# White House Drug Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

From this morning's *Wall Street Journal**http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html*

*White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'*



> _Kerlikowske Says Analogy Is Counterproductive; Shift Aligns With Administration Preference for Treatment Over Incarceration_
> 
> In his first interview since being confirmed...Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation's drug issues...
> 
> *"We're not at war with people in this country."*


the full story:



> 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.
> 
> ...


Granted, it's still a long way from a rational statement on semantics to a sane drug policy, and the rabble in congress,the doddering politicians in the senate, the entire prison industrial complex, the idiot media, and big pharma stand firmly in the way.

And as we all know, talk is cheap. Obama claimed to be in favor of letting states set their own medical marijuana policy: two months into his administration, the DEA raided practically every dispensary in San Francisco.

Show me some tangible results, Mr. President.

The biggest defender of the former policy may likely be the privatized prison industry. Their lobbyists are NOT going to be happy with fewer "non-violent drug offenders" being arrested, and less so with any move to release those they have incarcerated already. Private prisons are on the federal teat, remember, and they like their comfy paychecks.

(The point isn't that Obama and Kerlikowske are lying or hypocrites: the point is that the prohibition bureaucracy is an enormous ship that was not designed to turn on a dime or even ever slow down. Actually changing America's disastrous drug policies will require more than "conversations" or "realigning priorities" -- sooner or later you're going to have to tell a lot of people who get paid a full-time salary to put their fellow citizens in jail: "Sorry bub, you're out of a job."

That will be the day the rubber meets the road.)


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gee Ryan you finally posted something Obama's bunch is doing I agree with, must be a full moon. :wink:

IMO the biggest lobby against this will be the liquor lobby.

Good post.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

Bob, are you more-or-less a Libertarian?

Personally, I think the prohibition of drugs, is a gross over-reach of federal authority. If somebody grows and smokes pot in CA, without the "product" ever leaving CA, how in the heck does "interstate commerce" give the federal government the right to tell California that they couldn't completely legalize it, if they wanted?

I gotta tell you, the gang violence over drug turf, and the amount of money the cartels have to buy heavy weaponry scares me far more than dealing with addicts. Cartels scare the crap out of me. Remember the story about the Cali (or was it the Medellin?) cartel taking down an airliner full of innocent people to kill 2 snitches?!

I cringe when they talk about pot as a gateway drug. If it were legal, people wouldn't be buying it from dealers who try to push their higher-profit wares on them. That's why The Netherlands semi-legalized it.

We should at LEAST legalize pot. It would take a big bite out of the profits for gangs. It would keep a lot of people out of contact with people who sell harder drugs. It would also free up a lot of space in prisons. At least pot isn't physically addictive (alcohol _is_). It's habit-forming, but that's a lot easier to kick than heroin withdrawal or the DTs. I think it's something we could live with. I'd much rather find out my kid's smoking a little pot, than sniffing paint. I'd rather legalize it, tax it, and use the proceeds to fund treatment, than to drive people to guys who push harder drugs, and funnel the proceeds back to people who behead cops in Juarez.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

I can see a few more problems if marijuana is legalized. They could be dealt with but might cause as much problems as it does when possession is legalized. The big question is how do you regulate production so it is possible to collect taxes on the "product"? If you make it illegal to grow unless you are licensed, then what is the punishment for growing it illegally? Jail time? If it is taxed at the retail end, what is the penalty for bootlegging and selling it illegally? Jail time? No easy answers.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bob, are you more-or-less a Libertarian?


Yes sir, although I have differences with some of their positions also, but if i had to pick a platform to support theirs makes the most sense to me.

All government is ineffecient, corrupt and self interested you can watch their decisions and if you pay as close attention as I do they do not give and hoot what we think except during the election cycle. And even then they just give it lip service.

The libertarian party wants the least amount of government in your life.

Look at the illegal immigration issue roughly 85 -90 percent of the American citizens want the border closed and have made that clear to congress and the whitehouse neither party will do it due to self interest.

I dispise the republicans and the Dems are even worse ( I'm speaking of politicians not you guys) you guys have just be duped, so was I.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Making drugs illegal has done nothing to reduce its use

I advocate we treat it as a metal disorder and the savings of the current drug war would easily pay for that several times over, let doctors not beaurcrats with no incentive to stop it make these decisions.

but I've been thru this before and that all I'm going to say, no point arguing about it


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I dispise the republicans and the Dems are even worse ( I'm speaking of politicians not you guys) you guys have just be duped, so was I.


Ditto Bob.

I don't know where I am at on the drug thing. Maybe California would be a good test. I do know we are going to have to tax the heck out of it. I say that because talking to a doctor friend he says there will be a heck of a lot of lung cancer with legalized pot.

One minute I think legalize the stuff, and the next I think treat the cartel like terrorists and go in with the military and kill every last one. Maybe do both. Looking at the impact on crime that they have had here and in Mexico I think I would tell the Colombian government to stay out of our way if you want to survive we are coming in. Get the addresses of their top boys and run a missile up their rear. Air strike every house with a known trafficer. I can show them how to run a war on drugs.

Lets see what California does. Lets look at their cancer rate and their health costs. Meanwhile even if we do legalize it I say take out the cartel just for the simple satisfaction of dropping the hammer on these scum.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I really dont think there will be that much if any more use, and I dont advocate using it.

However

If you are stupid enough to smoke anything with the info on smoking available today I consider it natural selection.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

If the pattern that they had in The Netherlands were to hold true, there would be a quick spike, followed by a return to the previous usage levels. I wouldn't expect much real long-term harm from that.

You really would have to treat illegal production like bootlegging. The best strategy would probably be to keep taxes just low enough to keep the illegal production down. At some point, if you were smoking a lot of pot, it would be cheaper to buy grow lights than to pay the taxes, and at that point, why not throw a few more plants under your lights to fund the operation?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

I've mentioned this before here, but I've spent a lot of time in the Netherlands and not one of my Dutch friends, even as teens, smoked pot (and it was legal). They tell me it's more or less a tourist thing. The Brits come over in droves to take advantage.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Gee Ryan you finally posted something Obama's bunch is doing I agree with, must be a full moon. :wink:
> 
> IMO the biggest lobby against this will be the liquor lobby.
> 
> Good post.


Thanks Bob :thumb:


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Bowstring said:


> I can see a few more problems if marijuana is legalized. They could be dealt with but might cause as much problems as it does when possession is legalized. The big question is how do you regulate production so it is possible to collect taxes on the "product"? If you make it illegal to grow unless you are licensed, then what is the punishment for growing it illegally? Jail time? If it is taxed at the retail end, what is the penalty for bootlegging and selling it illegally? Jail time? No easy answers.


all good questions bowstring....i think this thing is a little bit like Gitmo...if we "release" the punishment for using weed, how do we control it and keep it from being a "bootleg" crop........i guess if you get caught smoking anything but Luckies, you're screwed? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

hunter9494 said:


> Bowstring said:
> 
> 
> > I can see a few more problems if marijuana is legalized. They could be dealt with but might cause as much problems as it does when possession is legalized. The big question is how do you regulate production so it is possible to collect taxes on the "product"? If you make it illegal to grow unless you are licensed, then what is the punishment for growing it illegally? Jail time? If it is taxed at the retail end, what is the penalty for bootlegging and selling it illegally? Jail time? No easy answers.
> ...


You are probably right. :lol:

One thing I noticed on the graphs are that most of the people asked if they "used " in the past 12 months are liars!! 10 % used M.J. and 300,000 treatment center admissions,2% used Cocaine and 275,000 admissions, .1% used heroin and 250,000 admissions, .5% used meth and 175,000 admissions. Or is it 8 to 9% more M.J. users felt they needed treatment?

:huh:


----------

