|
Organizations |
Index |
||
|
|
A C D F H I L M N P U |
||
|
|
|||
|
About Site Map Privacy
|
|||
Category: Articles
Categories
Welcome to NFIA’s Voters’ Guide
What This Guide Contains
Welcome to National Families in Action’s Guide to Drug-Related Ballot Initiatives. This guide provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues that underlie drug initiatives placed on state ballots since 1996. Features include:
Commentary
Sponsors explain how they are using the ballot initiative process to legalize drugs.
Initiatives
A state-by-state list of drug initiatives. Click the title of an initiative to read:
Summary
Full Text
Sponsors
Opponents
Analysis
Funders
What Proponents Say
What Opponents Say
Dependency and Use Ranking
Organizations
A list of organizations that sponsor, fund, oppose, support, or oppose the initiatives. Click these links for detailed profiles of each.
People
A list of people who sponsor, fund, oppose, support, or oppose the initiatives. Click these links for detailed profiles of each.
State Rankings
A list of all states, ranked by levels of drug dependence and drug use. With few exceptions, initiative states (in red) have the highest levels of drug use and drug dependence in the nation.
Background
Prevention Books
People
Sue Rusche
Occupation
Co-founder, President, and CEO, National Families In Action
Affiliation
Profile
Sue Rusche knows the power of parents. As co-founder, President, and Chief Executive Officer of National Families in Action (NFIA), Sue has helped shape the drug prevention field. Under her direction, NFIA has helped parents form drug-prevention groups throughout the United States, helped lead the parent drug-prevention movement, and helped contribute to the two-thirds reduction in regular drug use among adolescents and young adults and the 500 percent drop in daily marijuana use among high school seniors that occurred between 1979 and 1992.
She is chief architect of the Parent Corps?, which recruits and pays salaries to Parent Leaders to mobilize parents into drug prevention. The Parent Corps? has been one of four prevention goals of President George W. Bush?s National Drug Control Strategy and was funded by Congress in the FY 2003 budget in February, 2003. She is administrator of a $4.2 million grant from the Corporation for National and Community Service to implement the Parent Corps? in nine states over three years.
She is web editor and principal writer of National Families in Action?s Internet Website, the Addiction Studies Program for Journalists Internet Website, and the Parent Corps Internet website.
She is co-founder of the Addiction Studies Program for Journalists, collaboratively formed by National Families in Action and Wake Forest University School of Medicine. The Program holds intensive, two-day workshops for journalists who cover the drug story and provides an Internet website to connect journalists to scientists who are studying the effects of drugs on the brain. She also co-founded the Addiction Studies Program for State Legislatures with two additional partners, the Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania and the National Conference of State Legislatures. This program is directed to legislators and legislative staff.
She has been principal investigator of several federal grants, including two five-year demonstration grants from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. The first (1990-1995) enabled National Families in Action to help parents in Atlanta public-housing communities prevent drug abuse among their children. The second (1994-1999) enabled the organization to establish an after-school program for children at risk that increased academic performance, increased parental and student bonding to school, and prevented substance use among participants.
Ms. Rusche has served on numerous boards, including the Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Mental Health Administration?s Advisory Board, the White House Conference for A Drug Free America (Presidential appointment), Surgeon General Koop?s Task Force on Drunk Driving, and the advisory committee for the Congressional Office for Technology Assessment, which conducted a study on the root causes of drug abuse for the United States Congress. She currently serves on the National Advisory Council of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration?s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
From 1984-1990, Ms. Rusche wrote a twice weekly column on drug abuse,which King Features syndicated to more than 100 newspapers throughout the nation. She has written op-eds for journals, newspapers and periodicals, including Science, the New York Review of Books, and the San Francisco Chronicle, and countless other newspapers. She is principal author of the five-day Parent Corps Basic Training and co-author with Paula Kemp of the DARE Parent Program. She is co-author with David Friedman, a neuroscientist at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, of False Messengers: How Addictive Drugs Change the Brain, (Harwood Academic Books, October, 1999). She is founding editor of Drug Abuse Update, author of A Guide to the Drug Legalization Movement, principal author of the You Have the Right to Know drug-education series, and author of How to Form A Families in Action Group in Your Community, Crack Update, and The American Prevention Movement. She contributed a chapter to A Handbook on Drug Prevention (Allyn and Bacon, 1995) and wrote several articles for the Encyclopedia of Drugs, Alcohol, and Addictive Behavior (Macmillan, 1996). She served as editorial advisor to the revision of Macmillan?s Encyclopedia in 2002 and to Drugs and Controlled Substances, a series published by the Gale Group.
In the course of her work, Ms. Rusche has testified before many Congressional committees, given speeches throughout the world, and made numerous appearances on national television, including the Jim Lehrer Newshour, the Today Show, Good Morning America, CNN News, CNN and Company, CNN News Stand, Fox Cable Television, MSNBC, and various network evening news shows, as well as on numerous local television and radio shows across the nation.
About Site Map Privacy
© Copyright 2001 National Families in Action. All rights reserved.
Questions? Write to [email protected]. Last updated: 08/19/2024 15:38:01
Drug Effects Drug Research
|
Home
|
What This Guide Contains Commentary Drug Effects
Drug Research Drug Street Names
|
|
|
About Site Map Privacy |
|||
Interested browsers may learn more about how drugs exert their effects on the brain in False Messengers: How Addictive Drugs Change the Brain. Written by National Families in Action’s executive director, Sue Rusche, and National Families in Action’s science advisor, David P. Friedman, Ph.D., a neuroscientist at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, this book explains how drugs change the brain, change behavior, and produce addiciton. Click on the picture to order your copy directly from the publisher. Also available from
Full Text
back to summary
Colorado Amendment 20
Medical Use of Marijuana 2000
Ballot Title: An amendment to the Colorado Constitution authorizing the medical use of marijuana for persons suffering from debilitating medical conditions, and, in connection therewith, establishing an affirmative defense to Colorado criminal laws for patients and their primary care-givers relating to the medical use of marijuana; establishing exceptions to Colorado criminal laws for patients and primary care-givers in lawful possession of a registry identification card for medical marijuana use and for physicians who advise patients or provide them with written documentation as to such medical marijuana use; defining “debilitating medical condition” and authorizing the state health agency to approve other medical conditions or treatments as debilitating medical conditions; requiring preservation of seized property interests that had been possessed, owned, or used in connection with a claimed medical use of marijuana and limiting forfeiture of such interests; establishing and maintaining a confidential state registry of patients receiving an identification card for the medical use of marijuana and defining eligibility for receipt of such a card and placement on the registry; restricting access to information in the registry; establishing procedures for issuance of an identification card; authorizing fees to cover administrative costs associated with the registry; specifying the form and amount of marijuana a patient may possess and restrictions on its use; setting forth additional requirements for the medical use of marijuana by patients less than eighteen years old; directing enactment of implementing legislation and criminal penalties for certain offenses; requiring the state health agency designated by the governor to make application forms available to residents of Colorado for inclusion on the registry; limiting a health insurer’s liability on claims relating to the medical use of marijuana; and providing that no employer must accommodate medical use of marijuana in the workplace.
Text of Proposed Constitutional Amendment:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, AMENDING ARTICLE XVIII, ADDING A NEW SECTION TO READ:
Section 14. Medical use of marijuana for persons suffering from debilitating medical conditions.
(1) As used in this section, these terms are defined as follows.
- (a) “Debilitating medical condition” means:
- (I) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for such conditions;
- (II) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition, or treatment for such conditions, which produces, for a specific patient, one or more of the following, and for which, in the professional opinion of the patient’s physician, such condition or conditions reasonably may be alleviated by the medical use of marijuana: cachexia; severe pain; severe nausea; seizures, including those that are characteristic of epilepsy; or persistent muscle spasms, including those that are characteristic of multiple sclerosis; or
- (III) Any other medical condition, or treatment for such condition, approved by the state health agency, pursuant to its rule making authority or its approval of any petition submitted by a patient or physician as provided in this section.
- (b) “Medical use” means the acquisition, possession, production, use, or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia related to the administration of such marijuana to address the symptoms or effects of a patient’s debilitating medical condition, which may be authorized only after a diagnosis of the patient’s debilitating medical condition by a physician or physicians, as provided by this section.
- (c) “Parent” means a custodial mother or father of a patient under the age of eighteen years, any person having custody of a patient under the age of eighteen years, or any person serving as a legal guardian for a patient under the age of eighteen years.
- (d) “Patient” means a person who has a debilitating medical condition.
- (e) “Physician” means a doctor of medicine who maintains, in good standing, a license to practice medicine issued by the state of Colorado.
- (f) “Primary care-giver” means a person, other than the patient and the patient’s physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition.
- (g) “Registry identification card” means that document, issued by the state health agency, which identifies a patient authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and such patient’s primary care-giver, if any has been designated.
- (h) “State health agency” means that public health related entity of state government designated by the governor to establish and maintain a confidential registry of patients authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and enact rules to administer this program.
- (i) “Usable form of marijuana” means the seeds, leaves, buds, and flowers of the plant (genus) cannabis, and any mixture or preparation thereof, which are appropriate for medical use as provided in this section, but excludes the plant’s stalks, stems, and roots.
- (j) “Written documentation” means a statement signed by a patient’s physician or copies of the patient’s pertinent medical records.
(2)
- (a) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (5), (6), and (8) of this section, a patient or primary care-giver charged with a violation of the state’s criminal laws related to the patient’s medical use of marijuana will be deemed to have established an affirmative defense to such allegation where:
- (I) The patient was previously diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition;
- (II) The patient was advised by his or her physician, in the context of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana in connection with a debilitating medical condition; and
- (III) The patient and his or her primary care-giver were collectively in possession of amounts of marijuana only as permitted under this section. This affirmative defense shall not exclude the assertion of any other defense where a patient or primary care-giver is charged with a violation of state law related to the patient’s medical use of marijuana.
- (b) Effective June 1, 1999, it shall be an exception from the state’s criminal laws for any patient or primary care-giver in lawful possession of a registry identification card to engage or assist in the medical use of marijuana, except as otherwise provided in subsections (5) and (8) of this section.
- (c) It shall be an exception from the state’s criminal laws for any physician to:
- (I) Advise a patient whom the physician has diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition, about the risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana or that he or she might benefit from the medical use of marijuana, provided that such advice is based upon the physician’s contemporaneous assessment of the patient’s medical history and current medical condition and a bona fide physician-patient relationship; or
- (II) Provide a patient with written documentation, based upon the physician’s contemporaneous assessment of the patient’s medical history and current medical condition and a bona fide physician-patient relationship, stating that the patient has a debilitating medical condition and might benefit from the medical use of marijuana. No physician shall be denied any rights or privileges for the acts authorized by this subsection.
- (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, no person, including a patient or primary care-giver, shall be entitled to the protection of this section for his or her acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuana for any use other than medical use.
- (e) Any property interest that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana or acts incidental to such use, shall not be harmed, neglected, injured, or destroyed while in the possession of state or local law enforcement officials where such property has been seized in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana. Any such property interest shall not be forfeited under any provision of state law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense or entry of a plea of guilty to such offense. Marijuana and paraphernalia seized by state or local law enforcement officials from a patient or primary care-giver in connection with the claimed medical use of marijuana shall be returned immediately upon the determination of the district attorney or his or her designee that the patient or primary care-giver is entitled to the protection contained in this section as may be evidenced, for example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges, or acquittal.
(3) The state health agency shall create and maintain a confidential registry of patients who have applied for and are entitled to receive a registry identification card according to the criteria set forth in this subsection, effective June 1, 1999.
- (a) No person shall be permitted to gain access to any information about patients in the state health agency’s confidential registry, or any information otherwise maintained by the state health agency about physicians and primary care-givers, except for authorized employees of the state health agency in the course of their official duties and authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies which have stopped or arrested a person who claims to be engaged in the medical use of marijuana and in possession of a registry identification card or its functional equivalent, pursuant to paragraph (e) of this subsection (3). Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall be granted access to the information contained within the state health agency’s confidential registry only for the purpose of verifying that an individual who has presented a registry identification card to a state or local law enforcement official is lawfully in possession of such card.
- (b) In order to be placed on the state’s confidential registry for the medical use of marijuana, a patient must reside in Colorado and submit the completed application form adopted by the state health agency, including the following information, to the state health agency:
- (I) The original or a copy of written documentation stating that the patient has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and the physician’s conclusion that the patient might benefit from the medical use of marijuana;
- (II) The name, address, date of birth, and social security number of the patient;
- (III) The name, address, and telephone number of the patient’s physician; and
- (IV) The name and address of the patient’s primary care-giver, if one is designated at the time of application.
- (c) Within thirty days of receiving the information referred to in subparagraphs (3)(b)(I)-(IV), the state health agency shall verify medical information contained in the patient’s written documentation. The agency shall notify the applicant that his or her application for a registry identification card has been denied if the agency’s review of such documentation discloses that: the information required pursuant to paragraph (3)(b) of this section has not been provided or has been falsified; the documentation fails to state that the patient has a debilitating medical condition specified in this section or by state health agency rule; or the physician does not have a license to practice medicine issued by the state of Colorado. Otherwise, not more than five days after verifying such information, the state health agency shall issue one serially numbered registry identification card to the patient, stating:
- (I) The patient’s name, address, date of birth, and social security number;
- (II) That the patient’s name has been certified to the state health agency as a person who has a debilitating medical condition, whereby the patient may address such condition with the medical use of marijuana;
- (III) The date of issuance of the registry identification card and the date of expiration of such card, which shall be one year from the date of issuance; and
- (IV) The name and address of the patient’s primary care-giver, if any is designated at the time of application.
- (d) Except for patients applying pursuant to subsection (6) of this section, where the state health agency, within thirty-five days of receipt of an application, fails to issue a registry identification card or fails to issue verbal or written notice of denial of such application, the patient’s application for such card will be deemed to have been approved. Receipt shall be deemed to have occurred upon delivery to the state health agency, or deposit in the United States mails. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no application shall be deemed received prior to June 1, 1999. A patient who is questioned by any state or local law enforcement official about his or her medical use of marijuana shall provide a copy of the application submitted to the state health agency, including the written documentation and proof of the date of mailing or other transmission of the written documentation for delivery to the state health agency, which shall be accorded the same legal effect as a registry identification card, until such time as the patient receives notice that the application has been denied.
- (e) A patient whose application has been denied by the state health agency may not reapply during the six months following the date of the denial and may not use an application for a registry identification card as provided in paragraph (3)(d) of this section. The denial of a registry identification card shall be considered a final agency action. Only the patient whose application has been denied shall have standing to contest the agency action.
- (f) When there has been a change in the name, address, physician, or primary care-giver of patient who has qualified for a registry identification card, that patient must notify the state health agency of any such change within ten days. A patient who has not designated a primary care-giver at the time of application to the state health agency may do so in writing at any time during the effective period of the registry identification card, and the primary care-giver may act in this capacity after such designation. To maintain an effective registry identification card, a patient must annually resubmit, at least thirty days prior to the expiration date stated on the registry identification card, updated written documentation to the state health agency, as well as the name and address of the patient’s primary care-giver, if any is designated at such time.
- (g) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall immediately notify the state health agency when any person in possession of a registry identification card has been determined by a court of law to have willfully violated the provisions of this section or its implementing legislation, or has pled guilty to such offense.
- (h) A patient who no longer has a debilitating medical condition shall return his or her registry identification card to the state health agency within twenty-four hours of receiving such diagnosis by his or her physician.
- (i) The state health agency may determine and levy reasonable fees to pay for any direct or indirect administrative costs associated with its role in this program.
(4)
- (a) A patient may engage in the medical use of marijuana, with no more marijuana than is medically necessary to address a debilitating medical condition. A patient’s medical use of marijuana, within the following limits, is lawful:
- (I) No more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana; and
- (II) No more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants that are producing a usable form of marijuana.
- (b) For quantities of marijuana in excess of these amounts, a patient or his or her primary care-giver may raise as an affirmative defense to charges of violation of state law that such greater amounts were medically necessary to address the patient’s debilitating medical condition.
(5)
- (a) No patient shall:
- (I) Engage in the medical use of marijuana in a way that endangers the health or well-being of any person; or
- (II) Engage in the medical use of marijuana in plain view of, or in a place open to, the general public.
- (b) In addition to any other penalties provided by law, the state health agency shall revoke for a period of one year the registry identification card of any patient found to have willfully violated the provisions of this section or the implementing legislation adopted by the general assembly.
(6) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2)(a) and (3)(d) of this section, no patient under eighteen years of age shall engage in the medical use of marijuana unless:
- (a) Two physicians have diagnosed the patient as having a debilitating medical condition;
- (b) One of the physicians referred to in paragraph (6)(a) has explained the possible risks and benefits of medical use of marijuana to the patient and each of the patient’s parents residing in Colorado;
- (c) The physicians referred to in paragraph (6)(b) has provided the patient with the written documentation, specified in subparagraph (3)(b)(I);
- (d) Each of the patient’s parents residing in Colorado consent in writing to the state health agency to permit the patient to engage in the medical use of marijuana;
- (e) A parent residing in Colorado consents in writing to serve as a patient’s primary care-giver;
- (f) A parent serving as a primary care-giver completes and submits an application for a registry identification card as provided in subparagraph (3)(b) of this section and the written consents referred to in paragraph (6)(d) to the state health agency;
- (g) The state health agency approves the patient’s application and transmits the patient’s registry identification card to the parent designated as a primary care-giver;
- (h) The patient and primary care-giver collectively possess amounts of marijuana no greater than those specified in subparagraph (4)(a)(I) and (II); and
- (i) The primary care-giver controls the acquisition of such marijuana and the dosage and frequency of its use by
- the patient.
(7) Not later than March 1, 1999, the governor shall designate, by executive order, the state health agency as defined in paragraph (1)(g) of this section.
(8) Not later than April 30, 1999, the General Assembly shall define such terms and enact such legislation as may be necessary for implementation of this section, as well as determine and enact
- (a) Fraudulent representation of a medical condition by a patient to a physician, state health agency, or state or local law enforcement official for the purpose of falsely obtaining a registry identification card or avoiding arrest and prosecution;
- (b) Fraudulent use or theft of any person’s registry identification card to acquire, possess, produce, use, sell, distribute, or transport marijuana, including but not limited to cards that are required to be returned where patients are no longer diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition;
- (c) Fraudulent production or counterfeiting of, or tampering with, one or more registry identification cards; or
- (d) Breach of confidentiality of information provided to or by the state health agency.
(9) Not later than June 1, 1999, the state health agency shall develop and make available to residents of Colorado an application form for persons seeking to be listed on the confidential registry of patients. By such date, the state health agency shall also enact rules of administration, including but not limited to rules governing the establishment and confidentiality of the registry, the verification of medical information, the issuance and form of registry identification cards, communications with law enforcement officials about registry identification cards that have been suspended where a patient is no longer diagnosed as having a debilitating medical condition, and the manner in which the agency may consider adding debilitating medical conditions to the list provided in this section. Beginning June 1, 1999, the state health agency shall accept physician or patient initiated petitions to add debilitating medical conditions to the list provided in this section and, after such hearing as the state health agency deems appropriate, shall approve or deny such petitions within one hundred eighty days of submission. The decision to approve or deny a petition shall be considered a final agency action.
(10)
- (a) No governmental, private, or any other health insurance provider shall be required to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana.
- (b) Nothing in this section shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place.
(11) Unless otherwise provided by this section, all provisions of this section shall become effective upon official declaration of the vote hereon by proclamation of the governor, pursuant to article V, section (1)(4), and shall apply to acts or offenses committed on or after that date.
Summary
Full Text
Arizona Proposition 200
The Drug Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996
Sponsor
(A Subsidiary of Americans for Medical Rights)
Analysis
Prohibits judges from sending newly convicted ?nonviolent drug offenders? to prison until their third conviction.
Releases all nonviolent drug offenders currently in prison, places them on parole, and mandates them into drug treatment, education, or community service programs.
Establishes a Parents Commission on Drug Education.
Attempts to invalidate federal Food and Drug Administration regulations that govern approval of new medications as safe and effective, federal drug- control laws, and international drug-control treaties. However, federal law and international treaties prevail over state law.
The Arizona Experience
Funders
| George Soros Peter Lewis John Sperling Drug Policy Foundation Social Policy Forum Richard Wolf Smaller Contributions TOTAL:
|
$ 430,000 $ 430,000 $ 440,000 $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 25,000 $ 2,697 $1,627,697 (State Campaign Finance Report) |
Status
Passed November 1996
Ranking
Compared to other states, Arizona ranks:
15th (tied with 2 other states) in past-month drug use
16th in marijuana use
6th (tied with 5 other states) in drug use other than marijuana
7th (tied with 3 other states) in past-year drug dependence
7th (tied with 2 other states) in drug or alcohol dependence
(1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse)
Details, Use
Details, Dependence
About Site Map Privacy
© Copyright 2001 National Families in Action. All rights reserved.
Questions? Write to [email protected]. Last updated: 08/19/2024 15:46:45
Summary
Full Text
California Proposition 36
The Substance Abuse and
Crime Prevention Act of 2000
(A Subsidiary of Americans for Medical Rights)
Californians United Against Drug Abuse
Mandates probation with “treatment” for all “nonviolent drug offenders” until their third conviction, then limits incarceration to a maximum of 30 days.
Releases all “nonviolent drug offenders” currently serving sentences from jail and places them on probation subject to same conditions.
Defines “treatment” as community-based drug programs which may include outpatient treatment, halfway house treatment, narcotic replacement therapy, drug education or prevention courses, or limited inpatient or residential treatment for detoxification, relapse, or “severe dependence.”
Defines “nonviolent drug offenders” as those convicted of “unlawful possession, use, or transportation for personal use of any controlled substance. . .or the offense of being under the influence of a controlled substance.”
Transfers $600 million from the general fund, not subject to annual appropriation by the legislature, for five years to establish a drug treatment trust fund, prohibits use of these funds for drug testing.
Requires annual evaluation of implementation of this act to assess reduced incarceration costs, reduced crime, reduced prison construction costs, reduced welfare costs, adequacy of the drug treatment trust fund (but not reductions in drug use, drug abuse, drug addiction, other drug- related diseases, or drug-related deaths).
Prohibits legislature from repealing the act. Allows legislature to amend the act by a 2/3 vote.
What Proponents Say
Proponents says Proposition 36 will send drug addicts to treatment rather than jail and will save taxpayers millions of dollars in reduced prison costs.
“If the measure passes, its impact will be revolutionary,” Franklin Zimring, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley, told the Sacramento Bee. “This is not a sort of incremental step. As a policy experiment, if you consider medical marijuana to be a 1 on the Richter scale, this is a 10.”
What Opponents Say
Rand Corporation StudyThe Rand Corporation released a study October 26, 2000, that suggests Prop 36 would save California taxpayers less money than its proponents predict. Prop 36 would place nonviolent drug offenders in treatment rather than prison but the Rand study says “relatively few of those offenders get jail now.” In addition:
“There is substantial doubt over exactly how many will actually qualify for the program. Proponents claim 37,000 a year.
“Failure of the proposition to provide funds for drug testing is a serious flaw.
“The Prop 36 population may not do as well as others in treatment because of lack of motivation (jail or prison if they fail).
“The $120 million allocated to implement the measure may fall short of covering increased court and probation costs.”
(San Jose Mercury News 10/27/00)
“The authors [of Prop 36] have noted in other forums that the language [of the initiative] expresses their philosophical opposition to drug testing. . .
“Drug testing is an accepted practice, and a useful tool for monitoring progress and compliance with a treatment program.”
(From the Rand study, as excerpted by Californians United Against Drug Abuse, 10/27/00)
Funders
| Monetary: George Soros Peter Lewis John Sperling Others Nonmonetary: Campaign for New Drug Policies Total |
$…1,011,339.00 $…1,011,338.99 $…1,011,338.99 $……472,212.47 …. $…..195,748.07 |
| Monetary: CNOA PAC POPA CA DA’s CCPOA CSSA CCPOAIEC Alex Spanos Others Nonmonetary: Drug Free America Fnd. Others Total |
$……..67,056.50 |
(California Secretary of State’s Office. Note: Contributions made by Campaign for New Drug Policies are nonmonetary. Figures are preliminary.)
Passed November 7, 2000.
For–5,565,672 (60.8%). Against–3,590,095 (39.2%). 100% precincts reporting.
Ranking
Compared to other states, California ranks:
9th in past-month drug use
9th (tied with 1 other state) in marijuana use
5th (tied with 2 other states) in drug use other than marijuana
4th (tied with 1 other state) in past-year drug dependence
6th (tied with 3 other states) in drug or alcohol dependence
(1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse)
Details, Use
Details, Dependence
About Site Map Privacy
© Copyright 2001 National Families in Action. All rights reserved.
Questions? Write to [email protected]. Last updated: 08/19/2024 15:01:57
1981
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
Board of Directors
Keith Stroup, Esq.
Washington DC
Chair
Gordon Brownell, Esq.
San Francisco CA
Bishop Walter D. Dennis, MA, STB
New York NY
Frank Fioramonti, Esq.
New York NY
Mark Heutlinger
New York NY
Linda Lucks
Venice CA
Peter Meyers, Esq.
Washington DC
Larry Schott
Washington DC
Dorothy Whipple
Washington DC
Advisory
Board
Annette Abrams
Philadelphia PA
Michael R. Aldrich, Ph.D.
Fitz Hugh Memorial Library
San Francisco CA
Marie-Andree Bertrand
University of Montreal
Montreal Canada
State Senator Julian Bond
Atlanta GA
Sheriff John Buckley
Middlesex County MA
Ramsey Clark, Esq.
New York NY
Edward H. Crane, III
The Cato Institute
San Francisco CA
U.S. Rep. Ron Dellums
Berkeley CA
Melanie Dreher, Ph.D.
Columbia University School of Public Health
New York NY
Frank Espada
Arlington VA
John Finlator
Arlington VA
Irving J. Goffman, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Gainesville FL
Eric Goode, Ph.D.
State University of New York
Stoneybrook NY
Lester Grinspoon, M.D.
Harvard University Medical School
Cambridge MA
William Harvey, Ph.D.
St. Louis MO
Mayor Richard Hatcher
Gary IN
Hugh M. Hefner
Publisher
Playboy Magazine
Los Angeles CA
Richard Hongisto
San Francisco CA
Jacob Javits
New York NY
Burton Joseph, Esq.
Executive Director
Playboy Foundation
Chicago IL
Andrew Kowl
Publisher
High Times Magazine
New York NY
Peter Lawford
Actor
Los Angeles CA
Stewart R. Mott
New York NY
Aryeh Neier
American Civil Liberties Union
New York NY
Joseph Oteri, Esq.
Boston MA
Max Palevsky
Los Angeles CA
Robert Randall
Alliance for Cannabis Therapuetics (ACT)
Washington DC
Vera Rubin, Ph.D
Research Institute for the Study of Man
New York NY
David E. Smith, M.D.
Jaight=Asbury Clinic
San Francisco CA
Benjamin Spock, M.D.
Rogers AR
Margaret Standish
The Playboy Foundation
Chicago IL
Michael Stepanian, Esq.
Haight-Asbury Clinic
San Francisco CA
Hunter S. Thompson
Woody Creek CO
J. Thomas Ungerleider, M.D.
UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute
Los Angeles CA
Phil Walden
Capricorn Records
Macon GA
Andrew Weil, M.D.
Tucson AZ
Richard M. Wolfe
Los Angeles CA
Norman Zinburg, M.D.
Harvard University Medical School
Cambridge MA
About Site Map Privacy
© Copyright 2001 National Families in Action. All rights reserved.
Questions? Write to [email protected]. Last updated: 08/19/2024 15:03:22
Club HERO
An After-School Program That Works
Club HERO, developed and tested under a 5-year grant from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, provides a positive, nurturing atmosphere for middle-school children during the critical after-school hours.
Positive Rewards for Positive Behavior
Home Club HERO (Helping Everyone Reach Out) rewards students for
“doing their job” well with visible motivation. Students earn points for a variety of achievements and behaviors related to
school performance and participation in tasks at home. They then redeem the points for Club HERO incentives and gifts.
“The point collection system is fun and provides the incentive children need to make an extra effort,” says sixth-grade teacher Caitlin Sims.
Program Goals
The goals of the program are to increase student bonding to school, improve academic achievement, develop peer leaders, and increase parent participation. Because the job of a student is to perform well in school, the first hour of the program is reserved for completing homework assignments or participating in tutorials.
Science-Based Drug-Education
A central feature of Club HERO is a drug-education course developed by National Families in Action called You Have The Right To Know About Drugs. The curriculum teaches children how the brain works and how drugs of abuse change the brain, change behavior and produce addiction.
A central feature of Club HERO is a drug-education course developed by National Families in Action called You Have The Right To Know About Drugs. The curriculum teaches children how the brain works and how drugs of abuse change the brain, change behavior and produce addiction.
Celebrating Local Heroes
Students have an opportunity to hear from and interact with local community “heroes,” ordinary people who have reached their goals through perseverance and hard work.
Students have an opportunity to hear from and interact with local community “heroes,” ordinary people who have reached their goals through perseverance and hard work.
“Club HERO offers our students a safe, positive environment and an opportunity to meet and learn from adults who have achieved success in many fields,” said Thomas Kenner, Middle School Principal.
Adaptability
Club HERO is flexible, allowing schools to tailor the program to meet their needs. The program can operate once a week, twice a week or every day. Elements of the program can even be incorporated into the school day.
Club HERO is flexible, allowing schools to tailor the program to meet their needs. The program can operate once a week, twice a week or every day. Elements of the program can even be incorporated into the school day.
Parent Love It!
Parent involvement is an integral part of the program. Parents are encouraged to become involved in the school and the community for the sake of their children. Projects sponsored by Club HERO prove to parents that they can be change-agents in their communities.
Parent involvement is an integral part of the program. Parents are encouraged to become involved in the school and the community for the sake of their children. Projects sponsored by Club HERO prove to parents that they can be change-agents in their communities.
“Our parent group wanted a sidewalk in front of the school. We worked together, contacted city officials and the city council. Our sidewalk was dedicated two years after we started advocating for it — and we were there!” exclaims Mary Mitchell, Parent.
Educators Love It!
“Club HERO combines after-school tutoring, close academic monitoring, incentives for achievement, and a strong drug-education curriculum in order to foster resiliency in children,” notes Paula Schwartzberg, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Staff, DeKalb County School System.
“The t-shirts, assignment books, key chains and other collateral with the Club HERO logo contribute to the sense of belonging that middle-school students seek,” comments Millicent McCaskill, Teacher. “It works!”
Kids Love It!
Kids love it! Being part of a group and building strong relationships with peers and staff in such a positive environment lets students know they are not alone when they are forced to make hard choices.
Excerpts from the Club HERO evaluation, conducted by Emstar Research, include:
Club HERO participants report less alcohol, tobacco and other drug use than the comparison group.
Parents’ ratings of their children after participation in Club HERO show a significant positive intervention effect.
The You Have The Right To Know About Drugs curriculum significantly increases Club HERO participants’ knowledge of the effects of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use.Club HERO graduates have initiated the creation of an continuing group which meets weekly.
A Club HERO Quick Start Kit and a Student Incentive Kit are available to help you start a Club HERO program in your school, church, or community center.
About Site Map Privacy
© Copyright 2001 National Families in Action. All rights reserved.
Questions? Write to [email protected]. Last updated: 08/19/2024 15:04:03
Background
Prevention Books
People
Joseph A. Califano, Jr., L.L.B.
Occupation
Chairman and President
Affiliation
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University
Address
Profile
About Site Map Privacy
© Copyright 2001 National Families in Action. All rights reserved.
Questions? Write to [email protected]. Last updated: 08/19/2024 15:06:02