Sterling in LA Times on cocaine


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-sterling13nov13,0,5109884,print.story
Take another crack at that cocaine law
By Eric E. Sterling, ERIC E. STERLING, president of the nonprofit Criminal Justice Policy Foundation in Silver Spring, Md., was counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, principally responsible for anti-drug legislation, November 13, 2006

ONE OF OUR MOST infamous contemporary laws is the 100-1 difference in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. Under federal drug laws, prison sentences are usually tied to the quantity of drugs the defendant trafficked. For example, selling 5,000 grams of powder cocaine (about a briefcase full) gets a mandatory 10-year prison sentence, but so does selling only 50 grams of crack cocaine (the weight of a candy bar).Working for the House Judiciary Committee in 1986, I wrote the House bill that was the basis for that law. We made some terrible mistakes.Those mistakes, aggravated by the Justice Department's misuse of the penalties, have been a disaster. Conventional wisdom is that the 100-1 ratio needs to be repealed. But that's an inadequate fix. On Tuesday, the U.S. Sentencing Commission — the independent agency that gives sentencing guidelines to federal judges and advises Congress — will hold hearings on this issue. If logic prevails, in the next Congress we may finally see an end to one of the most unjust laws passed in recent memory. And that might correct the biggest mistake of my professional life.We still cling to 20-year-old ideas that crack is somehow uniquely harmful: It is instantly addictive; it makes you especially violent; it causes women to abandon their babies; the babies of crack users will be basket cases. None of these are true.Also, because crack is no longer a big news story, people mistakenly believe our anti-cocaine policy has worked. Not so. There is no scarcity of cocaine. Since 1986, the price of cocaine has fallen and the quality is better. Cocaine deaths have increased. The number of crack users is basically unchanged.Drug sentences are on the national agenda again because civil rights supporters are justifiably outraged that almost all federal crack prosecutions involve people of color. And indeed, for years no whites were prosecuted for crack offenses in many federal courts, including those in Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Dallas or Boston.Because of that, the myth developed that Congress intended to punish blacks — believed to be the crack users — with long sentences and let the white powder cocaine sniffers of Hollywood and Wall Street get away with light sentences. But that's not the case. Congress was trying to remedy a problem it believed afflicted the black community.A second myth is that Congress chose a 100-1 ratio because it determined that crack was 100 times worse than powder cocaine. But the weights chosen (5 and 50 grams, versus 500 and 5,000 grams) weren't based on a comparison of the two drugs. Congress had no clear understanding of drug trafficking — or the metric system — and thought those weights indicated significant trafficking activity. In fact, tons (millions of grams) of cocaine are shipped to the U.S. by the leaders, organizers and financiers of the international drug trade.The law was flawed, but the Justice Department still could have used it to target high-level traffickers. But research from the U.S. Sentencing Commission shows that three-quarters of the federal cocaine defendants — powder and crack — are just neighborhood dealers or couriers.Congress should do what it tried to do in 1986 — make the Justice Department focus exclusively on high-level cases because state and local law enforcement cannot. There are three elements to fix the problem: Raise the quantity triggers for all drugs to realistic levels for high-level traffickers, such as 50 or 100 kilos of cocaine, and end the crack/powder imbalance; Require the attorney general to approve prosecution of any case involving less than 50 kilos of cocaine; Analyze federal drug cases district by district to identify agents and prosecutors who waste their time and our money. If only high-level dealers were being prosecuted by the feds, no one would have cause to complain about the race of the defendants.A promising sign is that a few months ago, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a former U.S. attorney, introduced legislation to address the problem. Action on his bill is unlikely before Congress adjourns, but it had bipartisan support — a good sign that a political fix is viable.The 20-year-old mistake of tiny quantity triggers has distracted both the Justice Department from the proper cases and reformers from the proper fix.For a generation, anti-drug policy has been built on factual mistakes and tough-sounding rhetoric. The American people simply need an effective policy. Truly, that would be tough enough.


Discussion in Am. J. Psychiatry in Letters to Editor about the term "addiction" in DSM
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/content/vol163/issue11/
What’s in a Word? Addiction Versus Dependence in DSM-V ROBIN L. FAINSINGER, M.D., VINCENT THAI, M.B.B.S., M.Med., M.R.C.P., C.C.F.P., A.B.P.H.M., GARY FRANK, B.A., B.Ed., R.N. and JEAN FERGUSSON, B.Sc., R.N.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada To the Editor: We agree with the call made by Charles O’Brien, M.D., Ph.D., et al. for a clarification of terminology in discussions of opioid use (1). We also agree that the DSM Committees’ choice of terminology to date is problematic. The use of the term "dependence" as a euphemism for addiction originated as a well-intentioned attempt to counter negative effects of the social stigmatization of addicted patients. Unfortunately, it has resulted in creating significant confusion in discussions of pain management by clouding the important distinction between physical dependence and uncontrolled psychological craving (addiction). Examples of this confusion are replete in the literature (2–4).
One of the most important requirements for successful pain management is a rigorous, multidimensional assessment of the patient, including a clear description and classification of the pain syndrome. Recognition of addiction, and distinguishing addiction from physical dependence, is an important part of such an assessment. The experience of cancer pain specialists around the world has confirmed this time and again. The Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (5, 6) has shown that, among other factors, clear recognition and management of addiction is required for effective pain control in a subset of cancer patients. At the same time, clear distinction between physical dependence and addiction is an important tool in the prevention of "opioid-phobia" and the unwarranted fear of addiction that can impede effective pain management in any patient population.
Unfortunately, the DSM Committee has not provided such clarity to date. Fortunately, other groups have done so. The American Pain Society, The American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Addiction Medicine, for example, have developed a consensus document with clear and useful definitions of opioid-related phenomena:
Addiction is a primary, chronic, neurobiological disease, with genetic, psychosocial, and environmental factors influencing its development and manifestations. It is characterized by behaviors that include one or more of the following: impaired control over drug use, compulsive use, continued use despite harm, and craving.
Physical dependence is a state of adaptation that is manifested by a drug-class specific withdrawal syndrome that can be produced by abrupt cessation, rapid dose reduction, decreasing blood level of the drug, and/or administration of an antagonist (7).
In the interest of patients—addicted or not—we urge that the DSM-V Committee should pursue the same degree of clarity.
References 1. O’Brien C, Volkow N, Li T: What’s in a word? addiction versus dependence in DSM-V. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:764–765[Free Full Text]
2. Streltzer J, Johansen L: Prescription drug dependence and evolving beliefs about chronic pain management. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:594–598[Free Full Text]
3. Comer S, Sullivan M, Yu E, Rothenberg J, Kleber H, Kampman K, Dackis C, O’Brien C: Injectable, sustained-release naltrexone for the treatment of opioid dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006; 63:210–218[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Johnson R, Jaffe J, Fudala P: A controlled trial of buprenorphine treatment for opioid dependence. JAMA 1992; 267: 2750-2755
5. Fainsinger R, Nekolaichuk C, Lawlor P, Neumann C, Hanson J, Vigano A: A multicenter study of the revised Edmonton Staging System for Classifying Cancer Pain in advanced cancer patients. JPSM 2005; 29:224–237
6. Nekolaichuk C, Fainsinger R, Lawlor P: A validation study of a pain classification system for advanced cancer patients using content experts: The Edmonton classification system for cancer pain. Palliative Medicine 2005; 19:466–476[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Pain Society, American Society of Addiction Medicine: Definitions Related to the Use of Opioids for the Treatment of Pain. American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Pain Society, American Society of Addiction Medicine, 2006 (www.ampainsoc.org/advocacy/opiods2.htm, accessed July 5, 2006)
---------------------
Language and Addiction SHANNON C. MILLER, M.D., F.A.S.A.M., F.A.P.A., C.M.R.O. Cincinnati, Ohio To the Editor: I wish to support the editorial published by Dr. O"Brien et al. Clearly, our field of addiction medicine has been plagued by problematic language (1). As the authors point out in their editorial, this affects the interaction between patient and clinician when dealing with pain and prescribing. However, the impact of such language on the practice of addiction medicine extends to two larger, and arguably more pervasive, issues in clinical practice.
In my experience, the use of the term "dependence" when working with patients with addiction disorders is highly problematic to the earliest stages of developing a therapeutic alliance and helping the patient gain insight into her/his disease. When patients hear this term applied to them, they often have difficulty internalizing this term as an accurate descriptor of their substance use. When asked how they themselves would define the clinical appearance of someone who is "substance dependent," they often focus more on physical manifestations of the illness (tolerance and withdrawal). Not surprisingly then, they describe an individual who daily uses or needs the drug regularly in order to display adaptive psychosocial functioning. This observation appears most pronounced for patients in the precontemplation or contemplation stages of change. Moreover, when asked to describe someone who is "addicted" to a substance, more accurate descriptions are given, including discussions about the behavioral and psychological manifestations of the illness.
A second additional problem this term creates is that its use automatically excludes nonsubstance-related behaviors from future consideration for a diagnosis of addiction; the best example being pathological gambling disorder. The categorization of pathological gambling has been previously debated in DSM planning meetings: Is it an impulse control disorder or in the same diagnostic cluster as substance use disorders (2)? Pathological gambling disorder has been increasingly defined by scientific and biological findings akin to substance use disorders, arguing for its diagnostic reclassification. Moreover, it has been recognized as perhaps one of the best sources of study for addiction disorders in humans because it is devoid of drug (of abuse) effects which may confound biological research findings (3).
I support the authors’ timely discussion toward re-assessing the DSM’s language prior to its next revision. Replacing "substance use disorders" with "addiction disorders" could benefit not only the care of patients with pain, but could also enhance the patient’s understanding and acceptance of their newly diagnosed disease as well as open future options with respect to potential nondrug addictions and their classification.
References 1. Miller SC, Salsitz EA: Perspectives: the language of addiction. Am Soc Addict Med New 2002; 17:13 2. First MB: Diagnostic issues in substance use disorders—a summary. Psychiatr Res Report 2005; 21:6–8 3. Sumitra L, Miller SC. Pathologic gambling disorder. Postgrad Med 2005; 118:31–37[Medline]
-----------------
Please, Not "Addiction" in DSM-V CARLTON K. ERICKSON, PH.D. and RICHARD E. WILCOX, PH.D. Austin, Tex. To the Editor: In the May 2006 issue of the Journal, Drs. O’Brien, Volkow, and Li touch on a very serious issue regarding the proper labeling of a drug-induced brain disease known as either "addiction" or "dependence." We agree with the authors’ concerns and with the need to have a better word than "dependence" in the DSM-V.
However, "addiction" is not the word. "Addiction" is unscientific, overused, misunderstood (e.g., addicted to my cell-phone), and clinically inaccurate (e.g., addicting antidepressants). What we have found in working with people in recovery is that the word is incredibly stigmatizing. The popular press is flooded with stories of crack-addicted babies and heroin addicts being thrown in jail. Sadly, in everyday use, "addiction" fails to differentiate between the medical (brain) disease associated with drug use by at-risk people and over-involvement with drugs (abuse) or activities.
Stigma-driven discrimination is seen when those with "addiction" cannot use our newest scientific advances in treatment because of insurance problems. Stigmatization is one reason we have insufficient research dollars for the study of drug actions on the brain. We fear that continued use of the term "addiction" would forever prevent society from destigmatizing this chronic medical illness.
Our Center faculty believes that the answer lies in proper education regarding the now-diagnosable differences between pathological chemical dependence and "bad-choice" drug abuse.
We indicate that the old (1950) World Health Organization terms "psychological dependence" and "physical dependence" are outmoded and are being phased out. We teach that the term "dependence" is a specific descriptor of the adapted brain state studied so intensively by neuroscientists (1). Our publications on neuroscience-based workshops clearly show that these professionals "get it" (2). We believe the field terminology is changing (e.g., gambling "addiction" has been replaced in many treatment centers with "pathological gambling disorder").
To reduce confusion about "dependence," the use of a qualifier such as "chemical dependence" could be used. It is only through such diagnosable (and clearly articulated) distinctions that we can hope to convince policy makers and the public that a major drug-overuse problem we are treating is truly a chronic medical illness (called "chemical dependence"), for which we need more treatment and research funds.
References 1. Erickson CK, Wilcox RE, Littlefield JH, Hendricson WD: Education of nonscientists about new alcohol research: results of two types of presentations plus 6-month follow-up. Alc Clin Exptl Res 1998; 22:1890–1897
2. Lawson KA, Wilcox RE, Littlefield JG, Pituch KA, Erickson CK: Educating treatment professionals about addiction science research: demographics of knowledge and belief changes. Subst Use Misuse 2004; 39:1235–1258[CrossRef][Medline]
----------------
Addiction Versus Dependence in Pain Management JON STRELTZER, M.D. Honolulu, Hawaii, C.R. SULLIVAN, M.D. Morgantown, W.Va. and BRIAN JOHNSON, M.D. Newton, Mass. To the Editor: The editorial by O"Brien, et al. argues that classification of substance use disorders should use the term "addiction" instead of "dependence," which involves normal physiological adaptations. They argue that confusing "dependence" with "addiction" prevents pain patients from getting needed "additional pain medication" (p. 764). A problem with this argument is the implicit underlying assumption that sustained opioid pain medication is continuously effective for chronic pain, and more opioid medication is more effective. The evidence, however, is to the contrary. Chronic opioid intake results in multiple, overlapping physiological adaptations that counteract the analgesic effects of opioids and even enhance pain sensitivity (1, 2). A recent review of the effects of sustained opioid intake concluded that opioids given chronically, at least in high doses, are neither safe nor effective (3). Differentiating addiction from dependence has been promulgated as a way to determine which chronic pain patients may safely be prescribed opioids. This belief corresponds with the marked increase in prescription of strong opioids in recent years and a simultaneous increase in morbidity and mortality from prescription drug dependence (4, 5). Psychiatrists are receiving more and more referrals of chronic pain patients dependent on opioids. In our experience, whether or not they have been behaviorally compliant, they usually do better when detoxified and treated with nonopioid analgesics and psychiatric support (6, 7). In contrast, increasing the opioid dose will provide no more than temporary benefit. We are aware that many patients can function satisfactorily while maintained on steady doses of opioids, such as methadone maintenance patients. When chronic pain patients are managed in this fashion, it may not be pain that is being treated, but rather this may be a form of office-based opioid maintenance. Whatever the terminology that is used for substance use disorders, the assumption that if a patient is not an addict they can be treated freely with opioids will not diminish suffering and will often increase it (8).
References 1. King T, Gardell LR, Wang R, Vardanyan A, Ossipov MH, Malan TP Jr, Vanderah TW, Hunt SP, Hruby VJ, Lai J, Porreca F: Role of NK-1 neurotransmission in opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Pain 2005; 116:276–288[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Mollereau C, Roumy M, Zajac JM: Opioid-modulating peptides: mechanisms of action. Curr Top Med Chem. 2005; 5:341-355
3. Ballantyne JC, Mao J: Opioid therapy for chronic pain. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:1943–1953[Free Full Text] 4. Franklin GM, Mai J, Wickizer T, Turner JA, Fulton-Kehoe D, Grant L: Opioid dosing trends and mortality in Washington State workers" compensation, 1996-2002. Am J Ind Med. 2005; 48:91-99
5. Compton WM, Volkow ND: Major increases in opioid analgesic abuse in the United States: concerns and strategies. Drug Alcohol Depend 2006; 81:103[CrossRef][Medline]
6. Anooshian J, Streltzer J, Goebert D: Effectiveness of a psychiatric pain clinic. Psychosomatics 1999; 40:226–223[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Streltzer J: Pain management in the opioid-dependent patient. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2001; 3:489–496[Medline] 8. Streltzer J, Johansen L: Prescription drug dependence and evolving beliefs about chronic pain management. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:594–598[Free Full Text]
--------------
Dr. O’Brien Replies CHARLES P. O’BRIEN, M.D., Ph.D., NORA VOLKOW, M.D. and T-K Li, M.D. Philadelphia, Pa. To the Editor: We thank the authors of the letters published here as well as the authors of the many more that were sent to us directly. Most of the letters that we received directly were heartfelt expressions of gratitude from clinicians, including nurses who care for chronic pain patients in hospices or who treat chronic pain with opiates and opioids. Along similar lines and in agreement with the letter by Dr. Miller, there have also been supportive letters from organizations of physicians who treat pain (American Pain Society, American Academy of Pain Medicine) and from the American Society of Addiction Medicine.
We have read carefully the only two dissenting letters that we have seen. Drs. Erickson and Wilcox seem to agree with our statement of the problem but find the word "addiction" to be distasteful. They are entitled to that position, but they should also feel the responsibility to come up with a better alternative. "Chemical dependence" would retain the same problems as the current version. We do find it a bit odd, however, that the title of Dr. Erickson’s own office contains the term "addiction science." The word is also used without apparent prejudice as the name of one of the most venerable journals in the field as well as in the names of scientific societies and in the name of an official subspecialty of psychiatry.
Drs. Streltzer, Sullivan, and Johnson focus on the issues involved in long-term prescription of opioids. This is a controversial subject and was not addressed in our editorial. The reality is that many patients do receive opioids from their physicians, and both tolerance and "physical" dependence occur to some degree very rapidly. This normal response must be distinguished from compulsive drug-seeking behavior commonly known as "addiction."
Quite frankly, the current classification is an unintentional violation of the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." We have created a situation with our terminology that not only confuses physicians, but also results in needless suffering and mislabeling of patients.


The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the Federal Register (FR)

The regs are not the law. Congress makes the laws; the executive branch promulgates the regs to implement the law. The implementing regulations, or rules, are compiled in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Since drugs can be scheduled administratively thru the regulatory or rule-making process, one must go to the CFR for a complete and accurate listing of scheduled substances, which means consulting also the Federal Register for regs that have been approved since the CFR was last revised. (Title 21 of the CFR is revised annually as of April 1.)
The CSA, therefore, does not contain a complete list of scheduled substances, only those that Congress has scheduled via enactment of the CSA and subsequent amendments.
More on the CSA: The CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Public Law 91-513, which was signed into law by the president on Oct. 27, 1970. The CSA, as enacted, can be found in the U.S. Statutes at Large; the cite is 84 Stat. 1242. This is the official version of the law.
Upon enactment, public laws are codified, which means they are written into the compilation of Federal laws known as the U.S. Code. That's what you link to below and you call the "CSA itself". That's actually not the CSA itself but the codified version of the CSA.
Congress has amended the CSA numerous times, so the CSA as enacted, and as it appears in the Statutes at Large, is not the current version of the CSA, which would be the CSA as amended.
As amendments are enacted, the public laws containing the amendments would appear in the Statutes at Large, and the U.S. Code is updated to reflect those amendments.
The version of the code available on the DEA website to which you link below is current as of Jan 2, 2002, so it is considerably out of date. One must go to a source like Westlaw or Lexis/Nexis for a more current version of the U.S. Code.
But bear in mind that the codified version is not the actual law. The U.S. Code neither supersedes nor takes precedence over the Statutes at Large. Whenever there is a conflict between the U.S. Code and the Statutes at Large, the latter prevails.
But since the version of the CSA included in the Statutes at Large has been repeatedly amended, one must consult an amended version of the public law.
It's not easy, however, to find a current version of the CSA as amended.
The CSA is not usually published in public law format, which is the actual law; most people rely on the U.S. Code version.
CFR, section 1300+ on controlled substances: https://webmail.hhs.gov/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/index.html CSA itself: http://www.dea.gov/pubs/csa.html


Hopkins paper on GHB
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n11/abs/1301146a.html
Neuropsychopharmacology (2006) 31, 2537–2551.
Relative Abuse Liability of GHB in Humans: A Comparison of Psychomotor, Subjective, and Cognitive Effects of Supratherapeutic Doses of Triazolam, Pentobarbital, and GHB
Lawrence P Carter, Brian D Richards, Miriam Z Mintzer and Roland R Griffiths

ABSTRACT
Although preclinical studies suggest that GHB has low likelihood for abuse, case reports indicate that GHB is abused. This study evaluated the relative abuse liability of GHB in 14 volunteers with histories of drug abuse.
Psychomotor, subjective, and cognitive effects of a broad range of GHB doses (2–18 g/70 kg), up to a dose that produced severe behavioral impairment in each participant, were compared to placebo and two abused sedative/hypnotic drugs, triazolam (0.5 and 1 mg/70 kg) and pentobarbital (200 and 400 mg/70 kg), under double-blind, double-dummy conditions at a residential research facility.
In general, GHB produced effects similar to triazolam and pentobarbital, although GHB was not identified as a benzodiazepine or barbiturate by participants that correctly identified triazolam and pentobarbital as such.
On most measures of likelihood of abuse (eg ratings of liking, reinforcing effects), effects of pentobarbital were significantly greater than those of triazolam, with GHB being intermediate.
GHB produced significantly greater negative subjective effects, including nausea, than the other drugs.
Memory impairment after GHB was less than that after triazolam and pentobarbital.
Within participants, the dose–effect function for sedation was steeper for GHB than for triazolam and pentobarbital.
Also, at higher doses, GHB was associated with greater sedation and more variability across participants in sedation.
Taken together, these data suggest that the profile of effects of GHB only partially overlaps with that of triazolam and pentobarbital. Although the likelihood for GHB to be abused is intermediate to triazolam and pentobarbital, the possibility of accidental overdose (ie greater sedation than intended) with GHB appears to be greater.



LSD for alcoholism
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-10/uoa-ltf100606.php
Public release date: 6-Oct-2006
LSD treatment for alcoholism gets new look Some participants still have not had a drink 40 years after the trials

For the past five years, Dr. Erika Dyck has been unearthing some intriguing facts related to a group of pioneering psychiatrists who worked in Saskatchewan, Canada in the '50s and '60s.
Among other things, the University of Alberta history of medicine professor has found records of the psychiatrists' research that indicate a single dose of the hallucinogenic drug LSD, provided in a clinical, nurturing environment, can be an effective treatment for alcoholism.
Her findings are published this month in the journal Social History of Medicine.
After perceiving similarities in the experiences of people on LSD and people going through delirium tremens, the psychiatrists undertook a series of experiments. They noted that delirium tremens, also know as DTs, often marked a "rock bottom" or turning point in the behavior of alcoholics, and they felt LSD may be able to trigger such a turnaround without engendering the painful physical effects associated with DTs.
As it turns out, they were largely correct.
"The LSD somehow gave these people experiences that psychologically took them outside of themselves and allowed them to see their own unhealthy behavior more objectively, and then determine to change it," said Dyck, who read the researchers' published and private papers and recently interviewed some of the patients involved in the original studies--many of whom had not had a sip of alcohol since their single LSD experience 40 years earlier.
According to one study conducted in 1962, 65 per cent of the alcoholics in the experiment stopped drinking for at least a year-and-a-half (the duration of the study) after taking one dose of LSD. The controlled trial also concluded that less than 25 per cent of alcoholics quit drinking for the same period after receiving group therapy, and less than 12 per cent quit in response to traditional psychotherapy techniques commonly used at that time.
Published in the Quarterly Journal for Studies on Alcohol, the 1962 study was received with much skepticism. One research group in Toronto tried to replicate the results of the study, but wanted to observe the effect of LSD on the patients in isolation, so they blindfolded or tied up the patients before giving them the drug. Under such circumstances, the Toronto researchers determined LSD was not effective in treating alcoholism.
The Saskatchewan group argued that the drug needed to be provided in a nurturing environment to be effective. However, the Toronto researchers held more credibility than the Saskatchewan researchers--who were led by a controversial, British psychiatrist, Dr. Humphry Osmond--and the Saskatchewan group's research was essentially buried.
But Dyck believes there is value in the Saskatchewan group's experiments.
"The LSD experience appeared to allow the patients to go through a spiritual journey that ultimately empowered them to heal themselves, and that's really quite an amazing therapy regimen," Dyck said. "Even interviewing the patients 40 years after their experience, I was surprised at how loyal they were to the doctors who treated them, and how powerful they said the experience was for them--some even felt the experience saved their lives."
In spite of the promise LSD showed as psychotherapy tool, its subsequent popularity as a street drug, and the perception of it as a threat to public safety, triggered a worldwide ban in the late 1960s--including its use in medical experiments. However, the ban on its use in medical experiments appears to be lifting, Dyck noted. A few groups of researchers in the U.S., including a team at Harvard, have recently been granted permission to conduct experiments with LSD.
"We accept all sorts of drugs, but I think LSD's 'street' popularity ultimately led to its demise," Dyck said. "And that's too bad, because I think the researchers in Saskatchewan, among others, showed the drug is unique and has some intriguing properties that need to be explored further."
### Dr. Dyck can be reached at 780-492-2572 or erika.dyck@ualberta.ca


Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report: Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/dudsfp04.pdf
or at:
http://www.csdp.org/research/dudsfp.04.pdf
ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 9:00 A.M. EDT Bureau of Justice Statistics WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2006 www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs Contact: Stu Smith 202/307-0784 After hours: 301-983-9354
METHAMPHETAMINE USE INCREASING AMONG STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONERS

WASHINGTON -- Prior methamphetamine use among state and federal prisoners has increased since 1997, according to a new report by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The use of methamphetamines in the month before an offense rose from 7 percent of state prisoners in 1997 to 11 percent in 2004. Methamphetamine use at the time of an offense rose from 4 percent to 6 percent during that period. Federal inmates reported similar increases in methamphetamine use.
Prisoner reports about drug use were collected as part of the BJS "Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities." This survey has been conducted periodically since the 1970s, and in 2004 involved confidential personal interviews with a nationally representative sample of approximately 14,500 state and 3,700 federal prisoners.
Women (17 percent of state inmates, 15 percent of federal inmates) were more likely than men (10 percent of both) to have used methamphetamines in the month before their offense. At least 20 percent of white inmates in state and federal prison used methamphetamine in the month before their offense, compared to 1 percent of black inmates. Among Hispanics, 12 percent of state and 5 percent of federal inmates reported methamphetamine use.
A majority of state inmates (53 percent) and almost half of federal inmates (45 percent) were abusing or were dependent on drugs in the year before their admission to prison. Abuse included repeated drug use in hazardous situations or recurrent occupational, educational, legal or social problems caused by drug use. Dependence criteria included a range of behavioral, cognitive and physiological problems. A national survey conducted in 2002 found 2 percent of U.S. residents to be drug dependent or drug abusing.
Nearly half of violent offenders in state prison (47 percent) met the criteria for recent drug dependence or abuse; more than a quarter (28 percent) committed their current offense while under the influence of drugs, and 10 percent said that the need to get money for drugs was a motive in their crimes.
A majority (56 percent) of state inmates used drugs in the month before the offense in 2004, while a third (32 percent) committed their current offense under the influence of drugs. One in six state inmates committed their current offense to get money for drugs. Marijuana remained the most commonly used drug, with 40 percent reporting use in the month before the offense, followed by cocaine or crack (21 percent), stimulants (12 percent), and heroin and other opiates (8 percent). State prisoner reports of overall drug use in 2004 were almost unchanged since 1997.
Reports of prior drug use by federal prisoners rose on all measures between 1997 and 2004. Among federal inmates, drug use in the month before the offense rose from 45 percent to 50 percent and use at the time of the offense increased from 22 percent to 26 percent. These changes were the result of an increased use of marijuana, methamphetamines and ecstasy.
Participation in drug abuse programs increased among state and federal inmates with recent drug use histories. Among state inmates who used drugs in the month before the offense, 39 percent reported taking part in drug treatment or other drug programs since admission, up from 34 percent in 1997. Forty-five percent of federal inmates had participated in drug treatment or other drug programs in 2004, up from 39 percent in 1997.
Compared to 1997, 63,900 more state prisoners with recent drug use histories reported taking part in some type of drug abuse programs in 2004, an increase of one-third. In federal prisons, the corresponding increase of inmates participating in drug abuse programs was nearly 14,000 -- a 90 percent increase over 1997.
The report, "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004" (NCJ-213530) was written by BJS policy analyst Christopher J. Mumola and BJS statistician Jennifer C. Karberg. Following publication, the report can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/dudsfp04.htm.
For additional information about the Bureau of Justice Statistics statistical reports programs, please visit the BJS website at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.
The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) provides federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist victims. OJP is headed by an Assistant Attorney General and comprises five component bureaus and an office: the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the National Institute of Justice; the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and the Office for Victims of Crime, as well as the Community Capacity Development Office, which incorporates the Weed and Seed strategy and OJP's American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk. More information can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.


Review on mj and memory
http://www.springerlink.com/content/17082241t5020826/fulltext.pdf
Psychopharmacology 188 (4): 425-444, 2006
The acute effects of cannabinoids on memory in humans: a review
Mohini Ranganathan and Deepak Cyril D’Souza

Abstract
Rationale
Cannabis is one of the most frequently used substances. Cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids are known to impair several aspects of cognitive function, with the most robust effects on short-term episodic and working memory in humans. A large body of the work in this area occurred in the 1970s before the discovery of cannabinoid receptors. Recent advances in the knowledge of cannabinoid receptors’ function have rekindled interest in examining effects of exogenous cannabinoids on memory and in understanding the mechanism of these effects.
Objective
The literature about the acute effects of cannabinoids on memory tasks in humans is reviewed. The limitations of the human literature including issues of dose, route of administration, small sample sizes, sample selection, effects of other drug use, tolerance and dependence to cannabinoids, and the timing and sensitivity of psychological tests are discussed. Finally, the human literature is discussed against the backdrop of preclinical findings.
Results
Acute administration of Δ-9-THC transiently impairs immediate and delayed free recall of information presented after, but not before, drug administration in a dose- and delay-dependent manner. In particular, cannabinoids increase intrusion errors. These effects are more robust with the inhaled and intravenous route and correspond to peak drug levels.
Conclusions
This profile of effects suggests that cannabinoids impair all stages of memory including encoding, consolidation, and retrieval. Several mechanisms, including effects on long-term potentiation and long-term depression and the inhibition of neurotransmitter (GABA, glutamate, acetyl choline, dopamine) release, have been implicated in the amnestic effects of cannabinoids. Future research in humans is necessary to characterize the neuroanatomical and neurochemical basis of the memory impairing effects of cannabinoids, to dissect out their effects on the various stages of memory and to bridge the expanding gap between the humans and preclinical literature.


-----------
Dextromethorphan Distribution Act of 2006 (Introduced in House)
HR 5280 IH

109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5280 To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the distribution of the drug dextromethorphan, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 3, 2006 Mr. UPTON (for himself and Mr. LARSEN of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the distribution of the drug dextromethorphan, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Dextromethorphan Distribution Act of 2006'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Dextromethorphan is a safe and effective active ingredient found in cough suppressant products sold over-the-counter in a variety of finished dosage forms, including tablets, gel capsules, powders, and liquids.
(2) The bulk powdered form of dextromethorphan is readily available for purchase through various commercial channels.
(3) Individuals, including teenagers in particular, are attempting to get high by taking much larger than recommended doses of dextromethorphan.
(4) The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration govern the sale of products containing dextromethorphan, the distribution of certain noncontrolled drugs of abuse, and the sale, purchase, trade, and distribution of drug products in general.
(5) One critical step that should be taken to help combat the abuse of dextromethorphan is to strengthen the Federal controls over the distribution of dextromethorphan in bulk.
SEC. 3. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; RESTRICTIONS ON DISTRIBUTION OF UNFINISHED ACTIVE INGREDIENTS.
(a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 503A the following:
`SEC. 503B. RESTRICTIONS ON DISTRIBUTION OF UNFINISHED ACTIVE INGREDIENTS.
`(a) In General- If the Secretary determines that the distribution of an unfinished active ingredient should be restricted for the protection of the public health, the Secretary may by regulation prohibit the distribution of the ingredient to any person other than a person registered under section 510, subject to subsections (b) and (c).
`(b) Further Restrictions- Subsection (a) does not restrict the authority of the Secretary under section 201.122 of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations.
`(c) Dextromethorphan- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the Dextromethorphan Distribution Act of 2006, the Secretary shall issue a final rule under subsection (a) establishing restrictions on the distribution of dextromethorphan.

`(d) Unfinished Active Ingredient- For purposes of this section, the term `unfinished', with respect to an active ingredient, means an active ingredient that--
`(1) is one of the ingredients in a drug that is not in finished dosage form; or
`(2) is the sole ingredient of a drug that is not in finished dosage form.'.
(b) Enforcement- Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(hh) The distribution of an unfinished active ingredient in violation of regulations under section 503B.'.


psilocybin study

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060930/bob8.asp
Science News Online Week of Sept. 30, 2006; Vol. 170, No. 14 Chemical Enlightenment Line up for the scientific, psychedelic mystical tour Bruce Bower
The comfortably furnished room in a corner of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore seems an unlikely setting for spiritual transcendence. Yet one after another, volunteers last year entered the living room–like space, reclined on the couch, swallowed a pill, and opened themselves to a profound mystical journey lasting several hours. For many of them, the mundane certainty of being a skin-bounded person with an individual existence melted away. In its place arose a sense of merging with an ultimate reality where all things exist in a sacred, unified realm. Participants felt intense joy, peacefulness, and love during these experiences. At times, though, some became fearful, dreading unseen dangers.

ALTERED REALITY. Mystical experiences triggered by the drug psilocybin yield lasting, positive changes in people's lives, a new study finds.
iStockphoto

The pills that enabled these mystical excursions contained psilocybin, the active ingredient in so-called magic mushrooms that some societies have used for centuries in religious ceremonies. Psilocybin boosts transmission of the brain chemical serotonin, much as LSD and some other hallucinogenic drugs do.
Johns Hopkins psychopharmacologist Roland R. Griffiths and his colleagues have taken psilocybin out of its traditional context and far from the black-light milieu of its hippie-era heyday. Griffiths' team is investigating the drug's reputed mind-expanding effects in a rigorous, scientific way with ordinary people.
In the group's recent test, psilocybin frequently sparked temporary mystical makeovers in volunteers who didn't know what kind of pill they were taking. What's more, some of these participants reported long-lasting positive effects of their experiences.
As a control in the test, the researchers used methylphenidate—an amphetamine known as Ritalin when used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Methylphenidate rarely produced a mystical experience, although the researchers were intrigued that a few people did have that response.
Griffiths' study, published in the August Psychopharmacology, combines research on psychedelic-drug effects—which have received little attention in the past 40 years—with a burgeoning scientific interest in the roots of spirituality (SN: 2/17/01, p. 104: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010217/bob7.asp). The new findings put psychedelic studies on the road back to respectability, Griffiths says. In the 1950s and 1960s, preliminary research had suggested that LSD and related substances—now regarded as powerful but nonaddictive drugs—aided in psychotherapy, addiction treatment, and creativity-promoting programs.
However, the excesses of researchers such as the late Harvard University psychologist Timothy Leary, as well as widespread illicit use of psychedelic drugs, led to legal restrictions that halted most psychedelic research.
Now, the scientific and clinical promise of drugs such as psilocybin can be fully explored, in Griffiths' view. "With careful preparation, you can safely and fairly reliably occasion a mystical experience using psilocybin that may lead to positive changes in a person," he says. "Our finding is an early step in what we hope will be scientific work that helps people."

Spirit trips
Griffiths' recent work was inspired by an unusual 1963 investigation conducted by physician and minister Walter Pahnke. Half of 20 Protestant seminarians randomly received psilocybin before listening to a radio broadcast of a Good Friday service. The rest took a B vitamin that caused the skin to flush.
After the service, many members of the psilocybin group reported unusual spiritual experiences. Four of them had full-blown mystical reactions, which they said included ecstatic visions and a feeling of oneness with God.
In interviews conducted 6 months and 25 years later, members of the psilocybin group attributed many more positive changes in attitude and behavior to the Good Friday service than vitamin takers did. Psilocybin-induced mental states had apparently triggered lasting improvements in people's lives, researchers concluded.
During Pahnke's study, however, participants sat together during the broadcast and could easily tell whether others were acting out of character. Such observations could have affected their reactions to what they had ingested. Griffiths' team tried to minimize the power of expectation by not telling most participants which drug they were taking and by administering pills to one volunteer at a time.
The team recruited 36 physically healthy adults, ages 24 to 64, who had no serious mental disorders themselves or in their immediate families. All but one volunteer had graduated from college. None cited any previous use of psychedelic drugs. Each reported at least occasional participation in religious or spiritual activities, including church services, prayer, and meditation.
At the start of the study, each volunteer met several times with a psychologist or social worker, who later sat with participants during drug sessions and offered support if needed.
Each of 30 randomly selected volunteers attended two 8-hour drug sessions, the second occurring 2 months after the first. At one session they received a strong dose of psilocybin and at the other a high dose of methylphenidate. No participant was told which drug he or she ingested—only that it might be either of the two substances.
The remaining six participants received methylphenidate at the two sessions without being told what the pills contained. At a third session, they took psilocybin pills after being told what was in the tablets.
After taking psilocybin, 22 of the 36 volunteers described having mystical experiences, the scientists say. All but three of these cases occurred in volunteers who didn't know what kind of pill they were taking. Mystical events typically included a sense of merging with an overarching reality, perceiving unity in all things, transcending time and space, and basking in overwhelming feelings of love and other positive moods.
At the end of psilocybin sessions, 25 participants—including 3 who hadn't reported mystical encounters—rated the experience as among the five most meaningful and spiritually significant events in their lives.
After taking methylphenidate, four volunteers reported mystical experiences as well. They, too, ranked the experience among the top five in their lives.
Feelings of extreme fear or dread emerged in 11 of the 36 volunteers after taking psilocybin and in none after taking methylphenidate. Those who encountered negative reactions nonetheless completed the sessions with assistance from the psychologist or social worker.
Positive effects of psilocybin seemed to last beyond the sessions. Two months after their last drug session, 29 participants reported moderately or greatly increased well-being and satisfaction with their lives as a result of psilocybin experiences. The others cited no such changes, but none described any declines in well-being in response to the psilocybin use.
Interviews with family members, friends, and coworkers of each volunteer confirmed the reports of long-lived improvements in mood, attitudes, and behavior.
The researchers are now analyzing results of a 1-year follow-up of participants.
Griffiths also plans to explore how brain processes unleashed by psilocybin compare with neural activity in people who experience drug free spiritual epiphanies. "There's good reason to believe that similar brain mechanisms are at work during profound religious experiences, whether they're produced by fasting, meditation, controlled breathing, sleep deprivation, near-death experiences, infectious disease states, or psychoactive substances," he says.

Deep hypnosis Although it's not news that psilocybin stimulates mystical experiences, Griffiths' study offers important improvements over earlier studies, asserts psychologist Etzel Cardeña of the University of Lund, Sweden. First, in most instances, neither the participants nor those assisting them knew which drug was being administered. This approach enabled researchers to distinguish genuine drug effects from placebo reactions. Second, the researchers verified participants' reports of psilocybin-induced improvements by talking to their families, friends, and coworkers.
Cardeña studies yet another way that people enter life-changing spiritual realms. Some folks spontaneously undergo mystical experiences during periods of "deep hypnosis," he contends.
From a group of 147 college students, Cardeña identified eight women and four men who entered trance states with ease. Dubbed hypnotic virtuosos by Cardeña, such individuals can direct their thoughts inward and, in no more than a minute or two, become hypnotized on their own. None of the 12 students in the study reported being in a meditation program or currently using psychedelic drugs, although 3 had ingested such substances years ago.
In a silent, dimly lit room, each participant induced a self-hypnotic state under three conditions—while lying on a bed, pedaling a stationary bicycle at a comfortable rate, and sitting on a stationary bicycle equipped with a motor that propelled the pedals, moving participants' feet at a moderate rate. Sessions ran for 17 minutes.
Participants reported an initial period of moderate hypnosis characterized by spinning sensations, a feeling of lightness, loss of touch with the external world, and perceived bodily changes, such as enlarged hands.
They then reached a state of deep hypnosis, which became more intense when the students were lying still, Cardeña says. The experiences while in deep hypnosis closely resembled mystical journeys taken in Griffiths' psilocybin sessions. Reports included a sense of floating or flying, of one's mind leaving one's body, of merging with a light, and of being one with everything, as well as powerful feelings of love, wonder, and freedom.
In another parallel to Griffiths' findings, participants occasionally noted that the unusual occurrences of deep hypnosis scared them.
Still, at the end of the experiment and 8 months later, the volunteers mentioned only positive effects of the deep hypnosis, Cardeña reported in the January 2005 International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. Favorable results included increased personal insight, fewer nightmares, and enhanced inner peace. In other words, these people enjoyed the inner benefits of a self-induced mystical encounter without ingesting any mind-altering drugs.
"It's about time that psychology and related fields started taking seriously mystical and other anomalous experiences," Cardeña says.

Life changers In 1935, a man named Bill Wilson cofounded Alcoholics Anonymous. He had recently undergone a self-described spiritual revelation that caused him to stop drinking alcohol. Two decades later, before legal restrictions largely ended studies on psychedelic drugs, Wilson backed research that suggested a use for drug-induced mystical experiences as part of alcoholism treatment.
Griffiths and his colleagues now plan to follow up on that research. They will try to determine whether psilocybin indeed fosters a spiritual insight that people can use to break alcoholism's grip. They also want to examine whether psilocybin sessions ease depression and anxiety in end-stage cancer patients.
A few treatment-focused investigations of psilocybin are already under way. In pairs of 6-hour sessions separated by 1 month, psychiatrist Charles Grob of the University of California, Los Angeles administers either psilocybin or placebo pills to patients with life-threatening cancer. Patients then typically lie still with their eyes covered while listening to relaxing music. Grob and two assistants sit with each patient during these sessions.
Grob has studied six patients so far, tracking them for 6 months after completing the sessions. He plans to investigate six more patients before publishing his findings.
"Even without having a classic mystical experience, these patients do pretty well after psilocybin sessions, and their anxiety often decreases," Grob says.
Another study, directed by psychiatrist Francisco Moreno of the University of Arizona in Tucson, is examining psilocybin as a treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder. This condition is marked by anxiety and a need to perform repeatedly certain behaviors, such as hand washing. Results are promising, Moreno says, although he won't discuss the findings in detail until their upcoming publication in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
In the meantime, Griffiths' paper has attracted some surprising supporters. Psychiatrist Charles R. Schuster of Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit says that the new investigation will hasten explorations of the neural basis of drug-induced altered states of consciousness. Schuster, the former director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, calls the treatment of drug addiction with psychedelic substances "entirely conceivable."
Psychiatrist Herbert D. Kleber of Columbia University in New York City agrees. Former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Kleber cautions that only well-prepared individuals—such as those in Griffiths' study—are likely to reap lasting benefits from drug-related mystical states.
Kleber looks forward to investigations of whether mystical experiences triggered by methylphenidate and psilocybin activate the same brain regions. Activity in the brains of people who show minimal reactions to psilocybin should also prove intriguing, he says.
Not everyone finds Griffiths' study enlightening, however. The new data simply confirm the longstanding knowledge that psychedelic substances disturb perception, cause disorientation, and sometimes instigate fear and paranoia, remarks David Murray, special assistant to the current director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Clinical benefits of psilocybin have yet to be demonstrated, he asserts.
"Psilocybin might grow hair on bald men—we just don't know," Murray says with a chuckle.
Even ardent proponents of psychedelic-drug research acknowledge that, after lying dormant for decades, the field faces many unanswered questions. It's been a long, strange trip, and it's far from over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a comment on this article that you would like considered for publication in Science News, send it to editors@sciencenews.org. Please include your name and location.


References:
Cardeña, E. 2005. The phenomenology of deep hypnosis: Quiescent and physically active. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 53(January):37-59. Abstract available at http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/link.asp?
id=ta2j5ayye2l3109p.
Griffiths, R.R., et al. 2006. Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance. Psychopharmacology 187(August):268-283. Abstract available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-006-0457-5.
Kleber, H.D. 2006. Commentary on: Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance by Griffiths, et al. Psychopharmacology 187(August):291-292.
Schuster, C.R. 2006. Commentary on: Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance by Griffiths, et al. Psychopharmacology 187(August):289-290.

Further Readings:
Bower, B. 2001. Into the mystic. Science News 159(Feb. 17):104-106. Available at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010217/bob7.asp.
Strassman, R. 2001. DMT: The Spirit Molecule—A Doctor's Revolutionary Research into the Biology of Near-Death and Mystical Experiences. Rochester, N.Y.: Park Street Press.

Sources:
Etzel Cardeña Department of Psychology University of Lund P.O. Box 213 SE-221 00 Lund Sweden
Roland R. Griffiths Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 5510 Nathan Shock Drive Baltimore, MD 21224-6823
Charles S. Grob University of California, Los Angeles Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences 1000 West Carson Street Los Angeles, CA 90095-1768
Herbert D. Kleber Division on Substance Abuse New York State Psychiatric Institute 1051 Riverside Drive Unit 66, Room 3713 New York, NY 10032
Francisco Moreno University of Arizona Department of Psychiatry 1501 North Campbell Avenue P.O. Box 245002 Tucson, AZ 85724-5002
David Murray Office of National Drug Control Policy Executive Office of the President Washington, DC 20503
Charles R. Schuster Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience Wayne State University School of Medicine Detroit, MI 48207


From Science News, Vol. 170, No. 14, Sept. 30, 2006, p. 216.


Salvia recreational use

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL%26_udi=B6T63-4K18VRS-1%26_coverDate=11%252F08%252F2006%26_alid=458515207%26_rdoc=1%26_fmt=%26_orig=search%26_qd=1%26_cdi=5019%26_sort=d%26view=c%26_acct=C000046147%26_version=1%26_urlVersion=0%26_userid=861681%26md5=897576f2c57d072ed7df1c009552d11d

Pattern of use and subjective effects of Salvia divinorum among recreational users
Débora González, Jordi Riba, José Carlos Bouso, Gregorio Gómez-Jarabo and Manel J. Barbanoj
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Abstract
Background Salvia divinorum is a member of the Lamiaceae family and contains the psychotropic diterpene and kappa-opioid receptor agonist salvinorin-A. Originally a shamanic inebriant used by the Mexican Mazatec Indians, the plant and its preparations are becoming increasingly popular among non-traditional users.
Methods Demographic data and information on pattern of use and subjective effects were obtained by means of self-report questionnaires from a sample of 32 recreational users of salvia and other psychedelics.
Results Involvement with salvia appeared to be a recent phenomenon. Smoking the extract was the preferred form of administration. Subjective effects were described as intense but short-lived, appearing in less than 1 min and lasting 15 min or less. They included psychedelic-like changes in visual perception, mood and somatic sensations, and importantly, a highly modified perception of external reality and the self, leading to a decreased ability to interact with oneself or with one's surroundings.
Conclusions Although some aspects of the subjective effects reported were similar to high doses of classical psychedelics with serotonin-2A receptor agonist activity, the intense derealization and impairment reported appear to be a characteristic of salvia. The observed simultaneous high scores on the LSD and PCAG subscales of the Addiction Research Center Inventory (ARCI) have been previously reported for other kappa-opioid agonists, and support kappa receptor activation as the probable pharmacologic mechanism underlying the modified state of awareness induced by salvia.



Kansas drug testing

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/09/13/schools.drug.tests.ap/index.html
Kansas school district steps up student drug testing September 14, 2006
EL DORADO, Kansas (AP) -- Random drug testing of student athletes has become as routine as study hall and lunch at many high schools across the country. But this factory town outside Wichita is taking testing to the extreme.
It is instituting random drug screening for all middle and high school students participating in -- or even just attending -- any extracurricular activity. That includes sports, clubs, field trips, driver's education, even school plays.
Those who don't sign consent forms cannot attend games, go to school dances, join a club or so much as park their car on school property.
Administrators insist the district does not have a drug problem, and say the new policy -- one of the toughest in the nation -- is aimed at keeping it that way.
"We see this in the best interest of our students. We don't see this is a punitive measure," said Superintendent Tom Biggs.
Since the policy was enacted this school year, at least 425 students out of 600 high schoolers, and 215 of the 315 middle school students, have signed forms consenting to random urine tests for alcohol, tobacco and drugs. No one has been tested yet, and school officials don't want to tip off students about when the first random drug test will be conducted.
Brett Shirk, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri, questioned the constitutionality of the practice.
"That policy invades the privacy of students that need deterrence and risks steering those students to a greater risk of substance abuse that makes the drug problems worse," Shirk said. Some authorities said that excluding students from extracurricular activities will just lead them into deeper trouble.
Some students, including 17-year-old Aurelia Resa, said they are offended by the policy. "What you do outside of school isn't anybody's business but yours," Resa said. "They should be able to respect your privacy."
But 16-year-old softball player Lauren Roedel said: "I don't have a problem with it, because I don't do drugs."
A 2002 Supreme Court ruling opened the door to drug-testing of athletes, and the federal government has promoted drug testing, awarding $7.5 million in grants last year to help schools start such programs.
The White House drug-policy office estimates 2,000 public and private districts conduct drug tests. The National School Boards Association has reported that 5 percent of public school districts test athletes and 2 percent test students involved in extracurricular activities.
"It is really a rural and suburban policy issue. Almost no major school districts have implemented random drug testing programs in major cities and urban areas," said Jennifer Kern, a researcher for the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, which promotes non-criminal alternatives in fighting drugs.
School officials in El Dorado, a town of 12,660 where the biggest employers are a refinery and a balloon factory, say that under the new policy, covering grades 7 to 12, positive test results will not be reported to police and will not affect a student's academic participation.
But parents will be notified, and offenders will be suspended from extracurricular activities, the penalty escalating from two weeks to more than four months for repeat violations.
Rod Bieker, general counsel for the Kansas Department of Education, said of El Dorado's all-encompassing policy: "No one is going to know whether that is constitutional or not."
In 1999, a federal court struck down a school policy in Lockney, Texas, that required drug testing of all youngsters in grades 6 through 12, whether or not there was any suspicion of drug use.
Dave Adams, the father of a 17-year-old student at El Dorado High and a city police officer, said the district's previous rules about drugs and alcohol were weak and tolerated bad behavior.
"I think all too often we want to let things slide because we put winning before anything else," Adams said. "At this age level we need to be teaching fundamentals -- good sportsmanship and good citizenship."
Pam Coley, who has 14- and 16-year-old daughters at the school, said drug testing is "no big deal" and most parents in the community support it.
"There probably has been way too much leniency in the past and things kind of swing one way or the other," she said. "El Dorado is a fairly conservative community, and Kansas is, too."




Canada guidance on abuse liability assessment
Draft Guidance from Health Canada on assessment of abuse liability of drugs:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/prodpharma/abuse_liability_abusif_usage_clin_e.pdf
March 21, 2006
NOTICE Our file number: 06-105879-135
Release of Draft Guidance Document: Guidance for Industry - Clinical Assessment of Abuse Liability for Drugs with Central Nervous System Activity
The above referenced draft guidance was released by Health Canada for consultation and is being posted on the website for information and comment.
It is also important to note that amendments to draft documents may occur as a result of regulatory consultations and subsequent deliberations within Health Canada.
Comments or questions concerning this draft guidance should be directed, within 6 months of posting of this Notice, to:
Office of Science, Therapeutic Products Directorate E-mail: colette_strnad@hc-sc.gc.ca Phone: (613) 941-3693 Fax: (613) 941-5035


MDMA, caffeine and pain

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL%26_udi=B6SYR-4KJDX1G-4%26_coverDate=09%252F21%252F2006%26_alid=446222939%26_rdoc=1%26_fmt=%26_orig=search%26_qd=1%26_cdi=4841%26_sort=d%26view=c%26_acct=C000046147%26_version=1%26_urlVersion=0%26_userid=861681%26md5=9225d461e8da7298fca9fa0efba7243e

Brain Research Volume 1111, Issue 1 , 21 September 2006, Pages 72-82
Association of caffeine to MDMA does not increase antinociception but potentiates adverse effects of this recreational drug
Jordi Camarasa, David Pubill, and Elena Escubedo

Abstract
Ecstasy (MDMA) street tablets often contain several other compounds in addition to MDMA, particularly caffeine. Then, it becomes necessary to study the consequences of caffeine plus MDMA combination.
MDMA (1 mg/kg) elicited an analgesic response both at the spinal and supraspinal levels. However, when associated, MDMA and caffeine did not show any synergistic interaction.
When caffeine was administered prior to MDMA, a potentiation of locomotor activity was observed, which consisted in an increase in maximal values and in a prolonged time of activity.
In the neurotoxicity studies, a hyperthermic effect of MDMA was observed. Although caffeine alone failed to alter body temperature, it potentiated MDMA-induced hyperthermia. This association also significantly increased MDMA lethality (from 22% to 34%).
Following administration of MDMA to rats, there was a persistent decrease in the number of serotonin transporter sites in the cortex, striatum and hippocampus, which was potentiated by caffeine co-treatment.
This MDMA toxicity in rats was accompanied by a transient dopaminergic impairment in the striatum, measured as decreased [3H]WIN35428 binding sites, by 31% 3 days after treatment, which was not modified by caffeine.
A transient down-regulation of 5-HT2 receptors occurred in the cortex of MDMA-treated rats, whose recovery was slowed by co-treatment with caffeine.
In conclusion, the association of MDMA with caffeine does not generate any beneficial effects at the antinociceptive level. The acute effects stemming from this association, in tandem with the final potentiation of serotonergic terminals injury, provide evidence of the potentially greater long-term adverse effects of this particular recreational drug combination.


DEA doc list
("I've got a little list. Nobody will be missed" - The Mikado)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601756.html?sub=AR
"In addition to publishing its new policy statement and rulemaking yesterday, the DEA began posting extensive information on its Web site about doctors who have been arrested and prosecuted for their prescribing practices. Tandy said that she hopes doctors will review the cases so they will see that only "egregious" offenders are being prosecuted."

Here is that fact sheet:
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/crim_admin_actions/index.html

And their list of criminal cases against docs:
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/crim_admin_actions/crim_actions.htm




reward or withdrawal?

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/36/9080
The Journal of Neuroscience, September 6, 2006, 26(36):9080-9081
Heroin Addiction: Anticipating the Reward of Heroin or the Agony of Withdrawal? Magalie Lenoir and Ronald Keiflin

Review of Kenny et al. (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/22/5894)
What drives compulsive drug use and relapse in addicts is still controversial (Robinson and Berridge, 2003). According to positive-reinforcement theories of drug addiction, the compulsion to take drugs results from an increase in the rewarding or incentive effects of drugs of abuse with chronic exposure, attributable to sensitization and/or associative conditioning. In contrast, according to negative-reinforcement theories, addicts are compelled to take drugs to avoid the unconditioned and/or conditioned negative affective consequences of drug withdrawal. The recent article by Kenny et al. (2006) in the Journal of Neuroscience provides strong support for the latter explanation by showing that withdrawal-induced decrease in brain reward drives compulsive heroin use.
Brain reward was probed using intracerebral self-stimulation in nondependent rats with stable/moderate heroin use (access to heroin limited to 1 h/d) and in dependent rats with escalating/compulsive heroin use (unlimited access to heroin). A stimulating electrode was placed in the lateral hypothalamus, a region at the heart of the brain reward system. After recovery, animals were allowed to self-stimulate this region by turning a wheel. After stabilization of the self-stimulation behavior, the intensity of the electrical stimulation was varied using the method of limits. This method allows the detection of the minimum current intensity that maintains self-stimulation. This reward threshold is an operational measure of the activity of the reward system (Kornetsky and Esposito, 1979).
In rats with daily restricted access to heroin, reward thresholds were stable across days [Kenny et al. (2006), their Fig. 1C (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/22/5894/F1)]. Thus, mere heroin exposure, even during several weeks, was not sufficient to alter brain reward. In contrast, in rats with prolonged access to heroin, reward thresholds gradually increased, probably because of a temporal summation of withdrawal effects [Kenny et al. (2006), their Fig. 1D (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/22/5894/F1)]. This elevation in reward thresholds paralleled the escalation of heroin intake [Kenny et al. (2006), their Fig. 1A (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/22/5894/F1)]. These observations confirm previous findings in rats with escalating cocaine use (Ahmed et al., 2002) and suggest that a withdrawal-induced decrease in reward function drives compulsive heroin use.
To assess the impact of conditioned withdrawal on heroin consumption, withdrawal was repeatedly precipitated by naloxone, a competitive µ-opioid receptor antagonist, and conditioned to a tone plus a light. As expected, in rats with restricted access to heroin, naloxone blocked heroin action on its receptors, thereby inducing a compensatory increase in heroin intake. In contrast, in heroin-dependent rats, naloxone not only blocked heroin action but also further decreased brain reward, as measured by an acute elevation in self-stimulation threshold above the already altered baseline [Kenny et al. (2006), their Fig. 3C (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/22/5894/F3)]. This decrease in reward was associated with a more pronounced increase in heroin consumption compared with nondependent rats [Kenny et al. (2006), their Fig. 2 (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/22/5894/F3)]. After conditioning, exposure to the tone-plus-light stimuli alone evoked effects similar to naloxone in dependent animals: they decreased reward activity and increased heroin self-administration (Fig. 1). These stimuli remained neutral in controls. These results clearly show that the shift to heroin dependence is associated not only with a quantitative change in heroin consumption, but also with a qualitative change in the motivation underlying heroin use, now driven by the anticipation of withdrawal.
View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window] Figure 1. Conditioned withdrawal drives heroin intake by decreasing brain reward activity in dependent animals only. Conditioned withdrawal was induced by the presentation of stimuli (tone plus light) previously paired with naloxone. In nondependent rats, naloxone-paired stimuli had no effect on brain reward thresholds or on heroin self-administration. In heroin-dependent rats, naloxone-paired stimuli produced an acute reward deficit that was associated with an increase in heroin consumption.

This study raises several questions for future research. First, the mechanisms underlying the motivational effects of conditioned withdrawal are not entirely clear. According to the authors, withdrawal-paired stimuli acquired motivational significance because dependent animals learned to anticipate withdrawal by taking more heroin. To fully demonstrate this point, however, it is necessary to test animals that have unlimited access to heroin but are prevented from taking heroin during naloxone conditioning. If the authors are correct, naloxone-paired stimuli alone should induce an acute decrease in brain reward, without increasing heroin consumption. This outcome will indicate that decreased reward function has no motivational power in itself; to acquire this power, dependent animals must learn that taking heroin alleviates the reward deficit. Second, the persistence of the motivational effects of conditioned withdrawal was not examined. Historically, conditioned withdrawal was proposed to account for relapses after protracted abstinence, when abstinent addicts no longer show signs of unconditioned withdrawal (Wikler, 1973). Future research should determine whether brain reward function eventually returns to normal after a prolonged period of abstinence and whether withdrawal-paired stimuli conserve motivational impact on heroin seeking in recovered addicts. Third, during conditioning, the onset of withdrawal was precipitated in an unnatural manner by rapidly blocking µ-opioid receptor using naloxone. In human addicts, heroin withdrawal is generally much slower, more gradual, and less predictable than naloxone-precipitated withdrawal in rats. The slow and gradual onset of withdrawal may reduce the likelihood of association with a specific set of environmental stimuli. Thus, it will be interesting to determine whether the authors' conclusions apply to naturally occurring drug withdrawal. Finally, it is important to recall that drug-paired stimuli (e.g., paraphernalia in human addicts) can also induce conditioned withdrawal responses in human addicts (Wikler, 1973). It would be of great interest to determine whether these stimuli alone can decrease reward function in drug-dependent individuals, as do withdrawal-paired stimuli. This issue is critical, because drug-associated stimuli are probably more prevalent than withdrawal-paired cues in human addiction.
In summary, Kenny et al. (2006) provide evidence for a profound change in the motivation underlying heroin use that may be relevant to the transition to addiction in humans. The results predict that in controlled heroin users, heroin consumption would be essentially motivated by memories of the positive rewarding effects of the drug. In dependent users, however, the motivation to use heroin would be strengthened by additional memories of the negative affective consequences of withdrawal. It remains to be established whether these memories are sufficiently persistent to explain the long-lasting vulnerability to relapse in apparently recovered addicts.
Received July 1, 2006; revised July 25, 2006; accepted July 25, 2006.
Correspondence should be addressed to Ronald Keiflin, Laboratoire de Neuropsychobiologie, Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 5541, 146 rue Léo-Saignat, 33076 Bordeaux, France. Email: ronald.keiflin@etud.u-bordeaux2.fr
DOI:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2808-06.2006
Copyright © 2006 Society for Neuroscience 0270-6474/06/259080-02$15.00/0
References

Ahmed SH, Kenny PJ, Koob GF, Markou A (2002) Neurobiological evidence for hedonic allostasis associated with escalating cocaine use. Nat Neurosci 5:625–626.[ISI][Medline]
Kenny PJ, Chen SA, Kitamura O, Markou A, Koob GF (2006) Conditioned withdrawal drives heroin consumption and decreases reward sensitivity. J Neurosci 26:5894–5900.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Kornetsky C, Esposito RU (1979) Euphorigenic drugs: effects on the reward pathways of the brain. Fed Proc 38: pp. 2473–2476.
Robinson TE, Berridge KC (2003) Addiction. Annu Rev Psychol 54:25–53.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
Wikler A (1973) Dynamics of drug dependence. Implications of a conditioning theory for research and treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 28:611–616.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

Related articles in J. Neurosci.:

Conditioned Withdrawal Drives Heroin Consumption and Decreases Reward Sensitivity Paul J. Kenny, Scott A. Chen, Osamu Kitamura, Athina Markou, and George F. Koob J. Neurosci. 2006 26: 5894-5900. [Abstract] [Full Text]



Racial correlates in arrests for mj

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL%26_udi=B6T63-4JN2NVP-1%26_coverDate=10%252F01%252F2006%26_alid=442095853%26_rdoc=1%26_fmt=%26_orig=search%26_qd=1%26_cdi=5019%26_sort=d%26view=c%26_acct=C000046147%26_version=1%26_urlVersion=0%26_userid=861681%26md5=7abcd515d5d297af29d09c212cead541
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Volume 84, Issue 3 , 1 October 2006, Pages 264-272
Racial differences in marijuana-users’ risk of arrest in the United States
Rajeev Ramchand, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, and Martin Y Iguchi Johns Hopkins University and RAND Drug Policy Research Center
Abstract
A recent study of arrest data show that African Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession offences than Whites, even though general prevalence estimates show that they are no more likely to be using.
The current study investigates the purchase patterns of marijuana users from the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to evaluate whether differences in purchasing behaviors exist across racial groups.
Although in general people who purchase marijuana are more likely to buy in private settings and from someone they know, this analysis shows that African Americans are statistically more likely to engage in risky purchasing behaviors that increase their likelihood of arrest.
Using trivariate probit regression with demographic, drug use, and drug market covariates, analyses reveal that African Americans are nearly twice as likely to buy outdoors (0.31 versus 0.14), three times more likely to buy from a stranger (0.30 versus 0.09), and significantly more likely to buy away from their homes (0.61 versus 0.48).
These results provide an additional explanation for the differential in arrest rates between African Americans and Whites.




Naltrexone potentiates ketamine
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n8/full/1300994a.html
Neuropsychopharmacology (2006) 31, 1793–1800
Potentiation of Low Dose Ketamine Effects by Naltrexone: Potential Implications for the Pharmacotherapy of Alcoholism
John H Krystal et al. at Yale

ABSTRACT
The interplay of opiate and NMDA glutamate receptors may contribute to psychosis, cognitive function, alcoholism, and substance dependence. Ketamine and ethanol block the NMDA glutamate receptor.
The purpose of this randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled human laboratory study was to evaluate whether the interactive effects of drugs acting at opiate and NMDA glutamate receptors might partially explain the efficacy of naltrexone for the treatment of alcoholism, that is, whether naltrexone 25 mg pretreatment would modulate ketamine effects in healthy human subjects.
Two groups of healthy subjects were studied. An initial group (n=31) received a perception-altering subanesthetic dose of ketamine (bolus of 0.23 mg/kg over 1 min followed by a 60-min infusion of 0.58 mg/kg or saline bolus and infusion). A second group (n=24) completed the same testing procedures, but received a subperceptual ketamine dose (bolus 0.081 mg/kg over 10 min followed by an infusion of 0.4 mg/kg/h).
Ketamine produced positive symptoms, negative symptoms, emotional discomfort, and cognitive effects as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) in a dose-related fashion. The lower ketamine dose produced subjective effects similar to two standard ethanol drinks, whereas the higher ketamine dose produced effects similar to five standard drinks.
Although naltrexone produced no significant behavioral effects, it significantly magnified the increase in the total PANSS score produced by the lower subperceptual dose of ketamine, but not the higher perception-altering dose of ketamine.
These data suggest that the interplay of opiate receptor antagonism and NMDA receptor antagonism may be relevant to the protective effects of naltrexone on alcohol consumption via potentiation of dysphoric effects associated with the NMDA receptor antagonist effects of ethanol.
However, these data suggest that at levels of NMDA receptor antagonism associated with heavy drinking, this protective effect of naltrexone on drinking is no longer present.



nicotine receptor regulation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201361.html?sub=AR
Wednesday, August 23, 2006; Page A05
Nicotine Receptors Studied
Smoking may rewire people's brains in a way that makes it difficult to quit, a study says.
Smokers who stopped for seven days still had a much higher number of nicotine receptors in their brain than nonsmokers, a surprising finding to researchers who said that past studies in animals had shown a much quicker drop-off in the receptors.
The study suggests that many smokers may need stronger doses of nicotine in replacement patches, gums and sprays to "keep all the nicotine receptors occupied in the short term before weaning off to lower doses," said Julie Staley, a Yale University School of Medicine psychiatrist who led the study.
"There's evidence that replacement therapy only works for some people, maybe about half of those who try it," Staley said in an interview.
The research will be published today in the Journal of Neuroscience.
Brain scans of 16 smokers who gave up cigarettes for four to nine days showed nicotine receptor levels that were 26 to 36 percent higher than brains scans of 16 nonsmokers of similar age and sex, the study said.



No Drugs Down the Drain campaign:

http://www.nodrugsdownthedrain.com/
which states:
"Disposing of unused, unwanted, and expired medications. Once it was common practice to flush these medications (also known as pharmaceuticals) down the toilet. Your doctor or pharmacist may have directed you to do this. We now know that these substances are bad for our environment - the ground, water, and air around us."
Instead, they recommend taking it to a houshold hazardous waste center. However, they do note that:
"It is illegal for household hazardous waste centers to accept controlled substances...."
So instead, they recommend that you "treat" the drugs with water, salt, ashes and/or dirt, then securely wrap them with duct tape and put them in a trashcan for disposal in your regular weekly trash.
-----
Apparently, however, drugs can sometimes get down the drain anyway:
http://www.placebojournal.com/shopcontent.asp?type=NarcoticMystery




DEA museum

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101524.html
Drug-Terror Connection Disputed DEA Defends Traveling Exhibit as Critics Draw Parallels to Prohibition Era
By Kari Lydersen Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, August 12, 2006; A03

A photograph of President Bush waving a flag after the Sept. 11 attacks is juxtaposed against a black-and-white image of an African American mother smoking crack cocaine in bed next to her baby. Larger-than-life portraits of Osama bin Laden and Pablo Escobar line the walls. The central message of a traveling Drug Enforcement Administration exhibit unveiled at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry yesterday is that terrorism and drugs are inextricably linked.
But advocates of legalization who are leafleting outside the exhibit say the DEA is leaving out an important part of the story. Critics agree that drug trafficking provides a potentially lucrative revenue stream for terrorist organizations. But they say the profit is actually fueled by the government's war on drugs, which creates a situation akin to prohibition of alcohol.
"If we taxed and regulated drugs, terrorists wouldn't have drugs as a source of profit," said Tom Angell of the nonprofit Students for Sensible Drug Policy, which focuses on restoring financial aid for college students with drug convictions.
"With the connection to Prohibition in Chicago we should know better," said Pete Guither, a professor of theater management at Illinois State University and founder of the blog DrugWarRant.com.
DEA spokesman Steve Robertson responded: "We're a law enforcement agency -- we enforce the laws as they are written. Congress makes the laws. People say if we didn't have [drug] laws there wouldn't be a problem, but there was a problem before and that's why laws were established."
Jeanne Barr, a history teacher at a private Chicago high school, plans to distribute fliers and bring her students to study the exhibit, titled "Target America: Opening Eyes to the Damage Drugs Cause."
"We'll look for possible omissions and oversimplifications," she said. "They don't pin any blame on the prohibition of drugs. But from my understanding of history, the major source of the black market is prohibition. I don't think there's any difference between alcohol prohibition and what we're looking at today."
Critics of the DEA exhibit also question its linking of drugs to al-Qaeda. Another Web site with which Guither is affiliated, https://webmail.hhs.gov/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.deatargetsamerica.com/ , quotes the Sept. 11 commission report as finding that "there is no reliable evidence that Bin Ladin was involved in or made his money through drug trafficking."
The 2001 attacks are clearly the centerpiece of the exhibit, with a display of rubble and artifacts from Ground Zero under a banner reading "Traffickers, Terrorists and You."
"For al-Qaeda it's hard" to prove a link, said DEA public affairs chief Garrison Courtney. "I don't think we're saying 9/11 was caused by drug financing. But we're saying there is a link between drugs and terror, and September 11 is a poignant example of terrorism. Terrorists don't hold bake sales to raise money."
The exhibit includes a list of organizations designated as terrorist by the State Department, with the explanation that "nearly 50 percent" of them get funds through drug trafficking. There is a replica of a heroin-processing lab in Afghanistan and references to heroin production funding the Taliban.
But it does not mention that the Taliban publicly opposed heroin production, though federal prosecutors allege that Baz Mohammed, a recently convicted Afghan drug kingpin, had ties to al-Qaeda; that the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported in 2003 that production of opium poppies in Afghanistan rose dramatically after the Taliban was overthrown; or that a top U.S. anti-drug official recently acknowledged allies' doubts about the effectiveness of poppy eradication in Afghanistan, where poor farmers have few options on crops.
"The Taliban said they had a moratorium on the production of opium poppies, but they were taxing the farmers who were doing it anyway," said DEA agent David Lorino, who was in Afghanistan.
The exhibit says the 2004 Madrid train bombing involved a hashish-for-explosives swap, and that in 2002 federal agents foiled two plans to trade heroin and hashish for Stinger antiaircraft missiles that suspects planned to sell to al-Qaeda and a Colombian paramilitary organization. The exhibit features Colombian and Peruvian guerrilla forces financed by cocaine.
The exhibit opened in Dallas on Sept. 11, 2003, and has been shown in New York, Omaha and Detroit. It was brought to Chicago at the request of Mayor Richard M. Daley (D), who blamed drugs for "80 percent of the crime factor in our city" in his remarks when the exhibit opened.
The Chicago component of the exhibit highlights terror caused by local gangs involved with drugs. DEA spokesman Robertson also took a broader view of terrorism and drugs.
"Terrorists' goal is to tear down current societies and governments and offer something else," he said. "Drug abuse degrades societies from within because of the effect on society, on users and on health services. Drug trafficking is a way to degrade societies, which helps terrorists in their goal."