What a Better "War on Drugs" Could Look Like

A very useful summary, and implicitly highlights some of the wider problems, ie that drugs policies need to be long-term and holistic, when most political decision making is short-term and narrow in scope.

Thank you, Sarah. Your positive feedback means much to me. And yes, with that understanding that political decision making steers policy, it is easier to understand the difficulties we have on so many contemporary issues.

Thank you, Sarah. Your positive feedback means much to me. And yes, the understanding that political decision making steers policy, it is easier to understand the difficulties we have on so many contemporary issues.

I wonder how many of those same government officials actually understand that the reason the plants to make the drugs are grown is because it is the only crop they can grow that will turn a profit.

Baloney. Mexico is a desert, and so is Arizona. And its land can support other crops - cotton and citrus being just two of them. Peppers, coffee, chocolate, vanilla the amount of sustainable agriculture in Mexico is enormous. And Mexico is sitting on more oil than all of the Middle East.

You really think Mexico is a poor country? Or that because it is a socialistic country, all the wealth simply settles on the top?

People need the dignity of employment that allows self-sufficiency. I muse about the billions that have funded the "war on drugs" and wonder how things might be different (better) if that money were invested into basic human needs, education and micro-loans in the developing nations. Thanks for a comment that really probes into root causes, Sherrill!

There never has been a war on drugs. How can you have a "war on drugs" when there is and has been over 800 miles of open border between the largest drug supplier (Mexico) and the U.S.

The only thing that "war on drugs" was was an excuse to feed the media taxpayer dollars from the money given to the Ad Council, since the mainstream media and Washington are bedfellows, and the media moguls some of the largest governmental "welfare" recipients ever.

There was a story about a new drug that was coming out that instantly cures the cravings for heroin and other highly addictive forms of narcotics.I saw one story on T.V. and another in written form.That was at least a year ago and I have not heard any thing since.If the war was over then those working in the drug industry,the D.E.A and all the others are members of the illegal drug trade,would have to find another job.With any luck they could be useful members of society by finding employment that produces something useful.Something that can be bought and sold over the counter.The only thing our country is producing and profiting from is crime and punishment.A family of 4 on welfare is lucky to recieve 12,000 a year.A inmate locked up in the prison system is awarded to the prison sytem for their care up to 50,000 a piece.All the money on each inmate and what is produced,the never ending production of criminals.

I don't know what kind of jail and where you are getting your statistics, but the misdemeanor drug offenders in Arizona get locked up and sleep in over 120 heat in surplus army tents and bunks, with no air and bathroom facilities. And get green baloney sandwiches, and are now charged for their own accomadations or supplies through the "privatized" store in many of the jails that charge about $5.00 for a pen. Arizona actually recently sold its jails and "privatized" them, so the costs now are more expensive because their profit margins now are added in for the "leaseback."

The state is using the prisons now in order to get revenue in federal grant monies, so that is why our prisons are now so full. And also legislating jail sentences for victimless crimes. All for state revenue purposes.

So your jails are expensive because the state is greedy, and charging you for those sums (since the federal monies they receive are never included in state budgets), so they can hand the extra cash to their campaign backers.

Those jails in Arizona were owned by the citizens, so the state really had no authority to sell them to begin with. But did it anyway, that is also how unaccountable now our state and local governments are.

The way things are going with all these petty crimes now being criminalized, over 95% of the citizens will have a criminal record.

And this is in the "home of the free," with a higher prison population now than most of Europe, or even China.

Once a drug like that became available, it will probably be very expensive. Besides that the person who is addicted has to WANT to stop and since there are already a number of ways to quit if they want it; I can't see any new drug making much of a difference.

Mexico has been under the "governance" of the narcos for literally decades, as any longer term border resident knows. And most of those that are in the Mexican police and border agents are direct beneficiaries of the drug trafficking, and in partnership with them. Mexico's lead drug czar, it was recently discovered, was receiving over $450,000 per month from the cartels.

This Merrida Initiative I would suspect is nothing more than another trade agreement, since a good many on the Hill are also indirectly benefiting from this underground "free trade" agreement, and have been for also decades. The "insatiable" need for drugs fantasy that you and other liberals continue to promote is because the main market the cartels target is the youth market, since the younger you create an addict the longer you have a customer.

And then many of those kids start working for the cartels in order to support their habits. If the borders throughout Arizona (500 miles of open desert they traverse at will) and other areas had been secured as those near San Diego and El Paso, the drug trade would be significantly slowed down - since they use all terrain vehicles in order to cross that desert with their trade. Also, most likely that Merida money will go into the pockets of the Mexican government officials, and not to "fight" the cartels at all.

Mexico's government has been historically corrupt to its core. The local officials "negotiate" with Americans over even traffic violations in that country, and it is not unusual to find the federales in the spring break areas carrying around machine guns patrolling the beach areas. Many a border state resident has ended up in a Mexican jail, and kept there for literally years and their relatives then charged outrageous sums in order to visit them. Without ever having a hearing, much less a phone call.

It appears "border explorer" you are truly quite naive about the border situation, and just why there is now this "insatiable" need for drugs in this country - which was an insult by Ms. Clinton, since if those borders have been secured years and years ago, the lives that are now being lost of Americans in the border states that continue to increase by the year would not be happening.

Amazing to me how many "global socialists" in this country continue to call themselves "Americans," who are "open borders" supporters at the cost of the lives of their very own countrymen.

And there is no excuse for this now eight years post 9/11. None whatsoever.

And the Mexicans are getting most of their drugs from the South Americans, because Americans can't even take guns into Mexico, so they sure aren't getting them from Americans. Unless they are being shipped in by the greedy gun dealers with Washington's knowledge and consent.

Also, a great many of the lawyers in this country are also on the drug cartel gravy train. The criminal and immigration attorneys particularly in the border states. Used to be that the illegals in Arizona simply were handed over to the U.S. Marshall's office and returned. The ACLU then got them civil rights and deportation hearings so they could get their hands on some of that drug money for their defense costs.

The liberals in Washington and the liberals in the citizenry are actually what has occurred with the ineffective "war on drugs," due to their betrayal mainly of their fellow citizens in the border states, in favor of the drug cartel and illegal immigrants "civil rights," when if you are arrested in Mexico - you are lucky to get a phone call, much less an "civil rights," if you are involved in even traffic violations.

Do you, perhaps, work for the federal government by any chance?

In the border states, the drugs are sold at the McDonald's or Burger Kings right next to the high schools. Now, if the residents know this, don't you think that the local police also know this? And the DEA? So why do you think you don't hear of many drug busts for the sellers, and most of the police action is directed toward the users?

And in Arizona, they also concentrate on schools where kids have part time jobs or allowances, not the inner city schools at all.

So if the citizens know where the drug dealers hang out, and also who most of the employers are of the illegals in the borders states, don't you think that the U.S. government is sanctioning this "free trade" agreement due to its negligence and complicity?

Mexico can't fight a "drug war" until it contains the problem. So you would think, wouldn't you, if they were serious about fighting the drug trafficking back and forth between the U.S. and Mexico they would be behind getting the borders fenced an secured in order to better be able to contain it, and arrest those that are involved?

So, do you really think Mexico is seriously "fighting" this war at all, since they actually do print pamphlets instructing their poor how to cross the Arizona desert borders, and also most of the police and agents make supplement incomes from the drug trafficking?

Ross, you have made some good points throughout this thread. I suspect, however, that the "ad hominem" attacks weaken your comments.

And you also would know as much if you actually were open to "educating" yourself on the border and border situation from those that truly know what they are talking about.

The ones who have actually lived it for a good many years. Such as myself.

And Patrick Henry and the founders didn't much concern themselves with "ad hominem" attacks on the Tories and individuals that were aligned with the British, and the English government, when their rights were being violated, and also being made victims of governmental overstep, negligence and abuse.

Far from it. They called a spade a spade, as I recall.

In other words, your "job" other than posting such ludicrous articles that are so factually inaccurate and without any merit or basis?

And I did ask, could you disclose the source of your income or just what "corporate" political party and organizations you might belong...are they publicly funded? Do you work for the U.S. government in any capacity?

As far as "ad hominem" attacks, when as one who has been adversely affected, and watched my fellow Arizonans lives and property continue to be compromised due to other Americans who have been directly responsible for why there continues to be a lack of action in the "blue" Eastern states and have abandoned those in the West with their "blue nose" attitudes, I lost my political correctness when I lost my homes state and property and was repeatedly victimized.

So, "border explorer" you are an enemy of the Southwestern victims, not its fellow American or countryman at all. But a sympathizer to the criminal element who are victimizing them.

So truly not what I or the founders were define as an "American" at all.

Billie....for the strategy to forget both the market & Government corruption is a program doomed to failure and a blueprint for the status quo. The agenda almost reads like a "make-work" program for Law enforcement rather than a true blueprint to get at the root and branch of the problem. Sure...everybody hates drug users and losers and low-lifes...but if your bread & butter depends on them for a budget why get rid of the problem? You'll simply be outa work with squad cars & tasers and may have serve donuts somewhere! HEY...Let's make insulin illegal and soon you'll have diabetics holding up 7-11's for their fix?
Great short & to the point article. Thanks!

Thanks for adding a note of levity, Andy! I know that you and I have a similar perspective on the "war on drugs." It is nice (and a bit surprising to me!) to see support for our point of view coming out of the US Army War College, however.

Thanks, Andy, for adding some levity to the thread (!) and for your support. I know that you and I have a similar stance on the war on drugs. It was nice (and a bit surprising to me!) to find support for our thinking coming out of the US Army War College.

Makes sense to me.

Great to have you on-board Allvoices, Nick!

Congrats, BorderExplorer! A rather insightful, overarching review of a problem looked at with far too narrow lenses, historically...Would Secretary Clinton and the State Department be pursuing anything of much difference?

Maximus, that's another interesting question coming from you (Clinton and Dept of State). So far, I haven't seen anything from them that is as "holistic and integrated" as this report recommends. During the presidential nomination process last year, some activist-scholars I knew on the border did an analysis (unpublished) of the Democratic candidates' stances that were pertinent to border issues. Obama came in last place.

Congrats, BorderExplorer! A rather insightful, overarching review of a problem looked at with far too narrow lenses, historically...Would Secretary Clinton and the State Department be pursuing anything of much difference?

A very insightful piece BE!!

Thanks, allknower. Good to see you around again! I, of course, don't claim credit for the content of this post since it is simply a summation of the cited paper. However, I thought the paper was excellent and worth sharing here. Glad you found it helpful.

Take the example from Australia. If the police receive a tip off that a drug farm of marijuana or poppies is being illegally grown, they consult
a judge or a magistrate for a warrant to search the farm. Identify themselves as police and issue the warrant. They arrest all the people involved, harvest the crop, throw it in a big stack and set fire to it
after they pour drums of kerosene into it. Like in June of this year in
Brisbane, police came to a marijuana farm with warrants to confiscate the crop, people employed there ran away the previous day abandoning
the farm. Marijuana was all harvested by the police into a large stack
and since there was a petrol pump there for refuelling the tractors and farm machinery the marijuana was doused with gasoline and set alight. The fire could be seen for many miles the news crew said. None
of those people were caught because they never came back, the bailiff
confiscated the property to be sold at auction. 23/7/2009.

Thanks for the report from Australia, mllovric.

Hi,

Got a simple solution to this, though not an easy one.

To stop this, I suggest that focus be made on the demand side. As we all know, this problem is a result of demand, and once we curtail/control the demand side of the equation, the supply side would be affected.

One area in the demand side that I would like authorities to focus is the role of family. We need to strengthen family support system to prevent family members in indulging in this habit. Like in the Philippines, the value of family is still being promoted as the best solution to this problem.

Since we are thinking of a holistic approach to this problem, I suggest we include the role of family in crafting solutions.

Hope this helps.....

I agree, bongtamonte, that the role of the family is crucial. Healthy families build healthy societies. Thanks for adding that concept to the solution list.

keep it up its a great news kindly visit and comment on mine one plz itz about terrorist and politics all...................... and your news is oysum.... this site is made for these type of newses...........