Reject Notion That We're Winning War on Drugs

Reject Notion That We're Winning War on Drugs

By JACOB G. HORNBERGER
Conservatives never cease to fascinate me, given their professed devotion to “freedom, free enterprise, and limited government” and their ardent support of policies that violate that principle.

One of the most prominent examples is the drug war. In fact, if you’re ever wondering whether a person is a conservative or a libertarian, a good litmus-test question is, How do you feel about the war on drugs? The conservative will respond, “Even though I believe in freedom, free enterprise, and limited government, we’ve got to continue waging the war on drugs.” The libertarian will respond, “End it. It is an immoral and destructive violation of the principles of freedom, free enterprise, and limited government.”

The most recent example of conservative drug-war nonsense is an article entitled “Winning the Drug War,” by Jonathan V. Last in the current issue of The Weekly Standard, one of the premier conservative publications in the country.

In his article, Last cites statistics showing that drug usage among certain groups of Americans has diminished and that supplies of certain drugs have decreased. He says that all this is evidence that the war on drugs is finally succeeding and that we just need to keep waging it for some indeterminate time into the future, when presumably U.S. officials will finally be able to declare “victory.”

Of course, we’ve heard this type of “positive” drug-war nonsense for the past several decades, at least since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs back in the 1970s. What conservatives never tell us is how final “victory” will ultimately be measured. Like all other drug warriors for the past several decades, Last doesn’t say, “The statistics are so good that the drug war has now been won and therefore we can now end it,” but rather, “Victory is right around the corner. The statistics are getting better. Let’s keep going.”

Last failed to mention what is happening to the people of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, where drug lords compete violently to export illegal drugs into the United States to reap the financial benefits of exorbitant black-market prices and profits that the drug war has produced.

Recently, drug gangs fired high-powered weapons and a grenade into the newsroom of La Manana, killing Jaime Orozco Tey, a 40-year-old father of three.

Several other journalists have been killed in retaliation for their stories on the drug war, and newspapers are now self-censoring in fear of the drug lords. There are also political killings in Nuevo Laredo arising out of the drug war, including the city's mayor after he had served the grand total of nine hours in office.

According to the New York Times, “In Nuevo Laredo, the federal police say average citizens live in terror of drug dealers. Drug-related killings have become commonplace.” The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists says that the U.S.-Mexico border region is now one of the world’s most dangerous places for reporters.

Not surprisingly, Last did not mention these statistics in his “We’re winning the drug war” article.

During Prohibition, there were undoubtedly people such as Last claiming, “Booze consumption is down. We’re winning the war on booze. Al Capone is in jail. We’ve got to keep on waging the war on booze until we can declare final victory.”

Fortunately, Americans living at that time finally saw through such nonsense, especially given the massive Prohibition-related violent crime that the war on booze had spawned. They were right to finally legalize the manufacture and sale of alcohol and treat alcohol consumption as a social issue, not a criminal-justice problem.

Both conservatives and liberals have waged their war on drugs for decades, and they have reaped nothing but drug gangs, drug lords, robberies, thefts, muggings, murders, dirty needles, overcrowded prisons, decimated families, record drug busts, government corruption, infringements on civil liberties, violations of financial privacy, massive federal spending, and, of course, ever-glowing statistics reflecting drug-war “progress.”

Americans would be wise to reject, once and for all, the war on drugs, and cast drug prohibition, like booze prohibition, into the ashcan of history.


http://www.swnewsherald.com/online_content/2006/02/021506ov_hor_drugs.php

 

Feature: Foes Fume and Flee as Drug Reform Reaches Out to Conservatives

Last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference drew about 5,000 activists and numerous elected officials and movement luminaries to the Omni Shoreham hotel in Washington, DC, for three days of fire-breathing rhetoric on topics dear to conservatives: illegal immigration, the war on terror, fiscal responsibility, gay rights, how liberals are destroying America -- and, surprisingly, reforming the nation's drug laws. For the second year in a row, the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) cosponsored the event in a bid to reach out to what many drug reformers would consider "the other side." This year, the mar1juana Policy Project (MPP) came along for the ride.

While a conservative political conference may not, on first glance, appear to be fruitful ground for "legalizers," as some conservative activists call them, drug reformers who attended said that would be a mistaken impression. With the American conservative movement running the gamut from small-L libertarians, free marketeers, and small government conservatives to militaristic neoconservatives and fundamentalists worried about gay rights, rampant sexuality, and "traditional family values," DPA and MPP see an opening.

DPA executive director Ethan Nadelmann showed up to debate the failures of the drug war, while MPP executive director Rob Kampia moderated that debate and joined Nadelmann in a smaller panel discussion that same day. Both groups had tables and they jointly sponsored a reception one evening where conservatives could meet and greet, discuss and argue with drug reformers.

"The drug policy reform movement is composed of people coming from many different political directions, and most people realize we need to reach out to everyone. That's a sign of political maturity and sophistication," said DPA director for national affairs Bill Piper. "We think most people understand that ending the drug war will take a big tent coalition. While some Democrats are good on many drug policy issues, they can be a big obstacle when it comes to cutting some of the waste," he told DRCNet.

"It was a great opportunity," said Piper. "We were pretty well received last year, and we definitely got a lot of support this year. That is especially true among young people. While people who don't like us probably didn't stop by to say hello, we did get an enormous amount of sympathy. Some issues generally get strong support, like treatment versus incarceration or treating drugs as a public health issue versus a criminal justice issue, but this is the first conservative conference I've been to where support for mar1juana legalization is strong. There were quite a few people who thought drugs should just be legalized, those Milton Friedman or William F. Buckley kind of conservatives. What this suggests to me is that influential conservative leaders and the Republican Party leadership are out of touch with a good part of their base."

"We've already won on the liberal side," said MPP director of government relations Aaron Houston. "We've got 72% of House Democrats voting with us on key bills, but until the leadership of the House changes, we need Republicans to be able to pass legislation. Going to CPAC and reminding conservatives of the support for people like Buckley and Friedman for ending mar1juana prohibition can, we hope, help us pick up some votes," he told DRCNet.

"For the most part, even people who disagreed with us welcomed the debate on the issue," Piper said. "The Partnership for a Drug-Free America people, who also had a booth there, were hostile, but they were in a minority."

As Piper indicated, not everyone was happy with the presence of "legalizers" at CPAC. While the demagogic author and columnist Ann Coulter garnered the most press attention for remarks calling Moslems "ragheads" -- much to the embarrassment and dismay of many conservative and other bloggers -- some conservatives managed to create a minor flap by attacking the drug reform presence even before the conference started.

The preemptive strike against drug reform was lead by ultra-conservative "press critic" Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media. Last week, Kincaid took time off from his other crusades to launch a jeremiad against foolish conservatives who would allow "two advocates of drug legalization, both of them funded by leftist billionaire and anti-Bush activist George Soros" to use CPAC as a forum for debate. Attempting to cover all the conservative bases, Kincaid's attack dog column warned that, in addition to supporting drug reform, the evil Soros supports "open borders, gay rights, abortion rights, opposition to the death penalty, lighter sentences for criminals, and assisted suicide." The crafty financier is also "a big backer of the UN and opposes the Bush administration's war in Iraq," Kincaid fulminated.

But Soros wasn't Kincaid's only target. He also attacked MPP for plans to hold a fundraiser at -- gasp! -- the Playboy Mansion and tried to tarnish Kampia by writing that he had been convicted of a mar1juana charge in 1989. Worse yet, in Kincaid's view, Tommy Chong is a member of the fundraiser host committee.

But wait, there's more. "DPA and MPP are part of a major deception campaign to convince people that mar1juana is harmless or even has medical benefits," Kincaid wrote, citing as evidence a few seconds worth of decade-old clips featuring activists joking about the issue. After a few more paragraphs of spleen, Kincaid finally got down to his censorious bottom line: "So why is CPAC giving Nadelmann, Kampia and their ilk a platform?

Kincaid's jeremiad provided fuel for arch-drug warrior and self-avowed Christian conservative Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), who used the ammo to attack drug reformers in the Congressional Record. Comparing the "radical liberal financier George Soros" to disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Souder expressed shock "that a representative of the mar1juana Policy Project is slated to moderate -- yes, moderate -- a panel Friday discussing drug policy. For those who are unacquainted with it, the pro-mar1juana MPP has been funded by Soros in the past. Also represented on the panel is the Drug Policy Alliance, which is Soros' principal pro-drug arm. Incidentally, the moderator himself is a convicted drug dealer," Souder added in an ad hominem attack -- and an inaccurate one, Kampia pointed out in an e-mail to supporters yesterday, his conviction was not for dealing but for growing mar1juana in his college dorm room for personal use. "What on earth were the CPAC organizers thinking?" Souder asked. "Why would the American Conservative Union allow extremist liberals like George Soros and Peter Lewis (who is responsible for most of MPP's funding) to access a meeting of conservatives?"

DRCNet was curious about that, too. Unfortunately, none of the conservative groups associated with the conference contacted by DRCNet responded to our queries. The Young America's Foundation, the American Conservative Union, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America did not bother to return calls for comment. It would have been particularly interesting to have heard from Calvina Fay of the Partnership, who was slated to debate Nadelmann, but cancelled at the last minute, complaining the debate was stacked against her because MPP's Kampia was to be the moderator.

Drug reformers didn't just roll over and play dead when attacked. "It is one thing for Souder to support the war on drugs and to ignore all its costs, including wasting taxpayer money, destroying families, and undermining the rule of law. What is really tragic is when an elected official seeks to censor open discussion and debate," said DPA's Nadelmann. "There is a long and distinguished tradition within the conservative movement in America of opposing the war on drugs and its violation of fundamental principles. Perhaps, it is Souder who is outside the mainstream among his conservative colleagues."

"Calvina was afraid to debate," said MPP's Houston. "She didn't back out for any reason other than that she was going to lose. In fact, we offered both her and Cliff Kincaid slots on a panel discussion, but they refused. Calvina didn't want to be embarrassed because she knows she couldn't win."

Despite efforts by people like Faye, Kincaid, and Souder to sabotage open debate on drug policy at CPAC, the debate went forward. Philadelphia sports writer Gary Cobb stood up for drug prohibition, but his best applause line came when he turned to stereotypes about mar1juana users. "mar1juana makes people lazy, and we have enough lazy Americans already," he said to loud applause.

"I'm not sure exactly what people were applauding," said DPA's Piper. "Was it the notion that mar1juana makes people lazy? Was it the idea that Americans are lazy? I'm not sure what excited them."

Cobb was little match for an experienced debater like DPA's Nadelmann, who aimed at jugular by asking conservatives to consider the positions of some of their heroes. "Milton Friedman and William F. Buckley are probably the two most distinguished conservative thinkers of the second half of the 20th Century," he said. "Both of them made clear that they considered the drug laws absurd and antithetical to conservative values."

"What do conservatives stand for?" Nadelmann asked, citing a litany of conservative values like individual freedom, personal responsibility, small government, and fiscal restraint. "Isn't that what conservatism is all about?"

"Yes, there were some crazy drug war extremists around, but I don't think most people there were driven by this issue," said DPA's Piper. "I would bet most of them are closer to Friedman and Buckley than Calvina Faye and Mark Souder."

For Piper and DPA, it's all part of building a winning movement. "We're going to follow up with the people we met there and we're going to try to work with conservative organizations to push a common agenda for drug reform. We will build alliances where we can."


http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/423/foesfume.shtml



________________________________________________________________

I really wish that the GOP would get back to their roots of fiscal conservatism and limited government so that I could vote for them again.

 

Out of the people that I have talked to in person, a grand total of two people have told me that they think the drug war should go on more or less as it is today. One was a politician, so his views aren't surprising. The other is my mother, mostly because every time we get together, it is not a situation that is conducive to discussing drug use and abuse.

To a man, every police officer, every lawyer, every judge, every doctor, and everyone else has suggested a different approach to the drug war. The one thing they agree on is that what we are doing now is not working.

 

Well said.

 

What a bunch of chickensh!t punks...
________________________________________________________________


Federal Drug Budget: Democratic Senators Urge Restoring Funds for Drug Task Forces
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/423/fedbudget.shtml

In an attempt at using tough-on-crime rhetoric to win partisan political advantage, a number of Democratic senators are criticizing the Bush administration for seeking further cuts in drug war spending programs beloved by law enforcement. In its 2007 budget proposal, the administration proposed cutting more than $1.2 billion in federal funding for state and local law enforcement, including the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, which goes to fund the multi-jurisdictional anti-drug task forces that have run amok around the country for years.

The JAG program has pumped about $500 million a year into the drug task forces, which have made a reputation for themselves as the focus of abuse, corruption, and bad policing. Texas narc Tom Coleman, the man whose perjury sent dozens of black residents of Tulia to prison on bogus charges, was working under the auspices of a JAG-funded drug task force. Other Texas task forces have managed to arrest dozens of blacks -- and no whites or Hispanics -- in another Texas town, Hearne, and have taken to buying $5 crack rocks from addicts, charging them as drug dealers, sending them off to prison for years, then claiming victories in the drug war for doing so.

Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mark Dayton (D-MN), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have all loudly called for restored funding for the program, even though the Office of Management and Budget has found it is a failure and taxpayer watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste and the National Taxpayers Union have described it as little more than "pork barrel spending." All three senators called the grants essential "for a rural state" and cited the much-hyped methamphetamine "epidemic" as the reason the program must continue.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was the latest to jump on the JAG bandwagon. In a press release last Friday, Reid joined his Democratic colleagues in criticizing the proposed cuts, and he hit the same talking points. "Once again, President Bush's budget will inhibit the ability of first responders to prepare for new threats and law enforcement to combat the growing methamphetamine problem," he said, adding that the programs are "specifically designed to assist rural communities."

Reid attacked the Bush budget not only on the JAG program, but also for proposing deep cuts in the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program, which, Reid noted, helps "combat methamphetamine use and distribution," among other things. And while the Bush budget proposes $40 for a Methamphetamine Cleanup Program, that isn't enough, Reid said.

The Bush budget, with its cuts in just about everything except military spending, provides Democrats with countless opportunities for opposition based on their own principles. Too bad some this time are instead siding with Republican drug warriors like Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) and self-interested law enforcement lobbyists to argue for more funding for a failed program that is a synecdoche for a failed drug policy.

 

I think the closest I have gotten to what you are talking about is my plan for what to do with drugs. It is not "concise," but it does lay out a good number of the improvements that could be made if we changed our direction with regards to drug policy.

BTW, no I didn't know we shared similar views. I kind of assumed that you and t_j shared the same opinion on the WoD. Color me pleasantly surprised.


http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63243