Drug Prohibition
by We have to understand that as Lee Brown said of “the war on drugs,” “A country shouldn’t declare war on its own people.”
“Despite an unfortunate policy history, “The problem,” in the context of illicit drugs, although perceived independently on the street and in Washington, has been defined surprisingly similarly when considering expert opinion, and shockingly differently when considering political leadership. The recurrent disconnect has been largely driven by short-term political considerations consistently at the expense of the common good”.
Despite an unfortunate policy history, “The problem,” in the context of illicit drugs, although perceived independently on the street and in Washington, has been defined surprisingly similarly when considering expert opinion, and shockingly differently when considering political leadership. The recurrent disconnect has been largely driven by short-term political considerations consistently at the expense of the common good.
Hard-core users consume three quarters of the drugs imported into this country and are responsible for a significant portion of the crime related to drugs. Many seek help in changing their destructive behavior, but feel the repercussions of the supply of treatment severely outstripped by the demand for treatment. These are people that need help. But Bruce Carnes as head of Office of National Drug Control Policy’s budget and planning once said of the intent of the ONDCP that, “It was not directed at hard-core addicts. They consumed the vast bulk of the drugs, and contributed a significant part of the crime, but they weren’t the main threat to your kids becoming drug users.” (199)
For whatever reason, maybe because the Parent Movement had captured this agency, the ONDCP clearly cared more about whether kids smoked marijuana than whether hard-core addicts got the help they needed. Apparently as far as the ONDCP was concerned suburban parents are more American, because addicts according to the Carnes formulation are not viewed as constituents.
Under Nixon, when a serious heroin epidemic was first noticed and dealt with, Nixon pragmatically expanded treatment. Jerome Jaffe, who had been so successful in creating a treatment program for Illinois, was called to do the same for the country. Jerome Jaffe explained that the goal for a national program should be “to make treatment available to all heroin addicts so that no one had to commit a crime to support a habit because they cannot get treatment.”(111) The Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP), was very successful, and for the first time since national crime statistics started to be gathered the crime rate dropped. The treatment program was not run in isolation; it had been supported relatively successful efforts to combat the French Connection, a major heroin trafficking route. Successive administrations learned the wrong lesson and started emphasizing law enforcement over treatment. The Reagan administration contributed to this dire trend.
“Drug addicts, by contrast [to agencies like the Drug Enforcement Agency], had few friends in Washington, and so the treatment budget would be cut a staggering 25 percent. Taking into account the inflation-driven declines of the Carter years, this amounted to a 43 percent reduction in federal treatment funds in just a few years. In real terms, federal spending on treatment was less than one-fourth what it had been in 1974.”(161)
Liked it
