America’s Phoney War on Drugs
In America’s so-called war on drugs, for some strange reason, became a war on Black people, that has been earning them lengthy jail time, although in some states the same drug has become legal. Now that it has been found to also affect white people, the rules have changed to emphasize treatment for addicts, for whom in both cases are actually victims. America has been fighting drug abuse for almost over a century. At least four Presidents have personally waged a war on drugs.
Unfortunately, it is a war that Americans are losing. Drug abusers continue to fill courts, hospitals, and prisons. The drug trade causes violent crime that ravages neighbourhoods. Children of drug abusers are neglected, abused, and even abandoned.
The only beneficiaries of this war are organised crime members and drug dealers. The United States now appears to want to focus its efforts on the decriminalization of certain categories of drug use. The government has, to no avail, spent countless billions of dollars in efforts to eradicate the supply of drugs.
Efforts of interdiction and law enforcement have not been met with decreases in the availability of drugs in America. Apart from being highly costly, drug law enforcement has proved counterproductive. Current drug laws need to be relaxed. The United States needs to shift spending from law enforcement and penalisation to education, treatment, and prevention.
History of US Drug Policy
Drugs first surfaced in the United States in the 1800’s. Opium became very popular after the American Civil War. Cocaine followed in the 1880’s. Coca was popularly used in health drinks and remedies. Morphine was discovered in 1906 and used for medicinal purposes. Heroin was used to treat respiratory illness, cocaine was used in Coca-Cola, and morphine was regularly prescribed by doctors as a pain reliever.
The turn of the century witnessed a heightened awareness that psychotropic drugs have a great potential for causing addiction. The abuse of opium and cocaine at the end of the 19th century reached epidemic proportions. Local governments began prohibiting opium dens and opium importation. In 1906 the Pure Food and Drug Act required all physicians to accurately label their medicines. Drugs were no longer seen as harmless remedies for aches and pains.
The Harrison Narcotics Act, passed in 1914, was the United States’ first federal drug policy. The act restricted the manufacture and sale of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and morphine. The act was aggressively enforced. Physicians, who were prescribing drugs to addicts on “maintenance” programs were harshly punished. Between 1915 and 1938, more than 5,000 physicians were convicted and fined or jailed (Trebach, 1982, p. 125.) in 1919. The Supreme Court ruled against the maintenance of addicts as a legitimate form of treatment in Webb et al. v. the United States. America’s first federal drug policy targeted physicians and pharmacists.
In 1930, the Treasury Department created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Harry J. Anslinger headed the agency until 1962 and moulded America’s drug policy. Under his tenure, drugs were increasingly criminalised. The Boggs Act of 1951 drastically increased the penalties for marijuana use. The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 created “the most punitive and repressive anti-narcotics legislation ever adopted by Congress.
All discretion to suspend sentences or permit probation was eliminated. Parole was allowed only for first offenders convicted of possession, and the death penalty could be invoked for anyone who sold heroin to a minor (McWilliams, 1990, p.116).” Anslinger was critical of judges for being too easy on drug dealers and called for longer minimum sentences. He established a punitive drug policy with a focus on drug law enforcement.
The Federal Bureau of Narcotics also used propaganda as a preventative measure. They created myths and horror stories about drugs. Marijuana was blamed in bizarre cases of insanity, murder, and sex crimes. Anslinger said that marijuana caused some people to “fly into a delirious rage and many commit violent crimes (McWilliams, 1990, P. 70).”
It is puzzling that Anslinger and the FBN fabricated such tales, while there existed less dramatic, but true horror stories connected to drug abuse. The propaganda of the 1940’s and 1950’s was often so far-fetched that people simply didn’t believe the government’s warnings about drugs.
The 1960’s gave birth to a rebellious movement that popularized drug use. The counterculture made marijuana fashionable on college campuses. Other “hippies” sought to expand their minds with the use of hallucinogens like LSD. Many soldiers returned from the Vietnam War with marijuana and heroin habits. In short, the demand for drugs in America skyrocketed in the 1960’s.
The Johnson Administration, in reaction to a sharp rise in drug abuse, passed the Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966. The act specified that “narcotic addiction” was a mental illness. The law recognised that the disease concept of alcoholism also applied to drug addiction. Drug use, however, was still considered a crime. The act did not have a major impact because the small amount of funding that was appropriated for treatment couldn’t meet the increasing demand for drugs in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. The act did pave the road for federal expenditures on drug abuse treatment.
The Modern Drug War
In 1971 President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. He proclaimed, “America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive (Sharp, 1994, p.1).” Nixon fought drug abuse on both the supply and demand fronts. Nixon’s drug policies reflect both the temperance view and disease view of addiction.
Nixon initiated the first significant federal funding of treatment programs in. In 1971, the government funded the then experimental and enormously controversial methadone maintenance program. In June 1971, Nixon addressed Congress and declared, “as long as there is a demand, there will be those willing to take the risks of meeting the demand (Sharp, 1994, p.27).” In this statement, he publicly proclaimed that all efforts of interdiction and eradication are destined to fail.
Unfortunately, Nixon failed to listen to his own advice. Nixon launched a massive interdiction effort in Mexico. The Drug Enforcement Agency was created in 1973. They initiated Operation Intercept, which pressured Mexico to regulate its marijuana growers. The US government spent hundreds of millions of dollars closing up the border. Trade between Mexico and the US came to a virtual standstill. Mass amounts of Mexican crops headed for the US rotted while waiting in line at the border. In the end, Nixon achieved his goal of curtailing the supply of Mexican marijuana in America. Columbia, however, was quick to replace Mexico as America’s marijuana supplier.
The interdiction of Mexican marijuana was the government’s first lesson in the “iron law of drug economics (Rosenberger, 1996, p.22).” Every effort the US government has made at interdiction since Operation Intercept has at most resulted in a reorganisation of the international drug trade. Heavily monitored drug routes have been rerouted. Drugs enter the United States through land, sea, and air. Closing our borders to drug smugglers is an impossibility as long as the demand exists.
In 1977 President Carter called for the decriminalization of marijuana. In a speech to Congress, he said, “penalties against possession of the drug should not be more damaging than the drug itself (Rosenberger, 1996, p25).” Although Carter endorsed lenient laws towards marijuana use, he was against legalisation. Carter’s drug policy was focused on the supply front, with most funding going to interdiction and eradication programs.
Marijuana decriminalization did not fail but failed to be realised. Carter’s presidency witnessed a sharp increase in cocaine use. From 1978 to 1984, cocaine consumption in America increased from between 19 and 25 tons to between 71 and 137 tons. The demand for cocaine increased as much as 700 percent in just six years (Collett, 1989, p. 35). Marijuana was widely connected to cocaine as a feeder drug. Thus, the federal and state governments moved away from marijuana decriminalization.
In 1981, President Reagan gave a speech mirroring Nixon’s admission that fighting the supply side of the drug war was a losing proposition. He said, “It’s far more effective if you take the customers away than if you try to take the drugs away from those who want to be customers.” Reagan, like Nixon, did not heed is own advice. The average annual amount of funding for eradication and interdiction programs increased from an annual average of $437 million during Carter’s presidency to $1.4 billion during Reagan’s first term. The funding for programs of education, prevention, and rehabilitation was cut from an annual average of $386 million to $362 million (Rosenberger, 1996, p. 26).
Reagan’s demand-side initiatives focused on “getting tough” on drugs. The program became known as the “zero tolerance” program, where punitive measures against users were emphasised. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse gave the drug user full accountability. Drug users were to be prosecuted for possession and accordingly penalised. Although some block grants were given for drug treatment, the rehabilitative efforts were insufficient to meet the overwhelming amount of drug abuse. Reagan’s demand-side drug policy largely reflects the colonial, or moralist view of addiction.
Despite headlining innovative drug policies, Clinton has largely continued the Republican’s supply sided drug policy. In the 1995 budget, Clinton earmarked an extra $1 billion for both the demand and supply fronts of the government’s drug policy. Clinton attracted the media’s attention when he doubled the spending for rehabilitation and prevention programs. However, more substantial increases were made for eradication programs and law enforcement. The 1995 budget included $13.2 billion for drug policy. $7.8 billion was spent on supply sided efforts, while only $5.4 billion was spent on education, prevention, and rehabilitation. Although Clinton did increase the percentage spent on the demand front of the drug war, his policy clearly reflects supply sided tactics (Rosenberg, 1996, p. 51).
It is important to note that Congress has a significant influence on shaping America’s drug policy. The Republican 104th Congress successfully killed many of Clinton’s attempts to spend more on the demand side. Even the Democratic 103rd Congress of the early 1990’s fought shifting the drug policy towards prevention and rehabilitation. Both Democratic and Republic Congresses overwhelmingly favoured continuing with supply sided efforts.
Although Clinton didn’t significantly change the direction of US drug policy he presented some innovative proposals. Clinton encouraged Community Action Programs and grassroots organizations to participate in the demand side of the drug war. However, of the $1 billion given to the Community Empowerment Program only $50 million was allocated to drug education, prevention, and treatment (Rosenberger, 1996, p. 63). Thus, the potential of the programs was never realized.
The Drug Debate
The proponents of drug policy can’t be classified as Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right, Democratic, or Republican. Many Liberals and Democrats, such as the 103rd Congress favour drug criminalization and supply-side efforts, while some Conservatives, such as Milton Friedman and William Buckley favour drug legalization. There are, however, three prevailing views on addiction in America, which have derived from America’s views of alcoholism.
The Colonial or Moralist view considers the drug user to be sinful and morally defective. The drug itself is not the problem. The moralist’s drug policy entails punitive measures for users. Drug use is a crime. Reagan’s “zero tolerance” policy on drug use is an excellent example of a moralist drug policy.
Second, the Temperance view considers the drug itself, as an addictive substance and the cause of addiction. The supply of drugs is a public hazard. According to the temperance view, drug policy should focus on drug smugglers and drug dealers as the root of drug addiction. US drug policy has largely been influenced by the temperance view of addiction.
Third, the disease concept views addiction as being a treatable disease. Neither the drug user nor the drug supplier is responsible drug addiction. The disease concept calls for a drug policy that focuses on drug treatment and rehabilitation. Clinton, for example, embraced the disease concept and increased funding for treatment programs.
There has been the continuous and widespread debate about drug policy since Nixon waged America’s first war on drugs. Remarkably, the issues have changed very little. In fact, US drug policy hasn’t had many significant changes over the last 30 years. The US has long endorsed a supply sided drug policy. Most of the funding has gone to interdiction and eradication efforts. These measures have failed and continue to fail. The United States needs to significantly shift its funding towards education, prevention, and treatment. Thus, America needs to decriminalize drug use.
Firstly, decriminalization does not imply drug legalization. Drug trafficking and drug dealing need to remain criminal activities. Punitive drug laws on drug users need to be relaxed. Of the 750,000 drug law offences in 1995, 75% of them were merely for use (Nadelmann, 1991, p. 20). Habitual drug use offenders, who are usually addicts face heavy fines and long prison sentences. Drug law enforcement and incarceration are extremely costly and counterproductive. Addicts have the potential to be treated. The appropriate response is rehabilitation.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimated that in 1993 as many as 2.5 million drug-users could have benefited from treatment. Only about 1.4 million users were treated in 1993. Almost half of the nation’s addicts were ignored. The government spent only $2.5 billion on treatment programs compared to $7.8 billion on drug law enforcement. The government needs to shift its funding from costly, unproductive drug eradication programs to meet treatment demands.
Decriminalisation does not imply opening up our borders to drug suppliers and tolerating violent drug syndicates. The supply side of the drug war should be reduced, not ignored. Violent drug gangs and large-scale drug suppliers should be targeted instead of the drug user and the small time dealer. Although spending less on interdiction will inevitably make it easier to smuggle drugs into the US, there is no evidence that the demand for drugs will significantly rise.
There have been some victories in the drug war. Every addict who through federally funded treatment programs and rehabilitation becomes sober is a victory. The benefits are endless. Addicts, who treat their disease often reenter society and become productive workers. Recovering addicts are able to parent their children and are positive and powerful examples in their community.
In order to decriminalize drugs, society has to abandon the puritanical idea that drug users are morally defective. The government, which has already publicly acknowledged the disease concept of addiction, needs to focus its drug policies on the demand side. The US government can only relieve drug abuse by treating our addicts through rehabilitation and preventing the use of drugs through education.
Undercover War on Black People
Legal Weed Use
Drug War Fraud Exposed
https://www.facebook.com/NewWorldOrderExposing/videos/1550924648308670/
Comments
Post a Comment