Category Archives: War On Drugs

Malacaang on Wednesday downplayed the 11-point drop in public satisfaction with the governments drug war.

Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella said a great majority of Filipinos were still satisfied with the governments performance in curbing illegal drugs.

Seventy-eight per cent (78%), a great majority of Filipinos, expressed satisfaction in the governments performance, notwithstanding the negative criticisms we received here and abroad, Abella said in a statement.

The Palace official was referring to the latest Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey, which showed that public net satisfaction rating with the governments war on drugs declined to +66 in the first quarter of 2017, an 11-point decline and one grade down from the excellent +77 that the campaign received in December 2016.

READ: SWS: Public satisfaction with war on drugs falls

The survey held from March 25 to 28 revealed 78 percent of respondents said they were satisfied with the war on drugs while12 percent said they were unsatisfied.

Despite the drop, Abella highlighted that 70 percent of respondents said the administration was serious in solving the issue of extrajudicial killings (EJKs) in the country.

Many Filipinos are less worried about their personal safety; as they feel safe and secure in the streets and at home, he said.

The survey also noted that 73 percent of the respondents said they worried of becoming victims of the EJKs associated with the drug war.

Abella echoed President Rodrigo Dutertes statement, saying the crackdown on illegal drugs would not stop until the narcotics trade in the country would be destroyed.

Filipinos, he said, understand and support the campaign against hard drug traffickers and violators.

The drive will be relentless until the drug apparatus is rendered inutile; after all what is at stake is the national patrimony, the following generations of Filipinos, who will not only continue our dreams, be our God given social safety net, but also preserve our cultures, our gift to the world, he said. IDL

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

Visit link:

Palace downplays 11-point drop in satisfaction with war on drugs - Inquirer.net

Roger Stone has two bongs shaped like his hero, Richard Nixon.

"One's in the shape of his head, the other is kind of more artsy," he says. "They're both very cool, but they're a symbol to me that the war on drugs, as waged by Nixon, was a failure. Is a failure."

Stone, the famous Republican dirty-trickster dandy who first came to public attention when a stunt to discredit a Nixon opponent came to light in the Watergate hearings, is as responsible for Donald Trump's ascent to the presidency as anyone. He has been urging Trump to run since the late 1980s and was an early manager of last year's campaign. He saw Nixon's anti-elitism as key to a future Republican victory and was proven right when he helped a billionaire ride to the White House on the back of resentment against "the establishment."

Stone, who also has a long history of racist and sexist remarks, founded an organization Citizens United Not Timid so he could call Hillary Clinton a "cunt."

But of late, in addition to being at the center of the Russia scandal, Stone has been chiding the president for not reining in Attorney General Jeff Sessions' outdated ideas about drugs.

"Sessions comes out of that conservative, Southern, old-time tradition," Stone told me on the phone. "I think he's quoted as saying, 'Good people don't smoke marijuana.' No, Senator, sick people smoke marijuana. And it helps them. More than Western medicine sometimes.

"He has no life experience with that. He could not possibly understand because, you know, within Jeff Sessions' circle of acquaintances and friends, he probably doesn't know anyone who smokes marijuana."

Stone, a snazzy-dressing swinger with a bodybuilding physique and a tattoo of Nixon on his back, is a libertine who might like to toke.

But he also sees it as a philosophical issue.

"You can't be for states' rights when it comes to transgender bathrooms, you can't be for states' rights when to comes to abortion, you can't be for states' rights when it comes to medicinal marijuana, and then be against states' rights when it comes to recreational marijuana," he said. "Either you're for states' rights or you're not. You've got to be consistent."

For a crafty veteran of about 10 presidential campaigns, it's a political issue as well.

"I think a lot of younger voters, I think a lot of libertarian-oriented voters they may not even know that term but voters who are fiscally conservative but socially progressive, I think they voted for Trump," Stone said. Among those coming to Trump were pothead supporters of Gary Johnson.

I asked if he had talked to the president about it directly. "I'm gonna duck that question," he said. "I just don't want to fuck up my effectiveness, so I'd rather not address it."

I wondered if Sessions and by extension, Trump might want to keep the drug war going for the same reason they started it, according to Nixon aide John Ehrlichman, who told Harper's reporter Dan Baum that the administration used it to target and demonize its political enemies.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the anti-war left and black people. You understand what I'm saying?" Ehrlichman told Baum in 1994. "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, 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. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

"I'm not sure if it was as nefarious as Ehrlichman would put it," Stone said. "I mean, yeah, at the time, the Nixonites, myself included, thought that all hippies smoke marijuana and all hippies were against the war and therefore all hippies were wrong."

Stone has rethought all of that.

"In retrospect, I any objective person has to realize that the war on drugs has been one giant, expensive, ignominious failure. We're incarcerating people; we're not rehabilitating anyone. We're destroying lives over nonviolent crimes, sometimes first-offense crimes. The whole question of drug abuse should be viewed as a public-health issue, not a criminal issue."

And to show just how bizarro our political world is now, Stone, the ultimate Nixonian, is not only pro-pot but anti-war. (Or "[a]nti pointless war when our national interest is not perfectly clear," as he later clarified via text.) Even if he recognizes some political benefits including taking the "wind out of" the Russia investigations to bombing another country, he said that "going forward, Syria to me is a defining moment.

"If this extends to a wider war, boots on the ground, saturation bombing, well then, the Trump coalition will fracture, and it will be hard for him to govern."

Ever conspiracy-minded, Stone wondered if the chemical attack on civilians may have been what conspiracy theorists call a false flag.

"Could the use of chemical weapons in Syria have been a false flag not perpetrated by Assad?" he asked. "Look up Gulf of Tonkin, but carefully. It never fucking happened. It was a phony operation Johnson used to justify a wider Vietnam War. That's an indisputable fact today. We didn't know it at the time. So yeah, I think the Deep State is capable of anything."

It is true that President Lyndon B. Johnson whom Stone believes had President John F. Kennedy assassinated lied about U.S. ships coming under fire in the Gulf of Tonkin, justifying the resolution that remains the blueprint for military action undertaken by presidents without congressional approval. But that doesn't necessarily say much about what is happening now in Syria.

For Stone, though, it's all part of the Deep State.

"There's a permanent bureaucracy I think what Eisenhower called the military industrial complex of people in the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies and the defense contracting industry who have one neocon-based worldview," he said. "They like foreign wars; they're extremely profitable for some people."

Stone was starting to sound like a hippie again.

But as he went on about the Deep State, which he thinks may have twice tried to assassinate him recently, I wondered if weed was making him paranoid he has, after all, claimed to be developing a strain called Tricky Dick, whose primary feature, I imagine, would be paranoia.

Asked about it, Stone responded:

"Am I paranoid? No, I'm pretty realistic."

See the original post:

Roger Stone says the war on drugs is a failure | Trump Tracker ... - Colorado Springs Independent

Policemen stand guard near the body of a man killed during what police said was a drug-related vigilante killing in Pasig, Metro Manila, in February. (Reuters photos)

MANILA - The Philippine police have received cash payments for executing drug suspects, planted evidence at crime scenes and carried out most of the killings they have long blamed on vigilantes, said two senior officers who are critical of President Rodrigo Duterte's "war on drugs."

In the most detailed insider accounts yet of the drug war's secret mechanics, the two senior officials challenged the government's explanations of the killings in interviews.

Almost 9,000 people, many small-time users and dealers, have been killed since Duterte took office on June 30. Police say about a third of the victims were shot by officers in self-defence during legitimate anti-drug operations. Human rights monitors believe many of the remaining two thirds were killed by paid assassins operating with police backing or by police disguised as vigilantes - a charge the police deny.

The two senior officers, one a retired police intelligence officer and the other an active-duty commander, claimed the killings are in fact orchestrated by the police, including most of those carried out by vigilantes. They spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"It is the Philippine National Police doing it," said the retired intelligence officer. "This killing machine must be buried six feet under the ground." He said he was angry about the impact of the killings on police discipline and wanted "to put Duterte on the defensive." Reporters were unable to independently verify if the police are behind vigilante killings.

The president's office and the Philippine police did not respond to questions.

'ONLY THE POOR ARE DYING'

The intelligence officer has authored an unpublished 26-page report on the conduct of the drug war in an effort to organise opposition to Duterte's campaign. The report, titled "The State-Sponsored Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines," provides granular detail on the campaign's alleged methods, masterminds and perpetrators. The document has been shared with leaders of the Catholic Church in the Philippines and with the government-funded Commission on Human Rights.

Some of the report's accusations against individuals could not be confirmed, so this account does not include the full document. Many of its findings, however, support and expand upon previous investigations of the drug war by reporters and independent human rights monitors.

(The cover page of the report can be seen at this link.

The report claims that police are paid to kill not just drug suspects, but also - for 10,000 pesos ($200) a head - rapists, pickpockets, swindlers, gang members, alcoholics and other "troublemakers."

It also claims that civilian members of the so-called Davao Death Squad, which rights activists allege killed hundreds of people in Duterte's hometown of Davao, were drafted to "augment and assist" the police's current nationwide anti-drug operation.

The report doesn't provide documentary evidence for its accusations, which the intelligence officer said were based on accounts from 17 serving or former policemen, including the commander interviewed. The police commander said he agreed to talk because he was upset that authorities are targeting only petty drug suspects. "Why aren't they killing the suppliers?" he asked. "Only the poor are dying."

The second half of the report is largely political in nature, asserting that Duterte has close ties to Communist forces in the Philippines. Many in the military and police are concerned by what they see as Duterte's leftist sympathies. Since taking office, the president has released Communist rebels from prison to restart peace talks.

The report also calls the drug war a "social cleansing" campaign similar to that launched in Mao Zedong's China, with Duterte aiming to have drug addicts "physically eliminated."

NEW LEADS

The Commission on Human Rights has reviewed the report and the accounts could open up new leads in ongoing investigations, said chairman Chito Gascon. Church officials confirmed receiving the report as well.

"We should do all we can to follow any lead that could ultimately shed light on these killings with the view to ultimately holding the perpetrators to account," said Gascon.

The fresh claims come amid growing criticism of the drug war. In February, the country's influential Catholic Church called it a "reign of terror." The campaign has also sparked street protests and lawsuits.

Family and friends of John Jezreel David, 21, cry during his funeral rights after he was shot dead in what police said was an anti-drug operation in February.

Duterte's police chief, Ronald Dela Rosa, halted police operations for most of February after it emerged that an anti-drug unit had kidnapped and murdered a South Korean businessman last year. The killings continued but at a slower pace. On March 6, Dela Rosa announced that the police were resuming their drug operations.

In March, a former policeman, Arturo Lascanas, testified in the Philippine Senate about his role in vigilante-style killings in the southern city of Davao, where Duterte was once mayor. Lascanas was the second Senate witness to link Duterte to the Davao Death Squad. Duterte denies ordering any killings, either as president or mayor.

In a subsequent interview, Lascanas said that for over a decade he was paid for carrying out the liquidation of drug suspects and criminals. In the early 1990s, he said, he was paid 3,000 to 5,000 pesos ($60-$100) for each of the "jobs" he performed. By the early 2000s he was earning tens of thousands of pesos for each operation, he said. Lascanas said he had no documentary proof of the payments. He has since left the country.

UNPLUGGING CAMERAS

In the past nine months, police acknowledge having shot dead more than 2,600 suspects during their operations. They say such shootings occur after suspects open fire on undercover officers trying to catch them dealing drugs.

But these so-called "buy-busts" are actually well-planned executions, said the commander interviewed. The commander said targets are chosen from lists of suspects drawn up by police and local officials, who later coordinate to unplug security cameras in the neighborhood where a killing is planned. According to the report, street lamps are also switched off.

"There is no such thing as a legitimate buy-bust," the commander said. "The dealers know the cops and won't sell to them."

Instead, he said, a team of police operatives will execute the target, who is almost always unarmed, then plant guns and drugs at the crime scene to justify the use of deadly force.

"We have to plant evidence for the legality of the operation," the commander said. "We are ordered to do these operations, so we have to protect ourselves."

The commander said officers put the gun in the dead suspect's hand and pull the trigger with the victim's finger so forensic testing will show that the suspect fired a gun.

Late last year, he said, police crime-scene investigators told their fellow officers to place the guns at a slight distance from the suspects, rather than in their hands, to make things look more realistic.

Most drug suspects in his precinct are shot by rookie cops who are either eager for the experience or nominated by their superiors, the commander said. The superiors refer to this as a "baptism by fire."

Each member of the team is quickly paid according to two factors, said the commander: his role in the killing and the target's value.

CASH REWARDS

According to the report, the cash "reward scales" for drug killings range from 20,000 pesos ($400) for a "street level pusher and user," to 50,000 pesos for a member of a neighborhood council, one million pesos for "distributors, retailers and wholesalers," and five million for "drug lords."

Police officers kill for money, said the commander, but also out of fear: Even the police are afraid of being included on a "watch list" of drug suspects drawn up by police and local officials.

Officials have been killed for not cooperating, he added. He said he was aware of two cases but did not provide details on exactly what happened.

Reuters reported last year that the watch lists were effectively hit lists, with many of those named ending up dead. Another Reuters investigation showed that police officers were killing 97% of the suspects they confront in violent buy-bust operations, the strongest evidence yet that the police were summarily executing suspects.

Officers also cooperate because they know the police force's flawed disciplinary system, which fails to adequately investigate even a fraction of the killings, means there is little chance they will get caught, said the intelligence officer.

One sign of the drug war's success, says the government, is that more than a million users and pushers have voluntarily registered with the police, a process known as "surrendering."

But the commander said police are given a quota of "surrenderers," and fill it by using city ordinances to arrest men who are drunk or shirtless - a misdemeanor known as "half-naked" - then forcing them to register as drug suspects.

Reporters learned of the intelligence officer's 26-page report from him and interviewed two Catholic priests in Manila who said they had encouraged him to compile it. One of the priests said he edited the report; the other said he helped distribute it among a small group of clerics and human rights activists. Both are helping organise opposition to Duterte's drug campaign.

The Church's initial reluctance to criticise Duterte's drug war was prompted by a desire to "give him a chance" when he took office, said one of the priests. But the killings, along with the president's overtures to Communists, made many in the Church feel their values were under attack, he said.

The intelligence officer said he hoped the report would be used as evidence at the International Criminal Court. In October, the Hague-based tribunal said it could prosecute suspects if the killings were "committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population."

Read the original:

Whistleblowers expose Philippines' war on drugs - Bangkok Post

Leonard Pitts 10:04 a.m. ET April 19, 2017

Leonard Pitts(Photo: File)

Looks like the War on Drugs is back.

The Washington Post reported recently that the new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is preparing a return to the same hardline strategies that have so spectacularly failed to reduce drug use since 1971.

Indeed, the nation has spent more than a trillion dollars, made itself the biggest jailer on the planet, and yet has seen the use, availability and quality of drugs rise like a rocket from a launch pad while the cost dropped like a watermelon from a skyscraper.

Thats why it was welcome news when President Barack Obama quietly dismantled much of the machinery of the drug war. His Department of Justice radically scaled back federal involvement in so-called civil asset forfeitures, a program wherein police confiscate your cash and require you to prove its not drug money before you can get it back. The Obama DOJ looked the other way as states liberalized marijuana laws. It also extended clemency to incarcerated nonviolent drug offenders and declined to seek harsh mandatory minimum sentences for the ones facing trial.

It made sense, so it couldnt last. Back in February, Donald Trump himself announced that there would be a new drug war and it would be ruthless. Leaving aside that the old drug war was hardly ice cream and roses, there is no reason to believe being more ruthless will help.

After all, you can be beheaded for drug-related offenses in Saudi Arabia. Yet the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that in 2008 the most recent year for which statistics seem to be available the Saudis seized 12.8 tons of amphetamines.

So much for ruthless.

There is a reason the 18th Amendment, the one outlawing liquor, was the only one ever repealed: Prohibition doesnt work. You cannot arrest people out of wanting what is bad for them. But, as weve seen with liquor and tobacco, you might be able to educate, legislate and persuade them into wanting it less.

Diane Goldstein, a retired lieutenant commander with the Redondo Beach Police Department, calls the new drug war a horrible idea. Goldstein is an executive board member of Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a group of law enforcement veterans who think that in asking police to solve a medical problem, weve made a costly mistake.

She cites a 1994 Rand Corp. study that said using health care strategies to combat drugs returns seven times the value for every dollar spent on it to the taxpayer. Shouldnt we be looking at what is not just cost effective, but also returns better results for people who are impacted by chronic substance abuse?

Problem is, that wouldnt allow some of us to brag how ruthless they are.

African-Americans, who have been locked up at obscene rates, even though whites are the nations biggest users and sellers of drugs, should regard this new war as a clear and present danger. Pot users of all colors in states where marijuana is now legal should feel the same; from now on, the feds will no longer be looking the other way.

They, and anyone else who is appalled by this, should tell that to the attorney general.

Youll find an online contact form at justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice.

The DOJ comment line is 202-353-1555. The main switchboard is 202-514-2000.

And heres the street address: U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001.

However you register your opinion, please do. Weve already had a War on Drugs.

And one was more than enough.

You can contact Leonard Pitts at lpitts@miamiherald.com.

Read or Share this story: http://press.sn/2pC5Gm2

Go here to see the original:

Not another 'war on drugs' - Press & Sun-Bulletin

Leonard Pitts Jr., Columnist 11:05 a.m. ET April 16, 2017

Leonard Pitts Jr.(Photo: Tribune Content Agency)

Looks like the War on Drugs is back.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that the new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is preparing to return to the same hardline strategies that have so spectacularly failed to reduce drug use since 1971. Indeed, the nation has spent more than a trillion dollars, made itself the biggest jailer on the planet and yet seen the use, availability and quality of drugs rise like a rocket from a launch pad while the cost dropped like a watermelon from a skyscraper.

That's why it was welcome news when President Obama quietly dismantled much of the machinery of the drug war. His Department of Justice radically scaled back federal involvement in so-called "civil asset forfeitures," a program wherein police confiscate your cash and require you to prove it's not drug money before you can get it back. The Obama DOJ looked the other way as states liberalized marijuana laws. It also extended clemency to incarcerated nonviolent drug offenders and declined to seek harsh mandatory minimum sentences for the ones facing trial.

It made sense, so it couldn't last. Back in February, Donald Trump himself announced that there would be a new drug war and it would be "ruthless." Leaving aside that the old drug war was hardly ice cream and roses, there is no reason to believe being more "ruthless" will help.

After all, you can be beheaded for drug-related offenses in Saudi Arabia. Yet, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that in 2008 -- the most recent year for which statistics seem to be available -- the Saudis seized 12.8 tons of amphetamines.

So much for ruthless.

There is a reason the 18th Amendment, the one outlawing liquor, was the only one ever repealed: Prohibition doesn't work. You cannot arrest people out of wanting what is bad for them. But, as we've seen with liquor and tobacco, you might be able to educate, legislate and persuade them into wanting it less.

Diane Goldstein, a retired lieutenant commander with the Redondo Beach Police Department, calls the new drug war "a horrible idea." Goldstein is an executive board member of Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a group of law enforcement veterans who think that in asking police to solve a medical problem, we've made a costly mistake.

She cites a 1994 Rand Corporation study which said that using healthcare strategies to combat drugs "returns seven times the value for every dollar spent on it to the taxpayer. Shouldn't we be looking at what is not just cost effective, but also returns better results for people who are impacted by chronic substance abuse?"

Problem is, that wouldn't allow some of us to brag how "ruthless" they are.

African Americans, who have been locked up at obscene rates, even though whites are the nation's biggest users and sellers of drugs, should regard this new "war" as a clear and present danger. Pot users of all colors in states where marijuana is now legal should feel the same; from now on, the feds will no longer be looking the other way.

They, and anyone else who is appalled by this, should tell that to the attorney general.

You'll find an online contact form at: https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice.

The DOJ comment line is: 202-353-1555. The main switchboard is: 202-514-2000.

And here's the street address: U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001.

However you register your opinion, please do. We've already had a War on Drugs.

And one was more than enough.

Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132. Readers may contact him via e-mail at lpitts@miamiherald.com.

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2oMZb1w

Link:

Columnist: The war on drugs is back - Knoxville News Sentinel - Knoxville News Sentinel

April 18, 2017

Allan Cooper

OPINION by ALLAN COOPER

Drug use, particularly opioid use, has gone on unabated (in fact increased) in this country in spite of draconian laws criminalizing its possession or use. More than 2 million people are incarcerated in the United States and half are there for so-called drug crimes.

Particularly deplorable is the fact that enforcement of these laws is far from color blind. Whites are the nations biggest drug users yet African Americans are the largest group being targeted.

Now Trump has declared a new, more ruthless war on drugs and his sidekick Jeff Sessions (who reputedly has racist tendencies) will be the new enforcer. So, in addition to current pressures to crack down on undocumented workers, systemic racism is being resuscitated through the reinstitution of ineffective and costly drug laws targeting minorities.

Drug use must be treated as a health problem. It should not be treated as a problem for the police and the courts to handle because, as we all know, our justice system has been shown to administer laws unfairly when people of color are involved.

Excerpt from:

Trump's ruthless war on drugs - Cal Coast News

General Sessions is reportedly eager to bring back the national crime strategy of the 1980s and 90s. Photograph: Andrew J Mohrer/Getty Images

When I first read the Washington Post story that the US attorney general, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, wants to bring back the war on drugs, I thought to myself: bring back? Where did it go? Is General Sessions himself on drugs? Because, despite a few modest reforms, somebody would have to be high to think the war on drugs has really gone away.

But the framing of an impetus to bring back the drug war is the same as Donald Trumps fantasy of making America great again and must be understood for exactly what it is: a white power grab to control black and brown people couched in the restoration of past glory.

Drugs have long been used to scapegoat black and Latino people, even as study after study finds that white youth use drugs more than their non-white peers and white people are the more likely to have contraband on them when stopped by police. As Trump plans a deportation force, a war on drugs amped up on raids will help create darker-skinned scapegoats as he rips immigrant communities apart.

General Sessions will lead this war for Trump. Standing on the US-Mexico border, General Sessions mischaracterized immigration as consisting of criminal organizations that turn cities and suburbs into warzones, that rape and kill innocent citizens. Evoking the same racialized sexual fear to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment that his boss did when he began his campaign by calling Mexican rapists, Sessions ignored that immigrants commit fewer crimes as he defiantly took a stand against this filth.

The war on drugs is itself a kind of opiate of the white masses, hustled and imbibed to stoke white peoples fear about people of color even as there already about 1.5 million black men already disappeared from US society by early death or incarceration.

If you dont think nostalgia for the war on drugs and a desire to reboot it isnt racist, consider the hillbilly elegy love affair American politics, culture and media has been indulging regarding white people addicted to opioids lately.

Many rural counties hit hardest by the opioid epidemic voted for a man whose budget and failed healthcare plan would harm people like them. These sites of drug addiction are the subjects of public sympathy and are less likely to be battlefields in the war on drugs than cities and border towns.

Thats because, when a drug epidemics victims are white, even conservative politicians tell us to understand these people, to feel compassion for them and to see their addictions as public health, not carceral, matters, in the context of deindustrialization.

We never heard any messages like that from American politicians or media during the drug epidemics of the 1980s, which rocked black America. Drugs were seen as moral failings which needed to be violently policed and the economics of addiction were imagined as disconnected from deindustrialization, poverty or unemployment.

This is what Sessions wants to bring back. Thats not because he thinks it would help black or brown America or even poor white America. Rather, the intention is to subdue the illogical fears of white America (which is Trumps base and perhaps the only major demographic in America which approves of him) that most black and Hispanic men are rapists and thieves just waiting to harm, kill and rob them.

Sessions, the nations top law enforcement officer, has no moral authority to clamp down on law and order in the first place, as he absurdly had to recuse himself from investigating the presidents ties to Russia after he told Congress under oath that he himself had had no contact with Russian officials. (He did.)

But hypocrisy is no more foreign to General Sessions than is attacking the rights of people of color. Coretta Scott King wrote a 10-page letter to help, successfully, keep him from getting a judgeship in 1986. Sessions hounded people for trying to expand the black vote decades ago just as he dropped the Department of Justices lawsuit against onerous voting burdens in Texas, and is considering letting cities whose police departments have engaged in well-documented racial violence out of federal oversight. (Fortunately, at least in Baltimore, a judge is not allowing this.)

General Sessions is reportedly eager to bring back the national crime strategy of the 1980s and 90s from the peak of the drug war, an approach that had fallen out of favor in recent years as minority communities grappled with the effects of mass incarceration. This is unethical, considering Sessions himself recently admitted that crime is at near historic lows.

The Generals approach flies in the face of humane reforms that Barack Obama made (such as pardoning non-violent drug offenders and calling for the end of mandatory minimum sentences) and is counter to even more recent criminal justice reforms, such as New York Citys plan to close its notorious Rikers Island jail and New York States decision to raise the age of juveniles charged with crimes from 16 to 18.

But its not hard to understand if you know that racism rarely gets better in America, its means just evolve and a prime means of racial control is incarceration. The war on drugs has continued an overincarceration of black people which began after the civil war. This war has made it so that, for example, nearly 90% of NYPD arrests for marijuana have been of young black and Latino men.

The war made it so that crack cocaine (more associated with black American drug use) is punished much more harshly than powder cocaine (more associated with white America). Bipartisan legislation which sought to end this disparity is opposed by General Sessions and Trump.

A friend of mine predicted that many of Trumps voters were in on his con all along: that they knew he wasnt a successful businessman, a Christian moralist or a bona fide conservative. What he was, however, was a strongman willing to enact their revenge.

By railing against the inner cities and holding steadfast to his belief that the Central Park 5 were guilty even after DNA evidence exonerated them Trump signalled he would clean up after a black president and put black and brown people in their place.

General Sessions is the henchman he has dispatched to the frontlines of this task, using the war on drugs as his battering ram.

Read the original here:

The war on drugs is racist. Donald Trump is embracing it with open ... - The Guardian

Leonard Pitts Jr. Published 2:34 p.m. ET April 16, 2017 | Updated 22 hours ago

Leonard Pitts for his column(Photo: MIAMI HERALD STAFF)

Looks like the War on Drugs is back.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that the new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is preparing a return to the same hardline strategies that have so spectacularly failed to reduce drug use since 1971. Indeed, the nation has spent more than a trillion dollars, made itself the biggest jailer on the planet and yet seen the use, availability and quality of drugs rise like a rocket from a launch pad while the cost dropped like a watermelon from a skyscraper.

That's why it was welcome news when President Obama quietly dismantled much of the machinery of the drug war. His Department of Justice radically scaled back federal involvement in so-called "civil asset forfeitures," a program wherein police confiscate your cash and require you to prove it's not drug money before you can get it back. The Obama DOJ looked the other way as states liberalized marijuana laws. It also extended clemency to incarcerated nonviolent drug offenders and declined to seek harsh mandatory minimum sentences for the ones facing trial.

It made sense, so it couldn't last. In February, Donald Trump announced there would be a new drug war and it would be "ruthless." Leaving aside that the old drug war was hardly ice cream and roses, there is no reason to believe being more "ruthless" will help.

After all, you can be beheaded for drug-related offenses in Saudi Arabia. Yet the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that in 2008 -- the most recent year for which statistics seem to be available -- the Saudis seized 12.8 tons of amphetamines.

So much for ruthless.

There is a reason the 18th Amendment, the one outlawing liquor, was the only one ever repealed: Prohibition doesn't work. You cannot arrest people out of wanting what is bad for them. But, as we've seen with liquor and tobacco, you might be able to educate, legislate and persuade them into wanting it less.

Diane Goldstein, a retired lieutenant commander with the Redondo Beach Police Department, calls the new drug war "a horrible idea." Goldstein is an executive board member of Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a group of law enforcement veterans who think that in asking police to solve a medical problem, we've made a costly mistake.

She cites a 1994 Rand Corporation study which said that using healthcare strategies to combat drugs "returns seven times the value for every dollar spent on it to the taxpayer. Shouldn't we be looking at what is not just cost effective, but also returns better results for people who are impacted by chronic substance abuse?"

Problem is, that wouldn't allow some of us to brag how "ruthless" they are.

African Americans, who have been locked up at obscene rates, even though whites are the nation's biggest users and sellers of drugs, should regard this new "war" as a clear and present danger. Pot users of all colors in states where marijuana is now legal should feel the same; from now on, the feds will no longer be looking the other way.

They, and anyone else who is appalled by this, should tell that to the attorney general.

You'll find an online contact form at: https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice.

The DOJ comment line is: 202-353-1555. The main switchboard is: 202-514-2000.

And here's the street address: U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001.

However you register your opinion, please do. We've already had a War on Drugs.

And one was more than enough.

Leonard Pitts is a columnist for The Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132. Readers may contact him via e-mail at lpitts@miamiherald.com.

Read or Share this story: http://avlne.ws/2ogvHWF

See original here:

Opinion: The War on Drugs is back - Citizen Times - Asheville Citizen-Times

5597783

Top officials in the Trump administration are taking sharply divergent positions on the issue of federal marijuana policy and its role in fueling the war on drugs.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said Sunday he believes marijuana plays no role in the current war on drugs, instead singling out methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine as the primary problems. His statements are in line with previous remarks where he spoke positively about the benefits of medical marijuana for certain patients, including veterans. Kelly also stated his belief that the war on drugs can only be won by addressing domestic demand, particularly for heroin, reports The Washington Post.

The comments stand in stark contrast to those from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is critical of legalization efforts in the U.S. Theres more violence around marijuana than one would think, he remarked in February. Heis currently reviewing the Cole Memorandum,a set of guidelines established in 2013 that direct DOJto focus marijuana enforcement efforts on violent crimes and distribution in states without legalization laws. He recently dismissed preliminary research showing marijuana can serve as an alternative painkiller and aid those with opioid addictions.

Advocates launched heaving criticism at Sessions and the Department of Justice in March after he said marijuana is only slightly less awful than heroin.

Kelly previously served as the head ofU.S. Southern Command, often dealing with narcotics smuggling from Central and South America and the Caribbean. Unlike Sessions, who is his focusing his efforts on law enforcement and increased criminal penalties to deal with the opioid crisis, Kelly advocates prioritizing treatment and rehabilitation to address U.S. demand for narcotics. (RELATED:Critics Blast Sessions As Anti-Facts For Comparing Marijuana To Heroin)

Yeah, marijuana is not a factor in the drug war, Kelly told Chuck Todd on NBCs Meet the Press Sunday. Its three things. Methamphetamine. Almost all produced in Mexico. Heroin. Virtually all produced in Mexico. And cocaine that comes up from further south.

The solution is not arresting a lot of users, Kelly added. The solution is a comprehensive drug demand reduction program in the United States that involves every man and woman of goodwill. And then rehabilitation. And then law enforcement. And then getting at the poppy fields and the coca fields in the south.

Marijuana advocates likely wont know the true intentions of the Justice Department regarding legal pot until July, when the task force reviewing the departments policy will give Sessions recommendations on how to proceed.

Follow Steve on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

Read the rest here:

Trump Administration Sharply Divided On Marijuana's Role In The War On Drugs - Daily Caller

Looks like the War on Drugs is back.

The Washington Post reported Sunday that the new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is preparing a return to the same hardline strategies that have so spectacularly failed to reduce drug use since 1971. Indeed, the nation has spent more than a trillion dollars, made itself the biggest jailer on the planet and yet seen the use, availability and quality of drugs rise like a rocket from a launch pad while the cost dropped like a watermelon from a skyscraper.

It made sense, so it couldnt last. Back in February, Donald Trump himself announced that there would be a new drug war and it would be ruthless. Leaving aside that the old drug war was hardly ice cream and roses, there is no reason to believe being more ruthless will help.

After all, you can be beheaded for drug-related offenses in Saudi Arabia. Yet the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that in 2008 the most recent year for which statistics seem to be available the Saudis seized 12.8 tons of amphetamines.

So much for ruthless.

There is a reason the 18th Amendment, the one outlawing liquor, was the only one ever repealed: Prohibition doesnt work. You cannot arrest people out of wanting what is bad for them. But, as weve seen with liquor and tobacco, you might be able to educate, legislate and persuade them into wanting it less.

Diane Goldstein, a retired lieutenant commander with the Redondo Beach Police Department, calls the new drug war a horrible idea. Goldstein is an executive board member of Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a group of law enforcement veterans who think that in asking police to solve a medical problem, weve made a costly mistake.

She cites a 1994 Rand Corporation study which said that using health care strategies to combat drugs returns seven times the value for every dollar spent on it to the taxpayer. Shouldnt we be looking at what is not just cost effective, but also returns better results for people who are impacted by chronic substance abuse?

Problem is, that wouldnt allow some of us to brag how ruthless they are.

African Americans, who have been locked up at obscene rates, even though whites are the nations biggest users and sellers of drugs, should regard this new war as a clear and present danger. Pot users of all colors in states where marijuana is now legal should feel the same; from now on, the feds will no longer be looking the other way.

They, and anyone else who is appalled by this, should tell that to the attorney general.

Youll find an online contact form at: https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice.

The DOJ comment line is: 202-353-1555. The main switchboard is: 202-514-2000.

And heres the street address: U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001.

However you register your opinion, please do. Weve already had a War on Drugs.

And one was more than enough.

Excerpt from:

Pitts: The War on Drugs is back, unfortunately - The Mercury News - The Mercury News