Category Archives: War On Drugs

Last week, the internet exploded with a fairly shocking allegation: President Richard Nixon began America's war on drugs to criminalize black people and hippies, according to a newly revealed 1994 quote from Nixon domestic policy adviser John Ehrlichman.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," Ehrlichman told journalist Dan Baum in 1994. "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, 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."

The accusation was shocking, characterizing the war on drugs as a racist, politically motivated crusade.

But Ehrlichman's claim is likely an oversimplification, according to historians who have studied the period and Nixon's drug policies in particular. There's no doubt Nixon was racist, and historians told me that race could have played one role in Nixon's drug war. But there are also signs that Nixon wasn't solely motivated by politics or race: For one, he personally despised drugs to the point that it's not surprising he would want to rid the world of them. And there's evidence that Ehrlichman felt bitter and betrayed by Nixon after he spent time in prison over the Watergate scandal, so he may have lied.

More importantly, Nixon's drug policies did not focus on the kind of criminalization that Ehrlichman described. Instead, Nixon's drug war was largely a public health crusade one that would be reshaped into the modern, punitive drug war we know today by later administrations, particularly President Ronald Reagan.

None of that means that the drug war hasn't disproportionately hurt black Americans. It clearly has. But the lessons of Nixon's drug policies may not be so much that he was a racist, power-hungry politician although, again, he was but rather that even well-meaning policies can have big, terrible unintended consequences.

Let's start with what Nixon actually sought to do when he launched his war on drugs. The speech that started the formal war on drugs in 1971 did not focus solely on criminalization. Instead, Nixon dedicated much of his time to talking up initiatives that would increase prevention and treatment for drug abuse.

"Enforcement must be coupled with a rational approach to the reclamation of the drug user himself," Nixon told Congress in 1971. "We must rehabilitate the drug user if we are to eliminate drug abuse and all the antisocial activities that flow from drug abuse."

The numbers back this up. According to the federal government's budget numbers for anti-drug programs, the "demand" side of the war on drugs (treatment, education, and prevention) consistently got more funding during Nixon's time in office (1969 to 1974) than the "supply" side (law enforcement and interdiction).

Historically, this is a commitment for treating drugs as a public health issue that the federal government has not replicated since the 1970s. (Although President Barack Obama's budget proposal would, for the first time in decades, put a majority of anti-drug spending on the demand side once again.)

Drug policy historians say this was intentional. Nixon poured money into public health initiatives, such as medication-assisted treatments like methadone clinics, education campaigns that sought to prevent teens from trying drugs, and more research on drug abuse. In fact, the Controlled Substances Act the basis for so much of modern drug policy actually reduced penalties on marijuana possession in 1970, when Nixon was in office.

"Nixon was really worried about kids and drugs," David Courtwright, a drug policy historian at the University of North Florida, told me. "He saw illicit drug use by young people as a form of social rot, and it's something that weakens America."

Indeed, the person tapped to become the nation's first drug czar and oversee federal drug policies was Jerome Jaffe, a doctor who at the time was working on improving drug addiction treatments in Chicago. Jaffe embraced the position, worrying that it was only a matter of time until the war on drugs became more punitive.

Nixon "saw illicit drug use by young people as a form of social rot, and it's something that weakens America"

"There was an urgency to get as much done as we could," Jaffe told me. "The thrust of American history from the 1920s on was on law enforcement. And I thought, in a sense, Nixon's emphasis on treatment expansion was kind of an aberration."

(As Jaffe suggested, even though Nixon is credited with starting the modern war on drugs, the drug war had been fought for decades before that since at least 1914 although more through taxes and regulations than explicit prohibition.)

To some extent, Nixon's hand was forced: One of his big concerns at the time was heroin addiction among Vietnam War soldiers, of whom 15 to 20 percent had drug problems. "A big driver of this in the early 1970s was crime and drug use among soldiers," Courtwright said. "They were really the catalysts. The attitude toward these people was different, socially: They were sent to a place where there were a lot of drugs in very stressful conditions, so shouldn't we try to treat that problem?"

Nixon would, however, shift to a greater focus on the law enforcement side of the war on drugs over time. Why that shift happened may help explain Ehrlichman's quote.

Over time, Nixon did shift more toward the law enforcement side of the war on drugs, particularly when it became politically convenient. But Nixon's personal motives aside, it's entirely plausible that he was tapping into a broader movement instead of creating his own just to criminalize constituents and people of certain races whom he disliked.

In 1972, for instance, Nixon's reelection bid sought to capture longstanding concerns about black crime and drug use among white Southerners in what's now called the "Southern strategy." To do this, Nixon shifted to the right on drugs with a tough-on-crime platform.

That year, for example, Nixon announced the creation of the Office for Drug Abuse Law Enforcement, a precursor to the Drug Enforcement Administration. The office's goal, as Nixon explained, was to put greater emphasis on fighting drugs through the criminal justice system. "Today our balanced, comprehensive attack on drug abuse moves forward in yet another critical area as we institute a major new program to drive drug traffickers and drug pushers off the streets of America," Nixon said in 1972.

"These are very harsh measures. But circumstances warrant such provisions"

But it didn't stop with the 1972 campaign. As the allegations in the Watergate scandal grew in 1973, Nixon once again put emphasis on the law enforcement side.

In January 1973, New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller proposed harsher prison sentences, including mandatory minimums, for drug trafficking. At the time, Nixon quipped to his staff, "Rocky can ride this thing for all it's worth" suggesting he knew the political value in Rockefeller's move.

Nixon followed Rockefeller's plan with his own proposal: In March 1973, he outlined a plan to step up prison sentences, including mandatory minimums, for drugs. Nixon was very clear in his intent: "These are very harsh measures, to be applied within very rigid guidelines and providing only a minimum of sentencing discretion to judges. But circumstances warrant such provisions." The plan, however, was swallowed in the chaos of the Watergate scandal.

From this point, the war on drugs would slowly get more punitive. Under the Reagan administration in the 1980s, the true war on drugs began: Prison sentences for drugs went way up, especially through mandatory minimums. And more funding went to the law enforcement and interdiction side of the drug war than prevention and treatment.

To some degree, it might seem like Nixon began a movement that led to the harsh war on drugs we know today. But there's another way to look at it: Nixon simply rode the longstanding sentiment in America to get tough on crime and drugs. After all, Nixon actually followed Rockefeller's lead in proposing tougher prison sentences for drugs. And the administrations that followed Nixon seemed politically compelled to continue the drug war, leading to its big escalation in the 1980s and 1990s through the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations.

"The drug war had been building for decades prior to Nixon," Kathleen Frydl, a drug policy historian and author of The Drug Wars in America, 1940-1973, told me. "The shift from regulation to punishment was something that was underway for two decades prior to Nixon taking office. And it's something that endured long beyond just the campaign against counterculture."

Still, it's possible that Nixon also saw the kind of political benefit Ehrlichman claimed: A focus on law enforcement could disproportionately hurt black Americans, a voting bloc that had generally opposed Nixon. And it's certainly true that the war on drugs has hit black Americans the hardest.

The statistics bear out Ehrlichman's claim: Although black Americans aren't significantly more likely to use or sell drugs, they're much more likely to be arrested for them. And when black people are convicted of drug charges, they generally face longer prison sentences for the same crimes, according to a 2012 report from the US Sentencing Commission.

These are the statistics tens of thousands of people likely thought of when they shared the 1994 quote all across their social media feeds. The quote seemed to confirm what a lot of people suspected all along.

Historians are very skeptical. Nixon's personal hatred for drugs likely played a big role, regardless of his feelings about race and hippies. And so much of anti-drug efforts at the time went to public health measures, suggesting criminalization of any group was not the sole goal of Nixon's drug war.

"It's certainly true that Nixon didn't like blacks and didn't like hippies," Courtwright said. "But to assign his entire drug policy to his dislike of these two groups is just ridiculous."

Frydl echoed the sentiment: "I don't want to dissuade people from thinking that the drug war has allowed the state to execute what's been largely a racialized agenda. That is definitely true. But this particular quote is a superficial assessment."

Nixon didn't have to be explicitly racist for the drug war to end up disproportionately hurting black people

But here's the thing: Nixon didn't have to be explicitly racist for the drug war to end up disproportionately hurting black people. In fact, time and time again, the story of racism in America in the past few decades has been that black people are hurt by policies that appear race-neutral because people, including law enforcement, carry all sorts of subconscious biases against minority Americans. These biases are then further compounded with longstanding systemic disparities in housing and the workplace.

This is crucial to understanding America's remaining struggles with systemic racism. It's not so much that lawmakers are publicly and explicitly racist, as they were in the past. Instead, individuals' underlying racial biases and existing systemic issues have corrupted many policies that in theory should have never led to racist results.

The reform-minded Sentencing Project stated as much in a 2015 report about Black Lives Matter: "Myriad criminal justice policies that appear to be race-neutral collide with broader socioeconomic patterns to create a disparate racial impact. Policing policies and sentencing laws are two key sources of racial inequality."

So we don't need to think Ehrlichman's claim is true to worry about the drug war's racial disparities. We know the disparities are real. The question, then, isn't necessarily figuring out the motive behind the policies, but how we can reorient those policies to prevent more disparities in America's criminal justice system. And, surprisingly, treating drugs much like Nixon did at first as primarily a public health issue could provide part of the answer by preventing so many disproportionate arrests for simple drug use.

Read more:

Was Nixon's war on drugs a racially motivated crusade? It's a bit ... - Vox

By Dayvon Love

The incorporation of racial justice discourse into the Democratic Party and the liberal elite mainstream has had an impact on the nature of the policy demands that are put forward in the name of Black Liberation. More investment in social programs, criminal justice reform policies (with an emphasis on non-violent offenders), and diversity in high levels of government and corporate America have been the milquetoast approaches by liberals to respond to the demands for racial justice. This has impacted the conversation about reparations.

Over the last several years, there have been more mainstream political conversations about reparations, and it received particular attention during the 2020 presidential campaign. While people like Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker gave a lukewarm embrace of a watered-down version of reparations, the discourse around it had the effect of distancing from its Black radical and Black nationalist intellectual or political antecedents.

Dr. Raymond Winbush, a renowned scholar on reparations, in his 2003 book ,Should America Pay?: Slavery and the Raging Debate on Reparations, laid out the historical and political framework from which the demand for reparations emerges. In the text, Winbush says:

Many people are unaware that the discussion of reparations for African people has a long history in the United States, going through three distinct stages with a nascent fourth, beginning in 2002. Stage 1, from 1865 to 1920, included the United States governments attempt to compensate its newly released three million enslaved Africans from bondage. This period also saw Callie Houses heroic efforts at establishing the Ex-slave Mutual Relief, Bounty and Pension Association, when she organized hundreds of thousands of ex-slaves for repayment from the government.

Stage II, from 1920 to 1968, saw Marcus Garvey, Queen Mother Audley Moore, and numerous Black nationalists press for reparations by educating thousands of persons about the unpaid debt owed to Africans in America. This is the period during which the reparations movement was seen as a Black Nationalist endeavor and civil rights organizations saw its goals as being unrealistic and extreme.

Stage III began in 1968 and continues today. The founding of several Black nationalist groups including the Republic of New Afrika (1968), the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (1987), and James Formans Black Manifesto (1969), which demanded $500 million from Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, served as a catalyst for launching what some have called the modern reparations movement

The emphasis on reparations being a policy demand rooted in the Black nationalist tradition underscores the importance of reparations as a part of Black peoples collective quest for sovereignty and self-determination. Investments in social programs, while important in addressing the short-term needs of the Black community, cannot be made synonymous with reparations.

The explosion of investments in non-profits and government services has historically had the impact of expanding the professional-managerial class that presides over these kinds of investments. This is often a multiracial class of people (White individuals certainly still exercising more people among this class) functioning as managers of Black suffering. They can use their work as disaster managers to advance their own professional careers while our communities remain relatively unchanged and disempowered.

Reparations are about providing the investments necessary for Black people to be able to build the institutional structures to practice freedom. We cannot be a free people if we are dependent on institutions outside of our community for our survival. Black people need an independent ecosystem of institutions that can interact with the larger society from a position of strength and not be reliant on the benevolence of others outside of the community.

The mainstream media has avoided this frame for reparations in favor of a liberal mainstream rendering. This would empower the non-profit industrial complex to expand its control over the institutions that govern Black civic, economic, and political life.

As Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle (LBS) pursues a local ordinance through the Baltimore City Council that is compliant with HB 837 which passed the Maryland State Legislature during the 2022 legislative session we will be working with the City Council to craft an ordinance that lives up to the legacy of reparations advocacy. While the focus is on reparations for the war on drugs given the connection to cannabis legalization that will likely happen next year this is one effort among many other important endeavors to advance Black peoples ability to function in this society as a sovereign and empowered community.

Every county in Maryland will eventually have to pass an ordinance that will determine how they spend their portion of the Community Repair and Reinvestment Fund created by HB 837. We hope that other counties throughout the state will use this same frame of reference when they are crafting their legislation. This is regarding the allocation of the resources from its portion of the Community Repair and Reinvestment Fund, which will be funded by tax revenues not less than 30 percent of the total revenues from the sale of recreational cannabis.

Dayvon Love is director of public policy for Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, a grassroots Black think tank.

The opinions on this page are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the AFRO. Send letters to The Afro-American 145 W. Ostend Street Ste 600,Office #536,Baltimore, MD 21230or fax to 1-877-570-9297 or e-mail toeditor@afro.com

Help us Continue to tell OUR Story and join the AFRO family as a member subscribers are now members! Joinhere!

Read the original post:

Reparations for the war on drugs - Afro American

In 2001,Portugal took a radical step. It became the first country in the world todecriminalise the consumption of all drugs. TIME Magazine recently reported,back then, Portugal was in the grip of heroin addiction. An estimated 1 percentof the populationbankers, students, socialiteswere hooked on heroin andPortugal had the highest rate of HIV infection in the entire European Union.It was carnage, recalls Amrico Nave, a psychologist and President ofCrescer, an outreach NGO focused on harm-reduction practices. In 2001, he wasworking with the addicts living in the neighbourhood. People had sores filled withmaggots. Some lost their arms or legs due to overusing.

It allstarted in Olho

Accordingto most reports, the crisis began in Olho. Its difficult to understand why itshould be Olho, but this was a prosperous time for this city, tourism wasgrowing, and currency flowed throughout the southern Algarve region. But by theend of the decade, heroin began washing up on Olhos shores. Overnight, thisslice of the Algarve coast became one of the drug capitals of Europe: one inevery 100 Portuguese was battling a problematic heroin addiction at that time.Headlines in the local press raised the alarm about overdose deaths and risingcrime. The rate of HIV infection in Portugal became the highest in the EuropeanUnion.

In 2001,Portugal became the first country to decriminalise the possession andconsumption of all illicit substances. Rather than being arrested, those caughtwith a personal supply might be given a warning, a small fine, or told toappear before a local commission a doctor, a lawyer or a social worker about treatment, harm reduction, and the support services that were availableto them.

This was a revolutionary approach to dealing withdrugs. It is important to note that Portugal stabilised its drug crisis, but itdidnt make it disappear. Drug-related deaths, imprisonment and infection ratesplummeted, but Portugal still had to deal with the health complications oflong-term drug use.

Thedifference between legalisation and decriminalisation

The firstthing to understand is that decriminalisation in Portugal removes criminalsanctions against the personal use of drugs. A person under the possession of adrug under a specific amount will not be prosecuted (defined as 10 days worthfor personal use). However, this does not mean that individuals are neverarrested for drug-related crimes or behaviour. While the consumption of drugsis decriminalised, thats not the case for the selling of drugs.

Readerswill probably know that in certain areas, buying drugs is not a great problem.People are approached in the street, especially in tourist areas. This isillegal and will result in criminal prosecution.

How doesPortugal deal with drug users

The basisof Portugals attitude towards drug users is to treat rather than imprison.This is mainly organised through the public network services of treatment forillicit substance dependence, under the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction,and the Ministry of Health. In addition to public services, certification andprotocols between NGOs and other public or private treatment services ensure awide access to quality-controlled services encompassing several treatmentmethods. The public services provided are free of charge and accessible to alldrug users who seek treatment.

There are73 specialised treatment facilities (public and certified private therapeuticcommunities), 14 detoxification units, 70 public outpatient facilities and 13accredited day centres. Portugal is divided into 18 districts. There is fullcoverage of drug outpatient treatment in virtually all of Portugal.

The socalled substitution treatment is widely available in Portugal, through publicservices such as specialised treatment centres, health centres, hospitals andpharmacies as well as some NGOs and non-profit organisations.

Why dontother countries follow Portugals strategy?

Officialfigures show that Portugals approach to drug users is very successful. Youhave to ask why the rest of the World doesnt adopt Portugals approach.

The NewYork Times reported, Many people are also coming to Portugal to explore what asmarter, health-driven approach might look like. Delegations from around theworld are flying to Lisbon to study what is now referred to as the Portuguesemodel. Portugal initially was scolded around the world for its experiment, asa weak link in the war on drugs, but today its hailed as a model. Oneattraction of the Portuguese approach is that its incomparably cheaper totreat people than to jail them. According to the New York Times the HealthMinistry in Portugal spends less than $10 per citizen per year on itssuccessful drug policy. Meanwhile, the U.S. has spent some $10,000 perhousehold.

One issueseems to be the subject or the legalisation of the sale of marijuana. Manyreports I have read seem to say that if they decriminalise the personal use ofdrugs that they should, at least, legalise the sale of marijuana which fewcountries wish to do. Holland has done it, but few others want to follow. Thisseems like confused thinking to say the least.

Portugalhas got it right, the vast majority of governments agree, but they wont followPortugals lead. You have to ask why not?

Disclaimer:The views expressed on this page are those of the author and not of The Portugal News.

More:

War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer - The Portugal News

Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Ron Bozo apologizes to the American people at a San Diego press conference last Thursday: P.T. Barnum once said that nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. But it seems we may have broken the American people by underestimating their insatiable desire for drugs at any cost.

A recent seizure of 238 pounds of fentanyl-laced drugs at the San Ysidro border checkpoint produced an unexpected bit of paperwork: documents suggesting that the epidemic, which claims more and more lives every month in the United States, may be the result of a well-meaning ploy by the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency to reduce demand for drugs by making them exponentially more dangerous. Were still trying to get answers, says drug-use advocate Bill Popper, but its starting to look like the idea was that if people know their drugs might kill them after a single use you know, the way cocaine laced with Fentanyl might do then they would think twice before using them. Unfortunately, this is what comes of having people making policy about cocaine who dont have much first-hand experience with cocaine. More on this story as it develops!

More here:

Border bust leads to exposure of botched battle in the War on Drugs - San Diego Reader

New York State has officially opened up its application process for retail cannabis dispensaries with plans to award the first 150 licenses to people who were imprisoned for cannabis offenses.

Its unclear, however, where the states large cannabis operators that have been running its medical cannabis dispensaries fit in for now, in a market that could generate up to $15 billion a year in sales.

Unlike other states that awarded the first licenses to larger cannabis companies, the state is instead prioritizing local entrepreneurs who have been locked up for marijuana and also immediate family members of victims of the War on Drugs.

Were doing what no other state has ever tried, said Chris Alexander, executive director of the New York State Office of Cannabis Management at a Thursday press conference.

Gia Moron, president of Women Grow, said New York is fostering the most diverse and equitable market in the country.

The application process for the first retail licenses closes on Sept. 26.

Also Read: New Yorks new cannabis chief vows that half of legal licenses will go to social justice efforts

New York has already been talking to real estate brokers about securing retail locations for the adult-use licensees and even building stores, officials said.

To finance these businesses, the state has set up a $200 million social equity fund.

Jefferies analyst Pablo Zuanic said Friday its unclear whether New York States legal cannabis market will provide a significant source of upside for larger cannabis companies such as Curaleaf Holdings Inc. CURLF, -2.34%, Green Thumb Industries Inc. GTBIF, -2.14% and Columbia Care Inc. CCHWF, -1.46%, which is being acquired by Cresco Labs Inc. CRLBF, -0.75%.

Multistate cannabis operators will be required to pay $20 million to support the states $200 million social equity fund, Zuanic said.

Its not yet been determined which of the eight license types including cultivation, distribution and retail that medical cannabis incumbents will get, Zuanic said.

For an established medical registered organization, at this stage it is not clear to what they will be grandfathered [as] just cultivators, and let others do processing as well as wholesale distribution? Zuanic said.

Ascend Wellness Holdings Inc.said earlier this week the New York market is not a priority currently as it scrapped its acquisition of MedMens MMNFF, -8.94% New York properties.

Green Thumb Industries has sounded bearish on New York, although its building a large cultivation facility in the state, Zuanic said.

Cresco Labs has sounded more upbeat due to the wholesale upside but only if they can play in a profitable and scalable manner but we are not sure this is known at this stage, Zuanic said.

After the initial 150 licenses, the state will sanction additional businesses. Its planning to have the first licensees open for adult use sales by the end of 2022.

While cannabis shares have been weak this year, the AdvisorShares Pure U.S. Cannabis ETF MSOS, -2.33% is up about 0.7% on Friday, even as the Nasdaq COMP, -3.94% fell 0.5%.

Also Read: MedMen puts New York business on selling block after Ascend scraps deal

The rest is here:

New York poised to award first retail cannabis licenses to drug war casualties instead of big incumbents - MarketWatch

Emmanuel Tupas - The Philippine Star

August 28, 2022 | 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines The Philippine National Police (PNP) has assured the Department of Justice (DOJ) it would make available police witnesses for the DOJs probe of alleged irregularities in the conduct of the war on drugs.

The PNP gave the assurance after Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla urged police personnel who were involved in former president Rodrigo Dutertes anti-illegal drugs campaign to come out and testify against colleagues who might have committed abuses.

The PNP will continue to provide any possible assistance to ensure the availability of police witnesses to DOJ investigations, including the ongoing investigation of some police operations carried out in the implementation of the anti-illegal drugs campaign, it said in a statement last night.

In an interview with The Chiefs over Cignal TVs One News on Thursday, Remulla said the DOJ is having difficulty looking for witnesses in the campaign, known as Tokhang, a situation they consider among the hindrances in their investigation.

Human rights groups have assailed Dutertes drug war, which they said was riddled with abuses.

The PNP also welcomed Remullas call to amend the provisions of Republic Act 6981 or the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act that would include lawmen in the governments witness protection program.

Remulla said there are many law enforcers who want to tellthe truth about the drug war but are hesitant due to lack of protection.

While waiting for the amendments, he said those who would come out could be protected by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Another option is for the resettlement abroad of police officers who come out and testify.

More here:

Witnesses to be available in drug war probe PNP - Philstar.com

Srinagar: War on drugs has been intensified in Jammu and Kashmir with police seizing 1249 kilograms of narcotics including 16.23 kg of heroin in the last seven months. More than 359 people involved in the drug trade have been arrested.

Official data accessed by The Kashmir Monitor reveal that129 kilograms of cannabis, 1095 kilograms of poppy straw, 2271 bottles of codeine, 56139 psychotropic tablets, 2.5-kilogram brown sugar, and 122 bottles of illegal alcohol have been recovered by the police in the valley since January this year.

In January, police recovered 2.017 kilograms of heroin from the peddlers. In the same month, 10.7 kilograms of cannabis, 356 kilograms of poppy straw, 36 grams of brown sugar, 10638 tablets, 48 bottles of codeine, and 45 bottles of illegal alcohol. Forty-one peddlers were arrested during the month

In February, 5.8 kilograms4.9kilograms,74 grams, and 192.5 kilograms of heroin, cannabis, brown sugar, and powdered poppy respectively were recovered by the police. Eighty-one peddlers have been arrested.In the same month, 3185 tablets, 193 bottles of codeine, and 42 alcohol bottles were also seized by the police.

Police recovered 82.5 grams of heroin followed by poppy straw (64.5 kilograms), brown sugar (51.5 grams), codeine(1413 bottles), tablets (38432), and 5 bottles of alcohol in March. Seventy-one peddlers were arrested.

In April, 7.3 kilograms of heroin were recovered by the police from the peddlers. April also saw a recovery of 101.5 kilograms of poppy straw, 2.23 kilograms of brown sugar,360 bottles of codeine, and 1334 tablets. Sixty-two people involved in the trade and consumption of these drugs were also held.

At least 903.96 grams of heroin were recovered by the police in May. Eight grams of brown sugar, 25 kilograms of poppy straw, 470 tablets,45 bottles of codeine, and 29 bottles of alcohol were also seized. Around 27 people involved in peddling were also arrested.

In June, police recovered 35 grams of heroin, 5 kilograms of cannabis, 95 grams of brown sugar, 169.3kilograms poppy straw, 721 tablets, 162 bottles of codeine, and 7 alcohol bottles alcohol. Forty-six people were also arrested by the police.

In July so far, 39 grams of heroin have been recovered by the police. Besides, 5 kg of cannabis, 187 kilograms of poppy straw, 10 grams of brown sugar, and 50 bottles of codeine have also been recovered. Thirty-one peddlers and abusers have been arrested.

A senior police officer told The Kashmir Monitor that the police have tightened their noose against the drug peddlers across the valley.

We conduct surprise checks and raids. We have busted many drug modules, he said.

The officer also said that various awareness programs are being held to educate people about the hazards of drug addiction.

Visit link:

War on drugs: Over 1249 kilos of narcotics seized in 7 months; 359 peddlers held in J&K - The Kashmir - The Kashmir Monitor

A look into America's history of racial injustice and its legacy across generations learning about how racial inequality affects lives to this day.

Huge blocks of cement that look like coffins dangle from high above the ground at the National Memorial for Peace and Justice, just as bodies once did when lives were cut short by racial terror lynchings.

Last November, I embarked on a journey to Georgia little did I know that the South represents slavery and bigotry in America. As such, Georgia has the highest correctional control rate in the United States 1 in 18 Georgians is either in prison, in jail, on probation, or on parole at any given time, double the national average.

I visited Atlanta under the EU-funded GERIS (Global Exchange on Religion in Society) project one of 18 people, including religious actors and those from NGOs, academia and the media from 12 different countries. We went through a week of training, meetings and deep discussions on diversity, coexistence and social inclusion while exploring the region's social fabric and cultural identity.

We investigated America's history of racial injustice and its legacy across generations learning about how racial inequality still affects lives. The most crucial visit was to the Legacy Museum of Montgomery, Alabama, the nations first memorial dedicated to the legacy of enslaved Black people.

The Legacy Museum Memorial features the names of 500 documented victims of white supremacy killed for asserting their rights during the Reconstruction Era from 1861 to 1900, which followed the Civil War. As you enter the memorial, you are faced with statutes of slaves in chains; people like you and mea woman reaching out to her husband in fear as her lactating baby cries, a man kneeling down in pain on the floor, exhausted after weeks of travelling in slave ships. Other figures resist the chains or are forcefully taken to cross the Atlantic.

The narrow path leads you to pillars where you read the stories of victims of terror lynchings.

It is a moment of awakening, a reality slap, as spine-chilling stories of Black people that you may not have heard before jolt your conscience. You begin to shudder as you are told that Black people were killed for reasons such as writing a note to a white woman, annoying a white woman, carrying a photo of a white woman or drinking from a white mans well.

Reading all these details names, age, locations and reasons for the lynchings while passing by these huge blocks, all you feel is that they want to be seen or acknowledged for the price they paid to end slavery.

These stories are an open wound in Alabama, a strong testimony of racial terror lynchings and the humiliation suffered by African Americans due to segregation and the Jim Crow laws. But most importantly, they resonate with what Americans witness even today -- the police brutality and institutional bias Black men and women face daily.

From enslavement to mass incarceration.

The Equal Justice Initiative collected data and documentation of racial terror lynchings between 1865 and 1959. Stories of Black men and women lynched or killed during racially-motivated attacks provide a comprehensive history of slavery in the US during the Civil War and Reconstruction after the Emancipation.

It was an eye-opening visit to the Legacy Museum Memorial to find out historical details on lynching, codified racial segregation, and the emergence of over-incarceration in the 20th century.

Honouring the Black people, who suffered and died during the most tragic and violent era in American history, the museum tells the story of racial terror during the twelve years of Reconstruction, as Black people struggled to exercise their new legal rights to freedom and citizenship established by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments following the Civil War.

According to the National Archives, nearly 4 million African Americans were freed at the close of the American Civil War. In the first years of emancipation from slavery, white people killed Black men and women throughout the South for leaving plantations, asserting legal rights and economic independence, or voting or running for office. Although scholars estimate that thousands of Black people were targeted and killed during those twelve years, there is no reliable data on the total number of casualties as quantitative documentation of race murders was insufficient.

During our visit to the Peace and Justice Memorial Center, which is located across from the Legacy Museum, we learned more about the United States history of racial inequality and racialisation of criminality, where Black people were transitioned from enslavement to mass incarceration.

According to theGeorgia Justice Project (GJP), 4.3 million people have a Georgia criminal history and while Whites are underrepresented in the incarcerated population, Blacks and Latinos are overrepresented.

For more than three decades, the Atlanta-based project, GJP, has provided legal services to poor people accused of crimes and services and advocacy for those rehabilitated Georgians to move beyond their criminal history.

GJPs Executive Director, Doug Ammar, welcomed GERIS members in Atlanta and provided an in-depth presentation on Georgias criminal justice system and how they fight for systemic changes to criminal and legal institutions.

While Georgia has the highest correctional control rate in the United States, 40 percent of adults in the state have a criminal record. But why is that so?

Unemployment, poverty and crime are inextricably linked. Over 90 percent of those involved in the criminal justice system fall below the federal poverty line. Though poverty might have been one of the underlying factors for a persons arrest the criminal justice system too often becomes a force keeping folks in poverty, argues Ammar, as a criminal record in Georgia is a major impediment to getting a job or keeping/obtaining public housing.

When people with criminal records are denied both employment and housing, they are forced to live in poverty and become vulnerable to re-offending.

GJP helps end this cycle of poverty and crime with their holistic approach by providing a second chance to rehabilitate individuals. While the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, 39 percent of the US prison population is African-American despite it being only 12.9 percent of the US population.

The racial disparities in who is incarcerated are profound. While the South has the highest incarceration rate in the US, 61.6 percent of Georgia's prison population is African-American. African-Americans constitute 31.5 percent of the states population.

With us or against us

The system of American slavery created a permanent racial hierarchy that grew from and reinforced racial prejudice that Black people needed to be disciplined and supervised. Although the Constitutions presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of American criminal justice, African Americans were assigned a presumption of guilt.

While many questioned whether President Richard Nixon's war on drugs was a racially-motivated crusade, his domestic policy advisor John Ehrlichman revealed in a 1994 interview that the War on Drugs had actually begun as a crusade to criminalise Blacks and the anti-war left.

Indeed, the claim of prejudice is obvious in racial disparities in incarceration. Half of those in federal prison are incarcerated for a drug offence and two-thirds of those in prison for drug offences nationwide are people of colour.

When Nixon assumed office and declared a war on drugs in 1971, the number of people incarcerated in American jails and prisons escalated from 300,000 to 2.3 million. And his popular narrative, tough on crime and drugs, led to an explosion in racial profiling and more Black people were convicted of drug charges and faced long prison sentences compared to Whites for the same crimes.

So, in the end, the War on Drugs has hurt Black people the most and has contributed to racial disparities in the justice system where African Americans receive severe sentences for drug offences 10, 20, 30 years, even life imprisonment.

A powerful quote from George King, an enslaved Black man in Oklahoma, says it all: The Master he says we are all free, but it dont mean we is white. And it dont mean we is equal (sic).

Because, up until today, the justice system is biased against African Americans and it is crucial to understand that people carry all sorts of subconscious biases against Blacks which then turn into systemic disparities in housing and employment in America.

Meanwhile, another minority group in America also suffers from systematic mistreatment due to another endless war that the United States has waged against terror.

While the war on terror and the war on drugs can both be seen as derivative of the US national security agenda after the Cold War, the Republican national security discourse around a foreign threat has been enabling the manufacturing of new enemies for centuries depending on their agenda.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, former US President George W Bush led an emergency response and launched his anti-terrorism campaign. In his famous address to the US Congress on 20 September 2001, Bush put nations around the globe on notice and said, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

These wars against terrorism and drugs have been mainly defined by what they lack, according to Law professor Wadie Said; a readily identifiable opponent, a clear-end goal, a timeline, and geographical boundaries.

As such, Bush was looking for reasons to stoke fears of cultural change and inclusion so that he could activate his base and justify the war for oil.

Paul O'Neill, Bushs Treasury secretary who was fired for objecting to the president's policies, said in 2004, "Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly."

American military historian Donald Stoker argues that America endures endless wars because its leaders no longer know how to think about war, particularly wars fought for limited aims, taking the nation to war without understanding what they want or valuing victory and thus the ending of the war, criticising seventy years of misguided thinking in American war-making from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan and questioning why America loses wars.

Twenty years after the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the so-called war on terror cost America $6 trillion, according to Brown Universitys Cost of War Project. The most recent data estimates that at least 897,000 people around the world have died in violence that can be classified as part of the war on terror, while at least 38 million have been displaced due to these wars from Iraq to Somalia and Pakistan to the Philippines over the past 20 years.

Based on the Airpower Statistics, the US and allied air forces have been dropping an average of 46 bombs a day for 20 years while grandstanding for peace and security, as the American right uses the replacement theory to create anti-otherness and racist conspiracy theories.

To add to the enormous costs and the massive death toll, on the other side of the coin, Muslim Americans have been suffering from anti-Muslim sentiment, racism and increased US government surveillance that has been altering millions of peoples lives.

Issued in January 2017, Trumps Muslim Ban ripped apart hundreds of families worldwide, while many lost educational and employment opportunities that may never come again.

Just like the African Americans were assigned a presumption of guilt, the Muslim is presumed guilty on American campuses, argues Hatem Bazian, director of the Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project at the Berkeley Center for Race and Gender. And as such, (they) experience verbal harassment, bullying, even physical attacks. But the assumption is that the Muslim is the instigator, Bazian explains.

While the far-right fans are the flames of extreme nationalism, racism and xenophobia, they constantly look for new issues to stoke fears of cultural change. The critical race theory (CRT) is the newest front in their culture war is the critical race theory (CRT). As the rightwing ecosystem has been weaponising the critical race theory against the American people in their political rhetoric, people of colour view it as the latest tactic to halt racial justice.

Legal scholars first developed CRT in the 1970s and 80s following the civil rights movement, which came as an academic response to the illusionary notion that American society and institutions are colourblind. However, the CRT framework holds that racism goes far beyond individual prejudices and that it is indeed a systemic phenomenon woven into the laws and institutions of the American nation.

Since this is a war against the accurate teaching of Americas history in classrooms around the country, silencing the voices and denying the experiences of Black people and other historically marginalised groups in America, it is a war on truth. Yet another war America has waged against the countrys own history that they do not want its people to know.

In the very same context, American journalist Charles M. Blow refersto the critical race theory as the new Shariah law, a boogeyman the right can use to activate and harness the racist anti-otherness that is endemic to American conservatism. After all, America is in constant need of an enemy.

Source: TRT World

Read this article:

Wars on drugs and terror - America needs an enemy - TRT World

At over 50 years running, the Drug Wars stamina in the face of prolonged failure makes Rocky Balboa look like a quitter. As a country weve done everything we could think of to resolve it, ranging from largely ineffective jail sentences and harsh policing strategies to yeah thats pretty much been the name of the game.

Donald Trump, innovative genius that he is, has a solution to our generational problem the death penalty.

You heard it here folks. Tim Allen? Should be dead. Kid Rock? Dead. Idris Elba? Dead. All three of them, among many others, are a few examples of folks that dealt drugs that could have been killed if more people shared Trumps view. And its not just them. That soccer mom you know that knows a guy that no one expects? Hell, a couple of the kids you went to law school with. You get my point. I could also go in on the staggered applause at about 1:10 that almost turned into a please clap, but Ill address him on the merits of his claims.

First, this is a bold advocacy for violating international law. Second, hes just wrong. Take Indonesia. Last year they imposed 89 death sentences for drug dealing. Youd think that would prevent it from being one of the largest drug markets in Asia, but youd be wrong. And really, thats the standard for determining if there is a drug problem in a foreign country? Just ask their leader and take whatever their response is as the gospel truth? China has a history of either refusing to give accurate data or information altogether when asked for it. Why wouldnt they lie about drug usage? And even if China were honest, data suggests that they would be the lone anomaly:

There is no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to the drug trade in fact, according to available estimates, drug markets continue to thrive around the world, despite drug laws in almost every country being grounded in a punitive approach.

Id like to think that somebody ran this information by Trump before he keeps parroting the same talking points, but it looks like it was to no avail.

Heres him in 2020:

He was as wrong then as he was now. Heres an article stating that the drug problem in Indonesia worsened despite hanging drug dealers. I wish the Fake News guy relied less on fabrications when he speaks at the pulpit. The truth is that the Drug War outranks Vietnam when it comes to this country having its ass handed to it. Rather than killing people or conspiring that Biden smuggled in fentanyl to kill Trump voters, we should cut our losses and focus on what actually works education, harm reduction and the amelioration of circumstances that incentivize people to sell drugs like poverty and a dearth of legal job prospects. Sentencing a 34 year old dude with kids to life in prison is a damned shame. Killing him would not have faired any better.

Drug prohibition and the criminalization of people who sell or distribute drugs does not reduce the harms of drug use or improve public safety. Our current approach is built on a foundation of stigma, ignorance and fear rather than evidence, and creates new problems while doing nothing to solve those that already exist. Drugpolicy.org

Wed be better off treating the War on Drugs like the public health crisis it is. Unfortunately, everything looks like a target when the NRA is damned near handing out guns.

Trump Calls For Quick Death Penalty For Drug Dealers As He Describes US Going To Hell Very Fast [Independent]

Chris Williams became a social media manager and assistant editor for Above the Law in June 2021. Prior to joining the staff, he moonlighted as a minor Memelord in the Facebook groupLaw School Memes for Edgy T14s. He endured Missouri long enough to graduate from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law. He is a former boatbuilder who cannot swim,a published author on critical race theory, philosophy, and humor, and has a love for cycling that occasionally annoys his peers. You can reach him by email atcwilliams@abovethelaw.comand by tweet at@WritesForRent.

See more here:

Donald Trump's Hot Take On Law And Order Probably Most Definitely Violates The 8th Amendment - Above the Law

Thailand is the first nation in Southeast Asia to decriminalise marijuana, but it took a while to get here, writes local Eric E. Surbano.

Last month, Thailand decriminalised cannabis, allowing the population to freely sell and use marijuana. In the West, it may not be that big of a deal. However, for a nation that almost twenty years ago had declared a war on drugs, the development is surprising, especially when we take into account the fact that its the first country in Southeast Asia to decriminalise the drug.

What does this mean for Southeast Asia?

Thailand is the first country in Southeast Asia to decriminalise marijuana, a move that sets it apart from its neighbours who have strict laws against drugs. Just south of its border in Malaysia, recreational marijuana use is met with severe punishment, either a hefty fine or a lashing. In fact, it wasnt until recently in 2018 that the death penalty was lifted against non-violent drug crimes. Nearby Singapore is similar though caning is their preferred punishment.

In the Philippines, former president Rodrigo Duterte, who finished his term just this month, became infamous for his war on drugs, which is reminiscent of what Thaksin Shinawatra did back when he was Prime Minister. Like Shinawatra, Dutertes crusade exacted a heavy death toll: an estimated 6,200 drug suspects have been killed according to Government statistics but Human Rights Watch estimates the number to be about 12,000, which includes innocent civilians. A Reuters report has quoted Duterte that he will never, never apologise for the deaths, despite the fact that he admitted the war was unwinnable just a year after he took office in 2016.

Its still undetermined whether Thailands move towards decriminalisation will ripple across neighbouring countries. If theres another country to make the move, it might be Malaysia, whose cabinet is discussing the benefits. The caucus believes that Malaysia has the space and a huge opportunity in this industry for medicinal and research purposes which could deliver a lot of benefits for the country, it said on April 12. However, it seems that whether people like it or not, its only a matter of time before countries follow in Thailands footsteps and cannabis teas and facial creams become the norm.

From a War on Drugs...

In 2003, then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra declared a war on drugs in the hopes of eradicating the methamphetamine epidemic that was raging through the country at the time. The drug, locally known as ya ba, was used by about five per cent of the population according to an Asian Human Rights Commission report. It was no surprise then that most of the country supported the Prime Ministers move, which was officially referred to as the Concerted Effort of the Nation to Overcome Drugs. People were desperate to see their streets clean of the substance and wanted to see traffickers and dealers face the consequences of their actions.

The result? The prices of drugs went up for a while but that was about it. On the other hand, 2,873 people were killed as a result of the so-called war on drugs according to the Bangkok Post. Blacklists, which contained alleged dealers and suspects, were handed to the Interior Ministry. Bodies, bloodied and filled with bullet holes, were left out in the streets. When the UN raised up its concern about the casualties, Shinawatra responded, The UN is not my father.

The Prime Minister would declare victory in the war on drugs in December, though that clearly wasnt the case.

A few years later in 2008, the new Prime Minister, Samak Sundaravej, followed in Shinawatras footsteps and announced another war on drugs. Interior Minister Chalerm Yubamrung would tell parliament, If that will lead to 3,000-4,000 deaths of those who break the law, then so be it. That has to be done.

To Giving Away Marijuana Plants

Not even 20 years later, health minister Anutin Charnvirakul announced last June that the Government would be giving away a million marijuana plants so people can cultivate them at home. In fact, the Government now views the plant as a cash crop, a far cry from the days when dealers and buyers were being hunted down and killed.

The Cannabis Rush is going along steadily since its decriminalisation with many jumping on the bandwagon. Everywhere you go, youre bound to find something laced with marijuana, whether its a drink at 7-11 or a restaurant serving up cannabis pizzas. Even hotels are joining the fray like the Mandarin Oriental, which has a spa treatment that uses the plant.

This has been a long time coming. Advocates for the decriminalisation of marijuana have spoken up and gatheredusually with a smoky haze surrounding themmany times to push for the plants decriminalisation. Unsurprisingly, the biggest gathering happens on April 20, otherwise known as 420. However, this year, they decided to delay celebrations and the rolling of joints until June when the order was finally made official.

Now, it seems that marijuana is everywhere and on everything. Even high-end malls in Bangkok have hosted cannabis fairs, showcasing numerous products that contain marijuana. But its not just the capital; even provinces like Buriram are riding the cannabis high.

While the Government does hope that this would help the economy, they also wanted to make one thing clear: its recreational use is still illegal. Decriminalisation is not the same as being legal; it just means a person wont be prosecuted anymore for possession. Health minister and deputy prime minister Anutin Charnvirakul has said that its not an excuse to sit and smile all day without making a living and lacking consciousness, according to an article on Insider. The main purpose for the decriminalisation is that "It is an opportunity for people and the state to earn income from marijuana and hemp. Charnvirakuls political party promised they would push for legalisation, which a lot of struggling farmers welcomed as they were struggling to earn from sugar and rice, as the BBC reports.

Four thousand people who were imprisoned due to cannabis-related charges have been freed, but the Government is still adamant that personal use of marijuana is a no-no. In fact, smoking in public is considered a public nuisance. Another limitation is that only extracts containing less than 0.2% THC, the chemical thatmakes you high, are allowed to be sold. However, its unclear how the Government is going to restrict its recreational use or screen the amount of THC there are in the many marijuana or marijuana-laced products that have since popped up since its decriminalisation. What is certain is the fact that whether the Government says so or not, the floodgates have been opened and recreational use is, without a doubt, happening.

- Asia Media Centre

Read more here:

From Drug War to Weed Teas: Thailand's Journey to Decriminalising Marijuana - Asia Media Centre