War on drugs keeps digging itself a larger hole

SpursDynasty

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 29, 2005
2,363
16
0
Long Beach, California
simply a chess match with the druglords having the advantage, no matter what the Govt. does the profit is way too high for people in other countries to simply to just drop it.


LA Times

U.S and Allies seen as Losing Drug War



MEXICO CITY ? The United States and its Latin American allies are losing a major battle in the war on drugs, according to indicators that show cocaine prices dipped for most of 2006 and U.S. users were getting more bang for their buck.

Despite billions of dollars in U.S. antidrug spending and record seizures, statistics recently released by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy suggest that cocaine is as available as ever.

Cocaine users and law enforcement officials both care about price and purity. Authorities work to choke off supply, driving up cost and dampening street sales. Users want better coke at cheaper prices.

In 2005, John P. Walters, the head of the drug policy office, made headlines touting a surge in cocaine prices and falling levels of quality. Those figures indicated that U.S. drug control policies were working, he said.

But the new numbers issued by his office indicate that any victory was short-lived. Retail cocaine prices last year fell more than 12% from January to October, while average purity of cocaine seized by authorities rose from about 68% to 73%. And this time, the drug policy office did little to publicize the figures, releasing them in a letter to U.S. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).

The new statistics emboldened critics who say the Bush administration's antidrug strategies need to change.

"You can spin this any way you want, but when prices go down and supply goes up, the fact of the matter is that this policy is not working," said U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a longtime critic who supports spending more on economic development.

Since the Iraq war began more than four years ago, the Pentagon has sharply reduced spending on air and sea surveillance of trafficking routes in the Pacific and Caribbean. The centerpiece of the U.S. strategy against cocaine has shifted to Plan Colombia, which funds aerial fumigation of coca plants. Colombian growers supply 90% of U.S. users through Mexican smuggling rings that control the cocaine and marijuana trade.

"Crop control is the most cost-effective means of cutting supply," according to the 2007 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, issued by the U.S. State Department. Last year, Colombia reported it had destroyed more than half a million acres of coca plants.

But growers have responded to the fumigation by breaking up their crops into smaller areas in an apparently successful hide-and-seek strategy. U.S. officials estimate that as much as 800 tons of cocaine still was exported from Colombia.

Patrick Ward, deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the Colombia eradication program kept 350 tons of cocaine from being produced.

But critics say that availability of cocaine in most U.S. cities is evidence of failure.

"In 2005, more coca was grown in Colombia than they had in 2000, when Plan Colombia started," said Adam Isacson, a Colombia analyst for the Center for International Policy, a Washington think tank. "They can say, 'Look how much more coke we'd have without fumigation,' but that sounds pretty lame."

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe traveled to Washington this week to lobby for continued U.S. support amid allegations of ties between his government and illegal paramilitary groups. Colombia has received $4.7 billion since 2000.

The continued high production in Colombia is also troubling news for Mexico, which reaps the cocaine trade's greatest profits and bears the brunt of its costs. More than 2,000 deaths last year were attributed to an ongoing battle among rival drug gangs for control of smuggling routes.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon in December deployed the army to stem the bloodshed. But the killings continue at or ahead of last year's pace. In January, Mexico extradited several key drug trafficking figures to face trial in U.S. courts, including the alleged head of the country's east coast-based cartel. More extraditions are expected.

But continuing violence and a steady supply of cocaine crossing into the U.S. from Mexico have many questioning Calderon's strategy as well as Washington's.

"The standard that economists would use on extradition would be that it frees up the market," said Peter Reuter, an economist and drug policy expert at Rand Corp. "If you're Mexico, you care about reducing the capability of these organizations to execute people in large numbers. But the idea that it will stop cocaine is wrong."

Mexico's army operations, historically, have been effective only in the short term, said Jose Luis Pineyro, a military affairs expert in Mexico City. "After the military leaves, the narcos come back."
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,523
218
63
Bowling Green Ky
Believe the Dems have solution--rumor has it they are going to set timetable of end of year--if things are corrected they are going to with draw all funding--and take money saved and give it in form of foreign aid to coutries/drug dealers in hopes if they have plenty of money they won't need to sell drugs--ridiclous???--thats exactly what their approach is on war on terror.

Obama pledges to double U.S. foreign aid if elected president
by Mike Dorning
Chicago Tribune (MCT)
24 April 2007
Email Print Comments (0)
CHICAGO - Sen. Barack Obama accused President Bush Monday of weakening America?s global leadership with a ?squandered? response to terrorism as the Democratic presidential candidate committed himself to repair relations with allies and the nation?s standing around the world.

The Illinois senator pledged to double U.S. foreign aid if elected president, arguing that improvements in stability and living conditions in poor nations would reduce the appeal of terrorism abroad and bolster the security of Americans at home.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
It will be decided someday how much we could afford to fight drugs. Some cases were simple usage of pot. Some are hard drugs and those whose sell all types. At this point we spend same amount on our prisons and prisoners as we do education. We can not for simple pot usage keep building and staffing prisons. Our lower courts have to be more intelligent. We can't send over 11% of our population to prison for drugs. We better find some better ways. Would you rather have more money to educate our kids or build prisons.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
64
Syracuse ny, usa
Believe the Dems have solution--rumor has it they are going to set timetable of end of year--if things are corrected they are going to with draw all funding--and take money saved and give it in form of foreign aid to coutries/drug dealers in hopes if they have plenty of money they won't need to sell drugs--ridiclous???--thats exactly what their approach is on war on terror.

Obama pledges to double U.S. foreign aid if elected president
by Mike Dorning
Chicago Tribune (MCT)
24 April 2007
Email Print Comments (0)
CHICAGO - Sen. Barack Obama accused President Bush Monday of weakening America?s global leadership with a ?squandered" response to terrorism as the Democratic presidential candidate committed himself to repair relations with allies and the nation?s standing around the world.

The Illinois senator pledged to double U.S. foreign aid if elected president, arguing that improvements in stability and living conditions in poor nations would reduce the appeal of terrorism abroad and bolster the security of Americans at home.

It's funny how you see parallels to the the war on drugs and terror. The similarities that I see are : These are both very abstract wars with no clearly defined means of winning or losing. I think our governments approach in both cases is short sided and lacks a big picture view. We seem to be treating the symptoms with out looking at the underlying causes. The war on terror & drugs is the wrong way to describe these to actions because all wars come to an end. There will never be an end to either, we need to change our approach in both to effect a change that is more favorable to us. How can we have a war on drugs all these years when our government lets the drugs into our Country ? How can you conduct a war on terror when the head of the CIA new by his own account that two key members of al qaeda were in our country but he can't explain why there was no atempt to track them down prior to 911 ? The sad thing about that 60 min interview was how inept our intelligence agency is. I would think most Americans should expect more for the price tag. We spend billions on terror,drugs and educations. We have all the proof we need that money is not the answer. Maybe if we could find a way to educate our youth, a subject that every politician has given lip service to since I was a kid, the next generation will find a way to deal with terror and drugs. I have to agree with Obama, Bush has squandered American lives and recourse's. He has also weakened us militarily because so much of our military is committed in Iraq. We couldn't fight another war on another front if we had to right now. The terrorist are in the process of doing to us what Reagan & Binladen did to the Russians in the 80's. The Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan for 10 yrs, as a society when you commit so much to war, something has to suffer. This administration clearly missed the history lesson that the Ronald Reagan taught the Russians about short term thinking and tunnel vision. For anyone to suggest that the left or the right has done anything substantial on the war on drugs, or either side has out paced the other is a joke. Lets just hope that the war on terror doesn't go down the same road as the war on drugs has.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Believe the Dems have solution--rumor has it they are going to set timetable of end of year--if things are corrected they are going to with draw all funding--and take money saved and give it in form of foreign aid to coutries/drug dealers in hopes if they have plenty of money they won't need to sell drugs--ridiclous???--thats exactly what their approach is on war on terror.

Obama pledges to double U.S. foreign aid if elected president
by Mike Dorning
Chicago Tribune (MCT)
24 April 2007
Email Print Comments (0)
CHICAGO - Sen. Barack Obama accused President Bush Monday of weakening America?s global leadership with a ?squandered? response to terrorism as the Democratic presidential candidate committed himself to repair relations with allies and the nation?s standing around the world.

The Illinois senator pledged to double U.S. foreign aid if elected president, arguing that improvements in stability and living conditions in poor nations would reduce the appeal of terrorism abroad and bolster the security of Americans at home.


Rumor has it? Withdraw all funding on war on drugs? Guessing this is tongue implanted in cheek to try to change to subject again for another media link/dem bash. Right again...:sleep:

Although I don't agree a blanket increase in foreign aid is the answer to tackling terrorism problems, I do think that improved living conditions in other countries would help with both the illegal immigrant problem and the formation of terrorist movements across the globe. I would love to see a review of where American taxpayer dollars go worldwide for foreign aid, results from those dollars, and what we are getting for our money. You seem to want to spend some time pointing the finger at democrats and foreign aid...I wonder if that is the right side to examine (I honestly don't know). I do know that the trillions we are spending in Iraq isn't doing much to forward the cause against protecting America against terrorism.

In examining Obama's comments closely, I agree that Bush and Co. have squandered an opportunity to forcefully address the terror threat that attacked our country - Bin Laden and Afghanistan. Countries were motivated to help us, willing to work with us - then we pulled away from that and attacked Iraq (and all other countries not "with us" politically), doing a lot of damage to our foreign policy ties and our credibility in the eyes of the world. I really believe that, and get more sure of it every day.

I would like to see specifics of where he wants to double the aid, why, and what he thinks could be gained by it. Perhaps it could open a discussion of all of the aid our country gives out, and make things more visible and accountable for our money.

I do know which party is more apt to give aid to those living IN THIS COUNTRY, which would seem to be a more important thing than giving it abroad in many cases. Except for the upper 1%, that is. There is one party who is continually looking for ways to help them out, at the expense of everything else our tax dollars could go for - (like the spiraling national debt, for one...).
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Don't worry, Bryanz...you can find Dogs ignoring this and posting his same drivel in another thread (Obama topic at least once already), and probably more in the future. It's like a Bush press conference where he gets pinned down...he laughs, turns away, and dismisses someone who gives a valid argument the other way by ignoring it.

And then it's brought up in another thread like it was never answered. I think they're known as talking points, in the biz.

Oh well, I'd probably do the same thing, defending those positions.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top