Study: U.S. Losing War on Drugs |
Posted by FoM on June 26, 2001 at 18:38:40 PT By Stephanie K. Taylor Source: United Press International The United States is losing the war on drugs because of the shortcomings and failures of current U.S. drug policy, says a recent report from a major think tank. U.S. policy, which is focused on interdiction and incarceration, has failed to reduce the availability of drugs, while forcing U.S. anti-drug institutions to watch helplessly as street prices of illegal substances mysteriously fell, said the report. The report's author Peter Reuter -- a drug policy analyst with the RAND Institute and the founder and former director of RAND's Drug Policy Research Center -- said that this failure occurred despite a more than threefold increase in allotted drug war spending, from $10 billion annually in the 1980s to $35 billion in the late 1990s. The paper, "Supply-Side Drug Control," published in the Milken Institute Review in May, said that three-fourths of that $35 billion (of which $18 billion is spent by the federal government and the rest spent by state and local governments), is spent on apprehending and punishing drug dealers and users. Most of the people who are incarcerated for drug selling are from the bottom level of the distribution system, the report said. The report acknowledges the success of the enforcement policy in keeping the price of drugs high. It cites operations researcher Jonathan Caulkins, who estimates that, if legal, cocaine might retail for as little as $5 a gram. It currently retails for $100 a gram. It currently costs $10,000 to ship a kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cocaine from Bogota, Colombia, to Miami, but if cocaine were legal, Federal Express would charge only a $100, Reuter said. "The real question, though, is not whether interdiction raises the price of illicit drugs, but whether it is possible through tougher enforcement to make the drugs much more expensive and less accessible than they are now," Reuter wrote. "And to date, smugglers' adaptability has limited the success of interdiction surges." So, although the drug problem is "gradually lessening," Reuter said that this has been accomplished at great cost through many dimensions. Reuter is not alone in his low appraisal of current U.S. drug policy. Think tank scholars on both sides of the political spectrum acknowledge the limitations of the current policy, and experts from both the right and left say the U.S. needs to begin to look at the drug problem as a public health problem and not a criminal problem. Timothy Lynch, director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the libertarian Cato Institute, says even government officials see limitations of the current policy. "Well, we've maintained for a long time that the government's efforts have been quite ineffective," Lynch says. "And most government officials who are candid will admit this." Sanho Tree, director of the Drug Policy Project at the liberal Institute for Policy Studies, agrees that the current enforcement-based policy has been ineffective in curtailing the U.S. drug problem. "Perhaps there is some level of coercion that would work, but I seriously doubt that we would want to live in that type of society," Tree said, citing the Iranian government as an example. Lynch cites corruption within law enforcement units, drug overdose-related deaths, and addicts' petty thefts to finance their habits as a few of society's ills that have resulted from an enforcement-based drug policy. Law enforcement units not only turn a blind eye to illegal activity as a result of bribery, but perform official duties such as arrests and search and seizures to aid gangs in the current atmosphere of gang rivalry. What's Lynch's standard libertarian answer to these criminal justice and public health challenges? The decriminalization of drugs. "We have to have a whole new approach to the problem of drug abuse," Lynch says. "Should somebody go to jail just for using drugs? No." And some liberals can understand Lynch's reasoning. "Prohibition doesn't mean that we control drugs, but that we have given up the right to control drugs," Tree says. Lynch says that in a legal regime the so-called black market violence that results from gang rivalry would decrease, along with the number of petty crimes addicts commit to finance their habits, and that drugs would be much less expensive. Lynch also thinks there would be significant improvements in public health. The legalization of drugs would allow the government to regulate the quality of drugs, reducing the number of overdose deaths that result from impure products, Lynch says, and addicts would no longer be forced to share needles that can transmit HIV. However, Sally Satel, M.D., the W. H. Brady fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, warns of more addicts and the social pathology that she believes would result with the decriminalization of hard drugs. Satel acknowledges legitimate concerns about the current drug policy. However, based on her experience as a staff psychiatrist at the Oasis Drug Treatment Clinic in Washington, she is more worried about the massive trade-offs -- more users addicted to cheaper and easier-to-obtain drugs--that she thinks would be brought by decriminalization. "Maybe there are some aspects of the current system that we can save," Satel says. Tree does not think decriminalization is necessarily the solution to the current policy woes, although he does see the need to regulate drugs. He believes there are a variety of policy options between prohibition and legalization that should be tested. Top priority, however, should be universal treatment on request, he says. Insufficient funding sometimes forces clinics to turn away addicts for several months, Tree says, and they may or may not return months later for help. Treatment programs seem to very popular with think tank scholars, and Satel also supports an increased focus on diverting addicts to treatment. Although he does not think they are the sole solution, Reuter writes that treatment programs have proven themselves effective and are also desirable in terms of benefit to cost. While most of them support treatment, think tanks analysts say that the other leg of demand-based policy--prevention programs--are currently unsuccessful. Reuter's report criticizes the DARE program -- which is ubiquitous in schools across the country -- and he is doubtful about the effectiveness of any type of prevention program. "There is no reason to believe that we know how to immunize kids against drug abuse," he writes. Tree would also like to see the DARE program abandoned. Although he doesn't know exactly what type of program should replace it, he believes the government should experiment with a variety of approaches. Think tank scholars on all sides of the ideological debate seem to realize the ineffectiveness of current U.S. drug policy, but most are uncertain about what steps to take to fix the problem. "I don't know what an ideal drug policy would like," Tree says, "but I know what the contours of such a policy would look like." It would be based on European models, but adapted to fit with the cultural differences in the U.S., he says. Tree is dissatisfied with what he sees as a lack of flexibility to explore new approaches to drug policy. "Our current policy doesn't work, but we're not being allowed to experiment with what might," he says. Source: United Press International Related Article & Web Sites: Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/ RAND Corporation: http://www.rand.org/ Institute for Policy Studies: http://www.ips-dc.org/ Colombia Drug War News: http://freedomtoexhale.com/colombia.htm RAND: U.S. Should Help Colombian Military: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10005.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #8 posted by dddd on June 28, 2001 at 23:49:36 PT |
weird non-toker... .............................I appreciate and enjoy reading your simplistic Thank You d [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #7 posted by frances on June 28, 2001 at 23:15:09 PT:
|
Gentle Tokers: We are once again being regaled by our old friend Peter (Reuter), who never met a drug war he hasn't proclaimed "lost." "Peter, Peter, drug war eater." [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by mayan on June 27, 2001 at 16:57:09 PT |
We're losing the war on drugs? Golly Gee.....ya' think? BWAAAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #5 posted by Monvor on June 27, 2001 at 14:55:06 PT |
President Nixon's commitee on drug policy told him back in the late 60s that the criminal approach was never going to work. They said that cannabis should be legalized. Nixon did not like that recommendation and the media suppressed that view and has ever since. US drug policy has been, is, and will continue to be based on political agendas, not facts. Did we really need another study? How many studies do you need? Until it becomes popular on capitol hill to discuss things like helping poor black inter-city drug users instead of jailing them, the politicians will continue their inane babble about the WoD. We do not need a study to tell us when that will be. On a more grassroots level: I thought it was funny today when I dropped in on one of my teenage children at school today. The kids were cutting out cannabis leafs from green construction paper. Surprised, I asked what was going on and they said that it was drug awareness week. Wanting to send a good "message to the children", I said, "Legalize it!" and winked at the teacher. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #4 posted by aocp on June 27, 2001 at 05:07:27 PT |
"Prohibition doesn't mean that we control drugs, but that we have given up the right to control drugs," Tree says. Couple that with the fact that intoxication is going to [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #3 posted by Phyro_the _Dragon on June 26, 2001 at 21:51:09 PT |
Looks like Rand Punched a Big hole in there Battle ship ( W.o.D )it seems that the Anti's Are starting to panic now. We Will WiN [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #2 posted by lookinside on June 26, 2001 at 19:35:50 PT:
|
want kids to avoid drugs, they need to look at the negative, ineffective ways they have approached ALL drugs...they allow tobacco and beer companies to advertise freely(and don't tell me about the demise of joe camel)...mixed messages DON'T WORK...only TRUTH works... the same mistakes are made with "illegal" restoration of our constitutional rights and RIGID adherance an employer has every right not to hire a toker, smoker, community standards are what work most we will always have those who are prone to substance moderate use of recreational drugs in the proper settings [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 26, 2001 at 19:04:45 PT |
We've known all along it's a stupid war, not only here but the rest of the world sees this foolish US drug war. This is really smart. ["Prohibition doesn't mean that we control drugs, but that we have given up the right to control drugs," Tree says.] All you hear from the anti's are their fears. ["There is no reason to believe that we know how to immunize kids against drug abuse," he writes.] Using kids to dictate policy is, I'm sorry, I can't use the words I'm thinking for these lower life forms. How about we give the kids high IQ shots to keep them immunized from the anti's? [Tree is dissatisfied with what he sees as a lack of flexibility to explore new approaches to drug policy. "Our current policy doesn't work, but we're not being allowed to experiment with what might," he says.] America's the land of the free, yeah okay. [ Post Comment ] |
Post Comment | |