|
Letters to Ethan Nadelmann
Ethan Nadelmann, head of the Drug Policy Alliance, never put
any money into support the constitutional amndment that they
passed in Colorado.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 12:07:49 -0700 (MST)
From: "Colo. Hemp Init. Project" <cohip@levellers.org>
To: Ethan Nadelmann <enadelmann@sorosny.org>
Subject: Commitments for the future
To: Ethan Nadelmann
From: Laura Kriho
Re: Commitments for the future
December 12, 1998
Ethan,
I appreciate you talking to me on the phone the other night.
You were very candid with me, I believe, which is what I wanted.
I will also be candid with you.
I called you to see if you would now be willing to drop the
AMR strategy of dividing, demoralizing and ignoring the grassroots.
You said you could not give me any guarantees. You said you
could not assure me that AMR wouldn't introduce a competing
ballot initiative in Colorado or other states in the future,
like they did this year. You did say that the grassroots was
important, but went on to say that the grassroots has never
accomplished much on their own.
I've been lied to and deceived by AMR long enough to learn
a few things. Your lack of commitment on this issue shows me
that you have no intention of trying to resolve the conflicts
AMR and the AMR-strategy has created in the movement nationwide.
I am saddened by this, but at least we know where you stand.
I. Don't ignore the message because you don't like the messenger.
You said that I had made some valid criticisms of AMR over
the past year, but that you had quit respecting these criticisms
because I had misinterpreted you and taken some of your comments
out of context in some of these criticisms, but you couldn't
remember specific instances. I do not ever remember you pointing
this out to me before. If I'd been made aware of some error,
I would have gladly responded to it and tried to correct it.
My last communication with you, in an email in April, seemed
to end on a friendly note, with us agreeing to disagree respectfully
on the AMR strategy, and with a promise that there would be
new ballgame after the election. If I said something between
April and now that was inaccurate or out-of-context, I would
be pleased to know about it and happy to retract or clarify
that statement if it is warranted.
You'll never forgive Dennis Peron for smoking a joint on election
night, you'll never forgive Wayne Turner for calling Soros a
drug legalizer, and you'll never forgive me for something you
can't remember.
You alluded that perhaps it was the style or the relentlessness
of my criticism of AMR that had caused you to give less weight
to my opinions, and the opinions of the groups I represent.
You said that it was the way I made my points that undermined
the power of the points, even though many of them were valid.
II. Ignorance is no excuse for the law
I again disagree with you. I don't think there was a problem
in the way I made my points, I think the problem was in the
way you listened and responded to the points I was making. At
no point during the past year was there any attempt on the part
of AMR or yourself to resolve the differences between the locals
and AMR or to address any of the criticisms we were making.
You did not try to appease the locals or compromise with us.
In fact, AMR refused to answer the most simple questions concerned
citizens had about their initiatives. Bill Zimmerman admitted
at his talk at the NORML conference that he purposefully "ignored"
us. AMR's refusal to address these issues, or even answer questions,
lead inevitably to further conflict, as I had predicted it would,
and further divided the movement. You ignored us very diligently,
and what we wanted was for you to listen and respond as diligently
as you ignored us.
III. We did not wage war with AMR, all we tried to do was
talk.
I have tried to be as respectful as possible with all of my
correspondences surrounding this issue. I have tried to disagree
without being disagreeable. I might have called AMR "pathetic"
once or twice, but Dave Fratello of AMR called one Colorado
patient "cheap", "ridiculous", and "trashy."
He called the activists in D.C. "crazy" and "insane."
I can substantiate my accusation of "pathetic," but
the rhetoric AMR used cannot be justified in any way, at least
not by a "professional" organization.
I am not "anti-AMR" as you called me. I am "anti-bad
strategy" and "anti-bad law." I am for the patients
and not for the police. (Dave Fratello told us not once but
three times that they had written their Colorado initiative
"for the police." He never once mentioned the welfare
of patients.) I am "anti-stupidity" and "anti-wasting
resources" and "anti-lying." I am for voter "education"
and "empowerment", not for voter "manipulation",
as Bill Zimmerman described AMR's strategy of winning elections.
However harsh our criticisms may have seemed to you, in no
way did these criticisms ever reach the level of what we would
consider an all-out "campaign against AMR." We are
capable of much more when we really put our effort into a campaign.
All I did was write letters to you and to other leaders of
the national drug policy reform movement to try to get someone
to address the divisiveness caused by AMR. When our attempts
to talk to you failed, I and others made our criticisms public,
in a very limited way, on the Internet. These were the only
channels available to us, and we exhausted them trying to find
a possible remedy. We did everything we could to get our concerns
addressed, in a professional way, and all we received in return
from you was silence. All we ever did was try to talk to you.
But we were ignored.
The concerns about AMR were nationwide, not just from myself.
I just happened to be the most vocal spokesperson for these
issues. I may have been imperfect at getting our message across,
but with no feedback from you or AMR I was shooting in the dark,
not knowing what parts of our message were getting through.
IV. Communication vs. silence
I emailed you a letter on December 9, 1997, signed by 38 patients
and patient advocates in 7 states and the District of Columbia
stating that, after two months of trying to get our concerns
addressed, we were going to take our concerns about AMR to the
public. We sent the letter to you, AMR, and to representatives
of George Soros at the Open Society Institute. Neither you nor
AMR ever responded to that letter. A representative from the
OSI did respond by requesting that we never send them another
letter again. Some open society. We had our answer. You and
AMR were going to continue to oppose the grassroots ballot initiatives
in Maine, D.C., and Alaska and ignore the concerns of the patients
in Colorado and nationwide.
We made our concerns public after that and some more futile
attempts to bring the movement together. What were we supposed
to do? Your best advice to us was to keep quiet. We had researched
these issues thoroughly and felt very strongly that the AMR
initiative was a bad law and that the AMR strategy was bad for
the movement. Due to our commitment to education and honesty,
we felt compelled to bring those concerns to the public, in
a limited way, so that people could make their own decisions
about the laws and the strategies. We were always trying to
unite the movement, and all AMR ever did was try to divide it.
You said that we just should have kept quiet and worked on
other issues while AMR tried to amend our constitution with
a dangerous and harmful law, while AMR tried to destroy the
grassroots movement in D.C. with a competing ballot initiative,
and while AMR defamed and demoralized our activists nationwide.
We saw AMR and the AMR-strategy as being the single biggest
dividing factor ever to face our movement. We felt our concerns
were gravely important, and we had been thwarted at all tries
to get these concerns addressed. As Bill Zimmerman now admits
publicly, the AMR strategy was to ignore the concerns of the
local patients and patient advocates. As we warned you last
December, and we say again now, ignorance can only be harmful
to the movement.
V. Dividing the grassroots is doomed to failure
The point I most want to get across to you is that the AMR-strategy
of dividing and demoralizing the grassroots is doomed to failure.
Real reform is not possible without creating a movement of people
to support the reform after the election (the grassroots).
You agree with Bill Zimmerman that election campaigns and building
movements are somehow separate and distinct. Bill Zimmerman,
in his talk at the recent NORML conference, said, "We did
not run grassroots campaigns in the states where we ran initiatives"
... "because we were playing an electoral game, not a movement-building
game and there's a big difference."
Call me stupid, but I see election-winning and movement-building
as being completely dependent on each other. I know that there
are differences in the strategies employed, but you can't just
ignore the movement for sake of an election win. What progress
does that make, when you have passed a law that has no organized
grassroots support to provide followup?
Bill Zimmerman showed an inherent contradiction in these beliefs,
when he said, "You can't bring an issue to the ballot unless
there has been, in the years preceding your bringing it to the
ballot, a great deal of activism. We can only do elections standing
on the shoulders of the activists that came before us."
Like I've said many times over the past year, you can "buy"
an election, but that won't create any long-term reform if you
don't have a strong grassroots to carry on after the election.
And when you step on activists to accomplish your goal, and
demoralize and deceive them in the process, you will destroy
the movement. You need the grassroots before, during, and after
an election. They are an essential part of reform, not some
stepping stone on the way to election day.
VI. AMR Lies
Bill Zimmerman also said, "AMR never, ever tried to shut
down local activists or prevent them from talking. What we did
instead was ignore them."
AMR did ignore the activists when they tried to resolve their
concerns about the AMR strategy. But the first part of that
statement is one example among many we have documented in which
AMR is willing to state an outright lie in order to save face.
It was AMR's strategy to shut down the local activists, as evidenced
by the competing initiatives they introduced in Maine, Alaska,
and D.C. AMR also intentionally portrayed themselves as separate
from the activist groups. They thought that by showing their
opposition to the "legalizers" and trying to distance
themselves from the grassroots, that they would appear more
conservative and thus more appealing to voters. This has been
part of their strategy since the Prop. 215 campaign in California
where Dennis Peron, father of the medical marijuana movement,
was consistently trashed in the press by Bill Zimmerman and
AMR.
VII. What is professional?
I can't believe you think AMR is a "professional"
organization. Despite spending over $800,000 in Colorado, AMR
did not get their initiative on the ballot and they did not
create any type of lasting organization to support future reform
for medical marijuana. The phone number for Coloradans for Medical
Rights, the AMR local affiliate, has been disconnected. Neither
the media nor concerned patients can get a hold of them.
I had many complaints over the past year from the media, from
patients, and from potential petitioners that AMR/CMR had failed
to return phone calls. AMR/CMR failed to appear on at least
two talk radio shows to which they had committed. Is this professional?
Their PR campaign was virtually nonexistent until three weeks
prior to the election, with the exception of one print advertisement
for information about "medical pot". When they finally
began their TV ad campaign, they could not get a local physician
or medical professional to appear in their ads and relied on
Dr. Bayer from Oregon.
During their signature-gathering drive, they did not do any
voter education. They did not have public meetings or public
debates on the issue. They did not get the endorsements of any
organizations that I know of in Colorado. They did not build
a coalition or engage in any movement building strategies, which
you think are separate from strategies that need to be used
to win an election.
We have been set at least two years behind in our progress
for reform, all thanks to this "professional" organization.
The movement in Colorado is not better off than before AMR came
to town, and in some ways it is worse off because of the divisiveness
and deceit we have had to deal with.
VIII. Professionals vs. Grassroots
I think you should really reexamine this dichotomy that you
make between "professionals" and "grassroots."
What does the word "professional" mean to you? Does
it mean someone that is performing a job because s/he is getting
paid for it? Could a person who does not get a salary also be
considered a "professional?" Or is a "professional"
someone that has years of experience in a certain field? If
that's the criteria, and not the money, then how is Bill Zimmerman
different from Wayne Turner? Did you ever see Wayne's resume?
Why does my eight years experience in cannabis reform politics
not qualify me as being a "professional" in your eyes?
If AMR is so professional, why didn't they make it on the ballot
in Maine, Colorado, and D.C. despite spending over $1 million.
You told me that you had never seen a grassroots organization
that had been successful in winning a campaign. (You did make
an exception for the AIDS activists in D.C. that successfully
got I-59 on the ballot, but you wrote that success off as an
aberration because D.C. is such a small geographic area.) I
can't believe that you have never seen a successful grassroots
campaign. I can think of several grassroots organizations that
have successfully run progressive ballot initiative campaigns
in Colorado in recent years. Smaller groups have been successful
in passing medical marijuana initiatives on the local level
(Breckenridge, Frisco, Telluride, Ward). The civil rights movement,
the anti-war movement, the women's suffrage movement, and the
movement to repeal alcohol prohibition are larger examples of
grassroots coalitions that have been successful in reforming
government policy and winning elections.
ACTUP in D.C. is the model example of a successful grassroots
organization. Their accomplishment with I-59 should not be diminished
for any reason. They won, despite the active opposition of AMR
and the government.
I challenged you to name one grassroots organization that had
been unsuccessful, given adequate resources. I am still waiting
for an example.
You said that if the grassroots are so good, why aren't they
raising the money they need on their own? If the Soros money
you control is used for giving grants and funding projects,
I would ask you to answer that question. If you are so concerned
with drug policy reform, why aren't you helping these groups
raise money? I am sure you have many professional-looking grant
requests from grassroots organizations sitting on your desk.
Why are you spending your resources to fight against the grassroots
instead of helping them?
Our group (CO-HIP) hasn't raised money simply because none
of us have had the time to devote to it. In the juggling of
priorities that comes with limited resources, serious fundraising
never got the attention it needed. Does that make us "unprofessional"
because we are all volunteers?
What does the word "grassroots" mean to you? It appears
to me that you believe that grassroots organizations are unprofessional,
lack funding, and lack the ability to win a campaign. We are
the losers whose shoulders you stand on, but who will never
accomplish anything successful without professional help.
My dictionary defines "grassroots" as "the very
foundation or source." The opposite of grassroots is not
"professionals," but "elite." The issue
appears to be about money, power, greed, and ego, not about
professionalism. I am not in this for the money, or the power,
or my ego. I am doing this because I sincerely believe in a
cause. And I am willing to work without pay for this cause.
Does that make me unprofessional or does it just exclude me
from the elite policy makers?
AMR's lies, ignorance, and elitist policies make them no better
than government officials. In reality, AMR is worse than the
government because they pretend to be working for people and
protecting patients when they really are only concerned with
election wins and their own paychecks. Sounds just like the
Department of Justice to me.
IX. The future
Our movement is based on democratic principles and respect
for all involved. The AMR-strategy of elitism, divisiveness,
deceit and ignorance is 180 degrees opposite of our strategy.
When I asked you if we could be assured that AMR would not
do anything "new" in Colorado, aside from their current
initiative which is still pending a court decision, you stated
that you could not give me that assurance. I explained to you
how defeating and counterproductive it is for a group to work
on a ballot initiative just to have AMR or some other elite
group come in six months before the election with millions of
dollars to run an initiative to compete with the local, grassroots
effort. I explained to you how important it was for us to know
that if we put in two years of effort on a ballot initiative
for the 2000 ballot, that our efforts would not be usurped by
some well-funded out-of-staters at the last minute. You said
you could not give me the assurance that I wanted. You left
it open for AMR to continue these divisive strategies in Colorado
or D.C. or wherever they see fit.
You believe that the grassroots is incapable of winning an
election, and you want to hire "professionals" to
do the job instead. I believe the grassroots organizers are
the real "professionals", and given a fraction of
the resources spent on AMR, the grassroots would not only have
won elections but built a strong coalition that would carry
on to the next election. The grassroots would be capable of
creating meaningful, long-term reform, where AMR has failed.
Look at ACTUP in D.C. if you want proof. Their coalition will
run circles around any coalition lead by AMR anywhere in the
country.
My requests:
1) Defund AMR. Bill Zimmerman and Dave Fratello have caused
so much animosity and dissent nationwide that it would be impossible
for them to work with anyone.
2) If you continue to fund AMR, appoint a board of directors
to govern AMR so that people with concerns about the organization
have some place to go with them besides yourself and the funders.
3) This question of "professionals" being more capable
than "grassroots" is an empirical question. It has
already been answered in D.C. But if you are still unconvinced,
do an experiment. Find an effective grassroots organization,
like ACTUP, and give them the smallest fraction of the money
that AMR spent this year on failed campaigns, and see how much
bang you get for your buck.
4) Make a commitment to myself and other grassroots organizers
around the country that:
a) you recognize the value of grassroots organizations
b) you are committed to sustainable reform
c) you will not fund any organizations that use strategies that
divide, demoralize, or compete with grassroots campaigns
d) you will not make ignoring the concerns of patients and other
citizens part of your policy
e) you will ensure that any organizations that you fund have
a mechanism for effective conflict resolution
5) Make a commitment to me and other concerned Colorado citizens
that AMR will not try to create any new laws in Colorado, with
the exception of the initiative that is currently awaiting a
court decision. We don't trust AMR, and we need the assurance
that they will not come in to our state, without our knowledge
or consent, and introduce a law that conflicts or competes with
campaigns we are working on. We want the assurance that what
happened in 1998 will never happen again.
If you and I do sincerely have the same goals, a sane drug
policy, then we should not be so far apart on how to get there.
I say you need the grassroots, the people on the ground floor,
the people doing the grunt work. You say we need paid campaign
managers and paid lobbyists. We are both right, and we just
need to find a middle ground.
We need conflict resolution, coalition-building, and compromise,
not ignorance, deceit, and divisiveness. We have always been
willing to work with people, but we have been deliberately ignored.
Now that the election is over, I hope you are willing to commit
to moving forward from this experience. I have always been willing
to try to work together with anyone, and I offer my assistance
and experience to you to help build a coalition that will be
effective and sustainable for many years to come.
If you're ready to listen, good, but if not, we won't be wasting
our time on trying to change your mind. If you can't see that
changes need to be made, then you will experience the inevitable
consequences of continuing on this same path. It would be such
a shame, though, because you've been informed of the problem
and how to fix it. Now that we've informed you that you've been
informed, there is nothing more we can do. Our obligation to
try to resolve these problems has been fulfilled.
If you can't give me any commitments, then I can't give you
any either. As much as you think we have started a war with
AMR, we have not even come close. As vehemently as you think
I oppose AMR, I have dozens of other activists who are even
more opposed to them than I am that I have been keeping at bay
and encouraging to stifle their criticisms and anger in the
hopes somebody would have the wisdom to alleviate the problems.
This situation is out of my hands now.
Of course, since I am in contact with so many groups and individuals
on this issue, I need to tell them the outcome of our conversation.
If I have misrepresented anything you said in our phone conversation,
please tell me so I don't continue to misrepresent things. I
would also like to have a public response about these concerns
that I could share with others. It's not just me that has a
stake in this debate, it's a whole movement, so many people
are anxious to know what, if any, commitments you are willing
to make for the future. Are we all going to have to be looking
over our shoulder for AMR or some other elite group to come
in from outside to try to dictate policy in our states, or are
we moving towards a sincere commitment to work together?
I am sorry you are offended by my attitude and the way that
I have said things. I am always willing to take constructive
criticism if it is offered. But, again, I don't think the problem
is so much in how I have been saying things, but in how you
have been listening to them.
Laura Kriho
December 12, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Ethan Nadelmann
From: Laura Kriho
April 17, 1999
Ethan,
I talked to Marty Chilcutt a couple of days ago. He mentioned
that you had called him to get his feedback on the AMR campaign.
Funny how he's come around to mistrust AMR as much as we have,
isn't it? I think you can add Dr. Bayer in Oregon to that list,
too.
Marty said that you said that you had to take into account
that AMR has had four "successes" this year in evaluating
their effectiveness. I wonder what your notion of "success"
means. Wasn't the whole idea to allow patients access to their
medicine without fear of prosecution? Aren't patients in California
still being prosecuted two and a half years later?
California, though, was the most successful of all the states.
Thankfully, AMR didn't write that initiative. The AMR initiatives
that passed this year are now in the process of being gutted
by the legislatures. As we predicted, they are arguing over
allowing patients to cultivate 3 plants or 4 plants or to possess
one ounce or two ounces? And is chronic pain really a valid
condition for medical use? We haven't even gotten to the issue
yet of just how "confidential" the registry is. If
your definition of "confidential" is anything like
your definition of "success," then patients should
really be scared.
The AMR initiatives are going to result in more government
control over medicine, not less. This is exactly the reason
that we opposed AMR's Colorado initiative so vehemently. We
don't call this a "success." I wonder why you do?
I would venture a guess that a majority of the people who worked
with AMR had significant problems with them. All the people
I know that worked with them did. I have yet to hear anyone
say anything positive about their experiences with them, besides
the fact that they had a lot of money.
Yet still you are not ready to give up your failed strategies.
Marty said that you implied that you did not feel personally
responsible for the problems caused by AMR; you just gave them
the money and then it was out of your hands.
To set the record straight, we in Colorado do hold you personally
responsible for AMR's destruction and divisiveness and bad legislation.
You admitted that you could discontinue AMR's funding. You even
admitted that the initiative was flawed. Yet, you purposefully
ignored our requests for help dealing with AMR. You were the
only person we knew that had some fraction of control over their
actions, and you failed to do anything to resolve our differences.
You -are- ultimately responsible for the harm done by AMR.
You still we not give us the assurance that we asked for that
AMR will not come into Colorado with a new signature-gathering
drive in the Year 2000. Now that Marty, former head of Coloradans
for Medical Rights, also says that he absolutely will not work
with them ever again, maybe you have reevaluated your position.
Until we get an assurance that AMR will stay out of Colorado
and not propose competing initiatives in our state, we are forced
to treat AMR and yourself just like we treat the DEA. We can
not trust you because you have a proven track record of going
behind our backs and undermining our efforts, just like the
DEA.
I write to you again only because I -know- you are an intelligent
man, and I still can't believe that you will persist in these
failed strategies.
Perhaps the stupidest thing that I've seen from AMR is the
quote below from "Medicinal marijuana nears mainstream,"
USA Today, 3/15/99
On the issue of distribution, Dave Fratello is quoted:
"It's a big issue, but I don't want to leave the impression
that people
can't find it," says Dave Fratello of Americans for Medical
Rights. "We
advise patients to just ask around. With 10 million recreational
users of
marijuana, most patients aren't more than a couple of phone
calls away from
a source."
In this quote, AMR does a lot to destroy the medical marijuana
movement:
- they equate medical with recreational use
- they admit that their laws only encourage patients to break
the law
- they admit that their laws will put patients in danger by
forcing them to buy cannabis illegally
The situation AMR has left us with is no different than before:
patients still have to get their medicine off the streets. What
has AMR changed? Only the fact that now they are now -encouraging-
more people to break the law. By passing these initiatives,
they led patients to believe that medical cannabis use was OK,
but they failed to allow these patients to obtain or cultivate
an adequate supply, thereby putting even more patients in danger.
Are you sure you have your eggs in the right basket, Ethan?
Is this the type of "education" of the public that
you think shows that AMR has been "successful?"
Let me know when you're willing to assure us AMR is staying
out of Colorado.
Laura Kriho
|
