The War on Drugs: A Failed Experiment

by Paula Mallea

A criminal prosecutor discusses the illegal drug trade and the failure of the so-called “War on Drugs” to stop it.


In 1971, President Richard Nixon coined the term “War on Drugs.” His campaign to eradicate illegal drug use was picked up by the media and championed by succeeding presidents, including Reagan. Canada was a willing ally in this “war,” and is currently cracking down on drug offences at a time when even the U.S. is beginning to climb down from its reliance on incarceration.

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, True Crime, Health

256 pages, ebook

First published January 1, 2014

Reviews

[rabble.ca]

http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2014/1...

Excerpt by Paula Mallea

The phrase the "War on Drugs" was coined by Richard Nixon during his campaign to eradicate illegal drug use and subsequently picked up by media, politicians and those allies who wanted to 'crack down' on drug offences.
But can the War on Drugs really be won? No, it can't argues Paula Mallea in her new book The War on Drugs: A Failed Experiment because it is an inherently flawed strategy.
Mallea approaches the conversation on drugs from a variety of angles, offering insight into the history of drug use and abuse and the economy of the drug trade. But perhaps most importantly, Mallea discusses why this failed experiment of the War of Drugs was such a failure.
What can be done and what is being done in Canada, the U.S. and the rest of the world to move on from this 'war' asks Mallea. And, what better ways are there to address illegal drug use.
In this excerpt below, Mallea discusses just that.

If we are to design a workable response to drug use, we will have to first clear our minds of the propaganda that has permeated the debate for the past century. Myths about cocaine and overblown fears about heroin permeate popular culture and have infiltrated much of the discourse. Like most others, I bought the whole package. But it turns out drugs are just drugs, although some are more harmful than others. And the biggest problem today actually relates to the abuse of legal prescription drugs -- not heroin and cocaine. Our objective should be to reduce the harm caused by all of them.
I believe that the most fundamental questions are not being asked. How, for example, did we ever think that the solution to curbing the use of certain drugs was to be found solely in the implementation of the criminal justice system? Why did we think it appropriate to criminalize people for ingesting substances that we disapprove of, even when there was no victim and no violence involved? We don't incarcerate people who ingest excessive amounts of tobacco or alcohol, even though the potential harms are serious and quantifiable.
Well, you say, people use psychoactive drugs to get "high," and somehow that is supposed to justify it. (People don't use alcohol to get "high"?) Using this reasoning, we make a conscious choice every day to treat people who abuse certain substances as criminals, rather than as what they are, which is ill. How different would the scene be today if we had started a hundred years ago employing our public health system to deal with drug addiction instead?
Much is explained by the bigotry of the past, but by 2014 we should have advanced beyond these attitudes. It is clear to me that we have to begin by rejecting the rationale behind criminalization. It is essential that we stop considering drug users as "the other." When we set up this kind of dichotomy, it becomes easy to justify harsh treatment of people whom we consider to be "lesser." Yet far from being the demented, dangerous individuals that we seem to fear, drug users are our friends, neighbours and family members. It behooves us to treat them as we would want to be treated -- with care, respect and compassion.
Root causes of drug use and addiction must be a part of this discussion. Our current prime minister thinks a consideration of root causes is an offence in itself -- "committing sociology," as he puts it. But we as a society need to put resources into identifying and alleviating these root causes.
Virtually every drug addict is dealing with some other issue -- mental illness, dysfunction or violence in the home, the effects of colonialism, or just the pressure of a job. Instead of demonizing users, we could start by trying to deal with these issues, which I believe would have long-lasting positive effects.
We must also consider the negative effects that are directly caused by the criminalization of drugs. These have been enumerated: violence, disease, damage from incarceration, disruption of communities and families, the inability to ensure quality control of substances. Criminalization allows organized crime to control the illegal drug industry. Gangsters and bikers are not concerned with the common good or morals. They are concerned with only one thing: profits. In this, they are perfect models of corporatism.
How then do we justify the perpetuation of a system that enables organized crime to amass billions of dollars in profits, leaving dead bodies in its wake? Why would we support a system (and we are supporting it) that gives full responsibility over the sale and production of illegal drugs to criminal elements that are quite prepared to sell anything to anybody, including our children? Why do we tolerate the presence of gangsters who use drug money to influence and corrupt our judicial and political systems?
No one appears to be arguing that legalization would fail to remove organized crime from the illegal drug industry. Most opponents of legalization simply ignore the issue. Yet the pursuit of this outcome must be central to any discussion of the drug war. Of course, it is probable that a certain amount of black market activity would continue even after legalization -- much like the smuggling of cigarettes that still occurs across the Canada-U.S. border. I would argue that if we can price the product right, gangsters will decide it is not worth their while to pursue the trade. Even if a residual amount of underground activity takes place, we will have broken the back of the illegal industry.
The evidence is overwhelming that drugs should be controlled and regulated by governments; that is, by the people. Governments already preside over the regulation of many addictive and potentially harmful drugs. After all, governments are elected to look after the common good, and they are supposed to have our best interests at heart. We entrust them with helping us care for our health and safety. When they fail in this, we have the opportunity to replace them.
Some feel legalization of drugs would lead to a "free-for-all." Yet it should be clear by now that the current system is the free-for-all. When young people are asked how hard it is to obtain illegal drugs, they say it takes about ten minutes to buy just about anything they want. This cannot be what Canadians want, especially given the millions of dollars we spend on law enforcement and incarceration. The failure of 50 years of suppression demands a thoughtful and sensible search for alternative solutions.
It is disheartening in the extreme to watch Canada regressing in its approach to illegal drugs while the rest of the world moves on. Not only has our prison population increased by 16.5 per cent over the past decade, but the number of black inmates has increased by 75 per cent and the number of Native people by 45 per cent. Much of this increase is due to drug offences. What does this say about who we are as a people? We have been wholly unwilling or unable to prevent the entrenchment of a discredited and biased approach to controlling illegal drugs.
And this despite the fact that even the United States is showing signs of retreating from the tough-on-crime model by beginning the process of pardoning non-violent offenders who were unjustly sentenced to long prison terms for using drugs and ensuring no imprisonment for small-time users. The U.S. Attorney-General has even recognized the shocking disparity in the way drug laws have been applied to incarcerate disproportionate numbers of African-Americans and Latinos: "This over-reliance on incarceration is not just financially unsustainable. It comes with human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate."
Not only is Canada quickly falling behind the United States in this regard, but other countries we regard as "undeveloped" are also leaving us in the dust. We have much to learn from Evo Morales's staunch defence of culture and tradition as he convinced the United Nations to allow his people to continue using coca. Unlikely jurisdictions like Kyrgyzstan and the Chinese province of Guizhou put us to shame by adopting more compassionate approaches. And José Mujica's Uruguay is blazing a trail by legalizing marijuana, the first nation in the world to do so.
It is not expected that the sky will fall in Uruguay any more than it has in Colorado and Washington after legalization. Colorado has been dealing with a legal marijuana regime since January 1, 2014. Even though it's early days, the state has reported no increase in crime or traffic accidents since the new regulations came into effect. In fact, there has been a spill-over tourist boom. Bakeries are reporting that business is up more than 1,000 per cent. One medical marijuana dispensary that used to make a thousand dollars a day is expecting to make one hundred times that much by autumn. And the state expects to reap double the estimated amount in taxes -- something in the region of $150 million, the funds largely earmarked for building schools.
These are encouraging figures for those who have been advocating for marijuana legalization. However, we still face the obstacle of convincing the public that harder drugs deserve similar treatment. Indeed, I am convinced that those are the very drugs that most require control and regulation by responsible governments. The production and distribution of heroin and cocaine should not be left in the hands of criminals. For the sake of our own health and that of our neighbours, we need to take charge.
There remains a stubborn belief that harm reduction efforts such as safe injection sites somehow encourage more drug use. Yet the evidence shows the opposite: drug use tends to remain the same or decrease while health and mortality statistics improve. Switzerland's heroin maintenance program is a good example. In twelve years (1990–2002), the number of new heroin users fell by 82 per cent, while the overall population of users was down four per cent. The number of injection drug users also dropped.
In Canada, our current government has made its choice. Harm reduction is out. Punishment for drug users is in. Offenders convicted of victimless, non-violent drug offences face mandatory minimum prison terms. The idea of providing prescribed maintenance doses of heroin to addicts is anathema. Needle exchanges are frowned upon. Small children are denied the medicine they need. Medical marijuana users in general are targeted in the push to punish drug users, as Health Canada says failure to comply with new rules will result in a visit from police.
[...]
A committed government, with the assistance of knowledgeable public health workers and scientific advice, will be more than capable of designing a legal and regulated regime that works both for the users and for the community at large. There are ample templates available from those with deep knowledge about the drugs in question. There is a wealth of information out there that we should exploit. We simply need the will to act.
Paula Mallea has degrees from Queen’s University in Canadian Literature (M.A.), Canadian History (M.A.) and Law (LL.B). She was called to the Bars of Upper Canada and Manitoba, and practiced criminal law for 15 years in Toronto, Kingston and Brandon.
She is an executive member of the board of the national office of the CCPA, a life-long advocate of equality for women and author of several books.
Paula comes from Western Manitoulin Island in Ontario, and lives and writes there now.

[Owen Symes · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a solid introduction to the topic. It covers the major drugs (cocaine, marijuana, heroin), the history of their illegality, their medicinal properties, and their harmful effects. It highlights the narratives surrounding these drugs, their fundamentally political rather than scientific nature, and the consequences these narratives have had on populations around the world.

In addition to this basic re-telling of a history I'd known precious little about, I appreciated the book taking some time to talk about the role of the UN in the international drug war, something I'd never heard about before.

I do wish the book had gone into more detail on some topics, like the tactics used to "fight" drugs or the political history of various anti-drug campaigns. I also, as a US resident, found the bits specific to Canada easy to skip - but that's just me. Overall, a solid work and a good starting point for researching a topic marred in decades of propaganda and misinformation.

[Donna Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a dry read, but the content makes it worthwhile. Mallea has some important things to say, and it's time to sit up and take notice. A big thank you to Net Galley and the publisher for a chance to read it early and free.

Awhile back, Michelle Alexander published The New Jim Crow. It was (and is) a wake-up call for Americans who have not been paying attention to the fact that drugs are now the pretext for incarcerating an unprecedented proportion of young Black men in the USA. They emerge, Alexander points out, stripped of their citizenship rights, to vote, to hold office, and in some cases if they are convicted a third time, they are packed away for life. Those who go back into the work force have a harder time finding a job and often settle for low-paying, menial jobs. Those whose pride cries out against it head right back into underground ways of making a buck, and the cycle continues.

African-Americans use crack less frequently than Caucasians, but they are incarcerated for this offense far oftener than white people. I did not see statistics regarding other countries and their under-served minorities, in the cases were these exist, but Mallea is primarily making a case for what the USA should do, and she maintains her focus, avoids side issues. When she mentions policy and practice in other nations, it is to show that the War on Drugs has affected other nations adversely, and that there is an international trend, with some exceptions, toward decriminalization or even legalization of what are now illegal drugs. If the US were to make changes, we'd have plenty of company.

The war on drugs is a failure if the object truly is to stop people from using illegal drugs. Mallea's documentation is nearly as lengthy as her narrative. It is clear that she understands her proposition will be a tough sell, and she has rolled up her sleeves and proven her case well.

For this reviewer, teaching in high poverty schools and raising teenagers--white, Asian, and Black--in the city of Seattle has provided evidence enough. If I didn't value the privacy of my family and former students, I could write my own book. So to be fair, I should mention that Mallea didn't have to convince me; I was already convinced. But for those more skeptical but willing to look at the data, she has painted an extremely compelling argument.

Because in making drugs either a minor offense, punishable by a fine as many locales punish violations of open container laws, a great deal of money can be saved by federal and local governments. If legalized, some sort of quality control can ensure that fewer people ingest rat poison when they think they are taking a barbiturate. Education and treatment plans are more effective if those who wish to be treated don't fear arrest when they come forward to seek help. The money saved in chasing America's Black youth and packing them off to become denizens of the ever-growing prison system could instead be used for treatment facilities. It's both economically sensible and humanitarian.

But what of those who don't want treatment?

Again, it doesn't change anything in the long run for those people, just as Prohibition would not have kept your Aunt Millie from getting drunk enough to fall forward into the eggnog at holiday gatherings. But very few people--especially youth--are actually rehabilitated by prison. The data on this is thick on the ground, but Mallea's bibliography and footnotes should convince you if you don't already know this.

What is more, 50% of the abuse is due to prescription drugs that have fallen into the wrong hands. Those of us who have legitimate prescriptions for controlled substances (this is me speaking, not the author) have noticed that we have to do everything except strip naked and write our name in blood when we fill those prescriptions. and it is because there are individuals out there who lack any sense of obligation to the greater good, and procure those drugs through theft or fraud, then sell them on the street. In some cases, people who legitimately have the drugs and need them sell them anyway out of economic desperation: she cites the case of a truck driver who sold two Oxycontin to a woman he thought was a prostitute so that he could put fuel in his truck. Bad news for him! She was an undercover cop, and he was under arrest.

The War on Drugs is more like a Frankenstein monster that has orbited out of control. It's time to seek a saner solution.

Here in Seattle, Mallea's postulation has proved correct so far, at least in regard to decriminalization of marijuana. Let's be a little braver, probe a little deeper. Most huge social changes appear frightening at the outset, and yet later we look back, as we do now at the choice to end Prohibition, and wonder why the change wasn't made sooner.

But don't take my word for it. Look at what Paula Mallea has to say. Look at the logical, well laid out arguments, and then check the footnotes. Her data is excellent and from a wide variety of sources. With this much information in favor of what she proposes, what seems like a radical idea at first becomes an obvious solution.

Highly recommended.

[Darcia Helle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a broad look at the 40-year war that has not only failed to make lives better, but has in fact made things much worse. The author's main focus is on her home country of Canada, though she covers a lot of ground on US policies. She also briefly touches on other countries as examples of laws that work and laws that don't.

I think this is an important read for everyone. Prohibition, particularly in the way we've been attempting to force it on society, simply does not work. We're spending billions - trillions - of dollars fighting a war we cannot possibly win. In the process, we're filling our prisons to overflowing, ruining lives, and giving gangs multiple ways to get rich and even more reason to fight bloody battles.

Paula Mallea does an excellent job of laying out the facts. She has obviously done extensive research on this topic. The one drawback for me is the broad scope of material in a fairly short space doesn't allow room to delve deep into certain areas. I felt some material was glossed over too quickly and would have liked more discussion. But, for the casual reader, this works well in that it provides what you need to make an informed decision about our war on drugs.

[Steven Manners · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an exhaustive look at Nixon's War on Drugs as a failed experiment in social engineering. It provides a very good overview of draconian laws, primarily in Canada and the US, that have resulted in an unprecedented number of people - disproportionately young black men - serving time in prison. After lining up the evidence (with some cherrypicking of quotes and data) for/against marijuana, heroin and cocaine, the author concludes that legalization rather than decriminalization is the most rational approach. Much of the evidence is based on medical marijuana, although a more critical view of the data would explain physicians' reluctance to prescribe it. Certainly medical marijuana (and perhaps medical heroin and medical Ecstasy) is the thin edge of the wedge. Whether the argument can be extended to heroin and cocaine is more moot. The author suggests that the argument could be stretched further to include other drugs now deemed illegal, such as the amphetamines and various designer drugs, but this would require another book-length discussion. The most compelling part is the discussion of the impact of current drug laws on the criminal justice system and society. The war on drugs cannot be won. It is less clear if a truce and general amnesty are the best solutions.

[GONZA · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Canadian anti prohibitionist lawyer explains why all the current strategies have failed against the trafficking of drugs. It is not anything different from what the Radical Party and the anti-prohibitionist say from the beginning and it is time to realize that, since the beginning of the world, the prohibition has never worked except to enrich the gangs, the mafia and the corrupt people.

Un avvocato canadese antiproibizionista spiega la ragione per cui é possibile che siano fallite tutte le attuali strategie contro lo spaccio delle sostanze stupefacenti. Non é niente di diverso da quello che i radicali e il fronte antiproibizionista spiega da tempo e sarebbe ora di rendersi conto che, da che mondo é mondo, il proibizionismo non ha mai funzionato se non per arricchire le mafie e i corrotti.

THANKS TO NETGALLEY AND DUNDURN FOR THE PREVIEW!

[Julie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting read.