Drug war dropout calls effort a 'failure' / LJWorld.com

Lawrence and Douglas county

April 3, 2006

For more than 14 years, Jack Cole fought the war on drugs as a New Jersey state narcotics agent.

Now, he's had enough.

"It's not only a dismal failure, but a terribly destructive policy," he said.

Cole said he quit the narcotics force in New Jersey after realizing that the war on drugs not only cost billions in taxpayer money and landed millions of Americans in jail, but also had done little to curb the country's drug problem.

In fact, Cole believes that the drug war - beginning in 1970 during Richard Nixon's first term and continuing today - may have helped escalate a national drug problem that only the end of drug prohibition can cure, he said.

Cole spoke as one of the founding members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a nonprofit organization of ex-police officers, federal agents, judges and prosecutors who have turned away from the nation's drug enforcement policy.

His speech Sunday at the Lawrence Public Library was part of the Drug Policy Forum of Kansas lecture series.

Cole said that when he began working with the New Jersey state narcotics unit, which ballooned in size from seven officers in 1964 to 76 in 1970, hard drugs like cocaine and heroin were rare, even across the river in New York.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

At one point, Cole took part in the largest heroin bust in the country's history - less than 20 pounds, a paltry amount compared with the multiton amounts federal agents find today.

But after police inflated street values and bust quantities in the media - in part to keep federal dollars flowing to the state - many people believed that selling drugs was both profitable and common, Cole said.

"By the end of that first year, we had all kinds of people to arrest," he said.

The problem has grown out of control since then, he said. Drugs that were once expensive and weak are now cheap and much more pure. And the culture of prohibition has made buying a bag of pot easier than buying beer or cigarettes for many young people, he said.

All the while, federal agencies spend money to fight the drug war at record levels. In 1972, the budget for the then-newly founded Drug Enforcement Administration was $65 million. Today, the DEA spends more than $2 billion annually.

Cole questioned the results of the high spending. More than 1.7 million people are arrested on drug charges every year - more than 700,000 of those because of marijuana possession or sale.

Still, drugs are everywhere. The crime and violence that go along with drugs in the cities of America won't stop, he said, unless the profitability of selling them ends as well.

The only real solution, Cole said, is to legalize all drugs, take them off the streets and put them in drugstores and clinics.

Fewer people would die from overdoses, and the criminal culture that surrounds the sale of illegal drugs would disappear, he said.

The idea isn't likely to happen anytime soon, regardless of positive results in some European countries.

But for someone who spent more than a decade putting drug users behind bars and ruining their lives for little reason, Cole said he has to do something to try to end a never-ending war.

"We spent our entire careers fighting against drug abuse," he said. "There is no way to stop it - not with the policies we have today."

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

3 April 2006
at 1:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

b_asinbeer (Anonymous) says…

Legalize carrying guns that can kill you in an instant….but freak out when trying to legalize drugs that has shown great results in many different countries. The logic doesn't add up….then again, politicians and logic never added up before, so that's to be expected.

Me thinks good old Heston's NRA has powerful influences. :o/
3 April 2006
at 5:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

ever notice that most, if not all, drug addicts want drugs legalized.

the vast majority of normal people want drugs to remain illegal.
3 April 2006
at 6:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Solomon (Anonymous) says…

Well, I'm in favor of concealed carry laws, though I doubt I'll ever apply for a permit, and I'm in favor of legalizing drugs even though I have never used any illegal drug—not even a puff of marijuana, so I wouldn't be so quick to stereotype.

Think of the economic advantages; immediately save $2 billion by eradicating the DEA, save the costs associated with housing hundreds of thousands of convicts, begin to collect taxes on drug sales.

In addition, quality can be controlled, people with addiction problems will come to be known and more likely to seek help, and a whole criminal industry will be shut down.

There's a huge up-side and very little down-side.
3 April 2006
at 6:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

Finally, some common sense about drugs. Don't know about making heroin, or related barbituates, legal, but it would be a good start to make marijuana legal and sell it in drugstores. Be a good way to help pay for GWB's budget deficit.
3 April 2006
at 6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

Marijuana typically runs between 100 and 300 an ouce, depending on quality. If it were made legal it would accomplish a few things. First of all, even with the government taxing the crud out if it, the price would still be lower than it is now. There would be less violence due to drug deals gone bad. There would be less drug dealers because they would be selling something that would be more expensive than buying it at the store. So many Americans are potheads that it isn't funny. over 70% of Americans have actually tried it at one time or another. That would generate enough taxes to fund several GW wars.

I am not saying that it is safe. Like any substance, it can be abused and misused. What I am saying is that it is safer than smoking and alchohol combined.

Think about it. Get drunk and behind the wheel and they are all out of it. Get high and behind the wheel, and they are so paranoid it isn't funny. I wouldn't want either one on the road, but if I had the choice, I would choose the stoner every time.

The only reason it is illegal is because when prohibition was revoked, the alchohol lobbyist ,bought off enough of the government to make it so that the only buzz you can get legally or without a prescription in America is from their swill.
3 April 2006
at 7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ksmattfish (Anonymous) says…

“the vast majority of normal people want drugs to remain illegal.”

More Americans than ever are already on mind altering drugs. The only difference is that the pushers are multi-zillion dollar corporations who make sure Congress keeps their drugs legal.

Do you think the billions the drug companies spends on TV advertising is to inform your doctor? They want you to bug your Doc until he writes you a prescription to get you off his back, or they want you to order it over the internet from somewhere that will send it without a prescription. We don't hold the legal drug dealers to the same laws we hold the illegal drug dealers to. What's the difference between making money off pot, and making money pushing Ritalin without a prescription over the internet? Billions of lobbying dollars.

You can't tell kids (and adults) “Just say no”, and then bombard them with ads for pills that claim to fix everything that's wrong with them and their lives.
3 April 2006
at 7:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cait48 (Anonymous) says…

For the past ten years I have said that it it the illegal drug cartels themselves that are funding the PACs that keep marijuana illegal. Drug cartels don't WANT to see pot become legal. To do so would be an incredible loss of revenue for them.
In a comparison of marijuana and alcohol, their effects on the body are very dissimilar. Alcohol is a multisystem toxin with direct negative effects on the GI system, liver, brain and kidneys. Long term use of alcohol can lead to physical addiction and dependency with withdrawl causing seizures and abrupt cardiac failure. Unchecked, alcoholism leads to death by liver failure, an incredibly messy and painful way to die.
Marijuana, in comparison, is a very mild drug. In long term studies the worst effect on hard core marijuana users has been some short term memory loss. Nor does marijuana cause physical addiction/dependence.
Most telling are the spousal abuse and family violence statistics. In case after case of family violence alcohol and alcoholism is a contributing factor. I have never even heard of a case where marijuana has contributed to vilence. The truth is it's almost impossible to beat someone up while stoned.
You make the judgement call.

3 April 2006
at 7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

http://www.gurney.co.uk/drinksense/fa…

A while back when looking at how much we're spending under the guise of “drug war” I noticed some of DEA funding was being directed at oil pipeline security in Colombia.

If we were to legalize only reefer think what doors that would open for american farmers. Industrial hemp has many many products associated with it such as paper,wood, clothing and alternative fuel.
3 April 2006
at 8:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

geekin_topekan (Anonymous) says…

Merrill,why do you think that remains illegal?
The logging industry,drug companies and the oil industry lobby against it and since W is in office they own the lawmakers.

I thought breast feeding in public was legal.Just not past the 7th grade.
3 April 2006
at 8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

billy, you are a true jerk, but given that you celebrate that with every post, it goes without saying, doesn't it?
3 April 2006
at 8:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

Sorry, luny, your stereotype's off base.

The closest I've ever come to illegal drug use was the occasional alcoholic beverage before I was of legal age.

I certainly don't know if I qualify as 'normal' but when it comes to illegal drugs I'm not even a user, much less an addict, and I support the legalization of marijuana at the very least, don't oppose the legalization of any naturally-occurring botanical (pot, shrooms), and am open to the legalization of the harder processed drugs (heroin, coke) provided they're closely regulated. My reasons are nothing new; they've been stated here and will be stated here again. The 'War on Drugs' isn't working, we're spending huge amounts of money catching, prosecuting, and warehousing small time recreational users, we end up subsidizing too many things in other countries, and so long as they don't get behind the wheel of a car or boat, ride a motorcycle, or operate heavy machinery, I think that adults have the right to put any recreational chemical substance into their bodies that they deem appropriate, be it alcohol, pot, coffee, or LSD.

By the way, your comment that it's the addicts who want drugs legalized and the 'normal' people who don't use drugs that don't want it, that implies that Jack Cole, who supports legalization, is an addict. I didn't see that in the story. You have some inside knowledge about the gentleman, or are you just making blanket accusations and talking out of your rear end again?
3 April 2006
at 9:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jrlii (Anonymous) says…

When you look at the gyrations an underage drinker has to go through to get booze, you should quickly recognize that having drugs licensed and regulated would do more to keep kids off recreational drugs than all our efforts at prohibiting them.

Likewise, back when a junkie could walk into a drugstore and buy Bayer Heroin off the shelf, you didn't have them resorting to burglary to fund their habit and you didn't have dealers killing each other when a transaction went sour.

I expect the drug cartels are supporting hard-line anti-drug politicians. Down in Arkansas, the bootleggers are major supporters of the “Hard shell” churches which support the “Dry Issue.”
3 April 2006
at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

I am just picturing a concealed gun carrying coke addict. Scary.
3 April 2006
at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

IDntgivadam06 (Anonymous) says…

The main concern I have with the current U.S. drug policy is that it is completely hypocritical. Why is it accepted for someone to completely destroy themselves and others with alcohol abuse while it is completely illegal to to do the same hing with marijuana? They are both state altering drugs aren't they? The reasons given for illegalizing drugs are that they are dangerous to the user and the people around them. Yet the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry accomplishese the same thing with their product. The only difference is that the owners of tobacco were around in the beginning and have the good ol' boy, redneck granddaddy status that is required to be “in” with the politicians in Washingtonl.
3 April 2006
at 11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

mom_of_three -

Is he any scarier than a concealed gun-carrying drunk?

Frankly, not to me he's not. They're both scary as heck. However, if coke were legal, it's most likely it would be legal on the same terms or more strict ones, which would mean that carrying a gun under the influence of cocaine would be the same, legally speaking, as carrying a gun while drunk, and I'm pretty sure that's a no-no.

3 April 2006
at 11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

okay, some people say we need to be like europeans and their drug policies. have you looked at europe lately? they have 10-20% unemployment. now take the united states with roughly 5% unemployment - take into account if 11,000,000 illegals no longer worked here - then you'd be talking 0% unemployment.

could the high european unemployment rates be a direct reflection on their legalization of illicit drugs? if your answer is no, why?
3 April 2006
at 11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

Well, if you've been following the news in France at all, there unemployment is much more about the system by which the French employment laws are structured. Because their laws are written to make it hard to fire someone, then employers are reluctant to take on untried employees with no work history because if they don't work out they can't get rid of them. Consequently, their youth unemployment is outrageous.

Now, the protests in France are against a revision of those laws, which would make it more appealing for companies to employ untried workers, by allowing them to be fired more easily. Protesting against the law that would give you a job seems sort of dumb to me, but I gather that one of the primary points of objection is that the government has plans, if the program reforms the work opportunities for youth, to spread it throughout the rest of the job market.

Because so much of their business culture is based in worker protection, it would have a profound effect on the society, much as, say, eliminating workers' compensation protections would in the US.

Add into the mix that France, while it has a ridiculous unemployment rate, doesn't particularly have liberal drug laws, and I'd have to say that, no, you're off base again as usual.
3 April 2006
at 11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

In the first paragraph, that should be 'there, unemployment,' instead of 'there unemployment'. Missed a comma.

Mea culpa.
3 April 2006
at 11:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“they have 10-20% unemployment. now take the united states with roughly 5% unemployment ”

The main difference in unemployment rates between the US and Europe is the way it is counted. If counted the same way, the rates aren't that far apart.
3 April 2006
at 11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

Right on, bennyoates! When I was a young man, we used to leave a bowl of Jamaican white-bud on the coffee-table for anyone who came in to help themselves. It was pretty much a common practice in those days; everywhere you went, at least among our circle of friends, there was usually some pot, occasionally even opium, available for visitors.

It would be a welcome thing for those days and habits of gracious living to return. People who choose not to indulge need not, but those of us who do should be able to do so.
3 April 2006
at 11:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

One more thing. George W. Bush was a coke-head back in the early 80's. When he was governor of Texas, there were several hundred inmates in Texas prisons for committing precisely the same crimes GWB did; namely, buying and using cocaine. Only, he didn't get caught. I wonder, those of you who profess to worship the ground he walks on (Arminius, rightthinker, billyflay, Pilgrim) what about the dealer(s) he bought from? Are they still in business, selling drugs to children, to the public? Doesn't your president have a responsibility to the community, to his fellow man, to advise law enforcement of who his dealer(s) was so the awful threat of illegal cocaine sales in Texas can be mitigated somewhat?
3 April 2006
at noon

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fatty_McButterpants (Anonymous) says…

I think I take exception to the writer of this article saying that Mr. Cole “ruined their lives for little reason”. HE did not ruin their life. They ruined their own life. He just caught them.

Do I think that drugs should be legalized? I don't know. I do know that until they are, it's not the police that are ruining lives - it's the people doing the drugs. Have some accountability, man.
3 April 2006
at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

Good point, badger. Hopefully, there will be good restrictions regarding carrying guns and using alcohol.
I don't think cocaine will ever be legalized, but I could see the possibility of marijuana. Then there are the people who overdose on illegally acquired prescription drugs. If it can't be prevented now, how would you prevent it if other drugs are legalized?

3 April 2006
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

You need a prescription to get oxycontin, for example, mom_of_three, because it's approved for only medicinal use, not recreational. If, say, marijuana were approved for recreational use, then anyone of a legal age who had the money could buy it, no jumping through hoops needed. People buy illegal prescription drugs on the black market not because they can't afford them some other way, but because their doctors won't prescribe them legally.

Is there a serious problem with moonshine and illegal tobacco? Sure, some folks bring back a few extra cartons of cigs or bottles of tequila when they go to Mexico, but there's not exactly a booming black market. You legalize or decriminalize even just pot, and you drive out of business a lot of people who were profiting off that black market - some of whom were also selling prescription drugs.

Think about what it would mean if we could take all the money we currently spend busting the chops of small-time pot smokers and dealers, and pump it into programs to fight addiction and curb teen smoking and drinking, and even go after the prescription black market. Also, with regard to legalizing and regulating cocaine, what would it do to, say, Colombia, if suddenly their big black market cash crop, that allows an essentially feudal warlord system to crush the local police and government, was a legal enterprise (because if the US stopped fighting the war on those drugs, so would the countries that grow it, most likely), and suddenly the billions of illegal dollars flowing into the economy untaxed became millions flowing in taxed?

I don't say this so much to support the legalization of cocaine, but to illustrate exactly how much the difference between a black market system and a legitimate one affects the culture they influence.
3 April 2006
at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Do I understand correctly that Cole was a narc from 1964 to 1978? What has he been doing since then?
3 April 2006
at 1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

conservative man: Who cares? People who say they stand for one thing, and do something else entirely, are interesting studies in human fallibility. You, and your kind, are a trifle ingenuous when you say: “It is speculation that he used cocaine.” If he didn't use it, why don't he just come out and say so? If he did buy and use cocaine, perhaps he should provide law enforcement with the relevant details so they can protect Texas citizens against the horrors of drug use he, and born-again idiots like him, have thundered about for decades.
3 April 2006
at 1:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wonderhorse (Anonymous) says…

“…there will be good restrictions regarding carrying guns and using alcohol. …”

Always been there. I have been “patted down” numerous times, and I was the manager of the club. They were “just checking”. And, before anyone jumps on the bandwagon, I'm a white male.
3 April 2006
at 2:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

neopolss (Anonymous) says…

luny, you make the suggestion that a 5% unemployment is directly related to illegal immigrants. I'll call you on that one - BS.

Find me the line of American workers wanting low paying jobs on the kill floor, and we'll kick out the illegals who hold those jobs. Somehow I think it's going to take you awhile.
3 April 2006
at 2:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

Badger-
once again, you make a good point. I especially like the point of fighting the black market prescription drugs. It's much more of a problem than some people think, and has affected my family personally.

Thank you for explaining it in the manner which you did. very much appreciated.
3 April 2006
at 2:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wonderhorse (Anonymous) says…

mom

Once again, always been there. We used to toss the needle users, but could never catch the pill users. I suspect that a number of fights in the club were more than just alcohol enhanced.
3 April 2006
at 3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…

Shrub did admit to drug use! It's on tape!! Don't you all remember all the furor about those interviews released last year in which he stated, ” … I don't want some kid to try what I did… ”

3 April 2006
at 4:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

adavid (Anonymous) says…

it's not too late, conservativeman, get to it!
3 April 2006
at 5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

Buying, possessing, smoking marijuana is merely a low-level misdemeanor in most jurisdictions. William the Great may have had youthful indiscretions with mary-jane … but buying, possessing, using cocaine is a felony. Your Insane Cowboy Clown committed felonies, in Texas, in the early 80s.

There is a school of thought that extensive cocaine use radically alters the production of brain chemicals; too bad Laura Bush didn't step in and make Idiot Boy stop sooner.
3 April 2006
at 6:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Harry_Manback (Anonymous) says…

The reason it failed is because they're going about it the wrong way. Drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem and not a criminal one.

Also, I think marijuana should be legalized, and I'm not a drug addict. Plus look at all the drugs that are legal that are abused everyday: pain killers, ADHD drugs, anti-depressants, etc.

Alcohol and tobacco kill more people each year than all illegal drugs combined and why are they legal? Because the government can tax the hell out of them and stands to make tons of $$. The only reason drugs aren't legal is because of bureaucracy, not because the gov. wants to protect little Billy and Susie.

There's my rant…
3 April 2006
at 7:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jay_Z (Anonymous) says…

Xeno—where is the hard evidence that GW Bush did cocaine? I didn't hear that played out in the predominantly liberal media during the last election. If there was any evidence of GW using cocaine, I'm sure the media would have trumpeted that over and over again. And why didn't we hear about it during his first campaign for President?
3 April 2006
at 7:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

xenophonschild (Anonymous) says…

That's one I think the Democrats let slip away. I would've pounded it for all it was worth, even if the eye-witnesses and dealers refused to, or couldn't, come forward.

According to three independent sources close to the Bush family report that G.W. Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession, and taken to Harris County Jail, but avoided jail or formal charges through an informal diversion plan involving community service with Project P.U.L.L., an inner-city Houston program for troubled youths. Reporter Bill Munutaglio writes that “the year of community service was arranged by the Governor's father, ex-president Bush, after he caught Bush Jr. driving drunk.”

That year certainly is out of character with the rest of GWB's life. Before and after 1972, he was a rich, hard-drinking playboy. Suddenly, and only for that one time in his life, he worked for a liberal charity in an inner city ghetto. As soon as the year was over, he resumed his previous pattern and has done no charity work since.

Also, GWB's responses to questions about cocaine use have been extremely evasive.
3 April 2006
at 8:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Odd this comes up on a thread about legalizing drug use. The war on drugs continues, but was not initiated by GWB, nor has it been emphasized by his administration. Other matters have needed more attention.

If there is a candidate, a senator, a represenative, a governor, a leader, a mayor or city commissioner, anyone who attended college since 1966 who has not had experience with drugs, he or she must be one of a cloistered few.

If your smoking gun proving incompetence is the fact that GWB says he hopes that young folks don't make the mistakes he made, and that he spent a year doing charity work, then you'd better be prepared to sentence two full generations of high achievers to inadequacy for government service.
3 April 2006
at 9:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…

neo, I'd pick up that BS card you threw down. We've had this discussion before. 11 or 12 million illegals and growing strong. Most work, and work hard. That doesn't make them not illegal. Most ofthat money goes back to Mexico. They're taking jobs that Americans could use, or if you guys read the idiotic editorial, United States of North Americans. Money that's not being taxed that's just running out of the economy. Not good. Plus, less people to use Iraqi gas, maybe oil would go back down.
4 April 2006
at 8:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

supernova (Anonymous) says…

I don't think there's an issue except who makes the dough. A fourth grader can tell you that the “war” on drugs is as stupid as the “war” on terror. Money runs both, as usual.

5 April 2006
at 6:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

Oh, of course you're absolutely right supurnuckles - the only thing that matters in the world is money, making money, holding onto money, screwing everyone out of their money, money, money, money.

That's what the drug lords and nutjob dictators think, so why shouldn't it work for the rest of us too? What a horrid world some of ya'll have made for yourselfs to live in.
8 April 2006
at 2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Mike4Freedom (Anonymous) says…

There is no domestic policy so evil and so futile as the drug war. Alcohol is OK. Tobacco is OK, but serious jail time for Marijuana. Does that make sense? Deprive sick people of a very useful and safe medicine so that “we do not send the wrong message”. What possible wrong message can we be sending. Is the message we are sending better? Sick people get to suffer unnecessarily so that we can keep a foolish prohibition going?

Did we not learn from our last noble experiment with prohibition (of alcohol)? Pretty much the same results: deaths from bathtub booze, police corruption, criminal gangs settling their disputes with violence. How could we be so stupid to do it all over again?