Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

DrugReporter

Democratic Candidates Are Deafeningly Silent on the Drug War

By Arianna Huffington, Huffington Post. Posted April 7, 2007.


Is the slate of front-running Dem candidates in the 2008 election going to offer the same "tough on crime" nonsense we've heard in elections past?
Advertisement

There is a major disconnect in the 2008 Democratic race for the White House.

While all the top candidates are vying for the black and Latino vote, they are completely ignoring one of the most pressing issues affecting those constituencies: the failed War on Drugs, a war that has morphed into a war on people of color.

Consider this: according to a 2006 ACLU report, African Americans make up 15 percent of drug users, but account for 37 percent of those arrested on drug charges, 59 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of all drug offenders sentenced to prison. Or consider this: America has 260,000 people in state prisons on nonviolent drug charges; 183,200 (more than 70 percent) are black or Latino.

Such facts and figures have been bandied about for years. But what to do about the legion of nonviolent -- predominantly minority -- drug offenders has long been an electrified third-rail in American politics, a subject to be avoided at all costs by our political leaders, who fear being incinerated on contact for being soft on crime.

You might have thought this would change during a spirited Democratic presidential campaign. But a quick search of the top Democratic hopefuls' websites reveals that not one of them -- not Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, not John Edwards, not Joe Biden, not Chris Dodd, not Bill Richardson -- even mentions the drug war, let alone offers any solutions.

The silence coming from Clinton and Obama is particularly deafening.

Obama has written eloquently about his own struggle with drugs, but has not addressed the tragic effect the war on drugs is having on African American communities.

As for Clinton, she flew into Selma to reinforce her image as the wife of "the first black president," and has made much of her plan to attract female voters, but has ignored the suffering of poor, black women right in her own backyard.

Located down the road from her Chappaqua home are two prisons housing female inmates, Taconic and Bedford. Forty-eight percent of the women in Taconic are there for nonviolent drug offenses; 78% of those in the prison are African-American or Hispanic. And Bedford, the state's only maximum security prison for women, is home to some of the worst victims of New York's draconian Rockefeller drug laws -- mothers and grandmothers whose first brush with the law resulted in their being locked away for 15 years or more on nonviolent drug charges.

Yet even though these prisons are so nearby, Clinton has turned a blind eye to the plight of the women locked away there, notably refusing to speak out on their behalf.

Our political leaders' avoidance of this issue comes with a very stiff price (and not just the more than $50 billion a year we're spending on the failed drug war). The toll is paid in shattered families, devastated inner cities, and wasted lives (with no apologies for using that term).

During the ten years I've been writing about the injustice of the drug war, I've repeatedly seen politicians pay lip service to doing something about it, then duck and watch as the sickening status quo claimed more victims. Here in California, of the 171,000 inmates jamming our wildly overcrowded prisons, 36,000 are nonviolent drug offenders.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: democrats, election 2008, drug war

Find more Arianna at the Huffington Post.



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:
This is a mistake because...
Posted by: yellow on Apr 7, 2007 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as with everything else the Bush Administration is trying to claim victory and "mission accomplished" in the current drug war despite the fact that we are obviously losing and the current Bush appointed drug czar refuses to speak to the press as he receives condemnation from even such Bush stalwarts as Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa. The current drug czar has declared a 23% drop in national drug usage by youths over the last five years. Much evidence contradicts these inflated numbers which doubtless reflect a shift in drug of choice rather than a real drop in the actual use of illegal drugs. Of Course, nothing has been done to address the root cause of drug usage. These root causes continue to worsen with the current Bush Administration social and economic policies.

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

Didn't we have this just the other day?
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Apr 7, 2007 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She's right. But they wouldn't have to address the issue during the campaign - better to get elected first and then, actually DO something. Which Bill Clinton did not, of course.

I find Obama if anything even more troubling, because he files the whole thing under 'young black men do drugs because they're stuck in despair' etc. Gee, and I thought drugs were like, you know, FUN!

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

» RE: Didn't we have this just the other day? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Possession vs. dealing..
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Apr 8, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the way I see it, it's two different issues.. possession should be against the law but the sentencing should be different than just imprisionment..those using need extensive counseling and it should be manditory.

Dealers should recieve maximum imprisionment with no eligibility for parole.

One of the problems is that it seems a majority of young adults are getting hooked on perscription meds and many are available over the net if you know the right sites to go to!

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

WHY??????
Posted by: Frenchman on Apr 8, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why this concern about people whom deliberately use drugs and who drive the drug market? We have more important issues to solve than worry about people who are willingly destroying themselves. What about the millions who are being killed by multinational corporations and others who are dying of hunger? That’s where our attention should be focused! Another area of concern: it’s not a well-advertised fact but our environment causes 85% of cancers.

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

» RE: WHY?????? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: WHY?????? Posted by: pyramid
there IS a DEM CANDIDATE!!! GOVERNOR OF NEW MEXICO
Posted by: ccBallagh on Apr 9, 2007 11:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dont know his name but the governor of new mexico is running and he has a decriminalization platform- he just passed legislation on medical marijuana in favor of the patients- not the pharma comp. that hilary clinton is likely to take money from-

but i think we all underestimate barack obama- he has to know the war on drugs id failed- but they shuold all be asked questions- we need there opinions!

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

» RE: his name is Richardson Posted by: ScottP