Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Police, Judges Among Drug War Critics at Conference
October 2, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

The U.S.'s 40-year "War on Drugs" has been "probably the greatest public-policy failure of all time" according to former federal drug agent Terry Nelson, just one of the many drug-war critics who gathered at a recent conference in El Paso, Texas to discuss alternatives to the current approach to drug policy.

The San Antonio Express-News reported Sept. 28 that the conference was hosted by the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) and attracted academics, drug experts, journalists, and law-enforcement officials from the U.S. and Mexico. "After 40 years and all the money spent, with U.S. consumption as high as ever, people languishing in prison for possession of soft drugs like marijuana and the violence in Mexico worse than ever, it seems to me that something has to change," said UTEP professor Kathleen Staudt.

Nelson said that legalizing and regulating drugs, along with education, would be the logical alternative. Others noted that addiction treatment is far more cost-effective than incarceration.

"We cannot repeal the law of supply and demand," said Orange County, Calif., Judge James Gray. "Maybe we should stop being moralists and start being managers."

The Obama administration's drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, was invited to attend but declined at the last minute, according to organizers. However, the Drug Enforcement Administration's intelligence chief, Anthony Placido, presented a rigorous defense of the current policy and the argument against legalization.

"Ultimately what we are talking about is the obligation of the state to protect its citizens," said Placido. "It's about mind-altering substances that destroy human life and create the violence you see only a few blocks from here ... We went to war after 9-11 when 3,100 people were killed. Thirty-eight thousand die every year in this country from drugs."

El Paso is just across the border from Cuidad Juarez, Mexico, which has been wracked by violence associated with the government's crackdown on the country's powerful drug cartels. Mexico also recently decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs, which some advocates at the conference called for the U.S. to do, as well.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported Sept. 28 that El Paso councilman Beto O'Rourke has called for an open discussion of drug-policy reform. "We have a front-row seat to a failed policy," O'Rourke said. "There are a lot of things we can do differently, and one of the things is pursue a model of decriminalization of some drugs."

The conference plan originated last year after El Paso Mayor John Cook vetoed a unanimously approved City Council resolution calling for "an honest, open national debate on ending the prohibition of narcotics." U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) told local lawmakers that the resolution could threaten federal funding for the city.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Bert on 05 Oct 09 10:01 AM EDT
Drugs should be manufactured by reliable companies who would be responsible for the products they produce. This is of course not the case today as a dealer will disappear immediately as soon as they have made the sale of a product that has been diluted and adulterated with dubious chemicals. We have to stop the businesses that sell machine guns to the drug traffickers, there are 12,000 all along the border with Mexico selling. The more profits the drug traffickers make the more advanced weaponry that can purchase and the more violent the battle becomes. Problem is no one wants to do anything, they know what has to be done! Drugs legal = less crime. Drugs legal = more police for dangerous crime. Drugs legal = addicts can be treated as humans and not animals or criminals. Drugs legal = tax benefits for the government (and possibly society). Drugs illegal = crime, misery, distrust and a lack of humanity.

Posted by Lew Bryson on 05 Oct 09 10:31 AM EDT
Fighting the war on drugs is one thing, but lying about it is another. Let's be honest: the serious violence in the war on drugs takes place BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. Junkies don't assassinate police officers or engage in street gunfights. The truth is horrific enough.

Posted by FR on 05 Oct 09 10:50 AM EDT
Bert is so right! As a behavioral healthcare professional and a person in recovery, I strongly support legalization. I had hoped that Obama's administration would move us away from prohibition (history proves it does not work) and into legalization of all drugs--not just alcohol, nicotine, and prescribed medications. I continue to hope for such a move.

Posted by Jason Blanchette on 05 Oct 09 12:05 PM EDT
Experts have said for years that we need to place more resources into demand reduction than supply reduction. Without the proper amount of demand reduction, supply reduction raises the prices for drugs and allows for more profit, and increases the number of people who are willing to risk jail for the pay of drug dealing/smuggling. It would be guaranteed to be exactly what we've seen it to be, a war that seems to be going nowhere. Politicians ignored those experts. Now some people are surprised that placing most of our efforts into reducing drug supply hasn't worked out as well as planned. Supply reduction has an extremely important place in addiction prevention, but it's below demand reduction.

Posted by Anonymous on 05 Oct 09 12:56 PM EDT
"Drug Enforcement Administration's intelligence chief, Anthony Placido, presented a rigorous defense of the current policy and the argument against legalization. "Ultimately what we are talking about is the obligation of the state to protect its citizens," said Placido. "It's about mind-altering substances that destroy human life and create the violence you see only a few blocks from here ... We went to war after 9-11 when 3,100 people were killed. Thirty-eight thousand die every year in this country from drugs." How do these drug warrior moralizers remain in office? Tobacco kills 400,000 per year, alcohol 100K, obesity 300K, doctors and pharmacists messing up our prescriptions another 100k. These "recreational drugs" are made by untrained chemists in jungle labs then "cut" by the gangs with household products before they are sold to our kids in back rooms and alley ways by armed gangsters. There is no basis to this drug war, no attachment to reality whatsoever. Legalize and kill bin Ladens cash cow, destroy the cartels and eliminate the reason for which most violent US gangs exist for... or pour more hundreds of billions down the drug war toilet.

Posted by Profbam on 05 Oct 09 01:31 PM EDT
Put simply, "prohibition" does not work. Never has and never will. The data on alcohol consumption for the last century shows that there was a tremendous, ~50% drop, in consumption of alcohol BEFORE the 18th Amendment passed. That is, social pressure that drove passage also drove down drinking. Therefore: legalize, regulate, and invest in social pressure and education.

Posted by CJM on 05 Oct 09 01:32 PM EDT
Another disappointment (I thought we voted for CHANGE!) There is no truthful, logical, academic, cost-effective reason to support the current policy. IT DOESN'T WORK! Be honest Placido. If it was about mind-altering substances that destroy human life and create the violence, then why is alcohol legal? How does marajuana destroy human life and creates violence? And to use the 2003 police action as an example - PLEEZ! Yes, 3,100 people were killed. Now over 4,000 troops are dead along with tens of thousands of innocent people. That "war" wasn't truthful, logical, academic, or cost-effective either.

Posted by Ken Wolski, RN on 05 Oct 09 10:41 PM EDT
The War on Drugs is an expensive and counterproductive failure. It is the worst foreign and domestic policy this country has ever had--worse than Prohibition and Vietnam combined. The only thing the War on Drugs has ever been successful at is perpetuating itself as an institution.

Posted by Paul Scott on 06 Oct 09 06:21 AM EDT
The so-called War on Drugs has not included the biggest killers, the legal (for adults) drugs of alcohol and tobacco. Why are they not included? Perhaps it is because of the taxes generated by the sales and use of them. Would making illegal drugs legal and regulating them make them safer to use? The fallacy of this thinking is sweeping the country when, instead, one should consider what happens when a substance is made legal. In the case of both alcohol and tobacco, the number of premature deaths is horrendous and this is largely due to the fact that with legality comes the feeling that it is alright to use. The stigma of illegality still exists. Would we want crack cocaine and heroin sold at our neighborhood convenience stores? I for one would not nor do I agree to legalizing the use of such drugs.

Posted by Peter Wolczuk on 06 Oct 09 01:30 PM EDT
I think that what we have here is a case of "insufficient data." Just because the war on drugs isn't winning (at this point) doesn't mean that it hasn't prevented an increased spread. People who opt for rehab to get out of outside unpleasant things (family pressure, prison,etc.) instead of inner unpleasantries (the pain of active addiction) have a lower success rate and disrupt the program for others. I have personally experienced this when I was in a rehab and have seen several of these people afterward. Shuffling in and out of drug houses when I drove taxi and coming up to me to ask for money and cigarettes. When they ask for money for food I buy them food and, at all times, encourage them to keep on trying. Is the war on drugs a limited success by preventing a rampant spread? I don't know and I feel that it is a courageous act by those who also admit it. What I do know is that I am unwilling to lay down and die in front of this destructive juggernaut and I am also unwilling to support society to do so. Yes, we need more and better facilities but, we also need to protect society enough so that this can be done. We have a world wide pandemic and need to take it seriously.

Posted by Brinna Nanda on 07 Oct 09 01:44 AM EDT
"the war on drugs isn't winning (at this point)..." The war on drugs is a farce, and there is no point at which it will be won. To prohibit a substance which is taken by a consenting adult of their own accord is terrible interference by the government into our lives and privacy. The rational for this behavior is fraught with hypocrisy and downright lies. Think a moment: if we truly cared about saving lives, we would ban hand guns. Do we?

Posted by Dr. John on 08 Oct 09 01:22 AM EDT
I have worked in addiction treatment and research for over 35 years, and I would agree that our War on Drugs has been a partial failure. But the fact is that drug abuse by our kids is at an all-time low. That's a good thing. Legalized drugs, and that just means more access for our kids. I could care less what adults do. Well, not really. If our country still had a moral compass, we wouldn't need to ban drugs. People would make wise choices based on the Judeo-Christian values that we, as a society, are shedding faster than dirty underwear. And without that foundation, laws or not, it's not a pretty picture.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines