Category Archives: War On Drugs

Ad will collapse in seconds CLOSE February 3, 2017 02/03/2017 6:19 p.m. By Ed Kilgore

Share

California and the Trump administration are developing a relationship of mutual hostility that is growing more intense each day. Golden State lawmakers are bristling at the new administrations immigration policies and pledging defiance in the face of Trumps attacks on sanctuary cities. The states climate-change activists are equally determined to fight the new boss in Washington and his oily friends. Silicon Valley is potentially an important source of corporate resistance to Trumpism. Talk of a Calexit from the U.S. is no longer just a gag.

Trump himself is bringing back memories of 1960s Cali-centric culture wars with threats against the University of California, Berkeley, for failing to use force against protesters who stopped an appearance by Daddys little provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos.

But all this friction could get a lot worse if Trumps likely-to-soon-be-confirmed Attorney General, the unrepentant Warrior on Drugs Jeff Sessions, decides to aggressively prosecute federal laws in conflict with the legalized cannabis regime California voters approved by a landslide the same day they rejected Trumps candidacy.

Sessions dodged questions about his intentions toward jurisdictions with legal marijuana sales and/or consumption during his Senate confirmation hearings. And the issue could come to a test first in the states where legal cannabis is already up and running, like Colorado. Californias new legalized marijuana regime wont take effect until the beginning of 2018, and snarls over licensing and tax arrangements could make that deadline slip. But already, cannabis industry leaders in what will soon be a huge market are nervous about what those California-haters in Trumpland might do, as the L.A. Times reports:

But those who have been in the business since the early days of medical marijuana caution the legions of newcomers that federal busts and seizures could quickly make a comeback.

There are people in this administration who will crush this industry if they see the opportunity, said Steve DeAngelo, who is considered a guru among pot entrepreneurs.

For the time being, though, this is one industry and in general one whole state where the prospect of lower taxes and less regulation are not arousing much business enthusiasm. At the moment, odds are, taking on the growing majority of Americans with no taste for drug wars is such a political nonstarter that the feds will continue to let states that legalize weed go their own ways. But the temptation for Trump and Sessions to punch hippies may be just too strong for them to resist.

Trump Not Fully Briefed on Order That Gave Bannon NSC Role: Report

A Brief History of Cash Me Outside, Howbow Dah?

Trump Just Declared the Court System a Threat to National Security

Lady Gaga Added a Hint of Subversiveness to Her Hits During Super Bowl LIs Halftime Show

White House Denies Report That Bannon Had to Be Reminded He Wasnt President Amidst Travel-Ban Chaos

Every Super Bowl Halftime Show Since 1993, Ranked From Worst to Best

Sean Spicer Chews and Swallows 35 Pieces of Gum Every Day Before Noon

We Must Free This Dog

Ivanka Trumps Brand Issues an Even Longer Response to Nordstrom News

Wall Street Remembers Why It Was Afraid of President Trump

Most Popular Video On Daily Intelligencer

At the current trajectory, sometime next week, a Republican congressional staffer will Google What is health care?

A race to the bottom.

Qassim al-Rimi is considered the third most dangerous terrorist in the world.

A list of 78 ostensibly underreported incidents including the attacks in Orlando and San Bernardino kept everyone talking about national security.

And now Rosie ODonnell wants to play Steve Bannon.

It could misrepresent the causes for terrorist acts, and justify steps that endanger our security and civil liberties even further.

The House of Commons wont let the American president address it, while Germanys top newspaper calls on the free world to mobilize against Trump.

Thanks in no small part to grassroots anger, the party is adopting some aggressive tactics including pulling an all-nighter in the Senate.

Goldman Sachs is starting to wonder if having an incompetent nativist as president might have its downsides.

In the too-early edition, the headline was A Bitter End.

The Kremlin didnt like how Bill OReilly called Vladimir Putin a killer in an interview with Donald Trump.

He is quite literally saying he is the only legitimate source of information on what the American people want.

Not content to attack individual judges and judicial decisions, the president is now disparaging the court system itself.

Twenty-year-old Chanel Lewis has been charged with second-degree murder.

Weve got a lot of killers, Trump said. What do you think? Our countrys so innocent?

The president is said to be more angry about the NSC restructuring than the travel ban.

The game was steeped in political controversy even before New Englands record-breaking rally in the fourth quarter.

The Trump administration is vowing to do everything in its legal power to reinstate the ban. Heres how that will play out.

A culture war sold through the rhetoric of jobs and security.

Rukmini Callimachi discusses the travel ban, her refugee past, and extremists reactions to Trump.

See the article here:

California Is Wondering If Trump and Sessions Will Relaunch the War on Drugs - New York Magazine

Sunday February 5 2017 In Summary

The government will not relent in its efforts to eradicate drug and drug use in the coastal region, Deputy President William Ruto said on Sunday.

Speaking after attending mass at the Holy Ghost Cathedral Catholic Church, Mr Ruto expressed concern over high number of youths succumbing to drug addiction.

You should pray for those indulging in this illegal business to change their way of lives and stop destroying our young people here (Mombasa), he added.

Acknowledging that the government was facing challenges in fighting the drug menace, Mr Ruto asked Christians to join hands in the fight against the vice to save the youths.

The DP's statements follow the extradition of four suspected drug barons to the United States to face trafficking charges.

Joint investigations between Kenyan police and Drug Enforcement Administration led to the arrest of Ibrahim Akasha Abdalla, Gulam Hussein, Vijaygiri Anandgiri Goswami and Baktash Akasha Abdalla.

At the same time, he urged Christians to offer special prayers to Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) officials to conduct free, fair and credible polls on August 8.

All of us as Kenyans require the space and chance to exercise our constitutional rights to vote for whoever we want without being coerced or intimidated through unorthodox means to vote otherwise, he said.

The DP noted that security had improved in the coastal region which had come under terror attacks due to intensified surveillance by security forces within and without the borders.

We must pay homage to our security forces for ensuring peace and tranquility prevail not only in Mombasa and its environs but the entire country and within our borders, he said.

According to him, even after this years elections and its outcome, Kenyans would still remain peaceful.

In his sermon, the presiding Priest John Correa challenged the government to resolve the doctors strike impasse saying most Kenyans were suffering due to lack of health services.

Whether we are leaders, politicians, government and priests we should work in solidarity to break the impasse and bring back healthcare services to public hospitals, he pleaded.

He also urged Catholic faithful to donate foodstuff to help residents suffering in drought and famine hit counties across the country.

Americas FBI had sought the Akashas for a long time.

Most of the soldiers who fought in that battle were at the camp.

Justice Odunga added that the Sports Act does not bestow the CS with such power.

More:

State to push on with drugs war Ruto - VIDEO - Daily Nation - Daily Nation

MANILA - Philippine troops will only provide back-up in the war on drugs and not patrol the streets or play any kind of leading role, the head of an anti-narcotics agency that has been given charge of the campaign said on Monday.

Last week, President Rodrigo Duterte suspended the national police from the anti-drugs war that has killed over 7,600 people in seven months after a South Korean businessman was kidnapped and killed by members of a police drugs squad.

He said the army would be inducted into the drugs war, creating unease in a country that endured a decade of martial law from the early 1970s and where memories of campaigns to restore democracy and protect human rights are fresh in the minds of many people.

However, Duterte handed charge of the anti-drugs campaign to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

"They (troops) will be in support of PDEA agents," the agency's director general, Isidro Lapena, said in an interview. "For example, if the target is in an area where there are armed groups, then we will be needing the armed forces."

Lapena stressed the military would not be on patrol duty or lead their own operations. Troops selected for a joint task force with the PDEA would attend orientation programs and would likely only be on stand-by for drug operations when needed.

Of the people killed in the war on drugs, about 2,500 died during police operations and the remainder are in dispute. The authorities say many deaths were caused by inter-gang violence or vigilantes, while human rights groups say there is a pattern of extra-judicial killings. The government strongly rejects that.

Asked if a drugs war run by PDEA would see fewer killings than those seen under the police, Lapena said it was up to the criminal gangs to decide whether to surrender quietly, or put up a fight.

"There are firefights that result in death...we cannot avoid that," he said.

BLOODSHED INEVITABLE

Lapena said most previous operations led by the PDEA had resulted in arrests, not killings. Bloodshed was inevitable during a drugs war, he said, because dealers and corrupt police would kill others to cover their tracks.

"We don't have control over other elements who do the killings. The other killings are perpetrated, I would say, by drug syndicates themselves," Lapena said.

"That is why, I cannot say this will lower, or this will rise."

The remit and structure of the new joint task force between the PDEA and the armed forces could be finalized within this week, Lapena said.

PDEA has a major challenge in keeping up the intensity of a drugs war that was being waged primarily by the 160,000-strong Philippine National Police (PNP).

PDEA has a tiny fraction of that, with only 1,800 personnel. Lapena said PDEA had approval to recruit 900 more. The new task force would operate nationwide, but its size and number of operations was yet to be decided.

Lapena said PDEA would make up for the manpower shortage by strengthening links to local communities, setting up anti-drugs councils to identify those in need of rehabilitation, or "neutralization", which he said meant arrests and prosecution, and was not a euphemism for killing.

Lapena is a former police chief of Davao, a city where Duterte was mayor for over two decades.

The narcotics agency chief said he had no idea why Duterte would make such drastic change to his drugs war, leaving PDEA with a race against time to come up with a plan.

"We will take on the job and we will deliver," he said.

See more here:

PDEA: Army to play support role in war on drugs - ABS-CBN News

Moments into the ABCs documentary series Ice Wars comes a scene that sums up the battle between police and the drug dealers of Australia.

Its when a squad of heavily-armoured, helmeted police smash through the front door of an ordinary suburban home, screaming as they charge in to capture the criminals who have set up a methamphetamine factory inside.

Looking for all the world like a Hollywood action film, its the adrenalin-charged end to a long investigation but most confronting is that all the drama is anything but unusual.

That was actually the second time we knocked that house over, saysDetective Chief Superintendent Mick Smith of the NSW Drug Squads Chemical Operation Unit, better known by their nickname The Lab Rats.

In fact, there was another house two doors along we had knocked over about 18 months earlier It was a real meth cul-de-sac.

Its that normalisationof ice that its now just a part of the Australian suburban landscape which convinced police to allow cameras an inside view of their daily fight and show how bad the problem has become.

1.3million people in Australia have tried ice, Smith says. Some of your friends and members of your family would have to have tried ice.

But unless youre actually touched by the situation that you own a house and someones cooked meth in it or whether youve got family members who are addicts you really are not aware of the problems it causes.

Ice Wars is out to change that.

Over four episodes, the cameras follow Smiths Lab Rats and other branches of the police force as they go about the business of getting ice off our streets.

In some cases, thats quite literally, such as when the team joins a police Random Breath Test stop in Nowra on the NSW south coast. Of 15 cars pulled over, sixdrivers test positive for ice and are arrested, for a rate of one in every two-and-a-half drivers under the influence.

Or in the NSW town of Wellington where frustrated locals say they are under siege and it feels like every second house has a dealer.

It is everywhere, said Ice Wars executive producer Alex Hodgkinson.

When you have something that is cheaper than beer and with such an attractive sounding name you are dealing with everyday people, its just filtered everywhere.

There was and Im looking at it from my desk a meth lab in a very expensive townhouse just a few steps away from my office.

Proving how ice can touch anyone, the series also joins the health workers dealing with the physical and emotional toll on users and gives voice to the addicts and their families, including former surf champion TomCarroll who turned to the drug after retiring from the world circuit, and Tasmanian senator Jacqui Lambie, who is fighting to save her addicted son.

Then there are the functional addicts, who go to work every day some in our armed forces, Ice Wars reveals with nobody knowing.

I think people will be surprised, said Hodgkinson. I think they will be shocked.

But this is very real and thats what we really wanted to show. It is what it is.

If you go into a hospital there are more people on ice, if you travel out in the country its more of an issue. Its just exploded and we just wanted to show that.

For the police, the motivation is even simpler. They just want more help.

If we get more feedback from the community about houses they have concerns about, or people who are involved, then well be busier, Smith says. The busier we get, the happier we are.

Ice Wars premieres on the ABC on Tuesday February 7 at 9.30pm.

Read this article:

Ice Wars: ABC documentary shows reality of Australia's war on drugs - The New Daily

Father Amando Picardal does not flinch from the enormity of the question. As a priest in Metro Manila, he's confronted nightly with the bloodshed of President Rodrigo Duterte's drug war, which police say has now claimed more than 7,000 lives.

Picardal refuses to place that toll at God's doorstep.

He says there is a "blood lust" in the country, encouraged by propaganda, deceit and a President with "a messiah complex." At the Baclaran Church in the capital, he preaches against the killings.

Religion is an incredibly powerful force in this overwhelmingly Catholic country, and many of its adherents here attend Mass regularly.

"We have to put a stop to (the killings). Because if this continues it will destroy us as a country, as a nation," Picardal says.

This criticism from within the Catholic Church has not gone unnoticed by the notoriously outspoken President, with Duterte delivering an escalating set of verbal attacks against the Church in recent weeks.

He brought up the child abuse scandals that have plagued the church, asking "What will you do about homosexuality in the seminary? What have you done to minors there?"

The Church still holds considerable influence in the Philippines, where government statistics show 80% of the country identifies as Roman Catholic.

Still, that has not dampened approval for the President's campaign against illegal drugs.

While many of the faithful approve of the crackdown on drugs, Picardal believes they oppose the killings themselves. He says policeman have begun to come to confession with troubled consciences.

Still, he concedes the drug war has its supporters. Some ordinary Filipinos, he thinks, have lost their way. "Our churches can be full, but the moral sense of right and wrong, it doesn't seep deeply into the hearts and minds of people," he says.

He ministers regularly to victims' families. He's no stranger to their pain, since his own mother was murdered more than 20 years ago by members of the Philippines' constabulary. He went on to live a life devoted to activism:

In 1973, after dictator Ferdinand Marcos instituted martial law, Picardal was arrested while handing out fliers urging people to resist the regime. He was then imprisoned and tortured.

Later, he spent 16 years as a priest in the southern city of Davao, which is also the hometown of President Duterte.

While Duterte served seven terms as mayor, Picardal joined a commission that investigated extra-judicial killings in the city, the same types of killings that have now spread nationwide.

The priest sees the President as lacking in compassion.

"By the end of his term, there will be over 70,000 people killed in this drug war," Picardal says, extrapolating the figures based on the current rate of killings.

"Most of them will be poor, most of them will be users, and the problems of poverty and country will still be there."

Asked whether he fears for his own life, Picardal says no, there is nothing they can they do to him that's worse than he has already faced. His experience with martial law, and the "people power" revolution that toppled it are forever written into his faith.

"In our darkest moments, martial law, we are never abandoned by God," he says.

He believes the Philippines is once again plunged into such darkness. But even now, as then, he has not lost hope.

More here:

War on drugs: Priest speaks out against Philippines 'blood lust' - CNN

Gener Rondina never stood a chance. When the Philippine police arrived at his home in the middle of the night, he tried to push an air conditioner out of the wall and flee through the opening. The police were waiting on the other side and shone a flashlight on his face.

Terrified, he retreated inside, began pleading for his life, and offered himself up for arrest. Family members saidhe had been trying to quit his use and small-scale sale of drugs. I will surrender, I will surrender, sir, a witness said Rondina shouted. The police told Rondina to get on his knees and hold his hands over his head. They told his family to leave the room. Moments later, gunshots rang out.

Rondina is one of more than7,000 people whohavebeen killed in the Philippines war on drugsover the past seven months.Since President Rodrigo Duterte swept to power, on a platform of uplifting the poor and ridding the streets of crime, he has incited people with his murderous rhetoric to take the law into their own hands and kill anyone they suspect of using or selling drugs.

The Philippine police claimed, as they did in the vast majority of casesAmnesty International documented, that Rondina resisted arrest. The witnesses we spoke to told a different story, that of an unarmed man stricken with fear in what he knew were the final moments of his life. When he was killed, a witness said the police dragged him outside like a pig and left his corpse by a sewer before loading it into a truck.

Every day, families arrive at morgues in the Philippines to search for the dumped bodies of their loved ones. The victims are overwhelmingly from the poorest sections of society. They are not powerful drug traffickers or leaders of drug syndicates, but people whose names were added to hit lists by local political bosses on suspicion that they used or sold drugs, no matter how little or how long ago.

The killings have become so common that there is almost a casual air of business at the morgues and funeral homes. The police and other officials look on indifferently as they process paperwork, unmoved by the relentless loss of human life. The only value they attach to them is as commodities in an economy of murder. Dignity for the victims is even denied in deathone officer speaking to us said some police officers have entered into a racket with local funeral homes, taking a cut for each body sent their way.

As a Metro Manila anti-drugs police officer revealed to us, the police are paid per hit by their bosses. These under-the-table payments can be as much as $300 for each alleged drug offender they kill. As a result, there is no incentive to arrest people like Rondina and submit them to due process. When there is a shootout during a drugs raid, the police officer said, an alleged drug offender is always killed.

Safe in the knowledge that they will not be held accountable for the killings, the police prey on victims in other ways. During a raid, several people told us, they often plant evidence even as they snatch possessions.Rondinasfather, who himself served on the police force for 24 years before retiring, said the police took a laptop, a watch, a cell phone and cash after they killed his son. (On Monday, police chief RonalddelaRosaconceded that there is corruption in the forceand said they will cleanse the ranks.)

There are times when the police prefer to operate in secret. Trading in their uniforms for disguises, they roam the streets on motorcycles in pairs. Riding in tandem, as it is known locally, they approach their target, kill them, and speed away. This way, they haveno questions to confront, and no paperwork to fill inor reports to falsify.

At other times, the policerecruit paid killersto do their dirty work for them. As two paid killers we spoke to said, theyre managed by an active police officer. Their gang includes a number of former police officers. For a user, one of the paid killers told us, its 5,000 pesos (US$100). For a pusher, she added, it can be twice or three times as much.

Following the police killing of South Korean businessman Jee Ick-jooon the grounds of the national police headquarters, Duterte said he was disbanding the polices anti-drug unit. But he has vowed to press ahead with his violent campaign, until the end of his term in 2022. The problem is not just a few police officers, but the policy as a whole, which will continue to claim lives.

On Tuesday night, a day after the police said they had abandoned their anti-narcotics operations, the body of 24-year-old Aldrin de Guzman was found near his home. The killers left him out on the street, in what has become a hauntingly familiar sight for Filipinos. Each morning, people walk along the streets, past the bodies, touched by the fear the killers left for them.

Its a fear that now pervades every impoverishedneighbourhoodin the archipelago, where residents worry that they or a loved one may be next. The same police thataresupposed to protect them are hunting them down, acting on the instructions of the president who was supposed to be their greatest champion. If you are poor, as one victims relative told us, you are killed.

Originally posted here:

Philippines: Duterte must end his "war on drugs" - Amnesty International

Johann Haris book is the perfect antidote to the war on drugs, one of the most under-discussed moral injustices of our time. It combines rigorous research and deeply human story-telling. It will prompt an urgently-needed debate

A terrific book.

An absolutely stunning book. It will blow people away.

Superb journalism and thrilling story-telling.

Wonderful I couldnt put it down.

An astounding book.

This book is, forgive the obvious phrase, screamingly addictive. The story it tells, jaw-droppingly horrific, hilarious and incredible, is one everyone should know: that it is all true boggles the mind, fascinates and infuriates in equal measure. Johann Hari, in brilliant prose, exposes one of the greatest and most harmful scandals of the past hundred years.

This book is as intoxicatingly thrilling as crack, without destroying your teeth. It will change the drug debate forever.

Incredibly insightful and provocative.

Check out Johann Haris extraordinary new book Chasing the Scream, one of the best books Ive ever read about the world of drugs

Johann Hari has written a drug policy reform book like no other. Many have studied, or conducted, the science surrounding the manifold ills of drug prohibition. But Hari puts it all into riveting story form, and humanizes it Part Gonzo journalism, part Louis CK standup, part Mark Twain storytelling, Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs is beautifully wrought: lively, humorous, and poignant. And, its a compelling case for why the drug war must end, yesterday.

In this energetic and thought-proving book, Hari harnesses the power of the personal narrative to reveal the true causes and consequences of the War on Drugs.

Breath-taking A powerful contribution to an urgent debate

A testament to Haris skill as a writer

Gripping

A riveting book

Superb

This book is an entertainment, a great character study and page-turning storytelling all rolled into one very sophisticated and compelling cry for social justice.

Amazing and bracing and smart. Its really revolutionary.

Scary and terrific

Incredibly powerful

Its incredibly entertaining. Its enormously emotionally affecting It really is an extraordinary book

Follow this link:

Chasing the Scream | The First and Last Days of the War on ...

Taibbi on Six Million Adults Who Won't Influence This Presidential Race

One in 40 Americans can't vote because of a criminal conviction. But the rules aren't exactly fair

Lee Daniels Rejoins Jay Z-Produced Richard Pryor Film

Harvey Weinstein offers no details about director's return to Mike Epps-starring biopic he left in May

Furry Community Shocked After Gory Triple Murder

Members of misunderstood subculture mourn loss, prepare for potential backlash

Jay Z Talks Kalief Browder Doc, Inhumanity of Solitary Confinement

Six-part 'Time: The Kalief Browder Story' will premiere early next year

Hear Pusha T, Rivers Cuomo on Soft Rock Zeds Dead Jam 'Too Young'

Canadian electronic duo will release debut LP this month

Keith Urban to Headline Nashville New Year's Eve Party

A Thousand Horses and Charlie Worsham also represent country on the all-genre bill

Watch 'The Warriors' Reunite to Discuss Cult Film's Legacy, Fandom

Vermin, Cochise, Swan and more look back on Walter Hill's 1979 gangland New York classic in exclusive new video

Watch U2 Blast Donald Trump During San Francisco Show

Bono blasts Republican nominee for trying to "run off with the American dream"

See Dolly Parton Play 'Dollywood Squares'

Icon visits 'The Talk' for a humorous game, during which she reminisces about working with Burt Reynolds and writing "Jolene"

Watch Lera Lynn Perform Rumbling 'What You Done'

Slow-burning accusation is the latest in singer-songwriter's Live at Resistor Studio series

'Insecure' Creator Issa Rae Talks Drake, Maintaining 'Awkward'-Ness

Comedian on translating her sensibility to small screen: "I didn't set out to be like 'I want to tell the black female millennial story'"

Watch Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds' Mournful 'Girl in Amber' Video

Band performs ballad in new clip made from 'One More Time With Feeling' footage

Go Behind the Scenes of Metallica's Raging 'Moth Into Flame' Video

Director Tom Kirk talks blending vintage, contemporary styles while James Hetfield plays with warehouse equipment

Flashback: David Bowie Plays a Haunting 'Heroes' in 1978

London performance was professionally recorded for a concert movie that has yet to see an official release

D.R.A.M. Announces Debut Album 'Big Baby D.R.A.M.'

"Cha Cha" and "Broccoli" rapper will make solo late-night television debut on 'Conan'

Watch Norah Jones Unleash Fiery 'Flipside' on 'Fallon'

Musician delivers politically charged cut off new LP 'Day Breaks'

Dustin Lynch's Next Album Will Be 'Very Sexy'

Country singer reports much of the upcoming project is about falling in and out of love

Watch Pixies Prowl for Love in 'Um Chagga Lagga' Video

Black Francis makes directorial debut with peculiar new clip

Hear Love and Theft's Sexy New Song 'Candyland'

"Angel Eyes" duo releases acoustic performance of lead single from forthcoming album

Hear Tift Merritt's Blues-Fueled 'Dusty Old Man'

Singer-songwriter looked to Bonnie Raitt's first album as inspiration for her bluesy, guitar-driven new tune

Read more:

How America Lost the War on Drugs - News | Rolling Stone:

By Tom Head

At the turn of the 20th century, the drug market went mostly unregulated. Medical remedies, which often contained cocaine or heroin derivatives, were freely distributed without prescription--and without much consumer awareness of which drugs were potent and which were not. A caveat emptor attitude towards medical tonics could have meant the difference between life and death.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 targeted toxic drugs, and was expanded to address misleading drug labels in 1912. But the piece of legislation most relevant to the War on Drugs was the Harrison Tax Act of 1914, which restricted the sale of heroin and was quickly used to restrict the sale of cocaine as well.

And into this new national enforcement framework came the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which attempted to tax marijuana into oblivion Marijuana had not been shown to be dangerous, but the perception that it might be a "gateway drug" for heroin users--and its alleged popularity among Mexican-American immigrants--made it an easy target. More

Not that it did so alone. The Boggs Act of 1951 had already established mandatory minimum federal sentences for possession of marijuana, cocaine, and opiates, and a committee led by Senator Price Daniel (D-TX, shown left) called that the federal penalties be increased further, as they were with the Narcotic Control Act of 1956.

But it was Eisenhower's establishment of the U.S. Interdepartmental Committee on Narcotics, in 1954, in which a sitting president first literally called for a war on drugs.

So when the Nixon administration looked for ways to block the import of marijuana from Mexico, it took the advice of radical nativists: close the border. Operation Intercept imposed strict, punitive searches of traffic along on the U.S.-Mexican border in an effort to force Mexico to crack down on marijuana. The civil liberties implications of this policy are obvious, and it was an unmitigated foreign policy failure, but it demonstrated how far the Nixon administration was prepared to go.

Nixon also targeted the trendy, psychedelic image of illegal drugs, asking celebrities such as Elvis Presley (shown left) to help him send the message that drug abuse is unacceptable. Seven years later, Presley himself fell to drug abuse; toxicologists found as many as fourteen legally prescribed drugs, including narcotics, in his system at the time of his death.

The addition of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to the federal law enforcement apparatus in 1973 was a significant step in the direction of a criminal justice approach to drug enforcement. If the federal reforms of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 represented the formal declaration of the War on Drugs, the Drug Enforcement Administration became its foot soldiers.

It is not insignificant that the policy also came with political benefits. By portraying drugs as a threat to children, the administration was able to pursue more aggressive federal antidrug legislation.

Then along came crack, cocaine processed into little rocks at a price non-yuppies could afford. Newspapers printed breathless accounts of black urban "crack fiends" and the drug of rock stars suddenly grew more sinister to white middle America.

Congress and the Reagan administration responded with the Antidrug Act of 1986, which established a 100:1 ratio for mandatory minimums associated with cocaine. It would take 5,000 grams of powdered "yuppie" cocaine to land you in prison for a minimum 10 years--but only 50 grams of crack.

So when Senator Joe Biden's 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a provision allowing for the federal execution of drug kingpins, it indicated that the War on Drugs had ultimately reached such a level that drug-related offenses were regarded by the federal government as equivalent to, or worse than, murder and treason.

What is confusing is the issue of what happens when a state declares that a drug can be made legal with a prescription, and the federal government bullheadedly insists on targeting it as an illegal drug anyway. This happened in 1996 when California legalized marijuana for medical use. The Bush and Obama administrations have arrested California medical marijuana distributors anyway.

So far, the Obama administration's actual drug policy enforcement has not differed significantly from that of the Bush administration. But the War on Drugs has always been a rhetorical convention--you can't declare war on inanimate objects, social phenomena, moods, or abstractions--and it's a rhetorical convention that has determined the way our country views drug policy enforcement. Acknowledging that this is a policy initiative, not a war, is a good step.

More here:

History of the War on Drugs - About.com News & Issues

America is at war. We have been fighting drug abuse for almost a century. Four Presidents have personally waged war on drugs. Unfortunately, it is a war that we are losing. Drug abusers continue to fill our courts, hospitals, and prisons. The drug trade causes violent crime that ravages our neighborhoods. Children of drug abusers are neglected, abused, and even abandoned. The only beneficiaries of this war are organized crime members and drug dealers.

The United States has focused its efforts on the criminalization of drug use. The government has, to no avail, spent countless billions of dollars in efforts to eradicate the supply of drugs. Efforts of interdiction and law enforcement have not been met with decreases in the availability of drugs in America. Apart from being highly costly, drug law enforcement has been counterproductive. Current drug laws need to be relaxed. The United States needs to shift spending from law enforcement and penalization to education, treatment, and prevention.

History of U S Drug Policy

Drugs first surfaced in the United States in the 1800s. Opium became very popular after the American Civil War. Cocaine followed in the 1880s. Coca was popularly used in health drinks and remedies. Morphine was discovered in 1906 and used for medicinal purposes. Heroin was used to treat respiratory illness, cocaine was used in Coca-Cola, and morphine was regularly prescribed by doctors as a pain reliever.

The turn of the century witnessed a heightened awareness that psychotropic drugs have a great potential for causing addiction. The abuse of opium and cocaine at the end of the 19th century reached epidemic proportions. Local governments began prohibiting opium dens and opium importation. In 1906 the Pure Food and Drug Act required all physicians to accurately label their medicines. Drugs were no longer seen as harmless remedies for aches and pains.

The Harrison Narcotics Act, passed in 1914, was the United States first federal drug policy. The act restricted the manufacture and sale of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and morphine. The act was aggressively enforced. Physicians, who were prescribing drugs to addicts on maintenance programs were harshly punished. Between 1915 and 1938, more than 5,000 physicians were convicted and fined or jailed (Trebach, 1982, p. 125.) In 1919, The Supreme Court ruled against the maintenance of addicts as a legitimate form of treatment in Webb et al. v. United States. Americas first federal drug policy targeted physicians and pharmacists.

In 1930, the Treasury Department created the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. Harry J. Anslinger headed the agency until 1962 and molded Americas drug policy. Under his tenure, drugs were increasingly criminalized. The Boggs Act of 1951 drastically increased the penalties for marijuana use. The Narcotics Control Act of 1956 created the most punitive and repressive anti-narcotics legislation ever adopted by Congress. All discretion to suspend sentences or permit probation was eliminated. Parole was allowed only for first offenders convicted of possession, and the death penalty could be invoked for anyone who sold heroin to a minor (McWilliams, 1990, p.116). Anslinger was critical of judges for being too easy on drug dealers and called for longer minimum sentences. He established a punitive drug policy with a focus on drug law enforcement.

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics also used propaganda as a preventative measure. They created myths and horror stories about drugs. Marijuana was blamed for bizarre cases of insanity, murder, and sex crimes. Anslinger said that marijuana caused some people to fly into a delirious rage and many commit violent crimes (McWilliams, 1990, P. 70). It is puzzling that Anslinger and the FBN fabricated such tales, while there existed less dramatic, but true horror stories connected to drug abuse. The propaganda of the 1940s and 1950s was often so far fetched that people simply didnt believe the governments warnings about drugs.

The 1960s gave birth to a rebellious movement that popularized drug use. The counterculture made marijuana fashionable on college campuses. Other hippies sought to expand their minds with the use of hallucinogens like LSD. Many soldiers returned from the Vietnam War with marijuana and heroin habits. In short, the demand for drugs in America skyrocketed in the 1960s.

The Johnson Administration, in reaction to a sharp rise in drug abuse, passed the Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966. The act specified that narcotic addiction was a mental illness. The law recognized that the disease concept of alcoholism also applied to drug addiction. Drug use, however, was still considered a crime. The act did not have a major impact because the small amount of funding that was appropriated for treatment couldnt meet the increasing demand for drugs in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The act did pave the road for federal expenditures on drug abuse treatment.

The Modern Drug War

In 1971 President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. He proclaimed, Americas public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive(Sharp, 1994, p.1). Nixon fought drug abuse on both the supply and demand fronts. Nixons drug policies reflect both the temperance view and disease view of addiction.

Nixon initiated the first significant federal funding of treatment programs in. In 1971, the government funded the then experimental and enormously controversial methadone maintenance program. In June 1971, Nixon addressed Congress and declared, as long as there is a demand, there will be those willing to take the risks of meeting the demand (Sharp, 1994, p.27). In this statement he publicly proclaimed that all efforts of interdiction and eradication are destined to fail.

Unfortunately, Nixon failed to listen to his own advice. Nixon launched a massive interdiction effort in Mexico. The Drug Enforcement Agency was created in 1973. They initiated Operation Intercept, which pressured Mexico to regulate its marijuana growers. The U S government spent hundreds of millions of dollars closing up the border. Trade between Mexico and the U S came to a virtual standstill. Mass amounts of Mexican crops headed for the U S rotted, while waiting in line at the border. In the end, Nixon achieved his goal of curtailing the supply of Mexican marijuana in America. Columbia, however, was quick to replace Mexico as Americas marijuana supplier.

The interdiction of Mexican marijuana was the governments first lesson in the iron law of drug economics (Rosenberger, 1996, p.22). Every effort the U S government has made at interdiction since Operation Intercept has at most resulted in a reorganization of the international drug trade. Heavily monitored drug routes have been rerouted. Drugs enter the United States through land, sea, and air. Closing our borders to drug smugglers is an impossibility as long as the demand exists.

In 1977 President Carter called for the decriminalization of marijuana. In a speech to Congress he said, penalties against possession of the drug should not be more damaging than the drug itself (Rosenberger, 1996, p25). Although Carter endorsed lenient laws towards marijuana use, he was against legalization. Carters drug policy was focused on the supply front, with most funding going to interdiction and eradication programs.

Marijuana decriminalization did not fail, but failed to be realized. Carters presidency witnessed a sharp increase in cocaine use. From 1978 to 1984, cocaine consumption in America increased from between 19 and 25 tons to between 71 and 137 tons. The demand for cocaine increased as much as 700 percent in just six years (Collett, 1989, p. 35). Marijuana was widely connected to cocaine as a feeder drug. Thus, the federal and state governments moved away from marijuana decriminalization.

In 1981, President Reagan gave a speech mirroring Nixons admission that fighting the supply side of the drug war was a losing proposition. He said, Its far more effective if you take the customers away than if you try to take the drugs away from those who want to be customers. Reagan, like Nixon did not heed is own advice. The average annual amount of funding for eradication and interdiction programs increased from an annual average of $437 million during Carters presidency to $1.4 billion during Reagans first term. The funding for programs of education, prevention, and rehabilitation were cut from an annual average of $386 million to $362 million (Rosenberger, 1996, p. 26).

Reagans demand side initiatives focused on getting tough on drugs. The program became known as the zero tolerance program, where punitive measures against users were emphasized. The 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse gave the drug user full accountability. Drug users were to be prosecuted for possession and accordingly penalized. Although some block grants were given for drug treatment, the rehabilitative efforts were insufficient to meet the overwhelming amount of drug abuse. Reagans demand side drug policy largely reflects the colonial, or moralist view of addiction.

Despite headlining innovative drug policies, Clinton has largely continued the Republicans supply sided drug policy. In the 1995 budget, Clinton earmarked an extra $1 billion for both the demand and supply fronts of the governments drug policy. Clinton attracted the medias attention when he doubled the spending for rehabilitation and prevention programs. However, more substantial increases were made for eradication programs and law enforcement. The 1995 budget included $13.2 billion for drug policy. $7.8 billion was spent on supply sided efforts, while only $5.4 billion was spent on education, prevention, and rehabilitation. Although Clinton did increase the percentage spent on the demand front of the drug war, his policy clearly reflects supply sided tactics (Rosenberger, 1996, p. 51).

It is important to note that Congress has a significant influence on shaping Americas drug policy. The Republican 104th Congress successfully killed many of Clintons attempts to spend more on the demand side. Even the Democratic 103rd Congress of the early 1990s fought shifting the drug policy towards prevention and rehabilitation. Both Democratic and Republic Congresses overwhelmingly favored continuing with supply sided efforts.

Although Clinton didnt significantly change the direction of U S drug policy he presented some innovative proposals. Clinton encouraged Community Action Programs and grass roots organizations to participate in the demand side of the drug war. However, of the $1 billion given to the Community Empowerment Program only $50 million was allocated to drug education, prevention, and treatment (Rosenberger, 1996, p. 63). Thus, the potential of the programs was never realized.

The Drug Debate

The proponents of drug policy cant be classified as Liberal, Conservative, Left, Right, Democratic, or Republican. Many Liberals and Democrats, such as the 103rd Congress favor drug criminalization and supply sided efforts, while some Conservatives, such as Milton Friedman and William Buckley favor drug legalization. There are, however, three prevailing views on addiction in America, which have derived from Americas views of alcoholism.

The Colonial or Moralist view considers the drug user to be sinful and morally defective. The drug itself is not the problem. The moralists drug policy entails punitive measures for users. Drug use is a crime. Reagans zero tolerance policy on drug use is an excellent example of a moralist drug policy.

Second, the Temperance view considers the drug itself, as an addictive substance and the cause of addiction. The supply of drugs is a public hazard. According to the temperance view, drug policy should focus on drug smugglers and drug dealers as the root of drug addiction. U S drug policy has largely been influenced by the temperance view of addiction.

Third, the disease concept views addiction as being a treatable disease. Neither the drug user, nor the drug supplier is responsible drug addiction. The disease concept calls for a drug policy that focuses on drug treatment and rehabilitation. Clinton, for example embraced the disease concept and increased funding for treatment programs.

There has been continuous and widespread debate about drug policy since Nixon waged Americas first war on drugs. Remarkably, the issues have changed very little. In fact, U S drug policy hasnt had many significant changes over the last 30 years. The U S has long endorsed a supply sided drug policy. Most of the funding has gone to interdiction and eradication efforts. These measures have failed and continue to fail. The United States needs to significantly shift its funding towards education, prevention, and treatment. Thus, America needs to decriminalize drug use.

Firstly, decriminalization does not imply drug legalization. Drug trafficking and drug dealing need to remain criminal activities. Punitive drug laws on drug users need to be relaxed. Of the 750,000 drug law offenses in 1995, 75% of them were merely for use (Nadelmann, 1991, p. 20). Habitual drug use offenders, who are usually addicts face heavy fines and long prison sentences. Drug law enforcement and incarceration are extremely costly and counterproductive. Addicts have the potential to be treated. The appropriate response is rehabilitation.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse estimated that in 1993 as many as 2.5 million drug-users could have benefited from treatment. Only about 1.4 million users were treated in 1993. Almost half of the nations addicts were ignored. The government spent only $2.5 billion on treatment programs compared to $7.8 billion on drug law enforcement. The government needs to shift its funding from costly, unproductive drug eradication programs to meet treatment demands.

Decriminalization does not imply opening up our borders to drug suppliers and tolerating violent drug syndicates. The supply side of the drug war should be reduced, not ignored. Violent drug gangs and large-scale drug suppliers should be targeted instead of the drug user and the small time dealer. Although spending less on interdiction will inevitably make it easier to smuggle drugs into the U S, there is no evidence that the demand for drugs will significantly rise.

There have been some victories in the drug war. Every addict who through federally funded treatment programs and rehabilitation becomes sober is a victory. The benefits are endless. Addicts, who treat their disease often reenter society and become productive workers. Recovering addicts are able to parent their children and are positive and powerful examples in their community.

In order to decriminalize drugs, society has to abandon the puritanical idea that drug users are morally defective. The government, which has already publicly acknowledged the disease concept of addiction, needs to focus its drug policies on the demand side. The U S government can only relieve drug abuse by treating our addicts through rehabilitation and preventing the use of drugs through education.

Chapter 2:

The War on Drugs: Is it a War Worth Fighting?

The United States has been engaged in a war for nearly 25 years. A war in which there is a great deal of confusion as to why we are engaged in it, and if we are in the war for the right reasons. The resolution of the war is curtailed by varying opinions and subjective statistical proof. The war which has been a continuing struggle, is the war on drugs At the heart of this war is a fundamental question: Is this a battle the United States can win? It is likely everyone will agree drugs are harmful, they have serious medical side-effects. Drugs are addictive; can ruin a family, a job, a life. I agree that drugs have very negative side effects, but is the solution to fight a very costly and ineffective battle to eradicate drugs entirely? Is this even a possibility? I am not so sure, and this paper will show that the war on drugs has likely caused much more harm than good. Further, it will explain why not all drugs are the same, explore some options, and look at the future of the United States, and of the world

We spend $50 billion per year trying to eradicate drugs from this country. According to DEA estimates we capture less than 10 percent of all illicit drugs. In this regard, I have a two part question 1) How much do you think it will cost to stop the other ninety percent? Too much. 2) Does $50 billion a year for a 90% failure rate seem like a good investment to you? I am sure the answer is no. Has the cost of the War on Drugs in terms of billions of dollars, blighted lives, jammed prisons, intensified racism, needless deaths, loss of freedom etc., produced any significant change in drug availability or perceived patterns of drug use? Unfortunately not. Abraham Lincoln said "Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and make crime out of things that are not crimes." It is estimated that 45 million U.S. citizens have tried an illicit drug at least once. How many of the 45 million drug users do you feel we must incarcerate in order to win the war on drugs? Why does the FDA stand up for the right of adults to smoke tobacco, which is highly addictive and causes over 400,000 deaths per year, while decreeing that adults have no right to smoke marijuana, which is non-addictive and kills no one? Alcohol costs thousands of lives, and alcoholism is an accredited disease, but anyone age 21 or older can go to the liquor store and buy alcohol. Drug use is an acknowledged fact of life in every prison in the country. If we can't stop prisoner use of drugs, how can we rationally expect to stop average free citizens from using them? Despite signatures from 85 prominent groups and individuals, why has the Hoover Resolution (a call for an independent panel to revue existing drug policies) not been considered, accepted, or initiated? What lessons from alcohol prohibition lead you to believe that the current drug war will end in victory? At a time when working people are being asked to tighten our belts in order to help balance the budget, how do you justify increasing the funding to the drug law enforcement bureaucracy? Explain why supporting a failed policy of drug law enforcement has a greater priority than student loans or drug education programs. There are so many questions, with so few answers. Now we must consider the solutions. First one must understand what we are dealing with.

Certain drugs are much more serious than others. LSD was originally produced as an elephant tranquilizer and can obviously cause very violent and serious effects. There have been incidents of people, high on LSD, ripping their hands out of hand-cuffs, by breaking every bone in their hands. The scary things is these people didnt even feel it. Cocaine and crack are much more prevalent, very addictive, and can kill you the very first time you try them. Many will remember the great promise of basketball player Len Bias, whose life was taken after one night of experimentation with Cocaine. Heroine use is very addictive, leaves its users feeling and looking empty, and the spread of AIDS is proliferated by the sharing of needles for this drug. So all these drugs can be lumped into the very serious/addictive category, with obvious varying extremes. Should Marijuana fit into this category? A scientific study funded by the White House says no. The study showed, Marijuanas active ingredients seem to have many medical benefits including pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation (Rolling Stone, pg.32). The study also rejected the notion that marijuana is a gateway drug. Many experts believed that using Marijuana is a stepping stone and once people cant get a high from pot, they will move on to more serious drugs. The study gave no proof that this gateway phenomenon existed, and seemed to point in the direction of at least reconsidering our current position on Marijuana. It is clear to me that Marijuana does not belong in the same category as the other drugs, and the proposition of legalization should be seriously considered.

What do we have to enjoy from legalizing Marijuana, and possibly other drugs, or at least regulating there use? Consider the experiences of Holland--a country where drugs fall under the jurisdiction of health agencies, not law enforcement, which has seen a decline in chronic use of hard drugs and casual use of soft drugs since decriminalization. If illegal drugs are so obviously harmful to people's health, why is it necessary to put so many American adults in prison to prevent them from using these drugs? If people want to take drugs, people are going to find a way to get drugs. The problem is the war on drugs is not attacking the right people. The people being hurt are the recreational users who get busted for having $50 worth of pot or cocaine in their pockets. These people arent drug dealers, they arent gang-bangers, they are people with families, that use drugs, and are put away for decades. Consider some simple figures: The number of federal prisoners who are drug offenders is 55, 624, 50% of whom are non-violent first time offenders. 59% of federal prisoners are incarcerated for drug chargers, compared to only 2.5% incarcerated for violent crimes. 717, 720 Americans were arrested in 1997 for murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (combined), while 695,200 were arrested for marijuana offenses alone (Playboy, pg. 47). I feel the last figures are the most telling. It just seems like the purpose of the war on drugs has been lost, and as a result of the powers that be not accepting an alternative, other battles are being lost as well. Jimmy Carter once said, Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself (Playboy, pg. 47). Currently this is not the case, and this is just another example of a need for change.

Another major problem with our current situation is money. Not only is it expensive to prosecute drug offenders, it is expensive to detain them. Currently, more money is being put into building prisons than into building schools. In 1998, 16 billion dollars were spent in federal funding for the war on drugs. That is an astronomical number, and it seems as if the results dont go along with the effort. If all this time and money is being spent on education, and prevention, and treatment, and the numbers continue to rise, then an alternative must be sought. As immoral and ridiculous as legalization may seem to some, all the facts seem to show that it, at the very least, deserves consideration. Without a solution to the current situation, the U.S. will remain in a vicious circle with no hope of coming out of it.

Where do we go from here? Clearly major steps need to be taken. I believe the first step is an admission by the administration that our current system doesnt work. The next step must be to find out what the opinion is on the streets and in the schools. Do the education and awareness efforts work? What makes someone decide to try drugs? What is the biggest influence on the child? Maybe by taking note of what other countries have done, for example Holland which was mentioned earlier, the U.S. can get ideas for some sort of compromise. It seems to me that the U.S. is set in its ways that drugs will not be tolerated and that this is a battle we must win. What must be realized is that changing our policies is not an admission of defeat. This shouldnt be a matter of egos or overly conservative opinions. The bottom line is that drug use needs to be reduced, the murders must be brought down, and the number of people incarcerated must be decreased.

The modern drug war began in the 1960s, and for thirty five years it has failed to produce and real success. Which is better for America during the next 35 years, prohibition with the continuing costs and ineffectiveness, or reform policies that approach the problem from a different angle. Instead of spending so much money on imprisoning drug offenders and preaching why drugs are bad, why not spend the money on schools, and school programs? The idea is to keep kids from using drugs, and this will in turn reduce the numbers of adults that use drugs. The same goal is present in alcohol and cigarettes, and it is handled much differently. Why not treat at least Marijuana just like cigarettes and alcohol. Dont make it illegal, just take steps to discourage people from using it. Education is a must, but prosecuting small time offenders is pointless. The facts just dont do much to support the war on drugs. Consider some facts and costs that this country has undertaken as a result of attempting to make drug use illegal.

I will end this report with some outlined problems with keeping drugs illegal. There is a need for change, and this must be realized soon:

The war on drugs has failed. By making drugs illegal, this country has:

1) Put half a million people in prison : $10 Billion a year

2) Spent billions annually for expanded law enforcement

3) Fomented violence and death (in gang turf wars, overdoses from uncontrolled drug potency & shared needles/AIDS)

4) Eroded civil rights (property can be confiscated from you BEFORE you are found guilty; search and wiretap authority has expanded.)

5) Enriched criminal organizations.

The street price of a single ounce of pure cocaine is several thousands of dollars, yet the cost to produce the drug is less than $20. The difference is the amount we are willing to pay to criminals for the privilege of keeping the drug illegal. Not only that, but such a high markup is strong incentive for people to enter into the sales and trafficking of these drugs. The stiff penalties we assess against drug dealers only makes the price higher and the criminals more desperate to escape capture, more determined to protect their market from encroachment. If drugs were legalized, the price would drop by to a tiny fraction of their current street values and the incentive to push drugs would vanish.

Recall that during prohibition, bootleggers and police used to shoot it out over black market 'shine. Illegal speakeasies did a booming trade, the profits of which went to organized crime. With the end of prohibition, alcohol has been taxed and provides a revenue stream to the State. Would drug use go up? Maybe. But it might well go down, since there would be no profit in getting new users to try drugs.

Protecting drug users against themselves costs the rest of us too much: in dollars, in safety and in freedom.

The Final thought is simply this: The drug war is not working, and if alternatives are not considered now, a solution may never be possible.

References:

Collett, Merril. 1989. The Cocaine Connection: Drug Trafficking, and Inter-American

Relations. New York, NY: Foreign Policy Assoc. Series

McWilliams, John C. 1990. The Protectors: Harry J. Anslinger and the Federal Bureau

Of Narcotics, 1930-1962. Newark: University of Delaware Press

Nadelmann, Ethan. (1991). The Case for Legalization, in James Inciardi, ed., The

Drug Legalization Debate. (pp.19-20). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Rosenberger, Leif R. 1996. Americas Drug War Debacle. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate

Publishing Co.

Sharp, Elaine B. 1994. The Dilemma of Drug Policy in the United States. New York,

NY: HarperCollins College Publishers

Trebach, Arnold. 1982. The Heroin Solution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

Wisotsky, Steven. 1990. Beyond the War on Drugs. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books

Read the original here:

The United States War on Drugs - Stanford University