The Phoenix Solution: Getting Serious About Winning America's Drug War

by Vincent T. Bugliosi

An analysis of the current drug policy in the United States reveals a disturbing level of ineptness in drug control practices and presents a program for bringing the drug crisis in our nation to an end. Tour.

Genres: Nonfiction

278 pages, Hardcover

First published February 28, 1996

Reviews

[NET7 · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, as a Neo-Conservative I'm for winning the Drug War. I do not prescribe to the Libertarian or Liberal ideas of Drug Legalization. Therefore, I really wanted to read this book because I was looking for a great argument to win the Drug War. Vincent Bugliosi, the famed Prosecutor who put away Charles Manson for murder, published this book in the mid 1990's. I found some strong currency and financial strategies, mixed with him lacking consistency on his military style drug enforcement point, without even realizing it, on direct confrontation with Drug Barons/Kingpins.


In the first couple chapters, Mr. Bugliosi makes it clear that America is losing the war on drugs and isn't really waging a war on drugs with the goal of winning it. He makes it clear that drugs from South America are still pouring into the United Sates in ever growing numbers. The large busts of drugs that represent only a fraction of the drugs on US streets, the growing number of users and addicts, along with the increased purity and lower costs of the street drugs, show that the US is losing the war on drugs, and badly. Mr. Bugliosi clearly demonstrates that the US is losing the war and makes it clear that if we want to win the war, we have to change our strategy. However, it's here that Mr. Bugliosi gets inconsistent and contradictory.

Vincent Bugliosi attacks the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. that contradict Bugliosi's points on how to fight and win the war. VB makes the case that the US needs to send US Special Forces along with FBI and Justice Dept. agents to find and arrest Drug Lords in foreign countries to bring them into the United States. However, he spends a substantial amount of time attacking the Grenada (ironic as he wrote a book on why the Marxist assassin Lee H Oswald was 100% guilty but VB doesn't seem to take the threat of Communism seriously), Panama (which is ironic in a book supposedly about winning the drug war because Noriega was aiding the drug trade), and the 1st Iraq War (known then as the Gulf War), which were Interventionist policies designed to combat bad actors, and Drug Lords are bad actors. Vincent Bugliosi, a registered Democrat, seems to want to have his cake and eat it. You can't want to have an interventionist policy to fight the drug war, and then turn around be critical of interventionist policies. This is where he lacks consistency. Either you believe that in order to win the drug war we have to fight the drug kingpins where they are and take the gloves off, or say we can't intervene and we have to accept defeat by ending the drug war at home. Vincent Bugliosi essentially here takes bullets out of his gun, puts it in the holster, and then pulls it out to fire a gun with less bullets than he had before. Vincent Bugliosi should have been using these successful interventions to show that interventions of the kind that Vincent Bugliosi is calling for, surgical strikes and seek to destroy missions against drug manufacturing facilities and capture or kill missions on Drug Kingpins and Drug Lords would be similar to successful interventions like in Grenada, Panama, and Iraq/Kuwait which were short, successful operations/campaigns, would deliver those similar results as previous US interventions have been. As a Neo-Conservative, I would have made that argument, but Vincent Bugliosi, being a Democrat, comes across as Isolationist who still wants the US to somehow be Internationalist. You can't be an Internationalist with an Isolationist foreign policy. If Vincent Bugliosi were alive today I would have told him, "Your Foreign Policy positions are in direct confrontation with the strategy you are suggesting to win the war on drugs." I would also tell him, "You're right. If in a matter of months, we can inspire the world to take seriously the threat of a madman on the free world and send him running in retreat, we can do the same here at home with War on Drugs. The two are NOT exclusionary Mr. Bugliosi. We can deal with Foreign Despots, Tyrannical Regimes, and Terrorists Organizations abroad, while dealing with Drug Barons and Drug Kingpins in our backyard." It seems Mr. Bugliosi has an almost obsession with criticizing George Bush Sr., and it's not a good look.

Vincent Bugliosi also suggests a dual currency. One will only be for domestic (only to be used in the US and its territories) use. One will only be for international (only for use outside of the US and CANNOT be exchanged for domestic currency) use for uses such as travel/vacation. VB makes it clear that you have to hit the wallets of the Drug Lords, who largely reside outside of the US; when the book was publicized it was mainly from Colombia, now it's mostly from Mexico, which he correctly predicted would become a Narco-Democracy early in the book. If the only currency you could get in the US were bills that ONLY worked within the borders of the US and its territories, and you COULD NOT exchange those bills at a US port of entry or international airport for US international currency in excess of $1000 dollars without having to register with a US customs officials, and with ICE and IRS Agents at these locations, who could order a hold on that money transfer and investigate/question any suspicious amounts or persons trying , Drug Lords would have no way to get even a fraction of your money for your drugs. The millions that Drug Kingpins and Drug Barons get in the current system would become little more than a trickle. Make it illegal to buy US Domestic currency abroad, outside of US borders, and Drug Dealers won't be able to use any international currency to do anything in the US, without the risk of being caught and at that point the IRS, along with DEA and ATF agents, can potentially catch their agents/mules and hurt the Drug Barons and Kingpins ability to get the guns they buy in the US. To create a dual currency system Bugliosi estimated would cost $315 million (the book was published in the mid 1990's), a reasonable amount in terms of Federal Spending; the US federal government spends, as of 2020, around $750.2 billion alone on Medicare expenditures.

Vincent Bugliosi also mentions the need for going after money laundering. He makes the case that big drug busts are great for news specials but are not effective at winning the war on drugs because they only highlight just how bad the problem really is; if that's what the authorities are catching, how much are they missing? VB adds that to in order to hit Drug Lords and Drug Kingpins accounts in the US, you have to go after their money laundering capabilities. Unlike a criminal case, where one has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil forfeiture matter (the laws may have changed since the book was published) one must only show probable cause, and therefore the ability of Drug Barons to use well skilled lawyers, usually themselves former Prosecutors well versed in the burden of proof, ability to prevent, hinder, or limit investigation into criminal matters would be invalidated, because the same burden does not exist with civil forfeitures issues. Setting up or designing computer technologies or systems that can act as an "early warning system" (VB puts down the name and phone number, Wayne Johnson 707-769-2699, who claimed it would be easy to design such a system) in banks that can detect potential money laundering, which would immediately be sent to and investigated by an IRS agent, who would either be on site at the bank or in a regional office, that could immediately call the bank to hold the deposit if it is suspicious. They could then coordinate with either the DEA or ATF to detain, question, and arrest those attempting to launder money for the Drug Barons, and seize the funds whether an arrest is made or not, and send it to the Treasury Department, who usually win by default as those who have something to hide don't show up to get back illegally acquired money, meaning they still lose even if no prosecution is made; no money, no profits. VB argues that going after the money itself is an accounting and technology matter. It's not sexy or cool like a big drug bust, which in themselves show we're losing the war; if that's what US Law Enforcement is catching, how much are they missing? However, by FUNDING & EXPANDING the CID (Criminal Investigation Division) of the IRS (at the time of publication only around 400 well qualified accountants investigators but horribly underfunded and unsupported) to have the ability to go after the money laundering efforts of the Drug Barons and Drug Kingpins through CTRs (Currency Transactions Reports) at every bank, in every US state, we can prevent them getting their money into US banks to be transferred to their international accounts and seize it. Not sexy or cool, but if instituted it would be crucially effective at financially crippling the Drug Barons, who's power comes mainly from their money. Take away the money, and what power do they have?

Vincent Bugliosi also offers an interesting proposal. He states there are two kinds of crimes, Malem Prohibit (Illegal because the Law says so) vs Malum In Se (Illegal because it is Immoral). VB states that drug use is not necessarily immoral, and states that there is a large and growing population of US citizens who are recovering from drug addiction or have used drugs at least once. VG says that while de-criminalization or legalization would raise the rates of drug use, at least in the short term, he believes it would level off, because eventually the appeal would die down, and that measures made to show the negative effects and problems drug use bring would be a better deterrent to curbing drub use than jailing drug users. I disagree wholeheartedly with legalization, and only a doctor should be allowed to prescribe these drugs to those who need it for medical treatment. However, I could get on board with de-criminalization, making drug use a fine with required rehab and community service.

Overall, I am happy to see that there was someone advocating WINNING the War on Drugs. Still, the Isolationist talking points of Vincent Bugliosi, who was registered Democrat, attacking the Foreign Policy of Interventionism in defense of America and America's security, as was the case in Grenada (where the Communists had taken over), Panama (where a rogue dictator was oppressing his people and a threat to US interests and assets), and the 1st Iraq War/Gulf War (where a rogue dictator was threatening to seize the majority of the world's oil resources), ALL SUCCESSFUL INTERVENTIONS, and then turns around to say we need to have Capture or Kill missions on Drug Barons/Drug Kingpins is a self-defeating argument. However, despite his dumb Democrat Isolationists takes, his other points on dual currency, funding the IRS to fully combat money laundering, and work on some forms of de-criminalization, seem like to me like winning strategies to fight, and eventually declare victory, in the War on Drugs.

[Jon · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book gives history to the war on drugs. It is dated now since it was written in 1996, but still relevant. And that's what is so troubling. How can a book written about our war on drugs in 1996 be relevant to today? Clearly, our war on drugs doesn't work.

Two solutions the author puts forth: 1) Use military force to go in and clear the fields where this is grown, strong arm governments who allow the crop to be grown, etc. (The Tom Clancy, Clear and Present Danger plan.) 2) Use economic ways by interdicting in the cash flow used by drug runners.

Problems:
1) The use of our military in foreign lands to combat "our" drug problem goes against the natural sovereignty of these foreign lands. This would be comparable to bombers blowing up Hollywood (or flying planes into two building) because they don't like Brittany Spears showing off her private parts when she gets out of cars. We wouldn't stand for this (i.e. Bin Laden) so the foreign countries we would invade to close up the drug crop wouldn't like that either.

2) Although the two currency thing (one for internal America commerce and one for international trade would be cool, perhaps we could combine that with a currency actually backed by something like gold) might work, the other part of picking through everyone's (and I do mean everyone's) financial transactions is a breach of First Amendment rights. If we do this (which we already are), then we go down the slippery slope of losing other rights.

Now, at the end of the book the author presents a point of legalization. At first it sounds like he's against that. But actually he points out the positive effects of not legalizing but instead just not prosecuting the law. In effect we'd be saying, its bad, but if we bring the cost of coke down from $100 an ounce to $2, then nobody makes any money on it and the problems of drug enforcement, thefts, etc. that go along with the high cost of drugs goes a way. Money saved on law enforcement could be spent on education and ways to get people off of drugs. Kind of how lotteries used to be illegal, but then were made legal and with some of the money gambling abuse help was paid for. Now, this option actually works. Trouble is politically we have nobody with a back bone to stand up for this.

Again, the book is dated which is the real tragedy, but read it for the last chapter.

[Bernie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great read on combating the war on drugs.

[byo]

Very interesting stuff, although a little outdated. Perfect quotes used in my research paper about the idea of legalization of drug use in countries.