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
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

DrugReporter

Spinning a Failed War on Drugs

By Bruce Mirken, AlterNet. Posted September 11, 2007.


It gets harder and harder for the government to try and convince people that we are winning the war on drugs, yet they keep trying.
Advertisement

Our government says we're winning the war on drugs. At a press conference to release results of the government's major annual drug use survey Sept. 6, both White House drug czar John Walters and Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt said so, with Walters touting "fewer teens using drugs today."

Not quite. When you cut through the spin and look at the actual numbers, it's clear that Walters is again trying to fool the public -- much as Richard Nixon did back in 1972, when he first claimed we were "winning" the war on drugs.

While drug use rates reported in the just-released 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health are essentially unchanged from 2005, Walters and Leavitt touted declines in current teen use of illicit drugs since 2002, from 11.6 to 9.8 percent, and a parallel decline in current marijuana use from 8.2 to 6.7 percent.

That sounds impressive -- until you look at the long-term trends. If you go back another 10 years, to 1992, the rate of current teen use of illicit drugs was just 5.3 percent, and current marijuana use was at 3.4 percent. So while it edged down a bit in the last five years, teen drug use is actually nearly double what it was 15 years ago.

Walters and Co. have an explanation for this, of course. They say that the methodology of the survey was changed in 2002, so you can't compare earlier figures with recent ones. But that claim is shaky at best.

First, not all experts agree that the changes in the survey were enough to drastically alter the results. Second, another government-funded survey of teen drug use that hasn't changed its methodology, called Monitoring the Future, has documented strikingly similar trends.

In the 2006 Monitoring the Future survey, released last December, 16.8 percent of 10th-graders reported current use of at least one illicit drug -- a drop from 20.8 percent in 2002, but a substantial increase over the 11 percent rate in 1992. For marijuana, current use among 10th-graders soared from 8.1 percent in 1992 and 14.2 percent in 2006.

None of this stopped Leavitt from claiming, "The trends in general are very encouraging." Do these people not read their own data, or do they just think we're fools? The fact is that Walters and colleagues have squandered well over a billion of our tax dollars on a failed ad campaign, mostly aimed at demonizing marijuana, and are desperate to show some results. So they cherry-pick a few numbers that seem to make their case, and ignore the rest.

And before you buy Walters' frequent claim that "we took our eye off the ball" fighting drug abuse in the '90s, don't forget that between 1991 and 2000, marijuana arrests skyrocketed from 282,000 to 734,497.

But buried in the new NSDUH results are some fascinating and sometimes disturbing tidbits. The percentage of Americans who reported using illicit drugs in the past year or past month edged up slightly, and this increase was driven by jumps in use of some of the most dangerous drugs: cocaine, narcotic pain drugs, and stimulants (a category that includes methamphetamine).

While most of the changes were small and not statistically significant, those that were significant are alarming. For example, among 14- to 15-year-olds, past-month use of deadly inhalants rose significantly, as did past-month use of sedatives. This raises the disturbing possibility that scare campaigns focused on marijuana are driving kids to try drugs that are far more dangerous.

The drug czar will never admit it, but the long-term picture is clear: Our current drug policies don't work. The government's bizarre overemphasis on marijuana -- a drug that is beyond question safer than such legal drugs as alcohol and tobacco -- has had little effect on marijuana use, but may well be making our hard-drug problem worse.

It's long past time we had policy based on facts, not spin.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: drugs, marijuana legalization

Bruce Mirken is communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project.


Advertisement
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:
Where is that Ball!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Sep 11, 2007 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the numbers presented, it appears that we did take our eye off the ball in he 90's. But it seems we have totally lost sight of the ball now!

As for the claim that drug uses is dclining and "we are winning" the war..I doubt it.. It appears drug use is a rampant , especially among teens as ever.. Check out any sports team in highschool.. I know of two wrestlers (highschool and college) that both left the teams and one left the school, due to the high use of drugs of varied kinds.

Jailing users isnt the answer.. death sentence for the dealers is!

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

» RE: Where is that Ball! Posted by: LeaveMeAlone
The war on people (drugs) is a complete failure, or is it?
Posted by: Michael Boldin on Sep 11, 2007 11:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As advertised, the war on drugs is a total failure. Drug use is high, crime is rampant, and profits for black market dealers soars.

wow. they're doing a great job, right?

But, remember, it's being waged by politicians - who in my opinion, are generally power-hungry slimeballs. So, in some ways, they're doing quite well with this war.

They keep getting more and more funding, expand the purview of their activities, and have excuses to invade our personal lives. Isn't this a tyrants dream?

When are we going to learn that the only people that are helped by prohibition are criminals, thugs, mobsters and politicians? Ok, ok, sometimes those are all the same people...

Anyway, I'm doing babbling. If you're interested in some further reading, try this (it's long, but pretty good):

"Free from the Nightmare of Prohibition" - click here

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

Just another drug ab(user) . . .
Posted by: allusiv on Sep 11, 2007 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could comment, but who would listen and how would that change things?

That's the scary thing about the War on Drugs and the DEA. They're abominations of the Executive, there's no democratic way to shut them down, control them, or challenge their policy.

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

U.S. mayors call for end to drug war
Posted by: aahpat on Sep 12, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors believes the war on drugs has failed..."

U.S. mayors call for end to drug war posted at A Left Independent blog

A resolution of the 75th meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls for "A NEW BOTTOM LINE IN REDUCING THE HARMS OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE"

The U.S. Conference of Mayors are America's drug war front line elected executives representing the interests of a vast majority of urban America. It is America's mayors who must mop up the blood in our streets and repair the lives damaged by the federal prohibition against the regulation, licensing and taxing of distribution to America's $ 144 billion consumer demand for intoxicant drugs.

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