Category Archives: War On Drugs

Last year, the city of Baltimore took a novel approach to fighting low-level crime: it stopped.

In an effort to curb the spread of coronavirus through the city's prisons, Baltimore State Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced the city would no longer prosecute low-level crimes, like prostitution, outdoor alcohol consumption, drug possession, and minor traffic infractions, among others.

The plan appeared to mirror a plot line in HBO's acclaimed crime series, The Wire, which portrayed the gritty and often desperate lives of police, criminals, and the public living and working on the city's streets.

In the show's third season, the Baltimore PD designates a neighbourhood in the city as a prosecution-free zone for drug use and possession, which comes to be known as "Hamsterdam".

Despite the series' gritty realism provided by creator and former Baltimore Sun journalist David Simon's exhaustive time embedded with police and the communities they patrolled The Wire is still a work of fiction. Could such a project actually achieve a positive change in the city?

Read more

It appears so.

According to data provided by Ms Mosby, the change in policing resulted in a marked drop in incarcerations. That is to be expected.

What surprised many people including Baltimore Police Commissioner Michael Harrison was that the reduction in low-level prosecutions appears to have triggered a decline in nearly all categories of crime in the city.

The officers told me they did not agree with that paradigm shift, Mr Harrison told The Washington Post.

He expected crime to rise. But it did not.

Property crime dropped 36 per cent, and there were 13 fewer homicides in the city than in the previous year. There were 20 per cent fewer individuals who entered prison over the year long span, and 39 per cent fewer people who entered the city's criminal justice system in one way or the other.

Mr Harrison could not deny the data.

It continued to go down through 2020. As a practitioner, as an academic, I can say theres a correlation between the fact that we stopped making these arrests and crime did not go up, he said.

As violent crime skyrocketed in cities across the nation, those crimes in Baltimore a city that is still among the most violent in the country did not.

After a year of falling crime, Ms Mosby announced on Friday that the changes to Baltimore's policing called The Covid Criminal Justice Policies would be implemented permanently.

A year ago, we underwent an experiment in Baltimore, Ms Mosby said in an interview. What we learned in that year, and its so incredibly exciting, is theres no public safety value in prosecuting these low-level offences. These low-level offences were being, and have been, discriminately enforced against Black and Brown people.

As a result, she said the changes would stay.

The era of tough on crime prosecutors is over in Baltimore, Ms Mosby said. We have to rebuild the communitys trust in the criminal justice system and thats what we will do, so we can focus on violent crime.

Ms Mosby said Baltimore police would instead focus on drug trafficking and violent criminals, and would work in tandem with a nonprofit, Baltimore Crisis Response, Inc, to address mental health issues, people struggling with drug addiction, and homelessness.

Kobi Little, the head of the city's NAACP chapter, said during a press conference that the move was recognition of decades of heavy handed policing causing more problems than it solved.

We want to see more elected officials stand up on these issues, he said.

With the programme permanently in place in Baltimore, the question now is whether or not it will be or can be replicated in other cities across the US.

Like Ms Mosby, prosecutors around the country worked to thin out the crowds in prisons in an effort to curb the spread of the coronavirus among inmate populations. Both Boston and Seattle implemented similar policies regarding low level crime, and in certain parts of California in and around Los Angeles, prosecutors have stopped taking low-level drug offenders to court.

While it's currently unclear if prosecutors will continue those policies once the pandemic has been brought under control, some recently elected prosecutors have vowed their pullback on low-level crimes will remain permanent.

Cook County's State Attorney Kim Foxx has already reduced penalties for minor offences and worked to funnel some individuals facing drug charges into treatment programmes rather than jail.

She ran on a platform of reforming the criminal justice system in a way to stop the disproportionate focus on people of colour and mentally ill individuals.

Jose Garza, the newly elected district attorney of Travis County, where Austin, Texas is located, said he was also going to turn his focus away from prosecuting low level drug offences.

"We also know that those kind of offences are one of the greatest drivers of racial disparities in our criminal justice system," Mr Garza told NPR. "So we have made clear that when we take office we will end the prosecution of low-level drug offences."

They may just be the start of a broader wave of prosecutors turning away from minor crime policing, particularly now that Baltimore's data can serve as a precedent.

Continued here:

Baltimore ends war on drugs with plot line straight from The Wire - The Independent

(Graphic Illustration by Bella Eckburg | The Collegian)

Editors Note:All opinion section content reflects the views of the individual author only and does not represent a stance taken by The Collegian or its editorial board.

Every 25 seconds, someone is arrested for drug possession. One in five incarcerated people are locked up for drug offenses. The amount of people in prison for drug offenses is in the tens of thousands.

Yet lawmakers are answering citizen initiatives and are legalizing those ever-so-scary drugs, namely cannabis. Good.

Lets start with some background. The war on drugs is Americas longest war, starting 50 years ago under former President Richard Nixon. At the time, Nixon called drug abuse public enemy number one. In 1973, Nixoncreated the Drug Enforcement Administration, which federally enforces the war on drugs. The agency sees its funding bolstered with each passing year, putting more and more money into the war on drugs.

Presidents on both sides of the aisle continued the war, from Ronald Reagan reiterating that the war on drugs was one of Americas most pressing issues to Bill Clinton raising a very prominent anti-drug voice into his cabinet. Even Joe Bidens administrationfired staffers for recreational cannabis use just a few weeks ago, despite the fact that smoking marijuana is legal in Washington, D.C.

The biggest issue at hand is that the war on drugs is inherently rooted in racism, and we see that in its history.

The term marijuana holds racist roots. In the 1930s, with the depression looming and xenophobia rising, the United States government saw an opportunity. They rebranded cannabis as marijuana and criminalized it in order to stoke racist fears of Mexican immigrants.

One way or another, this darkness has got to give, and it seems like the time has come for us to finally end Americas longest and costliest war.

Thankfully, politicians are starting to fix these deeply rooted issues. Policy is beginning to represent and portray the realities around weed, as 16 statesand Washington, D.C., have fully legalized marijuana and even more have decriminalized it. That number is growing with each passing election cycle as more and more politicians see the benefits of legalization.

Consider our home state of Colorado, which was one of the first states to legalize recreational cannabis use. Colorados 2012 vote on legalization seems to already be reversing many of the war on drugs detrimental effects. For example, marijuana offenses fell drastically after legalization, and have stayed low. Marijuana-related DUIs are also relatively low when compared to other intoxicants,disproving another claim that stoned drivers would be running amok on Colorado roads.

Economically, legalization has been great for Colorado. The state has routinely collected millions of dollars in marijuana tax revenue over the past few years, and much of that money is going to fund public schools, law enforcement and health care. On top of that, marijuana sales were one of the few pieces of Colorados economy that held steady through the pandemics economic downturn, providing the state with an important monetary lifeline.

Colorado isnt alone. Alaskasaw an added $17 million in cannabis tax revenue, and Nevadais projected to see billions of dollars worth of cannabis related revenue.

Imagine if these benefits went nationwide. With the tax revenue, we could bolster funding for schools, health care, infrastructure and other federal projects. We could make strides to ending mass incarceration, which particularly impacts people of color. We could finally end a chapter of our nations history that exists mainly to perpetuate structural racism within our country.

One way or another, this darkness has got to give, and it seems like the time has come for us to finally end Americas longest and costliest war. So light one up if youre of age turn on a heady Grateful Dead showand tell your elected officials to end the war on drugs.

Dylan Tusinski can be reached atletters@collegian.comor on Twitter@unwashedtiedye.

Read more:

Tusinski: Weed is winning the war on drugs. Good. The Rocky Mountain Collegian - Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Haymaker is Leafly Senior Editor Bruce Barcotts opinion column on cannabis politics and culture.

As we near the three-month mark of his administration, President Bidens cannabis policy has so far been defined by inaction and unforced errors. Cannabis is so absent that the White Houses official Year One Drug Policy Priorities listissued on April 1, but not a joke, and yet also a jokedoesnt even mention the word cannabis.

Firing five White House staffers for past cannabis use sent a message: The stigma, scorn, and arrests will continue on Bidens watch.

Whats going on? Earlier this week, when the San Francisco Chronicle asked Vice President Kamala Harris about legalization, she said, We havent yet taken that on because the White House has been focused on getting shots into arms and other essentials. That has been all-consuming, she said.

Fair enough. The Biden/Harris team got 150 million shots in 150 million arms in 75 daysa huge success that deserves widespread praise.

But governments are built to tackle many issues at once. The federal government employs more than two million people. Not all of them are working on vaccine logistics. In fact, many of them spend their days carrying out the worst cruelties of cannabis prohibition.

Related

Kamala Harris evolved slowly on legalization, but shes all about it now

Some of President Bidens direct reports, in fact, wasted precious days last month firing five White House staffers for being honest about their past cannabis consumptiona political own-goal that made sense to exactly no one.

Other Biden employees continue to ruin lives by imposing prison sentences that wed call human rights violations if they happened overseas. Last month the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts, who works for Bidens attorney general, sent a Boston-area plumber to federal prison for 12 years. As Leaflys Dave Howard noted, the plumbers crime wasnt murder or assault. It was growing weed without a license.

That same month, police in Allen, Texas, arrested Marvin Scott III for minor cannabis possession. Four hours later, after being choked, pepper sprayed, and blinded with a restraining hood, Scott died in police custody. The only reason Marvin Scott was in police custodythe only reason he was killedwas the two ounces of weed police found in his pocket.

Federal law didnt directly cause Marvin Scotts death. But theres a strong chain of custody leading from the Biden White House to the death of a man in a Texas holding cell.

That custody began with President Bidens decision to fire five staffers for consuming a product thats legal for all adults in 17 states. Presidential power is expressed in word and symbol as much as in policy and law. The firing of the Biden Five sent a clear message from the President: These people are unworthy of my trust.

Those firings reinforced a program of racism and forced stigmatization carried out by the federal government since the 1930s. Congress outlawed cannabis in 1937 based on Harry Anslingers bag of racist beans. Since then, that unjust federal criminalization has been upheld by convincing generations of Americans that people who enjoy cannabis are dirty criminals who get what they deserve. In the 1980s, D.A.R.E. taught children to report their pot-smoking parents to the cops. In the 1990s, the Clinton White House secretly paid network television producers to depict cannabis consumers as shiftless losers.

In the 2020s, President Biden is firing White House staffers and treating weed-growing plumbers like murderers.

Related

Americas war on drugs has been racist for a century

Through his actions, Biden sent a nod and a wink to cops nationwide, giving them the green light to keep arresting 545,000 Marvin Scotts every year.

Cannabis stigma kills. It killed Marvin Scott. It killed Philando Castile. It killed Keith Lamont Scott.

He provided political cover for his old friends in the Senate, giving them permission to stall legalization bills and continue the worst atrocities of the failed War on Drugs. Barely three months into his term, Joe Biden is continuing the vicious narrative that stigmatizes cannabis consumers as immoral, unclean, shifty, and dangerous.

Cannabis stigma kills. It killed Marvin Scott. It killed Philando Castile and Keith Lamont Scott. The Minneapolis cop who shot Castile said the purported smell of marijuana from Castiles car made him fear for his life. Fear for his life: The idea is preposterous to anyone whos actually enjoyed cannabis. But it makes sense to many whove been trained by the government to fear marijuana and denigrate the millions of normal people who consume it.

Fortunately, more and more Americans are waking up from the governments eight decades of deception. Three-quarters of registered voters now believe federal prohibition should end, and 17 states have legalized cannabis for all adults.

Its time for President Biden to see prohibition for what it isand to recognize Americas hard-working, law-abiding cannabis consumers for who we are. We are decent people who deserve the same respect and dignity accorded to people who, for whatever reason, choose not to enjoy cannabis.

Enough with the stigma. Enough with the firings, the arrests, the reputational smears, and the police killings. End federal prohibition now.

Is President Biden busy? Of course. All presidents are. But while he attends to other issues, more than 545,000 Americans continue to be needlessly, senselessly, arrested every year. Some, like Marvin Scott, die during those arrests.

Perhaps Biden is waiting for Congress to take the lead on legalization. If so, hell have a chance to step up and proclaim his support for true reform soon enough. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is preparing an all-encompassing legalization bill that may be introduced later this month. Its expected to be the next iteration of the MORE Act, which passed the House but failed in the Senate late last year.

Joe Biden caused this mess years ago as a young senator who believed he was doing the right thing. But it was a mistake. His crime legislation opened Americas age of mass incarceration. He was a driving force behind civil asset forfeiture, mandatory minimum sentences, and the militarization of our police.

If Schumers bill moves forward, President Biden will have the opportunity to correct those mistakes and atone for his misguided work.

So far he has chosen not to. Hes busy, they say.

Related

Joe Bidens Drug War Record Is So Much Worse Than You Think

Bruce Barcott

Leafly Senior Editor Bruce Barcott oversees news, investigations, and feature projects. He is a Guggenheim Fellow and author of Weed the People: The Future of Legal Marijuana in America.

By submitting this form, you will be subscribed to news and promotional emails from Leafly and you agree to Leafly's Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You can unsubscribe from Leafly email messages anytime.

View original post here:

President Biden isn't 'too busy' to carry out the cruelties of the Drug War - Leafly

As the country grapples with record high numbers in COVID-19 cases that have forced the government to extend the highly-restrictive lockdown in the NCR Plus area, drug-related killings have not abated, reaching 186 in the first three months of this year.

Thats a striking 44% increase from the last quarter of 2020. Or almost two deaths a day.

Among the dead is an unidentified male victim found in Victorias City, Negros Occidental on March 8. His face was wrapped in plastic and packaging tape, his limbs tied together, and his ears apparently ripped by a bullet that exited through the neck. Later examination revealed broken ribs. Placed beside the body was a placard that said, I love drugs, and the name of a woman believed to be the next target.

The corpse bore all the familiar marks of a drug war body dump, but police officials would not categorically say that the killing was drug-related. What is certain is that the crime was committed amid the violence spawned by the war against illegal drugs that the Duterte administration unleashed almost five years ago.

Who killed them?

All killings were committed by state agents and vigilantes against mostly small-time drug traffickers, according to an ongoing study of the Third World Studies Center of the University of the Philippines and the Department of Conflict and Development Studies of the University of Ghent. Data for the Violence, Human Rights, and Democracy in the Philippines joint project were gathered from news articles from various media outlets in the country.

Law enforcers, particularly the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, continue to commit the majority or 137 of the killings reported for the first quarter.

The data show that in 107 of these cases, the victims died during official anti-drug raids, usually a buy-bust such as the botched operation conducted on February 21 in Quezon City involving the PNP and PDEA. The so-called misencounter left five dead: two Quezon City policemen, a PDEA agent, an informant, and a fifth fatality whose affiliation was withheld by authorities.Several from both sides were also wounded.

In another controversial incident in Valencia City, Bukidnon just the day before, a police officer in plain clothes was caught on video firing a gun three times on the ground before planting the weapon on a dead suspect who allegedly engaged the police in a firefight.Suspicion on the truthfulness of this usual and tired police narrative prompted calls for an internal investigation on the incident.

According to the research, 28 of those killed by state forces were involved in drug trafficking but they died during operations that were not necessarily targeted against illegal drugs. Also notable is the persistence of vigilante-style executions despite the heightened visibility of police and military officers enforcing strict COVID-19 quarantine protocols. Out of the 186 drug-related killings, 49 were committed by unidentified assailants -- usually masked, motorcycle-riding gunmen with no witnesses.

Aside from the incident in Victorias City, four other cases of body dumps were reported from January to March this year.All corpses bore similar displays of savagery. One found in Barangay 75, Caloocan City on March 21, had a placard that read: Tulak ako. Wag tularan. Susunod na kayo!!!

Images of these lifeless bodies left with placards implicating them in the illegal drug trade were common, especially during the first three months of the Duterte Administration when 79 cases of body dumps were recorded.Although the number has fallen, the cases in the first quarter of 2021 are notably higher compared to the previous three months when only two such incidents were reported.

Drug war casualties

Despite repeated public pronouncement from the PNP leadership to go after the big fish behind the illegal drug trade (The PNP Chiefs Scorecard on the War on Drugs; Bato Tops in the Number of Kills, minor players continue to bear the brunt of the campaign.Data reveal that 96 or a little more than half of those killed so far this year were small-time pushers while 11%, or 21 were high-profile targets involved in large-scale distribution of narcotics, or protectors of drug suspects.

The numbers include 16 victims who were not involved in trafficking but died in drug-related encounters and are considered collateral damage. Since the start of Dutertes term in June 2016 to the end of last year, 77 such cases have been recorded, including seven children below the age of eight. Seven more were added to the list in the first quarter of 2021 -- in addition to cases of mistaken identity such as the five operatives who died in the misencounter between PDEA and PNP.

News reports included in the study cited various sources to establish a victims involvement in the illegal drug trade.Most of those killed during official anti-drug operations (111 in total) had undergone investigation, including 26 who were on the governments drug watch list. Of the 26, 17 were killed by law enforcers.

Data on the 22 victims who had surrendered in the past, or were previously arrested or convicted paint a different picture. Vigilantes and unknown assailants killed 17 of those who fall in this category, while law enforcers account for only five deaths. This is consistent with the Administrations record so far: of the 323 drug-related killings under this classification, state agents account for only 37% or 121. Vigilantes and non-state agents, including unknown assailants, carried out 63% or 202 of these executions.

These figures provide a rather grim picture of the fate of convicted or confessed drug traffickers who, after surrendering or serving time in prison, must constantly live with a gun to their heads.

The governments Real Numbers PH pegs the number of persons killed during anti-drug operations at 6,069 from July 1, 2016 - February 28, 2021. This is much more than the 3,417 recorded by the research project, which relies on media reports, for the same starting date untilMarch 31, 2021.

However, from December 1, 2020 - February 28, 2021, Real Numbers PH reported only 89 dead from anti-drug operations, while the ongoing study counted 111. It is unclear if the discrepancy is the result of miscounting that will eventually be corrected or deliberate underreporting.

But even as all eyes are on the daily toll of the raging pandemic, there remains a vital need to monitor and document the rising number of drug war killings in the country as possible future efforts to press for justice and accountability could depend on them.

(Nixcharl C. Noriega is a research associate at the Third World Studies Center, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines Diliman. This piece is part of the on-going research project, Violence, Human Rights, and Democracy in the Philippines. The projects output can be accessed at dahas.upd.edu.ph. For the latest in the running count of the reported drug-related killings in the Philippines, follow @DahasPH on Twitter.)

Excerpt from:

Drug war logs 186 killings in first quarter of the year amid surge in COVID-19 cases - Vera Files - Vera Files

In the 50 years since President Richard Nixon initiated the war on drugs, politicians of both major parties have endorsed aggressive police tactics and harsh punishments to combat substance abuse, and minority communities have disproportionately suffered. Black Americans are several times more likely than whites to be arrested for low-level marijuana offenses, despite comparable usage rates. Now with federal marijuana legalization a real possibility, and the drug war widely regarded as a failure, one of the central questions is how to compensate its victims.

New York and New Jerseys new cannabis laws aim to create paths for entrepreneurs of color to join the industry. Within the cannabis world, this concept is known as equity. In theory, it promises an elegant symmetry: Massive demand for cannabis will pump money into the communities most damaged by drug-war tactics. In recent years, however, as marijuana legalization has made headway state by state, numerous jurisdictions have implemented similar plans with only token success. The people running and profiting from legal cannabis are overwhelmingly rich white guys, and without drastic changes, its likely to stay that way.

WIth everyone stressed and stuck at home, 2020 was a very good year for the weed business. Legal cannabis sales jumped roughly 50 percent to $18 billion. Only 15 or so states have substantial marijuana markets but they generated almost as much revenue from pot sales as Netflix did globally. Cannabis is arguably the countrys fastest growing industry. Sales will more than double by 2025.

Legalization has delivered a measure of justice. In legal states, arrests for nonviolent cannabis offenses have generally plummeted. And some have created programs to expunge criminal records for minor pot-related offenses. (Having a record can block access to student loans, public housing, jobs, and other opportunities. Whether equity benefits extend to those with past cannabis convictions varies from state to state.)

The people running and profiting from legal cannabis are overwhelmingly rich white guys, and without drastic changes, its likely to stay thatway.

Efforts to support minority-owned cannabis businesses havent gone as well. Despite extraordinary demand for the product, its very difficult to run a profitable cannabis company. State regulations and the complications associated with federal illegality create hurdles and costs that dont exist in other industries.

Increasingly, a group of larger companies known as multistate operators, or MSOs, dominate the industry. While still small compared with, say, liquor companies, the largest MSOs have dozens of stores and hundreds of millions in annual revenue. Leading MSOs such as Curaleaf, Cresco Labs, and Columbia Care have raised money by going public in Canada.

Left behind are mom-and-pop entrepreneurs, including those who could benefit from equity programs. In the mainstream economy, entrepreneurs of color often struggle to access capital, but in the cannabis world, the entire industry is locked out of the financial system. Some banks are willing to quietly work with pot companies and charge them high fees, but smaller businesses cant afford this option.

For several years, legal-weed jurisdictions have tried to support equity businesses by prioritizing them for licenses, various forms of financial support, and other benefits. The approach, which New York and New Jersey are generally following, hasnt worked, and as the MSOs expand, the odds grow slimmer that they will. (New Jerseys market could open in a few months, while New Yorkers probably have to wait until 2022. In the meantime, recreational marijuana use has now been decriminalized in both states.)

Cities and states lack the resources and expertise to support small businesses competing against the MSOs. It would seem absurd for a state government to help small-time entrepreneurs compete against Starbucks or Pepsi, but thats essentially what they propose for cannabis. New Jersey hopes to reserve 25 percent of licenses for residents of impact zones, but awarding the licenses to disadvantaged entrepreneurs is not the same as enabling them to compete against far larger and better capitalized companies.

The preferences inherent to these efforts also attract legal challenges. In marquee markets like Los Angeles and Illinois, lawsuits filed by aspiring licensees have effectively halted the rollout of equity programs, as larger companies gobble up market share.

Further complicating matters, each legal state has had to craft its own cannabis regulations. Politicians and regulators dont necessarily understand that the equity provisions theyre supporting arent going to work. And they have other concerns, like keeping pot away from kids.

In these situations, the MSOs and their lobbyists are happy to step in with recommendations for how markets should be structured. And they present a reassuringly bland corporate face to wary lawmakers. In Illinois, Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker boasted that he signed the countrys most equity-centric cannabis law. In practice, the market functions as what a Chicago investment banker described to me as a state-mandated oligopoly. Regulatory decisions such as limiting the number of licenses, charging high fees to applicants, and setting aside microbusiness licenses for equity companies go a long way to determine who participates and succeeds in a market. Whether or not its the intention, state laws pick winners by amplifying big companies advantages.

The MSOs arent inherently opposed to equity. On social media, many of them strike a woke pose, just like the giant companies they aspire to be. Far fewer have committed substantial resources to diversity within the industry or their own organizations.

If cannabis is going to steer wealth into the communities ravaged by the war on drugs, MSOs probably have to be enlisted in the effort. The available evidence suggests these companies arent sold on the value of diversity. States could change that by structuring their laws in ways that acknowledge the difficulties equity entrepreneurs have encountered thus far. They could incentivize, for example, MSOs to create executive training programs or invest in equity businesses. Another possibility is for MSOs to franchise or license their brands, like fast food restaurants and hotels, creating entry points for individual entrepreneurs.

Seventeen states have legalized marijuana and dozens more allow some form of medical use. In coming weeks, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is expected to release a bill to federally legalize, or at least decriminalize, cannabis. He and his co-drafters, Sens. Ron Wyden and Cory Booker, have repeatedly indicated that the bill will make restitutions for the war on drugs. Its not clear whether they will prioritize the needs of equity entrepreneurs (or whether such a bill could pass the Senate).

Steve DeAngelo, an activist and executive whos sometimes called the father of legal cannabis, likes to talk about how cannabis has the potential to be a different kind of industry, one with more humane values than are typically ascribed to major corporations. That will only happen if well-crafted laws force it do so. If they dont, cannabis will look a lot like every other industry.

Read the rest here:

States Keep Repeating the Same Mistake With Marijuana Legalization - Slate

International Relations April 8, 2021 Earvin Charles Cabalquinto and Maria Tanyag

According to the World Health Organization, the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in the Philippines on 20 January 2020. More than a year later, there are now more than 800,000 confirmed cases, about 13,800 deaths and a surge of 5000 new cases in one day. Approximately 41 per cent of the total number of confirmed cases are from the National Capital Region (NCR), where Manila is located.

The death toll from Rodrigo Dutertes Drug War since July 2016 ranges from a conservative estimate of 8,663 people according to the UN Human Rights Council, to possibly thrice as high based on statements from the Philippine Commission on Human Rights. The official record from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the agency implementing Dutertes Drug War, is at 6,011 deaths from July 2016 to December 2020.

Alarmingly, the national pandemic response is even being harnessed in the service of the Drug War with extrajudicial killings registering a 50 per cent increase between April and July 2020. Both COVID-19 related deaths and extrajudicial killings linked with the War on Drugs have been popularly represented by the Duterte government as disconnected from, or outside of, all the range and repertoires of repression at the states disposal.

Yet prior to the pandemic, Filipinos were already primed for and inoculated to mass loss of life and human rights violations, precisely because of the militarism that has been the logic of security under Dutertes rule. We can understand everyday life in the Philippines as part of an ongoing continuum of violence, from the first day that Duterte launched his war on drugs, to the present militarized response to the health crisis. The Philippines was already suffering a murderous plague which made death paradoxically both an abstract and visceral reality for many Filipinos, even before the disease outbreak.

It matters, therefore, that we constantly articulate how tragedy and mass loss of life are routine and logical outcomes under Duterte and why this government must be made accountable for the murderous plague it has authored. Filipinos must maintain their demands for better leadership, crisis response and management despite the persistent gaslighting by the President, his spokespersons, and enabling members of his regime. The forthcoming May 2022 national elections have prompted discussions on the importance of leadership among specific sectors mobilized by the question, pangulo or pang-gulo (president or nuisance)? At the highest level of power, does the Philippines have someone who leads, or someone who self-servingly obstructs recovery and fuels division?

Dutertes default approach has been to wield the military and police at every crisis. However, this approach generates its own crises because the truncated lens of militarism comes up inadequate in addressing the multidimensional root causes and consequences to much of the global security challenges we are facing today. Based on the best available science, and what COVID-19 is demonstrating globally, state leaders must be able to address a drastically changed security landscape where the heightened intensity and frequency of extreme events will threaten all areas of human life and ecosystems. What has been undeniable is that leaders disastrously fall short of managing crises whether in the context of armed conflicts, disasters and climate change, or health pandemics when they do not incorporate a range of perspectives and expertise.

Dutertes military and police-driven approach to every national decision-making process is exclusionary. He has sought to frame Filipinos, especially frontline health workers who express their discontent, as enemies who do nothing but complain. Because he reproduces and invests in militarizing crises, he cannot but interpret differing views as an existential threat to his power. The Philippines therefore has a leader that forecloses spaces for civic deliberation and participation at a time when these are most needed.

The drug war has gradually created the institutional and rhetorical foundations that enable other forms of violence: the use of Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 and red-tagging to silence opposition; the compounded suffering of internally displaced communities as resources are diverted away from the forgotten crises in Marawi and Tacloban; and ongoing violence and development aggression against Indigenous peoples and environmental activists. Dutertes war on drugs has been argued to satisfy the stages of genocide.

The pandemic is also mediated by a pervasive climate of disinformation in the Philippines. The deadly combination of militarism and disinformation has been effective in fragmenting and eliminating political opposition, and in state repression more generally. Over the past years, Philippine democracy has been constantly threatened and undermined by the rapid and increased production and dissemination of misinformation and disinformation. A study has shown how insidious, partisan and curated content is produced and circulated by architects of networked disinformation, including influencers, online celebrities, politicians in-house teams, and marketing companies. These players have weaponized the internet to support and bolster the operations of Dutertes administration in designing and implementing a political and militarist agenda.

An evident outcome of weaponizing social media platforms is the silencing of dissent. Paid trolls, bot armies and a range of fake news websites run by supporters of Duterte have targeted and harassed individuals and institutions. For instance, in 2018, Maria Ressa, the chief executive of Rappler, was the target of state-sponsored patriotic trolling, misogynistic comments and hate speech. Meanwhile, the Philippine government attempted to revoke Rapplers license in 2018. Notably in 2020, Philippine lawmakers rejected the franchise renewal for ABS-CBN, a Philippines broadcasting company also critical of Dutertes governance.

Misinformation and disinformation also impact the lives of ordinary Filipinos in national and transnational contexts. A report shows that Filipinos spend an average of 4 hours and 15 minutes each day on different social media channels. These online platforms have also been used to sustain ties among overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and their families. For the ten million Filipinos spread across the world, social media and mobile applications have become valuable tools to remain connected to home. However, these channels serve as key sites for producing and disseminating fake information. For example, a study on the 2019 Philippine election shows how OFWs are targeted by online communities that disseminate falsehoods and manipulative content.

More recently, an infodemic has emerged in tandem with the COVID-19 pandemic. The spread of hoaxes and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and attacks on the credibility of the World Health Organization (WHO) re-victimises all those who have died in the pandemic and the families they have left behind. In a digital environment muddled by falsehoods and inaccuracies, people are afforded narratives that only validate their own pre-existing beliefs and affirm experiences that reflect their immediate or narrow environment. This makes it all the more possible for those in positions of power and privilege to detach (and stay out of touch) from the harsh realities millions of Filipinos are facing.

The use of digital technologies at a time of crisis can stir heightened ambivalence among Filipinos. On the one hand, greater online connectivity affords the maintenance of intimate ties transnationally. However, it is the same connectivity that can potentially be used to distort understanding of social welfare, human rights, and personal and familial futures through the lens of fear. Akin to the pandemic, widespread disinformation is slowly but effectively killing mutual trust and civic participation in Philippine society. It does this by eroding Filipinos access to reliable information and their right to thrive in democratic spaces. Crucially, disinformation hinders Filipinos from seeing the structural inequalities, marginalization and exploitation that implicates us all. There is neither one person nor a silver bullet that can magically vanquish in six months what has been built over decades by political and economic systems in the Philippines. It will take care, collective action and mutual responsibility.

Crises can provide windows of opportunity to overhaul ossified harms done by this government, and repair what good is left. Deaths and killings may be mundane now but they do not have to be acceptable: not now and not in the future. There is a need to develop antidotes that can reclaim, secure and protect democracy. As the COVID-19 pandemic intersects with Dutertes murderous plague, Filipinos are faced with clear lessons that can be brought to bear in the next election.

First, there is no path to rapid recovery and it takes inclusive governance and leadership to realise long-lasting and crisis-proof reconstruction. Moving forward, Filipinos might be more sceptical and suspicious of leaders promising to do everything without demanding shared responsibilities and recognising diverse expertise from the Filipino public. Globally, we are also seeing youth-led protests both from afar such as in the US, and closer in neighbouring Thailand and Myanmar, against police and military violence as well as outdated styles and systems of militarized authority. While their rule may seem inescapable at present, young people are taking the lead in sending a clear message: the myth of the strongman is no more.

Second, the killings were indirectly enabled by the political fragmentation and societal division accelerated by digital technologies. What proved most effective in stifling collective action was the framing of political engagements in terms of camp politics and loyalties us versus them / DDS versus Dilawan instead of under a unifying identity of the Filipino people. Dutertes success in fulfilling an initial populist desire for a strongman leader is an outcome of previous failures in crisis response under the Aquino government. Rather than see Duterte and Aquino as oppositional, we need to see the violent continuity between the two different models of leadership.

Third, the rise and resilience of Dutertes strongman rule is connected with his leveraging of underlying sexism, misogyny, class and regional prejudices in Philippine society. Clearly, Dutertes misogyny is no laughing matter. Rape jokes are neither humorous nor harmless. His speeches form part of, and feed, societal violence. Finally, the path to stopping the killings will be long and difficult, but necessary. The governance challenges ahead will be more complex and difficult. An indispensable step in this direction is recognising and healing from collective grief on a transnational scale. Then the task of refocusing energies toward building new leaders and political agendas can begin.

This article first published on the New Mandala website.

Dr Earvin Charles Cabalquinto is a Lecturer in Communication in the School of Communication and Creative Arts at Deakin University. His book entitled (Im)mobile Homes: Family at a distance in the age of mobile media is forthcoming under the Mobile Communication Series of Oxford University Press.

Dr Maria Tanyag is a Research Fellow (Lecturer) in the Department of International Relations, Coral Bell School of Asia Pacific Affairs at the Australian National University.

View post:

A Murderous Plague in the Philippines - The Bullet - Socialist Project

The Manipur unit of Congress has asked the BJP-led government to name the Ministers, MLAs and police officers who have nexus with drug dealers and kingpins of the illegal trade.

The demand was based on a statement by BJP legislator Lourembam Rameshwor, also Deputy Chairman of Manipur State Planning Board, that the drug menace can be overcome only if some Ministers, MLAs and police officers work with sincerity.

The statement by the BJP legislator on a public platform on April 2 regarding the insincerity of some Ministers, MLAs and police officers in waging war on drugs questions the State governments efforts to check the menace, Congress spokesperson Ningombam Bupenda Meitei told journalists in Imphal.

Given the situation, the government should come out with a list of lawmakers and police officers involved in drug-related crimes. If it cannot, the much-hyped war on drugs is a complete failure.

Claiming that none of the current Congress MLAs are involved in drug-related crimes, Mr. Meitei pointed out that former Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh had, in order to clear the peoples doubts, handed over a drug seizure case to the CBI after one of his relatives was allegedly involved in it.

The party also asked why the BJP-led government was refusing to file an appeal in the High Court regarding a drug seizure case involving Lhukhosei Zou, a former autonomous district council chairman, while it legally pursues certain cases where the accused have already been acquitted.

Continue reading here:

Name Ministers, cops involved with drug dealers: Manipur Congress - The Hindu

Dessa Bergen-Cico

Dessa Bergen-Cico, professor of public health in the Falk College, authored an op-ed for Syracuse.com titled Has marijuana changed or have we? Bergen-Cico is the coordinator of Falks addiction studies program and has expertise in addiction, drug use and mental health.

New York State recently passed legislation legalizing marijuana for those 21 and older, a move that Bergen-Cico says was a long time in the making. She says that while legalization has been on the horizon for quite some time in New York, it was delayed intentionally until the state felt it could adequately address associated racial and socioeconomic disparities stemming from the war on drugs.

Bergen-Cico writes that marijuana has been used throughout history in medicine, and there is growth today in people over 55 using the substance. She also notes that the continued illegalization of marijuana has ruined lives and increased risks. Therefore, Bergen-Cico supports recent legislation, as she believes that the harms caused to people by the illegal status of marijuana have far outweighed the health risks of its use.

Marijuanas illegal history is relativity short, as the substance has only been illegal in the United States for 84 years. Bergen-Cico explained that the initial illegalization of the substance stemmed from Americas desire to eliminate perceived competition in the workforce with workers from Mexico, as the U.S. was facing economic downturn due to the Great Depression. These policies continued well after the 1960s, as marijuana was considered counterculture and a threat to the American social establishment.

While Bergen-Cico recognizes that marijuana use is not without risk, she believes that regulation, education and evidence-based policies will allow for the substance to be used in safe ways. Marijuana has indeed gotten stronger, but Bergen-Cico says that we as a society have changed as well, and this change is supported by recent legislation.

To read her essay in its entirety, visit Syracuse.com.

Syracuse University media relations team members work regularly with the campus community to secure placements of op-eds. Anyone interested in writing an op-ed should first review the Universitys op-ed guidelines and email media@syr.edu.

Go here to read the rest:

'Has Marijuana Changed or Have We?' - Syracuse University News

We are torn by images of unaccompanied minors and overcrowded facilities at our southern border, but few in the United States are asking why so many Central American families are so desperate to escape their own countries that they are willing to risk everything including family separation.

These migrants are not fleeing some Act of God drought or hurricanes or the like that could not be anticipated or prevented. Rather, they are fleeing cartel violence and governmental corruption.

As CNN recently noted, poverty, crime, and corruption in Latin America have long been drivers of migration. Indeed, many Central Americans have concluded that the risks of the journey, of the smugglers, and of the possibility of losing their children are outweighed by the near certainty of violence or death at home.

But what explains the cartels, the violence and the governmental corruption? Fundamentally, it all stems from the U.S. War on Drugs.

When something that people want is declared illegal, the inevitable and predictable consequence is violence. Our experiment with alcohol prohibition in the United States (1920-1933)led to violence and corruption in U.S. cities as the unabated demand for alcohol led traffickers to pay bribes to police and politicians. Criminal gangs (think Al Capone) slaughtered each other as well as bystanders while battling over control of the alcohol trade.

However, during Prohibition, we did not try to force the rest of the world to join in our crusade. All the costs in violence and corruption stayed home to roost, which is probably why it took us only 13 years to realize that the downsides of this experiment outweighed whatever benefits there might be. With repeal, violence and corruption in American cities declined dramatically.

President Nixon ignored these lessons of Prohibition when he doubled down on illegality for other drugs. U.S. demand did not decrease, and Latin American supply met the demand. We wrongly believed that supply-side interdiction would result in fewer drug imports, but it has only resulted in smarter and more violent traffickers.

Drug-related governmental violence and corruption within the U.S. is minimal. We have offloaded most of the costs of the drug war onto the producer and transit countries, especially Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. We have used foreign aid and military assistance as leverage to force them to man the front lines of our War on Drugs regardless of the resulting corruption of their own politicians, police, and military. (By contrast, Uruguay, which does not rely on U.S. foreign aid, could implement its own, more liberal drug policies.)

If decapitated bodies were found outside Washington, D.C. instead of Mexico City, we would have changed course a long time ago, but until migrants massed at our border, we didnt really notice the collateral damage elsewhere. We complain about corruption and failures of governance in these countries, yet our policies have systematically undercut democracy and made dysfunction inevitable. Latin American governments cant be accountable to their own citizens when they must respond to the financial threats and incentives from the United States.

Not surprisingly, migrants flock to our borders seeking relief from the terror caused by ruthless narcotraffickers and governments corrupted by the drug trade. Our immigration crisis is a problem of our own making.

So how to change the situation?

The Biden administration has recognized that there must be reasons behind migration, and has named Vice President Kamala Harris at the point person for deterring migration and looking for root causes of the influx. However, a focus limited to diplomatic efforts (strengthening local border police) and economic aid is likely to be less than successful. As the Brookings Institution has noted, foreign aid tends to vanish into the hands of corrupt government officials. More money allocated to these same corrupt government officials and police departments is unlikely to change migration pressures.

This focus on fixing the Central American countries is also treating the migration problem as somehow caused by them: If only they would be less corrupt and would grow their economies, the migrants would stay home. We are blaming the victim. This completely ignores our essential role in destabilizing governments and fostering cartel violence.

We have created the problems driving desperate people to our borders and we have the power to change the dynamic. We can end the drug war in the U.S. and instead safely regulate and control all illicit substances, as we have done with alcohol and tobacco and, more recently, cannabis. We can cease foisting a drug war upon vulnerable South and Central American countries. With drugs no longer illegal, cartels lose both market share and a reason to bribe government officials.

Obviously, ending the War on Drugs and its disastrous collateral consequences is not a quick fix for the border. However, border problems which clearly require some short-term logistical fixes are only a symptom of our failed drug policies and should not distract attention from our practical and moral obligation to fix the real root causes of migration.

It will take time for these countries to re-stabilize. Economic development, job creation, and poverty reduction require the rule of law honest governmental regulation, enforceable property rights, honest and expeditious courts, and police who assist rather than prey upon the public.

With the War on Drugs a thing of the past, and rule of law reestablished, the dynamism and talent of the population can turn to creating, rather than survival or escape. This will be a tremendous gain for our entire hemisphere.

The asylum problem will take care of itself when countries south of our border, responsive to their own citizens, are again free to craft their own destinies, and staying home becomes a natural and attractive option for parents and their children.

See the original post:

The US War on Drugs is Driving the Displacement Crisis - FPIF - Foreign Policy In Focus

Explaining the plan he said: There has never been a paper bag for drugs. Until now.

That plot line is now a reality. Baltimore is turning a blind eye to the consumption of marijuana, cocaine and heroin, despite the laws around drug use still standing.

As other states move to legalise recreational marijuana - which is still technically illegal in Maryland - America is watching the effects of not prosecuting the possession of other drugs.

The move has been welcomed by organisations fighting for change.

Daphne Alston founded M.O.M.S - mothers of murdered sons and daughters - a community group which supports the families of children who have been killed, and campaigns for safer neighbourhoods.

Her 22-year-old son Tariq was shot dead at a party 12 years ago. No-one has ever been charged.

That the group works with around 2,000 women shows the extent of the problem and why the city is desperate for new initiatives.

This is a change for the better, the 61-year-old told the Telegraph.

The number of people in prison for dumb stuff is unbelievable. And look at the effect it has.

A kid might not see their father for two years and by then, they have no-one to look up to and are taken in by the money and fast life of crime.

Across town, at Turning Points Clinic - Americas largest methadone dispensary run by a church group - Lisa McIntyre explains how she was shooting heroin nine times a day until she walked in on her boyfriend after an overdose, his friend lying dead next to him.

In the two years since, she hasnt taken heroin, but says the 90g of methadone she has each day keeps her clean.

Now 50, and bearing the scars of years of self-harm, Ms McIntyre (below) doesnt believe that sweeping the problems under the carpet is the way forward.

See the original post here:

Baltimore: How one of America's deadliest cities ended the war on drugs - with help from The Wire - Telegraph.co.uk