CRIME US Drug War Has Met None Of It's Goals

Chair Warmer

Membership Revoked
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_re_us/failed_drug_war


AP IMPACT: US drug war has met none of its goals
MARTHA MENDOZA, Associated Press – 1 hr 38 mins ago


MEXICO CITY – After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

This week President Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

Kerlikowske, who coordinates all federal anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric.

"Nothing happens overnight," he said. "We've never worked the drug problem holistically. We'll arrest the drug dealer, but we leave the addiction."

His predecessor, John P. Walters, takes issue with that.

Walters insists society would be far worse today if there had been no War on Drugs. Drug abuse peaked nationally in 1979 and, despite fluctuations, remains below those levels, he says. Judging the drug war is complicated: Records indicate marijuana and prescription drug abuse are climbing, while cocaine use is way down. Seizures are up, but so is availability.

"To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcment, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

___

In 1970, hippies were smoking pot and dropping acid. Soldiers were coming home from Vietnam hooked on heroin. Embattled President Richard M. Nixon seized on a new war he thought he could win.

"This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people," Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

His first drug-fighting budget was $100 million. Now it's $15.1 billion, 31 times Nixon's amount even when adjusted for inflation.

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went, and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

- $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico - and the violence along with it.

- $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

- $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

- $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

- $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse - "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" - cost the United States $215 billion a year.

Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron says the only sure thing taxpayers get for more spending on police and soldiers is more homicides.

"Current policy is not having an effect of reducing drug use," Miron said, "but it's costing the public a fortune."

___

From the beginning, lawmakers debated fiercely whether law enforcement - no matter how well funded and well trained - could ever defeat the drug problem.

Then-Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel, who had his doubts, has since watched his worst fears come to pass.

"Look what happened. It's an ongoing tragedy that has cost us a trillion dollars. It has loaded our jails and it has destabilized countries like Mexico and Colombia," he said.

In 1970, proponents said beefed-up law enforcement could effectively seal the southern U.S. border and stop drugs from coming in. Since then, the U.S. used patrols, checkpoints, sniffer dogs, cameras, motion detectors, heat sensors, drone aircraft - and even put up more than 1,000 miles of steel beam, concrete walls and heavy mesh stretching from California to Texas.

None of that has stopped the drugs. The Office of National Drug Control Policy says about 330 tons of cocaine, 20 tons of heroin and 110 tons of methamphetamine are sold in the United States every year - almost all of it brought in across the borders. Even more marijuana is sold, but it's hard to know how much of that is grown domestically, including vast fields run by Mexican drug cartels in U.S. national parks.

The dealers who are caught have overwhelmed justice systems in the United States and elsewhere. U.S. prosecutors declined to file charges in 7,482 drug cases last year, most because they simply didn't have the time. That's about one out of every four drug cases.

The United States has in recent years rounded up thousands of suspected associates of Mexican drug gangs, then turned some of the cases over to local prosecutors who can't make the charges stick for lack of evidence. The suspects are then sometimes released, deported or acquitted. The U.S. Justice Department doesn't even keep track of what happens to all of them.

In Mexico, traffickers exploit a broken justice system. Investigators often fail to collect convincing evidence - and are sometimes assassinated when they do. Confessions are beaten out of suspects by frustrated, underpaid police. Judges who no longer turn a blind eye to such abuse release the suspects in exasperation.

In prison, in the U.S. or Mexico, traffickers continue to operate, ordering assassinations and arranging distribution of their product even from solitary confinement in Texas and California. In Mexico, prisoners can sometimes even buy their way out.

The violence spans Mexico. In Ciudad Juarez, the epicenter of drug violence in Mexico, 2,600 people were killed last year in cartel-related violence, making the city of 1 million across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, one of the world's deadliest. Not a single person was prosecuted for homicide related to organized crime.

And then there's the money.

The $320 billion annual global drug industry now accounts for 1 percent of all commerce on the planet.

A full 10 percent of Mexico's economy is built on drug proceeds - $25 billion smuggled in from the United States every year, of which 25 cents of each $100 smuggled is seized at the border. Thus there's no incentive for the kind of financial reform that could tame the cartels.

"For every drug dealer you put in jail or kill, there's a line up to replace him because the money is just so good," says Walter McCay, who heads the nonprofit Center for Professional Police Certification in Mexico City.

McCay is one of the 13,000 members of Medford, Mass.-based Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of cops, judges, prosecutors, prison wardens and others who want to legalize and regulate all drugs.

A decade ago, no politician who wanted to keep his job would breathe a word about legalization, but a consensus is growing across the country that at least marijuana will someday be regulated and sold like tobacco and alcohol.

California voters decide in November whether to legalize marijuana, and South Dakota will vote this fall on whether to allow medical uses of marijuana, already permitted in California and 13 other states. The Obama administration says it won't target marijuana dispensaries if they comply with state laws.

___

Mexican President Felipe Calderon says if America wants to fix the drug problem, it needs to do something about Americans' unquenching thirst for illegal drugs.

Kerlikowske agrees, and Obama has committed to doing just that.

And yet both countries continue to spend the bulk of their drug budgets on law enforcement rather than treatment and prevention.

"President Obama's newly released drug war budget is essentially the same as Bush's, with roughly twice as much money going to the criminal justice system as to treatment and prevention," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. "This despite Obama's statements on the campaign trail that drug use should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue."

Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users.

About $5.6 billion would be spent on prevention and treatment.

"For the first time ever, the nation has before it an administration that views the drug issue first and foremost through the lens of the public health mandate," said economist and drug policy expert John Carnevale, who served three administrations and four drug czars. "Yet ... it appears that this historic policy stride has some problems with its supporting budget."

Carnevale said the administration continues to substantially over-allocate funds to areas that research shows are least effective - interdiction and source-country programs - while under-allocating funds for treatment and prevention.

Kerlikowske, who wishes people would stop calling it a "war" on drugs, frequently talks about one of the most valuable tools they've found, in which doctors screen for drug abuse during routine medical examinations. That program would get a mere $7.2 million under Obama's budget.

"People will say that's not enough. They'll say the drug budget hasn't shifted as much as it should have, and granted I don't disagree with that," Kerlikowske said. "We would like to do more in that direction."

Fifteen years ago, when the government began telling doctors to ask their patients about their drug use during routine medical exams, it described the program as one of the most proven ways to intervene early with would-be addicts.

"Nothing happens overnight," Kerlikowske said.

___

Until 100 years ago, drugs were simply a commodity. Then Western cultural shifts made them immoral and deviant, according to London School of Economics professor Fernanda Mena.

Religious movements led the crusades against drugs: In 1904, an Episcopal bishop returning from a mission in the Far East argued for banning opium after observing "the natives' moral degeneration." In 1914, The New York Times reported that cocaine caused blacks to commit "violent crimes," and that it made them resistant to police bullets. In the decades that followed, Mena said, drugs became synonymous with evil.

Nixon drew on those emotions when he pressed for his War on Drugs.

"Narcotics addiction is a problem which afflicts both the body and the soul of America," he said in a special 1971 message to Congress. "It comes quietly into homes and destroys children, it moves into neighborhoods and breaks the fiber of community which makes neighbors. We must try to better understand the confusion and disillusion and despair that bring people, particularly young people, to the use of narcotics and dangerous drugs."

Just a few years later, a young Barack Obama was one of those young users, a teenager smoking pot and trying "a little blow when you could afford it," as he wrote in "Dreams From My Father." When asked during his campaign if he had inhaled the pot, he replied: "That was the point."

So why persist with costly programs that don't work?

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, sitting down with the AP at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, paused for a moment at the question.

"Look," she says, starting slowly. "This is something that is worth fighting for because drug addiction is about fighting for somebody's life, a young child's life, a teenager's life, their ability to be a successful and productive adult.

"If you think about it in those terms, that they are fighting for lives - and in Mexico they are literally fighting for lives as well from the violence standpoint - you realize the stakes are too high to let go."
 

dstraito

TB Fanatic
Did Prohibition work?

Does putting Drug users in jail make things better or worse?

Can you legislate morality?
 

summerthyme

Administrator
_______________
"To say that all the things that have been done in the war on drugs haven't made any difference is ridiculous," Walters said. "It destroys everything we've done. It's saying all the people involved in law enforcment, treatment and prevention have been wasting their time. It's saying all these people's work is misguided."

The truth sucks sometime.

Sorry, Mr Walters.... yes, you DID waste all that time and billions of dollars on a completely misguided... nay, DEAD WRONG... "war on Americans".

Summerthyme
 

Hacker

Computer Hacking Pirate
What would happen if the government completely withdrew from the drug issue?
  • Repeal laws making drugs illegal.
  • Release imprisoned drug offenders.
  • Leave us alone!
 

RCSAR

Veteran Member
From the point of the constitution they have no power to have a war on drugs except in DC which they do have power over.

The prohibition needs to stop! No taxes on it or any other conditions. Of course this will not happen as it is about control and not drugs.

Going the route of pure controlled doses would end alot of the overdoses.
With drugs out there with no poisons added by these makeshift labs is on par with making alcohol pure aith no methanol or lead in it like during prohibition.

Spend the money on education and treatment and not kicking down doors and shooting dogs and people. Jailed never cured an addict. Making drugs safe and cheap for users will choke off the drug money and alot of killer gangbangers that are funded by selling drugs. Legal drugs will actually make this country healthier in the long run.

Those that disagree just look at the above story to see how the war is going so far. How long will we keep doing the same stupid thing year after year?

Whats the projected date on winning this "War on Drugs"?
 

BadMedicine

Would *I* Lie???
Control the people with ENDLESS excuses for tapping personal information, income, monies spent, monies transfered, money invested, property bought, identifications needed, travel information, phone records, warrantless phonetaps, proof of residencies, illegal searches, loss of property/ savings/ rights.? Check. seems to me they've accomplished all their goals.


gov wanting to win the war on rights(drugs) is like a lightbulb manufacturer selling bulbs that last forever.
 

nharrold

Deceased
Of course, if the gummint ended the "War on Drugs", they'd want to come up with a replacement for their property seizures....
 

FREEBIRD

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Putting people in jail cuts back on the unemployment numbers as well. Plus all the other control issues previously mentioned.

Treatment works for a certain percentage of addicts. Jailing people for addiction makes no sense. Jailing dealers may be a different case.
 

kytom

escapee from reality
its real easy to stop the drugs entering the country. we know who the drug lords are. we know how much they sell their product for. instead of spending all the money trying to stop the flow lets go to the source, we could buy up all their product for alot less then we are spending on fighting it. buy it and burn it. case closed.
 

45nut

Inactive
I maintain the war on drugs has achieved exactly what it was meant to do, make felons and subjects out of millions of people that they otherwise would not have control over.
see my sig.
 

denfoote

Inactive
Just like the alcohol war of the twenties and thirties, the so called drug war has also failed. In fact, the drug war was over and done with by 1969 with the cops losing badly!!
 

Bad Hand

Veteran Member
The government will not end the war on drugs for several reasons 1: they would lose their license to steal 2: There would be a lot of unemployed alphabet agency thugs 3: The cops wouldn't be able to shoot people dogs in living rooms.
 

Y2kO

Inactive
The war on drugs has achieved all of its goals: keeps the price of drugs profitable for blackops and elite cartels, allows asset forfeiture seizure of anything you have, allows LEOs to kick in your door and kill your dog (or you) whenever they feel like it, allows LEOs to confiscate any cash or gold on your person, allows feds to monitor every aspect of your life, allows bankers to launder drug profits through the markets to prevent their collapse.
 

Cheval

Veteran Member
The war on drugs has achieved all of its goals: keeps the price of drugs profitable for blackops and elite cartels, allows asset forfeiture seizure of anything you have, allows LEOs to kick in your door and kill your dog (or you) whenever they feel like it, allows LEOs to confiscate any cash or gold on your person, allows feds to monitor every aspect of your life, allows bankers to launder drug profits through the markets to prevent their collapse.

+1
 

GB_Cobber

Inactive
The war on drugs has achieved all of its goals: keeps the price of drugs profitable for blackops and elite cartels, allows asset forfeiture seizure of anything you have, allows LEOs to kick in your door and kill your dog (or you) whenever they feel like it, allows LEOs to confiscate any cash or gold on your person, allows feds to monitor every aspect of your life, allows bankers to launder drug profits through the markets to prevent their collapse.

+2

Also has longer term effects:

1) Pushes the boudries of public reason and tolerance to readily and unthinkingly accept ever more ridiculous rules and controls, serves in promotion of victim mentality and dependence on the sate and generally dumbs down the population by keeping them focused of base instincts; fear hate, greed, lust, etc.

2) This increases frustration amongst those resisting the program, in order to cause them to retaliate thus break the rules, in which case anything they do or say can be discounted, also to supply the private prison complex with more workers. Quality workers at that.

3) Promotes the growth of violent gangs and criminal behavoir in general which in turn incites the people to call for ever more state control, resulting in more rules, more police, more power to the state and those in power.

4) Return to item 1 and do it again. This time without feeling.
 
Last edited:

inynmn

Inactive
45Nut:
I maintain the war on drugs has achieved exactly what it was meant to do, make felons and subjects out of millions of people that they otherwise would not have control over.


All about control of the free range and incarcerated farm sheeple.

Of course our Presidents (past several recent) have "experimented" - at least the past 3 have admitted to it (yes the "I did not inhale" is an LIE - admission of guilt).

One set of laws for the slave-sheeple, another for the bloodlines and puppet rulers.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
I'm 65 and have watched the whole Drug war thing, from the promises and assurances at the beginning, to the metastasizing of the "tax funds needed" to "fight" the "war". Then came the wholesale incarceration of hundreds of thousands of people for victimless crimes and lives destroyed over lawful behavior that was suddenly MADE UNLAWFUL. Ordinary, law abiding sick people began to have trouble lawfully securing adequate pain medications because the "war" turned to focus on sick people's medications and made a red tape/criminal threat hell for their physicians.

The "Drug War" became an extremely profitable industry, both for the drug "pushers" and for those who crafted a darn good living by posing as the "enemy", "fighting" drug use.

The "Drug War" served as a pretext for the seizure of American citizen's wealth and property without trial, without conviction of anything at all, without arrest or even charges filed against the victim of the "color of law" legal banditry which eventually permeated our society from the smallest one light town to the biggest cities as an EASY immediate source of ready revenue. Big money, in homes, cash, stock, jewelry, airplanes, cars, yachts, every kind of wealth was to be had simply by accusing the "property" of probable drug crime and seizing it, with little or no recourse for anyone thus legally robbed. Police and government Greed put the Constitution in the garbage.

And no fewer people hooked on drugs, no fewer "crack babies", were the result of the whole vain endeavor. But then, actually WINNING the "drug war" was A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST to those making a good living "trying" to fight it. Actually winning the drug war would put most of the "good guys" out of a job. Stupid they aren't, immoral maybe.

It is time to END this IDIOTIC Drug war and put the money so spent to better use.
(and I NEVER used illegal drugs or marajuana so it is not from some personal iron in the fire)
 

GB_Cobber

Inactive
Drug Freedom Works in Portugal
Posted on April 6, 2009
Filed Under legalization, marijuana

Portugal%20409%20mod%20500.jpg


On Friday I attended Glenn Greenwald’s presentation of his report, “Drug Decriminalization in Portugal,” at the Cato Institute. Greenwald studied how Portugal’s policy of decriminalizing the personal possession of all drugs in 2001 has fared. Portugal’s policy has been a “resounding success.”

Decriminalization is dismissed out of hand by those that consider drugs a moral issue, but prohibitionists that stoop to debate argue decriminalization will bring a “parade of horrors.” Some of these are that usage and addiction rates will explode, more children will do drugs, and decriminalized areas will become drug tourist havens that will spread addiction throughout the world.

None of these things have occurred in Portugal. Instead a massive amount of financial resources have been freed up to provide treatment to those that want it. In addition, more of the population has been willing to take advantage of government-supplied treatment now that there is no fear of criminal ramifications.

These results are unsurprising to those that understand how exaggerated the evils are surrounding “hard” drugs. On average, criminalization prevents responsible and conscientious people from using drugs – the exact population that can handle the freedom sensibly.

Note: Greenwald pointed out that the Portuguese commission had considered legalization but believed it could not legalize without violating international treaty obligations. (These treaties are enforced by zealous drug-war states like the United States.) He added that small countries like Portugal actually have to follow international treaties.

Sources:

1. Glenn Greenwald, “Drug Decriminalization in Portugal,” (2009). LINK
http://suburra.com/blog/2009/04/06/drug-freedom-works-in-portugal/
 

American Rage

Inactive
All we have to do is start executing the smugglers.

Heck, do that, and I might be all for legalizing pot.

But everything else: coke, meth, heroine and such should be the death penalty.


Rage
 

BoatGuy

Inactive
The war on drugs has achieved all of its goals: keeps the price of drugs profitable for blackops and elite cartels, allows asset forfeiture seizure of anything you have, allows LEOs to kick in your door and kill your dog (or you) whenever they feel like it, allows LEOs to confiscate any cash or gold on your person, allows feds to monitor every aspect of your life, allows bankers to launder drug profits through the markets to prevent their collapse.

You beat me to it, and said it better than I would have.
 
Top