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

[Hubbs]

As to the issue, I don't know where I stand. It's crazy to me what people choose to do to themselves. Do they have the right to slowly comit suicide or make themselves nonfunctional and non contributing? I guess they do, but they shouldn't.

You're right. We should arrest those folks who eat at McDonald's four times a week and will develop heart disease by age 45.

[SnyderShrugged]

You're right. We should arrest those folks who eat at McDonald's four times a week and will develop heart disease by age 45.

Never fear, I fully expect MickyD's to be nationalized and to start serving tofu and sprouts as the staple menue within the next 8 years.

[JMS]

Yeah, I would like to see some current cost-benefit analysis as well...

How could it be that their would not be a cost benifit from legalizing drugs? Today we warehouse more of our citizens in prisons than any other industrialized first world country on earth, and something like 70% of those in prison are there on drug related offenses.

The majority of all crime in the United States is drug related, and that includes both violent and non violent crimes. Legalizing drugs would reduce crime and reduce the pressure on our law enforcement agencies.

Foreign policy wise we pay billions anually to just Mexico and Columbia to help their governments fight crime. Not to mention Morroco, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and Milasia who all probable get money from us too. If we legalized it and regulated it we would save money on trying to fight the problem overseas too.

Then you add to that the facts (1) legalizing drugs would allow us to tax them and open up more new and significant revenue streams. (2) that there are significant agricultural opprotunity which we as an economy miss out on because of drug policy which are unrelated to people invibing drugs. The United States Constitution is written on hemp paper. Hemp is one of the most fiberous plant crops, it's used for rope, paper, packaging materials, and countless other applications. American farmers today can not grow hemp, because of how our drug laws are written.

[twa]

Drug related being like tobacco or obesity related?

We need better info imo

[ACW]

Only because they are going about it in a wussy way. I'd destroy the fields where they are grown here and in the primary nations growing the poison, have the military at the borders build more prisons and increase the sentences for use and trafficking to a minimum of 10 years to a maximum of life.

:doh::doh::doh:Anti-freedom; why do toy hate America? And seriously, 10 years for USING? :doh::doh::doh:

And yes, let's destroy the poppy fields in Afghanistan; who cares if that would make more Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters? At least there won't be drugs!:doh::doh::doh:

EDIT: The War on Drugs is a War on Americans. You know who supports Prohibition? The Taliban and al-Qaeda. Funny ND, never thought you'd support something that harms Americans and bin Laden likes.

[Special K]

How could it be that their would not be a cost benifit from legalizing drugs? Today we warehouse more of our citizens in prisons than any other industrialized first world country on earth, and something like 70% of those in prison are there on drug related offenses.

The majority of all crime in the United States is drug related, and that includes both violent and non violent crimes. Legalizing drugs would reduce crime and reduce the pressure on our law enforcement agencies.

Well duh, legalizing any type of crime would reduce crime rates b/c it's not a crime anymore.

Then you add to that the facts (1) legalizing drugs would allow us to tax them and open up more new and significant revenue streams. (2) that there are significant agricultural opprotunity which we as an economy miss out on because of drug policy which are unrelated to people invibing drugs.

Yes, and increase ability to acquire, use, and become addicted to illicit drugs for those who would normally be deterred from using drugs because it's illegal.

I am open to decriminalizing marijuana, but no way in hell you will EVER convince me that legalizing heroin, crack, meth, coke, whatever else crap there is out there is beneficial to our society as a whole. No way, that's insane.

The United States Constitution is written on hemp paper. Hemp is one of the most fiberous plant crops, it's used for rope, paper, packaging materials, and countless other applications. American farmers today can not grow hemp, because of how our drug laws are written.

Then how about we rewrite crime laws to enable American farmers to cultivate this glorious material instead of issuing a free for all on all drugs under the sun?

[addicted]

Duck because I'm throwing.

So the weak, the irresponsible, and the selfish want the right to be self destructive but taxpayers are supposed to provide the parachute when they finally realise oh shucks I've been an idiot all this time show me some compassion.

When an idiot knowingly injects, snorts or inhale illegal drugs into their bodies to alter their state of mind, its not a disease its a weakness and total disregard of themselves, their family and society.

Who the hell died and made you God of morals and rights for everyone? I bet you think your ways the best for all, sorry to burst your bubble but you don't know what's right for anyone else.

It would cost nothing to legalize weed, the fact that the propaganda machine has you thinking otherwise is flat out wrong. We would gain much needed tax revenues if it were legalized however that's not as important to our Government as is keeping the money rolling in keeping it illegal. It's time to start facing the truth that the money in this so called "war" dictates that this stay illegal. If it were legal, there goes government money for police, jails, border patrol, medical facilities, social workers, and that's not mentioning the money they make pushing it to the people now. Ever wonder what happens to the drugs the cops seize? Is it destroyed or just resold on the streets? The country could actually stop much of the trafficing but they don't because they are making a mint off it. They just got people like you nieve enough to think it's a "bad" idea to legalize because you refuse to admit that our governments completely curropt and so is the police force.

Just like during prohibition, no one is going to stop using this even if it's illegal. If you follow the money trail it points to our Government making more keeping it illegal then legalizing it so they want it illegal. When the country needs to tell its citizens what's "right" and "wrong" for them morally we've gotten off the right track. And this issue is just another one that will eventually lead to our eventual fall. It's coming. The citizens need a revolution while the countries worth something, other wise when it does fall we'll get stomped. The longer we let the biased media propaganda machine control us the more we errod from the inside. We have to take the power back to the people.

[addicted]

I was thinking the same thing. poison every shipment make sure the public knows its poisoned and if they decide to use it anyway its just Darwinism purging the herd.

I was thinking those of you who think its a better idea to kill Americans who think differently then you do might want to remember that this country was founded by those men who were against the government telling them what to do. It's more American to want to let Americans decide what's right for them then to enlist in some Nazi idea of killing people who don't think the same as you do. I'd hope that someone who claims to have served in our blessed Navy might actually know something about freedom, but your lost dude

[addicted]

I don't know, it seems simple to me. If you think people are free enough to choose to take a 'poison pill' heroin dose, then they are FREE enough as human beings to decide to take whatever the hell drug they want to take. The instant they transgress against another person or that person's property--then go after them. Until then, stop the militarization of police, the oppression of citizens, the stripping of our rights (FAR, FAR more damage to civil liberties than any aspect of the war on terrorism) the murder of our people, the polarization of entire ethnic communities and return dignity to a FREE people.

Our country was just fine when all these drugs were legal. No human society or endeavor to be perfect. Why use violence and oppression to stop people from altering their brain chemistry? It's ridiculous.

Great post :point2sky

[Baculus]

Bac, when ya'll gonna do something about it?

Last time I checked ya'll control the government ...lead:)

or were you talking to the social cons in the Dem party?:evilg:

Hopefully the comments from the Drug Czar demonstrates that something is going to be done about it!

And yes, my words can also be applied to Democrats, some of whom support the War on Drugs. (There are some Republicans who oppose the drug war, but these are the more pragmatic or libertarian-minded folks of the party.)

[Baculus]

Only because they are going about it in a wussy way. I'd destroy the fields where they are grown here and in the primary nations growing the poison, have the military at the borders build more prisons and increase the sentences for use and trafficking to a minimum of 10 years to a maximum of life.

Are you an authoritarian, and what is the guiding moral authority and principle for your stance? And why do you believe that a statist law and order solution to the War on Drugs is necessary, especially a solution that jails millions of Americans for minor offenses?

[Baculus]

As I asked earlier, can any of the pro-War on Drugs conservatives on this thread can resolve their support of "small government" with a "big government" solution to drugs? That, in essence, all of the talk about "individual liberties" and "states' rights" is irrelevant?

I suppose you do support redistribution -- that is, redistribution of free citizens into members of the penal class.

[Ghost of]

Baculus,

You have to remember that some people are defined only by what they oppose. All one need do is think back to the previous administration to see myriad examples of this. And the hilarious thing you see is how quickly a policy that is allegedly 'abhorrent' is all-of-a-sudden OK or pragmatic when the side they 'support' embraces it. Happens all the time.

if Democrats began to be known by draconian enforcement of drug prohibition, eventually some of these cats would begin to sound like you or me. Just like a lot of Dems gave deceitful lip service to budgetary restraint and pragmatism during 8 years of Bush spending.

[Big Blue Joe]

I was thinking those of you who think its a better idea to kill Americans who think differently then you do might want to remember that this country was founded by those men who were against the government telling them what to do. It's more American to want to let Americans decide what's right for them then to enlist in some Nazi idea of killing people who don't think the same as you do. I'd hope that someone who claims to have served in our blessed Navy might actually know something about freedom, but your lost dude

Hmm, I thought the country was founded by a bunch of slave-owning, Native American slaughtering bigots. The War on Drugs seems pretty American to me.

[Baculus]

Baculus,

You have to remember that some people are defined only by what they oppose. All one need do is think back to the previous administration to see myriad examples of this. And the hilarious thing you see is how quickly a policy that is allegedly 'abhorrent' is all-of-a-sudden OK or pragmatic when the side they 'support' embraces it. Happens all the time.

if Democrats began to be known by draconian enforcement of drug prohibition, eventually some of these cats would begin to sound like you or me. Just like a lot of Dems gave deceitful lip service to budgetary restraint and pragmatism during 8 years of Bush spending.

That's has a lot of truth to it, and some good points.

I would be untruthful if I didn't admit to adjusting my views on one issue or another (universal health care, as an example), but I always try to at least retain some of my base libertarian belief system. But it's definitely easy to lose such core beliefs once power is gained and self-restraint is thrown out the window.

[addicted]

Hmm, I thought the country was founded by a bunch of slave-owning, Native American slaughtering bigots. The War on Drugs seems pretty American to me.

Well it was there is no denying these men were like that but the reason these Indian killing bigots decided to branch away and become a new country and fight Great Britian wasn't because they were bigots and liked to kill Indians. That wasn't the issue, that dude is the issue you have. The reason they did that was because they were tired of living under the umbrella of an unfair greedy Government who was curropt and liked to take away freedoms. We've come full circle in my eyes to once again living as citizens under a curropt system of government that takes away freedoms, supresses people, taxes them unjustly, and uses fear to control. Once most of you stop thinking that Government is the same thing as rooting for "your home team" and realize both sides are equally curropt and stop this nonsense of Red vs. Blue we might be able to get back to protesting the Government and right the ship. Once the government stopped being afraid of it's citizens we've been going down the wrong path. The government should be afraid of its people, it's a check and balance that is widely out of wack today. The issues shouldn't be decided on what platform the person stands on, it should be decided on the merit of what is right for all. Since we've forgotten that we've all just become sheeps to a big greedy sellout machine.

[ixcuincle]

The 'war on drugs' is over

The Obama administration is saying all the right things about the jumble of ineffective and vindictive laws, policies and practices that have made up this nation's so-called war on drugs. Shortly after he was confirmed, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he would halt Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. Then the Justice Department urged Congress to eliminate the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity in convictions for dealing crack and powder cocaine, which imposed long prison terms on predominantly black defendants.

The most recent reassurance comes from the new drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal this week, Kerlikowske said it's time to retire the phrase "war on drugs." Good. It's as misguided as the policies it frames. "Regardless of how you try to explain to people it's a 'war on drugs' ... people see a war as a war on them," he said. "We're not at war with people in this country." These sensible pronouncements inspire hope that the administration is moving toward a more rational approach to drugs. There is much to do.

For example, the DEA apparently did not get the memo about raids; it carried out one the day after Holder's announcement. And although Holder's refusal to deploy federal resources against the clinics is a welcome respite, we're still left with the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws. Also, as a candidate, Barack Obama said he supported lifting the federal ban on needle exchange programs, which study after study concludes slows transmission of HIV/AIDS. President Obama's budget, however, leaves it in place. Administration officials say he now believes the public needs persuading.

It's in that context that Kerlikowske's comments matter: By thinking of drug users as combatants in a war, the nation militarized a health problem. The phrase itself shaped flawed thinking and yielded disastrous policies. When he campaigned for the presidency, Obama promised bold change on drugs. The old paradigm should follow the now-discarded phrase into history.

Good riddance

[Hubbs]

I am open to decriminalizing marijuana, but no way in hell you will EVER convince me that legalizing heroin, crack, meth, coke, whatever else crap there is out there is beneficial to our society as a whole. No way, that's insane.

So, you DO have an explanation for Portugal's success, right?

[PeterMP]

So, you DO have an explanation for Portugal's success, right?

Portugal didn't legalize anything.

Things like production and distribution and even buying drugs are still criminal activities.

Portugals success is limited to more people aren't using drugs (at this time). It isn't that drug prices have declined, there is less crime in Portugal, the number of people put in prision has decreased, that the community addicted to drugs are somehow better off, or any other number of measures that legalization/decrimination proponents push.

(I will admit I'm honestly surprised that drug tourism trade hasn't developed there. I'd be curious to see if anybody has any reason why that hasn't happened because it clearly happened in the Netherlands.)

I still favor the Greek model from what I've seen. Mandatory treatment for addicts. Criminal prosecution for non-addicts.

**EDIT**

As near as I can tell, from searching the internet, there are no drug shops in Portugal. That is the drug trade hasn't been commercialized the way it has in the Netherlands (i.e. laws related to distribution are still enforced), which likely explains the lack of drug tourism.

Of course, it also means unless you are producing your own drugs, you are still buying your drugs from an individual where there are no controls in an illegal transaction.

[Hubbs]

I don't necessarily favor commercialization of cocaine, heroin, etc. I favor abandoning the idea that those who use those substances should be arrested.

[Larry]

**EDIT**

As near as I can tell, from searching the internet, there are no drug shops in Portugal. That is the drug trade hasn't been commercialized the way it has in the Netherlands (i.e. laws related to distribution are still enforced), which likely explains the lack of drug tourism.

Of course, it also means unless you are producing your own drugs, you are still buying your drugs from an individual where there are no controls in an illegal transaction.

So users aren't getting prosecuted, but the drug trade is still run by organized crime?

I have trouble seeing how something like that could work. Although your post does say that there are fewer users, which does, IMO, count as progress.

[PeterMP]

So users aren't getting prosecuted, but the drug trade is still run by organized crime?

I have trouble seeing how something like that could work. Although your post does say that there are fewer users, which does, IMO, count as progress.

Well, the idea is that some set of users that are currently getting arrested will decide to get addiction treatment and therefore you have fewer users. It isn't clear if the decrease is really because of the law or just due to the cyclic nature of drug use though.

Realistically (and practically in terms of jailing (I do think some of the psychologocial things they've done in terms of taking the "prosecutions" out of a court room setting w/o an authority figure are interesting from Hubbs' link are interesting)), I'm not sure how different this is from what we are doing. How many people go to jail for simple possession of a "personal" use quantity (I don't know what the law is in Portugal in terms of how much you can have for personal use)?

(Of course, nobody is REALLY getting treatment in the US prison system (see comments below)).

I've known a few people that were distributors that were arrested with more than a "personal" use quantity (possession w/ intent to distribute) (and I personally know they were distributing), and none of them have gone to a jail as a first offense.

I don't know the numbers, but from what I've seen I find it highly unlikely that there is much of a prison population of people that were JUST users (some might have been arressted for possesion, and then later violated parole and been sent to jail, but in my experinece those people were in fact involved in distributing).

I think if you are growing and using your own drugs in a responsible manner and not distributing, your chances of being caught much less going to jail are essentially non-existant.

IMO, the biggest issues is the prison system in the US. To many drugs are availible in prisons. A person can go in as not an addict or addicted to something minor and come out addicted to harder drugs. "Drug lords" don't mind serving extended sentences because they can get everything they want/need in prison and can run their criminal enterprises while serving time.

I'm not at all convinced that are drug laws are "broken", but that our

prison system is.

One more thing, even the Netherlands have issues with organized crime. They actually have laws related to marajuana growth, which limits growth. What is allowed though does not supply the drug stores. You end up with the drug stores buying drugs from organized crime to fill demand.

[Larry]

Actually based on my vast knowledge of the drug world (my brother is a drug user, and has spoken two or three sentences to me about it.) there are very few users who aren't dealers, at least in a manner of speaking. People buy in quantity, then barter with each other. So at least technically, almost everybody is a "dealer".

And I do agree with you. Based on my vast knowledge of the prison system (I've read several Spenser novels, and some similarly scholarly work) the impression I get is that frankly, the guards aren't in charge in our prisons, they're simply one of the gangs.

[ACW]

Actually based on my vast knowledge of the drug world (my brother is a drug user, and has spoken two or three sentences to me about it.) there are very few users who aren't dealers, at least in a manner of speaking. People buy in quantity, then barter with each other. So at least technically, almost everybody is a "dealer".

And I do agree with you. Based on my vast knowledge of the prison system (I've read several Spenser novels, and some similarly scholarly work) the impression I get is that frankly, the guards aren't in charge in our prisons, they're simply one of the gangs.

Larry, what drugs does your bro use, and would he be better off in jail?

[Larry]

Larry, what drugs does your bro use, and would he be better off in jail?

I don't have any idea, and nobody's better off in jail. (Sometimes, society has to put people there in self-defense, but that's another matter.)