What Will it Take to Stop the Violence?
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said in a Mexico City radio interview in August that he supported Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s call for a debate on drug legalization. He also said that he will work to build a united front with Peru and Mexico on legalization if voters in California approve Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana in November.
Colombia and Peru are the world’s top cocaine producers. Mexico is the leading producer of marijuana and opium in this part of the world, and is the home to some of the world’s wealthiest and deadliest drug trafficking organizations.
President Santos has made such remarks before. In 1998, as head of the Good Government Foundation, he co-signed an open letter to then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan calling for a “frank and honest evaluation of global drug control efforts” because “we believe the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself.” Two years ago, he told a London conference on cocaine that legalization should be part of the debate.
In 2006, Mexican President Felipe Calderon announced a new military offensive against his country’s drug cartels. Since then the cartels have become more powerful than ever, financed primarily by marijuana sales. Violence has spread not just in the border areas but throughout Mexico and more than 28,000 people have been killed in the prohibition-fueled violence. Realizing that his hard-line approach has not worked, earlier this month Calderon said the time has come for Mexico to have an open debate about regulating drugs as a way to combat the cartels. Ignoring this problem, Mr. Calderon said, “is an unacceptable option.”
Calderon’s predecessor, Vicente Fox, went even further, writing on his blog that “we should consider legalizing the production, sale and distribution of drugs” as a way to “weaken and break the economic system that allows cartels to earn huge profits… Radical prohibition strategies have never worked.” Fox is hardly alone. His predecessor, as well as former presidents of Brazil and Colombia, has also spoken out for the need to end prohibition. Meanwhile in the US we’ve given criminals a virtual monopoly on something that U.S. drug-policy researcher Jon Gettman estimates is a $36 billion a year industry, greater than corn and wheat combined. We have implemented laws that are not enforceable, which has thereby created a thriving black market.
Sadly, despite 14 states flouting US federal law and legalizing marijuana for medical purposes and, despite a referendum to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes that will be put before California voters this November U.S. officials refuse to even acknowledge that such a debate is taking place. Obama’s Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has said repeatedly that the Obama administration is not open to a debate on ending marijuana prohibition. Even worse, we’ve donated $1.4 billion to fund Mexico’s horribly failed drug war.
Recently six former “drug czars” got together and released a statement in opposition to Prop 19 in California. All past directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the administrations of Presidents Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, these bureaucrats have presided over a policy that has been a documented failure since its inception and they continue to lie about the facts and encourage more of the same disastrous policies. After decades of America’s drug war and close to a trillion dollars spent on their policy one would think it would be nearly perfect instead of the resounding failure it has obviously become.
America’s insistence on drug prohibition has caused violence and crime, not only at home but in all of Latin and South America. Now the violence has reached such heights that the stability of these country’s governments is in jeopardy. The wealth and power of the drug cartels could easily lead to the establishment of narco-states. That would give America a raft of new countries to send troops to and to war against. We are already all over the Middle East and looking at expanding into Africa; can we sustain enemies to our south as well?
Mexico officially calls for national debate on drug legalization
Mexican President Calderon announced that the time has come to entertain a serious national discussion on the pros and cons of legalizing drugs. To cover his ass he then announced that he doesn’t support legalization. Why call for something you don’t like? Well President Calderon is very familiar when his predecessor Vincente Fox had the same idea. Fox was pressured by the Bush administration and forced to drop the idea. With the border issues facing the two nations and the distinct possibility of the US taking actions that would cause serious harm to Mexico’s economy this is dangerous time to go up against US policy.
Calderon has faced criticism as violence plagues the country. In years past he has been able to claim that it was drug dealers killing other drug dealers and therefore not really a problem. Now official figures released this week put the number of drug war related murders at 28,000 and many of these are honest civilians, students, even children on their way to a birthday party. Gun battles rage in the streets and the public is fed up but entry into the US illegal drug market is so hugely profitable that the cartels do what ever they must to see it continue. No amount of troops or police can possibly stop it.
Calderon’s opposition party, the PRI opposes legalization for largely the same reasons that opponents in the US do. Fear-mongering about addicting the nation’s youth were they to legalize drugs is promulgated in PRI’s broadcasts on radio and television. Their solution? More of the same. Use the police and military to crack down on the drug cartels when they commit public violence but turn a blind eye to the actual drug trade. They figure the violence will slow down if the cartels are allowed to continue the lucrative business.
Several prominent politicians from Latin and South America have called for legalization in the past year because of similar problems in their countries. Some have moved down the path toward legalization already by adopting measures to decriminalize small quantities of drugs intended for personal use. These other counties may help to provide cover for Mexico but the key player here is really the US. If the US legalized drugs then the drug problems these nations face would fade quickly .
So what will Obama do? He stated during his campaign that he knows the war on drugs has been a failure. He admitted to having smoked marijuana and tried cocaine himself as a student. Can we count on a president to honor his campaign promises?
The New Jim Crow?
There has been much talk over the past decade or two about the paucity of leadership in the African-American community and the silence of what leaders there are about the massive incarceration of blacks in America and its connection to the war on drugs. In New York State for instance some 93% of prisoners doing time for drug offenses are Black or Latino. Knowing that these groups drug use per-capita is about the same as in the White community it’s pretty hard how one can’t see racism in that number yet there has been silence on this from the NAACP and most Black leaders.
We’ve known since H.R. Haldeman’s revealing memoir on his years as Nixon’s chief-of-staff that the war on drugs was used as a tool to exercise control over the African-American community without seeming to do so. As Nixon so shrewdly planned, this tactic apparently worked on the majority of White America. What about the Black leadership though? How could intelligent, politically-savvy black leaders not care that their communities were being devastated by mass incarcerations for the same crimes that Whites generally got probation for? How is it that the NAACP focused on the perceived racial imbalance on TV sitcoms while the constituency it purported to represent languished in prison?
A tiny handful of mid-level Black leaders spoke up but were ignored by the higher-ups. Long-time NAACP National Board member Richard Burton started something called Project Reach that focused on the racial injustice in the drug war but his message was apparently ignored by NAACP leaders. Why?
One possible answer may be found in the history of alcohol prohibition in America. Back in the 1920’s and 30’s immigrant groups such as Italians, Jews, and Germans were heavily involved in the sale, smuggling, and production of alcohol because of the economic opportunities the illegal market provided to them because discrimination prevented them from many legitimate avenues to make a living. Understandably perhaps, these groups were reluctant to speak out against the law for fear of being considered un-American. Since they didn’t want to call attention to themselves for their traditional alcohol use and possibly bring down yet more difficulties on their communities they remained largely silent. If the alcohol prohibition laws were like today’s drug laws and users and small sellers were going to prison for years things might have been different.
Another possibility is that some sort of understanding was reached whereby silence on the drug policy issue would ensure continued social benefits in the form of welfare and other government aid to communities of color.
Whatever the reasons things may be starting to change. With the growing understanding in America that the war on drugs is a failure there are signs that at last the Black community may be ready to speak out about this horrible injustice. There is a new book out called “THE NEW JIM CROW” by Attorney Michelle Alexander. She says “…I wrote this book because I was so deeply alarmed by the relative quiet of the civil rights community and African-American leaders in the face of mass incarceration. And I admit, at the outset, that I, myself, failed to fully grasp the extent of the devastation caused to communities of color as a result of the Drug War. There was a time when I didn’t fully get it.”
Alexander makes a compelling case for the idea that Although Jim Crow laws have been wiped off the books, an astounding percentage of the African American community remains trapped in a subordinate status-much like their grandparents before them.
Another promising sign comes from California where that state’s chapter of the NAACP has endorsed state representative Tom Damiano’s bill to legalize and tax the sale of marijuana in the state. That is a bold step. Still no word from the national NAACP about this issue but a step like this from a major chapter like California’s must have been noticed on high.
It’s a terrible shame that this travesty of justice didn’t get the attention it deserved before a generation or two were hammered mercilessly by this senseless drug policy but, as we see all too often in America, change comes slow.
Confusion in the Media and Congress
Last week the media was all over an AP/CNBC poll (released on 4/20) that claimed 55% of Americans are opposed to ending marijuana prohibition. The stories claimed, truthfully, that 55% said “oppose” when asked “Do you favor, oppose or neither favor nor oppose the complete legalization of the use of marijuana for any purpose?” Here’s what was revealed in the poll but ignored by the national media.
The polling firm actually probed quite deeply into the issue. Reveled by a closer study of the poll is the interesting fact that, when the questions included mention or comparison of marijuana with alcohol the conclusions were quite different.
For instance, on page four of AP/CNBC’s poll report, respondents were asked if they thought the U.S. should treat marijuana and alcohol similarly. 44% thought
that marijuana shouldn’t be treated any differently than alcohol, while another 12% even wanted less strict rules for marijuana than for alcohol. That makes 56% in favor of marijuana legalization. Pretty clear, isn’t it?
So why the erroneous analysis by the media? Well for one thing there is the reluctance of the media to accept that they have been tools of the anti-drug propaganda machine for the past 50 years or so. Decades of drug reporting chronicling marijuana arrests and interdiction efforts around the world interspersed with occasional Cheech & Chong references and comments like “What was he smoking?” whenever anything odd was said by someone have made it very difficult to shift gears.
There are two factors that typically influence laws in America. One is the science. The studies from around the world indicate that marijuana is far safer than most prescription medicines sold and indeed safer even than aspirin which causes about 2000 deaths each year in the US. The idea that marijuana is a “gateway drug” has been disproven repeatedly even by our own Institute of Medicine. If our policies were truly science based, as President Obama says they should be, than marijuana would be legal by now.
The other factor in determining policy is public opinion. Regardless of the science if a majority of the public believes something that translates into votes for politicians. We know how important votes are to politicians. Public opinion also translates to Neilson ratings and newspaper sales. As public opinion shifts this leads to a time of confusion while politicians and the media wet their fingers and hold them up to see which way the wind is blowing. That’s where we are now.
Polls showing rapidly increasing support for legalizing marijuana are watched closely by our elected officials. Currently they are around 50/50 for and against legalization. A decade ago they were closer to 70/30 against. Once they show a comfortable majority in favor of legalization, say 70%, the law will change.
Armani, Calvin Klein, & Whole Foods like hemp
I haven’t written about Hemp in a while (if ever) because the issue always seemed so obvious to me that I didn’t think anyone would be interested. In a nutshell: The hemp plant is closely related to the regular marijuana plant ( they look the same ) with one significant difference … hemp has practically no THC. Smoke a field of it and you won’t even get a buzz. The similarity in appearance would, however, make it exceedingly difficult for law-enforcement to stop someone hiding marijuana in with the hemp crop so it’s illegal to grow hemp in the US.
Other countries can grow hemp and we can import the cloth legally and the cloth is fabulous! The sails and rope for our navy were made of hemp and as late as WWII the government encouraged growing it to aid the war effort. It lasts forever. It’s cool in the summer. Hemp fibers are highly absorbent, UV resistant, antimicrobial and long lasting. I have a hemp shirt I’ve worn regularly for at least ten years and it still looks great. Hemp ages gracefully… like a good Bordeaux it gets softer and more mellow with time. Well now, with the changing attitudes toward the cannabis plant in the US hemp is becoming very fashionable. Designers Stella McCartney, Giorgio Armani and Calvin Klein have incorporated hemp textiles into their lines. And Whole Foods, Urban Outfitters, American Rag, Fred Segal and other major outlets carry many hemp clothes. Why? Who do they see as their market? Not necessarily who you think.
Used to be that the few buyers of hemp clothes were people who liked its association with their drug of choice or people like me who was offered the hemp shirt at a drug policy conference I spoke at a decade ago. Those people touting the wonders of hemp gained traction as ecology caught on with the American public. Hemp has a low impact on the environment. The fibers are highly absorbent, UV resistant, antimicrobial and long lasting. Growing it also requires less water and fewer pesticides than does cotton. Hemp appeals to the organic and natural crowd… a big market.
So as the popularity and public acceptance of hemp grows America will realize that not having to import it could help the balance of trade as well as help lots of farmers right here in the US. With our modern farming methods we might even be able to export it! But in order to help the country they’d have to legalize marijuana. What to do?… What to do?
