EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The War on Drugs War is Lost. Now It's Time for a Rational Response
Politicians are too scared to propose legalisation and controlled use, but without radical changes many more lives will be destroyed or ruined
Four decades ago, Richard Nixon was casting around for a new enemy to shore up support for his unique brand of uncompassionate conservatism. Having risen to national prominence as an anti-communist campaigner, then turned his attention to crime, he found a new foe in the counterculture.
The media were full of stories of clean-cut young men returning from Vietnam as wrecked junkies, while intellectuals such as Timothy Leary were promoting the use of LSD. So Nixon, elected on a wafer-thin margin and desperate to turn back the tide of permissiveness, declared war on drugs. "America's public enemy number one is drug abuse," he thundered.
While the Vietnam conflict has faded into history, thousands are dying and millions of lives are still being destroyed in his insane struggle. Fittingly, since it was launched by a president who turned out to be a crook, the biggest beneficiaries have been the most murderous gangsters on the globe as they rip apart country after country. Yet our leaders limp on in this self-defeating, $100bn-a-year war. Last week saw the latest salvo in the struggle when a host of distinguished names gathered under the banner of the Global Commission on Drug Policy to urge a truce. Their thoughtful report pointed out a series of obvious truths underlying how the war backfired so terribly and called for policies based on treatment rather than prosecution.
Look at the rise in drug use. In 1998, the United Nations committed member states to achieve a "drug-free world", pledging to eliminate or "significantly reduce" use of opium, cannabis and cocaine by 2008. Instead, global opiate use rose by more than one-third over that time, with big rises also for cocaine and cannabis. It is estimated almost 5% of the world's adults take illegal drugs.
Worse is the damage done by gangs fighting over the huge profits created by the illegality of this trade. We have all heard tales of headless bodies littering the landscape of Mexico. But the world's most violent region away from active war zones is further south – Guatemala and Honduras, for instance, both have more murders than the 27 countries of the European Union combined. Now the cancer is working its way through west Africa.
The trade is so lucrative that in several countries – some signed up to those sanctimonious UN pledges – drug gangs have bought or fought their way to power. Kosovo has a prime minister linked to drug smuggling, as are the leaders of Afghanistan, Burma, Guinea, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Then there are cases such as South Africa, where the police chief turned out to be the head of a crime syndicate.
There are so many arguments against current policies it is hard to believe anyone who is not stoned still signs up to Nixon's war. The vast costs, the crime waves, the racial dimensions, the stigmatisation, the futility. Then there is the dreadful hypocrisy of politicians who use and tax the lethal drug of alcohol then jail others who enjoy less damaging relaxants such as marijuana and ecstasy.
The key question is why? After all, we live in a world in which grandparents took acid or smoked pot while listening to the Grateful Dead and many parents were the people who dropped ecstasy at outdoor raves. The current occupant of the White House has confessed to taking cocaine, while several of our cabinet ministers admitted smoking weed. Drug use is no longer that big a deal, while it is clear many of the problems and much of the misery are byproducts of banning.
The Global Commission is a valiant effort, but it is noticeable that signatories include 11 former presidents, politicians and diplomats, but just one in office – the Greek prime minister, who presumably needs any extra revenue he can find. This is the fundamental problem: serving politicians lack the bottle to take the obvious remedial actions.
As the report rightly states: "Political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem and the war on drugs cannot be won."
This failure of nerve is particularly acute in Britain. One cabinet minister who has admitted smoking cannabis in his youth said politicians were scared to act, despite knowing they should, since they would be slaughtered by rivals and the media for every drug-related death following liberalization. "You may think it is absurd regulation and it may cost more lives but deregulation is impossible in our political climate."
Sadly, he is right. Witness the infantile response – especially from local Labour parties, as the campaign group Transform will testify – to any politician standing for election who has dared suggest saner drug laws. They should listen to the admirable Bob Ainsworth, who had a Damascene conversion while a home office minister: "The public are in a far more progressive place on this issue than most politicians and sections of the press."
Recent polling proves he is correct. One survey last year found 70% of Britons favoured the regulated sale of cannabis, with smaller majorities supporting legally available heroin, ecstasy and cocaine. Curiously, the groups most in favour were Conservative voters, middle-aged women and readers of mid-market tabloids. And just think how tax proceeds would help the public spending crisis.
Politicians say they fear drug use would rise if prohibition is lifted. Evidence from abroad shows they are wrong. Look at Scandinavia, where the tough Swedes and more liberal Norwegians have similar addiction rates. Or Switzerland, where heroin demand and crime fell sharply following new policies based on public health rather than legality. Or Portugal, where heroin use fell by half after decriminalization.
These are places where there have been tentative steps forward. There are even signs the US, which remains the bastion of bigotry on this issue, is slightly shifting its stance under Barack Obama. It has, for example, permitted its blood-soaked neighbor Mexico to loosen cannabis laws.
Meanwhile, the tone of debate in Britain serves only to highlight the immaturity of our public discourse, with too many politicians lost in the fog of this foolhardy war. So here is a suggestion for our three main party leaders, who are all young enough to know better: why not hoist the white flag and work out a unified way to end a struggle that does so much more harm than good?
The alternative is to carry on fighting like generals in the First World War, ignoring the deaths, the devastation and the wastelands created around the world in a battle than can never be won.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
27 Comments so far
Show Allat the end of his life nixon asked not to be put on life-support.
I respect him for that.
Well - too bad Nixon didn't go off life-support already in 1968.
I disrespect him for that. - Among disrespecting him for a lot of other issues.
My disdain for the creep far outweighs any respect.
I was truly surprised at the feeling brought on by the announcement of his decision to die naturally.
If only he had allowed others the same privilege.
He could have ended the Vietnam fiasco in '69 but chose to extend it to ensure his re-election in '72.
Rationality sells cheap these days. The War on Drugs is exponentially more profitable. 'Nuff said.
Right on the details, wrong on the premise.
If you're interested in a thriving global narco-arms trade, lots of loose money, and an excuse to criminalize at least half the population, then the War On Drugs is a roaring success. Let's stop being so naive about how the world actually works.
you got it
through the correct prism the whole plan is going well
death and destruction everywhere - i'm sure cheney who doesn't even have a heartbeat after his last surgery only wishes he could live another 100 years to see the work he loves play out and come to fruition
the war on drugs keeps wall street going, provides weapons and funds the black op\s of the government
it also keeps the black boys in jail en masse
wachovia recently confessed to laundering at least 785 billion dollars for the mexican cartels and no one even went to jail
hmmm...............
Well if you don't want to be naïve, then the first step is to recognize that there is seldom just one reason for anything. There are lots of different players who have stakes in the drug wars; from the businessmen (a.k.a., "drug lords") who reap more profit more by selling an illegal product than they ever could earn from a legal one, to the vast network of enforcement officers and their supporting bureaucracy who would all be out of work if a truce would be declared; from prosecutors, for whom drug laws are just one more tool that they can use to convict another hapless suspect, to politicians who need to appear "tough on crime." Are there others? Probably. How about talk-radio hosts—gives 'em one more topic to get people fired up and calling in. Or how about journalists in general—one more thing to write about.
Then there are the crossovers: Political leaders who are also drug lords, Enforcement officers who rely on bribes to maintain their lifestyle, border patrol agents who also are smugglers, etc.
Then there's the masses of people who simply fear change without understanding (or even wanting to understand) the reason why.
Our society is insane. The war on drugs is counterproductive—destructive—but we can't and we won't do anything to change it because so many individuals want to keep on fighting for so many _different_ reasons.
'Madman' is right on that - "If you're interested in...". But a lot of people aren't, luckily, interested in having that kind of "success" around. Which is why the issue isn't as clear-cut as being that's "how the world actually works".
The "world actually works" as ongoing interest-struggles. The interest-struggle between, very simplified put, people and Power In Place, is always moving.
To make the interest-struggle move sharply toward the benefit of people in general living harmoniously with our natural premises, to include the knowledge of the "global narco-arms trade, lots of loose money, and an excuse to criminalize at least half the population" is of major importance - as without such a shift we're on a grand suicide-track as a species. Only with that knowledge included does it become possible to understand how it's rational - rather than the apparent irrationality of politicians re outlawed drugs - that the drug-bans continue.
Starting from this truth, which 'madman' pointed to, it becomes possible to argue effectively against the drug-bans - as part of a bigger vision for a peaceful world. That means much greater global and local equality, an economic system not based on forcing growth through the uncontinuable principle of Compound Interest, more evidence-based policies and politics, and demilitarization.
This interest-struggle for "Freedom, Equality, Solidarity" - or "Peace, Love and Sunshine" if you will - has been going on for a long time: 50 years at least, or over 235 years, depending on how we count. People have made great strides towards equality, transparency and truth about the Powers in Place during this time. Just don't think the interest-struggle is new. And don't think it's over, or even final.
Only then, accepting that the great interest-struggles for happiness for who and how, are ongoing phenomena which have been steadily gaining benefits for people in general, can we live with sufficient happiness to live on with the struggle.
At core it's a struggle with human emotions we all carry, to balance them right in the material reference-field we call 'material reality'. The Global West is in a new type of totalitarian mode and mood right now. But that's so clearly unsustainable that we'll be smart to plan in detailed vision for what the improved society should look like soon after it. And keep seeding and establishing that society right now.
Never give in, never give up, never stop believing that this paradisical planet we live on can give rise to an equally paradisical society among people. (In fact, even in the worst of times - as in the middle of war - life's fairly good for most people, in spite of all legitimate grievances. Hard to believe, not politically correct to say, but still true - as can be seen when the fear subsides.)
Life's a magnificent trip, and then we die - hopefully in dignity and peace.
Imagine all the people living life in peace. You too.
You'd think TPTB would endorse legalization of all drugs because this would turn an unruly, dissident populace into docile, compliant zombies totally unresistant to their plan to enslave humanity. At the same time this would completely break the back of the drug cartels which represent a power structure that might grow powerful enough one day to challenge TPTB's authoritarian rule. I just don't understand why they so vehemently oppose legalization.
You've never smoked pot, have you? I've never met a junkie who was anything like a 'docile, compliant zombie', but I just lived in Vancouver BC so it's not like I met too many heroin junkies I suppose....
TPTB are the ones who hired the freaking drug lords. They're the ones who think the judicial hammer will fix all problems, as long as it gets to hit the minorities hard enough.
People use cannabis more destructively when it's outlawed than when use is legal - in general.
When cannabis-use (and a major part of the discussion on the "drug war" is about cannabis, as without cannabis the "problem" would be small enough to sort out practically with a lot greater ease) is outlawed and use thereby hidden and denied, tips for good use is closed off from those who need them most. Net result: bad use.
Any drug can be misused, and the cannabis-prohibition skews use to the worst of all possible ways.
Dr. Gabor Mate's work in the field of addiction is cutting edge and should be required reading as we move beyond the War on Drugs and the War on Drug using people.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/30/dr_gabor_mat_on_the_stress
We've got our troops in Afghanistan guarding poppies. Yeah, the war on drugs is lost.
Just a few quotes from Wikipedia:
Afghanistan is, as of March, 2010, the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world - 92% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is the main producer of opium in "Golden Crescent". Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001. Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004–2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule. Also, more land is now used for opium in Afghanistan than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 92% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.[1] This amounts to an export value of about $4 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords, drug traffickers.[2] In the seven years (1994–2000) prior to a Taliban opium ban, the Afghan farmers' share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families.[3] In addition to opiates, Afghanistan is also the largest producer of hashish in the world.
Now It's Time for a Rational Response.
If 70% of the people want something and yet it remains "impossible in our political climate" then there is something very seriously wrong with your democracy.
Is Britain like the U.S. where voter participation increases with age?
Low vote turn-outs for 18-35 year-olds and high turn-outs for the 55-and-overs is a big part of the failure of sane "drug" policy initiatives.
Be ready for California 2012, regulation of cannabis can much closer to passing than I had thought possible on the first go around last year.
-matti.
I'll drink to that.
This phattie I'm rolling up will be ready by the time you finish your drink.
"As for the war on drugs. The war on obesity. The war on cancer. The war on smoking. The war on poverty. The war on ignorance. The war on hunger. The war on homelessness. The war on whatever, ad nauseum. Isn't it time for PEACE on whatever?"
War on war?
;-)
Peace! (V)
As others have already noted... the War on Drugs is a smashing success for the criminals who run this country. This war is just one more example of how these fucking psychopaths in power have created a fake capitalist front that siphons public money into their private coffers, while at the same time allowing them to control and dominate the 'bewildered herd'. To decriminalize drugs would take the money out of their private coffers... so we know why the paid for politicians don't have the balls to do what needs to be done. If they won't do it... then what is the next step?
The other factor that blows my mind is how these criminals have kept HEMP illegal. Hemp could literally help solve many of our environmental problems. But to legalize Hemp would be a major blow to the logging, paper, chemical, oil and cotton industries.
If you don't know the benefits of Hemp (or the difference between marijuana and hemp) please do yourself a favor and get educated on the matter. PLEASE!!!
Do you want to see less forests cut down?
Do you want to see less cancer causing chemicals dumped into the land and water supplies?
Do you want to have less CO2 in the atmosphere?
The list of benefits for the legalization of Hemp goes on and on and on...
There is a very obvious reason that certain industries want this AMAZING plant to be eradicated. Those who seek to keep this plant illegal are the real criminals. One hour of educating yourself on the Hemp issue will clearly show you that the last sentence I wrote is truth.
'acid dreams' by martin lee and bruce shlain
'the politics of heroin in southeast asia' by alfred w. mccoy
'dark alliance' by gary webb
anyone believing that drug policy is 'confused' or 'misguided' needs to read these essential books to clear up any misunderstanding about the WOD.
While we are at it, can we stop the other conservative inspired campaigns: against minorities, against women, against gays, against teachers and lately against seniors.
"The War on Drugs War is Lost. Now It's Time for a Rational Response"
Rational response:
Legalize, regulate, tax, and educate on good forms of use.
I wonder if Obama will change his tune after re-election?
Well, dreaming isn't illegal yet, is it?
This article accurately points out the cognitive dissonance of the rhetoric v. results of the WOD, but the reality, as mentioned in most of these posts, is that it is a booming, successful version of War, on drugs.
Note: Arms dealers' cash passing through banks should be considered money laundering, as well.
As the u.n. report on this goes, most countries seem to side with legalizing or at least decriminalizing some drugs. Amerika the crooked won't ever do it because too many people are sucking in all that free money they get when on the program.
The best chance of upsetting the nazi amerikan plan would for all those countries to legalize and decriminalize then when the hooligans in amerika lose their free money then maybe a congress with balls will step up and do something.
I think, too, that if each state in the u.s. decriminalized and legalized the drugs such as pot, peyote and other naturals, as almost 20 of them have in some shape, form or fashion have done, then what will the government do? Invade all the states? Probably so. Because there are the most evil wicked and criminal types running all levels, local, state, federal, for the pure pleasure of dictating their ideas on those who just might not like those ideas.
Funny list of countries you chose as having leaders linked to drug smuggling. Why do you list Venezuela and Nicaragua, but not countries under U.S. control? Why not the U.S.? Has not the U.S. government colluded in the drug smuggling game?
"Barack Obama. It has, for example, permitted its blood-soaked neighbor Mexico to loosen cannabis laws."
Living in Mexico I can attest this is incorrect, president calderon centered his government policies in fighting a war against the cartels in order to gain popular approval after "winning" the presidency in a seriously divided and disputed elections. Its evident he has no desire or motivation to soften the laws after at least over 35 000 have died as a result of his "war".
They do allow to carry "personal consumption doses" but this is a setback as people caught holding large quantities (now its 5 grams) were claiming to have it for personal use and judges set many free, in any case those who have dealt with the terrible corrupt to the core mexican police know they can and will plant something on "suspects" if they chose.