Obama Ends War!

[A_Wanderer]

The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues.

"Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' or a 'war on a product,' people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country."

Mr. Kerlikowske's comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate -- and likely more controversial -- stance on the nation's drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.

The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment's role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said.

Already, the administration has called for an end to the disparity in how crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine are dealt with. Critics of the law say it unfairly targeted African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent.

The administration also said federal authorities would no longer raid medical-marijuana dispensaries in the 13 states where voters have made medical marijuana legal. Agents had previously done so under federal law, which doesn't provide for any exceptions to its marijuana prohibition.

During the presidential campaign, President Barack Obama also talked about ending the federal ban on funding for needle-exchange programs, which are used to stem the spread of HIV among intravenous-drug users.

The drug czar doesn't have the power to enforce any of these changes himself, but Mr. Kerlikowske plans to work with Congress and other agencies to alter current policies. He said he hasn't yet focused on U.S. policy toward fighting drug-related crime in other countries.

Mr. Kerlikowske was most recently the police chief in Seattle, a city known for experimenting with drug programs. In 2003, voters there passed an initiative making the enforcement of simple marijuana violations a low priority. The city has long had a needle-exchange program and hosts Hempfest, which draws tens of thousands of hemp and marijuana advocates.

Seattle currently is considering setting up a project that would divert drug defendants to treatment programs.

Mr. Kerlikowske said he opposed the city's 2003 initiative on police priorities. His officers, however, say drug enforcement -- especially for pot crimes -- took a back seat, according to Sgt. Richard O'Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. One result was an open-air drug market in the downtown business district, Mr. O'Neill said.

"The average rank-and-file officer is saying, 'He can't control two blocks of Seattle, how is he going to control the nation?' " Mr. O'Neill said.

Sen. Tom Coburn, the lone senator to vote against Mr. Kerlikowske, was concerned about the permissive attitude toward marijuana enforcement, a spokesman for the conservative Oklahoma Republican said.

Others said they are pleased by the way Seattle police balanced the available options. "I think he believes there is a place for using the criminal sanctions to address the drug-abuse problem, but he's more open to giving a hard look to solutions that look at the demand side of the equation," said Alison Holcomb, drug-policy director with the Washington state American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Kerlikowske said the issue was one of limited police resources, adding that he doesn't support efforts to legalize drugs. He also said he supports needle-exchange programs, calling them "part of a complete public-health model for dealing with addiction."

Mr. Kerlikowske's career began in St. Petersburg, Fla. He recalled one incident as a Florida undercover officer during the 1970s that spurred his thinking that arrests alone wouldn't fix matters.

"While we were sitting there, the guy we're buying from is smoking pot and his toddler comes over and he blows smoke in the toddler's face," Mr. Kerlikowske said. "You go home at night, and you think of your own kids and your own family and you realize" the depth of the problem.

Since then, he has run four police departments, as well as the Justice Department's Office of Community Policing during the Clinton administration.

Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that supports legalization of medical marijuana, said he is "cautiously optimistic" about Mr. Kerlikowske. "The analogy we have is this is like turning around an ocean liner," he said. "What's important is the damn thing is beginning to turn."

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest law-enforcement labor organization, said that while he holds Mr. Kerlikowske in high regard, police officers are wary.

"While I don't necessarily disagree with Gil's focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don't want to see it at the expense of law enforcement. People need to understand that when they violate the law there are consequences."

White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs' - WSJ.com

Terrific

 

[corianderstem]

Thanks, Gil!

 

[zooropop40]

The war on drugs is an utter failure, but to truly stop it there needs to be more drastic changes.. such as legalizing pot, which is something that obama said he is not interested in doing.

 

[BVS]

It's amazing it's taken this long...

Can't wait to see the right's spin on this.

 

[deep]

legalizing pot is not the answer

there needs to be fines and penalties for illegal drug use

we don't need people locked up for extended periods, the cost is too high

 

[BVS]

there needs to be fines and penalties for illegal drug use

Why exactly?

Does there need to be fines and penalties for illegal sex? Sodomy laws?

 

[HyperU2]

They should all be legal, there should be fines for misuse.

 

[indra]

It's a start.

 

[AnnRKeyintheUSA]

Good, it's about time. The 'war on drugs' was a multibillion dollar bust. I've always thought people on drugs needed help, not jail. It only makes things worse. Hell, it could even be a positive thing to legalize drugs. Look at all the Prohibition style gangland violence that would end, and how many poor third world countries could get rich selling it as an export.

 

[Irvine511]

legalizing pot is not the answer

there needs to be fines and penalties for illegal drug use

we don't need people locked up for extended periods, the cost is too high

legalizing and then taxing the hell out of pot might be the only way for CA to sold it's budget crisis.

(that, or all the $$$ that same-sex marriage would have pumped into the state)

 

[phillyfan26]

YouTube - Bill Hicks - The "War" on Drugs (1989)

 

[onebloodonelife]

It's about time. There's absolutely no reason why non-violent drug offenders should be locked up. It's costly, and often, these prisoners come out more fucked up than they were before. Marijuana, without a doubt, should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. It's one of the most harmless drugs out there, and the government could start digging itself out of debt. Seems like a winning situation to me.

 

[A stor]

I agree....no one should go to prison for smoking pot. Though, if it was legal. I think it should have the same age restrictions as alcohol.

 

[HyperU2]

Oh look, I replied to the wrong thread.

 

[deep]

Why exactly?

Does there need to be fines and penalties for illegal sex? Sodomy laws?

illegal sex?

sex with children - yes

forced sex, rape - yes

those are examples of illegal sex in all fifty states, which is what we are talking about

sex between consenting adults is not illegal. so knock yourself out with all the sodomy you can get.

 

[BVS]

sex between consenting adults is not illegal. so knock yourself out with all the sodomy you can get.

Not every state...

 

[deep]

this discussion is about what the Federal laws or policies should be.

I think i do recall Scalia going nuts when the Supreme court would not uphold a sodomy law

 

[AchtungBono]

The war on drugs is an utter failure, but to truly stop it there needs to be more drastic changes.. such as legalizing pot, which is something that obama said he is not interested in doing.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this. How do you fight drugs by making them legal? It's like fighting terrorism by letting people blow up buildings.

I'd like to understand.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Criminalising users and creating a police state to find and punish individuals who are not harming others is only productive in increasing crime rates, it fuels a black market for drugs, and ensures that some citizens entire futures can be forfeited due to a drug conviction (and what do they do when they can't secure a proper job after being released from prison?).

I don't think that blanket legalisation is tenable for society, I do think that decriminalisation of soft drugs like marijuana, MDMA, and hallucinogens coupled with a scheme to supply pure and dosed hard drugs (or safer substitutes) to registered addicts would be less harmful than the current situation which funnels money to both criminal organisations and militarised police.

 

[Se7en]

Criminalising users and creating a police state to find and punish individuals who are not harming others is only productive in increasing crime rates, it fuels a black market for drugs, and ensures that some citizens entire futures can be forfeited due to a drug conviction (and what do they do when they can't secure a proper job after being released from prison?).

I don't think that blanket legalisation is tenable for society, I do think that decriminalisation of soft drugs like marijuana, MDMA, and hallucinogens coupled with a scheme to supply pure and dosed hard drugs (or safer substitutes) to registered addicts would be less harmful than the current situation which funnels money to both criminal organisations and militarised police.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Criminalising users and creating a police state to find and punish individuals who are not harming others is only productive in increasing crime rates, it fuels a black market for drugs, and ensures that some citizens entire futures can be forfeited due to a drug conviction (and what do they do when they can't secure a proper job after being released from prison?).

I don't think that blanket legalisation is tenable for society, I do think that decriminalisation of soft drugs like marijuana, MDMA, and hallucinogens coupled with a scheme to supply pure and dosed hard drugs (or safer substitutes) to registered addicts would be less harmful than the current situation which funnels money to both criminal organisations and militarised police.

Exactly. Thousands of people die because of the drug trade every year, and this wouldn't happen if there wasn't a black market for them. And, I also agree that soft drugs should be decriminalized at the very least, as well as following the Netherlands' model for supplying drugs to addicts. They are then guaranteed clean needles, pure drugs, and help to quit, if wanted. That is a humane way to deal with drug problems, not throwing people in jails with rapists and murderers.

Also, is it really productive for American kids to be denied financial aid for college because they have a possession of marijuana charge (or any drug charge, marijuana's probably just the most common) on their record? No, absolutely not. Especially when there can be underage drinking tickets on one's record, not affecting a thing for students.

 

[AchtungBono]

Exactly. Thousands of people die because of the drug trade every year, and this wouldn't happen if there wasn't a black market for them.

I really don't want to be difficult but I'm still confused.

You say that the thousands of deaths wouldn't happen if drugs were legal. That's like saying that there would be no more thefts if people willingly gave up their posessions to anyone who asked.

Again I ask - why not fight the crime instead of looking for ways to make it ok?

 

[onebloodonelife]

I really don't want to be difficult but I'm still confused.

You say that the thousands of deaths wouldn't happen if drugs were legal. That's like saying that there would be no more thefts if people willingly gave up their posessions to anyone who asked.

Again I ask - why not fight the crime instead of looking for ways to make it ok?

I'm not saying that none would occur, but I bet you it would be greatly reduced. Around 7,500 Mexicans die every year because of the U.S. drug trade. If we (the gov't.) were to take control of that market, it would be regulated, making the illegal demand go down. Will there still be a black market? Sure, there is for everything, but if I had the option to buy my weed from a place that could guarantee its quality (and would probably be cheaper, because the supply could be overflowed if it were regulated as well) and was safe/legal, I certainly would.

Because addiction is a disease and a health issue, not a criminal one, in my opinion. I also believe it's my right to decide what and what doesn't go in my body, not the government's.

I'm not saying to make drug use okay. I AM saying to educate people about drugs (NOT propaganda, true information), take away the taboos, because those are also reasons why people get hurt doing this stuff. If people had access to safe/pure drugs and were taught how to use them properly (and yes, I certainly think they can be, I'd be happy to talk about my experiences on hallucinogens, if you really want), I think that would be ideal. I understand that everyone is not going to use them well, and that's a fact that has to be realized, and they AREN'T being used well now, while they're illegal, but are also being used responsibly by plenty of people.

I should also clarify that I do think there should be differences in treatment of "soft" drugs and "hard" drugs, but none should be criminal. I explained myself a bit further in an above comment about decriminalization and the Netherlands model for drug addicts.

 

[BluRmGrl]

Again I ask - why not fight the crime instead of looking for ways to make it ok?

Because the 'crime', at least as far as marijuana is generally concerned, is 1) consentual; 2) non-violent; and 3) only criminal because the government doesn't control the growth (and therefore the taxation) of marijuana. At least that's my take on the issue.

I mean, I can understand the concern among certain circles that legalizing marijuana is just opening a Pandora's box of increased deviant behavior, as millions of 'junkies' wreak havoc on society, doing whatever it takes to support their habits but I think that's mostly sabre rattling by moral superiortists who believe it's their place to determine what vices everyone else is allowed.

I believe the legalization of marijuana, with similar taxation and laws as currently apply to alcohol, would be a huge boon to the economy - whether in good times or bad. The proceeds could even be used to run treatment/rehabilitation centers for those addicted to stronger drugs, instead of placing those users in our prisons & adding the burden of clothing, feeding, and housing them to our already over-crowded penal system.

And in case anyone was wondering, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a pot smoker. So my support of its legalization doesn't make my eyes glaze over in smoked-up anticipation of what could be.

 

[anitram]

Because addiction is a disease and a health issue, not a criminal one, in my opinion. I also believe it's my right to decide what and what doesn't go in my body, not the government's.

Except that it's on the backs of the other taxpayers to take care of you once you have chosen what goes into your own body. In that sense, drug addiction is costly to the entire society, and would continue to be costly regardless of the criminal element, which obviously has its own separate and significant costs.

For the record, I am all for de-criminalizing marijuana. But where it comes to legalization of hard drugs, you almost never hear anyone discuss the healthcare or employment/labour issues that come with it. And let's not pretend like they don't exist.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Except that it's on the backs of the other taxpayers to take care of you once you have chosen what goes into your own body. In that sense, drug addiction is costly to the entire society, and would continue to be costly regardless of the criminal element, which obviously has its own separate and significant costs.

For the record, I am all for de-criminalizing marijuana. But where it comes to legalization of hard drugs, you almost never hear anyone discuss the healthcare or employment/labour issues that come with it. And let's not pretend like they don't exist.

I completely agree. On the other hand, there are also plenty of health issues that come with things like obesity that taxpayers have to pay for as well. I would support treatment first and foremost for hard drug addicts.

For me, the main thing is educating people about the consequences of drug use, which isn't being done truthfully in America today. We're taught to believe that smoking pot will make you dreadfully unmotivated, or that LSD stays in your spinal fluid forever. Educating people about drug use would probably result in more responsible drug use, as seen in the Dutch model, where they have lower rates of "problem drug users" and lower drug use rates than the U.S. across the board.

 

[phillyfan26]

I really don't want to be difficult but I'm still confused.

You say that the thousands of deaths wouldn't happen if drugs were legal. That's like saying that there would be no more thefts if people willingly gave up their posessions to anyone who asked.

Again I ask - why not fight the crime instead of looking for ways to make it ok?

Well, for starters, it has to be re-focused. Clearly, lumping marijuana in with hard drugs and propaganda tactics have not been effective in stopping it.

Making marijuana legal isn't "making it OK." It's more like, "recognizing that there's a huge difference between marijuana and heroin/cocaine."

 

[zooropop40]

basically because too many people are put into jail and having tax money being spent simply by minor drug offenses. and because of all the potential economic uses for hemp (not necessarily recreational), and because we could tax weed and the government would make money.

Since its not really dangerous, and should just be used at someone's personal home, I dont see why it is illegal when drinking is technically worse for you and is legal?

It would stop us from spending money on a useless battle against something that the government can never stop people from doing.

 

[deep]

I read the lead article in this thread a few days back,

and I did not see anything to suggest Obama would decriminalize pot yet alone legalize it and tax it. Won't happen, except in stoner movie plots and your pipe dreams.



I expect him to end the War on Gays though, eventually.

 

[A stor]

Well, for starters, it has to be re-focused. Clearly, lumping marijuana in with hard drugs and propaganda tactics have not been effective in stopping it.

Making marijuana legal isn't "making it OK." It's more like, "recognizing that there's a huge difference between marijuana and heroin/cocaine."

Plus, there are medical uses for marijuana.