Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
February 2010
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Archives

Authors

Put your money where your mouth is

Well, the Drug Czar has come out with the proposed FY 2011 drug policy budget, and now we get to see Director Kerlikowske’s new focus on treatment. Remember…

March 12, 2009

The White House said yesterday that it will push for treatment, rather than incarceration, of people arrested for drug-related crimes as it announced the nomination of Seattle Police Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske to oversee the nation’s effort to control illegal drugs.

The choice of drug czar and the emphasis on alternative drug courts, announced by Vice President Biden, signal a sharp departure from Bush administration policies, gravitating away from cutting the supply of illicit drugs from foreign countries and toward curbing drug use in communities across the United States.

April 2, 2009

The Obama administration’s nominee for director of National Drug Control Policy said he will take a balanced approach to drug policy with a renewed focus on the prevention and treatment of addiction, if he is confirmed as the nation’s new drug czar.

May 14, 2009

The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

August 29, 2009

“People,” [Kerlikowske] says, “want a different conversation” about drug policies. With his first report to the president early next year, he could increase the quotient of realism.

So now… (drum roll, please)… the new realism… the focus on treatment… the new 2011 Drug Policy Budget!

Press Release

Administration’s FY 2011 Budget Proposal Demonstrates Balanced Approach to Drug Control

The Fiscal Year 2011 National Drug Control Budget proposed by the Obama Administration would devote significant new resources to the prevention and treatment of drug abuse, National Drug Control Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske said today….

He did it! Wonderful. Finally, a real shift in national priorities over the drug policy budget. I can’t wait to compare… dig into the numbers, create a chart and….

Oh.

... in millions of dollars

They even break it down into supply side and demand side budgets just to show how inept they are in putting together a “balanced” budget.

Every public policy expert will tell you that supply side drug war funding is, well, more of a waste of money than demand side. And even back in Walters’ day, he used to talk about how treatment is more cost-effective than enforcement. Kerlikowske upped the ante on that in every speech, and yet, the budgets are virtually indistinguishable. Except, of course, that in 2011, the drug war budget actually increases. [Note, also, that some years back they decided to eliminate the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating federal drug war prisoners from the tracked cost of drug policy in a blatant effort to make the treatment side look better in comparison.]

So why is there no real change?

Because there are so many entrenched interests in law enforcement, well organized interests with lobbyists and guns, that nothing can ever be cut. The only question when this bill reaches Congress is how much they try to increase the law enforcement/supply side numbers.

More on the drug policy budget:

[Thanks Tom, Tom]

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

58 comments to Put your money where your mouth is

  • BruceM

    Typical Bushbama. The Republicans would love him if he weren’t a black guy.

  • Just me

    Hey Mr. President/Vice President, Hey Mr. Drug Czar !

    While you super brains argue the merits of treatment over enforcement, supply side versus demand side. While you pay with the budget(our taxes), tweek numbers. While you let others decide fate of the use of the words”The War On Drugs’…. While your deciding the fate of human beings REAL PEOPLE are dying and having their lives ruined on the other side of the border due to prohibition. REAL PEOPLE on this side of the border are dying and having their lives ruined!!!

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_drug_war_mexico

    http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/beaten-to-death-by-cops-over-a-marijuana-cigarette/02012010/

    When are you people going to wake up and see what you are causing !!!

    !! DEATH AND DESTRUCTION !!

  • Paul

    Just Me: They couldn’t possibly care less.

    I don’t think Obama is an active drug warrior, but he clearly considers the issue a Democratic weakness, and he really would rather talk about something besides drugs.

    The Democrats view it as a losing issue, so as long as the drug reform community remains an essentially Democratic faction, they have no reason to actually take a risk to make that faction happy. This is the same experience that blacks and gays have had. Their vote is taken for granted because who else will they vote for? The republicans?

    So until the reform community organizes and shows that their vote cannot be taken for granted, the Democrats will continue to pay lip service without actually doing anything. I don’t think this is likely, so change is going to have to come from the bottom up in the form of voter initiatives and petitions.

    One potential bright spot here is if the California flatly legalizes non-medical MJ, and other states follow, many Democratic politicians may recalculate and jump on the bandwagon. They’re not going to legalize other drugs, but they’ll want to be on the winning team when MJ gets legalized.

  • claygooding

    There is still some hope. This is the budget that the ONDCP requested,it has not been approved yet. There is a small chance that enough of our legislators could come down with a case of common sense,and reduce the budget.
    Especially since they are going to have to come up with the cash to pay for “health care” during all these budget debates. And just because he wants this money for a new treatment policy,which does not show up on the above charts,it doesn’t get past the fact that our prisons are already full,if they step up their attack,they will also have to increase the prison budget,more courts,more cops and more money going to
    support increased enforcement to the local police.
    By the time this budget gets through congress,if the unemployment rate continues to climb,the extra money they are asking for may not be there to give.

  • kaptinemo

    “One potential bright spot here is if the California flatly legalizes non-medical MJ, and other states follow, many Democratic politicians may recalculate and jump on the bandwagon. They’re not going to legalize other drugs, but they’ll want to be on the winning team when MJ gets legalized.”

    And this is probably the way it will happen.

    I wrote at CannabisNews that we’re past the tipping point. When legalization began to receive more deferential (‘serious’) treatment in the media, the signal was sent that it’s time to pull the plug on the ‘titter factor’ used in reporting on the issue …and that causes those who unthinkingly take their queues from the media (sadly, far too many Americans) that there’s something to the idea.

    The States have even less reason to cooperate with Fed mandates now, thanks to reduced Fed ‘apportioning’ of the shrinking amount of tax dollars…which arguably could be better used at the local level for things like infrastructure repair and life-support for unemployed citizens and their families.

    The writing has been on the wall for over a decade, but because of the distractions of 9/11, the resulting (and pointless and ruinously expensive) wars, the economic meltdown that revealed our economy to be a house of termite-ridden and rotten cards, etc. the farce was allowed to continue.

    And now, it’s time to pay the piper…finally. But the DrugWarriors are still lost in the past, in their ‘glory days’ of unquestioned budgets. All they had to do was ‘wave the bloody shirt’ of ‘The Sainted Children®’ and they got OUR money.

    But when those same kids are in danger of going hungry and homeless thanks to the meltdown causing their parents to lose their jobs and homes, that dog won’t hunt any more. Very soon, some opportunistic pol will realize the amount of political gold that could be mined from this particular vein.

    They don’t have to directly attack prohibition; all they need do is point out time and again how the GAO has shown the DrugWarriors methods are both costly and ineffectual. And when the prohibs counterattack, as they will, they’ll use the one card they shouldn’t, and that’s the ‘The Sainted Children®’ again. But this time, the obvious rejoinder will cut them to the bone (as in “Those kids are facing homelessness and hunger, and you’re arguing for your budget? I have constituents in dire straits in my district,and they need that money you’re wasting, right now!“).

    When the political wind changes direction, as it’s showing in California, the pols will indeed jump on the bandwagon. But we need to make sure that its OUR hands on the reins, not theirs.

  • iDub

    damn republicans! obstructing our great leader in every way possible!!!!

  • claygooding

    I think the drug warriors will try to convince America that
    it is better that our children starve to death than allow
    the backbone of their funding to become legal.
    It is funny to me that marijuana is 60% of the cartels income and 60% of ONDCP funding justification,,,,,,are these actually the same people too?

  • So why is there no real change?

    Because they are nothing but a bunch of lying assholes that will say anything to appease whichever particular audience they stand before at that moment. When they walk away, all bets are off (and America shrugs and says, “oh well”).

    Actions speak much louder than words and their actions are deafening.

  • kaptinemo

    “It is funny to me that marijuana is 60% of the cartels income and 60% of ONDCP funding justification,,,,,,are these actually the same people too?”

    Well, we all know about the symbiotic relationship that exists between the drug prohibitionist and the drug cartel. Both need the other. Though in the case of the ONDCP – and by derivation, all DrugWarriors – the reliance upon cannabis as budgetary justification may actually be higher. I’d say 80-90%. The white powders just aren’t in it as much, though they’ve been hogging the lion’s share of the media attention regarding traditional drug reporting.

    With the rise in spending (what happened to all that talk about domestic discretionary spending freezes?) for anti-drug operations, we are seeing the further bankrupting and dissolution of this nations’ economy. For that money has to come from somewhere, and with foreign creditors making quiet moves to divest themselves of dollars and won’t lend to us any more, the money can only come from further inflation of the currency, causing even more economic misery.

    (Little experiment: Open your wallet or purse, and take out the money you have in it. Is is all nice, new and shiny? Then we’re f-ed. Because that means that it was printed recently, and that means devaluation of currency and inflation. Old money, all raggedy, dog-eared and faded, means less is being printed, and that means less devaluation and less inflation.)

    This can only go on until we have a total currency crash, the kind that has been predicted for many years but was held off with deficit spending, which we just can’t do anymore. If Congress does not act to stop spending and doesn’t tell Treasury to quit with printing new greenbacks, when the bill comes due for all this, then it’s Weimar Republic wheelbarrows-of-money-to-buy-bread time. And then no number of anti-crowd control weapons will stop a revolution from overtaking this country.

    These idiots keep thinking that they can go on playing with fire. But we’ll all get burned when they drop the lit matches on the pool of gasoline at our feet…

  • Just me

    I just seen a news bit on cable that our federal government will hit the spending limit that Obama Just set…They will hit it this month !

    I think our leaders have a real eye opener coming.This can NOT continue. You all know as well as I do…they wont stop at that limit. Our government truely has a problem WORSE than any addiction to any drug.

    When are people going to wake up and say NO MORE!!??

    I’ll tell ya when…when we are all on the street and rich people live like poor people.

    ….And they want to keep feeding prohibition….

  • claygooding

    My estimate was extremely conservative,because I believe that 90% of the ondcp’s budget is directed toward marijuana
    control also. You will also notice they are lowering the estimated proceeds to the cartels due to marijuana. I think they are trying to lessen the estimated impact that legalization would have on the cartels. Our posts and articles that explain that legalization could remove most of the cartels cash flow must be having a negative effect on their exaggerated claims of success.

  • claygooding

    I am sitting here,watching the prez ask democratic congress members why would we do the same thing year after year and expect any different outcome than in the years before. Of course,he is talking about the economy and he does not see the logic of applying the same thought process to the war on drugs,,,oops,they don’t want to call it the war on drugs anymore,so I guess we can go ahead and call it what it is,war on America.

  • kaptinemo

    “You will also notice they are lowering the estimated proceeds to the cartels due to marijuana. I think they are trying to lessen the estimated impact that legalization would have on the cartels.”

    Clay, they’ve been underreporting the weight of actual hauls of interdicted drugs for years, simply from sheer embarrassment. If they’re doing as you suggest, then someone in Prohib Central is quietly crapping their trousers while making brave noises. They know what’s coming.

    Legalization will cause massive and sudden price devaluation, until the commodity reaches market stability…which I hold will be at least one-tenth of present cost, tax schemes notwithstanding. But what that does to the both the cartels and the DrugWar bureaucracy will be even more amazing to watch. Think of slow-motion movies of balloons popping.

    And then…come the inevitable calls for restitution. If DrugWarriors are crapping their pants at the thought of legalization, this one has them in screaming hysterics, for it will be the final nail in the economic coffin. And the more intelligent of them know that.

  • claygooding

    yup,just watched Obama ask democratic senators “Why would we do the same thing,year after year and expect any different outcome”. He was speaking about the economy,so I wrote him and asked him how long before he applied the same logic to the war on drugs.

  • Just me

    Ya Clay I seen the same thing and said the same thing. They dont want to apply that logic to things that make sense. Besides , this talk is all just to try get the people to stop being so angry. It wont work. Government will hit Obamas spending limit this month…what will they do…raise the limit again or just spend under the radar?

    I think the angle of decent, where our econony and government is concerned, has just gotten steeper. Whats all this talk about them being certain that there will be terror attacks? Seems they want this..do they really need a big distraction from whats going on?

    Dollars,gold,credit….the things that keep people from living a good life…the things that cause wars ….the things that could mean hell on earth.

    I sometimes wonder…are we surrounded by heaven and hell..? We could have either if so. Keep money , bring hell. Rid us of money bring heaven. Ya I know it sounds nuts but, no more than the things our leaders are doing to us all due to money.

    Wish I could smoke a big fat one, need to relax…Im thinking too much.

  • Just me

    Hey Kaptinemo…I took you up on your experiment…We’re screwed…most the money I have in my wallet IS new.

    I hope your wrong about that but somehow I dont think you are.

  • Bailey

    When is anyone going to focus on the drug czar’s requirement to lie? ONDCP is due for re-authorization if not this year then next year. There should be a major push to ensure that the czar’s responsibility for opposing legalization of schedule 1 is removed.

    This won’t create legalization itself, but it will begin the massive project at removing government’s mechanisms of opposition to sensible drug laws. I’d be interested to hear if there was any change in Kerlikowski’s vocabulary (or knowledge of it) if his office was no longer bound by the requirement to ban legalization as a policy option.

    The administration can’t suggest it outright, it has to come up in congress. I know there are friendly members in the House, would any of them try to remove this disgrace?

  • Cliff

    “Hey Kaptinemo…I took you up on your experiment…We’re screwed…most the money I have in my wallet IS new.

    I hope your wrong about that but somehow I dont think you are.”

    I can’t remember when I was able to tell our dear kap’n that he was wrong. So as far as I’m concerned he is batting 1000. He’s right, because he is paying attention and he knows a lot of history and we are repeating history.

    Regarding the currency….Look at the new money in your wallet and imagine that someone in the Federal Reserve can instantly create millions, billions trillions of $’s with several keystrokes on a computer.

    I have no money in my wallet all my money is freakin’ bits and bytes in a server. I know I’m screwed when the hyper-inflation comes, but I’m broke from this new economy where an MS degree gets you a part time janitor job and a part time engineering technician job. What you gonna’ do?

  • Cliff

    Why does the strike-through work in preview and not when the comments get published.? The “millions, billions” should have been striked through.

  • Hope

    I’ve been paying attention to what Kaptinemo has been saying for a long time. I’ve not known him to be wrong, about any thing either. Maybe rude. Or angry. But not wrong.

  • Hope

    Rude or angry. Often angry and seldom rude. He knows the value of self control.

    Well maybe he is rude. It’s all in what it means to you.

    He is usually right, though. If not always. That’s just the way it is. He’s nobody’s fool.

  • Just me

    Glad to hear guys..I think.., Keep your eyes open Kaptinemo.

  • kaptinemo

    Friends, I am just as prone to being wrong, shooting off my mouth, getting facts mixed up, etc. as is anyone.

    But one thing I really like about the ‘Net: it keeps you intellectually honest…so long as you have a core of honesty, that is.

    Sadly, such a requirement does not exist for prohibs. Which enables them to try and snowjob those whom they assume to be less knowledgeable than they are. They remind me of the old Soviet commissars, trying to BS Western journalists in sham ‘press conferences’ that were little more than propaganda lectures.

    When challenged on their facts, they did just as I witnessed Andrea Barthwell did in 2004 when cornered by Stephanie Sherer of ASA; dissemble and obfuscate, but never ever admit they were wrong.

    Amazing how they’ve adopted the tactics of the hated Commies and tried to use those tactics on US taxpayers, isn’t it? But what do you expect from people whose paychecks and organizational charter requires mendacity?

  • Chris

    Wow, check out this logic:

    Rhode Island has run budget deficits of just over $200 million in each of the past two years, and is looking at a $400 million deficit in the next fiscal year on a budget of $7 billion. Savings from decriminalization wouldn’t be great, Mr. Miller conceded—say, $2 million to $3 million a year by freeing prison beds occupied by pot offenders. Rhode Island spends about $33,000 a year per inmate.

    Not everyone agrees with that math. Matthew Dawson, deputy chief of the criminal division of the state attorney general’s office, testified before Mr. Miller’s panel last month that the state would achieve “zero savings” from decriminalization. He said police and prosecutors employed criminal charges for possession to plea bargain with suspects, and that suspects might otherwise have to be prosecuted for more serious crimes, at greater cost to the state. Others say possession charges help police cajole witnesses into cooperating in criminal inquiries.

  • kaptinemo

    A link to Chris’s posting.

    Yes, they’ve become so unselfconscious of their participation in the process of destroying the very civil liberties they’ve sworn to uphold that’s it’s almost painful to watch them incriminate themselves. That we wouldn’t always be wearing the ‘white hats’…if in fact we ever did. But still that attitude persists. Any wonder why we’ve fallen so far as a country?

    When the Nuremberg Trials were first proposed, there were many who felt that they would be a mistake, something that would haunt the US in later years if not decades. The feeling was that we were setting a precedent that we would someday be judged by, ourselves. And, needless to say, that goes for domestic as well as international issues.

    There’s a tendency on the part of far too many in this country to believe that our military might will insulate us from any wrongdoing we engage in. That attitude reaches deep into the social psyche. Sweep it under the rug, change the subject, look away, drive on. And that is partly why we have the excesses of the DrugWar. But someday…there…must…be…a…reckoning. Or, thanks to denial of justice, there will truly be no peace in this country. And a good place to start is the DrugWar.

  • Just me

    Not everyone agrees with that math. Matthew Dawson, deputy chief of the criminal division of the state attorney general’s office, testified before Mr. Miller’s panel last month that the state would achieve “zero savings” from decriminalization. He said police and prosecutors employed criminal charges for possession to plea bargain with suspects, and that suspects might otherwise have to be prosecuted for more serious crimes, at greater cost to the state. Others say possession charges help police cajole witnesses into cooperating in criminal inquiries.

    WTH ! Me thinks me gona be sick.

  • Ethics

    Just when you think there’s going to be progress…

    A step closer to thinking the Obama Administration was a bad decision of the electorate. Not the worst but certainly not good so far.

  • […] a whole year now, the new administration has been proudly insisting over and over again that they're taking drug policy in a new direction, abandoning the "drug war" […]

  • claygooding

    The “math” on savings from marijuana legalization never takes into account the billions of untaxed dollars now going to Mexico remains here,being used to buy manufactured goods and services instead of marijuana.
    And that would stimulate our economy better than any stimulus checks going to the rich too trickle down to the poor.

  • […] Put your money where your mouth is […]

  • […] (Find more information on this contradiction between the Obama Administration’s lip service toward treatment over incarceration, complete with quotes and informative graphs, at Pete Guither’s informative DrugWarRant blog.) […]

  • […] incarceration, complete with quotes and informative graphs, at Pete Guither’s informative DrugWarRant blog.) « Banks Wary Of Marijuana-Dispensary Accounts L.A.’s Medical Marijuana Troubles […]

  • Carol M.

    Who will run in the next elections that one can vote for in good conscience? I supported Obama in the last election I am sorry to say.

    This has been so disappointing.

  • Anne

    Some have said that if cannabis were legalized that X-number of law enforcement officers and a bunch of drug dealers would be out of a job. This is simply not true, and here’s why: Because they will not legalize meth, PCP, ‘shrooms, LSD, cocaine, heroin, opium or many other black market drugs. Thus, the dealers will still sell those and the drug cops will still have their jobs because they’re needed to bust those people. Even when pot is legalized, there will still be people who sell it without a license, and just as law enforcement busts people for selling illicit alcohol and tobacco, they will bust the illicit cannabis sales.

    There is quite literally no argument that holds water for the continued criminalization of people for cannabis. 99.9% of the arguments made to continue prohibition are based on stereotypes, heresay, and flat-out lies and propaganda.

    America is waking up but the people need to continue to educate the politicians! Support those who support ending prohibition and out with those who want to keep it illegal! It’s time for CHANGE and it’s obvious that our new president isn’t going to change anything related to cannabis, so we must. Stand for honesty, truth, fairness, and justice!!!

  • The Drug Companies with their trillions of dollars can throw Obama a few million and a few million elsewhere to keep marijuana illegal . It is no BIG deal to them . With legalization of Cannabis they’d be out a billion so , it pays them by giving money to those in charge to keep Cannabis illegal .Here’s an example by someone who made millions off of ” legal ” drugs ( Meg whitman ) ……….She backs , The McCain’s ( Drug Dealers ) & PayPal ( Drug pusher’s – Alcohol & pharmaceuticals )

    Meg Whitman: “I am absolutely, 100% not in favor of legalizing marijuana for any reason.” (What about to increase tax revenues?) “That is the last reason that one should think about legalizing marijuana.” (BTW: It was good to see Whitman answer the question at a brief press avail in San Francisco after our Calbuzz Rant yesterday. Our follow-up to Meg is this: By “any reason” do you mean you oppose the medicinal use of marijuana?)# Matt Smith Says:
    January 24th, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    And now we know where her talks of bringing jobs to California comes from , Smut , Alcohol & Pharmaceuticals ;

    Smut Peddler, Guv Hopeful Meg Whitman Waffles on Porn Subsidies
    By Matt Smith in Politics
    Wed., Apr. 15 2009 @ 4:37PM
    Domimeg2.jpg

    Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, who as eBay CEO proved her mettle as a hardcore fetish pornography entrepreneur, did not respond to an inquiry Wednesday about whether as governor she would seek to continue a California program that, until recently, subsidized the production of smut.

    Next week’s SF Weekly includes an exclusive report about a California economic development program that has routed tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies to an Internet pornography producer. Continuing — or even bolstering — this practice would seem a tailor-made campaign issue for Whitman, who bills herself as a business whiz ready to revive the California economy. She backs her economic talk with real chops: In 1998, just as eBay was preparing an initial stock offering, Whitman oversaw the creation of a special eBay site exclusively for the sale of pornography. The move was prescient — though much porn consumption has shifted to streaming Internet video, there’s still a market for specialized fetish material best sold in DVD — or otherwise physically-shippable form.
    In this spirit, Whitman’s “eBay Adults Only” brainchild is a place where, on April 15, $5.94 got one into the bidding for a DVD titled Redneck Trailer Torture. With $12 one could vie for “porn star Brianna Ryder’s personal g-string,” and $7.99 put one in the running for the DVD Grandma Has Sex With Everybody! Anal, Oral, Group!
    By mid-day on April 15, Whitman’s adults-only Web-auction brainchild had more than 87,000 items for sale, with prices the $5-$20 range. If this is typical, a back-of-the-used-thong calculation suggests an eBay porno-based income of several million dollars per year, potentially funding dozens of California jobs.

    On Wednesday SF Weekly asked Whitman spokesman Mitch Zak whether, given Whitman’s smut-peddling success, the porn-industry could count on her support as governor. Zak had not responded by press time

  • cynic

    They always give lip service to Liberty and Freedom, but in the end, representation is in the pockets of those who can afford to buy it.

  • DdC

    Drug Czar Should Go
    When the drug czar’s office was created in 1990, its budget was $12 million; this year, the office will cost more than $400 million.

    “Mama mia, that’s a spicy meatball,”
    A state appeals court has upheld the NYPD’s firing of a veteran detective who blamed a failed drug test on his wife spiking his meatballs with pot.

    Queensland police tied to major drug trafficking
    Feb 5 2010
    More than 20 Australian officers are understood to have been hauled before secret hearings to forcibly answer questions or give evidence against allegedly crooked colleagues.

  • Dwayne

    What good is it if pot is legal but businesses and corporations can still drug test and refuse to hire people who test positive for it? Instead of going to jail, you just get sent to the poorhouse. If California votes to legalize it, and I plan on voting that way, then the next step has to be to end employer discrimination.

    It doesn’t matter if it’s the government or employers. Either way, it’s still control and punishment.

  • […] (Find more information on this contradiction between the Obama Administration’s lip service toward treatment over incarceration, complete with quotes and informative graphs, at Pete Guither’s informative DrugWarRant blog.) […]

  • […] Remember when the drug policy budget for 2011 came out? Despite constant messages from the White House and the Drug Czar that the emphasis needs to be on treatment rather than on enforcement, on demand rather than supply, the new budget the unveiled showed increases in every major category of supply-side and enforcement-side drug war with just some shifts within those areas. It’s like they gave in entirely to the lobbying pressures to keep the drug war fully funded even when we’re broke. […]

  • […] president’s budget is only slightly different than the drug control budgets of his predecessor; still a two-to-one tilt toward “Supply Reduction” (interdiction and domestic and […]

  • […] president’s budget is only slightly different than the drug control budgets of his predecessor; still a two-to-one tilt toward “Supply Reduction” (interdiction and domestic and […]

  • […] president’s budget is only slightly different than the drug control budgets of his predecessor; still a two-to-one tilt toward “Supply Reduction” (interdiction and domestic and […]

  • […] president’s budget is only slightly different than the drug control budgets of his predecessor; still a two-to-one tilt toward “Supply Reduction” (interdiction and domestic and […]

  • […] president’s budget is only slightly different than the drug control budgets of his predecessor; still a two-to-one tilt toward “Supply Reduction” (interdiction and domestic and […]

  • […] president’s budget is only slightly different than the drug control budgets of his predecessor; still a two-to-one tilt toward “Supply Reduction” (interdiction and domestic and […]

  • […] president’s budget is only slightly different than the drug control budgets of his predecessor; still a two-to-one tilt toward “Supply Reduction” (interdiction and domestic and […]