Friday, September 29, 2017

Yom Kippur 1990 -- Defending Religious Liberty

September 29, 1990
U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C.

Statement of Reuben A. Snake, Jr. (1937 - 1993)
Coordinator, Native American Religious Freedom Project
A Gathering Of Native American Religious Leaders To
Obtain Guarantees Of Religious Liberty

          BACKGROUND: In the spring 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court abandoned well-established free exercise of religion precedents in case involving a member of the Native American Church who worked for a drug treatment program that required staff to be "drug-free." He was fired because he used peyote in his worship. He sought unemployment compensation but Oregon denied it. His appeal went to the Supreme Court which upheld Oregon. The court ruled that the drug law is a law of general applicability, not designed to block religious practice. Almost all religious denominations joined to ask Congress to restore the old precedent. Members of Native American Church were alarmed about implications of this precedent. The Quaker lobby, Friends Committee on National Legislation had a long relationship with the Indians and the Native American Church. A meeting to plan a strategy was called for Washington. At the last minute, FCNL asked Eric Sterling, a Quaker and recently retired counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and expert on drug law, to join the meeting. He suggested a political and media strategy to educate Congress, the news media and other faiths about the Native American Church. The Native American Religious Freedom Project was created and based in Eric's office at the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. The events were: (1) A press conference at a teepee erected just to the west of the Capitol on the site of the future National Museum of the American Indian including a representative of U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs; and (2) A worship service of the Native American Church with the holy medicine, peyote. Eric made many calls to find a location where the worship could be held without a police raid. Finally he found that the National Park Service would be happy to host the worship and set aside an area in Greenbelt National Park for that purpose for Sept. 29-30. After the press event, and the speeches, including the one below, worship was held in three sacred fireplaces created by three different branches of the Native American Church of North America in Greenbelt. At the conclusion of the all night worship at dawn on September 30, a celebratory meal was shared by all participants.
            Senator Inouye, Church President Emerson Jackson, honored guests, as an American it is inspiring to stand here at the foot of the U.S. Capitol to exercise two of our basic American rights, the freedom of speech, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
            Native Americans have been associated with the liberty of the American people since the founding of the nation. In 1773, at the Boston tea party, the early protestors against British royal tyranny dressed as Mohawks because Indians, in England and in Europe, were a symbol of American liberty. Indians, and our way of life, were the very symbol of American liberty adopted by the earliest American revolutionaries. But four or five centuries before that dramatic event, even before Christopher Columbus sailed from Spain, the Five Nations of the Iroquois confederacy formed a government under a constitution called the Great Law of Peace. Consider some of the enlightened features of that government -- parliamentary-type government, separation of politics and religion, separation of civil and military government, the concept of checks and balances, veto, referendum, and so forth. Those governmental concepts were so remarkable, books were written about them in the European languages. These concepts became known to John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, European political philosophers, whose writings are cited in identifying the sources of the U.S. Constitution. The free exercise of religion was among the many features of that great Native American government, and the freedom of religion is one which many of us take for granted today.
            On September 15, 1620, English subjects sailed from Plymouth, England, to seek refuge from religious persecution. The story of the Puritan pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock in Massachusetts to achieve religious freedom is one of the best-known stories in American history.
            It is tragic to say however, that we are now in a situation in the United States of America where we can no longer take such a fundamental right, the free exercise of religion, for granted. As venerable as the heritage of religious liberty has been in America, religious liberty is now in jeopardy for all minority religions.
            Last April, in the case of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith [494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876, 1990 U.S. Lexis 2021 (1990)], a case involving Native American religious liberty, the U.S. Supreme court threw out its long standing precedents and declared that no longer does the government have to show that laws which burden and restrict religious liberty must be justified by a compelling government interest. Even very large religious organizations issued protests and sought a rehearing in the court. The Baptists, the Methodists, Jewish groups, dozens of religious groups, and over 50 of America's most distinguished constitutional law professors sought a rehearing of the court's decision.
            But consider the implications of this case from our perspective. The U.S. Supreme court reversed a long line of settled cases in order to rule that the use of the sacrament of Native American worship, the holy medicine, peyote, is not protected under the First Amendment of the constitution. They said, in our case, our religious exercises, our form of worship, the use of our holy sacrament, is not protected by the constitution. The court said that Native Americans, who have enjoyed religious liberty on this land since before the pilgrims fled here, are no longer entitled to religious liberty. This trampling of Native American religious liberty is intolerable. Our people have been using the holy medicine, peyote, for thousands of years, thousands of years.
            For the last twenty years, the American people have been suffering an epidemic of abuse of refined chemical drugs like cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, PCP, and so forth. American cities are crawling with violence and crime. This is a terrible tragedy, and this kind of drug abuse is also a problem for some Indian youth. But there is no peyote drug abuse problem. I defy the justices of the Supreme Court to find newspaper reports of drive-by shootings in connection with the holy medicine. I challenge anyone concerned about the problem of drug abuse to find examples of dope peddlers selling the holy medicine in America's school yards and play grounds. The idea is preposterous.
            We don't have a peyote abuse problem in this nation. Yet the widespread fear, bordering on panic, about the tragedy of drug abuse has clouded the minds of the justices. In the name of the war on drugs, our use of our holy medicine is restricted. In the name of the war on drugs, our guarantee of free exercise of religion has been violated. In the name of the war on drugs, the religious freedom of every American has been placed in jeopardy.
            The consequences are outrageous. For decades Native Americans have endured the harassment and persecution of law enforcement authorities ignorant of, or indifferent to, our ancient ways of worship. The law reports are filled with tragic cases of our men and women dragged from worship, or from their homes, to jail cells and to courtrooms, forced to defend themselves, to justify themselves to the ignorant and the callous. But in those degrading circumstances, we could always point, confidently, to the First Amendment's guarantees of free exercise of religion, and know that ultimately we would prevail. Now, unbelievably, we are no longer assured that we will prevail.
            This has been intolerable to us, this is intolerable to us, and it is intolerable to every American who treasures their right to worship God without government interference.
            In the Native American Church every day is a holy day, but today is special. In the Hebrew calendar, today is Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the most solemn day of Jewish worship. Many Jewish friends of Native Americans invited to join us this morning explained that they could not worship with us here, for they would be in their own temples in prayer.
            For many of the 5741 years of the Hebrew calendar, the Jewish people have suffered oppression on account of their religion. Today, 199 years after the American Bill of Eights was adopted, we are thankful that the Jewish people feel free to worship without fearing government harassment. But ladies and gentlemen, today the 250,000 members of the Native American Church are not free to worship God without fear of government harassment.
            Church President Emerson Jackson has declared tomorrow a day of prayer for peace. Today, hundreds of our people are preparing for a night-long Native American Church service and prayer for peace. But many of our elders, who have traveled thousands of miles to be here to worship in our nation's capital, who have experienced the indignities of religious persecution, expressed to the organizers of this worship service a great fear -- will we be arrested? Will we be arrested? We have had to call law enforcement authorities -- attorneys general, prosecutors, assistant state's attorneys, narcotics units -- around the region to assure ourselves that our worship will proceed undisturbed by the hideous specter of a police raid.
            I ask my brothers and sisters who are Christians, my brothers and sisters who are Moslem, my brothers and sisters who are Hindus, my brothers and sisters who are Buddhists, my brothers and sisters who are Jewish, do any of you worry that your worship services will be raided by the police? Do any of you feel it necessary to call the police in order to set up a worship service? Do any of you have to explain to law enforcement officers that you have a right to worship your God in your own manner?
            I ask my brothers and sisters who are Christians, do you need permission from your state alcoholic beverage control commission to give sacramental wine to communicants under the age of 21? Do your priests need licenses from the government to perform a mass? Of course not, but under the Smith decision, that shocking possibility may yet come to pass.
            I ask my brothers and sisters, when they tell their children about their religious rites, do they have to warn their little ones about the police? Do they have to explain that they should not be ashamed because of the special police "interest" in their worship? I ask the American people, does this sound like the religious life we expect to live in the United States of America? Well my brothers and sisters, this unbelievable condition burdens our worship. This relic of prejudice burdens our worship. This government involvement in our religion burdens our worship, and it is intolerable.
            Today, at the highest point in Washington, overlooking our little press conference, the National Cathedral is being dedicated. Today the last stone is being placed in that beautiful monument to the central importance of God and prayer in American life. It is profoundly ironic that just as that glorious cathedral is being completed and dedicated in our nation's capital, the U.S. Supreme court has jeopardized the status of every minority religion, and it has done so in a case involving Native American Church members using the holy sacrament of our church.
            We are here today with one simple message -- we demand that our use of our sacrament, the holy medicine peyote, be fully protected by law without qualification. We ask no more, we expect no more, and we are entitled to nothing less!
            Why must we stand here and defend our religion? Why must we tell you that our church is a good church? Why must we tell you that we do not tolerate drug abusers or alcoholics in our church? We are reduced to this posture because of laws passed and enforced in an atmosphere of almost total ignorance about Native Americans.
            Perhaps we should not be surprised. Like most Americans we like to go about our business quietly and without drawing attention to ourselves. One of the central teachings of our church is humility. We have never held a press conference before. We have never drawn attention to ourselves before. We are uncomfortable this morning, but to protect ourselves, we have a duty. We are here today to tell the American people that our worship is sacred, it is legitimate, it is profound, it is good, it is wonderful in the eyes of God, it is wonderful for our people, and we must, we must pray the way God has taught us.
            Americans, you have taken much from us. You have benefited from us in many ways. You have left us little land, you have taken away our traditional livelihoods. Do not allow the government to take our religious freedom away. We urge you to join us in supporting the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1990," H.R. 5377. But this is only a first step. The bill does not go far enough. It does not specifically protect our worship, the one that the Supreme Court chose to disregard and deny protection. We urge that the bill be amended to specifically protect Native American religious freedom. That is not too much to ask.
            Soon we will be returning to our homes across America and to our children and grandchildren. We will say we engaged in the political process, we spoke to the American people and to the national news media. We went to Washington, and we told our story. Can we tell our children, "we succeeded, you are now safe"? Can we tell our children, "we have brought back for you the security, the safety, the certainty that you, our children, and your children can worship God as we have been taught"? It is our prayer that we can!

* * * * *

            Mr. Snake was assisted in the preparation of these remarks by Eric E. Sterling, Executive Director of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation. The Native American Religious Freedom Project was housed and supported by the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation in Washington, DC. Please contact Eric Sterling if you would like more information about the occasion on which these remarks were made. Eric Sterling was introduced to Mr. Snake by Jay C. Fikes, then with the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

            The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, reversing Employment Division ofOregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876, 1990 U.S. Lexis 2021 (1990)), passed Congress overwhelmingly and was signed on November 16, 1993 by President Clinton (P.L. 103-141). It had no provision specifically addressing the religious use of peyote. The Act prohibited any unit ofgovernment from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unlessthe government demonstrates that the application of the burden to the person isin the furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the leastrestrictive means of furthering that governmental interest. (The law can be found at 107 Statutes at Large 1488. It was H.R. 1308, 103rd Cong., House Report 103-88, and Senate Report 103-111). On June 25, 1997, the U.S. Supreme court held the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional as applied to the states. City of Boerne, Texas v. P.F. Flores,Archbishop of San Antonio (521 U.S. 507, 117 S. Ct. 2157, 138 L. Ed. 2d 624, 1997 U.S. Lexis 4035, (1997).

            On October 6, 1994, President Clinton signed Public Law 103-344, the "American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994," to protect the traditional use of peyote by Indians for religious purposes throughout the United States. (108 Statutes at Large 3125). The billpassed the U.S. House of Representatives on August 8, 1994, and passed the U.S.Senate on September 26, 1995. (H.R. 4230, 103rd Cong., House Report 103-675). The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) played a major role in enacting this legislation. Robert M. Peregoy, Esq. (1947-2015) was senior counsel for NARF, 1514 P Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, tel. 202-785-4166; and Walter Echo Hawk, Esq., then at NARF's Boulder, CO office, 303-447-8760

            A book about the religious use of peyote and the political struggle that this speech was a part of was published in 1996 by Prof. Huston Smith (1919-2016) with the collaboration of Mr. Snake, One Nation Under God, The Triumph of theNative American Church (1996).

            The autobiography of Reuben Snake was published in 1996, Reuben Snake, Your Humble Serpent, Indian Visionary and Activist, as told to Jay C. Fikes. Both books were published by Clear Light Publishers, 823 Don Diego, Santa Fe, NM 87505 (800-253-2747).

            Two documentary movies were made in the course of the lobbying for this law.  “The Peyote Road" and "YourHumble Serpent” by film maker Gary Rhine, (1951-2006), Kifaru Productions.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, September 25, 2017

Nicholas Kristoff (New York Times) on Portugal's effective and humane drug policy

Published on September 24, 2017, "How to Win A War on Drugs," the lead story in the Sunday Review section of The New York Times.

The heart of this report is how Portugal's decriminalization drug policy, adopted in 2001, focusing on public health outreach and not using criminal justice resources against drug users, has dramatically reduced deaths, HIV, and the number of heroin users.

Concludes Kristoff, "The lesson that Portugal offers the world is that while we can't eradicate heroin, it's possible to save the lives of drug users -- if we're willing to treat them not as criminals but as sick, suffering human beings who need helping hands, not handcuffs."

Exactly, treat drug users as human beings, and if when they are suffering, help them.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, September 22, 2017

Pot Prisoners Profiled in Rolling Stone -- Victims of the flawed goals of the "war on drugs" approach

Rolling Stone magazine (Sep. 13, 2017) has profiled five prisoners serving incredibly long sentences even though marijuana cultivation and sales are now legal in eight states.
I provide the background and a critique. Take a few minutes and click on this link.
You can go to Life for Pot to learn even more about these injustices.

It is clear that the nation is thinking differently about how to handle "the drug problem" than it did in 1986. Then, the goal of drug policy was the cessation of distribution and use of drugs, and reliance upon punishment to achieve it.  Today we know that policy has failed.

However, many of us struggle to clearly articulate our objective. Most urgently, our goal must be to save the lives of drug users. We witnessed over 60,000 drug poisonings and overdoses in 2016, up from less than 8,000 when Ronald Reagan was declaring drug war.

If we are going to save the lives of drug users then we need new policies, founded on the belief that drug users lives matters. What is killing drug users?

1. Forced abstinence. Arresting drug users and putting them in jail reduces their tolerance. When they get out, we know that many will return to drug use. With their reduced tolerance their risk of overdose skyrockets.  We coerce drug users into treatment. Treatment works, when you are ready and convinced. But there is always the risk of relapse. Again, tolerance has gone down and risk of overdose death is huge! Our good intentions are killing drug users. Methadone treatment does not reduce tolerance and even though there are overdoses with clandestine and diverted use, it is a relatively safe and highly effective treatment modality.

2. Poisoned drugs.  Many drug dealers want to supply drugs to their friends and community, and make some money in the process. Most distributors of drugs are not vicious fiends. They know they are breaking the law and they want to be rewarded for taking the risks of law-breaking and doing business with other criminals who may be highly dangerous. They are providing a highly desired product to very desperate people. They often use drugs with their customers. Their customers are frequently family, friends, neighbors, and school mates. They don't want them to be hurt or to die. But they have no ability to know the quality of what they get from the traffickers above them.

Higher level traffickers are often indifferent to human life. They often have killed rivals to their leadership, killed underlings to discipline their employees, and perhaps killed officials, law enforcement officers or journalists who threatened their business. They have no product liability insurance, indeed they can't be sued for defectively lethal products. For many traffickers, the reputation they want is not about pure product or honorable dealing, but about their lethality and their willingness to use violence against any threat. To add dangerous ingredients that adulterate their drugs is perfectly okay if that enables them to boost their profits.

Our current drug policy is designed to keep the drug manufacturing and distribution in the hands of dangerous criminals, not well managed pharmaceutical companies. Our policy is designed to keep drugs dangerous and threaten users with death. These tens of thousands of deaths each year are not merely the "collateral damage" of a smart strategy, they are the foreseeable result of a stupid drug policy that does not put the lives of drug users in the center of the strategy. Under the old policy, a dead drug user is not a dead child or dead sibling or parent -- a drug user has no value except as an object lesson to others who are not yet drug users. Under the old strategy a drug user's life is not worth saving. Indeed, a dead drug user allows a prosecutor to seek a homicide indictment against a distributor, and do what prosecutors do best.

For a sane and compassionate society, our drug policy should be to minimize the suffering of drug users. That means get clean drugs to drug users and keep the drugs affordable to minimize the hassle to obtain them. It means helping drug users get housing, jobs, education and counseling.

Under our current policy drug users are kicked out of housing, kicked out of school, fired from their jobs, and removed from treatment programs.  Imagine hospitals that only admitted people with the simplest symptoms and least serious diseases, and kicked out those who got sicker because they "failed" treatment.

Certainly, as a minimum as we legalize marijuana, we must not leave behind in prison those whose conduct today would no longer be criminal.

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Guns, gun control, gun violence, etc. and drug legalization

There was a very smart commentary by Richard Feldman, head of the Independent Firearms Owners Association (IFOA), in USAToday (Dec. 12, 2013) about the largely pointless debate about "guns" after the Newtown, CT.

Among Feldman's conclusions: "It's time we remove incentives encouraging criminals to use, rather than avoid, guns."

In a Dec. 15 email to the Executive Directors of Drug Policy Alliance, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, NORML, and the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation on Dec. 15, Feldman elaborated:

"It's time we remove incentives encouraging criminals to use, rather than avoid, guns" The incentives I refer to are of course that guns are the main only option when dealing in black market goods - no call to 911 if stolen, no use of the courts for product distribution or supply dislocation - only the ability to use force, and that force is mainly from the barrel of a gun.
Let me be blunt: The organized firearm community has a vested interest in this [drug legalization] movement even if many of the established organizations don't!  IFOA supports [drug] legalization because it makes sense and lowers harm.
A key point of Feldman's was confirmed -- without any acknowledgement of the significance of the data -- in The Washington Post, (Dec. 14, 2013). Twenty-four percent of all the children under 10 deliberately shot and killed with a firearm in 2012 was  killed due to "random violence, drive-by shootings, and neighborhood gun battles." That sounds like killings associated with the drug trade!

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Edward H. Jurith, Drug Policy Leader and Attorney, 1951-2013

Edward H. Jurith, a key figure in American drug policy making since the early 1980s, died peacefully at home in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, November 9, 2013. Ed has been my friend since 1981.

Ed served at very senior levels in the Office of National Drug Control Policy at the White House for almost 20 years, including serving as Acting Director for almost all of 2001 at the start of the Bush Administration and during 9-11. Ed had been Director of Legislative Affairs, General Counsel and finally Senior General Counsel at ONDCP, beginning in the Clinton Administration. At the beginning of the Obama Administration he was again Acting Director until Gil Kerlikowske was confirmed on May 7, 2009.

Ed also represented the United States for many years in the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on the Executive Committee and as chair of the Education Committee.

Ed was a very distinguished lawyer. For over twenty years he was a leading member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Substance Abuse, and at the time of his death was chair of its successor entity, the Task Force on Substance Use Disorders of the Health Law Section. He was also a very popular adjunct professor of law at the Washington College of Law at American University.

 Ed was a son of Brooklyn, NY. He graduated from Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School in Brooklyn in 1969, American University cum laude in 1973, and Brooklyn Law School in 1976. He practiced criminal law in Brooklyn and was involved in politics. He worked with U.S. Rep. Leo Zeferetti (D-NY), from Brooklyn, who in 1981 became the Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control (SCNAC).  That year, Mr. Zeferetti brought Ed back to Washington to be Counsel to the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control (SCNAC).

The Select Committee on Narcotics was responsible for investigating and reporting on the entire range of drug abuse issues. At that time, I joined the staff of the House Subcommittee on Crime, chaired by U.S. Rep. William J. Hughes (D-NJ), responsible for overseeing federal drug enforcement programs and processing amendments to the Controlled Substances Act in addition to money laundering, organized crime, gun control, pornography and other issues. Mr. Hughes was also a member of the Select Committee on Narcotics and I staffed his participation on the Select Committee. Thus I attended many hearings that Ed organized.

From the start there was a friendly professional tension between us. The Narcotics Committee had a very focused agenda and a fair deal of staff and budget, and some very senior and powerful members, including, after 1983, Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), a very senior member of the New York Delegation, a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, and a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus. But it had no power to report legislation. It could hold hearings and press conferences and issue reports and press releases -- but the Select Committee could not write any bills. The Crime Subcommittee had a very broad agenda: we had a smaller staff and drugs was just one of many important issues that we had to address. But we could write and move legislation to amend the drug laws or to modify DEA's powers. That was genuine power.

In 1983, the Select Committee on Narcotics organized a study mission to Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Colombia and Jamaica to oversee U.S. anti-narcotics activities in those countries, to learn about those countries narcotics problems and anti-narcotics activities, and to meet with the top political, law enforcement and judicial officials of those countries to convey U.S. concerns about narcotics. Mr. Hughes and our Ranking Republican Member, Harold Sawyer (R-Michigan), arranged to accompany the SCNAC, and they were able to bring our subcommittee chief counsel, our Republican associate counsel, and me, an assistant counsel, as well. Since the trip was a Select Committee show, I did not have to work as hard as Ed and his colleagues, but those intense experiences strengthened our bond.

By 1984, I was often sharing with other staff and others my view that the war on drugs was a mistake and that some form of legalization of drugs would better fight crime and protect public health than prohibition. After my deep involvement in the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988 -- along with Ed and his colleagues on the Narcotics Select Committee, as well as the House leadership, I carried out a strategy to leave the Judiciary Committee and work full time to end drug prohibition.

By 1987, Ed had been promoted to Staff Director of the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control. After I left Capitol Hill, Ed and I became friendly sparring partners on a number of occasions when the fundamentals of drug policy were being challenged.

In 1990 or '91, the American Bar Association established a Special Committee on the Drug Crisis, and Ed and I both were able to participate.

A few years later, the Special Committee was formalized as the Standing Committee on Substance Abuse. Ed, then the General Counsel of the White House "drug czar," was warmly welcomed. I was appointed by the ABA Section on Individual Rights and Responsibilities -- the powerful organizational home the ABA's "liberals" -- to be their liaison to the standing committee. The Standing Committee strongly embraced an ABA-Join Together study that identified the crippling problem of continued stigmatization of persons in recovery, and Ed and I worked together on ABA policy to address that. Ed took the lead in encouraging the ABA House of Delegates to endorse Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMP), but the proposed policy was defeated on privacy grounds. Today PDMPs are widely respected tools to identify doctors who are irresponsibly prescribing prescription narcotics or persons who are using multiple doctors and pharmacies to obtain large quantities of opiates and diverting them away from legitimate pain patients.

At the ABA Standing Committee, after a few years, most lawyers would move on to another project in the ABA, but Ed and I stayed on. When the Raich v. Ashcroft medical marijuana case headed for the Ninth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ed and I began to collaborate on what became a series of continuing legal education programs on the subject held at three ABA annual meetings over the years. Prominent members of the ABA, including judges, served on the Standing Committee, but rarely with the experience in drug policy matters that Ed and I had. Often some matter of drug policy would provoke a mini-debate between us. A number of times I was told by one or another member how educational, stimulating and respectful they found our impromptu debates.

On Feb. 7, 2007, Ed spoke to a forum that I moderated, hosted by the Drugs and the Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association, on proposed legislation to regulate medical marijuana in New York State. As always he was generous with his time, completely prepared, powerfully cogent in making his points, and unfailingly polite and gracious before an audience largely composed of those opposed to his position.

Ed Jurith was an extremely intelligent and diligent lawyer deeply dedicated to making the world around him better. He built an enormous network of friends who treasured his relaxed and open sense of humor, and his loyalty. We all knew him as a man who told the truth and honored his commitments. We learned how he adored his wife and boys, and treasured his joy as a father and husband.

In early August when I learned that ONDCP Director Gil Kerlikowske was being promoted to Customs Commissioner, I hastily wrote a blog and threw out some prominent names as appropriate successors, such as former Baltimore City and Howard County Health Commissioner Peter Beilenson, U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), or U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). But as I reflected on who, in the real world, would really be the most effective successor, I realized it would be Ed Jurith. Ed knew every aspect of the job, he had the long experience of working closely with Congress, with all of the involved federal and international agencies, and with all the private and state agencies in the field regarding prevention, treatment and enforcement. Ed also had profoundly good judgement. He knew what could work, and what wouldn't and had the courage and drive to fight for what was needed. His vision of the work was not driven by ideology, by partisan advantage seeking, or by personal ambition. He deeply wanted to free individuals, families and communities of the pain of substance use disorders. He was not interested in preserving organizational budgets or fiefdoms, but in justice and mercy. I knew that open support from a "drug legalizer" like me was not the most strategic approach, and so I worked behind the scenes to put Ed's candidacy for ONDCP Director before the President, the Vice President and other key players. If Ed's treatment for cancer had not failed to restore him, I think we could have found the perfect ONDCP Director to work with Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to re-balance our drug policy in a world with the parity for treatment  and expanded coverage of the Affordable Care Act, with legal marijuana in Washington, Colorado, and other states, and medical marijuana being demanded by legislatures and voters across the nation. His death is a real loss to the nation and the world, as well as his family and friends.

I shall my conclude this tribute to Ed Jurith with a much longer version of a story I briefly told his family and friends after his funeral mass Friday.

Advocates of "drug policy reform" or drug legalization (and journalists, civic association and academic programmers) often have a hard time finding prominent, qualified representatives of the prohibition-based national drug strategy to debate in public forums. What legalizers criticize as their opponents' strategy of trying to win the argument by ignoring its legitimacy, or an unwillingness to risk the embarrassment of defending the indefensible, is partly a legitimate unwillingness to face what is often a highly partisan audience willing to indulge itself with mocking laughter and snarky outbursts.

Ed Jurith was unafraid of critical audiences and faced them often, always with grace and good humor. I witnessed both the rudeness of the pro-legalization audiences in mocking the government's spokesman, and Ed's self-composed presentation.

On March 17-18, 2000, three very prominent New York City institutions arranged a two-day conference on the questions, "Is Our Drug Policy Effective? Are there Alternatives?" The distinguished sponsors were the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (now known as the New York City Bar Association), the New York Academy of Medicine, and the New York Academy of Sciences. The proceedings were to be transcribed and were published in the Fordham Urban Law Journal (Vol. XXVII, No. 1, October 2000, pp. 3 - 361). Forty-two distinguished experts across a wide range of fields were invited to speak. Most of the well known drug legalizers or critics of the status-quo policy were on the program: former Mayor Kurt Schmoke of Baltimore, MD, Ethan Nadelmann, JD, PhD,  U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet (SDNY), Harvard Professor Lester Grinspoon, David Boaz of the Cato Institute, et al.

Ed was invited and knew that it would be a hostile audience, but he was willing to come. In fact he was the only representative of the federal government. His remarks were greeted by jeers and laughter. Near the end of his remarks he said, "I was surprised that when I showed those slides earlier there was laughter concerning youth misbehavior and marijuana use.You may not believe the data, but I do not believe anyone thinks that it is healthy for young people to abuse drugs. This is the cynicism we need to get beyond." (p. 46).

Mayor Schmoke made the next speech, and I followed him. At the beginning of my remarks I said,
"I want to commend my old friend and colleague, Ed Jurith, for his thoughtful presentation a few minutes ago and for his willingness to come and speak to what he anticipated was going to be a critical audience, not a warmly receptive audience. I do not see you, Ed, in the audience, but Ed has always been a man whom I could talk to in a very civil and informed manner about drug policy, even though we have disagreed. Ed is an honorable and bright public servant who is genuinely committed to the public interest in these matters." (pp.53-54).

Ed, thank you for being my rival, ally and partner, and always my friend.

Ed's family would welcome gifts in Ed's memory to be made to his high school alma mater, Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School in Brooklyn, NY.

Sphere: Related Content