Pubdate: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 Source: Daily Lobo (U of NM, Edu, NM) Copyright: 2004 Daily Lobo Contact: http://www.dailylobo.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/766 Author: Kevin Killough, Daily Lobo guest columnist Cited: Drug Enforcement Administration http://www.dea.gov Cited: Students for Sensible Drug Policy http://www.ssdp.org Cited: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition http://www.leap.cc Cited: Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org Cited: Drug Policy Alliance http://www.drugpolicy.org Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) DEA UNWILLING TO DEBATE DRUG POLICY The Drug Enforcement Administration won't hesitate to throw doctors into prison for humanely prescribing opiates to patients in severe chronic pain. The DEA will seize property from everyday citizens without ever charging them with a crime. And the DEA sees nothing wrong with trampling on democracy when California voters approve the medical use of marijuana. But ask DEA agents to discuss the pros and cons of America's drug policy in a public debate, and they run off with their tails between their legs. Such was the case last week when the UNM chapter of Students for a Sensible Drug Policy organized a drug-policy debate in the Student Union Building. Drug war opponent, Howard Wooldridge, a former police officer and board member for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, was more than happy to debate Finn Selander, demand-reduction coordinator for the DEA. Both sides agreed upon the questions and the debate structure weeks in advance. Everything was set to go. The debate, though, didn't happen. The whole fiasco went from strange to bizarre. At the last minute, Selander backed out citing some vague unspecified DEA policy that forbids debates. Not wanting to cancel the event entirely, SSDP did everything it could to accommodate the DEA's requests. The DEA would only agree to a non-debate forum with 30-minute presentations from each side followed by questions from the audience. Furthermore, the DEA demanded the media be barred from attending the event. Selander was unable to attend, so Special Agent Paul Stone gave the DEA's presentation. When audience members tried to film Stone speaking, he demanded they shut off their cameras saying it could compromise his undercover work. Why would the DEA ban the media and send an undercover agent who couldn't be filmed to a public forum? When I asked Stone about the DEA's policy forbidding debates, he refused to answer my questions and could not direct me to anyone in the DEA who would. What prompted the agency's paranoia remains a mystery. The absence of drug-war supporters in the drug-policy debate is becoming increasingly common. All across the nation, organizations advocating drug policy reform from the Marijuana Policy Project to the Drug Policy Foundation have tried to have these debates. Without fail, drug warriors are either too busy to participate or don't respond to the requests. Where reform advocates have facts, drug warriors have nothing but excuses. Considering the growing controversy surrounding the war on drugs, you would think drug-war supporters would love a public forum to justify America's drug policy and tout its alleged successes. Only in a forum where their claims can't be challenged will drug warriors speak publicly on drug policy. Apparently, the war on drugs is as embarrassing for them as it is for the whole nation. If there is a group that supports the war on drugs and would like to debate the policy publicly, SSDP and many other reform groups would love to hear from you. You won't have any trouble getting advocates of drug-policy reform to debate. We have only two conditions: any place, any time. - ---------- Kevin Killough is a senior journalism major and a freelance writer. To set up a debate or to get more information on the Students for Sensible Drug Policy, contact UNM SSDP President Gabrielle Guzzardo --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake