Drug WarRant

I know a lot of you are deeply disappointed that Obama didn’t suddenly shed all his skin, emerge from a cocoon as some new kind of species and suddenly proclaim, after devouring his press secretary, that the U.S. government should pursue legalization of all drugs.

Well it wasn’t going to happen. However, what did happen had some real value.

Seeing this headline at CBS Political Hotsheet ain’t bad:

Obama: Drugs Should be Treated as a Public Health Problem

However, acknowledging that the “war on drugs” has not been effective, Mr. Obama said he thinks of drugs as “more of a public health problem.”

And then, CBS reporter Stephanie Condon quoted the entire question from retired deputy sheriff MacKenzie Allen.

…

Los Angeles Times:

In his second sit-down with YouTube, Obama again learned that the most popular questions as voted on by users of the online video hub were about the legalization of marijuana.

“This is an entirely legitimate topic for debate,” Obama said after initially chuckling about the subject matter coming up again.

The question posed to the president specifically asked him whether all drugs should be legalized and regulated, “thereby doing away with the violent criminal market as well as a major source of funding for international terrorism.”

“I am not in favor of legalization,” Obama said in response. But he said he thinks Americans should look at drugs more as a public health problem than a legal issue.

It’s going to be a lot harder for Kerlikowske now that Obama has shown that “legalization” is in his vocabulary.

…

San Francisco Chronicle: Obama: Legalizing drugs a “legitimate” topic of debate

…

And over and over again in tomorrow’s media, you’ll likely see that excellent question from LEAP.

Not a bad day’s work. Good job on voting.

And I second Scott Morgan’s comment:

Let me begin by saying that the substance of the President’s answer is inconsequential insofar as nothing more than this could possibly have been expected. The greatest significance of today’s event lies in the fact that a pro-legalization police officer overwhelmingly won the popular vote on YouTube and compelled a response from the President of the United States. By acknowledging the legitimacy of this discussion, Obama helps us to dig an even deeper grave for the dying notion that there is anything frivolous or unserious about arguing for an end to the War on Drugs.

The banal pot-jokes and rank stereotyping that have often tainted mainstream discussion of the legalization movement have no place in this conversation, and the President’s words should serve to discredit those who’ve voiced distracting insults instead of potential solutions. Whatever else the President may put forward, his singular decision to accept and defend our advocacy as “entirely legitimate” is a leap forward, both for the discussion as a whole and for Obama himself.

I will address in a separate post the appropriate criticisms of his specific remarks (of which there are many), but let us not fail to find any promise in today’s events simply because we expect much more. This is a heroic accomplishment by our friends at LEAP and really the entire drug policy reform community, which has achieved blinding visibility in recent years and shattered the presumption of public deference that has long sheltered the drug war from mainstream opposition.

It now seems likely that President Obama will be asked to answer the top vote-getter at YouTube (today at 2:30 pm EST)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zbz9lnVbrwc

Here is my prediction of his non-answer (note that I waited to post this until shortly before so he couldn’t steal it!)

Thanks for your question, and for your valuable service to our Nation. I understand that the specifics of how we deal with the scourge of drugs and related violence can be a divisive issue. In the past, we have not focused enough on treatment and prevention, which is why my National Drug Control Strategy calls for a balanced approach to drug policy, and I’ve backed that up with a significant increase in funding for treatment efforts.

Hearing the concerns of the men and women in blue is important to me. As I talk to law enforcement groups around the country, they tell me about the horrific impact of drugs on the children in their communities, and it makes me even more certain that we cannot and will not surrender in this critical fight.

Note: This is not his answer. It’s my prediction of his answer.

Update:

Here it is. If you only listen to the first 11 words of his answer, it’s a great answer, and the best we could hope for…

President Obama: “Well, I think this is an entirely legitimate topic for debate.”

Here’s that version:

Here’s the actual full answer:

Over at the Drug Czar’s “blog,” the ONDCP has their own additional take on the State of the Union address.

Drug use affects millions of Americans and their families. Drug use and its consequences strain our economy, our healthcare and criminal justice systems, and harm the well-being of young people, service members and our Nation’s veterans. As we work together to address our Nation’s shared challenges, the health, well-being and stability of our citizens will be the basis for strengthening our economy and our country overall. A healthy and productive workforce will foster competitiveness and innovation within our neighborhoods, towns and communities. Prevention and treatment for substance abuse disorders, including drugs and alcohol, will ensure that our fellow citizens can contribute to our shared successes, and that America’s future generations will continue to lead the world in innovation and ingenuity.

It’s got some poetry, but it’s not quite in tune, so I thought I’d take a stab at it…

The drug war affects millions of Americans and their families. The drug war and its consequences strain our economy, our healthcare and criminal justice systems, cause worldwide violence and corruption, and harm the well-being of young people and our Nation’s veterans. As we work together to address our Nation’s shared challenges, the health, well-being and stability of our citizens will be the basis for strengthening our economy and our country overall. However, that cannot happen as long as we declare war on our own people, fill our prisons to capacity, and turn the safety and distribution of certain drugs over to criminal networks. Ending the drug war, restoring personal liberty, and providing help for those who need it will ensure that our fellow citizens can contribute to our shared successes, and that America’s future generations will continue to lead the world in innovation and ingenuity.

From an interview with the Texas Tribune

TT: You said in El Paso recently that decriminalization, or legalization of some illegal drugs is not an option, that is off the table. Why?

Kerlikowske: Well, one the administration’s stance is opposing legalization. When the president was a candidate, he opposed legalization. We don’t see any evidence that legalizing drugs and making them more widely available would be a help to anyone in this country.

Well gee, if you can’t see it, it just must not exist.

The second part is that, just from a common-sense standpoint, our No. 1 growing drug problem in the country, including fatalities, is prescription drugs. Well, prescription drugs are highly regulated, highly taxed, highly controlled, and yet we are completely incapable of keeping them out of the hands of kids, out of the hands of people abusing drugs and the evidence is very clear when it comes to fatalities and when it comes to emergency department visits.

No, that’s not common-sense. Making those prescription drugs illegal wouldn’t solve the problem of people abusing those drugs either. The issue isn’t whether legalization will end the drug problem. It won’t. We never said it would (although it’ll help in many ways). What it will do is end the drug war problem.

TT: A lot of people here in Texas say the United States is responsible for the bloodshed in Mexico. Can you be a little bit more specific on why legalization would not quell the violence in Mexico?

Kerlikowske: I think the RAND Corporation study not only says that legalizing drugs would not reduce the violence in Mexico but the chaos could actually increase the violence in Mexico.

RAND has put out some pretty ridiculous things regarding the drug war, but I don’t believe that even they came close to such an outrageous statement.

Just to show how ridiculous that statement it, let’s turn to Mark Kleiman. Kleiman and I disagree on an awful lot regarding drug policy, and quite strongly.

But in this recent post about the Border Patrol agent who was fired for saying that legalization would end the violence in Mexico, Mark clearly and correctly states:

If selling cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine were made legal, there would be no illegal business in smuggling them into the United States from Mexico. If that illegal business were to disappear, the level of violence in Mexico would fall. So much is elementary and not subject to dispute by any rational person.

Exactly. But then, the position of drug czar is not really a rational one.

The President gave a speech tonight. I missed it, cause I was watching season four of my boxed set of Farscape DVDs.

However, I did a quick search of key words in the prepared text:

• “Drug policy” – 0
• “Drug war” – 0
• “Marijuana” – 0
• “Cannabis” – 0
• “Hemp” – 0
• “Cocaine” – 0
• “Coca” – 0
• “Heroin” – 0
• “Legalization” – 0
• “Decriminalization” – 0
• “Prohibition” – 0
• “Mexico” – 0
• “Cartel” – 0
• “Bolivia” – 0
• “Prison” – 0
• “Incarceration” – 0
• “Mandatory minimums” – 0
• “SWAT” – 0
• “Drugs” – 1 (prescription drugs)
• “Afghanistan” – 1 (no talk of drugs)
• “Colombia” – 1 (trade)

Isn’t it nice to know that drug policy is such a small issue that it has no relevance to the state of the union?

Remember, the very last place to expect or look for action or even acknowledgment regarding drug policy reform is from the people who were gathered in the Capitol tonight.

It will come from you, from your friends, from your acquaintances, from you reaching out to ordinary people who will tell their friends.

A few days ago, I had a group of friends and acquaintances over to my house for a friendly gathering with good scotch and good cheese. At one point, I mentioned that I had some knowledge of drug policy, and for the next 30-40 minutes, we talked about the drug war. I told them about asset forfeiture and a host of other drug war atrocities, and they got angry. We still had a great time that evening, but there are now 10 more people who want to do something about this.

That’s how it’s done. Not by electing a President.

Via Phillip Smith comes this news in the Washington Post

Attorneys for Prince George’s County on Monday settled a lawsuit brought by Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo that accused deputies from a county sheriff’s SWAT unit of storming into his home without a proper warrant the day they shot his family’s two dogs and held him at gunpoint. […]

Calvo said he could not comment on the amount or other details of the settlement, which are being worked out.

However, he did say that the settlement will include reforms in the way county law enforcement officers conduct such operations. The reforms will involve such issues as how and when SWAT teams are deployed and the humane treatment of pets.

“We’re achieving reforms we were seeking,” Calvo said.

It’s already been discussed some here on the comment threads, but YouTube is once again collecting questions for the President.

Who knows what they’ll end up letting through, and who knows whether he’ll give a serious answer, but if you’re interested in the exercise, here’s the site.

One of the better questions is from LEAP:

As a police officer, I saw how waging the war on drugs has cost a trillion dollars and thousands of lives but does nothing to reduce drug use. Should we discuss legalizing marijuana and other drugs, which would eliminate the violent criminal market?

In the search box on the right, type in “as a police officer” and you should easily find this one, so you can vote favorably for it.

Feel free to check out any others about drug policy as well.

Note: there are some glitches (intentional?) in the search engine. Marijuana and cannabis come up with no valid questions, yet there are currently valid questions with those terms (search drug policy, for example, or just look at the most popular questions).

Domestic use of aerial drones by law enforcement likely to prompt privacy debate by Peter Finn in the Washington Post.

But by 2013, the FAA expects to have formulated new rules that would allow police across the country to routinely fly lightweight, unarmed drones up to 400 feet above the ground – high enough for them to be largely invisible eyes in the sky.

Such technology could allow police to record the activities of the public below with high-resolution, infrared and thermal-imaging cameras.

Obviously, there are significant privacy issues involved here (as well as safety issues). The article does a pretty good job of covering them.

Here’s what some of the drones look like.

This bold satire by the Onion News Network hits home in funny and disturbing ways, particularly given the inherent racism often present in the drug war.

Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried As Black Adult

In the U.S.

Former Border Patrol agent sues over firing

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit for a former Border Patrol agent who claims he was fired — just weeks before his probationary period ended — because he expressed opinions about illegal immigration and drug legalization. […]

Gonzalez said while patrolling near Deming, N.M., in April 2009, he told a fellow agent during a casual conversation that he believed legalizing drugs would reduce violence in Mexico.

Gonzalez, who held dual citizenship in Mexico and the U.S. until he turned 18, also told his colleague he understood the economic factors driving immigrants to cross the border illegally.

The lawsuit says word of Gonzalez’s comments spread to his supervisor, who notified agency officials in Washington, D.C. An internal affairs investigation followed, leading to the firing.

According to the lawsuit, the termination letter stated that Gonzalez held “personal views that were contrary to the core characteristics of Border Patrol agents, which are patriotism, dedication and esprit de corps.”

In the U.K.

The U.K. government’s been going through all sorts of efforts to get rid of actual scientists from its Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Actual scientists sometimes tend to tell the embarrassing truth rather than merely providing government with made-up justification to support the policy they already chose.

Now the government is demonstrating the kind of advisors they want…

Government drug adviser under fire over views on gay lifestyle

The body that advises the government on its drugs policy faces fresh controversy after the appointment of an expert with controversial views on homosexuality and the role of religion in combating addiction.

Dr Hans-Christian Raabe, a Manchester GP and member of the Maranatha Community, an inter-denominational Christian movement, was appointed to the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) last week.

Here are some of the beliefs of this new “scientific” drug policy advisor.

“Harm reduction has its place, but I’m concerned that it’s the only policy being advocated,” said Raabe, who has spoken out in favour of abstinence-based approaches. [….]

Raabe wrote: “The only way of stopping people from dying from drug-related deaths is to prevent drug use in the first place!” […]

He also co-signed a letter to a national newspaper in 2004, warning against the government’s decision to reclassify cannabis from class B to class C […]

“Studies have shown that religious commitment, religious involvement or being part of a religious community significantly reduces the risk of alcohol, nicotine and drug misuse, and reduces the risk of depression and suicide,” the Council for Health and Wholeness said [Raabe is their medical co-ordinator]. […]

Raabe also co-authored a paper that claimed: “While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in paedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among paedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make paedophilia acceptable.”