Home

Commentary

Organizations

People

State Rankings

Back to NFIA

The Drug Policy Foundation

501 © (3) nonprofit tax-exempt organization

1986

To serve as a forum for political leaders and the public to learn about alternative drug policies, which include:

1) harm reduction–policies that help drug users to help themselves, such as needle-exchange programs, which can lower the risk of spreading deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS

2) decriminalization–selectively enforcing the laws on the books to focus on major drug offenders, as in Holland

3) medicalization–allowing doctors to prescribe otherwise illegal drugs to patients under certain conditions, as is the case now in Arizona and California, or allowing doctors to maintain an addict (on the drug to which the person is addicted), as in Great Britain and Switzerland

4) legalization–making drugs available to adults in a regulated market, similar to U.S. alcohol laws.
(Drug Policy Foundation Website, September 28,1997)

1) To redirect state priorities from prison construction and incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders toward cost-effective and humane alternatives in order to encourage a transition from a punitive approach to a harm reduction approach to drug problems

2) To eliminate or reduce mandatory minimum sentencing for drug-related offenses at both the state and federal level

3) To eliminate the criminal prohibition of drug use

4) To create policies which overturn or avoid the use of invasive drug testing

5) To reduce the excesses of civil asset forfeiture

6) To expand the availability of methadone treatment options, to increase the range of acceptable methadone providers, and to transition the federal government from a regulatory to a licensing approach to methadone

7) To forge public policies in collaboration with public health, chronic care, long-term care providers, and pain patients that allow physicians to prescribe medically appropriate pain medication; to develop state public policies that serve as alternatives to invasive triplicate-prescription systems and other policies restricting appropriate medical practice

8) To institute state policies that support medical marijuana'

9) To expand the range of street-based harm- reduction initiatives for poly-substance users by forging demonstrable links to mainstream health care, treatment, and employment training sources

10) To start new needle-exchange efforts in unserved states or cities and to advocate for needle-exchange programs in states currently prohibiting such programs

11) To develop research-based motivational and truthful prevention curricula aimed at young people that offer a viable alternative to DARE and other zero tolerance-based approaches

12) To develop international harm-reduction alliances involving multiple countries in places like Latin America, Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe.
(The Drug Policy Foundation: Creating More Reasoned and Compassionate Drug Policies, Grant Program Guidelines, August 1999.)

David C. Lewis, MD
Center for Alcohol Studies
Brown University

Joseph D. McNamara, DrPA
Hoover Institution
Stanford University

Hon. Robert W. Sweet
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NY
New York NY

Richard B. Wolf
Richland Mills
Hialeah FL

Other Directors
Dawn Day
The Dogwood Center
Princeton NJ

Richard J. Dennis
Chicago Resource Center
Chicago IL

M. Joycelyn Elders, MD
Little Rock AR

Tommy J. Fulcher, Jr.
Economic & Social Opportunities, Inc
San Jose CA

Elizabeth Gaynes
The Osborne Association
New York NY

Gerald B. Lefcourt, PC
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
New York NY

Patrick V. Murphy
American Police Association
Bethesda MD

Nicholas Pastore
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation
New Haven CT

Diane Riley, PhD
International Harm Reduction Association
Toronto, Canada

Reverend Edwin Sanders
Metropolitan Interdenominational Church
Nashville TN

Edith Springer, ACSW
Harm Reduction Training Institute
New York NY

Danny Sugerman
Author
West Hollywood CA
(Drug Policy Foundation Membership Letter, January 2000)