Drug Warriors Say 'Bring Back The War On Drugs,' Because It Totally Worked

neversickanymore

Moderator: DS
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
32,739
Location
babysitting the argument in my head
55f1ca0e1700009a01569ddc.jpeg



"if you wanted to reduce crime ... you could abort every black baby in the country and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
~William Bennett

NSFW:
4876655-368-k611835.jpg
.........................................................................................................................................................

Drug Warriors Say 'Bring Back The War On Drugs,' Because It Totally Worked
09/10/2015

55f1b0872c00004e00aaf65e.jpeg

For most Americans, including some presidential candidates, the record on the U.S.-led drug war is settled: After spending more than $1 trillion on efforts that have taken or destroyed the lives of millions around the world, drug purity has risen, prices have fallen and rates of use have remained the same. It has, in no uncertain terms, been a catastrophic failure.

But in an op-ed published in The Boston Globe this week, two former drug czars say we have it all wrong. It's time to "Bring back the war on drugs," they argue, and recommit to an enforcement-first policy that puts forth incarceration and interdiction as the best tools to address surging heroin overdose rates.

The column, written by William J. Bennett and John P. Walters, drug czars under Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, is based on the controversial premise that the drug policies of the last quarter century have actually been effective.

"For 25 years before President Obama, U.S. policy confronted drug addiction with effective public health measures, emphasizing education, prevention, and treatment and, crucially, programs to reduce production, interdict the drugs, and lead international partnerships to destroy drug cartels," they write. "It worked."

The drug czars don't provide any metric to explain how they arrived at this conclusion. And the notion that the drug war did much of anything to reduce the supply of drugs is befuddling.

Heroin wasn't the drug of choice during the height of the drug war in the 1980s, but the price of cocaine -- a key target for drug warriors of that period -- gradually fell throughout the decade, reflecting an increase in supply. To address crack-cocaine use, politicians enacted harsh mandatory minimum sentencing laws, throwing people in jail for simple possession and treating 5 grams of crack the same as 500 grams of powder cocaine. These laws have long been criticized as racially biased, and in 2010, Congress finally lowered the sentencing disparity from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1 -- so today, 5 grams of crack is treated like 90 grams of cocaine.

The basic claim that Obama has somehow reversed drug control priorities -- requiring someone to "bring back the war on drugs" -- also seems wildly overstated. While Obama has indeed shifted efforts toward treatment, his 2015 drug control budget still allocated $14.5 billion to domestic law enforcement, interdiction and international operations. He requested $10.9 billion for treatment and prevention the same year.

Bennett and Walters employ revisionist history and at least one prohibitionist aphorism to conclude that we need a return to the "war on drugs" of the 1980s and 1990s to combat heroin. Stopping "criminal acts will stop the epidemic," they write, suggesting overdose deaths could be prevented if not for a lack of political will from the White House.

But the Obama administration "refuses to attack supply," the drug czars argue, instead dedicating resources to overdose-reversal medication and treatment. They also write that Obama's concerns about the drug war's legacy on mass incarceration represent a "deadly falsehood."

It's unclear what's false about criticizing a set of drug war-era policies that helped make the U.S. home to what is now 25 percent of the world's prisoners, despite being home to less than 5 percent of its population. What's clearer is that Bennett and Walters have grossly oversimplified the very serious issue of opioid abuse.

One thing the drug czars zip past is an inconvenient fact: this addiction crisis isn't just about heroin. Thousands and thousands of people are also addicted to -- and dying from -- prescription pain medications. The effort to restrict that supply has already greatly harmed those in genuine need of pain pills, yet people are still addicted. We will never entirely eliminate the supply of pain medications -- they are legal, beneficial and highly profitable products, after all -- and so, the only sensible route is to treat the addiction itself.

The drug czars also overlook a key factor in how the epidemic spreads. Addicts who have blown through their savings and have no income need money to fund their habits. What they often do is turn to people they know and suggest that, as a group, they all go in together and buy a bag. An addict doesn't have much, but access to a dealer is a valuable commodity, and in exchange for that access, the addict will get a free hit and split the rest with friends or associates. That makes an addict not just a single, static casualty, but also a source of spreading addiction. If you can treat that addict, they will stop spreading the disease, so to speak.

But for Bennett and Walters, Obama is partly to blame for this proliferation, because he permitted states like Colorado and Washington to legalize marijuana, which they say has allowed drug gangs to spread addiction and drug use "on a widening scale."

Kevin Sabet, who worked for both Walters and his successor, said the drug czars are "tapping into a legitimate criticism," and seconded their concern about loosening marijuana laws and the message it sends. But banging the war drums isn't necessarily helpful, Sabet said in an email to The Huffington Post. "I don't think using War analogies is particularly helpful, nor do I think [heroin addiction] is a partisan issue. Interestingly, the only person to make real substantive mention of this issue so far has been Hillary, and she should be commended for that."

But let's not even go there with the gateway thing. Seriously? As a broader principle, it's simply not true. We've also done an awful lot of reporting on the opiate crisis over the last few years, and none of us have met a single person who said something like, "The moment it all fell apart for me was when I took that first puff of a joint." That's just not how it happens.

Continued with links here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/drug-war-william-bennett-john-walters_55f1ae50e4b03784e27840fb

.................................................................................................................

I was not aware the drug war was ever ended.. seems to me its still going strong????

William J. Bennett

John P. Walters

Look at all the sketchy stuff these guys are wrapped up in..

Weapons, propaganda, world power.. and education.. LOL there is a reason the government wants to educate our children for free!!!!!

Hudson Institute
NSFW:
The Hudson Institute is an American conservative[2][3] non-profit think tank based in Washington, D.C.. It was founded in 1961 in Croton-on-Hudson, New York, by futurist, military strategist, and systems theorist Herman Kahn and his colleagues at the RAND Corporation.

The Institute is committed to innovative research and analysis that promotes "global security, prosperity and freedom."[4] It promotes public policy change in accordance with its stated belief that "America’s unique and central role in the global system offers the best foundation for security, the defense of liberty, and assuring economic growth."


RAND Corporation
NSFW:
"General Henry H. Arnold, commander of the United States Army Air Forces, established Project RAND with the objective of looking into long-range planning of future weapons"

"RAND was created after individuals in the War Department, the Office of Scientific Research and Development, and industry therefore began to discuss the need for a private organization to connect military planning with research and development decisions"



K12 (company)
NSFW:
K12 Inc. is a for-profit education company that sells online schooling and curriculum to state and local governments. Its educational products and services are designed as alternatives to traditional "bricks and mortar" education for public school students from kindergarten to 12th grade. K12 is a publicly traded education management organization (EMO) that provides online education services to charter school students. It is paid for from taxes.[3] K12 is the largest EMO in terms of enrollment.[4]


Claremont Institute
NSFW:
"The mission of the Claremont Institute is to teach the practical application of the principles of the American Founding to the next generation of Conservative leaders, and to build them into a community dedicated to preserving constitutional government"


Project Lead the Way
NSFW:
Project Lead The Way (PLTW) is a United States 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that develops STEM curricula for use by elementary, middle, and high schools. PLTW also provides professional development training for instructors.


Center for Security Policy
NSFW:
"The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a conservative national security think tank based in Washington, DC. CSP has attracted controversy due to its hard line against radical Islam and the July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran. CSP advocates policies based on what it describes as a philosophy of "Peace through Strength" through research, outreach to Congress and policymakers, books and publications, and a daily radio show, Secure Freedom Radio.[1][2] CSP has close ties to top Republicans and hosted a series of national security summits in 2015 with GOP presidential candidates"

So it promotes its crazy talk through bribery and propaganda and is hooked all the way up to the top of the GOP.


Futurology
NSFW:
"futurology is the study of postulating possible, probable, and preferable futures and the worldviews and myths that underlie them."

In studying this they have a decent understanding of how to promote myths in an attempt to create a future scenario that they desire. I bet controlling the education of children would be a great place to promote these myths.;)



NSFW:
301672c57d711dddecd9c0bb1ab4c1da.jpg

0fbaac4174444290ccfcc6d2b64d70c3.jpg



Carlin-Proud-Parents-of-Freethinking-Child1.jpg


Well well well.. two people clearly interested in exercising and establishing control over large groups of people are backing the drug war. Who would have thunk it??
 
Last edited:
Focus on punishment has failed to solve drug crisis
SEPTEMBER 12, 2015

FOR MORE than 100 years, both our state and our nation have prosecuted drug users in an effort to prevent drug abuse. Despite a century of best efforts by police and prosecutors, “America is in the midst of a heroin crisis,” as William J. Bennett and John P. Walters wrote in their Sept. 9 opinion piece “Bring back the war on drugs.” What solution do these two former drug czars offer? The same solution we have tried for more than 100 years — more prosecutions.

It should surprise no one that former drug czars want to reinvigorate the war on drugs. Waging the drug war is, after all, what drug czars do. It is what they have built their careers on.


Most of the rest of us realize that employing the same tactic that has failed to prevent the current crisis is the very definition of insanity. Many studies have now confirmed that treatment is far more effective and cost-efficient than prosecution, and a clear majority of Americans — 67 percent, according to a Pew Research Center poll — agree.

Bill Downing

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...drug-crisis/nr3tttSoWRJiUTj6nDtujP/story.html
 
Riiiight...because the war on drugs ended at some point??

Last time I checked nonviolent drug offenders are still likely to get more time than kiddie didlers, violent thugs, and wife beaters. There are people walking around that have gone to jail for murder and gotten out in under ten years...its maddening.

I guess it's just too easy to go after drug users.
 
Riiiight...because the war on drugs ended at some point??

Last time I checked nonviolent drug offenders are still likely to get more time than kiddie didlers, violent thugs, and wife beaters. There are people walking around that have gone to jail for murder and gotten out in under ten years...its maddening.

I guess it's just too easy to go after drug users.
Good point.
 
NSA, thank you so much for posting this.

I have a number in people back in Boston I'm going to have the ammo to shit on for years to come :)
 
It's really annoying to see article after article written about drugs, the "war on drugs" and how horrible the drug problem is. Yet hardly anyone mentions the fact that the drug problem exists because the government and it's more nefarious agencies profit from those drugs. No one talks about the CIA's drug smuggling during Vietnam. Nor their cocaine smuggling operations in central and South America during the 1980's. Today heroin has become commonplace in most US cities thanks to the intelligence agencies partnering with the military to smuggle heroin from Afghanistan into the US and Europe. Most thinking people know about this, yet it's never brought up.

Want to "win" the war on drugs? Legalize them. Remove the massive profits like they did when they re-legalized alcohol. The drug cartels would vanish and the hidden industry would be forced to seek other means of profit. A quote I've always remembered goes like this.. "You can't legislate morality"
 
I'm not sure heroin from outside north America is significant in the southwest or west, but we definitely did have other interests in keeping poppy production going on Afghanistan
 
Prohibition and it's effective businesses like prisons are big business.

In some areas politicians depend on the prison to help them stay in office. Having a prison in your town artificially raises the towns population, but with people that are unable to vote. Larger populated areas have more representatives than areas with smaller populations, so prisons are used in some cases to allow states to have more representative power in congress.

Bringing a prison to a small town not only brings them better government representation, but tax incentives, and many jobs as security officers, construction workers, or anything that a prison might need.

This is only a small part of the monster that is the War on Drugs, but there are many economic interests in keeping the war going. What agency wants to have their budget reduced?
 
the fact that K12 is a for profit, ie has shareholders that profit from sales, and receives most of funding from taxes, ie we pay for the shareholders to make money as american taxpayers, is incredibly nefarious at best. It is just one more way our government, that we have sworn in, is acting in the wealthy elite's best interest and not the average american's. (hopefully I worded this correctly)

Also, they could easily help drug offenders by taking some of the bloated budget spent on the war on drugs and placing it into rehabilitation. It would create more higher paying jobs than a prison will, not to mention have a beneficial impact on local communities. It would in turn save taxpayers quite a bit of money in court costs, incarceration fees, and property crime.

In addition to the whole political strategy of raising your population by building a prison there is another very big problem with american prisons. Now there are many for profit prisons that are privately owned. They are drawing money from taxpayers, and lobbying governments to pass laws that make jailtime/prisontime more prevalent (which is a real scourge on communities, not drugs). They also generally have contracts with local governments that require the government to pay if a cerain percentage of beds are not filled.(this leads to gross malefeacence in our justice system ie. many people being sentenced to jailtime when they shouldn't be) There should never be profit in imprisoning someone, and it begs the question "if you are for profit, how do you ensure your shareholders and owners make money?". Well one way that is incredibly apparent is by limiting the "rehabilitation" offered inmates. Cutting medical care to inmates, feeding them sub-par non nutritious foods, and hiring less staff which makes it more dangerous for the inmates and staff alike, is also par for the course. There have also been judges that have been caught getting kickbacks from prisons for raising the amount of jailtime that people incur.

It is a sorry state of affairs and the only thing that is going to change it is a cultural revolution and people actually demanding to be represented in government.
 
Top