<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
You'll get no argument out of me that the War on Drugs is a horrific
waste of time, money and energy. You will find no one in greater
opposition to national drug policy than in yours truly. Commenting on
what Bush has or has not learned is beyond my, and dare I say your,
ability to
know. But you bring up a particular hot button issue with me. I am an
anti-War on Drugs activist.<br>
<br>
Some facts are required here just to uncast aspersions. The
discriminatory drug laws you mention were signed into law by Bill
Clinton. Mandatory
sentencing imposed by congress was set in play in the 1980's under
Reagan, but one must concede that these laws were put on the books
while the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress. Spending on
drug treatment programs has
increased under the Bush administration a total of 21% through his
first term. This compares with a 25% increase over the Clinton second
term. The drug policy law enforcement budget increased 15% for
Bush
compared to a 25% increase for Clinton. It was also the Clinton
administration that moved $30 billion in drug control money from
Justice to Defense and Foreign Affairs budgets thereby minimizing the
"costs" to the Justice Dept. budget - a shell game that Congress has a
nasty habit of doing. Also noteworthy is the rate of
sentences for drug crimes as a percentage of total sentences has fallen
to around 55% from its high in 1995 of 60%. Bush's 2006 proposal
includes proportional increases for, treatment,
law enforcement and interdiction. However, he has proposed eliminating
the
"Safe Schools" program (previously the funding for D.A.R.E.) that was
enacted under Clinton and the efficacy of which is highly suspect
(beyond getting kids to turn in their pot growing parents to the local
constabulary.) There is also a reduction in block grants for state drug
law
enforcement but that has no effect on treatment. Additionally, the
Office of Drug Control Policy (ODCP)
has an official position to support alternative treatment programs in
lieu of incarceration and
"drug courts" at the state level. Under the proposed budget,
prevention research has been reduced, but that's after a 29% increase
in Bush's first term. If you can find different facts please share
them, but I see nothing in the current dialogue to substantiate your
claim of Bush's budget proposal. Ergo, the
folly of U.S. drug policy is bipartisan and is supported by an
overwhelming majority of both parties. <br>
<br>
With all that though, federal drug enforcement policy is a minor part
to the entire
problem of drug policy. For example, in 2003 about 80,000 prisoners
were held in federal prisons for drug crimes. That compares with well
over 250,000 held in state facilities. Remember too, that Federal law
enforcement rarely prosecutes anyone not subject to trafficking
statutes. Few federal prisoners are thus in the prime population for
which rehabilitation programs would be targeted. Hence, if complaints
are
to be made, they should more rightly be directed at the states rather
than
George Bush. It is true, however, that under John Ashcroft there has
been a concerted effort to arrest people otherwise complying with
various state's
medical marijuana statutes. This is wrong-headed and Bush deserves
blame. <br>
<br>
Greater context is in order at this point. Sometime around 1992, during
the height of the crack epidemic, the TV
show <b>Nightline</b> had a panel discussion that led to a national
debate on drug policy. If you'll recall, the then mayor of Baltimore
(I think) had called for the decriminalization of illegal drugs. The
debate has hence fallen out of the public conscienceless as Americans
tend to have the attention span of a gnat. On the right were
formidable conservative minds such as Buckley and Will. On the left,
an equally august group of notables including Jesse Jackson. The
conversation went against all conventional wisdom. Conservatives were
largely for the dismantling of the War on Drugs while the liberals
insisted that the war needed to continue to be waged but the systemic
racism was deleterious to minority communities. Importantly, this was
the genesis of the debate over treatment v
incarceration. <br>
<br>
In 1994 William F. Buckley, Jr. gave a now famous speech on the failure
of the War on Drugs to the New York Bar Association. It was largely
lauded by bar members but written off as political heresy by both the
left and the right. Politicians will not embrace a reduction in drug
enforcement. It makes them appear to be soft on crime. In last years
budget cycle Democrats and Republicans such as Carl Levin, Orin Hatch,
Joe Biden and Jeff Sessions all called for higher dollars for drug
enforcement. A few have encouraged greater spending on
treatment, but that's political doublespeak as the vast majority of
treatment programs are in the hands of the various states. Implementing
such would decrease the need for federal funding as the costs to the
states would ostensibly be reduced significantly. From the vantage
point of a non-partisan, it
is difficult to lay blame on the administration without equally laying
blame on the entire corpus politic. In following what remains of the
national debate,
conservatives are far more vocal in realizing the failure of the policy
than are progressives. The advocates of liberalized drug
policy?; Buckley, George Will, Milton Friedman, George Schultz, the
Cato Institution, and the editorial boards of <b>The National Review</b>
and <b>Reason Magazine</b> to name a few. <br>
<br>
Now let us think in terms of the economics. The federal budget, with
hidden expenditures in both the foreign relations and defense budgets,
spends about $50 billion per year on drug control policy. The states
cumulatively spend another $125 billion. This does not include the
cost of crime associated with the drug trade. In Buckley's 1994 speech
he estimated from various sources that the cost of crimes perpetrated
on citizens was $330 billion a year. That was in 1994. Assuming for
the sake of discussion that that value is true today, the total cost to
society exceeds of the federal budget deficit by about $90
billion. Meanwhile, overall drug use remains at record levels.<br>
<br>
Next, we must address the efficacy of rehabilitation programs. From a
cursory
view of its fiscal implications this seems like a no-brainer. The
annual
cost of incarceration is roughly $50,000 while a four week tour in a
rehab center runs about $10,000. However, according to the National
Mental Health Association the rate of recidivism is roughly 85%. Thus
the efficiency of funds spent on treatment is very low. Additionally,
the NMHA concedes that clinical programs are no more successful than
vanilla 12 step programs over the long term. It appears then, that
the push for treatment has an economic component for the mental health
industry that does not pass impartiality. After all, programs
supported by the state will have an dramatic impact on increasing
revenues for programs that are no more effective than the "$1 per
meeting toss in the basket" at AA or NA. The undeniable truth is
that drunks and addicts don't change their behavior until they decide
to and forced intervention is marginally effective at best. As in
Montana, if an offender fails
a prescribed drug treatment program he is remanded to the prison
system. The issue of who defines success is problematic. For
instance, if a juvenile does not show appropriate progress in drug
prevention classes as defined by the provider, the clinician will
recommend to the court that additional intervention is needed. Thus,
there is an economic incentive for the program providers to keep
juveniles in "the system." This not only has economic implications but
also removes jurisdiction of the offender from the courts to the health
care system. But if we are to approach the issue as a health
problem, then why are we collectively maintaining it as a criminal
affair? The upshot is the artificial bloating of an industry that does
not pass the edicts of supply and demand and produces a construct held
in some economic purgatory that is neither effective or efficient.
Therefor, is treatment a panacea? Not likely.<br>
<br>
The answer to this conundrum is to legalize drugs and control them with
a similar structure as we now do alcohol. Additionally, federal funds
might be well spent on broad public education programs. Now, don't get
me wrong. I
think addiction is a cancer on society. It destroys families and
lives. But we must face the failure in our policy. Terrorism is
substantially funded by profits from the drug trade. Those profits are
a direct consequence of black market economics. (So when you vote for
drug laws you vote for terrorism.) Afghani farmers would likely grow
food instead of opium and Colombians coffee instead of coca. Gang
related homicide would be greatly reduced and our prisons would expunge
350,000 inmates. Automatically the systemic racism of the current
policy would be made null. That is not to say that liberalization would
not have a downside. Drug usage would increase for a time until
society came to grips with the hazards. This, however, would become
reality as it has with the continual decrease in tobacco use. But the
current cure is far worse than the disease.<br>
<br>
Why then, if the facts are so apparent, do we not make the jump?
Because it is politically expedient for politicians to <i>contend</i>
that they are looking out for the public and keeping their greater
constituencies in the dark as to the costs and failures. With these
huge dollars also come political power. Political
expediency is not solely owned by George Bush and thinking so is
sophistry. <br>
<br>
I'll give W credit where credit is due and I'll criticize him when he's
due as well. It would serve the rest of us to lay blame in a far
broader swath - all partisanship aside. <br>
<br>
Dave Budge<br>
<br>
ps. I also lay blame on the baby-boom generation (yes, it includes me)
who has capitualted its idealism and ceded authority to government.
Just mind boggling. (and Hunter Thompson- RIP-would agree.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Joan Opyr wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="midBAY10-DAV14E0251390D4C21868A7BDC5610@phx.gbl">
<div>Dave Budge writes:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">"Bush quit drinking and he probably quit
drugging as well. <i>That</i>, is his redeeming virtue. I can tell
though that you may have difficulty understanding the difference
between virtues and values. You should spend some time with that.
You're proselytizing from the cheap seats on this issue."</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">I would agree with you, Dave, except for
the fact that Mr. Bush appears to have learned nothing from
his experience as an alcoholic and a drug user about tolerance, rehab,
detox, and treatment rather than incarceration for addicts. The
sentences for crack users (who tend to be the poor and/or minorities)
are still greater than for upper class white coke users. We put far
too many impoverished, black, native, and latino/latina addicts in
jail, and the current Bush budget will ensure that the already scarce
dollars now available for treatment become as rare as hen's teeth.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">FYI, I am not proselytizing from the cheap
seats. Would that I were. I grew up in a family of alcoholics. My
grandfather, with whom I lived during my teenaged years, was an
every-weekend binge drinker. My father was a coke user, a pothead, and
a small-time dealer. I've experienced the Al-Anon side of AA and the
pacing-the-floor concerned family members' side of detox. Once your
favorite resident drunk has again A) punched his wife in the mouth; B)
set fire to the dog; or C) wrecked your
birthday/Christmas/Hanukah/Thanksgiving/Easter/Fourth of July by
loading up the shotgun and threatening to shoot the first bastard who
dares to eat a deviled egg, I can only say that it's hard to be
sympathetic or supportive when he or she goes to AA to collect that
fourteenth white chip. All is not forgiven, and the well of sympathy
does run dry.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">And speaking of dry, dry drunks are often
more annoying that wet drunks. The narcissism is still there, but it's
channeled into intolerance and sanctimony. I'm sure you recall some
years back when Jeb Bush's daughter, Noelle, was arrested and placed in
detox. The Bush family asked that the press please respect
Noelle's privacy and that they be allowed to deal with her addiction as
a family. I would be all for that, were it not for the fact that Jeb,
the Governor of Florida, and his brother, the President, did not and do
not accord that same degree of privilege to other users. Other users
are incarcerated. Other users can never again qualify for federal
student financial aid. Any number of obstacles are thrown up in their
paths to ensure that they remain forever on the fringes of society,
never able to join that magical 15% who get clean and sober and build a
worthwhile life. (Or, alternatively, get elected.)</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">Yes, it's remarkable that George W.
Bush got sober. It's horrible, immoral, and tragic that he then chose
to embrace hypocrisy for the sake of political advancement.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#000000">Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment <br>
</font></div>
<br clear="all">
<hr>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : <a
href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br>
<pre wrap=""><hr width="90%" size="4">
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>