Ethan Nadelmann
- DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy
Join us on Pete's couch.
Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to: Recent Comments
on Anti-marijuana quack Dave Weldon to take over CDC: “I strongly disagree with Servetus’ statement about Dave Weldon. His views on marijuana are not only outdated but also harmful…” Dec 17, 07:40
on Anti-marijuana quack Dave Weldon to take over CDC: “Brain volume changes seen in opioid users: 10-Dec-2024 — OAK BROOK, Ill. – Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine…” Dec 12, 22:14
on Anti-marijuana quack Dave Weldon to take over CDC: “If you thought Bondi and Weldon are bad, I know plenty of Louisiana politicians in both parties who are even…” Dec 6, 11:26
As long as the focus remains on medical marijuana, I don’t think we can win either.
Exactly, because focusing on “medical marijuana” plays in to the popular notion that drug use is wrong absent some excuse. Usually people try to make medical or, in a few cases, spiritual excuses (like the UDV Church in Oregon). But doctors and priests are not the ones with “sovereignty” over our bodies – we are.
Agree.
While I am a legal medical marijuana patient I will not support any medical marijuana movements again.
What I will support is Full Blown Legalization. Ending Prohibition Now.
Well it’s better than total prohibition even though it’s still based on a bad philosophy.
If marijuana is safer than alcohol, then lets act like it. Are children traumatized or killed due to alcohol-related family violence less important than medical marijuana patients? It was the suffering caused by alcohol-related family violence that greatly contributed to Alcohol Prohibition! Marijuana policy reform is not just about individual sovereignty, it’s about families and communities too.
We need to elevate the debate. Sadly, I don’t see that happening. And the sovereignty argument, while it is the crux of the biscuit, does not resonate well as a strategy. It allows organized religion, which is almost solely responsible for drug prohibition to begin with, to keep God in the equation as the true owner of our bodies. And you know what they say about the prospects of arguing with a sick mind…
Better to focus on the more sectarian-resistant policies of crime reduction, fiscal responsibility and the lessons learned from alcohol prohibition. The American public is ready and able to have an adult conversation about fundamental changes to drug policy. For our drug policy reform leaders to believe otherwise, and they do, is an insult to our collective intelligence and the primary reason reform has fared so poorly.
the sovereignty angle remains important as it not only is the fundamental right without which there can be no other rights, but also because it really does resonate with a lot of folks who can easily get motivated by the concept. as to the religionists, i always like to remind them to read their bibles and explain how they can be successful at ordering humans not to use plants, when god almighty appears to have failed at the task.
you are absolutely correct though that the entire dialog needs to be elevated, and that the “leaders” have no interest in putting themselves out of work.
and i thought the crux of the biscuit was the apostrophe
Well, Brian, we rarely disagree – but this is one time. Sovereignty works for those already on the bus, not so much for those sitting on the bench at the bus stop. I agree it is the fundamental argument, just that it is not the best one for the bench sitters. And as to the religionists, the whole “if God can’t make me stop, how can you” argument works about as well as the “we are all God’s creatures and God doesn’t make mistakes” one in discussing any form of sexuality other than hetero.
But I do like your thinking on biscuits…
i did not intend to imply that the sovereignty angle was the “best” one for any particular purpose — it is merely one of many weapons we can utilize depending upon whom we are addressing and the context of a given argument.
there is no single point that wins the day — rather, there are thousands of them, which when threaded together in various ways utterly annihilate the opposition.
we have a shit load of tools and we need to make use of all of them.
Question, is that law firm Covington & Burling, with its attorney “assigned primary responsibility for advising the [drug policy] Foundation”, not only the long standing firm for the cigarette industry, and Eric Holder’s previous place of employment, but as well as that handling the pharmaceuticalization of MJ?
http://freedomofmedicineanddiet.blogspot.com/2009/01/holder-breuer.html
Nadelmann speaks for me on this, that’s for sure. Above and beyond all other reasons, what I or anyone else does with their body is their own damn business, so long as they are harming nobody else. And I deeply resent anyone who thinks they have a right to tell me how to live.
Of course, the rest of the arguments are mostly harm reduction arguments, and I firmly believe in them as well. I don’t want to see more people get hurt in this endless war, and I don’t want to see millions of lives blighted by prison time, missing fathers, and criminal records.
I’m also horrified by the damage done to civil liberties both in America and around the world and the growth of the international Security State.
I want it all to end as soon as possible. I support any effort to reduce the harms of the drug war, to end the drug war, and to restore lost freedom.
Yes Paul I totally agree with everything you are saying in you post above, about wanting all to end as soon as possible and to restore lost freedom, its exasperating I feel numb like screaming and crying til exhaustion I am beyond ashamed and sad for this country,happen to stumble upon DR.DREW SHOW tonight while caught it in middle railing about whole town lost to Pill Mills and dead kids Ok, AND Lindsey Lohan but during conversation did not see many concrete solutions offered oh of course he probably wants you to purchase his book I guess. Everyone has a book now. that’s fine.whatever.
Anyway in the meantime elderly woman from Montana gets rid of most of her opiates yeah does not become an addict just suffer from lots of ailments some much meds leave her a zombie then trys Marijuana and Hello she is off her meds, a lung condition prevents her from smoking it so she consumes in liquid form but Montana has suspended there MEDICAL program HAS IT NOT OR SEVERELY RESTRICTED IT BY I believe it in link below and grandma well you know back to be a Zombie yeah this America well Dr. FUCKING drew AND THE rest of the brain dead soulless folks out there.
I guess enough of this bullshit Cannabis needs to be legal now, enough already.They the Prohibs whine about the whole damn country going to hell everyone becoming an addict then when someone finds safe alternative they ignore it you people are insane you have brought this destruction upon this country karma will bit you in ass someday I only hope.
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/12554990/medical-marijuana-works-miracles-says-smoking-granny?redirected=true
.
.
Dr. Drew is another clown that severely tests my dedication to being a pacifist. I would definitely subscribe to the pay per view event of him getting the tar beaten out of his worthless ass. Please don’t kill him boys, this is too much fun! Let’s do this again next week! Lather, rinse, repeat.
The drug war is just on aspect of my focus, which is the restoration of our unalienable rights and a serious reduction in the size and scope of government at all levels. As someone else pointed out, the right to ownership of one’s body is the basic right from which all other rights are derived. If I don’t own my body, freedom is a myth. Our government has become tyrannical in an attempt to protect people from themselves:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” -Thomas Jefferson
“It is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil.” — Fredrich von Hayek, Nobel Laureate in Economics, from “The Constitution of Liberty”
As for prohibition not working when “God” tried it:
“Prohibition didn’t work in the Garden of Eden. Adam ate the apple.” -Vincente Fox
Additionally, a religious argument can be made that cannabis use is authorized by “God” when he told his followers in Genesis, that he gave to humanity all the herbs and plants that make seed. I am not religious (I think religion is responsible for more harm in the world than any other single thing), but I use those arguments when speaking with those who are religious.
.
.
Well, “a religious argument can be made that cannabis use is authorized by ‘God'” unless cannabis is actually the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. You might even tempt me into reconsidering my dedicated atheism if that could be established. It actually would explain the widespread hatred of cannabis among humans.
Duncan, there is an argument that cannabis is one of the holy herbs used in the anointing oil with which they anointed Jesus, and other special people of the day. I can’t relay the argument here without looking it up as I am not a Christian or biblical scholar, but the translation of one ingredient for that oil appears to be cannabis. I have heard that many argue it was also an ingredient in the incense of the early Catholic church services.
Not the Tree of Knowledge or so called Tree of Good and Evil, that was probably Pomegranate. Representing human education and words and religion. Threats to God if used the wrong way. As in nukes and governments and corporations. Ganja or “Kne Bossem” (silent “m”) is the Tree of Life. Never prohibited. Its also used in the incense, so either Jesus held his breath 3 days in the temple or he inhaled.
Tree of Life
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Rev.22 [2]
And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Gen.2 [9]
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen.3 [22]
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
[24]
She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.
Prov.3 [18]
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise.
Prov.11 [30]
They shall have the tree of life for an ointment of sweet savour;
they shall neither labour, nor be weary.
4Ezra.2 [12]
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;
To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Rev.2 [7]
Blasphemy
“Kne Bossem” (which is the biblical term for Hemp) was founded in 1994. Its goals are lobbying for lucid approaches towards hemp specifically, and towards drug policy in general. Kne Bossem appears in the media often, and even made the Israeli Parliament (knesset) appoint a committee (14 members, one of them was Shlomi Sandak) that recommended various changes in drug policy. The conclusions of this formal parliament-appointed committee where bluntly ignored however.
Christ and Cannabis, Jesus Used Cannabis
The ancient recipe for this anointing oil, recorded in the Old Testament book of Exodus (30: 22-23) included over nine pounds of flowering cannabis tops, Hebrew “kaneh-bosm” B, extracted into a hind (about 6.5 litres) of olive oil, along with a variety of other herbs and spices. The ancient chosen ones were literally drenched in this potent cannabis holy oil.
Cannabis in the Old Testament
“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus
by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin,
will be classed with the fable of the generation of
Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
— Thomas Jefferson, – 1823
People who don’t believe people have a right to use drugs are psychologically abusing people who use drugs. It is true that drug use does affect people other than the user, and that there does indeed have to be a consideration of others when it comes to taking drugs, but too much is made of users supposedly always hurting other people and hardly anyone sees the harm being done against the user by those around her/him who don’t approve of drug use.
I heard the other day a couple fighting over a child where he apparently took pills away from her and kept repeating “are the pills more important than the kids? are the pills more important than the kids?” Anyway, they both knew everyone around the area could hear them screaming at each other, and I could tell they were trying to portray each other as badly as possible. But the point is that this is just a divorced couple who obviously have an intense psychological/social-portrayal battle with one another, and they’re both pretty ruthless. People fuck with each other’s heads. That’s the way people are. More often than not, to some degree or another, when someone uses the “you’re a drug user” tactic, they’re just trying to fuck with the other person’s head or get some social power over the person. That’s what the drug war is on a grand scale, a big psychological battle over control. It frustrates me that, as obvious as that is, the majority of the population doesn’t seem to see it. They think it’s about “oh, well, you know… you don’t want to promote drug use, so that’s why we make it illegal…”
Imagine you were eating a hamburger and I sat next to you telling you were a fat loser who was going to die of a heart attack and cost other people money by increasing the cost of health insurance. You would know very clearly that that was not about helping you be more aware and helping you make better decisions. You would know very clearly that that was psychological abuse. When it’s hamburgers it’s more obvious, but when it comes to drugs, people don’t fucking see it. It’s abuse.
.
.
Were you aware that if tobacco were to disappear without a trace that total health care costs of the US population would increase by 7% for men and 4% for women? At least according to an article published in the NEJM in 1997:
http://www.sfu.ca/media-lab/archive/2011/428_spring/resources/smoking%20costs/NEJM%20Cost%20of%20Smoking%201997.pdf
Most people don’t understand that a significantly large percentage of lifetime health care costs are incurred in the last two weeks of life, and that it doesn’t matter if you die at 5, 50, or 100 you’re likely going to incur those costs if you become deceased.
Now before anyone yells at me please remember this is only one side of the ledger. Lifetime earnings are most certainly lower for someone that dies at 50 vs someone dying at 75.
But Is “it” aware the chemical companies escaped scrutiny for their responsibility because people like you keep blaming the “tobacco”? Tobacco has been used without harm for thousands of years by Indians, Europeans and even grown by our very own forefathers with no recorded harm. Not until the same prohibitionists fossil fools and chemicals started adulterating the tobacco with flame retardants and burn enhancers called “cigarettes” that fools simply crawl into their denialists box and avoid. Keep pushing this same basic reefer madness only switching it to tobacco. Liars. Same lies and bait and switch comparing Ganja to “cigarettes” when Ganja is also organic. Is it any wonder why I think this joke is a nark?
Organic Cannabis/Tobacco vs Chemical Cigarettes
Just for the record, I just want to say that i don’t think i explained what i was trying to say very well. The hamburger example is incomplete because hamburgers don’t have a very significant impact on behavior. Plus, i’m not trying to say that there should be laws protecting drug users in any special way. Indeed if someone despises me, then let them treat me so as long as they don’t concretely violate my rights. And if someone with whom I have a relationship wants to change me, then let them have the freedom to do so. But I do want it to be recognized, on a socio-cultural level, that in any relationship in which a drug user is involved, there are two people harming each other, not just a drug user harming a non-drug user.
I think all people harm each other. Let me explain. I think there is a quasi-telepathic relationship between all people (not literally telepathic, even though i’m open to the possibility that telepathy exists, but that’s not what i’m talking about here). If two people are sitting quietly in a room, they will be affecting each other’s minds and emotions. In fact, they’ll even affect each other’s bodies, like their breathing, etc. If someone has a psychological imperfection (if you can call it that, considering that there is no such thing as perfection (there is not even a consensus on what perfection would mean (other than, I guess, to not resemble anything on the dsm-iv tr (but who decides that you don’t if one psychiatrist differs from another and no psychiatrists knows you like other people know you, no one knows you like you know yourself, and you don’t know yourself like others know you)))), then that psychological imperfection will adversely impact the other person. There will also be a benefit to the other person from whatever psychological good the other person has. And all without either saying a single word. In fact, even if someone is no longer physically present, like a post-hypnotic suggestion, they will still affect you. So everyone you’ve ever seen or heard is affecting you right now somehow, for the better and for the worse. So obviously, if a person uses drugs, then everyone they come into contact with (and many other people, if not everyone in the world), will ultimately be affected. But drug users use drugs because they find something good in them, and there might be. And that might be helping other people. And if someone doesn’t use drugs, they still have psychological imperfections and they will be adversely impacting others. Anyway, the point is made. We all affect each other, and we’re all just people. To say that some of us have to be called criminals on the sole basis that there is some kind of adverse psychological impact that we may be having on those around us, is unfair. If there is an action or series of actions that concretely violates someone else’s rights, then that action is probably already covered by some other law.
Now, that is not to say that i’m not open to some strict regulations on drug use (like the possibility of losing custody of your kids in the worst of cases), but the fundamental idea that i have the right to get high because it’s my mind, even though that affects other people, has to be recognized. It is one of, if not the, core principles that have to be recognized if we are ever going to substantially improve our drug laws.
In fact, if we all live in a sea of consciousness, then a person’s right to control his/her individual consciousness is not only a right in and of itself, but it is also free speech.
When it comes to “harm”, the only legitimate (Constitutional) form of harm to be considered as criminal is (or should be) the commission of some kind of violation of someone’s unalienable rights — murder, assault (including rape), unlawful imprisonment (including kidnapping), fraud, theft, or property damage. When you try to include emotional and/or psychological harm is when you get into problems with government overreach and begin building a police state.
Unfortunately, the police state in this nation is already built and operational, thanks mainly to government overreach in interpreting the use of certain drugs as “harmful to society”.
I waited too long to edit my previous comment, I should have added that the use of a so-called illicit drug does not rise to the Constitutional definition of a crime.
I don’t think most parent(s) who worked hard raising their kids for the past 17 years so they will be successful, productive citizens are going to be sympathetic to the “right to get high” argument. However, they will be sympathetic to addicted person’s right to be treated with dignity and compassion in a manner similar to alcoholics and nicotine addicts, and not have police and jailhouses treat them like trash. Perhaps we need more YouTube documentaries showing how addicts are abused by police and jailhouses, because often times the general public sees the criminal justice system as compassionate interventionists.
.
.
I think a better idea would be to get the ignorant Know Nothings to accept that use is not always abuse. It’s one of the more far fetched conclusions that is prevalent among the ranks of the Know Nothing prohibitionists. It is apparent that they believe there are only 2 kinds of human relationships with cannabis, either total abstinence or stoned 24/7/365. That conclusion is so out in left field that it’s out of the ballpark stupidity. If someone believes that everyone who enjoys cannabis spends every waking minute stoned and/or longing and looking for cannabis, then you’re clueless. It really is that simple.
I have no clue where you are finding “a right to get high” argument. That sure looks like a straw man to me and beating the stuffing out of a straw man only impresses those that do so and their sycophants. The argument to which I subscribe is the natural born right to equal protection under the law that’s protected by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. If the government is going to protect me against the perceived negatives of enjoying cannabis, then they most certainly have a duty to protect me from the consequences of becoming a degenerate addict who prefers drinking alcohol. There simply is no valid argument that cannabis has anywhere near the deleterious effects of drinking alcohol. The fact that some people drink beer at the football game or have a hobby of swish and spit wine tasting is wholly irrelevant. It’s simply heinous that there are those who would put me at risk of becoming a drunken stumblebum because they want a glass of wine at dinner. If they’re not getting high then it won’t be much of an imposition compared to sentencing me to life as a wino. I wonder, are there really people who believe there are people who drink Mad Dog 20/20 or Night Train for any reason other than getting high? Yes? Shirley, you jest.
Aside from all that the laws simply do not bring anything resembling the results that the Know Nothings claim. Even a morally bankrupt ends justifies the means argument fails for the Know Nothing’s position on the subject because there has to be at least some possibility that the intended ends are being or possibly could be reached. Go invent a perpetual motion energy generator, you’ve about the same chance of success.
If you read the article from Treatment Magazine, please discount Mr. Califano’s claim of $140 billion in annual drinking alcohol costs because the accounting methods required to get to that figure would make a former Enron accountant blush. He’d be lucky to break $10 billion without counting all the non-cash expenses that go into reaching that absurd sum.
Synonyms for the word sycophant:
toady, yes man, flunky, fawner, flatterer.
They might not be sympathetic to the argument, but they’d be more open to it if they had some guarantees that there would be regulations on advertising drugs the way there is with tobacco. Also, if they could get reassurance that access to hard drugs would be somewhat restricted despite it being legal (one idea, for example, is some kind of license to get more access to drugs, like after passing a test on the effects of a drug (not that this following thing would be part of what would appease concerned parents, but just to explain the idea clearly: anyone after a certain age would be able to use any drug under medical supervision, but they wouldn’t be able to take it home unless they passed the test.) Anyway, the point is that as more concrete ideas about regulations are discussed, and as those parents participate in the discussion, parents’ concerns could be addressed. After that, the fundamental idea of a right to get high would be less threatening.
“Synonyms for the word sycophant:
toady, yes man, flunky, fawner, flatterer”
or “Good Old Boy” or “Jolly Good Fellow” who passed the fraternal initiation interview to be most agreeable to concepts such as “2+2=5″ or ‘white is black and black is white when we say so”
Ethan’s sovereignty argument also implies a “right to get high” argument as long as you are not harming anyone else. In any case, I was referring to persons with serious addiction (heroin, crack, speed, etc.) and that you will get more support from the public if the messaging is focused on compassion and dignity for persons with medical problems, such as nicotine or heroin addiction, than trying to justify the problems. Moreover, 14th amendment does not entitle you to government protection from yourself or others, unless you are in their custody, and it’s the arbitrary and discriminating use of the Commerce Clause that provides the legal basis for the government’s effort to create a “drug-free” environment that favors the alcohol industry.
“the messaging is focused on compassion and dignity for persons with medical problems”
I agree that that is a better way to get people to listen, but once they’re listening it only gets us so far (and not necessarily that far at all). In the context of the drug war, not emphasizing sovereignty (indeed the right to get high), and focusing solely on the aspect of compassion, is like saying that not putting someone in jail is compassion.
.
.
You missed the entire point in my 14th Amendment example and also decided to rewrite it for a straw man to pummel into submission. The primary reason given for keeping (some) drugs illegal is to keep people from becoming addicts. If that’s true, I most certainly am entitled to the protection of the law from drinking alcohol, and it is most certainly is an issue of equal protection of the law protected by the 14th Amendment.
Equal protection under the law does not protect a right to anything except equal protection. If the reason for (some) drugs prohibition isn’t to protect people from harm then we can lay to rest all of the hysterical rhetoric about cannabis being bad, mmm-kay?
I’m really not sure where the heck you get the notion that the 14th Amendment applies only to people in government custody. That assertion is absurd on its face. One of the primary goals of the 14th Amendment was to keep States from setting up a separate set of laws, particularly Jim Crow laws like the Grandfather clauses and laws designed to keep the newly emancipated people who were slaves before the passage of the 13th Amendment from being eligible to vote.
Hmm, perhaps you were referring to some other 14th Amendment? In any event it’s absurd to defend a plainly failed public policy like that which we call the war on (some) drugs. Regardless of your perception of certain substances it’s just not arguable that absolute prohibition has failed, and failed miserably. You really don’t have the luxury of your morally bankrupt “end justifies the means” claim because that which you claim is needed does not lead to the end you claim is the goal.
The choices are not between summary execution of anyone thought to have (some) or allowing the sales reps from the heroin factory to set up promotional displays in the lobbies of elementary schools. We can do much better under a set of regulations which do not include the guaranteed failure of absolute prohibition. We needn’t suffer advertised heroin sold to the public like groceries, but it makes no sense to continue claiming that absolute prohibition is anything other than an epic failure as far as our society is concerned.
“I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable”
~ Alexander Shulgin, PhD, Chemist and author,
at the DPF Conference, November 1996
Sovereignty? Under Fascism = The sovereign rights of Corporations to exploit.
The Ganjawar Comes to the The Rez – 12/19/03
When Alex White Plume planted a field full of industrial-grade hemp, he hoped that his crop might lift his family and community out of poverty. Then the DEA came to Pine Ridge.
The sovereignty enjoyed by Indian nations in the United States is inherent to the Indian tribes. This means that the Creator granted sovereignty to the tribes, not the federal government or the Congress.The federal government has acknowledged the inherent nature of tribal sovereignty in the U. S. Constitution.
“During the past years, many North American Indigenous communities and tribes have demonstrated unmet needs and concerns with unsustainable mining practices on and near Indigenous lands within North America. ”
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oct. 25, 2001
“The elders and national council of IEN approved the development of an education campaign that would educate … on how U.S. President Bush’s Energy Policy and Plan would affect Native peoples … Historically, U.S. energy policies have been at the expense of Native peoples and our tribes.
“We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
~ Abraham Lincoln
Sovereign Canada, Mexico and now the Dutch buckle to the DEAth threats…
Dutch Government to Ban Tourists From Cannabis Shops
The Dutch government on Friday said it would start banning tourists from buying cannabis from “coffee shops” and impose restrictions on Dutch customers by the end of the year.
Losing the Mexican Drug War may be better than winning… linx&pix
Canada’s Supremes Cower Under DEAth Threats
“We have great respect for Canada and Britain as well, and if they start shifting policies with regards to marijuana, it simply increases the rumblings in this country that we ought to re-examine our policy.â€
– Asa Hutchinson
FBI Targeting Political Activists as Terrorists
Bill Quigley: Over Two Thousand Six Hundred Activists Arrested in US Protests
Thank you for your letter about funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy in 2011. It is helpful for me to hear your feedback, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. I also apologize for the delay in my response.
Drug abuse continues to be a very serious problem in the United States. I have seen the tragedy that drug abuse causes in the lives of the addicted and their families, and the devastation drugs can inflict on a community. For this reason, I support the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which is responsible for streamlining and directing the nation’s counterdrug efforts.
Since the start of the Obama Administration, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has made it a goal to reduce illegal drug use through prevention, treatment, and interdiction programs. The Office’s National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has proved to be an effective tool in informing America’s youth about the dangers of drug use. In terms of treatment, the Office supports programs that provide long-term, effective treatment for addiction, as well as programs to help recovering addicts reintegrate into society. Finally, the Office has a critical law enforcement function with the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, which coordinates and provides resources for state and local drug task forces to disrupt or break up drug trafficking organizations. In 2010, under this program, law enforcement officers took $31 billion in illicit drugs off the streets and seized $298 million in cash and other assets obtained through illegal means.
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 1 on February 19, 2011, which would have set spending levels for Fiscal Year 2011 at $63 billion below current spending levels. To be clear, Representatives Jared Polis (D-CO) and Ron Paul (R-TX) did not offer an amendment to this legislation to eliminate funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. On March 9, 2011, the Senate voted on and rejected H.R. 1.
After much debate, the House and Senate were able to work together to reach a compromise on this year’s spending level. On April 15, 2011, President Obama signed into law a bill to fund the federal government through the duration of Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 112-010). This legislation includes a total of about $406 million for the Office of National Drug Control Policy. This is a decrease from the enacted 2010 funding level of about $428 million.
Once again, thank you for your letter. While we may have different points of view on this policy issue, it is helpful for me to hear your views. Should you have additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my staff in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
senator@feinstein.senate.gov
GRIEVING PARENTS: LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS
Re: Heroin That Goes Far Beyond Junk, Joe O’Connor, May 13.
As grieving parents of a son who died at age 19 in 1993 after
ingesting some street heroin, may we offer our comments? When America
prohibited alcohol, thousands were poisoned by adulterated market
booze. When alcohol was legalized again, those incidents were
drastically reduced.
Today, our children are dying because of adulterated black market
drugs. The carnage will end only when we come to our senses and allow
users once again to purchase clean, cheap, quality-tested drugs at
the corner store just as tobacco users now do.
Let’s finish the job we started when we ended alcohol prohibition,
follow the principles enshrined in the Charter and legalize all drugs.
Eleanor and Alan Randell, Victoria.
Pubdate: Tue, 17 May 2011
Source: National Post (Canada)
MJ Lawsuit Overrides People’s Will, Supporters Say
Backers of medical marijuana charge that a federal lawsuit filed late Friday is designed to let the governor and the attorney general do in court what they could not convince voters to do: keep the use of the drug illegal in Arizona.