My Published Criticism of the Drug Czar
I got the following comments published as a Letter to the Editor in both the online and print versions of my local newspaper, the Fresno Bee, http://www.fresnobee.com/ ---
ONDCP
Drug Warriors for Sensible Drug Policy
Some interesting comments from former drug czar Barry McCaffrey at Huffington Post:
And here's Robert Weiner, former spokesman at the drug czar's office, writing in the Baltimore Sun:
So why are these prominent drug warriors now criticizing U.S. drug policy for its perpetual focus on enforcement and incarceration? The short answer is probably that they now work as consultants with clients in the drug treatment industry who love seeing editorials like these.
But I'd like to think that on some level they feel maybe just a little bit responsible for their role in filling our prisons with an unfathomable number of people who don't belong there.
Our traditional justice system has been inadequate to the task of breaking the cycle of substance abuse and crime. Four out of every five offenses are committed by someone with a drug or alcohol problem; and we just keep locking them up!
â¦
Given the abysmal outcomes of incarceration on addictive behavior, there's absolutely no justification for state governments to continue to waste tax dollars feeding a situation where generational recidivism is becoming the norm and parents, children and grandparents may find themselves locked up together.
And here's Robert Weiner, former spokesman at the drug czar's office, writing in the Baltimore Sun:
Whyâ¦is the Obama administration proposing to spend an even higher percentage of its anti-drug resources on law enforcement than the administration of George W. Bush?
â¦
Mr. Kerlikowske has said, "It is only through a balanced approach - combining tough but fair enforcement with robust prevention and treatment - that we will be successful in stemming both demand and supply of illegal drugs." Yet, in the 2010 budget, there is a 3.3 percent reduction in treatment and prevention initiatives since 2008, exacerbating the bias toward enforcement, which now represents 65.6 percent of the budget, even higher than the last administration's 62.3 percent.
So why are these prominent drug warriors now criticizing U.S. drug policy for its perpetual focus on enforcement and incarceration? The short answer is probably that they now work as consultants with clients in the drug treatment industry who love seeing editorials like these.
But I'd like to think that on some level they feel maybe just a little bit responsible for their role in filling our prisons with an unfathomable number of people who don't belong there.
Obama's Drug Czar Says Marijuana Is Dangerous and Isn't Medicine
For the first time since taking office, Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske has worked up the nerve to make a definitive statement about why he thinks marijuana is bad:
After having declined for months to actually engage the marijuana debate, it looks like someone finally sat Kerlikowske down and explained that if he's serious about being drug czar, he's gotta start lying and trying to scare people. And as you can see, he sucks at that.
Still, his statement that marijuana has no medical value is surprising, not only because it's just false, but also because he serves at the pleasure of a president who has ordered an end to federal interference with state medical marijuana laws. There's a conflict here that's difficult to reconcile and I hope the press will push the administration for some clarification as to whether the president stands by this statement. It's not the position Obama's taken previously, nor does the current political climate look favorably upon this sort of antiquated anti-pot propaganda.
I shudder to think where Kerlikowske is going with this, but regardless of his present agenda, he should be cautioned against adopting the rhetoric of his widely discredited predecessor. Unfortunately, until the drug czar's office is no longer mandated by law to oppose legalization in any form, we can expect more of this nonsense from anyone who bears the drug czar title. In the meantime, I agree with Pete Guither that this guy is a riot.
The nation's drug czar, who viewed a foothill marijuana farm on U.S. Forest Service land with state and local officials earlier Wednesday, said the federal government will not support legalizing marijuana.
â¦
"Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit," Kerlikowske said in downtown Fresno while discussing Operation SOS -- Save Our Sierra -- a multiagency effort to eradicate marijuana in eastern Fresno County. [Fresno Bee]
After having declined for months to actually engage the marijuana debate, it looks like someone finally sat Kerlikowske down and explained that if he's serious about being drug czar, he's gotta start lying and trying to scare people. And as you can see, he sucks at that.
Still, his statement that marijuana has no medical value is surprising, not only because it's just false, but also because he serves at the pleasure of a president who has ordered an end to federal interference with state medical marijuana laws. There's a conflict here that's difficult to reconcile and I hope the press will push the administration for some clarification as to whether the president stands by this statement. It's not the position Obama's taken previously, nor does the current political climate look favorably upon this sort of antiquated anti-pot propaganda.
I shudder to think where Kerlikowske is going with this, but regardless of his present agenda, he should be cautioned against adopting the rhetoric of his widely discredited predecessor. Unfortunately, until the drug czar's office is no longer mandated by law to oppose legalization in any form, we can expect more of this nonsense from anyone who bears the drug czar title. In the meantime, I agree with Pete Guither that this guy is a riot.
No One Takes the Drug Czar's Office Seriously (Not Even the President)
At a White House meeting earlier today:
The Office of National Drug Control Policy has been such a joke for so long now that it comes as no surprise that the President can't even remember what it's called. No wonder the office was downgraded from cabinet status.
What an embarrassment. Can we please just cancel ONDCP altogether and save everyone the humialtion of trying to remember what it stands for?
The new director of the Office of National Drug Policy, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, was on hand as well. But not even Obama's retentive mind could recall his full title.
"I just wanted you to know, as well as the new director of our office of -- I always forget the full name of this -- I call it the Drug Czar . . .
"I'm fine with that," Kerlikowske interrupted. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer]
The Office of National Drug Control Policy has been such a joke for so long now that it comes as no surprise that the President can't even remember what it's called. No wonder the office was downgraded from cabinet status.
What an embarrassment. Can we please just cancel ONDCP altogether and save everyone the humialtion of trying to remember what it stands for?
LEAP Confronts The Drug Czar at a Press Conference
The irony is truly remarkable. Kerlikowske claims legalization isn't in his vocabulary, yet the whole purpose of the press conference is to present a report that discusses legalization at great length. The drug czar's strategy of trying not to legitimize our position is completely at odds with the approach of the UN, thus he ultimately just comes across as unprepared. And that's exactly what he is. He's so unprepared to defend the drug war, he must pretend that legalization doesn't exist. It isn't going to work.
Click here to help our friends at LEAP send a message to the UN that it's time to move beyond the war on drugs.
An Embarrassing Interview With the Drug Czar
Rolling Stone's June issue takes an in-depth look at the evolving political climate surrounding drug policy (a portion is available online), including a deliciously embarrassing visit with drug czar Gil Kerlikowske. Remember Kerlikowske's recent statement about not calling it a "war on drugs" anymore? Well, guess what he's got in his office:
You really couldnât ask for a better exhibit in the total incoherence and rank dishonesty of the drug czar's claim that our drug policy isnât a war. I don't blame him for trying and it's certainly encouraging that we've reached a point at which the drug war is so controversial that they're trying to change its name. But how could they possibly forget to take down the damn sign? I mean, really, did they forget that Rolling Stone was stopping by?
The story goes on to brilliantly juxtapose Kerlikowske's law-enforcement credentials against his comical inability to answer basic questions about the issues he works on:
The whole thing is a brutal embarrassment and a vivid illustration of the appalling intellectual bankruptcy that characterizes the government's position on drug policy in general. These are extremely basic policy questions, but they have serious implications. If you can't even begin to make informative statements about federal policy, then what right do you have to dismiss calls for reform? Is there even a shred of legitimacy to Kerlikowke's opposition to legalization if he can't even tell us what the current policy is supposed to be?
We spend billions of dollars and imprison millions of people in honor of this great anti-drug crusade and the people running the whole thing in Washington canât even figure out what to call it, let alone give us a straight answer about why any of this is in the best interest of the nation. In fairness, Kerlikowske's reluctance to defend or even discuss drug policy is a product of the reform movement's success at politicizing the issue and his silence likely owes more to caution than bald ignorance. Still, one is generally considered to have won the debate when their opponent refuses to speak.
 At this point, I'd only be mildly surprised to see these guys just clam up entirely and announce that our drug policy can't be publicly discussed for national security reasons.
â¦despite this sudden outbreak of sanity, rumors of the drug war's death are greatly exaggerated. Visitors to the drug czar's office in Washington â formally known as the Office of National Drug Control Policy â are greeted by the visage of Uncle Sam on a poster declaring, WE ARE AT WAR. ARE YOU DOING ALL YOU CAN?
You really couldnât ask for a better exhibit in the total incoherence and rank dishonesty of the drug czar's claim that our drug policy isnât a war. I don't blame him for trying and it's certainly encouraging that we've reached a point at which the drug war is so controversial that they're trying to change its name. But how could they possibly forget to take down the damn sign? I mean, really, did they forget that Rolling Stone was stopping by?
The story goes on to brilliantly juxtapose Kerlikowske's law-enforcement credentials against his comical inability to answer basic questions about the issues he works on:
Yet when faced with questions about national drug policy, he can turn as evasive as Sarah Palin without a teleprompter. Does the tripling of marijuana arrests since 1990 represent good policy? He'd like to look at the issue more closely. Would the feds respect the laws of states that vote to legalize marijuana consumption for adults? A great question, he says â but one he wonât venture to answer. Does the U.S. experience with Plan Columbia provide a template for dealing with the violent cartels in Mexico? He just doesn't know. "After three weeks, I'm still finding my way around the office," he says with a laugh.
The whole thing is a brutal embarrassment and a vivid illustration of the appalling intellectual bankruptcy that characterizes the government's position on drug policy in general. These are extremely basic policy questions, but they have serious implications. If you can't even begin to make informative statements about federal policy, then what right do you have to dismiss calls for reform? Is there even a shred of legitimacy to Kerlikowke's opposition to legalization if he can't even tell us what the current policy is supposed to be?
We spend billions of dollars and imprison millions of people in honor of this great anti-drug crusade and the people running the whole thing in Washington canât even figure out what to call it, let alone give us a straight answer about why any of this is in the best interest of the nation. In fairness, Kerlikowske's reluctance to defend or even discuss drug policy is a product of the reform movement's success at politicizing the issue and his silence likely owes more to caution than bald ignorance. Still, one is generally considered to have won the debate when their opponent refuses to speak.
 At this point, I'd only be mildly surprised to see these guys just clam up entirely and announce that our drug policy can't be publicly discussed for national security reasons.
New Drug Czar Says "War on Drugs" Mentality is Over
In his first interview since taking office, newly appointed drug czar Gil Kerlikowske had some very interesting things to say:
Coulda fooled me. It's plainly ridiculous to suggest that we're not waging war as we arrest nearly a million Americans every year just for marijuana, as we kill innocent people and even harmless dogs in an endless parade of botched drug raids, and continue promising new crackdowns on American drug users.
Still, it's certainly encouraging to see that Kerlikowske is determined to separate himself from his predecessors. This is a bold and remarkable statement no matter how one interprets it. Any effort to pander to growing drug war opposition is encouraging, even if disingenuous. On that note, I think Ethan makes a good point:
Stay tuned.
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." [WSJ]
Coulda fooled me. It's plainly ridiculous to suggest that we're not waging war as we arrest nearly a million Americans every year just for marijuana, as we kill innocent people and even harmless dogs in an endless parade of botched drug raids, and continue promising new crackdowns on American drug users.
Still, it's certainly encouraging to see that Kerlikowske is determined to separate himself from his predecessors. This is a bold and remarkable statement no matter how one interprets it. Any effort to pander to growing drug war opposition is encouraging, even if disingenuous. On that note, I think Ethan makes a good point:
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."
Stay tuned.
Gil Kerlikowske is the New Drug Czar
It's official:
I like the sound of that, but I haven't seen any evidence that Kerlikowske won't be supporting aggressive interdiction programs and harsh sentences. Regardless, there are a few reasons to feel optimistic that he will represent a departure from the blind arrogance and aggression of his predecessors.
Former Seattle Police Chief and LEAP member Norm Stamper has a terrific open letter to Kerlikowske.
WASHINGTON (AP) â The Senate on Thursday approved the nomination of Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as the nation's drug czar, signaling a change in U.S. drug policy.
Kerlikowske, a 36-year law enforcement veteran who has been Seattle's top cop for nine years, has pledged to take a balanced, science-based approach to the job. He also said he will focus on reducing demand for illicit drugs in the United States â a sharp contrast from the Bush administration's focus on intercepting drugs as they cross the border and punishing drug crimes.
I like the sound of that, but I haven't seen any evidence that Kerlikowske won't be supporting aggressive interdiction programs and harsh sentences. Regardless, there are a few reasons to feel optimistic that he will represent a departure from the blind arrogance and aggression of his predecessors.
Former Seattle Police Chief and LEAP member Norm Stamper has a terrific open letter to Kerlikowske.
The Drug Czar's Office Doesn't Know What to Say About Marijuana
Ever since Obama's awful attempt to duck the marijuana legalization debate last week, it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the issue of marijuana reform is a major challenge for the new administration. They aren't ready to endorse legalization, but they're equally intimidated by the rapidly growing movement to reform marijuana laws.
Another example is found at the drug czar's blog, which posted the video of Obama's statement, yet withheld any further comment on the matter. It 's a subtle, yet profound departure from the way this blog was run during the previous administration. Every post related to marijuana ended with, "Click here to learn more about how marijuana is highly f#$king toxic."
I can't prove that, though, because they deleted everything when Obama took office (which just further demonstrates that the new ONDCP is a very different creature). Considering that ONDCP's charter mandates opposition to drug policy reform efforts, their failure to actually even applaud Obama's statement against marijuana legalization is remarkably tame. Â
It almost feels like we're running out of people to argue with.
Another example is found at the drug czar's blog, which posted the video of Obama's statement, yet withheld any further comment on the matter. It 's a subtle, yet profound departure from the way this blog was run during the previous administration. Every post related to marijuana ended with, "Click here to learn more about how marijuana is highly f#$king toxic."
I can't prove that, though, because they deleted everything when Obama took office (which just further demonstrates that the new ONDCP is a very different creature). Considering that ONDCP's charter mandates opposition to drug policy reform efforts, their failure to actually even applaud Obama's statement against marijuana legalization is remarkably tame. Â
It almost feels like we're running out of people to argue with.
New Drug Czar Appointed, Makes Ridiculous Remark
At his nomination announcement yesterday, drug czar appointee Gil Kerlikowske got his first chance to practice saying stuff that makes no sense:
For too long, we have operated, as the Vice President said, in silence when it comes to making our country drug free and reducing the demand for drugs. [NYT]
Oh, crap. He said "drug free." He's one of those people. I mean, honestly, since when is there a shortage of proud prohibitionists proclaiming important progress at every opportunity? If there was ever a moment when no one was yelling about making the country drug free, somebody should have told me so I could bask in it.
Other things worth noting about the drug czar appointment:
*The position has been downgraded from cabinet status. Interesting, but thatâs the way it was before Bush, so not a huge deal.
*The nomination announcement was made by Joe Biden, who carried on about his work on drug policy. Not encouraging.
*Joe Biden says the drug czarâs office "hasn't gotten the attention that it should have,â which I think means he wants the new drug czar to be more visible than in the past. Sounds potentially annoying.
All of this serves to remind us that the drug war doctrine still rules in D.C., but I donât think our cautious optimism about the new drug czar is misplaced. New opponents have taken the stage and we will challenge them as we did their predecessors. The reform argument is gaining a lot of momentum this year and the new administration will face unprecedented pressure to acknowledge fundamental flaws in our drug policy. Stay tuned.