
What the USA Today
piece didn’t mention—and what Gitlow hasn’t disclosed during
his appearances on HLN TV, Southern California Public Radio and other
local media—is that he serves as the medical director for Orexo, a
pharmaceutical company that recently produced a new drug called
Zubsolv. The product is an opioid substitute along the lines of
Suboxone that, while designed to treat opioid addiction, is often
abused for recreational purposes. As The New York
Times reported, Suboxone has been linked to more than 400 deaths
in the United States since 2003.
Last December, Dr.
Mark Willenbring, former director of treatment and recovery research
at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, raised
concerns about Gitlow’s leadership of the American Society of
Addiction Medicine, given his relationship with Orexo. “My concern
is with the increasing public perception, especially in psychiatry
and addiction treatment, that financial interests taint and discredit
professional opinions,” Willenbring told the Alcoholism &
Drug Abuse Weekly.
Peter Bensinger, a
former DEA administrator, and Robert DuPont, a former White House
drug czar, now manage a consulting firm that specializes in workplace
drug testing. The two work closely with Project SAM and have spoken
at events with its leaders. Last year, for example, Bensinger and
DuPont signed on to a Project SAM letter pressing the Justice
Department to reconsider its decision to defer the enforcement of
federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana. For that
stance, they’ve come under fire from marijuana-law reformers like
Howard Wooldridge of Citizens Opposing Prohibition for promoting
“policies that line their pocketbook.”
Marijuana-law reform
has created deep divisions within police agencies. A recent poll of
officers found that nearly two-thirds believed marijuana laws should
be reformed—with 36 percent agreeing that marijuana should be
legalized, regulated and taxed; 14 percent supporting relaxed
penalties; 11 percent supporting legalized medical marijuana; and 4
percent supporting decriminalization.
Yet strong
institutional forces have kept nearly every law enforcement
professional association opposed to reform. Starting with the Reagan
administration, police departments were encouraged to seize and sell
property associated with drug busts, which significantly augmented
their revenue. Between 2002 and 2012, law enforcement agencies
collected about $1 billion from marijuana arrests, according to
Justice Department data.
It was also during the
1980s that federal grant programs requiring police to engage in drug
enforcement were expanded, including the Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Program, which funds multijurisdictional drug task
forces. The Byrne grants, which cover a range of drug enforcement
actions including marijuana, provided over $2.4 billion for law
enforcement agencies this fiscal year.
“It’s money,”
says retired Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Stephen
Downing, when asked why so many police organizations are lobbying
against marijuana-law reform. “In many states, the city government
expects police to make seizures, and they expect these seizures to
supplement their budgets.” According to The Wall Street Journal,
drug task forces in Washington State have predicted that
asset-forfeiture revenues will decrease as a result of marijuana
legalization.
Others dispute the
notion. Bob Cooke, a former president of the California Narcotic
Officers’ Association, asserts that “losing money from asset
forfeiture is not why we believe [pot] should be regulated.”
Instead, he argues, law enforcement agencies oppose legalizing
marijuana because its use is inherently dangerous: “One try and it
can ruin your life.”
But the fiscal impact
on law enforcement has become part of the debate. Earlier this year,
when Minnesota State Representative Carly Melin proposed a medical
marijuana bill, she faced a backlash from police lobbyists. “There
was a concern about losing federal grants tied to drug enforcement
laws,” Melin says. “Asset forfeiture was briefly discussed as
well.” She adds that law enforcement agencies approached her bill
with “absolute opposition” but changed their position after
widespread public pressure. Melin’s bill passed in May once
patients and the parents of sick children began contacting lawmakers.
“It’s not hard to
figure out that there’s a lot of money attached to enforcing
marijuana laws,” Melin says. “Marijuana arrests still account for
over 60 percent of drug arrests in Minnesota, so it’s still big
business for law enforcement.” Minnesota’s numbers reflect the
data compiled by the American Civil Liberties Union, which show that
marijuana arrests account for more than half of all drug arrests
nationwide.
Similar dynamics have
played out elsewhere. When Californians debated a legalization
initiative in 2010—which was ultimately unsuccessful—the lead
organizer of the opposition was John Lovell, a longtime police
lobbyist in Sacramento. Lovell has made a career of channeling
federal “drug war” grants to law enforcement agencies in the
state—including millions of dollars for the California Marijuana
Suppression Program, grants for overtime pay for police, and money
for additional officers dedicated to marijuana eradication.
In Florida, the state
sheriffs’ association, led by Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, has
become the public face of opposition to a medical marijuana
referendum on the ballot this fall. Judd has deployed a number of
arguments against the referendum, from the dangers of driving while
high to increased workers’ compensation claims, to teenage
addiction and increased respiratory illnesses.
But the annual
strategic plan submitted to the Polk County Board of Commissioners by
Judd’s office suggests another major concern. In it, Judd says that
his force is “doing more with fewer resources” and that he’s
had to cut seventeen deputy sheriff positions due to a lack of funds.
Judd describes seizures from marijuana grow houses as a key revenue
source for his department: seizing such property helps to “meet
eligible equipment or other non-recurring needs that could not be met
by local funding, thereby putting forfeited and unclaimed funds to
work in crime prevention, for the taxpayer,” according to the
document. Plus a Florida law enforcement newsletter describes the
state’s marijuana eradication program—which brought in nearly
$900,000 last year in forfeitures, and more than $1 million in
previous years—as “an excellent return on investment.”
Downing, the retired
LAPD deputy chief, notes: “The only difference now compared to the
times of alcohol prohibition is that, in the times of alcohol
prohibition, law enforcement—the police and judges—got their
money in brown paper bags. Today, they get their money through
legitimate, systematic programs run by the federal government. That’s
why they’re using their lobbying organizations to fight every
reform.”
Indeed, alcohol
prohibition was ended partly through ethics reform. During
Prohibition, the Eighteenth Amendment was enforced through a law
called the Volstead Act, which exempted federal liquor enforcement
agents from Progressive-era civil service exams. Without these exams,
the Prohibition Unit became a vehicle for awarding patronage jobs to
political allies. Almost immediately, these 18,000 federal jobs were
marked by scandal and corruption. According to one Treasury agent,
the “most extraordinary collection of political hacks, hangers-on,
and passing highwaymen got appointed as prohibition agents.” They
set up illegal roadblocks, killed innocent civilians, and extorted
money from bootleggers rather than arresting them. The wet lobby
successfully pushed to re-establish civil service exams for the
Prohibition Unit in the late 1920s—a shift that embarrassed
dry-lobby supporters, because nearly two-thirds of all agents
couldn’t pass the entrance exam. Further weakening support for
Prohibition, the Supreme Court declared it illegal in 1927
for local judges to pay themselves with a share of the fines
collected from Volstead Act cases.
While not a perfect
analogy, some marijuana advocates see the fight against Prohibition
as a guide, since so many interest groups working to maintain the
status quo today are tied to cash flows—whether federal grants or
forfeiture revenues—that depend on keeping the drug illegal.
Prohibition provides
“an incentive for these interest groups to keep seeking federal
money to continue the ‘war on drugs’ [and] their own salaries,”
says Representative Steve Cohen, one of the most outspoken proponents
of legalization in Congress. Cohen adds that some of the most
vociferous opponents of reform appear to be influenced by the money
flowing from pot prohibition. “It’s a vicious cycle.”
No comments:
Post a Comment