THE WAR ON DRUGS-FAILURE OR MISGUIDED EFFORT?
by R.Marcus Gaudry
August 14, 2009

Often, we hear or read the term "The War on Drugs". I wonder how many of us actually take the time to consider what this term means, where it came from, what kind of significance this war has in our culture today, what kind of strategy has been applied to this war, or how effective, if at all, this strategy has been to date. Generally, when we think of a war, we think of two or more opposing forces engaged in prolonged battle, and often in terms of "us" versus "them". In these terms, "them" are generally known to "us" as "the enemy". In the most common context, based on historical experience, this is a matter of one nation or group of nations in opposition to another. Another example may be one group of people against another. In either model, there are clearly identifiable entities engaged in conflict.

So who is the "enemy" in the "war on drugs"? Presumably, law abiding citizens, our governing authorities, and law enforcement agencies make up the "allied" forces, but does the "enemy" really have a face, and if so, how can we identify who this "enemy" is? Is it the addicts, or are they more accurately described as casualties of war? Is it the crime lords, drug dealers and cartel nations that grow, distribute and manufacture the drugs, or are they merely agents of the "enemy"?Is the "enemy" simply drugs in every shape and form? If so, what about medications? Would this mean that all the pharmaceutical companies in the world are agents of this "enemy"? Or is it as President Clinton's drug czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey said in 1996, that this is a war with no clear enemy? With so many questions, many of which to answer only demands that more questions be asked, How does anyone wage such a war, and how can such a campaign ever be truly won? Let us first look at a brief history on this campaign, and what sort of strategy has been applied so far:

HISTORY:
Arguably, it really started to gain notable momentum in 1954 when President Eisenhower assembled a Cabinet committee of 5 members to "stamp out narcotic addiction". However, the actual term "War on Drugs" was first officially used by President Richard Nixon when he declared "war on drugs" and identified drug abuse as "public enemy number one" in 1971, and the term not widely used until 1973 when President Nixon created the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) to announce "an all-out global war on the drug menace." Widespread use of heroin among soldiers in Vietnam was reported, which sparked an intense outcry, but attention was turned more towards Columbia's cocaine industry by 1975. When Columbian authorities seized 600 kilos of cocaine, drug traffikers retaliated by killing 40 people in one weekend in what is now often referred to as the "Medellin Massacre", which in turn ignited years of raids, kidnappings, and assassinations. I'm sure we all remember the "Just Say No" campaign, which was kicked off 1984 during an appearance of then First Lady Nancy Reagan when she responded with those words when asked by 10 year old Angel Wiltz what to do if someone offerd her drugs. Within a year some 5,000 "Just Say No" clubs had formed across the United States, with Soleli Moon Frye, (Punky Brewster) as honorary chairperson. Also in the 1980's, the LAPD's Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) school lecture program became something of a phenomenon which cost $230 million and involved 50.000 police officers by 2003. Also, another memory I am fairly certain we all share is the televison ad featuring a hot frying pan, an egg, and the phrase, "this is your brain on drugs...any questions?" that was the campaign effort put on by Partnership for a Drug-Free America. In 2008, President Bush signed an initiative which was supposed to provide $1.4 billion dollars to Mexico and other countries over the span of three years in order to aid in the combat of smuggling and violence. To date, only $456 million of this has been approved, and President Obama is yet to say whether he plans to follow through on the billion dollars remaining. (as of Mar 25, 2009)

IMPACT/RESULTS:
Clearly, many people would say the results of the "War on Drugs" have been less than spectacular, to say the least. Several people, including certain members of the UN Human Rights Council, would even go so far as to call the entire campaign a dismal failure.One example is Manfred Nowak, special rapporteur on torture for the UN Human Rights Council,who is on record with the Associated Press, saying of current drug policies: "We need a paradigm shift. We have to get away from a punitive approach and replace it with a human rights-based approach.As the war on terror failed, so has the war on drugs failed. We don’t have less drug users and drug traffickers than when the war on drugs started in the 1980s." He also pointed out that ther are some countries, especially in Europe and South America, which are moving away from a punitive approach in favor of harm reduction tactics such as needle exchange and methadone treatment programs. If we are to look at the economics of such tactics, as opposed to "hard line" enforcement strategies applied in the United States, Russia, and countries in Asia, it may well be more cost effective to implement harm reduction policies, and, according to Nowak, more in line with human rights policies. Nowak also maintains that the international policies are policies which regard users as criminals rather than persons in need of medical treatment. One thing that can be said for certain, in both the US and in Canada, despite our increased efforts to put a stop to drug use and distribution, it seems more and more illicit substances are being sold and used with each passing year, often in trends (for example, one generation may show a decrease in cannabis, but an increase in cocaine, or vice-versa).

Cesar Gavaria, former President of Columbia (1990-1994), said recently at the World Economic Forum in Rio de Janeiro that "Drug usage is unstoppable and the cartels have coyotes [people smugglers] planting on the streets hundreds of thousands of illegals selling drugs.The U.S. consumption has stayed level despite huge costs and the jailing of millions of people." as part of an appeal to leaders in Latin America to condemn the U.S. prohibition style war on drugs as foolish and costly, on the grounds that it threatens the stability of many countries in the western hemisphere. Included in examples, as written in the Huffington Post on April 17, 2009/12:01 pm (EST) by Diane Francis, was Canada, using the recent rash of gangland slayings in Vancouver, and the proliferation of "grow-ops" across the country as examples. The point being that while these matters are worrisome for Canadians, matters like these are less of a problem than the American prohibition against drugs, and their apparent failure to address the underlying causes of addiction, which is being put forth as truly devastating. Part of the plea that is being made as of late, is that the U.S. would do well to reconsider their approach and adopt an approach more like that Canada and Europe, which view drug usage as a health issue rather than a police matter.

To add to Gervais' claims, there have been numerous articles about the "war on drugs" in several corners of the world, especially, of late, Mexico. Some people have even argued that much, if not all, of the "prohibition tactics" used in the war on drugs -as modeled after President Nixon - is an export from the US used in order to exercise a measure of sovereignty. Laura Carlsen put forth a proposition that the war on drugs has been used as a tool for geopolitical control abroad. Her argument is that by exporting their campaign, the United States have pressured other nations to embrace U.S. national security policies as their own. Under the guise of "the war on drugs", she maintains, the U.S. have even militarized of whole regions of other countries like Columbia, invasions to oust inconvenient leaders, as was done in Panama, and now to extend a U.S. security agenda into Mexico.

On October 30, 2001, Republican representative Ron Paul wrote a letter drawing a parallel between the war on terror to the war on drugs, citing both as dismal failures. He points to the drug war campaign to being in a large way responsible to the escalation of gang related violence, police and military corruption, and the compromise of the U.S. justice system. This is to say nothing of the failure of this campaign to do what it was supposed to. If anything, drug trafficking has increased. He also points to alleged parallels between both the war on drugs and the war on terror, suggesting that Opium sales in Afghanistan play a critical role in the terror campaign.

Canada is in no way untouched by this campaign. As was pointed out by Diane Francis, Canada is one of several countries pushing for a different approach in the global effort to combat addiction, embracing a policy of harm reduction rather than prohibition. Despite this claim, we would do well to keep in mind the newly amended Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, under which judges will be required to impose the following minimum sentences in relation to drug offenses:

A minimum prison term of one year for selling marijuana as part of an organized criminal gang or when a weapon is involved.

A minimum of two years in jail for selling hard drugs such as cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine to young people.

A minimum of six months behind bars for growing five to 200 marijuana plants without a licence and two years for cultivating at least 500 plants.

These are just some examples, and other than some latitude to divert non-violent offenders, there really is not a whole lot of room for compassion in these new rules. What is worthy of noting was that this amendment was passed by a virtual landslide, despite the apparent lack of evidence that stronger enforcement bears any positive results or acts as any kind of deterrent. If anything, quite the contrary seems to be evident. What has also been suggested is that the only real reason this amendment passed is because the federal Liberal Party balked in their opposition for fear of appearing soft on crime, which left the NDP and the BQ sadly outnumbered in the votes. There has yet be an explanation given as to why Canada is now headed down the same expensive and inefficient path that America has been on for so long. It would appear as if Stephen Harper is embracing a policy on drugs and addiction that has already been proven a failure.




It is also noted that U.S. President Barack Obama understands that past efforts simply have not been effective, and has been quoted as saying in 2004, before he was nominated, to an audience at Northwestern University, that War on Drugs was an 'utter failure.'

The poor outcome measures of the war on drugs seems to be virtually unanimous. The vast majority of media, analysts, national leaders around the world have denounced, and even the current President of the United States is on record declaring the campaign as it stands as a dismal failure which has caused more harm than good. I even perused a series of blogs to gauge the general public's response to the drug war, and found an almost deafening outcry against the prohibition approach to stop the scourge that is addiction, to deal with the problems associated with drugs less as a legal matter, and more as a health issue. There is no doubt that drugs and addiction are a very real menace to our societies. There is little room for argument that the problems associated with drugs and addiction need to be dealt with. What is also abundantly clear is that the current U.S. plan of action is not working, and that it is time to rethink the situation and come up with a new strategy, not to combat drugs, but to answer to the pain and suffering that addiction brings forth, both to our economic structure and to those who suffer as a result of their addictions. The big question now is what alternatives are available?

ALTERNATIVES:
As of late, the most popular alternative that has been placed on the table has been what has been called the "Four Pillars" approach, which many Canadians have worked together on, modeling after a model that has been met with success in Europe. The Four Pillars include prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement.

Prevention: Common sense would tell us that the first line of defense is prevention; that is to say, keep our children from "picking up" in the first place. This would involve both school and parental involvement, encouraging values and instilling attitudes which allow for choosing sobriety, and providing healthy role models and proper education in order to make informed decisions. Also, it would be helpful to encourage our children to keep close with positive peer groups. Among several others, one peer group that comes to mind which encourages both a clean and sober lifestyle and appeals to the tendency of the youth to rebel in the name of seeking their own identity is a group that calls themselves "Straight Edge". This is a movement which began in the 1980's , inspired by the lyrics of a song by punk band Minor Threat. The basic tenet of the straight edge philosophy, which is centred on the issue of self control and free will, is abstinence from all mind altering substances and drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, as well as promiscuous sex. The interesting thing about both the song and the movement it inspired is where its roots are, and the manner in which they eschew the nihilistic tendencies of the majority of their punk rock counterparts. Some who ilve by this philosophy think of themselves as rebels among the rebels, refusing to bow down to the norm of any group or stereotype thereof. Though some modern interpreters of this philosophy have included veganism and religion into the tenets, neither of these are necessarily a part of the straight edge lifestyle. Simply put, the straight edge lifestyle is a lifetime commitment to live drug free.

I tried to stage an interview with someone living this drug free alternative-punk lifestyle, but got no response.

Harm reduction is less about keeping addicts safe from harm than it is about "damage control" on a social - economic level. By taking steps which keep addicts, especially on the street level healthy, the cost of care on a medical level after they get sick. Also, I'd imagine that by doing what we can to keep those who are addicted to drugs alive and healthy, we have a better chance of encouraging them to take the necessary steps towards recovery, which leads us into the third pillar of this approach.

Treatment is available in many different forms, from twelve step groups such as AA, NA, CA and several others to religious groups to secular groups such as SMART recovery and SOS to name just a few. Also available is clinical treatment such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), and in some cases a means by which to learn to moderate the use of substances like alcohol. Of course, one must keep in mind that treatment is generally only truly effective if it is taken on a voluntary basis.

Enforcement is still a necessity in our approach towards drugs and addiction. There is no denying that there is indeed a criminal element involved, and this criminal element needs to be addressed. There are some that propose that one thing to consider -perhaps as a part of harm reduction - would be to legalize or at the very least decriminalize several of the currently illicit substances. the idea here is to do so would take out the market for organized crime around the drug industry. I am personally skeptical of this proposal, since the criminals could still undercut any legal market in price wars, or assume a legitimate role in the industry. Also, it would do little to avert the petty crimes the addicts commit in order to make a purchase. Also, even if these substances were to be made available for free, then many an addict would see no reason to seek recovery.

There are also some, like Bruce K. Alexander, who argue that this four pillars initiative is certainly a step forward, it encompasses only a small corner of the addiction problem, and is not based on any analysis of the root causes of addiction. In order to properly address the challenges our society face in association with addiction - in all its forms, beyond just drugs - we need to look at the cause of addiction and respond to those causes. Alexander insists this cause the steady decline of psychosocial integration which leads to a state of dislocation. Further, he goes on at length to place this root cause of this dislocation sqaurely at the feet of the Free Market Society. In this argument, he puts forward the theory that addiction is not a legal matter, but more a political and health issue:

"Attempts to treat or prevent addiction that
ignore the connection between free markets,
dislocation, and addiction have proven to be
little better than band-aids. Addressing the problem of addiction will require fundamental
political and economic changes. The beginning of
political change is a realistic discussion of addiction
that recognizes that addiction is mass produced
in free market society, and that
society, as well as individuals, must change.It
requires moves towards good government and
away from policies that undermine our ability to
care for one another and build sustainable,
healthy communities."*

In his article, "The Roots of Addiction in Free Market Society" (April, 2001) Alexander examines an historical account which draws direct connections between the growth of a "laissez faire" economy, the free market (especially in western economies), and the breakdown of psychosocial integration (dislocation), which robs individuals of their sense of identity, and therefore facilitates addiction in a desperate attempt of individuals to find substitutes for this loss. The idea put forth here is that Dislocation, the forcing people out of their traditional roots and sense of belonging and identity is the precursor of addiction, not just addiction to drugs, but addiction in any form, be it gambling, sex, money, power, or whatever form it may take. The proposition is that these addictions manifest themselves as it somehow creates for dislocated individual a substitute sense of belonging or identity. He then calls for political and social reform in order to re-establish psychosocial integration.

So is the "War on Drugs" as official declared by President Richard Nixon, a failure? Has it caused more harm than good? Given the evidence we have, and based upon the general popular opinion of the day, it would certainly appear so. There is little, if any, room for doubt that the prohibition approach embraced thus far by the U.S. government has been proven ineffective and in several was counterproductive. However, is it not equally plausible that the problem is not with the "War on Drugs" in and of itself, but instead that the campaign has been misguided and poorly executed from the start? Perhaps the problem is not drugs or addiction, but more in our approach towards addiction, and the strategies applied to adress these problems. In my own recovery from addiction, I have found the matter to be indeed a battle - a "war" if you want, but this was a battle fought not in any legal or political arena. It can be argued that my battle was certainly a health issue, but the battle itself was a spiritual battle more than anything else. While the advent of dislocation certainly played a huge role in my active addiction, it was not any political movement that re-established any sense of psychosocial integration. Before any of that could take place, what was required was was a tangible psychospiritual integration, which was established in the reconciliation that God granted to me in the person of Jesus Christ. In this reconciliation I learned that we, as a people, are all part of one greater body, and therefore are ourselves God's temple in which God's spirit dwells, and that the "war" we wage is not a war fought in the flesh, but in spirit. In order for this kind of battle to be won, we cannot allow ourselves to be divided, but instead must be united together, and stand as one.

Ecclesiastes 4:9-12
The Value of a Friend
9 Two are better than one,
Because they have a good reward for their labor.
10 For if they fall, one will lift up his companion.
But woe to him who is alone when he falls,
For he has no one to help him up.
11 Again, if two lie down together, they will keep warm;
But how can one be warm alone?
12 Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him.
And a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

1 Corinthians 3:16
16 Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?

1 Corinthians 12:12-22
Unity and Diversity in One Body
12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many.
15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I am not of the body,” is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? 18 But now God has set the members, each one of them, in the body just as He pleased. 19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be?
20 But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. 21 And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 No, much rather, those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

Ephesians 6:12
12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
____________




REFERENCES:

"The Roots of Addiction in Free Market Society"
by Bruce K.Alexander, April 2001
www.cfdp.ca/roots.pdf
*pg 5

"War on Terror? It's as Bad as the War on Drugs"
by Rep. Ron Paul, Oct 30, 2001
www.counterpunch.org/paul 1.html

"Militarizing Mexico: The New War on Drugs"
by Laura Carlsen, July 12, 2007
www.fpif.org/fpiftext14373/

"Brief History - THE WAR ON DRUGS"
By Claire Suddath: Time Magazine, March 25, 2009

"America's War on Drugs a Flop"
by Diane Francis: Huffington Post, April 17, 2009
www.huffingtonpost.com/dianefrancis/

"UN official says war on drugs has failed"
by Michael Casey, April 21, 2009 (14:43)
www.encod.org/info/UN-OFFICIAL-SAYS-WAR-ON-DRUGS-HAS.html

"Ottawa embarking on its own war on drugs"
by Carol Goar, June 12, 2009
www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/649475

Timeline: America's war on drugs
www.npr.org

CANADIAN HARM REDUCTION NETWORK
www.canadianharmreduction.com

www.straightedgelifestyle.moonfruit.com

The Holy Bible (NKJV)
Ecclesiates 4:9-12
1 Corinthians 3:16, 12:12-22
Ephesians 6:12