west coast web viewwest coast publishing plan columbia public forum december 2016 page 51....

West Coast Publishing Plan Columbia Public Forum December 2016

West Coast Publishing

Plan ColumbiaPublic Forum Dec. 2016

Starter File

Thanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials.

Please don’t share this material with anyone outside of your school

including via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc.We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.

Contact us at [email protected]

www.wcdebate.com

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com

http://www.wcdebate.com/


mailto:[email protected]


WEST COAST DEBATE

Public Forum Dec 2016

Plan Columbia Starter FileFinding Arguments in this File

Use the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation bar on the left. We have tried to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible.

Using the arguments in this FileWe encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others’ research and make new files. File the evidence so that you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence out-loud; Practice applying the arguments to your opponents’ positions; Practice defending your evidence in rebuttal speeches.

Use West Coast Evidence as a BeginningWe hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Don’t stagnate in these files--build upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically apply to your opponents. In doing so, you’ll use our evidence to become a better debater.

Copying West Coast EvidenceOur policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without violating our hard work.

You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team. You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than those on your team

unless you very substantially change each page of material that you share.For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at [email protected] and seek our consent.

Ordering West Coast Materials1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at www.wcdebate.com2. E-mail us at [email protected] 3. Fax us at 877-781-5058Copyright 2016. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

Visit our web page!www.wcdebate.com







Table of Contents

WEST COAST DEBATE...............................................................................................................................2

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Pro Plan Columbia and Current Drug Policy is Bad ....................................................................................... 5

Current Drug Policy Fails.......................................................................................................................6Pro – Current Policy Fails......................................................................................................................7Pro - Current Policy Fails.......................................................................................................................8Pro – Enforcement Fails........................................................................................................................9Pro – Enforcement Fails......................................................................................................................10Pro – Enforcement Fails......................................................................................................................11Pro – Change Key................................................................................................................................12Pro – Change Key................................................................................................................................13Pro – Change Key................................................................................................................................14DRUG ADDICTION IS A DISEASE...........................................................................................................15DRUG ADDICTION IS A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM...................................................................16DRUG ADDICTION FOSTERS CRIME......................................................................................................17DRUG ABUSE SPREADS DISEASE..........................................................................................................18PUBLIC HEALTH TREATMENT IS MORE EFFECTIVE................................................................................19ONLY TREATMENT WORKS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH..............................................................20CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS FAIL TO REDUCE ADDICTION...................................................................21CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS FAIL TO REDUCE ADDICTION...................................................................22CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS JUST INCREASE PRISON POPULATIONS....................................................23THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A RACIST ENTERPRISE....................................................................................24THE WAR ON DRUGS UNDERMINES SOCIAL WELFARE.........................................................................25PROHIBITION ONLY CREATES CRIME AND CRIMINALS.........................................................................26PROHIBITION ONLY CREATES CRIME AND CRIMINALS.........................................................................27CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEADS TO TREATMENT..........................................................................................28

Con Plan Columbia and Current Drug Policy is Bad ..................................................................................... 29

Plan Colombia Stable aid is key..............................................................................................................30Plan Colombia Stable aid is key..............................................................................................................31Plan Colombia increases Colombian Stability..........................................................................................33Plan Colombia stops FARC caused instability..........................................................................................34Plan Colombia prevents Cocaine abuse..................................................................................................35Plan Colombia Good – Cocaine – A2: Supply Spills over..........................................................................36A2: Plan Colombia Bad (Corruption).......................................................................................................37A2: Plan Colombia Bad (Human Rights)..................................................................................................38A2: Plan Colombia Bad (Colombia Stability Inevitable)...........................................................................39A2: Plan Colombia Bad (Cooperation Inevitable – Columbia Reliant)......................................................40Colombian Instability Bad – Democracy/Terrorism.................................................................................41Colombian Instability Bad – Regional Instability.....................................................................................42Con – Current Policy Works....................................................................................................................43Con – Current Policy Works....................................................................................................................44Con – Current Policy Works....................................................................................................................45Con – Current policy works.....................................................................................................................46Con – Enforcement Works......................................................................................................................47




Con – Enforcement Works......................................................................................................................48Con – Enforcement Works......................................................................................................................49Con – Change Fails.................................................................................................................................50Con – Change Fails.................................................................................................................................51




Pro Plan Columbia and Current Drug Policy is Bad




Current Drug Policy Fails

The US has spent billions and hasn’t achieved very much – the drug trade is still massive Associated Press, 2-3-2013, “U.S. militarizes Latin American drug war,” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57567340/u.s-militarizes-latin-american-drug-war/Many in the military and other law enforcement agencies - the Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FBI - applaud the U.S. strategy, but critics say militarizing the drug war in a region fraught with tender democracies and long-corrupt institutions can stir political instability while barely touching what the U.N. estimates is a $320 billion global illicit drug market. Congressman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), who chaired the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere for the past four years, says the U.S.-supported crackdown on Mexican cartels only left them "stronger and more violent." He intends to reintroduce a proposal for a Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission to evaluate antinarcotics efforts. "Billions upon billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent over the years to combat the drug trade in Latin America and the Caribbean," he said. "In spite of our efforts, the positive results are few and far between."

Expanding drug exports through drug liberalization would reduce Mexican drug cartel’s profitsDudley Althaus, drug policy analyst, 11-10-2012, “How Colorado and Washington could end Mexico’s drug war,” Global Post, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/121109/marijuana-legalization-colorado-washington-mexico-drug-war “It seems to me that we should move to authorize exports,” Cesar Duarte, governor of gangster-plagued Chihuahua, which includes Ciudad Juarez, told Reuters in an interview. “We could therefore propose organizing production for export, and with it no longer being illegal, we would have control over a business which today is run by criminals. And which finances criminals.” Despite booming pot production in California, Tennessee and other US states, Mexican marijuana still supplies about half the US market, according to the competitiveness institute study. Though lower than US marijuana in THC, the chemical that gives the weed its kick, Mexico's product is priced low enough to be competitive. While a greater share of the gangs' profit comes from cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine — as well as kidnapping, extortion and other rackets — marijuana serves as a reliable bread and butter earner. An evaporating US market for Mexican marijuana would hit hardest the Sinaloa Cartel of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, which earns as much as half its income from smuggled pot, Hope's study estimates.

The current focus on supply side measures will only accentuate violenceMark Kleinman, prof of public policy at UCLA, 5-30-2012, “Focus on Violent Gangs and Big Users,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/focus-on-the-most-violent-gangs-and-the-biggest-usersReducing the bloodshed requires either shrinking the flows of drugs north and money south or reducing the role of violence in the trade. But current “supply side” (enforcement) policies are largely futile in reducing the volume, and actually accentuate the violence, while current “demand side” (prevention and treatment) policies help some individuals but have little effect on the overall market.




Pro – Current Policy Fails

Portugal proves that a regulatory approach reduces arrest and incarceration of millionsEthan Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, 5-30-2012, “Regulate Drug Use, Don’t Criminalize It,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/regulate-drug-use-dont-criminalize-itFirst, decriminalize possession of small amounts of any drug for personal use. That will have little impact on overall demand for illicit drugs, but it will significantly reduce the arrest and incarceration of millions of people worldwide, most of whom are poor and often members of vulnerable minority groups. It will also cut down on low-level corruption by police. Portugal has provided a model for successful implementation of such a policy over the decade, and others in Europe and Latin America are beginning to follow in its footsteps.

Continuing on the current path will result in failure Otto Pérez Molina, the president of Guatemala, 5-31-2012, “Stop Following a Failed Policy,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/stop-blindly-following-a-failed-policyToday, 51 years after reaching this consensus, something is pretty clear: drugs are prohibited but drugs continue to be consumed in quantities so large that the global market is calculated in hundreds of billions of dollars. In other words, the global consensus is far from being successful. Actually, I prefer to call it what it really is: a failure. We need to rigorously evaluate the impact of what we are doing, and analyze other policy options we can implement, including drug regulation. Unfortunately, the global consensus failure is not just expressed in the existence of a huge and incredibly profitable drug market. Big money has also brought greater violence. So the drug market has both increased in its supply of dollars, as well as in its demand for blood. My home country, Guatemala, as well as other countries in Central America and the Caribbean are suffering this bloodshed, the same bloodshed that is present in many poor urban neighborhoods in the United States, which affects disproportionately young black and Latino Americans. My government has called for an open dialogue on global drug policy based on a simple assumption: we cannot continue to expect different results if we continue to do the same things. Something is wrong with our global strategy, and in order to know better what is wrong we need an evidence-based approach to drug policy and not an ideological one. This means that we need to evaluate rigorously what is the impact of what we are doing, and analyze carefully what other policy options we can implement.

By ever measure our current strategy is a failure – we can’t keep doing the same thingNeill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is a retired Baltimore narcotics cop, 4-20-2012, “War On Drugs: Necessary Effort Or Lost Cause?” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/war-on-drugs-debate-420_n_1440077.htmlThink drugs can be dangerous? As a former police officer, I do too -- and that's why I think it's time to legalize them. For decades, governments have tried to solve the real and serious problem of substance abuse by banning drugs and severely punishing users and distributors. By nearly every measure, this strategy has been a failure. Drugs are cheaper, more potent and more available than ever before. Forty-seven percent of Americans admit to illegal drug use. Prohibitionists say that if we keep doing the same thing -- only more vigorously -- we can achieve success. They're wrong.




Pro - Current Policy Fails

Thousands of murders are occurring in Latin America due to US policyErnest Drucker, a professor emeritus in the department of family and social medicine and the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a senior research associate and scholar in residence at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 5-31-2012, “Stop Outsourcing Our Drug Murders,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/stop-outsourcing-our-drug-murdersIllicit drug markets have always been violent and corrupting -- think of Al Capone. But the effects of modern drug prohibition are more far-reaching and destructive than anything that’s been seen, most strikingly in Mexico, through which much of our nation’s supply of prohibited drugs now flows. Homicides have surged in Mexico over the last five years, with an estimated 50,000 murdered since 2006, more than 12,000 in 2011 alone.

The current approach could lead to a nationalist backlash – it also will fragment kingpins causing more violenceCharlie Savage, analyst, 11-6-2011, “D.E.A. Squads Extend Reach of Drug War,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/americas/united-states-drug-enforcement-agency-squads-extend-reach-of-drug-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0But there are also potential dangers. “It could lead to a nationalist backlash in the countries involved,” he said. “If an American is killed, the administration and the D.E.A. could get mired in Congressional oversight hearings. Taking out kingpins could fragment the organization and lead to more violence. And it won’t permanently stop trafficking unless a country also has capable institutions, which often don’t exist in Central America.”

Looser policy would reduce drug prices harming deadly cartelsAlex Leff, drug analyst, 4-16-2012, “Latin America’s drug war evolution,” Salon, http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/latin_americas_drug_war_evolution/Some Latin leaders are discussing the need to experiment further with decriminalizing possession of drugs. Lawmakers are also proposing to scrap jail terms for growing coca and cannabis. The bottom line: Softening anti-drug laws would ultimately drive down narcotics prices, advocates say, and that would crimp revenues for the deadly cartels that wreak havoc from the Andes to Mexico — and across its U.S. border. Though far from concrete, the push comes as Latin leaders flex their might and independent voices as Washington’s influence wanes in the Americas. What’s more, some of the United States’ closest allies — moderates and conservatives alike — are leading the charge toward change.




Pro – Enforcement Fails

The US war on drugs attempts to end all coca production – that violates cultural practices of the Bolivian peopleSara Miller Llana, analyst, 7-30-2012, “How Latin America is reinventing the war on drugs,” CSM, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/0730/How-Latin-America-is-reinventing-the-war-on-drugsFor decades the coca growers here, Lopez Vasquez among them, resisted US-backed forced eradication in a long simmering protest that defined US-Bolivian relations and often turned violent. Growers in the Chapare scored a victory in 2004 when they were granted the right to grow a small plot of coca per family. But a turning point came with the 2006 election of Bolivian President Evo Morales, a former coca grower from the Chapare and still the head of its unions, who promised an end to the old US-Bolivian paradigm. Within three years of his presidency, Mr. Morales kicked out the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), as well as the US ambassador, accusing both of fomenting opposition. Last year Bolivia became the first country ever to withdraw from the United Nations 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs for the charter's failure to recognize the traditional use of the coca leaf. Now the Chapare is once again a nexus – but this time for a new government experiment markedly different from former US drug policy. Today, farmers unions partner with government agencies to control coca production, reducing the amount of the leaf cultivated across Bolivia, as well as the quantities destined for illegal uses. This cooperation is new, and the very acceptance of coca crops in the Chapare defies US wishes. The US, in fact, has voiced deep skepticism about Bolivia's commitment to the international fight against narcotics, condemning La Paz

in a 2012 report for "failing demonstrably" in its antinarcotic obligations. For the residents of the Chapare, however, the "nationalization" of Bolivia's drug fight means the preservation of a lifestyle and a basic income without the threat of constant conflict. "I am a coca producer, and they made us take out our crops so cocaine would disappear and narcotraffic would disappear," says Felipe Martinez, who heads a state entity in charge of monitoring and eradicating coca that exceeds legal limits in the Chapare. "But that didn't bring results. It brought blood, sorrow, orphans. We lost the right to be people."

The current drug war has caused escalating violence in Mexico, killed 50,000 and will cause violence to flood into the CaribbeanAlex Leff, drug analyst, 4-16-2012, “Latin America’s drug war evolution,” Salon, http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/latin_americas_drug_war_evolution/What stands out among the consequences of the drug war? The escalating violence in Mexico. [President Felipe] Calderon’s attempt to take on the criminal organizations. The 50,000 dead. The spread of this traffic and violence to Central America. The widespread realization that it’s only a matter of time before it floods into the Caribbean, once again, as it did back in the ‘80s.

The drug war needs to be rethought – 60,000 people in Mexico have died dude to the anti-narcotics campaignDudley Althaus, drug policy analyst, 11-10-2012, “How Colorado and Washington could end Mexico’s drug war,” Global Post, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/121109/marijuana-legalization-colorado-washington-mexico-drug-warPena aides and allies argued that the Washington and Colorado results support that view, requiring a rethink of Mexico's militarized anti-narcotics campaign, which has claimed at least 60,000 lives, and perhaps far many more, in the past six years. “We have to carry out a review of our joint policies in regard to drug trafficking and security in general,” Luis Videgaray, a senior Pena aide, told a Mexican radio interviewer following Tuesday's vote in the US. “This obliges us to rethink our relationship in regards to security. This is an unforeseen element.”





Shifting away from an enforcement policy would open up routes for treatment, prevention and educationNeill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is a retired Baltimore narcotics cop, 4-20-2012, “War On Drugs: Necessary Effort Or Lost Cause?” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/war-on-drugs-debate-420_n_1440077.htmlAs a narcotics cop in Baltimore, I watched as legislators voted to continually ramp up the drug war -- with more spending, more prisons and more punishment. But it didn't work. Greater enforcement only meant more people with criminal records. And arresting dealers only caused more violence as competing cartels and gangs battled it out to take over bigger shares of the lucrative black market. So instead of just carrying out the same old prohibition strategy that clearly hasn't worked, let's try something that can: Legalization. By "legalization," I don't mean a drug free-for-all where anything goes. I'm talking about enacting a system of regulations that tightly controls the drug trade. Bringing the drug market above ground allows us to take power -- and profits -- away from gangs and cartels. And only when we stop wasting so much money and time arresting, prosecuting and jailing people for a health problem can we finally invest adequate resources in strategies that actually work, like treatment, prevention and education.

The US war on drugs in Latin America is failing – violence is killing thousandsJuan Forero, Latin America analyst, 4-10-2012, “Latin American countries pursue alternatives to U.S. drug war,” Washington Post, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-10/world/35451300_1_latin-american-leaders-cartels-legalizationWhen President Obama arrives in Colombia for a hemispheric summit this weekend, he will hear Latin American leaders say that the U.S.-orchestrated war on drugs, which criminalizes drug use and employs military tactics to fight gangs, is failing and that broad changes need to be considered. Latin American leaders say they have not developed an alternative model to the approach favored by successive American administrations since Richard Nixon was in office. But the Colombian government says a range of options — including decriminalizing possession of drugs, legalizing marijuana use and regulating markets — will be debated at the Summit of the Americas in the coastal city of Cartagena. Faced with violence that has left 50,000 people dead in Mexico and created war zones in Central America, regional leaders have for months been openly discussing what they view as the shortcomings of the U.S. approach. But the summit marks the first opportunity for many of them to directly share their grievances with Obama.

A bold shift in drug policy is necessary – the current approach isn’t workingSam DArcangelo, drug analyst, 4-19-2012, “Obama Rebukes Latin America on Call to End War on Drugs,” Head Count, http://www.headcount.org/obama-rebukes-latin-america-on-call-to-end-war-on-drugs/When it comes to harder drugs, things get a little more complicated. Full legalization might not be the best way to deal with those, but the current system certainly isn’t working either. Treating drug addicts like criminals is a terrible way to deal with the problem of drug abuse, and its time for the United States to shift its focus. Drug abuse needs to be dealt with as an issue of public health, not an issue of criminal justice. A bold shift in drug policy might sound radical, but it really isn’t. We would not be wading into the waters blindly, as other nations have tried alternative approaches with a great degree of success.





Across the board cuts is forcing the US to rely on partner nationsMichael Weissenstein, analyst, 3-8-2013, “Latin American anti-drug push hurt by budget cuts; surveillance planes, Navy ships restricted,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/latin-american-anti-drug-push-hurt-by-budget-cuts-surveillance-planes-navy-ships-restricted/2013/03/08/93136fc2-881a-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.htmlThe frigates USS Gary and USS Thach are slated to return to port by the end of April. Navy officials said this week that they don’t plan to replace them, as previously intended, because of $85 billion in automatic budget cuts that went into effect last

week. The cuts were designed to be so crude and controversial that the Obama administration and a bitterly divided Congress would be forced to find a better way to cut the federal deficit. When that didn’t happen, federal agencies were forced to chop the same rough percentage of their budgets. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has cut 1,900 hours of flight time for its P3 radar planes, a nearly 40 percent cut in flights in the fiscal year ending in

September. That leaves the program with only 800 hours for the rest of the year, an amount that could be used up after several dozen flights. The program currently flies several times in an average week. Jody Draves, a spokeswoman for the military/civilian task force that patrols drug-trafficking routes off the coasts of Central America, said the withdrawal of

two Navy ships would cut into the U.S. ability to interdict drug shipments. The task force normally has between two and five Navy and Coast Guard ships, and dozens of ships from Colombia and Central American nations, mostly smaller boats and often speedboats seized from drug traffickers. “Will it have a serious impact if we don’t have those (Navy) ships? Absolutely,” she said. “There’ll be an effort to try to

mitigate not having as much of a U.S. presence ... We’re going to have to depend, at least for the interim, on partner nations.”

Our current approach stigmatizes drug use making it less safeNeill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is a retired Baltimore narcotics cop, 4-20-2012, “War On Drugs: Necessary Effort Or Lost Cause?” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/war-on-drugs-debate-420_n_1440077.htmlAs someone who has seen fellow police officers and best friends killed in the line of fire enforcing our existing drug policies, I don't come to support legalization easily, and I certainly didn't arrive here because I think drugs aren't dangerous. But I now realize that the "war on drugs" itself only makes dangerous drugs infinitely more deadly. Because drugs are illegal, their potency and purity is unregulated and completely unknown to users. Under legalization we could have testing and labeling, but under prohibition users have no idea what they are putting into their bodies. This leads to overdose deaths. And, because of the criminal stigma that is currently associated with drug use, many people are afraid to seek treatment for their addiction problems or are deterred from calling for lifesaving medical help during overdose situations out of fear of being arrested.

The drug war can’t work – there is no way to defeat what is a dynamic global commodities market Alex Leff, drug analyst, 4-16-2012, “Latin America’s drug war evolution,” Salon, http://www.salon.com/2012/04/16/latin_americas_drug_war_evolution/One [factor] is the ongoing and mounting frustration that not just governments but many people in Latin America feel with the negative consequences of the U.S. war on drugs in Latin America. Many have concluded that

there’s no way to defeat what is essentially a dynamic global commodities market. … Marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin — they are global commodities markets much in the same way that alcohol, tobacco, sugar or coffee are. So long as there is a demand, especially a significant demand in a country like

the United States, there will be a supply. The demand is growing worldwide in many respects.




Pro – Change Key

A new enforcement policy would workMark Kleinman, prof of public policy at UCLA, 5-30-2012, “Focus on Violent Gangs and Big Users,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/focus-on-the-most-violent-gangs-and-the-biggest-usersJust as the United States keeps telling Latin American leaders to “do something” about supply, Latin American leaders insist that the United States “do something” about demand, through prevention and treatment. Good prevention programs can indeed have some effect, but messages delivered to fifth-graders today can’t possibly have much effect on cocaine use over the next decade. Good treatment programs can reduce the volume of drugs consumed, but most heavy users offered treatment, or even mandated into treatment, either don’t want it or drop out of it quickly. A cocaine or methamphetamine abuser entering treatment today has a chance of less than 1 in 5 of being in recovery a year from now. By contrast, that same person has a chance of about 4 in 5 of being clean a year from now if he’s on probation and a judge puts him on random drug testing with swift, certain and mild sanctions every time he comes up “dirty.” Because heavy users account for most drug purchases, and most heavy users get arrested often, an aggressive testing-and-sanctions program could shrink hard-drug use in the United States – and thus the pressure

on Latin America – by about half. Using enforcement to reduce violence, and community corrections to reduce demand, isn’t as simple as legalization. But it might work. That’s more than you can say for current policies.

We should adopt a third way approach through drug regulation – it will help relieve the suffering of young peopleOtto Pérez Molina, the president of Guatemala, 5-31-2012, “Stop Following a Failed Policy,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/stop-blindly-following-a-failed-policyMoving beyond ideology may involve discussing different policy alternatives. Some people (not my government) may call for full-fledged liberalization of the drug market, as opposed to the current full-fledged prohibition scheme. I believe in a third way: drug regulation, which is a discrete and more nuanced approach that may allow for legal access to drugs currently prohibited, but using institutional and market-based regulatory frameworks. This third way may work best, but let us all be clear that only an evidence-based analysis will lead us to better policies. Half a century is enough time for assessing the success or failure of a policy. Our children are demanding us to be responsible and to search for the best possible ways to protect them from drug abuse. Let us not waste our time

anymore in doing what has proven to be wrong. While we deliver endless speeches on our commitment to a failed approach, more young people are becoming drug addicts who won´t be treated by our health system, but by our criminal justice institutions. It is

a sad story, but I am convinced it doesn´t need to be this way. We can certainly do better than this. And, by all means, we have to.

There has been zero progress – our closest allies in the drug war agreeJuan Forero, Latin America analyst, 4-10-2012, “Latin American countries pursue alternatives to U.S. drug war,” Washington Post, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-10/world/35451300_1_latin-american-leaders-cartels-legalizationThose leaders who have most forcefully offered new proposals, or developed carefully argued critiques of American policy, are among Washington’s closest allies. They include Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, a former defense minister who marshaled U.S. aid to weaken drug syndicates ; Guatemalan President Otto Perez, a former military man who has long battled drug gangs; and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, whose nation has been engaged in an all-out war with cartels. “There’s probably been no person who has fought the drug cartels and drug

trafficking as I have,” Santos said in an interview last week with The Washington Post. “But at the same time, we must be very frank: After 40 years of pedaling and pedaling very hard, sometimes you look to your left, you look to your right and you are almost in the same position. “And so you have to ask yourself: Are we doing the correct thing?” Perez, whose small country has been engulfed by violence that his security forces can barely contain, has been the most forceful and surprising proponent of far-reaching policy changes. The military and police under his command have continued to battle traffickers, he said in an interview from Guatemala City. But he said they have little to show for their effort.

“The strategy that we have followed these 30 or 40 years has practically failed, and we have to recognize it ,” he said.




Pro – Change Key

Current budget cuts make the US anti-drug efforts ineffective – we are relying on corrupt local governmentsMichael Weissenstein, analyst, 3-8-2013, “Latin American anti-drug push hurt by budget cuts; surveillance planes, Navy ships restricted,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/latin-american-anti-drug-push-hurt-by-budget-cuts-surveillance-planes-navy-ships-restricted/2013/03/08/93136fc2-881a-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.htmlDeep federal budget cuts are forcing the U.S. to send fewer surveillance planes and Navy ships to halt Latin American drug shipments, meaning the anti-drug effort will depend more on local governments hobbled by lack of equipment and official corruption. The military/civilian task force that patrols drug-trafficking routes off the Central and South American coasts said Friday that two Navy ships won’t be replaced when they return to U.S. ports in coming weeks. Flights by Customs and Border Patrol radar planes are being cut back by 40 percent, leaving them with time equivalent to roughly 100 flights for the rest of the year.

Alternatives are important – the current approach of drug prohibition has failedErnest Drucker, a professor emeritus in the department of family and social medicine and the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a senior research associate and scholar in residence at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 5-31-2012, “Stop Outsourcing Our Drug Murders,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/stop-outsourcing-our-drug-murdersIn the century since the advent of the international drug laws and treaties that established global drug prohibition, the problems have only worsened. Everyone knows the war on drugs is a failure, but no one could say so officially. But the horrific levels of violence in the region and their destabilizing effects on civil society are changing that. At Cartegena, President Obama reiterated that the United States would never agree to legalizing drugs. But he also said, "I think it is wholly appropriate to address this issue," a first for any U.S. official. We should take this opportunity to step through the door he has opened and begin to create alternatives to drug prohibition and its violence.

The war on drugs is failing – violence is reaching record levels Sara Miller Llana, analyst, 7-30-2012, “How Latin America is reinventing the war on drugs,” CSM, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/0730/How-Latin-America-is-reinventing-the-war-on-drugsThe relationship between Latin America and the US has always been at its most fraught over the war on drugs, ever since Richard Nixon launched the initiative in the 1970s. Nowhere has Washington's scolding finger been more in the face of its Latin American counterparts. Nowhere has Latin America felt it has fewer options than to just acquiesce, dependent as it is on US aid and military might to overcome the cartels that control narcotics trafficking. But in the past five years, frustration has mounted. Gruesome drug crimes have brought record levels of violence to swaths of Mexico and Central America, despite the billions that the US has poured into the antinarcotics fight. Leaders in the region are pleading for new alternatives – some are even discussing legalized drug markets – no matter how much those ideas might alienate the US.




Pro – Change Key

A change towards legalization would sap narco-traffickers profits reducing violenceDudley Althaus, drug policy analyst, 11-10-2012, “How Colorado and Washington could end Mexico’s drug war,” Global Post, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/121109/marijuana-legalization-colorado-washington-mexico-drug-warMight Americans' growing ability to get stoned without fear of arrest end Mexico's bloody gangster wars? The

legalization of recreational marijuana approved by voters Tuesday in Washington and Colorado could sap power from vicious smuggling gangs, and undermine the Mexican government's rationale for pressing on with the drug war, some analysts say. The impact of the vote hinges on whether the state initiatives survive expected court challenges and continued enforcement of US federal drug laws. But if they do — and legalization catches a wave across America — Mexico's narco-traffickers could lose up to 30 percent of the estimated $6.5 billion they earn annually from smuggling drugs, according to a study by

the Mexican Institute for Competitiveness, a private think tank. “We don't know how this is going to end, but we do believe that something big can happen,” contends Alejandro Hope, author of the study and a former senior crime analyst with Mexico's equivalent of the CIA. “The mere possibility is enough to continue closing following the election results and what comes afterward.”

Legalization approach to marijuana is broadly popular and inevitableSam DArcangelo, drug analyst, 4-19-2012, “Obama Rebukes Latin America on Call to End War on Drugs,” Head Count, http://www.headcount.org/obama-rebukes-latin-america-on-call-to-end-war-on-drugs/While legalizing drugs is certainly a touchy issue, doubling down on the expensive, destructive and ultimately ineffective system that has been in place for decades is questionable policy at best. This is especially true of marijuana, which has become increasingly accepted in American society. Recent polls have shown that up to half of the American people now support legalizing marijuana, a substance that is generally agreed to be less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Obama may think legalization is “not the answer” but, in the case of marijuana, it seems like an inevitability. Just look at the demographics. Support for legalization has been rising steadily for years, and the younger a person is the more likely they are to be in favor of regulating and taxing the stuff like alcohol. Many believe it’s just a matter of time before states start getting rid of their marijuana laws one by one, just as Colorado and Washington may do this November when the matter is put to a vote. The least Obama could do is try to position himself a little closer to the right side of history.

Portugal is a great example of how a liberal drug policy can workSam DArcangelo, drug analyst, 4-19-2012, “Obama Rebukes Latin America on Call to End War on Drugs,” Head Count, http://www.headcount.org/obama-rebukes-latin-america-on-call-to-end-war-on-drugs/Take a look at Portugal. Over 10 years ago, amidst an epidemic of drug addiction, Portugal decided to try something new. They decriminalized possession of all drugs and began to treat addicts like patients instead of criminals. Rather than sending them to a courthouse to be charged with a crime, Portugal started sending its drugs users to panels composed of health care professionals, social workers and judges. If the panel concluded that the user was in need of treatment they then determined the course of treatment necessary. While the new law was controversial in Portugal at the time that it was passed, this is no longer the case. Decriminalizing drugs and shifting the focus to treatment instead of incarceration has been a success by almost every measure. The number of people addicted to hard drugs has been cut in half since its peak in the 1990’s, the rate of HIV transmission has decreased significantly, the number of overdose deaths has fallen, the number of petty crimes committed by drug addicts has decreased and the level of drug use by young people has fallen.




DRUG ADDICTION IS A DISEASE

1. ADDICTION IS A DISEASE THAT REQUIRES LONG-TERM TREATMENTNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfBecause drug abuse and addiction have so many dimensions and disrupt so many aspects of an individual’s life, treatment is not simple. Effective treatment programs typically incorporate many components, each directed to a particular aspect of the illness and its consequences. Addiction treatment must help the individual stop using drugs, maintain a drug-free lifestyle, and achieve productive functioning in the family, at work, and in society. Because addiction is a disease, people cannot simply stop using drugs for a few days and be cured. Most patients require long-term or repeated episodes of care to achieve the ultimate goal of sustained abstinence and recovery of their lives.

2. EVEN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SEES ADDICTION AS A PUBLIC HEALTH DISEASEJames Wright, Staff Writer, July 15, 2010, “Obama Drug Czar Says Drug Addiction is a Health Problem,” Washington Informer, http://www.washingtoninformer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 4085:obama-drug-czar-says-drug-addiction-is-a-health-problem&catid=50:local&Itemid=113, Accessed 10-9-2010President Obama 's chief adviser on national drug policy said that the administration has made a shift change on dealing with the problem of drug addiction, arguing that it is a health issue not one for the criminal justice system. "Drugs are a public health problem as much as a public safety issue," said Richard Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, otherwise known as the drug czar. "Addiction is a disease and this disease can be treated."

3. NOT TREATING ADDICTION LIKE A DISEASE GUARANTEES A RELAPSENational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfAddiction is a complex but treatable disease that affects brain function and behavior. Drugs of abuse alter the brain’s structure and function, resulting in changes that persist long after drug use has ceased. This may explain why drug abusers are at risk for relapse even after long periods of abstinence and despite the potentially devastating consequences.

4. BECAUSE IT IS A DISEASE, ADDICTION REQUIRES A TREATMENT APPROACHNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfLike other chronic diseases, addiction can be managed successfully. Treatment enables people to counteract addiction’s powerful disruptive effects on the brain and behavior and to regain control of their lives. The chronic nature of the disease means that relapsing to drug abuse is not only possible but also likely, with relapse rates similar to those for other well-characterized chronic medical illnesses—such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma (see figure, “Comparison of Relapse Rates Between Drug Addiction and Other Chronic Illnesses”)—that also have both physiological and behavioral components.

5. RESEARCH PROVES DRUG ADDICTION IS A CHRONIC BRAIN DISEASENational Institute on Drug Abuse, January 13, 2009, “Drug Abusing Offenders Not Getting Treatment They Need in Criminal Justice System,” Accessed 10-9-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/newsroom/09/NR1-13.htmlThe report emphasizes that addiction is a chronic brain disease: that repeated drug exposure in those who are vulnerable triggers brain changes that result in the compulsive drug use and loss of control over drug-related behaviors that characterize addiction. "Viewing addiction as a disease does not remove the responsibility of the individual," said Volkow. "It highlights the responsibility of the addicted person to get drug treatment and society's responsibility to make treatment available."




DRUG ADDICTION IS A MAJOR PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM

1. ALMOST 20 MILLION PEOPLE IN AMERICA ARE ADDICTED TO DRUGSJames Wright, Staff Writer, July 15, 2010, “Obama Drug Czar Says Drug Addiction is a Health Problem,” Washington Informer, http://www.washingtoninformer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 4085:obama-drug-czar-says-drug-addiction-is-a-health-problem&catid=50:local&Itemid=113, Accessed 10-9-2010Statistics compiled by the Mayo Clinic based in Rochester, Minn., show that 19.5 million people over the age of 12 use illegal drugs that include marijuana, cocaine, heroin and others, in the United States. Mayo statistics estimate that 19,000 deaths occur from people who are addicted to illegal drugs. It has been widely reported by various medical and social service organizations that employed drug abusers cost their employers about twice as much in medical and worker compensation claims as their drug-free co-workers.

2. DRUG ABUSE AND ADDICTION ARE PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEMSNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfBecause drug abuse and addiction are major public health problems, a large portion of drug treatment is funded by local, State, and Federal governments. Private and employer-subsidized health plans also may provide coverage for treatment of addiction and its medical consequences. Unfortunately, managed care has resulted in shorter average stays, while a historical lack of or insufficient coverage for substance abuse treatment has curtailed the number of operational programs. The recent passage of parity for insurance coverage of mental health and substance abuse problems will hopefully improve this state of affairs.

3. DRUG ABUSE IS PUBLIC ENEMY #1Martha Mendoza, Staff Writer, May 14, 2010, “In war on drugs, Obama refocuses as public health fight,” USA Today, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-14-drugs-war_N.htm"This nation faces a major crisis in terms of the increasing use of drugs, particularly among our young people," Nixon said as he signed the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act. The following year, he said: "Public enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive."

4. DRUG ABUSE OVERBURDENS HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND STATE BUDGETSPhysicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, April 2008, “Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority,” http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010Alcohol and other drug use, abuse, and dependence have a huge direct and indirect economic impact on society through health care expenditures, lost earnings, and expenses associated with crime and injury. The heaviest economic burden of alcohol and other drug problems falls on states and localities, funding public programs like Medicaid and child welfare systems (CASA, 2001; Join Together, 2006).

5. DRUG ADDICTION UNDERMINES PUBLIC HEALTHNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfAddiction is often more than just compulsive drug taking—it can also produce far-reaching consequences. For example, drug abuse and addiction increase a person’s risk for a variety of other mental and physical illnesses related to a drug-abusing lifestyle or the toxic effects of the drugs themselves. Additionally, a wide range of dysfunctional behaviors can result from drug abuse and interfere with normal functioning in the family, the workplace, and the broader community.




DRUG ADDICTION FOSTERS CRIME

1. DRUG ABUSE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HALF OF ALL VIOLENT AND PROPERTY CRIMESJohn P. Walters, executive vice president of Hudson Institute and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2001 to 2009 under President George W. Bush, April 25, 2009, “Drugs: To Legalize or Not,” Wall Street Journal, Accessed 10-10-2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124061336043754551.htmlThe violence of traffickers, which has harmed tens of thousands, is dwarfed by the millions harmed by another violence, that done daily by those in our own communities under the influence of drugs. Roughly 80% of child abuse and neglect cases are tied to the use and abuse of drugs. It is not that drug abuse causes all crime and violence, it just makes it much worse by impairing judgment, weakening impulse control and at some levels of pathology, with some drugs, causing paranoia and psychosis. Well more than 50% of those arrested today for violent and property crimes test positive for illegal drug use when arrested. Legalized access to drugs would increase drug-related suffering dramatically.

2. DRUG ABUSE INCREASES CRIMEPhysicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, April 2008, “Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority,” http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010Drug users commit a disproportionate amount of all types of crime, not just drug possession offenses (Marlowe, 2002). 80% of state and federal inmates have been incarcerated for alcohol or drug-related offenses, intoxicated at the time of their offense, committed the offense to support their addiction, or had a history of alcohol abuse or dependence and/or illegal drug use (CASA, 1998).

3. ADDICTION AND DRUG-RELATED DEATHS ARE ON THE RISER. Gil Kerlikowske, former Director of National Drug Control Policy, July 13, 2010, “US drug czar: Why we need to end 'War on Drugs',” The Grio, http://www.thegrio.com/health/defining-a-new-drug-policy-for-communities-of-color.php, Accessed 10-9-2010Our drug control policy must be fair, and must be flexible enough to address the evolving drug issues we face. Overdose deaths have more than doubled over the last 10 years, now exceeding automobile fatalities as the number one cause of injury death in 16 states. Prescription drug abuse is at record levels. In 10 states, drugged driving is more prevalent than drunken driving. And recent data show troubling signs among youth of increased use of some drugs, and softening attitudes toward drug use.

4. LEGALIZATION WOULD ESCALATE DRUG CRIMES AND DRUG ABUSEJaime Esparza, district attorney for Texas' 34th Judicial District, which includes El Paso, January 18, 2009, “Drug legalization is not the answer,” El Paso Times (Texas), Accessed 10-15-2010, Lexis Nexis.In my work prosecuting violent crime in this community, I can tell you that increased availability of drugs through legalization will cause the crime rate to increase. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime. Violent crimes such as murder, sexual assault, robbery, and domestic violence are committed every day in our community by individuals under the influence of drugs. Drug abuse thus affects the health, welfare, and safety of all people, users and non-users alike.



http://www.thegrio.com/author/r-gil-kerlikowske/


DRUG ABUSE SPREADS DISEASE

1. DRUG ABUSERS SPREAD COMMUNICABLE DISEASESNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfDrug-abusing individuals, including injecting and non-injecting drug users, are at increased risk of HIV, HCV, and other infectious diseases. These diseases are transmitted by sharing contaminated drug injection equipment and by engaging in risky sexual behavior sometimes associated with drug use. Effective drug abuse treatment is HIV/HCV prevention because it reduces associated risk behaviors as well as drug abuse. Counseling that targets a range of HIV/HCV risk behaviors provides an added level of disease prevention.

2. DRUG ADDICTION IS A SCOURGE ON THE PUBLIC HEALTHPhysicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, April 2008, “Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority,” http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010The cost of alcohol and other drug problems to society is even greater when the impact on public health is considered: as they contribute to the spread of infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS either through sharing of drug paraphernalia or unprotected sex; homelessness; and motor vehicle crashes. Other associated costs are more difficult to quantify, such as compromised family environments that contribute to poor developmental outcomes in children, lower socioeconomic status, poor marital relations, and parental conflict (McMahon and Giannini, 2003).

3. TREATMENT IS ESSENTIAL FOR HIV SCREENINGNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfDrug injectors who do not enter treatment are up to six times more likely to become infected with HIV than injectors who enter and remain in treatment because the latter reduce activities that can spread disease, such as sharing injection equipment and engaging in unprotected sexual activity. Participation in treatment also presents opportunities for screening, counseling, and referral to additional services, including early HIV treatment and access to HAART. In fact, HIV counseling and testing are key aspects of superior drug abuse treatment programs and should be offered to all individuals entering treatment. Greater availability of inexpensive and unobtrusive rapid HIV tests should increase access to these important aspects of HIV prevention and treatment.

4. DRUG ABUSE CAN SPREAD INFECTIOUS DISEASES, LIKE HIVThe National Institute on Drug Abuse, August 2008, “NIDA InfoFacts: Drug Abuse and the link to HIV/AIDS and Other Infectious Diseases,” Accessed 10-15-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/DrugAbuse.htmlHIV can be transmitted by contact with the blood or other body fluids of an infected person. In addition, infected pregnant women can pass HIV to their infants during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding. Among drug users, HIV transmission can occur through sharing needles and other injection paraphernalia such as cotton swabs, rinse water, and cookers. However, another way people are at risk for HIV is simply by using drugs, regardless of whether a needle and syringe is involved. Drugs and alcohol can interfere with judgment and can lead to risky sexual behaviors that put people in danger of contracting or transmitting HIV.




PUBLIC HEALTH TREATMENT IS MORE EFFECTIVE

1. TREATMENT UNDER A PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE CREATES AN IMPERATIVE FOR MULTIFACETED UNDERSTANDING AND BETTER SOLUTIONSGez Bevan, University of Sunderland, Faculty of Applied Sciences, 16 December 2009, “Problem drug use the public health imperative: what some of the literature says,” Substance Abuse Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/4/1/21The Public Health imperative behind substance misuse treatments is best demonstrated when the rationale for drug treatment accepts that for many who receive treatment it is a chronic and frequently relapsing condition. The purpose behind treatment needs to move away from an individualistic approach to one which recognises drug users exist in many and varied relationships and as part of several communities, thus the health of populations becomes a pivotal part of the treatment rationale. A public health imperative for the delivery of drug treatments can be seen to be effective in minimising the harm associated with drug use, both for the individual and the communities they reside within.

2. TAKING A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH IS A SHARP TURN AWAY FROM ENFORCEMENTEli Sanders, senior staff writer, July-August, 2009, “The Last Drug Czar,” The American Prospect, Accessed 10-13-2010 via Lexis NexisIf, as Kerlikowske is saying, the government now believes that drugs cannot be defeated in a warlike manner, then other, long-neglected tools must be pulled off the shelf. In keeping with what Obama has said about basing federal policy on evidence and sound science, Kerlikowske says he wants to focus more on using proven public-health methods to treat drug addicts, curb the harm they do to themselves and their communities, and combat drug use in general. To make it all politically palatable, this type of change is being presented as a shift in emphasis and being compared--like everything these days--to a slow change in the course of an ocean liner, a change that won't really be noticed until a long time in the future. But given the path we've been on for so long, it is potentially something far more significant: a sharp left turn in terms of the perspective from which the drug problem is approached.

3. TREATMENT APPROACHES ARE MORE COST EFFECTIVE THAN CRIMINAL JUSTICENational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfSubstance abuse costs our Nation over one half-trillion dollars annually, and treatment can help reduce these costs. Drug addiction treatment has been shown to reduce associated health and social costs by far more than the cost of the treatment itself. Treatment is also much less expensive than its alternatives, such as incarcerating addicted persons. For example, the average cost for 1 full year of methadone maintenance treatment is approximately $4,700 per patient, whereas 1 full year of imprisonment costs approximately $24,000 per person.

4. EVERY $1 INVESTED IN TREATMENT IS $4-$7 IN REDUCED CRIMINAL ACTIVITYNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfAccording to several conservative estimates, every $1 invested in addiction treatment programs yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft. When savings related to health care are included, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1. Major savings to the individual and to society also stem from fewer interpersonal conflicts; greater workplace productivity; and fewer drug-related accidents, including overdoses and deaths.



http://www.lexisnexis.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/lnacui2api/search/XMLCrossLinkSearch.do?bct=A&risb=21_T10331719990&returnToId=20_T10331794283&csi=161341&A=0.5400767521003543&sourceCSI=9369&indexTerm=%23PE000A0BO%23&searchTerm=Obama%20&indexType=P


ONLY TREATMENT WORKS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH

1. “PUBLIC HEALTH” APPROACHES EMPHASIZE TREATMENT AND HARM REDUCTIONGez Bevan, University of Sunderland, Faculty of Applied Sciences, 16 December 2009, “Problem drug use the public health imperative: what some of the literature says,” Substance Abuse Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/4/1/21So what exactly is a public health perspective in relation to problem drug use? The primary focus is one of reducing harm amongst identified populations, and arguably the best way of achieving this is by minimising risk. Harm reduction can broadly be argued to be a range of policies, programmes and interventions aimed at reducing the harm caused by problem drug use. A more precise definition from The International Harm Reduction Association is, "to reduce the health, social and economic harms associated with the use of psychoactive substances". Developing out of the rise of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in 1980s, harm reduction became a significant public health force putting the population health impact and consequences of problem drug use on the political agenda.

2. TREATMENT IS ESSENTIAL TO PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTHNational Institute on Drug Abuse, January 13, 2009, “Drug Abusing Offenders Not Getting Treatment They Need in Criminal Justice System,” Accessed 10-9-2010, http://drugabuse.gov/newsroom/09/NR1-13.html"Treating drug-abusing offenders improves public health and safety," said NIDA Director and report coauthor Dr. Nora D. Volkow. "In addition to the devastating social consequences for individuals and their families, drug abuse exacts serious health effects, including increased risk for infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C; and treatment for addiction can help prevent their spread. Providing drug abusers with treatment also makes it less likely that these abusers will return to the criminal justice system."

3. PUBLIC HEALTH SHOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OF ANY DRUG STRATEGYGez Bevan, University of Sunderland, Faculty of Applied Sciences, 16 December 2009, “Problem drug use the public health imperative: what some of the literature says,” Substance Abuse Policy, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/4/1/21In the light of the evidence it is clear that problem drug use is frequently a chronic and relapsing condition, requiring ongoing management over a number of years or decades, where the consequences go beyond the individual and is a condition that can and does result in premature and avoidable deaths. There is a pressing need that public health principles should in fact be the foundation of all drug treatment interventions, and that investment in drug treatment is sound public health policy.

4. A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACH RELIES ON SOUND SCIENCE AND BEHAVIOR ADAPTATIONNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfIndeed, scientific research and clinical practice demonstrate the value of continuing care in treating addiction, with a variety of approaches having been tested and integrated in residential and community settings. As we look toward the future, we will harness new research results on the influence of genetics and environment on gene function and expression (i.e., epigenetics), which are heralding the development of personalized treatment interventions. These findings will be integrated with current evidence supporting the most effective drug abuse and addiction treatments and their implementation, which are reflected in this guide.



http://drugabuse.gov/newsroom/09/NR1-13.html


CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS FAIL TO REDUCE ADDICTION

1. CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES HAVE NO REAL EFFECT ON PUBLIC HEALTHPhysicians and Lawyers for National Drug Policy, April 2008, “Alcohol and Other Drug Problems: A Public Health and Public Safety Priority,” http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2434.pdf, Accessed 10-8-2010While most attempts to decrease the number of drug-related offenses have often solely emphasized drug interdiction and incarceration, research has shown that they have had minimal—if any—impact on decreasing substance abuse or the violence associated with criminal activity by individuals with alcohol and other drug problems (Marlowe, 2002). Effectively addressing problems requires an integrated public health and public safety approach.

2. THE DRUG WAR HAS ONLY ESCALATED DRUG ABUSEAlex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, March 2009, “Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy,” Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kreit%20Issue%20Brief.pdfNearly 40 years after President Richard Nixon signed the Controlled Substances Act into law and subsequently declared a “war on drugs,” it is difficult to describe our drug policy as anything other than a failure. Despite an annual federal budget of over $13 billion – a number that does not include the costs of housing inmates who have been convicted of a drug offense – our drug control strategy appears to have had little impact on drug use rates or drug availability. Nearly half of high school seniors have used an illegal drug by the time they graduate, more kids say it is easier for them to buy marijuana than alcohol, and a 2008 World Health Organization (WHO) study of 17 countries found that the United States had the highest rates of illegal drug use.

3. CRIMINAL JUSTICE WILL NEVER WORK WITHOUT REDUCING DEMANDDr. John A. Howard, senior fellow of the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society, April 16, 2010, “Legalized Marijuana: A Pending Disaster,” Heartland Institute White Paper, Accessed 10-12-2010, http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/27488.pdf The problem is that the market works. As long as there are millions of Americans wanting, and many craving, the drugs, the huge sums of money to be made in providing the drugs will attract a limitless number of individuals willing to risk their freedom and even their lives to deliver the goods. The government can go on forever increasing the number of Coast Guard boats, sniffing dogs, specially trained customs agents, reconnaissance planes, and law enforcement teams, but the drug trade will continue to flourish.

4. THE WAR ON DRUGS PROMOTES A MILITARISTIC APPROACH TO ADDICTION THAT FAILSAlex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, March 2009, “Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy,” Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kreit%20Issue%20Brief.pdfThe guiding tenet of the “war on drugs” strategy has been that vigorous enforcement of uncompromising criminal justice measures is the most effective method to reduce drug abuse and associated problems. This philosophy has manifested itself in an almost singular focus on supply-side initiatives, including the mass incarceration of drug offenders at all levels of offense severity in an effort to deter domestic drug manufacture and distribution, along with a militaristic approach to eradicating drug production abroad, and interdicting drugs at the border.




CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS FAIL TO REDUCE ADDICTION

1. WE NEED TO FUNDAMENTALLY RETHINK THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACH TO DRUGSNicholas D. Kristof, Op-Ed Columnist, August 20, 2009, “Priority Test: Health Care or Prisons?,” New York Times, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/opinion/20kristof.html Astonishingly, many politicians seem to think that we should lead the world in prisons, not in health care or education. The United States is anomalous among industrialized countries in the high proportion of people we incarcerate; likewise, we stand out in the high proportion of people who have no medical care — and partly as a result, our health care outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality are unusually poor. It’s time for a fundamental re-evaluation of the criminal justice system, as legislation sponsored by Senator Jim Webb has called for, so that we’re no longer squandering money that would be far better spent on education or health.

2. DRACONIAN DRUG LAWS FAIL TO REDUCE DRUG PRICES OR PRODUCTIONJames Delingpole, Staff Writer, August 21, 2010, “It is not drugs that cause the problems, it's the wholly unwinnable war on drugs; You Know It Makes Sense,” The Spectator, p. 27.Yes, I agree, the poor do suffer dreadfully as a result of drugs - but again, as Macqueen's documentaries persuasively argued, this is mainly the result of prohibition laws devised by ignorant middle-class puritans. A young black or Latino dealer (and yes, no surprise: whites statistically get a much easier deal) in a New York housing project can earn $15,000 in a week dealing drugs; if he takes on a legal job befitting his education and training, the most he'll get is about a $100 a week. Now you see why, no matter how draconian America's drug laws have become (and they really are outrageously severe), they have not made the slightest difference to America's drugs economy. The incentives to deal - even were it a capital offence - are simply too great.

3. WE SHOULD LEGALIZE DRUGS AND SHIFT TO A PUBLIC HEALTH APPROACHEthan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, January 13, 2010. “The War on Drugs is a War on People,” http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/the_war_on_drugs_is_a_war_on_people,Accessed 10-14-2010Nothing matters to me more than ending the war on drugs and reducing our extraordinary overreliance on the criminal justice system. I want to make marijuana legal, decriminalize all drugs for personal use, and shift our drug policies to a health-based approach. The U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but almost 25 percent of the world's prisoners, ranking first in the per capita incarceration of our fellow citizens. We have increased the number of people behind bars from roughly 500,000 people in 1980 to 2.3 million today – and altogether we now have over 7 million people under criminal justice supervision.

4. THE HISTORY OF ALCOHOL PROVES PROHIBITION WILL NEVER WORKNeill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; he served with the Maryland State Police and the Baltimore Police Department, October 3, 2010, “Only under legalization can we control drug use,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20101003_Only_ under_legalization_can_we_control_drug_use.htmlEducation, social pressure, and smart regulation work. Prohibition doesn't. Never has, never will. Remember the "noble experiment" of banning alcohol? More and more cops are saying we need to legalize drugs - not because we think they are safe, but because only through legalization can we regulate, control, and keep them out of the hands of our children. Our greatest drug-related public health victory - virtually our only such victory - has been the dramatic reduction in cigarette smoking. And that was achieved through education and regulation. We didn't have to send a single person to jail.



http://www.change.org/changemakers/view/ethan_nadelmann

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/20/opinion/20kristof.html


CRIMINAL JUSTICE EFFORTS JUST INCREASE PRISON POPULATIONS

1. CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACHES RESULT IN HIGHER PRISON POPULATIONSAlex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, March 2009, “Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy,” Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kreit%20Issue%20Brief.pdfMeanwhile, our punitive approach to drug policy has been a leading cause of the explosion in our prison population. In the last 20 years alone, the national prison population has nearly tripled, giving the United States the world’s highest reported incarceration rate. And, of the 2.3 million Americans in prison, approximately one quarter are there because of a drug offense.

2. HIGHER INCARCERATION RATES DO NOT CORRELATE TO LESS DRUG ABUSE OR VIOLENCEThe CATO Institute, 2009, “The War on Drugs,” Chapter 33, CATO Handbook for Policymakers, 7 th Ed., Accessed 10-10-2010, http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-33.pdfThose billions have had some effect. Total drug arrests are now more than 1.5 million a year. Since 1989, more people have been incarcerated for drug offenses than for all violent crimes combined. There are now about 480,000 drug offenders in jails and prisons, and about 50 percent of the federal prison population consists of drug offenders. Yet, as was the case during Prohibition, all the arrests and incarcerations haven’t stopped the use and abuse of drugs, or the drug trade, or the crime associated with black-market transactions. Cocaine and heroin supplies are up; the more our Customs agents interdict, the more smugglers import. And most tragic, the crime rate has soared. Despite the good news about crime in recent years, crime rates remain at high levels.

3. DRUG-BASED OVERCROWDING FOSTERS INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTYRobert Leeson was a W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow for 2006-2007 at the Hoover Institution, 2007, “Addicted to the Drug War,” Hoover Digest No. 1, Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6126Eighty-five percent of parents in state prisons have a history of drug use, and a majority reported that they had used drugs in the month before their current offense. The prison industrial complex incarcerates more than a million parents of minor children: Between 2 percent and 3 percent of American children have a parent in jail. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that almost 10 percent of imprisoned mothers have left behind at least one child in out-of-home care. Since family breakdown is associated with intergenerational poverty and subsequent drug abuse, it would be preferable to deal with these issues within the health, rather than the criminal, system. Moreover, as the price of drugs falls, drug-related property crime would also fall.

4. THE CURRENT DRUG-RELATED PRISON POPULATION IS LARGER THAN ALL SINCE 1980Alex Kreit, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center for Law and Social Justice at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, March 2009, “Toward a Public Health Approach to Drug Policy,” Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.acslaw.org/files/Kreit%20Issue%20Brief.pdfTo put that in perspective, the number of Americans incarcerated for drug offenses today is larger than the entire United States prison and jail population was in 1980. In short, after four decades, it is becoming increasingly clear that our current drug control strategy has not worked. Despite spending more money and imprisoning more people in our drug control effort than most other nations, we have among the highest drug use rates in the world.

5. WE IMPRISON MORE THAN RUSSIAN AND CHINA COMBINED FOR DRUG OFFENSESRon Paul, U.S. Congressman (R-Texas) and Two-time Presidential Candidate, “End Insanity Of The War on Drugs—Start With Decriminalizing Marijuana at The Federal Level,” April 20, 2010, Physician, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Accessed 10-13-2010, http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267220/End_Insanity_Of_The_War_on_ Drugs_Start_With_Decriminalizing_Marijuana_at_The_Federal_LevelWe imprison more of our population per capita than Russia or China ever have, and yet criminals like Philip Garrido (Jaycee Lee Dugard's kidnapper) are out there able to rape and kidnap again and again. (It is interesting that in his case, a little marijuana caught the attention of law enforcement more than repeated reports from neighbors of children in his backyard). The War on Drugs skews the priorities of law enforcement to the detriment of the public.




THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A RACIST ENTERPRISE

1. THE WAR ON DRUGS PROMOTES RACIALIZED STEREOTYPES ABOUR DRUG USERSJoseph D. McNamara, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and former chief of police for the city of San Jose, for eighteen years, 2004, “The American Junkie,” Hoover Digest No. 2, The Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6763The average white American’s image of drug users is that of dangerous young people of color—males who will rob them to obtain money to buy drugs or youthful black female prostitutes spreading disease and delivering crack babies as a result of enslavement to drugs. These cherished misconceptions are the enduring and erroneous foundations of the ill-conceived “war on drugs.” Actually, the overwhelming majority of American drug users have historically been Caucasians.

2. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS RACIST, SPREADS CRIME AND DISEASENeill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; he served with the Maryland State Police and the Baltimore Police Department, October 3, 2010, “Only under legalization can we control drug use,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/20101003_Only_ under_legalization_can_we_control_drug_use.htmlThe War on Drugs targets the poorly educated, low-income, and people of color, and deprives them of opportunities for advancement, thus throwing them back into the only place they are welcome, the drug culture. It's a self-perpetuating, dysfunctional dance that yields street crime, needle-spread diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis, and encourages kids to drop out of school to chase the remote possibility of the big score in "the dope game." The problem will not be solved at the margins. The problem is prohibition itself, a policy that should be replaced with strict, legalized regulation.

3. STEREOTYPES RESULT IN HIGHER BLACK INCARCERATION RATESJoseph D. McNamara, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and former chief of police for the city of San Jose, for eighteen years, 2004, “The American Junkie,” Hoover Digest No. 2, The Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6763The fact that minorities are arrested and incarcerated at vastly disproportionate rates for drug offenses contributes to false stereotypes and permits the continuation of one of the most irrational public policies in the history of the United States. Blacks make up approximately 15 percent of America’s drug users, but more than one-third of adults arrested for drug violations are black. Similar distortions in drug arrests and incarcerations apply to Hispanics.

4. ANTI-DRUG STEREOTYPES ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN OTHER RACIST STEREOTYPESJoseph D. McNamara, research fellow at the Hoover Institution and former chief of police for the city of San Jose, for eighteen years, 2004, “The American Junkie,” Hoover Digest No. 2, The Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6763Stereotypes created more than a century ago by nativist American elites targeting blacks, immigrant Irish, German, Italian, and Jewish populations and their “strange” religions, languages, and cultures led to anti-drug legislation. President Theodore Roosevelt, who held many of the same racial, ethnic, and class biases, greatly encouraged the anti-drug groups. Roosevelt, who was not an alcohol prohibitionist, was motivated by an anti-opium attitude, as well as by a desire to develop America into one of the great world powers. He hoped that stopping England, France, Holland, and Spain from compelling the unwilling China to accept highly profitable (for the exporting nations) opium shipments would win Chinese goodwill and allow Americans to compete with the colonial trading nations in opening the vast China market to other goods.




THE WAR ON DRUGS UNDERMINES SOCIAL WELFARE

1. THE DRUG WAR IS THE HEART OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND VIOLATES FREEDOMEthan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, January 13, 2010. “The War on Drugs is a War on People,” http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/the_war_on_drugs_is_a_war_on_people,Accessed 10-14-2010The drug war – the dominant role of the criminal justice system in dealing with certain drugs and the people who buy, sell, make, and use them – is driving this explosive increase in incarceration more than anything else. The U.S. arrests almost a million people for marijuana each year and over a half million people are behind bars tonight for a drug law violation. The movement for drug policy reform stands in the footsteps of other movements for individual freedom and social justice – it currently stands where the gay rights movement stood in the 1970s, or where the civil rights movement stood in the 1950s, or where the women's rights movement stood in the early part of the 20th century. In each case, it's about advancing freedom and justice. In each case, it's about fighting powerful vested interests in our society.

2. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR AGAINST FAMILIES AND GOOD PEOPLEDrug Policy Alliance, 2010, “What's Wrong With the Drug War?,” http://www.drugpolicy.org/drugwar/, Accessed 10-14-2010Everyone has a stake in ending the war on drugs. Whether you’re a parent concerned about protecting children from drug-related harm, a social justice advocate worried about racially disproportionate incarceration rates, an environmentalist seeking to protect the Amazon rainforest or a fiscally conservative taxpayer you have a stake in ending the drug war. U.S. federal, state and local governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars trying to make America “drug-free.” Yet heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit drugs are cheaper, purer and easier to get than ever before. Nearly half a million people are behind bars on drug charges - more than all of western Europe (with a bigger population) incarcerates for all offenses. The war on drugs has become a war on families, a war on public health and a war on our constitutional rights.

3. THE WAR ON DRUGS UNDERMINES SOCIAL WELFARE IN THREE WAYSRobert Leeson was a W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow for 2006-2007 at the Hoover Institution, 2007, “Addicted to the Drug War,” Hoover Digest No. 1, Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6126The war on drugs weakens America and strengthens its enemies in at least five ways. First, prohibition effectively supplies criminals with skills demanded by terrorists: specialized knowledge about how to cross borders undetected. Second, prohibition helps finance terrorist operations. After decriminalization, terrorists would harvest fewer bombs from planting poppies. Third, prohibition contributes to the supply of drug-corrupted “gangster cops” (the title of a forthcoming book by Joe McNamara, former police chief of Kansas City, Missouri, and San Jose, California).

4. PROHIBITION UNDERMINES SOCIAL WELFARE FOR FIVE REASONSMark Thornton, senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Winter 2007, “Prohibition versus Legalization, Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy?” The Independent Review, 11:3, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_03_05_thornton.pdf [With drug prohibition] competition for market control creates negative externalities which take several forms. First, violence increases as sellers attempt to monopolize markets, enforce contracts and protect property risking harm or harming non-participants, Second, as a consequence of the higher ‘monopoly’ price, the number and severity of crimes increase as buyers attempt to support their use. Third, some of the revenue is used to corrupt police, politicians and otherwise legitimate businesses. Fourth, as illustrated by the current ‘war on drugs,’ non-participants’ civil liberties are eroded as law enforcement agencies attempt to identify voluntary market participants. Finally, steps taken by the public to insulate themselves from these crimes and civil liberty disruptions constitute additional social costs” (Paul and Wilhite 1994, 114).



http://www.change.org/changemakers/view/ethan_nadelmann


PROHIBITION ONLY CREATES CRIME AND CRIMINALS

1. DRUG PROHIBITION TURNS PEOPLE WHO NEED TREATMENT INTO CRIMINALSPublic Agenda, 2010, “Redefining Drug Use as Addiction, Not Criminal Behavior,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.publicagenda.org/discussion-guides/redefining-drug-use-addiction-not-criminal-behaviorThe drug problem has persisted, and in some respects worsened, because we've gone at it the wrong way. The war on drugs isn't working and even if it was, the price is too high. The prohibition on drugs leads to black market prices. It generates crime and violence as dealers fight over turf and sales, and drug users steal to buy illicit substances at inflated prices. The drug laws turn users -- who need treatment -- into criminals. We'd be far better off if drug use were regarded as a health problem. We should legalize at least some drugs and reduce the harm they cause by regulating their sale and treating their victims.

2. DRUG PROHIBITION IS THE #1 FACTOR THAT ENSURES ORGANIZED CRIME FLOURISHESRon Paul, U.S. Congressman (R-Texas) and Two-time Presidential Candidate, “End Insanity Of The War on Drugs—Start With Decriminalizing Marijuana at The Federal Level,” April 20, 2010, Physician, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Accessed 10-13-2010, http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267220/End_Insanity_Of_The_War_on_ Drugs_Start_With_Decriminalizing_Marijuana_at_The_Federal_LevelIn light of the recent drug-related violence in Mexico, it is appropriate to reflect on how our current prohibition laws affect crime, law enforcement and the economy. Many will have the knee-jerk reaction of wanting to see more of a crackdown on illegal drugs. But I have to ask: Haven't we been cracking down on drugs for several decades only to see the black market flourish and the violence escalate? Could there be a more effective approach? The illegality of drugs is, in fact, the Number One factor that keeps profits up for dealers and cartels, and ensures that organized crime dominates the market.

3. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A FAILED ENTERPRISEMartha Mendoza, Staff Writer, May 14, 2010, “In war on drugs, Obama refocuses as public health fight,” USA Today, Accessed 10-9-2010, http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-14-drugs-war_N.htm40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread. Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked. "In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

4. DRUG PROHIBITION IS A FAILURE THAT INCREASES CRIME AND VIOLATES CIVIL LIBERTIESThe CATO Institute, 2009, “The War on Drugs,” Chapter 33, CATO Handbook for Policymakers, 7 th Ed., Accessed 10-10-2010, http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-33.pdfOurs is a federal republic. The federal government has only the powers granted to it in the Constitution. And the United States has a tradition of individual liberty, vigorous civil society, and limited government. Identification of a problem does not mean that the government should undertake to solve it, and the fact that a problem occurs in more than one state does not mean that it is a proper subject for federal policy. Perhaps no area more clearly demonstrates the bad consequences of not following such rules than does drug prohibition. The long federal experiment in prohibition of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other drugs has given us crime and corruption combined with a manifest failure to stop the use of drugs or reduce their availability to children.



http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179794/




PROHIBITION ONLY CREATES CRIME AND CRIMINALS

1. A CRIMINAL JUSTICE APPROACH GUARANTEES ESCALATING VIOLENCE AND CRIMEMark Thornton, senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Winter 2007, “Prohibition versus Legalization, Do Economists Reach a Conclusion on Drug Policy?” The Independent Review, 11:3, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_03_05_thornton.pdf American drug policy should be realigned according to the potential harms of drug abuse and the economic development needs of American cities. As long as drug policy ignores the demand side of the drug-use equation, little headway will ever be made in the battle to reduce drug addiction and abuse. Drug policy, through most of U.S. history, has been supply-side oriented, implicitly assuming that eradication of the source would miraculously reduce the demand for illicit drugs. The reality has been the persistence of a drug industry feeding on the demand for illicit psychoactive substances. As law enforcement efforts become more concentrated, the drug industry becomes more violent, profitable, and debilitating.

2. PROHIBITION HAS UNLEASED MASSIVE CRIME AND VIOLENCEJohann Hari, Staff Writer, June 13, 2010, “How Can America's 'War on Drugs' Succeed When Prohibition Laws Failed?,” The Independent/UK, Accessed 10-11-2010, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/13-6 When you ban a popular drug that millions of people want, it doesn't disappear. Instead, it is transferred from the legal economy into the hand of armed criminal gangs. Across America, gangsters rejoiced that they had just been handed one of the biggest markets in the country, and unleashed an Armada of freighters, steamers, and even submarines to bring booze back. Nobody who wanted a drink went without. As the journalist Malcolm Bingay wrote: "It was absolutely impossible to get a drink, unless you walked at least ten feet and told the busy bartender in a voice loud enough for him to hear you above the uproar." So if it didn't stop alcoholism, what did it achieve? The same as prohibition does today - a massive unleashing of criminality and violence.

3. WE NEED TO END THE INSANITY CALLED THE WAR ON DRUGSRon Paul, U.S. Congressman (R-Texas) and Two-time Presidential Candidate, “End Insanity Of The War on Drugs—Start With Decriminalizing Marijuana at The Federal Level,” April 20, 2010, Physician, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Accessed 10-13-2010, http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267220/End_Insanity_Of_The_War_on_ Drugs_Start_With_Decriminalizing_Marijuana_at_The_Federal_LevelRepeal of alcohol prohibition certainly did organized crime no favors. So too today, if we wanted to pull the rug out from under violent drug cartels, create legitimate job opportunities in place of the black market, realign the priorities of law enforcement, and make room in prison for the people that ought to be there, we need to end the insanity of the War on Drugs. Decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level would be a start.

4. THE DRUG WAR FUELS CRIMINAL CORRUPTIONRobert Leeson was a W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow for 2006-2007 at the Hoover Institution, 2007, “Addicted to the Drug War,” Hoover Digest No. 1, Hoover Institution, Accessed 10-14-2010, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6126Fifth, successive “drug czars” have expanded their empires, but after 18 years, the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy has failed to curtail drug consumption while continuing to consume taxpayer funds, with $245 million allocated for 2007. The war on drugs is responsible for almost one-quarter of the $40 billion swallowed up each year by the U.S. prison system. Many of those caught become permanently trapped in tangled webs woven by drug crusaders. With decriminalization, American taxpayers would be relieved of these often counterproductive burdens.



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/13-6


CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEADS TO TREATMENT

1. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE INCENTIVE TO SEEK TREATMENTNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfMotivational enhancement and incentive strategies, begun at initial patient intake, can improve treatment engagement. Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective. Sanctions or enticements from family, employment settings, and/or the criminal justice system can significantly increase treatment entry, retention rates, and the ultimate success of drug treatment interventions.

2, CRIMINAL JUSTICE PRESSURE CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE MOTIVATOR FOR TREATMENTNational Institute on Drug Abuse, 2009, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide,” Accessed 10-7-2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/PODAT/PODAT.pdfThe majority of offenders involved with the criminal justice system are not in prison but are under community supervision. For those with known drug problems, drug addiction treatment may be recommended or mandated as a condition of probation. Research has demonstrated that individuals who enter treatment under legal pressure have outcomes as favorable as those who enter treatment voluntarily.

3. A NEW NIH STUDY PROVES THAT CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS INTEGRATING PUBLIC HEALTH NOWNational Institutes of Health, September 23, 2010, “Unprecedented effort to seek, test, and treat inmates with HIV,” National Institutes of Health Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis NexisTwelve scientific teams in more than a dozen states will receive National Institutes of Health grants to study effective ways to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS among people in the criminal justice system. The grants, announced today, will be awarded primarily by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), with additional support from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), all components of NIH. The research will take place over a five-year period. "These important and wide reaching research grants will focus on identifying individuals with HIV within the criminal justice system and linking them to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) during periods of incarceration and after community re-entry," said NIDA Director Dr. Nora D. Volkow.

4. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS EMPLOYING A TREATMENT APPROACH NOWNational Institutes of Health, September 23, 2010, “Unprecedented effort to seek, test, and treat inmates with HIV,” National Institutes of Health Documents and Publications, Accessed 10-14-2010, Lexis NexisThe seek, test and treat funding opportunity follows NIH-sponsored research conducted over the last few years which has indicated that identifying and offering treatment to all medically eligible HIV-positive individuals cannot only stop progression to AIDS and AIDS-related death, but can also help to prevent HIV transmission. These new grants will apply this strategy to the criminal justice system, where there is a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS and often poor access to treatment. The newly funded research will compare different modalities of the seek, test, and treat strategy to identify, test, engage and retain HIV-positive offenders in treatment. Some of the projects will create and compare systems to better integrate and coordinate HIV management efforts within jails, prisons, health departments, universities, and community organizations.




Con Plan Columbia and Current Drug Policy is Bad




Plan Colombia Stable aid is keyContinued US support is key to Colombian successCharles Shapiro, principal deputy assistant secretary, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

Continued U.S. support is crucial to fulfilling the key Colombian objectives of improving national security and stopping the drug trafficking which fuels the country’s violence, expanding effective state presence throughout the country and providing alternative development opportunities, addressing the needs of displaced persons and other disadvantaged groups, improving the protection of human rights, combating impunity, strengthening the economy and reducing poverty, and assuring the demobilization and dismantlement of illegal armed groups. We want to improve the lives of ordinary Colombians while reducing the impact of narco-terrorism on the United States and the region. We seek to strengthen the rule of law and respect for human rights by supporting judicial reform, the national prosecutor’s office, and civil society. We also seek to promote sustainable economic growth and the expansion of licit economic opportunities.

Steady aid is key to Colombian successCQ federal department and agency documents, colombia touts counternarcotics success, urges continued u.s. aid,July 24, 2007

The flow of cocaine from the Andean Ridge is the "primary threat" to attempts at thwarting narcotics trafficking in the Western Hemisphere, Douglas said. Colombia produces almost 90 percent of the cocaine and almost half of the heroin consumed in the United States. Meanwhile, profits from the narcotics industry provide funding for terrorists, left-wing guerillas, paramilitary self-defense forces and drug cartels. Incidents of kidnapping and terrorism there are down. But since 1992, Colombia's narcoterrorists have kidnapped more than 50 Americans and killed at least 10, State Department officials report. Gates expressed pride in Colombia's progress and reaffirmed the U.S.'s commitment to support security strategy in his closed meeting with the minister yesterday, said Juan Cardenas, a Defense Department spokesman. "Gates and Santos discussed the need for steady assistance to Colombia's armed forces while Colombia's government prepares to assume increased responsibility for counternarcotics and security programs," Cardenas said. In January, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spent two days in Bogota, Colombia, to meet with the country's military and defense leaders to discuss how the United States and Colombia can step up their cooperation to better confront drug trafficking and terrorism. "This is a two-way street," Pace said at the time at a joint news conference with Santos and Gen. Freddy Padilla, commander of the Colombian armed forces. "The fact that the United States is able to help Colombia inside Colombia is a good thing for Colombia, but it is also a good thing for my country. "And the fact that your country is fighting against drugs -- a great deal of which come to the streets of the United States -- is your country helping out to help my country," Pace said. "So these are friends helping friends." Colombia's armed forces have cleared specific areas of terrorists, and the government has followed in those areas with projects that have brought electricity, water and jobs to the people, Pace said.




Plan Colombia Stable aid is keySupporting Plan Colombia is key to successful long term stability – Colombians have high confidence and can finally envision peaceCharles Shapiro, principal deputy assistant secretary, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

Before looking to the future, let me summarize the remarkable gains that Colombia, with U.S. and other international support, has made. In 2000, a bipartisan consensus in the Congress determined that the United States should support Plan Colombia. The most significant areas of success include: • Reversing the high rate of growth in the late 1990’s of coca and opium poppy cultivation and increasing rates of interdiction. Every hectare of coca and opium poppy that is not grown or that is interdicted means less money flowing to the perpetrators of violence and atrocities in Colombia. • Reducing violence. The security situation has improved significantly from a time when Colombia had among the highest crime numbers in the world, with 20 kidnappings down by 76 percent, terror attacks by 61 percent, and homicides by 40 percent since 2000. • Improving the economy. The improved security has contributed to Colombia’s economic recovery. Economic growth has averaged close to five percent over the past four years and reached 6.8 percent in 2006. Thousands of additional families are now working in the formal, legal economy. • Reducing poverty. Poverty rates in Colombia fell dramatically to 45.1 percent in June 2006 from nearly 60 percent when Plan Colombia began. In urban areas, the poverty rate decreased to 39.1 percent, while in rural areas it fell to 62.1 percent. The rate of extreme poverty has fallen to 12 percent nationwide. Extreme poverty in urban areas fell from 16.7 to 8.7 percent, and in rural areas from 35.7 to 21.5 percent. While these numbers are still too high, especially for Colombia’s indigenous, Afro-Colombian and displaced populations, all of whom are disproportionately affected, they represent a steady improvement that the Government of Colombia’s new Strategy seeks to continue. One program, called Families in Action, provides a nutritional subsidy to families with children up to age six if parents ensure medical checkups and vaccinations, and an education subsidy to older children on the condition the children attend school. Approximately 520,000 families, including 110,000 displaced families, now benefit from this program, and the Government of Colombia seeks to triple that number in the next year. • Reducing impunity: Colombia’s justice sector reform program, with significant U.S. support, is having a profound effect. The changeover from the former written system to an oral, accusatory one has brought the average case duration down from three years to between 25 and 163 days. For crimes such as theft, personal injury, arms trafficking and homicide, there have been reductions in processing time of 93 percent, 84 percent, 92 percent, and 90 percent, respectively. • Taking militants off the battlefield. Although prosecutions and reparations have just begun, there is real progress, with over 31,000 paramilitary members demobilized. Current negotiations with the National Liberation Army have the potential of leading in the same direction. This is a critical and perhaps unique moment for Colombia. The Colombian people’s confidence is high. For the first time in over a generation, Colombians can envisage the possibility of real peace. Colombia is poised to make this a reality through its new plan for the next seven years.




Plan Colombia has been a success – continued funding is key to preventing paramilitaries from filling the vacuumCharles Shapiro, principal deputy assistant secretary, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

As you mentioned and there is a chart up here, the first one, since 2002 kidnappings have been reduced by 76 percent, terror attacks by 61 percent, and homicides by 40 percent. At the same time the government is addressing humanitarian needs, promoting respect for human rights and the rule of law, and providing social services to the most vulnerable. Coca eradication or narcotics interdiction, related arrests, and extradictions are at record levels. The result is a more peaceful and prosperous Colombia. Improved security is contributing to new opportunities for the people of Colombia. The economy has grown at over 4 percent over the past 4 years, last year at 6.8 percent, and that is the chart at the top left there, the highest in 8 years, and inflation was the lowest in a decade, 41⁄2 percent. Unemployment is down. The percentage of the population living below the poverty line decreased from nearly 60 percent to 45 percent. These results are remarkable. Our assistance to Colombia is paying dividends. It is imperative that hard won gains are not lost. With our assistance, Colombia has succeeded in walking itself back from the brink. It now faces the challenge of expanding state presence and broadening economic opportunity in order to provide its people hope that their lives will continue to improve and that the lives of their children will be better yet. Two weeks ago the Secretary of State certified that Colombia was making substantial progress in improving the human rights situation. Colombians will tell you and President Uribe will tell you when he is here next week that much remains to be done. There must be no shelter, no impunity for those who have committed atrocities. Colombia needs to continue its fight against the illegal armed groups, one of which is holding three United States citizens hostage. It needs to prevent criminal groups from filling the vacuum left by the demobilization of paramilitaries while it reintegrates tens of thousands of former paramalitaries into society. The prosecutor general’s office urgently needs more personnel. There are cases to be investigated and brought to trial. The government must fully implement the justice and peace process. The vulnerable must be protected including labor leaders, the displaced and Afro-Colombians. Mr. Chairman, we must stand by Colombia and its government as they confront these issues. The Government of Colombia’s policy of democratic security and the paramilitary demobilization have created space for Colombia’s judicial institutions to work and provided incentives for individuals to tell the truth. Fifty-one former paramilitary leaders are in a maximum security prison. Information is coming forth as demobilized paramilitaries make declarations to investigators.




Plan Colombia increases Colombian StabilityContinued funding is key to preventing Colombia backslide into chaos resulting in regional instability – security key to longer term success, opens up the door for more cooperation, security is key to other investments, we’re increasing “soft” support now, security is just more expensive so the budget needs to adjust for thatRobert Charles, president the Charles group, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

One measure of success not often discussed is the degree to which we are leveraging Colombian commitment and resources. The struggle to hand-off or ‘‘Colombianize’’ the program, without dangerous backsliding that would imperil gains made for the United States and region, has been slow. As in other parts of the world, we aim to create institutional capacity and empower the Colombians, not create lasting dependence. That balance is hard to achieve however, and requires continued security and economic support so long as the outcome of instability is probable without continued comprehensive engagement. Our foreign policy has historically been one of empowering and assisting allies over hurdles, not becoming a rooted buttress in perpetuity. That said, the Colombians have been gaining ground and taking control of elements that they are confident they can handle. President Uribe has taken the lead in police reinsertion across the country, and— as a matter of leveraging outcomes and dollars—Colombia reportedly spent $7 (seven) billion dollars on Plan Colombia programs between 2000 and 2005, matching the US commitment in those years of $4 (four) billion dollars. Looking forward, our commitment is likely to be matched again, based on an estimated ‘‘wealth tax’’ proposed by President Uribe over the next four years, and likely to produce an added $3.6 billion. That, again, is a promising indicator and justification for our continued support at present or higher levels. The debate over the ‘‘proper balance’’ of security or ‘‘hard’’ foreign assistance—including law enforcement and military training and equipment—versus wider economic and social assistance, is deceptive. First, security assistance is necessary for economic and social assistance to succeed in the long run . Second, the military and law enforcement support allows an open and conditional ‘‘door’’ for teaching, monitoring and enforcing human rights with the very recipients of the aid. Third, security assistance—to be competent—must be acquired, flown, managed and maintained at a threshold level that makes it worth the investment. That means that the prerequisite for social stability—the security that permits education, jobs, training and growth to flourish—must be adequate. Fourth, trend lines have been in gradually moving in opposite directions for ‘‘hard’ and ‘‘soft’’ program support, with security-related costs high but dropping slightly and slowing getting more support from Colombia, while social program needs have been slowly rising. The United States has reflected the trend lines with similar, if necessarily small, changes in assistance aid provided. Over time, the trend lines may both rise, plane out or fall off, but at present Colombia has been assuming more of its own ‘‘hard side’’ requirements, even in a threatening environment. Fifth, some common sense applies. Utility and security helicopters, basic firearms and fixed wing aircraft cost more than books, bricks, mortar, seeds and fertilizer. Likewise, pilot and security training can be more expensive and longer in duration than less technical social training. Costs are not one-for-one on either the assets needed to achieve an outcome or the costs of training. Accordingly, security equipment and personnel training—as in the United States—is often more costly, time consuming and perishable than support to manual labor or classroom training programs, even if both have equal value in the progress of the nation. • Perhaps the strongest argument for more ‘‘soft side’’ support by the United States Congress—and appeals to often silent and un-contributing European allies—is that the difficult task of securing a nation has begun and is well underway, as the metrics above indicate. We will need to continue to support that mission over the years ahead, as we have in places as diverse as Panama, Liberia, Kosovo, Haiti and Afghanistan. But we must now also add the push that will assist Colombia in education, employment, crop substitution, and demobilizing tens of thousands of former insurgents and those who will then gain a vested interest in longer term security. CONTINUING CHALLENGES These achievements argue strongly for a second round of investment in Colombia on the military and civilian sides , whether through the next three years, five years or on some other timeframe. That having been said, major challenges remain. ‘‘Consolidating gains’’ will take time. These challenges double as important reasons for making a well-benchmarked and overseen federal commitment to this regional ally.




Plan Colombia stops FARC caused instabilityOnly the continued support of Plan Colombia can prevent FARC from destabilizing the countryAlfredo Rangel, former national security advisor and independent defence analyst, "The New Security Budget," BBC Monitoring Latin America, August 12, 2007.

The Ministry of Defence is about to execute the largest national security and defence budget in the country's history, and will be doing so precisely when the armed conflict is beginning to wind down. This might sound paradoxical, but it is not. The country needs to make an all-out effort to consolidate the significant accomplishments achieved during the past five years in security matters. The goal is to consolidate these achievements and continue to improve the situation. Budget-wise, the country is making the required effort because, added to its ordinary budget, significant extraordinary resources will be included from the asset tax, which will be paid by the wealthiest sectors of society, precisely to contribute to everyone's security. To these resources one must add those of Plan Colombia, which although their military component might be reduced in upcoming years, it will continue to be an important contribution to achieve the goal. National security faces challenges the size of the budgeted resources and even more. The FARC [Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia] guerrillas, although partially weakened, still have a significant capacity to destabilize in some regions of the country. Emerging gangs display a very worrying dynamic, which unless neutralized, could make them a significant adversary in just a few years. Drug trafficking continues being a prosperous and growing business. Borders continue to be insufficiently guarded. In addition, it is necessary to prevent that zones where the self-defence groups demobilized be taken over by other irregular groups. Likewise, to secure the areas where the Public Force has eradicated other irregular groups and increase and support, over time, the intense offensive actions where the main emerging forces and guerrillas are located.

Military funding is key to Colombian stability – built up expectationsRobert Charles, president the Charles group, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

Through President Uribe’s determined cooperation with the United States Departments of State, Justice, Defense, Commerce, Agriculture, USAID, DEA, FBI and others, we have made unprecedented inroads on countless social and security bases. If our Defense and State Departments were not allowed, under the US Foreign Military Financing and US International Military Education and Training Programs, to train Colombian military and police officers in human rights and rule of law—no matter what the human imperfections between teaching and deployment are—exactly who would be doing that difficult job? The answer is simple—no one. Accordingly, aside from all other statistical gains, some common sense should shine through here. Holding up vital military and law enforcement assistance at this critical time, even if the principle behind it is to seek more transparency, is self-defeating. Every day that passes without a sustained push toward progress in the security environment is a lost day. Too many lost days, and you will find the stone rolling backwards. Denying a longtime and dedicated ally, like President Uribe’s government, critical security resources and training at this time will be not just self-defeating. That course creates a self-fulfilling prophesy. After all, we can easily defeat our allies— and thus defeat gains to America’s own security—by raising our allies expectations, making them dependent upon us for security assistance, offering to train and equip them against emerging threats—and then walk away, or delay aid so often that their confidence and progress toward security collapses . . . Would that in the best interests of America? I think it would not be in our best interests. Rather, it seems to me that we live in a world where security should be cherished, rather than casually put at risk, even for what may seem a competing and noble aim. Plan Colombia—and the progress that President Uribe has made to date, with American help, is nothing short of remarkable. The will of his countrymen, his personal courage, and the commitment of a bipartisan group of American leaders has allowed Colombia to turn a critical corner. These gains are a bright spot on a dark international canvas. We should all see that clearly, and plan for ways to consolidate these gains. In the end, sound foreign policy does not mean we can insist on perfect outcomes, even from staunch allies. It means we live up to commitments made, set expectations high, remain true our word if progress is made, and continue along the often muddy road toward a better time. Doing this not only preserves current relationships with allies, but is the best chance of delivering both security and counter-narcotics gains for all Americans.




Plan Colombia prevents Cocaine abuseRewarding Colombia is key to keeping people off the drugsAlan Field, Testing ground; Journal of Commerce, July 23, 2007.

Supporters counter that Colombia has taken great risks to clean up the drug trafficking for which it has long been synonymous. Dick Morris, former political adviser to President Clinton, wrote recently, "Colombia has risked the lives of its police and military and sustained huge casualties in an effort to do us a favor by keeping drugs off our streets . . . If the U.S. does not reward Colombia by making its exports - other than cocaine - profitable, it will leave the poor of that South American ally no choice but to go back to the drug labs."

Plan Colombia works – cocaine use is down in the United StatesFrank Greve, Mcclatchy washington bureau, Contra Costa Times, U.S. cocaine use down, workplace testers say, 8/10/ 2007

WASHINGTON -- Cocaine use by U.S. workers is at its lowest rate in at least a decade, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy said Thursday. It cited a 16 percent drop in positive workplace drug tests for cocaine in the first six months of this year, based on the experience of the leading American tester. The decline coincides with tight supplies and rising prices in many U.S. cities, according to a drug market intelligence report released by John Walters, the office's director. Emergency room visits for cocaine-related problems also are down, Walters said in an interview. In a drug-fighting career that started in the Reagan administration, he added, he's never seen so many cocaine-use trends "pointing in the same direction." He gives much of the credit to crackdowns on drug traffickers by Colombia and Mexico, which together supply about 90 percent of U.S. cocaine.

Plan Colombia good – violence in Colombia and Coca productionEliot Engel, US Representative, ``U.S.-Colombia Relations,'' Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, 4/24/2007. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_rpt/hrpt110-131.html

The majority claims that ``[f]lew strategic victories have been won against the drug traffickers and paramilitiaries'' in Colombia--a breathtakingly inaccurate mischaracterization of the facts. While the situation in Colombia remains complex, just last month Democratic Western Hemisphere Subcommittee Chairman Eliot Engel recognized ``the impact that Plan Colombia has had in reducing homicides, kidnappings and massacres, particularly under President [Alvaro] Uribe. Kidnappings in Colombia are down by 76 percent since 2000 and homicides are down by 40 percent.'' He also noted that Colombian coca cultivation fell 47% from 2000 to 2005.




Plan Colombia Good – Cocaine – A2: Supply Spills overPlan Colombia does not cause coca cultivation to move – minimal impact, their governments are responsible, the US is working on thatAnne Patterson, assistant secretary bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

The extent to which eradication of coca in Colombia has pushed cultivation into Peru and Bolivia is almost certainly minimal. Changes in coca cultivation in Peru and Bolivia are more likely attributable to drug trafficking dynamics particular to those countries, including market conditions and host government policies that impact on the effectiveness of eradication and interdiction. Additionally, traffickers in Colombia continue to find exploitable land to cultivate their illicit crops in more remote areas within Colombia where government presence is not as strong, rather than move to other countries. At the same time, continued USG support for counternarcotics efforts and cooperation with the governments in the Andean region helps stymie the migration of trafficking activities.

The US is addressing the spillover of coca supply AND INDEPENDENT of coca Plan Colombia is key to Latin American democracyCharles Shapiro, principal deputy assistant secretary, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

A short word on the broader regional context of U.S. support for Colombia’s new Strategy, which contributes to our overarching objectives in Latin America. The United States also plans to continue counternarcotics assistance to Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru to ensure no increase or spillover in illegal cultivation of coca and efforts to control the transit zone and trafficking connections with Mexico. The United States will also support Colombian efforts to engage its neighbors to increase border security, confront transnational threats, and to promote greater regional security cooperation with Caribbean and Central American countries. Colombia’s success with Plan Colombia, and now the new Strategy, will also enable it to work with other countries in the hemisphere to support democratic institutions and economic integration.




A2: Plan Colombia Bad (Corruption)Corruption is being solved – Colombian judiciary is cracking downEliot Engel, US representative from NY, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

The current scandal has uncovered ties between paramilitaries and Colombian lawmakers, and that is of serious concern to me. We now know that there is significant corruption within the Colombian Government, and that the influence of the paramilitaries has reached very high into President Uribe’s government. We have no evidence that President Uribe is connected to the paramilitaries, but we will continue to monitor the progress of Colombia’s judicial process. Democracy is not always neat and tidy and the fact that these lawmakers are being arrested shows that the rule of law is taking hold in the country. I applaud the Colombian judicial system which is pursuing corrupt officials under the most difficult of pressures. The investigators, prosecutors and judges have exhibited a great deal of courage and deserve our positive recognition. The Bush administration, I believe, must put its best foot forward in verifying that all allegations of links between Colombian paramilitaries and policymakers are fully investigated and those found guilty are brought to justice.




A2: Plan Colombia Bad (Human Rights)US assistance is crucial to maintaining human rights in ColombiaCharles Shapiro, principal deputy assistant secretary, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

U.S. assistance will help the Government of Colombia continue its programs to provide protection to trade unionists and other vulnerable groups. It will also increase the government’s capacity to aggressively prosecute violence against trade unionists1 and help the government continue to make progress in addressing child labor issues. Our assistance will help the Government of Colombia improve protection for the rights of the individual, while also helping civil society to play an effective role in monitoring, counseling, and advising on human rights issues. The United States will build up the capacity of civil society to conduct oversight; promote public policy, dialogue and accountability; and play a bigger role in Government of Colombia efforts to improve the protection and promotion of human rights, with special attention to labor rights. The United States will continue to support activities that promote victims’ rights to truth, justice, and reparations. U.S. assistance will also support the Early Warning System for Human Rights Abuses, which alerts Government of Colombia institutions to threatening situations that could lead to human rights abuses. Special attention will be focused on support to communities at risk. To guarantee sustainability, the Government of Colombia will gradually take over payment of salaries and other operational costs for national government human rights programs. Human rights-oriented reforms within the Ministry of Defense will be supported through our assistance, including the assignment of independent inspectors with responsibility for human rights, among other matters, in each division of the Army and the expansion of this initiative to the brigade level. It will fund a broad range of courses, including human rights training, and will support the Ministry of Defense’s efforts to reform the military’s educational system to include a greater focus on protection of human rights. U.S. assistance will support the Government of Colombia’s protection programs for human rights defenders, trade unionists, and community and social leaders. Our support will also increase the ability of the Communities at Risk Program to protect communities at high risk of violence, including Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities. We will help strengthen institutions, including the Office of the Vice President, the Inspector General’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office, and the Ombudsman’s Office, so they are able to provide prompt response to human rights abuses and strengthen independent oversight of human rights institutions and policies. Working with the Prosecutor General’s Office, we will help train prosecutors, public defenders, police, forensic technicians, and judges. We will continue to develop specialized task force units in the areas of human rights violations, money laundering and asset forfeiture, terrorist financing, narcotics and maritime enforcement, corruption, prison security and judicial/dignitary and witness protection, post-blast analysis, counter23 feiting crimes, and increasing forensic analytic capacity. U.S. assistance will help Colombia improve the effectiveness of the military justice system, ensure that human rights cases remain under the civilian justice system, and facilitate investigation and prosecution of crimes allegedly involving military personnel. Another priority is completion of the implementation of the new accusatory system and help to strengthen justice sector institutions. Under the old written system, criminal cases often took years to resolve. Now, with the implementation of the new Criminal Procedure Code and transition to an oral accusatory system, these cases are reaching verdict in months. In addition, we plan to expand the successful Justice House program to rural areas by the end of 2008. Justice Houses provide a wider range of community services than indicated by their name, including increased access to social and other basic government programs, as well as to legal services and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. U.S. support will establish ten additional Justice Houses in previously marginalized or conflictive areas of the country.




A2: Plan Colombia Bad (Colombia Stability Inevitable)Colombia is still at risk – “re-paras”Mark Schneider, senior vice president special advisor on Latin America, international crisis group, ``U.S.-Colombia Relations,'' Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, 4/24/2007. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_rpt/hrpt110-131.html

Partial progress has been seen on the counter insurgency front with the Colombian military and police enlarged and strengthened. However the conflict continues and with it vast human suffering. The FARC (Spanish acronym for the leftwing Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) military strategies have had to change, but they still have substantial capacity to operate in guerrilla fashion across wide areas of Colombia and there has not been sufficient priority aimed at reducing rural poverty or increasing state governance and development in rural indigenous and Afro-Colombian regions. Despite the demobilization of some 32,000 paramilitary related individuals, thousands of those re-armed, newly armed or never disarmed paras still seek to control, and effectively do in some places such as Narin˜ o department to the south-west or the Sierra Nevada to the north-east, swathes of Colombian territory, largely linked to drugs. The combination of pushing the FARC deeper into Colombia’s mountains and jungles and the removal of many of the paramilitary from the battlefield has seen a reduction in homicides, kidnappings, and forced displacements. Colombia still remains among the world’s leaders in each and, according to the latest UNHCHR report on Colombia released 5 March 2007, its armed forces continue to engage in extrajudicial executions and human rights abuses. The government points to steps it has taken to respond to these violations, but far more needs to be done. Colombia’s civil conflict has endured for more than four decades. Until recently, the three illegal armed groups; the rightwing paramilitary, the leftwing FARC and the National Liberation Army (ELN) were the key adversaries in that conflict. The latter two still battle the state and its security forces, and engage in violations of international humanitarian law. The former, the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) and its paramilitary leaders, most of whom demobilized as of last August, if anything have been guilty of the most ghastly atrocities, in their scorched earth conflict with the guerrillas and for control over drug trafficking. Their lingering networks and the re-armed, newly armed or never disarmed ‘‘re-paras,’’ together still constitute a deadly threat to Colombian democracy itself.




A2: Plan Colombia Bad (Cooperation Inevitable – Columbia Reliant)Colombia will not become an American puppet government – only incentives and cooperation can solveGNN, Guerrilla News Network, Colombia's Paramilitary Paradox, 8/16/2007. http://www.gnn.tv/articles/3244/Colombia_s_Paramilitary_Paradox

When Uribe was in Washington the following month to petition for the deal (and continued economic and military aid), he was dressed down by Democratic lawmakers. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement: “Many of us expressed our growing concerns about the serious allegations of connections between illegal paramilitary forces and a number of high-ranking Colombian officials.” Pelosi’s statement failed to actually mention the pending trade agreement. And a statement from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) included an implicit promise of capitulation. “It is possible we can work out something” to address the concerns of US lawmakers, Rangel told reporters. “We are going to find a way to get Colombia passed. It is very important,” Senate Finance Committee Max Baucus (D-MT) would tell the press in July. But his statement revealed that real obstacles had emerged. Some House Democrats want a vote delayed for one to two years to see if Colombia has reduced violence against unionists and brought more killers to justice. Pressure from labor groups prompted Pelosi and senior Democrats to say they could not support the agreement until Colombia has shown “concrete evidence of sustained results on the ground.” Uribe reacted bitterly to the Congressional humiliation. In a June 30 press release, he protested that he’s no “Somoza” (U.S. puppet dictator), and that Colombia is no “banana republic” (rather an ironic assertion in light of the Chiquita revelations). He claimed many of the dead unionists were killed in “proven vendettas and clashes between the guerrilla bands of FARC and ELN.” He had some especially strong words for Congress: “U.S. congressmen forgot that they were actually addressing a sovereign allied republic and not a puppet nation… We are not going to allow our relationship with the United States to become that of Master and Colombia as the servile republic.”




Colombian Instability Bad – Democracy/TerrorismColombian instability creates regional instability resulting in a collapse of Latin American democracy and global terrorist efforts – Colombia is the locus of US political and economic action in the region and it exports quick, illicit ideas and products. Robert Charles, president the Charles group, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

Fifteen years ago, Colombia was a footnote in American foreign policy. Today, that country is at the center of our hemisphere’s compass rose, not just geographically, but politically and economically. For reasons easier to overlook than to explain, Colombia’s future will directly affect our future. There is no question about that. Colombia’s struggle with internal security, regional terrorism, narcotics, economic development, civil-military relations, democratic governance, adherence to rule of law, and human rights—in one way or another—do already affect us. Progress—or lack of progress—in each of those categories will affect us greatly in the future. That is why we are engaged. What is happening in Colombia, for better and worse, is felt in America, from New York to California, Massachusetts to Florida, Indiana to Arizona. America’s commitment—and this Congress’ uncompromising commitment—to that South American nation is truly important. That is why, even before the events of 9–11, Democrats and Republicans put aside differences in foreign and domestic policy to focus, together, on establishing a meaningful trajectory for economic and security improvement in Colombia and the Andean Region. Our shorthand, of course, was calling the policy ‘‘Plan Colombia.’’ While Colombia seems far away, and explaining its relevance takes time, that time is well spent. At different points in the past decade and a half, I have worked directly with Democratic and Republican members on this committee, testified before you, organized hearings on Plan Colombia, worked and re-worked the legislative e language, and traveled with you to the region. I know there is a depth of knowledge on this committee. Accordingly, I want to limit my testimony today. I want to offer you confirmation for the theory behind Plan Colombia, on both the security and development sides of the ledger. I want to offer you new and compelling facts. And I want to offer you thoughts for innovation. The theory first—Former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, for whom I once worked, President Clinton, Former Drug Czar and General Barry McCaffery and a remarkable collection of bipartisan leaders in both the House and Senate, including majority and minority members with foreign policy savvy, teamed in the late 1990s to tackle a vexing, previously ignored, but rising international tragedy. Colombia was becoming the hub of interwoven terrorist and narcotics trafficking activities that, by wide consensus, threatened stability, democracy and economic progress across the region. The potential for both implosion and explosion was considerable. That is, the potential for expanded civil war within Colombia’s borders and the export of everything from increased narcotics to displaced persons, from terrorist activities and organizations to arms trafficking, from skyrocketing homicide and kidnapping rates to loss of control over local governments, from massacres of indigenous peoples and trade unionists to basic flight of capital and vanishing jobs was very real. No one disagreed about the need for economic development, the need to train army and police officials in human rights, or the need to provide sustainable, baseline security across the country. Assisting Colombians with a will to secure their country meant providing Colombians with the tools for sustainable security. In a country with few roads outside major population centers, vast tracts of ungoverned jungle, and too few trained and equipped security forces, that necessarily meant—and still means—providing helicopters and firearms together with the know-how for using these security and measures that allow both US monitoring and accountability. That twin commitment to security and economic progress has also meant building and protecting police stations, courthouses and prisons, establishing and supporting educational and social programs from soup to nuts. Finally, from the beginning, this effort to secure a longstanding democracy, gripped by the specter of rising drug-funded terrorism, required a full commitment to deter industrial-sized drug trafficking organizations, apprehend their leadership, institutionalize non-existent extradition protocols, and begin the long climb to reversing what the so-called narco-terrorist threat to the region. Starting down the path toward credible deterrence meant tackling cultivation, production and shipment of cocaine and heroin. By the numbers, the stated counternarcotics aim of Plan Colombia was to deter cultivation by 50 percent within five years, thus putting in train a chance to increase security, renew economic growth, reduce overall violence, and seed the rule of law. A high-tech crop eradication effort, which has required deployment of fixed-wing spray planes on computerized grids of coca and heroin poppy, was paired with a commitment to sustainable alternative development. To intercept more of what was produced by narcotics trafficking groups, interdiction was reaffirmed as a priority in the Eastern Pacific and Caribbean. To be clear, the champions of this comprehensive effort to improve regional security, reduce terrorism, cut back cultivation, increase interdiction and extraditions— and thus, slowly but surely, improve Colombia’s security position and economic prospects, while deterring expansion of the drug trade, were BOTH Democratic and Republican. They included Senators Leahy, Dodd, Biden, Feinstein and Graham, as surely as included Senators Hatch, Hutchison, Dole, DeWine and Coverdell. This was—and should remain—a bipartisan effort to secure our hemisphere. At root, the theory is simply common sense. One of the oldest democracies in our hemisphere, and a leading economy that does hundreds of millions of dollars in trade with states as diverse as Vermont and California, New York and Florida, is at risk to both narcotics instability and widening terrorism. We have made major gains. John Locke himself, in his seminal Second Treatise, made the point that people will not ‘‘mix their labor with the land’’ until there is a semblance of security. We see that in places other than Colombia. The difference is that, in Colombia, we are seeing a remarkable turn-about. It has taken more than give years, but the time is now to assess the progress and consolidate our mutual gains. Yes, from Colombia comes a narcotics threat to America that ends tens of thousands of American lives annually, as surely as cancer silences thousands of Americans annually. We have not given up finding a cure for cancer, and we must press our gains each year to that end. Likewise, we cannot give up on the prospect of a revitalized, secure and democratic Colombia, free from the dehumanizing plague of narcotics—and we must press our gains to that end also.




Colombian Instability Bad – Regional InstabilityColombia is at the root of instability and democracy in the regionDennis Hastert, Rep Il, Hearing on US-Colombia Relations, 4/24/2007. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/35031.pdf

Some might ask why Columbia is so important to us? Today, Colombia produces 80 percent of the world’s supply of cocaine and is the source of over 90 percent of the cocaine and 50 percent of the heroin entering our Nation. The drug trade from Colombia is killing Americans, and is a major factor in the instability of our hemisphere. In addition, Columbia is a democratic anchor and a critical U.S. ally in the region. Our support for Columbia is vital to our national interests and the wellbeing of a strategic partner.




Con – Current Policy Works

US surveillance is crucial – only we have radar equipped planesMichael Weissenstein, analyst, 3-8-2013, “Latin American anti-drug push hurt by budget cuts; surveillance planes, Navy ships restricted,” Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/latin-american-anti-drug-push-hurt-by-budget-cuts-surveillance-planes-navy-ships-restricted/2013/03/08/93136fc2-881a-11e2-b412-2e8596e7c927_story.htmlA wide range of U.S. military services and civilian agencies work with Central and South American governments on the mission known as Operation Martillo, or Hammer, which is dedicated to halting shipments of cocaine headed north from Colombia and Venezuela up the Pacific and Caribbean coasts of Central America and on to Mexico and the United

States. Radar-equipped planes operated by Customs, the Navy and others operating from airports in Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador and the

Caribbean island of Curacao patrol the oceans looking for suspicious boat traffic. When they spot a suspect vessel, they alert local governments and U.S. ships in the area. For countries with small, underequipped navies unable to operate far from the coast, the powerful U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships operating under Operation Martillo are often essential to halting suspect boats.

Statistics signal progress – cocaine use is down 40% and land devoted to growing drugs is way downJuan Forero, Latin America analyst, 4-10-2012, “Latin American countries pursue alternatives to U.S. drug war,” Washington Post, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-10/world/35451300_1_latin-american-leaders-cartels-legalizationU.S. statistics signal some progress, such as a 40 percent drop in cocaine use in the United States since 2006 and a 68 percent plunge over the same period in the number of people testing positive for cocaine in the workplace. And in Colombia, where the United States has been heavily involved in upgrading the military and in funding aerial fumigation of drug crops, the amount of land dedicated to growing the plant used to make cocaine dropped by nearly two-thirds from 2000 to 2010. Estimated potential production of cocaine, meanwhile, tumbled from 700 metric tons in 2001 to 270 metric tons in 2010, although it picked up in Bolivia and Peru, according to U.S. statistics.

Legalization hurts Latin America in the short termViridiana Rios, a doctoral fellow at the Harvard Kennedy school whose most recent research has focused on understanding violence within Mexico's illegal drug industry, 5-30-2012, “Drug Legalization Could Create More Crime,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/drug-legalization-could-create-more-crimeLegalization might hurt Latin America in the short term by increasing criminal activities like extortion, robbery and kidnapping, while having uncertain effects on violence reduction . There is no doubt that legalization of drugs would

push criminals out of the drug business. No gain, no crime. Yet, the implications of legalization are more complex than its supporters portray. Where law enforcement is weak, diversifying into kidnapping, extortion or robbery may be easier than trying to break into

tight legal job markets. There is a strong assumption that goes unchallenged, that once the illegal drug industry is closed, those who sell drugs will be able to successfully exit criminal life and enter the legal labor market. This may not be true. A significant number of young, uneducated and armed people would suddenly become unemployed. Those previously engaged in drug trafficking operations won’t be easily absorbed into legal jobs

because they do not have the required skills. Most traffickers have no experience outside the illegal industry and no formal education. Most important, many already have faced criminal charges.





Only giving up on enforcement can reduce the flow of bloodMark Kleinman, prof of public policy at UCLA, 5-30-2012, “Focus on Violent Gangs and Big Users,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/focus-on-the-most-violent-gangs-and-the-biggest-usersWorse, the across-the-board intensive drug law enforcement practiced and supported by the U.S. increases the level of violence by giving dealers greater incentives to intimidate witnesses and officials. If drug enforcement agencies focused instead on the most violent dealers, they could lock up the worst actors and give the rest a strong incentive to refrain from killing. Giving up the pipe dream that enforcement can stem the flow of drugs would free it to reduce the flow of blood.

Legalization has unforeseen risks – drug smugglers wont peacefully integrateViridiana Rios, a doctoral fellow at the Harvard Kennedy school whose most recent research has focused on understanding violence within Mexico's illegal drug industry, 5-30-2012, “Drug Legalization Could Create More Crime,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/drug-legalization-could-create-more-crimeWhat the legalization debate has missed is that it won’t be easy for ex-criminals to find a legal job, and that this may increase other criminal activities that hurt Latin American citizens more directly. In places where law enforcement is weak, diversifying a criminal portfolio is an easier way to profit than trying to break into tight legal job markets. Indeed, it is quite plausible that legalization would cause newly unemployed criminals to engage in kidnapping, extortion, robbery and other forms of local crime. A criminal outburst may be the unintended consequence of legalization. Furthermore, incentives to battle for territorial control — the cause for much of the Mexico’s surge in homicides — will remain in place. Turf will still be an asset for extortion and kidnapping. We need to be careful about what we dream. Legalization comes with unforeseen risks. The only way to reduce crime and violence in Latin America is to improve justice systems, fix prisons and reduce corruption. This is where the problem is, and where the solution should be.

We are stuck with the current regime – it would be better to play within the existing rulesAlejandro Hope, a security policy analyst at IMCO and México Evalúa, two Mexican research organizations. He is a former intelligence officer and manages a blog on drugs and crime in Mexico and Latin America, Plata o Plomo, 5-30-2012, “Modify the Rules, Don’t Abandon the Fight,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/modify-the-rules-dont-abandon-the-fight For better or worse, we are stuck with the current regime. We should aim to make it smarter and fairer. And within existing rules, there is room for significant policy shifts. Along with focusing enforcement resources on the most violent criminal organizations, Latin American countries could curtail eradication campaigns, which have proved useless. Interdiction assets could be deployed to reduce the length of overland routes and limit the geographical extension of the phenomenon. Drug possession for personal use could be decriminalized (where it is not already so). Harm reduction programs (e.g., government clinics where addicts can inject themselves safely, methadone-assisted treatment) could be implemented or expanded. More ambitiously, Latin American nations could press for the creation of a multilateral fund to compensate production and transit countries, similar to the Global Environmental Facility and aimed at lessening the budgetary strains imposed on regional governments by the war on drugs.





A new approach would be a public health disasterMark Kleinman, prof of public policy at UCLA, 5-30-2012, “Focus on Violent Gangs and Big Users,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/focus-on-the-most-violent-gangs-and-the-biggest-usersSome Latin American leaders whose countries supply illicit drugs for the hungry U.S. market are flirting with drug legalization. That’s only natural: they are under intolerable pressure from the United States to stop the traffic and from their own citizens to stop the violence, and no one has sketched a reasonable way to do either one. But since legalization isn’t going to happen -- it’s a political nonstarter and would be a public-health disaster -- we need to work on reducing violence under prohibition .

A softer approach will expand the market for drugsDavid G. Evans, Special Advisor, Drug Free America Foundation, 4-20-2012, “ War On Drugs: Necessary Effort Or Lost Cause?” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/war-on-drugs-debate-420_n_1440077.htmlLegalizing drugs would expand the markets for drugs. For example, marijuana businesses will promote their products and package them in attractive ways to increase their market share such as marijuana "candy" or "ice cream." This is already being done in states that have "medical" marijuana laws. The number of teenage and adult users will double or triple if marijuana is legalized, which will mean an additional 17 to 34 million adult and young users in the United States.[FN3]

The current approach is necessary to reduce the costs health problemsDavid G. Evans, Special Advisor, Drug Free America Foundation, 4-20-2012, “ War On Drugs: Necessary Effort Or Lost Cause?” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/war-on-drugs-debate-420_n_1440077.htmlLegalization will cause a substantial increase in economic and social costs. This will include a sharp increase in costs resulting from accident-related injuries and other health-related problems. The expansion of drug use will increase crime committed under the influence of drugs, as well as family violence. These new costs will far outweigh any income from taxes on drugs. This is the experience with alcohol and tobacco. [FN5] Legalization will increase drugged driving and more drugged driving will mean more dead and injured drivers and their innocent victims.[FN6] The pro-drug lobby also claims that drug-related black markets and corruption would decline. However, this can only happen by allowing drugs to be available without any age restriction and at sufficiently low prices. The lesson from history is that periods of permissive drug laws are accompanied by increased drug abuse and that there is less drug abuse during periods of restrictive policies. In the 1880s, many drugs, including opiates and cocaine, were legal. Addiction was rampant. By the turn of the century, about one in 200 Americans was either an opium or cocaine addict. In response, the Congress passed laws to control these substances. Drug use and addiction decreased.[FN7]




Con – Current policy works

Even with a low success rate the current system is workingGrace V. Jean, drug analyst, March 2009, “In The War on Drugs, Even Small Victories Are Celebrated ,” National Defense Magazine, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/March/Pages/InTheWaronDrugs,EvenSmallVictoriesAreCelebrated.aspx But a successful interdiction like that happens only 5 percent of the time. In most cases, there is great difficulty in having a response team interdict the drop in time, if at all. “We’re lucky we have 5 percent,” Nimmich says. “We have very limited assets, and the coordination of those steps is extraordinarily time-sensitive and difficult … It really has to come together perfectly.” Still, 5 percent is an increase in the success rate, he points out. Two years ago, the task force nabbed drug runners only 2 percent of the time.

The low success rate doesn’t matter – it still builds intelligenceGrace V. Jean, drug analyst, March 2009, “In The War on Drugs, Even Small Victories Are Celebrated ,” National Defense Magazine, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/March/Pages/InTheWaronDrugs,EvenSmallVictoriesAreCelebrated.aspx The low success rate doesn’t seem to bother the AWACS crew. While the airmen like hearing that their work has led to a capture on the ground, they don’t view their unprosecuted targets as exercises in futility. Any information gathered is valuable, they say. “We’re building that intelligence file,” says Hutton. “It’s still beneficial, even if we don’t catch them in the end.” Most of the successful interdictions take place in Hispaniola — the nations of Haiti and the Dominican Republic — where the task force relies on nearby U.S. assets, such as a Customs and Border Protection helicopter that is made available to local officials, Nimmich says.

Its hard work but anti-drug efforts are succeedingGrace V. Jean, drug analyst, March 2009, “In The War on Drugs, Even Small Victories Are Celebrated ,” National Defense Magazine, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/March/Pages/InTheWaronDrugs,EvenSmallVictoriesAreCelebrated.aspx “Drug trafficking organizations are very adaptive,” says Coast Guard Rear Adm. Robert Parker, director of security and intelligence at U.S. Southern Command, based in Miami. “As long as the demand signal is there, and there’s a high profit to be made, there’s a good chance we’re going to be a half a step behind it in reacting to that.” Such has been the case on the ocean, where the bulk of drugs are transported. Seafaring drug traffickers have found plenty of ways to remain elusive. One method is to transport the drugs underwater, in small submarine-like vessels. These so-called “semi-submersibles” can accommodate six to 10 tons of cocaine, much more than a single engine aircraft that carries only 450 to 500 kilos, or a half metric ton, of cocaine, or a go-fast boat that moves about 2,000 kilos, or two metric tons.




Con – Enforcement Works

We can’t stop trying – we are complicit in the murder of thousands of Latin AmericansErnest Drucker, a professor emeritus in the department of family and social medicine and the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine and a senior research associate and scholar in residence at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 5-31-2012, “Stop Outsourcing Our Drug Murders,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/stop-outsourcing-our-drug-murdersThe United States is the principal consumer of the Mexican drug trade, and so we are complicit in this violence. In the 1980s and 1990s we saw similar levels of drug-related violence at home. But tens of thousands of homicides that used to occur in the U.S. are now Mexico’s problem. Tens of thousands of homicides that used to occur in the United States are now Mexico’s problem. As the principal consumer of the Mexican drug trade, we are complicit in this. If we compare homicide rates in the United States during the most active period of our war on drugs, from 1975 to 2000, to the homicide rates before and after, there were at least 200,000 additional homicides in this period.

The US militarized approach to the drug war helps arrest kingpins, seize stockpiles, disrupt smuggling routes and professionalize security forcesCharlie Savage, analyst, 11-6-2011, “D.E.A. Squads Extend Reach of Drug War,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/world/americas/united-states-drug-enforcement-agency-squads-extend-reach-of-drug-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 The evolution of the program into a global enforcement arm reflects the United States’ growing reach in combating drug cartels and how policy makers increasingly are blurring the line between law enforcement and military activities, fusing elements of the “war on drugs” with the “war on terrorism.” Bruce Bagley, a University of Miami professor who specializes in Latin America and counternarcotics, said the commando program carries potential benefits: the American teams could help arrest kingpins, seize stockpiles, disrupt smuggling routes and professionalize security forces in small countries through which traffickers pass drugs headed to the United States.





The current approach is shifting to be more permissive – moving towards decriminalizationReuters, 1-29-2010, “FACTBOX-Drug policy reforms in Latin America,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/29/idUSN29105287After four decades of zero-tolerance drug policies promoted by the United States, many Latin American countries say the war on drugs has failed and are adopting more permissive drug laws, including the decriminalization of personal use. [ID:nN29105342] The so-called harm reduction approach is meant to decongest overwhelmed courts and prisons, emphasize treatment for drug users, and use law enforcement resources to chase major traffickers instead of small-time dealers.

Don’t wave the white flag – the current system is workableNeill Franklin, executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is a retired Baltimore narcotics cop, 4-20-2012, “War On Drugs: Necessary Effort Or Lost Cause?” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/war-on-drugs-debate-420_n_1440077.htmlBut the prohibition laws don't just make dangerous drugs even more dangerous for users; criminalization puts us all at risk. Consider that while police spent time arresting more than 1.6 million people for drug offenses in 2010, nearly four of ten murders, six of ten rapes and nine of ten burglaries went unsolved. When we stop sending police out in a futile effort to solve the health problem of addiction with handcuffs, they can focus on combating more violent crimes and keeping impaired drivers off the road. No one is suggesting "waving the white flag" or giving up on trying to solve our drug abuse problems. But those who have been advocating for decades that we keep doing the same thing ever more vigorously have little credibility left when it comes to what effective drug control strategies for the 21st Century should look like.

There is no new drug policy that can prevent cocaine spread – as long as there is demand, the drug trade will continueMark Kleinman, prof of public policy at UCLA, 5-30-2012, “Focus on Violent Gangs and Big Users,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/30/should-latin-america-end-the-war-on-drugs/focus-on-the-most-violent-gangs-and-the-biggest-usersAs long as there are users in the U.S. with money to pay for cocaine, someone will provide it; seized drugs and jailed dealers alike are easily replaced. Vast enforcement efforts have not prevented huge declines in drug prices since 1980.





The current approach is crucial to deter potential abusersDavid G. Evans, Special Advisor, Drug Free America Foundation, 4-20-2012, “ War On Drugs: Necessary Effort Or Lost Cause?” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/war-on-drugs-debate-420_n_1440077.htmlThe arguments for illicit drug legalization can appear to be logical and simple when they are not; they do not withstand critical evaluation and they run contrary to general experience. The proponents of legalization ignore the fact

that legal sanctions deter or delay potential abusers, thereby limiting the growth of the illicit market . Law enforcement also helps drug users/addicts into treatment through the use of drug courts that offer treatment as an alternative to incarceration. Legalization advocates claim that prisons are overflowing with people convicted for

simple possession of marijuana. The truth is that just 1.6 percent of state inmates were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and less than one percent of all state prisoners (0.7 percent) were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge. The numbers in the U.S. federal prisons are similar. These inmates are there for possession of huge amounts of marijuana. The average for federal inmates was 115 pounds.[FN1]

Statistical evidence proves our positionDavid G. Evans, Special Advisor, Drug Free America Foundation, 4-20-2012, “ War On Drugs: Necessary Effort Or Lost Cause?” Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/war-on-drugs-debate-420_n_1440077.htmlThe legalization advocates also do not tell you that levels of drug use have gone down substantially since the 1970s when the "war" on drugs began. The scholarly opinion and historical evidence are clear that if drugs are legalized, then the rates of drug use and addiction will climb. This will lead to misery, more deaths, social disorder and massive spending.[FN2]

We are failing miserably – we should move forwardSam DArcangelo, drug analyst, 4-19-2012, “Obama Rebukes Latin America on Call to End War on Drugs,” Head Count, http://www.headcount.org/obama-rebukes-latin-america-on-call-to-end-war-on-drugs/This isn’t to say that a similar law would have the exact same effects in the United States, but when you’re failing miserably it’s not a bad idea to take suggestions from the people who are doing well. Whatever your opinion may be on legalization, there’s no denying that our current system of drug prohibition has not come close to meeting any of its stated goals. The time has come to try something new. If the rest of the world is going to move forward then President Obama should have us leading the way — not holding everyone else back.




Con – Change Fails

The US is building up a sophisticated anti-drug network – the strategy is working – historical evidence provesAssociated Press, 2-3-2013, “U.S. militarizes Latin American drug war,” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57567340/u.s-militarizes-latin-american-drug-war/The sophistication and violence of the traffickers is so great that the U.S. military is training not only law enforcement agents in Latin American nations, but their militaries as well, building a network of expensive hardware, radar, airplanes, ships, runways and refueling stations to stem the tide of illegal drugs from South America to the U.S. According to State Department and Pentagon officials, stopping drug-trafficking organizations has become a matter of national security because they spread corruption, undermine fledgling democracies and can potentially finance terrorists. U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, pointing to dramatic declines in violence and cocaine production in Colombia, says the strategy works. "The results are historic and have tremendous implications, not just for the United States and the Western Hemisphere, but for the world," he said at a conference on drug policy last year.

Change is already occur – we are becoming more lenient with drugsThe Economist, 2-23-2013, “Towards a ceasefire,” http://www.economist.com/news/international/21572184-experiments-legalisation-are-showing-what-post-war-approach-drug-control-could-lookBroadsterdam of 2013, and many places like it in America and Europe, would have been unimaginable in New York in 1961, when diplomats hammered out the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which aimed to counter the “serious evil” of addiction. That treaty, with 184 countries signed up, underpins the prohibition policy of the past half century. Though an international debate on legalisation has barely started, experiments are already showing how the production and consumption of drugs could be regulated. Change is coming because the “war on drugs” is being convincingly won by drugs, and the powerful criminal gangs who deal in them. Since 1998, when the UN held an event entitled “A drug-free world: we can do it”, consumption of cannabis (marijuana) and cocaine has risen by about 50%; for opiates, it has more than trebled. And a swelling pharmacopoeia of synthetic highs is spinning heads in dizzying new ways. The UN reckons that 230m people used illegal drugs in 2010. They and their suppliers (usually the humblest ones) fill prisons in rich and poor countries alike. Drug convictions account for almost half of American prisoners in federal jails.

Obama is changing drug policy now – he was pressured by Latin American leadersJoshua Norman, drug analyst, 4-9-2012, “Summit of the Americas may by a turning point in the war on drugs,” CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57411587-503543/summit-of-the-americas-may-by-a-turning-point-in-the-war-on-drugs/At the upcoming Summit of the Americas on April 14 and 15, it appears a new crop of Latin American leaders may press the Obama administration for an open and new kind of discussion on the war on drugs.




Con – Change Fails

We will change our policy – we are being isolatedJoshua Norman, drug analyst, 4-9-2012, “Summit of the Americas may by a turning point in the war on drugs,” CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57411587-503543/summit-of-the-americas-may-by-a-turning-point-in-the-war-on-drugs/If the U.S. continues this policy, it may soon find itself alone in the Americas, as even Canada has begun publicly debating the idea of more lax drug rules. Whatever the outcome, the Summit of the Americas may be the first and best opportunity for Latin American leaders to start an open and honest debate on a drug war that has morphed into a worsening plague for most of their citizens.

Thousands of Americans lose their lives to illegal drugs – its important that we stay vigilantGrace V. Jean, drug analyst, March 2009, “ In The War on Drugs, Even Small Victories Are Celebrated ,” National Defense Magazine, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/March/Pages/InTheWaronDrugs,EvenSmallVictoriesAreCelebrated.aspx It is a cat-and-mouse game here in a region rife with illicit narcotics trafficking by air and by sea. In 2006, an estimated 530 to 710 metric tons of cocaine departed South America toward the United States, the Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement reports. Even though the Defense Department regularly dispatches some of its most prized weapons systems — including this E-3 Sentry aircraft — to battle the problem, more often than not, the mice appear to be winning. The United States for years has been fighting the $400 billion illicit drug trade, but despite its efforts, about 17,000 Americans continue to lose their lives to illegal drugs annually. “That’s equivalent to one World Trade Center event every two-and-a-half months,” says Lt. Gen. Norman Seip, 12th Air Force and Air Forces Southern commander, who oversees Air Force assets and civil and military engagements in Central and South America as well as the Caribbean.

The drug trade causes corruption and undermines legitimate governments in Latin AmericaGrace V. Jean, drug analyst, March 2009, “ In The War on Drugs, Even Small Victories Are Celebrated ,” National Defense Magazine, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/March/Pages/InTheWaronDrugs,EvenSmallVictoriesAreCelebrated.aspx Not only does the drug trade kill people but it also creates a great deal of corruption and undermines legitimate governments throughout the Caribbean and Latin America, says Coast Guard Rear Adm. Joseph Nimmich, director of the Joint Interagency Task Force-South, the U.S. counternarcotics command center based in Key West, Fla. “All these countries are embattled by drug cartels, primarily because of the demand for cocaine and the funds that are generated by cocaine,” he says. “Our responsibility to help them fight the narcotraffickers is a key one, because it’s our demand that allows these things to exist in the first place.”

