|
|
| A War Worth Fighting |
|
Posted by FoM on September 04, 2001 at 21:47:31 PT By William J. Bennett Source: Washington Post 
In his Aug. 26 op-ed column, David S. Broder argues for a "reexamination" of the war on drugs. Fair enough. But if the reexamination is to be done on the premise that the past is a record of failure, then let's begin by reexamining some facts.The drug war, when it was being waged, worked. Between 1979 and 1992, drug use in this country decreased 60 percent. The price of drugs increased and their purity decreased. That is not a failure; that is the definition of public policy success. There has been recent quibbling over whether the decline was attributable to public policy or a changing culture. I would submit that both were involved. Effective interdiction and law enforcement played a role, as did prevention and treatment. And much of the prevention effort -- such as the powerful advertisements by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America -- was aimed at making drugs less fashionable. Policy can affect the culture; the realms are not entirely separate. Very few people are imprisoned for simple possession of drugs. Broder wonders how many people are imprisoned for simple possession of marijuana. It is a fair question, and one to which I wish we had the answer. But since those data are not available, Broder cites statistics that show state prisons hold 236,800 drug offenders. He thus implies that many or most of these are in jail for possession. That is emphatically not the case: Only 27 percent of drug offenders in state prisons are convicted of possession. And it is only a fraction of this 27 percent who are imprisoned for possession of marijuana. Overall, the vast majority of state drug offenders are imprisoned for trafficking. On the federal level, the number of people imprisoned for possession is even smaller. According to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only one percent of all federal drug convictions in 1999 were for possession. More than half of those convicted of simple possession had prior convictions. In fact, more than a quarter faced additional charges -- ranging from firearms to fraud or theft to assorted motor vehicle crimes. And for those possession-only offenders, the average sentence was 15.8 months -- a far cry from the 74-month average for those convicted of trafficking. Moreover, it is very likely that many of those convicted of possession -- in both state and federal prisons -- have pleaded down from more serious offenses. This is indicated by the recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report, which pointed out that almost all possession convictions are the result of guilty pleas (98.5 percent) and that there were more convictions for possession than there were suspects for possession (1,038 convictions vs. 785 suspects) in the period covered. Many state initiatives are thinly veiled attempts to legalize drugs. Broder himself knows this, for he once wrote about the Arizona initiative, which had the effect of legalizing not only marijuana, but more than a hundred other drugs -- "including," as Broder wrote, "LSD, heroin, and PCP." Broder quoted Peter Sperling, one of the major financial backers of pro-drug initiatives, as saying, "We want to medicalize all of [these drugs] -- and not be namby-pamby." Peter Schrag, a journalist sympathetic to legalization cited in Broder's piece, admitted that opponents of medical marijuana, for example, are "probably . . . correct" in seeing this as the start of the "slippery slope toward the decriminalization of other drugs." Medicalization is a code word for legalization, something that Americans fortunately still oppose in large, though slightly decreasing, numbers. Efforts to treat drug use as simply a medical problem -- e.g., Proposition 36 in California last year -- are doomed to failure for two reasons. First, they fail to take into account the role that law enforcement plays in decreasing the amount of drugs on the street and providing a simple reason for people -- especially children -- to refrain from using drugs. Second, they undermine the idea of coercive treatment. Success in treatment is often a function of longevity in treatment, and longevity of treatment is often a function of whether one is coerced into entering -- and staying in -- treatment. If we remove criminal sanctions, we disarm ourselves of a key weapon in fighting drug addiction. I am not opposed to new ideas in the war on drugs; I am not opposed to a "reexamination" by journalists such as David Broder. But in so doing let's keep the above facts in mind. From 1979 to 1992, we made some real progress in the effort against illegal drugs. We can do so again. Or things can get worse, much worse -- and they will, if we heed the siren call of legalization. The writer, co-director of Empower America, was in charge of drug policy for President George H. W. Bush in 1989-90. Source: Washington Post (DC) Related Article: A Debatable War on Drugs - David S. Broder CannabisNews Justice Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #13 posted by rabblerouser on September 07, 2001 at 04:03:55 PT |
| I watched a program on television some 10 years ago or so. iIt has been too long now to remember which one The program was about the drug war and what could and should be done. Bill Bennet was a guest and during the program he admitted to having difficulty in stopping smoking. I would call that an addiction. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #12 posted by freedom fighter on September 06, 2001 at 23:23:44 PT |
| to keep on killing folks just because he choose to abstain and feel so insecured that others are not like him.. Sick! "Freedom is just another word for choices" ??? To some extent, one does not have the freedom to rob, rape, kill, invade someone, or to turn one's child into a snitch! Bastard! ff [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #11 posted by Peter on September 06, 2001 at 17:46:36 PT |
| I used to be a big watcher of MacNeil-Lehrer News hour on PBS, and grew to hate Bill Bennett, who inexplicably to me was a frequent guest, with a passion. I agree with all the posted comments to his disinformation piece in the Post. I don't quite understand what drives him or his kind. He and others like him are America's Taliban. I think it's easy to tear apart his column point by point, probably most readers here already know that. I would say its good to avoid hating where possible - Bill Bennett is a good reason to hate something or someone. I didn't know he was a tobacco user, that is a drug user, if in case the person who posted that is correct. Rich irony. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #10 posted by Doug on September 05, 2001 at 09:29:44 PT |
| They love to trot out the figures about how "drug" use declined significantly from 1979 to 1992, but they never tell you exactly what was involved. By 1979, just about everybody was smoking marijuana, and there even had been talk of national decriminalization by the Carter White House. Then the parents got mad and started broadcasting their propaganda. Marijuana use fell off significantly, but coaine and then crack use started increasing. Cocaine was less popular than marijuana, so fewer people were using "drugs". As happens so often in the Drug Wars, shifting from many people using a mild substance to fewer people using more harmful substances is considered a victory, but it's a victory only for those who don't have their heads on straight, [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by i812 on September 05, 2001 at 09:14:38 PT |
| funny how this idiot continues to pop up, mcaffery was the same, you can put hard truthful facts in front of these people and they will disregard, lie and do whatever it takes to make people beleive that their way of thinking is somehow the thinking of america, these people are so out of touch with america they do not have a clue, and if they are citing polls who did they poll, all the members aarp, naah because my father who is 75 fought in two wars and is as good an american as you will ever find, beleives in legalisation of marijuana and is a member of arrp, funny how they give you just what they want to give you.wood [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by Charlie on September 05, 2001 at 06:09:08 PT |
| Even after smoking a big, fat doobie, I hate this man. May he put on another 50 pounds and then explode. Everyone ought to mail him a joint. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #7 posted by Jordan on September 05, 2001 at 02:28:53 PT:
|
| >The drug war, when it was being waged, worked. Between >1979 and 1992, drug use in this country decreased 60 >percent. The price of drugs increased and their purity >decreased. That is not a failure; that is the definition >of public policy success. and then he goes on to discuss what caused these trends... the truth is that, according to the Economist's recent issue about legalizing drugs, in 1981 the retail price per pure gram of heroin (in 1998 money) was $5000, while last year it was $1000. In 1981 a gram of cocaine cost almost $500 while last year it cost about $150. The trend for marijuana on the other hand... In 1981 it cost about $3 per gram and last year it cost almost $10 average... as for purity, the economist states that it has risen, but provide no stats... "that is the definition of public policy success"... that's a good one... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by Lehder on September 04, 2001 at 23:04:52 PT |
| yup, we all know. i couldn't sleep thinking about it. - i do not understand the exact mechanics of how the government controls what is reported. i wish i did. there must be something really illegal there. - there sure are a lot of questions that could and should be asked here. all the incidents - the shooting at planes, the pointing of guns etc - of the last few days are given to us in the form of "police said", "authorities said" etc. did anybody SEE? no - without news coverage, how is anyone to see? even if all they say is true - we have a right to see. the government's message is that we have no such right. "trust us". - i saw just a few days ago a government anti-drug spot on TV. some superstar, i suppose, that i never heard of telling us that marijuana is a gateway drug. of course this has been totally disproved and the g knows it too - yet it's repeated still today. it's incredible! the message said it was not only a "gateway drug" but that it opened the "floodgates"! no one can take the government seriously anymore - except when looking down a gun barrel. now, down under the eiderdown and good night! maybe something good will happen tomorrow. maybe we'll wake up knowing how to make it happen. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by firedog on September 04, 2001 at 22:51:03 PT |
| Lehder... I'm pretty shocked at how little media coverage there has been of the tragedy in Michigan. Maybe there will be in a while, if somebody actually bothers to do some real investigative journalism, but I doubt it. Sad to say, I know, but I think you know that as well as I do. It will take an event of Nazi proportions to wake the American public out of its materialistic, self-centered stupor. And until that happens, the media can write the present any way it wishes. After all, we all know that shark attacks take much more precedence. Nature is evil and something to be afraid of, that's the right message to send to our children. Then when they grow up, they won't care if their parents rape and pillage Mother Earth. She's an evil bitch and she deserves what she gets. And of course, that includes the devil weed! Another example of how evil Nature is! Feeling wonderfully cynical tonight, - Firedog [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Pancho on September 04, 2001 at 22:46:35 PT |
| This guy is a fascist pig who simply refuses to go away. He belongs to several think tanks, in other words, influential groups made up of rich Amerikan prohibitionists. I began high school in 1979 and when I graduated in 1982, there was no less amount of drugs available to me or any other of my classmates. This list includes marijuana, speed, mescaline, LSD, T - whatever that shite was, and alcohol. I invite Mr. Bennett to come to the 12th annual Freedom Rally on the Boston Common on September 15, 2001 to meet 60,000 - 70,000 of his personal enemies. Peace, Pancho [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by Lehder on September 04, 2001 at 22:35:06 PT |
| you are irrelevant. nobody's going to listen to you any more. with the second killing yesterday, the government has declared its own illegitimacy. it has declared zero tolerance for dissent, conscience, respect, freedom and life. for many of us, the cause has grown. legalizing a few drugs and herbs is no longer enough. we want you and your kind out, off the planet. the government never should have been there in the first place, never should have taken the young boy, never should have begun forfeiture proceedings - but with the first killing, if the government had any legitimacy at all and if it continued to insist that Rohm be arrested, then it should have waited for six months or longer if necessary to starve him out, cajole him out, steal up when he finally fell asleep and carry him out - anything but kill him. but it made a conscious and considered decision that there would be a news black out and that an extended confrontation could not be tolerated because, no doubt, it would send some kind of wrong message. and so it ended in death. and that's the message: toe the line, no questions, or die. i hope to see fifty independent states that may start anew and associate as they wish. let everything inside the beltway be abandoned and return to swamp. i will not make a taxable income this year. i will not pay for this. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by firedog on September 04, 2001 at 22:17:49 PT |
| I like the fact that Mr. Bennett quoted the specific years of 1979-1992, as if there was some radical difference between those years and the ones immediately preceding and following them. I guess if he had said 1980-1992, it would have been too obvious as an alias for "Republican rule". At the end, the reader discovers that he was the drug czar towards the end of that "golden age". It's always nice to toot your own horn, I suppose. He conveniently forgot to mention that both crack and cocaine went mainstream during the 80s. He forgot to discuss the Iran/Contra arms affair and CIA complicity in cocaine smuggling operations during this time -- the very same CIA that one of the Shrubs ran during the 70s. If the price of drugs increases, and the purity decreases, does that define public policy success? I think not. What is the end result of that end result? More people commit real (meaning non-consensual) crimes in order to come up with the funds to buy drugs. Organized crime gains a stronger foothold. Thousands of people suffer from unnecessary, wasteful overdoses that would not have happened in a more enlightened period of time. And let's not forget the spread of AIDS that was caused by the refusal of the government to allow for needle exchange programs. Thousands of innocent victims have died as a result. This is not public policy success. The 80s were a time of great decline in America. The author is counting on the short memory of the American public. He expects that his audience will forget that hard drug use skyrocketed during the 80s, that mandatory minimum sentences were introduced during that decade, and that the CIA was involved in drug running operations with the Contras. Millions of people have been affected by these thoughtless, cruel policies. The policies that were inflicted on Earth's population between 1979 and 1992 have grown and festered like an abominable cancer. They were never based in reason, they were the result of a mass hysteria whipped up by manipulative special interests. However, some of us will remember, and try to reawaken a sense of awareness, and respect for reason, in our fellow citizens. It's time to step back and reexamine the whole thing. We all know that, it's time for everyone to take a long hard look at the problem and admit it. The U.S. has a Drug War Addiction, and the first step on the road to recovery is to admit that there is a problem. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by rabblerouser on September 04, 2001 at 22:05:01 PT |
| This man happens to be addicted to the most addictive substance known to man: Tobacco. His sophistry is of little consequence. He's a big blowhard who has never finished a job in his life. Another statist bully trying to get his own way. harumph harumph harumph [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |