Experts say that the "War on Drugs" increases crime

DRUG WAR BOOSTS CRIME, EXPERTS SAY
Transcript to "Drug War Crimes" Forum Now Available

At a recent Independent Institute Policy Forum, entitled "Drug War Crimes," three distinguished panelists discussed the negative effects of the Drug War in expanding violent crime, causing law-enforcement corruption, and attacking fundamental American liberties. A transcript of their presentations is now available at http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/040506ipfTrans.html

Boston University Economics Professor Jeffrey Miron, author of the new book, also titled DRUG WAR CRIMES, argued that the War on Drugs has had multiple perilous effects. Far from reducing crime, the Drug War "creates violence, because the participants in a black market cannot resolve their disputes using lawyers, and arbitration systems, and judges. They have to resort to guns, or knives, and other forms of violence, because they don't have access to the non-violent legal dispute resolution system."

Drug prohibition also causes a "reduced respect for the law," said Miron. Although some believe that prohibition makes "a moral statement" against drugs, the Drug War is "far more immoral than legalization and drug use, because it has enormous effects, which negatively impact innocent bystanders."

Miron concluded the Drug War is an utter failure. Although the "U.S. government spends over $30 billion dollars on the war on drugs, and arrests more than 1.5 million people annually," demand is only marginally decreased; many people "buy and use drugs every day," and "drug prices have fallen by a factor of about 80 percent."

The second panelist, former San Jose and Kansas City Chief of Police Joseph D. McNamara, added another perspective, providing first-hand accounts from his experience on the front lines as to how drug prohibition reinforces a corrupt "police culture" of "gangster cops." Desensitized by the violence they're exposed to daily, pressured to make large numbers of arrests, and confronted with the futility of their mission, police lose respect for the rule of law, such that the "Constitution is not seen as a glorious document that established unique Civil Rights in the history of civilization, [but instead] as an obstacle that they have to get around to do their job."

McNamara declared that "for the first 140 years of this Republic, your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness included the right to use any substance that you wanted, and to sell it."

Rounding out the panel, Ethan Nadelmann, Founder and Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance, reflected on how he came to his conclusions about the Drug War, and explored various drug policy options. While stopping short of advocating the outright, full legalization that Miron favored, Nadelmann relayed his attempts to find a compromise between a "total free market in drugs" and prohibition, so as to "try to take these two models, and stretch them together, and see if we could get right in the middle and figure out that optimal policy in the end." This compromise, often called "harm reduction," would employ such policies as "decriminalization, and needles, and methadone programs, and heroin maintenance," as well as "additional control . . . to reduce the harms of drugs" in an effort to "gut prohibition on the one hand, but also respect [public health] concerns."

Nadelmann concluded by asking the audience to "decide that this is going to be a priority issue."

For the transcript of "Drug War Crimes,"
featuring Jeffrey Miron, Robert McNamara and Ethan Nadelmann, see:
http://www.independent.org/tii/forums/040506ipfTrans.html

To order DRUG WAR CRIMES: The Consequences of Prohibition, by Jeffrey Miron, see http://www.independent.org/tii/catalog/cat_drug_war.html

 

I have been saying this for years. The only way to effectively reduce crime is to see that 99% of the populace trusts the police enough to call them for ANYTHING. When over 10% of the population has used an illegal drug in the past 30 days, this is simply not possible.

The "War on Drugs" has become more destructive than even our first failed experiment with prohibition. It is time for a rational policy that ACTUALLY reduces the availability of drugs to young people, a goal that will only be accomplished by regulation.

 

I take it by the thundering silence that everyone agrees.

 

You are right about the political suicide, but unfortunately, it isn't just the right-wingers that think this way. The Dems have just as much culpability in the lunacy that is our drug policy as the Reps do. In fact, the most prominent politicians to come out against the drug war to date have been Republicans, specifically Gary Johnson (ex-Gov. of NM) and Sheriff Bill Masters (sheriff of the county that Telluride is in). There have also been a lot of conservative columnists that have come out in favor of ending prohibition, most notably William F. Buckley.



BTW, t_j, I will let it go this time but the next time you decide to try to goad me I will be more than happy to bestow upon you the insults you deserve.

 

I see us beginning to move in the right direction in some areas, but it is going to take a LOT of education to overcome the propaganda induced bias that most people have on this issue. We need to continue to make our voices heard not only in the ballot box, but in the streets.

We may well be having some variant of this conversation in a decade, but on some subsets of this issue (Medical MJ, needle exchange) I see some positive moves (by the courts and states, not the DEA).

The best thing anyone can do is to educate themselves about the subject (I suggest www.stopthedrugwar.com) so that when you run into someone who is still snowed, you will have arguments other than "Free the weed, WOO-HOO!" It is AMAZING how little convincing most people need once confronted with hard facts and data.

 

Thanks for the encouragement (as if I needed any more).

I will continue to talk about this topic until this country wakes up and does something positive to confront the problems associated with drug use and abuse in our society.

 

You are absolutely right. It is a cycle that is spiraling downward and is perpetuated by the ignorance bred by the last 70 years of propaganda. Both sides are to blame and what I am afraid of is that it will take a catastrophe in this country to make the general population realize how destructive prohibition is. I believe that we have an opportunity to cut our losses in this failed "war" so that we can create a sane policy based on science rather than misinformation. I believe that we can avoid catastrophe, but I am afraid that the people who have a stake in seeing that the war goes on will not allow this policy to die without one.

 

Here is the story on the Rockefeller laws. There IS dialogue going on, but nothing is getting done, as is the usual in the drug war.

Like a Rock: New York's Rockefeller Drug Laws Survive Another Legislative Session 6/25/04
Despite protestations from all of New York's key political actors that they are determined to reform the state's draconian Rockefeller drug laws, another legislative session ended this week with the laws unchanged. Last minute negotiations over "reforms" that were only marginally acceptable to real reformers faltered after a last-minute intervention by Republican Gov. George Pataki. Legislators will have to return to Albany for a special summer session to deal with the state budget and other issues, so there is a slim chance lawmakers could cut a deal then, but it appears unlikely. And given the deal state Assembly leader Rep. Sheldon Silver (D), state Senate leader Joseph Bruno (R) and Pataki were pursuing, reformers are not spilling too many tears over its collapse.

Under the Rockefeller drug laws, in place since the early 1970s, persons caught in possession of as little as four ounces or selling as little as two ounces of a controlled substance get mandatory minimum 15-to-life sentences, while other drug offenders earn similarly harsh treatment. As a result, the state's prison population has swollen, primarily with black or brown offenders. Drug prisoners now make up 38% of the prison system -- nearly twice the national average -- and a staggering 93% of them are Latinos and African-Americans. Many are housed in prisons in conservative, lily-white upstate counties where the Rockefeller drug laws serve as an effective jobs program for prison guards.

After years of mounting pressure to amend or undo the laws, Bruno and Silver appeared poised as recently as three weeks ago to approve reforms that would have reduced sentences for "A" felons, the ones doing 15-to-life (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/340/sortof.shtml). But that measure would not have helped the much more numerous "B" felons and other drug offenders, nor did it deal with other key issues for drug reformers, including the restoration of sentencing discretion to judges and making any reforms retroactive. Still, the deal was too much for Pataki, who, backed by the state's powerful prosecutors, intervened at the last moment over the weekend with deal-breaking demands to add sentencing enhancements to allow prosecutors to seek longer sentences in some cases.

"I had a meeting with Bruno last week, and he assured me we would have an agreement by Tuesday," said Michael Blain, Policy Director for Drug Policy Alliance (http://www.drugpolicy.org) and DPA's man in Real Reform 2004 (http://www.realreform2004.org), an umbrella group formed this year to carry on the years-long struggle to kill the Rockefeller laws. "But then Pataki weighed in and broke the deal by attempting to add sentencing enhancements that he knew were unacceptable to both the Assembly and the Real Reform coalition. Where's my deal? Was Bruno stringing us along?"

But Blain conceded that even had the deal succeeded, it would not have been the reform he was looking for. That was a view universally shared by reform activists. "Even if anything had passed we wouldn't have considered it reform," said Robert Gangi, head of the Correctional Association of New York (http://www.corrassoc.org), a member of the Real Reform coalition. "It was limited and cosmetic. It would have reduced prison sentences for some categories of drug offenders, but the effect would have been limited. We were not disappointed when we heard there would be no deal, because what they were proposing was no real movement on the issue. It was not real reform, and if politicians attempt to present it to the public as reform, they are misrepresenting what they are doing," he told DRCNet.

"We thought there would be a small change that we wouldn't be happy with," said Randy Credico of the William Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice (http://www.kunstler.org) and the prisoner family group New York Mothers of the NY Disappeared, also members of the Real Reform coalition. "It would have been like going to Las Vegas, dropping $200,000 in the slot machine, coming up with two cherries, and calling yourself a winner. We cannot settle for a small payoff," he told DRCNet.

As reformers lick their wounds and plot their next steps, some divisions have emerged.

"We have used the wrong approach," said Blain. "We need to tell legislators they need to reform those laws not because the laws are wrong -- they don't seem to care -- but because there will be consequences for them if they don't. They cannot continue to seek Latino and African-American votes while ignoring drug law reforms that clearly affect the African-American and Latino communities. As citizens and advocates, we have to hold them accountable."

DPA and the Democratic-leaning organization MoveOn.org attempted to do just that this week. In a message sent out to more than 130,000 MoveOn subscribers Tuesday, the groups placed the blame squarely on Gov. Pataki. "Pataki is trying to water down the reform proposal so much as to make it almost meaningless," said the missive. "Pataki's on the verge of killing our one chance for real reform this year... Governor Pataki needs to keep his promise and reform the Rockefeller drug laws. Please call Gov. Pataki now... Let him know you understand that he is the obstacle to real reform of the Rockefeller drug laws, and ask him to support real reform, not kill it."

Credico differed tactically from Blain on the question of momentum and incrementalism. While Blain argued that the movement could build on small victories, Credico scoffed. "If the agreement they were talking about passed, it would not have been sufficient, and it might have killed any momentum for real reform. Remember, we don't want reforms on the margins, we want to repeal these laws."

Credico's view is colored by the idea that current New York drug laws serve a latent social purpose far beyond keeping our kids safe from drugs. "These Rockefeller laws are about race and class and social control," he said. "Right now, the drug laws are the vehicle to impose that control. If the Rockefeller laws suddenly vanished, they would find another way," he argued. "Race is the key issue here, and racism is just as deeply embedded in New York as it is in Alabama or Mississippi," he said. "And if you want to go a little further, the issue is capitalism. Right now, we are in what looks like a near fascist moment in this country. We need another system because this one is fundamentally broken. We need a revolution," said Credico, sounding like a fire-breathing SDSer from the days of yore. "The legal system and the courts are designed to put black and brown people in prison, and the appeals courts are to keep them there."

While Credico sounds ready to take to the streets, Blain is ready to return to the back rooms of Albany. "The legislature has to come back this summer to pass the budget, and there are other outstanding issues it has to deal with," he told DRCNet. "Something could still happen on Rockefeller reform, but if it does it is likely to be only tinkering around the edges. Even if we do something this summer, real reform means real sentencing reductions, real sentencing discretion for judges, real treatment opportunities, and retroactivity. This is a long-term campaign and it could take years to dismantle these laws. That's not a defeatist statement," Blain emphasized, "that's a determined one."

In his conversation with DRCNet, Credico vowed repeatedly that he was done, burned out, finished working the issue. But at the same time, he revealed why, despite all his frustrated talk about dropping out, he remains active. "I try to step back, but then I get another phone call. Someone like Darius King. He's in the third year of an 11 ½-to-23 year stretch. He was sentenced as a prior felon for an offense 9 ½ years ago. In six months, that offense wouldn't have counted. He supposedly sold a nickel bag to a guy, even though the guy he supposedly sold it to wasn't found with any drugs. The judge told him to cop a plea and he could have 4-to-8 years. But Darius said he was innocent. He was found guilty, the judge said he should have taken the deal, and gave him twice as much time. His daughter is 18 and paralyzed from the neck down. His 73-year-old mother, Flora, has to take care of her. There are too many stories like that," Credico sighed. "That's why I can't quit."

If Credico sounds like a gloomy fellow, well, he's not. In fact, he's a comedian, and he invites one and all to Rocky Sullivan's club at 29th and Lexington in Manhattan for his Tuesday night comedy shows.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/343/rock.shtml

 

Is this the only piece of evidence you have? You keep trotting out that same thing every time we start talking about this. The real point is that there are many experts who believe that once we ditch our failed policy of prohibition, the crime rate will drop even FURTHER. Are you opposed to further reducing the crime rate?

 

Don't you think that the biggest reason that some crimes have decreased in that time is related to improvements in forensic science?

Prohibition directly causes so many crimes that anyone who claims otherwise is simply not looking at the facts.