NDIC's Review Highlights Drug-Prohibition's Dangers

dhcdavid

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Messages
777
Location
uk
Well, not in so many words. But anyone reading between the lines of the National Drug Intelligence Center's National Drug Threat Assessment 2009 could easily come to that conclusion. The annual report from the Justice Department fiefdom based in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, with its thoroughly inside-the-box approach to the harms associated with drug policy, does not look at the data it is reporting and see the obvious, but its conclusions that violent drug trafficking organizations and street-level drug retail gangs are the gravest "drug threats" to America beg the question of why.

According to the 2009 report: "Mexican DTOs [drug trafficking organizations] represent the greatest organized crime threat to the United States. The influence of Mexican DTOs over domestic drug trafficking is unrivaled. In fact, intelligence estimates indicate a vast majority of the cocaine available in US drug markets is smuggled by Mexican DTOs across the US-Mexico border. Mexican DTOs control drug distribution in most US cities, and they are gaining strength in markets that they do not yet control."

Following close on the heels of the bloody cartels -- 5,000 have been killed in Mexico's prohibition-related violence this year -- are the cartel wannabes: "Violent urban gangs control most retail-level drug distribution nationally, and some have relocated from inner cities to suburban and rural areas. Moreover, gangs are increasing their involvement in wholesale-level drug distribution, aided by their connections with Mexican and Asian DTOs."

While the violence of the cartels and the gangs is deplorable, the NDIC assessment makes no effort to address its root cause: the regime of drug prohibition. Instead it conflates the harms associated with prohibition (fighting the drug trade) with those associated with drug use or abuse.

That conceptual confusion is evident from the very beginning of the annual report. In the first paragraph of its summary, the report observes that: "The trafficking and abuse of illicit drugs inflict tremendous harm upon individuals, families, and communities throughout the country. The violence, intimidation, theft, and financial crimes carried out by drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), criminal groups, gangs, and drug users in the United States pose a significant threat to our nation. The cost to society from drug production, trafficking, and abuse is difficult to fully measure or convey."

Without pulling apart the harms associated with "trafficking and abuse of illegal drugs," the NDIC is conducting an exercise in futility and propaganda. The harms associated with the growth of powerful criminal organizations thriving under a prohibition regime are an entirely different matter from the harms related to drug use, misuse, or abuse, and failing to disentangle them is a service to no one. Similarly, the failure to disaggregate "DTOs, criminal groups, gangs, and drug users" only strengthens the same skewed view of the results of our drug policies.

In the summary's eight bullet points designed to demonstrate the harm of "drugs," four of them -- cartel money laundering, federal anti-drug spending, the huge number of drug arrests, and the high number of federal drug prisoners -- are a direct consequence of drug prohibition. Two others -- a large number of people seeking drug treatment, and children removed from meth labs -- are at least indirectly influenced by drug prohibition. Many people seeking treatment are doing so because of rote court orders, and many home meth cooks would likely simply purchase their drug instead of cooking it if allowed to do so. One bullet point -- that diversion of pharmaceutical drugs is costing insurance companies millions -- is yet another artifact of a prohibition regime, or at least one where access to desired drugs is so restricted that diversion occurs.

The final bullet point -- some 35 million Americans used an illicit drug (or a licit drug illicitly) -- is essentially meaningless without indicating in some way just how those people were actually harmed by using those drugs. But that is typical of a mindset that measures success in drug policy solely by reducing drug use instead of looking at the bigger picture.
NDIC could have attempted to quantify the harms of drug abuse, for instance by looking at lost work days, or the early onset of disease, or other measures, but it didn't.

Such an attitude is also apparent in the report's blunt ranking of the leading threats by drug: "Cocaine is the leading drug threat to society. Methamphetamine is the second leading drug threat, followed by marijuana, heroin, pharmaceutical drugs, and MDMA (also known as ecstasy) respectively."

Given that marijuana is almost universally understood to be one of the least harmful psychoactive substances known to man (see Professor David Nutt's "rational scale" here), marijuana's role as a leading drug threat -- ahead of heroin and pharmaceuticals! -- can only be attributed to its widespread popularity. Again, instead of demonstrating specific harms associated with marijuana consumption, the report simply assumes that marijuana use generates harm.

By NDIC standards, some progress is being made in combating the drug scourge. The report cites declining cocaine availability and purity in some US markets, and a decrease in domestic meth production (although it warns of a looming increase). But even where NDIC can point to successes, it either misses the costs of waging the drug war or conflates them with the harms of drug use.

And with marijuana in particular, it cannot even claim success. Despite record plant seizures and marijuana arrests last year: "Marijuana availability is high throughout the United States. Outdoor cultivation is going through the roof, thanks in part, the report says, to Mexican DTOs expanding into US public lands, and indoor cultivation has increased "because of high profit margins and seemingly reduced risk of law enforcement detection."

What the National Drug Threat Assessment 2009 shows us is that we are continuing to wage a futile struggle to suppress drug use at a great cost to our society. In failing to disentangle and disaggregate the social ills resulting from our prohibitionist drug policies from the social ills resulting from drug use, it is business as usual. But what do we expect from a drug war bureaucracy motivated mainly by inertia and the imperative of preserving next year's budget?


New Federal Drug Threat Assessment Finds Prohibition Greatest Drug-Related Menace


Drug War Chronicle, Issue #565, 12/19/08

I believe the article's author is the Drug War Chronicle's editor David Borden.
If I'm wrong please don't hesitate to PM me and I'll gladly add the name of whoever wrote this article if it wasn't David Borden. Dhcdavid :)

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/565/national_drug_threat_assessment_2009
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just skimmed over this and i am a bit confused. What exactly is the NDIC. like i know what the name stands for but what does it actually do. Another question i have, are the NDIC for against prohibition post kind of confused me
 
I'm not too sure..... can any of my American brothers or sisters help us out?
(Or anyone from anywhere from anywhere who can help us out!)

Here's the link to the Wikipedia page about it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Drug_Intelligence_Center

It was established in 1993 and this is their "mission" (courtesy of wikipedia)

"The mission of NDIC is to provide strategic drug-related intelligence, document and computer exploitation support, and training assistance to the drug control, public health, law enforcement, and intelligence communities of the United States in order to reduce the adverse effects of drug trafficking, drug abuse, and other drug-related criminal activity."
 
I've heard of them a couple years ago when I read previous drug threat assessments. I was curious back then and browsed their website. They just seem like a redundant office(I figured the DEA or ONDCP did that) that gathers drug stats and intelligence from around the country/world, and puts out reports, etc.
 
"Cocaine is the leading drug threat to society. Methamphetamine is the second leading drug threat, followed by marijuana, heroin, pharmaceutical drugs, and MDMA (also known as ecstasy)"

I thought that pharmaceutical drugs would be placed higher on the list...but I guess Im just thinking of where I live. I would say that this article seems like it made many good points. Except the way they say marijuana is the 3rd leading drug threat to society. Like Marijuana? jeeze, Id say its the least of the ones listed. Maybe not for addiction..but from direct harm caused from it. But I guess all the drug arrests and jailtime does effect society a lot. And with it being the most used illegal drug there must be a bunch.
 
I would say that methamphetamine is the leading drug threat in our society. I have seen way more people, families, and lives destroyed by this drug than by any other. It's use is much more widespread than smoking crack, as that is considered a "ghetto drug" by many.

I also see methamphetamine abuse spreading very, very fast, and I think it's much more of an epidemic than cocaine, which has been a common recreational drug for over 50 years. It's only been in the last 20 years or so that smoking crystal methamphetamine has become so prevalent.

I also think that, in most cases, long term methamphetamine abuse is much worse than long term cocaine abuse (cocaine is almost too expensive to take it that out of control). Don't get me wrong, both can destroy your life, but meth does it much faster and it is much easier to accomplish than with cocaine, in my opinion.

I do live in southern California, however.
 
This is the kind of thing you have to expect from the NDIC. Their reason for existing is to support the ongoing government "war on drugs". They produce propaganda.

If somebody in that agency were to even suggest that the real root of the problem is government prohibition rather than the illegal use of drugs as defined by government, they would be quickly eliminated. Perhaps that will change with the next administration. We shall see.
 
"Cocaine is the leading drug threat to society. Methamphetamine is the second leading drug threat, followed by marijuana, heroin, pharmaceutical drugs, and MDMA (also known as ecstasy)"

I thought that pharmaceutical drugs would be placed higher on the list...but I guess Im just thinking of where I live. I would say that this article seems like it made many good points. Except the way they say marijuana is the 3rd leading drug threat to society. Like Marijuana? jeeze, Id say its the least of the ones listed. Maybe not for addiction..but from direct harm caused from it. But I guess all the drug arrests and jailtime does effect society a lot. And with it being the most used illegal drug there must be a bunch.

Right, they've been feeding us the whole "pharmaceuticals are more abused now than any other drug" stats for quite some time. Also, I think they forgot to include alcohol and tobacco in their ranking. :D
 
the report's blunt ranking of the leading threats by drug: "Cocaine is the leading drug threat to society. Methamphetamine is the second leading drug threat, followed by marijuana, heroin, pharmaceutical drugs, and MDMA (also known as ecstasy) respectively."


Please can someone American, or with a better understanding of American culture, its politics and its wider population's views on marijuana explain to me how keeping it as a Schedule 1 drug (sharing that Schedule with delightful substances such as PCP and heroin - and yes, I know heroin DOES in fact have medical value but that's an argument for another time, I'm rushing out the door here =D ) and the associated public resources which then must be used excessively in an attempt to rid America of this drug?

How can an organisation such as the NDIC - which wherever its members sit on the political spectrum must surely have some reasonably if not really intelligent people in it - compile a "drugs top 40" (so to speak) to indicate the relative dangers of different illegal drugs [which one would assume they'd be quite knowledgable about] and include a drug which nobody in the entire world has EVER died from in overdose and is actually recommended by 1000s of doctors the world over (including in countries without medical marijuana schemes such as the UK... because a Doctor did recommend it to me to help my arthritis because the legal pain pills he was prescribing were dangerous :\)?

How, PLEASE, SOMEONE, PLEASE TELL ME HOW in this list of dangerous drugs can marijuan be placed at number 3 ahead of heroin and pharmaceutical drugs?

I weep for the future. :( :( :(
 
^ Heroin is only dangerous cos it's illegal and therefore of unknown purity. Physically it is one of the safest drugs known. On the broader point of marijuana's ridiculous placing at #3 on the list, I totally agree :)

Ganga (and the majority of other illegal drugs) are only really illegal in the US for bizarrely rascist historical reasons. They then kinda blackmailed/panicked the rest of the world to go along with their odd lil scheme. The whole thing needs to be looked at again properly and prohibition for all drugs stopped as a matter of urgency.
 
The whole thing needs to be looked at again properly and prohibition for all drugs stopped as a matter of urgency.


Im not shur if I agree with you on that one. Although I am a very avid drug user...I just think that if all drugs were legal that there would be way to many addicts. It might work out..but might not..Imagine how many ppl would be doing cocaine/meth all the time and just going insane. Staying up for days on end like they do now..just more often because its legal and easy to get.

Marijuana should be legal though.
 
^ Does prohibition stop anyone from doing that now? Nup. Just means they could be better educated about it all and considerably safer when doing it whilst simultaneously stopping all connected crime and having massively improved treatment facilities for those that indulge and a lot less strain on the economy...

But I'd better not derail another thread onto the prohibition debate ;)
 
Please can someone American, or with a better understanding of American culture, its politics and its wider population's views on marijuana explain to me how keeping it as a Schedule 1 drug (sharing that Schedule with delightful substances such as PCP and heroin - and yes, I know heroin DOES in fact have medical value but that's an argument for another time, I'm rushing out the door here =D ) and the associated public resources which then must be used excessively in an attempt to rid America of this drug?

I think I can't tell if I missed your question or if there isn't a question here, but if your question is "How do Americans justify fighting marijuana like they do?" then I would say that people just don't realize how much goes into fighting it and how futile it is. And when confronted with the facts it's just usually an issue of "Well, it's not my issue" or something similarly apathetic. In my experience most people think that anyone who is against prohibition is a druggie that just wants to get high legally. That is why I am thankful for organizations like LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition), to show that that is definitely not the case. You have to remember that many people here on Bluelight are educated on this issue and have looked into it further than the propaganda that our governments try to feed us. Can you really blame someone looking at you like you're a nut when you say that legalizing drugs has the potential to cut crime, corruption and reduce the amount and severity of health issues related to drug use? I don't think so. It's a pretty complicated issue, and the benefits of legalization aren't guaranteed, unlike the failure of our current methods.
 
Well said, Damo :)

Not about DHC in particular, but to all those who poo-poo legalisation as druggies who just want to get high easier and legally and so forth. I suspect he probably understands this himself - although really wouldn't know cos I've yet to speak to the fine chap personally :)

Also, LEAP are a fine organisation. I believe there are some decent documentaries on them on tinterweb :)

PS: Marijuana is more damaging and hazardous than heroin. Presuming both were legal and regulated and one is smoking one's blow and shooting one's gear with all sensible medical knowledge :)

PPS: Cat/Pigeon

PPS: ;)
 
Last edited:
Also, I think they forgot to include alcohol and tobacco in their ranking. :D

No, those are LEGAL drugs that the govt. makes a TON of money on...so those don't count. No matter that alcohol kills/maims/destroys thousands of households per year.....it's ok, because they can't go around killing off the cash cow now can they?

I bet you a million bucks that if they could make more $$$ by making pot legal...it would be legal already.
 
Top