• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

RS: Why America Can't Quit the Drug War

neversickanymore

Moderator: DS
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
30,597
Why America Can't Quit the Drug War
By Tim Dickinson May 5, 2016

1035x900-R1261_NAT_DrugWars_D.jpg



After 45 years, more than $1 trillion wasted, and the creation of the world's largest prison system, America still lacks the political will to change its failed drug policy



In March, the commander in chief of the War on Drugs stood in front of a crowd of policymakers, advocates and recovering addicts to declare that America has been doing it wrong.

Speaking at the National Prescription Drug Abuse and Heroin Summit in Atlanta – focused on an overdose epidemic now killing some 30,000 Americans a year – President Barack Obama declared, "For too long we have viewed the problem of drug abuse ... through the lens of the criminal justice system," creating grave costs: "We end up with jails full of folks who can't function when they get out. We end up with people's lives being shattered."

Touting a plan to increase drug-treatment spending by more than $1 billion – the capstone to the administration's effort to double the federal drug-treatment budget – Obama insisted, "This is a straightforward proposition: How do we save lives once people are addicted, so that they have a chance to recover? It doesn't do us much good to talk about recovery after folks are dead."

Obama's speech underscored tactical and rhetorical shifts in the prosecution of the War on Drugs – the first durable course corrections in this failed 45-year war. The administration has enshrined three crucial policy reforms. First, health insurers must now cover drug treatment as a requirement of Obamacare. Second, draconian drug sentences have been scaled back, helping to reduce the number of federal drug prisoners by more than 15 percent. Third, over the screams of prohibitionists in its ranks, the White House is allowing marijuana's march out of the black market, with legalization expected to reach California and beyond in November.

The administration's change in rhetoric has been even more sweeping: Responding to opioid deaths, Obama appointed a new drug czar, Michael Botticelli, who previously ran point on drug treatment in Massachusetts. Botticelli has condemned the "failed policies and failed practices" of past drug czars, and refers not to heroin "junkies" or "addicts" but to Americans with "opioid-abuse disorders."

"One of the biggest reasons why people don't seek care is shame and stigma," Botticelli told reporters last year. "What we've been trying to do is change the language."

Despite strides toward a more sane national drug policy, the deeper infrastructure of the War on Drugs remains fundamentally unaltered under Obama. Work focused on public health has not replaced paramilitary anti-trafficking efforts, known as interdiction, at home or abroad. Rather – much like an "all of the above" energy strategy that embraces solar while continuing to remove mountaintops in pursuit of coal – the new policies supplement the old.

As a result, the Drug War is costing taxpayers more than ever. Obama's 2017 drug budget seeks $31 billion, an increase of 25 percent from when he took office. This year, the federal government is spending more than $1,100 per person to combat the habit of America's 27 million illicit-drug users, and 22 million of them use marijuana.

Watch "The War on Drugs: By the Numbers."

The blinkered drug-warrior culture in the ranks of the departments of Justice, State and Defense remains similarly entrenched. The acting chief of the Drug Enforcement Agency calls medical marijuana "a joke." The State Department's top drug official insists, "Our objective remains ... eliminating the use of marijuana in the United States." With pot, such knee-jerk commitment to prohibition might be amusing. With harder drugs, it has deadly ramifications. At home, the administration's early crackdown on prescription opioids helped drive the current spike in heroin deaths. South of the border, cartel violence rages unabated, despite the recapture of Mexico's most notorious drug lord; the country's homicide rate in February spiked to 55 murders a day.

The futility of the greater Drug War was laid bare in recent Senate testimony by top admirals charged with combating global narcotraffic. They confessed they had no solution to halt the flow of heroin from Mexico; admitted global drug suppliers would invariably service U.S. demand; and pressed the government to steel itself for a 30-year nation-building effort in drug-ravaged Mexico and Central America.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida), the senior member of the Armed Services Committee, sought to put a rosy spin on proceedings. "At least we got El Chapo," he said. "So that was a step in the right direction."

Forty-five years on, America is still grappling with the dark origins of the Drug War, launched in 1971 by President Richard Nixon – for political purposes.

Nixon's domestic-policy adviser, John Ehrlichman, in an interview published posthumously in Harper's this year, revealed the true aim of the Drug War was to criminalize the administration's "two enemies: the anti-war left and black people." As Ehrlichman explained, "We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news."

Nixon himself wove anti-Semitism into the mix. "Every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish," Nixon groused to his chief of staff, Bob Haldeman, in a conversation recorded in the Oval Office in May 1971. "What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob?" Nixon asked. "By God, we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss."

More than $1 trillion later, Nixon's war has hollowed out urban black communities, visited death upon downtrodden whites in rural America and unleashed horrific violence from Bogotá to Ciudad Juarez. In Mexico, since 2007, as many as 80,000 civilians have been murdered in drug violence. Despite the carnage, prohibitionist policies enforced through military interdiction and domestic incarceration have done little to curb the American drug habit – which fuels $64 billion a year in cartel profits, according to an estimate by the Treasury Department.

America remains the world's top consumer of illicit drugs. The government's National Survey on Drug Use and Health from 2015 found nearly one in 10 Americans over the age of 12 had used an illicit drug in the previous month. The surge in Drug War spending notwithstanding, American drug use is up modestly – the highest since 2002.

By the government's own metrics, the Drug War is failing. In December, the Government Accountability Office published a report titled "Office of National Drug Control Policy: Lack of Progress on Achieving National Strategy Goals." GAO found that "none of the goals" of the Obama drug strategy have been met, and significant progress can be seen only in a slight reduction in drug use among teens.

Obama's Drug War leadership has been uneven, an evaluation shared by drug warriors and reformers alike. Beyond big-picture objectives – softening mandatory-minimums, ensuring drug treatment and avoiding a firestorm over marijuana – the first six-plus years of the administration were marked by the president's lack of interest in the nuts and bolts of the Drug War. "I don't think it's controversial by any stretch of the imagination to say that drug policy was not a priority," says Kevin Sabet, a senior adviser in Obama's ONDCP from 2009 to 2011.

The administration's previous drug czar, gruff former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske, reported to Vice President Joe Biden, who had made his bones as one of the Senate's top drug warriors. Obama did not even introduce the National Drug Strategy in 2010. "This was the 'president's drug strategy,'" laments one of its drafters, "and there just wasn't interest."

As a result, much of the Drug War continued on a glide path. Obama even carried over George W. Bush's DEA chief, Michele Leonhart, who would refuse to admit, under House grilling in 2012, that marijuana is a less dangerous drug than crack cocaine.

Obama's inattention also sparked infighting among reformers and hard-liners in the policy ranks – explaining the whipsaw treatment of medical marijuana during Obama's first term. A 2009 Justice Department memo, interpreted in the states as a green light for commercial-scale medical marijuana, was unceremoniously revoked in 2011 – after rearguard action by career drug warriors, including Sabet: "I pushed very hard behind the scenes to get a clarifying memo in 2011, saying, 'Oh, wait a minute, you guys took it the wrong way.'" The new directive sparked a resurgence of marijuana prosecutions, above all in California.


continued with videos http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-america-cant-quit-the-drug-war-20160505?page=9
 
Last edited:
I don't think the drug war will ever end. Too many people are making too much money for it too stop. We all know the CIA has its hands in the heroin trade. Is it really a coincidence that heroin started flooding into the suburbs right after the invasion of Afghanistan the number one supplier of raw opium in the world? They cant even keep drugs out of prisons for fucks sake. What kind of chance do you give them to keep it out of the country? The really ironic thing is even if they managed to shut down the south American drug producers labs would just pop up producing research chem type drugs. The basic tenet of capitalism is where there is demand supply will follow.
 
I don't think the drug war will ever end.

I don't think you're right. The argument that too many people are making too much money for it to end is somewhat short-sighted. You do know how big the drug trade is, right? If the government were to tax it and get their hand on the money, they would make a fuckton. I believe you can shift the system in such a way that drugs become legal and regulated, and there will still be no major loss of jobs or income in general, for the people "at the top". I don't buy the whole conspiracy theory, I think the reason the WoD is still going is just the reluctance to change in our population.
 
I don't think you're right. The argument that too many people are making too much money for it to end is somewhat short-sighted. You do know how big the drug trade is, right? If the government were to tax it and get their hand on the money, they would make a fuckton. I believe you can shift the system in such a way that drugs become legal and regulated, and there will still be no major loss of jobs or income in general, for the people "at the top". I don't buy the whole conspiracy theory, I think the reason the WoD is still going is just the reluctance to change in our population.




The drug war keeps plenty if people making money. Prisons are being built more & more since the drug war started in the 1970's. Judges, lawyers, cops, agencies, way too many people have their hand out from the war on drugs to legalize it.

Will drugs ever be legalized? IMO, yes they will, & I'm talking all drugs, but who knows when that will be.

Like mentioned above, heroin epidemic is in full force ever since we went into Afghanistan. And is it a surprise that an agency went after doctors to stop prescribing pain meds? They want everyone addicted to pain to get addicted to heroin.

You will never catch the people behind the scenes, way too big & connected.
 
I don't think the drug war will ever end.

I hope you turn out to be wrong within my lifetime, but I also realize that a handful of very large industries stand to lose a lot of money if their cash cow is destroyed.

Firstly, before we stand to have a chance of formally turning the war on (some/certain) drugs on its head for good, we must pass an amendment in order to get money out of politics. Sadly, both parties have - for the most part - been turned into a bunch of corporate whores due to the deregulation of Wall St. and the passing of greedy, reckless laws such as Citizens United (which makes it so that a company is considered a person in the eyes of the federal government).

All I know is, if these massive conglomerates - who have essentially bribed their way into controlling Congress - were truly looked upon as people, all of them (100%) would immediately be labelled as narcissistic sociopaths by psychiatrists. Bet lawmakers never considered that perspective when deciding to vote yes for less government control of respective markets, but I digress.

If we somehow manage to make unchecked anonymous "donations" towards a politician's Super PAC(s) to be considered what they used to be (illegal bribery), then, lobbyists from the private prison industry, big alcohol and big tobacco, big pharma, for profit drug rehab franchises, and so forth will not be able to wield nearly as much political influence for the purpose of return on investments that they currently are able to.

If we somehow manage to get money out of politics, only then can I see anything happening at the federal level. Hillary Clinton (whom I cannot stand due to her consistent tendency to shamelessly flip flop on key issues when politically convenient; who has persistently displayed a severe lack of sound judgement regarding decisions on wars, trade deals and controversial social issues; and who seems to enjoy playing the "I have a vagina" card whenever put on the spot for her knuckleheaded positions of the past) won't ever try to facilitate such changes (despite her deceitful campaign promises). Trump - I won't even bother going there. Only Bernie seems to wanna shake the establishment tree, so to speak.
 
Its all about money and probation. Taxing the poor even poorer and keeping them from ever getting where they wanna go.
 
31 billion, an increase of 25 percent from when he took office. This year, the federal government is spending more than $1,100 per person
--------
People should have choice how that 1100 is spent. Like I would choose to put it toward infrastructure and education maybe even the space program. What if only the people who support drug war pay for it? How big would it be then? 1100 dollars to pay to lock up my fellow citizens for victimless crimes.
 
Good question.

Better yet any ideas on how to change that shit, cuz drugs and incaratiion and the correctional system in general have been big business since the 80s and well now its competly fucked and it costs taxpayers to do shit they don't want done.

I dunno how to change things. Its not like people protest the same damn thing in masses like in the 60s, so do you got any advice on inspiring change. All I see is art is the least censored media these days so that what I do.
 
Good question.

Better yet any ideas on how to change that shit, cuz drugs and incaratiion and the correctional system in general have been big business since the 80s and well now its competly fucked and it costs taxpayers to do shit they don't want done.

I dunno how to change things. Its not like people protest the same damn thing in masses like in the 60s, so do you got any advice on inspiring change. All I see is art is the least censored media these days so that what I do.

This is so true. This is going to be one of the biggest hurtles we will have to face. People that are already making money, especially as much money as the prison/rehab industry makes are going to be hard to change. Not only is it very profitable, it is also an incestuous process. Police get money from the government for arrests, prisons are privitized and get money per bed that is filled. Both of those industries feed of the government, and many people in the government butter their bread by taking tough stances on drugs. So it goes like this. Judge, politician and prosecutor get elected on a campaign of eradicating drugs. They receive money in the form of campaign contributions from the police unions, and private prison corporations. The police arrest those using (which they get a "donation" from the government for every drug arrest they make), then the judge and prosecutor send that person to prison which fills a bed in the prison (which they get a "donation" from the government for. Later after the police and the prison have spent what they need and lined their pockets they donate some of the government money they have recieved back to the government to the same prosecutor and judge and politician in order to send them more innocent souls.

It is scary. I wish I was just tinfoil hat style paranoid instead of actively watching this happen.
 
^ Plus they [the private prison industry] reportedly have had no qualms about suing (or threatening to sue) their state level governments for "deliberate breach of contract" because the beds have not been filled to capacity. And the "don't take it personally, it's just business" manner in which they document and discuss the unfortunate prisoners housed in their facilities (designated hexadecimal digits first and foremost as if they are stocked goods to be traded on the open market) makes it all the more despicable if you ask me.
 
Top