Category Archives: War On Drugs

Decades after President Nixon declared drugs "public enemy number one," the criminal justice system is still grappling with the problem. In recent years, we've seen bipartisan calls for an end to so-called mass incarceration for drug crimes and a shift away from the so-called "war on drugs" toward greater emphasis on treatment for addiction.

As Acting U.S. Attorney John Farley sees it, the phrase "war on drugs" is a bit of a buzz term that oversimplifies a battle now being waged on two fronts.

"There is the effort to get people to stop using drugs, and theres the effort to try to stop people from selling drugs and from preying on people who are suffering," Farley said onThe Exchange.

"I dont know that you can say the war on drugs has failed. Its ongoing and will probably never end. But we are certainly in a very bad spot right now. We have mounting deaths resulting fromfentanyl. We have a community that is really suffering."

His agency goes after major drug traffickers.

The latest scourge in the drug crisis iscarfentanil-- a syntheticopioidabout 100 times more potent thanfentanyl. So far this year, 37 people have died fromfentanyland six fromcarfentanil. The state has been in the grip of anopioidepidemic for some time now.

Farley concedes that some dealers also suffer from addiction.

"We cant simply just prosecute people and put them in jail. We need to look at the root causes, such as why are people using drugs, why are they starting, whats motivating them to do that even though they see the body count mounting every day. Whats going on? I think as a society and here in New Hampshire were taking a step back and taking a broader approach. "

Patricia Conway, Rockingham county attorney, agrees there's much more to solving the problem than just arresting people. She also thinks the phrase "war on drugs" serves a vital purpose.

"I think it demonstrates that this is very serious and we need to come together as a community, just like we would if there was a war, and support our troops and really come together and fight the problem," she said.

But forBehzad Mirhashem, assistant professor of law at the UNH School of Law, the war on drugs has been wrongheaded and has criminalized addiction and drug use with devastating consequences for some communities, as well as civil liberties.

"The human cost was the number of people in this country went from around 200,000 in the early1970sto 2 million inthe year2000," Mirhashem said.

"And when you talk about people being locked up, they lose their job, they lose their home, they lose their ties to their children, theirfamilies, and so theres been a tremendous human cost of this concept of war as a response to a social problem. But the other aspect of this is an incredible cost in terms of individual freedoms."

That strikes a chord with Anna Battle, who is in recovery from heroin addiction and spent time in jail on drug-related charges, including while she was pregnant. She now works at Hope on Haven Hill, which helps pregnant women who are dealing with addiction.

"It's a sad concept, the war on drugs, because it makes me feel like its a war on our own people who are suffering with the disease of substance use disorder. So from my experience with incarceration and through addiction theres not much rehabilitation available in our jail systems," she said. "Its important to look at people as having a disease rather than a moral issue."

Still, Battle does believe in holding people accountable for actions and in consequences that include jail. "So, if we do need incarceration, what do we need insideourjails that is going to help stop the recidivism rate," she said.

Prosecutorial and Police Discretion: The Pros and Cons.

When it comes to deciding how to handle those possessing and dealing drugs, Conway says prosecutors consider many factors, including aggravating circumstances.

"For instance, how much drugs were involved? Was it one hit or one use? Is it someone with intent to sell? Or is it straight possession? Is it someone with a long criminal history? Is it someone who suffers from substance abuse or is it a drug profiteer someone who does not suffer fromsubstanceabuse but is profiting off the miseryof others," she said. "If its someone who is selling drugs, who is not addicted and profiting fromthe miseryof others, then that person should go to state prison for a long time as far as Im concerned."

Farley says a recent memo by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructing federal prosecutors does not diminish prosecutorial discretion or signal a major shift toward mandatory-minimum sentencing, as claimed by some.

"His memo still provides us with the ability to look at an individual, the individual facts and circumstances of the case, and make that judgment that this is not the appropriate way to charge a particular case," Farley said.

But such discretion too frequently does not serve the cause of justice, according to Mirhashem.

"Police, prosecutors have a lot of discretion and how they exercise it is critical. A police officer sees a young person who looks like hes smoking a joint and the kid flicks it off into a stream -- the officer can let it go or he can charge that person with felony, falsifying physical evidence. Thats a point of discretion for a police officer," he said.

"Then a prosecutor reviews that case, he or she can decide to bring that change or not. And large scale the reality is that discretion has been exercised in the system to the great detriment of poor people and people in minority communities. The problem is not the individual, horrible police officer who goes after poor people or black people but there are structural forces in play such that the war on drugs has devastated certain communities."

For the full Exchange conversation, listen here.

Read the original here:

N.H. Fed., Local Authorities Weigh In On 'The War On Drugs' - New Hampshire Public Radio

Decades after President Nixon declared drugs "public enemy number one," the criminal justice system is still grappling with the problem. In recent years, we've seen bipartisan calls for an end to so-called mass incarceration for drug crimes and a shift away from the so-called "war on drugs" toward greater emphasis on treatment for addiction.

As Acting U.S. Attorney John Farley sees it, the phrase "war on drugs" is a bit of a buzz term that oversimplifies a battle now being waged on two fronts.

"There is the effort to get people to stop using drugs, and theres the effort to try to stop people from selling drugs and from preying on people who are suffering," Farley said onThe Exchange.

"I dont know that you can say the war on drugs has failed. Its ongoing and will probably never end. But we are certainly in a very bad spot right now. We have mounting deaths resulting fromfentanyl. We have a community that is really suffering."

His agency goes after major drug traffickers.

The latest scourge in the drug crisis iscarfentanil-- a syntheticopioidabout 100 times more potent thanfentanyl. So far this year, 37 people have died fromfentanyland six fromcarfentanil. The state has been in the grip of anopioidepidemic for some time now.

Farley concedes that some dealers also suffer from addiction.

"We cant simply just prosecute people and put them in jail. We need to look at the root causes, such as why are people using drugs, why are they starting, whats motivating them to do that even though they see the body count mounting every day. Whats going on? I think as a society and here in New Hampshire were taking a step back and taking a broader approach. "

Patricia Conway, Rockingham county attorney, agrees there's much more to solving the problem than just arresting people. She also thinks the phrase "war on drugs" serves a vital purpose.

"I think it demonstrates that this is very serious and we need to come together as a community, just like we would if there was a war, and support our troops and really come together and fight the problem," she said.

But forBehzad Mirhashem, assistant professor of law at the UNH School of Law, the war on drugs has been wrongheaded and has criminalized addiction and drug use with devastating consequences for some communities, as well as civil liberties.

"The human cost was the number of people in this country went from around 200,000 in the early1970sto 2 million inthe year2000," Mirhashem said.

"And when you talk about people being locked up, they lose their job, they lose their home, they lose their ties to their children, theirfamilies, and so theres been a tremendous human cost of this concept of war as a response to a social problem. But the other aspect of this is an incredible cost in terms of individual freedoms."

That strikes a chord with Anna Battle, who is in recovery from heroin addiction and spent time in jail on drug-related charges, including while she was pregnant. She now works at Hope on Haven Hill, which helps pregnant women who are dealing with addiction.

"It's a sad concept, the war on drugs, because it makes me feel like its a war on our own people who are suffering with the disease of substance use disorder. So from my experience with incarceration and through addiction theres not much rehabilitation available in our jail systems," she said. "Its important to look at people as having a disease rather than a moral issue."

Still, Battle does believe in holding people accountable for actions and in consequences that include jail. "So, if we do need incarceration, what do we need insideourjails that is going to help stop the recidivism rate," she said.

Prosecutorial and Police Discretion: The Pros and Cons.

When it comes to deciding how to handle those possessing and dealing drugs, Conway says prosecutors consider many factors, including aggravating circumstances.

"For instance, how much drugs were involved? Was it one hit or one use? Is it someone with intent to sell? Or is it straight possession? Is it someone with a long criminal history? Is it someone who suffers from substance abuse or is it a drug profiteer someone who does not suffer fromsubstanceabuse but is profiting off the miseryof others," she said. "If its someone who is selling drugs, who is not addicted and profiting fromthe miseryof others, then that person should go to state prison for a long time as far as Im concerned."

Farley says a recent memo by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions instructing federal prosecutors does not diminish prosecutorial discretion or signal a major shift toward mandatory-minimum sentencing, as claimed by some.

"His memo still provides us with the ability to look at an individual, the individual facts and circumstances of the case, and make that judgment that this is not the appropriate way to charge a particular case," Farley said.

But such discretion too frequently does not serve the cause of justice, according to Mirhashem.

"Police, prosecutors have a lot of discretion and how they exercise it is critical. A police officer sees a young person who looks like hes smoking a joint and the kid flicks it off into a stream -- the officer can let it go or he can charge that person with felony, falsifying physical evidence. Thats a point of discretion for a police officer," he said.

"Then a prosecutor reviews that case, he or she can decide to bring that change or not. And large scale the reality is that discretion has been exercised in the system to the great detriment of poor people and people in minority communities. The problem is not the individual, horrible police officer who goes after poor people or black people but there are structural forces in play such that the war on drugs has devastated certain communities."

For the full Exchange conversation, listen here.

Link:

N.H. Chief Federal Prosecutor: The War On Drugs 'Will Probably ... - New Hampshire Public Radio

"We have a drug problem here," said Ann Hall.

She, Jackie Laplatney and a group of other women were tired of watching the growing drug problem in Harrisville.

"After the last couple of weeks, we said it's enough, it's enough. We can't just sit back and talk to each other about it, we can't just sit back and message each other on Facebook, nobody's hearing us," said Jackie.

So instead of sitting back, they organized and planned a public meeting at the Harrisville Fire Hall.

They say people need to start talking about the problem - a problem that Jackie says she's felt personally.

"I will be honest, I was that parent who said, not my kid, but it was my kid. It was my kid, and it's an eye opener," she said.

The meeting is open to anyone.

Officials from local law enforcement and the village will be there, as well as people who've been hurt by the drug problem.

Ann and Jackie say they need the community behind them.

"We feel like we kind of fall through the cracks and we need more help within our own community. If people need to step up to get that help, then that's what we wanna do," said Ann.

The meeting is at 6:30 pm at the Harrisville Fire Hall and Ann and Jackie just want to educate and get people to acknowledge the problems they see in their community.

If you need help, you can also call Pivot's Crisis Line at 315-782-2327.

Read more:

Harrisville Group Declares War On Drugs - WWNY TV 7

For Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the only way to assure a safer America and reverse rising violent crime rates is to lock up as many drug offenders as possible. Earlier this month, he directed federal prosecutors to charge suspects with the most serious offense that can be proved, a return to mandatory minimum sentencinga key policy of the war on drugs.

We know that drugs and crime go hand-in-hand, Sessions said in a May 12 speech. Drug trafficking is an inherently violent business. If you want to collect a drug debt, you cant file a lawsuit in court. You collect it by the barrel of a gun.

Drugs do, in fact, fuel crime. Dealers often turn to violence to carve out territories and enforce loyalty. And chronic drug users sometimes turn to crime to support their habits. But research has shown that boosting drug crime prosecutions often does not lead to a reduction in violent crime and that in some instances, it can actually spark more of it.

Its pretty clear that theres a correlation between drug arrests, crackdowns on drug markets and increase in violent crimes, said Leo Beletsky, a professor of Law and Health Sciences at Northeastern University. [But] the relationship is not inverse, as law enforcement would claim, but symbiotic one causes the other, or at least they go hand-in-hand.

Arresting and convicting a drug dealer would seem an obvious path to less overall crime. But such a move can actually destabilize a criminal ecosystem, leading to a surge in violence. When law enforcement disrupts drug markets, whether by decapitating arresting a major kingpin or taking out small-time dealers on a major scale, it can create a power vacuum, which gives rise to turf wars and creates the conditions for violent crime, Beletsky said.

Arresting people on the supply side of the drug trade also generally does not have the impact Sessions is seeking, he added.

A comprehensive article in the International Journal of Drug Policy from 2011 evaluated 15 studies on violence and drug crackdowns and found that increasing police activity drug arrests, drug seizures, and police spending on drug enforcement paradoxically drove up violence. One of those studies, of 67 Florida counties, found that increases in the rate of drug arrests correlated with a twofold risk of violent and property crime.

Subscribe to receive The Traces daily roundup of important gun news and analysis.

Your signup request was successful. Please consider sharing the Daily Bulletin with your friends and followers.

Close

Thats not to say that law enforcement actions are the only cause of drug-related violent crime, but theyre definitely one of the contributing factors, Beletsky said.

Few police departments make note of motive when recording homicides and other violent crimes. Those that do show that drugs are rarely the primary motivation for killings. In New York, murders where drugs were a primary motive comprised 8.6 percent of the total murders in 2016. In Milwaukee, drug-involved homicides rose by 27 percent from 2014 to 2015, but were still only 23 percent of the total number, slightly higher than those that were alcohol-related, which accounted for 15 percent of the total number of homicides.

In making his case for a crackdown on drug offenders, Sessions has cited Federal Bureau of Investigation numbers that show a rising violent crime rate. In 2016, the national rate rose 3percent from the year before. But that increase followed two decades of sharp decreases. The current violent crime rate is nearly half of what it was in the early 1990s.

In some American cities, like New York, the rate has continued to decline. According to an analysis published by the Brennan Center for Justice, the national uptick is attributable to a handful of cities that experienced particularly sharp surges in violence. Last year in Chicago, where police recorded more than 4,300 shootings, the violent crime rate increased 17.7 percent. There were 762 homicides, the highest number in nearly two decades.

Richard Aborn, a former prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorneys office and now the president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, credits falling crime rates in his city to precision policing.

[An] irrefutable lesson weve learned from the fight against crime is that society is made much safer when police use scalpels, not bludgeons, he said. Sessions is talking about bringing bludgeons back.

Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer who now teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, added that one reason that New York doesnt have the same problem with violent crime as Chicago is because of a change in the drug market: dealers started delivering drugs to their customers instead of slinging on the corner. The result, according to Moskos: dealers stopped shooting each other.

Theres no indication that drug use went down, he said. Other cities, like Baltimore and Chicago, still have active street markets.

Sessions laid out a three-pronged approach for bringing down crime: criminal enforcement, treatment, and prevention. Both Beletsky and Moskos agreed the biggest failure of the decades spent devoted to the war on drugs has been overlooking the latter two. They fear that Sessions clear preference for incarcerating people over helping them surmount addiction and its fallout will do nothing to slow either the pace of shootings in Chicago, or of an opioid crisis that is out of control in rural America.

Moskos recalled a recent photo that went viral on the Internetof a little boy in East Liverpool, Ohio, sitting in the backseat of a car while two adults overdosed in the front. Moskos was struck by the local police chiefs recognition after the incident that law enforcement is ill equipped to address the issues that created the situation depicted in that photo.

We dont have any resources, and we dont have a place. Even if somebody comes down here to the station, knocks on the door and asks for help, where do we send them? East Liverpool police chief John Lane said on NPR at the time. We have nothing here in our county.

Originally posted here:

Jeff Sessions Says Renewing the War on Drugs Will Also Reduce Violent Crime. Experts Aren't So Sure. - The Trace

The War on Drugs began during the 1960s and 70s. During those years, President Richard Nixon launched new policies to aggressively criminalize and punish anything related to drugs.

In 1969 he began telling the public that drug use was becoming a growing problem in the U.S. He argued that the best way to deal with illegal drugs wasto ramp up policing efforts.

Then in 1971, he said, Americas public enemy number one . . . is drug abuse. Nixon then laid out his plan for what he described as a new, all-out offensive.That plan was to give the government and law enforcement agencies authority and the funds to fuel this kind of an offensive.

Nixons War on Drugs picked up steam throughout the following decades.Most recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has made clear his commitment to continuing the War on Drugs.

He has appointed hardcore War on Drugs supportersto high-level law enforcement positions. And he is considering putting back into place policies that require severe mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenses.

But is all this effort really worth it? Is the War on Drugs accomplishing anything productive? As critics of the long-standing war on drugs have pointed out for decades, these policies have actually created many more problems than they have solved. Here are 10 reasons why the War on Drugs must end.

The war on drugs has led to an explosion in the numbers of people incarcerated in the U.S. In fact, with more than 2 million people behind bars, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

To put it into context: The U.S. is home to less than five percent of the worlds total population, but it has nearly 25 percent of the worlds prisoner population.

More than 1.6 million people are arrested in the U.S. every year for drug-related crimes. And 84 percent of those arrests are for simple possession. For example, as of 2015, there was a person arrested for a cannabis-related crime every 49 seconds.

Arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning that many people ends up sucking away a lot of resources. According to drug reform groupCount The Costs, the U.S. has spent more than $1 trillion over the last 40 years waging the War on Drugs.

Every year, the country spends around $15 billion on enforcing drug laws. And many reports indicate that the U.S. spends a total of$80 billion every year to maintain its huge population of prisoners.

Not only do these figures represent a lot of money spent to keep the War on Drugs going. It also means that theres less money available for funding other public programs and services such as schools, employment training programs, addiction recovery programs, and mental health servicesall of which are arguably better ways of dealing with drug abuse.

Many critics of the war on drugs have suggested that we shift our thinking so that drug abuse becomes a matter of public health rather than a question of crime.

Simply locking people who struggle with drug abuse in jails and prisons does not address the problem of addiction. Failing to provide adequate health resources means that many folks end up getting arrested for similar drug crimes once they are released.

But if the U.S. devoted resources toward addiction recovery programs instead of the War on Drugs, it could significantly lower the number of people harmed by drug abuse.

A 2015 report found that War on Drugs policing has failed in its stated goal of reducing domestic street-level drug activity. Instead, it has authorized more aggressive policing practices.Those practices include raids and police-related violence, especially against Black adolescents and adults.

Other sources have argued that the War on Drugs incentivizes police departments to go after low-level, non-violent drug users while letting the black market flow of drugs remain intact.

Local law enforcement agencies receive funding and equipment the more drug-related arrests they make. Similarly, asset forfeiture laws allow cops to seize private property if they suspect it was somehow involved with a drug crime.

All of this encourages and rewards aggressive policing practices that do nothing to slow the flow of illegal drugs, but that target instead low-level, non-violent drug users.

Far from reducing crime, the War on Drugs actually creates crime. Keeping drugs illegal keeps the black market strong. And this ends up creating even more crime.

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground, wrote economist Jeffrey Miron. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

He added: Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

In fact, making drugs legal has proven far more effective at reducing drug crime than the War on Drugs. For example, as cannabis becomes more legal in the U.S., there is less illegal weed coming into the country. Similarly, the legal cannabis industry is taking huge profits away from illegal traffickers.

Every time the U.S. locks people up for a drug-related crime, there are a number of economic costs. The most obvious one is how much it costs taxpayers to arrest, charge, prosecute, sentence, and incarcerate them.

But the War on Drugs also hurts the economy by taking people out of the labor force. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the War on Drugs diverts billions of dollars away from the economy.

For example, from 1992-2002, there was a loss of about 1 million per years of effort between both the black market and those locked up for drug crimes. That equates to several billions of dollars taken out of the economy every year.

By keeping drugs illegal, the U.S. loses out on big-time tax revenues. Miron estimated that legalizing and regulating drugs in the US would yield tens of billions of dollars annually in both taxation and enforcement savings.

For real-world proof, look at whats going on in states that have legalized weed. For example, the legal cannabis industry in Colorado creates more than $2 billion in total economic activity every year.

All that activity also generates billions every year in taxes. Colorado uses that tax money to improve infrastructure, fund education, fight homelessness, give students scholarships, fund drug abuse prevention programs, and other public programs.

The War on Drugs tends to harm poor people more than middle- and upper-class folks. For starters, poor people and especially homeless people are more visible and vulnerable to police.

And since the U.S. focuses more on criminalizing drugs than providing health services, incarceration is almost inevitable for poor people who use drugs. People who can afford drug rehab programs can get help before getting arrested. But those who cant afford those services are more likely to end up getting arrested for using drugs.

It might not seem obvious, but the War on Drugs also harms the environment. Cannabis is a good example of how this works.

The black market for growing and producing illegal weed leads to deforestation as growers look for isolated places to cultivate cannabis. And every time a site is raided by law enforcement, growers have to move into new territory.

Illegal cannabis grows also lead to pollution and poor water management.And in many cases, illegal grow operations also end up killing local wildlife. For example, a study last year found that illegal cannabis grows in California werecontributing to the extinction of several species.

Ending the War on Drugs would solve a lot of this. It would provide a way for drug producers and growers to cultivate their product in safer, more permanent, highly regulated methods.

The War on Drugs disproportionately targets and harms people of color. For example, although white people, black people, and Latinx people sell and use illegal drugs at roughly the same rates, people of color are arrested far more often.

In fact, black men are arrested 13 times as often as white men for drug crimes. And in some states,its as high as 57 times.

Similarly, black and Latinx folks together make up roughly 29 percent of the U.S. population. But they represent more than 75 percent of prisoners locked up for drug-related crimes.

And even when theyre released from jail or prison, the War on Drugs continues harming people. In many places, a felony drug charge disqualifies people for many important resources such as housing, food, healthcare, education, and sometimes even the right to vote.

All of this keeps people locked into poverty. It also increases the likelihood of returning to prison. And since people of color are the most likely to be arrested for drug activity, they are also more likely to face these long-term obstacles as well.

See the rest here:

10 Reasons The War On Drugs Must End - Green Rush Daily

WASHINGTON As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump pledged to tackle prescription-drug abuse and the flow of illegal drugs into the country. But his White House efforts are off to a rocky start so far.

Trump appointed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to lead a opioid crisis task force. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price and other administration officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions, have embarked on a listening tour of areas ravaged by the opioid epidemic.

But any goodwill gained from those efforts was likely undercut by a leaked document that provided a preview into the administrations plan to effectively gut the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which takes the lead in addressing drug abuse issues, by reducing its funding by almost 95 percent.

Then came the announcement that the Justice Department would reverse an Obama-era policy that urged prosecutors to try to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, and an emerging pattern from the administration is developing that is troubling to some lawmakers and advocates.

Such policies and proposals could be examples of an unpredictable White House that at times sends contradictory messages about its strategy.

But while Republican members continue to hold out hope that Trump will keep his pledge to combat the opioid epidemic, a number of GOP senators are becoming more vocal in their criticism of his early actions on the issue.

I am alarmed at the defunding [of the drug-control policy office] because that, to me, signals less emphasis on what I think is a deep problem, said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia. I think we need an overarching policy and I would like to see it remain in the White House where it would get the ultimate attention.

Capito said she gave Sessions an earful about the possible funding cuts when he visited West Virginia for an event hosted by the Drug Enforcement Agency, which takes the lead on drug interdiction efforts.

The fiscal 2017 spending bill that Trump signed into law this month will provide $150 million more this year to help fight the opioid epidemic. Should the administration choose to forge ahead and suggest reduced funding for the office in the pending fiscal 2018 budget proposal, it will likely not get much support in Congress.

But it is not just funding that has galvanized Republicans into pushing back against the Trump administration. After Sessions announcement, some Republican senators came out against the shift back to harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

Mandatory minimum sentences have unfairly and disproportionately incarcerated too many minorities for too long, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said in a statement. Attorney General Sessions new policy will accentuate that injustice. Instead, we should treat our nations drug epidemic as a health crisis and less as a lock em up and throw away the key problem.

But the decision did not meet total opposition among Republicans in Congress.

Law enforcement should side with the victims of crime rather than its perpetrators. This policy is simply common sense and will help reduce crime and drugs in our neighborhoods, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, said in a statement.

A Justice Department spokesman said the directive guarantees that prosecutors treat all defendants fairly, equitably, and uniformly.

Outside advocacy groups say they are baffled by the administrations recent actions.

To say you are going to address things and then put some policies in place that dont make any sense to what we know works, and what the science says, it leaves one beyond just scratching their head and wondering where the impetus for this is, said Tom Hill, vice president of addiction and recovery at the National Council for Behavioral Health.

Read this article:

Tump administration sends mixed marching orders in the war on drugs - SaukValley.com

In a phone call from the White Houselate last month,U.S. President Donald Trump heaped praise on Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte,one of the worlds most murderous heads of state, fordoing what Trump called anunbelievable job in his war on drugs. Trump offered an unqualified endorsement of Dutertes bloody extermination campaign against suspected drug dealers and users, which has includedopen calls for extrajudicial murders and promises of pardons and immunity for the killers.

You are a good man, Trump told Duterte, according to an official transcript of the April 29 call produced by the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs and obtained by The Intercept. Keep up the good work, Trump told Duterte. You are doing an amazing job.

Trump began the call by telling Duterte, You dont sleep much, youre just like me, before quickly pivoting to the strongmans drug war.

I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem, Trump told Duterte at the beginning of theircall, according to the document. Many countries have the problem, we have a problem, but what a great job you are doing and I just wanted to call and tell you that.

Thank you Mr. President, replied Duterte. This is the scourge of my nation now and I have to do something to preserve the Filipino nation.

The transcript, which contains numerous typographical errors, was authenticated by well-placed sources in the Palace and the Department of Foreign Affairs by reporters at the Manila-basednews outlet Rappler, which collaborated with The Intercept onthis story.

Since Duterte took office in June, Philippinenational police and vigilante death squads have embarked on a campaign to slaughterdrugusersas well as drug dealers. Hitler massacred three million Jews [sic], now,theres three million drug addicts. Id be happy to slaughter them, he said in September. Last month, he told a group ofjoblessFilipinosthat they should kill all the drug addicts. Police have killed over 7,000 people, devastated poor areas of Manila and other cities, and used the drug war as a pretext to murder government officials and community leaders.

The new details of Trumps call with Duterte comeon the heels of the Philippine presidents announcement that he is imposing martial law on the autonomous island of Mindanao, where government forces are battling Islamist rebels. If I had to kill thousands of people just to keep Philippines a thousand times safer, I will not have doubts doing it, Duterte said.

On the April 29 call, Trump pointed out to Dutertethat his predecessor in the White Househad been critical of the rising body count under Dutertes reign in the Philippines, but that Trump himself gets it. I understand that, and fully understand that, and I think we had a previous president who did not understand that, Trump said, but I understand that and we have spoken about this before.

Whenthe Obamaadministration offeredsome tempered criticism of Duterteskilling spree, Duterte called the U.S. presidentthe son of a whore and an idiot who can go to hell. Speaking in Beijing inOctober, Duterte said, America has lost now. Ive realigned myself in your ideological flow.And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. Its the only way.

However, inthe wake of Trumps election, Dutertesaid, I dont want to quarrel anymore, because Trump has won. Onthe April call, Trump addressed Duterte warmly by his first name, Rodrigo, and Duterte thanked Trump for his sentiments on Obama.

This week, Duterte was slated to beinRussia for a five-day trip, including a meeting with President Vladimir Putin, whom he has called his favorite hero. On Tuesday, Duterte announced from Moscow that he was cutting the trip short in light of his declaration of martial law and fighting between rebels and the government in Mindanao.

Following the call last month, the White House publicly described a very friendly conversation that culminated with an invitation for an Oval Office meeting. To endorse Duterte is to endorse a man who advocates mass murder and who has admitted to killing people himself, said John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, reacting to the transcript. Endorsing his methods is a celebration of the death of the poor and vulnerable.

A member of a Scene of the Crime Operatives team investigates the scene where two alleged robbers were killed after a gun fight with police in Manila on Feb. 8, 2017.

Photo: Noel Celis/AFP/Getty Images

Dutertes police killings are widely recognized by the international community as an ongoing atrocity. The war on drugs has drawncondemnationfrom theUnited Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, and last month a Philippinelawyer filed a complaint with the International Criminal Court accusing Duterte of mass murder and crimes against humanity. The State Departments annual human rightsreportacknowledges thousands of extrajudicial killings with impunity and calls themthe countrys chief human rights concern.

Killing is nothing new for Duterte. His bloody record started in 1988, when he became the mayor of Davao City, a coastal city in the southern Philippines. During his tenure,he earned the nickname the Death Squad Mayor a titlehe embraces. According to oneformer hitman, Duterte formed an organization called the Davao Death Squad a mafia-like organization of plainclothes assassins that would kill suspected criminals, journalists, and opposition politicians, often from the backs of motorcycles. Multiple former members of the group have come forward and said that they killed people on Dutertes direct orders.

Duterte has even bragged that he personally killed criminals from the back of a motorcycle.In Davao I used to do it personally, hetolda group of business leaders in Manila. Just to show to the guys [police officers] that if I can do it, why cant you.

In 2016, Duterte campaigned on a policy of mass extermination for anyone involved in the drug trade. Id be happy to slaughter them. If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have me, Duterte said after his inauguration in September.

Despite human rights concerns, the U.S. has long consideredthe Philippines a military ally, and under Obama the U.S. gave the countrys military tens of millions of dollars in weapons and resourcesper year. The U.S. government does notprovide lethal weapons directly to the PhilippineNational Police, which has a decadeslong history of extrajudicial killings. But it does allow U.S. weapons manufacturers to sell to them directly. In 2015 the State Department authorized more than $250 million in arms sales from U.S. defense contractors to security forces in the Philippines.

After Dutertes election, Obamas State Department halted one sale of assault rifles to the Philippines, largely due to the objections of Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the leading Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The Philippines became a colony of the United States in 1898 as a result of the Spanish-American War. A long insurgency followed, and the country didnt win full independence until 1946.

Disclosure:Omidyar Network is an investor in Rappler, an independent news organization based in the Philippines. The Intercepts publisher, First Look Media, was founded by Pierre Omidyar.

Top photo: A drug suspect lies dead in a hallway during an alleged shootout with police in Manila, Philippines, on Aug. 18, 2016.

See the rest here:

Trump Called Rodrigo Duterte to Congratulate Him on His Murderous Drug War: You Are Doing an Amazing Job - The Intercept

Asian Law Caucus for Immigrants Rights staff attorney Kevin Lograduated from UC Berkeley before he received a law degree from Stanford Law School. CONTRIBUTED

SAN FRANCISCO Two Filipino immigrants, who served jail terms for drug offenses but were apprehended by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and placed on deportation proceedings, were recently granted protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because they are potential targets of President Rodrigo Dutertes lethal war on drugs.

One immigrant was immediately released after an immigration judges CAT ruling while the other remains in custody pending the written decision of the judge that could withstand an impending appeal of ICE against the still detained convict.

The two grateful Filipinos living in San Francisco chose to remain unidentified. Both men have families, are indigents and in their mid-30s. They are green card holders who were represented for free by legal advocacy group for Asians in San Francisco.

Their lawyer, Kevin Lo, is a staff attorney in the Immigrant Rights Program of the Asian Law Caucus. Lo chanced upon the two men when he visited the San Francisco immigration detention center and realized that the two Filipinos needed representation, as most people in immigration detention are usually not legally aided enough.

Claims for protection

In evaluating the cases of the two Filipinos clients, we learned about the situation in the Philippines with President Dutertes drug war. And when we realized that they had claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture, we decided to take their cases because we know the situation is pretty serious, Lo shared.

Eminent immigration lawyer Lourdes Tancinco notes that the view of the outside world on the controversial death toll in the war of drugs has an impact on the fate of Filipinos abroad. INQUIRER/Jun Nucum

We decided to make the argument that drug addicts who are deported to the Philippines has a more then 50 percent chance to be added to government watch lists and subsequently killed, Lo explained.

Asian Law Caucus sought the help of Vicente Rafael, professor of history in the University of Washington, specializing in Southeast Asian history. Rafael became our source for the condition in the Philippines particularly the drug war being waged by President Duterte,Lo said.

Rafaels declaration together with another experts statement proved very helpful in securing the detainees protection from the judge.

We [also] submitted a big stack of articles and pictures to show that in the Philippines drug convictions typically equal torture and death, Lo explained. If we havent been able to submit the country condition confirmation that intended to show that the governments (drive against drug offenders) is true, the ruling may not have been granted and they could have been deported.

Scheduled to testify again

Rafael is scheduled to testify by phoneon another case, in Tacoma, Washington, largely along the same lines. Nearby Seattle was where an earlier case employing the CAT appeal protection lost.

Duterte supporter Atty. Arnedo Valerasays drug addicts who surrender are sent to rehabilitation centers for treatment and rehabilitation under the Duterte administration.INQUIRER/Jun Nucum

Lo wants to make clear though that the CATis usually the last thing that people try for because it doesnt lead to any legal status; one can still be deported when conditions change. It is also not granted very often.

For our clients, the judge said he wont be deporting our clients. But once Duterte is no longer in power and the drug war is no longer happening, they can be deported. So, CAT is an acknowledgement that you are deportable, but for human rights reason, you are not going to be for now, disclosed Lo.

He says its a form of relief that applies to other people in other countries with dangerous condition of human rights. The Duterte situation is so extreme, so rare that the head of state will be so explicit and proud that he killed so many people that started back when he was mayor of Davao City.

Unfair deportation system

Lo also stressed that the U.S. deportation system is so unfair because even if immigrant convicts spent only a few months in a U.S. prison, they are being deported even for drug crimes that are not serious.

Current U.S. immigration law punishes drug crimes very heavily. It is kind of funny that we are criticizing Duterte for his war on drugs, while the U.S. war on drugs, although not be as bad, is pretty extreme too, Lo lamented.

Vicente Rafael, professor of history in the University of Washington, offered testimony that helped two immigrants be spared from deportation.INQUIRER/Jun Nucum

In the deportation process, ICE will request for travel documents from the Philippines and also will turn over a copy of the deportees criminal record. What that means is that the U.S. is explicitly telling the Philippines that the deportee is a drug abuser or trafficker. Under Duterte, it is very likely that the deportee will be added to the drug list.

Duterte supporter Atty. Arnedo S Valera, a practicing immigration attorney, congratulated Lo and company for creative legal representation in finding a relief from deportation for these two Filipinos.

Legal aberration

However, he contended that this ruling is a legal aberration and not the prevailing case law in almost all immigration courts in 50 States. For the last decade, based on specific and unique removal issues faced by Filipino immigrants, I have been successful in obtaining asylum alleging fear of even torture under the Aquino and Arroyo regimes.

Most likely, these liberal rulings will be appealed by the government because the fact is, under the drug policy of theDuterte administration, drug addicts who surrenderand are not engaged in selling drugs and other criminal activities are sent to rehabilitation centers for treatment and drug rehabilitation.

Duterte critic and seasoned litigator Ted Laguatan says that the present Philippine government has developed a global reputation for being engaged in state-sponsored extrajudicial killings and human rights violations.

Numerous documented reports and graphic pictures of Filipinos brutally murdered by police elements and so called vigilantes many of whom are also police elements dressed in civilians, have been published in international publications. More than 8,000 killed since PresidentRodrigo Duterte sat in office, reasoned Laguatan.

Laguatan says that while government apologists continue to deny that these killings are state-sponsored, there are so many recorded footages of President Rodrigo Duterte delivering speeches urging the police to continue with these killings and assuring them of his protection.

Duterte behind the killings

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that Duterte is behind these killings as the styles or modes of executions are the same as those used by the notorious Davao Death Squad reputedly headed by Duterte when he was Mayor of Davao City. Moreover, the more than 8,000 killings are self-evident. They would not have happened if Duterte were not President.As such, more Filipinosin removal proceedings in Immigration Court will be using the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) to prevent their removal, Laguatan opined.

Staunch Marcos and Duterte critic Atty. Ted Laguatan says the present Philippine government has developed a global reputation for engaging in state-sponsored extrajudicial killings and human rights violations.INQUIRER/Jun Nucum

Another eminent immigration lawyer Lourdes Tancinco noted that with the current social political environment in the Philippines, the view of the outside world on the controversial war of drugs has an impact on the fate of Filipinos abroad.

I am not surprised that it had reached the immigration courts involving Filipinos who are facing removal. It would not be difficult to find sufficient evidence for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) Act considering that substantial and factual information is available in regards to the increasing number of death of people involved in illegal drugs. The courts can rely on expert opinion or organizations like the UN Commission on Human Rights, Tancinco said. Tancinco noted that the challenge in employing CAT is proving whether the abuse is inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official or any person acting in an official capacity.

Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

Continued here:

2 Filipinos spared from deportation due to PH war on drugs ... - Inquirer.net

Opioids and Marijuana.

Crisis lurking within US; once this looked just like a random medicine bottle for prescription medication but for many in the United States now it is reminiscent of addiction and overdose.

Just in 2015, 33,000 people died of overdoses from prescription drugs such as OxyContin. But thats not all about the opioid crisis that has gripped the country, as heroine is also wreaking havoc, with overdoses reaching epidemic levels. The Trump administration is, meanwhile, announcing a new war on drugs, a war many believe is already doomed to fail.

In this episode, we take a look at the crisis lurking within the country. Speaking of crises, President Trump had promised to tackle unemployment. He is now supposed to bring jobs back to America by adopting a Buy American, Hire American policy. As a result, the largest economy on the planet appears to be rushing to a protectionist stance: another bad news particularly for US trade partners, which we will cover in the second part of the show.

Read the original here:

US war on drugs protectionists - Press TV

The Record (Hackensack, N.J.), Tribune News Service 12:00 p.m. CT May 21, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions speaks at the National Association of Attorneys General annual winter meeting, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2017, in Washington.(Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)

The Record (Hackensack, N.J.) (TNS)

Instead of pressing forward on sensible drug policy that places a premium on addiction treatment and lighter sentencing rules involving low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is looking to take the nation two steps back to the days of failed policy under the War on Drugs. In effect, Sessions announcement on toughening rules for prosecutors considering drug crimes will serve only to return the nation to that dismal, costly trend of mass incarceration, primarily of young black men.

Sessions call for change in prosecuting guidelines, which would include a more robust approach to mandatory minimum sentences, comes at a time when Democrats and Republicans together have proposed alternative sentencing for low-level drug offenders. Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, has embraced a greater emphasis on treatment, and has been a long-term supporter of drug courts.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., one of the authors of bipartisan legislation that would seek more lenient sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, wrote an op-ed for CNN this week in which he reiterated his support for Obama-era policies put in place by former Attorney General Eric Holder. Among those were guidelines issued to U.S. attorneys that they refrain from seeking longer sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.

And make no mistake, wrote Paul, the lives of many drug offenders are ruined the day they receive that long sentence the attorney general wants them to have.

Another longtime believer in moving away from strict sentencing guidelines for low-level drug crimes is Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat who served nearly two terms as mayor of Newark and saw firsthand the devastation mandatory sentencing can have on young black men and their families. Resetting this policy back to the old lock em up mentality last encouraged under the leadership of Attorney General John Ashcroft in the early 2000s would be felt heavily on the streets of Paterson, Newark and Camden.

Piling on mandatory minimum sentences and three strikes, youre out laws on nonviolent offenders did little to stop the illegal drug trade in recent decades, Booker said after reading Sessions rules changes. Instead, it decimated entire communities, most often poor communities and communities of color; resulted in an uneven application of the law; and undermined public trust in the justice system.

As both Paul and Booker point out, mandatory sentencing laws handcuff prosecutors and judges as they approach individual cases, and often send young people to prison for long stretches of time for relatively minor offenses. These arrests, convictions and sentences disproportionately affect African-Americans and their families, and can serve to set the course of their entire lives.

Equal justice advocates are hopeful the energy created by the Sessions announcement will spur members of Congress to move aggressively to address criminal justice reform, including the rollback of mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. Christie, who has long been on the common-sense side of addiction treatment and has raised the profile of the use of drug courts, could be an important voice on this issue. We encourage him to wholeheartedly join the pushback against this failed tough love approach to drug criminalization the attorney general is pursuing.

2017 The Record (Hackensack, N.J.)

Visit The Record (Hackensack, N.J.) atwww.NorthJersey.com

Distributed byTribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read or Share this story: http://callertim.es/2rGs65R

Read more:

Wrong direction in 'War on Drugs' - Corpus Christi Caller-Times - Corpus Christi Caller-Times