Skip to main content

Latest

Chronicle
Blog

The Drug War Doesn't Reduce Drug Use. Drug Users Reduce Drug Use.

Blogger and biomedical research scientist DrugMonkey asks drug war critics to explain declining rates of drug use over the last several years.

…for those of you who insist vociferously that the War on Drugs (considered inclusively with the Just Say No, D.A.R.E, main-stream media reporting, and all that stuff that is frequently rolled into a whole by the legalization crowd) is an abject failure...

for those of you who insist vociferously that you cannot tell teenagers anything about the dangers of recreational drugs and expect them to listen to you...

I would like these data explained to me.

There are many ways to respond to this and I wasn't surprised to find Pete Guither in the comments section with some good points. I guess I'd begin by observing that the existence of a massive often-brutal campaign to end drug use simply doesn't mean that said campaign is responsible when drug use declines. The drug czar has an obnoxious tendency to claim success by comparing current drug use rates to their highest point in history, which isn't exactly helpful.

But if there is one point that I think really illustrates the absurdity of crediting the drug war at large for the reductions in drug use we've seen, it is this: rates of alcohol and tobacco use have fallen in virtual lockstep with these declines in illegal drug use. That happened without any effort to eradicate the manufacturing of those substances, without interdicting the supply, without revoking financial aid for college from those found in possession, without mandatory minimums, drug-sniffing dogs, or student drug testing (which doesn't look for tobacco and utterly sucks at detecting alcohol).

The drug czar has actually gone so far as to imply that the war on illegal drugs somehow reduced alcohol and tobacco use, I guess through some sort of reverse gateway theory that he didn't flesh out for obvious reasons. But even if someone were to buy that argument (at tremendous risk of becoming an idiot), it would still be true that we were able to reduce consumption of our two most harmful drugs without deploying against them any of the costly, destructive and controversial tactics that characterize our modern drug war.

I would like that explained to me.
Blog

In New Orleans, You Can Get 5 Years in Prison for a Joint of Marijuana

Drug war defenders are indeed fond of pointing out how hard it is to actually get jail time for using drugs. So they should probably stop New Orleans District Attorney Keva Landrum-Johnson before she finishes filling Louisiana's prisons with the pettiest marijuana users she can find:

The flood of new felony charges didn’t target murderers, rapists or armed robbers — they targeted small-time marijuana users, sometimes caught with less than a gram of pot, and threatened them with lengthy prison sentences.

The resulting impact has clogged the courts with non-violent, petty offenses, drained the resources of the criminal justice system and damaged low-income African-American communities, [Orleans Public Defenders Office Chief of Trials Steve] Singer said.
…

A first-time marijuana possession charge in Louisiana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison but typically results in a small fine. A second offense is a felony that can carry up to five years in jail and a third offense up to 20 years.
…

Some say Landrum-Johnson’s decision to buck history and charge marijuana users with felonies is a political decision meant to assist in her run for Orleans Criminal District Court Section E judgeship. By prosecuting thousands of marijuana possession cases as felonies, Landrum-Johnson can then go to the voters of New Orleans and claim she is “tough on crime,” [Tulane University criminologist Peter] Scharf said. She can point to the massive increase in felony prosecutions under her tenure without explaining that those prosecutions were for people holding joints and not guns, he said. [New Orleans CityBusiness]

Only Landrum-Johnson knows what her motivations are, so I won't belabor that point. She is presiding over a deliberate effort to place large numbers of small-time marijuana users in prison for 5-20 years and there exists no noble motive for doing that. Whether she believes this can help her become a judge, or she possesses a virulent and vindictive animosity towards people who smoke marijuana, or she is merely detached utterly from the consequences of the authority she wields, the result is disastrous and the justification is a fraud.

This, I'm afraid to say, is the reality of America's war on drugs. Everyday our drug policies produce outcomes none of us intended and almost none of us support. The idea of imprisoning nonviolent drug users is so obviously unpopular that the DEA has a whole page arguing that it almost never happens. But will anyone in Washington, D.C. approach the New Orleans DA's office and tell them to stop? Of course not. The very people who so vigorously argue the scarcity of such injustices are the same ones who work tirelessly to conceal them and enable their continuation.
Blog

Video Highlights from Vienna Drug Policy NGO Forum

The week before last NGOs from around the world concerned with drug policy gathered at the United Nations Vienna location. I wasn't there, but friends of mine played an important role, and they did a great job. Check out these video interviews put together by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union: Find the HCLU web site here.
Blog

gang or no gang

The shooting of a 20 year old U-Vic psych student on saturday was being lamented by family and friends as a mistake,as the boy was popular and had no gang connections or drug history.That turned out t
Blog

Police Kill Dog During Drug Raid, Find No Drugs

No one is entitled to their opinion on the drug war unless they understand how often this happens:

WAREHAM — A pit bull was fatally shot after police were confronted by the dog while executing a search warrant at 298 Onset Ave. on Wednesday, Chief Thomas Joyce said Thursday night.
…

The dog was "growling and acting in an aggressive manner," the report said, so an officer used a Taser in an attempt to make it back off.

"The dog retreated approximately 6 inches and then charged at the entry team growling and showing his teeth," the report said.
…

"Unfortunately, at this point the officers feared for their safety and the dog had to be put down," according to the report. Chief Joyce said the dog was shot once by an unidentified officer.

According to police, a search of the premises netted several items often used in packaging drugs, but no illegal drugs were discovered, and no arrests were made. [SouthCoastToday.com]

This isn't the first time police who failed to locate any drugs have called attention to the discovery of so-called drug packaging materials. They should be more surprised not to find such items. Guess what, people package things. It doesn’t make someone a drug dealer and any reporter who references such nonsense is complicit in a petty, backhanded attempt to smear a guy whose dog just got killed for no good reason.

But that's just my opinion. Some nice people in the comment section beg to differ:

Here is the truth. The owner has been busted for drugs and gun charges in the past. He got lucky this time, he must have sold all his drugs before the raid.
______
…usually when it gets to the point the DEA and a Task force is raiding your house it because they have had hours upon hours of documented proof the residents are dealing drugs . if these alleged drug dealers lived next door to u with crack heads coming and going all hours of the night I bet you would be glad they raided that house! The dog was an unfortunate casualty of war.
______

they should have shot the owner instead.

Well, at the risk of satisfying such vicious bloodlust, allow me to point out that plenty of people are killed by police during drug raids that didn't turn up any drugs.
Blog

Barack Obama Proposes "Shifting the Model" on the Drug War

From a recent interview in Rolling Stone:

The War on Drugs has cost taxpayers $500 billion since 1973. Nearly 500,000 people are behind bars on drug charges today, yet drugs are as available as ever. Do you plan to continue the War on Drugs, or will you make some significant change in course?

Anybody who sees the devastating impact of the drug trade in the inner cities, or the methamphetamine trade in rural communities, knows that this is a huge problem. I believe in shifting the paradigm, shifting the model, so that we focus more on a public-health approach. I can say this as an ex-smoker: We've made enormous progress in making smoking socially unacceptable. You think about auto safety and the huge success we've had in getting people to fasten their seat belts.

The point is that if we're putting more money into education, into treatment, into prevention and reducing the demand side, then the ways that we operate on the criminal side can shift. I would start with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders. The notion that we are imposing felonies on them or sending them to prison, where they are getting advanced degrees in criminality, instead of thinking about ways like drug courts that can get them back on track in their lives -- it's expensive, it's counterproductive, and it doesn't make sense.


I've heard it said, and I agree, that this is a solid response from a mainstream politician on the presidential campaign trail. But I also think it simply reflects a realistic summary of what the centrist, mainstream view on U.S. drug policy sounds like. In other words, rather than commending Obama for not spouting tired war metaphors, let us welcome the new status quo.

We've reached a point at which this type of rhetoric is probably the most politically palatable perspective a serious candidate could offer. We've heard McCain making some similar points, and while I certainly won't be holding my breath, I think the possibility exists that we'll make it through the entire campaign without witnessing any serious controversy surrounding the concept that our drug war needs a major ideological makeover.

(This blog post was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)