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

US War on Drugs: elusive victory, disputed statistics

E-llusion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
5,975
Despite three decades of upbeat reports on battles won in the war on drugs, cocaine, heroin and marijuana are as easily available as ever and experts say the United States has yet to develop a strategy that works.

Just as in previous years, the government's progress reports for this year on drug control point to new records on cocaine seizures and on the eradication of coca plantations in Colombia, the world's top producer of cocaine.

The annual reports were issued by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, a 130-member group which sets anti-drug policy and is headed by "drug czar" John Walters, and by the State Department's Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

By some estimates, the United States consumes more than 60 percent of the world's illicit drugs, far out of proportion with its 4.5 percent of the world's population. It is by far the biggest market for cocaine, a drug that yields staggering profits for traffickers.

In most major U.S. cities, cocaine sells on the street for under $100 a gram with New York prices ranging from $20 to $60 a gram and Los Angeles around $80 a gram.

Despite the ready availability of cocaine, the White House's ONDCP reported: "Our ... overseas counterdrug efforts have slowly constricted the pipeline that brings cocaine to the United States."

Similar announcements have been issued regularly ever since Richard Nixon issued the official declaration of war on drugs in 1969. Four years later, Nixon said the United States had "turned the corner" on drug addiction and drug supplies.

When Washington's first drug czar, William Bennett, left his post, the White House said he had put the U.S. "on the road to victory" in the drug war. That was 16 years ago. Today, cocaine, heroin and marijuana are as widely available as they were then - at sharply lower prices.

"The price decline began in 1979 and the downward trend has been steady," said Mark Kleiman, director of the drug policy analysis program at the University of California, Los Angeles. Kleiman is one of about a dozen academic experts in the United States who have studied the drug trade for decades.

They viewed with skepticism an assertion in the drug czar's report that the street price of cocaine - the drug that most worries the government - had increased by 19 percent while purity had dropped by 15 percent between February and September 2005. The drug policy office called it a "trend reversal."

There have been temporary price spikes before but the trend remained unchanged.

ONE STEP FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK

In the drug war, the pattern has been one step forward, one step back - one trafficking organization smashed, another one formed; one hectare of coca or opium poppy destroyed, another one planted; one dealer imprisoned, another taking his place.

Questioned on cocaine prices on the street, Drug Enforcement Administration offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, San Diego, Miami, Atlanta and New York told Reuters no significant fluctuations had been noticed last year.

The DEA headquarters in Washington distanced itself from the drug czar's price increase figures and responded in a written statement to questions on the apparent discrepancy.

"The DEA provided ONDCP with our System to Retrieve Information on Drug Evidence, an inventory system that monitors and catalogs drug evidence taken in by DEA Special Agents around the country," the statement said.

"We did not take part in the study on which they based their conclusions so therefore don't feel it appropriate to comment on ONDCP's conclusions."

Said John Walsh, a drug expert at the Washington Office on Latin America: "In the drug war, numbers are routinely used to justify policy. Healthy skepticism is on order."

Peter Reuter, a drug expert at the University of Maryland, said the numbers were inconsistent with long-term trends and open to doubt. And, John Carnevale, a former senior aide to four drug czars, said ONDCP was "cherry-picking" statistics.

DRUG WAR DATA 'PROBLEMATIC'

Such skepticism echoed a November report by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, which described as "problematic" the data the government is using to assess progress in the anti-drug fight.

Apart from an "absence of adequate, reliable data on illicit drug prices and use," the GAO said, other figures were so broad as to be useless.

It cited the drug czar's 2004 estimate that Latin American traffickers were preparing to move between 325 and 675 tonnes of cocaine to the United States. "This wide range is not useful for assessing interdiction efforts," it said.

Most of the 1.6 million drug-related arrests each year are for possession of drugs rather than trafficking. These arrests and rigid mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenses have helped to turn the U.S. prison population into the world's biggest, at around 2.2 million.

While the administration has publicly acknowledged the importance of treatment and prevention at home, most of the drug czar's budget has gone to interdiction and law enforcement.

That trend continued with the budget request for 2007 - around 35 percent for demand reduction, 65 percent for crackdowns on supplies.

When she introduced the State Department's progress report in March, Anne Patterson, who heads the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, was asked to explain how ever-larger seizures and crop spraying programs squared with the fact that drugs were still readily available.

"If we weren't doing these programs," she said, "the situation would be very dramatically worse."

(BC-USA-DRUGS; editing by Jackie Frank; e-mail: [email protected])
---------------------------------------------------

US War on Drugs: elusive victory, disputed statistics
07 Mar 2006 16:34:15 GMT

Source: Reuters
By Bernd Debusmann, Special Correspondent

Washington, March 7 (Reuters)

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07371862.htm
 
So as usual, experts say it's not working, while the government says it is. When will people open their eyes? How maddening. "Dramatically worse" my ass.
 
Despite the ready availability of cocaine, the White House's ONDCP reported: "Our ... overseas counterdrug efforts have slowly constricted the pipeline that brings cocaine to the United States."

the pipeline? i just don't understand how the government can get away with pretending that there is a specific pipeline (a route which is only capable of bringing in so much cocaine at a time) of cocaine coming to the US. Is is that hard for people to understand that the amount of cocaine that comes into the US in the amount that can be sold in the US? I doubt that the 20 kilo replacement for the previous weeks bust was scheduled to come in before the DEA made their seizure; I believe that traffickers know a bust will happen sometime and they have cocaine ready to be shipped for that reason. Now why would they hoard cocaine if it was possible to sell it? They wouldn't, cocaine has a market and whether the government believes it or not, there is a limit on the rate of its sales.

When she introduced the State Department's progress report in March, Anne Patterson, who heads the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, was asked to explain how ever-larger seizures and crop spraying programs squared with the fact that drugs were still readily available.

"If we weren't doing these programs," she said, "the situation would be very dramatically worse."8(

This only goes with the idea that traffickers are not bringing in all they are physically capable of, they're just bringing in what they can sell. And there is no way drug users in the US can blow all of the cocaine that traffickers can make, it's just impossible.

Lastly I just want to know how majority of the US believes that winning the War on Drugs can be done by busting never-ending drug deals; is it so hard to understand that winning the War on Drugs can only be done by getting people to stop using drugs?
 
mclaughlinr1
"Lastly I just want to know how majority of the US believes that winning the War on Drugs can be done by busting never-ending drug deals; is it so hard to understand that winning the War on Drugs can only be done by getting people to stop using drugs?"

Yeah but you would never be able to stop everybody from using drugs. Its human nature to want to alter the mind. The best answer is regulation.
 
^agreed. i was just saying that since the (supposed) focus of the wod is to get rid of all illicit drug use then that's the only way it will happen, by having people choose to not ever use drugs. should have worded that differently now that you have said something.. good observation j
 
The simple fact that drug testing is so readily available leads me to believe that statistics are highly flawed.

And if everyone who wants the drug is getting the drug how are seizures making a difference?

If anyone really wanted to listen I'd would rant on education, responsible drug use, and how the lies are making things worse. You can't equate crack to marijuana. It's like caffeine to Benzos. Makes no sense.

mclaughlinr1… I like your signature.

Peace,
PL
 
danstabbingworth said:
So as usual, experts say it's not working, while the government says it is. When will people open their eyes? How maddening. "Dramatically worse" my ass.

Exactly :X :X :X
 
Its bothers me when these articles take the stance that drug use is bad and therefore must be eliminated. They then go on to say that the drug war is ineffective in reaching this end.

I think more people should use drugs, not less.

/cue tv commercial - "Hey kids, smoke dope to cope!"
 
Symptoms of a Real Problem

What people are missing is the fact that many people are making alot of money with the current drug policies. On average the tax payers, (that is you and I, incase you were not aware) spend around $40,000 per year (1), per inmate. Do the math. If we have 2.2 million prisoners, that is $88,000,000,000 per year! I have spent some time in a prison system for possession of a controlled substance, and I can assure you that they are not spending all that money on the facilities, payrolls and inmates.

We have a serious problem in this country. We are jailing people for possession of drugs while real crimes with real victims happen. Worse, we let actual criminals, (rapists, child molesters) go almost scott free, if they are willing to wear a wire on a drug dealer. None of this is on accident. This is not "just the way it is". They keep it this way for a reason. They are getting disgustingly rich.

It is time for us to open OUR eyes! We are responsible for the state of our country. We are the citizens of this country. We have the right to stand up for what we believe in. Why can we not see that by not voting, and not taking active participation in the way our country is run, is the problem!

At this point you are either the non voter who always responds with, "My vote doesn't count!" This is ignorance and denial. 34.1% of the population that is eligible to vote, did not even register in 2004. 41.7% of the 65.9% that registered, did not vote! (2) That means that out of 215 million eligible voters, 163 million did not vote. Do the math.

Or you are the type of person that says, "I voted! I can't do anything about what other people do." Yea, hide under that rock and hope all will be well. Thats been working.

Or you are the anti-establishment, f**k the government, everyday run of the mill, non-conformist type. This person not only does exactly what the status quo wants them to do, (which is nothing), but actually promotes their agenda for them by telling others they shouldn't vote either. THE STATUS QUO DOES NOT WANT US TO VOTE! If we started voting they would no longer be in control of the money. If we started voting they would be out of a job. If we started voting the country would actually be run the way WE would want it.

We wouldn't want that now would we?

There should be a war against voter apathy.






(1) Illinois Department of Corrections

(2) http://www.census.gov/
 
Last edited:
Amen Mehm… I've never heard a balanced report on drugs ever.

Cue PDA:

"Hi Kids. I'm Charles Barkley former Basketball star and I'm here to talk about MDMA. MDMA is a highly enjoyable drug for most people as long as you don't take too much too often. Be safe and have fun."

The More you Know (graphic)

Do do dooo (bells)

The other ad would be like this. Kids walking down a side walk 3 guys and 2 girls one kid holding a skateboard. They are passing around a joint and the camera cuts to the kid with the skateboard and a hoodie. First person style shot so he talks straight to the camera.

"Hey man I'm too baked. It's all yours."

You hear an off camera, "Thanks."

Narrator and graphic: Only you can smoke the weed.

Peace,
PL
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to mention...

In my haste and extreme ardor for the situation regarding voter apathy I have neglected to mention that laws are in place because people put them there. If the law that is in place is not doing what it is supposed to do, it would not be there. As an American citizen I am deeply concerned with drug policy. Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and protection of people? I wish I could say that I felt that drug laws, as we know them, were put in place to protect society. The issue with drugs is not a political issue in my mind. I feel that it is a philosophical one.

No law is going to stop any person from doing what one decides to do. No legislation can protect people from lack of education, self discipline, pride, or honor. Nor the lack of compassion for life. No prison, no police officer, no psychologist is going to be able to change the fact that wisdom and knowledge come from personal experience. Humans are by nature, beings that instinctively need to overcome obstacles. Tell a child that he or she cannot do something and watch them prove you wrong. Tell a child that he or she cannot do drugs and he or she will; without knowledge or guidance from someone who has experienced these things.

My first encounter with drugs was the D.A.R.E. program. I was in sixth grade. I was eleven years old and I was not thinking about illicit drugs. I wanted to ride my bike and hang out with my friends. I went home that day and asked my mother about these drugs. She sat me down and explained to me what each drug is, what it does, and went on to tell me that if I tried any of them before I turned eighteen I could hurt my brain and end up stupid. She also told me about alcohol and cigarettes, which for some reason, D.A.R.E. forgot to warn me about. I would like to add that today, here in South Dakota, the D.A.R.E. program is being taught as early as third grade.

My point is that there was never an obstacle put in front of me. I trusted my mother, and I waited until I was seventeen and a half before trying any drugs. She never told me I could never do drugs, she just explained her experiences with them.

In the years to come I made up for lost time. I developed a nasty meth habit and consumed whatever substance I possibly could. I pawned myself, my wife, my business, my house, my material possessions, my dignity, and my freedom. It took a few years but eventually I ate enough dirt to realize that I needed to change something. Me. I thought about what it was that I wanted out of life and made a decision to go for it. I am not done working on me by any means. I still smoke cigarettes, I love my ritalin, and I still mismanage my time and money.

It is unrealistic to think anyone can give anyone else the answers in life. If someone tells me how to do something and I fail, I will blame them. If I am successful, all merit is lost and it means nothing to me except proof that I am incapable of living life for myself.

If I want to be a junkie, in a gutter, with a needle hanging out of my arm, then that is my choice. I have been there. If I want to graduate college and accomplish my goals, then that too is my choice. If I can handle recreational drug use and maitain the life I want, I can do that too.No bottle or pill is going to magically force itself down my throat. No one is going to make me do these things and likewise, no law will stop me, but the law will make allot of people money. from court houses and lawyers to treatment centers and morticians. Let us not forget the drug dealers, the media, the gun manufactures, the jails, the prisons, the psychiatrists, medical doctors, pharmacies, the churches, the bars, the Mafia, the loan sharks, pawnshops, Alcoholics Anonymous...etc. The list goes on. It seems everyone makes money and is better off, except the still suffering addict who decides to continue suffering because they have been told, and believe, that they are powerless over an inanimate object.
 
Last edited:
Can't be bothered to read all the rhetoric. Use your voting power to elect a government with different policies. That's the only way this will ever stop.
35% on demand reduction. Should be 90% on demand reduction. No market-no one is going to take the risk for little/no gain. The U.S government can't/doesn't wish to try to account for the billions spent for no return. it's your tax money.

At least Bush can't run again so there is a glimmer of hope that the U.S. will move into the 21st century with the rest of the majority of 1st world nations.
 
It's all fine and dandy to say money is a motivating issue, but I think the true cause is these people think there is a disease, and they need to cure it. Maybe think is too light of a word. Believe. The believe it with every fiber of their being that they need to cure us of our "drug addictions" while at the same time, infringing on our rights to make choices that affect nobody but ourselves in most cases. So I would say good luck fighting these people.

The question I would ask is who do you vote for when most likely both candidates are going to run on an anti-drug platform? Who is seriously going to say, yeah, drugs are cool, or something even remotely drug-frinedly when their opponent is going to take that and smear the shit out of them for having a valid point. I'm certainly not saying don't vote, but I guess this is merely a frustration point for the two-party system we have today.

I just like to take things day to day and when I bring up something about drugs to an uneducated person, I give them a little heads-up on what the whole drug thing is really about. My personal effort is going towards education of the uneducated. I believe that the generation currently creating policy is too set, too uncaring, too uneducated.

And yes, thank god/whatever that George is out after this term.
 
joeofmusic said:
The issue with drugs is not a political issue in my mind. I feel that it is a philosophical one.

.

Too true it is.




zophen
 
I think (in a european country anyhow) that a pro legalisation/regulation political stance may very well be politically popular, it's just that the usual suspects are shit scared to put their heads above the parapet in order to actually find out how voters would react.
The logical thing to do would be to run a *seperate* party with broadly similar policies to your own party line, then if you see success you amalgamate the two, thereby avoiding a potential public flogging at the outset.







zophen (frustrated spin doctor)
 
Living In A Two Party System

This semester I am taking a European Democratic Government course. I sit in this class and often entertain the thought that I was born on the wrong side of this planet. Zophen, you are lucky to live in a European country, (assuming you do).

People in Europe have experienced much change and therefore have a greater understanding of government and community. In a parliamentary system there are many parties. Elections in a parliamentary system make much more sense than the American way. Parties are given representation according to the amount of votes that party receives in an election. In America, winner takes all. This leaves the losing party and it's people almost powerless.

The differences between European and American politics are many. Europe has a politically active citizenry. Europeans are involved and informed. More than two thirds of the population routinely votes in elections. The range of political possibilities has already been established by previous citizens. Europe has a vibrant press which is Very critical and involved, and is not afraid to, and does, criticize the government.

What I have been taught in this class is that Europe has seen what can happen to it's people if they do not play an active role in their society. Correct me if I am wrong about any of this.

It is possible to organize new parties in America, but this would take action from a great deal of people who have been numbed by a material consumerist way of life. It seems that Americans will believe they are happy if they are able to maintain possession of allot of stuff. Due to a large middle class, America has not seen the type of class contradiction that Europe has. This gives us a false sense of security and allows us to let our government control us through the fear that we may lose what little we have gained from the American dream.

danstabbingworth brings up a good point. Who do we vote for? At this "frustration point", (which I happen to agree with) the best thing we can do is vote for the lesser of two evils. Until like minded people start to vote in America, like minded people will not run for office. Yet just one more catch 22 in American politics.
 
Yep I reside in the country known as United Kingdom. We as a people fear that our system is becoming more like yours(with all the consumerist numbing).
Still we do have a certain amount of independent thought which distrusts all authority, and long may it continue and prosper.





zophen
 
re action.

I hope that does not happen over there. There is nothing worse than a bunch of people whose only action in life is critisism.
 
Really , well I shudder to think where a country that doesn't criticise it's own government may end up. Can anyone think of any historical examples?






zophen
 
critisism

We should always be critical of our governments. What I meant was, the problem is that this is where it stops. People here quietly criticize their government and then do nothing. Americans whine about what is going on and then do nothing. The majority of marijuana smokers are sitting at home talking about how things should be different.

"This shit should be legal man."
"Dude, totally."
"Is there anything we can do?"
"Naw man, our vote don't even count man."
"Dude, totally."
"Oh well, lets just load another one man."
"Dude, totally."

Or,

"Dude, there has never been one recorded death from the effects of marijuana."
"I know man, I can't believe it's illegal man."
"It's the oil companies man. They want to keep it illegal because you get five times as much ethanol from hemp as you do corn."
"Dude, I know."
"You know what I heard man?"
"No, what?"
"Paper made from hemp is ten times stronger than paper made from trees, and your looking at a nine month crop instead of a twenty year crop."
"Ha, I bet the lumber companies are in on it too."
"Well I hope someone does something about it soon."
"Dude, totally."
 
Top