Getty Images
As president, Bill Clinton took fairly ambitious steps to expand federal law-enforcement efforts as part of the so-called "war on drugs." More than a decade later, the former president realizes those efforts failed.
Former President Bill Clinton says in a new documentary that his administration's attempts to limit drug trafficking from Colombia "hasn't worked."
Clinton joined other world leaders -- including former President Jimmy Carter -- in filmmaker Sam Branson's new documentary, "Breaking the Taboo," which premiered Thursday at New York's Google headquarters and charges that the global war on drugs is a failure.
"What I tried to do was to focus on every aspect of the problem. I tried to empower the Colombians for example to do more militarily and police-wise because I thought that they had to. Thirty percent of their country was in the hands of the narcotraffickers," Clinton says in the film, which is available free online.
As a practical matter, Clinton is no longer a policymaker, so his assessments on the drug war may seem inconsequential. But as the recent votes in Colorado and the state of Washington help demonstrate, the national debate is changing, and the political appetite for revisiting the status quo is growing.
For Clinton, an enormously popular national figure, to publicly declare that the so-called war "hasn't worked" may very well influence public attitudes further. And the more the prevailing winds change course, the more likely it is we'll see the capacity for political and legal change.
Leave a Comment:
He's right though. It hasn't worked, unless you're in the business of incarceration.
Legalize marijuana, tax it, and then there will be so much money left over that is currently being wasted on the 'Drug War' to take care of, oh, I don't know, real problems in America perhaps?
Nah. The Republicans would want to use the savings to give the rich more tax cuts...
But we need our private jail system. It works so well. (yup that was snark)
The reason the war on drugs hasn't worked is simple. People like to get high.
Having lived in Colombia in '91-'92 I can tell you that Colombians knew this before Clinton was ever elected.
Just like anything else, find out who is profiting the most from this war, and you will find it's biggest supporters.
The War on Drugs is simply a cash cow for law enforcement and the private prison industry.
Big Pharma, Big Oil, Lumber, Liquor beer and wine, Privatized prison, DEA, drug cartels...etc.
Private Prisons will NEVER allow the War on Drugs to end.
How else could we justify this sort of facts:
A black male born in 1974 had a 13.4% chance of going to prison at some point in his life, while a white male had just a 2.2% chance. And it’s not like this trend got any better, by 1991 the odds a black male would spend time in prison had ballooned to 29%, while the odds a white male would end up in the clink had only increased to 4.4%
It's the law that creates the criminals not the drugs.
I don't know anyone who is saying the "war on drugs" has worked. Now, there may be some who say we need to do more, need to do something different, etc, but is there a large group saying we are winning the war on drugs?
Plenty of people are saying exactly that. Law enforcement and the private prison lobby for starters. They don't market themselves as losers, they market themselves as champions. Thats the only way to stay in business. This is going to be an extremely tough nut to crack, but the sooner the better as far as dead bodies and lost youth are concerned.
Saying the war on drugs failed is stating the obvious. But ending the war is not going to be simple. The first consideration will be political because changing our policies will likely result in the Republicans doing their Chicken Little dance and trying to use the issue in elections. The obvious aspect is that Republicans will use the "fear" factor for votes, particularly in swing districts. In addition, there are vested interests in the judicial, police and prison aspects of our society who stand to lose a lot of money if we shift our focus. The lobbyists will be swarming Congress when the issue is being discussed.
The second consideration is how will we spend the money that will be shifted from fighting the war to treat the addiction issue. If we are going to change our approach we will need a structure for dealing with addicts because the current system cannot adequately handle any more people. This structure cannot be built overnight. We will need to legalize marijuana and then triage the rest of the addicts.
Portugal would be a good template.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html
2 states down and 48 to go for the end of prohibition of cannabis, but why we can't legalize and grow hemp starting today I just cannot fathom. The pres. surely could get this changed as hemp is not a drug, but a valuable cash crop that can be grown in most any conditions, with hundreds of applications for it's use, and drought resistant( no bailing out farmers when corn won't grow, they plant hemp instead, and still earn a living.)
The "Pres." is part of the problem.
The inhumanity of the drug war is under stated, convicted of a drug offense and your not worthy to receive food stamps. Then to have little or no programs set up for treatment is insane. I've been advocating, for 30 years, to allow the Medical Community to treat addiction, rather then incarceration. As far as marijuana goes, if their consenting adults, then they should be allowed to do what they wish. Any one willing to throw away their lives because of any substance, needs to be identified and helped. We have to find out why, so many people give up on life and give them the opportunity to heal.
Too bad Obummer the ex-pothead doesn't get the message, because word is he's told the DEA to double down on federal prosecution of low-level users in Washington and Colorado to make examples of them.
Where is this word to be found?
Well at least we did not try this:
1) Stop arresting end users. As much as drugs have the potential destroy lives, and affect their families, friends and loved ones. And as much as we may have to build up social services to address addicts perhaps it will be less wasteful of social resources than taking the problem to prison and making a permanent criminal class. While this will stop some problems there are new ones that will need to be monitor as they develop and addressed with resources. There are loads of problems forced back on to families, friends, casual acquaintances, strangers who then seek needed resources. While rush to acceptance will indeed be another re-visitation of problems of drug use, drug testing will be needed more than ever. So there are consequences to society that spillover from ' free drugers' and little sympathy from many who would 'rather not'. And no I would rather not have to constantly, avoid solicitations, offers and free handouts, or travel about with suspicions of who is doing what where, nor do I want to be the 'police man' social norms, not developed protocols to avoid both drugs and addicts.
2) Much of the above would not be true, if the anti-drug crusade were not exclusively focused on the end user. Just in case you were not following drugs wars, I will point out that only limited laws were addressed to racketeering, money laundering, high finance, and as well as civil suits, that could be used across state and international borders without limit. The purpose of a complete no loop holes civil and criminal justice is to remove 'permanently' every person profiting from drugs from the lowly pusher, to the doctor, to the Wall Street investor. Under the noon day sun, in the public square, with all adults in witness, extreme prejudice is to be delivered to anyone who profits from human misery. If the first in line be lying elected politicians and campaign consultants well then the problem of profiting from human misery will be solved. If that doesn't work then I will be very surprised and pushed toward extreme measure is random justice to limit random crime.
If you are responsible for this welcome change, then as always there will be consequences for you are to be held accountable for.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(lawgiver)
Sounds good 49, sell it in the supermarket...right next to the other produce.
Lets legalize drugs like weed that are gateway drugs.Then ban certain foods and cigarettes and soft drinks.Yeah that sounds logical.Liberals claim drugs "expand" the mind.I guess you have to be high to believe the policies of progressive thought actually work.
Spew your propaganda, but know this, marijuana is NOT a gateway drug....that would be alcohol.
Please help end this drug war, stand up and make yourselves heard! Protest in person, contact your representatives in Congress, use your social media profile to its fullest.
Also, Joe Biden is also one of the biggest supporters of the War On Drugs in the Obama administration, let him know how you feel...
The longer we remain passive, the more lives will be ruined by this senseless, stupid policy, one that was essentially created by Nixon then raised to an art form by the Reagan administration to oppress minorities and the poor.
And the irony is not lost that had "Mr. Choom Gang" himself been caught puffin' a joint 'lo those many years ago, no one would ever had HEARD of Barack Obama... This hypocrisy has to end. But who among our politicians will have the courage to do it?
Bill Clinton leads you to believe that since he admits that it hasn't worked (yet) that he now knows how to make it work. Of course his solution will be to elect Hillary the prohibitionist as the next president.
We are not quite ready to legalize marijuana. A few thousand peasants need to be chased off their land near the international border and another 50-60 thousand Mexicans need to be murdered to get rid of some of the extremely poor. After we redistribute the land to our campaign contributors then we can seriously think about legalizing marijuana.