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

  • Thread starter Cali smoke
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
Cali smoke

Cali smoke

302
0
MAY 14, 2009
White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs'
Kerlikowske Says Analogy Is Counterproductive; Shift Aligns With Administration Preference for Treatment Over Incarceration

By GARY FIELDS

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."

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.

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."

http://invalid.com/image/bapkhaabk.jpg
 
I

in the air

38
0
wow the may just end the war on drugs. This is good news. :cool0010:

ITA
 
purpleberry

purpleberry

633
43
They are not ending the war on drugs, they already lost so now they want to control the drugs. Its there only option. Once they have control they can then make them illegal again since they control the supply. Wait 20 years youll see it happen. LOL
 
Z

Zoolander

Premium Member
Supporter
1,686
63
These guys always seem like the blind leading the blind
 
xX Kid Twist Xx

xX Kid Twist Xx

Premium Member
Supporter
3,581
263
lol the more you look at this the more it dont make sense. Any news is good news tho. it is sparking interst across the country. Once they have a debate its just pretty much over. the only people fighting this are the damm cops. what it comes down to is there just isnt money anymore to go around locking people up. so more and more states are gonna have to deal with prison over crowding. California is gonna have to release 39,000 inmates. and the ones its gonna be is the non violent drug offenders. so if you cant put em in prison why even arrest them? They say barley anyone goes to jail for simple possesion, and again why bother aressting them.
 
saldiado

saldiado

350
28
good point man. well its 4:20 in the morning up here, and ima smoke one for this shit. lets hope we at least win a few battles on this one....
 
S

StonedOwl

Guest
Its progress, that's all there is to it.

Mr. Kerlikowske, a drug Czar with a possible working brain??

Could be. :surprised
 
S

SkyHi

764
18
Even thought they have already lost the "war on drug" which short of extreme measures could have never been won, you think this douche, the DEA, and countless other agencies are ready to give up 10bil a year to fight the "war" fuck no there going sharade aroung making look like they are fighting the "war" as there pockets get fat. Its sad the way not just this country but the world is driven solely on money. Private prisons WTF? they dont wanna lose there clients either.
 
B

Budhog

125
0
I just moved to NorCal after living in Seattle for 6 years. Chief Kerlikowski is a forward thinking, fairly progressive law enforcement guy. I really believe he means what he says. I worked with the homeless there and I have to say the needle exchange program in Seattle has saved a lot of lives and taxpayer $$.

If they HAD to name a cop for this job, he is the best one for us.
 
K

Kalcu

155
0
They are not going to end a war on drugs, they might loosen it up a bit but not end it.

It is a war of drug philosophy, they still want treatment for drug use that is against their ideology. From what I have seen, the drug policy does not clearly dictate what drugs are harmful or what uses of drugs are harmful. They sure try to make it out that way, but our chemical nature is all to complicated to generalize.

Science has a long way to go to determine accurately how every person on a private basis will react to a particular drug or a mixture of drugs. They use a lot of guess work, that makes the war look pretty shady and artificial.
 
Cali smoke

Cali smoke

302
0
Update, more related news

MAY 14, 2009, 4:52 P.M. ET
Q&A With the New Drug Czar

Gil Kerlikowske, the new director of the White House Office of Drug Control Policy sat down with The Wall Street Journal for his first interview since his confirmation last week.

What are your priorities?

The priorities for me and the direction from the vice president is clear, to have ONDCP be back front and center on the coordination issues and the policy issues for the federal government. Being talked to for the job by the man that authored the legislation goes a long way.

What do you mean when you talk about how our drug efforts have been in a silo with either/or chocies?

The either/or to me has been you either support law enforcement and money and funds and resources, that includes international, border protection and domestic, or you support treatment and whose going to pay the cost of treatment. What I'd like to do is break down those barriers that kind of exist. It really isn't an either/or.

The other part of breaking down the barrier is to completely and forever end the war analogy, the war on drugs.

Since I used to stand in front of the helicopter for President Nixon who brought the term in vogue, it's fitting that I'm almost back in the same spot and trying to put an end to the war analogy.

Why is it important to you to stop using the analogy?

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, a war on individuals and we're not at war with people in this country so I think we need to be more comprehensive.

If we're not successful in improving on the addiction rate we have in this country and how we get people treated for drugs and return them back to the streets, it paints a very dark picture in the future, especially with the economy where it is.

What's the number one drug problem?

Well [illegal] prescription drug use is rising and one problem I want to shout about. At the federal level it's easy to look at things nationally but drug issues are different depending on the geography. In some places meth may be far more serious, even though on a national scale it doesn't appear that way. In Appalachia Oxycotin may be far more serious. I want to look at things regionally and in a narrower focus than in a national focus.

What steps should the administration be taking?

In some ways the administration has already taken some steps. There was a recognition of bringing in somebody that has a background in law enforcement and at the local level. All the good ideas aren't teed up from inside the Beltway. There's also the recognition that resources in the future are going to be needed and also the recognition that there needs to be a broader base view of our drug problem.

How will your policy be different?

It has to be more than just being visible. I'm not a charismatic speaker going across the country. There has to be a plan. We need to make this office more visible while we're doing the coordination and we have to do a strategic plan. People aren't going to just rally around the flag over 'well we need to reduce the demand.'

Others in this post, notably Gen. Barry McCaffrey, have said we can't arrest our way out of the problem, but little changed. What makes you think you can do it?

One reason frankly is the economic crisis. It is forcing us to think about other things. I look at a couple projects I wouldn't put my stamp on right now but I think are worth watching. One is the High Point North Carolina model and the other is the model out of Hawaii. And the third thing is that when you team people up like we did in Seattle. Our arrests in Seattle for drugs are down to levels of the early '90s and our crime is down to 1967 level. We teamed up police officers and department of corrections personnel and targeted the most problematic population.

What would you do instead?

Seattle had one of the highest per capita auto theft rates. You only have finite resources so changed the way we thought about auto theft. We had the top 10 auto thieves, and as one got knocked off another one took their place. Now auto theft is down probably 60%. What about doing that with the most problematic drug-abusing folks who are in need of some kind of intervention? They're the ones causing the most harm to themselves, the most harm to society. I would look at using finite resources on those folks who are the most problematic population.

What is law enforcement's role in treatment?

The research tells me if you walk in for drug treatment and either knock on the door or go in with handcuffs on the level of effectiveness is the same. The biggest funnel to treatment is the criminal-justice system. That's part of that silo—treatment not talking to criminal justice as well as they should.

Are there any incidents in your past in law enforcement that helped you evolve?

I had a great fellowship with the Justice Department. One of my field trips was to go to Oakland and go out with the narcotics officers on search warrants. Here's a mother and two or three kids and two or three people dealing cocaine and these terrified, crying kids are there. It does make you recognize the breadth and depth of the problem versus somebody's whose dealing X amount of drugs.

Do you support legalization?

No. I've never advocated legalization and certainly the president has made it clear that's his position.

Where did the perception come from that you are permissive in drug enforcement?

The perception is that Seattle is this very tolerant city, but when I talk to my colleagues around the country and they look at what are your resources for law enforcement, targeting adults for small, personal amounts of marijuana, it isn't high on the radar screen when you have X amount of bodies. You can look at most prosecutors across the country and they have filing standards. Police departments aren't going to say no, don't arrest, but are you going to take an officer off the street for four hours or are they going to choose to take themselves off the street for four hours to book somebody for a small amount of marijuana? It's less about tolerance.

How you did police Seattle's Hempfest gathering?

Hempfest started 10 years before I became chief and it's been policed the same way every year. I don't think the way they police Hempfest with a small amount of police resources is much different than policing a rock concert. They don't go charging off into the middle of a rock concert because there is use of marijuana. Hempfest hasn't been an issue about violence, which is our first priority and precinct captains and lieutenants have policed it consistently the same way.

One of the programs you support strongly is "Fight Crime: Invest in Kids." How would you take those crime-prevention efforts and use them at ONDCP?

It's the unexpected messenger. No one expected police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, to show up in state legislatures and show up here on Capital Hill and advocate for money for early-childhood programs. In Olympia they thought at first we were there to ask for more police cars. I would take that model, which I believe has been unbelievably successful and tell my colleagues they should advocate strongly for treatment and rehabilitation.

Why do you see the drug problem as a public-health issue?

THE ONDCP under President Bush also saw this as a public-health issue. I think we moved, not as much from an administrative standpoint but a collective-wisdom standpoint. We moved from 'it's a police problem' or 'a criminal justice problem' to 'it's a criminal justice, public health and social policy problem' to 'it's a public-health problem.' I think that's what I've seen in past ONDCP writings.

How do you feel about needle exchanges?

I think needle exchange programs are part of a complete public-health model for dealing with addiction. Some people get the impression folks just walk in and exchange needles or get clean needles and you do want to reduce HIV and Hepatitis C and other transmittable diseases but you also would like to see, which those in Buffalo and Seattle do, access to treatment, access to counseling.

On the campaign trail, the president supported lifting the ban on federal funds for needle-exchange programs. The ban lift hasn't happened yet. Will it?

I don't know. It is definitely one of the things I'll be finding out and looking at.

How will you work with Homeland Security on the drug problem on the southwestern border?

[Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano] asked me prior to my confirmation that ONDCP become more involved in our role for coordination so after I find my way around, after a couple days, I'll meet with her.

I don't want to lose sight of the fact that drug issues are all over the country.

Is there a personal connection to your world view?

I think I can talk to just about any adult in any social, economic or race setting in this country and they can tell me about a friend, a relative, a next door neighbor with a problem. Between my work and my life experience I think being a lot older now I look at things with a little bit different perspective than I did as a young narcotics detective whose job was make seizures and make arrests. I think that's true with so many people I've worked with.

Do you support the administration's stance on ending the crack-cocaine disparity?

Nobody wants a drug dealer in front of the house but they also don't want to call and say we're going to report this person and this person goes away 25 years and those folks are going to have to raise his kids. They're going to have to take care of that house, etc., they want the problem stopped. Police departments need people to trust them. They need people to give them information and if they think the perception is it's a biased or unfair system this takes away from that. I know the folks on capital hill and in the administration are looking to change that.
 
J

jdubz206

348
0
I just moved to NorCal after living in Seattle for 6 years. Chief Kerlikowski is a forward thinking, fairly progressive law enforcement guy. I really believe he means what he says. I worked with the homeless there and I have to say the needle exchange program in Seattle has saved a lot of lives and taxpayer $$.

If they HAD to name a cop for this job, he is the best one for us.

totally agree w/ya on this one bro...definitely progressive thinking...i guess as progressive as one could be as a police chief \ drug czar...i for one think he was a good choice..i'd much rather see all this nonsense end and eliminate the drug czar position all together but since that's not happening, this is the 2nd best IMO...time will tell, however...
 
S

StonedOwl

Guest
Okay, so he's not here to end the war on drugs. He's here to change the way people think about the war on drugs.
That's a very big difference. Sounds like a more specific and sideways/tricky form of propaganda to me.

He wants people to think of it as just them trying to do good, rather than as a war. He says they are not at war with people, they are at war with a plant.......So why not just throw the plant in jail? If he wants the perception to change then they have to stop putting people in jail. PERIOD.

So long as they are at war with our plants, they are at war with us. New age propaganda wont change that.
 
I_Against_I

I_Against_I

167
18
Well I believe this will be a good start. Although being the Drug Czar doesn't carry much weight as far as changing federal policy. He is really only in a position of standing behind members of the Senate, to give his approval or disapproval. He does believe in some very forward thinking programs hopefully it rubs off on those around him.
 
S

shepj

Guest
Well I believe this will be a good start. Although being the Drug Czar doesn't carry much weight as far as changing federal policy. He is really only in a position of standing behind members of the Senate, to give his approval or disapproval. He does believe in some very forward thinking programs hopefully it rubs off on those around him.

I feel he has a bit of power federally.. not per se making or changing laws, but his word is powerful and respected by high up officials.

I still think if medical marijuana plans push forward, and decriminilization pushes forward, the United States will have legal marijuana within 10 years.
 
Top Bottom