The War against the Poor and the Black – Officially Known as the “War on Drugs”

[Time for change]

“Imagine you are Emma Faye Stewart, a thirty-year-old, single African American mother of two who was arrested as part of a drug sweep… You are innocent… Your court-appointed attorney urges you to plead guilty… You refuse, steadfastly proclaiming your innocence. Finally, after almost a month in jail, you decide to plead guilty so you can return home to your children. Unwilling to risk a trial and years of imprisonment, you are sentenced to ten years probation and ordered to pay $1,000 in fines, as well as court and probation costs. You are also branded a drug felon. You are no longer eligible for food stamps; you may be discriminated against in employment; you cannot vote for at least twelve years; and you are about to be evicted from public housing. Once homeless, your children will be taken from you and put in foster care. A judge eventually dismisses all cases against the defendants who did not plead guilty… The judge finds that the entire sweep was based on the testimony of a single informant who lied to the prosecution. You, however, are still a drug felon, homeless…” – From the book, “The New Jim Crow – Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”, by Michelle Alexander, describing one of the many millions of casualties of the U.S. “War on Drugs”.


The title of Michelle Alexander’s book derives from her argument that our “War on Drugs” primarily represents a backlash against the success of the Civil Rights movement. When slavery ended with the Civil War, it was followed by about ten years of Reconstruction, during which attempts were made to integrate our former slaves into White society. After Reconstruction ended, White Supremacists began to take their revenge, through such means as the Ku Klux Klan and a series of repressive laws that came to be known as “Jim Crow” laws. The “War on Drugs” and the massive incarceration of black men associated with it has been their answer to the success of the Civil Rights Movement. No longer legally able to keep black people “in their place” through an explicitly racist system, the War on Drugs makes use of racially neutral language to hide its racist purposes.

The “War on Drugs” was officially kicked off by President Richard Nixon in 1971, though he’d been using related rhetoric for several years as part of his “Southern Strategy” for winning southern support for his presidential bids by appealing to southern racist sentiments. Under the Ronald Reagan presidency there was a massive intensification of the “War on Drugs”. With that, it became much more effective at incarcerating black people – though it continued to be ineffective in reducing drug use.

Consequently, between 1980 and 2000, the U.S. prison population increased from about 300,000 to over 2,000,000, so that the United States now has by far the highest prison rate of any nation in the world – 751 persons in prison per 100,000 population in 2008. The incarceration rate for drug offenses increased at an even higher rate during this period of time – from about 20,000 in 1980 to about 450,000 by 2000 (See chart on page 11). But the role of the “War on Drugs” in increasing the overall incarceration rate appears misleadingly low from these figures: Concurrently there has been a massive increase in incarceration for parole violations, which is almost entirely due to the “War on Drugs”. In 1980, only 17% of prison admissions in the U.S. were due to parole violations. By the onset of the 21st Century, 34% of prison admissions were due to parole violations. Under the rules of the “War on Drugs”, people can be sent to prison for such parole violations as missing an appointment with one’s parole officer or failing to maintain employment – despite the extraordinary difficulty of maintaining employment when one is required to admit that one is a felon on all employment applications.


RACISM AS A PRIMARY COMPONENT OF THE “WAR ON DRUGS”

Racism has long permeated the U.S. criminal justice system. A landmark study on the subject by David Baldus showed that Georgia defendants were much more likely to receive the death penalty for murder when the defendant was black or the victim was white, after controlling for numerous potentially confounding variables. The study showed that this finding could be largely explained by the actions of Georgia prosecutors: They sought the death penalty in 70% of cases when the defendant was black and the victim was white, but only in 19% of cases when the defendant was white and the victim was black. Nevertheless, when this evidence was used in the defense of a black man accused of murder in Georgia, in the U.S. Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp, the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument, saying that only proof that racial discrimination was involved in that particular case could be used to show unequal treatment before the law and thereby overturn McKleskey’s death sentence.

A study by the U.S. Justice Department showed that racial bias appears to be present along every step of the criminal justice system: Blacks constitute only 16% of all youth in the U.S., yet they account for 28% of juvenile arrests, 35% of youth waived to adult criminal court, and 58% of youths admitted to adult prison.


Racial discrimination in the War on Drugs

Not only has the “War on Drugs” proven to be no exception to the racial discrimination found elsewhere in our criminal just department, but it has been shown to be an especially egregious example of it. The “War on Drugs” is tailor-made for racial discrimination. This derives from the fact that there is much more drug usage in the United States than could ever possibly be investigated, so police and prosecutors must prioritize where and whom to investigate. Because court decisions have repeatedly allowed them virtually unlimited discretion in choosing where and whom to investigate, racial discrimination has been given virtually free reign.

Consequently, while (as noted above) the overall increase in prison population of the United States has increased about 7- or 8-fold since 1980, prison admissions for blacks have increased 26-fold since 1983. Furthermore, blacks constitute 80-90% of all drug offenders sent to prison in seven states, and in 15 states black men are admitted to prison on drug charges at 20-57 times the rate of white men.

Many or most Americans, including even those who do not consider themselves racially prejudiced or who are in fact not inherently racially prejudiced, would counter these statistics by suggesting that they may simply reflect a very high rate of drug-related crimes among black men. Indeed, the Reagan administration did its very best to foster such stereotypes by launching an aggressive media campaign (See page 62) to sensationalize the epidemic of crack-cocaine use in inner city ghettos.

But the truth of the matter is that neither illegal drug use nor drug trafficking is more frequent among black than white men. Alexander discusses a wealth of research to make that point, and in fact show that drug trafficking is more frequent among whites. One good example that makes the case that racial discrimination against blacks is unrelated to a propensity for crime was a study of New Jersey Turnpike drivers. While only 15% of the drivers were black, 42% of all stops by police that involved drug searches were conducted on black drivers, and 73% of arrests were of black drivers, despite the fact that blacks and whites demonstrated equal rates of traffic violations. While police stops based on radar occurred equally among black and white drivers, discretionary stops were made much more frequently on black drivers. Nevertheless, whites were almost twice as likely to be found to be carrying illegal drugs.

The pervasiveness of racial discrimination in the war on drugs was vividly described by a law student who rode around with Chicago police as part of her training (quoted in Alexander’s book):

Each time we drove into a public housing project and stopped the car, every young black man in the area would almost reflexively place his hands up against the car and spread his legs to be searched.

Why is racism such a large component of the “War on Drugs”?

Alexander devotes a good deal of space to discussing why racism is so prevalent in the “War on Drugs”. She notes that law enforcement has always been primarily the responsibility of state and local officials, not the federal government, and that prior to the federal push for the “War on Drugs”, states and local law enforcement personnel exhibited little or no interest in cracking down on drug use or sales. They had much higher priorities – such as violent crime.

So how did the federal government get them to go along? There are two major sub-parts to that question: 1) How did the federal government get state and local law enforcement to aggressively prosecute the “War on Drugs”; and 2) How did they get state and local law enforcement to especially target racial minorities? I’ll address the second question here, and the first question in the next section of this post.

I mentioned above that the Reagan administration conducted an aggressive media propaganda campaign to demonize and stereotype the drug problem as being primarily a black problem. When that is added to our legacy of black slavery and the Jim Crow era, and the virulent stereotyping used in our country to justify treating black people as sub-human, we have a good part of the explanation. Alexander describes numerous studies that document pervasive racism against black people in American culture, even among black people themselves. For example, a study titled “Prime Suspects: The Influence of Local Television News on the Viewing Public” demonstrated the success of television news in implanting negative racial stereotypes regarding crime in even the minds of people who consider themselves non-racially prejudiced. How much racial prejudice among Americans is due to our long legacy of atrocities against black people, and how much is due to more recent efforts of the Nixon and Reagan presidential administrations (and to a lesser extent some others) to stereotype black people is besides the point.

But given the federal pressures to prosecute the “War on Drugs”, combined with the wide discretion that police and prosecutors are given regarding where and whom to prosecute, there is perhaps an even more important reason for the rampant targeting of black people in this “War”: Black people are usually far more vulnerable than white people. Politically speaking, given the aggressive and slimy methods that are used to prosecute this largely victimless crime, the drug war simply would not be tolerated among affluent white populations if they were targeted any more than they currently are. But poor black people simply don’t have the means to fight back. They often can’t hire decent lawyers, and they don’t have much political clout. Law enforcement agencies for the most part wouldn’t dare use the methods they do against poor black people against affluent white people. If they did, the “War on Drugs” would be very short-lived.


FEDERAL TOOLS USED TO PROPAGATE THE “WAR ON DRUGS”

As I noted above, Ronald Reagan (and Nixon before him) had some problems regarding his plans for his “War on Drugs”: Crime control is the responsibility of local and state officials, and those officials generally saw little or no need for a war on drugs. So the federal government, especially under Reagan, used two main tools to propagate the “War” other than the media propaganda that I already noted: 1) Financial incentives; and 2) draconian federal laws.


Perverse financial incentives

First, the Reagan administration developed an aggressive strategy of financial incentives. Great amounts of cash and equipment were held out to state and local law enforcement agencies if they would help with the “War on Drugs”. Here is part of Alexander’s discussion on that issue:

Huge cash grants were made to those law enforcement agencies that were willing to make drug-law enforcement a top priority… This federal grant money has resulted in the proliferation of narcotics task forces… Other forms of valuable aid have been offered as well… free training, intelligence, and technical support… The Pentagon has given away military intelligence and millions of dollars in firepower to state and local agencies willing to make the rhetorical war a literal one…

By the late 1990s, the overwhelming majority of state and local police forces in the country had availed themselves of the newly available resources and added a significant military component to buttress their drug-war operations.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the Reagan administration and Congress then granted state and local law enforcement the right to keep large portions of seized assets for themselves. Consequently, in 1988-1992 state and local “drug task forces” seized over $1 billion in assets as a result of drug war activities.


Draconian punishments

Draconian penalties for drug crimes, such as harsh mandatory minimum sentences and (later) three strike laws (which may carry life imprisonment penalties for a third felony conviction) have provided a valuable tool to those who wish to repress minority populations. Alexander describes the history of mandatory minimum sentences:

In 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established extremely long mandatory minimum prison terms for low-level drug dealing and possession of crack cocaine. The typical mandatory sentence for a first-time drug offense in federal court is five or ten years. By contrast, in other developed countries around the world, a first-time drug offense would merit no more than six months in jail, if jail time is imposed at all.

The value of this to the Drug War hawks is not simply the long prison sentences that come with these laws. Even more important is the use of the threat of these draconian punishments to elicit confessions from innocent people. Alexander explains:

The pressure to plead guilty to crimes has increased exponentially since the advent of the War on Drugs… Now, simply by charging someone with an offense carrying a mandatory sentence of 10 to fifteen years or life, prosecutors are able to force people to plead guilty… Prosecutors admit that they routinely charge people with crimes for which they technically have probably cause but which they seriously doubt they could ever win in court.

THE TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE “WAR ON DRUGS”

Many of the tragic consequences of the “War on Drugs” should be obvious from what has already been discussed in this post. Shouldn’t any nation – especially one that prides itself on being “The land of the free” – be ashamed of having the highest incarceration rate of any nation in the world? The fact that the “War on Drugs” is permeated with racial discrimination and requires an intricate web of propaganda and lies in order to make it politically viable makes it all the worse. The toll of human misery is astounding: Productive lives lost, lives lived in fear, families broken up…

Then there are the reduced resources left over for much more important activities, such as combating violent crime. And with all the emphasis on fighting the “War on Drugs” with the incarceration approach, funding was drastically cut for treatment and prevention programs, which are considered by experts to be much more effective means of reducing illicit drug use.

And then there are the following consequences of this “War”:


The use of excessive force

With all the federal pressure to get “results”, along with the distribution of military equipment by the federal government to local law enforcement officials, not to mention the inherent military zeal of some police officers, the temptation to use excessive, disproportionate force has proven to be to difficult to resist. Alexander describes this situation:

Until the drug war, {SWAT teams} were used rarely, primarily for extraordinary emergency situations, such as hostage takings, hijackings… That changed in the 1980s, when local law enforcement agencies suddenly had access to cash and military equipment specifically for the purpose of conducing drug raids…

In countless situations in which police could easily have arrested someone or conducted a search without a military-style raid, police blast into people’s homes, typically in the middle of the night, throwing grenades, shouting and pointing guns and rifles at anyone inside, often including young children. In recent years, dozens of people have been killed by police in the course of these raids, including elderly grandparents and those who are completely innocent of any crime.

Corruption of local law enforcement agencies

Providing financial incentives to law enforcement agencies to punish people should be viewed as the perverse nonsense that it is. The legitimate purpose of a criminal justice system is to protect citizens – not to meet arbitrary arrest quotas. Anyone who couldn’t foresee the potential for corruption inherent in such a strategy doesn’t belong in government. Especially rife for the potential for corruption were the seizure forfeiture laws. Alexander describes these laws:

Suddenly, police departments were capable of increasing the size of their budgets, quite substantially, simply by taking the cash, cars and homes of people suspected of drug use or sales… Property or cash could be seized based on mere suspicion of illegal drug activity, and the seizure could occur without notice or hearing, upon ex parte showing of mere probable cause to believe that the property had been “involved” in a crime. The probable cause showing could be based on nothing more than hearsay, innuendo, or even paid self-serving testimony… Neither the owner of the property nor anyone else need be charged with a crime…

Largely as a result of these laws and other financial incentives, the extent to which some law enforcement agencies will go to obtain arrests and convictions is often despicable. Alexander notes that the practice of planting drugs on people in order to assure convictions has become commonplace. Furthermore, these laws work to make life miserable for innocent people and low-level drug users, while allowing the drug king-pins to go free:

Drug-war forfeiture laws are frequently used to allow those with assets to buy their freedom, while drug users and small-time dealers with few assets to trade are subjected to lengthy prison terms…

And then there is the use of paid snitches, who should never be a part of any just criminal justice system:

The number of snitches in drug cases has soared in recent years, partly because government has tempted people to “cooperate” with law enforcement by offering cash… but also because ratting out co-defendants, friends, family, or acquaintances is often the only way to avoid a lengthy mandatory minimum sentence… The “assistance” provided by snitches is notoriously unreliable, as studies have documented countless informants who have fabricated stories about drug-related and other criminal activity in exchange for money or leniency in their pending criminal cases…

Unfair sentences

The draconian sentences incurred under mandatory minimum and three strike laws are often way out of proportion to the “crimes” committed, and they have rightly been the target of attacks in our court system under our 8th Amendment (which bans cruel and unusual punishment) and the equal protection clause of our 14th Amendment.

In Harmelin v. Michigan, the US Supreme Court upheld a life imprisonment sentence for a defendant with no prior convictions for the attempted sale of 672 grams of crack cocaine. Alexander explains the absurdity of this ruling:

This ruling was remarkable given that, prior to the Drug Reform Act of 1986, the longest sentence Congress had ever imposed for possession of any drug in any amount was one year. A life sentence for a first time drug offense is unheard of in the rest of the developed world.

In Lockyer v. Andrade, US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor concluded that a punishment of 25 years to life for stealing 3 golf clubs from a pro shop “are not grossly disproportionate to the offense and therefore do not violate the 8th Amendment”. Really? I wonder what it would take for her to consider a penalty disproportionate to the crime.

Alexander discusses the fact that many judges publicly commented upon how unfair they consider these draconian punishments with no allowance for leeway or mitigating circumstance:

Some federal judges, including some conservative judges, have quit in protest of federal drug laws and sentencing guidelines… Judge Jack Weinstein publicly refused to take any more drug cases, describing “a sense of depression about much of the cruelty I have been a party to in connection with the War on Drugs”.

Potential for harassment

The potential for harassment is rife in a system such as this, and harassment is frequently used. I’ve noted the seizure forfeiture laws, which don’t even require that a person be found guilty of any crime as a condition of losing his property.

Alexander notes that our 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures has been virtually ruled by our courts not to apply at all to “War on Drugs” cases. Consequently, police routinely stop and search (mostly black) people on the basis of the flimsiest of rationalizations, tearing apart cars or homes, often with no reparations for damages or even apologies, even when (as is the case in the vast majority of instances) no drug is found.

And our Supreme Court ruled in Atwater v. City of Lago Vista that police may arrest and jail motorists for minor traffic violations even when the statutory penalty for the traffic violation doesn’t include jail time.


Inducing the innocent to plead guilty

I briefly noted above that the rules of the “War on Drugs”, especially the draconian sentences that it often mandates, allow prosecutors to use the threat of draconian punishment as a bargaining chip in efforts to persuade innocent people to plead guilty to lesser offenses. Alexander comments on this outrage:

Never before in our history have such an extraordinary number of people felt compelled to plead guilty, even if they are innocent, simply because the punishment for the minor, nonviolent offense with which they have been charged is so unbelievably severe. When prosecutors offer “only” three years in prison when the penalties defendants could receive if they took their case to trial would be … life imprisonment, only extremely courageous (or foolish) defendants turn the offer down… Sentences for minor drug crimes are higher than many countries impose on convicted murderers. This is the way the roundup works, and it works this way in virtually every major city in the United States.

In 2004, the American Bar Association released a report on this outrageous ploy, concluding:

All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights or what is occurring… The fundamental right to a lawyer that Americans assume applies to everyone accused of criminal conduct effectively does not exist in practice for countless people across the United States.

A FINAL WORD

There are many Americans who have known for a long time that the “War on Drugs” has been a dismal failure. That is, it has been a dismal failure if one assumes that its purpose is to reduce drug use in the United States.

But the dirty little secret is that for the purposes for which the “War on Drugs” was designed, it has been a resounding success: It has reversed many of the gains of the Civil Rights Movement, which the White Supremacist types so strongly fought, and it has removed so many black people from the voter rolls that that the current electorate is way to the right of what it otherwise would be. Indeed, in the months prior to the 2000 presidential election, tens of thousands of black voters who had no criminal history at all were removed from the Florida voter rolls – simply on the basis that they were a close computer match to a black person in Florida with a criminal record. That ploy enabled George W. Bush to overcome what would otherwise have been a deficit of tens of thousands of votes in Florida, to make the 2000 Florida election close enough to enable our Supreme Court to hand him a victory in Florida and thereby the presidency. In 2004 similar activities in Ohio enabled Bush to “win” re-election to the presidency.

The “War on Drugs” is a sham and a disgrace to our country. It is time to end it. And on that note I’ll end this post with a quote from Michelle Alexander’s book:

Historians will likely wonder how we could describe the new caste system as a system of crime control, when it is difficult to imagine a system better designed to create – rather than prevent – crime….

As a society, our decision to heap shame and contempt upon those who struggle and fail in a system designed to keep them locked up and locked out says far more about ourselves than it does about them.

[rpannier]

1. I would add

The federal gov't gave money based on the number of arrests made. So, if you spent hundreds of man hours to catch a drug kingpin and seized 25,000,000 dollars worth of drugs coming into the country, you would get less federal aid then the department that arrested 200 guys buying 10 bucks worth on the corner

on edit: This was an incentive to ignore large scale busts because they were time consuming and didn't get the big federal bucks

[SocialistLez]

12. I think Michelle Alexander mentioned this in her book.

$$ was given based on # of arrests made.

[gorfle]

41. The War on Drugs is a sham on many levels.

Let me preface this by stating that I have never even seen, let alone used, an illegal drug.

First of all, it should be recognized by anyone that the ultimate freedom is what you choose to do to your own body, even if it is harmful to me.

On this basis alone, drug use should be legal.

But the War on Drugs has been nothing but a trough for the state to feed at while growing its police power. Billions upon billions of dollars are no doubt gobbled up yearly in salaries, training, and equipment - money that could surely be spent better on things like treatment.

I would hazard to guess that most of the violent crime in this country revolves around the illegal drug trade, and this is what is driving gangs, which are essentially multi-billion dollar, multi-national illicit corporations.

[sasquuatch55]

61. One of the many ways Republicans alter elections!

nt



Edit: reworded

[reggie the dog]

2. never admit guilt

if you want to go home post bail, oh wait, thats hard when you are poor.... i guess being white and middle class did help me beat those 12 years of jail they wanted to give me in Virginia..... I paid 10 000 in cash to a lawyer who went and played golf with the judge and what do you know I was found innocent in 2 minutes in his courtroom.... but I am white and middle class so I can do those kind of things.

[Ysabela]

43. I've been pulled over 10 times in the last 8 years...

since I turned 18, for various things like speeding, tail light, head light, etc. Every single time, I had marijuana in my backpack sitting on the passenger seat, and in some cases had just smoked in my car mere minutes before being stopped (so it could still be easily smelled).

Can you guess how many times I've been asked to get out of my car?
Can you guess how many times I've been searched?
Can you guess how many times I've been discovered to be carrying an illegal drug?

I'll make it easy for you. I'm white. Now go ahead and guess...

[Nikia]

104. I thought that my husband made a mistake by admitting guilt

Especially at the scene, but he said that he was afraid that if he didn't that they'd arrest me too, completely trash our house, and possibly kill our dog if it didn't get along with the drug dog. When he didn't initially want to take the plea deal, the prosecuter promised to go after his friends who were on probation (not as much proof required for probation violation).

[indepat]

3. America, America, once claimed to be the land of the free and home of the brave,

now awash in unparalleled disgraceful institutional misconduct, making a mockery of justice under the law and every thing good this nation should stand for. :P

[muntrv]

4. Here's a similar column from Leonard Pitts.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100629/OPINION05/6290322/1322/War-on-drugs-is-really-a-war-on-African-Americans

[Time for change]

13. Very interesting

In her book she talks about the fact that she came to see the issue very differently over the past ten years -- but she doesn't describe in any detail how that happened. What it took was open eyes and a willingness to see... an open mind. That's something that too few people have enough of when it comes to a willingness to see things in a different light than what authoritative society teaches us to see.

[hfojvt]

62. funny to see a link to Freep.com

Detroit Free Press. No connection to those other FReepers.

[Liberal_in_LA]

5. kick

[Octafish]

6. Corruption is a word for it.

The War on Drugs also is a War on Civil Liberties. Once lost, they may never be regained.

Ultimately, the rationale behind it isn't puritan. Like all wars, the War on Drugs also is good for business, Big Bidness:

DEA Agents Agree: CIA means Cocaine Importation Agency

There’s enough evidence to bust George Herbert Walker Bush and the rest of his right-wing stooges under the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

http://www.ricoact.com /

Still. Don’t take my word for it. Let’s hear what the brave agents of the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) have to say.



Celerino “Cele” Castillo III

Celerino "Cele" Castillo, 3rd
Ex-DEA Agent

May 17, 2005


© Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com . All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

For over a century, our government has made sure that we are never to be told the truth about anything that we have done to other people in third world countries, especially in Latin America. With the creation of the School of the Americas, a breeding ground for assassins, and the death squads, we have become the greatest human rights violators in the world.

We have become the most hated country in the world, not because we practice democracy or value our freedom. We are hated because our government denies these basic principles to these people. The hate has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism, and as they say, once again, "the chickens have come home to roost" with our own homegrown American made terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles.

When I was posted in Central America as a DEA agent I saw Luis Posada and Felix Rodriguez, another American terrorist, at Illopango airport base in El Salvador. Joining them was a CIA asset Venezuelan advisor Victor Rivera. They had become part of what was known as a CIA apparatus that did not have to answer to anyone. They were involved in everything from drug trafficking to kidnapping to the training of the death squads. It was at the height of the Iran-Contra investigation that I had documented these atrocities to my government. I could not understand how our government had assisted in having Posada escape from a Venezuelan prison, and then placed him at Illopango airport as a CIA asset under the new name of Ramon Medina. He was now working hand in hand with then U. S. Lt. Col. Oliver North.

When I asked about Posada's presence at Illopango, I was once again told that it was a covert operation being run by the White House. I started to learn real fast that just about every time I questioned illegal action, I would be told that it was "a covert operation being run by the White House." And as we found out later, my allegations were facts; that became especially clear when, in 1990, President Bush Sr. pardoned another American-made terrorist, Posada's partner in crime: Orlando Bosch. To the degree that the "war on terror" is a response to actual terrorism, that terrorism is retaliation: the U.S. has exported death and violence to the four corners of the Earth with individuals like Posada and Bosch.

Posada admitted to a New York Times reporter that he organized a wave of bombings in Cuba in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist and injured others. However, he is best known as the prime suspect in the bombing of a Cuban Airlines flight in Barbados in October 1976. All 73 crewmembers and passengers including teenaged members of Cuba's national fencing team were killed.

CONTINUED…

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/hall/contra1.html

Additional resources:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/9612a/ciacontra.html

http://www.drugwar.com/castillonorthmay1104.shtm

www.powderburns.org

Well. Here’s to “Conspiracies In Action.”

Here’s what Michael Levine, DEA had to say about the organization started by Allen Dulles has brought tons of cocaine into the United States of America. Don’t worry, Mr. Conservative. It was at a profit.

Speaking of Capitalism’s Invisible Army:

Michael Levine Interview

by Paul DeRienzo

from THE SH@DOW - box 20298 - NY, NY 10009

Michael Levine is a veteran of 26 years of undercover work for four federal agencies. He is the recipient of many Justice and Treasury Department awards for hi s work undercover, including the International Narcotics Enforcement Officer Association's Octavio Gonzales Award. He is also the subject of Donald Goddard's book Undercover: The Secret Lives of a Federal Agent (Dell, 1990).

Joining the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) after discovering his brother's heroin addiction which eventually killed his brother, Levine was the most successful agent in DEA history. By 1977, he had made 3,000 drug arrests going undercover to set up buy and bust operations against New York City heroin and cocaine dealers. This led to his assignment as DEA station chief in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

By 1989, after having several of his operations stopped by higher ups who allowed his targets to get away, Levine quit the DEA in disgust. Levine then wrote the book Deep Cover (1990, Delacorte Press), describing his experiences that led to his leaving the DEA, exposing the government's phony "War on Drugs".

Levine tells a chilling story of treachery by members of his own agency, and the CIA, men Levine calls the ":suits" who he says use the War on Drugs as a cynical cover for covert foreign policy adventures. Levine says that since he began speaking out against the War on Drugs he has been threatened by high level DEA agents and has been the target of campaigns meant to discredit him.

CONTINUED…

http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/institutional_analysis/deajive.html

Additional resources:

http://www.serendipity.li/wod/levine.html

http://www.physicaldream.com/Eyeonsam/Is%20Anyone%20Apologizing%20to%20Gary%20Webb%20by%20Mike%20Levine.htm

So. There we have it. No evidence of conspiracy, as importing cocaine is a matter of national policy.



Well. Hector Berrellez would arrest you if he caught you. He’s another good guy.

Gary Webb

(1955-2005)

EXCERPT…

I had been thinking about looking into the claim that during the civil war in Nicaragua in the eighties, the CIA helped move dope to the United States to buy guns for the contras, who were mounting an insurrection against the leftist Sandinistas. So I called up Hector Berrellez, a guy who worked under Mike Holm in Los Angeles, a guy known within the DEA as its Eliot Ness, and he said, "Look, the CIA is the best in the world. You're not going to beat them; you're never going to get a smoking gun. The best you're going to get is a little story from me."

SNIP…

After a while, the San Jose Mercury News series disappeared except on a few byways of the Internet, Gary Webb was ruined, and things went back to normal. Things like Oliver North's diary entry linking dope and guns for the contras, like Carlos Lehder, a big Colombian drug dealer, testifying as a prosecution witness in federal court during the Noriega trial about the Medellín cartel's $10 million donation to the contras, like the entire history of unseemly connections between the international drug world and the CIA--all this went away, as it has time and time again in the past. A kind of orthodoxy settled over the American press that assumed Webb's work had been thoroughly refuted. He became the Discredited Gary Webb.

SNIP…

HECTOR BERRELLEZ STUMBLED ONTO GARY WEBB'S STORY YEARS before Gary Webb knew a thing about it. ….

In September 1986, Sergeant Tom Gordon of the Los Angeles sheriff's narcotics strike force pieced together intelligence about a big-time drug ring in town run by Danilo Blandón. A month later, on October 23, Gordon went before a judge with a twenty-page detailed statement documenting that "monies gained from the sales of cocaine are transported m Florida and laundered.,.. The monies are filtered to the contra rebels to buy arms in the war in Nicaragua." He got a search warrant for the organization's stash houses. On Friday, October 24, there was a briefing of more than a hundred law-enforcement guys from the sheriff's office, the DEA, the FBI. That was the same day that President Ronald Reagan, after months of hassle, signed a $100 million aid bill that reactivated a licit cash flow to the beleaguered contras. And on Monday, October 27, at daybreak, the strike force simultaneously hit fourteen L. A. area stash houses connected with Blandón.

That's where just another day in the life of Hector Berrellez got weird. Generally, at that early hour, good dopers are out cold; the work tends toward long nights and sleeping in. As Berrellez remembers, "We were expecting to end up with a lot of coke." Instead, they got coffee and sometimes doughnuts. The house he hit had the lights on, and everyone, two men and a woman, was up. The guy who answered the door said, "Good morning; we've been expecting you. Come on in." The house was tidy, the beds were already made, and the damn coffee was on. The three residents were polite, even congenial. "It was obvious," says Berrellez, "that they were told." The place was clean; all fourteen houses were clean. The only thing Berrellez and the other guys found in the house was a professional scale.

But there was a safe, and Berrellez got one of the residents to open it reluctantly. Inside, he found records of kilos matched with amounts of money, an obvious dope ledger, a photograph of a guy in flight dress in front of what looked to be a military jet, and photographs of some guys in combat. Hector asked the guy who the hell the people in the photographs were, and the guy said, "Oh, they are freedom fighters."

CONTINUED…

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/041217_mfe_webb_1.html

Additional resources:

http://www.ckln.fm/~asadismi/whiteout.html

http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia /

And these guys knew Gary Webb, DUers may remember the Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter who was lauded for his groundbreaking series detailing how Contra-connected dealers got the inside track on the dope that eventually created the crack cocaine epidemic. Too bad what the government chose to “crack” down on was honest journalism, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Then it was only a matter of time before the rest of the Establishment press corpse piled on. Interesting expression: Kill a few birds with one stone.

Is that something? Three DEA agents who never knew of one another’s existence while they worked together in the federal government. There were united by something else, though. Each, after reporting drug dealing by Contras and other “protected organizations,” were left out to hang.

That’s un-American. Drug dealing to fund illegal wars? Gee. That’s Treason.

What are the names of those involved? We know a few: George Herbert Walker Bush, John Poindexter, Oliver North, Elliott Abrams, John Negroponte, Ted Shackley, to name a few. What's needed is a Grand Jury to investigate the actions of these drug-dealing, warmongering conspirators, for starters.

So. War. Oil. Drugs. What more can a criminal class want?

PS: Sorry to go sideshow, Time for change. Not trying to hijack, just piling on with all that goes with Prohibition In Our Time.

PPS and Most Important: Outstanding article, yours, Time for change. Terrible waste of human potential, national resources, and destroyed lives.

[Time for change]

7. Thank you Octafish

No need to apologize. Your compilation is a useful reminder that repressing black and poor people is only one of the major objectives of the "War on Drugs". And whatever other purposes our government has had in mind for it, the declared objective is either not an objective at all, or it is such a low priority that it is routinely sacrificed for the more important goals. And Gary Webb's death is just one more reminder of the many heroes who have died in the course of their efforts to shine a light on the actions of our government.

[Hutzpa]

34. The War On Drugs

also paved the way for patriot acts, invasion of privacy. The policies where used to define these pervasion
and invasions on the American public.

[Jackpine Radical]

64. Ocafish and T4C. What a dynamite pair.

I would like to mention one other use that the drug laws have served. They have provided the excuse in many instances for political arrests.

The example that always leaps to my mind is a military case from 1968. At Fort Hood, as on many military bases, there was an active antiwar movement among the draftees. I myself was on the fringes of it. At Hood, the two most visible evidences of the movement were the Oleo Strut (an off-base coffee house in Killeen, TX) and an underground mimeographed newspaper, the Fatigue Press. The latter was actually published clandestinely on post, using government paper, mimeo supplies, etc. Army CID (Criminal Investigation Division) had strong suspicions about who was doing this, but were never quite able to nail down their case. Instead, they busted the editor of the Fatigue Press for possession of pot and gave him a General Court Martial. They claimed that they had found traces of marijuana in his pockets, but the traces were so minimal that they were destroyed in analysis, and so their actual physical evidence was a chemical analysis report indicating that the test had been positive for the presence of pot. That was enough to send the guy away for a few years.

[Time for change]

66. Very interesting!

It seems that among the many uses of the "War on Drugs", they all have in common an underlying aspect: A method of political control in order to maintain and consolidate power -- just like most other wars.

[Jackpine Radical]

106. Yes, exactly.

And of course the DEA is a de facto price-support mechanism for the drug cartels (and CIA).

[Sparkly]

8. Let me just say...

... white middle-class youth are also affected by drugs and the War on Drugs. They can quickly get embroiled in the justice system and sink like quicksand, and they burn through their resources until they have less than nothing.

I'm not saying the justice system is an equal to all -- I don't know that one way or another. But drugs, and the cultural view of addiction as criminal (rather than medical), know no bounds.

Just sayin'.

[mdmc]

23. I'd rather go to court as a white middle class youth

poor minorities have less resources to get justice..

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Figures on NYC

The population ofNY City from 1997 to 2006was about:
27% Blacks or African-Americans
27% Hispanics (all “races”)
36% Whites (not Hispanic)
and 10% other.

The marijuana possession arrestees from 1997 to 2006 were about:
54% Blacks
30% Hispanics
14% Whites.

[Time for change]

37. Absolutely. From Michelle Alexander's book:

We, as a nation, seem comfortable with 90% of the people arrested and convicted of drug offenses in some states being African American, but if the figure were 100%, the veil of colorblindness would be lost... In short, the inclusion of some whites in the system of control is essential to preserving the image of a colorblind criminal justice system and maintaining our self-image as fair and unbiased people. Because most Americans, including those within law enforcement, want to believe they are non-racist, the suffering in the drug war crosses the color line... In any war, a tremendous amount of collateral damage is inevitable. Black and brown people are the principal targets in this war; white people are collateral damage.

[Sparkly]

38. "I'm not saying the justice system is an equal to all"

And if you're accusing me of being racist, I take offense.

I am saying that heroin is a huge problem in my suburban area, and I've seen how quickly young people get sucked in by the drug and then sucked in by the system. They, too, end up with nothing, incarcerated, or dead. Being white doesn't protect them from consequences.

[Time for change]

40. I am not accusing you of being racist -- I don't know where you get that from

But it is not accurate to say that being white (compared with being black) doesn't afford a large measure of protection against the "War on Drugs". The protection is imperfect, but a great wealth of statistics shows that blacks suffer far more in this "War" than do whites, despite the fact that they do not commit drug "crimes" at a higher rate than whites.

[Sparkly]

42. "I'm not saying the justice system is equal to all"

Did I say something "not accurate?"

[Time for change]

53. I don't believe you said anything inaccurate

It is a matter of emphasis. You are emphasizing the fact that some white people are caught up and punished in the "War on Drugs". It seemed to me that that emphasis was meant to counter the primary message of the OP -- maybe I was wrong about that. So I countered by putting the emphasis back where I thought it belonged.

[Sparkly]

54. Emphasis

My emphasis is on EVERYone affected by the drugs that destroy lives, their involvement in the criminal justice system, and the difficulties finding treatment (not to mention false arrests, long jail time for missing a PO meeting, crappy public defenders, etc.).

I realize that's different from your emphasis, but I think it "belongs" in the debate as much as any other view.

[Time for change]

63. I do feel that one of your statements was misleading:

You said that "Being white doesn't protect them from the consequences". As I tried to point out, though it doesn't offer perfect protection, it does provide a large measure of protection compared to being black. I don't think we differ on that... You probably didn't mean to imply that being white doesn't offer relative protection. But I just thought that statement needed clarification.

Yes, the fact that whites are swept up and suffer in this outrageous program belongs in the discussion. I agree with you there.

[Sparkly]

71. "Being white doesn't protect them from consequences"

I think that's a very important point.

Another side of all this is the stereotype that drug addicts are black, poor, and live in the inner city. "It couldn't happen in MY neighborhood" or "It couldn't happen in MY family" are false assumptions that can result.

In fact, the average heroin addict in the US today is a white, middle-class teenager. I don't know, but it's possible that in addition to the "invincibility" of youth, they sensed themselves as immune to the devastating effects of the drug. "I'm not that guy."

Further, the statements you've quoted are generalities; so not every single white person is treated with "a large measure of protection" compared with every single black person. Each individual case may vary.

And while I'm not disputing that black people are more likely to be arrested and incarcerated (which would stand to reason given racism and the police presence in inner city neighborhoods that are predominantly black) it can also work the other way -- that is, "You're a nice white girl from the suburbs -- how could you be a poor addict?" I have seen such people denied treatment and even refused public defenders.

The bottom line is: There's no "protection" against the drug itself. And the one thing worse than jail is the morgue.

[bertman]

9. Excellent post, Time for change. Another excellent book is "Drugs: America's Holy War"

by Economics Professor Emeritus Art Benavie of the University of North Carolina.

He traces the origins of drug prohibition from the days when many of our current illegal drugs were illegal and documents how it's all about the "dead Presidents". ("dead Presidents" refers to the American Presidents who are on our currency).

Recommend.

[Time for change]

81. Thank you for the reference, bertman. That sounds like a book well worth reading.

[bertman]

98. You're welcome. P.S. I meant to say "were NOT illegal", as you prolly guessed

[Time for change]

102. Yeah, I guessed it.

I make that kind of mistake all the time. Usually I catch it when I proof my writing, but not always.

[Dystopian]

10. KandR.

Another exceptional piece.
Thank you.

peace~

[Time for change]

56. Thank you

Much of Alexander's book reminded me of the Troy Davis case. Not a drug case, but the aggressive, corrupt police methods against a defenseless black man had much in common with much of what she talked about.

[SocialistLez]

11. I loved that book.

It enraged me yet I can't help but want to change the system.

[Overseas]

14. K&R. Very disturbing because it hits so close to home.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the "success" of the war on drugs. As a new caste system.

[Number23]

15. Wow! Now THIS is a post worthy of the DU brand

Happy to rec.

I did a similar post a few months ago and couldn't believe that someone was actually arguing with me about the well known and well-documented racial disparities in prison sentencing. And come to find out, he was a cop! :crazy: Guess that shouldn't have been all that surprising.

[Number23]

16. Link

I referenced this organization in my OP on this topic a few months ago, the Sentencing Project. A really good resource

http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id=122

[Time for change]

70. Thanks for the link -- The Sentencing project has shone a lot of light on this project.

[Greyhound]

17. You have outdone yourself with this one, K&R.

I always like your work, but this one is special.
:kick: & R

[Tsiyu]

18. This is America's Dirtiest Little Secret

Everyone is outrage-fatigued, so much to be angry about as the Corporate Wolves circle and practice their newfound anarchy on the masses.

But there's one more thing to add to the list.

The prison lobby has got to be the nastiest bunch of fascists ever known to mankind, aided and abetted by judges, legislators and law enforcement, making sure that the Prison Industry is profiting greatly while greasing the palms of the government officials.

And you'll always get elected if you can incarcerate or disenfranchise all the rest of the people who - if eligible to vote - would oust you and your insane Draconian laws.



It's toe the goddamn line for the little guy: don't breathe, don't step out of line, don't mess up one little bit. Or the hammer comes down and you lose every right you had, over even a first offense.

Meanwhile, you can destroy an entire gulf and a way of life for 15,000,000 people and it's all good. We've got ourselves a completely chaotic free-for-all for the corporations...this nation's TRUE anarchists.

What will it take til Americans say enough?

ONE IN THIRTY-ONE OF US is incarcerated or on supervised probation or parole. One in Thirty-One.









:wtf:

[Fumesucker]

19. Discussing the drug war is pointless because it will *never* end..

Even here on DU certain portions of the drug war are extremely popular, read this thread and see if you disagree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8655400&mesg_id=8655400

And here is Obama's own spokesman on drugs and the drug war..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gil_Kerlikowske

Richard Gil Kerlikowske (born November 23, 1949) is the current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a position generally referred to as the United States "Drug Czar". He assumed office on May 7, 2009.

(. . .)

In a May 22, 2009 interview on KUOW radio, he said any drug 'legalization' would be "waving the white flag" and that "legalization is off the the charts when it comes to discussion, from my viewpoint" and that "legalization vocabulary doesn't exist for me and it was made clear that it doesn't exist in President Obama's vocabulary." Specifically about marijuana, he said, "It's a dangerous drug" and about the medical use of marijuana, he said, "we will wait for evidence on whether smoked marijuana has any medicinal benefits - those aren't in."

[Time for change]

20. That's what they said about slavery and Jim Crow

When enough people become outraged about a situation -- outraged enough to do something about it -- it is likely to end.

[Fumesucker]

21. Like I said, certain portions of the drug war are overwhelmingly popular..

Extremely few people want to entirely do away with the drug war, look at the thread I pointed to before.

Seventy years of propaganda have done their work, the vast majority of Americans simply cannot imagine our society without the War On (some) Drugs.

[Time for change]

28. Slavery was also very popular among certain segments of the population

And it was accompanied by many decades of propaganda.

Things can and do change.

[Fumesucker]

30. Read the thread I pointed to..

There were very few in favor of legalizing meth.

And that was on overwhelmingly liberal DU, go out in the general population and you'll find about as much support among voters for legalizing meth as for eating babies.

[liberation]

46. The funny thing about meth is...

... that the socioeconomic group most likely to be against legalizing it: middle aged conservative white people. It is also the group which most heavily abuses the drug.

[Time for change]

52. In order to end the "War on Drugs" it is not necessary to make all currently illegal drugs legal

The penalties could be reduced to be much more in line with the magnitude of the "crime". And, Congress could pass laws to outlaw the gross racial bias with which these laws are currently enforced. Once targeting of black people is outlawed, just see how long the "War on Drugs" lasts.

[Fumesucker]

107. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet..

You might not *call* it "The War On Drugs" but that's what it will be.

And meth seems to be more a "white" drug than a black one.

Until the drugs are fully legal the evils of a black market will continue, violence, vast flows of cash outside the legitimate economy, adulterated drugs and so on.

Keep in mind that during alcohol Prohibition it was never illegal to possess or consume alcohol, only the sales, manufacture or importation of alcohol was illegal.

How well did Prohibition work out?

What was the solution to the problems of the exclusive black market in alcohol?

[eShirl]

25. we can chip away at it relentlessly; discussing it is NOT pointless

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

22. This is our new version of slavery - supplying inmates to be part of the Prison Industrial complex.

And we're creating lots more potential recriuts for the system above and beyond the people who have been targeted and incarcerated for drugs:

If they take our jobs, and then take our unemployment and then take our homes - the newly jobless, pennyless and homeless will turn to crime, and they will go to prison - WHERE THE JOBS ARE!

There' a lot of new Jean Valjeans being created every day.

[Fla_Democrat]

24. -_-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8655400

[droidamus2]

26. Negative incentive

Another tool the federal government used was threats to deny federal funds for other purposes such as highways. I know that when the feds first created CAMP (Campaign against Marijuana Plantations? or something like that) Humboldt county in California said they weren't interested. Basically they weren't wild about a bunch of agents from out of the area running around and harassing and busting the locals. So the feds, to give the county a little incentive, told them that either you allow our agents in or we will start cutting off federal funds to you country and its cities and towns. Humboldt not being a rich county that could absorb that kind of lost was forced to capitulate to the DEA.

[Soylent Brice]

27. utterly shameful.

K&R

[malaise]

29. Another great thread

I posted this link as a separate thread but this is another look on how they use the drugs to fund their agenda
http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/features/65437

[blindpig]

31. Government is the crowd control subsidiary of Capital.

Divide and conquer, keep them proles down.

k&r

[Hutzpa]

33. What a stimulating thread

this is whats been missing at DU, something that can stimulate the mind instead of reading about Sarah Palin, Rand Pauls'
latest mis-adventures.

Thank you for an excellent post.

This is the ultimate infestation within the American society, War On Drugs is seen as the quintessence embodiment to
castigating an entire culture into submissive role plays that has given birth to an authoritative society that sees
police brutality, judicial misconduct and political malfeasance as a credible way of life. The Jim Crow Law is responsible
for antagonizing each other whereas Federal agents can protect each other even in the eyes of gross misconduct, having the
knowledge that the Federal Government will protect them irregardless of the level of crime being committed against civilians.

Civilians on the other hand have become accustomed to accepting less, meaning less facts, less protection, less performance
from elected officials. As long as civilians can buy in to mediocre performance from elected official propagated by the media
the system will remain in place. There are no journalist anymore, what we see are models and studs being employed as anchors
and analyst, (nothing against them) but when the economy is at stake, lives are at stake there is nothing much more important
than having a well informed individual who can provide detailed analysis on events elected officials might have missed.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

35. Going back to seizure forfeiture laws and eroding the 4th Amendment

The bogus war on drugs was used to successfully erode the Fourth Amendment by defining a new class of criminals who were not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Actual forfeiture, not just seizing, before conviction is an abomination. Google away and find loads of info about people who have lost homes, boats, etc., later found innocent and then being just SOL when it comes to their lost assets.

More importantly, this sets the precedent for future "special classes" of criminals being added to suspected drug miscreants in the future. People accused under The Homeland Security act as "domestic terrorists" like the Minneapolis RNC protesters? Liberal bloggers? Who knows? The important thing is the established precedent of defining a particular criminal group as having no Constitutional protections.

Honestly, when this happened, I pretty much knew we were screwed as far as being a Democracy or a country governed by the Rule of Law. This right against seizure and forfeiture was what the whole frigging Magna Carta was ABOUT. King John liked to define people as criminals and take their stuff even way back then.

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/magna-carta.htm

Why the Magna Carta was important to the History of America
A document signed by an English King in 1215! Why the Magna Carta was important to the history of America? The Magna Carta is considered the founding document of English liberties and hence American liberties. The influence of Magna Carta can be seen in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Article 21 from the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 reads:

"That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land."

[Time for change]

36. Yep -- It is beyond my comprehension how the seizure forteiture laws could have existed for so long

without being ruled unconstitutional under the due process clauses of the 5th or 14th amendments.

[liberation]

48. Most proceedings in the "war" on drugs are also heavily unconstitutional

most drug charges are prosecuted under a "guilty until the accused can prove their innocence." When the constitution clearly states the burden of the proof is on the state making the accusation.

And let's not even talk about the massive complex built around the war on drugs, which depends on massive amounts of public money, and whose bottom line and interests are inversely proportional to the war on drugs being successful.


When the war on drugs has hurt and destroyed more lives than the actual use of drugs ever did, we need to start asking some very serious questions. Alas...

[laughingliberal]

39. Excellent, as usual. I'm so tired of these backwards, soul destroying laws. nt

[Blue Owl]

44. K & R!

K & R!

[defendandprotect]

45. Thank you, Time for Change . .

have to come back later to read it completely --

but just want to comment that the underlying and unspoken issue of the

2nd amendment the other day was of course the Drug War --

[Beam Me Up]

47. This is what I wrote and posted 16 years ago:

Against The "War On Drugs"

Let us be clear: There is not now, nor has there ever been, a "War on Drugs."

What there is is a cynical program of political duplicity; the intent of which is not to prevent drug abuse (which it encourages), but to create a climate of distrust, fear, hostility, alienation, divisiveness, and violence within our society. The so called "War on Drugs" is in reality a war of cultural prejudice waged primarily against the young, the poor, the non-white and the socially disaffected to the advantage of the Elected, the Corporate, the Privileged and the Few.

President Nixon launched this war against American citizens in 1968, at a time of extreme political and social unrest. For Nixon, it was a method of "getting even" with "uppity blacks," "radical leftists" and "dirty hippies" that he and the nefarious interests he represented (especially those who benefited economically from the war in Vietnam) regarded as "second class citizens" and "traitors" to the American way of life.

On the contrary: What we were doing then, and what we are doing now, is trying to liberate America from a reign of political and economic tyranny that is sustained by rhetorical propaganda and misinformation. We love America and the Constitution and wish nothing more than to see her succeed in her Great Promise of providing Freedom and Justice for All. Those who oppose this very High Aim, whether out of ignorance, greed or bigotry, are the true enemies of our nation and its Constitution.

Dividing Americans against themselves, making them mistrust, fear and wage war against their fellow citizens: This is what the so called "War on Drugs" was meant to do--and that is precisely what it has done and is doing--far more successfully than even Richard Nixon could have hoped. What better way to destroy the gains blacks were making through the Civil Rights movement than to flood the ghettos with drugs which addict thousands of users, offering the allure for "quick" money and escape from poverty, while simultaneously creating divisions and violent "turf wars" between ghetto gangs? All this while creating the political justifications and judicial sanctions for increasingly militaristic police "crack downs," arresting, incarcerating (killing when necessary) and ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands of black men, their families and their communities.

After Nixon, both Ronald Regan and George Bush found their own uses for the "War on Drugs." Besides the political advantages of "getting tough" on the very crime and violence that prohibition inevitably engenders, drug smuggling by covert factions within the federal system itself created vast sums of unregulated money to fund illegal military operations outside our nations boarders. What began as a cynical attitude of social malice quickly turned into a bad habit of deception and corruption. Nothing, my friends, is more addictive than power.

At this point in our history--the election year of 1996--this insidious and increasingly malignant and militaristic policy is still with us. And to judge by President Clinton's appointment of General Barry McCaffrey as "Drug Czar," it may be about to get much worse. This so called "policy" has become such a part of our media conditioned perception of reality that it is difficult to imagine an America without it. Anyone who publicly opposes the inflamed rhetoric or tries to bring rational, informed discussion to the issue, is branded a "traitor," characterized as a "drug pusher" or worse--in precisely the same way leftists were branded as "communists" in the McCarthy era of the 1950s. Witness the forced resignation of Surgeon General Jocylin Elders after she took an informed and reasoned position of leadership on this issue. She understood, as more and more Americans are coming to understand, that making criminals of drug users not only does not solve the problems associated with drug abuse, it exacerbates them far beyond the harms of the drugs. Indeed, with forfeiture laws and the kinds of invasions of our privacy that it allows, the "War on Drugs" has put the civil liberties of all citizens in jeopardy.

It is time for us to ARM OURSELVES against this misguided tyranny with information, with conviction and with every legal strategy for a redress of grievances that our Constitution allows.

Thank You,

http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/arm.html


We need a name or word phrase for policies like this that a) do not achieve their stated aims or objectives but b) DO achieve aims and objectives that are left publicly unstated.


edit to fix bbcode

[Sparkly]

50. My View

I am closer to this issue than I wish I were.

I think it should be treated as mental illnesses are: The law can intervene when one is a danger to one's self or others. That means leave pot smokers (growers, sellers) alone. But it means providing treatment (not jail) to heroin addicts. (And yes, I recognize that there's no guarantee that'd "work," either -- but I think it's the best option of a lot of terrible options.)

To Obama's credit, he's at least SAID it should be about treatment and prevention.

(AP)President Barack Obama on Tuesday announced a revised approach to "confronting the complex challenge of drug use and its consequences," putting more resources into drug prevention and treatment.

The new drug control strategy boosts community-based anti-drug programs, encourages health care providers to screen for drug problems before addiction sets in and expands treatment beyond specialty centers to mainstream health care facilities.

"By boosting community-based prevention, expanding treatment, strengthening law enforcement and working collaboratively with our global partners, we will reduce drug use and the great damage it causes in our communities," Mr. Obama said. "I am confident that when we take the steps outlined in this strategy, we will make our country stronger and our people healthier and safer."

The plan — the first drug plan unveiled by the Obama White House — calls for reducing the rate of youth drug use by 15 percent over the next five years and for similar reductions in chronic drug use, drug abuse deaths and drugged driving.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/11/politics/main6471822.shtml

[EOTE]

67. Regarding heroin use and treatment.

I recently heard of a study that with the exception of overdosing and constipation, there was very little in terms of a negative health aspect to heroin use. Considering that overdosing is almost always due to not knowing the quality and potency of the heroin that one has been provided, why should one force treatment upon a heroin user?

[Beam Me Up]

69. What you say is true but Sparky didn't say "force"...

he/she said: "The law can intervene when one is a danger to one's self or others." -- which seems reasonable to me.

[EOTE]

72. How does one determine what constitutes that danger?

No one would deny that alcoholics can present a huge danger to themselves or others, yet the law doesn't interfere unless that alcoholic actually breaks a law. If we are to end drug war insanity, we should have a similar approach toward other drugs. If the heroin user is not breaking the law otherwise, I don't think it's reasonable to intervene.

[Sparkly]

74. Wrong.

If the alcoholic is driving under the influence, or poisoning themselves to the point of unconsciousness, or is suicidal or violent, etc., yes, the law does "interfere."

[EOTE]

76. I strongly suggest reading a post before responding.

Perhaps that's why I said "yet the law doesn't interfere unless that alcoholic actually breaks a law."

[Sparkly]

78. I agree...

Making one's self sick or saying, "I feel like killing myself" is not against the law.

[EOTE]

82. Exactly. And we don't force treatment upon people for doing those things either. NT

[Sparkly]

83. Yes, we do.

Have you ever heard of having someone "committed?"

[EOTE]

84. The standards for having an adult "committed" is very high.

You can't just walk into any mental hospital and suggest that someone is harming themselves and then expect that the hospital is going to commit that person.

[Sparkly]

85. Yes, they are -- rightfully so.

I'm not talking about people IN "mental hospitals."

[EOTE]

87. So that same standard should apply to heroin addicts. NT

[Sparkly]

88. We agree.

[Stinky The Clown]

100. You just proved you don't know what you're talking about

[EOTE]

109. And how is that?

Do we force adults into treatment when they give themselves a hangover? When they're having a bad day and say "I wish I were dead!"? Do you know what it takes to get an adult committed? Do you really think it's an easy thing to do?

[Sparkly]

73. That's bullshit.

I've heard that too, and it's simply false. Heroin has major effects on health.

What's the difference what causes overdose?? "Not knowing" = deserving to die?

One should "force treatment upon a heroin user," or at least ADDICT, for the same reason one should "force a psychotic person into a hospital" which is the same reason one should "force a person having a heart attack into a hospital" which is the same reason one should "force a person out of the way of a speeding truck." Again, it doesn't always work, but consider the alternative.

Having said that, if you can show me a heroin addict living a happy and productive life, not endangering anyone else or committing any other crimes -- fine, let them be. (But can you?)

[EOTE]

75. I would NEVER suggest that heroin users deserve to die.

You must be misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm saying that if heroin were legal, there would be a hell of a lot less overdoses because people would know the potency of what they're getting.

However, I think there must be a strongly compelling argument for forcing a user into treatment. And considering that most users are able to lead productive lives, they shouldn't be forced into treatment until they've proven that they're a danger to themselves or others.

[Sparkly]

79. "Most users are able to lead productive lives"

Heroin addicts?

[EOTE]

80. Yes, heroin addicts.

And regardless of what you see on television or in movies, it's the truth.

[Sparkly]

86. Please let me know where you got this information

that "most heroin addicts are able to lead productive lives."

What I know is not based on anything I've seen "on television or in movies." I wish it were.

[EOTE]

89. Well, I've known several heroin addicts.

And aside from them really, really wanting heroin, their lives were rather normal. Also, I mentioned a study (from the Netherlands, I believe) that came to the exact same conclusion that I have. That heroin users typically lead very normal lives and the only typical adverse health effects they experience are constipation, and in the instances where they receive heroin of vastly different potency, overdose. I'm still looking for that study, but I'm not able to find it at the moment.

[Sparkly]

90. ::sigh::....

You've known several heroin addicts and read a study from or about the Netherlands.... That's about what I thought.

Talk to a social worker or PO, or an addiction counselor or a community drug/alcohol service, or even a judge, or go to a Nar Anon or NA meeting. Talk to some parents whose kids have died fro heroin. Health consequences are far, far greater than constipation (give me a break!!) and the inability to function (such as holding down a job) while trying to afford to live, let alone to buy the drug, makes being "productive" quite impossible.

You'd have to go a long way to convince me that most heroin addicts are able to life productive lives.

[EOTE]

91. It was a scientific study from the Netherlands.

And yes, I'd take a scientific study over anecdotal evidence from people whose very jobs ensure that they will see the worst of the sample group.

[Sparkly]

92. Go for it.

Sadly, you're unaware of the reality of this. Or rather, you're blissfully unaware of the reality of this. It's the reality that's really sad.

[EOTE]

93. Perhaps you see your own reality.

I've lived my life long enough to have a grasp of what reality is. You may disagree with me, but you're not the arbiter of what reality is or isn't.

[Sparkly]

94. In this case, I am.

And when it comes to heroin addiction, you are simply mistaken. It is not just "my" reality. It is what it is, and it's a horrible drug that does horrible things to people's lives, and often to the lives of other people. That is reality.

It is not a matter of disagreement, except in the sense that I disagree with the idea that you know what you're talking about.

I don't mean that as an insult, I mean you aren't familiar with the issue.

I'd like to stop debating this with you now. It's starting to bother me. Thanks.

[Beam Me Up]

68. Agreed. Education and treatment not incarceration. n/t

[Time for change]

77. Excellent

You were right on target with regard to McCaffrey's appointment.

[wcast]

49. 2pac has a great line in his song "Changes"

"And still I see no changes can't a brother get a little peace
It's war on the streets & the war in the Middle East
Instead of war on poverty they got a war on drugs
so the police can bother me"

Most people have been conditioned, as reflex, to think that blacks, and now brown people(they're all illegal aren't they?) are criminals and really offend at greater rates than whites, which we know is not the truth. To me it always comes down to rich vs. poor. The rich always have the advantage, always get to make the rules, and the masses blindly carry on, believing without fact. Whether it's drug laws, immigration laws, or taxes, they don't let the facts get in the way of their beliefs.

I now routinely tell people that the war on drugs was really defacto segregation. It's a great line to quickly end a conversation on drug use and/or race. Presented with facts, such as written above, most people shut up. Doesn't change their minds, but you got to start somewhere.

[Brewman_Jax]

51. Excellent work

K&R :kick:

[pitohui]

55. well at the end of the day why did she plead guilty if she wasn't guilty?

it's my experience that the drug war is indeed a war on poor, the working class, and anybody else who's standing around, esp. if they're black or brown

however, once picked up in a sweep, if you plead guilty, then i have to assume that you're guilty, it isn't like this lady is saying she was falsely convicted of something, she's saying she pled guilty

most people i know who were picked up, guilty or not, just STFU and were eventually (or sometimes the next day) let go for lack of evidence, need to free up room in the jail for the next round of police state victims

the jails are packed around here, if you just sit tight and STFU, then it's going to cost the state too much to go after you, if they have no evidence at all...but if you PLEAD GUILTY then sry i think most sensible people, employers, judges, etc. have to assume you were guilty

[Time for change]

58. Pleading guilty was a rational decision given the information she was aware of

1. She needed to get out of jail so she could see and care for her children; 2) She risked several years in prison if she refused to accept the deal she was presented with. I probably would have done the same. She had no way of knowing that the case would be dismissed. A decent criminal justice system would have taken her guilty plea off the records.

[G_j]

57. excellent

K&R

[Uncle Joe]

59. Kicked and highly recommended.

Well done, Time for change, thanks for the thread.:thumbsup:

[EOTE]

60. K&R. You'd be amazed at how many people, even here...

don't think that racism is a problem within law enforcement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8655330

[colsohlibgal]

65. The War On Drugs Is Insane and Way Counterproductive

It crowds our prisons with people who aren't crooks but might now become one, and it begets a ton of violence. Drug addiction is a medical issue and should be treated with treatment centers, not the big house.

[ooglymoogly]

95. The title alone deserves a big KR; Now will read the post. nt yet.

[ooglymoogly]

96. The "war on drugs" should have been called 'The Road To Fascism'.

and guess what? We are near the end of that road. It is a power grab by pugs on so many levels, they are near uncountable; To say nothing of its first goal, the war against the citizens of this country by the drug cartels, with their personal armies from "our" Government, headed up by the DEA, the St ste Dpt, the C_eye-A et al. It is an astronomic and kaleidoscopic boondoggle that is eating this country alive and shitting it out as a fascist banana republic who's blatant hypocrisy is a joke heard round the world and who's putridity is smelled throughout the universe. If there is such a thing as Karma or cosmic justice, for cripe sake, let the pendulum swing like the sword of Damocles on the neck of the pug thugs and their wannabees in the Dem party who engineered this crime against humanity, this treason to the collective soul of mankind, this war on life itself.

[aikoaiko]

97. How does that last quote jive with the historic decreasing trend in violent crime

[Time for change]

101. the crime rate is determined by many factors

The decrease during the 90s was likely related due to an improving economy. I'll bet it's gone up since 2005.

[aikoaiko]

103. I agree, but such a bold statement would seem to warrant some supporting evidence

Here's a table of data from 2005 to 2009. And I can't say violent crime as a whole has increased during the worse recession since the depression.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/table_3.html

I always assumed that crime rates would fluctuate with the economy, but they don't seem to be that way with the most recent recession.

One factor that comes to mind as a possible explanation is the incredibly high rate of incarceration. Perhaps more criminals are in jail and staying in there longer.


eta: I'll look for a graph or data that shows the whole trend.

[Time for change]

105. Another theory with some pretty good evidence to back it up is

that the decreasing crime rate in the 90s was due mainly to the availability of safe abortions starting in the late 60 (in some states prior to Roe v Wade) and 70s. That resulted in a huge decrease in the number of unwanted children -- who are at very high risk for crime.

But I really do agree with Michelle Alexander's quote. There is a great deal of psychological and sociological evidence that treating people like criminals is likely to make them act like criminals. Our "War on Drugs" creates a desperate situation for many hundreds of thousands of people. I can't believe that that doesn't tempt them to turn to crime, and even violent crime. But there are many factors at work, and some are probably working in the opposite direction.

To surmise that violent crime is decreasing because we're locking up so many people would be to guess that the people we're locking up are the ones who would otherwise commit violent crimes -- and there is no evidence to support that. Anyhow, if we have to ruin the lives of millions of people to decrease the crime rate, in my opinion it's not worth it.

[aikoaiko]

108. I think the abortin theory holdssome merit, but It will be interesting to see how that holds up give

abortions peaked in 1975 and have been declining slightly, but yet crime keeps decreasing.


As you say, crime is a certainly brought about through multiple factors.

[amborin]

99. K&R