cannabisnews.com: Could Ashcroft Roll Back Drug Policy Reform?





Could Ashcroft Roll Back Drug Policy Reform?
Posted by FoM on January 17, 2001 at 10:22:07 PT
By Dawn MacKeen
Source: Salon Magazine
 The pending confirmation of John Ashcroft as the Bush administration's attorney general is worrying to those on the front lines of the battle against drug addiction. Advocates of programs like drug courts, which emphasize treatment rather than incarceration for drug offenses, are reviewing past statements by the former Missouri senator, who has often taken a hard line on drug policy. His past comments likening treatment programs to people who aid a drug habit are disturbing to leaders in the drug court movement, who fear that if Ashcroft is confirmed, the very existence of their nascent programs could be threatened. 
Here are a couple of examples of statements Ashcroft has made about drug policy: "A government which takes the resources that we would devote toward the interdiction of drugs and converts them to treatment resources ... and also implements a clean needle program is a government that accommodates us at our lowest and least." "When you consider the person and spirit of Christ, he was interested in finding ways for people to reach their potential, to work at their highest and best. He didn't accommodate people at their lowest and least. That's been a major fault of our government. When it says to ... a person on dope, 'Here's a clean needle and a treatment program, so in case you have a bad trip, we'll be there for you,' that's not real love. Real love respects the person so profoundly it says, ... 'We're not going to provide a clean needle because we don't know of a way in which helping you have a drug-addicted life is in your best interest.'" Ashcroft, whose confirmation hearings continue Wednesday, may have made these remarks years ago, but renewed scrutiny of the statements has led to concerns that he would divert much-needed funds away from drug courts. "For a critical person to come on the scene and throw a bucket of ice water on the value of treatment is a terrible message to send to courts ... that are trying to find better ways of dealing with the horrendous problems that we have in this country," says J. Michael Kavanaugh, a drug court judge in Albuquerque, N.M. "I think it speaks of a future where we take many, many steps backward instead of continuing the good work and the progressive movement that drug courts have provided in this country." Albuquerque's program started in 1997 and has been very successful, Kavanaugh says, in helping to rehabilitate those addicted to alcohol or drugs. Those who go through the program have only a 10 percent recidivism rate, compared with 30 to 40 percent for those not enrolled. Kavanaugh's state is a leader in the drug policy reform movement. A blue-ribbon panel commissioned by New Mexico's Republican governor, Gary Johnson, recently called on the governor and the Legislature to shift the state's drug policy from one of interdiction to one that decriminalizes marijuana and emphasizes treatment over penal measures. The panel also recommended the diversion of many cases to drug courts. Drug courts are different from regular courts in that they advocate treatment as an alternative to incarceration. They're administered on a local level, with varying policies from county to county. Most require that the person plead guilty to the offense for which he has been charged and then submit to regular drug testing after treatment. Initially, only those who committed minor drug offenses qualified for the program, but drug courts have recently expanded to include drug users facing charges not related to drug use. Despite their local administration, drug court programs rely on federal funding to operate. The role of the attorney general is central, say many drug court advocates, not only in maintaining the bipartisan support needed to continue the programs but also in determining how many federal dollars will be allocated to them. Although the specific amount of funding is ultimately Congress' decision, the attorney general's influence in the matter is crucial. For example, the federal budget for drug court programs in 2001 was increased by $10 million, to $50 million -- the exact amount that Attorney General Janet Reno's Department of Justice requested, according to a DOJ spokesman. Reno's support for drug courts is believed to have been an important factor in their growth. In fact, she helped start the first drug court in the United States in 1989, when she was a prosecutor in Dade County, Fla. There are now more than 600 across the country. "The growth of drug treatment courts has been aided by the attorney general's personal involvement in the creation of such courts in Dade County," says Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. "It was always clear that this initiative had her strong personal blessing." While Mindy Tucker, spokeswoman for the Bush-Cheney transition team, says that Ashcroft has not taken a specific position on drug courts, he is committed to combating the country's drug problem, she says. "He has said that he is interested in any demonstrated effort to fight the drug epidemic and he would look at various ways, including new and innovative ideas, to that end." Some organizations are fighting Ashcroft's confirmation because of what they believe would be his enormous influence on drug policy as attorney general. David Broden, executive director of the Drug Reform Coordination Network, points to a slew of reasons why he believes drug courts will be endangered. "Ashcroft thinks the role of government in this area is to arrest people and patrol the borders and fight the war," Broden says. "He doesn't think it's in the area to help people." Broden says Ashcroft has supported mandatory minimum sentences for drug users, and he suspects that Ashcroft would oppose introducing methadone into the drug court system because he views it as a separate drug rather than a legitimate treatment for heroin addiction. As a senator, Ashcroft responded to a campaign to equalize the disparity in sentences for crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine users by reducing sentences for crack cocaine users by supporting, instead, increased sentences for powder cocaine users. He also opposed White House drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey's anti-drug advertising campaign. Although, as reported previously in Salon, the ad campaign has been criticized for its Hollywood script doctoring, the Office of National Drug Control Policy says it has contributed to a 21 percent decrease in teenage drug use over the past two years. After more than a decade of observing offenders in Miami's drug court, public defender Bennett Brummer, co-founder of the first drug court with Reno, says there's no doubt that the program has worked and that the statistics should be all Ashcroft needs to be convinced of its effectiveness. After one year, 95 percent of those who went through Miami's program are still drug-free; after five years, the proportion is 75 percent. Brummer thinks one of the key reasons drug courts work is that only those who opt for it are admitted, in contrast to some other court sentences under which people are ordered to undergo treatment. "Ashcroft has an unfortunate perspective [toward treatment], because disinterested people such as Miami-Dade County have been evaluating these programs for years to see if they warrant continued funding, and those programs have been shown to be more effective than Prohibition-style incarceration," says Brummer. "But many people cling to [incarceration] from a moralistic point of view, even though it doesn't help people lead drug-free, law-abiding lives." Drug courts are also more cost-effective, Brummer says. According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, incarceration of a drug-using offender costs between $20,000 and $50,000 per year, in comparison with a cost of $2,500 per year for each offender in a drug court program. In North Dakota, two counties launched drug courts on Jan. 5, largely because of the success of such programs in Florida and California, and both counties will soon apply for additional federal grants. "We started to take a look at some alternatives to the current course of action and recognized that we needed to try to do something different," says Pat Bohn, intensive programs coordinator for the North Dakota Department of Corrections. "The definition of insanity is repeatedly beating your head against the wall and expecting a different result. And that's the point we've reached; we need to try something else and that's drug court," he says. Certainly, there are subtler actions than drying up federal funds that could dramatically alter the effectiveness of these programs. One way in which the attorney general, if confirmed, might voice his opposition to this type of treatment is through an executive branch order, Sterling says. For example, the urine of program participants is regularly tested for drugs, and if they test positive, there is a gradually increasing scale of sanctions. The attorney general could mandate that participants must be removed from the program if they test positive after just a single drug test. For Judge Kavanaugh, there is no easy way to describe how much of a difference he thinks the program has made in his state. Because New Mexico's system requires offenders to make regular appearances in court, Kavanaugh is able to witness their path to recovery. Much of the time, he says, the change is reflected less in the fact that one-time addicts are holding down a job or upholding other requirements of the program than in their faces. "I can see those physical transformations that take place as people progress -- their improved health -- and I can even tell it in their complexion," he says. "Those addicted to alcohol retain a pinkish tone to their skin. When they remain sober and dry, and clean of drugs, their complexion literally returns to normal." And with the renewed support of family members who weren't always there before, Kavanaugh says, participants can get on with their lives again. Note: Proponents of change fear the conservative nominee for attorney general might shutter drug courts and other programs that emphasize treatment over incarceration.About the Writer:Dawn MacKeen is a senior writer for Salon News. Source: Salon.com (US Web)Author: Dawn MacKeenPublished: January 17, 2001Copyright: 2001 Salon.comAddress: 22 4th Street16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103Fax: (415) 645-9204Contact: salon salonmagazine.comWebsite: http://www.salon.com/Forum: http://tabletalk.salon.com/Feedback: http://www.salon.com/contact/letters/ Related Articles:Ashcroft Has Record Of Fights for Conservativeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8328.shtmlAshcroft Nephew Got Probation After Major Pot Busthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8291.shtmlYou Can't Be a Moderate and Pick Ashcroft http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8264.shtmlAshcroft - Out of Sight on The Right http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8252.shtmlCan John Ashcroft Overcome His Ideology?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8247.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #23 posted by FoM on January 18, 2001 at 19:24:54 PT
Wisdom
My feelings are that we wanted to achieve knowledge and the only way you can is to experience good and evil and then in time after you sort everything out you arrive at the jewel crown of all, Wisdom. That's what I think.I hope this makes sense.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by NiftySplifty on January 18, 2001 at 19:08:16 PT
I, too, have a particularly "Christian" mom
that happens to now notice the failings of the Drug War. I was watching the news not long ago, when a story came on about a young woman here in So.Cal. that was killed by her boyfriend. He had been released from prison (prior murder convictions) because of overcrowding. Good ol' mom shocked me sh**less by saying, "He's out because of the war on drugs." That's a bold statement to come from a 50-somethinger from the buckle of the Bible-belt. She has turned a 180 on such topics since I talked her into going to see Harry Browne at a rally in San Diego. (Just a couple months prior, she was convinced that "kids get hooked on that stuff" referring to pot!) People can change!Nifty...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by dddd on January 18, 2001 at 18:29:18 PT
Mom,,,God
Dan;your Mom sounds like a wise,good woman,(her son is proof of it),,,"She taught me a valuable lesson about generalizing the beliefs espoused by church leaders to everyone who attends."...The term "Christian",is used like the term,"drugs",in the stereotypification of its interpretation.I am a Christian,yet I have little in common with Ashcroft.To attempt to partially answer jimmyds' question;>4. IF WE WERE CREATED IN GODS IMAGE WITHOUT FAULT WHY THEN DID WE GIVE IN TO  SATAN? One of the major things God gave us,"in His image",is the ability to be able to choose between good and evil,satan or God,right or wrong.This is one of the most special and significant things God gave us...He had to give us this.Here is a brief explanation of why this is;1.)If God had not given us a choice between good and evil,then he would have created a group of only good zombies.We would not even know what "evil"was.We would be only able to be "good.2.)With no opposite of "good",we would be limited in our emotions.If one could never be sad,then one would not know what "happy" was like.If one could not cry,then what good would laughter be?If you had never felt "hot",you would not know cold",,,pain/pleasure,,,,dark/light,,,white/black,,,day/night,,,etc...3.)We were given a bit of Gods ability to create.This is one of the very special things we have.I order to be able to create,and think for yourself,you have to have the ability to choose.I hope this makes sense to you,and I welcome any questions.................Peace..............................................................................dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Dan B on January 18, 2001 at 16:03:35 PT:
I Agree, FoM.
You are absolutely right: radical fundamentalists are giving the rest of the Christians in this country a bad name.My Mom is a very devoted Christian, and I was sure for the longest time that she would always be pro-drug-war. I have been talking to her about the WoSD since this summer, and the other day on the phone she had this to say (roughly verbatim):I think that they should either make alcohol and tobacco illegal, or they should legalize marijuana.I about fell on the floor. This is a radical move for her, especially because she realizes that alcohol prohibition did not work, either. In effect, she says she believes in legalization (this is her roundabout way of saying so). She has also expressed her belief that industrial hemp should be legal to grow and use. She taught me a valuable lesson about generalizing the beliefs espoused by church leaders to everyone who attends. Mom is a very compassionate person, and because of that I think she is able to see through a lot of crap that blinds too many others. Anyway, I thought I'd tell you all that.Hope I didn't make anyone feel bad. Don't apologize for speaking your mind. Some of us (me) are just a little sensitive.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Dan B on January 18, 2001 at 15:43:06 PT:
No Problem, Stripey.
I understand how sometimes what we say comes across differently than one may have intended. I really didn't mean to make anyone feel bad about his/her comments; I just wanted to remind everyone that sometimes our comments made in haste can be damaging.Don't worry--I've been on Cannabis News long enough to know that the good people here are far from bigoted. We would not be in this fight if it weren't for our genuine desire to see that everyone in this country is treated fairly.I've been re-evaluating my whole world view for quite some time now, and I am sure that my interpretation of Christianity is far different from the mainstream. I grew up mainly in the Assembly of God church (same as Ashcroft), and I have rejected the judgementalism I saw while a part of that church (it seemed that there were so many don'ts--don't drink, don't smoke, don't dance, don't listen to rock music, don't use drugs, don't have sex, etc.--that nobody was paying attention to the most important do--love thy neighbor). I'm not affiliated with any denomination anymore, and I find that comforting. Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on January 18, 2001 at 15:12:27 PT
My 2 cents
I thought I'd try to say how I feel about this topic. I was raised a Catholic and always questioned everything. I also went to a fundamentalist church. I was watching Pat Robertson many years ago and when he said that they were going to form the Christian Coalition I thought this is not right. Now we have a mess on our hands. People blame all people that say they are Christian by faith, or by the way they were brought up, with anger. I hope in time this won't be the case but as long as they are in the political circle, Christians will be hated because of the radical ideas of those powerful misguided few.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Stripey on January 18, 2001 at 14:46:23 PT
I apologize.
I should have been more specific when addressing followers of the Christian faith. I bear no animosity toward any Christians, mainly because following God in any way is better than defying him outright. (The fact that I was raised Christian and converted later helps a bit, too . . .) I was more addressing christian fanatics, the followers that are blind to the wishes and faiths of Non-christians. I had a run-in with one recently, and had a short discussion of morals. It reinforced why I converted. There is much disrespect for non-christians among the fanatical class of Christian. This is not becoming of any child of God to any other Child of God, even athiests.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Dan B on January 18, 2001 at 12:39:38 PT:
The Issue is How One Carries Out One's Beliefs
I see a lot of hatred for / anger toward Christians on this thread, and I think that desperately needs to be addressed. Many of you have said that one should be free to decide for oneself what one believes, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. I also agree that there are things in the Bible that don't seem to add up. But to speak out in favor of one's right to one's own beliefs while attacking the beliefs of others is outright hypocrisy. That goes for Christians and non-Christians alike (and I will humbly admit that Christians, by and large, tend quite often to be on the offensive in this regard).I respect one's right to the open expression of one's beliefs. In fact, I respect Ashcroft's right to express his own beliefs. What I do not respect, however, is using one's own beliefs to berate, belittle, or demean the importance of another individual (or group of individuals). And I do not respect the act of using one's political office/power to force others to comply with one's own personal beliefs.In short, believe in whatever religion (or lack thereof) you want to believe in. It is also okay to show people how they have misinterpreted their religious texts, etc., but be careful that you don't lapse into the same kind of bigotry expressed by those with whom you disagree.I have tried to point out, in the article to which I linked in my last comment, how the words and actions of Jesus have been warped by mainstream Christianity. Jesus would be absolutely repulsed by the things now done in his name. The Bible says the we can tell a person is a Christian by the love they show to others, and if that is the case there are a lot of "Christians" who are a long way from the most basic understanding of what Christianity is supposed to be about. Personally, I believe that the war on some drugs is a manifestation of these warped beliefs, but I still respect the right of individuals to hold those beliefs. Because I respect that right, I try to argue against those beliefs in a respectful manner. I disagree strongly with anyone cramming those beliefs down my (or anyone else's) throat, and I believe strongly in my (or anyone else's) right to speak out against such behavior. But I also don't want to appear as they do, trying to cram my own beliefs down their throats--the ol' reversal strategy.If we give respect to the person, even if we disagree with what that person is doing, we take the high road, and the opposition (which almost invariably attacks the person, at least with regard to the WoSD) looks foolish and childish. It's easy to forget this while in the heat of debate, but I think it's something we would all do well to remember.Just some thoughts.Dan B 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by jimmyd on January 18, 2001 at 07:45:01 PT
where's the truth in religion anyways?
 JUST ONE POINT THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID ABOUT BIBLE STORIES! 1. THE BOOK WAS WRITTEN BY MAN FOR CHILDREN! THE WHOLE THING LEAVES ONE BIG ???? 2. GENISIS SAYS GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE RIGHT? 3. SATAN TEMPTS MAN WE GIVE IN? 4. IF WE WERE CREATED IN GODS IMAGE WITHOUT FAULT WHY THEN DID WE GIVE IN TO SATAN? 5. BECAUSE GOD HIMSELF COULD'NT RESIST TEMPTATION!!!!! 6. SO ANSWER ME THIS WHO'S BELIEFS ARE RIGHT? MY ANSWER IS MY OWN SO IF I DECIDE TO DISAGREE WITH ASSCROFTS VIEW OF A TYPICAL CORRECT LIFE THEN I HAVE THAT RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN. I THINK OUR GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE CONCERNED WITH THEIR PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS FIRST AND LEAVE MINE TO BE DEALT WITH BY MYSELF ON MY OWN TERMS AND BELIEFS!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on January 18, 2001 at 07:33:32 PT:
What Thomas Jefferson had to say about it
Fundamentalists like Ashcroft are always fond of quoting ol' Tom...to a point. Because he really gets their goat with items like the following:(From the following link: "Thomas Jefferson on Religion"http://worldpolicy.org/americas/religion/jefferson-religion.html'The care of every man’s soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or estate, which more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he shall not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but *not from ourselves* (Emphasis mine; you can see where this fits in with drug usage, no?). God himself will not save men against their wills...'..'I cannot give up my guidance to the magistrate (meaning here, any religious clergyman demanding obeisance to any respective creed), because he knows no more of the way to heaven than I do, and is less concerned to direct me right than I am to go right. If the Jews had followed their kings, among so many, what number would have led them to idolatry?''Faith is not faith without believing. No man can conform his faith to the dictates of another. The life and essence of religion consists in the internal persuasion or belief of the mind. External forms of worship, when against our belief are hypocrisy and impiety…'To Rev. Samuel Miller, 23 January 1808:'...I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government.'Ashcroft is the kind who wants to breach that wall. And in so doing, weaken a major component of the magical glue that holds all Americans together; religious tolerance.But this quote has proven scarily prophetic:From FAVORITE JEFFERSON QUOTES on REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT:http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/DOCUMENTS/JEFFERSON/jeff4.html"The principles of our Constitution are wisely opposed to all perpetuations of power, and to every practice which may lead to hereditary establishments (i.e.Like Kennedy's, Bushes, etc.)." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1809.and especially:"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798."It [is] inconsistent with the principles of civil liberty, and contrary to the natural rights of the other members of the society, that any body of men therein should have authority to enlarge their own powers... without restraint." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Allowance Bill, 1778.But this relates to what Barry tried to do with his convening a group of antis on Federal time, with federal resources, at taxpayer expense, to ttry to nullify the will of the voters in California and Arizona:"The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the wisdom, and resting on the will of the people."--Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801."Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust. Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812.A far cry from what Ashcroft and his theocratic buddies have in mind for us, ain't it?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by jimmyd on January 18, 2001 at 07:19:01 PT
This can't happen!
If this guy were to get into this position where would reform go? Right down the toilet with his brain! This old style of thinking will only go away with the people that started it. This mental block in the drug war has to go away, what is it that keeps everyone from seeing what works and going with it instead of sticking to their guns? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 18, 2001 at 03:41:38 PT:
Some Suggested Links from TLC/DPF
BACKGROUND READING:"Addicted to a Failing War on Drugs"http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n039/a12.html?178"Out of Sight"http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n026/a08.html?6192"Bill Criminalizes Drug Links"http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n622/a09.html?178Ashcroft vs. Nadelmann on CNN Crossfire (1998)http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n004/a05.html?178
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by dddd on January 18, 2001 at 02:16:20 PT
dim hope
I would love to the Ashcroftster fail the hearings,but the national news has this certain flavor.It appears to me that they are trying to preen the public for the bad news.I think this is a huge favor that the shrub owes the christian far right......Darkdays indeed FreedomFighter..This country needs more people like you.You are a true patriot,and I enjoy your comments.You have a good vibration...May JAH Shine on You..........................................................................................dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by freedom fighter on January 18, 2001 at 00:42:05 PT
Reality and Illusions
Dark days are ahead of us..We must dig in and not give up.We do not need any Bible to tell us what is right.We do not need to let AssCroft tell us what is wrong.We know! Dark days ahead of us but we gonna roll ahead not giving up because we believe what is right is not wrong!The spark of freedom lies in each of us. We know. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Stripey on January 17, 2001 at 23:39:12 PT
The problem with Christianity.
The way most Christian's read man's-big-book-o-God allows no room for drug addicts. That's sinning. Jesus loves sinners, but he doesn't let them in heaven. If this sinner is shooting poison into his veins, he must not love his gift of life, and he must not love Jesus.  So he's going to hell.You see where the bible has distorted the flock? The bible was written by men. To follow it without taking a chance to know GOD is as bad as being an all-out athiest in God's eyes (no offence to athiests, just making a point) Ashcroft obviously thinks that this is the way for Jesus to behave since this is the way that a Christian should behave, according to Man's Book of God.The Christian way of thinking is fine for private life or even personal living. It has no place in politics, because, believe it or not, Christianity, word for word, has little room for compassion, since although it guarantees salvation, it does not allow a lifestyle lived for others or for one's self. You live for Jesus if you're a Christian. You're just enjoying God's gift of life, it is not yours to do with as you please.The Deist (shameless plug. . . http://www.deism.com ) looks inside his own mind rather than the bible. God created you, so the "right" decision can be arrived at considering your love for God, and your love for God's creations. I think that this love for all things would actually be a little more receptive to treating users rather than to "condemn them with the wicked evil." After all, these people are ill, not evil. Don't put them in with murderers and rapists. One of God's true children could never do this to another human being that's harming no one but themselves. God's child would stop the evil at hand; the adicts wont to hurt themselves. God's child also has to realise that it's not all harmful. *caff-caff* marijuana *caff*The Christian Coalition is not the Senate. There's a reason for that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on January 17, 2001 at 22:46:34 PT
Dan you made me think
You made me think of a painting I saw years ago about what Jesus would do. It was a painting of a person in an alley shooting up and then you saw Jesus with his hand extended and He was kneeling to be able to be at the level of the person He was comforting. That is how a person that professes to be a Christian should look at drug use and or addiction.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Dan B on January 17, 2001 at 22:24:24 PT:
I Know Jesus, and Ashcroft is No Jesus!
"When you consider the person and spirit of Christ, he was interested in finding ways for people to reach their potential, to work at their highest and best. He didn't accommodate people at their lowest and least. That's been a major fault of our government. When it says to ... a person on dope, 'Here's a clean needle and a treatment program, so in case you have a bad trip, we'll be there for you,' that's not real love. Real love respects the person so profoundly it says, ... 'We're not going to provide a clean needle because we don't know of a way in which helping you have a drug-addicted life is in your best interest.'" Ashcroft illuminates his ignorance on several levels in this one statement. First, he shows his completely warped understanding of Jesus Christ, whom he claims to follow. Next, he reveals his complete ignorance of both commonly injected drugs and the needles used to inject them. Third, he exhibits his ignorance of the meanings of the words “love” and “respect.” To support my second assertion, the term "trip" is generally used in reference to an experience with a hallucinogen (LSD, mushrooms, etc.), and not with the kinds of drugs that are generally injected (opiates). More importantly, clean needles would not be provided to encourage IV drug use; rather, they would be provided to reduce the harms associated with IV drug use. And studies indicate that while providing clean needles reduces the transmission of HIV and hepatitis, it does not cause an increase in intravenous drug use.For my take on Jesus's position regarding "the least and the lowest" and judgementalism in general, I urge you to read my article, "No Condemnation," linked at the bottom of this message. In brief, Jesus was in favor of helping "the lowest and the least" (in his day, prositutes, tax collectors, and shepherds were all considered to be "the lowest and the least) and at the same time, he was opposed to those who would oppress others in submission to their own strict religious rules. Jesus wasn't about forcing his way upon others (that part came with Paul, who injected his own Pharisaic zealousness into his version of Christ's message); Jesus was about loving people regardless of their lifestyle choices.Dan B
No Condemnation
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by NiftySplifty on January 17, 2001 at 19:00:37 PT
This could be good news, in a sense.
In the sense that a person being tortured begs for death! Actually, I was thinking that after a couple (more) years of this kind of tyranically closed-minded "lock-'em-up" policy, being subverted by the growing Legalization Movement (fueled by the free exchange of information via internet-like media, even vocal "420" bands), that I predict record numbers of people will go out and vote in the 2004 election. Hopefully, Republocrats will be gone! (Just MHO).On a different note, I can't stand it when people say, "Jesus wouldn't like that", but insist he would throw them in jail for 25-100% of their life for a "sin". Isn't Jesus supposed to have STOPPED those who were going to stone the prostitute, and left her with some advice? John Assholft should go back and re-read that scripture.Nifty...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by dddd on January 17, 2001 at 18:19:48 PT
lawn chairs
Indeed,,,a good suggestion Kap.....because all we can do is watch. I;ll tell ya the worst thing about Ashccroft ,,,,,,,he's gonna end up actually being AG.If dubya could install himself as prez,it will be no problem to railroad ashcroft in....You know I like to expect the worst. From the tone of the news,you just get the feeling that it's a done deal.First we had the absurd nitemare of dubya successfully purchasing the preziduncy,,and now THIS!Hopin' for the best,,But expectin' the worst.......ddddOut here in California,,we've built so many prisons,that they spaced on building power plants.We're having "rolling blackouts",which means the power could go down any time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by TroutMask on January 17, 2001 at 14:34:19 PT
Jesus Thinks You're a Jerk (Zappa)
"When you consider the person and spirit of Christ, he was interested in finding ways for people to reach their potential, to work at their highest and best. He didn't accommodate people at their lowest and least."No, he beat them and imprisoned them until they finally saw His way or died.Hypocrite!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on January 17, 2001 at 14:32:39 PT
"spirit of Christ"
  If you've got RealPlayer, I suggest the following show. Especially if you're John Ashcroft.
Cannabis and the Christ - Jesus Used Marijuana
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on January 17, 2001 at 11:32:27 PT:
One Hydra head biting another.
In Greek mythology, the Hydra was a monser that had numerous snakeheads attached to one snake body. If you cut one head off, two more would grow.Usually, the Federal DrugWar hydra seems to be quite content with the spoils of its little racket; you rarely if ever hear of one agency complaining that another receives the lion's share of the loot they steal or budget they receive. The forfeiture 'pickings' are so good, there's plenty for everybodyBut some of the Hydra's heads now look to be biting each other.'...the drug court movement, who fear that if Ashcroft is confirmed, the very existence of their nascent programs could be threatened.'Ah yes, the old song and dance: the purveyors of drug courts - the majority of whose clients are by necessity *cannabis* users, since we're so easy to catch - are worried that their little slice of the Prohib Pie will be diminished. Or cut out altogether. ' Initially, only those who committed minor drug offenses qualified for the program, but drug courts have recently expanded to include drug users facing charges not related to drug use.'Yes, of course; why not expand their 'services' to those who don't really need them or want them. After all, their 'clients' don't have much say in the matter; they're usually manacled and are fearful of speaking up, lest they be pushed by judicial anger at their temerity further into the belly of the beast. But now, Porky's getting worried; Farmer Ashcroft might think the corpulent swine that's gotten so fat for so long might need to go on a diet:'Despite their local administration, drug court programs rely on federal funding to operate (what else?). The role of the attorney general is central, say many drug court advocates, not only in maintaining the bipartisan support needed to continue the programs but also in determining how many *federal (TAXPAYER!) dollars* will be allocated to them.'So now that it looks like the trough might be drying up, the Hydra's heads will be engaged in the ol' 'interservice rivalry' game. The snakes are going to be biting one another.Get your lawn chairs out; this might be interesting. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 17, 2001 at 11:24:14 PT:
Ashcroft, A Clear and Present Danger
""A government which takes the resources that we would devote toward the interdiction of drugs and converts them to treatment resources ... and also implements a clean needle program is a government that accommodates us at our lowest and least." This is fiscal nonsense, not to mention petty, mean-spirited and counter-productive."spirit of Christ"Ashcroft can believe anything he wishes personally. However, when a public figure starts trumpetting political policy in these terms, this Jew jumps a mile. Like it or not, this is a multi-cultural country based on secular governance. He must accept that non-Christians can be moral and righteous, and good citizens.What people such as Ashcroft seem to espouse is a return to the good old days values of subservient women, people of color in their place, and divine retribution for crimes of (interpreted Christian) morality. That is not what I think America is about, nor should be. The ideal AG would more reasonably be an innovative, compassionate and open-minded person.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: