The DPA continues to neglect the coca issue along with that of the plants perverted into white power poisons of abuse- focusing upon Medical Marijuana and limited sanitary measures for the existing concentrated drug forms, thus pretending that MJ is the only illicit substance with therapeutic benefit, while maintaining the fear of the other drugs. Thereby, it serves to slow drug policy reform to a speed of progress best described as glacial.
Having attended the conferences of the DPA and it predecessor organization the Drug Policy Foundation since 1989, I noted that the DPF was more comprehensive until about 1993- for instance downplaying the very issue that inspired their creation -- the hysteria over cocaine --- eliminating the cocaine panel and folding that issue into a virtual woman's panel on Latin America.
Now this year - 2011 - Bolivia has DENOUNCED the 1961 U.N. "Narcotics" Treaty, yet the DPA still refuses to invite Evo Morales to its conference, let alone hold a Coca panel- lest it educate people that Coca has many benefits that remain widely unknown because of the drug war.
So what could be the reason, indeed the hidden hand, upon and strangling drug policy reform?
The funders? George Soros may be involved with certain investments that would suffer under a comprehensive legalization program- e.g. allowing the return of the plant drugs no only mainly known of their concentrated drug forms. IOW Opium and Coca leaf extract products rather then simply the white powders of concern, as heroin and cocaine HCI. However, the problem with the DPF came before Soros became its funder. Likewise, the previous major funder Richard Dennis was involved with commodities trading- yet the DPF was way better run under his time, than his successors (post 1992).
The founders? Co founder Arnold S. Trebach was a notorious apologist for the drug war as supposedly simply well-intended:
Despite its bad reputation, however, I am, on balance, prepared to ascribe “a good motive”, in Senator Lane’s words, to the HNA itself. Although I have long considered it a repressive piece of legislation, a fresh reading of the historical record now leads me to believe that it was, on the whole, a rather intelligent, rational and progressive one.Yet the DPF was still a better organization during its early years (1987-1992), with my observations of Trebach, along with DPF now DPA figures of Ira Glasser and Ethan Nadelman, being yanked from higher up in the political pyramid.
The Heroin Solution, Arnold Trebach, at p 122
Rather the problem was already there- something working upon behalf of slowing the pace of drug policy reform in order to go the easiest upon the existing markets threatened by re-legalization and re-popularization of the plant drugs.
Coca after all had been advocated (and feared by the USDA and its politically allied AMA-APhA) as a "Tobacco Habit Cure".
So then, what about this? (- towards the end of the very introductory DPF letter of Trebach and Zeese dated March 1990):
The Foundation is not a legalization organization, even though many in the Foundation support outright legalization. The Foundation is concerned with a variety of issues, including education the public about the effects of drug use, preventing the spread of AIDS among drug users, allowing the medical use of currently prohibited drugs, allowing doctors to prescribe drugs as they and their patients see necessary, expanding the availability of drug treatment, creating more effective and less corrupt police forces, preventing the erosion of civil liberties, ensuring the proper use of drug tests in society, and developing social, instead of criminal, controls to prevent drug abuse.Covington & Burling just happens to be perhaps the largest law firm legal representative of food, drug and pharmaceutical industries, and is the firm that has not only represented but rather COORDINATED the legal representation of the cigarette industry.
The Foundation is an education, research and legal center. It publishes books, articles and newsletter; rewards people for outstanding achievement in the field of drug policy; responds to media and scholarly information requests; presents regular forums and annual international conference; and represents in court those wronged by the drug war.
The Foundation is a charitable corporation under the laws of the District of Columbia and section 501 ©(3) of the U.S Internal Revenue Code. Thus, all contributions to the Foundation are tax-deductable. To maintain its independence, the Drug Policy Foundation neither seeks nor will it accept government funding. The Drug Policy Foundation extends thanks to these persons and organizations who provided vital support during 1988-89. Special thanks go to our three largest contributors: the Chicago Resource Center and its president, Richard Dennis, and executive director, Mary Ann Snyder; the Linnel Foundation in Boston, Mass., and the late Robert Linnell; and Anne “Petey” Cerf of Lawrence, Kan. Their support was and continues to be invaluable to the work of the Foundation.
While the Drug Policy Foundation has outstanding counsel in Kevin Zeese, the leading Washington law firm Covington and Burling accepted the Foundation as a pro bono publico [for the public good] client in regard to corporate and tax matters in 1988. We have received valuable advice from Marialuisa Gallozzi, the Covington and Burling associate assigned to take primary responsibility for advising the Foundation. Having Covington and Burling in our corner is a source of great comfort.”
For nearly the same amount of time, Covington & Burling has had its pro bono program
If you are aware of the history of the drug war as agricultural mercantilism to protect Tobacco from Coca, and aware of the Coca issue's neglect, the plausible potential conflict of interest is quite evident.
Holder-Breuer Law Firm Long Involved with Drug Policy
DPF-Washington, D.C. Pro Bono Legal Connection
DPF Advised by C&B Food & Drug & Insurance Attorney
DPA Refuses Agricultural Panel
So far, additional information about this valuable and other such advice given to the Drug Policy Foundation, this Covington & Burling relationship with the various drug policy reform organizations, nor any other such pro bono program relationships regarding organizations promoting drug policy reform, has not been forthcoming.