Obama prolongs a failed war - props to Portugal

By RHONDA SWAN
First published: Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Forty years. One trillion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of lives.

That's the cost of the U.S. war on drugs. And the tab continues to rise.

Last week, President Barack Obama announced that he will send 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border. He also will request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement. That's a lot of Benjamins for a failed policy.

Like President George W. Bush before him, Obama is sending in the troops to secure the border against illegal immigration. And, like Bush, he's trying to steer cautiously through the election year minefield that is immigration reform.

He's not likely to get comprehensive reform done this year. The troops are the backup plan. He has to show that he's doing something about the problem. In 2006, Bush sent 6,000 National Guard troops to the border. He, too, wanted comprehensive immigration reform. But it was an election year.

Beyond the immigration issue, however, is the drug issue. As in 2006, a major role of the National Guard is to support efforts to block drug trafficking. In fact, the Mexican government issued a statement saying it hoped the troops would be used to fight drug cartels and not enforce immigration laws.

The troops sent under Bush, however, didn't quell the drug-trafficking violence. There's no reason to believe that the outcome will be any different under Obama.

Mexican drug cartels wouldn't exist if the U.S. decriminalized drugs. There would be no drug wars. And far less drug violence. Sure, it sounds radical. But isn't it insane to keep doing what we've been doing and expect different results?

Consider that in the 1920s, prohibition of alcohol simply created a huge illegal market for alcohol. Drug prohibition has created the same illegal market for marijuana, heroin and cocaine, the majority of which comes from Mexico. By the end of the 1920s, there were more alcoholics and illegal juke joints than before Prohibition. There also was more crime.

Prohibition was repealed because the paradise envisioned by a country without alcohol didn't materialize. And during the Great Depression, the government realized that it needed the money from taxing alcohol.

The war on drugs also has not produced a crime-free society. The U.S. has the highest rate of marijuana and cocaine use in the world. And as history repeats itself, the Great Recession has states such as California eyeing the money it could get from taxing marijuana.

In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, replacing jail time with the offer of therapy.

In the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens declined; rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing dirty needles dropped; the number of people seeking treatment more than doubled.

Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new policy that, like Portugal's, treats drug use more as a public health issue than a criminal justice one. It's also been a stated priority of Gil Kerlikowske, a former Port St. Lucie, Fla., police chief who heads the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to get the country to focus more on treatment than incarceration.

"We must be smarter about our nation's drug problem," Kerlikowske said at last year's conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "It's time to recognize drug abuse and addiction for what it is — not just a law enforcement and criminal justice issue but also a complex and dynamic public health challenge."

The Obama administration, however, has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels — $10 billion of the $15.5 billion drug control budget. Where is the change Obama promised? I don't expect him to call for the decriminalization of drugs. That would be too bold and politically risky. I do expect him to put our money where his mouth is.

Rhonda Swan writes for The Palm Beach Post. Her e-mail address is rhonda_swan@pbpost.com.

 kurtster wrote:
 
Having your workman's comp claim disallowed is not the same as being charged with possession. Not a crime, not a criminal penalty.

gotta run...time for martial arts and weight training...thanks all for the convo.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
It seems to be possesion if you are in an industrial (worker's comp) accident.  Positive test for Marijuana, regardless of most recent usuage is grounds for denial of services and medical treatment regardless if the accident is due to employer negligence.  At least here in Ohio.  I would be curious how a positive test result in a state that allows medical marijuana use would deal with this circumstance.

 HazzeSwede wrote: 

...and here I was about to sign on to your plan, whatever it is? thanks for confusing the bejeebers outta me.

 Lazy8 wrote: 

That's not how the law views drug useage. If you possess, you violate any number of laws. Until recently, most communities saw the possession of marijuana as intent to distribute. That was a law gone too far. If I possess an ounce or so, how can distribution be declared? Today, there is a greater relaxation of the laws, in particular how those found in possession of marijuana are treated. Belatedly, many if not most communities are realizing they are spending too much of their limited resources on nabbing someone with a doobie.

 HazzeSwede wrote: 
    OK,so its not a plan,,forget about it !!!

 kurtster wrote: 
Those Draconian laws had more to do with bigotry towards Mexicans and black people than any true fear of the drug itself.

 musik_knut wrote:
 
Um, no.

Drugs in your bloodstream are not considered possession, which is the actual crime. Only acts (by humans) can be made into crimes—making drugs illegal is as meaningless as banning gravity. Drugs can't commit crimes. What has been done is making possession and distribution of certain drugs illegal.

If you load up on codeine cough syrup in Tijuana and walk across the border into California you aren't committing a crime.

 kurtster wrote: 

kurt,
Greetings.
It's a convoluted trek from marijuana for the masses to marijuana, evil drug. It started years ago and if I recall, big oil was leading the charge to criminalize marijuana. Today, with budgets snapping and States in particular scrambling to provide essential services, revenue from the State sale of marijuana would arrest some of the budgetary strains.
mk

 musik_knut wrote: 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that at least back in the 60's, Louisiana's penalties for possesion of Marijuana were:

1st Offense:  Life in prison.
2nd Offense:  The death penalty.

There was also Texas and Dr. Leary in my thoughts on extreme penalties.

How did things ever get that far away from any sane reality ?

I have a plan,,,I have a plan,,,,  shiiit forgot !
(legalize,,Afganistan,,,war,,,money,,,taxes,,something,,oh yeh state debt.)

 oldslabsides wrote: 

I would agree. We have many laws, Federal/State/Local, that regulate this or that and nothing is necessarily wrong with this or that. Too many laws impacting too many people in order to do what? Make some goody two-shoes legislator feel good? We need to take marijuana and remove it from consideration as if it is heroin or meth. Not long ago, I purchased a small amount of pot. I didn't feel like a bad American for doing so. I didn't feel like a drain on society. I did it for personal use. To relax and enjoy. Yet I know, because of the laws, that a dealer broke laws and I did too. And I must wonder if along the way, someone might have paid a life for my small purchase?

EDIT: For years, I was staunchly opposed to any thoughts on legalizing marijuana. I have done a 180 on that: legalize pot. And I don't say that because I am a casual user. I say that because marijuana has become an overblown drug in the eys of the Feds and it ties up limited resources. Do we need to pinch a kid with a joint hidden in his pack of smokes? No.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Perfect case for my position that simply because something is against the law doesn't mean it's wrong.  Law against drugs and the use thereof are wrong.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

Ummm, no. If a drug is illegal, its useage is too. Now, should drugs be illegal? That's a good question given the billions poured into the war on drugs and its minimal impact. I wonder if those parts of the country where marijuana is legally dispensed have fewer dealers in marijuana? Anyone know of stats on that?
Then of course, there's a point to be made in a society where alcohol and tobacco, both devestating substances, are legal while marijuana is illegal.

EDIT: I think Washington State has struck a good balance on marijuana: 40 gms or less is considered personal use, not dealing. How many casual marijuana users are treated more or less as a drug kingpin is? That's a gross waste of limited rescources.

 musik_knut wrote: 
Exactly - theft is the crime, not drug use.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

Not all thieves steal in order to support a drug habit. Many drug users steal to support the habit. Of course all who steal should be held accountable.

 musik_knut wrote: 
People steal for a wide variety of reasons - hold them responsible for the theft whether they use drugs or not.

 oldslabsides wrote: 

It becomes someone's business, indeed, everyone's business, when someone addicted to a substance must steal to support their addiction. With that said, the war on drugs is a collosal failure.