U.S. drug czar calls for end to "war on drugs"

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
U.S. drug czar calls for end to "war on drugs"

(But don't expect him to legalize ANYTHING!)

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55750K20090608


By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration's top drug cop plans to spend more money on treating addiction and scale down the "war on drugs" rhetoric as part of an overhaul of U.S. counternarcotics strategy.

But don't expect the White House to consider legalizing marijuana, drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said on Friday.

"The discussion about legalization is not a part of the president's vocabulary under any circumstances and it's not a part of mine," Kerlikowske said in a telephone interview.

As head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Kerlikowske coordinates the efforts of 32 government agencies to limit illicit drug use.

He has been in office less than a month, but the Obama administration has already taken a less confrontational approach to the nation's 35 million illegal drug users.

The FBI is no longer raiding state-approved facilities that distribute marijuana for medical purposes, and the White House has told Congress to eliminate the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine.

Kerlikowske said he hopes to ditch the chest-thumping military rhetoric at the center of U.S. policy since President Nixon first declared a "war on drugs" 40 years ago.

"We should stop using the metaphor about the war on drugs," said Kerlikowske, a career police officer who headed the Justice Department's community-policing initiative under President Clinton. "People look at it as a war on them, and frankly we're not at war with the people of this country."

Nevertheless, Kerlikowske also plans to disrupt trafficking across the Mexican border through a new focus on the guns and cash that travel south, as well as the drugs coming north.

U.S. drug policy has been criticized for focusing too much on fighting supplies from Colombia and other countries in South America and not enough on curbing demand at home, the world's largest drug market.

BALANCING THE APPROACH

Kerlikowske said a more balanced approach was needed, with greater emphasis on treatment programs, especially in prisons.

"It's clear that if they go to prison and they have a drug problem and you don't treat it and they return ... to the same neighborhood from whence they came that you are going to have the same problem," he said. "Quite frankly people in neighborhoods, police officers, et cetera, are tired of recycling the problem. Let's try and fix it."

Obama, who described youthful marijuana and cocaine use in his autobiography, has proposed a budget for the fiscal year starting in October that boosts funding for substance abuse programs by 4 percent to $3.6 billion.

Needle exchanges for intravenous drug users, now banned at the federal level, will be considered a healthcare issue, he said.

As Seattle police chief, Kerlikowske worked in a city that ran a needle-exchange program, celebrates an annual "Hempfest" that draws tens of thousands of marijuana smokers, and passed a referendum that made enforcing marijuana laws the department's lowest priority.

Other state and local governments have loosened their marijuana laws as well. Medical marijuana is now legal in 13 states, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month welcomed a public debate about proposals to legalize and tax the drug.

While that's not going to happen on the federal level, Kerlikowske suggested the government should devote less effort to prosecuting nonviolent drug users.

"We have finite resources," he said. "We need to devote those finite resources toward those people who are the most dangerous to the community."
 
I couldnt believe the title, and i was glad for the added subtitle, but overall this seems to be a small step in the right direction.
 
The title is very misleading. So the article actually says the war on drugs is continuing, but under a different name. The feds will still put you in prison but you will have drug treatment. (What if you don't want drug treatment?) Finally, the article says they want to stop guns from going south (so you can expect more infringement of your 2nd and 4th Amendment rights).
 
The title is very misleading.

Yes and no.

The entire "War on Drugs" is a total scam, a hoax, an excuse to wage war on the undesirables, as many of us are aware.
If they do away with the name, that is one significant victory for the good guys.
The name shows something about the mentality of the government.
Without the name, there is a chance - though it is only a chance - that real progress will be made toward the legalization of freedom.
 
Yes and no.

The entire "War on Drugs" is a total scam, a hoax, an excuse to wage war on the undesirables, as many of us are aware.
If they do away with the name, that is one significant victory for the good guys.
The name shows something about the mentality of the government.
Without the name, there is a chance - though it is only a chance - that real progress will be made toward the legalization of freedom.

I disagree. A good analogy is the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church had grown so corrupt and totalitarian that it was on the verge of popular revolt; but the watered down, anti-corruption 'feelgoodism' of Martin Luther simply watered down the extremist fundamentalism of Christianity and preserved it for another several centuries.

Same thing with these changes in rhetoric and mild, unsubstantial reforms. Those black crack offenders who are serving 25 years for three rocks aren't going to get back the last 20 years of their lives, even if they are all retroactively set free. In NYC, those Heroin addicts sentanced under the Rockafeller laws sentanced to 15-life for 5 bags of dope aren't going to get their lost years back either.

As Huaca points out, they are still going to be throwing casual users and addicts in jail for simple possession for years, and still throwing away billions of dollars on proxy wars fought in 'source countries', dumping herbicides and blighting large swaths of peasant land that won't be tillable for a dozen millenia.

This administration is saving the War On Drugs by toning down its visibility and most egregious violatons. Just like Martin Luther preserved the dominance of Christiniaty.
 
Those black crack offenders who are serving 25 years for three rocks aren't going to get back the last 20 years of their lives, even if they are all retroactively set free. In NYC, those Heroin addicts sentanced under the Rockafeller laws sentanced to 15-life for 5 bags of dope aren't going to get their lost years back either.

As Huaca points out, they are still going to be throwing casual users and addicts in jail for simple possession for years, and still throwing away billions of dollars on proxy wars fought in 'source countries', dumping herbicides and blighting large swaths of peasant land that won't be tillable for a dozen millenia.

So true. But were you hoping for a total repeal of our (draconian) drug laws with Obama? That would be ideal, of course, but it seems very unrealistic. Obama is a party-man, who won't create any real change, it seems (despite the zen-like simplicity of his hollow rhetoric claiming otherwise).

This administration is saving the War On Drugs by toning down its visibility and most egregious violatons. Just like Martin Luther preserved the dominance of Christiniaty.

This could be true, I fear, though I am not yet convinced that this is their real goal. What I am encouraged by is the end of the most egregious violations and of the ridiculous name - "The War on Drugs" - itself.

I started a thread a while back about the topic of this name, and I will quote from it here:

------------------------------------------
"How can we win the war on drugs?
We can win, but we need to change something more important than laws – something that will lead to changes in all of the important laws, but something deeper than law. We need to change the way that people think.

I believe that our biggest problem is with the way that the entire situation is framed, or portrayed – the perspective hidden in the words used to talk about it. The way it is talked about gives us the short end of the stick right from the beginning.

If we are going to enlighten the closed-minded to the facts that people should have the freedom to expand their own consciousness, we need to take the debate and “untwist” it. The anti-drug people have controlled the debate since Harry Ainslinger in the 1920’s, and now we need to take it back.

For instance, take the question “How can we win the war on drugs?” This question assumes that someone can “win” such a “war”, which actually seems improbable, and it’s not entirely clear what winning would even mean. It also accepts the idea of a “war on drugs”, which is similar to the “war on terror” in that it is based on the false premise that we can fight something extremely abstract. You can’t have a war on drugs, unless you fight hand-to-stalk with the marijuana plant, and it fights back. The fight is not a “war,” which is typically a fight between two nation states, but it is a governmental action carried out primarily by the police against people who grow, make, distribute, and use drugs. Drugs, unlike a typical enemy against whom one would declare war, cannot “fight back”. Of course, the powers-that-be make use of the metaphor that the “damage drugs do to society” is their “attack”, but this is merely a metaphor. It is true that drugs negatively influence some people’s lives, but they also enrich some people’s lives. We should continually highlight the good that drugs do in society in order to counter this metaphorical attack. We need to gather and publicize the stories of people whose lives change for the better due to their drug use, which can be found on Erowid, for example.

There is a huge problem with the word “drugs”. It is typically used to mean something like “the chemicals (including plants) that induce a change in consciousness but are not registered to a pharmaceutical company, and that bad people utilize for their own pleasure, excluding foods and certain chemicals that have already made their way into the mainstream.” This is very bad for our side. If you asked 100 random people for their impression of a “drug-user”, a majority would give you a negative impression – even some of those who have used drugs, since they don’t see themselves as “drug-users”. This is not just due to the propaganda about drug-users, but also due to the negativity associated with the word “drugs”.

We need to change the negative associations with the word “drugs”, but it may already be too late. If we want to try to change this, we need to show people that the border between marijuana and LSD (etc.), on the one hand, and caffeine, sugar, and Prozac (etc.), on the other, is something artificial. We need to begin by
a) showing that other chemicals are very similar to what is more commonly known as “drugs” and
b) show that what are more commonly known as “drugs” are very similar to other chemicals.
In order to achieve (a), we need to try to make it commonplace to refer to things such as Prozac, alcohol, sugar, caffeine and tobacco as “drugs”. If you hear people using other terms for them, such as “medicine” or “food” or “my daily java”, you have a chance to correct this and re-frame it. I usually make a point of bringing conversations about caffeine addiction, for example, back to here.
In order to achieve (b), we need to make it commonplace to refer to marijuana and LSD (etc.) as “medicines” (or “consciousness expanders”, or some other term that highlights the benefits of these substances, or at least “chemicals”, which highlights what they have in common with Prozac and caffeine). This is more difficult to do without letting people know that we are “drug-users” (there’s that awful term), but it is equally important. To remain safe, we can use the word “chemicals”, which doesn’t reveal us to be “drug-users” but is effective in re-framing the picture.

If we can’t create a more neutral association with the word “drugs”, we should drop it and create or borrow a new word that has no negative association. I believe that we may already be in this boat, though the tactics discussed in the paragraph above certainly won’t hurt in getting people to think about drugs differently, even if we abandon the word “drugs”.
My vote is to use the word “chemical”, which is almost guaranteed to maintain a neutral meaning because of its association with chemistry and its meaning in that field. The main problem with it is that it is not “cool”, which may make the masses resistant to using it.

We need to change the way people talk about chemicals in order to change the way that they think about them.

Chemical lovers unite – take back the fight"
----------------


What is happening is that the way people are talking about chemicals is changing - slightly, I admit, but any change in this direction is good.

Now, it is a question of how the issue is re-framed. The Obamaites are rushing to re-frame it in some way that is advantageous for them, to be sure, but in the shuffle there is a real hope (in my mind) that some good change will occur.
 
The title is very misleading. So the article actually says the war on drugs is continuing, but under a different name. The feds will still put you in prison but you will have drug treatment. (What if you don't want drug treatment?) Finally, the article says they want to stop guns from going south (so you can expect more infringement of your 2nd and 4th Amendment rights).

Yeah, I always think about this, especially if you aren't addicted.

Whenever I read about drug arrests, it makes me sad (for them and our drug laws/enforcement). Like some have you have said, I doubt there will be much of a drug policy change in the next few years. MAYBE if Obama is re-elected, but even then I don't see anything happening.

I'm off to Portugal!
 
Also, I think eliminating mandatory minimums should be our priority. Why are we paying judges to enforce these laws when they can't exercise full judgement?

The fact that Obama did coke (yes, even once) makes me think he is a hypocrite for allowing people to be arrested for drug "crimes". Granted he can't overturn laws and force states to change theirs, but he should do something more.
 
Also, I think eliminating mandatory minimums should be our priority. Why are we paying judges to enforce these laws when they can't exercise full judgement?

The fact that Obama did coke (yes, even once) makes me think he is a hypocrite for allowing people to be arrested for drug "crimes". Granted he can't overturn laws and force states to change theirs, but he should do something more.

Yes, yes, yes!!
 
This is progress! You can't expect too radical a change in a 40 year drug policy to occur overnight. But this is very encouraging. You should write to your U.S. senators and congressmen supporting this change in our country's drug policy.
 
"The discussion about legalization is not a part of the president's vocabulary under any circumstances and it's not a part of mine," Kerlikowske said in a telephone interview.
IM sorry but on behalf of those suffering serious illnesses in which this clearly cures FUCK HIM. It seems Obama & the Drug czar were told to shut up & sit down on the issue since Big pharmaceutical seems to own them. You should known better then to take money from satan dawg.
 
You guys want everything now. With that attitude you wont get anything ever. Changing something sensitive like drug policy takes alot of time and it will only ever come about through slow baby steps. The US has been told since forever that drugs are evil and that opinion is believed by many. Any drastic change will cause problems and not get anywhere. Obama might even think legalising weed is a good idea but for him to say something like that would be political suicide. Its better for him to remain anti-drug yet impliment a few positive steps here and there.
 
Prohibition of alcohol was not ended with baby steps.

Unfortunately, I don't forsee the end of drug prohibition. The "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" are very convenient means for big government to control the populace. Perhaps after the elite billionaire class have acquired the world's wealth and their One World Government secures its rule of tyranny - then some drugs might be legalized to pacify the whole mass of mankind who have become slaves or serfs.
 
Unfortunately, I don't forsee the end of drug prohibition. The "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" are very convenient means for big government to control the populace.
yes
 
That's true. On December 5, 1933, the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment.

Why don't you start a campaign to repeal the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970? That's all it would take.

Prohibition of alcohol was not ended with baby steps
 
This administration is saving the War On Drugs by toning down its visibility and most egregious violatons. Just like Martin Luther preserved the dominance of Christiniaty.
while this could be true, i've noticed positive progress across the board in all sorts of areas. if that is indeed his goal, he is still helping to end the war on drugs by sending public consciousness in a particular direction, a less terrorized direction

i donno if i should conspiracy-theorize about the simultaneous positive events. i'm sure the government does plenty behind the scenes, maybe obama is influencing the public towards being able to accept abolishing the war on drugs, while previous presidents influenced the public in the other direction. such sheep the public ;)
 
Top