Yesterday Senator Jim Webb--who seems to be on many people's shortlist as a possible running mate for Senator Barack Obama--chaired the Joint Economic Committee's hearing on "Illegal Drugs: Economic Impact, Societal Costs, Policy Reponses". It was the second hearing on drug policy that Senator Webb has convened, the first focused on the steep increase in the US prison population.

In his two years in Congress, Senator Webb has established himself as a leader in fighting for economic populism, an end to the War in Iraq and a new GI Bill. Yesterday we saw that his interest in revamping our approach to drug policy is strong as well.

In his opening statement Senator Webb noted that we have 5 percent of the world's population and 20 percent of the world's prison population--"either we have the most evil people in the world or we are doing something wrong with the way we handle our criminal justice system, and I choose the latter. The central role of drug policy in filling our nation's prisons makes clear that our approach to curbing illegal drug use is broken."

Senator Webb said the illegal drug problem is one of "demand-pull--the rest of the world looks at drug use in this country and provides a supply to meet the demand that's here." The demand is so great that "global exports of wine and beer are equivalent to only one-quarter of illegal drug flows," and US, Canada and Mexico account for 44 percent of those illegal drug sales. (Webb said the latter is a "conservative estimate" from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.)

"While [the US is] spending enormous amounts of money to intercept drug shipments at the border and inside the country," the Senator said, "supplies remain consistent." According to a UN report, Colombian farmers planted 245,000 acres of coca last year, 27 percent more than in 2006. And coca cultivation in the three largest producers--Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia--increased by 16 percent to 447,743 acres. The Washington Post writes, "The findings follow almost eight years of heavy aerial fumigation of drug crops in Colombia, an American-designed strategy that has cost more than $5 billion."

In addition to the drug supply remaining constant, the incarceration epidemic has failed to curb illegal drug use while also "devastating our minority communities." Senator Webb said, "the number of persons in custody on drug charges increased thirteen times in the past 25 years...[And] when it comes to incarceration for drug offenses, the racial disparities are truly alarming. Although African Americans constitute 14 percent of regular drug users, they are 37 percent of those arrested for drug offenses, and 56 percent of persons in state prisons for drug crimes...Our current combination of enforcement, diversion, interdiction, treatment and prevention is not working the way we need it to...There has been little effort to take a comprehensive look at the relationship between the many interlocking pieces of drug policy."

First Assistant District Attorney Anne Swern--a prosecutor at the King County (Brooklyn) District Attorney's Office--spoke of two innovative prosecutor-run programs that "seek to reduce drug abuse, improve public safety, and save money." The Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison (DTAP) program diverts addicted offenders into long-term community-based substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. The Community and Law Enforcement Resources Together (ComALERT) focuses on recidivism reduction through re-entry programs for former inmates returning to Brooklyn communities. A five-year study on DTAP by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University revealed that DTAP graduates had rearrest rates that were 33 percent lower, reconviction rates 45 percent lower and were 87 percent less likely to return to prison two years after completing the program than the control group two years after leaving prison. And the cost comparison? $32,975 on average for the DTAP participant, and $64,338 if that same person had been sent to prison. Swern noted that New York taxpayers currently pay over $2.5 billion annually to maintain prison operations. "While community-based treatment and other wraparound social services carry a price tag their cost is much less than that of incarceration in prison, especially when one considers the effectiveness of diversion and re-entry programs at reducing recidivism," she said. "These programs deserve to be replicated in jurisdictions around the country, and Congress should ensure that adequate funding is appropriated for that goal."

John Walsh, Senior Associate for the Andes and Drug Policy at the Washington Office on Latin America, stressed the folly of eradicating coca bushes. "Without other alternatives in place to earn a living," he said, "farmers [will] replant coca sooner or later." He said there is a "balloon effect...increased pressure on the drug trade at a given time and location tends to displace activities elsewhere, much as squeezing a balloon in one place forces it to expand in others." Walsh also suggested that the US drug policy emphasis on cracking down on the supply is futile as long as the demand for illicit drugs continues to grow. "There is a strong case for much more ambitious efforts to reduce the size of the illicit market through proven demand side programs such as treatment," he said.

Dr. Peter Reuter, Professor in the School of Public Policy and the Department of Criminology at the University of Maryland, questioned the very foundation by which successive administrations have determined drug policy choices. "Congress has not pressed any Administration to justify its policy choices in a systematic fashion but has been content to accept the standard rhetoric and argue about details. One sign of this neglect... is the absence of Congressional reaction to the failure of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to continue to estimate the scale of the nation's drug problem."

With this hearing, Senator Webb continues to lead a much overdue Congressional reaction to the US's failing drug policy. Indeed two colleagues on the committee, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Representative Maurice Hinchey praised Senator Webb for his "courage." And don't expect the Senator to back off any time soon. His press secretary, Kimberly Hunter, e-mailed me following the hearing, "Senator Webb has been interested in the US incarceration rate and drug policies since he was a journalist studying the Japanese prison system in 1984.... [This] issue is far from popular but needs to be debated in the public view. With every hearing, his efforts help to raise the awareness of the American people and draw attention to a problem that is easier to ignore then address head-on."

Comments (29)

1. Good for Jim Webb. Hope he goes all the way with it.

   Unfortunately, he just ended his Vice-Presidential hopes. No way Obama and the Dems can stand up to all the "Jim Webb wants to legalize drugs ...for your KIDS! And THIS is the man, Barack Obama wants a 'heartbeat away' from the Presidency?" ads the GOP 527s would run.

   Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 12:01pm

2. I'm curious about this statement from DTAP:

   "As of February 1, 2008, 2568 defendants have been accepted into the program, 363 are still in treatment and 1065 have completed the program and have had their charges dismissed. Since 1998, when DTAP shifted from a deferred-prosecution to a deferred-sentencing model, the program has achieved an impressive one-year retention rate of 76%, which compares very favorably with retention data of other studies of residential drug treatment programs."

   So, if 2568 came into the program, 1065 completed the program, and 363 are still in the program...what happened to the other 1140 participants?

   Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 12:42pm

3. I would not advise anyone to seek the nomination for Vice-President in either of the major parties. Both parties are associated with "Free Trade policies", and we are looking at an unfolding economic disaster over the next four years. Senator Webb "may be" over qualified for the office for Vice-President, and it would be a good idea for him to build his resume over the next four years for a "possible" Presidential race. However, he is correct that we have grabbed the wrong end of the stick with the drug problem. We should treat any addiction as a medical or psychological problem. Preventive education, treatment and regulation, as opposed to criminal charges and incarceration are the way to go. As with alcohol, incarceration should only follow when excess use results in a crimes, such as drunk driving. Prohibition doesn't work!

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/20/2008 @ 1:51pm

4. "We should treat any addiction as a medical or psychological problem. Preventive education, treatment and regulation, as opposed to criminal charges and incarceration are the way to go."

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/20/2008

   PJ, as a nurse, I've seen the gambit of what substance abuse can do. And I applaud the idea of many intervention programs, however, unless this country understands that no one abusing drugs or alcohol can fully recover in a regulated 2-year period, we will never get a handle on it. Rest assured the recitivism rates will remain unchanged.

   Recovering from these forms of addictions takes a lifetime of care. What is required, qualified medical professionals, funding and tolerance, are all in very short supply.

   Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 2:11pm

5. Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008

   But do you favor locking them up...or treatment?

   And wouldn't a TAX on the use, instead of continueing a failed "Prohibition" ...work to PAY for those treatments?

   Posted by Mask at 06/20/2008 @ 2:16pm

6. It's nice to see someone significantly close to the limelight stick his neck out on an issue of significance that has been too long neglected largely because those most wronged, a huge chunk of the U.S. jail and prison population, are seen as unimportant.

   Kudos to James Webb, and thank you, Ms vanden Heuvel, for the spotlight.

   I'd like to add a sincere thanks to The Nation for the freshly posted lead editorial in the latest issue.

   But I do have some strong points of contention as well.

   I was an outspoken voice on these threads back in November and December of last year in support of John Edwards' campaign because of the consistency and clarity of his progressive message. It was a significant disappointment to me when The Nation decided to endorse Barack Obama in spite of the fact that his plank was enveloped in a sort of fog of vagueness --that endorsement struck me as a somewhat reckless throw of the dice on an actively double-speaking candidate, and unprincipled since a much clearer spoken progressive advocate was available and fully in contention for the Democratic nomination.

   Yet, I also understood that on purely pragmatic grounds Obama might have been a better choice simply in terms of ability to beat out Hillary "DLC" Clinton, and win the the White House.

   When The Nation endorsed Obama it was also clearly stipulated that progressives would be required to raise their voices, and pick up the pace of their activism to provide the force necessary to carry Obama to the left --and the new lead editorial reinforces that point.

   But here's my central beef:

   The Nation magazine, as a wide circulation progressive rag with significant play in the mainstream media, is perfectly positioned to firmly and effectively proclaim the progressive agenda. You are, in effect, the best placed set of vocal chords of the progressive movement has. So, yes, I agree that progressives must amp up their action, but The Nation also needs to amp up the volume and firmness of their voice as well --after all we endorsed Obama, so we must hold him robustly in the cross hairs of accountability to the progressive (and frankly, popular) agenda.

   Another significant bone of contention is this:

   The Nation's lead editorial mentions the Jim Johnson affair, and the Jason "Rubnomics" Furman appointment as potentially ominous signs, but neglects to mention the more internationally significant speech before AIPAC that Obama gave almost immediately after securing the Democratic nomination.

   This speech was a singular, sonorous thunderclap that essentially signaled the implosion of the Obama myth of hope for a sea change in Washington. Sure it was little reported on here in America --but that's hardly a surprise in the land of "winken, blinken and nod" media coverage of Israeli affairs-- but I am strongly disappointed that The Nation has also essentially given Obama's bombshell speech short shrift.

   That recent AIPAC event with its long list of fawning VIP attendees was symbolic of what an embarrassment our government has become in the eyes of the rest of the planet.

   I am not so naïve to not understand the name of the game, those with the gold make the rules. But it's a sad day when cherished progressive voices are silent, or at least muted, on matters of deep political significance.

   In closing, I cannot emphasize strongly enough the importance of this juncture in American history, and progressives must find a way to synchronize our voices and apply maximum pressure on Obama to heed our cries.

   The Nation magazine's leverage will be critical in this effort.

   Post script:

   Even those who are starry eyed defenders of Obama should welcome all progressive efforts to hold Obama to his (earlier in the campaign, implied) words. We are, in effect, the attendees at a scientific colloquium, and the onus is on us to ask the tough questions now, not later.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/20/2008 @ 3:19pm

7. Recovering from these forms of addictions takes a lifetime of care. What is required, qualified medical professionals, funding and tolerance, are all in very short supply.

   Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008

   Agreed. We seem to have the mentality that if we just throw them in prison for a while that will stop them. It never does.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 3:35pm

8. "We seem to have the mentality that if we just throw them in prison for a while that will stop them. It never does."

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008

   Perhaps so, but, is society willing to tolerate footing massive substance abuse costs on top of bigger medical costs?

   Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008 @ 4:40pm

9. Perhaps so, but, is society willing to tolerate footing massive substance abuse costs on top of bigger medical costs?

   Posted by ACook at 06/20/2008

   Better than footing massive prison bills and requiring a massive police force and drug operations divisions.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008 @ 6:37pm

10. Is there any really rational reason to continue the idiocy of the criminalization of drug use? Frankly, in a theoretically free society, what someone does with his/her body is none of the state's damned business. And it seems, frankly, that drug laws remain on the books, in no small part, as a convenient means of keeping young non-white men (and women) locked away, and therefore less able to scare the crap out of middle-aged white men (and women). Does anyone actually believe that Bush would have been prosecuted in his cokehead days? It's time to remove drug use from the criminal justice system, as an offense or as an excuse for other behavior that should remain in the system. Personally, I think that most drug use is pretty stupid. However, it's less than productive to lock people up for doing stupid stuff - where would you put the 27% who still support Bush? ;-}

    Posted by jmusolino at 06/21/2008 @ 12:40am

11. Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/20/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    What he said! All of it! Yeah!!

    Posted by jmusolino at 06/21/2008 @ 12:42am

12. There is a very simple answer to the drug problem which never satisfies anyone. You simply cannot have a free society and expect that criminalization of drugs will have any effect other than to make drugs more expensive, their use more prevalent and in the process increase other crimes associated with drug use.

    Use of drugs of all kinds is an integral part of being human. Some people just use socially acceptable methods to tweak their minds and body- exercise, family, food, sex and others use methods not socially acceptable- alcohol, drugs, sex. The only way to deal with this issue is to leave the criminalization of drugs out of the equation except in the most inappropriate and excessive situations such as use by minors.

    If someone wants to or allows themselves to sit at home and ruin their lives getting high, so long as they are not hurting anyone but themselves- and admittedly their own families- they should have easy access to their poison. It will take a while but their kind will soon be gone and society will begin to learn how to deal with this issue just as someday we will have dealt with cancer, AIDS and other maladies associated with being human. But putting people in prison makes no sense. Making white powder worth more than the price of gold ten fold is insane. And thinking that drug programs is going to solve what is basically a trillion dollar criminal economy is naive. Take the crime out of use you take out the profit and people will be left with the ability to make a choice. In the end that's what a truly free society is all about, the right to make a choice.

    Posted by Pjsandiego at 06/21/2008 @ 09:47am

13. Take the crime out of use you take out the profit

    Posted by Pjsandiego

    well not all the profit, as the liquor store in your neighborhood will attest to.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 12:37pm

14. the tax money that could be realized from the legal sale of cannabis alone, would go a long way towards floating our ship of state.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/21/2008 @ 1:19pm

15. Not to mention ethanol production from hemp (which is not actually pot so its illegalization is just ludicrous) which would take the pressure off of inefficient corn. Legalizing jut cannabis would change the economic dynamics in this country like you wouldn't believe.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/21/2008 @ 3:59pm

16. We seem to have the mentality that if we just throw them in prison for a while that will stop them. It never does.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/20/2008

    Many addicts tell me they were high EVERY DAY while in prison.

    Posted by Balrog at 06/21/2008 @ 6:32pm

17. "Freedom-loving" neocons never take the lead on this. They can't sacrifice their beloved tough sheriff authority worship.

    Decriminalizing drugs is a core progressive and libertarian concept.

    I think the caveat "as long as drug use doesn't risk harming others" would need some big time teeth.

    I'd go for using fast, high tech, if invasive tests for parents that are suspected of being negligent, abusive. Same for anyone driving anytime. Then counseling=carrot, fines/court-mandated screening, community service=stick...

    Posted by winyahn at 06/22/2008 @ 12:43am

18. "<b>Perhaps so, but, is society willing to tolerate footing massive substance abuse costs on top of bigger medical costs?</b>"

    With all due respect, the decision about whether to continue incarcerating large numbers of people, often effectively destroying their lives, should not be made on the basis of whether or not doing so will increase health care expenditures in this country.

    There should be more tolerance and leniency shown to drug users precisely because this is supposed to be something akin to a free country, and locking up people for drug use (or, for that matter, small-scale, retail drug sales among consenting adults) is positively barbaric. Marijuana should be flat-out legalized for adult use, and approved by the FDA for commercial sales (or otherwise be treated approximately the same way tobacco and alcohol are), and other recreational drugs should be decriminalized for personal use. Prodiving drugs like cocaine, methamphetamines, and heroin to persons under the age of 18 should remain a very serious crime, however.

    The so-called "War on Drugs" is really a War on the American People and their Constitutional Rights. Its a failed and frankly tyrannical policy that has no place in a civilized society.

    Congratulations to Sen. Jim Webb for having the courage and fundamental deceny to raise this unpopular issue.

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 06/22/2008 @ 01:57am

19. de-criminalize

    offer treatment to those that want it

    free up massive amounts of money being used for prisons for that treatment.

    But, the "pragmatic" congress will fall all over themselves to appear "tough on crime" while their policies exacerbate the problem the congress thinks they are fixing.

    Again we have a system that is set up to make people "feel safe" while the best fixes are ridiculed for being too soft. The authoritarian loving sheep always seem to go with the uniforms, bullets and bombs over solutions that work.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/22/2008 @ 08:26am

20. "So, if 2568 came into the program, 1065 completed the program, and 363 are still in the program...what happened to the other 1140 participants?" asked "ACook."

    My guess is that these other 1140 participants are still waiting to BEGIN treatment. The treatment program is only in its infancy, and there is probably much more demand than supply at the moment.

    Presently, our drug-control policy is to spend huge amounts of money financing one side of a civil war in a foreign country (Colombia) and incarcerating more people per capita than any other country in the world. I have even heard this policy's supporters defend it by calling it a "job-creation program." As a socialist, I confess that I like the idea of job creation and have no quarrel with investing public money in good public services that we all need but are too selfish to purchase as consumers. But as a moralist, I also believe that the jobs that we should be creating as a society should actually provide a social benefit - not just "make work," as the prison-industrial complex does, while it also appallingly wastes thousands of human lives.

    The present system obviously does not work. DTAP and ComAlert, in contrast, do seem to work. Reason, therefore, obviously requires us to reject the status quo and to support these two reforms.

    Unfortunately, our country's policy in regard to dangerous drugs has not been guided by reason at any time during the last 40 years at least. Even as Senators Jim Webb, Amy Klobuchar, and Maurice Hinchey boldly speak the truth about this monumental failure, the prison-industrial complex still demands loudly to be fed, without regard for facts or logic. It will take more than these three musketeers to slay this monster.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/22/2008 @ 09:54am

21. """"the prison-industrial complex still demands loudly to be fed, without regard for facts or logic. It will take more than these three musketeers to slay this monster.""""

    talk about hitting the head of the nail square!!

    what is happening is grounds for civil war if you ask me. the jewdiciary vs. the public.

    Posted by dowkiller at 06/22/2008 @ 3:35pm

22. I hate to disparage anyone who agrees with a point that I make, "Dowkiller," but you seem to be an anti-Semite. Ethnic bigotry is no substitute for fact-based analysis. Please apologize, or I'll impose the ultimate punishment: the Ignore List.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/22/2008 @ 4:49pm

23. If memory serves, Webb bailed on the Supplemental funding bill after Bush's veto, and blamed Lieberman (as in, "Hey, it's not my fault we don't have 51 votes"). But I guess if he's on Obama's short list for Veep, The Nation has to put him on the hero's list. (I seem to remember Obama bailing Webb out when it emerged that he couldn't deny ever having used the N word any more than Allen could deny saying "Macaca". Politics as usual.)

    Nobody knows bupkes about drug addiction. "Treatment" is about as scientific as applying leeches -- there are some incidental "cures" for some people, for reasons that aren't really understood. Everyone else "relapses," whch is typical blame-the-victim language, meaning, "We don't know anything about this disease." If Webb or anyone else has a way to factor this reality into improved policy, good luck.

    Posted by RLawrence at 06/22/2008 @ 7:48pm

24. I am not "anti semite",, I see a ridiculous amount of religios whackos in my gov't, it is fact a great many are dual national Israeli. we are supposed to put country before God when it comes to governing for a good reason. 9/11 was/is an Israeli Statse sponsored gold heist, not "terrorism", and as obvious as this is, americans have been sooo brainwashed into being hyper sensitive to anything "anti semite", that they have become easily manipulated with just that very assinine accusation.

    I hate all religions equally,,, only followers of one sqeal when someone says something,,, "anti".

    Man made "god" out of fear, religion is used to control the stupid.

    Posted by dowkiller at 06/22/2008 @ 9:16pm

25. "My guess is that these other 1140 participants are still waiting to BEGIN treatment. The treatment program is only in its infancy, and there is probably much more demand than supply at the moment."

    Posted by JakobFabian at 06/22/2008

    No Jakob, they entered the program. I think DTAP didn't want to show they had more failures. The only way for progams like DTAP to survive and received public funding is they must highlight their successes more so than their failures.

    Posted by ACook at 06/22/2008 @ 9:23pm

26. "Is there any really rational reason to continue the idiocy of the criminalization of drug use? Frankly, in a theoretically free society, what someone does with his/her body is none of the state's damned business."

    Posted by jmusolino at 06/21/2008

    JM, there is a reason to continue some kind of drug enforcement policy. In spite of your belief that what a person does to their body is their own business, well, I beg to differ.

    However, if you are willing to except the stiffest penalty (a life for a life) for killing someone while under the influence of all drugs (narcotic and otherwise) and alcohol, then by all means seek to decrimilize possessing and using.

    Just remember, there is always a price to pay.

    Posted by ACook at 06/22/2008 @ 9:37pm

27. At least Webb didn't call it 'domestic terrorism'... but with BigPharma holding the US domestic & foreign policy demands on foreign nations...

    I'm simply waiting for the US to start demanding mandatory treatment at taser-point.

    I mean, its not like the US has a history of forcibly drugging deportees (Washington Post), or detaining people 'for their own good' or because the 'might' be terrorists or 'peace/anti-WTO agitators'... or even *demanding* that minor misdemeanors in Canada should be punishable by a Super-Max Life sentence in the US because Americans initiated transactions with a Canadian-residing Canadian... suddenly, foreign domestic policies in 'sovereign' nations are being strong-armed by American corporations & their cronies.

    ever wonder why HEMP disappeared in the US? BigCotton, BigPetroleum, BigTobacco. THE WORLD is still paying in social policies because the US had a Civil War & needed a Southern Strategy to re-energize their economy when the Northern industrialists moved into the South as carpetbaggers...

    Americans, you scare the hell out of a great deal of rational international thinkers. Your policies are about as stable as a Mel Gibson buddy-cop character...

    I'm afraid of Americans, I really am.

    George Carlin (RIP) on American Dreams: corporatism, consumerism & the Ownership Class

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw

    === BlueBerry Pick'n can be found @ ThisCanadian com ┄┄ "We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid. ┄┄ "Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

    Posted by ThisCanadian at 06/23/2008 @ 12:38pm

28. There may indeed be a real need for drugs to be plentiful:

    http://caspersarcticvoyage.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/266/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 06/23/2008 @ 1:00pm

29. I appreciate the remarks of a health professional on drug treatment that followed my previous comments on that subject. Addiction is ceratinly a serous problem. However, the basic social problem we have is the illegal drug trade. Because these drugs are illegal, they drive up the profits for criminal gangs. For addicts, it means they are using an unsave product that is not regulated. One way or another, addicts are going to get their fix, and, one way or another, there are people out there that will cater to that dependent market. legalization will take away the profit movtive from criminal gangs, as it did when prohibition ended in the 1930s. We have put billions of dollars in fighting the drug trade and filling the prisons with addicts. It is not working, and narco terrorism is rampant in Mexico. Force does not work! This is a political and health problem, that will not be resolved by punishment and filling our jails!

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/23/2008 @ 1:35pm