Latest

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, January 22, 2008 Contact: LaWanda Johnson (202) 558-7974 x308 WASHINGTON - Community-based substance abuse treatment reduces crime rates and helps states reduce corrections costs, according to a new policy brief released today by the Justice Policy Institute (JPI). The Substance Abuse Treatment and Public Safety brief found that the sooner substance abuse is treated, the bigger the long-term cost savings and increases in public safety. At a time when some have raised concerns about the release of people convicted of drug offenses from federal prison due to U.S. Sentencing Commission reforms, the research shows that substance abuse treatment helps individuals transition successfully from the criminal justice system to the community. "This new report confirms that investing in drug and alcohol treatment is both socially responsible and fiscally prudent and should be a top public policy priority," said Maryland Delegate Bill Bronrott, chair of the House Committee on Drug and Alcohol Abuse. "The report documents the tangible results of treatment, such as cutting crime, reclaiming lives, and making healthier families and safer communities. More investments in these lifesaving and cost-effective services are needed now to expand the benefits of treatment that this report so clearly demonstrates." The policy brief--the last in a series that examines the impact of positive social investments on public safety--found that: Increases in admissions to substance abuse treatment are associated with reductions in crime rates. Admissions to drug treatment increased 37.4 percent and federal spending on drug treatment increased 14.6 percent from 1995 to 2005. During the same period, violent crime fell 31.5 percent. In California, where Proposition 36 diverted thousands of people from prison and jail to treatment, violent crime fell at a rate that exceeded the national average. In Maryland, where policymakers have been working to implement various approaches to diverting prison-bound people to treatment, the counties that relied on drug treatment were more likely to achieve significant crime rate reductions than those that relied on drug imprisonment. Increased admissions to drug treatment are associated with reduced incarceration rates. States with a higher drug treatment admission rate than the national average send, on average, 100 fewer people to prison per 100,000 in the population than states that have lower than average drug treatment admissions. California, in particular, experienced decreases in incarceration rates when jurisdictions increased the number of people sent to drug treatment. Substance abuse treatment prior to contact with the justice system yields public safety benefits early on. Research has shown that drug treatment programs improve life outcomes for individuals and decreases the likelihood that a drug-involved person will be involved in the criminal justice system. Substance abuse treatment helps individuals transition successfully from the criminal justice system to the community. Community-based drug treatment programs reduce the chance that a person will become involved in the criminal justice system after release from prison. Substance abuse treatment is more cost-effective than prison or other punitive measures. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) found that community-based drug treatment is extremely beneficial in terms of cost, especially compared to prison. Every dollar spent on drug treatment in the community is estimated to return $18.52 in benefits to society in terms of reduced incarceration rates and associated crime costs to taxpayers. "If lawmakers invest in community-based substance abuse treatment--instead of prison beds--for people living with addiction, our communities will reap tremendous benefits," says JPI Executive Director Sheila Bedi. "Crime rates will decrease, families will remain intact and since treatment is less expensive than incarceration, state budget dollars can be redeployed to meet education, housing, infrastructure and other pressing needs. " For more information on this or other research, contact LaWanda Johnson at 202-558-7974 ext. 308.

Drug Truth Network Update: 4:20 Drug War NEWS from 90.1 FM in Houston & on the web at www.kpft.org. Those who sit silently and watch the drug war unfold are the best friends the drug barons could ever hope for. - Rev. Dean Becker 4:20 Drug War NEWS 01/21/08 to 01/27/08 now online (3:00 ea:) Mon - Poppygate Report with Glenn Greenway Tue - Doug McVay with Drug War Facts + Tommy Chong gives "advice" Wed - Tribute to Judge Eleanor Schockett, former Dade County Judge & board member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition 1/4 Thu - Tribute to Judge Eleanor Schockett, 2/4 Fri - Tribute to Judge Eleanor Schockett, 3/4 Sat - Tribute to Judge Eleanor Schockett, 4/4 Sun - Peter Christ, director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition NOTE: CULTURAL BAGGAGE (Broadcast on Wed) & CENTURY OF LIES (Broadcasts Tue) Hundreds of our programs are available online at www.drugtruth.net, www.audioport.org and at www.radio4all.net. We provide the "unvarnished truth about the drug war" to scores of broadcast affiliates in the US and Canada. Next - Century of Lies on Tues, Cutural Baggage on Wed (Now With Transcripts): - Cultural Baggage 12:30 PM ET, 11:30 AM CT, 10:30 AM MT & 9:30 AM PT: - Century of Lies 12:30 PM ET, 11:30 AM CT, 10:30 AM MT & 9:30 AM PT: Potcasts: 4:20 Drug War News Century of Lies Cultural Baggage Check out our latest videos via www.youtube.com/fdbecker: Please become part of the solution, visit our website: www.endprohibition.org for links to the best of reform. "Prohibition is evil." - Reverend Dean Becker, Drug Truth Network Producer Dean Becker 713-849-6869 www.drugtruth.net

Participants argued that the Netherlands, in cooperation with other nations, should aim to revise the current framework of international law in order to achieve a more credible and effective alternative that is not just based on repression for the existing cannabis policy at the national level. The signatories of this resolution, I. concluded that the current cannabis policy: A. is based on an outdated international law framework created in the 1960s which is not appropriate to tackle contemporary problems resulting in a stagnation of the development of just and effective policies; B. is being implemented by a policy of tolerance (“gedogen”) on the basis of a justified lenient interpretation of the current international law framework and that this policy of tolerance is a practical solution but at the same time temporary response which on the long term will discredit the credibility of public authorities; C. is inconsistent and difficult to explain to citizens because use and sale of small quantities are not prosecuted in practice while production and large scale distribution are still prosecuted; is also inconsistent with policies regarding substances with a similar health risk such as alcohol and tobacco; D. is ineffective in several aspects: despite positive facets such as the separation of markets between soft and hard drugs and the limited involvement of criminals in the retail market, other policy options such as legal possibilities to control the quality of cannabis (THC content and pollution) and other measures to reduce health risks are lacking in the current system, which is still facilitating significant illicit gains at the level of production and wholesale and is encouraging in-house cannabis growing; E. is causing considerable and unbalanced administrative and judicial burdens and continuous criticism of some countries and UN drug control agencies. II. concluded furthermore that: A. attempts by the Dutch parliament and local authorities to address the inconsistencies in the current tolerance policy – such as proposing to tolerate production of cannabis for the supply of coffee shops – have been rejected by subsequent national governments on account of incompatibility with international agreements; B. there is a need for an international debate to explore the possibilities for an international framework that allows more room for manoeuvre by national governments to execute a consistent policy; C. more and more countries feel the need to reformulate their policies to achieve better protection of public health and combat organized crime; D. cannabis is grown and commercialised worldwide and is used by over 170 million people, consequently the production and distribution is a common problem for the international community; E. the 10-year review of the 1998 United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on drugs and the Ministerial meeting in 2009 devoted to this evaluation, offer an excellent possibility to put the issue on the international agenda. III. urge the Dutch government to: A. start an international debate with other likeminded countries in order to work out a credible and effective alternative for the current policy on cannabis; B. promote actively with those likeminded countries the formulation of proposals that can be presented in the context of the upcoming UNGASS evaluation; C. provide for human and financial resources to implement these efforts; The Hague, 31 October 2007 signed by * Mr. A.A.M. van Agt, former Prime minister 1977-1982 * Dr. E. Borst-Eilers, ex-minister of Health, Welfare and Sport * Drs. A. Apostolou, former member of Parliament * Kathalijne Buitenweg, MEP GroenLinks * Mr. R. Dufour, president Stichting Drugsbeleid * Drs. G.B.M. Leers, mayor of Maastricht * Dr. R.L. Vreeman, mayor of Tilburg * Mr. Th. C. de Graaf, mayor of Nijmegen * J.A.H. Lonink, mayor of Terneuzen * Dr. J.P. Rehwinkel, mayor of Naarden * W.J.M. Velings MOI, chief of police, region Limburg Zuid * F.J. Heeres MPSM, chief of police, region Midden- en West Brabant * Mr. A.D.J. Keizer, former policy official of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport * Mr. drs. V. Everhardt, drugs and alcohol prevention expert * Dr. M. Jelsma, Drugs & Democracy Programme, Transnational Institute