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."
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.
Thank you for pointing out once again, the drug-fixated agenda of Libertarians.
Getting to look like a Libertarian board. Maybe lp.com should provide a link to us.
lp.com = lp.org
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
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.
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?
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.