Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Czar calls for the end of the War On DrugsFollow

#1 May 13 2009 at 7:55 PM Rating: Excellent
'Bout damn time. It wasn't working, it was a waste of resources, and it displays the usual American ignorance of how to approach a complex problem: Declare war on it!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html

The Wall Street Journal wrote:
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."

Gil Kerlikowske, the new White House drug czar, signaled Wednesday his openness to rethinking the government's approach to fighting drug use.
Brendan Smialowski for The Wall Street Journal

Mr. Kerlikowske's comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate -- and likely more controversial -- stance on the nation's drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.

The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment's role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said.

Already, the administration has called for an end to the disparity in how crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine are dealt with. Critics of the law say it unfairly targeted African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent.

The administration also said federal authorities would no longer raid medical-marijuana dispensaries in the 13 states where voters have made medical marijuana legal. Agents had previously done so under federal law, which doesn't provide for any exceptions to its marijuana prohibition.

During the presidential campaign, President Barack Obama also talked about ending the federal ban on funding for needle-exchange programs, which are used to stem the spread of HIV among intravenous-drug users.

The drug czar doesn't have the power to enforce any of these changes himself, but Mr. Kerlikowske plans to work with Congress and other agencies to alter current policies. He said he hasn't yet focused on U.S. policy toward fighting drug-related crime in other countries.

Mr. Kerlikowske was most recently the police chief in Seattle, a city known for experimenting with drug programs. In 2003, voters there passed an initiative making the enforcement of simple marijuana violations a low priority. The city has long had a needle-exchange program and hosts Hempfest, which draws tens of thousands of hemp and marijuana advocates.

Seattle currently is considering setting up a project that would divert drug defendants to treatment programs.

Mr. Kerlikowske said he opposed the city's 2003 initiative on police priorities. His officers, however, say drug enforcement -- especially for pot crimes -- took a back seat, according to Sgt. Richard O'Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. One result was an open-air drug market in the downtown business district, Mr. O'Neill said.

"The average rank-and-file officer is saying, 'He can't control two blocks of Seattle, how is he going to control the nation?' " Mr. O'Neill said.

Sen. Tom Coburn, the lone senator to vote against Mr. Kerlikowske, was concerned about the permissive attitude toward marijuana enforcement, a spokesman for the conservative Oklahoma Republican said.
[drug war]

Others said they are pleased by the way Seattle police balanced the available options. "I think he believes there is a place for using the criminal sanctions to address the drug-abuse problem, but he's more open to giving a hard look to solutions that look at the demand side of the equation," said Alison Holcomb, drug-policy director with the Washington state American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Kerlikowske said the issue was one of limited police resources, adding that he doesn't support efforts to legalize drugs. He also said he supports needle-exchange programs, calling them "part of a complete public-health model for dealing with addiction."

Mr. Kerlikowske's career began in St. Petersburg, Fla. He recalled one incident as a Florida undercover officer during the 1970s that spurred his thinking that arrests alone wouldn't fix matters.

"While we were sitting there, the guy we're buying from is smoking pot and his toddler comes over and he blows smoke in the toddler's face," Mr. Kerlikowske said. "You go home at night, and you think of your own kids and your own family and you realize" the depth of the problem.

Since then, he has run four police departments, as well as the Justice Department's Office of Community Policing during the Clinton administration.

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."

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest law-enforcement labor organization, said that while he holds Mr. Kerlikowske in high regard, police officers are wary.

"While I don't necessarily disagree with Gil's focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don't want to see it at the expense of law enforcement. People need to understand that when they violate the law there are consequences."


Edited, May 14th 2009 12:07am by catwho
#2 May 13 2009 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
The Wall Street Journal wrote:
The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone

Harm Reduction, yay!
#3 May 13 2009 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Mr. Kerlikowske was most recently the police chief in Seattle, a city known for experimenting with drug programs. In 2003, voters there passed an initiative making the enforcement of simple marijuana violations a low priority. The city has long had a needle-exchange program and hosts Hempfest, which draws tens of thousands of hemp and marijuana advocates.

Seattle currently is considering setting up a project that would divert drug defendants to treatment programs.

Mr. Kerlikowske said he opposed the city's 2003 initiative on police priorities. His officers, however, say drug enforcement -- especially for pot crimes -- took a back seat, according to Sgt. Richard O'Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild. One result was an open-air drug market in the downtown business district, Mr. O'Neill said.

"The average rank-and-file officer is saying, 'He can't control two blocks of Seattle, how is he going to control the nation?' " Mr. O'Neill said.


They must watch The Wire too.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#4 May 14 2009 at 3:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Next step: legalise and regulate.

Chop chop.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#5 May 14 2009 at 4:09 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Next step: legalise and regulate.

Chop chop.

Quote:
Mr. Kerlikowske said the issue was one of limited police resources, adding that he doesn't support efforts to legalize drugs.


Not likely in the immediate future, alas.
#6 May 14 2009 at 4:15 AM Rating: Excellent
LockeColeMA wrote:
Not likely in the immediate future, alas.


No, but it's a shame. It would save a lot lives, and a lot of money.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#7 May 14 2009 at 4:40 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
In other news, Marijuana is more potent now than in the past!. What a surprise! And the guy in the picture totally looks like he needs to smoke.
#8 May 14 2009 at 4:54 AM Rating: Excellent
LockeColeMA wrote:


Well, that's not quite right. It's true some strands of marijuana, made in greenhouses and cut with each other, are stronger than what they used to smoke before. But most hashish and most bush weed hasn't changed in 2000 years.

It's also quite silly, because saying to kids that some kinds of weed are stronger will only make them smoke it. In Amsterdam they usually write the THC percentage on the menus in coffee shops, and the strongest ones are always the most popular, especially amongst kids.

And finally, I'm still not convinced that THC is everything. I find most skunks too strong for me, and they supposedly contain 13-18% THC. But in Amsterdam, I've smoked Hash called Subzero that allegedly had 70% THC, and it wasn't half as strong as most skunk.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#9 May 14 2009 at 5:13 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:


Well, that's not quite right. It's true some strands of marijuana, made in greenhouses and cut with each other, are stronger than what they used to smoke before. But most hashish and most bush weed hasn't changed in 2000 years.


I think they mean on average, as it says "on average." Sure, some strands will be less potent or not have changed, but on average...
Quote:
The average THC for tested marijuana during 2008 was 10.1 percent, according to the government, compared to 1983 when it was reportedly under 4 percent.


The reports that "some samples have THC levels exceeding 30 percent" is just sensationalist news.

Here's what I want to know:
Quote:
The stronger marijuana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations, officials say.

What are the opposite effects? I'm assuming this was some bizarro way of saying "You freak out instead of mellowing," but my first thought upon reading it was that more THC makes you less stoned. Which is probably not true.

I obviously don't smoke enough...
#10 May 14 2009 at 5:21 AM Rating: Good
LockeColeMA wrote:
Quote:
The stronger marijuana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations, officials say.

What are the opposite effects? I'm assuming this was some bizarro way of saying "You freak out instead of mellowing," but my first thought upon reading it was that more THC makes you less stoned. Which is probably not true.


No, more THC makes you a bit more stoned, I suppose it's a bit like the alcohol % thing. It's true than some skunk make you energetic and excited, and some hash make you more mellow. But that's not directly linked to the THC level.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#11 May 14 2009 at 5:32 AM Rating: Excellent
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Quote:
The stronger marijuana is of particular concern because high concentrations of THC have the opposite effect of low concentrations, officials say.

What are the opposite effects? I'm assuming this was some bizarro way of saying "You freak out instead of mellowing," but my first thought upon reading it was that more THC makes you less stoned. Which is probably not true.


No, more THC makes you a bit more stoned, I suppose it's a bit like the alcohol % thing. It's true than some skunk make you energetic and excited, and some hash make you more mellow. But that's not directly linked to the THC level.



I think the easiest way to explain officials stating that high concentrations of THC can have the opposite effect of lower concentrations is to recognize that someone clearly rolled these officials a joint full of meth rather than pot.

While I definitely favor legalization, I applaud this paradigm shift even if I think it's being proposed for the wrong reasons. Even if the primary motivator is to lessen the burden on over-taxed law enforcers, it would be wiser and make my tummy feel warmer if we at least lied harmlessly and claimed to be ending the war because we recognize it's a racist, classist endeavor. I suppose amongst critics of this shift there is a greater prevalence of sympathy for law enforcers than poor minorities.
#12 May 14 2009 at 5:56 AM Rating: Excellent
There was an earlier article on CNN regarding the leaders of Mexico, Columbia, and Brazil calling for the removal of Marijuana prohibition...ironic afterwards an article stating the US Drug Czar isn't keen to legalizing MJ.

Found it

Interesting read, the countries calling for it are obviously those being hit the hardest with scuffling against organized crime, and reaping the bloodshed that goes along with it. It's going to be interested to see how both these topics progress, and how they'll intertwine.

Personally, the comparison to the alcohol prohibition in the 20's is justified in how it lowered organized crime. And while alcohol plays a part in society today in the US and elsewhere, it's hardly uncontrollable through law. I really have a hard time wrapping my head around why the US and other countries don't end MJ prohibition and reap the benefits both financially and for society.

I found it interesting that one of the arguments (in my linked article) is the negative impact MJ legalization would have on society. Arguably, the bottom line is that users will still be users regardless of prohibition or not. There's just no legal risk to it being legalized. It's not, in any way, going to break down society if it's handled the same way alcohol is/was.

Edited, May 14th 2009 10:01am by Ryneguy
#13 May 14 2009 at 6:10 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Good, hopefully the next ineffectual nonsense to be stricken will be the War on Terrorism.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 May 14 2009 at 6:47 AM Rating: Decent
Sounds like Obama's got something right. Good for him.
#15 May 14 2009 at 6:54 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
#16Yodabunny, Posted: May 14 2009 at 10:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So let me get this straight. It's now unfair to prosecute a crime because said crime is perpetrated by a particular culture more often than other cultures? Wow.
#17 May 14 2009 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,824 posts
Couple rocks of crack? Felony. Half a kilo of cocaine? Rehab.

It really has less to do with the culture as it has to do with the quality of counsel.
#18 May 14 2009 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Yodabunny wrote:
Quote:
Already, the administration has called for an end to the disparity in how crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine are dealt with. Critics of the law say it unfairly targeted African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent.


So let me get this straight. It's now unfair to prosecute a crime because said crime is perpetrated by a particular culture more often than other cultures? Wow.


No, you fUcking dense cUnt, it's unfair to punish more severely a community for committing essentially the exact same crime.
#19 May 14 2009 at 10:40 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
baelnic wrote:
Couple rocks of crack? Felony. Half a kilo of cocaine? Rehab.

It really has less to do with the culture as it has to do with the quality of counsel.


Ah, gotcha, wow, your laws suck. It's the same damn drug.
#20 May 14 2009 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
Quote:
Already, the administration has called for an end to the disparity in how crimes involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine are dealt with. Critics of the law say it unfairly targeted African-American communities, where crack is more prevalent.


So let me get this straight. It's now unfair to prosecute a crime because said crime is perpetrated by a particular culture more often than other cultures? Wow.


No, you fUcking dense cUnt, it's unfair to punish more severely a community for committing essentially the exact same crime.


Yes, somehow I managed to entirely miss "the disparity in", my mind didn't register it as both drugs are essentially the same thing in this neck of the woods.
#21 May 14 2009 at 11:41 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
baelnic wrote:
Couple rocks of crack? Felony. Half a kilo of cocaine? Rehab.

It really has less to do with the culture as it has to do with the quality of counsel.


I'll ask the silly question... which is worse for the user?

No, not in those amounts, in general. I was always taught crack was worse, but thinking back on it, no one said why. I fear it might have been closet racism :-/
#22 May 14 2009 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
***
2,824 posts
For a long time people considered crack cocaine more addictive than powdered cocaine. It probably has more to do with it's mode of ingestion. I think a lot of the claims that it's more addictive come from knee-jerk claims. "Crack cocaine use is up 3000% I can't believe it's that addictive!" Never mind it's cheaper, more readily available, and easier to ingest (faster into the blood stream).
#23 May 14 2009 at 12:08 PM Rating: Default
So the changes mean that drugs would be more available on the streets, and probably become cheaper too.

Great news. One closer step to legalising them. While the rest of the world is pumping billions dealing with health and social problems caused by alcohol and nicotine, why not just add marijuana into the list? Who cares, it's just taxpayer money, after all.
#24 May 14 2009 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
McGame wrote:
So the changes mean that drugs would be more available on the streets, and probably become cheaper too.

Great news. One closer step to legalising them. While the rest of the world is pumping billions dealing with health and social problems caused by alcohol and nicotine, why not just add marijuana into the list? Who cares, it's just taxpayer money, after all.


Fun fact, smokers cost the country less than non-smokers.

And marijuana is already a problem*. By taking the heat off of it, it becomes less of a criminal justice problem and actually starts working to help users instead of fining and imprisoning them.

*Going by your idea it is a problem. Frankly, stoned people worry me less than drunkards, and as long as they're not smoking near me I could care less.

Edited, May 14th 2009 4:26pm by LockeColeMA
#25 May 14 2009 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
McGame wrote:
So the changes mean that drugs would be more available on the streets, and probably become cheaper too.

Great news. One closer step to legalising them. While the rest of the world is pumping billions dealing with health and social problems caused by alcohol and nicotine, why not just add marijuana into the list? Who cares, it's just taxpayer money, after all.


When you hold up pot as some great destructive force, in a conversation which permits the inclusion of things like meth and heroin, you come off as painfully ignorant. Also, I suspect you rape children.
#26 May 14 2009 at 12:38 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
Also, I suspect you rape children.


His own children.

His own RETARDED children.

While making fun of Kao.

Enjoying freedom while it lasts!

Edit: From a non-user perspective, I would like to see what legalized marijuana would do for/to our society. Call it a great social experiment. I think it would be interesting to see if more problem arose. One immediate problem I see is how to regulate DUIs with it. I assume there's a weed detecting device? How much is TOO much? Would a blood test be necessary? Or a urine test?

Edited, May 14th 2009 4:39pm by LockeColeMA
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 239 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (239)