More than two dozen activists, moms, and concerned citizens gathered at the old adobe on East Carrillo Street Friday evening to speak out against drug prohibition and its effects on individuals with mental health and substance use disorders.
The teach-in event, hosted by Moms United to End the War on Drugs and Families ACT!, coincides with the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s declaration of the War on Drugs, as a part of a national day of action to “raise awareness about the failures and extraordinary costs of the war on drugs,” said Joanna Miller of Moms United in a written statement.
Seated on leather couches and creaky dining chairs, attendees watched a series of documentary clips critical of the war on drugs and a video produced by Families ACT!, featuring interviews with the families of individuals who have struggled with co-occuring disorders and drug addiction. The presentation highlighted support from groups like Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) and the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which recently released a report calling the War on Drugs a failure.
Suzanne Riordan, event spokesperson and executive director of Families ACT!, invited questions and discussion following the presentation. Many raised concern with crowding in the County Jail and the effect of the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that would result in the release thousands of nonviolent prisoners.
“Chances are that nonviolent drug offenders will no longer be going to prison, which is probably a very good thing,” Riordan said. But she believes the release of these prisoners will only fill up county jails and aggravate existing problems. “The sheriff is going to have a new argument for why he’s going to need a new jail, and maybe an even bigger one than before.”
In terms of changes to drug policy on a local level, Riordan and other activists at the event stressed the “need to shift money from incarceration to treatment.”
“Because the county is not equipped with the resources to really help these people, what they’re going to be tempted to do is put people in jail for even longer,” Riordan said. “It’s a costly intervention, but it’s a very costly treatment the way we’re doing it now. Running people through jail for drug charges just doesn’t work, they just come back, and they come back, and they come back again.”
Following the discussion, participants gathered on State Street for a brief vigil, holding banners facing the street and joining hands in a circle. Although the discussion was at times politically charged, Jodi Miller, a history student at Santa Barbara City College and member of Moms United, hopes people will take away a more personal message.
“The message … is that children who suffer from drug addiction need help. We want them to stop being drug addicts, get their life together, and receive compassion and treatment they need,” Miller said. “I like all that conspiracy stuff too, but it’s so radical it alienates people.”
Having lost her own son to drug use, Riordan believes that while prohibition is a controversial, unpleasant subject, it’s also one many people will confront at some point in their lives. “This is the kind of an issue that cuts across [political] lines, because anybody can have a family member, and almost everybody does have a family member, who is affected by anxiety, depression, or some kind of substance use,” Riordan said. “It’s very common in this country.”
For more information, see FamiliesACT.org.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace






Previous Month



Comments
It takes some courage to speak out against the so called "war on drugs" because so many folks will label you as being pro drug and talk about how bad drug addiction is, which is of course true. However, that is beside the point. There is very little data to show what effect on increasing drug consumption legalization or decriminalization actually has. After all, how many of you reading this would suddenly start using heroin or cocaine or even marijuana just because it was legal. How many already smoke pot occasionally and would suddenly smoke a whole lot more just because it was legal? The answer I believe is very very few. Next question is how much money do really bad criminals earn by selling all this currently illegal stuff, and the answer is an awful lot. They use that money to further expand their empires, bribe police and judges and generally terrorize Mexico and assorted neighborhoods in the US and Central America. Current harsh, punitive policies simply haven't worked so perhaps it is time to try a different approach.
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2011 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Until the Banksters in London, the Rothschilds who control every aspect of human life and have for over 400 years and are said to be worth in excess of $500 trillion (yes trillion) are gotten rid of, nothing is going to change. The War on Drugs as with all the wars the famine, disease, poverty are methods for control. This includes all the evil on the planet. I know, "How can this be?"
Well if you haven't noticed by now there are two governments, one public and one secret, then go back to sleep because you are never going to "Get it". If you want to wake up google: "Timeline of the Rothschilds" and learn the true history of the United States, which will include why Lincoln and Kennedy were executed and why nothing we do will change the world until we get rid of these parasites.
contactjohn (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2011 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"President Johnson was known for the war on poverty, what is Nixon doing to be remembered" ..."He's declared war on the middle-class". (From Gerald Gardiners "Everything you wanted to know about Nixon, but were afraid to ask)
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2011 at 2:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now that I've taken a swipe at Nixon's ridiculous War on Drugs, let me point out an irony: My dad-to-day contacts run the political gamut from far-Right to far-left and I've noticed more and more of them are against the War on Drugs, yet they keep voting for politicians who clearly will not come out in favor of re-legalization.
OK, time to vote for resetting to default.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2011 at 2:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There's a basic economic argument against the war on drugs. Reduce the supply of a commodity for which demand is relatively inelastic and the price will go up. Increased prices encourage expansion on the supply side.
winddancer1562 (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2011 at 5:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sec. of State Clinton was asked recently about ending the War on Drugs siad it would never happen because of the amount of money involved, I'm paraphasing slightly. What she didn't do was explain what she meant.
In the last couple yrs several major banks have been busted for laundrying huge amounts of Cartel Profits, making billions in profits of their own. The only thing that happen to these banks was a minor fine ( less than the cost of doing business), and a slap on the wrist. Not one single Banker was charged or sent to jail for being a major player in the World-Wide Drug Trade.
Add to the above that some countries majority of GDP comes from the growing and exporting of drugs across the world, to legalize drugs could cause a worldwide depression or put billions of more people to work in a new blossoming legal industry. I will let you decide which model would continue to let the rich get richer and which would help end poverty.
Just what was Hillary Clinton saying ?
SmileySam (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2011 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jfklbj: To your first question I would answer that the reduced profits would lessen the incentive to sell drugs. The second question has an easier answer: It is already to drink at many workplaces. If I come to work drunk, I'm on the unemployment line so given the legality of alcohol the precedent has been set.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2011 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
contactjohn: The total world GDP is about 1/10th of what you state the Rothchilds alone are worth. Can I suggest you take your gibberish elsewhere.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2011 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The War on Drugs failed $1 Trillion ago! This money could have been used for outreach programs to clean up the bad end of drug abuse by providing free HIV testing, free rehab, and clean needles. Harmless drugs like marijuana could be legalized to help boost our damaged economy. Cannabis can provide hemp for countless natural recourses and the tax revenue from sales alone would pull every state in our country out of the red! Vote Teapot, PASS IT, and legalize it. Voice you opinion with the movement and read more on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/20...
dregstudios (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2011 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Prohibition was a failure. A bunch of do gooders trying to socially engineer society, so what else hasn’t changed in 70 years? The Right and the Left are still at the task of organizing Society in their image.
My Grandparents had a bootlegger that left bottles of the evil firewater in the scrubs of their front yard.
One only has to re-read the history of Al Capone to understand the violence that was let loose on American Society.
I am all for personal Liberty, stay out of my life unless my behavior is infringing on someone else’s Liberty.
I have never used Drugs but it sure seems intelligent that they should be decriminalized for the user but not the Pusher. All Public UI offenses should be prosecuted as they impact the Liberty of others. Pushers should be prosecuted as they prey on the weak.
Cato Institute (www.cato.org) can be searched for many articles on the subject.
Cato is not heads for hemp but intelligent articles on the subject.
Our society has a strange relationship with drugs, when my Father was dying at age 91; it was like pulling teeth to get the nurse to up the morphine from 1mg to 2mg.
So he dies 5 hours sooner than later with more dignity and better pain management.
The end result was all the same, I was constantly advocating for his dignity, pretty sad you have to fight the system so your loved one does not suffer.
howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2011 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"it is already *legal* to drink"...is what I meant to write.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2011 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If they legalize all drugs, which they would have to do, I wonder what the liability insurance would be for manufacturers and distributers? I think that alone would take the cost of the products sky-high. Also, I would imagine all of the "extra revenue" from the taxes collected would probably all go to cleaning these overdosed scumbags off the street.
waz (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2011 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@howgreenwasmyvalley: I subscribe to nearly all that you said, but I'm afraid there's no halfway-house on this: It needs to be legal for the "pusher" too. Only then will we be able to take down the Al Capone element.
OldDawg (anonymous profile)
June 20, 2011 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@OldDawg
Review Greenwald's work on Portugal. Granted the USA is not Portugal but it does have 10 years of real data for what has and has not worked.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?p...
howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2011 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the link hgwmv! I'm curious to dig through the report to see any impacts that decriminalization had on drug related crime and on taking the profit out of selling.
OldDawg (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2011 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is odd that we have this tendency to not want to legalize or decriminalize drugs because of all the unknown imperfections that would follow. But we are willing to accept all the ongoing widespread violence as well as financial and social costs with our current prohibition state. What also bothers me about this prohibition is the injustice to individuals who are incarcerated and end up in the so called justice system.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
June 21, 2011 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe we don't need to legalize, but we should treat rather than prosecute low level offenders. Supply will not disappear unless demand shrinks. Demand will not shrink unless people find a meaning to their life beyond what is ascribed to them by Madison Avenue. It takes parents who take time to educate their children, schools that do more than teach to tests, neighbors who care about each other, spiritual meaning, a sense of power over our own lives. The easiest way to take air out of a glass is not to suck the air out. It is to fill the glass with water.
blackpoodles (anonymous profile)
June 25, 2011 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)