COM 0102.010 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i and law enforcement. Amore detailed program including crack, opium produces, such as herour plan will follow, with objectives and budget marijuana, and a variety oC other dangerous proposals. drugs, such as amphetamtnc, methamphetamme (including the powerful crystal meth, or ice), But the process for plan development remains barbiturates, tranquilizers, and "designer drugs." loose and unstructured. It is not clear who is An analytical approach to controlling drug abuse to charge, the health department or OSP. defines the threat posed by each drug, specifies Representatives of OSP, the health department, the objectives of control, identifies alternative the attorney general, and the Department of supply-side and demand-side means of reaching Education participate in the planning effort, the objectives, and compares the alternatives with OSP calling meetings. However, in light of the associated costs, beneFits, documentation of the process--plans, minutes, assumptions, risks, and uncertainties. This schedules--is hard to come by. analysis is largely messing Crom the State's approach. Although the attorney general's department takes part ?n plan development, the narcotics The only recent document outlining the division of the department does not. Yet the State's approach to drug abuse is a report, A narcotics division was described in the attorney Survey of Nowad's War on Drugs, issued by the general's 1989 Report to the Legislatttn as being attorney general in February 1989.E The report "responsible for the statewide enforcement is limited in what tt examines and whet it proposes program involving narcotics and dangerous drugs."t to urvey con~tat~es tit a eta an an y to support its conclusions. It called for an all- By statute, the public safety department out assault on marijuana by meads of border soon will include the narcotics division and will interdiction at Hawaii's airports and harbors be responsble for developing state policies and -and by field surveillance and enforcement, all objectives for law enforcetnent.z Yet there has to be supported by a major infusion of federal been little, if any, contact between the plan funds. It claimed that Hawaii's marijuana industry developers and the transition team for the public • had overwhelmed enforcement; that efforts to ' safety department. eradicate marijuana by pulling or spraying plants had failed; that Hawaii's unique geography means ~ Hawaii needs ongoing, systematic planing interdiction can succeed; and that interdiction based on analysis of available intelligence on could dry up Hawaii's marijuana industry and # i drug abuse. Instead, planning efforts are sporadic lay the groundwork for interdicting other drugs, ~ ~ and fragmented, driven principally by the search The Survry sought Ccderal designation of Hawaii` for federal funds. This a true of the treatment as ahigh-intensity drug trafficking area, based' i and prevention side and the law enforcement on the argument that Hawaii supplies as much r side alike. as 25 percent of the nation's marijuana Analysis is plantaiue. A plan should be the ~„S~rtiost exclusive oQ product of analysis. By analysis we mean a ana wt systematic comparison of alternative means of t rea o e attaining desired objectives. In drug abuse, the ~ State appears not to have conducted such trafficking problem, with an comparisons. g estimated volume as large as S10 billion annually, Drug abuse in America tewh+es chiefly It concluded that Hawaii-grown marijuana was around the following: alcohol; tobacco; cocaine, being used as barter for importing mainland Comm. Na I~Zi _ ~ PYIe No. Ref, To: Pr~+~thd COMt~L•lI ~