1

AMERICA’S WAR ON DRUGS

1 Approach to the topic

2 Historical and political background 2.1 Lyndon B. Johnson (1963 – 69): Preparing the war on drugs

2.2 Richard M. Nixon (1969 – 74)

2.2.1 Intensifying the fight against drugs

2.2.2 How Vietnam resulted in drug testing

2.2.3 An approach to the decriminalization of marijuana

2.2.4 Escalating the anti-drug fight despite opposition

2.3 Gerald R. Ford (1974 – 77)

2.3.1 A step toward common sense drug policy

2.3.2 The roots of parents’ anti-drug efforts

2.4 Jimmy Carter (1977 – 81)

2.4.1 Harm reduction and common sense policy

2.4.2 Concerned parents

2.4.3 The fall of Carter and shift-back to Nixon-style drug war

2.5 Ronald Reagan (1981 – 89)

2.5.1 Strict enforcement and cutting of social programs

2.5.2 The war on marijuana

2.5.3 Carlton Turner’s impact on the escalation of the drug war

2.5.4 The drug panic

2.5.5 The war on cocaine

2.5.6 Appearance of crack

2.5.7 Zero-tolerance policy

2.6 George Bush sen (1989 – 93)

2.6.1 A moral war on drugs

2.6.2 Serious opposition

2.6.3 Final anti-drug measures

2.7 Bill Clinton (1993 – 2001)

2.7.1 Disappointing the hopes for common sense drug policy

2.7.2 Priorities in the drug fight

2.7.3 Clinton’s failure

2.8 George W. Bush (2001 - )

2.8.1 Working to fix the Clinton administration’s mistakes

2.8.2 Adding the dimension of terrorism

2.8.3 Strategy and goals for the coming years

2

3 Statistics and figures 3.1 Drug use

3.2 US prison population connected to the drug war

3.3 Cost of the drug war

4 Tragedies and injustices of the drug war 4.1 Weakening of the 4th Amendment

4.1.1 The 4th Amendment

4.1.2 Beginning of the weakening: Illinois vs Gates

4.1.3 Creating a good faith exception: US vs Leon

4.1.4 Sacrificing privacy for the fight against drugs: US vs Hernandez

4.1.5 Further weakening: Illinois vs Rodriguez

4.1.6 Conclusion

4.2 “Colateral deaths” in the war on drugs

4.2.1 Jeffrey Miles

4.2.2 Tommy Dubose

4.2.3 Bruce Lavoi

4.2.4 Ronaldo Carr

4.2.5 Donald Scott

4.3 Straight drug rehabilitation centers

4.4 Pregnant drug users

4.5 Racism and the war on drugs

4.5.1. A war on blacks?

4.5.2. Population, drug use and prison population rates for the different races

4.5.3. Drug courier profiles

4.5.4. Pregnant black women

4.5.5 Differences in penalties for possession of crack and cocaine

5 Future of the American war on drugs 5.1 Influence of American-style drug war on Europe

5.2 European-style alternatives for the American drug war

6 Personal conclusion APPENDIX

A) EXAMPLE of Bush administration’s ads that link drug use with terrorism

B) PICTURE COLLECTION on the drug war

C) WORD EXPLANATIONS

D) SOURCES listed by chapter

E) FOOTNOTES

F) TIMELINE of the WAR ON DRUGS

3

1 Approach to the topic This research paper gives an idea of America’s longest war so far, the war on drugs. A historical survey covers all the important events, policies and anti-drug strategies under various presidents from the beginnings of the fight against drugs to the current administration. Statistics illustrate trends and overall costs of the war on drugs in America. However, considering them without seeing individual fates of those who innocently suffered in the drug war would be too detached and impersonal an approach. It was not a big problem to obtain information about the drug fight efforts from Johnson up to Bush senior as several books, studies and websites provide safe sources of information. But material especially on Clinton and also on Bush jr. is yet very rare and official statistics and numbers are almost impossible to obtain. Only after writing several letters to different agencies such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) I got links to sources providing numbers that are often estimates as the effects of current drug policies can only been seen in the future. As there is a large number of technical terms, names and particularly acronyms related to the topic, I have compiled them in an extra section in the appendix (B). All expressions in bold type are to be found there. For easier reading explanations necessary to convey the message of certain passages are given in the text additionally. As shown in the compilation of the sources in the appendix the historical outline is largely based on Dan Baum’s book “Smoke and Mirrors” for various reasons. It seems to be a widely acknowledged source when it comes to the war on drugs in the US and is frequently referred to. An even more important factor for me was the fact that it does not merely compile dry facts and figures of the drug war but rather concentrates on the people behind it, from those in charge of the drug laws through to the victims, thus making it interesting to read, too. I can only join the judgement of the book reviews in the Los Angeles Times: “An entertaining history …a lacerating look at how we got into this quagmire.”1 2 Historical and political background 2.1 Lyndon B. Johnson (1963 – 69): Preparing the war on drugs Even though the war on drugs was actually launched by President Nixon in 1969, Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson was the first to conjure up a picture of what the getting tough on drug users would be like. During his presidential campaign he seemed too soft on crime compared to the Republicans, so he took several measures of strict enforcement against criminals, in particular drug addicts who were associated with violent crime at that time. The former Democratic politics of root causes, believing that society is to be blamed for the individual’s faults, rapidly changed into politics of enforcement against bad individuals, the drug users. But Johnson’s efforts were not sufficient in the end; even though he had done his best to change his public image to become a “crimefighter”; he lost the elections of 1969 to Richard M. Nixon. But in 1968 he had created the BNDD ( Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs) and the LEAA ( Law Enforcement Assistance Administration), two agencies that were to become the most important weapons in the upcoming war on drugs.

4

2.2 Richard M. Nixon (1969 – 74) 2.2.1 Intensifying the fight against drugs To “accelerate the development of tools and weapons to fight illegal drugs”2 was what Nixon promised during his presidential campaign against Johnson. His law and order campaign focused on the topic of eradicating crime and drug use in order to avoid sensible topics such as the Vietnam War. The Republicans had already been working on a crime bill in 1968 allowing wiretaps for police and weakening the Miranda ruling of 1966, requiring police to read suspects their rights before being arrested. It was followed by a drug bill specifically for the District of Columbia, designed as a small scale model for the whole country - three new powerful provisions to fight drugs were introduced: “no knock”, allowing police to kick down doors without a warning in drug-related cases, “preventive detention”, a bill to reverse the existing bail initiative and “loose search warrants” , allowing police to search property not specifically named in a warrant. The first major effort to cut the supply of marijuana, the drug of the counterculture (Woodstock hippies and ghetto inmates; the young, the poor and the black; philosophy of sex, drugs and rock&roll), in the US was Operation Intercept in 1969, a plan to completely shut the border to Mexico to stop the flow of marijuana over the so-called Tex-Mex border. The Nixon administration was starting to deliver what it had promised: Robert Du Pont, director of the D.C. Department of Corrections was setting up a network of methadone treatment centers for heroin addicts, the only method that had shown success so far, and TV stations and the media went along by presenting drugs as evil and wrong and thus helping the gateway theory spread, a popular theory that marijuana leads to harder drugs. Nevertheless, some opposition to Washington’s tough anti-drug fight appeared: NORML, (National Organizationfor the Reform of Marijuana Laws) was founded to represent those Americans favoring the legalisation, or at least decriminalization of marijuana. (see picture 10, appendix B) In July 1970, Congress passed a law that would later be a tool for the police to get money by seizing drug offenders’ belongings. Named RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act), it invented criminal forfeiture, allowing police to seize everything believed to be bought with illegal profits. (see picture 9, appendix B) 2.2.2 How Vietnam resulted in drug testing “The soldier going to South Vietnam today runs a far greater risk of becoming a heroin addict than a combat casualty.”3 was what White House official Robert Steele told reporters after visiting troops in Vietnam. He assigned staff member Egil Krogh to immediately fix the problem. Together with Jerome Jaffe, an expert on methadone treatment, they came up with the idea that soldiers returning home from war would have to pass a drug test first. So random drug testing was invented in 1971; which became known as “The Pee House of the August Moon” among the troops. Also in 1971, President Nixon created the SAODAP (Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention) with a budget of $371 million for testing and treating Vietnam soldiers and to set up a network of state-run methadone clinics. Jerome Jaffe was made the director of SAODAP to keep track of the nation’s anti-drug efforts – he became the nation’s first so-called drug czar. 2.2.3 An approach to the decriminalization of marijuana A very conservative Presidential Commission on Marijuana under its head Sonnenreich was assigned by Nixon to discuss the status of marijuana laws and in 1972 released its report “Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding”, concluding that “criminalisation has failed; we suggest that society now try non-criminalisation”4 and that marijuana prohibition was not the national interest.

5

Even though President Nixon ignored the commission’s advice and continued his war on drugs with strict enforcement against all drug users, Keith Stoup, head of NORML and the ABA (American Bar Association, “the national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law.”5) successfuly convinced several states (e.g. California, Georgia, Oregon) to decriminalize the possession of marijuana or reduce it to a misdemeanor with the commission’s advice as their main argument: “With the ABA behind decriminalisation of pot, can the rest of the nation be far behind?”6. 2.2.4 Escalating the anti-drug fight despite opposition In 1972 Nixon announced the creation of an additional federal drug agency to cooperate with the BNDD, the ODALE (Office of Drug Abuse Prevention) with Myles Ambrose as its head. Being very limited in its budget, it was only designed to show off the new anti-drug tools designed by the latest crime bills (e.g.RICO) to the public. Shortly after, two new fronts in the drug war opened: newborn addicts were announced to be “an epidemic”7 by Time magazine (also see: 4.4 pregnant users) and in September Nixon involved the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) into the fight against drugs: Drug traffickers “must be hunted to the end of the earth.”8, he claimed. (see picture 5, apendix B) In 1973 Congress voted to combine ODALE, BNDD and parts of the customs authorities into the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration), which is still the most important drug enforcement agency in the US today. By the summer of 1973, however, President Nixon and his White House staff had to face more serious problems than their war on drugs as the famous Watergate Affair came to light. 2.3 Gerald R. Ford (1974-77) 2.3.1 A step toward common sense drug policy After the Ford administration took over, the tone in the nation’s anti-drug efforts seemed to change. In 1975 a paper on the state of drug abuse warned to “stop raising expectations of total elimination of drug abuse from our society.”9 No longer did Nixon’s utopian goal of wiping out all drug abuse prevail, but politics of “minimizing the adverse social cost of drug abuse.”10. The 1976 Federal Drug Strategy even seemed to return to the former Democratic concept of “root causes” and once more suggested the decriminalization of marijuana. During the Ford years, anti-drug rhetorics seemed more tolerant and humane than under Nixon and even some of the media started to editorialize in favor of legalization. Drug paraphernalia such as mirrors, pipes or rolling papers became a million-dollar industry, the drug culture magazine High Times emerged and Bob Randall won his fight for medical marijuana. 2.3.2 The roots of parent anti-drug efforts But this time of tolerance was to be over soon as Marsha Schuchard founded the Nosy Parents Association after finding out about several kids smoking marijuana at her daughter’s birthday party: she would become a trendsetter for hundreds of “grass roots community groups”11, parent groups that were convinced to fight against teenage drug use, with or without Washington’s help.

6

2.4 Jimmy Carter (1977-81) 2.4.1 Harm reduction and common sense politics President Carter did not want to decriminalize marijuana, even though he had promised to do so during his campaign and his drug czar, Peter Bourne favored it. But he did advocate the replacement of criminal penalties for possession of pot with a civil fine: “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed.”12 Harm reduction, “drug policies and programs aim to reduce the harm associated with drug use”13, was a keyword and Carter’s midterm drug strategy stated that “Drugs cannot be forced out of existence;…. . But the harm caused by drug abuse can be reduced.”14It also was the first and last drug strategy to make a difference between hard and soft drugs as well as drug misuse and abuse – the last drug policy of common sense so far. 2.4.2 Concerned parents The impact on kids by these soft anti-drug rhetorics from Washington was very negative however. While 6% of high school seniors reported daily marijuana use in 1975, more than 9% did in 1977, by 1979 it had risen to 11%, and the attitude about the drug was increasingly tolerant. 15 Parents were very concerned about this trend as well as about the accessibility of drug paraphernilia and the commercialized drug culture. As a result, voices accusing Carter’s drug policies of this trend arose. But Jimmy Carter and his drug czar were eager to improve treatment for heroin addicts and didn’t think of marijuana as a real drug problem, so they turned their backs on the parents movements that were convinced to stop teenage drug use regardless of what politicians were willing to do against it. 2.4.3 The fall of Jimmy Carter and a shift-back to Nixon’s drug war In late 1978, drug czar Peter Bourne retired. He was followed by Lee Dogoloff, who first introduced drug prevention as a method to fight drug abuse (see picture 3, apendix B) . PRIDE (Parents Research Institute for Drug Education) had a leading role here, educatig parents and kids about the dangers of drugs with handbooks, workshops all over the country and campaigns against the commercialized drug culture. NORML had convinced 11 states to decriminalize the possession of marijuana, but with more and more parents movements and a harder line against the drug from both the DEA and the new drug czar winning over more states was impossible: the war on marijuana had begun. Dogoloff’s plan was to make America drug free and to focus the drug war on the 40 million marijuana smokers rather than the half million heroin users. He also introduced the moral and emotional side to the war on drugs: “Let’s declare drug abuse wrong and get on with it.”16 The growing opposition to Carter’s drug policy, mainly by parents, could be seen in the elections of 1981: Reagan, a hardliner on drugs, had a huge lead to Carter. 2.5 Ronald Reagan (1981-89) 2.5.1 Strict enforcement and the cutting of social programs In Reagan’s opinion America was still too soft on drugs and crime; he wanted to create a more federal role in the war on drugs, focus on more law enforcement, increase the power of prosecutors and cut social programs – all with the excuse of fighting the drug problem. His first major step to fight drug abuse was to involve the FBI into the drug war in 1981, with the intent to demonstrate the huge potential of the RICO laws.

7

While treatment and drug research programs suffered huge budget cuts in 1982, the enforcement budgets of the DEA, the Coast Guard and the FBI were majorly increased between 16 up to over 50 per cent in order to make more drug seizures. (see picture 6, appendix B) 2.5.2 The war on marijuana Carlton Turner, an expert on marijuana was the country’s unofficial drug czar at that time. He saw his mission in creating a “drug-free generation of Americans to purge society.”17 and advocated focusing the drug fight on marijuana as the major evil. He was strongly supported in his crusade by the media in that they selectively published unbalanced reports and articles in favor of Turner’s strategy only. Turner and Reagan didn’t even bother making a secret about the fact that this fight wasn’t just health-related, but also a fight against the counterculture: “But drug use is also a behavior pattern that has sort of tagged along during the present young-adult generation’s involvement in anti-military, ….., anti-authority demonstrations; of people from a myriad of different racial, religious or otherwise persuasions demanding “rights” or “entitlements” politically while refusing to accept corollary civic responsibility.”18 2.5.3 Carlton Turner’s impact on the escalation of the war on drugs On June 24 Reagan made Turner the country’s official drug czar by annointing him head of a new Drug Abuse Policy Office. The goal was to “put drug abuse on the run through stronger law enforcement, through cooperation with other nations to stop the trafficking, and by calling on the tremendous volunteer resources of parents, teachers, civic and religious leaders, and State and local officials.”19. Turner immediatley began his work, asking every federal agency to join the fight against drugs if they still wanted to receive a proper budget. Turner’s fight against drugs had no limits: he advocated programs like Straight (see:4.3) and Toughlove, a guideline for parents and the slogan-based campaigns “Get Involved” and “Say No to Drugs. 2.5.4 The drug panic With the approval of Congress Reagan also weakened the Posse Comitatus Act, that had made US military acting as police illegal, when including the military into the war on drugs in close co-operation with the Coast Guard in a mission of drug interdiction. The Justice Department wanted to create even more tools for prosecutors to fight drug use: a weakening of the exclusionary rule, the ability to confiscate property upon suspicion of drug trafficking, a new criminal forfeiture status and bountyhunter provisions – Fourth Amendment rights were weakened majorly (also see:4,I). The violent CAMP (Campaign Against Marijuana Production) raids, the use of discriminating drug courier profiles and the Omnibus Crime Bill of 1984, regulating confiscations dubiously, are just a few examples of the ongoing panic in the administration as well as the population. 2.5.5 The war on cocaine During the early 80s cocaine had reached a status as a drug of the rich and successful, but around 1984 it slowly started to be used very commonly. This trend resulted in a focus on cocaine instead of marijuana in the drug war. Drugs were even blamed for the crisis of the American economy: “Joint by joint, line by line, pill by pill, the use of illegal drugs on the job has become a crisis for American business…”20, reported Newsweek. Until 1985 this resulted in the creation of a new $100 million business,

8

“The Gold Rush of the Eighties”21: urine testing for employees emerged and would grow to a $300 million industry until 1990. As the cocaine price continued to drop it was time for a new strategy: to reduce the supply,to change drug users’ attitude by promoting values and to “bring sanctions against the user.”22 2.5.6 Appearance of crack 1985 was the year two important new drugs appeared, MDMA, Ecstasy by street name, and crack, a smokable form of cocaine. The “cocaine baby” and later the “crack baby crisis” resulted in a focus of the drug war on pregnant drug users (see also: 4,IV). While cocaine was very popular among white, successful, rich people, crack users were mostly black, poor and ghetto inhabitants. (see picture 8, appendix B) In June 1986 famous basketball star Len Bias died from an overdose, triggering the ultimate war on crack by the police and the media with the help of raid footage, live broadcasting of busting drug dealers. 2.5.7 Zero tolerance policy The drug panic continued: More bills were passed to stop “a threat worse than any nuclear warfare or any chemical warfare waged on any battlefield.”23 and the media went along. “We want you to help us create an outspoken intolerance for drug use. For the sake of our children, I implore each of you to be unyielding and inflexible in your opposition to drugs.”24 was Nancy Reagan’s call to the nation. In 1987 the big Amtrak accident was blamed on drugs. Moreover, Carlton Turner , without the slightest bit of evidence, claimed that being gay “seems to be something that follows along from their marijuana use.”25. Shortly after, he resigned and Dr. Ian Macdonald took over his position as the nation’s drug czar. He coined the term zero tolerance, which was not merely a policy but also an attitude. It would soon lead to a breakdown of the American justice system and overpopulated prisons. As crack-dealing black drug addicts and drug violence were still everyday news, the federal government initiated Operation Hammer and Operation Cleansweep, aimed to empty the ghettos from violence, weapons and drugs. The government had been accused of racial inequalities in the drug war, backed up by arrest and penalty figures, its war on crack even being called the ‘war on blacks’ (also see: 4.5), so the idea was to focus the drug war more on the many white upper and middle class drug users. Shortly before the beginning of Reagan’s presidential campaign, his wife Nancy Reagan once again delivered the message: “The casual user cannot morally escape responsibility for the action of drug traffickers and dealings. I’m saying that if you’re a casual drug user you’re an accomplice to murder.”26 2.6 George Bush sen. (1989-93) 2.6.1 A moral war on drugs George Bush made William Bennett his drug czar and head of the ONDCP to reform America’s character. He concentrated on drug use only as a moral problem and not as a health problem: “We have to believe. If you think drugs are bad, that they make people bad neighbors, horrible parents, dangerous drivers and what have you, then you think drugs are bad. There’s a moral dimension.”27 As a result from this view, treatment was not an option: enforcement was all he believed in to stop drug use, so “ a massive wave of arrests is a top priority for the War on Drugs.”28 The ones suffering most from Bennett’s philosophy would soon bee preganant drug users, especially crack using black mothers (also see 4.4).

9

The first Drug Control Strategy in 1989 proposed the continuation of Reagan’s fight on casual drug users, considering frequent users as already lost. More enforcement and more federal prisons were the key. To keep up with the masses of convicted drug offenders, special drug courts were introduced. Later, the National Drug and Crime Emergency Act was introduced to keep up with the masses of convicted drug offenders. 1989 saw Bush’s drug speech 9/5 that triggered off a scandal because Bush presented cocaine during that speech that had been purchased in a setup buy across the White House, the whole setup being unmasked 17 days later. Of similar significance was the Justice Department’s victory over the ABA in the quarrel over the power of lawyers in drug-related cases, resulting in their further weakening. On December 19th, US troops invaded Panama in the fight against drugs, capturing drug trafficker No 1 , former president of Panama Manuel Noriega to charge him in the US for drug trafficking and smuggling. 2.6.2 Serious oppostion But while the government did its best to escalate the drug war even further, the media for the first time started to report about failures of the war on drugs. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on August 2nd 1990, the government and public focus and media coverage shifted to this new threat - drugs were no longer the number one threat to the country and the drug war therefore lost its significance. A couple of months later Bennett resigned, calling the drug war a success “beyond my wildest dreams” – even though drug use was not declining, availability of drugs was constant and most people in the country started to realize that the war on drugs had been a complete failure. After the escalated drug war of the Reagan and Bush years, voices asking to stop the ban on needle exchange programs to stop the spread of AIDS arose and massive protest helped to keep the IND program delivering medical marijuana to seriously ill patients going. In 1992, serious oppostition to the war on drugs appeared: the media, the ABA and even judges declared the war as discriminatig, racist and useless – especially after the beating of Rodney King on March 3, 1992 and the following riots: “Clearly, prohibition isn’t working. We cannot fail to consider that war may be inappropriate as a domestic policy.”29 And the New York Time’s frontpage headline:”Some think the “War on Drugs” is being waged on the wrong front”30 are just two of many examples. 2.6.3 Final anti-drug measures The Bush administration’s response to the LA riots was Weed&Seed: weed out the drug dealers and seed communities with opportunity-creating funding. But once again it only meant strict enforcing, mainly against young black males, rather than the help needed so badly in those poor communities. Under Clinton, the same program would appear under the name CPR (Community Project for Restoration). Operation Triggerlock was the Bush administation’s last effort in the anti-drug fight: federal agents would rearrest drug criminals that already served their sentences in state prisons and then charge them again with the same crime: the 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy did not apply: “The intent is to get the bad guys off the street with apologies to none.”31 2.7 William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton (1993-2001) 2.7.1 Disappointing the hope for common sense drug policy “The definition of insanity is doing the same old thing over and over and expecting a different result.“32 were Bill Clinton’s own words as a presidential candidate in 1992 giving hope to

10

many Americans for a more humane and common sense drug policy: “The switch to Clinton is like night and day, I feel real change coming” was the hope of employee at the Bureau of Statistics Ben Renshaw, especially with regard to the exaggerated fight on marijuana and the postion of medical marijuana. “I hesitate to be so optimistic, but we could be seeing the beginning of the end of the War on Drugs”33, St. Pierre, NORML’s assistant national director, expressed his hopes. But it was to come different: Clinton soon focused on a different topic than the expected drug policy reform: gays in the military. The drug war raged on, with new bills including the death penalty for drug kingpins (bosses of drug organizations), drug courts, the popular “three strikes and you are out” policy leading to a life sentence after having had three felony convictions and even more money for drug enforcement and new prisons. 2.7.2 Priorities in the drug fight Clinton’s first drug czar was Robert Martinez (1991-93), followed by Lee Brown (1993-96) and later Barry McCaffrey. The National Drug Strategy made its goal clear: “the single priority is to motivate American youth to reject substance abuse”34. This strategy also the for the first time addressed tabacco and alcohol use as drug problems. Parents and teachers were to be involved and the position of researchers strengthened. Drug education and prevention would be taken care of by the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and treatment budgets were increased, but the budget priority was still law enforcement: “Drugs are wrong and you have to uphold the law.”35 Again the plan was to attack both the supply side by blocking drugs at the border and cutting them off at their source and the demand side, with drug education and prevention of the drug problem. Also, the role of drug courts was strengthened during the Clinton years to relieve the prison and court system. Aditionally, the drug fighting budget was increased by $6 billion during Clinton’s period of office. 2.7.3 Clinton’s failure

2.8 George W. Bush (2001 - ) 2.8.1 Working to fix the Clinton administration’s mistakes „Unfortunatley, in the last 7 ½ years, fighting drug abuse has ceased to be a national priority.“36 is Bush’s criticism of the Clinton administration. He wants to do a better job and made John P. Walter his drug czar as the “right person to lead America’s anti-drug efforts.”37

But all these measures weren’t enough, as the number of new marijuana users rose steadily after the early nineties. As the chart shows, Clinton’s extended drug budget for enforcement and prevention totally failed to reduce adolescent drug use.

11

Drugs cost the country $100 billion a year and this ought to be changed: the plan is to eradicate drugs at their source, stop the flow into the US by stricter enforcing of the borders and closer cooperation with Mexico and also to reduce the demand of drugs with the help of parents, churches and parent drug corps. Increased funding of drug-free community groups and plans for drug courts and drug testing of criminals as well as a state by state inventory of treatment needs are also part of the Bush administration’s fight against drugs. “My administration will send a clear and consistent message that drug use is dangerous and wrong”38, explains Bush. His drug czar hopes the efforts will show success: “…our country has made great progress in the past in reducing drug use, and we will do it again.”39 2.8.2 Adding the dimension of terrorism After the terror attacks of 9/11 the 2002 National Drug Control Strategy indicated that drug use and terrorism are closely connected: “Make no mistake about it, if you’re buying illegal drugs in America, it is likley to end up in the hands of terrorist organistations.”40, so Bush encourages the nation: ” It's so important for Americans to know that the traffic in drugs finances the work of terror, sustaining terrorists, that terrorists use drug profits to fund their cells to commit acts of murder. If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America."

41. Bush certainly adds a huge new dimension to the drug war: if you do drugs, you support terrorists. Several anti-drug commercials (examples on http://theantidrug.com/drugs_terror/ads.html) and ads (as a example see picture in appendix A), also make this connection. As most US drug users are marijuana smokers though, this seems very unrealistic: most marijuana is grown in the US and certainly not imported from terrorist countries. Only for the small fraction of opiate users (heroin, morphine, opium) this connection might apply as for example the Taliban are known to make money by trading these drugs. 2.8.3 Strategy and goals for the coming years The strategy aims at grass-root groups and Parent Drug Corps to reduce demand and provides $644 million to the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program and $180 million for the national youth anti-drug media campaign. The role of the Coast Guard is strengthened as $2.3 billion are for drug interdiction and $731 million are for the Andean Counter-Drug Initiative for crop-substitution and crop-eradication programs. For treatment, Bush wants to spend $1.6 billion over the next 5 years and $2.2 billion are for drug research. So the huge drug budget of the Clinton administration was increased even further in all parts. The goal seems clear and is also what George W. Bush wants to be measured on: “I want to see a 10% reduction in teenage and adult drug use over the next two years, and a 25% reduction in drug use, nationally, over the next five years. Those are our goals.”42 We will see if Bush will accomplish what he promises. Recent events in the US were the defeating of Question 9, an attempt at decriminalizing marijuana possession for personal use in Nevada with 39% to 61%. The similar Propostion 203 in Arizona, strongly opposed by drug czar John Walters, is still to be voted on. 3 Statistics and numbers 3.1 Drug use trends and availability throughout the drug war The effectiveness of a country’s drug policy can be judged by the number of children who take drugs and how easy these are to obtain. Because very few children use hard drugs, the following charts show availability and drug use trends of the most commonly used soft drug, marijuana from 1976 until 2000.

12

3.2 US prison population connected to the drug war Since Nixon declared his war on drugs in 1972, the total prison population rose from about 200,000 (1970) to 1.96 million (2001). Many of those sentenced were drug offenders. The following chart shows the development of the number of inmates in federal prisons over the drug war. Under Nixon, drug offenders constituted the minority of inmates (about 26 %), but with tough policies as the RICO laws and zero tolerance, more and more drug users were incarcerated. Many of those, however, serve sentences for mere possession of soft drugs while only few seem to be a serious threat to society as having been involved in violent drug-related crime or trafficking. The introduction of drug courts for minor drug cases has failed to reduce the high number of drug offenders in federal prisons (about 61 % today) so far. (see picture 2, appendix B)

During the war on drugs, the availability line of marijuana for kids is almost flat at about 87% saying the drug is either „very easy“ or „fairly easy“ to buy. (chart: red line) Despite the more than quadrupled drug budget, mainly for drug enforcement and in part also for prevention, education and treatment, the supply of marijuana remained untouched. In my eyes, this shows that the efforts to stop the supply totally failed, so it would be utopian to think that this might be achieved in the near future.

What shows far more success in fighting drug abuse is to influence the demand side instead of the supply. Even though the availibility of the most commonly used drug, marijuana, remained constant, monthly child use declined from the late 70s until the early 90s. This is most likley to be a result of the anti-drug efforts of several parent groups that helped to change their children’s attitude toward drugs, triggered by parent’s disagreement with President Carter’s politics, that seemed to encourage marijuana use. This can be seen in the steady rise of 12th grade marijuana smokers from 1976-79. Unfortunately this statistic does not show how the declaring of the war on drugs by Nixon influenced drug use in the first place.

13

3.3 Cost of the drug war

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

drug offenders

non drug relatedprison population

But this trend cannot only be noticed in federal prisons, as the drug-law offender population in state and local prisions similarly rose from roughly 16000 (1980) to over 250,000 (1999) during the escalation of the drug war, an increase from 8 % to 21 % of the total state/local prison population as the graph shows.

By creating the BNDD and the LEAA in 1969, President Johnson majorly increased the country’s drug budget in order to seem tough on crime and drug use. Under Nixon, this budget was again increased, for enforcement against users and in part also for treatment, for example the methadone programs. The total escalation of the drug war during the Reagan and Bush sen. years pushed the nation’s drug budget from about 1.5 (1980) to over 9.7 (1990) billion. Clinton added another $6 billion and the present Bush administration spent 18.8 billion 2002 for the fight against drugs and is planning to increase the bugdet to 19.2 billion in 2003. The drug budget of 1981 was about 50% for law enforcement; over the 90s, this percentage rose to over 65% of the total budget.

14

4 Tragedies and injustices of the drug war 4.1 The weakening of the Fourth Amendment in the drug war cases of the 80s 4.1.1 The Fourth Amendment In his book “Smoke and Mirrors” author Dan Baum states that over the duration of the war on drugs, the 4th Amendment has been weakened majorly in several “Fourth Amendment drug-war cases of the eighties”43. Originally created to protect the US citizen’s privacy the amendment was unique in the world:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”44

By several drug related Supreme Court decisions of the eighties, however, these rights saw severe restrictions so that today people can be searched by the police for no reason. 4.1.2 The beginning of the weakening of the Fourth Amendment: Illinois vs Gates: Story: On May 3, 1978 the police received an anonymous note accusing Sue and Lance Gates to be drug dealers. When the police stopped and searched them, they found a huge quantity of marijuana, but lower courts and the Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the Gates’ lawyer, James W. Reilley, and decided they were innocent as the warrant did not meet the “two-prong” test and the serach was therefore illegal (lack of probable cause for the search), which meant that under the exclusionary rule the marijuana was excluded as evidence from the trail. On June 8, 1983, however, the US Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts: even though the law forbids to get a warrant on the basis of hearsay, the court ruled that the exclusionary rule did not apply in this case because police acted with reasonable belief – Reilley lost this case and the Gates went to jail. With overturning the “two prong” test and allowing anonymous tips to obtain warrants, the Supreme Court under conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist, appointed by Reagan and determined to fight the drug problem, clearly showed its political intentions and made the Fourth Amendment, designed to protect the citizens’ privacy, optional. Result: It was now legal for the police to get a search warrant on the base of an anonymous tip and the exclusionary rule does not apply to any evidence seized with this warrant. 4.1.3 Creating a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule: US vs Leon Story: The search leading to Leon’s arrest for selling Quaaludes was ruled illegal by 3 courts. But on June 27, 1983, just when the Democratic controlled Senate was about to stop a bill creating a “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule, the US Supreme Court once more showed its mission in the drug war: with the explanation that way too many drug cases get dropped in court because of the exclusionary rule, the Court ruled that it does not apply to anything seized with “good faith” of the officer. “The Court’s victory over the Fourth Amendment is complete.”45 was Justice W. Brennan’s comment on this decision of the court. Result: Evidence seized without or with a tainted warrant is admissible if the officer acted in “good faith”.

15

4.1.4 Sacrificing privacy for the fight against drugs: US vs Montoya de Hernandez Story: Ms Hernandez from Columbia, an international traveler into the US, was suspected to be a “body packer”, so after being searched and held prisoner in a room for 24 hours without permission to call a lawyer, she was given the option to either defecate into a wastebasket or to go through a forcible rectal exam at a hospital. In the exam, one balloon filled with cocaine was found and over the next 4 days she defeated 88 more such balloons and was charged with smuggling drugs. On July 1, 1985 the US Supreme Court reversed the overturning of the conviction by lower courts questioning the humanity of the procedure and Montoya de Hernandez was sent to prison. The court added several other measures to stop the flow into the US besides the fact that international travelers can be stipsearched and held until defeating into a wastebasket or going through an x-ray: - First class mail can be opened without a warrant and on less then probable cause. - Cars near the border may be stopped on suspicion alone, even if based on ethnicity. - Boats in inland waters with sea-access may be searched without even suspicion With these decisions, the Court weakened Fourth Amendment rights especially for travelers into the US – however, most forced to those inspections were black and fit drug courier profiles. Result: People suspected to smuggle drugs barely have any right of privacy. 4.1.5 Further weakening: Illinois vs Rodriguez Story: Gail Fischer, former girlfriend of Edward Rodriguez had moved out of his apartment several weeks ago. But with a key that she should not have had, she let police into his home to arrest him for beating her – but the officers also found a huge amount of cocaine and charged E. Rodriguez with intent to deliver. His lawyer Reilley (same lawyer as in Illinois v Gates) knew that the law insisted that citizens must themselves permit warrantless searches of their own property, not visitors with no authority to let police in, especially without a warrant: The search was illegal as a consequence and the cocaine inadmissible as evidence. This was also the opinion of the Chicago Court and the Illinois Supreme Court, but once again the US Supreme Court overturned their decisions: evidence seized by police would be admissible in court, even if police were let in by a person with no authority of the home. Result: Police can search property on the say-so of a vistitor 4.1.6 Conclusion In these major four cases, the US Supreme Court made its role in the drug war abundantly clear: Reagan’s escalated war on drugs was supported by the judicative branch to such an extend that even the once unique rights given in the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule were weakened step by step. 4.2 Killing and hurting the Innocent: Colateral deaths in the war on drugs 4.2.1 Jeffrey Miles On March 26, 1987 in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, police raided the home of Jeffrey Miles (24) on an anonymous tip that blamed him to be a drug dealer – even though Miles had no criminal record this was a legal procedure after the weakening of the 4th Amendment rights in the big drug war cases of the 80s (see 4.1). He was killed by the raiding officers, but no drugs or any signs of any criminal activity could be found in his home.

16

4.2.2 Tommy Dubose In 1988 in San Diego, police stormed the house of Tommy Dubose (56), also acting on an anonymous tip. He too was shot dead and no drugs were found in his home either. 4.2.3 Bruce Lavoie In 1989 police in Hudson, New Hampshire was getting tough on drug users. The house of Bruce Lavoie (34), a man with no criminal record but known to be an occasional marijuana smoker, was raided in a “no knock” search based on an anonymous tip accusing Lavoie of dealing drugs. Seargent Stephen Burke killed Bruce Lavoie in front of his wife and children when they came to look what was going on: no weapons or huge quantity of drugs were found, but only one joint of marijuana. 4.2.4 Ronaldo Carr Rolando Carr (30) was stopped by a Boston police officer as he was walking into a store with his friends. As he put his hands on a wall to get searched he was shot in the lower back the officer and then searched when he was lying on the ground bleeding: no drugs and no evidence of any criminal activities were found on him. Drug czar Bennett’s response to such voilent actions against suspected drug criminals was to blame them on “the overriding spirit and energy of our front-line drug enforcement officers.”46 4.2.5 Donald Scott On October 2, 1992, Officer Gary Spencer shot Donald Scott (61), a Malibu millionaire dead, “motivated at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ($5 million) ranch for the government”47. On the basis of an anonymous tip that 3000 cannabis plants were being cultivated there, Spencer, joined an Air National Guard surveillance flight over Scott’s ranch and claimed to have seen about 50 marijuana plants and an illegal watering system. He obtained a search warrant on the basis of falsehoods and so 13 deputies raided Scott’s farm at 8:30am. Waking up from the sound of the shattering door, Scott, still drunk from the night before, walked in with a pistol in his hand and didn’t drop it quickly enough to stay alive: Spencer shot him twice, killing him instantly. Searching the ranch, the officers couldn’t find a single marijuana plant. An attorney cleared Spencer from any manslaughter or homocide charges, but acknowledged his bad faith in preparing the search warrant. 4.3 Straight drug rehab center Mel and Betty Sembler created Straight Inc. after the model of The Seed. Even though it was popular and often praised amongst politicians, even called the “best program of its kind in the country”48, the anti-drug efforts of the program were very questionable: Karen Norton, a 17-year-old girl was put into a Straight drug treatment center by her parents because of her so-called drug problem. She never agreed to participate in this “Written Plan for Professional Services”49 but was beaten, starved, denied sleep and privacy until she managed to escape after 6 months . Samantha Monroe (12), also a non-voluntary participant in a Straight program was also denied sleep, food and toilet privileges, forced to wear humble pants as punishment and was raped by a counselor – and forced to have an abortion afterwards. (see picture 7, appendix B) There are many cases ranging from rapes to forced abortions to attempted suicides, all collected by Wesly Fager whose son developed a severe mental illness during his stay at Straight drug rehab – he joined the fight against Straight since. (http://www.thestraights.com)

17

Many people successfully sued Straight for this appalling procedures: a college student won a false imprisonment claim of $220,000 in 1983, and another claim cost Straight $721,000 in 1990. A Straight spin-off called Kids of North Jersey lost a $4.5 million claim in 2000. Lately, many other bootcamp style drug rehab centers, like KIDS or SAFE, emerged. After several lawsuit losses, Straight itself changed its name to DFAF (Drug Free America Foundation) and still enjoys federal subsidies today. Also, the founders of Straight, personal friends of the Bush family, have quiet important positions in federal drug policy making and Jeb Bush, brother of US President George W. Bush and govenor of Florida, even created a "Betty Sembler Day" in his state to thank her for her work in "protecting children from the dangers of drugs."50 4.4 Pregnant drug users In 1985, Dr. Ira Chasnoff’s study reporting damaging effects of cocaine use during pregnancy on babies, triggered a massive attack on pregnant drug users by the public, the media and the government. Even though Chasnoff decribed his study as small-sampled and imprecise, it became the basis of serveral other studies proving the damaging effects of cocaine during pregnancy. The media chose to completely ignore studies suggesting that other drugs as well as poor nutrition or no prenatal care might also be responible for the increasing number of small and low-weight babies since Medicaid dropped half a million poor mothers from medical care in 1981. The “cocaine baby” myth soon grew into the “crack baby” myth as crack, a horribly reinforcing drug that makes its users forget everything but the drug, began to appear, mainly in the black communities and ghettos. Only by 1988 researchers, including Chasnoff who started the panic, slowly began to back away from their former studies that lacked control groups and didn’t distinguish the effects of other drugs from the ones of the cocaine use and therefore were very imprecise. “In the end it is safer for a baby to be born to a drug-abusing, anemic, or a diabetic mother who visits the doctor throughout her pregnancy than to be born to a normal woman who does not.”51 reflects the opinion of many researchers that the lack of quality prenatal care, alcohol and tabacco use and poverty provide a far greater risk to the unborn child than cocaine or crack use, which is not proven to have any direct effects on the fetus’ health. Yet the media went even further: The New York Times, Washington Post, Rolling Stone and many others described crack babies as dramatic as a “biologic underclass whose biological inferiority is stamped at birth.”52 or said they “won’t ever have achieve the intellectual development to have consciousness of God.”53 The Reagan administration went along by criminalizing substance abuse during pregnancy, with penalties of up to 10 years in prison and the confiscation of the newborn for delivering cocaine to a minor. This discouraged pregnant drug users from getting prenatal care and drug treatment and led to many abortions and “toilet bowl babies”54, babies born at home or in secret – by fighting pregnant drug users, declared public enemy No. 1 by Bennett, with enforcement instead of treatment, the government certainly did more harm than good. (see picture 1, appendix B) 4.5 Racism and the war on drugs 4.5.1 A war on blacks? America’s war on drugs has often been accused of being racist. Even though the law treats minorities just like whites, it seems to be enforced with racial inequality. Many groups and organisations, like Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org) or American Civil Liberties Union (www.aclu.org) try to draw attention to this, in today’s modern society, unacceptable problem and back up their arguments with official statistics. Democrat Senator Charles Robb of Virginia put this in a nutshell with his appeal: “It’s time to shift the primary focus from racism, the traditional enemy from without, to self-defeating patterns of behavior, the enemy within.”55

18

4.5.2 Population, drug use and prison population rates for the different races The census 2000 showed that whites constitute about 75.1 % of the US population, blacks 12.3 % and Hispanics 12.5 %. 56

Chart 1

Additionally, convicted whites are still less likely to be sent to prison than convicted blacks (white: 33%, black: 51%), resulting in the fact that young black males, a group associated with drugs very strongly, have a 1 in 4 chance of going to prison in their lives at least once (white young males: 1 in 23) as 1 out of every 20 black men over the age of 18 is in prison (white men: 1 in 180). This high number of felony convictions among blacks decreases the black voting population of 10.4 million by 1.46 million. 13% of black voters are disenfranchised, seven times the national average rate of disenfranchisement. 4.5.3 Drug courier profiles The use of drug courier profiles targeting suspects on the basis of physical characteristics only also seems very discriminating against minorities. “Ethnic groups associated with the drug trade”57 , like African Americans or Hispanics, are more likley to be stopped and searched. In such stops and searches based on racial profiling, cash or property can be seized by the police upon suspicion, not proof, of involvement in criminal activities. This suspicion, however, may be as absurd as an African American carrying a huge amount of cash with him, even if he has a clean record. Because of its effectiveness, racial profiling has become part of the daily routine in most traffic stops over the last decades. In 1986, the DEA’s Operation Pipeline trained police officers around the country in methods of stopping and searching cars for drugs and encouraged them to target drivers of color because of a higher chance of catching drug criminals.

Chart 2

As chart 1 shows, the percentages of US residents 12 years and older reporting the use of any illicit drug in the past month are almost equal for those three races. Still, in 1986 the rate of drug law violators in state prisons per 100,000 US residents was about 7 times higher for African Americans (57) and Hispanics (52) than for whites (only 8), as chart 2 shows. While this rate increased by 110 % to 16 per 100,000 for whites until 1991, it skyrocketed to 277 for African Americans and 172 for Hispanics. (see chart2) Additionally, in federal prisons African Americans constitute 38 % of inmates and Hispanics 28 % (whites: 38 %) - as 58 % in federal prisons are drug felons also an indicator of racial inequalities in the drugwar.

19

4.5.4 Pregnant black women The crack baby panic of the 80s (also see: 4.4) especially hit black drug using mothers in the ghettos. Compared to white drug using mothers, they were 10 times more likely to be reported to the police by doctors, often resulting in the confiscation of their newborns and a prison sentence. 4.5.5 Differences in penalties for possession of crack and cocaine With passing new mandatory minimum sentences for possession or sale of crack in 1988 Congress created a huge disparity between cocaine and crack penalties. Again this can only be called racist as the only difference between these two drugs is that crack was preferred by the black ghetto population while cocaine was the drug of mostly white successful and rich people. In fact, crack is made out of cocaine powder and thus equally, but not more dangerous – still, possession of five grams of crack led to a five-year sentence without parole while 100 times as much cocaine powder would have to be possessed to get this same sentence. 5 Future of the American war on drugs 5.1 Influence of American-style drug war in Europe The influence on Europe by America’s war on drugs is only small. The EU does not set up any mandatory guidelines for national drug policy. Member states are free to operate and decide on a national level, so all EU member states define their own national drug strategies to fight illegal and legal drug abuse – however, priorities in these strategies only differ slightly. This decentralization has allowed European countries to experiment with alternative strategies and learn from these experiences. Parallels to the US could be seen during the late 1960s, when the emerging German counterculture, closely identified with drug use, resulted in the creation of an extended Narcotics Act in 1971 that aimed to stop drug use American-style, that is to say with strict rules. But as the German Narcotics Act has been amended several times to improve the quality and efficiency of treatment for addicts, for example with substitution based treatment, and also to reduce the harm done by drugs, for example with seringe exchange programs or drug consumption rooms; hence, some first few steps towards a common sense drug policy and away from a war on drugs have been taken. 5.2 European-style alternatives for the American war on drugs 5.2.1 The cry for an alternative drug policy From its beginning in 1969, America’s war on drugs always had its opponents. Starting with NORML’s request and steady fight since to reform the marijuana laws, over the last 30 years many voices to replace the failed prohibition of drugs with an alternative policy have arisen, for example the organizations Toward Freedom and Common Sense for Drug Policy. Many alternative drug policies and plans have been conceived and they all sound similar in a way. Even though US politicians have chosen to ignore advice up to now, at some point the US government will have to realize that the drug problem is not simply a question of enforcement against users but a complex issue of social and cultural depth. As the US is continuing its war on drugs, many European countries have already realized that enforcement against drug users should not have priority in a drug strategy as is the case in the US, but rather preventing children from all types of drug use, successfully treating addicts and reducing the harm done by drugs. Some European countries, like Switzerland,

20

Portugal, Spain, Belgium and Luxembourg have followed the example of Dutch market separation policy and therefore taken measures to decriminalize cannabis possession for personal use and distinguish between simple drug users and more dangerous drug law offenders. These measures will help concentrate enforcement efforts on big trafficking organizations and treatment of problematic drug use. The UK and Greece are considering similar steps, and maybe US officials should take a closer look at taking similar steps too as their northern neighbour Canada is also thinking about decriminalizing marijuana for personal use. (see picture 4, appendix B) 5.2.2 Market separation and harm reduction policy in the Netherlands In the Netherlands, the Opium Act of 1976 regulated the status of drugs in two Schedules. Schedule II consists of so-called soft drugs, drugs with an acceptable risk comparable to nicotine or alcohol, like cannabis and magic mushrooms, while Schedule I refers to hard drugs like herion and cocaine. Realizing that total elimination of drug use is an unrealistic goal, distribution of cannabis products in so-called coffee shops and magic mushrooms in smart shops is tolerated and not prosecuted by the police and possession of up to 5 grams of cannabis for personal use has been reduced to a misdemeanour. For quality control, coffee and smart shops have to follow certain rules laid down by the government as well as local policy makers in order to be tolerated: the AHOJG directives, which for instance ban advertising or selling to minors. So this policy has the goal of separating the market of drugs with acceptable risk from the market of drugs with unacceptable risks – harm reduction to the public is priority: "The separation of hard and soft drugs has helped keep people out of the drugs that really marginalize you from society," says Janhuib Blans of Jellinek, a Dutch organization that runs drug prevention, counseling and treatment programs.58

5.2.3 The success of the Dutch model Even though the US drug related law enforcement spending per person is about three times as high as in the Netherlands (US:81$, NL.:27$)1, the US has twice as many adult users (US: 33%, NL.: 15.6%)1 as well as adolescent marijuana users (also see 2.1). This might be the result of the Dutch priority on prevention programs for kids compared to the US priority on drug enforcement. As the chart shows, the separation of the markets also seems to work: far less Dutch people have used heroin, and statistics about other hard drugs indicate the same. A logical conclusion, as most cannabis products are obtained through coffee shops or homegrow and delivery services, which leaves only a fraction of all users obtaining their cannabis on the illegal market where they might get in touch with harder drugs, too. In contrast, all cannabis in the US comes from the illegal market which offers plenty of opportunities to get in touch with more dangerous drugs.

21

6 Personal Conclusion For more than 30 years, the US government has been fighting its war on drugs now. Certain privacy rights have been majorly weakened (see 4.1), the number of new agencies involved in the anti-drug fight has exploded and the nation’s drug budget has been increased by more than 1000% (see 3.3) . Despite all this, the two main goals, to reduce drug abuse, especially teenage drug use and to minimize the amount of drugs that is brought into the United States were not accomplished: availability of drugs and drug use remained almost constant (see 3.1) while the strict fight against all drug users with drug enforcement resulted in the overpopulation of US prisons (see 3.2) and personal tragedies for many individuals (see 4). In my eyes, all these facts constitute that America’s war on drugs has been a complete failure so far and the more I went into detail the more I realized the huge political potential of the drug war: drug users have been America’s ideal scapegoats for covering up the true problems of society. Always having been a fringe group, they were blamed for high crime rates, the crisis of the US economy and the loss of values since Nixon decided to get tough on drug users in 1969. To me it has not yet drifted into the minds of those in charge that an efficient approach should start at the root of the problem and should identify what the reasons are for people to take drugs. Something must have gone wrong in American society with a rate of drug users highest among industrial nations. Stigmatizing and eliminating them by imprisonment is no true, long-lasting way out of this problem. What an interesting parallel between the approach to the war on drugs and American-style war on terrorism! Bush seems to be on his way of making the same mistakes in America’s upcoming war on Iraq.

22

APPENDIX: A) EXAMPLE of Bush administration’s ads that link drug use with terrorism (see 8.2.8)

23

1: arrested drug using mother

2: protest against huge prison population

4: a woman publicly smoking marijuana in front of a coffee shop in Amsterdam

3: drug eductaion for kids with comics

5: CIA advertisement

B) PICTURE COLLECTION on the drug war

24

6: big cocaine drug bust

7: scene in a Straight drug rehab program

8: two crack addicts smoking in a doorway

9: criticism of government forfeiture techniques

10: protest against marijuana

11: crack cocaine

25

C) WORD EXPLANATIONS 2.1: root causes: The belief that the society is to be blamed for the individual’s fault. BNDD: Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs: LEAA: Law Enforcement Assistance Administration 2.2.1: Miranda ruling of 1966: requires police to read suspects their rights no knock: allowing police to kick down doors without a warning in drug-related cases preventive detention: a bill to reverse the existing bail initiative: gives the burden to convince the judge that the criminal should be released pending trial back to defendant loose search warrants: allows police to search property not specifically named in the search warrant counterculture: the young, the poor and the black: the Woodstock hippies, ghetto inmates; sex, drugs and rock&roll culture Operation Intercept: on September19, 1969 everyone crossing the TexMex border was searched; lasted only a few days; result: rising aerial drug smuggling and marijuana shortage in the US, which led to the use of harder drugs gateway theory: popular theory that marijuna leads to harder drugs NORML: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, founded by Keith Stroup RICO: Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act forfeiture: term for government confiscation of illegal objects 2.2.2: SAODAP: Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention drug czar: man who oversees the nation’s anti-drug efforts, very important position as budgets of different drug agencies are adjusted by the drug czar 2.2.3: ABA: American Bar Association, organization that fights for the public’s rights, for example ethic rules to prevent prosecutors from contracting a defendant without the defense lawyer present and other grant defendant’s right 2.2.4: ODALE: Office of Drug Abuse Law Enforcement CIA: Central Intelligence Agency DEA: Drug Enforcement Administration, most important drug agency today 2.3.1: High Times: drug culture magazine founded in 1974, still popular today 2.3.2: Nosy Parents Association: founded by Keith Schuchard as an initiative against adolescent drug use grass roots community groups: small, voluntary parent groups 2.4.1: Harm-reduction: “Harm reduction is any program or policy designed to reduce drug-related harm without requiring the cessation of drug use. Interventions may be targeted at the individual, the family, community or society.”59 2.4.2: commercialized drug culture: drug paraphernilia, drug magazines, products like “Opium parfume”, etc.: a multi-billion dollar industry 2.4.3: drug prevention: for example drug education movies like Brian at 17 PRIDE: Parents Research Institute for Drug Education, founded by Keith Schuchard 2.5.3: Straight: drug rehab centers for children with very questionable treating methods Toughlove: A book encouraging parents to be strict with their children regarding drug use and authority and giving strategies on how to achieve this, by Phyllis and David York, 1982 Get Involved: anti-drug campaign slogan aimed at parents, an Ad Council programm Say No to Drugs: Ad Council program aimed at kids 2.5.4: Posse Comitatus Act: made it illegal for US military to act as police on US territory or waters exclusionary rule: any evidence obtained illegally by the police must be excluded from court new criminal forfeiture status: anything believed (not proven!) to be drug related or bought with drug money can be seized by the police, e.g. cash, properties, etc. bountyhunter provisions: up to 50000$ for the snitch that got the case going CAMP: Campaign Against Marijauna Production, biggest state/federal marijuana eradication project

26

drug courier profiles: characteristics of persons associated with drug trade , e.g. “ethnic groups associated with the drug trade” 60 Omnibus Crime Bill of 1984: many new bills weakening privacy rights and strengthening the power of prosecutors,for example everything believed (not proven!) to be related to drug money could be confiscated, these seized assets would then be shared amongst the agencies involved in the case 2.5.6: MDMA: street name: Ecstasy, very useful drug for psychiatrists but also widley abused, designer drug Crack: also rocks, growl: smokeable form of cocaine, so reinforcing that it was said to be instantly addictive (only psychological addiction), available very cheap in single hit doses in the ghettos raid footage: network crews accompany police when busting drug dealers and broadcast live 2.5.7: zero tolerance: the plan was to seize everything connected to drugs; even when the amount of drugs was as small as a single marijuana seed, whole mansions or yachts could be seized Operation Hammer: beginning April 9th, 1988 in LA, South Central to clean LA from drugs and dealers Operation Cleansweep: beginning September 1988, in Chicago’s urban housing projects 2.6.1: drug courts: designed to take cases from the criminal court system: first-time possession offenders had to go through a treatment program and were then released with a clean record National Drug and Crime Emergency Act: unused army bases were turned into detention centers for drug offenders Drug speech 9/5: Bush presented crack cocaine during his speech and claimed it was bought across from the White House. As the media found out shortly after, however, this deal was a setup buy by the DEA – the dealer was therefore released and Bush accused of lying (Washington Post headline: Drug buy set up for Bush speech: DEA lured seller to Lafayette park). He talked his way out of it: “I don’t understand. I mean, has somebody got some advocates here for this drug guy?”61 2.6.3: Weed and Seed: weed out the drug dealers and then seed communities (usually) bad neighborhoods with opportunity CPR:Community Project for Restoration, Clinton administraion’s expression for Weed and Seed Operation Triggerlock: federal agents would rearrest drug criminals that already served their sentences in state prisons and then charge them again with the same crime to serve another sentence in federal prison: the 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy did not apply 2.7.1: three strikes and you are out: 3 felonies lead to prison for life 2.7.2: National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: attempt to discourage children from using drugs with TV or radio commercials and ads in magazines 2.8.3: Parent Drug Corps: parent groups who supervise children in order to prevent them from taking drugs Andean Counter-Drug Initiative: drug producting or transit countries are strengthened financially to create another source of income besides drugs, e.g. for crop-substitution programs 4.1.2: “two-prong” test: two prongs as basis to get a search warrant: (1) revealing the informant's "basis of knowledge" and (2) providing sufficient facts to establish either the informant's "veracity" or the "reliability" of the informant's report 4.1.3: good faith exception: anything seized with “good faith” of the police officer is admissible for evidence in court - the exclusionary rule does not apply 4.1.4: body packer: one who smuggles drugs in condoms or balloons inside his own digestive tract

4.3: The Seed: drug program founded in 1972, lost funding after convicted of brainwashing techniques humble pants:a Straight punishment forcing children to wear the same pants for up to 6 weeks – very unhygienic with only one shower allowed per week! DFAF: Drug Free America Foundation 4.4 toilet bowl babies: born at home or in secret, dan baum , page 271 4.5.3: Operation Pipeline: trained police officers around the country in methods of stopping and searching cars for drugs , for example by setting up road blocks and letting dogs sniff carsCops were also taught that targeting minority drivers in drug searches increases the chance of catching drug criminals.

27

5.1: Narcotics Act: dt.:Betäubungsmittelgesetz, based on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances in 1971 5.2.1: market seperation: Dutch policy attempting to separate the market of soft drugs from the market of hard drugs 5.2.2: AHOJG: no Advertising, no sale of Hard drugs (meaning Schedule I drugs), no nuisance(O), no sale to youths (under 18) (J), no large quantities (over 5 grams) (G) D) SOURCES listed by chapter: Picture front page: www.unlp.org/stuff/grass/ 2.1.1: Smoke and Mirrors, The war on drugs and the politics of failure, Dan Baum, Little, Brown and Company, pages 3-12 2.2.1: Dan Baum, pages 13-15, 21, 23-24, 37-38, 68, 74-75 http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n840.a11.html http://www.dwacres.com/txt/tfi1_3.htm 2.2.2: Dan Baum, pages 48-52, 55-56 2.2.3: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99.n840.a11.html Dan Baum, pages 52-53, 62-64, 71, 80 2.2.4: Dan Baum, pages 68, 72-73, 83-85 http://www.dwacres.com/txt/tfi1_3.htm 2.3.1: Dan Baum, pages 85-91 2.3.2: Dan Baum, pages 88-90 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/ 2.4.1: Dan Baum, pages 92-97 2.4.2: Dan Baum, pages 98-99, 102 http://www.hr95.org/dw101.htm 2.4.3: Dan Baum, pages 116-119, 122, 125-127 2.5.1: Dan Baum, pages 137-139, 145 http://www.dwacres.com/txt/tfi1_3.htm 2.5.2: Dan Baum, pages 143-146, 151, 154, 166 2.5.3: Dan Baum, pages 152-158, 163 http://www.dwacres.com/txt/tfi1_3.htm 2.5.4: Dan Baum, pages 165, 167-168, 172-176, 203-204 2.5.5: Dan Baum, pages 186-187, 207, 209-211 http://www.dwacres.com/txt/tfi1_3.htm 2.5.6: Dan Baum, pages 213-214, 217-220, 222-223, 225-226 2.5.7: Dan Baum, pages 231, 233, 237-238, 244, 250-253 2.6.1: Dan Baum, pages 248, 262-273, 285-286, 288-289, 295, 297

28

History of the United States, Thomas V. DiBacco, Lorna C. Mason and Christian G. Appy, McDougal Littell Inc., pages 839-840 2.6.2: Dan Baum, pages 303-304, 308, 314, 326 History of the United States, pages 852-855 2.6.3: Dan Baum, pages 319, 326-328 http://www.hr95.org/dw101.htm 2.7.1: Dan Baum, pages 329-337 http://www.hr95.org/dw101.htm 2.7.2: Barry R. McCaffrey’s Keynote Adress, http://165.112.78.61/MeetSum/CODA/Keynote2.html http://www.november.org/razorwire/rzold/06/0602.html http://www.issues2000.org/celeb/bill_clinton_drugs.htm 2.7.3: chart: http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/nhsda/2k1nhsda/vol1/CHAPTER5.HTM#fig5.1 2.8.1: http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Drugs.htm http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010510-1.html 2.8.2: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020212-8.html 2.8.3: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020212-8.html http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204f.asp http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread14403.shtml 3.1: chart 1: from Monitoring the Future, http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/00data/fig00_2.pdf chart 2: from Monitoring the Future, http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/00data/fig00_2.pdf http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/01data/fig01_2.pdf (drug use chart) http://monitoringthefuture.org/data/01data/fig01_2.pdf (availability chart) US Drug Policy, figure 4 (???) 3.2: chart 1: chart self-made with Microsoft Excel, numbers taken from http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/federal.htm chart 2: Drug Prohibtion by Ernest Drucker, http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/drugrealities/drugspro.htm Buerau of justice statistics special report 199 fact sheet:drug data summary http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cfjs99.htm http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR27.2/images/1a&1b.eps.pdf http://pro.wanadoo.fr/tansen/bioethics/society/biggestjailer.htm 3.3: chart: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/dcf.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/federal.htm http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/dcb.htm http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm 4.1.1: US Constitution, Fourth Amendment 4.1.2: http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+462+u!2Es!2E+213!3A]!28[level+case+citation!3A]!7C[group+citemenu!3A]!29/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only? Dan Baum, pages 179-182 4.1.3: Dan Baum, pages 202-203 4.1.4: Dan Baum, pages 215 and 299 4.1.5: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-2018.ZD.html Dan Baum, pages 216, 299 4.2.1: http://www.pdxnorml.org/KIA.html

29

http://www.eff.org/Activism/bill_of_rights_status.report http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/wormscan.html 4.2.2: http://www.pdxnorml.org/KIA.html Dan Baum, page 248 4.2.3: http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/if/rights_lost.html http://www.la.lp.org/essay1.html 4.2.4: Dan Baum, pages 276, 277 4.2.5: http://civilliberty.about.com/library/weekly/aa012400a.htm http://www.fear.org/scott.html http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/scott_20010731.html Dan Baum, page 320 4.3: Dan Baum, pages 157-160, 198, 232, 283-284 http://www.thestraights.com/ http://www.nospank.net/rehab.htm 4.4: Dan Baum, pages 217-219, 267-72 Drug war facts, Cocaine and Pregnancy, www.drug warfacts.org/pregnant.htm Lindersmith Center, Cocaine and Pregnancy, http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year2/teratology/cocaine-pregnancy.htm 4.5.1: www.hrw.org www.aclu.org Dan Baum, pages 194, 257, 262 4.5.2: chart 1: Drug Prohibtion by Ernest Drucker chart 2: Drug Prohibtion by Ernest Drucker Pipe Dream Blues: Racism and the War on Drugs, Clarence Lusane , Dennis Paperback Drug Prohibtion by Ernest Drucker http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/essay005.htm www.drug warfacts.org/racepris.htm www.drug warfacts.org/civilrts.htm http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n771.a03.html http://www.inthefray.com/200105/identify/analysis2/analysis2-page2.html http://smccd.net/accounts/helton/racefacts.htm Source: http://www.geocities.com/onemansmind/rb/Crime.html 4.5.3: Pipe Dream Blues: Racism and the War on Drugs, Clarence Lusane , Dennis Paperback Drug Prohibtion by Ernest Drucker http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/essay005.htm http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n771.a03.html Dan Baum, pages 194, 242, 299 4.5.4 : www.drug warfacts.org/racepris.htm www.drug warfacts.org/civilrts.htm Dan Baum page 271 4.5.5 : http://www.richardwarrenfield.com/essay005.htm http://www.unhooked.com/sep/cracksen.htm Dan Baum, page 257 5.1: http://eldd.emcdda.org/databases/eldd_country_profiles.cfm?country=DE 5.2: Drug war Facts, by Doug Mc Vay , booklet from www.drugwarfacts.org Drug Misuse (Issues series), Volume 2, Independence, Craig Donnellan 2001 Annual report on the state of drugs in the EU and Norway,2002 (http://annualreport.emcdda.eu.int/en/page49-en.html) www.towardfreedom.com/jun02/fixingthedrug war.htm www.csdp.org

30

www.norml.org: Working to reform marijuana laws http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/c_hltdru.html statistics: Fact sheet: Drug use in the US and the Netherlands, www.csdp.org http://www.ministerievanjustitie.nl:8080/c_actual/rapport/legalinfra.pdf example appendix A: http://theantidrug.com/drugs_terror/ads.html picture collection appendix B: 1: Drug Prohibtion by Ernest Drucker 2: www.backspace.com/notes/ images/sam.png 3: www.comicsetc.com/issue.cfm/ issID/580 4: http://www.sptimes.com/News/073001/Worldandnation/Marijuana_loses_its_a.shtml 5: www.cia.gov/saynotodrugs/ warondrugs.html 6: www.infoimagination.org/ ps/drug_war/cocaine 7: http://thestraights.com/ 8: Drug Prohibtion by Ernest Drucker 9: www.aclu-wa.org/gfx/misc/ Forfeiture%20AdW.jpg 10: http://www.changetheclimate.com/campaigns/ 11: www.doctus.ee/.../pildid/stimu/ kokaiin/Crack%20Cocaine.jpg E) FOOTNOTES: 1 Los Angeles Times Book Review, from front page of Smoke and Mirrors, The war on drugs and the politics of failure, Dan Baum, Little, Brown and Company, 2 Nixon, in Smoke and Mirrors, The war on drugs and the politics of failure, Dan Baum, Little, Brown and Company, page 12 3 Robert Steele, Republican of Connecticut to reporters, in Dan Baum , page 48 4 San Fransisco group of Presidential commission on marijuana, in Dan Baum, page 63 5 http://www.abanet.org/about/goals.html, ,definition of the ABA’s mission on its official website 6 Time magazine, in Dan Baum, page 80 7 Dan Baum, page 72 8 Nixon in his CIA speech, in Dan Baum, page 72 9 paper on the state of drug abuse in the US, Ford administration, in Dan Baum, page 86 10 paper on the state of drug abuse in the US, Ford administration, in Dan Baum, page 86 11 Lee Dogoloff’s term for parent groups, in Dan Baum, page 135 12 Jimmy Carter, drug statement delivered to Congress, in Dan Baum, page 95 13 http://www.ccsa.ca/docs/wgharm.htm, definition of harm reduction 14 Carter administration’s midterm drug strategy, in Dan Baum, page 96 15 based on Lloyd Johnston’s National Survey Results on Drug Use from Monitoring the Future Study, in Dan Baum, page 98 16 Richard L. Williams, in Dan Baum, page 136 17 Carlton Turner , in Dan Baum , page 152 18 Government Executive magazine, (oct 1982), profile of Carlton Turner in Dan Baum, page 154 19 Reagan’s Remarks on Signing Executive Order 12368, Concerning Federal Drug Abuse Policy Functions, June 24, 1982, from http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1982/62482b.htm 20 from “Taking drugs on the job”, Newsweek, August 22, 1983, in Dan Baum , page 187 21 from „Steal this urine test“ by Abbie Hoffman, in Dan Baum, page 207, zitat+zahle 22 from transcript of cabinet meeting of March 27, 1985, in Dan Baum, page 209 23 Dan Baum, 231, South Carolina Republican Thomas Hartnett 24 Nancy Reagan’s remarks at the international day against drug abuse and trafficking, Naas Stadium, Wednesday 26 June 2002, from http://mpumalanga.mpu.gov.za/premier_folder/premier_speeches/drug_abuse.html 25 Ronald Reagan in Newsweek article “Reagan Aide: Pot can make you gay”, from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/vandeerlin/20020925-9999_1e25deerlin.html 26 Nancy Reagan in 1988, in Dan Baum, page 253 27 Terence ell from the drug office’s chief Council, in Dan Baum, page 264 28 Bennett in „Contradictions of Cocaine Capitalism”, The Nation , in Dan Baum, page 266 29 Orange County Register, in Dan Baum, page 326 30 “Some think the war on drugs is being waged on the wrong front”, New York Times, July 28, 1992, in Dan Baum, page 326 31 Justice Department spokesman , from http://www.november.org/thewall/cases/clark-d/clark-d.html 32 Bill Clinton to Christian Science Monitor, quoting Benjamin Franklin, July 27, 1992, in Dab Baum, page 329 33 St. Pierre in Dan Baum, page 332 34 Drug czar General Barry McCaffrey in his Keynote Adress

31

35 Drug czar General Barry McCaffrey in his Keynote Adress 36 George W. Bush, from http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Drugs.htm 37 George W. Bush in Remarks by the President in Announcement of the Director of the Office of Drug Control Policy , from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010510-1.html 38 George W. Bush, see footnote 36 39 George W. Bush, see footnote 36 40 George W. Bush in his 2002 National Drug Control Strategy, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020212-8.html 41 George W. Bush, http://theantidrug.com/drugs_terror/ads.html (video 1) 42 George W. Bush, see footnote 39 43 Dan Baum, page 302 44 US Constitution, Fourth Amendment 45 William Brennan in US v Leon, 468US897,905(1984), in http://prorev.com/recovered6b.htm 46 Bennett in National Drug Control Strategy September 1989, in Dan Baum, page 277 47 District Attorney Michael Bradbury on http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html 48 NIDA director Bob du Pont in Straight Inc.’s brochures, in Dan Baum, page 161 49 Written Plan for Professional Services, Straight Inc., March 1, 1991, in Dan Baum, page 160 50 govenor Jeb Bush, http://www.nospank.net/rehab.htm 51 from “When becoming pregnant is a crime” by Lynn Paltrow in Criminal Justice Ethics from http://www.pdxnorml.org/071896.html 52 Charles Krauthammer on http://leda.lycaeum.org/Documents/Crack_Babies_Excerpt_from_"Smoke_and_Mirrors".12943.shtml 53 Boston University president John Silber, on http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JA95/greider.html 54 in Dan Baum, page 271 55 US Senator Charles Robb, Democrat of Virginia, 1989, in Dan Baum, page 262 56 http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt, numbers of 2000 57 from 1985 handbook for police officers of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles “The Common Characteristics of Drug Couriers”, from http://www.inthefray.com/200105/identify/analysis2/analysis2-page2.html 58By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN, St. Petersburg Times, published July 30, 2001 http://www.sptimes.net/News/073001/Worldandnation/Marijuana_loses_its_a.shtml 59 definition of harm reduction from http://www.camh.net/best_advice/harm_reduction_pos0602.html 60 in Dan Baum, page 194 61 from http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1989/89092202.html