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.

War on Crime, Not on Drugs

By Norm Stamper, AlterNet. Posted June 15, 2005.


In an excerpt from his new book, 'Breaking Rank,' a former police chief describes how America is losing its fight against drugs -- and why we should consider decriminalization.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Norm Stamper

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Editor's Note: The following excerpt is reprinted with permission from "Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Expose of the Dark Side of American Policing (Nation Books, 2005).

I say it’s time to withdraw the troops in the war on drugs.

For a jaw-dropping illustration of drug enforcement’s financial costs, take a look at DrugSense.org’s Drug War Clock. To the tune of $600 a second, taxpayers are financing this war. For the year 2004 the figure added up to over $20 billion, and that’s just for federal enforcement alone. You can add another $22 to $24 billion for state and local drug law enforcement, and even more billions for U. S. drug interdiction work on the international scene. We’re talking well over $50 billion a year to finance America’s war on drugs.

Think of this war’s real casualties: tens of thousands of otherwise innocent Americans incarcerated, many for 20 years, some for life; families ripped apart; drug traffickers and blameless bystanders shot dead on city streets; narcotics officers assassinated here and abroad, with prosecutors, judges, and elected officials in Latin America gunned down for their courageous stands against the cartels; and all those dollars spent on federal, state, and local cops, courts, prosecutors, prisons, probation, parole, and pee-in-the-bottle programs. Even federal aid to bribe distant nations to stop feeding our habit.

“Plan Colombia” was hatched under the last year of the Clinton administration to wage America’s drug war on Colombian soil. Costing over $1.3 billion ($800 million going to the military), the plan sought to “eradicate” that nation’s coca and heroin poppy plants (Colombia supplied 95 percent of America’s cocaine). The chemical used was the herbicide glyphosate, which when sprayed on crops does untold damage to the environment. When sprayed on water supplies or unprotected people, it causes a host of serious to fatal medical problems.

Similar efforts in Peru and Bolivia have reduced production only temporarily, and always at high cost: recall that the Peruvian Air Force, on the strength of mistaken U.S. drug intelligence, shot down a civilian aircraft carrying an American missionary and her infant daughter in April of 2001.

In Afghanistan, the Bush administration supported the Taliban to the tune of $125 million in foreign aid, plus another $43 million for enforcing its ostensible ban on poppy production—right up until September 10, 2001. (As Robert Scheer makes clear in his May 22, 2001 column in the Los Angeles Times—“Bush’s Faustian Deal With the Taliban”—the president knew all along that the Taliban was hiding Osama bin Laden.)

Today, Afghanistan’s drug lords give the country’s warlords (when they’re not one and the same) a run for their money. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the summer of 2004 issued a scathing report citing the phenomenal growth in Afghan poppy production—and the Bush administration’s failure to monitor its own anti-drug aid. The United Nations estimates the value of the 2004 crop at $2.2 billion, with production up 40 percent, breaking all records for a single year.

According to Peter Rodman of the Pentagon (BBC News, September 24, 2004), “…profits from the production of illegal narcotics flow into coffers of warlord militias, corrupt government officials, and extremist forces.”

The United States has, through its war on drugs, fostered political instability, official corruption, and health and environmental disasters around the globe. In truth, the U.S.-sponsored international "War on Drugs" is a war on poor people, most of them subsistence farmers caught in a dangerous no-win situation.

***

Another casualty of the drug war: the reputation of individual police officers, individual departments, and the entire system of American law enforcement. If you aspire to be a “crooked” cop, drugs are clearly the way to go. The availability, street value, and illegality of drugs form a sweet temptation to character-challenged cops, many of whom wind up shaking down street dealers, converting drugs for their own use, or selling them.


Digg!

Norm Stamper began his law enforcement career in San Diego in 1966, as a beat cop. In 1994, he was named chief of the Seattle Police Department. He retired in 2000.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


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:
Rebecca
Posted by: rahale919 on Jun 15, 2005 4:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the thoughtful article. The key point you are missing is that marijuana is to crack, cocaine, heroin, X, and meth what a fat-tired bicycle is to a diesel powered pick up truck. Lumping pot in with other drugs clouds the issue. Marijuana tends to diminish people's impulse to harm others, whereas coke, crack, meth and X have the opposite effect and increase unstable and violent behavior.

I suggest framing the debate about "drugs" differently, and owning the fact that marijuana and marijuana users usually represent a different demographic than other drug users. Most people have moved beyond the "Reefer Madness" mentality and realize that pot is not a gateway drug to the dark world of criminal addiction.

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

» RE: ebecca Posted by: radmaker3
» RE: ebecca Posted by: jakstrate
» RE: ebecca Posted by: nakis
» RE: ebecca Posted by: churchofone
» RE: ebecca Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: ebecca Posted by: Here I Come Canada
» RE: ebecca Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: ebecca Posted by: AlterNug
» RE: ebecca Posted by: racel
» RE: ebecca Posted by: jakstrate
Don't just 'Tell All!' Run For Office!
Posted by: grj9000 on Jun 15, 2005 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Citizen' Stamper should now put teeth into his 'expose' and run for office on this platform, becoming not just a 'confessor', but also an active force for the change he recommends.

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

Peter B
Posted by: Peter Boyd on Jun 15, 2005 7:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I commend Norm Stamper for his vision and for a most compelling and objective analysis of the drug issue. Unfortunately he fails to identify one key issue. Drugs are big business and big business runs the USA and controls the US Govrnement.
As decriminalisation of drug use is not in the interests of Big Business it will not be on the agenda of the US government.
The situation will not change until the American people show the will to take back control of their own country and having just re-elected George W. Bush this would appear to be a long way off.

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

WAR ON DRUGS KILLS EFFORTS AGAINST UNNECESSARY SUFFERING - WORLD WIDE!
Posted by: Ullern on Jun 30, 2005 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great comment by Norm Stamper. Stamp on, make it Norm!

US drug policies - promoted world wide through the US' leading influence on the UN Commision on Narcotic Drugs (CND) and the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) - has stark politically suppressive functions. Spread world-wide through the "War on drugs".

How can such a war ever be won? How could a drug ask for armistice? Can anyone envision the headline "Drug war won - drugs concede defeat"? That rhethoric muddle is only the beginning of the mess the drug-war causes.

Social regulation, not bans, is the obvious way to defeat abuse. The "war on drugs" actually promotes drug-abuse - by pushing any use into hiding. Thus sustainable use can freely deteriorate into abuse outside the ordinary social pressures for limited use: families, friends, collegues etc giving corrective comments.

Regulation of drugs within a framework for legal use is more effective against abuse than prohibition. - That's how it works for the major number of drugs even in the US - that arbitary group called pharmaceuticals.

The arbitrariness of what constitutes "drugs" is a major reason for the ineffectualness of the "war on drugs". How can morphine/heroine use be eradicated when morphine is also a major pharmaceutical?

It is the most creative and experimental segment of the population who are most prone to try drugs. The insights gleaned from these experiences get outlawed - as their sources can be mentioned only with self-incrimination. This way valuable insights and objections are suppressed. This is probably the greatest societal damage from the war on drugs.

By criminalizing a major part of this creative population-segment, their (our) ideas for improvement of societies are sidelined.

We're left with the most conventional thinkers to "rule the world". And they're unable to face up to the fact of 30.000 avoidable starvation-deaths daily. Or face up to ways, or indeed wishes, to help the ca 1 billion living in abject poverty. Or deadly human-caused environmental crises. Or population-rise (currently 200.000 a day). Or the dangers spread thick around the world by the weapons industry - $ 1 trillion a year global military budgets, ca half ($ 455 b) by the US. Or war.

To epitomize: The "war on drugs" kills most war on war!

Love Rules.
Ole Ullern

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

Finally, a cop with some sense
Posted by: SweetTea on Jul 22, 2005 3:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Addiction is a disease and it can take MANY forms. Some people are addicted to drugs, others gambling, still others pornography, etc. Aside from physical addiction, which will pass upon detoxification, addictive personality disorder is a mental disease There is no cure, but there are many treatments, like many other diseases, such as cancer, AIDS, and diabetes.

Imagine that when HIV/AIDS came onto the scene in the United States, the government declared AIDS (and all treatments, research, and breakthroughs in the field) illegal. Now imagine what would happen if people were imprisoned for years simply for being HIV positive and seeking treatment. In essence, that is what we do to these addicts.

There's a difference between drug use and drug abuse, and there's a difference between drug abuse and drug addiction. But when I look at many of my friends and peers, I note that those "multiple offenders" (the ones that get locked up again and again for simple posession and never seem to "learn") tend to display many traits of the disease, and they should be treated for the disease.

So does the system work? No, but it's not just because of wasted money and wasted resources. It's because our government is completely missing the point. Even decriminalization advocates are attaking this from an economic standpoint, from a law enforcement standpoint, from a civil liberties standpoint, but I see very little discussion about the HUMAN and MEDICAL concerns that IMHO should be first and foremost. People die from this disease. Not just from the violence that comes from the black market. They die from overdoses, suicide, starvation, and chronic illnesses that never get treatment because addicts are clandestine.... They can't tell people what their problems are, so they never get help.

While I aggree with everything in this article, I hope that decriminalization advocates will start looking toward the people who would be most affected by the change. It's not politicians. It's not cops. It's not parents or urban clean-up leagues. The people that will be affected most are the addicts.... silent victims of a deadly disease that they have been socially programmed to believe is their fault. Simply passing legislation decriminalizing drugs is not enough. We have to do more. We owe it to these sick, scared people to help them learn how to live.


-Tea

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

Economics IS the issue
Posted by: Da African on Aug 24, 2005 10:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the advent of affirmative action, Clarence Pendleton, the Black advisor to Richard Nixon, said that he used economics and tax arguments to push Nixon to accept the policy. He used economic arguments as a strategy to accomplish a more vital mission - economic parity with of Black people with white people.

Similarly, the economic argument used by many in the anti-drugwar movement, is a strategy that does not take away from the vital mission.

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

bansidh
Posted by: bansidh@citlink.net on Sep 16, 2005 6:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What wasn't mentioned about the drug problem is that the CIA imports them and makes a lot of money off of it. Remember Oliver North???? We don't stand a chance of dealing with a medical problem by making it a criminal problem , and we don't stand a chance of decriminalizing drug addiction as long as many people in very high government places in many countries are making a fortune on the very illegality of them.

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