Virtually everyone loves the Drug Abuse Resistance Education or DARE program. That is, except scientific researchers who consistently find that that it is completely ineffective. In fact not a single published report has ever found DARE to be effective and some have even found it to be counterproductive. That is, students who took the program later consumed more alcohol and did more drugs than did those who didn’t take the program.
Given its complete failure and expensive price tag (costing perhaps two billion dollars each year), why would anyone not be opposed to the boondoggle? About three of every four school districts in the U.S. uses the DARE program. Perhaps its popularity represents the victory of hope over reality. In any case:
Students love the program. It seems to be exciting to have a uniformed police officer in the classroom. And the content matter certainly beats English, math, and other boring academic subjects.
Parents love the program because it lets someone else deal with the often difficult subject of alcohol and drugs. It’s often the same with sex education.
Teachers love the program because it enables them, like the parents, to avoid dealing with the topic. And besides, it gives them a free period.
School principals and other administrators love the program because it fulfills their obligation to “do something” about alcohol and drugs.
Police love the program because it supports their agenda of promoting “community policing” and helping residents feel at ease with them. And besides, it’s an easy and physically safe beat.
So the DARE program makes strange bedfellows. Students and their parents both support DARE. Teachers and administrators also support DARE. And if drug dealers knew that DARE is ineffective they would support it along with the police.
Why assume “the drug dealers” don’t know? Making the working stiff who still lives at home with his mother doesn’t realize that he has a marketing team. But look at the kind of money we are talking about. Here’s an article on the “The Price of Globalization” found at J. P. Morgan’s website:
Unfortunately, globalization can have a negative side. Corporations and countries desperate for foreign investment may turn a blind eye to those with nefarious intent. Irresponsible globalization of cross-border trade has allowed some countries to fund and arm oppresive regimes. U.S. journalists and news programs have reported that personal investments such as 401k accounts may be unknowingly funding terrorism. According to some highly regarded news programs, the majority of Americans have money invested in companies that do business with “rogue” nations. William Thompson, New York City Comptroller responsible for $80 billion in pension funds for city workers, said, “the revenue that is generated from the work that these companies are doing, we believe, helps to underwrite and support terrorism.” He also points out that New York City’s pension fund owns nearly $1 billion in stocks from three Fortune 500 companies which also own operations in Iran and Syria. He is angry that “these companies could be contributing to attacks on our nation.”1 According to James Petras, Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, “there is a consensus among U.S. Congressional Investigators, former bankers and international banking experts that U.S. and European banks launder between $500 billion and $1 trillion of dirty money each year, half of which is laundered by U.S. banks alone.”2 As Senator Carl Levin summarizes “Estimates are that $500 billion to $1 trillion of international criminal proceeds are moved internationally and deposited into bank accounts annually. It is estimated that half of that money comes to the United States.”3 Irresponsible globalization transcends corporations and large-scale financial transactions. It can also be found in the personal arena such as in our private and personal retirement funds and other investments. Curbing unethical globalization should be an individual’s personal obligation as well as a corporate responsibility.
And since J. P. Morgan is run by people with a record of trustworthy and ethical behavior, we can all be completely confident that they don’t want any cut of that TRILLION WITH A T amount of dollars running through their business. No, I’m sure they are shocked, shocked that such things are going on in the banking world.
Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations’ drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer.
Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.
This will raise questions about crime’s influence on the economic system at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new International Monetary Fund regulations.
Interesting. So now in 2012, that claim that Obama was going to promote “further examination of the banking sector” to clean out this $1 trillion in annual business looks like it got lost among all Obama’s other important work–like sending weapons to Mexican drug cartels. But I’m sure that’s totally unrelated.
Of course, Obama also sent a surge of troops to Afghanistan so that our soldiers could risk their lives to fight terrorists. And by “fight terrorists,” I mean assist in growing opium for the international heroin market. (And claiming the Taliban was the driver in Afghani opium-growing is insane. Try Karzai’s late brother, also a CIA asset. The Taliban massively reduced opium the year before we invaded. Now we blame them for “making us” allow it to be grown).
The above links barely scratch the surface of all the history of the involvement of how “the establishment” profits from narcotics trafficking. I’m just tired and will ask you to do your own googling.
So why assume no one knows this? Why think that an ineffective or even counterproductive policy is not nudged along and protected by a few people?