United States

  1. "Since the definition of homicide is similar in most countries, absolute comparisons of rates are possible. For the period 1999 to 2001, the average rate (the number of homicides per 100,000 population) was 1.6 in the EU with the highest rates in Finland (2.9), Northern Ireland (2.7) and Scotland (2.2). For the other countries, the highest rates were found in Russia (22.1), Estonia (10.6), Lithuania (10.6) and the USA (5.6)."

    Source: 

    Barclay, Gordon & Cynthia Tavares, "International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2001," Home Office Bulletin 12/03 (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate, October 24, 2003), p. 3.


  2. "... the importance of having ‘hard’ numbers is greatly exaggerated because most uses are political and biased in nature and because most users do not have a formal model in which to apply the data. Furthermore, given the role of illicit drugs as a catalyst that accelerate social processes already in progress, the influence of illegal drugs on society do depend on the size of the illegal industry but also on the structure, institutions and values of the society and on the history of past drug income, anti-drug policies and the changes in institutions and values that had occurred. Thus, in a country like Colombia, the illegal drugs’ industry is today smaller than twenty years ago but its role in Colombian society today is a lot more negative than in previous decades.

    Finally, the moral of the story is just that it would be nice to have accurate data on the illegal drugs industry, but it would be a lot nicer if the data are used with scientific rigor, acknowledging their limitations and avoiding political biases."

    Source: 

    Francisco E. Thoumi, "Let’s All Guess the Size of the Illegal Drugs Industry!" Transnational Institute (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: December 2003), p. 14.
    http://www.tni.org//archives/crime-docs/numbers.pdf [1]


  3. "The FY 2009 resources of $1.3 million will support the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws to prepare and conduct state model law summits and assist state officials in the promotion and adoption of summit-based laws. In addition, resources will support the development and distribution of updated model laws, as well as analyses of state laws and bills involving drug issues."

    Source: 

    Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy: FY2010 Budget Summary," (Washington, DC: 2009), p. 138.
    http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/10budget/ondcp.p... [2]


  4. "NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY GOALS"

    "Two-Year Goals: A 10 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders."

    "A 10 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by adults age 18 and older."

    "Five-Year Goals: A 25 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders."

    "A 25 percent reduction in current use of illegal drugs by adults age 18 and older."

    "Note: Progress toward youth goals is measured from the baseline established by the 2001 Monitoring the Future survey. Progress toward adult goals is measured from the baseline of the 2002 National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health. All Strategy goals seek to reduce current use of any illicit drug. Use of alcohol and tobacco products, although illegal for youths, is not captured by 'any illicit drug.'"

    Source: 

    Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy" (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Feb. 2005), p. 4.


  5. "The National Drug Control Strategy proposes a ten-year conceptual framework to reduce illegal drug use and availability 50 percent by the year 2007."

    Source: 

    Office of National Drug Control Policy, "Reducing Drug Abuse in America: An Overview of Demand Reduction Initiatives", Chapter II (Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, January 1999), from the web at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugabuse/2a.html [3] last accessed Oct. 4, 2000.


  6. "In the United States, whose legislation serves as a model for international drug control agreements and which claims the leadership of the global antidrug fight, the war 'on drugs' is one of the main reasons for a rapid and dramatic increase of the prison population that started in the mid-1980s."

    Source: 

    Observatoire Geopolitique des Drogues, The World Geopolitics of Drugs 1998/1999, "Trends for 1998/1999: The Globalization of the Trafficking Economy" (Paris, France: OGD, April 2000).


  7. "Electoral politics was the reason why the preponderance of federal fiscal dollars resourced supply programs higher rather than demand reduction programs. The United States drug policy has been driven by the need to appear tough on drugs, regardless of results. Cocaine and heroin cost are declining and product purity is rising. Presidential leadership has a value, however, pressures to compromise may mitigate effectiveness. Political activism by an informed electorate to help shape the direction of public policy is needed."

    Source: 

    Major Barrett K. Peavie, United States Army, "United States War on Drugs: Addicted to a Political Strategy of No End," School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Command and General Staff (College of Fort Leavenworth, KS: January 2001), p. 46.
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD... [4]


  8. "According to the National Review, when [General Barry] McCaffery retired from the military in 1996 to become Director, Office of the National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP, he was the youngest and most decorated four-star general in the Army. His appointment helped the administration’s new commitment to the get-tough approach.80 'The appointment was widely seen as a direct response to Republican election –year criticisms that the president was soft on drugs.'"

    Source: 

    Major Barrett K. Peavie, United States Army, "United States War on Drugs: Addicted to a Political Strategy of No End," School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Command and General Staff (College of Fort Leavenworth, KS: January 2001), p. 28.
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD... [5]


  9. "There was no political or scientific-medical consensus for the policy designs that developed into national programs in the 1990s. Studies failed to address the political dimension of the drug control policy."

    Source: 

    Major Barrett K. Peavie, United States Army, "United States War on Drugs: Addicted to a Political Strategy of No End," School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Command and General Staff (College of Fort Leavenworth, KS: January 2001), p. 45.
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD... [6]


  10. "The election year of 1996 marked the highest percentage of federal funds allocated to drug enforcement during the decade. The Clinton administration appointed former SOUTHCOM CINC, Gen (Ret) Barry McCaffery to the office of Director, National Drug Control Policy. Following the mandate of the President and Congress, the Cabinet level office maintained the 70/30 ratios between supply and demand reduction programs with the exception of 1999 and 2000. Programs that represented a traditional supply control approach included Presidential decertifications of Colombia, followed by the support of Plan Colombia."

    Source: 

    Major Barrett K. Peavie, United States Army, "United States War on Drugs: Addicted to a Political Strategy of No End," School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Command and General Staff (College of Fort Leavenworth, KS: January 2001), p. 46.
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRD... [7]


Related Chapters:
  • Economics [8]
  • Policy Overview [9]
  • The Netherlands Compared With The United States [10]
 
Copyright © 2000-2008, Common Sense for Drug Policy

Source URL: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/1305

Links:
[1] http://www.tni.org//archives/crime-docs/numbers.pdf
[2] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/10budget/ondcp.pdf
[3] http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugabuse/2a.html
[4] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
[5] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
[6] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
[7] http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391171&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
[8] http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/38
[9] http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/node
[10] http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/67

Published on Drug War Facts (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms)
Created 01/18/2008 - 22:48