mouthporn.net
#dea – @vortexanomaly on Tumblr
Avatar

v0RTEX Anomaly.

@vortexanomaly

v0RTEX Anomaly. (fUSION MKIII)
Avatar

the DEA’s guide to raves...

It's descriptive.

Last week, we wrote about the DEA's files on Alexander "Sasha" Shulgin, the so-called "grandfather of ecstasy." Included in the report is the agency's guide to rave culture circa 2001, cobbled together from a one-day seminar on the subject taught by the "extremely knowledgeable" Sgt. ██████ …

…who immediately solidifies his credentials as a rave expert by explaining the difference between House and Garage.

Street cred firmly established, Sgt. ██████ then goes into a bit of rave history

…before revealing the secret, sinister purpose behind raves - selling bottled water at a sizeable markup.

Avatar

DEA regularly mines Americans' travel records to seize millions in cash...

The Drug Enforcement Administration is closely watching how Americans travel in order to seize drug money in major cities across the country.

WASHINGTON — Federal drug agents regularly mine Americans' travel information to profile people who might be ferrying money for narcotics traffickers — though they almost never use what they learn to make arrests or build criminal cases.

Instead, that targeting has helped the Drug Enforcement Administration seize a small fortune in cash.

DEA agents have profiled passengers on Amtrak trains and nearly every major U.S. airline, drawing on reports from a network of travel-industry informants that extends from ticket counters to back offices, a USA TODAY investigation has found. Agents assigned to airports and train stations singled out passengers for questioning or searches for reasons as seemingly benign as traveling one-way to California or having paid for a ticket in cash.

The DEA surveillance is separate from the vast and widely-known anti-terrorism apparatus that now surrounds air travel, which is rarely used for routine law enforcement. It has been carried out largely without the airlines' knowledge.

It is a lucrative endeavor, and one that remains largely unknown outside the drug agency. DEA units assigned to patrol 15 of the nation's busiest airports seized more than $209 million in cash from at least 5,200 people over the past decade after concluding the money was linked to drug trafficking, according to Justice Department records. Most of the money was passed on to local police departments that lend officers to assist the drug agency.

"They count on this as part of the budget," said Louis Weiss, a former supervisor of the DEA group assigned to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. "Basically, you've got to feed the monster."

In most cases, records show the agents gave the suspected couriers a receipt for the cash — sometimes totaling $50,000 or more, stuffed into suitcases or socks — and sent them on their way without ever charging them with a crime.

The DEA would not comment on how it obtains records of Americans' domestic travel, or on what scale. But court records and interviews with agents, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not permitted to discuss DEA operations, make clear that it is extensive. In one 2009 court filing, for example, Justice Department lawyers said agents took $44,010 from two people traveling on a train to Denver after picking them out during "a routine review of the computerized travel manifest for Amtrak."

DEA agents regularly profile train and airline passengers based on their travel records.

USA TODAY identified 87 cases in recent years in which the Justice Department went to federal court to seize cash from travelers after agents said they had been tipped off to a suspicious itinerary. Those cases likely represent only a small fraction of the instances in which agents have stopped travelers or seized cash based on their travel patterns, because few such encounters ever make it to court.

Those cases nonetheless offer evidence of the program's sweep. Filings show agents were able to profile passengers on Amtrak and nearly every major U.S. airline, often without the companies' consent. "We won't release that information without a subpoena," American Airlines spokesman Ross Feinstein said.

By itself, a suspicious itinerary amounts to little more than a tip; it's not enough evidence to permit agents to detain passengers, search their bags or seize their cash. Instead, agents use it to approach travelers and ask if they would be willing to answer a few questions, a process that often ends with them either asking for permission to search the person's bags or having a dog sniff them for drugs.

Agents seized $25,000 from Christelle Tillerson's suitcase in 2014 as she was waiting to board a flight from Detroit to Chicago. The Justice Department said in a court filing that agents became interested in Tillerson after they "received information" that she was headed to Los Angeles on a one-way ticket.

Tillerson told the agents that her boyfriend had withdrawn the money from his U.S. Postal Service retirement account so that she could buy a truck, according to court records. Agents were suspicious; Tillerson was an ex-convict, who had spent time in prison for driving a load of marijuana into the United States from Mexico. She seemed to have little money of her own. And a police dog smelled drugs on the cash.

Agents seized the money, and let Tillerson go. Her lawyer, Cyril Hall, said she was never arrested, or even questioned about whether she could give agents information about traffickers.

A year and a half later — after she produced paperwork showing that much of the money had indeed come from her boyfriend's retirement fund — the Justice Department agreed to return the money, minus $4,000. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Detroit, Gina Balaya, said prosecutors concluded that "a small percentage of the funds should be forfeited."

"It was outrageous. It's still outrageous," Hall said.

Federal law gives the government broad powers to seize cash and other assets if agents have evidence that they are linked to crime. That process, commonly known as asset forfeiture, has come under fire from lawmakers in recent years after complaints that police were using the law as a way to raise money rather than to protect the public or prevent crime.

"Going after someone's property has nothing to do with protecting them and it has everything to do with going after the money," said Renée Flaherty, a lawyer for the Institute for Justice, an advocacy group that has battled asset forfeiture cases.

To the DEA, cash seizures are one prong of a broader financial fight against gangs and Mexican cartels, which have reaped huge profits — usually in cash — from selling drugs in the United States. Agents "employ strategies and methods that attack the financial infrastructure of these criminal organizations," spokesman Russ Baer said, including tracking the couriers they use to transport the money.

Baer said agents receive information from employees at "airlines, bus terminals, car rental agencies, storage facilities, vehicle repair shops, or other businesses." He did not explain why so many suspected couriers are released without charges.

Mining travel records

The DEA came under fire for harvesting travel records two years ago, when Amtrak's inspector general revealed that agents had paid a secretary $854,460 over nearly two decades in exchange for passenger information. A later investigation by the Justice Department's inspector general found that the secretary initially looked up reservations only at agents' request, but quickly "began making queries on his own initiative, looking for indicators that a person might be planning to transport illegal drugs or money on a train," according to a report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Five current and former agents said the DEA has cultivated a wide network of such informants, who are taught to be on the lookout for suspicious itineraries and behavior. Some are paid a percentage if their tips lead to a significant seizure. Records filed in asset seizure cases suggest the drug agency's informant network is broad enough that agents have been able to profile passengers traveling on most major airlines, including American, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest, United and others.

"Basically, it's what that Amtrak guy was doing, but at the airport," said a senior DEA agent, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the agency's use of confidential informants.

Court records show agents and informants flagged travelers for questioning based on whether they were traveling with one-way tickets, had paid in cash, had listed a non-working phone number on the reservation or had checked luggage. They also appeared to pay particular attention to people headed to cities such as Los Angeles (which prosecutors described as "a well-known source city for marijuana and other types of narcotics"), Fresno ("known for large quantities of outdoor grown marijuana") and other California cities.

Agents said Zane Young fit that profile when they approached him at Phoenix's airport in 2015: An informant had told them that Young had bought a last-minute, one-way ticket from Orlando to Las Vegas, with a stop in Phoenix, according to a civil complaint filed in federal court there. And he appeared to have a record of having been arrested for a minor marijuana offense. They seized $36,000 from his bags.

Young's lawyer, Thomas Baker, said in a court filing that the drug agency's profile was "vague, ambiguous, overbroad, and can be manipulated to include just about anyone who flies on a commercial airline."

The Justice Department agreed in May to return half the money, without explanation.

Exactly how often agents contact people based on their travel records is impossible to determine. Few cash seizures are challenged in court; those that aren't leave no public record.

And the Justice Department's Inspector General has complained that the DEA's airport units often did not track the instances in which they question someone but did not make an arrest or seizure.

What the drug agency could not do was access the sea of data the government collects from airlines to spot potential terrorists. Airlines must provide basic information about all of their passengers to the Department of Homeland Security three days before a flight so that they can be checked against terrorist watch lists. That system is so tightly focused on detecting potential terrorists that the government typically will not use it even to spot wanted fugitives.

Nor were agents able to get information directly from the airlines. "They really did not want to be associated with subjecting their passengers to government scrutiny because of the privacy issues," Weiss, the former DEA supervisor, said. "They discouraged their employees from assisting us."

'We want the cash'

Drug agents were on the lookout for Nina Haywood when she stepped off an American Airlines flight at John Wayne Airport in the Los Angeles suburbs two years ago.

They knew she was returning from a trip to Tulsa that had lasted less than 12 hours, according to court records. They knew she had checked a suitcase, and they had a drug dog sniff it as baggage handlers unloaded it from the airplane. A detective assigned to a DEA task force approached her while she was waiting at the baggage claim.

Haywood's answers to their questions gave agents still more reason to be suspicious. When they asked why she had been in Tulsa, Haywood replied that she had been visiting her aunt in the hospital, but couldn't remember the aunt's last name. When they asked whether she had packed her own bag, Haywood answered that a different aunt had packed it for her, but she couldn't remember that aunt's name, either. They found $41,471 stuffed in her suitcase, stuffed in envelopes inside a toiletry bag and a pair of white tube socks, according to court records.

Haywood also gave agents permission to search her cellphone. On it, the Justice Department said, they found a text message from an acquaintance asking why she was going to Tulsa.

"Money baby money!!!!" she answered.

Haywood was never charged. She declined to comment.

A DEA group assigned to Los Angeles' airports made more than 1,600 cash seizures over the past decade, totaling more than $52 million, according to records the Justice Department uses to track asset seizures. Only one of the Los Angeles seizure records included an indication that it was related to a criminal indictment.

Such charges appear rare. Of the 87 cases USA TODAY identified in which the DEA seized cash after flagging a suspicious itinerary, only two resulted in the alleged courier being charged with a crime. One involved a woman who was already a target of a federal money-laundering investigation; another alleged courier was arrested a month later on an apparently unrelated drug charge.

In many cases, current and former agents said, it was not clear that the couriers had committed a crime for which they could be arrested — at least not one that prosecutors would be willing to pursue as the Justice Department shifts its focus away from minor drug offenses. Instead, Weiss and others said, agents investigated the couriers after they were released in the hopes of finding a toehold that would let them identify bigger trafficking organizations.

Many of the people from whom agents seized cash had records of minor drug arrests. And some were more significant targets.

Two years ago in Nashville, for example, agents intercepted a man prosecutors described in court filings as being a "top target" of a gun violence crackdown in Baltimore and a member of a drug crew known as LAX (also the shorthand for Los Angeles' main airport). The man, Antroine Figueroa, was carrying $24,010 in cash.

Agents told him they thought he was on his way to buy cocaine.

Figueroa replied, "You can't buy a kilo for $25,000," according to court records.

The agents let him go without charges, but kept the money. Figueroa's lawyer declined to comment on the case.

The DEA started monitoring airports in 1975. At the time, traffickers routinely used commercial flights to move large quantities off drugs both into and around the United States. But the airport security overhauls that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 made that kind of smuggling far more difficult. Over time, three agents who worked at airports during that period said, the operation became increasingly focused on seizing the cash proceeds of drug sales that still dribbled through the airport in the backpacks and suitcases of low-level couriers.

Baer said the DEA's airport groups — scattered from Los Angeles to Atlanta — do more than seize cash. In recent years, they have arrested drug trafficking rings that had infiltrated the airlines and used their badges to help carry large quantities of drugs past security checkpoints and onto commercial flights. A group assigned to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York seized 92 kilograms of cocaine and 27 kilograms of heroin since 2013.

Still, current and former agents said, when it came to intercepting individual passengers, the goal was usually to find cash.

"We want the cash. Good agents chase cash," said George Hood, who supervised a drug task force assigned to O'Hare International Airport in Chicago before he retired in 2007. "It was just easier to get the asset, and that's where you make a dent in the criminal organization."

Avatar

We need to abolish the DEA: There’s no federal agency that does more harm to the people it serves...

Over the years, Republican presidential candidates have boasted of plans to eliminate wide swaths of the federal government. Sometimes, they have trouble coming up with concrete ideas. In 2011, Rick Perry famously claimed that he wanted to eliminate three federal agencies but faltered after naming the Commerce and Education Departments. During the most recent debate, Ted Cruz named the Commerce Department as one of the five federal departments he would eliminate—twice. I am here to help: We should eliminate the Drug Enforcement Administration, an agency that has so much trouble holding employees accountable that, as USA Today reported earlier this year, it failed to fire "agents who investigators found attended 'sex parties' with prostitutes paid with drug cartel money while they were on assignment in Colombia." The DEA was recently the subject of another damning USA Today investigation, this one revealing a dragnet domestic wiretap program that appears to use a pliant state court judge to get around federal laws. The DEA, according to USA Today, has "built a massive wiretapping operation in the Los Angeles suburbs, secretly intercepting tens of thousands of Americans' phone calls and text messages to monitor drug traffickers across the United States despite objections from Justice Department lawyers who fear the practice may not be legal." One state court judge in Riverside County, Calif., who previously work as the county's chief narcotics prosecutor, authorized nearly all of the intercepted calls in question, an unknown but apparently very large number being DEA-related, totaling "more than 2 million conversations involving 44,000 people." Last year, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Helios Hernandez "signed off on almost five times as many wiretaps as any other judge in the United States." The wiretaps are supposed to be closely related to Riverside but are in fact being used, sometimes secretly, for nationwide enforcement operations. The program looks so sketchy, in fact, that Justice Department lawyers in Los Angeles "have mostly refused to use the results in federal court because they have concluded the state court's eavesdropping orders are unlikely to withstand a legal challenge." That they are at least sometimes kept secret—because of a practice called "parallel construction" where agents use sketchy wiretaps to find evidence, and then use that evidence as the basis to tip off other investigators to develop independent evidence on a suspect—means that they won't have to. In plain English, federal prosecutors reportedly believe that a federal court judge would likely deem that these wiretaps are illegal under federal law. This raises some unanswered questions. The DEA and federal prosecutors are all part of the very same Department of Justice. Are higher ups, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, aware that DEA agents, her subordinates, are engaged in a massive wiretap dragnet that other DOJ employees appear to think might run afoul of federal law? Prior USA Today reporting investigated a former program in which "the Drug Enforcement Administration had been secretly gathering logs of Americans' international phone calls…nearly a decade before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and provided a blueprint for the far broader National Security Agency surveillance program that followed" Many federal law enforcement agencies rampantly violate people's rights. But what's remarkable about the DEA is that they do so with perhaps the least evidence that they are advancing any public good whatsoever. On any given day, the DEA is boasting about a new drug seizure, conveying the commonsense but totally wrong idea that every pound of marijuana, heroin and cocaine seized is a pound of drugs that won't be on American streets and in the lungs, veins and noses of its people. That is a profound misunderstanding of how drug markets work. Every pound of drugs the DEA seizes is part and parcel of an enforcement campaign that is itself creating the very profits that drug cartels exploit: the risk of death and imprisonment created by prohibition, after all, is what adds a premium to the price. That prohibition premium is a drug traffickers' lifeblood. The recently installed DEA chief Chuck Rosenberg has so far proven to represent the worst of drug warrior dogma. He has embraced the so-called "Ferguson effect," which dangerously and without any evidence posits that violent crime is on the rise (which by and large its not) because protesters have made police too scared to do their jobs. This drew a rebuke from the White House. And he recently called medical marijuana a "joke." In response, tens of thousands have signed a Change.org petition calling for his ouster. But why stop with Rosenberg? The DEA's sole responsibility is to prosecute a drug war that has been a total failure. Rather than effectively suppressing drugs, its very enforcement activity calls forth the most ruthless entrepreneurs who can reap the extra profit created by prohibition. It is time to end the drug war and abolish the DEA. [+]

Avatar

EFF and Human Rights Watch force DEA to destroy its mass surveillance database...

In a victory for millions of people in the U.S. who have placed telephone calls to locations overseas, EFF and Human Rights Watch have confirmed that the Drug Enforcement Administration's practice of collecting those records in bulk has stopped and that the only bulk database of those records has been destroyed. From the 1990s to 2013, the DEA secretly and illegally collected billions of records of Americans' international calls to hundreds of countries around the world. In April 2015, we filed a lawsuit on behalf of our client, Human Rights Watch, challenging the constitutionality of the program and seeking to have the records purged from the government's possession. Today, HRW has agreed to voluntarily dismiss that suit after receiving assurances from the government, provided under penalty of perjury, that the bulk collection has ceased and that the only database containing the billions of Americans' call records collected by the DEA has been purged from the government's possession. Those assurances were provided after a federal judge ordered the government to respond to HRW's questions about the bulk collection program—the first instance we know of in which a plaintiff challenging a mass surveillance program was allowed to take discovery. From the outset, the government tried to prevent the judge from deciding the legality of the government's actions, insisting that the DEA's database had already been deleted and the collection had stopped. In the government's view, there was nothing for the judge to review and the case had to be dismissed. But we've seen too much surveillance double-speak from the government to take those statements at face value. We wanted them to answer our questions about the program, on our terms. Our discovery essentially sought information about where the illegally collected records had been stored in the past, where they currently were stored, and what steps the government had taken to "purge" and "quarantine" the records, as they claimed to have done. From the government's discovery responses (available here and here), we were able to determine: (1) The database DEA used to store call records collected through this bulk program was the only database within the federal government used for storage of those records. (2) The DEA's database was only searched when the government had "reasonable articulable suspicion" that a particular number was related to an ongoing criminal investigation. No wholesale copies of the bulk data were made. (3) When the program was operational, collected call records older than two years were automatically aged off the system and deleted on a continuing basis. (4) The DEA's bulk database was taken "off-line" in August 2013 and was not used for investigatory purposes after that date. (5) By January 2015, the DEA had deleted the bulk database. This included destruction of any temporary files used to standardize the records after obtaining them from phone providers. Despite all this additional information, we should be clear about two things: First, the government still retains some illegally collected records, and they've admitted as much. The records the government retains, though, are only those that were returned in response to a query of the database—a more limited sample than the bulk collection of records of billions of Americans' calls to hundreds of countries overseas. While ongoing retention is undesirable, according to the government, the DEA's records are stored in "nonsearchable PDFs" and not a part of some currently-operational call record database. It also appears that, when the program was operational, agencies were instructed to destroy reports generated from querying the database after the reports were no longer needed, presumably in order to conceal the existence of the program. While that's good for the privacy of those unwittingly swept up in the program, it's bad news for criminal defendants. If the criminal investigation came from a "tip" generated through searching the bulk database, there's a good chance evidence of that tip has already been destroyed. Second, the government still collects phone records in bulk. The NSA likely continues to collect international call record information in bulk under Section 702 of the FAA and under EO 12,333. In fact, it has been reported that the DEA has similar overseas bulk collection programs as well. Nevertheless, the end of the NSA's domestic bulk collection and now the confirmed end of the DEA's program represents a significant step forward in curtailing some of these abuses. The government is on notice: if they have a bulk collection program, and we find out about it, we're going to challenge it in the courts. Challenging programs aimed at Americans in federal courts has proven easier—for legal reasons and because of the information that is publicly available—than challenging bulk collection programs aimed at those outside the U.S. But we'll never convince judges or elected officials to respect the privacy rights of those outside the United States if we can't convince them that Americans' privacy is worth protecting, too. Challenging these programs is an important first step in that process, and we're looking forward to building on these successes to ensure that the federal government respects the privacy rights of people around the world. [+]

Avatar

end the war on some drugs...

Morgan Freeman likes pot. And increasingly, so does the rest of America.

Medical marijuana legislation just passed in the Pennsylvania Senate and with legalization efforts ramping up around the country, it's becoming clear that support for state-sanctioned pot use is on the rise. The U.S. does not view marijuana the way it used to, and although it may be years before the country's shifting viewpoints begin to take effect on a federal level, it now seems all too likely that sometime within the next decade or two, legalization will be the law of the land.

The only problem around the current pot debate is that it stops with pot. To be sure, marijuana is a unique drug, worthy of a separate conversation. But just as the legalization campaign has revealed how very little we actually know about pot, it has also revealed how little we know about all drugs in general. That pervasive misunderstanding of drugs has continued to be fueled by one thing: the government's ongoing war on drugs.

The war on drugs has gotten plenty of attention in pop culture over the past few years, from big Hollywood movies like Traffic, to critically acclaimed TV shows like The Wire, to thoughtful documentaries like The House I Live In. And while the style of these efforts has not always been similar, the message remains the same: The war on drugs is terrible. Not only has the war on drugs negatively affected the country in more insidious ways, like fueling the war on terror, but the obvious racism inherent in its policies have directly impacted the violence in areas like Ferguson, Mo.

Going forward, there can be only one solution: ending the war on drugs. There are about a thousand reasons to do so, but here are three to start.

1) The DEA

The Drug Enforcement Agency has made a lot of headlines lately. But from Cartel-funded sex parties in Columbia to creating Facebook accounts with seized property, the biggest shame of the DEA is its contributions to the culture of surveillance which persists in threatening civil liberties across the U.S. In partnering with the NSA and the Justice Department, the DEA has undertaken the secret mission to monitor emails, phone calls, and other pieces of personal information that the government has essentially declared as "up for grabs" throughout the War on Terror.

Of course, these were tactics that the DEA began using years ago, but their presence on a national scale became commonplace post-9/11.

A recent example of the DEA's lack of respect for civil liberties involves a man named Joseph Rivers. As the Washington Post reports, Rivers was headed on a train to Los Angeles with $16,000 of seed money he intended to put towards his life's dream of starting a music video company, when his trip was cut abruptly short in Albuquerque, N.M. That's where DEA agents boarded his Amtrak car and began asking passengers where they were going.

Rivers, the only black person on his part of the train, explained he was headed to Los Angeles and told the agents about his plans there. And when the agent asked to see Rivers' luggage, he complied. When they found a large envelope of cash, Rivers explained that he had difficulties in the past withdrawing bigger sums of money out-of-state and that he needed every cent he had with him for his future business.

The DEA agents didn't believe him. They told him they believed the cash was an indication that Rivers was involved in the drug trade, and even though they did not find any paraphernalia among his belongings, they took it anyway.

How? As part of the Justice Department's multibillion-dollar civil asset forfeiture policies. "There is no presumption of innocence under civil asset forfeiture laws," writes the Post's Christopher Ingraham. "Rather, law enforcement officers only need to have a suspicion—in practice, often a vague one—that a person is involved with illegal activity in order to seize their property. … Once property has been seized, the burden of proof falls on the defendant to get it back—even if the cops ultimately never charge them with a crime."

The fact that makes Rivers' case especially awful is that New Mexico recently outlawed civil asset forfeiture. However, this doesn't apply to federal agents, giving the DEA ongoing permission to come in and take whatever they want. Rivers has hired a lawyer to help him get back his life savings, or at least to help him get back some of it.

Around the country, through, civil asset forfeiture remains one of the worst symptoms of the drug war. These seizures bring in $3.9 billion total for the Justice Department. The DEA specifically profits immensely from them, having already brought in $38 million in revenue through civil asset forfeiture this year. These policies trickle down to local law enforcement, who have also become financially incentivized to make drug busts (most of which are petty and don't lead to major arrests).

Attorney General Eric Holder has taken steps to curb the amount of these seizures, though a closer look at the data suggests his efforts will only prevent a few of them. Even as the Obama administration has taken a hands-off approach to issues like medical marijuana legislation (much to the DEA's chagrin), civil asset forfeiture has more than doubled during Obama's time as president.

With DEA head Michelle Leonhart stepping down last month over her handling of the Colombian sex scandal, the DEA's public image is worse than ever. If ever there was a time for the agency to undergo serious reform, or to be abolished altogether, that time is now.

**2) Mass incarceration **

Although our perspective on drugs has changed, Americans still have a lot of work to do on how they view drug users. Starting with the policies of President Nixon, the predominant ideology labels serious drug-users as criminals, rather than addicts. Today, as the stigma around marijuana is fading, and the country has begun to see cannabis for recreational (and medical) use, our understanding of how to deal with severe drug addiction has remained the same.

What makes this much more disappointing is that the rate of drug addiction itself has gone down, while the rate of drug control spending has skyrocketed, coming in at over a trillion dollars.

The result has been to cement America as a prison state, built largely on the back of drug offenses. Black Americans have been hit the hardest by these policies, with the politics of the Reagan administration continuing to target them in overwhelming numbers.

As Ohio State University Professor Michelle Alexander sees it, this has brought about the creation of what she called the The New Jim Crow, in the publication of a 2012 book by the same name. Alexander writes:

Crime rates have fluctuated over the last few decades—they are currently are at historical lows—but imprisonment rates have consistently soared, quintupled, in fact. And the vast majority of that increase is due to the War on Drugs. Drug offenses alone account for about two-thirds of the increase in the federal inmate population, and more than half of the increase in the state prison population. … In some states, African Americans comprise 80 percent to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison.

There are a myriad of other ways the New Jim Crow has become evident. Sentencing for crack cocaine possession is disproportionately harsher than for powder cocaine possession, and since crack has had a worse effect on the black community, the double-standard is obvious. Meanwhile, U.S. corporations get rich off the prison-industrial complex, making millions of dollars by keeping Americans behind bars. Things have gotten so bad that we're now the world leader in incarceration, exceeding the incarceration rates of larger countries like China.

Mass incarceration has become a worse crime than the offenses many Americans end up getting locked up for. Think about what's worse: a first time narcotics offender who sold pain pills to a friend or sentencing that offender to 25 years in prison? Mass incarceration is more than just racist, it's illogical. And as long as the War on Drugs is in place, it will keep on being harming the black community for years to come.

**3) The cost **

Like all wars, the War on Drugs has been expensive. Throughout its long and complicated history, the Nixon/Reagan era policies that have defined it have also diverted funds away from drug rehabilitation. Today, roughly 60 percent of drug war funds go to "fighting" the war, leaving less than half the funds allocated for treatment. The U.S. government isn't even really that invested anymore in the Nixon/Reagan method of "arrest first, ask questions later," but the methodology remains the same, apparently out of sheer laziness.

"The Obama administration has distanced itself from the war on drugs, at least rhetorically," writes History News Network's Aileen Teague. "And yet last year's federal drug war budget—topping $25 billion—and the continued efforts of U.S. institutions abroad in the name of drug control, remind us that a war on drugs is still alive and well."

This could not be more apparent than in Mexico. The resulting death toll in the DEA's attempts to take down the cartels tops out at more than 70,000, and if anything, the DEA's fight with the cartels is actually making the drug war worse.

Here at home, things aren't much better. Drug offenders comprise roughly 16 percent of the U.S. prison population. This equals roughly 210,200 inmates. And even taking the human costs of the drug war out of the equation, the financial repercussions are similarly unsustainable. Consider that the cost of drug treatment for the average offender is approximately $20,000 less than to lock them up.

Whether you want to look at in dollar signs or in actual human lives, the drug war does not make any sense. The cost is insurmountable, and yet it just keeps growing bigger and bigger.

As always, there are reasons not to despair. Both at home and abroad, committed individuals are finding ways to treat drug offenders rather than maintaining a system that utterly dehumanizes them. Despite the apathetic rhetoric of the Obama administration and the U.S. government at large, a war on the War on Drugs is winnable and should be viewed as such. But to really put an end to the drug war, we first have to acknowledge that it didn't work. That it never worked. That to keep fighting it, that to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, is madness.

Drugs may arguably be a societal evil, but the War on Drugs has become a special kind of evil unto itself.

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.
mouthporn.net