cannabisnews.com: Losing The War 





Losing The War 
Posted by FoM on March 05, 2001 at 11:09:04 PT
Press Democrat Editorial 
Source: Press Democrat
Attitudes toward the so-called War on Drugs are changing. From Molly Ivins to Arianna Huffington, a wide range of critics is taking note that the war is an expensive failure.A popular movie, "Traffic," has focused on the corrupting influences of the ways in which we try to police drugs. And a U.S. president has stated the obvious: The source of the problem is his own country's multi-billion-dollar appetite for cocaine, heroin and marijuana. 
After meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox, President Bush said he favors abandoning the insulting process in which the American government deigns to judge whether other countries are doing enough to combat drug trafficking -- without assessing American behavior.The corrupting influences of drug money from the U.S. has condemned one country, Colombia, to a nightmare cycle of violence among drug lords, left-wing guerrillas and right-wing death squads.Former President Clinton persuaded Congress to spend $1.3 billion on an aid package that emphasizes military support for Colombia. But, to his credit, President Bush shows signs of being skeptical about the program's effectiveness -- and concerned about the risks of further entanglements. In his first meeting with Colombian President Andres Pastrana last week, Bush said American representatives would not attempt to broker peace talks that are fated to fail.Washington should continue to pursue drug traffickers, here and in source countries, but it needs to get over the illusion that police and military efforts alone will solve that problem.Some of that $1.3 billion would be better spent on education and rehabilitation in this country, than on turning other countries into war zones.Americans have a difficult time being honest with themselves about their legal and illegal drug habits. The War on Drugs is only one aspect of those lingering self-delusions.The Los Angeles Times reported the other day that the U.S. government has spent about $30 billion on drug interdiction in the last 20 years. Does anyone really believe that drugs are less available today?Note: It's time Washington revisited failed efforts to contain drugsSource: Press Democrat, The (CA) Published: March 5, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Press Democrat Address: Letters Editor, P. O. Box 569, Santa Rosa CA 95402 Fax: (707) 521-5305 Contact: letters pressdemo.com Website: http://www.pressdemo.com/ Forum: http://www.pressdemo.com/opinion/talk/ Feedback: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/letform.htmlCannabisNews Articles - Traffichttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=traffic
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by Dan B on March 05, 2001 at 21:45:24 PT:
Missing Zero
Robbie--you're so right. $30 Billion is extremely low. I think they left off a zero, as most conservative estimates I have seen have said we have spent over $300 Billion in the country in the past 20 years fighting the so-called "war on drugs."Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Robbie on March 05, 2001 at 15:27:04 PT
Two comments on two statements
I think this guy actually hit the nail on the head, though that probably was not his or her intention:Americans have a difficult time being honest with themselves about their legal and illegal drug habits. At least he states the "legal" part, which most antis dont even acknowledge. But I doubt the full range of hypocrisy generated by that fact is apparent to the writer. Also, him telling deluded people that they are deluded is like telling a person holding a live grenade to pull the pin and sit on it.But this next part is ludicrous:...[LA Times] reported the other day that the U.S. government has spent about $30 billion on drug interdiction in the last 20 yearsThey what? If they spent 18 billion last year, 16 the year before, 14 the year before that and only TEN the year before...that's still 55 billion at the very least. Only $30 billion in 20 years? What drugs were they on?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by aocp on March 05, 2001 at 12:40:40 PT:
Dan and observer, there ya go...
I read that article and got the same impression ... the author is just like any politician sans huevos in this country: all crowd-pleasing bark and less-than-no bite."I've got a deadline and no story! Hmmmm ... words like "traffic" with a capital 'T' and "Colombia" and "Clinton" seem to be the buzzwords of the day, so i'll just mishmash 'em together and 'Voila!': instant editorial that says nothing!"Brilliant.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by observer on March 05, 2001 at 11:47:57 PT
Tree Trunk, Wall or Rope?
Washington should continue to pursue drug traffickers, here and in source countries, but it needs to get over the illusion that police and military efforts alone will solve that problem. Some of that $1.3 billion would be better spent on education and rehabilitation in this country. . .Americans have a difficult time being honest with themselves about their legal and illegal drug habits. The War on Drugs is only one aspect of those lingering self-delusions.The delusions belonging to who? The delusuions of who believe jail is right and proper for those who use cannabis? Those, the prohibitionists' delusions? The editorial is ambiguous...Tepid and noncommittal. Notice how these limited hang out type editorials tiptoe around admitting failure. And can be read two different ways. drug reformers read it and think, "Golly gosh and gee, finally they see the light of reason, logic, mercy and basic human decency. Not to mention fundamental traditonal freedoms and constitutions. Now, at last they realize the 'drug war' is futile and marijuana must be legalized." etc.Prohibitionists read it and think, "Yeah, we need to force-treat even more of those (marijuana) addicts, in addition to 'fighting' the 'war' at its 'source' to 'cut off the supply.'" and "Right: in addition to jailing the marijuana addicts, we need to force-treat more of them in boot camps, prior to throwing them in jail for their 'crime' to 'society.' Since we know of course that 'drugs' cause 'crime.' Never 'legalize.' All for The Children."Prohibitionists mean to have more of the same, even if it means fine tuning: fine tuning their rhetoric, propaganda, and PSYOPs, that is. Grudging lip service to your traditional freedom, no more.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on March 05, 2001 at 11:24:48 PT:
Does This Article Say Anything?
The main point of this article seems to be that the war on drugs is a dismal failure, so we should keep on doing the same things we have been doing. I guess they really love to fail.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: