Refugees are ‘fleeing a hell’ US drug war helped create


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

zetasIt is impossible to understand the child refugee crisis at our southern border without understanding how the US–led war on drugs has destabilized, militarized, and corrupted Latin America.

For decades, the United States has provided weapons, combat training, and billions of dollars to governments, paramilitary troops, and even cartels themselves under the guise of protecting us from illegal drugs. Not only has that approach totally failed — after all, illegal drugs today are cheap, widely accessible, and more potent than ever before — but it has destabilized entire countries and created one of the most serious human rights crises of modern times. It may be difficult for us to admit, but we have a moral imperative to acknowledge our central role in creating and sustaining this destructive drug war that has forced tens of thousands of children leave their parents and flee their homes.

Just on the face of it, it is clear that the drug war has been massively counterproductive. Despite pouring more than a trillion dollars into the war on drugs over several decades, the United States leads the world in illegal drug consumption. The sale of illegal drugs to American consumers makes up the vast majority of cartels’ income and directly fuels the violence in Latin America. As with alcohol prohibition, our attempt to eradicate drug use by waging a war on the suppliers and producers has only created more corruption and bloodshed.

Instead of addressing the demand side of the equation — as we have done successfully with tobacco and other drugs — we have created a firestorm of violence in an attempt to eradicate the supply of illegal drugs in countries that produce them. Providing weapons and money to Latin American countries, our government has further escalated the destabilizing violence. We have used our imperial power to convince our neighbors to expand their military and police forces and mobilize them against the cartels. Fighting fire with fire has only turned millions of innocent bystanders into victims.

No other part of the world has felt the wrath of the drug war as severely as Latin America. Colombia is home to the world’s largest internal refugee population; Mexico saw more than 60,000 drug war related killings from 2006 to 2012; and Honduras has become the murder capital of the world. It comes as no surprise that some of the most outspoken leaders against the drug war are current and former Latin American presidents, including José Mujica of Uruguay, Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil, César Gaviria of Colombia, and Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico.

Though responsible for the lion’s share of illegal drug use in the US, mainstream white America has for the most part managed to insulate itself from the destructive human costs of the drug war. Enforcement of our drug laws here at home has been focused on poor, urban, minority communities. For decades, guns and money have gone south while drugs have come north, eventually reaching the affluent suburbs, but leaving a trail of destruction in their wake. This arrangement has allowed us to export most of the violence and corruption to our inner cities and neighboring countries.

The new attention given to the child refugees at our border, however, provides an opportunity for us as a country to reflect on the damage we have inflicted on millions of children and families with our failed war on drugs. Imagine what it must take for a mother to decide that the best chances for her children’s survival is to send them through a barren desert accompanied by armed coyotes. The drug war has created such an environment of corruption, chaos, and indiscriminate violence that parents feel they have no other choice.

The child refugees at our border are fleeing a hell that we in the United States helped create. While many are quick to blame the victims, there is no denying that there is blood on our hands. We are fueling a war in our back yard in a futile attempt to kick our own drug habit.  It’s time for us to break the taboo and begin seriously considering alternative drug control strategies. We must demand that our political leaders end the futile and destructive war on drugs immediately. The lives of children at home and abroad depend on it.

Rebecca McGoldrick is the Executive Director of Protect Families First, an organization working to end the war on drugs.

RI Voters’ Poll: Seeking Major Changes In Marijuana Policy

A new poll of 714 Rhode Island Voters indicates overwhelming support for medical marijuana, compassion centers, and decriminalization of less than one ounce of the plant.  The medical marijuana law, gone unused by Rep. Bob Watson (if he were to qualify) garnered support of 72%, including a whopping 82% of Dems, 61% GOP, and 57% of those beloved Seniors that every politician craves.  Only 30% of people over 65 were opposed.  With that support, it should be no surprise that support for the Compassion Centers (approved by the legislature three years ago) was equally high- and the poll suggests that Chaffee stands to gain some support if he were to stop Pot-Blocking the Compassion Centers.  Half the voters said they would view the Governor more favorably, while only 19% would view him less favorably.

A meager 24% are opposed to making small amounts of marijuana punishable by only a fine, and apparently would rather pay to imprison someone over a bag of the most common illegal intoxicant, being used by millions of Americans every day.  In contrast, 65% of RI voters would like to see the highly anticipated change in the law, and 58% would be more likely to vote for a politician who supported such a reform (24% said “less likely,” with 18% not sure).  Political gurus: you know the score. Few have ever seen a bill with this much sponsorship and public support that has not become law.  It appears the onus is upon Speaker Gordon Fox to assure all the votes are held, as few individuals other than he could keep this bill from reaching the Governor’s desk.  It remains to be seen how many courageous people take to the hearing, saying things heard last year such as: ‘I’m a wife, a mother, I have a job, pay a mortgage, and I smoke pot.’  H 7092, sponsored by Rep. Edwards, has a list of co-sponsors that makes you search for the opposition.  Minority Leader Newberry?  Sponsor.  Favorite Villain Rep. Palumbo?  Sponsor.  The aroma smells the same in the Senate, with S 2253.  Stay tuned.

The more interesting proposition is one which gained the support of millions of voters in California on the first try: Full Regulation of Marijuana.  Such a bill has gone to a hearing for the past two years; admittedly, the legislation may need to be more detailed, or empower the proper regulatory agency to oversee a several hundred million dollar economic development project that America has never seen.  I could not find such a bill filed yet in the Assembly, but I may have overlooked it.  The poll of voters, by the way, shakes out 52-41% in support.  If this were projected numbers in an election, the front page would call it a “landslide.”  Interestingly, the women are much less enthusiastic about Regulation despite being more supportive than men on the Compassion Centers.  There was no difference in support among party lines, with the Independent/Other having lower support than the two dominant factions.  On this question, the Over 65 crowd was the most out of step with everyone else, as they oppose Regulation 55-36%.  I’m not sure if these numbers would be identical in 10 years, and age reflects our changing opinions, or if the idea of marijuana criminalization will go Bye Bye like Ms. American Pie.

One question that was not asked, that would be of interest, is support for the Good Samaritan Act.  This bill (successful elsewhere) is basically designed to encourage one drug user to save the life of another.  Studies and experience in the medical field has shown that drug overdose, a serious killer in America even when the newspaper is not so explicit, can often be prevented by the most unlikely hero, another user.  However, faced with the fear of prison (and possibly being linked in with their death) the other user will flee rather than call 911 or administer naxalone.  Under this bill, nobody is going to be charged with drug possession if the evidence arises when its a medical response.  Surely a certain percentage of RI voters would rather see people dead or in jail, but I suspect that a vast majority would encourage people in tough times to choose life.

Life, Compassion, and Decriminalization- that is what the people are leaning towards.  Don’t let the fear-mongering media fool you.