Category Archives: War On Drugs

MANILA Philippine police are ready to resume President Rodrigo Duterte's war on the drugs trade which had returned to the streets, the police chief said on Monday, a month after Duterte halted police operations, labeling the force "rotten to the core".

Ronald dela Rosa told reporters the sooner police returned to the fight better, otherwise gains made against drug traders could be lost.

"We are ready to go back to war if given orders by the president," dela Rosa told reporters. "The longer that we are out of the war on drugs, the situation is getting worse, problems will return. So, the sooner we return, the better."

Despite his denunciation of the police, Duterte told reporters he may allow them to resume anti-drug operations, saying there had been a rise of about 20 percent in drug sales on the streets since police were pulled back.

"I will leave it to the Philippine National Police to decide," he said. "What they have to do (is) to succeed."

Dela Rosa said he had spoken with governors, mayors and village officials who, he said, were clamoring for police to return to the anti-drugs campaign because drug peddlers and users were back on the streets.

Duterte ordered the police to stand down from the drugs war last month after declaring the force rotten to the core. Since then, the drugs trade has come back out of the shadows, more than half a dozen drug users and dealers in some of Manila's toughest areas told Reuters.

More than 8,000 people have been killed in the war on drugs since Duterte was sworn in almost eight months ago, about 2,500 of whom were killed in official police anti-narcotics operations.

Human rights groups believe many of the others were extra-judicial executions committed in cooperation with the police a claim the Duterte administration has vehemently denied.

Reporters and photographers working the crime beat on the night shift said "vigilante-style" killings of drug suspects had continued, but at a much slower pace after the suspension of police operations.

Duterte halted police operations at the end of January and transferred the role to the 1,800-member Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, supported by the army.

(Reporting by Manuel Mogato; Editing by Nick Macfie)

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump's nominee to be the director of national intelligence pledged on Tuesday to support thorough investigation of any Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, seeking to reassure lawmakers worried that partisan politics might interfere with a probe.

MEXICO CITY A defiant Mexico said on Tuesday it would only stay in NAFTA if it suited it and rejected the imposition of any tariffs or quotas when renegotiating the trade deal U.S President Donald Trump wants to recast to benefit the United States.

EMERSON, Manitoba Jaime French was jarred out of bed in Emerson, Manitoba early one morning this month by pounding at her front door, just yards from the U.S. border. A face peered in through the window, flanked in the darkness by others.

Originally posted here:

Philippine police say ready to return to war on drugs as dealers return - Reuters

Three unidentified assailants gunned down Peter Cruz in Barangay Manggahan, Pasig City late Tuesday evening. Fernando Sepe, Jr., ABS-CBN News

MANILA President Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday announced that he will again use policemen in his controversial war on drugs amid reports that drug dealers are back on the streets, but he said not all policemen will participate in the renewed campaign.

I have ordered [PNP chief] Bato [dela Rosa] to recruit young men in the PNP who are imbued with fervor of patriotism to be the members only of the task forces. Every station should have one pero yung pili ng pili (but only select ones), iyung walang history of corruption (those who dont have a history of corruption), Duterte said.

I have to do it because kulang ako ng tao.

(I have to do it because I lack men.)

Duterte also said the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which took over the campaign when the polices war on drugs was suspended, will continue to supervise anti-illegal drug operations.

The Philippine National Police (PNP) last month suspended its war on drugs after several cops were accused of kidnapping and then killing a Korean businessman right inside the PNP headquarters in Camp Crame in the guise of an anti-drug operation.

Duterte yesterday said, since the suspension of the polices war on drugs, there has been "a gain, a rise of drug activities by 20 percent.

Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Ronald Dela Rosa yesterday said the police force is willing to resume its campaign if Duterte will allow it. He claimed that drug traffickers were rejoicing over the suspension of the police campaign.

The longer na wala kami sa war on drugs, the situation is getting worse, the more na babalik yung problema. Sayang yung gains na nakuha natin from the first 7 months ng ating war on drugs. Nasasayangan ako e. So the sooner the better.

(The problem will worsen the longer we are not part of the war on drugs. I don't want the progress of the war on drugs for the first 7 months to go to waste.)

See original here:

Duterte orders return of police to war on drugs - ABS-CBN News

The darkness made it difficult to photograph the blood-splattered pavement.

Since crime scene investigators had not yet arrived, the dozen or so photojournalists were able to shoot close-ups of the body that laid face down, curled up in the fetal position. As the herd of photographers inched forward, repositioning themselves to find more light, Brother Jun Santiago retreated. He wanted to capture the scene from a distance.

Im trying to get out of the brutality, he said. I want to capture the stench, the smell of the crime scene. The night is so powerful. The darkness is so powerful. Right now people are sleeping and they dont know whats happening.

Brother Jun is talking about the war on drugs in the Philippines, where more than 7,500 alleged drug addicts and pushers have been killed since president Rodrigo Duterte took office eight months ago.

Since December, Santiago has been documenting the nightly killings with local and foreign journalists on the graveyard shift in Manila to bring attention to the victims, mostly low-level drug offenders from urban poor communities. At night, hes a photographer. During the day, he attends mass and fulfills his religious duties at the National Shrine of Our Mother of Perpetual Help in Manila, also known as the Baclaran Church.

With little else but a camera, Santiago has quietly led an unconventional resistance movement within the Catholic Church against the governments war on drugs, although he would say hes just a man of faith taking photos to help his community. While the hierarchy of the Church hesitated to speak out against the killings for seven months as thousands were killed, Santiago helped fill the void with his images.

Just before Christmas, his photos were blown up and displayed outside Baclaran Church along with the work of other photojournalists. The exhibit made national headlines, sparking intrigue and outrage. For many churchgoers, it was an introduction to the cruel truth of a brutal and lawless war.

It was a unique way of exposing reality.It was a unique way of exposing reality, said Father Carlos Ronquillo, the rector of the Baclaran. The power of images is something that I think can be harnessed if we as a church want to engage people to think deeply about whats happening. Not only through words. Not only through preaching.

Santiagos position in the church allows him to be more involved in the community. Priests are generally too tied down with official duties to be as active in the daily lives of their parishioners. As a result, the flexibility has given Santiago room to establish a more comprehensive outreach program for victims and their families.

In January, Santiago hired Dennis Febre, a human rights activist, to oversee the administrative side of the Baclarans extra-judicial killing (EJK) response program. The initiative provides a range of services for those affected by the drug war, including financial support for families, legal assistance, livelihood and employment programs, rehabilitation resources, and protection for those under threat. Febre is responsible for following up with the families of the victims Santiago documents at night. He also verifies cases of those who come to the church on their own for support.

The concrete actions we are doing are really non-political, said Febre. We respect [Duterte] as the president of the country, but at the same time the government needs to respect human rights.

Before the drug war, the Baclaran provided burial assistance of up to 5,000 pesos ($100) for families in need, but that hardly covers the full cost, which typically runs anywhere from 30,000 to 55,000 pesos.

The families have no time to grieve.The families have no time to grieve. Theyre always thinking of how to bury because the cost of the funeral services is too hard on them, said Santiago.

The church realized it needed to do more. By mid-February, the Baclaran had paid all the expenses for 56 families to bury their dead. Dozens more are on a waiting list. Costs are funded by donations from hundreds of thousands of devotees who flock to the church every week. The Baclaran is one of the most attended churches in the country.

This month, resistance within the Catholic Church has grown stronger. The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines released a blistering statement on Feb. 5 condemning the presidents reign of terror. Two weeks later, thousands of Catholics marched in Manila against the spreading culture of violence. Condemnations of the drug war have become commonplace during mass in many parishes on Sundays, empowering more Catholics to speak out.

Still, Ronquillo, the superior at Baclaran, questions whether these developments are enough.

The main question is what is the impact? Were in a changed time. Theres been a certain alienation that has altered peoples receptivity to what the church is saying. We are in our convents, our churches and our schools, but we are not among the people generally, Ronquillo said. Were in a changed time.

Santiagos documentation and the Baclarans EJK program strike at the heart of that disconnect. While some Church leaders continue to remain quiet or offer ineffectual criticism through words at the pulpit, Santiagos approach has paved the way for a new church order that prioritizes actions over words.

Dutertes rhetoric sometimes makes that type of advocacy difficult to carry out. He has repeatedly lambasted the Church as the most hypocritical institution, even calling it full of shit as officials ramped up attacks against his anti-drugs campaign in January. When priests and bishops speak out against the crackdown, Duterte often accuses them of womanizing or being corrupt.

He hits below the belt, said Father Amado Picardal, who has criticized Duterte for decades dating back to his time as mayor of Davao in the countrys south.

In the beginning, fear and intimidation helped stifle opposition, according to Father Atilano Fajardo, public affairs ministry director of the Archdiocese of Manila.

While many within the Church withheld criticism at the outset of the drug war to give Duterte more time to prove himself, Fajardo chose to mobilize. Less than a month into Dutertes presidency, Fajardo launched a campaign against the drug war called Huwag Kang Papatay, which translates to thou shalt not kill. As one of the first priests to speak out, Fajardo disputes the idea that the Church hasnt done enough.

Its not true, said Fajardo, referring to criticisms that the Catholic Church didnt do anything for months. Go to the parishes. Get out of your subdivisions and see what the Church is doing.

Beyond condemnations of the drug war during homilies, Fajardo points to the many parishes that are also offering rehab services, trauma counseling, and refuge for drug users and victims families.

He acknowledges, however, that these efforts need to be accompanied by mass movements and actions.

It is that belief that drives Fajardo to keep organizing and Santiago to continue covering the night shift. Without them, the dead remain nameless and the bodies become mere statistics.

The people must say this is enough, Santiago pleaded. People must mobilize because the church cannot do it alone.

See the article here:

A Catholic church is running an unconventional resistance against Duterte's war on drugs - Quartz

In The Odyssey, Homer refers to a substance which banishes all care, sorrow, and anger. Here, he is likely speaking of opium, a substance with the same active ingredient as the modern-day heroin. It seems that from Homers time to modern day America, psychoactive substances have fascinated us throughout all of human history. Accordingly, different societies across the eras have invented standards governing their usageranging from regulation, to spiritual justifications, to prohibition. In particular, the United States has distinguished itself from others in the scale and enforcement of efforts to curb public drug useextending a mere dislike to a full-on war.

People view drug use and abuse within different frameworks, with intensely social, political, medical, and historical implications. In particular, drugs are not only viewed within a schema of facts, but of moralityan ideology that views psychoactive substances as fundamentally wrong. Much of this stems from fears of substances seizing our autonomy: either while under the influence or while addicted.

In the United States, this moralization of drugs has been extended to create associations between certain drugs and certain groups of people. A New York Times article from 1905 cries about individuals selling cocaine promiscuously to negroesan attitude which continues to affect public perceptions of the black community today. According to Charles Whitebread, a former professor at the University of Southern California Law School, the one universal rule of U.S. drug policy is that prohibitions are always enacted by US, to govern the concept of THEM.

This social distinction is just one part of Americas narrative surrounding drug usage.Ultimately, these trends in perceptions are deeply rooted in a centuries-long cultural tradition that can be broadly divided into three distinct periods.

1607-1914: The Early Republic

In an interview with the HPR, Harvard Professor Jane Kamensky, an Early American historian, described Puritan New England as a society that believed deeply in order. Early America saw a conflict between the notions of American individual industry and dissention, and a nation deeply beset in stringent moral values. This conflict arose in Puritan perceptions of drug usage.

By far, Puritan New England was dominated by three drugs: coffee, tea, and rum. Here, Kamensky describes a distinction between coffee talk and tea talk. Coffee talk symbolized the space of ideas, and masculine discourse, while tea talk symbolized the space of effeminate gossip. Neither of these substances were moralized for their drug properties, or as psychoactive substances. Instead, tea in particular was moralized due to its association with the British Other. This made it more desirable, and raised question to its ethical status.

While alcohol was universally common, drunkenness was strictly associated with the lower classes of society. In The Alcoholic Republic, W.J. Rorabaugh describes a culture of heavy tolerance and moderate consumption of alcohol, reaching a peak of 7.1 gallons of alcohol by all individuals above 15 years old in 1830. He describes a society where many parents intended early exposure to alcohol to accustom their offspring to the taste of liquor, to encourage them to accept the idea of drinking small amounts, and thus to protect them from becoming drunkards. At this time, slaves likely consumed far less alcohol than the ruling classesyet culturally, the public associated public drunkenness precisely with this class. This neatly brings together both themes of the morality of drug use in the Americasthe loss of control bringing into question ones autonomous status, as well as the association of use with a non-powerful group in American society.

As the United States rapidly industrialized following the Civil War, drug use skyrocketed and the morality surrounding it followed. Industrialism meant enormous growth in tobacco and coffee, both of which had already been popular drugs in the United States, as well as new innovations in cocaine and morphine. At the same time, a stigma developed around the consumption of alcohol at work as efficiency and productivity became the hallmarks of American labor.

Early records of perceptions towards cocaine use seemed positive. A New York Times article from 1885 extolled the many blessings [that] will yet result from experimenting with cocaine. Coca Cola was first developed in 1886, branded as a method for recreational cocaine usehowever, by this point, tides had already shifted against the drug, with articles speaking about the cocaine habit and the racked and prostrated condition of cocaine users as early as 1887. As industrial cocaine production became associated with this loss of humanity, the nation turned against the drugand Coca Cola only saw a boom in sales when it rebranded itself as Delicious and Refreshing.

This rapid growth of varied drug use and chaos over their moral categorization, coupled with increasing migration, would lay the foundation for later criminalization policies.

1914-1971: The Beginnings of National Prohibition:

Universally, it appears that the prohibition of any drug has followed three steps. Cultural shifts begin with the association of the drug with a particular minority demographic. These proceed to widespread fears surrounding usage and its effects on society. Finally, a perception of a sharp increase in the drug use solidifies its status as illicit. Massive industrialization and immigration in the early 1900s followed this formula, culminating with the Harrison Narcotics Tax of 1914, which first regulated opium and cocaine at a national level. This was the first instance of drug prohibition in national policy but it would certainly not be the last.

This process started sixteen years after the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, when a Scientific American article in 1898 articulated that wherever the Chinese are found there will be the odor of opium. This racial stigmatization shifted public perception of opioids almost entirely from a casual acceptance to hate and eventually, criminalization. The image of the Chinaman seducing American women into prostitution in opium dens dominated majority perceptions towards the drug, factoring into future morphine and heroin policy.

Cocaine followed a similar trend. Although the drug was initially used by academics and medical practitioners between 1890 and 1920, it developed a heavy association with laborers, youth, and black Americans in urban society. Thomas Crothers, a contemporary observer who wrote widely about the effects of inebriety, described a phenomenon where persons of the tramp and low criminal classes who use this drug are increasing in many of the cities. This quickly developed into a national hysteria over the so-called cocaine-fiendan imagined cocaine-crazed violent predator, usually working in labor, and almost always black.

Marijuana prohibition followed a very comparable trajectory. Here, the concern revolved largely around Mexican immigrants in the Southwest. Fears about marijuana first arose during Alcohol Prohibition, when women and churches worried that individuals would simply substitute alcoholism with marijuana addiction. The idea that marijuana as a drug took away a users sense of control developed shortly afterwards and was most famously propagated by the movie Reefer Madness in 1936. The first federal prohibition of recreational cannabis came with the Marihuana Tax Act, in 1937, thus completing the major triad that continues to dominate U.S. drug policy today.

1971-present: The Drug War

Modern opinion is split on whether societal norms and values influence drug policy, or whether policy precedes change in public opinion. Truth be told, the answer is probably a mix of both as drug prohibition became increasingly strict at a national level, public perception pigeon-holed addicts into morally lower classes. Correspondingly, as public perception turned tides towards drug criminalization, policy shortly followed. These two mechanisms, especially the former, have become obvious in American history through the modern War on Drugs.

In 1971, President Nixon first declared the now-famous War on Drugs, calling drug abuse public enemy number one. In particular, however, this consisted not in a war on drugs themselvesbut a war on drug users, focusing efforts towards eradication, interdiction, and incarceration.

Socially, the trend ramped up with Nancy Reagans Just Say No campaign. This effort inaugurated the zero-tolerance principle for drug use and abuse, and set a goal to educate a new generation specifically on a grounded, prohibitionist, drug-morality. Many programs commenced by these traditions are still in place, such as the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program in Los Angeles, despite questionable efficacy.

Ironically, in a post-Civil Rights United States, as it became no longer acceptable to explicitly link drug usage with particular demographics, drugs have become a cultural stand-in to avoid explicitly talking about demographics. The heroin addict remains almost synonymous with black youth in urban povertyyet using this moniker places enough distance from racial connotations to maintain political correctness.

The most notable manifestation of this is in the widely unequal criminal sentencing for freebase cocaine (crack) and its powdered form. Chemically, these two drugs are almost identical, with very similar effects. Their primary difference is in price, resulting in a major disparity of use and punishment across different demographics. Until very recently, crack cocaine held penalties as much as 100 times as harsh as powder cocaineand crack stays associated with black neighborhoods. Although this was reduced to only 18 times as harsh, with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, the racial connotation remains impossible to overlook.

In addition, previously noted fears about drug usage taking away autonomy continue to arise periodically. Spice, a blanket term for a number of synthetic substances that mimic the effects of marijuana, is an example of the continued adaptation of drugs to evade legislation. As a new variant of spice takes over the news cycle, public opinion radically shifts, leaving policymakers scrambling to patch up holes. While usage of the Big Three illegal drugs (cocaine, heroin, and marijuana) remains similar, drugs such as fentanyl and krokodil have become household names.In the same theme as the above analyses, these do not arise because of particular properties of the drugs themselvesbut because of properties of cultural perception.

In this way, two things are clear: the first is that drug policy relies on a variety of moral and sociopolitical patterns that are as old as the United States itself. The second is that regardless of any policy, drugs are here to stay. They become illegal and immoral when they are associated with a distinct voiceless Other that can be easily repressed by the majority, and when they raise question aboutindividuals moral autonomy. These trends and traditions stretch back to the very foundations on which the American republic stands and by understanding that, the possibility for comprehensive drug reform becomes a bit more possible.

Image Credit: U.S. Marshals Service Office of Public Affairs/Flickr

See original here:

The Junkie and the Addict: The Moral War on Drugs - Harvard ... - Harvard Political Review

MANILA Foreign Affairs Secretary on Tuesday dismissed as just part of partisan politics all the criticisms against the Duterte government with regard to the war on drugs and the arrest of government critic Senator Leila de Lima.

Yasay said criticisms from Vice President Leni Robredo and her allies in the Senate and House of Representatives over the governments war on drugs and De Limas arrest should no longer come as a surprise since they belong to an opposing party.

You see, the vice-president is a partisan political opposition of the president, and if something happens to the president or the president is removed from office, she stands to benefit from it, Yasay said in an interview with CNN Internationals Christiane Amanpour.

There is a very strong partisan political undertone that goes behind this criticisms and I dont think it is fair for everyone to just simply say that because you are the vice president or you are a member of Congress, a senator trying to question this -- that they are saying the truth.

President Rodrigo Duterte has come under intense criticism because of his war on drugs, which has so far cost the lives of over 7,000 people.

Yasay said the government only takes responsibility for the killings of about 2,500 drug suspects slain under legitimate circumstances.

The government admits and confirms there are over 2,000 deaths resulting from legitimate operations wherein rules of engagement have been strictly followed, he said.

Nevertheless if there has been accusations or insinuations that the police did not uphold the due process required, we are immediately investigating these things.

Critics have said that De Limas arrest was brought about by her criticism against Dutertes campaign, as well the presidents long-standing grudge towards her for investigating him as a mayor over alleged death squad killings years ago.

Yasay, however, downplayed criticisms that De Limas arrest is a form of political repression.

There is something that one should understand about the arrest of Senator De Lima. Senator De Lima is a very powerful person. She is a senator and you see that our justice system works. Nobody is spared. If you violate the law, you will be arrested, he said.

Link:

Yasay: Flak on war on drugs, De Lima arrest just 'partisan politics' - ABS-CBN News

Donald Trump arrives on stage with his family to speak to supporters during election night at the New York Hilton Midtown in New York on November 9, 2016 (AFP Photo/Timothy A. Clary)

The weeks since Trump took office with a pledge to make America wealthy/safe/proud/great again have been tumultuous ones. He has tested the nations checks and balances with a series of aggressive executive actions and abrupt policy shifts, on everything from the border wall, the structure of the National Security Council, immigration, attacks on the judiciary, and the selection of Cabinet appointees diametrically opposed to the mission of the agency they are intended to lead.

None of these moves are truly intended to increase the efficiency of national policy. Trump is, if nothing else, a master of branding and his policy moves have been largely symbolic; hes sending a message about his values and his vision for the United States.

But hang on, because there is more to come and, aside from jobs, theres still one big ticket item on his to-do list: drugs.

The threat posed by drugs was a consistent theme during the campaign and often lumped with immigration, globalization, and violent crime as part of a rising lawlessness that threatens the American people. Trump reiterated this theme in his apocalyptic inaugural address, pitting the forgotten men and women of our country against foreign enemies who drain jobs and wealth and replace them with poverty, crime, gangs, and drugsall under the watch of political elites who did nothing to stop the American carnage. Never mind that Trump is also something of a robber baron and never mind his myriad conflicts of interest, this style of rhetoric says: look therethat is the enemy, the other.

Students of Americas many drug wars have been watching these developments with real trepidation, because weve heard this message before. The drug war has always fed on social and political turmoil and functioned as a way to consolidate both political authority and a largely moral and intolerant brand of American identity. In short, its not a question of if Trump will declare war on drugs but when.

And, in fact, the opening shots have already been fired. Trump has promised a return to law and order to a gathering of police chiefs and sworn to be ruthless in taking the fight to the drug cartels. The day after he made these remarks, Trump welcomed Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions as his new Attorney General and used the occasion to sign three new executive orders: instructing the Department of Justice to aggressively prosecute crimes against law enforcement officers, create a new Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety, and increase interagency efforts to combat international drug traffickers.

While Trumps talk of criminal cartels destroying the blood of our youth smacks of racial hygiene and fascism, the drug war has essentially always been understood in terms that link biology, morality, and identity. Like many of Trumps policies, the fight against drugs packs a big symbolic punch. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, the presidents most closely associated with the war on drugs, both rendered the conflict in similar fashion and for similar reasons. Nixon described drug addiction as a problem which afflicts both the body and the soul of America, and Reagan, while urging Americans to Just Say No, called drug abuse a repudiation of everything America is.

The countrys struggle with drugs has a much longer history than most people realize, with roots that stretch well over 100 years into the past. From early U.S. concern over opium addiction in China and the colonial Philippines, the establishment of the first federal control laws, into the beginnings of global enforcement at mid-century, and throughout the presidencies of Nixon and Reagan, American drug policy has consistently turned on issues of symbolicrather than scientificimportance. Questions about the hazards and benefits of globalization, the role of the U.S. in the world, national security, nature vs. nurture, race and crime, the social contract, andmost importantlyAmerican identity have proven far more determinative than the pharmacology of drugs or the particulars of any given drug epidemic. Many of these tensions continue to define American political culture today.

With the drug problem historically framed in cultural and ideological terms, control and enforcement strategy have focused almost exclusively on punitive policing and supply-side solutions. Rather than rely on comparatively soft public health strategies to reduce demand, American policymakers have demonstrated a clear preference for going after bad guyslike foreign traffickers, street-level dealers, and deviant junkies. Despite its obvious practical shortcomings, this adversarial drug war framework prevails because it skirts internal responsibility for the drug problem; drugs are a scourge perpetrated against the American people by outside powers, rather than a domestic social problem tied to Americas own internal contradictions and predilections. And one of the consequences is that we overlooked the risk posed by the growth of the legal narcotics industry.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine estimates that in 2015the most recent year for which there is good dataaround two million Americans suffered from a substance abuse disorder involving opioids. Of those, nearly 600,000 were active heroin users, and four out of five new heroin users began with a prescription opioid. That same year, the number of deaths specifically attributed to heroin overdose (12,989) eclipsed the number attributed to gun violence (12,979). In short, the problem is growing and its causes have more to do with legal practice and industry than criminal trafficking.

According to data provided by the Center for Disease Control, the rates of opioid prescription and overdose have both quadrupled since the start of the millennium, and the influx of legal opioids has created new heroin markets throughout the country. Ironically, the problem is particularly concentrated among older, white, working class populations in areas like the Rust Belt, Appalachia and the Deep Souththe same areas that turned out in strength for Trump in November. Broadening the scope beyond opioids, the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that the collective abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs is a $700 billion a year problem.

The question is: what is Trump going to do about it?

In his most direct remarks on the campaign trail, Trump acknowledged the need for expanded treatment options, but he also promised a return to the punitive and supply-side strategies that have done demonstrably little to solve the drug problem, including the use of mandatory minimum sentencing and a general escalation of street-level enforcement. And, of course, he also promised a wall, telling his supporters, A wall will not only keep out dangerous cartels and criminals, but it will also keep out the drugs and heroin poisoning our youth. The actual efficacy or viability of the wall remains very much in doubt, even within Trumps own party. But thats also beside the point; the wallmuch like the Muslim/travel banis a gesture that signifies a besieged nation in need of a strongman to lead it.

Trumps willful conflation of illegal immigration and the drug problem is no real surprise. Trump, after all, first seized political relevancy by casting doubt on the citizenship of Barak Obama, and his great ally in the birtherism conspiracy was ex-DEA agent Joe Arpaio, who drew national attention by proclaiming himself Americas toughest sheriff and fulminating against illegal immigration as the source of all of Americas problems. (Arpaio is still at the birther thing, by the way.) The notion that Obama is not a U.S. citizen is a proven falsehood, but the rhetoric and cultural beliefs the conspiracy signaled clearly played with that segment of the electorate dismayed by the election of Americas first black president.

A major indicator of Trumps intentions comes from his selection of Sessions as Attorney General. This is a man who was deemed too racist to win a federal judgeship in 1986 and once joked that he thought the KKK was ok but for their pot use, so its unlikely that Sessions will prioritize a healthy respect for civil rights over Trumps calls for aggressive drug enforcement. Indeed, Sessions has reportedly been a determinative influence on Trumps hard-line positions and as White House Press Secretaryrecently indicatedis likely to pursue a confrontational approach with the twenty-nine states that have voted to legalize marijuana, setting up yet another potential constitutional crisis.

Its all but certain that Mexico will be a primary antagonist in any Trump drug war. When Trump declared his candidacy for office, he did so with the charge that Mexico actively exports drugs, crime, and rapists to the United States. Within days of entering the White House, he caused yet another controversy with joking/not-joking remarks about sending the U.S. military to deal with Mexicos bad hombres.

China, another campaign trail punching bag, will also play an important role on the foreign policy side. China has long been the worlds largest supplier of synthetic drugsincluding fentanyl, a powerful narcotic implicated in recent spikes in overdose rates. But China also seems to be cracking down on illicit production and is an area where the DEA has been making notable progress with quiet diplomacy instead of more confrontational tactics.

On the domestic front, the major policy decisions revolve around policing vs. treatment. Trump has already threatened to send the feds into Chicago to quell the citys gun violence, but its doubtful hes going to send the feds into places like Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, West Virginia, and Hew Hampshirestates that have some of the highest densities of opiates and the highest rates of overdose.

The ostensible whitening of heroin is a real dilemma for the Trump administration. Its always been difficult for the authorities to parse the difference between dealer and user, and Trump is probably not going to wage drug war on his own voters. But expanding treatment options is going to be terribly difficult in the face of GOP plans to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which extended new coverage for drug and alcohol disorders. It also remains to be seen if Trump is willing to confront Big Pharma in the same manner that he has rattled his Twitter account at General Motors and Boeing.

The biggest uncertainty looming over all of this, however, is figuring out how much is bluster and how much of Trumps tough talk signals actual changes in policy. The DEA has acquired wide-ranging law enforcement authority in its nearly 45-year history, both at home and abroad. Even as a mere rhetorical device shorn of any real policy shifts, the drug war is a source of power and its likely only a matter of time before Trump attempts to claim it. Well know more when the first report of the newly created Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety is published four months from now.

The most likely scenario is that Trump will mostly ignore the specifics of the opioid epidemic and stick with the supply-side enforcement tactics that appeal to his bombastic and adversarial style. To address demand is to admit weakness, and, in Trumps worldview (such as anyone can know it), the forgotten people need jobs, not coddling or rehab. Instead, Trump will use the drug issue to reinforce his basic theme of a blighted America that begs for decisive leadership. He will focus on urban gang violence (which has a limited connection to the opioid crisis), double-down on his confrontation with Mexico, and use legal pot and Chinas role as synthetic supplier as pawns in his gamesmanship to extract economic concessions from the states and foreign rivals.

Thats a best-case scenario. All bets are off if Trump embraces the mantle of drug warrior with the enthusiasm of Reagan. And all the while, the drug crisis and the injustices of the American police and legal system will almost certainly grow worse.

There is, however, one glimmer of hope. Trump will be the first to tell you that hes a great deal maker; now that weve seen the whitening of heroin perhaps he will seize the opportunity that lies before him and strike a grand bargain that moves national policy toward a more effective balance between law enforcement and the humane treatment of American addiction. But I wouldnt hold my breath.

Matthew R. Pembleton holds a Ph.D. in History from American University, where he is an adjunct professorial lecturer. His book on the history of the drug war,Containing Addiction: The Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the Origins of Americas Global Drug War, is forthcoming from UMass Press.

This article was originally published at History News Network

Original post:

There's one last big-ticket item on Trump's agenda: A war on drugs - Raw Story

Randburg Community Policing Forum chairperson, Lance Porter; LDAC chairperson, Hennie Oosthuizen; Randburg Police Station commander, Brigadier Michelle Jones and secretary, Nyiko Ngwenya.

RANDBURG The community of Randburg has decided to combat the manufacturing, distribution and use of illegal substances by creating the Randburg Local Drug Action Committee (LDAC).

The chairperson of Randburg LDAC, Hennie Oosthuizen said the use of drugs and illegal substances in Randburg and surrounding areas was increasing.

We want residents to be aware of the drug activities in their area as it is happening on a daily basis. We urge them to report these activities to the police, said Oosthuizen.

He explained that drug use led to criminal activities such as domestic abuse, theft, robberies, housebreakings and even hijackings.

He also suggested that there was also a strong link between the use of illegal substances and human trafficking.

Some of the relevant stakeholders who attended the first meeting of the Randburg Local Drug Action Committee.

Councillor Michael Sun, MMC for Public Safety and Security said, The City of Johannesburg is focused and our Metro officers are ready to tackle the drug pandemic in our neighbourhoods. We will not rest until the criminals are rooted out from our city and our residents are safe.

The committee is made up of stakeholders from all sectors who are involved in the prevention and treatment of substance abuse and related problems.

They include representatives from justice, police, probation and correctional services, schools, health services, social development and community service officials.

Local government drives the LDAC in terms of establishment and operational support services.

Remember to share your stories with us on our Facebook page Randburg Sun.

Read this article:

Randburg LDAC fights war on drugs - Randburg Sun

The one thing you dont expect in a documentary about the war on drugs is humour. This is an illicit and illegal trade with bitter gang wars, government crackdowns, betrayals and countless deaths, and yet Wildlands, a Ubisoft created documentary to accompany their upcoming Ghost Recon Wildlands game, has you laughing at several points.

Featuring lengthy interviews with several people who have been deeply involved with drugs on many levels, from trafficking to enforcing the cartels position, and, of course, the US governments attempts to fight back. It could almost be a Hollywood blockbuster, following the smugglers, enforcers, informants, DEA agents, and soldiers, and how their stories interlink and the drug trade feeds off itself. However, instead of a gritty crime drama, its a retrospective documentary on the rise and further rise of the cocaine trade.

Rusty Young acts as the narrator and interviewer throughout, with one of the key inspirations for the documentary being his bestselling book Marching Powder, which chronicles the story of Thomas McFadden. Born in Tanzania but raised in Liverpool, he found himself drawn into drug trafficking, smuggling heroin from Morocco into Europe. However, what makes his story so fascinating is that he found himself incarcerated in Bolivias San Pedro prison.

Thats not what youd expect, with San Pedro a million miles from the stereotypical British prison. Instead of blocks of cells patrolled by guards, this is effectively a small city in its own right, with prisoners having to pay to rent or buy cells, families moving in to live together, finding jobs within the prison, and so on. It sounds bizarrely idyllic, but underneath, theres still the danger, the corruption and the persistent drug trade. Rusty and Thomas actually met while he was still in prison, having created his own business within the walls giving tours to foreign tourists fascinated by this idiosyncratic place.

Its that experience and an almost instant connection that led to Rusty bribing guards in order to stay with Thomas for three months and write his story, and its their almost brotherly relationship thats the jumping off point for the rest of Wildlands.

From there, theres extended interviews with the renowned George Jung, the man who introduced the Medllin cartel to the potential of bringing cocaine into the US and made famous by the film Blow. Much of the rest of the film revolves around the rise and fall of this most famous and influential of organisations.

Though there are still moments of humour throughout the rest of the interviews, theyre undercut by the growing seriousness. This shift in tone is probably where the film is most successful, drawing you in with a surprisingly light tone that helps you want to understand some of these people, before showing you how it can all go south. One particular moment stands out for me, as Rusty calls up one of the few remaining members of the Medellin cartel to check theyre still up for meeting. As he speaks to Popeye, who was one of Pablo Escobars most trusted enforcers and confessed to the murder of over 300 people as he was arrested and sentenced to prison in Colombia, he asks if its OK that he brings a bodyguard with him. Popeye now leads a very different life, but it underscores the danger inherent in this world that Rusty is investigating.

The documentary raises some fascinating problems and poses interesting and challenging questions, both for you the viewer to consider, but also as Rusty talks to the eight people featured in the film. Perhaps the most profound element is the lack of answers. The interviews with those who fought against the drugs trade domestically and abroad, the DEA agents in the US and the Navy SEAL who served throughout South America, have no real solutions to what can be done about the ongoing problem, whether their convictions hold or they see that alternative methods are needed.

The US governments attempt to crack down both domestically and internationally via the War on Drugs might have succeeded in scoring huge drug busts and dismantling or severely weakening various drug cartels, but cutting one head off the hydra does little to stop the beast. Perhaps a better approach would be to try and shift the culture in South America away from seeing cocaine as an easy path to making money, or try to stop people trying and becoming addicted in North America and Europe? Whatever the case, theres no quick fix.

Going into the film, I had no idea how plausible a drug cartel state was, as depicted in Ghost Recon Wildlands. Certainly, the game sensationalises many things about this scenario, with the Santa Blanca cartel very brazenly in control of Bolivia, but theres serious suspicions that the current government of Bolivia is at the very least turning a blind eye to the drugs trade, if not actually supporting it in some ways. Certainly, Bolivian President Evo Morales has embraced the natural cocalero industry, from which cocaine is derived. Unfortunately, Rustys attempts to interview Morales ultimately failed.

Whether youre interested in Ghost Recon Wildlands or not, the Wildlands documentary is a fascinating look into the drugs trade on all levels, told in a compelling and engaging way. If anything, Id have liked the film to be a little longer, relaying even more of the stories, the highs and the lows of those ensnared in the War on Drugs.

Wildlands willbe available on Amazon Prime, iTunes, and Google Play from the 6thMarch.

Originally posted here:

Engaging With The War On Drugs In Ubisoft's Wildlands Documentary - TheSixthAxis

A drug user inhales "Shabu", or methamphetamine, at a drug den in Manila, Philippines February 13, 2017. Reuters

MANILA - Secretary to the Cabinet Leoncio Evasco Jr. clarified Monday that the Duterte administration's war on drugs has not been stopped but is a continuing campaign under a different law enforcement agency.

Evasco said the President merely transferred the responsibility from the Philippine National Police to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, but the same concept of the drug war remains. "I don't think there was a stoppage on this. It is just shifting from PNP to PDEA."

Over the weekend, there were calls from Senator Alan Peter Cayetano for President Duterte to re-launch the war on drugs, claiming that the drug trade has come back out of the shadows after Duterte halted anti-drug operations under the PNP's "Oplan Tokhang."

"Pag bumalik ang mga pusher, kasunod na n'yan ang patayan ng inosente, kasama na d'yan ang rape, ang nakawan. Kaya ngayong gabi, ako ay nakikiusap sa ating Pangulo at sa PNP: i-relaunch ninyo ang inyong anti-drug drive." Cayetano's said during the vigil-rally in support of the Duterte administration at the Quirino Grandstand in Luneta Saturday.

But Evasco said: "I don't think there is a need to re-launch that because the president just shifted the mandate from PNP to PDEA. It is now the task of PDEA to continue what have been done by PNP."

Evasco, however, said PDEA have yet to provide Malacanang a report on how the war on drugs have progressed after the transfer. He also said the issue has not been discussed in Cabinet meetings lately.

"I hope in the coming meetings this will be discussed," he said.

More than 7,000 people have been killed since Duterte was sworn in almost eight months ago, about 2,500 of whom were killed in official police anti-narcotics operations. Human rights groups believe many of the killings are extra-judicial executions committed as part of the war on drugs, and in cooperation with the police - a claim the Duterte administration has repeatedly denied.

See more here:

No need to relaunch war on drugs: Duterte aide - ABS-CBN News

Just when you thought the useless and wasteful drug-war philosophy of the past was slowly receding in the rear view, the Trump administration is pulling a U-turn.

The White House indicated last week that states like Maine that have legalized marijuana should expect greater enforcement of federal anti-pot laws, going against public sentiment, economic trends, and the good sense that anti-drug resources should be spent on solving the opioid crisis, not disrupting safe, established businesses following state law.

UNNECESSARY UNCERTAINTY

Its hard to know just what the administration has in store. The announcement last week, by White House press secretary Sean Spicer, came with no further details or policy changes, except to say that only recreational marijuana, not medical, would be targeted.

Going after recreational marijuana goes against a campaign pledge from Trump, but that doesnt mean much. He also said last year that he would protect transgender Americans, yet he recently rescinded federal direction on bathroom use for transgender students, citing state rights. (Apparently, states are free to discriminate, but not to legalize a largely harmless drug.)

It does, however, jibe with the views of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who once said that good people dont smoke marijuana and now oversees the Justice Department in a country where nearly half the people have tried it.

Sessions in his confirmation hearings would not commit to following the Obama administrations policy of leaving states alone as long as a solid regulatory structure was in place. Federal law is the law, Sessions has argued, and he will enforce it even when it conflicts with state law.

Of course, that conflict could be lessened, though not entire erased, if federal agencies and Congress took the sensible steps of reclassifying marijuana as a drug with accepted medical uses something on the books in 28 states now and rewriting financial rules to allow marijuana businesses that follow state law to use the banking system.

Instead, the Trump administration appears ready to antagonize those businesses; the real question is how. Spicers announcement has already injected great uncertainty into the industry, and actions such as raids or prosecutions of recreational marijuana businesses would further chill investment and scare off customers.

PUBLIC SIDES WITH POT

That would unnecessarily stunt an industry that is expected to produce more than 250,000 jobs and $24 billion in revenue by 2020, and send millions of productive and otherwise law-abiding Americans back to the black market, where their money is much more likely to end up in the hands of criminals who are actually dangerous.

States like Maine that have legalized marijuana should fight this kind of federal overreach. Unlike with the transgender case, state laws on marijuana are not discriminatory. They are a true example of the Jeffersonian concept of states as laboratories, and so far the experiments are working just look at the successes in Washington state and Colorado.

Federal resources would be much better spent helping stop the daily carnage from opioid use than dismantling an industry that has entered the mainstream.

Eight states, comprising 21 percent of the countrys population, have voted to legalize marijuana. A new poll from Quinnipiac University found 59 percent of Americans think pot should be legal nationwide, and 71 percent say the federal government should not enforce federal laws against states that have legalized pot.

As Maine state officials and legislators work to implement the new marijuana-legalization law here, they should not be deterred by the noise coming from the Trump administration. They should reassure with their outspoken support the business interests looking to invest in the industry, and they should remember that they have history and public opinion on their side.

Read the original here:

Our View: White House plan reignites wasteful war on drugs - Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel