Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

What Will the Candidates Do to End the War on Drugs?

Posted by Johann Hari, Huffington Post at 10:38 AM on August 11, 2008.


People thought it would require "a political revolution" to legalize alcohol in the US in 1924. Within a decade, it was done.

On January 20th 2009, either the president of the United States will be a man who used cocaine, or the First Lady will be a former drug addict who stole from charity to get her next fix. In this presidential campaign, there are dozens of issues that have failed to flicker into the debate, but the most striking is the failing, flailing 'War on Drugs.' Isn't it a sign of how unwinnable this 'war' is that, if it was actually enforced evenly, either Barack Obama or Cindy McCain would have to skip the inauguration -- because they'd be in jail?

At least their time in the slammer would feature some familiar faces: they could share a cell with Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and some 46 percent of the US population.

The prohibition of drugs is perhaps the most disastrous policy currently pursued by the US government. It hands a vast industry to armed criminal gangs, who proceed to kill at least excess 10,000 citizens a year to protect their patches. It exports this program of mass slaughter to Mexico, Colombia and beyond. It has been a key factor in reviving the Taliban in Afghanistan. It squanders tens of billions of dollars on prisons at home, ensuring that one in 31 adults in the US now in prison or on supervised release at any one time. And it has destroyed an entire generation of black men, who are now more likely to go to prison for drug offenses than to go to university.

And for what? Prohibition doesn't stop people using drugs. Between 1972 and 1978, eleven US states decriminalized marijuana possession. So did hundreds of thousands of people rush out to smoke the now-legal weed? The National Research Council found that it had no effect on the number of dope-smokers. None. The people who had always liked it carried on; the people who didn't felt no sudden urge to start.

So where's the debate? The candidates have spent more time discussing froth and fancies -- how much air is in your tires? -- than this $40bn-a-year 'war."

They should be forced to listen to Michael Levine, who had a thirty year career as one of America's most distinguished federal narcotics agents. In his time, he infiltrated some of the biggest drugs cartels in the world -- and he now explains, in sad tones, that he wasted his time. In the early 1990s, he was assigned to eradicate drug-dealing from one New York street corner -- an easy enough task, surely? But he quickly learned that even this was physically impossible, given the huge demand for drugs. He calculated that he would need one thousand officers to be working on that corner for six months to make an impact -- and there were only 250 drugs agents in the whole city. One of the residents asked him, "If all these cops and agents couldn't get this one corner clean, what's the point of this whole damned drug war?"

When Levine penetrated to the very top of la Mafia Cruenza, one of the biggest drug-dealing gangs in the world, he learned, as he puts it, "that not only did they not fear our war on drugs, they actually counted on it... On one undercover tape-recorded conversation, a top cartel chief, Jorge Roman, expressed his gratitude for the drug war, calling it 'a sham put on the American tax-payer' that was 'actually good for business'." He was right -- prohibition is the dealer's friend. They depend on it. They thrive on it, just as Al Capone thrived on alcohol prohibition. When Levine recounted these comments to his boss -- the officer in command of the paramilitary operation attacking South America -- he replied, "Yeah, we know [the police and military battles against drug gangs] don't work, but we sold the plan up and down the Potomac."

Yet virtually no politicians are exposing this scandal. A rare and heroic exception is Jim Webb, Senator for Virginia. In his brilliant new book Born Fighting, he says "the hugely expensive antidrug campaigns we are waging around the world are basically futile." He even goes further, and exposes how this intersects with racism to create a monstrous injustice. The ACLU found in 2006 that although the races use drugs at the same rate, black Americans -- who comprise 12 percent of the population -- make up 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison.

Webb shows the human cost: "Even as I write these words, it is virtually certain that somewhere on the streets of Washington D.C. an eighteen year-old white kid from the Maryland or North Virginia suburbs is buying a stash of drugs from an eighteen year-old black kid. The white kid is going to take that stash back to the suburbs and make some quick money by selling it to other kids." He will grow up and grow out of it, and one day -- as a wealthy professional -- he will "look back on his drug use just as recreational and joke about it... just one more little rebellion on the way to adulthood."

But the black kid "will enter a hell from which he may never recover." He is likely to be arrested, and to go to prison. "Prison life will change the black kid, harden him, mess up his mind, and redefine his self-image. And after he is released from prison, the black kid will be dragging an invisible ball and chain behind him for the rest of his life... By the time the white kid reaches fifty years of age, he may well be a judge. By the time the black kid reaches fifty, he will likely be permanently unemployable, will be ineligible for many government assistance programs, and will not even be able to vote." Barack Obama only narrowly missed this fate. He would not be the Great Black Hope he deserves to be; he wouldn't even be allowed to cast a ballot in 2008.

Of course, ending drug prohibition may seem impossible now. But in 1924, even as vociferous a wet as Clarence Darrow was in despair, writing that it would require "a political revolution" to legalize alcohol in the US. Within a decade, it was done.

Before this campaign is out, Obama needs to be asked: do you really think you should be in jail? McCain needs to be asked: do you really think your wife should be in jail? Both need to be asked: do you really think 46 percent of Americans should be criminalized? And if not, what are you going to do to begin ending this mad, unwinnable 'war on drugs'?


Obama's Curious, Curt Response to a Torrent of Pot Legalization Questions
Change.gov's response to pot supporters -- "President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana."
Post by Paul Armentano. December 16, 2008.
Pot Supporters Bang on Obama's Doors for Drug Reform
16 of the top 50 overall questions posed to the new administration on the Change.gov site pertained to drug law reform.
Post by Paul Armentano. December 12, 2008.
In Feeble Bid to Be Cool, Bush Pardons Cocaine Smuggling Rapper
George Bush pardoned rapper John Forte who was convicted of smuggling 1.4 million dollars worth of liquid cocaine.
Post by Lisa Derrick. November 28, 2008.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I will answer for them
Posted by: Lauren on Aug 11, 2008 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
since they are unlikely to answer.

Both need to be asked: do you really think 46 percent of Americans should be criminalized? And if not, what are you going to do to begin ending this mad, unwinnable 'war on drugs'?

McCain will say yes, they need to be criminalized and no, he has no intention of ending the war.

Obama will say no and he is trying to get elected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I will answer for them Posted by: weathered
» RE: I will answer for them Posted by: schnoggi
great article
Posted by: kungfuma on Aug 11, 2008 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This surely has some good talking points! Thanks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't write off Obama so fast
Posted by: jackl2400 on Sep 2, 2008 11:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OK, cynicism about any politician is certainly justified, but as a drug policy reformer, I can see how Obama could definitely begin to ratchet down the madness towards some kind of sanity. He's already said he wouldn't send the DEA into California and other medimar states, and that's huge. Basically, that's the beginning of the end of the kind of serious hard core cannabis prohibition and real pushback against commonplace pot use we've seen since the Reagan "just say no" crusades.

The key, and Obama and his supporters are far along the way on this, is to reframe the debates in terms of post-partisan, post "angry white man" racist politics. Once no one remembers or are constantly riled up that these laws are needed as a defense against crime, blacks and hippies (their original targets), then there's no real need for politicians to keep flogging them or regarding them as a "third rail".

But, as much as the injustice and cruel stupidity of the laws vexes reformers and our allies, we need to recall that these problems pale next to our economic woes and deadly military adventures. But since these problems and solutions are the sorts of progressive changes sought by Obama, if he wins and if reforms begin, there will be a fertile soil for the changes that will put this evil genie of drug prohibition back in its bottle for a while.

(What we were told at the DPA conference last fall: your issues will be addressed if we win in '08 and a Democratic congress survives until '10. But until then we don't want any of your "values" issues on the table until then to rile up and mobilize the right wingers to vote and cost us any elections until then...seemingly good advice then and now...why drug reform has not been much more of an issue than the promise made by Obama re medimar...

...yeah, George Bush made the same promise in 2000 and broke it, but I guess I'm trusting Barack Obama to be different than Bush. I respect Ron Paul voters on this point, but I'm still gonna choose between Obama and McBush and hope Obama wins. And Nader's never been a credible advocate against the WOD AFAIC).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OIL & THE BOOT ON EVOLUTION OR ALCHOL CAN BE A GAZ !
Posted by: TFYQA on Sep 3, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Take oil and petroleum out of the energy equation and replace it with a locally produced, locally controlled, ecological, economical, renewable resource and what happens?

95% of the world's structural problems melt away.

No more oil wars. No more money leaving our country by the hundreds of billions. No more ecological devastation related to fuel production. Greatly reduced carcinogens.

But oil is necessary for our lifestyle, right?

If it's not, how did we get hooked on oil in the first place?

History tells us the US went from whale oil to kerosene for lamps courtesy of the ingenuity of John Rockefeller and Standard Oil.

It also tells us that gasoline and diesel made from oil and was the only practical source of fuel for motor vehicles (cars, trucks, buses and tractors.) Still is, so they say.

But think about something for a moment.

Prohibition was the total ban on alcohol manufacturing in the US from 1919 to 1933.

We accept it as a force of nature and never examine it.

The US is a hard drinking nation. Always has been and back when this ban was put in place it was far more so. The people who put Prohibition in place were men, most of whom were serious drinkers themselves.

Are we to believe that these 1919-era men were led and controlled a group of 1919-era church ladies?

Does that make any sense?

Is it a coincidence that the ban of alcohol production took place just as the fledgling auto industry was gaining traction and alcohol was the obvious and superior choice for fuel?

And was only lifted after the local alcohol-for-fuel infrastructure was completely destroyed, forgotten and supplanted by oil industry giants?

Am I saying that the last 90 years of the economic, political, and ecological rape of the world by oil companies has been a total con job, enforced with violence and supported by generations of corrupt politicians (Cheney, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Nixon, and on and on it goes.)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/421.html

http://www.permaculture.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]