Timeline Of the War on Drugs

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 10:37:44 AM EST
Tags: war on drugs (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Reuters today provides a timeline for the War on Drugs in Latin America.

It began in 1970 with passage of the Controlled Substances Act. President Richard Nixon declared a War on Drugs in 1971 and the DEA was established in 1973.

Pablo Escobar formed the Medellin cartel in 1983.

By 1985, Mexico began to replace Colombia. In 1993, Columbian police, with assistance from the U.S., kill Escobar. By 1996, the Cali Cartel was dismantled.

In 2000, President Clinton provides Colombia with $1.3 billion to fight the war on drugs. In 2004, George W. Bush provides $1.4 billion to Colombia and Mexico. In 2008, more than 6,000 are killed in drug violence in Mexico.

And they still don't get the picture, the War on Drugs is a failure. Defense Secretary Robert Gates now wants to use our military to continue the losing battle.

< Karl vs. Karl | ACLU: CIA Admits Destruction of 92 Interrogation Tapes >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Timeline Of the War on Drugs | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Winning battles and loosing the war. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 10:51:05 AM EST

That's pretty much what I got out of this article:

"We have turned the tide on methamphetamine in the United States," said Jeff Sweetin, the agent in charge at the Drug Enforcement Administration's Denver office. "I think when you look at methamphetamine, what you have is a model. When communities say 'No more' and when law enforcement and retail and all these other things come together, we can have a huge impact."

Yet, there's this...

"Whac-A-Mole is exactly how it is," said Sgt. Jim Gerhardt, a longtime investigator with the 17-year-old North Metro Task Force. "Respond to a trend, stomp it out, and something else pops up. People are just switching to other types of drugs."

and this...

"We focused everybody on one mole in one hole, and that was unfortunate," Gerhardt said. "Whatever it is that so enslaves people to use these stimulants like cocaine and meth, whatever it is, it is very clear there is no indication that people are going to stop getting their hands on those substances."

Why can't they see what they're doing isn't going to work? You just can't legislate/outlaw human nature.

what they're doing isn't going to work (none / 0) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:27:38 PM EST

If that's a valid reason to stop enforcing our drug laws, shouldn't we then also stop enforcing every other law that "doesn't work?" I think that'd pretty much be every law...


It's a reason to stop enforcing.... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:37:43 PM EST

or to repeal victimless crimes.

I know some like to debate whether buying/selling/using drugs is a victimless crime or not, but the mere fact that there is a debate kinda proves there is no direct harm being done to any victim...I mean there is no such debate with murder, theft, rape, etc.


Well, come on, (none / 0) (#14)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:56:38 PM EST

so now it's: a lack of perfection in effectiveness is a good reason to stop enforcing/repealing laws, but only those laws that happen to be your pet peeve?

iow, legislating/outlawing human nature does work but only if/when there is a victim of that human nature?

Sorry, the sentiment that the effectiveness of a law in curbing human nature is the determining factor of whether a law should exist or not seems kind of silly to me.


: Well... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:25:44 PM EST

I don't mean to limit it to my pet peeve...I've got no personal stake in the prohibition of prostitution, yet I think the logic applies there.
It shouldn't be the only factor, but definitely something to consider for each issue. Namely this...is this particular common human behavior with negative consequences worth prohibiting and further eroding respect for the law?
And this doesn't even get into the liberty argument, which I think is the best argument...questioning whether the state even has the consituttional or moral right to prohibit the use of a substance.

Well I don't like meth (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 05:13:05 PM EST

I think it is vile and super destructive, but when you live in a place like the united states that takes something like ephedra off the market (don't care for that either but it's hardly a heavy hitting problem) what do I expect people who are going to tweak to do? They're going to tweak with what they can get.


Well, since Gates said yesterday... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Dadler on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:03:37 AM EST

...that Obama was "probably" more analytical than Bush, I'd hope our president would analyze and deny Gates his destructively pointless wish.

Nearly 3 Billion dollars in 4 years (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by ruffian on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:09:08 AM EST

Just by those numbers alone, and I'm sure that is not all. I can only imagine how that money was spent, enriching corrupt military and other leaders in those countries, as well as probably the drug lords.

Yet people are up in arms here about the amounts Obama wants to spend on health care programs here at home, maybe some of which could curb demand for drugs. Amazing.

Add up all the people (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by jondee on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:33:50 AM EST

here that are legally medicated and self-medicated
and it's hard not to come to the conclusion that some time back we decided to substitute a pressure cooker for a republic.

The number I heard that particularly killed me was that kids in the U.S are four times as likely to be on some form of psychiatric medication as kids in any other industrialized nation. What the eff?! (for temporary lack of eloquence).

And, I guess if the pills stop working, we can always go to war again to blow off some of that steam. There's always that.

So what is your answer to the solution? (none / 0) (#1)
by Saul on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 10:50:56 AM EST

You can't let the violence just continue without any efforts to stop it. So again what is your solution?

Take away the violent thugs revenue stream... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:02:46 AM EST

by legalizing drugs...the repeal of alcohol prohibition reduced or eliminated the violence associated with bootlegging...so we have a historical reference.


That is light years away (none / 0) (#5)
by Saul on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:08:27 AM EST

My question was directed to Jeralyn


: Beg your pardon.... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:56:24 AM EST

thought it was an open question.
Then I'm afraid a reduction in drug trade violence is also light years away...I guess we need more corpses to pile up before we wise up.

I don't think it is a good idea to purchase (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by JSN on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:13:49 PM EST

anything from criminals (such as car parts, securities and drugs). In general they do not believe in the nonviolent resolution of conflicts.

We have tried a lot of tactics that don't work to control the non medical use of drugs. The only ones that I know that work some of the time involve the medical and drug treatment communities. I think they would be more effective if the criminal justice system was not involved.


But they.. (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:41:21 PM EST

don't charge taxes...take the good with the bad:)

It's not like you have a choice if you're a recreational drug user, you can either buy from a "criminal" or grow/manufacture your own with a lot more risk of being placed in a cage by the state.

Not for nothing...the "crimninals" this "crimninal" buys from are real sweethearts...some might be surprised to learn not every drug dealer is a gun-toting thug.


: Damn... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:43:04 PM EST

I assure you I can spell "criminal"...I just can't type worth a lick:)

Framing the issue (none / 0) (#16)
by Mama Cass on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:08:49 PM EST

Seems to be the first step here. The best analogy is not to other types of crime, but to the "other" war on drugs that this country had - also known as Prohibition. Unbelievable personal violence, the rise of organized criminals, a dangerously unreliable, unregulated product that sometimes killed people: sound familiar?? Prohibition was a nightmare, and the accompanying disasters only ended with the re-legalization of alchohol - well, except for the organized criminals...

: If we're talking strictly (none / 0) (#17)
by jondee on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 02:24:04 PM EST

about the type of behavior manifested when a person is on the drug, I'll take a junkie over a drunk any day of the week -- and twice on Sunday.