Post by greenteam on Jan 16, 2007 17:37:16 GMT -5
US CO: Editorial: It's Time for New Strategy in the Drug War
Failure on All Fronts
IT'S TIME FOR NEW STRATEGY IN THE DRUG WAR
The president's new plan for the Iraq war stems from the lack of success in bringing security to a sizable number of Iraqis. Seeing that and recognizing the American people's patience on that front is wearing thin, the president took a new look at how he was conducting that war. After decades of an even worse failure in the drug war, it's time for the government to rethink that war as well.
Recent reports show an increase in the amount of heroin from Afghanistan flowing into the United States. A Drug Enforcement Administration analysis showed that in 2003, 8 percent of the heroin seized in the U.S. came from Afghanistan, but in 2004 that number jumped to 14 percent.
In addition to more heroin coming into this country from Afghanistan, the DEA reports that drugs from Colombia and Mexico are flowing across our southern border.
Although it's difficult to prove interdiction efforts aren't working, we haven't seen any reports of there being shortages of illegal drugs in our communities.
Besides failing to keep drugs off the street, the drug war is detrimental to our national security.
Many officials note that the illicit drug trade finances terrorism.
That's a fair point, but it's 180 degrees off course.
It blames drug users for all the money in the illegal drug trade, when prohibition is responsible for the huge amounts of money to be made selling drugs.
Banning a product doesn't make it go away; it creates a black market for it, which increases the price. Terrorists take advantage of the higher price by entering the drug trade to raise money for their operations. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia has simplified this; it hires out its members to drug cartels for security.
The way to get terrorists out of the drug trade is to take away the profit incentive.
The drug trade doesn't finance terrorism, the drug war does. If the U.S. and other nations stop treating personal choices such as drug use as crimes, many problems would disappear.
Granted, others would arise in their place, but they likely would be less burdensome on society and definitely less of a problem for national security.
We often hear about drug-related crime.
It should more accurately be called drug war-related crime.
Drug users resort to burglary and robbery to feed their habits.
This is partly because their drug use makes it difficult to hold down a job. But it is also related to the price of their drugs.
As noted above, prohibition raises the price of a product. If drugs were not illegal, the price would not have to cover the costs of securing routes for illegal drugs to come into the country, security for drug sellers and the cost of loss due to seizures.
Cheaper drugs would mean less larceny to feed habits, fewer killings to protect sales turf. We don't see Ford and Chevy dealers engaging in gun battles to secure sales areas.
They use legal means to settle differences. Drug dealers don't have that option, so it becomes a case of might makes right.
Many sociologists and government officials argue that revamping or ending the drug war would result in a huge upswing in drug use because the threat of legal action would be gone. Although that's undoubtedly true in some cases, we would point to the example of alcohol use to counter that argument.
There's no doubt that alcohol use and abuse creates societal and legal problems.
But the cost of those problems and addressing them, while great, is far less than the billions spent on the failed drug war each year. And treatment costs could more properly be borne by those who use or benefit from drugs, rather than by the general population. We're certainly no fans of more taxes or government intrusion into people's private lives, but this is a case of the lesser of two evils.
We believe some sort of sin tax to help offset costs of drug use is preferable to the wider war of drugs the nation has been waging for decades.
After four years of war in Iraq, the American people tell pollsters they're tired of what they see as the same results for the billions we've spent, so the administration is reconsidering its tactics.
After four decades of a failed drug war, isn't it time to take a fresh look at what's not working on that front?
URL: www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07.n049.a01.html
Newshawk: Kirk
Rate this article Votes: 0
Pubdate: Mon, 15 Jan 2007
Source: Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO)
Copyright: 2007 The Gazette
Contact: gtop@gazette.com
Website: www.gazette.com/
Details: www.mapinc.org/media/165
Failure on All Fronts
IT'S TIME FOR NEW STRATEGY IN THE DRUG WAR
The president's new plan for the Iraq war stems from the lack of success in bringing security to a sizable number of Iraqis. Seeing that and recognizing the American people's patience on that front is wearing thin, the president took a new look at how he was conducting that war. After decades of an even worse failure in the drug war, it's time for the government to rethink that war as well.
Recent reports show an increase in the amount of heroin from Afghanistan flowing into the United States. A Drug Enforcement Administration analysis showed that in 2003, 8 percent of the heroin seized in the U.S. came from Afghanistan, but in 2004 that number jumped to 14 percent.
In addition to more heroin coming into this country from Afghanistan, the DEA reports that drugs from Colombia and Mexico are flowing across our southern border.
Although it's difficult to prove interdiction efforts aren't working, we haven't seen any reports of there being shortages of illegal drugs in our communities.
Besides failing to keep drugs off the street, the drug war is detrimental to our national security.
Many officials note that the illicit drug trade finances terrorism.
That's a fair point, but it's 180 degrees off course.
It blames drug users for all the money in the illegal drug trade, when prohibition is responsible for the huge amounts of money to be made selling drugs.
Banning a product doesn't make it go away; it creates a black market for it, which increases the price. Terrorists take advantage of the higher price by entering the drug trade to raise money for their operations. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia has simplified this; it hires out its members to drug cartels for security.
The way to get terrorists out of the drug trade is to take away the profit incentive.
The drug trade doesn't finance terrorism, the drug war does. If the U.S. and other nations stop treating personal choices such as drug use as crimes, many problems would disappear.
Granted, others would arise in their place, but they likely would be less burdensome on society and definitely less of a problem for national security.
We often hear about drug-related crime.
It should more accurately be called drug war-related crime.
Drug users resort to burglary and robbery to feed their habits.
This is partly because their drug use makes it difficult to hold down a job. But it is also related to the price of their drugs.
As noted above, prohibition raises the price of a product. If drugs were not illegal, the price would not have to cover the costs of securing routes for illegal drugs to come into the country, security for drug sellers and the cost of loss due to seizures.
Cheaper drugs would mean less larceny to feed habits, fewer killings to protect sales turf. We don't see Ford and Chevy dealers engaging in gun battles to secure sales areas.
They use legal means to settle differences. Drug dealers don't have that option, so it becomes a case of might makes right.
Many sociologists and government officials argue that revamping or ending the drug war would result in a huge upswing in drug use because the threat of legal action would be gone. Although that's undoubtedly true in some cases, we would point to the example of alcohol use to counter that argument.
There's no doubt that alcohol use and abuse creates societal and legal problems.
But the cost of those problems and addressing them, while great, is far less than the billions spent on the failed drug war each year. And treatment costs could more properly be borne by those who use or benefit from drugs, rather than by the general population. We're certainly no fans of more taxes or government intrusion into people's private lives, but this is a case of the lesser of two evils.
We believe some sort of sin tax to help offset costs of drug use is preferable to the wider war of drugs the nation has been waging for decades.
After four years of war in Iraq, the American people tell pollsters they're tired of what they see as the same results for the billions we've spent, so the administration is reconsidering its tactics.
After four decades of a failed drug war, isn't it time to take a fresh look at what's not working on that front?
URL: www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v07.n049.a01.html
Newshawk: Kirk
Rate this article Votes: 0
Pubdate: Mon, 15 Jan 2007
Source: Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO)
Copyright: 2007 The Gazette
Contact: gtop@gazette.com
Website: www.gazette.com/
Details: www.mapinc.org/media/165