WSJ: White House Czar Calls for End to "War On Drugs"

[StillUnknown]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html

WASHINGTON -- 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.

[Ghost of]

Well, once I see policy in action, I'll give Obama a ton of credit. Sadly, there are a __load of rightists who feel the same way (or even more radically anti-Drug Prohibition) but they never have the influence at the national level to go up against the reflexively authoritarian membership in the GOP or in the local conservative Democratic parties.

BTW, Kerlikowske is still a ***** for letting a kid get beat to death in the Pioneer Square riots during Mardi Gras years back. He had his officers set a cordon but take NO action in spite of assaults, including sexual assaults on women in the area that were clear to all present.

[hokie4redskins]

Let the damn states legislate and enforce/tax their own drug laws/drugs. Why is this such a difficult concept?

DEA has to be the biggest black hole for national resources and treasure than any other agency.

[ACW]

It's a start. Hopefully it's not just a rhetorical change.

[Ghost of]

Let the damn states legislate and enforce/tax their own drug laws/drugs. Why is this such a difficult concept?

DEA has to be the biggest black hole for national resources and treasure than any other agency.

Damn right. I'd argue that states should back the ___ up too. It's an enormous waste of resources, corrupts and militarizes our local, state and federal law authorities, ends up costing people lives, hardens low-level offenders and breeds contempt for lawful authority and promotes more 'racial profiling' and the reaction to it than there would otherwise be.

I mean, seriously, how many minorities could you pull over if drugs were not an excuse? There can't be THAT many reported burglaries to use as flimsy justification.

[armstrong001]

a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

Hooray for more health care. I can't wait.:gus:

[SnyderShrugged]

"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. "

and they went right on raiding those facilities in CA soon after his statement to the contrary.

I support the move, but need to see real action towards it and not just lip service.

The drug war is a failure and an albatros of expense and waste, imho.

[hokie4redskins]

Damn right. I'd argue that states should back the ___ up too. It's an enormous waste of resources, corrupts and militarizes our local, state and federal law authorities, ends up costing people lives, hardens low-level offenders and breeds contempt for lawful authority and promotes more 'racial profiling' and the reaction to it than there would otherwise be.

I mean, seriously, how many minorities could you pull over if drugs were not an excuse? There can't be THAT many reported burglaries to use as flimsy justification.

I agree with you, but state voters essentially can dictate how they want their drug laws. If voters want strict enforcement, vote the legislators in. There's no reason Utah and California should have similar drug laws simply because the Feds said so.

[TimmySmith]

There will be a quick response by the Police Unions followed by either a full on retraction or a "clarification" of the remarks by Kerlikowske. Unions run the democratic party. War on drugs continues.

[twa]

Nothing but a kindler,gentler name change imo

When did the Pres get authority to overrule laws?

[ACW]

Hooray for more health care. I can't wait.:gus:

As opposed to the same old incarceration? That's worked so well :gus:

Radley Balko:

I have a bit of a different take than my colleague Jacob Sullum on Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske's decision to end the war rhetoric when discussing drug prohibition.

The change in rhetoric obviously isn't an end to the federal prohibition on drugs. But it isn't mere symbolism, either. Rhetoric matters.

The drug war imagery started by Nixon, subdued by Carter, then ratcheted up again in the Reagan administration (and remained basically level since) has had significant repercussions on the way drug policy is enforced, from policymakers on down to street-level cops. It's war rhetoric that gave us the Pentagon giveaway program, where millions of pieces of surplus military equipment (such as tanks) have been transferred to local police departments. War imagery set the stage for the approximately 1,200 percent rise in the use of SWAT teams since the early 1980s, and has fostered the militaristic, "us vs. them" mentality too prevalent in too many police departments today.

War implies a threat so existential, so dire to our way of life, that we citizens should be ready to sign over some of our basic rights, be expected to make significant sacrifices, and endure collateral damage in order to defeat it. Preventing people from getting high has never represented that sort of threat.

No, a mere change in rhetoric isn't going to undo all of that. But it will at least begin to establish a less bellicose, less aggressive mindset when it comes to formulating drug policy. And while Kerlikowske's public health approach to drug enforcement is still a far cry from a government that respects individual freedom, it's also far better than the attitudes of his predecessors. We could, for example, go back to the days of William Bennett, who thought we should suspend habeas corpus for accused drug dealers, then took a sympathetic view when a caller to Larry King Live suggested we just behead them in the street.

Seems to me it's a positive and not insignificant development that we have a drug czar who understands the power of language.

[SkinsHokieFan]

There will be a quick response by the Police Unions followed by either a full on retraction or a "clarification" of the remarks by Kerlikowske. Unions run the democratic party. War on drugs continues.

Them and prison guard unions. Just look at California

[ACW]

Them and prison guard unions. Just look at California

:secret: CA's gov's a Repub.

[armstrong001]

As opposed to the same old incarceration? That's worked so well :gus:

Radley Balko:

I've said before that I'm willing to consider the merits of legalizing certain drugs, but only after I don't have to pay for the rehab / medical bills.

[ACW]

I've said before that I'm willing to consider the merits of legalizing certain drugs, but only after I don't have to pay for the rehab / medical bills.

But you're willing to pay for the prison bills? Which, BTW, also include medical care.

[SkinsHokieFan]

:secret: CA's gov's a Repub.

:hysterical:

Its a very long term thing

Look at how much CA spent on Prison corrections in 1980 to 1994

This has nothing to do with Repocrats (although I made it out to be that way)

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/CalifPrisonGuards.html

[armstrong001]

But you're willing to pay for the prison bills? Which, BTW, also include medical care.

If I have to pay either way, I prefer not legalizing it. If I don't have to pay when legalized, I'm willing to consider it.

[JMS]

There will be a quick response by the Police Unions followed by either a full on retraction or a "clarification" of the remarks by Kerlikowske. Unions run the democratic party. War on drugs continues.

Police unions typically like the Republicans. The Democrats have the Teacher Unions and Auto workers Unions.

While I agree unions are one voice in the Democratic party, I disagree they run the show. In 1970 one out of every three voters was a union member. Today it's like 3 in 20. Unions power has fallen off significantly. Look at Clinton for example, Bill pioneered NAFTA, and persued open trade policies all which the unions opposed.

The big issue with the war on drugs is on crime and the expense. 70% of all cime in this country is related to drugs. Fixing the drug policy would go along way to reducing costs and improving revenue, two things obama needs. If he does it right it will also slash violence just like the end of pro-abition signaled the end of the bootleger gangs like Al Capone et al.

[ACW]

If I have to pay either way, I prefer not legalizing it. If I don't have to pay when legalized, I'm willing to consider it.

So, if you DO have to pay, you'd rather pay to keep them locked up than to treat them?

[armstrong001]

So, if you DO have to pay, you'd rather pay to keep them locked up than to treat them?

You said yourself that they get medical care in prison.

[JMS]

If I have to pay either way, I prefer not legalizing it. If I don't have to pay when legalized, I'm willing to consider it.

The reason why many conservitives favor legalizing drugs.. ( William F. Buckley ) is because if you legalized them you save money on jails and free up law enforcement to actually fight crime. Also because some government agencies like the DEA have become third world esque when it comes to home invasions, and property ceasures. They money they make goes into their budgets and when mayors of towns are getting their doors kicked in and dogs shot, in the name of drug enforcement you can bet 1000 other folks have had it happen only it didn't make the newspapers.

I also think the tax revenues off of drugs is attractive to many conservatives. Business opprotunities too, hemp is a much better fiber crop than anything we use today. It would open up a lot of opprotunity to legalize it.

I think the legalization argument has supporters and detractors on both sides of the isle.

[Zguy28]

Maybe now I can stop cowering in the dark and get some treatment for my honey-nut Cheerios drug addiction.

[Special K]

:secret: CA's gov's a Repub.

No, he's really not. He's a democrat outfitted in Republican clothing. He's a total closet democrat...too many years in the Kennedy family I guess.

[Hubbs]

If I have to pay either way, I prefer not legalizing it. If I don't have to pay when legalized, I'm willing to consider it.

I believe that I can make an absolutely fantastic case that you're paying much, much more now than you would under certain legalization programs.

[armstrong001]

I believe that I can make an absolutely fantastic case that you're paying much, much more now than you would under certain legalization programs.

I'll bet you could. However, I have no faith that the government would limit health care expenses after legalizing drugs. This is why I want to see it in writing that I won't be paying for this crap before I sign off on legalization.