On April 8, 2012, the
Editor/Publisher at BuzzFlash@Truthout, my good friend Mark Karlin, published a
column entitled "The US War on Drug Cartels in Mexico Is a Deadly
Failure" (1). In his column he noted that: "Approximately 50,000 or
more Mexicans have been killed since Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched
a so-called war on drug cartels. (In a recent appearance in Toronto, Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta claimed 150,000 people have died in the drug war in
Mexico, but the timeline Panetta was referring to was unclear, as was the
origin of the figure he cited.)." Mark went on to say: "Here is the
US policy in a nutshell: we pay Mexicans to kill Mexicans, and this slaughter
has no effect on drug shipments or prices." Nor on the use of those drugs
in the United States, which has generally not significantly changed over the
40-plus years of the "War" (2).
Over the years I have
written at length on this subject in the academic literature (2). The "War
on Drugs" has never been such a thing. From its inauguration by Pres.
Richard Nixon it has always been a "War on Certain Users of Certain
Drugs", for the most part minority drug users at that, although some
non-minorities do get caught up in its tentacles. The so-called War on Drugs
was begun shortly after the invention of the race-based "Southern
Strategy" that has controlled the fortunes of the GOP and unfortunately
the country for most of the time since Nixon installed it.
The correctly labeled
"War on Drug Users" has primarily been a racist enterprise too. It
has been aimed at the users of one minor class of the Recreational Mood
Altering Drugs (RMADs), those that are currently "illicit" (as
alcohol was nationally between 1920 and 1933. But Prohibition was for the most
part actually aimed at the drug, ethyl alcohol, not at the users.) Although the
ratios have declined a bit in the last few years, for most of its duration
under the War on Drug Users, while approximately 75% of those in prison for
drug-related offenses are non-white approximately 75% of illicit-drug users are
white. Further, the War on Drug Users has been race-based in terms of the
neighborhoods in which it has been waged.
The commonly used RMADs are
alcohol, nicotine in tobacco, prescription drugs used on a non-prescription
basis, and the "illicits," primarily marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and
fairly recently, methamphetamine. In terms of negative outcomes of RMAD use,
for example, tobacco-use still kills about 430,000 people per year and alcohol
between 60,000 and 100,000, depending upon how one counts. As of the turn of
the century, in this country the illicits killed about 20,000, half that number
as a result of drug-trade violence that would not exist absent the War on Drug
Users and some of the other half due to forced unsterile use of the injectable
drugs. Further, tobacco and alcohol are not only the major drug killers but
they are the "starter drugs," most often in childhood, for almost
every user of them in adult life and almost every user of the illicits,
regardless of age.
However, logic has not
ended the War on Drug Users. Neither has the mainstream drug policy reform
movement which views RMAD use as the same false duality the Drug Warriors do.
Logic did not end Prohibition either. Over-riding policy concerns did: rampant
crime on the one hand and a major need for new tax revenues to deal with the
Depression on the other. Major funding for the final Repeal campaign of the
early 1930s came from a John D. Rockefeller-lead group of financiers who wanted
to prevent any increases in income tax levels that an incoming Democratic
Administration might enact.
There is a major series of
problems that could be addressed by ending the War on Drug Users and legalizing
the illicits. First, all of the ever-rising toll of "drug-war" related
death, both in the U.S. and abroad, would be brought to an end. Second, a major
new source of tax revenues would be created. The prison population would be
significantly reduced, resulting in significant reductions in Federal, state
and local spending on incarceration. Doing so would significantly unclog the
courts, especially at the Federal level where they are so over-burdened with
drug cases that the waits for trials on much more important matters, especially
in the civil realm, can become interminable.
Third, there would be a
significant reduction in the demands on the law enforcement sector of
government, which could either save money or enable the diversion of resources
to other important areas, such as financial fraud, that do not always receive
the attention they deserve. The Taliban would be largely defunded. Finally, the
recognition of the unitary nature of RMAD use would enable for the first time a
comprehensive public health program to deal with all of the negative aspects of
that use, especially among children for whom, as noted, it is the major licit
drugs which are the stepping stones both to later habitual, damaging use of
them, and, currently, to the use of the illicits.
But again, this is all
logic, which increasingly has less place in politics. There are major
stakeholders in maintaining the current War on Drug Users who would have to be
dealt with, and that would not be so easy. Many politicians of both parties, if
given the chance would just love to run on the "soft-on-drugs" issue.
Although the tobacco industry has reportedly for many years registered a
variety of names to use in the case of the legalization of marijuana, the
alcohol industry would not welcome the competition from RMADs that produce
results similar to those achieved by its products (but without the associated
problems of drunk driving and drunk shooting). Both the private prison industry
and the workers in major prison systems would be negatively affected by
legalization. (In California, for example, the prison guards union contributed
to the campaign against a Proposition that would have legalized marijuana.) The
powerful drug cartels, politically well-connected in certain countries, also
have an interest in maintaining their very profitable enterprise. As for the
non-prescription use of the prescription drugs (the latter of which has been a
much more serious problem than the use of heroin and cocaine combined), a
variety of approaches could be explored. The non-prescription use of
illegally-produced methamphetamine (a prescription drug) presents a
particularly serious problem.
This all would have be
combined with a major public-health based anti- and safe-RMAD use program,
combining tax policy, controls on advertising, packaging, and marketing, and
effective education programs for both adults and children. The result would be
a much healthier nation, in many senses. Since finding sources of new
government revenues in the face of ever-increasing deficits has become such a
major concern and since certain major foreign policy aims could be achieved so
easily, now is the time to begin developing strategies and tactics for ending
the War on Drug Users, once and for all. To deal with the Real Drug Problem,
that caused by the use of alcohol and tobacco products, reform policy would
have to go way beyond the current narrow "legalize marijuana" focus
of the current drug policy reform movement. But if it were couched in the terms
of saving money as well as saving lives, success just might be possible to
achieve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. (http://truth-
out.org/news/item/8371-the-us-war-on-drug-cartels-in-mexico-is-a-
deadly-failure).
2. Jonas, S., "The Public Health Approach to
the Prevention of Substance Abuse," chapter 70 in Lowinson, J., et al,
Eds., Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook, 2nd ed., Baltimore, MD:
Williams and Wilkins, 1992; chapter 77 in the 3rd ed., Baltimore,
MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1997; chap. 79 in the 4th ed., Baltimore, MD:
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2004.
Addendum: One commentator
on the column as published on the BuzzFlash@Truthout website had this to say: " We need the drug laws to use against individuals who are
otherwise a threat to society."
Indeed. A common argument from
the Drug Warriors and an excellent rationale for prohibition of tobacco and
alcohol, each far more destructive to society than all of the illicits put
together.