Just Say No to Drug Wars

We’re all kidding ourselves if we still think that the war on drugs is ever going to accomplish anything.  It isn’t easy for me to say this, because everything I’ve ever done professionally was about a duty to uphold laws that were written to take drugs and the people involved with them out of mainstream society.  None of it is working and maybe it’s time to face the simple truth that it’s isn’t going to work.   I think we should surrender and make drugs legal.

Mexico released what the country considered good news this week – that the numbers of drug related murders had fallen for the first five months of 2012.  From 2011’s total of 16,800 deaths to a projected 12,000 for 2012, Mexico touted this as a positive thing.  Since President Calderon took office in 2006, 47,515 people have been murdered because of drug trafficking.  They were cartel leaders,  drug dealers and mules, politicians and police officers who refused to be bribed, or simply innocent bystanders.  The United States is responsible for these deaths, too – something which became more apparent during the recent battle over “Operation Fast and Furious”.

Fast and Furious is just one of the missions, along with Operation Wide Receiver, designed and administered by the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which came under the umbrella “Project Gunrunner”, beginning in 2006.  The goal of these projects was to locate and follow members of Mexican drug cartels by selling weapons to arms’ traffickers who would, in turn, sell them to the drug gangs – a concept known as “gunwalking”.    The guns, some of which are military grade, would serve as tracking devices which would lead law enforcement to the bad guys.  “Project Gunrunner” was and is an epic failure.   Out of the nearly 4,000 firearms which were sold, several hundred are missing and a couple of hundred have been recovered at the sites of drug related killings, including that of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

It isn’t just the number of murders that provide the evidence that drugs and drug dealers are winning.  The financial resources expended on this are equally staggering.   The United States spends an estimated $215 billion per year for enforcement of the laws, care and housing of prisoners and administrative costs – enough money to provide health care for 30 million of its’ citizens.

That’s not the only money that is involved, nor is it the largest amount.   Between 2004 and 2007, Wachovia Bank laundered approximately $378 billion in drug money.   Bank officials said that they had no idea that the problem was that bad, even though several employees from within the institution did everything they could to bring it to anyone’s and everyone’s attention.  Those employees were either let go, threatened or ignored.  When Wells Fargo assumed the liabilities of Wachovia after the takeover,  the new banking giant paid a mere $160 million in fines and penalties, and the problem went away.  It’s always a matter of following the money, and drug trafficking is no different – right down to having some powerful and influential co-conspirators in business suits and ties.

The United States learned a hard lesson during the Prohibition Era.  If people couldn’t legally buy what they wanted, they would find a way to get it elsewhere or make it themselves.  That time in our history also resulted in criminal conspiracies, the appropriation and distribution of  illegal substances and murders.  What is going on today, with the drug trade, however, makes the St. Valentine’s Day massacre look like child’s play.

Perhaps this country should stop fighting this particular vice and just do what it did with alcohol 80 years ago.   The United States found itself in the business of booze.  The country could regulate the way it was made, sold and distributed – and it could be taxed.   It’s safer, it’s controlled and it’s profitable.  The same thing could be done with those drugs now considered to be harmful and illegal.  If you take the profit out of the hands of the cartels and put it into the coffers of the government, you’re way ahead of the game.  It wouldn’t have an impact only on homicide statistics, either.  Burglaries, robberies, car thefts and assaults, among other crimes, would all drop as a result.   If we want to address the drug problem, then maybe a good way to start is to stop making it a problem.  Whatever steps the country takes in this direction certainly couldn’t make it any worse.

Empress

This entry was posted in In The News, Politics, Trials and The Law. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Just Say No to Drug Wars

  1. Jake From State Farm says:

    It looks like some of us are taking small steps over to the libertarian side of the street.

    I have believed in legalizing most drugs for a long time now. The exception (to me) are serious operating room level medications.

    I would rather provide free rehab to those who genuinely want to get off drugs. And certainly free mental health services for the thousands of self medicating street people – many who are schizophrenic.

    If someone wants to live their life in a fog … well then go for it. Just don’t drive while you are high or steal my car stereo.

    • “It looks like some of us are taking small steps over to the libertarian side of the street.” 🙂 I’ve been having my own little debate about this for some time now and I’ve finally convinced myself that we’re just shoveling s**t against the tide at this point.

  2. kerryokie says:

    Well said, Empress, I totally agree. We need to reevaluate our approach to this issue instead of doing the same old things (which aren’t working) over and over again. What’s the definition of crazy? It’s way past time for a change.

  3. MaggieG says:

    Kudos for tackling this debate. I tend to see legalization as a positive attempt to control & profit from what is already a lifestyle for a sector of society. Because the nay sayers have projected that the costs of such action would outweigh the benefits, it would be helpful to get honest look at the figures/projections.

    If memory serves, CA voters rejected the legalization of marijuana because it was labeled (& evidently accepted as) a gateway drug. Again, unless the figures can be made transparent, it wouldn’t be the first time that scare tactics are used to skew the debate.

    Thank you for a thought provoking topic.

    • The notion that marijuana is a gateway drug is a clear attempt to misinform and employ scare tactics. About 9-10% of casual users of marijuana become addicted, compared to 32% of tobacco users. It depends, in large part, on the addictive personality of the user – anyone can become addicted to anything if they’re so inclined.
      If there is an argument to be made for it as a “gateway drug”, it’s at the point between buyer and seller. In order for the street dealer to increase sales and profits, other substances are offered – cocaine (17% addiction rate), heroin (23% rate of addiction), etc. Those successful sales promotions by the seller together with the higher likelihood of addiction from those drugs are what keeps a buyer/user coming back for more. Selling bags of grass alone isn’t going to do it. A steady flow of repeat customers requires addiction. – just ask Phillip Morris.

  4. FLG (Mr. Tigre's Butler) says:

    It’s time to end the “war” on drugs. It was started to protect the alcohol producers and keep the alcohol taxes coming into the state and federal coffers. They certainly didn’t want the population turning to something they could grow themselves after prohibition ended. We’ve managed to become a country with more of its citizens in jails and prisons than any other industrialized country in the world. Every election cycle knee jerk laws are passed so those running for office can “prove” that they are tough on something. There is little if any long term planning anymore. There is now a huge problem in allowing legitimate chronic pain patients access to pain medications that allow them to continue to be productive members of society. For those patients, well controlled and properly monitored addiction is reasonable from a humanitarian and overall societal point of view. Doctors are afraid to prescribe for fear of prosecution and revocation of their DEA and Medical licenses. Is there abuse? Yes, but there is a lot more money for “drug wars” than there is for treatment for those who are improperly taking Rx as well as street drugs. The DEA seems to be practicing medicine w/o a license. As Susan Powter says “Stop the Insanity”.

  5. FLG (Mr. Tigre's Butler) says:

    If random drug testing is such a great idea for the population at large, why are we not requiring the same of our local, state and federal representatives?

    • Probably for the same reason that failure to pay one’s taxes, misuse public monies and other basic bad behaviors don’t apply. They make the laws and most are written to exempt them.

Comments are closed.