Category Archives: War On Drugs

Activision has released its first gameplay trailer of the upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which gives us our first glimpse of the first-person shooter's campaign.

The trailer largely confirms the rumours and leaks of the past few months which suggested the campaign would involve the global War on Drugs.

Task Force 141 is deployed in an unnamed South American country, as it seeks out a terrorist that appears to be allied with drug traffickers. Essentially, the story entangles the War on Terror with the War on Drugs.

Infinity Ward hasn't shied away from controversial conflicts from previous Modern Warfare titles, with the 2019 reboot set firmly in the War on Terror as you are deployed in a fictitious Middle Eastern country in a conflict that's reminiscent of the ongoing Syrian civil war.

Whether that commitment to realism is something players want in an arcade shooter is difficult to say. Just like the War on Terror, the War on Drugs has its critics, particularly as its perceived as a Western-imposed conflict which has seen the death of millions of civilians.

The trailer also saw the return of some familiar faces, including Soap Mactavish, CIA agent Alex "Echo 3-1," and General Shepherd.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 releases on 28th October.

Read more here:

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's campaign entangles Task Force 141 in the bloody War on Drugs - Eurogamer.net

How decriminalizing drugs would radically transform our society for the better.

Apple pie, baseball and illegally funding fascist paramilitary death squads in Central and South America in an attempt to combat the spread of communismnothing is more American than these three things. That last one might seem shocking to you, but what if I were to tell you that money not only led to crimes against humanity but also to the funneling of cocaine into the United States and the creation of the war on drugs. Thanks to Ronald Reagan and his cronies, America was flooded with drugs and when they were coupled with racist laws, people were forced from their communities for years on end. The only solution to solve this decades-long problem is to decriminalize drugs and end the stigma surrounding their use.

The United States has a combative relationship with drugs. Much of the current stigma surrounding the usage and possession of drugs can be traced back to the Temperance Movement of the 19th century. The belief that drug addicts were somehow both lazy moochers, as well as violent thugs, came to prominence starting in the 1970s under the Nixon administration. The most heinous aspects of the war on drugs however were implemented during the Reagan administration. His policies, such as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, negatively affected marginalized people significantly more than affluent ones by increasing the prison population, tearing apart communities and by establishing the concept of mandatory minimum sentencing in federal law. With these policies, the illegality of drugs has disproportionately affected Black, Indigenous and Latinx communities rather than white ones. The National Institute of Health conducted an investigation that concluded, Whites and Blacks in our study both reported the same degree of drug sales. Drug sales may be more visible in the inner city, overcrowded Black neighborhoods where they are more likely to take place outdoors. The solutiondecriminalizing drugs. This may seem like an extreme position to hold, but after researching the facts and realizing how pervasive drugs are in our society, it is not feasible to prosecute everyone for possession of drugs. The CDC calls this matter an epidemic, and we should treat it as such.

Drug decriminalization is a mandatory step in achieving justice because its criminalization strips vulnerable communities of members and tears families apart. Decriminalization will help to reform prison policy. The United States has the worlds largest prison population of two million people, which is utilized as a cheap source of labor. The 13th Amendment allows for such activity since the people in prison have been convicted of a crime, but lawmakers and corporations take advantage of this loophole to ensure that small offenses carry years-long sentences. Companies can pay prisoners pennies for their labor and make record profits all the while workers are exploited for trivial reasons. Decriminalizing drugs would severely hamper the prison industrial complex and lead to an end to mass incarceration.

Through abhorrent media coverage, drug use is seen as the moral and internal failure of an individual rather than a symptom of a much greater problem. The health and safety of the individual are of the utmost importance when discussing drug decriminalization. People are going to use drugs regardless of their legality; since they are so pervasive, it only follows that keeping drugs illegal will not work. The United States has outlawed these substances, but not only did that fail, drug usage actually increased. Many find themselves trapped in this cycle of fearing law enforcement so as to not ruin their lives and thus cannot seek treatment. This mentality leads to unnecessary sickness and death that could otherwise be prevented by adequately funded rehabilitation centers. Normalizing drug use would also eliminate the idea that using drugs is some type of moral failure and a reflection on how a person really is. As I mentioned earlier, the United States takes a much more punitive approach to the drug epidemic than other countries. In the 1990s, Portugal was rife with opioids and other narcotics, but once the government took a more compassionate approach, the number of overdoses significantly dropped. In 2001, once this legislation was passed, they saw a significant reduction of overdose related deaths such as the HIV rate being almost halved over fifteen years. Access to rehab is vital in combating addiction rather than sending people to prison because those resources are designed specifically to cure rather than punish.

The cartels which manufacture and distribute drugs would also suffer as a result of decriminalization because they rely on drugs remaining illegal. Without competition, they can charge whatever they want and exploit whoever they want. Decriminalizing drugs would allow for FDA oversight ensuring that there are fewer pollutants and impurities, like lacing additives that cause the most suffering. According to the University of San Diego, when taking a look at the legalization of marijuana, cartels dramatically cut their exports and increased the importation of heroin and methamphetamine. If you follow this trend, decriminalizing harder drugs would have much of the same effect because it is incredibly costly to smuggle drugs over the border. Because cartels rely on the competition and illegality of these substances, opening up the market will force them to eventually crumble or conform to regulations.

Some may argue that decriminalizing drugs would not help marginalized people and would instead line the pockets of Big Pharma, as seen with the Purdue Pharma scandal. While it is no secret that pharmaceutical companies make exorbitant profits through the United States broken healthcare system, that is no reason to continue fighting a losing battle with the drug addiction epidemic. Dr. Carl Hart, a neuroscientist and psychologist at Columbia University who has devoted his studies to drug reform, notes in an article for Filter magazine, We need to cut the bullshit and stop pretending drugs inevitablyand onlylead to undesired outcomes. While abuse of drugs can certainly lead to issues, any activity can be abused to a point where it is self-destructive. Reversing the stigma surrounding drug usage is an important step to bringing about healing for those who have been affected by these policies. The criminalization of drugs has only hurt the communities that the legislation claimed to protect. There must be steps taken to reform these issues so that we can move forward.

The war on drugs has had significant impacts on marginalized communities that are still visible today. We see this all the time through people of color being sentenced to more jail time for the same offenses as their white counterparts. Decriminalizing drugs and promoting safe usage will ensure that these communities are not harmed any further and we can work together to help rebuild the damage caused by these predatory policies, institutions and stigmas. The cartels that profit from policies banning drugs will also suffer as a result because they now have greater competition with safer and cheaper alternatives. Overall, decriminalizing drugs will help lead to an end to mass incarceration, ensure people the safety and security to seek treatment and lead to community development that is so desperately needed.

Continued here:

D.A.R.E. to Decriminalize Drugs The University News - The University News

The deaths of 16-year-old David Celino and 9-year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel in the same week in August have scarred the conscience of the nation. Their deaths, in separate circumstances and different places are equally tragic and serve as stark reminders of the human cost of our 50 year experiment at drug prohibition.

Though understandably much of the commentary has focused on the tragedy of their deaths coming so young, Just 25 years of life between them, it is clear that their deaths were not happenstance, but the brutal reality of a war on drugs that fuels violence, causes undue harm and risk, and destroys families, communities and when we consider narco-states such as those in West Africa, entire societies.

David

David Celino from Worsley in Greater Manchester was celebrating his GCSE results at Leeds Festival with a group of friends at the end of August. A beautiful, fiercely independent and warm character Celino was taken to hospital on the Saturday night after falling ill at the festival and appearing at the medical tent, and tragically died the next morning.

Initial inquiries have suggested that his death may have been caused by an ecstasy (MDMA) tablet of grey or black oblong shape. His family said that Leeds Festival was the highlight of his summer ultimately it was to take his life in the most unfair, cruel and horrible way, and we are broken.

Catherine Hankinson, Assistant Chief Constable at West Yorkshire police, said: While the exact cause of his death is yet to be established, one line of inquiry is that he had taken a particular type of ecstasy (MDMA) tablet, which was described as a grey or black oblong shape. The force said its investigation into his death was ongoing.

Whilst the Police have distastefully described Davids death as an isolated incident, the reality is very different. David is the latest, and wont be the last, in a list of likely preventable deaths from drugs at Leeds Festival in the last decade.17-year-old Anya Buckley died at the festival in 2019,17-year-old Lewis Haunch in 2016 and 19-year-old James Houghton in 2013. All three had taken ecstasy before they died.

In 2021, the council was handed a formal notice by a coroner to prevent future deaths at the festival following the deaths listed above. Sadly, despite measures implemented including campaigns around drugs and alcohol, the deployment of additional late-night medical officers, and the establishment of a drugs advisory board these piecemeal measures werent sufficient to prevent the death of David Celino.

Melvin Benn, Managing Director of Festival Republic (who run Leeds Festival) said: The safety and wellbeing of all our festival goers is always our absolute priority and we remind all festival goers that there is no safe way to take prohibited drugs and there are no safe prohibited drugs.

This inane, clinical, boilerplate response is both predictable and pathetic. Melvin Benn has been in the business for decades, and is fully aware of not only the importance but in many cases the centrality of drugs and people who take them in terms of keeping festivals like his in business.

Benn has, to put it charitably, a mixed reputation when it comes to supporting drug testing facilities and front-of-house services such as those provided by The Loop are yet to make an appearance at the festival despite attempts to do so in 2017 when said that it was just a matter of time five years on and the absence of harm reduction initiatives continues to cut lives short on his watch.

Speaking recently regarding the provision of back-of-house testing run by the Irish Government at Electric Picnic festival, Benn said:

If the Chief Superintendent catches you with drugs, trust me, he will wheel you to the prison. He wont hesitate, hes very clear on that but at the same time, what we can do to help, we should do. Ultimately, the best thing to stay safe is not to take prohibited drugs, its not that complicated.

This just say no fear mongering message is proven to be both ineffective and counterproductive, doing nothing to reduce drug use and simply encouraging risky behaviours more likely to cause harms such as overdose.

If Benn is really serious about keeping festival goers safe then he would drop the tired rhetoric and embrace evidence based solutions such as drug checking facilities, and use his prominent platform to call for substantive legislative change, including reforms to ensure wider and faster availability for drug checking licences to help prevent deaths like Davids from happening again.

Olivia

Olivia Pratt-Korbell, a little ray of sunshine, was fatally shot after a gunman chased a man both of whom had no links to her family into her home in Knotty Ash, Liverpool. Subsequently, it was made public that the man being chased, and the intended victim of the shots that killed Olivia and injured her mother Cheryl, was a former drug dealer who had recently been released from prison.

Olivia was caught in the crossfire, a victim of a gangland hit gone wrong, in a neighbourhood that has been overtaken by organised crime, funded by the immense profits that drug dealing bestows upon those willing to, literally and figuratively, answer the call.

Her death, though we are yet to learn of the full circumstances, was at the very least made more likely and probably plainly the result of the decision that our political class continue to take to allow organised crime to provide drugs to millions of people across the country and make exorbitant profits whilst doing so.

Decriminalisation would not have prevented her death, but the legal regulation of all drugs, allowing legitimate actors such as businesses or governments to produce and sell substances would (if done correctly) take the market away from illicit control, thus depriving criminal gangs of their single largest revenue stream.

Turf wars over who can sell drugs where, and the civilian collateral casualties involved with such feuds, would be ended if an effective legal, regulated market was made available.

Alternatively, attempting to avoid as far as possible the criminalisation of those involved with the illicit drug trade, in an effort to avoid the ruinous effects of a criminal record on job prospects and other life chances, might also contribute to a reduction in the scale of organised crime and the violence associated with it. As people who wish to get out of the business but have no prospect of success outside of the illicit world due to the presence of a criminal record, could pursue a different path.

There are no entirely effective policy solutions to any societal problem, least of all the complex issues regarding poverty, opportunity, mental health, abuse, trauma and vulnerability that drug policy has to wrestle with. But these deaths were not inevitable.

Calling Daniel and Olivia victims of the war on drugs isnt to absolve, for example, the person who fired the shot that killed Olivia of responsibility for the killing. Its about making clear that these deaths were enabled by our failed, morally bankrupt system of drug prohibition and criminalisation and could have been prevented if we embraced a different approach that would take power and money out of the hands of organised crime.

Here is the original post:

David Celino and Olivia Pratt-Korbell are victims of the UK's 'War on Drugs' Volteface - VolteFace Magazine

On the cusp of the 20th Anniversary of Austin City Limits Music Festival, the city itself seems poised to recapture the pre-pandemic magic of Austins live music scene. Yes, the festival returned last year after a two-year hiatus but it felt different, as if live music had not fully made a comeback yet. 2022 feels different. There is less trepidation as fans worry about which headliner might cancel (Stevie Nicks canceled last year to much disappointment) and more excitement about which performers fans will see October 7-9 at Zilker Park.

Texas act The Chicks (formerly The Dixie Chicks) headline Friday while Pink tops the schedule on Saturday at the American Express Stage. The Red Hot Chili Peppers return to the main stage Sunday for fans of legacy artists, but perhaps most intriguing near the top of the bill is Paramore, making their first ACL Festival appearance on the main stage Sunday at 6 p.m.

While headliners often drive ticket sales (3-day tickets are sold out, single day tickets are still available), its really the bands down the bill that add value for true music fans at large format festivals. ACL Festival is no exception. We think most fans will discover and enjoy music down the lineup poster perhaps more than the top-billed acts on this years schedule.

Friday, October 7

Kevin Morby Honda Stage 3 p.m.

Friday is a good example of how artists scheduled earlier in the day might present standout performances. Despite headliners The Chicks and SZAs top billing, there is arguably better quality music before headliners hit the stage. Arriving early for songwriter Kevin Morby on the Honda Stage at 3 p.m. is the call. The low-fi, indie songwriter has played to increasingly larger rooms each visit to Austin. Morby is another Texas native playing the festival, hailing from Lubbock.

Morbys most successful album to date is his sixth effort, 2019s Oh My God which reached number 2 on the Billboard Heatseekers Chart. He is currently touring in support of seventh recording, This is a Photograph, released in May of this year on the Dead Oceans label. The title track is worth a listen as it shows Morbys considerable songwriting chops along with an unconventional song arrangement that makes it stand out in the crowded singer/songwriter genre.

Genesis Owusu Titos Stage 4 p.m.

Young Ghanian-born Australian Genesis Owusu presents music that sounds more mature than his age (hes 24). The ARIA-award winning artist who took four trophies home at last years Australian Grammys including Album of the Year makes fusion hip-hop that has been described as a mash-up of jazz and hip-hop. While there are elements of jazz in Owusus music, there is a funk and soul influence that perhaps overshadows the jazz element in his work. This might be the most intriguing act playing Austin City Limits Festival on the opening day. That feels apropos considering the Titos Stage has gained a reputation for booking hot, new, up and coming acts.

Billy Strings T-Mobile Stage 7 p.m.

There might not be a jam band performer who is rising faster on the live music circuit than Billy Strings, who graduates to thelarger T-Mobile Stage at ACL Festival after playing the BMI Stage in 2019. In the ensuing three years, the flat-picking guitarist has since taken the bluegrass world by storm. The talented artist has played with Bill Kreutzmann of the Grateful Dead, landed his 2019 album Home at number one on the Billboard Heatseekers and Bluegrass Album charts, and won a Grammy for Best Bluegrass Album. If exceptional musicianship is your bag, dont miss this set.

Other notable acts:

Gayle Miller Lite Stage 3:15 p.m.Arlo Parks Titos Stage 4 p.m.Big Gigantic Titos Stage 6 p.m.SZA Honda Stage 8 p.m.

Saturday, October 8

Mama Duke Barton Springs Stage 12 p.m.

Austin-based LBGTQ hip-hop artist Mama Duke is worth arriving to Zilker Park early for on Saturday. The gifted rapper has quickly made a name for herself both in and outside Austin since launching her musical career in 2018. In 2020, Mama Duke, aka Kori Roy from Palacious, Texas, dropped her first album Ballsy, which includes a song about her experiences as a queer black and Mexican woman.The track, Found A Way set the tone for her style of rap and established Mama Duke as an emerging force in Texas hip-hop.

Adrian Quesadas Boleros Psicodlicos Honda Stage 3 p.m.

By now, any music fan in Austin knows to pay attention to music released by Adrian Quesada. The gifted guitarist and producer was a founding member of Grammy-winning Latin act, Grupo Fantasma. Hes also co-founder of breakout Austin group Black Pumas, a member of Grupo offshoot Brownout, and a number of other respected bands. Quesada has production credits on over 150 recordings as disparate as free form jazz-influenced horn jams by Karl Densons Tiny Universe to metal rockers The Sword. In short, Quesada is a musicians musician who makes his debut solo recording, Boleros Psicodlicos, a gem of a Latin music album.

Featuring equally disparate guest performers as Quesadas production work, from Money Mark (Beastie Boys DJ) to Natalia Clavier (Thievery Corporation) to bandmate Jaron Marshall (Black Pumas), the record frames traditional Latin boleros in a fresh light. It will be interesting to see which guest performers take the stage with Quesada.

The War On Drugs T-Mobile Stage 7:15 p.m.

When War on Drugs made their debut album Wagonwheel Blues (2008), the group was labeled a neo psych-rock act, but the band formed by Adam Granduciel and Kurt Vile (who left the band after their debut release) soon evolved into much more than that. Elements of indie-rock and Americana are found in the music, which is heavily influenced by artists like Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen and Wilco. The latter is Granduciels favorite modern day band according to NPR. Yet the group has influenced a number of bands to pursue a guitar-forward and synth-heavy sound that resembles nothing like his musical inspirations.

2017s A Deeper Understanding (Atlantic Records) won a Grammy for Best Rock Album the following year. Despite this fact, the critically acclaimed record which preceded that release, Lost in the Dream, might be hardcore fans of the bands most respected album. None other than hypercritical rocker Ryan Adams called the record a perfect recording.

Other notable acts:

Sofi Tukker Miller Lite Stage 5:15 p.m.Lil Nas X American Express 6:15 p.m.

Sunday, October 9

Darkbird BMI Stage 1:15 p.m.

Austin indie-rockers Darkbird are long overdue to hit the ACL Festival Stage this year after first being invited to perform in 2020 (before the festival was canceled due to COVID), then again last year, and had their set scratched after a weather delay. Finally, after a three-year wait, the incendiary live act hits the BMI stage early Sunday afternoon. Led by frontwoman Kelly Barnes and guitarist Brian Cole, Darkbird brings the energy of 80s hair metal bands and music more akin to classic rock with a liberal dose of pop and indie vibes. Early arrivals to Zilker Park on Sunday who make it to this set are in for a treat.

Caleb de Casper Barton Springs Stage 1:15 p.m.

Perhaps the only disappointing aspect of Caleb de Caspers booking at Austin City Limits Festival is that hes playing opposite another beloved Austin act, Darkbird. But for fans of glam and synth rock by an over-the-top, gender-bending bandleader, this is the call. De Caspers most notable live performance was a wild, sold-out show at Mohawk last October with NOLA Bounce queen Big Freedia. It was clear they won over the audience with a stellar performance.

Spoon Honda 4 p.m.

Austins most successful rock band over the last 20 years is without a doubt Spoon. The indie rock quintet led by founders, Britt Daniel (vocals, guitar) and Jim Eno (drums) are bringing to ACL Festival their strongest lineup to date with Gerardo Larios (keys, guitar), Alex Fischel (keys, guitar) and Ben Trokan (bass). The group is touring in support of their latest release, Lucifer on the Sofa.

Paramore American Express Stage 6 p.m.

The power pop of Paramore may not be for every music fan but there is no denying the star power of lead singer Hayley Williams. The bands secondalbum Riot! (2007)earned platinum sales status on the strength of three hit singles. The band was nominated for Best New Artist in 2008. Paramore won a Grammy in 2013 for their fourth, eponymously titled album. This will be the groups debut ACL Festival appearance. Aside from the bands obvious appeal, that is perhaps the most compelling reason to put this performance on your schedule.

Other notable acts:

Primo the Alien Titos Stage 12:45 p.m.Dehd T-Mobile Stage 1:45 p.m.Eric Tessmer BMI 5 p.m.Japanese Breakfast T-Mobile 6 p.m.Goose Barton Springs Stage 7 p.m.

See more here:

Austin City Limits Festival 2022: Kevin Morby, The War On Drugs, Billy Strings and More (FESTIVAL PREVIEW) - Glide Magazine

The War onDrugs, which waslargely fueled by discriminatory policies around federal drug prohibition from the past century, had its fair share of spreading racial discrimination.

The same drug laws were also closely related to the roots of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), agencyofficials recentlyacknowledged.

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), the DEA'spredecessor, was established by the Treasury Department in 1930 to carry out those laws.

However, the "public's view of addiction changed," over time, said the DEA Museum's historianduring the recent edition of its "Stories from the Collection" video series, reported Marijuana Moment.

"Increased non-medical useas well as racial, ethnic and class prejudiceaffected public opinion," the officialsaid. "What had been a medical condition became deviant or criminal. This shift led to a wave of laws against heroin, marijuana and cocaine."

Still, federal prohibition remains a significant roadblock, with cannabis still partof the Controlled Substance Act, along withother substances with a high potential for abuse. However, the sentiment seems to beshifting as the DEA kicked off 2022 by authorizing two cannabis companies to harvest marijuana for research purposes earlier this year. The move, which marked the end of a five-decade federal monopoly, sought to address the growing evidence of the medical potential of marijuana.

However, the same cannot be said for other substances, such as psychedelics, that have proven medically beneficial for many conditions.

ln fact, DEA said they plan to make the list of Schedule 1 even longer by adding five more psychedelic drugs. On the other hand, the Food and Drug Administrationis actively encouraging research into psilocybin and MDMA, given that psychedelic startups are attracting billions of dollars of investment.

Photo: Courtesy of Kindel Media by Pexels

View post:

DEA's Beginnings Steeped In Racially Discriminatory Drug Laws, Here's Why - Benzinga

Mayor Conrado Mendoza Almeda; the municipal building housing the town hall, after the attack.RR. SS.

A group of armed men broke into the municipal building of San Miguel Totolapan, a small town in the Mexican state of Guerrero, and shot dead the mayor and at least 17 other people on Wednesday afternoon. According to local media, the attackers also targeted the house of the mayor, Conrado Mendoza of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), and erected roadblocks in several parts town.

At least 20 more people were injured in the attack, according to the same sources. A local criminal group has claimed responsibility on social media, reflecting the power of the drug mafias in one of the poorest, most forgotten and dangerous area of Mexico, known as Tierra Caliente.

One of the victims was the mayors father, also a local politician. Several police officers who tried to repel the attack were killed. Photos circulating on social media show the faade of the municipal building riddled with dozens of bullet holes. This is not the first time that the building has been attacked, according to local media. On at least three other occasions in recent years, the faade has been hit by everything from bullets to grenades.

San Miguel Totolapan, with a population of just 20,000 residents, is located in the heart of Tierra Caliente, in the crossroads between Michoacn, Guerrero and the State of Mexico. For years, the area has been a bastion of organized crime, a drug production territory and a route through the Pacific corridor. During last years election, several local candidates literally had to ask local gangs for permission to campaign for office. Many of them resigned due to threats from the mafias. The governor of Guerrero, Evelyn Salgado, lamented the attack and said on social media that she has asked prosecutors to expedite investigations and clarify the facts.

From poppy cultivation to the proliferation of clandestine laboratories for synthetic drugs such as methamphetamine and fentanyl, drug trafficking networks have been fighting over this part of the country for over a decade. The gang that claimed responsibility for the attack is known as Los Tequileros, a splinter group of La Familia Michoacana, the powerful organization that dominated the area during the worst years of the so-called war on drugs, which began in 2006 and is now in decline.

Tierra Caliente is also the stronghold of Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacin, the most powerful mafia group in the country, and the homeland of its leader, El Mencho, one of the US Drug Enforcement Administrations most wanted criminals. Its heart is the town of Aguililla, in the state of Michoacn, which for months has functioned practically as a zone outside national authority, where criminals do as they pleased in full view of the army, deployed on the margins of town. This is an example of the containment policy implemented by the Lopez Obrador administration, which has in recent months stepped up intervention in the area.

Read the original here:

Armed men attack Mexican town hall, killing mayor and 17 others - EL PAS USA

The United States War on Drugs was a famous campaign that kicked against drug use and sales by prescribing heavy sentences. However, in retrospect, there is a lot of evidence that points to how this campaign may not have only been poorly executed but may have served as a means to target specific populations in the country.

To this day, the impact of the War on Drugs policies is still felt by those it chose to search out. This article will discuss the Controlled Substances Act, its motivations, and its influence on specific American communities and search to answer whether the War on Drugs failed.

It was in the 70s, during the Nixon administration, that this campaign was officially brought to life. Nixon referred to drug abuse as being public enemy number one of the American people, aiming to eliminate that vice. During this era, significant moves have changed the approach to drug policy in the United States up to date.

On June 18, 1971, Nixon officially mentioned the term, which stuck with his campaign and beyond until now. Based on this, he asked Congress to allocate more of the countrys resources towards the prevention of new addicts and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted. It explains the many major drug-related milestones during his administration, including the founding of the Drug Enforcement Agency and the signing of the Controlled Substances Act.

Several substances were banned. While it only seems like Nixon War on Drugs could only yield benefits, there is a lot of damage and concerns from the programs motivation and how it appears to search out minority demographics like African Americans, Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanics.

However, it did provide a solid means to search and classify pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs and cut off the easy access that many patients may expect to have.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) into law. It aimed to consolidate all previous policies (which numbered in the hundreds) that concerned illegal substances and controlled substances into a single policy. It is mandated that state laws must comply with the Controlled Substances Act, but they may be narrower or more strict than federal law. They may not undermine or contradict federal law.

Substances are categorized into five schedules. This makes it relatively simple to add a new drug to the schedule or change the classification without enacting new legislation. It also makes it easier for state legislatures to develop sentencing guidelines for the five categories rather than for each individual drug. However, the War on Drugs race impact is also evident.

Criteria for placing a drug include how addictive the substance is and if it has any medical or health benefits. Schedule 1 contains the most addictive drugs and carries the most severe penalties, while Schedule 5 substances are not very likely to be addictive and carry much milder punishments.

Before Nixon War on Drugs laws became public, there were laws around the legality of Marijuana. However, these laws mainly were state-level regulations around Marijuana and not nationally implemented. Despite these rights, many still smoked.

It wasnt until 1937, when the Marihuana Tax Act was implemented, that Marijuana became illegal on a federal level. However, this policy excluded medical and industrial uses for the plant, with a tax placed on any sales. This act was eventually deemed unconstitutional decades later.

Besides those prescribed cannabis by physicians for health reasons, it was a drug whose use was primarily associated with hippies and black people. When the Controlled Substances Act was introduced in 1970, the drug became illegal on a federal level, with no exceptions.

It was made illegal and classified along with Schedule I substances substances with a high potential to be abused and no proven medical use or health benefit. However, this law moved marijuana possession from a felony to a misdemeanor.

In our modern time, Marijuana is still federally illegal in the United States. However, several state laws go a different route. Medical use for health problems is legal in 36 states, and recreational use in 18. Therefore, you can use Marijuana in these states and be well within your rights.

Crack cocaine only found its way into the United States during Ronald Reagans administration. It means that there were no laws regarding this drug before this time. This drug was introduced into black communities and took root, leading to an increase in crime rates between 1981 and 1986. The proliferation of crack made it clear that the War on Drugs failed the last time.

One can think that the anti-drug policies found a time to revive here, as new federal drug laws were enforced and funding for anti-drug programs was increased, with other policies in play too. For example, possessing 5 grams of crack attracted a five-year minimum prison sentence without parole. However, powdered cocaine, used predominantly in white communities, would require 500 grams for the same penalty. This disparity pointed to the presence of War on Drugs racism.

Regarding trafficking for crack cocaine in 2020, the War on Drugs black people made up 77.1% of offenders, 15.9% were Hispanic, and 6.3% were white.

Decades of unbalanced drug-related War on Drugs black people incarcerations have set a notion among the less-enlightened population that African American criminals are involved in drug dealing, trafficking, and use more than any other category. It promotes prejudice that provides a disadvantage to many black people in daily life, though justice may be difficult to get.

Its hard to deem these measures a success. The rates of drug overdose deaths over the roughly five decades since its enforcement have continued to climb, nearly quadrupling from 1999 up to 2017, and thats not including other health issues. It can easily be said the War on Drugs failed as this was certainly not the expectation of such an anti-drug policy. Approximately 20% of all Americans over the age of 12 admitted to using illicit substances in the past year.

In 2010, President Barack Obama reworked the sentencing disparity seen for criminal offenses involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine. It is now no longer a 100:1 ratio, but instead an 18:1 ratio required for the same duration of jail time. It helps resolve a bit of the issue with War on Drugs racism.

Starting in the early 2000s, there was a push for the decriminalization of Marijuana. Nebraska decriminalized the drug in 1978, but it was only until 2001 that Nevada followed. There are now 18 states that have legalized it for recreational use. To many, this is justice. To others, justice is waiting for a federal outcome.

Cultivation and distribution are entirely legal in the states, and those less than 21 years old cannot use it.

Through the years, many have called for cannabis to be dropped down a schedule or be removed entirely from the schedule, as it doesnt fit the criteria for other substances in there, such as heroin and opioids.

The consequences of this War on Drugs racism are not entirely gone, as black people find themselves typecast as the criminal in a story. Unfortunately, white people dont help this narrative. It causes issues with education, employment, finances, and many more interactions in public.

War on Drugs racism will always be a significant issue with the campaign. It has done nothing to improve drug use statistics in the country significantly, and it is still a public enemy. Nixon War on Drugs has caused a lot of consequences in African American communities thanks to the enforcement of these policies. It is hoped that the incarceration rates and drug use statistics will be analyzed appropriately to build policy to solve this issue.

It was a campaign started over five decades ago that aimed to tackle the issue of drug abuse in communities in the United States. At its heart was the Controlled Substances Act, which notably resulted in the scheduling of many substances. The Drug Enforcement Agency was founded too.

Richard Nixon started it during his presidency. He stated that drug abuse was public enemy number one, which served as the primary fuel for his drive to eliminate the problem of these illicit substances. With the War on Drugs, race was supposedly a target during its inception, as they searched out minorities to pin at an indiscriminate level.

It started back in 1970, with the signing of the Controlled Substances Act. However, the official declaration from Nixon regarding this war was in 1971, and that was where his campaign against drug abuse was able to get its name.

Find the best treatment options. Call our free and confidential helpline

Most private insurances accepted

Published on: January 6th, 2022

Updated on: January 6th, 2022

Isaak Stotts is an in-house medical writer in AddictionResource. Isaak learned addiction psychology at Aspen University and got a Master's Degree in Arts in Psychology and Addiction Counseling. After graduation, he became a substance abuse counselor, providing individual, group, and family counseling for those who strive to achieve and maintain sobriety and recovery goals.

8 years of nursing experience in wide variety of behavioral and addition settings that include adult inpatient and outpatient mental health services with substance use disorders, and geriatric long-term care and hospice care. He has a particular interest in psychopharmacology, nutritional psychiatry, and alternative treatment options involving particular vitamins, dietary supplements, and administering auricular acupuncture.

Share your story in our Addiction Treatment Communities

Read more:

The War on Drugs: Racism and the Consequences of the War

The global war on drugs is a failure and should be replaced by decriminalization strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights, according to a recent report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. Repressive efforts directed at consumers impede public health measures to reduce HIV/AIDS, overdose fatalities and other harmful consequences of drug use, says the report.

In the 40 years since President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs, the Commission says repressive strategies focused on criminalization have not worked.Arresting and incarcerating tens of millions of these people in recent decades has filled prisons and destroyed lives and families without reducing the availability of illicit drugs or the power of criminal organizations, the report concludes.

As an alternative, the Commission which includes activists, business leaders, former American cabinet officials, and former European and Latin American presidents points to a number of countries that have decriminalized drugs without seeing a significant rise in use or drug related-violence. Portugal saw declines in heroin use, new HIV infections, and the incarceration rate once it coupled the decriminalization of all drugs with treatment policies. Similar drops in problematic drug use, especially heroin, were observed in both Switzerland and the Netherlands after adopting polices that emphasized treatment rather than criminalization.

While the report says certain law enforcement strategies can help manage and shape illicit drug markets, poorly designed ones, on the other hand, can matters worse. The Commission cited a recent study published in the International Journal of Drug Policy that found aggressive law enforcement interventions in drug markets can markedly increase levels of violence. Heavily investing in a criminalization approach can inadvertently lead to an arms race between law enforcement and violent trafficking organizations, make those markets more ruthless, and increase the homicide rates. Arresting and punishing drug users tend to have a marginal and short-lived impact on drug prices and availability and create market opportunities for replaceable low-level dealers.

The criminalization of drug use in the U.S. has led to tragic consequences and mass incarceration, with a disproportionate impact on lower-income and minority communities.

Despite the fact that Whites, African Americans, and Latinos all use illicit drugs at similar rates, 45 percent of all convicted drug offenders in state prison are black compared to 28 percent that are white and 20 percent that are Hispanic, according to the Sentencing Project. State prisons account for about 85 percent of all prisoners in the U.S. Since 1980, the number of people incarcerated in prison or jail in the U.S. for drug crimes has gone from 40,000 to 500,000, representing an increase of 1100 percent. Much of that explosion in the incarceration of drug offenders is due to aggressive law enforcement interventions and stiff mandatory sentencing provisions mainly targeting low-level dealers and users adopted at both state and federal level.

Criminal justice and civil rights advocates have been particularly critical of the negative consequences of the drug war. Felony convictions, even those stemming from a drug offense, can restrict job prospects, housing assistance, financial aid for higher education, voting rights and erode other hard won civil rights gains of the last century.

But some progress has been made in making the drug war less punitive. Earlier this year, President Obama said he was willing consider alternatives to arrests, incarceration, interdiction and focus on we shrink demand. Last summer, the president signed the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which narrowed the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. Attorney General Eric Holder also recently endorsed retroactive sentencing reductions for some crack offenders.

By the same token, however, the Obama administration vigorously opposed a measure to legalize marijuana in California this fall. Gil Kerlikowske, the nations drug czar, also made it clear in a recent op-ed that the Obama administration did not support decriminalizing drugs since, by his lights, decriminalization would to an increase drug use and the need for drug treatment, while also making it more difficult to keep our communities healthy and safe.

That kind of thinking will likely only mitigate some of the effects but not end a $2.5 trillion drug war that continues to destroy the lives of millions of people every day.

Link:

The War on Drugs Has Failed, Commission Says

Today, police make more than 1.5 million drug arrests each year, and about 550,000 of those are for cannabis offenses alone. Almost 500,000 people are incarcerated for nothing more than a drug law violation, and Black and brown people are disproportionately impacted by drug enforcement and sentencing practices. Rates of drug use and sales are similar across racial and ethnic lines, but Black and Latinx people are far more likely than white people to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted, harshly sentenced, and saddled with a lifelong criminal record.

The wide-ranging consequences of a drug law violation arent limited to senseless incarceration: people with low incomes are denied food stamps and public assistance for past drug convictions; states including Texas and Florida suspend drivers licenses for drug offenses totally unrelated to driving; and numerous other policies deny child custody, voting rights, employment, loans, and financial aid to people with criminal records.

But its clear that most U.S. voters are ready to abandon this approach.

A new poll by the American Civil Liberties Union shows that 65 percent of voters support ending the war on drugs. They recognize that current drug policies have led to the incarceration of millions while doing nothing to make the country safer or healthier. Furthermore, 66 percent support eliminating all criminal penalties for drug possession and investing the resources saved in treatment and addiction services.

While the war on drugs was officially inaugurated by Nixon in June 1971, the United States has used drug laws to selectively target specific communities for more than a century. In the 1870s, anti-opium laws were aimed at Chinese immigrants. In the 1910s and 1920s, anti-cannabis laws introduced in the Midwest and Southwest targeted Mexican Americans and migrants. As John Ehrlichman, a top Nixon aide, revealed in a 1994 interview that was published in 2016, the war on drugs itself was designed to target Black people and hippies:

Their plan set the country on the misguided, punitive, and counterproductive path it pursues today, as administrations since have carried it forward. Incarceration rates skyrocketed during Ronald Reagans presidency, surging from 50,000 in 1980 to over 400,000 by 1997, and Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump made their own damaging contributions to escalating the drug war.

But there are some wins worth mentioning. A growing number of states are decriminalizing cannabisand, so far, 17 have legalized itwhile earlier this year, New York passed the most progressive cannabis legalization legislation in the country. Notably, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize all drugsa measure passed last November and effective since February. Known as Measure 110, it ends the enforcement of drug laws and shifts resources to drug treatment, housing, and harm reduction services, without raising taxes. And this week, Democratic lawmakers introduced the Drug Policy Reform Act, which would decriminalize all drugs, expunge existing records and allow for resentencing, and invest in health-centered measures to take on drug addiction.

The United States has been embroiled in a drug war that has yielded much misery, especially for Black and brown people who have been disproportionately targeted, and trillions in wasted tax dollars. It hasnt made us safer, but it has devastated communities. We are finally beginning to acknowledge that drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal problem. To address it, we must invest in support servicessuch as peer support and recovery programsfor those who need or want them, and end this decades-long war.

Read the rest here:

Fifty Years Ago Today, President Nixon Declared the War on Drugs

Last week, the internet exploded with a fairly shocking allegation: President Richard Nixon began America's war on drugs to criminalize black people and hippies, according to a newly revealed 1994 quote from Nixon domestic policy adviser John Ehrlichman.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," Ehrlichman told journalist Dan Baum in 1994. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities."

The accusation was shocking, characterizing the war on drugs as a racist, politically motivated crusade.

But Ehrlichman's claim is likely an oversimplification, according to historians who have studied the period and Nixon's drug policies in particular. There's no doubt Nixon was racist, and historians told me that race could have played one role in Nixon's drug war. But there are also signs that Nixon wasn't solely motivated by politics or race: For one, he personally despised drugs to the point that it's not surprising he would want to rid the world of them. And there's evidence that Ehrlichman felt bitter and betrayed by Nixon after he spent time in prison over the Watergate scandal, so he may have lied.

More importantly, Nixon's drug policies did not focus on the kind of criminalization that Ehrlichman described. Instead, Nixon's drug war was largely a public health crusade one that would be reshaped into the modern, punitive drug war we know today by later administrations, particularly President Ronald Reagan.

None of that means that the drug war hasn't disproportionately hurt black Americans. It clearly has. But the lessons of Nixon's drug policies may not be so much that he was a racist, power-hungry politician although, again, he was but rather that even well-meaning policies can have big, terrible unintended consequences.

Let's start with what Nixon actually sought to do when he launched his war on drugs. The speech that started the formal war on drugs in 1971 did not focus solely on criminalization. Instead, Nixon dedicated much of his time to talking up initiatives that would increase prevention and treatment for drug abuse.

"Enforcement must be coupled with a rational approach to the reclamation of the drug user himself," Nixon told Congress in 1971. "We must rehabilitate the drug user if we are to eliminate drug abuse and all the antisocial activities that flow from drug abuse."

The numbers back this up. According to the federal government's budget numbers for anti-drug programs, the "demand" side of the war on drugs (treatment, education, and prevention) consistently got more funding during Nixon's time in office (1969 to 1974) than the "supply" side (law enforcement and interdiction).

Historically, this is a commitment for treating drugs as a public health issue that the federal government has not replicated since the 1970s. (Although President Barack Obama's budget proposal would, for the first time in decades, put a majority of anti-drug spending on the demand side once again.)

Drug policy historians say this was intentional. Nixon poured money into public health initiatives, such as medication-assisted treatments like methadone clinics, education campaigns that sought to prevent teens from trying drugs, and more research on drug abuse. In fact, the Controlled Substances Act the basis for so much of modern drug policy actually reduced penalties on marijuana possession in 1970, when Nixon was in office.

"Nixon was really worried about kids and drugs," David Courtwright, a drug policy historian at the University of North Florida, told me. "He saw illicit drug use by young people as a form of social rot, and it's something that weakens America."

Indeed, the person tapped to become the nation's first drug czar and oversee federal drug policies was Jerome Jaffe, a doctor who at the time was working on improving drug addiction treatments in Chicago. Jaffe embraced the position, worrying that it was only a matter of time until the war on drugs became more punitive.

Nixon "saw illicit drug use by young people as a form of social rot, and it's something that weakens America"

"There was an urgency to get as much done as we could," Jaffe told me. "The thrust of American history from the 1920s on was on law enforcement. And I thought, in a sense, Nixon's emphasis on treatment expansion was kind of an aberration."

(As Jaffe suggested, even though Nixon is credited with starting the modern war on drugs, the drug war had been fought for decades before that since at least 1914 although more through taxes and regulations than explicit prohibition.)

To some extent, Nixon's hand was forced: One of his big concerns at the time was heroin addiction among Vietnam War soldiers, of whom 15 to 20 percent had drug problems. "A big driver of this in the early 1970s was crime and drug use among soldiers," Courtwright said. "They were really the catalysts. The attitude toward these people was different, socially: They were sent to a place where there were a lot of drugs in very stressful conditions, so shouldn't we try to treat that problem?"

Nixon would, however, shift to a greater focus on the law enforcement side of the war on drugs over time. Why that shift happened may help explain Ehrlichman's quote.

Over time, Nixon did shift more toward the law enforcement side of the war on drugs, particularly when it became politically convenient. But Nixon's personal motives aside, it's entirely plausible that he was tapping into a broader movement instead of creating his own just to criminalize constituents and people of certain races whom he disliked.

In 1972, for instance, Nixon's reelection bid sought to capture longstanding concerns about black crime and drug use among white Southerners in what's now called the "Southern strategy." To do this, Nixon shifted to the right on drugs with a tough-on-crime platform.

That year, for example, Nixon announced the creation of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, a precursor to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The office's goal, as Nixon explained, was to put greater emphasis on fighting drugs through the criminal justice system. "Today our balanced, comprehensive attack on drug abuse moves forward in yet another critical area as we institute a major new program to drive drug traffickers and drug pushers off the streets of America," Nixon said in 1972.

"These are very harsh measures. But circumstances warrant such provisions"

But it didn't stop with the 1972 campaign. As the allegations in the Watergate scandal grew in 1973, Nixon once again put emphasis on the law enforcement side.

In January 1973, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller proposed harsher prison sentences, including mandatory minimums, for drug trafficking. At the time, Nixon quipped to his staff, "Rocky can ride this thing for all it's worth" suggesting he knew the political value in Rockefeller's move.

Nixon followed Rockefeller's plan with his own proposal: In March 1973, he outlined a plan to step up prison sentences, including mandatory minimums, for drugs. Nixon was very clear in his intent: "These are very harsh measures, to be applied within very rigid guidelines and providing only a minimum of sentencing discretion to judges. But circumstances warrant such provisions." The plan, however, was swallowed in the chaos of the Watergate scandal.

From this point, the war on drugs would slowly get more punitive. Under the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the true war on drugs began: Prison sentences for drugs went way up, especially through mandatory minimums. And more funding went to the law enforcement and interdiction side of the drug war than prevention and treatment.

To some degree, it might seem like Nixon began a movement that led to the harsh war on drugs we know today. But there's another way to look at it: Nixon simply rode the longstanding sentiment in America to get tough on crime and drugs. After all, Nixon actually followed Rockefeller's lead in proposing tougher prison sentences for drugs. And the administrations that followed Nixon seemed politically compelled to continue the drug war, leading to its big escalation in the 1980s and 1990s through the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations.

"The drug war had been building for decades prior to Nixon," Kathleen Frydl, a drug policy historian and author of The Drug Wars in America, 1940-1973, told me. "The shift from regulation to punishment was something that was underway for two decades prior to Nixon taking office. And it's something that endured long beyond just the campaign against counterculture."

Still, it's possible that Nixon also saw the kind of political benefit Ehrlichman claimed: A focus on law enforcement could disproportionately hurt black Americans, a voting bloc that had generally opposed Nixon. And it's certainly true that the war on drugs has hit black Americans the hardest.

The statistics bear out Ehrlichman's claim: Although black Americans aren't significantly more likely to use or sell drugs, they're much more likely to be arrested for them. And when black people are convicted of drug charges, they generally face longer prison sentences for the same crimes, according to a 2012 report from the US Sentencing Commission.

These are the statistics tens of thousands of people likely thought of when they shared the 1994 quote all across their social media feeds. The quote seemed to confirm what a lot of people suspected all along.

Historians are very skeptical. Nixon's personal hatred for drugs likely played a big role, regardless of his feelings about race and hippies. And so much of anti-drug efforts at the time went to public health measures, suggesting criminalization of any group was not the sole goal of Nixon's drug war.

"It's certainly true that Nixon didn't like blacks and didn't like hippies," Courtwright said. "But to assign his entire drug policy to his dislike of these two groups is just ridiculous."

Frydl echoed the sentiment: "I don't want to dissuade people from thinking that the drug war has allowed the state to execute what's been largely a racialized agenda. That is definitely true. But this particular quote is a superficial assessment."

Nixon didn't have to be explicitly racist for the drug war to end up disproportionately hurting black people

But here's the thing: Nixon didn't have to be explicitly racist for the drug war to end up disproportionately hurting black people. In fact, time and time again, the story of racism in America in the past few decades has been that black people are hurt by policies that appear race-neutral because people, including law enforcement, carry all sorts of subconscious biases against minority Americans. These biases are then further compounded with longstanding systemic disparities in housing and the workplace.

This is crucial to understanding America's remaining struggles with systemic racism. It's not so much that lawmakers are publicly and explicitly racist, as they were in the past. Instead, individuals' underlying racial biases and existing systemic issues have corrupted many policies that in theory should have never led to racist results.

The reform-minded Sentencing Project stated as much in a 2015 report about Black Lives Matter: "Myriad criminal justice policies that appear to be race-neutral collide with broader socioeconomic patterns to create a disparate racial impact. Policing policies and sentencing laws are two key sources of racial inequality."

So we don't need to think Ehrlichman's claim is true to worry about the drug war's racial disparities. We know the disparities are real. The question, then, isn't necessarily figuring out the motive behind the policies, but how we can reorient those policies to prevent more disparities in America's criminal justice system. And, surprisingly, treating drugs much like Nixon did at first as primarily a public health issue could provide part of the answer by preventing so many disproportionate arrests for simple drug use.

Read more:

Was Nixon's war on drugs a racially motivated crusade? It's a bit ... - Vox