Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Smoke And Mirrors Cloud 2003 White House Anti-Drug Budget
Common Sense For Drug Policy ^ | Feb. 13, 2003

Posted on 02/14/2003 9:34:31 AM PST by Wolfie

Smoke And Mirrors Cloud 2003 White House Anti-Drug Budget

Washington, DC: Revised budget numbers released this week for the Bush Administration's 2003 "National Drug Control Strategy" are not what they seem, according to an analysis by Common Sense for Drug Policy and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). Both groups note that this year's budget deliberately conceals billions of dollars in law enforcement spending, while inflating expenditures on treatment services.

In 2002, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) announced, "The Administration will develop a new methodology for reporting the drug budget." As a result of this restructuring, this year's reported total budgetary expenditures total less than $12 billion dollars – far less than last year's record $19.2 billion budget. Nevertheless, ONDCP annual spending and priorities are little different than in years past.

"An analysis of the new budget numbers revealed that by hiding the costs of incarceration, military activities and other known costs of the drug war, the Office of National Drug Policy Control was able to bring their enforcement to treatment levels more into line with public sentiment," the DPA. The DPA further found that the ONDCP is inflating their spending on drug treatment programs by including funding for alcohol treatment, "which by law is specifically excluded from their scope of responsibilities."

Among drug-war related costs dropped from this year's budget is approximately $3 billion in funding associated with the incarceration of federal drug prisoners. The ONDCP claims that these costs have been excluded from the budget "based on the criterion that they are associated with the secondary consequences of the government's primary drug law enforcement and investigative activities."

NORML Foundation Executive Director Allen St. Pierre accused the White House of "hiding the ball" when it came to estimating the true cost of the government's war on drugs. "The ONDCP recognizes that they no longer enjoy the public’s trust and are incapable of crafting a functional drug policy that Americans support," he said. "As a result, they are now trying to conceal from taxpayers the true financial burden of their failed policies."


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: drugwar; wodlist
Makes sense. If you don't count the cost of imprisoning Federal drug law violators, the budget is bound to go down. But the spending won't.
1 posted on 02/14/2003 9:34:31 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; *Wod_list
"The Administration will develop a new methodology for reporting lie about the drug budget."

There, now that's correct.

2 posted on 02/14/2003 9:37:17 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
So, are you telling me that the government is lying?

Color me shocked.

3 posted on 02/14/2003 9:38:15 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally; jmc813; The FRugitive; Hemingway's Ghost; Xenalyte; philman_36
I'm sure they mean well. And its just hideous that obvious left-wing sympathizers like the people who wrote this report would point it out.
4 posted on 02/14/2003 9:40:21 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
I guess the IRS wont mind if I don't report half my earnings from last year and inflate my deductions.
5 posted on 02/14/2003 9:45:57 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I guess the IRS wont mind if I don't report half my earnings from last year and inflate my deductions.

Just who do you think you are, Enron?
6 posted on 02/14/2003 9:49:06 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: steve50
m
7 posted on 02/14/2003 10:00:23 AM PST by Nick Thimmesch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Just who do you think you are, Enron?

Heh...did you click on the source link?

8 posted on 02/14/2003 10:01:19 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
No, must have been remote viewing.
9 posted on 02/14/2003 10:24:02 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; headsonpikes; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; ...
WOD Ping
10 posted on 02/14/2003 10:40:09 AM PST by jmc813 (Do tigers sleep in lily patches? Do rhinos run from thunder?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Thanks for the ping. Where are the WODDIES? I'm sure this is of interest to them....
11 posted on 02/14/2003 11:46:59 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Yawn.
12 posted on 02/14/2003 12:25:55 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
If it was Education or HHS pulling these stunts they'd be up in arms. But the WOD can do no wrong.
13 posted on 02/14/2003 12:58:15 PM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Your attention is called to this: (Click)

Your response is requested.

14 posted on 02/14/2003 1:06:52 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Indeed. However, it's all a big yawn because it's their pet people-control program. Pity.
15 posted on 02/14/2003 1:07:46 PM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jmc813; Wolfie
"The Administration will develop a new methodology for reporting the drug budget."
"Nothing up the sleeve..."
16 posted on 02/14/2003 10:37:37 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yawn.
Trolling for flies? Try wiggling your tongue a little...
17 posted on 02/14/2003 10:38:46 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
We would save s-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o much if drugs of all kinds were available at the corner store. Life would be so much better for everyone. Afterall, we've evolved into a new life form and no longer need laws to keep us in check. We are no longer mankind. We are Libertarian.
18 posted on 02/14/2003 10:45:25 PM PST by unspun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
and no longer need laws to keep us in check

Is this what laws are written to do, keep us in check? Do you shower, brush your teeth, and wear deodorant? If so, perhaps you could direct me toward the laws that dictate such.

19 posted on 02/14/2003 11:00:09 PM PST by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Well, lets look at today's (yesterday's) stats...
Legal pot would be budget boon...over 200 replies.
Thai drug-dealer purge [352 shot dead]...41 replies
Smoke And Mirrors Cloud 2003 White House Anti-Drug Budget...20 replies
Marijuana Mitzvah? Support Growing for 'Guru of Ganja'...8 replies
Marijuana, Gateways and Circuses...8 replies
Center supports medical marijuana use...3 replies

Oh no, no agenda...

20 posted on 02/15/2003 12:01:35 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Vermont Drug Deaths Up...9 replies
21 posted on 02/15/2003 12:09:36 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
Is this what laws are written to do, keep us in check? Do you shower, brush your teeth, and wear deodorant? If so, perhaps you could direct me toward the laws that dictate such.

To answer your first question: Yes.

As to the absurdity, I said "keep us in check," not keep us well groomed. Name one law that does not constrain human behavior. That is the essence of law.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

Suggested Reading: The Dark Side of Human Nature, by George Uribe

Liberties are based upon the ability of a People to behave responsibly, on their own and due to law enforcement.

22 posted on 02/15/2003 8:38:02 AM PST by unspun ("Thou shalt not....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Oh no, no agenda...

Thank you for pointing out once again, the drug-fixated agenda of Libertarians.

23 posted on 02/15/2003 8:40:21 AM PST by unspun ("Inalienable right to own hash, PCP, ricin, C4, smallpox & plutonium." - TOTALIBERTARIAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Of the six posts, three by MrLeRoy, and one each by Wolfie, aculeus, and RJCogburn.

Getting to look like a Libertarian board. Maybe lp.com should provide a link to us.

24 posted on 02/15/2003 10:06:48 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Drat!

lp.com = lp.org

25 posted on 02/15/2003 10:08:47 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: unspun; robertpaulsen
Thank you for pointing out once again, the drug-fixated agenda of Libertarians.
Actually, if you look into the threads, you see what the real agenda is and who is pushing it.
A little too much for either of you though, I do believe.
Getting to look like a Libertarian board.
Why are ya'll so fixated on demonizing Libertarians? Is someone that worried about them that they need domonization?
Libertarian phobia. Pathetic.
26 posted on 02/15/2003 1:58:44 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
domonization=demonization?
27 posted on 02/15/2003 1:59:19 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
No phobia. We just don't appreciate revisionistic perversion of our republic by a soulless ideology that would transform government into a tribunal for license and anarchy. We won't sit idly by as the American principles that actually support our liberties with due responsibility, to God and each other, are painted over. That's all.
28 posted on 02/15/2003 2:12:26 PM PST by unspun ("If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: unspun; Roscoe; robertpaulsen
This is warrrrr, dammit! -- Some of your buddies here at FR are advocating that we ban beer for the duration:

In time of war, rights guaranteed by the Constitution
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844190/posts?page=8
29 posted on 02/15/2003 2:17:28 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: unspun
We just don't appreciate revisionistic perversion of our republic by a soulless ideology that would transform government into a tribunal for license and anarchy.
Well then I don't understand the Libertarian bashing. They aren't the ones who have been in office for the last 50+ years while the very things you don't appreciate have crept into the Republican party.
Maybe you need to combat that and quit worrying about the Libertarians. It's said all the time that they only get a small portion of the vote anyway and are no threat...
And before the "naming" begins, I'm not anything, not RP, DP, LP, or any of those other "party" classifications.
I don't believe in "party".
30 posted on 02/15/2003 2:18:50 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
It's said all the time that they only get a small portion of the vote anyway and are no threat...

The Libertarian Party has drawn enough votes away from GOP candidates to cause Senate control to have been in the hands of the liberals.

I'm for doing what is doable, reasonably and incrementally if necessary.

Something you may enjoy: here

31 posted on 02/15/2003 2:47:14 PM PST by unspun (A = A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
You're drawing a distinction between the "FedGov" and the people, like the people have absolutely nothing to do with it's operation.

We have elections every two friggin' years. We wipe out the House of Representatives, WHERE THE LAWS ARE WRITTEN, every two friggin' years! Every two friggin' years we wipe out ONE-THIRD of the Senate! Every four years we elect a new President.

What are you talking about? FedGov my a$$. It's YOUR government, not a bunch of space aliens for Christ's sake!

Change the mo!@#CK@#%$ if you want to! Get out and vote! Get a whole bunch of people to vote with you.

You're acting like you have no control over what's happening, yet there is no other country on the face of the Earth where you would have more power to change your government.

You requested a response; consider it responded to.

32 posted on 02/15/2003 3:08:03 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: unspun
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." -- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

Good quote, yet I fear we have under-acheived in regard to this second condition stated by Madison.

Liberties are based upon the ability of a People to behave responsibly,...

Not much to argue with here, however I would add that liberties are only enjoyed by those willing and able to defend them. Perhaps someone could provide an example of a society flush with liberty that is unarmed as well.

Where we differ is the support you lend those who would legislate to criminalize the 'potential' for crime as opposed to my support of legislation directed at those who actually commit crimes.

My standard is pretty straight forward whereas yours is open to much interpretation and could lead to undesired consequences (especially if a government should get a whiff of the revenue potential, and begin acting like most parasites- prowling for a new 'host').

Not wearing a seatbelt may be stupid but is hardly a crime. See?

33 posted on 02/15/2003 3:22:18 PM PST by budwiesest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
Gross recklessness is a destructive problem in itself. Considerations about such things have to do with propositional reasoning, vs. directly circumstancial reasoning.

Appreciate your sentiments.
34 posted on 02/15/2003 4:37:03 PM PST by unspun (anti-war/anti-gun protesters: Masses of Weaponless Destruction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I draw such a distinction only because it is there, and demonstrably so. FedGov has become a law unto itself. And NO amount of activity at the state or local level seems to make a difference. No ELECTION makes a difference. BOTH so-called "parties" pursue the same goals with the same zeal and ZERO concern for the people, who must pay the bills. For all the response we get, they may as well be space aliens. We have virtually NO choice in who becomes President. We have to take what the party king-makers offer us or do without. (I would rather do without... ) FedGov was conceived as being subordinate to the States. Now it has become our master. FedGov was designed to live within the bonds of the Constitution and protect the equal rights of ALL Americans. Now it has placed the bonds on US and is seen as the source of whatever "rights" they are willing to allow us to keep... for the moment. And it declares war on Americans in almost every possible way, leaving aside drugs. {More coming}
35 posted on 02/16/2003 10:19:33 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
{more here... DAMN Windows XP}

Gun owners face the wrath of FedGov. SUV owners will soon face it at the rate we're headed. Smokers already do and your turn isn't far off. Especially if you attend a Christian church. YOU are not Christian, you have proven that time and again, so I would not doubt that you'll betray Christ the way Peter did.
36 posted on 02/16/2003 10:20:22 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson