Drug WarRant

The Obama administration has started releasing videos of staff addressing questions/ideas in the Citizen’s Briefing Book.
Of course, nobody has yet addressed a drug policy question. Most of the videos are about non-controversial questions and the responses are practically just an agreement. Tom Daschle actually answered the question “Do healthy children learn better?” (The answer was “yes.”)
The one exception so far is Dr. Steven Chu, who has a much longer video that includes interesting discussions about global warming, smart grids, manhattan-style projects for energy independence, and more (including the need to encourage science-based developments that rival Borlaug’s dwarf wheat). Intelligent, scientific discussion. Nice to see in our government again.
Again, I don’t expect drug policy to be addressed. But the fact that any questions are being addressed means that our questions are being seen. And they’re being seen as important to the people.

It’s official – John Walters has been given his new lucrative position. No, it’s not in drug testing like so many of us assumed — unfortunately, he’ll be in a position to continue to damage our criminal justice and foreign policy.

John P. Walters, who has served as the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) since December 2001, will join Hudson Institute as Executive Vice President effective January 20, 2009.
At Hudson, Walters will build on his broad public policy experience, including running the cabinet-level ONDCP, to develop research-based initiatives in fields ranging from crime and drug policy to international affairs.

The Hudson Institute is a far-right conservative think tank focusing on defense, crime, and international issues such as the Middles East and Latin America.

Guess who’s putting his hat in the ring for the job?

I am not naðve enough to believe we can ever fully eradicate drugs. However, as America’s Drug Czar, I would put a big hurt on the drug kingpins and consumers like they have never seen. Every American who smokes dope, manufactures, buys or sells meth or uses any illegal drugs is aiding and abetting the enemies of America. Case closed. This spiritual inbreeding and cannibalism must be identified, admitted to and stopped immediately. America can, and must do this. Good over evil. Next.

That’s right. It’s none other than rock legend and militant conservative Ted Nugent
He says:

I am aware there are prominent conservatives who make strong arguments in favor of legalizing drugs. Their argument is that legalizing drugs will take the crime out of drugs. Not only do I not believe that, but I have never been in favor of pouring gas on a blazing fire in hopes of extinguishing it, which is what I believe will happen if ever we are foolish enough to legalize drug use in America.

Um, no. Actually it’s Nugent who plans to pour gas on a blazing fire by increasing the violence.

What America needs is the will-power and a renewed warrior spirit to crush evil and evil doers.

Of course, it seems unlikely that our President-elect will respond to this kind of request:

Call me, President Obama. Hippies, dope heads, corrupt politicos and various other human debris hate me, which makes me the perfect man for the job.

So, Nugent’s probably not going to the Drug Czar’s office.
But I’d like to take Ted back. Back on a little journey with us hippies and dope heads to a special time in Ted’s life as a rock guitarist. A Journey to the Center of the Mind, if you know what I mean.

Ah, much better.

“bullet” Voting at Change.org ends today at 5 pm Eastern. Currently there are two drug policy reform ideas in the Top 10.
“bullet” At Change.gov, go to the Citizens Briefing Book and vote on ideas there (or add your own).

A nice series. Could use some commenting.
“bullet” War on Drugs: The Collateral Damage Prohibition militarizes police, enriches our enemies, undermines our laws, and condemns our sick to suffering. By Radley Balko
The usual excellence from Radley.
“bullet” War on Drugs: The Price Tag: America can‰t afford marijuana prohibition š it‰s a matter of dollars and sense.
By Anita Bartholomew
Lots of good stuff about LEAP and the costs of prohibition.

Do we really want to keep spending insane amounts of our dwindling government funds on tracking down, arresting and imprisoning the hundreds of thousands of hapless Harolds and Kumars who then can no longer contribute to our faltering economy by overeating at White Castle?

“bullet” Keep Drugs Illegal!: Legalization won’t end the violence, but it will fry plenty of brains. By David Freddoso.
Really incoherent attempt to say that we won’t gain anything through legalization because the criminals will still move to other crime. Yes, he went there. (See Stupid Argument #3)

This editorial in the El Paso Times has been bugging me all day (ezrydn brought it up in comments as well). I’m not sure if it’s sad and pathetic, or sad with hidden code.
First, the editorial establishes that supply side prohibition doesn’t work

We’ve already committed to send Mexico more than $1 billion in money and technology to fight the drug cartels. Mexico has sent its army into battle against these military-style gangs that now control entire cities, including Juarez. The money and technology aren’t working and the army is not strong enough to take back control of cities. […]
Calderon has made fighting the cartels his chief initiative as president of Mexico. But his army has only pushed cartels around from one haven to another.

And the editorial shows that demand side prohibition efforts don’t work either.

On our side, we’ve been fighting to keep our children and adults off illegal drugs since President Nixon officially declared the “war on drugs” in the 1970s. “Just say no” is a common phrase we use to educate against illegal drug use.

So what is the editorial suggesting? If supply side and demand side don’t work, what alternatives are there? Where should we look? Apparently, we need to look to the father-figures — Obama and Calderon — who, between the two of them, can win the war through the sheer power of their offices.

What’s left to see, however, is just how far these two powerful heads of state are willing to go. […]
How much do the two presidents want to end illegal drugs, the existence of the powerful drug cartels and the multitude of gangland-style killings that have the good people of Mexico hiding in fear and many people in the U.S. empowering the cartels by using their products?
How much?
And how far are they willing to go to stop it?

What does this mean? Is the editorial staff that completely whipped and despondent that all they can do is call for some deus ex machina to appear in the sky and win the drug war?
Or is this some kind of code?
What is meant by the question “how far are they willing to go…”?

The resolution ultimately failed, but the discussion continues and the seed is planted.
Clarence Page:

O’Rourke pushed things further by adding 12 words: “supporting an honest, open, national debate on ending the prohibition on narcotics.” The council passed it unanimously.
Yet even a bid to talk about drug legalization was too much for Mayor John Cook. He vetoed the bill, at least partly out of concern that Washington might not take the measure seriously with the drug legalization line in it.
Nevertheless, the controversy brought what has been rare American media attention to Mexico’s crisis by turning it into radio and cable TV talk fodder. That’s a start. [..]
When you step back and take a broad look at Mexico’s growing carnage, it’s easy to see why El Paso’s city leaders think legalization doesn’t look so bad. Mexico’s drug problem is not the drugs. It is the illegality of the drugs.
Legalization is not the perfect solution. But treating currently illegal drugs in the way we treat liquor and other legal addictive substances would provide regulation, tax revenue and funds for rehabilitation programs. Most satisfying, it would wipe a lot of smiles off the current drug lords’ faces.

This is why the prohibitionists don’t want even an open honest national dialogue about legalization. They’re afraid that when that happens, their precious drug war is doomed.
And it’s getting harder and harder to keep that discussion under lock and key. It’s escaping and will be heard.
We also saw Mayor Cook’s dismissal of legalizers as “potheads” fail miserably. The notion, promoted heavily for decades by prohibitionists, that those who advocate for drug policy reform are nothing but whacked out potheads wanting easy drugs simply won’t fly anymore.
The stereotype was that a prohibitionist would give a discussion about the dangers of drugs and a pothead would respond “Uh, I disagree, man. I mean, herb is, you know. 420.”
Our side is supposed to be lazy and incoherent, clearly not the case if you look at change.gov, or change.org or any internet political discussion that rubs up against drug policy.
Contrast the stereotype above, for example, with the recent actuality in the El Paso discussions. Our side was coherent, well prepared – armed with facts and studies in economics, foreign policy, health, crime, etc. – while the prohibitionists stuck to the same fully debunked nonsense. We had reason and they had the equivalent of “Oh yeah? Well, you’re a jew!”
That open honest national dialogue is going to happen one way or another, because the prohibitionists have nothing of value to stop it. Eventually, the politicians will get on board or get left behind.

Link

City Council did not override Mayor John Cook’s veto of a resolution that had asked for a federal debate on the legalization of narcotics.
Council voted 4-4 on the veto reversal. At least six of the eight city representatives needed to approve the item in order to override the veto.

Still… Kudos to Beto O’Rourke for attempting to generate a discussion (and thereby generating a discussion), despite the certain intense opposition from entrenched drug war interests.
Update: Thanks to LoLo in comments:
Detailed article at NewspaperTree:

The deciding factors, according to the city representatives, were the two letters received Monday.
The five Texas House members of the El Paso delegation and Reyes had sent letters to El Paso City Council claiming that the resolution would be used against the city’s efforts to secure funding. [View letters via links below the article]
“If we had voted yesterday I would have voted in favor (of overriding the veto),” Acosta said. “I will take a personal position on this, Rep. O’Rourke if you so want but I cannot jeopardize any funding El Paso might receive.”

That’s right – they were threatened that if they voted for a resolution calling for a “frank and honest discussion,” El Paso might lose funding.
How pathetic is that?
From the letter from Texas House of Representatives delegation:

We understand your stated goal is to bring attention to the problems that illegal drugs cause in our community and society. However, the position to ask the federal government to legalize narcotics does not bring the right attention to El Paso. It says “we give up and we don’t care.”

Reyes’ letter was actually less ignorant and offensive, though meaningless:

While this resolution is well-intentioned, I believe its passage would be counterproductive to our efforts to enact an ambitious legislative agenda at the federal level.

Link

A former Mountlake Terrace police sergeant whose views supporting the decriminalization of marijuana led to his dismissal in 2005 has won his job back and an $815,000 settlement from the city and Snohomish County.

White House Announcement:

The President intends to designate Patrick Ward, of Virginia, to be Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Here’s Patrick Ward’s bio.
Scott Morgan has some mild speculation, but I’m guessing that it’s just a matter of Walters leaving and the fact that the ONDCP head is seldom one of the early appointments in an administration, so a deputy director will be taking over for awhile. (Remember Edward Jurith, the acting Director from January 5 to December 6, 2001? Nobody does.)
My big question is… When? When will John Walters be walking out the door? (So I can conduct a proper celebration.)
Because it can’t be too soon. They’re still doing stuff there. Yes, the ONDCP has a new ad.
It doesn’t appear to play in all browsers, but that’s OK — they’ve got the script there as well:

COPY:
This spot is shot as proud and dramatic, with uplifting, anthemic music underneath.
We open on a kid in his little sister‰s room.
COUCH KID: I stole from my little sister!
Cut to a girl holding up a report card.
D+ GIRL: I got straight D‰s!
Cut to a guy on his bed.
CELL PHONE GUY: I left me ex-girlfriend 27 messages last night!
Cut to a girl with a woman who has been crying.
GIRL: I made my mother cry!
Cut to a kid who is being drawn on.
DRAWN ON KID: I let people draw on me!
Open on a guy sitting in his car in the drive way.
KID: I ditched my friends and let them find their own way home.
Cut back to shots of them looking at the camera and nodding with pride.
SUPER: What has weed done for you?
(LOGO & URL)

They just don’t get it. Who is going to respond to this message? Actually, the guy who’s getting drawn on looks like he’s having a good time. They all do. And the truth is that the majority of pot smokers are quite successful. Even the drug czar says that most of them are working.
One of my former students confided in me just after he graduated Magna Cum Laude from the university that he had smoked pot every day of his college career. In addition to his outstanding grades, he was President of two very successful student organizations.
What has weed done for you?