The war on drugs has been a "failure", or has it?

"President Obama's newly released drug war budget is essentially the same as Bush's, with roughly twice as much money going to the criminal justice system as to treatment and prevention," said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the nonprofit Drug Policy Alliance. "This despite Obama's statements on the campaign trail that drug use should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue."
Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users. About $5.6 billion would be spent on prevention and treatment.
- Martha Mendoza, AP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_re_us/failed_drug_war

Some high (or low) lights from our 40-year "war on drugs":

- Nixon proposed the war on drugs to "protect our young people" from the hippies, degenerates, and homeless Vietnam vet addicts (who only took drugs to cope with the horrible war that he escalated). When adjusted for inflation, the current war on drugs budget is 31X larger than Nixon's.

- We've spent $20B to export the war to other nations ($6B to Colombia alone). In many ways, Colombia and Mexico (and definitely Afghanistan) are less safe today than 1970. Speaking of Afghanistan, politicians often say that we have to stop the Taliban because they're responsible for exporting the bulk of global heroin to the West. Well a recent UN/CIA study showed that the Taliban account for about 3% of total heroin trade in that country, while the president's brother's cartel (Walid "Escobar" Karzai) accounts for much more (http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R201005131030).  

- $33M on "Just Say No" and other youth marketing, but drug use among HS students has been relatively unchanged since the 1970s. Though the CDC reports that overdoses have risen since, peaking at 20,000 last year.

From the AP: $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders (or $3.3k per arrest - imagine how many books and meals that could buy), about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse. $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

- The Justice Dept states "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" is costing the US $215B PER YEAR.

- At $320B per year worldwide (about the GDP of Argentina), the drug trade accounts for 1% of all human commerce, and that doesn't include drug enforcement and drug rehab.

------------

But hey, the Navy Seals got to brag that they whacked Pablo Escobar (at one time on Forbes' 10 richest list) with a killer sniper shot to the head, and Hollywood made millions off "Scarface", "Clear and Present Danger", "Blow", "American Gangster", "The Wire", "Miami Vice" (Michael Mann version), etc.

But on the other hand, the "prison-industrial complex" has risen to become a serious economic and political player in our country (especially in CA). We've locked away thousands of poor colored people, and under the justification of drug enforcement, authorities have illegally seized millions of dollars worth of honest property for their own benefit (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91490480, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126386819). We've sold billions of dollars of military and intelligence hardware to US communities and (oppressive, corrupt) foreign governments. Thousands of Mexicans, Colombians, Afghans, and Americans have died. So if you're a warden, drug kingpin, member of law enforcement, arms manufacturer, conservative politician, or racist/xenophobe, then the war on drugs has been a smashing success for your careers and values. The pro-war camp says that the world would be worse off if the war on drugs was never declared, and drug abuse/criminality were permitted to run rampant. That is debatable, but clearly the resources haven't been used in the most intelligent, effective manner.

Frost/Nixon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jw6LhKCYUCQ

I recently saw Ron Howard's "Frost/Nixon" and was wondering if you've seen it too. I thought the actor who played Nixon (Frank Langella) was pretty poor, mostly mumbling and quasi-senile emotional. His facial and gesture acting were better. I guess they had to make it true to the play, but I don't know why they can't have Nixon talk like a normal person (which he did mostly) instead of the caricatured style he's now famous for. "I am not a crook (flabby cheeks flapping and hands raised giving the 'V for victory')!" I thought Anthony Hopkins was an awesome Nixon in Olliver Stone's "Nixon" from the 1990s; wish they could have brought him back.

They made the film too much like "A Few Good Men" with a big, dramatic "gotcha" moment (a sign of the times I'm sure), but I guess they had to spice up the interviews beyond their original, dry 12-hour form containing mostly heavy political dialogue. Though I did like the theme of how Nixon, so tortured by the fact that he never won the public approval/love that he so craved (in fact he alienated his public), and desperate to restore his honor, grew tired of the incessant denying, blame-shifting, and making excuses for everything. Even if it wasn't the politically intelligent thing to do, he needed to confess and level with the American people (and his soul). The last scene of the film (his revelation) was so over-the-top that I had to see the real interview footage for myself to cut through the BS (sorry it's not on YouTube though). Fortunately the DVD contained some of that material, and I was amazed at the similarities (when you strip away the Hollywood excesses). A shell of his former self, slow and contemplative, with distant eyes and heavy heart, he literally said that he was to blame, he let down his friends and the American people, and most importantly, our system of government - and he'd have to live with that for the rest of his life. I couldn't believe what I saw. I can't imagine a modern politician or CEO doing something even as remotely honest as that. With the Bushies, Clinton, or others, it's always "mistakes were made", "well I can't really comment on that," "we had only the best intentions", etc. The only ones who ever admit to anything are the stupid adulterers who cry in front of the cameras and tell their families and voters that they're sorry - after they repeatedly denied it and only concede once the evidence/public opinion is overwhelming, of course.

But getting back to Nixon, he really was a living Greek tragedy. Strangely I found myself rooting for him in the movie vs. Frost, even though I knew he must fold at the end for this to be a movie. He wanted those interviews to be a vindication of his actions and restoration of his legacy (and maybe even a springboard back into Washington life), and for much of the film he deftly responded to Frost's novice and weak critiques against him with misdirection, irrelevant long-winded tangents, and party-line cliches. I mean, Nixon verbally sparred with JFK, Mao, and Brezhnev; surely he could handle Frost if he wanted to. For a pure SOB and the king of deception, Tricky Dick, to be barely prodded by Frost and mostly of his own accord, rationally admit to the world that he lied, broke the law, and dishonored his office, could be one of the greatest accomplishments of his life, beyond starting the EPA, opening dialogue with China, and detente with the USSR. I guess that is a sad reflection of our times when it's such an amazing feat for a leader to admit wrongdoing long after the fact. America loves a redemption story, and of course Nixon never got that far, but living in today's cynical, insulting-of-our-intelligence political climate, it is a breath of fresh air to see a criminal admit to us, and more importantly himself, what he is. Even if he escaped jail time and other official punishments, one of the largest abusers of presidential power (maybe only behind Lincoln, but of course he had a bigger excuse) served his penance the day he put pen to paper to relinquish the throne of the most powerful person in the world.

NIXON: When a president does it that means it is not illegal (yes, he actually said that, and not on one of his secret tapes).

.......

FROST: Is there anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that suggests the president is that far of a sovereign, that far above the law?

NIXON: No, there isn't. There's nothing specific that the Constitution contemplates in that respect. I haven't read every word, every jot and every title, but I do know this: That it has been, however, argued that as far as a president is concerned, that in war time, a president does have certain extraordinary powers which would make acts that would otherwise be unlawful, lawful if undertaken for the purpose of preserving the nation and the Constitution, which is essential for the rights we're all talking about.

http://www.landmarkcases.org/nixon/nixonview.html

Compare that to Bush and his War on Terror. The only difference is that Bush won't admit that he has exceeded the Constitution, and in fact his team of lawyers seek to reinterpret it. Wartime/national security is always the excuse. Yes, surely waterboarding Osama's driver or tapping my cell phone without a warrant, just like breaking into the DNC offices at Watergate a generation earlier, is essential to the preservation of the Republic. 30 years later, the American people, our system of justice, and our leaders are still wrestling with Nixon's shadow.

---------

i haven't seen the movie but it's funny how you see nixon compare to how i perceive nixon. i was home sick with mono when the watergate investigations were going on(i was only 10 at the time). nixon was the image of the old guard, the previous way of thought left behind along with solving problems with killing. but, was i wrong, but that perception of him stays with me. now, LBJ, he seemed like a tragic figure to me. still does....

---------

I don't know how the Beltway operates these days, but I would hope that Nixon's brand of paranoid "nemesis politics" is over. I guess under Bush II, dissenters were cast out into the wilderness and Kerry was swift-boated, but it's not like Bush was using the PATRIOT Act to nail his political enemies, so far that we know. Well, I guess he didn't have to, since 9/11 solidified his job security, the GOP controlled all 3 branches of gov't until Nov. 2006, and most of Bush's enemies were foreigners. Heh, instead of ex-CIA whack-job plumbers, it seems these days the GOP uses 527 groups and Faux News Channel to do its dirty work.

It's funny how Nixon's people railed against the "liberal establishment" at the time, maybe sowing the seeds for today's right-wing media. As if the NYT and Hollywood were conspiring to help the Viet Cong and foment campus unrest. Nixon often gave the excuse that he abused his power because the nation was in a civil war. Well maybe inside his mind, but he never tried to "bring people together" like our current president seeks to do. Maybe someone like Nixon was more comfortable in conflict. He was always so awkward with the American public, yet craved their approval. Maybe he found his element while negotiating with other SOBs like Kissinger, Mao, and Brezhnev.

At least Nixon didn't use his position to get rich and get his friends rich at the expense of the nation, at least not that I know of. He did use his position to help kill millions of poor people and topple their governments if there was a trace of leftist inklings, but so did many Cold War presidents. Like Obama, Nixon inherited a country at war and struggling with the tensions of a changing population/culture. Let's hope BHO handles our current crisis/opportunity better than Nixon.

---------

Two of your comments stand out in my mind, but probably because I'm thinking of all the modern portrayals of Nixon in popular culture:


"America loves a redemption story, and of course Nixon never got that far..."
"He was always so awkward with the American public, yet craved their approval."


Oliver Stone's "Nixon" really emphasizes those two points in the way Nixon is depicted in the portrayal of the 1960 election: Hopkins' Nixon is anxious, sweaty, and awkward and goes down in flames in the televised debate; he cries to Pat about how the public just won't love him. Even Hunter S. Thompson (who wrote "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail in '72" and hated Nixon with a passion) conceded that the only time he found Nixon to be even remotely congenial was when they discussed college football on a train ride between campaign stops where HST was (somehow) granted an interview.


When I think about the fact that Nixon was an admirer of Henry J. Kaiser's healthcare experiment in California I'm left to think that Nixon was simply "too weird to live, too strange to die"...