|
|
| Tearing Apart Bush's Drug Plan |
|
Posted by FoM on February 20, 2002 at 09:10:28 PT By Maia Szalavitz, AlterNet Source: AlterNet 
Judging by recent media coverage, President Bush's new drug policy is much more liberal than Clinton's, focusing primarily on treatment and prevention and providing major new funding for such initiatives. "The best way to affect supply is to reduce demand for drugs," Bush said as he announced his strategy. The plan "marks a sharp turn in anti-drug policy," says the L.A. Times, "emphasizes treatment" according to the Buffalo News, and "should be applauded for changing our course" the Georgia Macon-Telegraph asserts. TV coverage also largely parroted the administration's line. To its credit, the Washington Post recognized that it was being spun, and couched its language, saying that "aides described [the plan] as an effort to reorient federal drug policy toward treatment rather than enforcement" instead of stating this as a matter of fact the way most others did. Still, few papers -- notably the New York Times and USA Today -- bothered to do the simple math required to find out that Bush is doing exactly what Clinton did: talking treatment and funding law enforcement. And while the media was sharply critical of Clinton for such double-talk, Bush has largely gotten a pass. Here's what's the numbers really show. Bush's steepest jump in spending goes to what researchers say is one of the least effective ways of fighting drugs: interdiction in foreign countries. According to a study by the Rand Corporation, it would take 11 times as much money to reduce demand for cocaine by 1% using interdiction than it would to do so via treatment spending; similar figures are believed to apply for other drugs. But in Bush's plan, spending for interdiction jumps 10% while drug treatment spending only rises 6%. This actually means the policy shifts the balance of enforcement/treatment spending away from treatment. No one in the press thought it worth mentioning, but Bush's budget actually cuts prevention by 3%*. *[Though this may not be a bad thing given that the agency it cut has a culture so opposed to empirical research that a conservative speaker was told to "shut the fuck up" last Fall when she said that only research-supported programs should be funded. On consideration, the fact that a prominent conservative was insulted might be *why* the agency, which is usually a sacred cow despite repeated research reports showing its failures, was targeted. This view of the administration's motivation here is sheer speculation on my part, however.] **Note to editor-- you could make a link to this graf as a sidebar** So, overall, the budget is still overwhelmingly weighted towards law enforcement and foreign interdiction programs -- less than 1/3 of the funds go to treatment and prevention, and much of the prevention budget will be spent on anti-drug commercials and school programs of doubtful efficacy. Providers estimate that 90% of the nearly 4 million addicts the government believes to need treatment currently do not have access to it. Meanwhile, though Clinton increased treatment spending by approximately 33% during the course of his administration (roughly 10% per year, though three years saw cuts), the media calls Bush's 6% jump a major shift. This is nonsense. The pattern of spending on "reducing demand" (which includes treatment and prevention) as opposed to supply-side measures through Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II shows few differences Reagan cut spending on demand proportionally from 40% to 31%, Bush I got it back up to 34% and Clinton bounced around between 31 and 36%. None of them ever came close to balancing the effort--let alone weighting it towards treatment and prevention. Bush's plan promises to cut drug use by 25% in five years -- still pie-in-the-sky, clearly, but a tad more realistic than Congress's 1988 plan which had America entirely drug-free by 1995, And at least W.'s latest proposal does reflect one positive trend. Politicians now recognize that they have to at least talk treatment to stay in the mainstream. A recent poll conducted by Peter D. Hart research associates for George Soros' Open Society Institute found that 3/4 of the public believes that addicts should be treated, not incarcerated and 56% now oppose mandatory sentencing laws. Let's hope reality catches up with rhetoric rapidly. Direct Link: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12439 Source: AlterNet Related Articles: Bush's $19 Billion Antidrug Plan New Low in the War on Drugs - A. Huffington Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #10 posted by FoM on February 20, 2002 at 14:43:22 PT |
| I know how you feel. I do the news sometimes with my mind a million miles away because it gets way to hard to take. Do like Dark Star says and take a break. Do something that reminds you of good times. Turn off the news and listen to music or go for a walk. To answer your question can we win. I don't know. If we all just quit then how will the world be for the younger generation? I don't have a child to be concerned about but I still am very worried for the children in general. Do we want to see young people going to jail for experimenting with a substance? I hope they don't but if they do prison doesn't help at all. I believe that when we do what we believe is right, even if we lose, we really win and no one can take that from us.
Hang in there. It's OK! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #9 posted by Dark Star on February 20, 2002 at 14:10:43 PT |
| Hang in there. I frequently feel as you do, take a break for a day or two, and then feel ready to engage again. The Drug Warriors are relying on us to burn out, and it is essential that we not let that occur. Take a little time off, and save up some energy for what will be a long hard war. We win some battles, lose a lot, but it is only the final outcome that matters. Best wishes, Dark Star [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by Sam Adams on February 20, 2002 at 13:37:55 PT |
| I think I have to take a break from reading C-News. I can't take it anymore. Are we really going to be able to pull this off? Can we end the drug war, or at least the War on Cannabis Users, before the country becomes completely dumbed-down and apathetic? Before the corporate business elite, govt, and consolidated media completely overwhelm all the natural checks-and-balances in our society? Before the rich sit around deciding what features to purchase for their genetically-engineered kids, while everyone else is in prison or working 18 hours a day to pay their rent? I just talked to some friends last night about drug policy for the first time. They had no idea that: - the prison population has exploded - marijuana arrests have tripled in the last 10 years - most people in prison are minorities - law enforcement milks low-level drug arrests to make overtime, draining budgets that we need to fight real crime and terrorism - that MJ kills people per year, while alcohol and tobacco kill 500,000 - that medical marijuana users are under direct attack I mean all of this was COMPLETELY new to them. They are all college-educated working professionals. They don't read the paper, the only source of news is 30 minutes of nightly network news. I am getting ready to pull my money out of the stock market. It seems like our current govt is hastening the end of Western Civilization as we know it. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #7 posted by Dan B on February 20, 2002 at 11:29:31 PT:
|
| For more on how Bush II is screwing up the world (especially the U.S.), see today's Progressive Review, and scroll down to the article titled "The Bush II Era: Year 1." The list of atrocities is astounding. Includes some drug war info, of course. Worth a read. That's http://prorev.com/indexa.htm I have another link at the bottom of this message. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by FoM on February 20, 2002 at 11:01:17 PT |
| I second the thanks. I put your page on my research page. Thanks again! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by MikeEEEEE on February 20, 2002 at 10:42:24 PT |
| I recieved this message from GWBush.com:
While Dick Cheney was its CEO, Halliburton sold more technology to Saddam Hussein than any other U.S. corporation. Starting in 1998, at least two Halliburton subsidiaries sold Iraq $23.8 million worth of oil industry parts and equipment. These deals were arranged by Halliburton and routed through subsidiaries to avoid political exposure. More than any other U.S. company, Cheney's Halliburton helped Iraq restore its ability to earn the money to develop weapons of mass destruction. See the article: http://financialtimes.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=410961153 [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on February 20, 2002 at 10:31:30 PT:
|
| I recommend that anyone reading this go to Shrox's site. The image of a yellow Star of David and the words "Medical Cannabis User" are powerful reminders of just what our status is in this society...and just how the antis would love to 'deal' with us... To wear such is to call attention to what has happened in the "Land of The Free". Wearing such a symbol may cause outrage amongst some groups Jew and Gentile, alike - until you explain about no-knock warrants, MMJ clubs being dynamited, prison rape and unlawful deaths of prisoners given a flippant 'they got what they deserved', and innocent children being shot in the back by crazed DrugWarriors while laying face down and helpless during "Oops-wrong-house!" raids. One picture is worth a thousand words...and one picture can be the means to openeing a dialogue with people who have not a clue as to what's been done to their freedoms. and why they are not, despite their beliefs, safe from the monster that feeds from their wallets. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by p4me on February 20, 2002 at 10:20:24 PT |
| Same stuff and different day. The treatment for drug-abuse is a joke. Besides, if you were going to offer treatment for drug-abuse anyone knows it would have to start with alcoholics. Can Busch say "Alcoholics need treatment". And if his trainers can get him to say that how about "medical marijuana." The future of the drug war needs confirmation in the next election. They will not get it from me. The media is just as disgusting as the politicians. I do not expect things to change much between now and the May primaries. I think that the people that have read the WOSD news for the last year will change some politicians minds and change some politicians careers come the May elections. VAAI. When in doubt votem out. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by shrox on February 20, 2002 at 09:58:49 PT:
|
| Post this picture all over the world. http://www.shrox.com/medcannbis01.gif [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on February 20, 2002 at 09:56:05 PT:
|
| "...the agency it cut has a culture so opposed to empirical research that a conservative speaker was told to "shut the fuck up" last Fall when she said that only research-supported programs should be funded. On consideration, the fact that a prominent conservative was insulted might be *why* the agency, which is usually a sacred cow despite repeated research reports showing its failures, was targeted. Oh, man, I missed it. Been too busy earning a living...and paying for the prisons, handcuffs, legirons, bullets and jet planes the antis are using to create their chimerical DrugFree Society. Do any of you know what Ms. Szalavitz is talking about? Namely, who was so rudely treated by public servants? I'd really like to know who she is referring to. Any ideas? [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |
