Obama is AWOL in the Drug Wars

Accuracy in Media ^ | March 17, 2010 | Cliff Kincaid

[AIM Freeper]

On March 1, Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance had expressed pleasure that "Obama and his Drug Czar, Gil, have made it clear that they don't want to talk about marijuana at all." Nadelmann considered the silence to mean assent to his agenda of marijuana decriminalization and legalization. But just three days later, in a dramatic development, Gil Kerlikowske, the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), came out in strong opposition to almost everything that Nadelmann and his "progressive" backers represent.

In a major speech on March 4, Kerlikowske denounced the use of marijuana, including its "medical" version, and cited facts and studies linking the weed to all kinds of health problems. "The concern with marijuana is not born out of any culture-war mentality, but out of what the science tells us about the drug's effects," he said. "And the science, though still evolving, is clear: marijuana use is harmful. It is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects."

This has to be perceived as a tremendous setback for Nadelmann and the rich liberals, led by George Soros and Peter Lewis, who have financed the drug legalization and "medical marijuana" movements. The Kerlikowske speech constitutes belated recognition that the drug wars south of the border are inexorably linked to the growing use of marijuana in California, where some of the same Mexican drug gangs are planting and harvesting their crop.

[Ken H]

Exactly right. Here's James Madison on the power to regulate commerce among the several states:

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html

[HiTech RedNeck]

If it were ONLY pot, violent trouble would be unlikely. A question would immediately arise whether other forbidden items were being consumed too, some of which really can temporarily turn a person into a violent monster. And that still doesn’t answer the public health question.

[dirtboy]

I agree that coke and meth and heroin should remain controlled. But there are a lot of people who only use pot and nothing stronger, it’s stupid to target them.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I would agree that pot fears were oversold with “Reefer Madness” and the like, but even without that, pot probably wouldn’t have survived for more than another couple decades or so given the advent of other things catching gummit attention (like LSD). I would be willing to cut the Gordian knot by putting the matter under the supervision of physicians; any formerly banned (or simply FDA unapproved) drug may be administered IF the physician takes reasonable responsibility for the results. This is assuming we are spared Bummercare.

[Boogieman]

I see where you are coming from, certainly most reasonable people can see that drugs like meth and PCP aren’t fit for human consumption and can turn a person into a raving lunatic. However, we’ve outlawed these substances and many others, and pursued enforcement so aggressively that we have sometimes sidestepped civil liberties in the name of ending this “menace”. Perhaps if those measures actually did get the job done and stamped out use of these drugs, they might be justifiable. As it stands though, it doesn’t seem like there are any measures short of a Soviet-style police state that will really stop the folks that intend to use them from doing so.

That being said, I can’t see how it is justifiable any longer to continue to use such questionable tactics when they aren’t producing the intended results. There may be better strategies to curb these drugs that our government refuses to consider because they are locked into the “drug war” mentality, and also I’m sure we can think of better ways to use the billions of the taxpayer’s money that are poured down this black hole every year.

[Ken H]

That still puts fedgov in charge of setting the rules, if I understand your position correctly. Why not just follow the original understanding of the Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment, and let each state decide its own drug policy?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Something like this would also make sense at a state level, where there are drugs that they do not wish to bless just being able to get it from the corner pharmacy with an Rx.

[Ken H]

Something like this would also make sense at a state level, where there are drugs that they do not wish to bless just being able to get it from the corner pharmacy with an Rx.

Sure, if a state wishes to do it that way. Suppose a state decides to regulate marijuana in a similar manner to alcohol, and allows it to be sold at liquor and tobacco shops. Should fedgov have any say-so in the matter?