From: (Peter McDermott) Subject: Re: I Cried. Date: 1995/10/19 newsgroups: alt.law-enforcement,alt.drugs,alt.drugs.culture, alt.drugs.hard,alt.drugs.pot,rec.drugs.cannabis,rec.drugs.misc, rec.drugs.psychedelic,talk.politics. *Sigh* Like lambs to the slaughter... when will they learn? In article <464g5o$hab@cobia.gulf.net>, pbwriter@fwb.gulf.net (Ray Aldridge) wrote: >peter@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote: > >>In article <460ehb$i17@cobia.gulf.net>, >>pbwriter@fwb.gulf.net (Ray Aldridge) wrote: > >>>peter@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote: >>>>Sorry to rain on your parade, William, but as an iv drug user who >>>>lives in Liverpool England, I can tell you that the picture that >>>>you paint just isn't true. >>> >>>>The part about the low rate of HIV is, the rest is absolutely no >>>>different to anywhere else in the rest of the world. >>> >>>I'm curious about this basis for this absolute assertion. In how many >>>places in the world have you been an iv drug user? I'm not saying >>>you're wrong; the previous poster is no doubt guilty of a degree of >>>wishful thinking. However, do you understand how vicious the war on >>>drug users has gotten in the U.S.? > >>Many, but that's beside the point. I accept I was exaggerating >>somewhat here. > >My point exactly...but wasn't this what you were chiding the >previous poster for? No. The broad thrust of my argument was correct. In the UK and in the USA the day to day lives of people who are addicted to hard drugs is broadly similar. We may be marginally more tolerant in certain areas, but the _real_ differences aren't between drug users in the UK and the USA, but between black users and white users in both countries. >>My point was, this is _not_ the land of milk and honey. > >No argument from me. > >>>I've noticed that people in other parts of the world are often >>>disbelieving when told just how bad things have gotten in the U.S. >>>Were you aware that in almost every city in the U.S., you can go to >>>jail for providing addicts with clean needles? This is but one > >>Really? How come NY has several needle exchange schemes then? >>Tacoma has had one for many years, as has Seattle and San >>Francisco. Hollywood now has one for God's sake. And needle sales >>are only illegal in six US states, remember? > >What in the world are you talking about? Can you really be so naive >as to believe that going to a doctor and asking for a needle >prescription is a realistic option for most American addicts? I >suppose this as much as anything you've said demonstrates how poorly >you understand conditions in the United States. Are you aware that >there are quasi-governmental agencies here which track prescriptions >and tally them to the credit or discredit of the doctors who issue >them? Doctors have been threatened with the loss of their licenses >for "over-prescribing" pain medications to terminal patients. Given >this degree of anti-drug hysteria, how long do you think a doctor who >passed out needle scrips to the subhuman portion of our citizenry >would last? And are YOU aware what a needle exchange is or what they do? They aren't run by doctors and they don't require prescriptions. They tend to be staffed by addict volunteers, do not require identification and hand out works on a one-for-basis. If you're going to try and argue with me, why don't you do yourself a favour and try and inform yourself about the subject that you are arguing about? Sheesh, I don't even _live_ there and I know more about the subject than you do. And for what its worth, I've actually been out doing illegal needle exchange in Boston and New York with Jon Parker's National AIDS Brigade in 1987, and in New York City with Act Up in 1992. If you want to learn more about it, I suggest that you pick up the piece I wrote on it for The Face in 1992. It's archived at hyperreal.com in the opiates section if you want to check it out. As for government bodies that track doctors prescriptions, do you really think that we don't have them here? My last conviction was for obtaining drugs by deception. Drugs that were prescribed by a doctor who gave me up to take the pressure of himself for overprescribing. In the UK as in the USA, most addicts receive oral methadone from Drug Dependency Units in psychiatric hospitals. So point out to me how this differs so greatly from the US system? >> What opposition once >>existed to needle exchange is rapidly being abandoned by the >>drug treatment field and by the politicians. Try and pay attention >>to what's going on over there. > >Oh, I'm paying very close attention; you should perhaps revise your >estimate of your own attentiveness, and try not to be so easily taken >in by political propaganda. The majority of our population does not Whose political propaganda would this be? Who is it that's shouting about the wonderful success of US needle exchange? Do try and get a grip. >reside in the few cities you mention, and your Pollyannaish beliefs >regarding the existence of needle exchange programs, even in those >oases of rationality, are contradicted by certain unpleasant >realities. Were you aware, for instance, that the mayor of San >Francisco is required to periodically declare a state of emergency in >order to protect the semi-legality of the program there? Indeed I was, but doesn't that rather support my point? That the USA is simply seven or eight years behind the UK. And as I pointed out, needles are only illegal in six states. Most of cities that have a big iv drug using populations now have needle exchange. Chicago, New York, LA, SF. Seattle, Tacoma, New Haven, Boston. There may not be enough, but that's a seperate issue. >Furthermore, the enormous rate of HIV infection among urban shooters >here makes it extremely difficult for me to take seriously your >hopeful fantasy that the U.S. is making much progress in this regard. >Impeccable and indisputable scientific studies have recently appeared >demonstrating the merit of needle exchange programs; they have >instantly been repudiated by most of our politicians, from Clinton >administration officials on down to local dog-catchers. The most >commonly-employed phrase is that "...we would be sending the wrong >message," if we gave addicts clean needles. Look, don't try and teach your grandmother to suck eggs. One of the main reasons for the opposition to Needle exchange in the USA was the fact that large sections of the black community (and sections of those people in the treatment industry) opposed it. That changed following the publication of the New Haven study some three years ago. That study did show that needle exchange was effective, but more importantly, it had the support of the black mayor of New Haven. After that, the majority of the serious opposition to needle exchange crumbled. Sure, the federal government don't fund them and they should. But they don't actively oppose them either, and they are now funding projects that have needle exchanges attached to them. As I said, things are changing, and changing fast. However, it may be that you aren't sufficiently in contact with those people whose views matter on these issues to be aware of that. If you have to rely on the mass media for your information, I could see how you might not be aware of the extent of the changes that the US is currently undergoing. >>Also in the late 70's and early 80's, large parts of the USA >>almost decriminalized possession of small quantities of weed. >>To the extent that it was equivalent to a parking ticket. Here, >>you could get several years in jail. Have those laws been repealed? >>Not totally and systematically. Check the penalties in your copy >>of High Times. Most places still had minimal penalties for less >>than an ounce last time I looked. > >Look again. Both federal and many state penalties have been made more >draconian in recent years. Those states that have maintained a >decriminalized schedule of penalties are a small minority. >Furthermore, if you are arrested for possession or sale in those >states, there is no guarantee that you will not be prosecuted in >federal court, where penalties are far harsher. As an example of how >this works, in California, where state laws are more rational than in >many other places , hundreds of black crack defendants have been tried >and convicted in federal court, where they are subject to mandatory >minimums. None of the many white defendants have been so treated, >their trials have been conducted in state courts. I'm not saying that things are liberal there. I'm saying that on _that_ evidence, people could argue that the US had decriminalized weed. It's no more true that the claim that we've decriminalized it here is. Not closely enough, apparently. But my point was _not_ that the USA was liberal. Rather, that the UK was not the home of liberalism that the original poster presented it as. >>Of course, if you happen to own property and they can catch you >>selling somehow, you're fucked. But I doubt that too many of >>the street dealers over there are gonna lose their cars and >>boats any time soon. So? Your point is what? You might want to have an argument with somebody about how bad things are in the USA. I won't give you any argument on that score. > >>she's looking forward to the millenium. She was 19 when arrested, >>>she'll be thirty when she gets out, all for taking a phone call. Is >>>it really that bad in Liverpool, in comparison? > >>No, not at all. I accept that the mandatory minimums suck. However, >>they won't change by painting a picture of a situation that doesn't >>exist > >Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that exactly how these laws came >into existence in the first place? Don't tell me you're cherishing >some sort of schoolboy notion that "the truth will make you free?" I >thought you were a champion of reality. Ok, I'm exercising my perhaps >overly-mordant wit at your expense, which isn't very nice. Sorry. I >myself belong to the truthful-propaganda-is-the-most-powerful school >of political rhetoric, but many notable propagandists of the past and >present have taken the opposing view, and unfortunately, history >appears to be on their side. And I'll say it again. Do you _really_ think that your policymakers, the people who count, are so out of touch as to believe such a portrayal? Do you _really_ think that they can't hop on a plane and fly over here and see what works and what doesn't? And do you really believe that it matters a jot what the public thinks on such an issue? Here's another clue. They aren't going to ask the public about this. NONE of the liberal policy initiatives in this area have not come from public pressure. ALL of them have been initiated by experts and bureaucrats. >> -- indeed, that is so far from reality as to qualify as >>propaganda that is just as blatant as that of your opponent. All it >>does is makes you look ridiculous. Do you really think that your >>policymakers don't talk to the people who run services over here? > >Good grief. Well since you are apparently asking this question in all >seriousness, I'll attempt to respond without unseemly hilarity. I >see no evidence of any such rationality on the part of our >"policymakers." Lee Brown, our "drug czar" recently claimed, on >national primetime television, that pot was now 40 times more powerful >than it was a few years ago. Taken together with official government >figures from a few years back, that would make the THC content of >today's superweed between 120% and 160%. That's an excellent example >of our policymakers' devotion to sober fact-gathering and analysis. >What may be even more telling is that the next day there were no >screaming headlines announcing that "OUR DRUG CZAR IS A MORON!" There >were no mainstream media stories repudiating this absurd >misinformation at all, beyond the grumblings of a few obscure >columnists. I accept that one of the major differences between our two nations is the extent to which absolutism and puritanism -- particularly about the drugs issue -- is ingrained in your national political discourse. However, it wasn't that different here ten years ago, and we've managed to change that around in just ten short years. As I keep saying, I see exactly the same signs of change there that emerged here about seven years ago. While the NY Times and the Washington Post may not have come out for legalization yet, the DEA obviously thinks that the threat is sufficiently serious to warrant rebuttal on their Web page. But let me reiterate -- I _know_ the USA sucks. So what? Whatever happened to Liverpool, which was the subject of my post? If I wanted to discuss US drug policy I'd be hanging out on talk.politics.drugs. >>Do you really think it's a good idea to have them laughing at how >>_wrong_ you are in your portrayal of the situation? > >Below is what *I* said, which I've reproduced in the perhaps callow >hope that you'll read it this time. Who do you think you're talking >to, I wonder? > >>> I'm not saying >>>you're wrong; the previous poster is no doubt guilty of a degree of >>>wishful thinking. However, do you understand how vicious the war on >>>drug users has gotten in the U.S.? Yes. I wasn't addressing that issue. >>And besides, this isn't the argument that was being presented. The >>argument was that because of certain policies, Liverpool has a >>happy, healthy productive population of drug users. > >That's not what *I* said. Please pay attention, Peter. I didn't say that you did. However, that was what I was rebutting. Re-read the first posts. I'm not really interested in debating how horrible US drug policy is. I know it's horrible. Someone else can have that fight. >>In fact, this >>city is on an economic par with somewhere like Southern Italy. The >>standard of living for most iv drug users here is probably much the >>same as in the US, and the health problems are probably about the >>same. And yes, I _am_ familiar with the situation in the USA. > >Obviously you're not, else you'd be expending far less energy >trivializing it, or so I would hope. Let me ask you this. Who do you Trivializing it how? Please point out where I trivialize the situation in the USA. Shall I re-write it in big letters for you? The day to day situation of iv drug users in the UK is broadly similar to those in the USA. That was my argument. Now if you believe it's wrong, show me how? >think has the higher standard of living: an iv drug user living in >Liverpool, or an iv drug user living in an American prison? Since our >incarceration rate is substantially higher than yours, would you agree >that *this* is a significant difference? Were you _born_ dense or did you have to practice to get this good at it? I would agree that you have a significantly larger prison population than we do. However, well over 50% of our prison population are people with drug-related problems and are there for drug-related crimes. Some estimates go as high as 80%. So what? As I said in my post, drug use has not been decriminalized here. It might take people a little longer to get there, but they get there eventually. So what exactly was your point? >>I was with Ernie Drucker -- who I see is this year receiving the >>Drug Policy Foundations award for services to treatment -- when he >>first visited Liverpool, and I took him around some of the heavier >>using/dealing areas. His first comment was how like the South Bronx >>the area was. (Ernie was running a methadone clinic in the South >>Bronx at the time.) I've seen the South Bronx, I've visited his >>clinic, and the _only_ major difference in terms of the day to day >>lives of people on his methadone program and of those in Liverpool >>was the difference in the rate of HIV. > >Oh please. On the basis of a flying visit to a methadone clinic, you >have the effrontery to make such an absurd statement? Bizarre. Why >don't you attempt to support this contention with semi-hard facts? >Just to get you started, here's a few suggestions. Compare >incarceration rates, compare crime rates, compare mortality rates >(other than AIDS-related, which hardly seems the trivial difference >you imply it to be,) compare infant mortality, compare surviving >infrastructure, compare quality of medical care, compare educational >levels and opportunities, compare literacy rates. You can't just >blithely ignore the fact that addicts in the South Bronx, in addition >to their other troubles, must put up with living in the South Bronx... >particularly when many of the dreadful statistics in the South Bronx >derive directly from mistaken U.S. drug policies. I would say that _all_ of those things are broadly similar here. The area that we were talking about has a male unemployment rate approaching 50%. It's the poorest community in Western Europe. It has the highest ratio of iv drug use in the UK. I accept that our medical care and our infant mortality rates are better, but the crime rate in Toxteth is probably broadly similar and education levels are at least as bad. A far smaller proportion of British kids go to college than in the USA, and we don't have the affirmative action programs that you do. There isn't any route out of this ghetto, and like you, we tend to fill our jails with young black men. I actually know both places pretty well. Do you? Evidently, commenting on issues that you know absolutely nothing about is something that comes easily to you. And I rather think that that's the nub of the problem, no? >You may or may not find this amusing, but one of our most rabid drug >warriors, one Congressman Gerald Solomon, R-NY, recently stated on the >House floor that, due to the Netherlands' immoral drug policies, there >was now no difference between the South Bronx and Amsterdam, and that >both were now identical hellholes of crime and depravity. This is >much the same sort of nonsense as you're spouting, though I'll freely >stipulate that you're doing it on a less grandly ludicrous scale. You >might want to think about this, one way or the other. I don't think it either amusing or ludicrous. I think its the equivalent of the sort of statement that I was rebutting. There is some basis for something in there, but in the retelling, the real picture has gotten so distorted as to be unrecognizable. >>> I'll say this: the majority of iv drug users in NYC don't have >>>internet access. And those that do are far more reluctant to admit to >>>iv drug use than you seem to be. There may be a reason for this. > >>And I'll say this. I'm posting here from alt.drugs.hard. There are >>several regular posters from the USA, including two or three from NYC >>alone. > >And you're convinced these folks are posting under their real-world >identities? OK, if you say so. I'd hesitate to be so definite, >myself. But I thought they didn't have internet access, ray? I thought they were all posting from the Mac in the corner of the crack house? In fact, I've met one and had another ask to meet me. I spend some time in NYC. But what's your point? That they are all so terrified of the law that they can't say who they are? If you're on a methadone program, why would it make a difference? There are 250,000 heroin users in NYC alone. Do you really think that the police has got nothing better to do than spend their time chasing one down because he posted on the internet? And why do you post under your name? Aren't _you_ scared that they'll come for you? (A rhetorical question. I'm not really interested in the answer.) >>Get a clue. >Let me give you one last canape for thought. How often, in your >opinion, does a Liverpudlian wake in the middle of the night, to hear >a battering ram breaking down his door? Is he likely to be swarmed >upon by a number of men wearing black ski masks, carrying shotguns >and screaming obscenities, and can he then expect to be thrown >violently down and handcuffed, along with his wife and any other >adults in the house, while his home and possessions are ransacked and >his children are packed off to foster homes? (I'm not talking about >terrorists, I'm referring to the police.) This happens many times >every day, in NYC, and in hundreds of cities across America. This is >now the standard approach to making a drug arrest here. Is it so in >Liverpool? Absolutely. Why would it not be? Our drug dealers are armed and shooting people at a rate of what seems to be one a week. Funny that isn't it? You'd have thought we'd have no need for drug dealers, given that we can all get our free, clean, legal heroin and crack at the local doctors? >I live here, in America, and I know a great deal more about the >political, social, and legal climate here than you do. Get over it. Well, I'm quite happy for the readers to make up their own mind about that one, Ray. Follow-ups set to talk.politics.drugs ==================================================================== Subject: British Drug Policy (was: I cried) Author: Peter McDermott Date: 1995/10/22 Forums: alt.drugs.hard, talk.politics.drugs At 2:19 pm 21/10/95, Kelly T. Conlon wrote: >In article you write: >>What I was trying to say was, that fact no more implies that >>the USA has decriminalized drugs, any more than the fact that we >>have a policy of cautioning people for first offences of >>possession means that the UK has. >I am extremely surprised at how the UK responds to the "problem" >of cannabis possession (that is, politicians consider cannabis to >be a "problem" in the first place) given the comments so far out >of a.d.h. I would have thought that it would be a given to assume >de facto decriminalize cannabis in the UK considering the history >of progressive policies towards heroin addiction. I was also >under the impression that the Merseyside experiment had been >implemented widely in other parts of Great Britain as well. Is >this not the case? Sheesh, I could fill a book on this topic. In fact, as this was the basis of my MA dissertation many years ago, I probably have. It is a mistake to see the UK as inherently more enlightened than the USA. Before the 1950's, the vast majority of addicts were middle class people, either from the medical profession or therapeutic addicts and this is why the Rolleston and Brain reports recommended their liberal position. During the 1950s, the UK saw the birth of a recreational drug using subculture among young people. Although very small at first, it was still cause for concern and led to a reevaluation of the policy of heroin prescribing (by a Home Affairs Committee chaired by Brain -- hence the Brain Report I). As the problem was so small, (this was 62ish) the committee agreed to leave the situation as it was. However, the numbers of young people presenting as heroin addicts continued to grow dramatically and so a couple of years later the Brain Committee was reconvened. (Brain 2) This time, it came up with very different recommendations. In the past, any doctor could prescribe heroin or cocaine to their patients. However, due to overprescribing by a small number of doctors, they changed the law and called for the setting up of Drug Dependency Clinics, attached to psychiatric hospitals, in major cities around the country. Now prior to this point, the bulk of illicit use that wasnt middle class heroin addiction was black and chinese immigrants smoking opium and weed. We always had stern criminal penalties to deal with such behavior. In fact, possession of opium smoking paraphernlia was the only paraphernalia laws on our books. But as these new, younger drug users started appearing, they were seen as a 'different' 'criminal' class of user. In fact, one of Brain 2's recommendations (thankfully not taken up) was involuntary civil commitment. So, in 1967, Britain opened its new DDU's, and almost as soon as they opened, a trend towards US treatment practices began. First, doses began to reduce. Then, cocaine prescribing was dropped (there were shifts to methedrine for a while, and then Ritalin, then all stimulant prescribing was stopped.) Next came the move away from heroin and towards greater use of methadone. By the end of the 1970's, it was almost exclusively oral methadone being used, and it was increasingly being used only for detox. Old timers may still be getting their heroin and cocaine scripts (though you were very unusual if you were getting a coke script -- maybe 30 or 40 people in the country by this point -- and they tended to me influential old upper class types) When a 'professional' treatment industry arrived, they soon grew tired of the old British System because: 1.) They were trained to make people better and they weren't getting better. If anything, they were seeing people get worse. 2.) They took their notions of 'professional practice' from the USA that had a far greater history of dealing with these issues. Dealing with them badly, sure, but at that time, nobody really knew much about addiction anyway. Anyway, the whole thing was going rapidly downhill. However, most of the clinics were in London. Liverpool was a tired little backwater with a big docks and a huge criminal underclass. We never had a Drug Dependency Clinic -- just one psychiatrist who did a few hours a week and spent the rest of his time in General Psychiatry. He made half hearted efforts to get people onto meth detoxes, but he wasn't that bothered if you were doing OK. Anyway, in the early 80's, brown heroin hit in a big way. Most of the country was awash in a sea of smack, and Liverpool was a centre for importation. The government decided to set up new clinics all over the country, so we got a big spanking new DDU. However, unlike the rest of the UK that hadn't had any scripts at all, or London, where it was now almost all oral methadone on US lines, Liverpool had a big population still on injectables. Some on heroin, many on methadone. Not only did they not get forced off, but the new doctor was quite happy to put people on heroin. However, possession was still a crime and police still vigorously enforced the law on possession. At the same time (1986) it became clear what was happening with iv drug users and HIV and AIDS. It also became clear that the place that had the lowest rate of HIV was the place where most injectables continued to be prescribed. Those who had been arguing for detox and abstinence initially opposed the shift, but given that they had no real ability to argue with the hard data, they eventually gave up and gradually the country returned to more flexible prescribing regimes. This whole issue of HIV/AIDS, needle exchanges and controlled prescribing gave those of us working in Liverpool at the time an unprecedented access to the media, which we then used to put the arguments for a more general liberalization, which happened at a time when the numbers of people with most experience of drugs and drug use were coming to a position of power. So, the position at the moment is that the debate about legalization has opened up, most of the intelligent media support liberalization if not outright legalization, and a great many influential figures, police, judges, senior civil servants etc. share that view. Politicians fear that talk of outright legalization will be political suicide, however, they have seen that prohibition doesn't work, and have quietly backed liberalizing measures in areas like treatment, prevention and cautioning. ( A particularly good example is the Department of Health's drug information projects, which invariably create leaflets that I'd have been proud to have produced myself.) I think that about covers it. And I'm bored now. ;-) --