The US, Afghanistan, and opium
I don’t write about foreign policy on this blog unless the foreign policy involves a fair amount of drug policy. President Obama, as most of you know, has plans to greatly increase the US troop presence in Afghanistan. It’s a very complicated situation over there and the reasons he focuses on are a.) depriving the Taliban and Bin Laden a safe haven to train for and plan terrorist attacks on the US, and b.) because Afghanistan is a “narco-state” and, of course, narcotics are bad and the profits from their production fund terrorism. I won’t get into reason “a” here other than to say that the job of controlling that country has been tried before most notably by the British in the 1800’s and the Soviets late in the 20th century. Both failed miserably.
As for the second reason… let me share a true story I read recently. There was a poor Afghani farmer who, in order to feed his family, cut a deal with the local warlord, tribal leader, or whatever you want to call him. The warlord would advance the farmer money he needed to get his opium crop in and the resulting opium would be sold to the warlord for an agreed upon price. As insurance the money would be spent only to grow opium he demanded the farmer’s daughter be collateral - no harvest - the warlord gets the guy’s daughter.
Months later the crop is thriving but before harvest time US troops come along and torch the field and so the warlord claims, and receives, the daughter. Now let me ask you; How does this make the farmer feel? Do you think he might harbor some resentment for the US? Since this raid did nothing to stem the flow of opium to the west do you think this was a productive use of US troops? Do you think we make lots of friends by such actions?
What if we had simply bought the crop from the farmer and any other farmer who wanted to grow the stuff? We could use a low-cost source for this useful drug from which morphine, codeine, and other narcotic drugs are made from.
Had we done that do you think the farmer might like the US more? Do you think the world would be a better place if Afghanistan’s opium crop went into making opiates to kill pain rather than to fund warlords and terrorists?
Now I see an article in the German newsmagazine Der Speigel headlined“Top NATO Commander Orders Troops to Kill All Opium Dealers” The magazine has obtained classified documents in which NATO top commander and US General John Craddock, a long time advocate of steering the international forces in Afghanistan toward fighting the drug export industry, issues a “guidance” advising NATO troops to use deadly force against those involved in the drug industry, even if there is no evidence that the person being killed is actually involved in the insurgency.
I fear that the troops sent to Afghanistan will soon be diverted from their original mission of fighting the Taliban and spend their time killing farmers and burning their crops in a futile effort to stamp out the opium trade. I fear that this policy will result in even greater hatred of Americans by the Afghani population and sympathizers in the entire middle east. I fear that, after several years pass, the US death toll grows, and the costs continue to rise, America will be desperately looking for a way to get out of Afghanistan.
Drug testing teachers
Several school districts around the country are trying to implement drug testing , not of students, but of teachers. North Carolina, West Virginia and Hawaii are trying to join at least four school districts in Kentucky that require teachers to submit to random alcohol and other drug testing.
Hawaii recently made random drug testing a part of its teachers’ contract, with testing to begin this year. To placate the teacher’s union they simply paid them off. In exchange for submitting to the random drug tests the teachers got a big pay increase. During negotiations, Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle called the testing provision “nonnegotiable.”
Remember, we are not talking about testing with cause here. If a teacher behaves such a manner as to suggest strongly he or she may be drunk or otherwise intoxicated on the job a good case can be made to order a drug test. Failing that test would be proof of a problem and appropriate steps, (leave of absence, counseling, whatever) should be taken. We don’t want intoxicated people teaching our children just as we don’t want them driving busses or flying airplanes. These schools, however, are talking random drug tests.
The biggest problem with drug testing (see; Drug Testing in the Workplace on this blog) is that it doesn’t necessarily tell you if the subject is under the influence of some substance or simply has used it in the recent past. Some drugs remain in the body (and will reveal themselves in a drug test) far longer than others.
Let’s assume that alcohol, one of the drugs to be screened for in these random drug tests, remains in amounts large enough to show up in a test for a week. An excellent teacher with an unblemished record submits to a random drug test as per the rules in her contract . That teacher had two glasses of wine with dinner on Friday night and went to an old friend’s wedding on Saturday where she consumed several drinks over the course of the event. She slept late and did laundry and housework on Sunday and was tested on Monday. She was not drunk or even hung over on Monday but she “failed” the test. Is that fair? Does her use of intoxicants on her own time affect her ability to teach my child? Are we paying that teacher for her services as a teacher for a part of each schoolday or do we taxpayers own her? Can we expect to regulate her behavior 24/7 ?
As it happens the drug that remains stored in the body’s fat cells the longest is marijuana. Smoke some marijuana on the weekend ( as some 40 million Americans do) and you well may test positive days later, long after any mind-altering effects have worn off. Do cocaine on the weekend and it will probably be gone by the time you’re tested. Same with heroin. Same with alcohol. Marijuana though, remains detectable far longer.
So that means that drug testing is really a euphemism for marijuana testing. Regardless of whether you approve of people altering their consciousness or not it is a fact of life in all cultures (Eskimos being the possible exception because of the complete lack of vegetation in their habitat). Every society on the planet uses something to alter consciousness. Some chew cocoa leaves, some drink coffee, some consume alcohol, khat, marijuana, tobacco, hashish, the list is a long one. Usually quite mild, these substances tweak the consciousness a bit - either relaxing the mind or stimulating it. Used in moderation they are harmless and have been with us forever ( see: Old News…and I do mean old, on this blog).
We are talking about adults here. Adults who have studied for their positions. Adults who devote a large part of their lives to teaching our children. On what basis can we justify dictating what they do on their own time, in privacy, when it has no dicernable effect on their work?
The war in Mexico
In addition to Iraq and Afghanistan there is another war raging though you’re not hearing much about it yet A civil war is raging in Mexico between drug lords and the government. The Mexican government deployed 36,000 troops to fight this war in 2006, but the problem is getting worse.
America is spending more money on our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan than it is in Mexico but the violence and the death toll are certainly comparable. There have been more kidnappings in Mexico than Iraq! 1,000 have been officially reported, but some human rights groups estimate the real number at 3,000. In 2008 there have been over 200 beheadings in Mexico - a tactic that the drug dealers use to frighten the populace and send a message to law enforcement. The heads are mpaled on fences or thrown in to crowds. Often they are filmed and the footage shown on TV. Recently the heads of nine soldiers were displayed. Despite high-profile arrests but the bloodshed has doubled from 2007 to 2008, with between 5,300 and 5,700 dead in the past year from attacks related to the drug trade. According to the LA Times the total as of today is 6,300! The city of Ciudad Juárez, just across the border from El Paso, Texas ended the year with 1,600 of those deaths and the violence shows signs of spilling over to our side of the border.
A couple of weeks ago a young city councilor from El Paso by the name of Beto O’Rourke introduced a resolution calling for the federal government in Washington DC to begin a dialogue on the idea of legalizing and regulating the currently illegal drugs. It passed but before it could be sent on to Washington the mayor vetoed it. Then the city councilors received letters from their congressman, Silvestre Reyes, an El Paso Democrat, threatening loss of funding for El Paso unless they voted down the resolution. So stifled, they agreed.
Bear in mind the resolution did not call for drug legalization… it only asked for discussion of the idea as a possible way to reduce the border violence threatening their city.
I hope that, over the next few years, President Obama will form such a “Blue-Ribbon Commission “to look into this idea. Not that we need such a study - they’ve been done many times before, most recently at the behest of then President Nixon, and they always come to the same conclusion; prohibition doesn’t work and we would be best served by some sort of legalization and regulation. We don’t need such a commission… but Obama would find it critically important to give him political cover.
Perhaps, if enough Beto O’Rourkes around the country speak up, the President may eventually find it safe enough to do what needs to be done.
Taking the lead for drug reform
At his State of the State address last week, Governor David Paterson said, “Since I got here in 1985, I can’t think of a criminal justice strategy that has been more unsuccessful than the Rockefeller Drug Laws.” Well so far Patterson and the rest of our elected officials here in New York have done almost nothing to remedy that situation.
The RDL’s are still in place, though modified to remove some of the most egregious sentencing provisions. The state continues to spend billions of dollars in its failed attempt to rid itself of illegal drugs at a time when money is truly scarce. There are several efforts to at least begin a dialogue about alternatives to the current system; hopefully these will provide the necessary impetus and cover our legislators seem to need to take action.
First is the conference entitled New Directions for New York: A Public Health and Safety Approach to Drug Policy to be held at the New York Academy of Medicine, 1216 Fifth Avenue in New York City. The conference will kick off Thursday evening with a lively roundtable discussion with a range of speakers: music mogul Russell Simmons; Cheri O’Donoghue, whose son was incarcerated under the Rockefeller Drug Laws; Brooklyn Assistant DA Anne Swern; Dr. Monica Sweeney, Assistant Commissioner of New York City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene; Ethan Nadelmann; Donald MacPherson, Drug Policy Coordinator, City of Vancouver; and many others.
Thursday Evening, January 22, the Plenary Event will be held and is open to the public, Friday, January 23 there will be an all-day Conference.
RECONSIDER is proud to join the Drug Policy Alliance and others in partnering to offer this conference whose aim is to explore a public health approach to drug policy to replace current policies rooted in the criminal justice system. If you want to attend or find out more about this exciting event click on the link above … The event is open to the public but seating is limited so get on it now!
In addition to the New Directions conference the Bar Association of the City of New York’ Committee on Drugs & the Law is planning some important events along the same lines. Following the release of an important document from the Bar expected in February, there will be a panel of nationally renowned experts convened to examine the law that lies at the heart of America’s drug policy, the Controlled Substances Act. More on those developments as they happen.
Since our legislators have been afraid to take the lead in drug policy reform organizations such as the Drug Policy Alliance, the New York Academy of Medicine, and the Bar Association of the City of New York have stepped up to the plate. Let’s hope the politicians will take their places in the batting order.
DOES TREATMENT WORK?
If the overwhelming majority of drug users are not addicts then why does everyone keep calling for treatment? Well, while it is true that only some 10-20% of drug users are what we call addicted, of those who come in contact with law enforcement the percentage is much higher. These people are the ones who have developed a problem with their drug of choice. It’s helping them make bad decisions. They fight, steal, rob, and spread disease. They cost the taxpayers money. They often pose a danger on our streets. Putting them in jail is usually not effective because they eventually get released and hit the streets worse than when they went in.
The NY Times recently did an article on the effectiveness of treatment and the money spent on it. State and federal governments spend more than $15 billion, and insurers at least another $5 billion each year on drug treatment services for some four million people. That amount may soon increase sharply since Congress just passed the mental health parity law, which requires that insurers cover mental and physical ailments at equal levels. Many clinics across the county have waiting lists, and researchers estimate that some 20 million Americans who could benefit from treatment do not get it.
Treatment certainly is more humane than prison and far less expensive but is it effective? What sort of treatment works? I think the answers will surprise you. The success rates for people suffering from addictions is about the same regardless if they complete a 12-step program, an inpatient program, or just go cold-turkey. Here’s what the The Harvard Mental Health Letter had to say about this surprising fact.
There is a high rate of recovery among alcoholics and addicts, treated and
untreated. According to one estimate, heroin addicts break the habit in an
average of 11 years. Another estimate is that at least 50% of alcoholics
eventually free themselves although only 10% are ever treated. One recent
study found that 80% of all alcoholics who recover for a year or more do so
on their own, some after being unsuccessfully treated. When a group of these
self-treated alcoholics was interviewed, 57% said they simply decided that alcohol was bad for them. Twenty-nine percent said health problems, frightening experiences, accidents, or blackouts persuaded them to quit.
Others used such phrases as “Things were building up” or “I was sick and
tired of it.” Support from a husband or wife was important in sustaining the
resolution.
*Treatment of Drug Abuse and Addiction — Part III, The Harvard Mental
Health Letter, Volume 12, Number 4, October 1995, page 3.
(See Aug. (Part I), Sept. (Part II), Oct. 1995 (Part III).)*
We have seen adult cigarette smoking cut in half during the last decade. Some people needed some form of assistance quitting - “the patch”, group therapy, nicotine chewing gum- but the majority simply made up their minds to quit and did so. These treatments were available for those who wanted them. Nobody was thrown in prison if they didn’t and nobody was forced into treatment.
So just how effective is drug treatment? My colleague in drug policy reform David Duncan, an amazing fellow with a truly extraordinary resume in the field sums it up like this: “
There are a few treatment approaches that have been demonstrated to be effective when properly applied, but most treatment programs don’t use those approaches or use them to a very limited degree and subordinate to a twelve step approach. There has never been any evidence that the twelve step programs work by themselves, but patients who have undergone professional treatment and also attend AA/NA/etc have better outcomes than those who have undergone professional treatment and don’t participate in a twelve step group afterward. Whether this is due to the twelve-step program or would be true of any aftercare support group has not been tested.
A number of studies have shown that coerced treatment and voluntary treatment are equally effective. A few studies that have looked at the impact of patient motivation have shown that the degree to which a person wants to stop using has virtually no impact on how likely they are to succeed. I would say that for those addicts for whom it is enough, no treatment is ever needed and they just quit; for those who need treatment, their desire to stop is not a significant factor in success or failure.”
So it seems that some sort of treatment can help some drug users so clearly it should be available to them. It is significantly less expensive than incarceration and doesn’t automatically come with a lifetime criminal record. That means that those that do benefit can go about getting their lives back on track.
There is no easy fix for the drug problem. The crime problem is another matter - legalize and regulate these drugs and the drug dealers are out of business overnight. The problem of drug addiction is a more complicated one but it clearly needs to be treated as a public health issue, not a criminal justice issue.
