cannabisnews.com: Monitor Breakfast: Asa Hutchinson





Monitor Breakfast: Asa Hutchinson
Posted by FoM on November 07, 2001 at 08:23:34 PT
By David T. Cook, Staff Writer of The CSM
Source: Christian Science Monitor 
On what DEA contributes to the war on terrorism: "What the DEA contributes that is underground, that is behind the scenes is our intelligence. ... With offices in 56 countries, we have 400 DEA agents overseas - about 10 percent of our force. If you are looking into what is happening in the bad world... in terms of human intelligence you are going to find it in that seedy hotel or bar..."  On changing drug laws: 
"Here in the United States it is fair to debate our drug policies but we need to debate them within the context of what we have learned from history and it is moving in the wrong direction to decriminalize or take drug offenses out of the criminal context. Within the criminal context, let's debate them, but those should be the parameters."  On how to handle marijuana:  "Our legislators have to set the parameters for how we handle harmful products. And they have set parameters for alcohol and parameters for tobacco and they have set a different set of parameters for the more harmful drugs that are out there from marijuana to heroin... We are an enforcement agency. We take the laws and move on them."I think it is erroneous to argue that because we have regulated two harmful products in alcohol and tobacco, that we ought to adopt the same regime for other harmful products. I don't think that is necessarily required. These are lines we have drawn and they are acceptable lines. I don't think we should move the line to include more harmful products. If you like what Phillip Morris has done with tobacco, what would they do with marijuana cigarettes in the marketing strategy?" On reducing drug use:  "I call it demand reduction which includes prevention, education but it also includes treatment... I want to put more resources into the demand reduction side, as well as tie it to our law enforcement efforts so we can have a better and more long-lasting impact in the community. I also want to leverage those resources against a community commitment. It is not just a federal problem and I want to be able to see greater community commitment whenever we recognize a serious drug problem."So after we finish an enforcement effort, we will send our resources in there be on the ground helping to build the community coalitions, greater treatment, working with the school counselors, working with the drug courts, I am a strong advocate of (drug courts). Seeing if there can be a longer lasting impact, not just taking the criminal organization out." On law enforcement priorities since Sept. 11: "Clearly we have mentioned Customs; the Coast Guard as well has moved some of its Caribbean assets. (The Coast Guard has indicated) that between 65-70 percent of their assets were moved into port security. That has an impact. I don't want Miami and the Caribbean to go back to the way it they were.... I have been really grateful for (support from European counterparts). They had assets in the Caribbean and will help coordinate with us to make up the difference. So I think we are holding our own. But long term we really can't give a window of opportunity to the traffickers. It is a battle of resources." On the impact of changing assignments for FBI agents: "I am not saying it has an impact in terms of the net result. Certainly they have - if you are looking at Florida, they have the terrorism investigation in Boca Raton, all the leads they had to follow in Boston and Detroit and so on, the agents that were working with us on some drug cases. They have had to pull off and do other duty. We have picked up the slack and we will continue to do so to make sure we don't go backwards on this effort." On his assessment of the overall war on drugs: "... We are holding our own. If you look at it historically from the mid 80s, we reduced cocaine use 75 percent. Overall drug use has reduced by 1/4th. But we plateaued out about 1992. We made the enormous progress between the mid 80s and 1992. Since 92, it has been fairly level. So we have to figure out how to get over that plateau. We have got to figure out how to get over that plateau and move those statistics on a downward trend again. In the last few years you see a few upticks, in heroin, for example, and we are very concerned about methamphetamines being on the upswing. But overall drug use has been fairly level."In the teens, you can point to some ages that have gone up, some have gone down a little bit. So we are holding our own but we have got to move beyond the plateau we have been on since 1992." On why drug use has plateaued: "It is lack of consistency. If you look the '92-93 timeframe, assets were moved out of the Caribbean, interdiction efforts were reduced, the drug czar's office was reduced, DEA agents were cut back, some of the national messages were inconsistent and mixed. All of that combined had an impact and we lost our momentum.... Consistency is the key to anti-drug efforts.... It is a long battle on terrorism; it is a long battle on drugs." On how Osama bin Laden uses drug money: "Bin Laden has many sources of revenue.... I wouldn't want to make the case that he is dependent on drug proceeds to fuel his terrorism. But whenever you look at the terrorist training camps and the drug trade/drug organizations carrying out their activities in the same geographic region in Afghanistan, you have a combustible combination there. You have got these drug organizations which make huge amounts of money and you have got the terrorists that need money. And when they are both operating illegally in the same region, there is going to be a symbiotic relationship between the two. And I think that's what you see and you shouldn't ignore that probability. The intelligence is a little bit more minimal in that regard in reference to bin Laden, than it is with the Taliban which is very clear." On whether the Taliban would stay in power without drug money: "They would be severely limited in what they were capable of doing. As to whether they would maintain their power, I don't know. But they would be much more limited, severely limited in their abilities because they draw a significant amount of revenue from it."Note: Selected quotations from a Monitor Lunch with DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson.Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)Author: David T. Cook, Staff Writer of The CSMPublished: November 07, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Christian Science Publishing SocietyContact: oped csps.comWebsite: http://www.csmonitor.com/Related Articles:War On Drugs Loses Out To War on Terrorhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11280.shtmlFBI Dropping Other Crime Fighting http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11209.shtmlDrug-Policing Efforts May Suffer http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11117.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by p4me on November 07, 2001 at 13:30:22 PT:
more trash
Why elaborate? If you have any sense at all you know this is trash? I have seen several examples of real journalism here at Cnews today. Of course this should have gone into the trash bin. I wonder how many trees died carrying this trash in print version to people that lend their eyeballs to the advertisers of the print media. Poor trees died in vain.Vote against all incumbents down to dog catcher. We must remove the dead wood in order to plant our seeds.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Zero_G on November 07, 2001 at 10:37:48 PT:
Anyone listening in Congress
"Here in the United States it is fair to debate our drug policies but we need to debate them within the context of what we have learned from history and it is moving in the wrong direction to decriminalize or take drug offenses out of the criminal context.Within the criminal context, let's debate them, but those should be the parameters.""We are an enforcement agency. We take the laws and move on them."Now I see, we can debate with blinders on, so long as we don't ask uncomfortable questions.But, does anyone in Congress recognize this Executive Branch intrusion into its business. Since when does an Enforcement Agency dictate terms to Congress?Zero GGeorge Carlin's 7 words aren't profanity...The DEA is.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on November 07, 2001 at 09:09:28 PT:
"Who's bread I eat, his song I sing"
Asa's 'bread' depends upon continued lying. And he is very much aware of it.And like most career pols, he stick to what he 'knows'...whether it is backed by facts or not."Here in the United States it is fair to debate our drug policies but we need to debate them within the context of what we have learned from history and it is moving in the wrong direction to decriminalize or take drug offenses out of the criminal context.Within the criminal context, let's debate them, but those should be the parameters."Using Asa's 'reasoning', we would still be debating how stiff the fines and jail sentences should be for alcohol possession and consumption...because it would still be illegal. Oh, but I forgot; alcohol isn't a 'drug'; heavens, no! And alcohol drinkers aren't 'drug users'. And alcoholics aren't 'drug addicts'.Just how defective his reasoning abilities prove to be is illustrated in the following:Our legislators have to set the parameters for how we handle harmful products. And they have set parameters for alcohol and parameters for tobacco and they have set a different set of parameters for the more harmful drugs that are out there from marijuana to heroin... We are an enforcement agency. We take the laws and move on them."I think it is erroneous to argue that because we have regulated two harmful products in alcohol and tobacco, that we ought to adopt the same regime for other harmful products. I don't think that is necessarily required. These are lines we have drawn and they are acceptable lines. I don't think we should move the line to include more harmful products. If you like what Phillip Morris has done with tobacco, what would they do with marijuana cigarettes in the marketing strategy?"Let's take this apart piece by piece, shall we? First off, the question needs to be asked: under what basis, with what expert knowledge, was cannabis banned? You know it; so do I: no rational basis exists for the continued prohibition of cannabis. Uncorroborated, lurid newspaper accounts of sensationalistic proportions coming from dubious origins are no substitutes for scientific facts. A rational basis would take into account the amount of damage caused by drug prohibition to society as opposed to its' 'benefits'. A rational basis would include scientific data from unimpeachable sources...not obviously partisan ones seeking to act as apologists for flawed and inhumane policies. (And yes, we must admit our partisanship; and for the most part, we are very up front about our passions and aims. But our opponents aren't, and they are very loathe to do so. Just ask Gary Ose, who received 20,000 dollars from breweries, yet co-authored the letter to the US AG demanding cannabis clubs be targeted and shut down, denying thousands of people 'humanitarian relief' from their varied afflictions. Hardly an 'objective' umpire in the issue of cannabis, is he?)As to the regulation regimes, they were set up to counter the remaining specter of keeping the products (alcohol and tobacco) themselves illegal while allowing their use. Thus perpetuating criminal profiteering. The bitter medicinal pill of allowing a much smaller social infraction - alcohol sales, possession and use - was deliberately chosen as opposed to staying the course with alcohol prohibition and the eventually disastrous effects this would have upon civil rights…such as we are experiencing now.As had been predicted here before, we are now seeing Asa toeing the party line. Asa is not running the DEA; this mouthing of the DrugWar Canto et Respondu proves conclusively that the DEAis now running Asa.In prison parlance, Asa is now their ‘bitch’. And as far as I am concerned, they deserve each other.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment