ONDCP

Our new drug czar really has a way with words. He says things you never thought you'd hear from a drug czar. Unfortunately, like his predecessors, he's completely full of BS:

THE United States has "ended its war on drugs" and is now moving its focus to prevention and treatment, the US drugs chief has told top Irish drug officials.
…
"We’ve talked about a ‘war on drugs’ for 40 years, since President Nixon. I ended the war," said Mr Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). [Irish Examiner]

Except, he absolutely did no such thing. Their guns are still loaded. Their rubber stamps are all inked up and ready to authorize aggressive raids on non-violent suspects. They'll put several hundred thousand people in handcuffs this year just for smoking marijuana. Just watch this and tell me what the guys in the battle suits are doing if not waging war on people.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love it when the drug czar talks about moving beyond the "war" metaphor and approaching drug policy from a public health perspective. It's a step in the right direction, even if it's shockingly disingenuous under the current terms of engagement. I just wonder if they actually think anyone's buying any of this.

It's a war, you numbskull. You can't fight a bloody war against millions of people on your own soil and just pretend it's not happening. If you really believe we don't need this war, then stop trying to sugarcoat it and end this dreadful escapade once and for all.

Last week, the Associate Press ran one of the best pieces on U.S. drug policy I've ever seen, and it began like this:

MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.
 
Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

So now the drug czar is annoyed at AP for, I guess, quoting him and accurately reporting on his anti-drug budget:

The budget piece is fair to focus on, but we told AP that we objected to the article's mischaracterization of current policy.  A fairer and more nuanced observation would have been: This does look/sound a lot different, but the budget scenario hasn't changed overnight (it never does, in any realm of government) and it will take some time to test the Administration's commitment to the new approach. [ofsubstance.gov]

Really? Because the drug czar did kinda admit that the strategy sucks. It's not a "mischaracterization" when someone prints the words coming out of your mouth. It's not like Ethan Nadelmann said that and they falsely attributed it to you. Guess what guys: until you stop spending more than half your budget on the exact activities that even you agree have failed, you're going to get called out early and often.

If the drug czar wants us to understand why his budget can't change overnight, then he'll need to explain what the hell that means. Is he talking about the massive drug war industry that depends on our tax dollars to buy fancy technology that's useless without prohibition? Is he wondering what the dog-slaughtering SWAT soldiers in Missouri are supposed to wear without federal subsidies for their bullet-proof bodysuits? If that's the problem, then let's talk about it.

In the meantime, Kerlikowske shouldn't be complaining that AP's coverage isn't "nuanced" enough for him. He's the one who talked to them and said things that didn’t make sense.

Tell me something I don't know:

MEXICO CITY (AP) — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

Yes. Yes! Did I just hear a drug czar basically admit that the drug war completely sucks? Well then, what are you going to do about it?

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

Kerlikowske, who coordinates all federal anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric.

Really? Why? This isn't hard, dude. You just stop paying everybody to f@#king destroy everything. I mean, it's interesting that he admits their rhetoric is nonsense, but that was already super obvious. We're in the middle of an economic crisis, and here's the drug czar telling us we can't stop funding programs that even he himself admits are a complete waste. What the hell is going on here?

It's easy to call the Obama Administration out on their hypocrisy, and we should. But it's also worth contemplating why they're doing such a miserable job of defending their own drug strategy. I think the difference between Kerlikowske and his predecessor is that John Walters actually bought into his own hype. His ego won't let him understand the destruction he oversaw. I don't believe Kerlikowske is even loyal to the war in the first place. I think he's just trying to do his job while pissing off as few people as possible. He aims to placate the public by acknowledging the obvious, while simultaneously ensuring that the drug war industrial complex is still able to pay its bills.

So which is worse, a drug czar who won't learn from his mistakes, or one who continues to support policies he knows are wrong?