Monthly Archives: February 2017

W.A. Bogart, professor, University of Windsor. Courtesy Dundurn Press.

By Karen Weil and John Guzzon Modern Times Magazine

Feb. 14, 2017 The War On Drugs has been raging in the United States for nearly a century, and over that time period, the U.S. government has perpetuated the battle to its partner nations around the world.But what has The War On Drugs really accomplished?Drug use has not been reduced despite massive budgets and the militarization of police forces around the world and especially in border areas. And, while spending on interdiction and other law enforcement tactics have gone up, illicit drug use in the United States has, in fact, been increasing.According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, in 2013, an estimated 24.6 million Americans aged 12 or older 9.4 percent of the population had used an illicit drug in the past month. In 2002, it was only 8.3 percent. Some espouse even greater law enforcement approaches. Others propose that the only way to reduce drug use or to limit its devastating impacts on the world, is to legalize it.In 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policywhich included amongst its ranks former presidents of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the prime minister of Greece, and former high ranking federal officials George P. Shultz and Paul Volckerrecommended legalization as the best course forward.A big reason is that the commission and others have taken this position is because it spends a lot of cash without getting the results.A recent book, Off The Street: Legalizing Drugs by W.A. Bogart, a professor at the University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, gets into the heart of the matter and then some. Bogart says the very nature of making something illegal is counterproductive to use reduction.He pointed to success in driving down tobacco use through public health campaigns as one example of why making substances people want to ingest illegal is doomed to failure. Bogarts previous work on eating habits and obesity led him to take the concept even further to drug use.He gratefully agreed to sit down with us to talk about his book, The War On Drugs and possible solutions. Included below are some snippets from our podcast. (link here)MT: Your last book addressed the psychological impacts on food consumption. Why did you decide to tackle illicit drug use?BOGART: Ive long been interested in looking at the affect law has on underlying social and economic issues...it became clear to me that non-medical use of drugs are an outlier. Other uses of drugs whether it is gambling, tobacco use or another, is 'permit but discourage.'MT: You make it clear early on in the book that you are not a drug user besides a glass of Shiraz, some champagne or a gin martini. Why was it important to state that?BOGART: When you write a book about consumption, it is very interesting how people speculate how much one is personally invested in the issues. In terms of my book before, regulating obesity, I had a number of incidents over the phone where the journalists would gradually move toward whether i was obese or not. I came to see people were curious to the extent there was personal investment in the topic...I also came to think that it was important that those who are persuaded for the case of moving towards legalization need to stand up for those who are using.MT: Talk about the history of criminalization of drug prohibition.BOGART: Up until the start of the 20th century, nonmedical use of drugs was something the law was ambivalent to. People used laudanum and opium as a daily pickup...Freud had a cocaine problem. Stevenson wrote Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on a cocaine high. Drugs were widely available and widely used. Sure, people were concerned when people developed problems, but there was not the idea that prohibition was the answer....By the 1920s, the idea of prohibition of drugs and alcohol were enacted. The lessons of the cost of prohibition in regards with alcohol, though, was learned and countries moved over to the regulatory side, but that did not happen with drugs.MT: You termed the collapsing of criminalization as a hollowing out, please explain.BOGART: Lets start by answering what The War On Drugs has brought about. Its simple purpose was to end the use of drugs. We know in the 20, 30 or 40 years that it has been going on that suppression is not successful and some rates have even increased. The War, though, has increased collateral costs. We put people in jail because they use a substance and we have substantial resources being used to fight that war when those resources can be used by others. Governments have been deprived revenue sources from and industryand it is an industry. Children have also been hurt. What I mean by a hollowing out is that these changes will not suddenly occur. Many societies are trying to do something about these collateral costs and to do something, they have to move away from criminalization...Part of that hollowing out is the changing perceptions on marijuana.MT: How does prescription drug abuse factor in the legalization equation?BOGART: We have a horrible opioid crisis in Canada as well. It is a tragedy. But the way we are addressing it Canada actually points the way to legalization. I know of no responsible voice in Canada that says the solution is to round up these people and put them in jail. Many of them are committing a legal offense....We think it is better to save lives then throw them in jail.To get more, listen here http://www.moderntimesmagazine.com/ModernTimesPodcasts/170207-MT-Podcast.mp3 or signup via Google Play or ITunes by visiting OUR PODCAST PAGE.

Link:

Is Ending The War On Drugs A Panacea? - Modern Times Magazine

(Flickr/Oregon Department of Transportation)

Phillip Smith | February 13, 2017

In a sharp break with the Obama administration, which distanced itself from harsh anti-drug rhetoric and emphasized treatment for drug users over punishment, President Donald Trump last week reverted to tough drug war oratory and backed it up with a series of executive orders he said were designed to restore safety in America.

Were going to stop the drugs from pouring in, Trump told law enforcement professionals of the Major Cities Chiefs Association last Wednesday. Were going to stop those drugs from poisoning our youth, from poisoning our people. Were going to be ruthless in that fight. We have no choice. And were going to take that fight to the drug cartels and work to liberate our communities from their terrible grip of violence.

Trump also lambasted the Obama administration for one of its signature achievements in criminal justice reform, opening the prison doors for more than 1,700 drug war prisoners who had already served sentences longer than they would have under current, revised sentencing guidelines. Obama freed record numbers of drug traffickers, many of them kingpins, Trump complained.

And in a sign of a return to the dark days of drug war over-sentencing, he called for harsher mandatory minimum prison sentences for the most serious drug offenders, as well as aggressive prosecutions of drug traffickers and cracking down on shipping loopholes he claimed allowed drugs to be sent to the US from other countries.

In a New Hampshire campaign speech during the campaign, Trump called for more treatment for drug users and more access to overdose reversal drugs, but there was no sign of that side of the drug policy equation in Wednesdays speech.

Last Thursday, Trump backed up his tough talk with action as, at the Oval Office swearing in of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, he rolled out three executive orders he said were designed to restore safety in America, but which appear to signal an increasingly authoritarian response to crime, drugs, and discontent with policing practices.

The first, which Trump said would reduce crime and restore public safety, orders Sessions to create a new Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Policy, which will come up with strategies to reduce crime, including, in particular, illegal immigration, drug trafficking and violent crime, propose legislation to implement them, and submit a report to the president within a year.

The second, regarding transnational criminal organizations and preventing drug trafficking, directs various federal law enforcement agencies to increase intelligence sharing and orders an already existing interagency working group to submit a report to Trump within four months describing progress made in combating the cartels, along with any recommended actions for dismantling them.

Im directing Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to undertake all necessary and lawful action to break the back of the criminal cartels that have spread across our nation and are destroying the blood of our youth and other people, Trump said Thursday.

The third directs the Justice Department to use federal law to prosecute people who commit crimes against police officers, even though they already face universally severe penalties under existing state laws.

Its a shame whats been happening to our great, truly great law enforcement officers, Trump said at the signing ceremony. Thats going to stop as of today.

The tough talk and the executive orders provoked immediate alarm and pushback from human and civil rights advocates, drug reformers, the Mexican government, and even the law enforcement community. The apparent turn back toward a more law-and-order approach to drugs also runs against the tide of public health and public policy opinion that the war on drugs has been a failure.

In a report released last Friday, dozens of senior law enforcement officials warned Trump against a tough crackdown on crime and urged him to instead continue the Obama administrations efforts to reform the criminal justice system.

The report was coauthored for Law Enforcement Leaders to Reduce Crime and Incarceration by former Dallas Police Chief David Brown, who won wide praise for his response after a gun man killed five of his officers last year.

Decades of experience have convinced us of a sobering reality: Todays crime policies, which too often rely only on jail and prison, are simply ineffective in preserving public safety, the report said.

The presidents crime plan would encourage police to focus on general lawbreaking rather than violent crime, the report said. The Justice Department already spends more than $5 billion a year to support local police, much of it spent on antiquated law enforcement tools, such as dragnet enforcement of lower-level offenses and Trumps plan would repeat this mistake, the officials wrote. We cannot fund all crime fighting tactics.

Drug reformers also sounded the alarm.

This rhetoric is dangerous, disturbing, and dishonest, said Bill Piper, senior director for national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. We have had a war on drugs. It has failed. Tough talk may look good before the cameras, but history has taught us that cracking down on drugs and building walls will not stop the supply or use of drugs. It mostly causes the death and destruction of innocent lives. Trump must tone down his outrageous rhetoric and threats, and instead reach out to leadership from both parties to enact a humane and sensible health-based approach to drug policies that both reduce overdose and our countrys mass incarceration crisis.

Indeed, most public health experts argue that the prohibitionist approach to drugs has been a failure. They point to research such as a 2013 study in the British Medical Journal that found that despite billions spent on drug prohibition since 1990, drug prices have only decreased and purity increased, making getting high easier and more affordable than ever before.

These findings suggest that expanding efforts at controlling the global illegal drug market through law enforcement are failing, the authors conclude.

Public health analysts also point to research showing that between 1991 and 2001, even when the drug war was in full effect, the rate of illicit drug use among teens rose sharply, while their cigarette smoking rate fell off a bit and their alcohol use dropped sharply. The substances that are legal for adult use were less likely to see increases than ones that are prohibited, the analysts point out.

Mexican Foreign Affairs Secretary Luis Videgaray also chimed in to note that there wouldnt be any Mexican drug cartels without American demand for drugs and to remind Washington that its not just whats being exported from Mexico that is a problem, but whats being imported, too.

For years, from the Mexican perspective, people say, OK, the problem with drugs that its creating so much violence, so many deaths of young people in Mexico is because theres demand for drugs in the US, Videgaray said. We happen to be neighbors to the largest market for drugs. From the American perspective, its just the other way around, he said, adding that both countries need to get past the blame game.

And if the US is serious about helping Mexico disrupt the cartels business model, it needs to stop the southbound traffic in cash and guns.

We need to stop illegal weapons flowing from the U.S. into Mexico, Videgaray said. We always think about illegal stuff moving through the border south to north, but people forget that most guns and were not talking small guns, were talking heavy weapons they get to the cartels and create literally small armies out of the cartels.

Human Rights Watch reacted to a comment from Attorney General Sessions at his swearing in ceremony that crime is a dangerous permanent trend that places the lives of American people at risk, by noting that crime is down dramatically by all measures over the past 20 years despite a slight increase in violent crimes between 2014 and 2015. There is no dangerous permanent trend in violent or non-violent crime, it pointed out.

And Amnesty International swiftly reacted to the executive order calling for new federal penalties for crimes against police.

Law enforcement officers face unique hardships and challenges due to the nature of their work, said Amnestys Noor Mir. Authorities are already able to vigorously prosecute crimes against law enforcement officers, and there is no history to suggest that officers are not fully protected by current laws. This order will not protect anyone, and instead it creates additional penalties that could cause people to be significantly over-prosecuted for offenses including resisting arrest.

There is a better way, said Mir, but that would require going in a radically different direction than where the Trump administration is headed.

This order does nothing to address real and serious problems in the US criminal justice system, he said. Relationships between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve could instead be improved by investing in reform of the criminal justice system and better training for officers. Police already have laws protecting them, but there is no federal standard for the prosecution of officers who unlawfully kill civilians. Implementing a standard for lethal force in line with international standards will protect both police and civilians.

The Trump administration has outlined an approach to drugs and criminal justice policy with dark Nixonian and Reaganite underpinnings, promising more, more, more heavy-handed policing, more swelling prison populations, and more not less distrust and suspicion between police and the communities they are supposed to serve and protect.

And, in typical Trump fashion, his brash, draconian approach to the complex social problems around crime and drugs is creating a rapid backlash. Whether the rising opposition to Trump can rein in his authoritarian impulses and regressive policy approaches to the issue remains to be seen, but a battle to stop the slide backward is brewing.

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionlicensefromStopTheDrugWar.organd was first published here.

See the original post here:

Donald Trump Vows 'Ruthless' War on Drugs and Crime - The Daily Chronic