A contradiction in terms? Normally. But if anyone can accomplish both at the same time, it’s John Walters. Marijuana Policy Project’s Steve Fox ran into the former drug czar on the subway. Here’s his report.
|
|||||
A contradiction in terms? Normally. But if anyone can accomplish both at the same time, it’s John Walters. Marijuana Policy Project’s Steve Fox ran into the former drug czar on the subway. Here’s his report. AP The Obama administration is developing plans to seek up to 1,500 National Guard volunteers to step up the military’s counter-drug efforts along the Mexican border, senior administration officials said Monday. […] Senior administration officials said the Guard program will last no longer than a year and would build on an existing counter-drug operation. They […] This is Your War on Drugs is a Mother Jones editorial by Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery, that makes it appear that some of the things we’ve been talking about are getting traction. AMONG OUR LEADERS in Washington, who’s been the biggest liar? […] This liar didn’t end-run Congress, or bully it, or have its surreptitious blessing at the time only to face its indignation later. No, this liar was ordered by Congress to lieÖas a prerequisite for holding the job. Not bad. Mother Jones, which has been out on the edge on some progressive issues, has not really been there when it comes to drug policy. And now they are admitting it… So why don’t we have a rational drug policy? Simple. Forget the Social Security “third rail.” The quickest way to get yourself sidelined in serious policy discussion is to stray from drug war orthodoxy. Even MoJo has skirted the topic for fear of looking like a bunch of hot-tubbing stoners. Such is the power of the culture wars, 50 years on. I think the biggest progress we’ve made (and most of it, in my opinion, has happened in the past 5 or 6 years) is empowering people (and media) to “stray from drug war orthodoxy.” Mother Jones’ editors are, in this article, way behind, but finally getting the courage. What would a fact-based drug policy look like? It would put considerably more money into treatment, the method proven to best reduce use. It would likely leave in place the prohibition on “hard” drugs, but make enforcement fair (no more traffickers rolling on hapless girlfriends to cut a deal. No more Tulias). And it would likely decriminalize but tightly regulate marijuana, which study after study shows is less dangerous or addictive than cigarettes or alcohol, has undeniable medicinal properties, and isn’t a gateway drug to anything harder than Doritos. I’m not sure how leaving prohibition in place is “fact-based,” or why they’re afraid to use the “L” word for marijuana, but at least it’s more fact-based than today’s policies. As far as statements from high government officials go, it was a radical declaration. Kerlikowske, and by extension Barack Obama, was rejecting four decades of federal government marching orders — a bold departure that would have been unthinkable in previous administrations. But even more striking than his announcement was the reaction: crickets. Recognition of the futility of the war and the reality of economic laws… To the dismay of decades of drug warriors, it turns out that the threat of arrest and, in some cases, harsh mandatory sentences has done nothing to halt the public’s demand for illegal substances. Nor has it lessened the eagerness of street dealers and drug cartels to deliver those illegal substances to markets large and small. Close to half of all Americans report they have tried illegal drugs. Given this kind of persistent demand, it’s no surprise that the targeting of suppliers hasn’t succeeded. Of course, nobody really thinks Obama’s administration is going to dismantle the war on drugs. At best, there will be rhetoric with no action. At worst, there will be a running away from the discussion. But that opens the door for us… and the states… to take the lead on drug policy. I think that’s why Sanho Tree says “He’s the best drug czar we’ve ever had, which isn’t saying a lot.” Sanho Tree, of the Center for Policy Studies, agrees. “It’s very difficult to predict tipping points, and when it happens it’s going to happen quickly,” he says. “We are already at the tipping point societally in terms of ending the drug war. But the people who have to act on this are in Congress, and they won’t do so because they have to face re-election. A lot of these politicians have fairly reptilian brains — you know, fire, burn, bad. … They think that because something was toxic a few years ago, it’s still toxic today.” [Thanks, Tom!!] In a recent interview with Reuters, U.S. special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan: The Western policies against the opium crop, the poppy crop, have been a failure. They did not result in any damage to the Taliban, but they put farmers out of work and they alienated people and drove people into the arms of […] “bullet” A Misguided ‘War on Drugs by Manfred Nowak and Anand Grove in the New York Times. Anything goes in the ‹war on drugs,Š or so it seems. Governments around the world have used it as an excuse for unchecked human rights abuse and irrational policies based on knee-jerk reactions rather than scientific evidence. This has caused tremendous human suffering. It also undermines drug control efforts. […] “bullet” What if the President Smoked Pot? by Derek Thompson, The Atlantic. The government’s effort to manage tobacco rather than make it illegal is exactly what belongs in the debate over pot and other illegal substances that could, at the very least, provide significant boons to medical pharmacology. The FDA has rejected the possibility of making cigarettes illegal by saying the underground product would be “even more dangerous than those currently marketed.” So when you make popular products illegal, it has the potential to make those products more dangerous. Gee, ya think? “bullet” “drcnet” Acting DEA Head Michele Leonhart on the UNODC World Drug Report: “Today’s newly-released United Nation’s World Drug Report confirms DEA’s global enforcement strategy successes targeting the major drug trafficking organizations, particularly their leadership, financial infrastructure and transportation facilitators ,” said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. “Working closely with our domestic and international counterparts , […] Link The Supreme Court ruled today that school officials’ strip search of a then-13-year-old Arizona teen suspected of possessing a painkiller violated the girl’s constitutional rights, despite the school district’s zero-tolerance policy for drugs. The court said, however, that school officials are protected from personal liability in the case. The ruling is a partial victory […] I’ve been interested to see what how the media will characterize this report, and what they notice within it, since this one has some significantly differences (the attack on legalizers and the acknowledgement of certain prohibition flaws). A lot of early reports merely parrot back the drug use/seizure data contained about their particular country as if it really meant something without the larger context, but there have been some other approaches. This year’s report from the U.N.’s Office on Drugs and Crime did something that last year’s did not: it addressed the “growing chorus” of people in favor of abolishing drug laws altogether. And though its authors maintain that legalizing narcotics would be an “epic mistake,” the office’s executive director, Antonio Maria Costa, does agree that loosening regulations might not be such a bad idea: “You can’t have effective control under prohibition, as we should have learned from our failed experiment with alcohol in the U.S. between 1920 and 1933.” […] [Update: Turns out that quote was from LEAP’s Jack Cole, not Costa. Thought that sounded a little too good for Costa.] On moving beyond “reactive law enforcement”: “Those who take the “drug war” metaphor literally may feel this effort is best advanced by people in uniform with guns [but] in the end, the criminal justice system is a very blunt instrument for dealing with drug markets … the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration of individuals is an extremely slow, expensive and labor intensive process.” “bullet” On the other hand, the Associated Press really screwed the pooch with their article. It’s like they didn’t even read the damn thing and just asked somebody to give them some talking points. Marijuana, or cannabis, remained the most widely used and cultivated drug in the world and it is more harmful than commonly believed, the report said. Wow. What a mess. In an about face, the United Nations on Wednesday lavishly praised drug decriminalization in its annual report on the state of global drug policy. In previous years, the UN drug czar had expressed skepticism about Portugal’s decriminalization, which removed criminal penalties in 2001 for personal drug possession and emphasized treatment over incarceration. The UN had suggested the policy was in violation of international drug treaties and would encourage “drug tourism.” “bullet” Jacob Sullum has The U.N.’s 10-Year Plan to Eradicate Drugs: How’d That Go? The shocking (and encouraging) thing is that Costa, an economist with a Ph.D. from U.C.-Berkeley, is a pretty smart guy (though not quite as smart as he thinks he is). The fact that he ends up mouthing the same sort of non sequiturs, unsupported generalizations, obvious falsehoods, Orwellian redefinitions, and empty platitudes that you hear from the average ex-DEA bureaucrat is yet another sign that drug warriors are intellectually bankrupt. “bullet” Over at Transform: UN Office on Drugs and Crime admits it is at war with itself Danny Kushlick, Head of Policy at Transform said: ‹UNODC is officially at war with itself. The Executive Director has admitted repeatedly that the UNODC oversees the very system that gifts the vast illegal drug market to violent criminal profiteers, with disastrous consequences. The UNODC is effectively creating the problem it is claiming to eliminate. Mr Costa has identified five major ‘unintended consequences‰ of the drug control system. Is there a time limit on how long a consequence remains ‘unintended‰? Aren‰t they now just ‘consequences‰?Š Also at Transform: World Drug Report Preface majors on legalisation it is the same confused mix of misrepresentations, straw man arguments, and logical fallacies that we are used to hearing from the UNODC’s drug warriors. The particularly strange thing here though is that some of the analysis of the problem, the critique at least, is actually fairly good – it’s where it leads that is so extraordinary…. […] At today’s Press Conference… I just finished reading the Executive Summary (pdf) written by Executive Director Antonio Maria Costa, of the UNODC World Drug Report 2009 that is being released today. Of late, there has been a limited but Notice the sweeping generalization of characterizing us as using sweeping generalizations. Note also, that Costa feels so threatened by the our arguments that he can no longer say that things are going just fine — he actually agrees that change is needed. Of course, his approach — finding a “different” version of prohibition — is ridiculous, but it appears we have him on the run. I. The economic argument for drug legalization says: Wow! He really is desperate. Equating drug legalization with human trafficking? Legalize and tax is unethical? Perverse tax? He’s provided zero argument, zero fact, but lots of inflammatory language. The economic argument is also based on poor fiscal Again, no evidence shown that there will actually be higher public health costs or surges of drug consumption, and again, note the use of the word “wicked.” Others have argued that, following legalization, a What drug epidemic will be unleashed? There is no evidence that one would happen. On the other hand, prohibition is damaging the developing world because they don’t have the resources to deal with all the cartels. The most serious issue concerns organized crime. Whoa! Costa says our arguments are valid. This is huge, and we should take every opportunity to quote him and the UNODC on it. The system of international drug control has produced — The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2009 Of course, Costa is not about to agree that legalization is the solution. But if prohibition isn’t the solution, and legalization isn’t the solution, what is? I urge governments to recalibrate the Note that the UNODC is the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, so they can simply shift it over to their other side. Prohibition doesn’t work and causes crime, so we’ll focus on crime while keeping prohibition. (As if crime focus hadn’t already been happening.) To conclude, transnational organized crime will never be Nonsensical statements. The fact that organized crime can find other means of making money doesn’t mean we should continue to shovel money their way through the black market drug trade. Illegal logging? What does that have to do with drug legalization? So far the drug legalization agenda has been opposed No. It’s been opposed fiercely and unsuccessfully by a powerful minority who benefit from the drug war. Yet, anti-crime policy must change. It is no longer sufficient Policy must actually change, not just experience a change of rhetoric. There is no alternative to improving both security and ??? Babble speak. illicit drugs continue to pose a health But no. The fact is that illicit drugs are not controlled. They are prohibited. That is significantly different than controlled. In fact, in many ways it is a dramatic lack of control, by turning control over to the black market. I strongly disagree with your claim in the World Drug Report 2009 that people calling for legalization of drugs are somehow endorsing less “control” over drugs than we have now. You can send your own copy of this letter to Costa at their new action page: http://www.DrugWarDebate.com |
|||||
Copyright © 2021 Drug WarRant - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
Recent Comments