Daily Archives: October 13, 2021

As protests against the Vietnam War and support for the civil rights movement surged across the United States in 1971, President Richard Nixon stood in the White House on June 17 and addressed the nation, declaring the War on Drugs. Nixon called drugs public enemy number one.

John Ehrlichman, who served as a domestic policy aid to Nixon, claimed that the War on Drugs was politically and racially motivated in a 2016 interview with Harper Magazine.

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar and Black people, Ehrlichman stated in the interview. We knew we couldnt make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news.

Though some have since expressed doubt over Ehrlichmans account, statistics dont lie and the numbers are harrowing. According to a 2021 Associated Press report, the U.S. prison population in state and federal prisons rose from 240,593 to 1.43 million Americans from 1975 to 2019. Out of those incarcerated in 2019, about one out of five was imprisoned for drug related charges. In 2020, Black Americans made up 24% of those arrested for drug-related crimes, despite making up 13% of the population.

The War on Drugs was said to be declared for the sake of public safety, but it has similarly failed in this mission. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, overdose deaths increased by 30.4% in 2020 and have gradually climbed since 1998.

Following Nixons 1971 actions, mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses became a part of the criminal justice system in 1986 under President Ronald Reagan. The U.S. Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act and funded the War on Drugs with $1.7 billion, according to Britannica. This change in public policy caused incarceration rates to quickly grow in the past 40 years, and has continued to disproportionately impact minority groups.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom abolished minimum mandatory sentencing on Oct. 5, when Newsom signed Senate Bill 73, amending rules of the justice system created in 1986 during the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, a law that targeted crack cocaine and gave out far harsher sentencing for users of crack cocaine than powder cocaine. This racially motivated policy targeted low-income Americans and minority groups that were more likely to use crack cocaine than the substantially more expensive cocaine prefered by white Americans and the upper class.

SB 73, set to take effect on January 1, 2022, was written by California Senator Scott Wiener with the intent of reducing mass imprisonment of Americans convicted for nonviolent drug crimes and providing alternative methods of treatment for those convicted, according to The Drug Policy Alliance. The approach of treating drugs like a public health problem instead of a crime issue has proven successful in countries like Portugal, which decriminalized possession of all drugs in 2000.

War on Drugs policies are ineffective, inhumane and expensive. SB 73 ends mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses, and gives judges more options to allow people to stay out of jail, Wiener said in a statement when introducing the bill last year.

Law enforcement who believe the mandatory sentences better communities and keep citizens safe have openly expressed their opposition to the bill. Meanwhile, research suggests that mandatory minimums have not been successful in deterring crime, as its supporters suggest. It similarly doesnt keep those incarcerated from becoming repeat offenders. Californias Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2021 study has found that the rate of how many people become re-offenders after going to prison has averaged around 50% over the past ten years.

An additional problem with mandatory minimums is that they take away the judges discretion in determining punishment for cases where a minor penalty would be more applicable for less serious crimes or for a particular individuals situation.

Allowing judges the discretion to order supervised probation as opposed to jail time is a step in the right direction to address the racial inequities in our criminal justice system, said Jeanette Zanipatin, California State Director for Drug Policy Alliance.

While in favor of SB 73, the editorial board believes that more funding to organizations offering community substance abuse resources along with more affordable beds in rehabilitation centers is needed to successfully fight the harmful effects of drug addiction, thus decreasing incarceration numbers in the U.S.

The editorial board further believes that better education surrounding drugs and addiction is necessary to improve this issue, beyond the Just Say No '' rhetoric commonly repeated in public schools and institutions.

Children in the substance abuse prevention program, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, commonly known as D.A.R.E., were just as likely to use drugs than those who didnt participate, according to Scientific American. Today, more schools and organizations are embracing harm reduction-based strategies to offer students and community members the education needed to take their safety into their own hands when it comes to drug use.

The editorial board believes that education centralized around factual information of drug use, in order to gain knowledge on the repercussions of these illegal substances is the best alternative to prevent drug crime. We agree with accurate and individual judging of non-violent drug crime cases, rather than immediately labeling users as criminals through mandatory jail time.

For addiction help and community resources, please visit Orange Coast Colleges substance abuse webpage.

Excerpt from:

EDITORIAL: SB 73 will end 'War on Drugs' in California - Coast Report

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Continued here:

Rafe Godfrey: America's real 'forever war' is the War on Drugs - Charleston Gazette-Mail

On 11 May 2017, Crisanto Lozano set off early in the morning from his home in Manila. He was going to renew his security guard licence, a requirement for his profession. By afternoon, he still hadnt returned, nor was he picking up his phone. Then the family realised that Crisantos younger brother, Juan Carlos, was also missing.

The next day, they heard news that two bodies had been discovered nearby. The brothers had been shot dead during a police operation.

If they died with sickness, maybe I can accept with a free feeling in my heart, says their mother, Llore Pasco. Instead, she says, they were killed by police officers who were operating with brazen impunity under the instruction of Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte.

After declaring a so-called war on drugs, he had repeatedly called for drug addicts, and anyone involved in the drug trade, to be killed. If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself, as getting their parents to do it would be too painful, Duterte said a speech after taking office in 2016.

Of course the policemen shoot and shoot and shoot, Pasco says. Because he ordered kill, kill, kill.

The ICC prosecutor estimates as many as 30,000 people were killed between July 2016 and March 2019.

For more than four years, Pasco, a massage therapist and now an activist with the alliance Rise Up for Life and for Rights, has fought for accountability, and to bring an end to the killings. Along with six other mothers, she was among the first to publicly submit a petition to the international criminal court (ICC) calling for Dutertes indictment.

Last month, the ICC confirmed that it would proceed with an investigation into possible crimes against humanity committed during Dutertes war on drugs, stating that it appeared to be a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population. The announcement was probably the best news on the human rights front since the fall of Marcos, says Carlos Conde, a senior Philippines researcher at Human Rights Watch.

For Pasco and other mothers, the ICC statement offered a glimmer of hope. It is really like half of the sun is shining upon us, she says.

It was in August 2018 that the mothers, who organise through Rise Up for Life and Rights, which has documented hundreds of drugs-war cases, first submitted their testimonies to the ICC. The group was apprehensive, says Kristina Conti, a lawyer from the National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL), who represents the families. At that time this was the height of the killings, she adds. Many other mothers had been unwilling to speak out, fearing that more of their relatives could be targeted.

Lawyers working on drug war cases have also faced severe security risks. Under Dutertes presidency, 61 lawyers have been killed, including some of Contis colleagues. Earlier this year, Angelo Karlo Guillen, also a NUPL lawyer, was stabbed in the head. Fortunately, he survived the attack.

The large number of cases that lawyers work on means it is hard to determine exactly why they have been targeted, Conti says, but many of those killed have been involved in drugs cases. There is a general fear it is unsaid really but to take on the defence of drugs cases is asking for the death sentence. Youre putting a target to your own head.

Despite the risks, the families resolved to publicly petition the ICC, believing this was the only way to bring an end to the killings. I think this kind of bravery or tenacity on the part of just a few of the mothers carried over, Conti says. Hope is contagious.

When the ICC announced an initial inquiry in 2018, Duterte responded by withdrawing from the court, and threatening to arrest the then-prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, if she stepped foot in the country. The withdrawal, however, did not take effect until March 2019, and so the ICC still retains jurisdiction from the start of the Philippines membership in 2011 until this point.

Since then, Duterte, who is nearing the end of his six-year term limit, has continued to dismiss the ICC, refusing to cooperate with it and even stating that he wants to slap the judges.

However, he recently abandoned a controversial plan to run as vice-president, which critics said would be a violation of the constitution, and said he would prepare his defence. Many suspect he will be succeeded as president by his daughter Sara Duterte, who could shield him from prosecution. She has denied plans to run and did not file a candidacy last week ahead of Fridays deadline. Substitutions are allowed until 15 November.

It is believed that only one of the deaths linked to anti-drug operations the killing of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos has led to a conviction. Three police were found guilty of murder.

The president is very lucky, Pasco points out, because he has been given a chance to defend himself. Her own children were denied the right to do so.

Pasco was told her sons had been involved in a robbery, and that they were shot because they had tried to fight back against the police. The narrative is grimly familiar to activists and human rights lawyers; the same justification that victims fought back is routinely given by Philippine police to defend extra-judicial killings carried out during their operations. According to the ICC, this claim is consistently undermined by other information relating to drugs-war killings.

Both Pascos sons had, in the past, used drugs, but had since stopped doing so, she said. Crisanto, 34, who was married with four children, was working in another province as a security guard. He would return home once a month, when he received his salary, to see the family. Juan Carlos, 31, was working as a janitor and labourer. He was a sweet son, she says. Whenever he was paid he would try to give some of his wages to her, and, when she refused, he would treat his nieces and nephew instead. He didnt need to marry, he would tell them, because they were already his family.

When Duterte came to power, both sons responded to official calls for drug users to surrender to their local authorities for rehabilitation. Many other victims of the drugs operations had done the same, believing they would be spared from the police crackdowns. The opposite was true. They were not being helped, they were being killed, says deaconess Rubylin Litao, a coordinator for Rise Up for Life and Rights.

Pasco is aware, she adds, that it will be a long fight for justice. Our opponent, our enemy is not just an ordinary person, it is the head of the state of the Philippines, and also his cronies.

With Duterte and potentially his successor, if they are sympathetic to him refusing members of the ICC access to the Philippines, the work of activists, human rights lawyers and families on the ground, who will need to gather evidence, will become even more important.

Pasco hopes that other mothers will come forwards. Why should we be afraid? They should be afraid, because we are telling the truth. This is what is really happening here in the Philippines, Pasco says. Even now, she adds, the killings continue, but less attention is paid to such deaths because of the pandemic.

We have to show courage, go out and show our testimony so that we can win soon in this struggle.

Read more here:

We have to show courage: the Philippines mothers taking Duterte and his war on drugs to court - The Guardian

The Fall International Seminar Series,A New Normal in a Global Context, continues at noon, Wednesday,October 20, with Dr. Mike Hendrickstalk on Central American Migration and the War on Drugs.The event will be presented as a live Zoom webinar which is free and open to the public.Advance registration is requiredto receive the Zoom link.

Hendricks presentationCentral American Migration and the War on Drugsdemonstrates how things like globalization, neoliberalism, and increases in technology have led to an increase in global drug trafficking in recent years.Hendricks will show how the global drug prohibition regimeandthe United States War on Drugshavefailedtostop the supply of drugsbecause the demand for drugs in developed countries (e.g., the United States)has never waned. After discussing the many facets of this issue, Hendricks will end the presentation with a brief discussion onsome potential routes to mitigate the narco-refugee problemin Central America.

Hendricks is an assistant professor in the Department of Politics and Government at ISU. His primary research interests include resistance movements to large extractive projects in the developing world,Chinese investments in the developing world, and peacekeeping effectiveness. Hendricksholds a Ph.D. (2019) and an M.A. (2016) in comparative politics and international relations from the Department of Political Science at the University of Missouri. During his time in graduate school, Hendricks also completed a minor in international development and four certificates: grantsmanship, nonprofit management, public management, and global public affairs. Prior to graduate school, Hendricks served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Nicaragua (2011-2013) and China (2014). Hendricks earned his B.A. from the University of Delaware in 2011. He studied international relations with a concentration on international development. He also completed three minors: Spanish, business, and history.

The International Seminar Series has become one of the most popular internationally focused events on the Illinois State campus and continues to provide international perspectives on critical issues around the world.This semester, the series is a collaboration between theOffice of International Studies and Programs and the Department of Politics and Government. The faculty coordinator isDr. T.Y. Wang, University Professor and chair of theDepartment of Politics and Government.

The series continues with webinars at noon each Wednesday through November 3, 2021. Seminarseries events are free and open to the public:Advance registrationis required to receive the log-in link. Those who have questions or who need an accommodation to participate fully should contactInternationalSeminar@IllinoisState.eduor call (309) 438-5276.

Read this article:

Central American Migration and the War on Drugs - Illinois State University News

Ciudad Juarez, MEXICO Over the past 10 years, the makeup of Mexico's criminal landscape has shifted from a handful of big cartels and some splinter groups to more than 400 gangs operating all over the country, many of them with ties to the US.

A 2008 intelligence report by the Mexican army detailed the first fragmentation of what then was Mexico's ruling cartel: Arturo Beltran Leyva's split from "The Federation of Sinaloa," which was run by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman and Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada.

Beltran Leyva founded his own cartel, naming it after himself, but by the end of 2009, Mexican Marines working with US agents had located Arturo Beltran, killing him in a raid in the resort city of Cuernavaca, just south of Mexico City.

The fragmentation has continued since then. Now more than 400 gangs operate in Mexico, according to the most recent report by Lantia Intelligence, a Mexican consulting agency specializing in criminal organizations and security analysis.

"Today most of these 400 criminal cells are coalitions more than independent groups," according to Eduardo Guerrero, director of Lantia, which maintains a database on gangs updated monthly.

Guerrero said the fragmentation was a direct consequence of the "war against cartels" that right-wing Mexican President Felipe Calderon escalated soon after taking office in 2006.

"The DEA advised Calderon to start a strategic fragmentation between cartels, but Mexico police forces were not prepared, and the narcos bought the police [at] every level," Guerrero said, referring to pervasive corruption.

American officials have also pointed to that US-supported strategy as a driver of violence in recent years.

The Sinaloa and Jalisco Nueva Generacion cartels "are the biggest players in Mexico today, with a lot of partners," Guerrero told Insider.

The Sinaloa Cartel has split into more than 37 "small and medium sized cells," according to the Lantia report obtained by Insider.

The Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion, which was formed by a faction of the Sinaloa Cartel, operates with more than 36 cells around the country.

Major criminal groups mostly have horizontal rather than hierarchical structures, Guerrero said. The Sinaloa Cartel in particular is believed to be more adaptable because it operates as a group of cooperating factions.

"But in some cases, especially with those small gangs, they do have a chain of command," Guerrero said.

Not all cells cooperate with the larger group to which they're linked. Cartel Nueva Plaza, a Jalisco cartel cell with strong ties to Asia and the US, is believed to have challenged the Jalisco cartel on its home turf in Guadalajara, spurring a wave of bloodshed there in 2018.

The Lantia report also describes once-powerful organizations like Los Zetas, the Gulf Cartel, Beltran Leyva, and Familia Michoacana as almost nonexistent, having fragmented into about 50 different groups with operations in 16 of Mexico's 32 states.

The proliferation of small gangs and the presence of powerful criminal organizations have overwhelmed Mexican law enforcement, according to security experts.

"The criminal organizations in Mexico are extremely empowered by the fact that they think there is no threat to them by the Mexican state," said Manelich Castilla, who was the head of Mexico's Federal Police before it was folded into the country's new National Guard in 2019.

Castilla acknowledged that Mexico's law-enforcement authorities are actively participating in organized crime and that "there are no solid authorities, especially at a local level."

"The fentanyl business changed everything. Since it is so profitable and it moves in such small quantities, fentanyl made cartels much more empowered and rich, overwhelming all levels of authorities," he said.

Castilla said the small gangs proliferating in Mexico are not a threat to established cartels but rather support their power.

"They work under their directions, not against them. The roughest threat is for Mexican local authorities. Cartels that might not have had a strong local presence in many cities now do, and this is totally overwhelming," he said.

Larger cartels might also be empowered by having local alliances in cities where they operate. A Sinaloa Cartel operative in Culiacan, the capital of Sinaloa state, said the cartel didn't feel a threat from gangs or small organized groups.

"They will never be a threat. We are the ones paying their bills, asking them to support our organizations, and what they get in return more than money is the support of a strong organization like the Sinaloa," the operative told Insider, speaking anonymously to avoid retaliation.

The operative said that these local gangs "look for us to have a brand behind them. Otherwise they are on their own."

Criminal organizations have gained "a lot of power" and co-opted officials at many levels in recent years, but they aren't able to threaten the power of the Mexican state, Castilla said.

"It is a lie to believe that some of these organizations overpower the capacity of the Mexican state. They don't have the infrastructure or the training as Mexican law enforcement does," Castilla told Insider.

The issue, Castilla said, is the approach that Mexican President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador has taken to fighting organized crime.

Lpez Obrador, elected in 2018, has been criticized for adopting a non-confrontational security strategy, which he has referred to as "hugs not guns."

Lpez Obrador "is trying to pacify the country with other ways than confrontation, and this has been very much used by criminals to get stronger," Castilla said.

See the rest here:

Fragmentation caused by Mexico's war on drugs created 400 new gangs - Business Insider

There's a drug war on TV. It has nothing to do with cocaine or heroin but does involve an addiction the pharmaceutical industry's compulsion to charge Americans an average 3.4 times more for brand-name drugs than people in other countries pay. Step 1 in the rehab program is to let Medicare negotiate prescription drug prices.

The drug makers, represented by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, the main industry lobbying group, are running scare ads where seniors fret that they'd be denied lifesaving drugs if Congress applies brakes on what they can charge Medicare. In opposition, the leading interest group for older Americans is sponsoring ads in support of price negotiations. The AARP insists its elderly members would still get the drugs they need, pay lower premiums and get new benefits.

The AARP is right. Most Democrats agree, and so did Donald Trump when he first ran for president.

"We are not allowed to negotiate drug prices. Can you believe it?" candidate Trump said in 2016. "We pay about $300 billion more than we are supposed to, than if we negotiated the price. So there's $300 billion on Day One we solve."

Upon getting elected, Trump made a top drug-company executive head of Health and Human Services, and the campaign promise vanished. But we can now update his figure on savings to at least $450 billion over 10 years, based on Congressional Budget Office numbers.

Most of those savings wouldn't leave the Medicare program but, as the budget plan says, go to providing dental, hearing and vision coverage. And beneficiaries would enjoy a $14 billion cut in their Part D premiums by 2029, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Then there are the taxpayers. General revenues that is, federal income taxes cover 71 percent of the costs of Medicare Part D, and states another 12 percent.

This proposal hardly starves the pharmaceutical companies of revenues. It would cap the prices charged Medicare at 120 percent of those paid in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. In other words, we could still be paying more than these other rich countries. The difference is that drug makers could no longer gouge Americans with impunity.

The proposed Medicare cap would have reduced U.S. spending on insulins and 50 top brand-name drugs by 52 percent during 2020 a savings of $83.5 billion, according to a RAND Corporation report. (The Veterans Administration has long negotiated prices and pays 54 percent less for drugs than does Medicare.)

PhRMA's public relations department recently wrote that efforts to stop drug makers from charging the federal health insurance program for the elderly whatever they want "should enrage every senior who relies on Medicare for their life-saving medicines."

Actually, they're not enraged. An AARP survey finds that 87 pecent of Americans 50 and older support letting Medicare negotiate drug prices. And nearly 90 percent of the general public wants it, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll.

One PhRMA ad falsely claims that politicians will "decide which medicines you can and can't get." The budget bill does no such thing. It would not require a prescription drug formulary. Insurers offering Medicare drug plans would still decide what drugs to cover. The negotiations would apply to only a few drugs that account for the highest spending and that lack generic competitors.

Lawmakers intent on protecting the drug-pricing racket include some Democrats. What most have in common with like-minded Republicans is open palms at the bottom of Big Pharma's money chute.

At some point, Americans will stop playing the world's suckers. Letting Medicare negotiate drug prices would be a fine place to start recovering our self-respect.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com.

Continue reading here:

FROMA HARROP: We can stop being the world's suckers on drug prices - The Bakersfield Californian

The menace of drug addiction has spread fast among the youth of India as supply drives the demand.

The arrest of Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khans son Aryan Khan by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has once again thrown the spotlight on the drug menace in India.

Late September 2021, 3,000 kilograms of heroin were caught at the Mundra Port in Gujarat. Reportedly, the large quantity of drug shipment came from Afghanistan. The menace of drugs in India came into the limelight last year in 2020 during the investigations behind the death of Sushant Singh Rajput. Let me be brutally honest, the menace of drug addiction has spread fast among the youth of India. This is because supply drives the demand. India is wedged between the worlds two largest areas of illicit opium production, the Golden Crescent and the Golden Triangle.

Thailand, Myanmar, Vietnam and Laos form the regions of The Golden Triangle Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran form the regions of The Golden Crescent. This proximity has traditionally been viewed as a source of vulnerability, since it has made India both a destination and a transit route for opiates produced in these regions.

This fact continues to be important in defining drug trafficking trends in the subcontinent. However, the extent to which heroin seized in the country can be sourced to the diversion of licit opium grown in the country is a matter which continues to be debated. According to the World Drug Report 2021, prescription drugs, their ingredients or precursors are being increasingly diverted for recreational use in Indiathe largest manufacturer of generic drugs in the world.

As one of the biggest manufacturers of potassium permanganate, a precursor chemical, there is a growing suspicion that the processing of cocaine may be shifted by drug cartel from South America to India.

India is shockingly also linked to shipment of drugs sold on the 19 major darkness markets analysed over 2011-2020. The Magnitude of Substance Use in India 2019 Report released by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences revealed: The report revealed that Cannabis and Opioids are the commonly used substances in India. About 2.8% of the population (3.1 crore individuals) reports having used any cannabis product within the previous the general population (more than 10%).

Cannabis and Opioids are the next commonly used substances in India. About 2.8% of the population (3.1 crore individuals) reports having used any cannabis product within the previous year. The use of cannabis was further differentiated between the legal form of cannabis(bhang) and other illegal cannabis products (ganja and charas). Use of these cannabis products was observed to be about 2% (approximately 2.2 crore persons) for bhang and about 1.2% (approximately 1.3 crore persons) for illegal cannabis products, ganja and charas. States with the highest prevalence of cannabis use are Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Sikkim, Chhattisgarh and Delhi. About 2.1% of the countrys population (2.26 crore individuals) use opioids which includes opium (or its variants like poppy husk known as doda/phukki), Heroin (or its impure form smack or brown sugar) and a variety of pharmaceutical opioids.

Nationally, the most common opioid used is Heroin (1.14%) followed by pharmaceutical opioids (0.96%) and Opium (0.52%). Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram have the highest prevalence of opioid use in the general population (more than 10%). The survey indicated that a sizeable number of individuals use Sedatives and Inhalants. About 1.08% of 10-75 year old Indians (approximately 1.18 crore people) are current users of sedatives (non-medical, non- prescription use). States with the highest prevalence of current Sedative use are Sikkim, Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram. However, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat are the top five states which house the largest populations of people using sedatives. Inhalants (overall prevalence 0.7%) are the only category of substances for which the prevalence of current use among children and adolescents is higher (1.17%) than adults (0.58%). Other categories of drugs such as, Cocaine (0.10%) Amphetamine Type Stimulants 0.18%) and Hallucinogens(0.12%) are used by a small proportion of countrys population.

A far higher proportion of Heroin users are dependent on opioids when compared with users of other opioids like Opium and Pharmaceutical Opioids. Of the total estimated approximately 77 lakh people with opioid use disorders (harmful or dependent pattern) in the country, more than half are contributed by just a few states: Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. However, in terms of percentage of population affected, the top states in the country are those in the north east (Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Manipur) along with Punjab, Haryana and Delhi.

A sizeable number of people using other drugs like sedatives and inhalants also need help. In the general population, about 0.20% of Indians need help for their sedative use problems. At the national level, an estimated 4.6 lakh children and 18 lakh adults need help for their inhalant use (harmful use / dependence).

In terms of absolute numbers, states with high population of children needing help for inhalant use are: Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Delhi and Haryana. The number of people dependent on cocaine, ATS and Hallucinogens is extremely small in comparison to the size of countrys population. Nationally, it is estimated that there are about 8.5 Lakh People Who Inject Drugs (PWID). Opioid group of drugs are predominantly injected by PWID (heroin 46% and pharmaceutical opioids 46%). A substantial proportion of PWID report risky injecting practices. High numbers of PWID are estimated in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Haryana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur and Nagaland.

A very small proportion of Indians are estimated to be current users of cocaine (Males 0.18%, Females 0.01%). This would mean about 10.7 lakh current users of cocaine in the country. The proportion of people using cocaine in harmful and dependent pattern is also correspondingly small (0.03%, or 3.2 lakh individuals). States with sizeable numbers of current cocaine users are Maharashtra (90,000), Punjab (27,000), Rajasthan (10,000) and Karnataka (8000).

Between 2010-2019, the number of people using drugs around the world increased by 22%, owing in part to an increase in the global population. Around 275 million people used drugs worldwide last year, while over 36 million people suffered from drug use disorders. Opioids continue to account for the largest burden of disease attributed to drug use. A rise in the non-medical use of pharmaceutical drugs was also observed during the coronavirus pandemic. Access to drugs has also become simpler than ever with online sales, and major drug markets on the dark web are now worth some USD 315 million annually.

In Asia, China and India are mainly linked to shipment of drugs sold on the 19 major darknet markets analysed over 2011-2020. In a recent media report, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has red-flagged Mumbai as the cocaine capital of India saying that other metropolitan cities are not lagging behind with the drug mafia spreading its tentacles in India, Canada and Australia. Shockingly, as much as 2499 kilograms of cocaine seized in the past two years in Sri Lanka, Port Elizabeth and Panama had India as its destination. The international market for this lethal drug is Rs 5 crore per kilogram, according to media reports. India must get serious on its war on drugs. Now, with the Taliban in control of Afghanistan, the menace of drugs will rise in India because the supply from Afghanistan will increase.

Savio Rodrigues is the founder and editor-in-chief of Goa Chronicle.

See the rest here:

India needs to be serious about its war on drugs - The Sunday Guardian

October 8, 2021 | 10:33am

MANILA, Philippines In the face of Philippine government officials insisting on non-cooperation with international probers, International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan vowed to uncover the truth in President Rodrigo Dutertes bloody war on drugs.

In a statement late Thursday night (Manila time), Khan issued a statement weeks after the ICCs Pre-Trial Chamber approved his offices request to launch an investigation into allegations of crimes against humanity in the Philippines.

My investigation will seek to uncover the truth and aim to ensure accountability. We will focus our efforts on ensuring a successful, independent and impartial investigation, Khan said.

Khan also asserted that, as affirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber, his offices investigation will cover alleged crimes in the country from November 2011 to March 2019, when the Philippines withdrawal took effect.

The probe will also cover alleged killings in Davao City between 2011 and 2016, when he was in the local government of the southern Philippine city.

The Duterte government has been adamant about insisting that the ICC has no jurisdiction over the country. Officials have also maintained that they will not cooperate with international probers.

But Khan said that his office remains willing to constructively engage with national authorities in accordance with the principle of complementarity and our obligations under the Statute,

The ICC prosecutor also said he will count on the cooperation of States Parties, civil society and other partners so it may give justice to victims and affected communities.

Khan added: I equally look forward to exploring opportunities for greater engagement and dialogue between my Office and the Asia-Pacific region.

RELATED:After announcing retirement from politics, Duterte says he will prepare defense for ICC probe

Retired ICC Judge Raul Pangalangan earlier said that the international tribunal can employ alternative ways to gather evidence in its investigation.

Social media posts may be used, and the ICC may also fly witnesses to The Hague. Online mechanisms can be used too if the investigator cannot physically come to the country.

Even before the PTC approved the request of the ICCs Office of the Prosecutor for a full investigation, witnesses as well askin of "drug war"victims have also been submitting their testimonies to the tribunal.

The OTP, in what has been called former Prosecutor Fatou Bensoundas valedictory, noted that the office is "[a]ware of the complex operational challenges"that they will face if their request for the probe is approved.

[W]e have also been taking a number of measures to collect and preserve evidence, in anticipation of a possible investigation, she added.

More here:

ICC prosecutor vows to uncover truth in Duterte 'war on drugs' - Philstar.com

Filipino human rights lawyer Kristina Conti holds an International Criminal Court (ICC) complaint of victims of drug-related killings in front of a church in Quezon city, east of Manila, Philippines, March 2019. The order of President Rodrigo Duterte, which states that the Philippines would leave the International Criminal Court (ICC) continues to worry human rights defenders and relatives of war on drugs victims, who fear that abuses of the War on Drugs campaign will go unpunished. EFE/EPA/FRANCIS R. MALASIG

In August 2021, a bill was tabled in Tongas Parliament to introduce the death penalty for drug offences. Because Tonga is a small archipelago country in the Pacific, the implications of this regressive development to the global human rights debate were therefore easy to dismiss.

This is a concerning shift because although there is already a death penalty in Tonga for murder and treason, the last executions occurred in 1982. The introduction of a new cause for death penalty certainly demonstrates the potency of the war on drugs narrative to resurrect the desire for it after nearly four decades of de facto moratorium.

It also confirms the paradox of the global state of the death penalty. Since the 1970s, there has been a growing trend towards abolishing the death penalty for all crimes. However, more countries have passed legislation imposing the death penalty for drug offences. In 1979, it was estimated that only 10 countries prescribed the death penalty for drugs. By the year 2000, the numbers of countries had risen to 36.

Tongas recent passage is not an isolated phenomenon. Bangladesh expanded the application of the death penalty to new drug offences in 2018. And a year later, President Sirisena of Sri Lanka announced the signing of a death warrant for four drug convictsa move that was largely inspired by President Dutertes bloody drug war in the Philippines. If the execution was resumed, it would put an end to a 43-year moratorium on executions in Sri Lanka. Earlier this year, a bill that would reinstate the death penalty for drugs was adopted by the Philippines House of Representatives.

Human rights groups have repeatedly argued that drug offenses do not fall into the category of the most serious crimes for which the death penalty may be permitted under international human rights law. Yet the death penalty for drug offenses appears to be on the rise, and it remains one of authoritarian leaders preferred tools for garnering popular support and quelling dissent. What are some possible solutions to this troubling proclivity?

In most jurisdictions where the death penalty for drugs operates, retentionist arguments normally revolve around two major points: deterrence effect and public opinion. I would say that there is no such thing as deterrence. A rational choice theorist would probably argue that if chances of being arrested and/or convicted are low, or even if the risk is high, but the benefit of committing such crimes outweighs the costs, rational offenders will commit the offenses regardless of the severity of punishment. In some of these retentionist countries, offenders can even bribe the law apparatus to prevent the possibility of being sentenced to death. Nevertheless, there are not enough rigorous studies to prove that the death penalty works to curb drug offences.

Meanwhile, on the question of public opinion, retentionist governments tend to rationalize their position, citing high levels of public support for punishing measures. They usually rely on polls conducted by mainstream media in which the question is a simple yes or no. Anywhere in the world, including in abolitionist countries, for example in the United Kingdom or France, if people are asked whether they are in favor of the death penalty or not, they would incline to say yes. However, this simple binary question masks the complexity of the death penalty.

A recent public opinion study in Indonesia, carried out by Oxford University, reveals interesting and significant outcomes. Almost 70% of the respondents expressed support for the death penalty. However, only 2% of respondents were well-informed and only 4% were very concerned about the issue. The study also revealed that 54% of death penalty supporters believed it would deter drug offenses. But when asked which measures are most likely to reduce drug crimes, the vast majority chose more effective policing, better education for the next generation, and social measures to alleviate poverty. Only a few mentioned more death sentences and execution. When respondents were presented with realistic scenario cases, only 14% supported the death penalty for drug trafficking. Public opinion studies in Trinidad (2011), Malaysia (2013), Japan (2015), and Zimbabwe (2018) all yielded similar results. The findings of all these reports imply that, on a broad level, public support for the death sentence for drug offenses is strong, but this support is based on a lack of understanding. When confronted with real-life examples, public support for the death penalty plummets, and the public becomes increasingly open to alternatives to the death sentence.

More robust studies that investigate the issue in greater depth and generate a more nuanced and sophisticated knowledge of the issue are thus needed to definitively refute the deterrence and public opinion arguments. This type of research, however, is costly. More donors and abolitionist states should support this project and the subsequent advocacy strategy, so that local civil society can effectively utilize it to further the abolition agenda.

Although adequate resources to support research projects are available, abolition of the death penalty will not occur overnight. A critical component to help disempower the death penalty regime should be strengthened: legal representation. Almost everyone on death row for drug offenses is a poor and vulnerable person exploited by the syndicates. Early and competent legal assistance from the time of arrest can be a life-saving means for people facing the death penalty.

Unfortunately, despite the presence of qualified human rights and criminal defense lawyers in many death penalty jurisdictions, only a few lawyers are willing to brave the stigma and represent drug defendants facing death penalty charges. Even if there are lawyers available to assist persons facing the death penalty, they are usually underfunded. Because the less likely it is for judges to impose death sentences, the more likely it is that we will achieve a de facto moratorium, paving the way for abolition. At the end of the day, more efforts to support, build capacity, and sensitize lawyers are required.

Finally, when pressed with questions on how to address drug trafficking, human rights advocates should be able to articulate alternatives to the death penalty. It is important to assert that the death penalty is ineffective in deterring illicit drug trade. However, as we have seen with the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and now Tonga, articulation alone is insufficient. How do we tackle the so-called drug problem in a way that does not perpetuate and extend drug prohibitionist premise?

To answer that, we need an open and honest public debate about drugs, drug use, and the illicit drug economy, beyond just say no. We can begin by destigmatizing drugs and questioning the rationale for the drug war. Only then will we be able to move closer to our goal of abolishing the death penalty for drug offenses.

See more here:

Abolition of the death penalty for drug offences is a mission possible - OpenGlobalRights

Like crack cocaine, COVID can be easily politicized.

The deeply troubled lives of crack babies thankfully, never came to pass.

If you missed that era of hyperventilated pronouncements, here is a synopsis.

When crack cocaine first swept through American cities, much concern and social anxiety arose about the long-term impact if women used the drug while pregnant.

A widespread belief (often plied by media) was that children would be born hyper-aggressive, theyd fail in school, fracture already struggling families and would be challenged with any number of mental health conditions.

All because their mothers smoked crack before giving birth.

Crack dealers in the 80s and 90s preyed on poor Black communities to peddle the stuff, a fact that only ratcheted up the chastising, fearmongering tones. The war on drugs mentality was a factor too; always ready to lean toward moral preaching and blaming, rather than seeking ways to help mothers with addiction.

Forty years later, no one talks about crack babies for one reason: they dont exist. The dire life-altering conditions never came to pass.

Longitudinal surveys found that the impact of a mothers usage was slight on the child. Low birth weights and a few points lower IQ scores were tracked in some of the children.

But other factors such as poverty, the stress of living in violent neighborhoods, and yes, poor parenting, accounted for many of the issues faced by the children studied. And there were those who did fine, graduating high school, then college and starting their own, healthy families.

Some developmental impacts were overcome as the child aged, and the measurable differences overall werent large, according to the Maternal Lifestyle Study, a large federally financed program based at Brown University.

The crack baby episode in American public health is instructive for today.

The nation will likely soon face vaccine opportunities for young children and schools continue to manage hybrid and masked learning for another year. The long-term impacts on children are a valid concern.

But like crack cocaine, COVID-19 has and continues to be easily politicized.

People have already been willing to push political points about masking and social distancing as it relates to children in school. Virtually all major cities have a viral Facebook video of a school board meeting where a parent has pounded about the horrific impact masking or online learning has had on children.

There is indisputable evidence that the pandemic and all that it has brought has affected childrens learning and for some, their social development. How could it not?

But are children permanently behind and set up for failure in life? Is it impossible to even consider that what research is finding to be a two-to-three month gap for some in learning assessments cant be reclaimed?

The reply should be to monitor childrens development even closer, especially lower income families, where the greatest slips in education attainment have been tracked.

And attention to young peoples mental health should never be discounted. One recent study published by the Journal of Pediatrics found that at least 140,000 children under 18 have had a parent or other caregiver die of COVID-19, or a pandemic-related issue.

Just as the impact of crack was racialized and blown out of proportion, anything involving the pandemic and education can quickly take on a life of its own.

Pfizer and BioNTech are asking for clearance by the FDA. to give the vaccine to children aged 5-11, so conversations about the pandemics effect on children will soon escalate. The vaccine fears and hesitancies of parents will have to be respected and met with science-based facts.

This could be a reset. We need fewer politically driven arguments, less labeling of good and bad parents and attention to pushing back against wild assumptions of permanent educational losses.

Most of all, we dont need another sorry chapter in hyperventilated, stretched predictions meant to scare families, not help them.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View post:

The myth of the 1990s 'crack baby,' and its pandemic-related lesson - Goshen News