Skip to main content

Drug Czar Makes Absurd Claim That the Drug War Reduces Teen Tobacco Use

If you haven't figured out yet that the Drug Czar will say anything, you should start reading some of the stuff he says. This week he attempted to take credit for reductions in alcohol and tobacco use among teens, claiming that the war on illegal drugs somehow causes kids not to smoke cigarettes. Before you know it, he'll be declaring that the drug war extinguishes forest fires, increases child literacy, and inspires people to spay or neuter their household pets.

An ONDCP announcement this week heralding reductions in youth drug use contained this whopping claim:
When we push back against illegal drug use, youth abuse of other substances decrease as well:
*Use of alcohol, including binge drinking, and cigarette smoking
have decreased by 15 and 33 percent, respectively
This is just warped on so many levels, I must resort once again to a bullet point list to explain how ridiculous it is:
1. These are legal, widely available drugs. The Drug Czar's claim that supply-reduction efforts have been effective against illicit substances cannot be applied to alcohol and tobacco. There may be age restrictions, but there ain't no crop substitution or aerial fumigation going on in North Carolina.
2. The Drug Czar's office doesn't work on tobacco and alcohol prevention. They've made no ads about these drugs or implemented any laws or policies in regards to them.

3. There's no war on tobacco or alcohol. If reductions in the use of these drugs are achievable without harsh laws, that merely illustrates the futility of punitive drug war policies.

4. Coinciding reductions in both licit and illicit drug use demonstrate a broader social trend, suggesting that specific drug war programs are not a catalyst in determining youth behavior.
Really, nothing could better illustrate the absurdity of the Drug Czar's self-aggrandizing pronouncements than these simultaneous reductions in tobacco and alcohol use. Without any arrests, mandatory minimums, no-knock raids, and stark racial disparities, we've made more progress against alcohol and tobacco than against these pernicious illegal substances that supposedly can only be combated through a blind and violent civil war.

As is often the case, the Drug Czar has handed us the truth in a nifty little box. He just mislabeled its contents.

Clinton Staffer Attacks Obama Over Past Drug Use

This is ugly. Billy Shaheen, co-chair of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign has gone after Barack Obama over his past drug use, arguing that the Senator's past could haunt him on the campaign trail:

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," said Shaheen, the husband of former N.H. governor Jeanne Shaheen, who is planning to run for the Senate next year. Billy Shaheen contrasted Obama's openness about his past drug use -- which Obama mentioned again at a recent campaign appearance in New Hampshire -- with the approach taken by George W. Bush in 1999 and 2000, when he ruled out questions about his behavior when he was "young and irresponsible."

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome." [Washington Post]

Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you're so concerned about people attacking Obama over his past drug use, you could start by not attacking Obama over his past drug use. The whole thing smacks of desperation as Obama rises in the polls.

Let's be real here. The last two presidents overcame allegations of drug use and found themselves in the White House. The only difference is that Obama has been particularly candid, and it really shouldn't even be necessary to point out that voters actually like honesty. He's told the truth when others lied. Explain to me how that will hurt him if others got away with using drugs and lying about it.

From where I sit, the only person who should be embarrassed by any of this is Hillary Clinton, whose campaign has apparently resorted to the same pathetic smear tactics used on her husband 15 years ago. Give us a break.

Update: Via DrugWarRant, the Clinton Campaign has wisely distanced itself from Shaheen's remarks, and he has even apologized for making them:

Clinton spokesman, Phil Singer, said, "These comments were not authorized or condoned by the campaign in any way."

....In a statement later, Mr. Shaheen said, "I deeply regret the comments I made today, and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way."

Why Doesn't the DEA Just Crack Down on Medical Marijuana?

Ever wonder why the federal government doesn't just go ahead and raid every medical marijuana dispensary in California? The DEA seems to conduct only enough raids to create the perception of risk, while completely failing to prevent widespread medical access. In an online chat, someone asked the Drug Czar about this, and you know what he said? Nothing. He may be afraid to answer, but I'm not.

First check out his lengthy response and note that it doesn't answer the main question:
Patrick, from San Francisco, CA writes:
Mr. Walters-- My son is a high school junior here in San Francisco, CA. A large percentage of high school students in San Francisco smoke pot on campus several times a day. Teachers and school administrators are powerless to stop it and simply look the other way, all due to state and local laws which make it almost impossible to control pot and thereby keep it out of the hands of kids. How serious is the federal government in its attempts to shut down the phony "medical marijuana" industry, which is really just an underhanded way to make it easy for people to use pot recreationally. Raiding pot clubs could be stepped up easily (with very few people), couldn't they? --Patrick

John Walters
I’m glad you raised this concern, Patrick. We’re hearing the same thing from many other communities dealing with the same issue.

We believe that if there are elements of marijuana that can be applied to modern medicine, they should undergo the same FDA-approval process any other medicine goes through to make sure it’s safe and effective. In absence of that approval, the Federal position is clear: the smoked form of medical marijuana is against Federal law and we will continue to enforce the law.

Last year, the FDA issued an advisory reinforcing the fact that no sound scientific studies have supported medical use of smoked marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data support the safety or efficacy of smoked marijuana for general medical use. This statement adds to the already substantial list of national public health organizations that have already spoken out on this issue, including the American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society – all of which do not support the smoked form of marijuana as medicine. So who’s pushing for the smoked form of medical marijuana then?

Funded by millions of dollars from those whose goal it is to legalize marijuana outright, marijuana lobbyists have been deployed to Capitol Hill and to States across the Nation to employ their favored tactic of using Americans' natural compassion for the sick to garner support for a far different agenda. These modern-day snake oil proponents cite testimonials—not science—that smoked marijuana helps patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, and other painful diseases “feel better.” While smoking marijuana may allow patients to temporarily feel better, the medical community makes an important distinction between inebriation and the controlled delivery of pure pharmaceutical medication. If you want to learn more about this, we have information available that shows how medical marijuana laws increase drug-related crime and protect drug dealers. Hopefully you can help us educate more of our citizens about this fraud.
So it's clear that the Drug Czar opposes medical marijuana, but what about the raids? Well, I can think of a few reasons why a full-blown attack on medical access in California would be highly problematic:
1. Simultaneously raiding California's several hundred dispensaries would provoke aggressive protests and widespread bad publicity. The ensuing press coverage would highlight marijuana's well-known medical applications.

2. DEA's tactic of suppressing evidence in court that the marijuana is for medical use wouldn’t work if they raided all the providers at once. Jurors would figure it out and vote to acquit, wasting federal law enforcement and prosecutorial resources.

3. Black market violence would erupt immediately as criminals rush in to meet demand. This would prove to everyone that the medical marijuana industry actually made California safer.

4. Anti-medical marijuana statements from Republican presidential hopefuls have already jeopardized their chance at winning California's 54 electoral votes. An aggressive DEA campaign at this time would ensure a democratic victory there. Bush's Drug Czar knows better than to help democrats win California.

I suppose it's not very surprising that the Drug Czar declined to elaborate on this. He certainly wouldn't want to put ideas in anyone's head.

The point here isn't that providing medical marijuana carries no legal risks. It clearly does. But it's important for everyone to understand how hollow most of the DEA's threats really are. DEA's ongoing efforts against medical marijuana providers in California are designed to create the appearance of chaos, which is then cited as evidence that the medical marijuana industry is inherently harmful. This is purely political.

The Drug Czar's failure to answer this simple and common question reveals a great deal about his own reluctance to interfere with the will of California voters.

A Few Pardons Today -- Meanwhile the Pardon Attorney's Web Site Hasn't Been Updated Since the Clinton Administration

In addition to the good news about the crack sentencing reductions being retroactive, another piece of modest good news is that Pres. Bush granted some clemencies, including a few drug offenders. Via the Associated Press and CNN:
  • Jackie Ray Clayborn, of Deer, Arkansas, sentenced in 1993 to five months in prison, two years of supervised release and $3,000 in fines on marijuana charges.
  • John Fornaby, of Boynton Beach, Florida, convicted in 1991 of conspiring to distribute cocaine. He served three years in prison.
  • Bush cut short the 1992 prison sentence of crack cocaine dealer Michael Dwayne Short of Hyattsville, Maryland, who will be released on February 8 after serving 15 years of his 19-year sentence.
Let's include this one too, just to keep things in the holiday spirit (even though we don't oppose having reasonable regulations on legalized substances):
  • William James Norman of Tallahassee, Florida, convicted in 1970 for possessing and running an unregistered distillery that did not carry the proper signage and illegally produced alcoholic drinks made from mash. He was sentenced to three years probation.
Clemencies are a good thing, so I feel bad about using a negative-sounding headline. But it's important, because these few additional actions still leave George W. Bush far behind other presidential administrations in use of the pardon powers, even behind the pardon-parsimonious George Herbert Walker Bush. Interestingly -- and perhaps not coincidentally -- the US Pardon Attorney's office has not updated the sections of their web site listing clemency recipients and statistics since the end of the Clinton administration. They don't even include George W. Bush in the list of presidents. (I've saved copies of those two pages to prove it, in case they finally get around to updating those pages.) More importantly, we've heard from list members whose family members have clemency petitions in that not only have their loved ones not been released, they haven't even heard back from the office with any decision, not even a "no." If I remember correctly, FAMM has charged that the backlog in the office is literally in the thousands. Come on George, I've said it before, and I'm saying it again -- WE WANT PARDONS!!!!

U.S. Recommends Early Release for 19,500 Crack Offenders

The sentencing disparity that punishes offenders 100 times worse for crack than for powder cocaine has taken a double hit this week. First the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that judges may depart from unreasonable federal sentencing guidelines. Then, today, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to make the recently revised sentencing guidelines retroactive, meaning that incarcerated offenders may request early release.
Today in an historic vote, the Commission unanimously agreed to allow prisoners serving crack cocaine sentences to seek sentence reductions that went into effect on November 1. Retroactivity will affect 19,500 federal prisoners, almost 2,520 of whom could be eligible for early release in the first year. Federal courts will administer the application of the retroactive guideline, which is not automatic. Courts may refuse to grant sentence reductions to individuals if they believe they could pose a public safety risk.

"The Sentencing Commission made the tough but fair decision to remedy injustice, showing courage and leadership in applying the guideline retroactively. Clearly, justice should not turn on the date an individual is sentenced," said Julie Stewart, president and founder of FAMM. "Retroactivity of the crack guideline not only affects the lives of nearly 20,000 individuals in prison but that of thousands more - mothers, fathers, daughters and sons - who anxiously wait for them to return home," said Stewart. [FAMM]
It took 20 years to even begin taking the teeth out of this vicious law, but it's clear we've now crossed a threshold. Once the curtain was pulled back and the utter racism and ignorance that defined federal cocaine sentencing was revealed for what it was, we witnessed leading politicians jumping on the bandwagon in favor of reform.

So often, we're told by fair-weather supporters of this work that we're naïve; that the power structure forever feeds on the misery of the downtrodden; that the insatiable prison industrial complex and its carnivorous lobbyist minions will always call the shots and that we're pissing in the wind if we think the truths we speak will find traction amidst the marketplace of foul and corrupt ideas that dominate the political culture in our nation's capital.

Indeed, this is a steep uphill battle. But in so many ways, we've moved beyond the initial stage of demonstrating the need for change. They know. Our mission now is to help those in power convert these observations into ideas, then into persuasive words, and finally into decisive actions. Politicians are not always blind to right and wrong, rather they hedge their bets and often fear the political consequences of true leadership above the social consequences of intransigence.

These matters are far from resolved, but today brought hope to 19,500 non-violent drug offenders and their families. It is a victory for justice, a rebuke of the racist drug war doctrine, and, with patience and some luck, a humble sign of bigger things to come.
Subscribe to