WSJ article on War on Drugs

[Working Poor]

What do ya'll think of this?

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

[cheapseats]

You will recall Barack Hussein Obama's promotion of Redistribution Of Wealth.

Barack Hussein Obama & Gang would re-direct wealth from Incarceration Incorporated to Big Healthcare, Big Pharmaceuticals, Big MENTAL Healthcare and, of course, as always, BIG LAW.

Where's he taking his first vacation again? Ah yes, Martha's Vineyard. The Holy Graille of Limousine Liberals.

Who found the special-blend pooch for the First Princesses? Ah yes, glutton and lush Ted Kennedy . . . of Mary Jo Kopechne notoriety.

[dannno]

I liked the analogy of this being like turning around an ocean liner.. at least it's turning.

Ron Paul could flip that bitch like Mark Foley passing a male prostitute on the wrong side of the road.

[cheapseats]

Ron Paul could flip that bitch like Mark Foley passing a male prostitute on the wrong side of the road.

I would remind you that Ron Paul has been in Congress for MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS.

Not like, but also LIKE Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy et al.

Do Ron Paulers suggest that, were it not for Ron Paul's vigilant eye on our rights and freedoms, we would be in dramatically worse shape than we are in?

[gls]

Considering this regime’s penchant for doubletalk, we should probably expect a large increase in drug war related funding and arrests.

[cheapseats]

Considering this regime’s penchant for doubletalk, we should probably expect a large increase in drug war related funding and arrests.

Exactly so.

This approach bespeaks a windfall for healthcare "professionals," Big Insurance and Big Law . . . the Democratic Darlings.

Also Big Pharmaceuticals . . . that's the carrot, ironically, for the hardline anti-drug Drug Lords.

[cheapseats]

De-criminalize marijuana and hemp RAPIDO -- like an overnight stimulus package.

Release all non-violent marijuana convicts immediately upon their signing a most generous promise not to demand reparations.

Free and clear. They can vote. They can bear arms.

How hard is that?

How JUST is that?

[mczerone]

What do ya'll think of this?

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


I read the whole article, but the header says all that needs to be said:



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.

1) This is just going to be a re-naming and re-organization. Like the "war on Terror" magically became an "overseas contingency operation", the "war on drugs" will become a "dependent citizen reform program." Aren't you so happy that the State thinks that it can "banish ideas"!?

2) This was clear in his (Obama's) campaign website, that he wanted to expand drug courts and faith based reform programs. I warned people. The election of Obama will mean MORE prosecutions for meaningless drug offenses - but people will be given the option for mandatory "treatment" or mandatory sentencing more strict than we currently have.

3) The Treatment programs will just be more government favors given to inefficient, ineffective, wrong-headed programs like AA that don't have any proven success rate, except the success it brings at the polls for the politicians that talk up their "community involvement" by spending your money on other people's drug habits. (Not to mention the effects of encouraging drug use due to the existence of a "social safety net.")

4) The ultimate decisions of who "has a problem" and what is an "illicit" drug is still left up to bureaucrats that are only responsive to big-pharma's money and heart-string pulling anecdotes that are inappropriately applied to suggest more government is the answer. They care not for real-world effects, personal rights, property rights, real crime rates, or morality as long as they keep their campaign coffers full and 51% of the voters.

Maybe some people shouldn't do drugs so they won't be fooled as easily - but that doesn't mean outlawing them will cause those people to stop.

[cheapseats]

I read the whole article, but the header says all that needs to be said:


Not quite.


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."

Write to Gary Fields at gary.fields@wsj.com

Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words. Do as I say, not as I do. Pick your platitude. I can and will mount strong argument that the federal government of the United States of America is ABSOLUTELY conducting itself as though many hard-working, God-fearing, line-towing Americans are enemies, and as though American Dissidents are enemy combatants.

The rest of the People, the government views as serfs for hire or pawns for purchase.

[dannno]

I would remind you that Ron Paul has been in Congress for MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS.

Ya, but a single congressman can't do much, I was just saying if he had the authority he would do it quickly, like withdrawing from Iraq.





Do Ron Paulers suggest that, were it not for Ron Paul's vigilant eye on our rights and freedoms, we would be in dramatically worse shape than we are in?

Probably, who knows.

[cheapseats]

Ya, but a single congressman can't do much, I was just saying if he had the authority he would do it quickly, like withdrawing from Iraq.

His fans don't wanna hear it, I know, but the man lacks Presence. Obviously. The finest minds seldom wield the most power, I expect you've noticed.




Probably, who knows.

True enough. But you'll concede that dramatically worse than where we are is basically what's right around the corner. On the whole, he has not had Great Impact.

In our recent presidential race-more-like-auction, both Ron Paul AND the Libertarian party whose standard he declined to risk bearing finished poorly.

[mczerone]

Ethan Nadelmann is willing to sacrifice ideals for political power and is willing to lie to persuade.

He suggested legalizing cannabis (which he called either 'pot' or 'marijuana') would have an effect on the Mexican violence. This is just wrong. The Mexican violence is primarily due to Coca, and only a change in our policy on those drugs will have any effect in Mexico and Central America.

He wholeheartedly encourages heavy taxation and regulation, at a federal level. This will lead to just as strong if not stronger of a black market as there is now, because cannabis is a weed - it can be grown anywhere, by anyone. If there is some legality in the production of cannabis, it will be easier to set up a black-market grow operation that will be able to siphon more profits than now because the tax-rate of the legal 'weed' (undoubtedly of sub-standard quality) excuses a significant rise above production and risk costs. Ultimately showing that "it just has to be illegal."

[cheapseats]

De-criminalize marijuana and hemp RAPIDO -- like an overnight stimulus package.

Release all non-violent marijuana convicts immediately upon their signing a most generous promise not to demand reparations.

Free and clear. They can vote. They can bear arms.

How hard is that?

How JUST is that?

Apology for going off track.

This is where I stand.

[cheapseats]

He suggested legalizing cannabis (which he called either 'pot' or 'marijuana') would have an effect on the Mexican violence. This is just wrong.

Correctomundo.

Be they Mexican or be they Black, we WANT a few of those Drug Lords to come in from the cold, and some of them will. Think of it not as early retirement but as ECONOMIC STIMULUS.

They are MUCH better businessmen than the high-brow Financiers who have been at the helm during our fall from grace and greatness.

[ghengis86]

Correctomundo.

Be they Mexican or be they Black, we WANT a few of those Drug Lords to come in from the cold, and some of them will. Think of it not as early retirement but as ECONOMIC STIMULUS.

They are MUCH better businessmen than the high-brow Financiers who have been at the helm during our fall from grace and greatness.

that's the truth right there.

off topic: ron's influence over the years up until the current H.R. 1207, Audit the Fed bill, is marginal at best with regard to changing government. however, i think the educational impact over the past 30 years has laid the foundation for our current awakening. so, no, as a congressman passing laws to change government, he's had little success. even i can admit something as obvious as that. but laying the groudwork for freedom/liberty is just starting to reveal his success.

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

His fans don't wanna hear it, I know, but the man lacks Presence. Obviously. The finest minds seldom wield the most power, I expect you've noticed.





True enough. But you'll concede that dramatically worse than where we are is basically what's right around the corner. On the whole, he has not had Great Impact.

In our recent presidential race-more-like-auction, both Ron Paul AND the Libertarian party whose standard he declined to risk bearing finished poorly.

Although I have heard people say things to that effect before, I don't really agree with the " presence " statement.

IMO, it is not that Ron lacks presence...

it is that most people make the mistake of falling for the smooth talking, soap opera look-a-like, regardless of the foul, wretched being within.

[cheapseats]

Although I have heard people say things to that effect before, I don't really agree with the " presence " statement.

IMO, it is not that Ron lacks presence...

it is that most people make the mistake of falling for the smooth talking, soap opera look-a-like, regardless of the foul, wretched being within.

Look to Madison Avenue, American Idol, and pre-teens sexed up to sell clothing to know that we aren't changing our stripes in Ron Paul's meaningful future.

[cheapseats]

that's the truth right there.

off topic: ron's influence over the years up until the current H.R. 1207, Audit the Fed bill, is marginal at best with regard to changing government. however, i think the educational impact over the past 30 years has laid the foundation for our current awakening. so, no, as a congressman passing laws to change government, he's had little success. even i can admit something as obvious as that. but laying the groudwork for freedom/liberty is just starting to reveal his success.

The men who laid the foundations of magnificent edifices, cathedrals and such, never saw the completion of their life's labor either.

To say he is a loooong shot for the presidency detracts not at all from his service or character.

Consider the percentage of Americans who will either be receiving federal aid or who will be EMPLOYED by the federal government, and know that this is no time to play long shots.

[cheapseats]

Off track again, sorry.

It seems to me that more people with growing/farming skillz would simply plant marijuana. Is it fear of the heavy boot and long arm of government that prevents them from pursuing happiness with a Cash Crop, or is it a shortage of good-not-Monsanto seed?

[dannno]

His fans don't wanna hear it, I know, but the man lacks Presence. Obviously. The finest minds seldom wield the most power, I expect you've noticed.

Well I think he has great presence, I think the power thing is due to other factors such as general mindset of average Americans, lack of media coverage of the principles of liberty in general, the fact that he is only 1 of hundreds of congressman who are generally ignorant on the issues of liberty, etc..

[dannno]

He suggested legalizing cannabis (which he called either 'pot' or 'marijuana') would have an effect on the Mexican violence. This is just wrong. The Mexican violence is primarily due to Coca, and only a change in our policy on those drugs will have any effect in Mexico and Central America.


Actually the Mexican nationals run a lot of the large outdoor operations in California wildernesses, and cannabis is the #1 cash crop in California. It would make a pretty good dent. Not to mention a lot of cannabis does make it's way over the border. But I agree that as far as drugs coming over the border, the highest value is probably coca.

[tangent4ronpaul]

there was a post about a presentation about a country that had totally legalized drugs a while ago and saw less drug use as a result - Portugal? - anyone have a link to that post or the product (transcript/audio/video) of it?

thanks,

-t

[Kraig]

What do ya'll think of this?

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

Sounds like they will be forcing people into treatment rather than jail. Arguably the same thing. I don't need their punishment or there treatment.

[surf]

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.



this guy criticized the voters of Seattle for approving of a recommendation that the least criminal activity should receive the least resources and be the lowest priority. This is the former Seattle police Chief that should have been the new drug czar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Stamper
Since his resignation, Stamper has called for the legalization of all drugs and the case-by-case release of persons incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses.[3] He serves as an advisory board member for LEAP as well as NORML.[3][4] He has also starred in the marijuana documentary The Union: The Business Behind Getting High.

Stamper is the author of a book entitled Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Expose of the Dark Side of American Policing.[5]

[ceakins]

Gil Kerlikowske was the Police Chief of Seattle. While he was chief the city counsel voted to make MJ busts the lowest priority which was passed. Say what you will about him, but he does have a history. His predecessor Norm Stamper is also a card carrying member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Kerlikowske worked under him.

[torchbearer]

I support L.E.A.P.
Have a good friend in L.E.A.P.

[cheapseats]

Lost Taxes and Other Costs
of Marijuana Laws


by Jon Gettman, Ph.D.

The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform
www.drugscience.org

September 5, 2007
Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws
- 1 -
Executive Summary

Government reports indicate that the nation's marijuana laws cost taxpayers $41.8 billion
annually. This calculation is based on (a) a reconciliation of estimates of the annual
supply of marijuana in the United States and estimates of its overall value and (b) Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) data on the share of the Gross Domestic Product
diverted by regulatory taxes to US Government budgets.

Government reports from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Library of
Congress, and other sources indicate that the supply of marijuana in the United States is
14,349 metric tons, or 31.1 million pounds. Various price indexes from public and
private sources produce a retail price of $7.87/gr or $3,570/lb, setting the overall retail
value of the illicit marijuana market at $113 billion.

The Office of Management and Budget reports that local, state, and the federal
government receipts represent 28.7% of the gross domestic product as tax revenue. The
diversion of $113 billion from the taxable economy into the illicit economy deprives
taxpayers of $31.1 billion annually.

According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, marijuana arrests consist of 5.54% of all arrests. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics reports that total criminal justice expenditures in the United States in 2004, for
example, were $193 billion. Marijuana arrests cost taxpayers $10.7 billion annually.

Federally-funded surveys indicate that marijuana has remained widely available over the
last 25 years. The Monitoring the Future Survey indicates that since 1992 surveys report
that at least 2 out of 5 eighth grade students, 2 out of 3 10th grade students, and 4 out of 5
high school seniors find marijuana widely available.

Despite marginal changes in annual data, marijuana use in the United States has remained
fundamentally unchanged in the last decade and a half. Since the beginning of annual
surveys on drug use, now called the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 1990
the average level of annual marijuana use has been 9.3% (± 1%) of the population age 12
and over. In 1990 10.2% of this population used marijuana in the last year, and in 2005
annual usage was at 10.5%.

During this period the average monthly use of marijuana averaged 5.1% (± .6%). In 1990
monthly marijuana usage was at 5.1%; in 2005 monthly marijuana usage was reported by
6% of this population. During this period monthly use of marijuana by adolescents age
12 to 17 averaged 6.9% (± 1.6%). In 1990 monthly marijuana use was reported by 5.2%
of this age group; in 2005 this age group reported monthly marijuana use by 6.8%.
Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws
.
.
.
Introduction

The social and economic costs of drug abuse are often used to justify contemporary
policies which treat marijuana use, cultivation, and sale as criminal offenses in most of
the United States. These costs are frequently an excuse to refuse to consider whether
alternative policies might be more effective. For example, it is argued that marijuana's
legalization cannot be considered because legalization would result in a substantial
increase in its use and would produce unacceptable increases in the social and economic
costs of drug abuse. This report challenges the premise of such an argument by looking
at both the costs and results of current policies.

Certainly, there is widespread consensus that easy access to marijuana can be harmful to
adolescents and people afflicted with mental illness such as schizophrenia. However, it is
equally obvious that current laws making marijuana possession illegal have failed to
protect these vulnerable groups.

After funding decades of scientific research, the United States Government has failed to
make a convincing case that marijuana is more harmful to individual health than alcohol
or tobacco. An examination of the scientific record is beyond the scope of this report,
however it is relatively easy to support the assertion that the government has failed to
convince many scientific and other experts, let alone millions of marijuana users, that the
drug is more dangerous than alcohol. Consider the following offhand remarks reported
by the national media during 2007.
A June 14, 2007 report by ABC News on marijuana cultivation features comments on
whether marijuana is a gateway drug by Columbia University neuroscientist Dr. Carl
Hart:
"I don't know of any evidence to support the statement that marijuana is
the biggest cause of addiction,'' Dr. Hart told ABC News, who also
challenged Walters' claim that 60 percent of drug treatment goes to
marijuana users. "About ten percent of the folks who ever try marijuana
will become addicted or dependent, whereasabout 15 to 20 percent of
those individuals who [try] cocaine will become addicted,'' he said, citing
DEA statistics he's studied.
A quarter of the people who try heroin become addicted, Hart said, and a
full third of those who try tobacco become addicted.
"Is marijuana a gateway drug?" Hart asked rhetorically. "It's a difficult
question because I think people focus on, 'you try marijuana you're going
to go on to other drugs,' when the vast majority of the folks who [use]
marijuana do not go on to other drugs. But certainly, those individuals
who've tried cocaine and they have tried heroin, most of them have used
marijuana. And most of them have used alcohol underage, and most of
them have smoked tobacco as well. So if you think about 'gateway' in that
Lost Taxes and Other Costs of Marijuana Laws
- 5 -
sense, certainly you can say it's a gateway. But what is the meaning of
gateway when you put it together like that?"1
A June 25, 2007 article in Newsweek regarding parent-sanctioned alcohol use by teens
reported the following comment:
"Aaron White of Duke University Medical Center, who studies adolescent
alcohol use . . . says parents should think twice about offering alcohol to
teens because their brains are still developing and are more susceptible to
damage than adult brains. 'If you're going to do that, I suggest you teach
them to roll joints, too,' he says, 'because the science is clear that alcohol is
more dangerous than marijuana.'"2
The Washington Post provided a profile of Dr. Drew Pinsky and his appearance before a
group of conservative Congressional Staff members at a presentation sponsored by the
Independent Women's Forum advertised as a "Campus Sex and Dating Conference"
hosted by House Minority Leader John Boehner. According to the Washington Post:
"The conservative National Review several years ago described Pinsky, host of
the radio show 'Loveline,' as a 'hip cultural warrior' who delivers family values in
a stealthy package. . . Turning to drug use, Pinsky asserted that, as a matter of
health, marijuana 'is certainly no worse than alcohol and cigarettes and maybe
better.'"3
Just as there is a lack of consensus that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or
tobacco, and thus requires greater legal suppression and criminal penalties rather than a
regulatory and more public-health oriented public policy approach, there is also a lack of
consensus and data that current policies are either successful at restricting access to
marijuana, cost-effective, or both. The government publishes considerable data on
marijuana, including its supply, use, availability, and price. Marginal changes in these
figures are often spun by Administration officials as proof their policies are successful.
Indeed, over the long-term, these data are reasonable indicators with which to evaluate
the effectiveness of public policy.

But this data has two specific functions within the scope of this report. First, over the
long term this data demonstrates the boundary of what the government asserts is
acceptable performance for their marijuana-related policies. Despite the rhetoric and
hyperbole that accompanies their annual strategies and budgets, consistent data suggests
that marijuana use and supply have not significantly diminished over the long-term and
are unlikely to diminish in the future. Second, these data provide us with additional
boundaries within which to estimate the cost of this approach to marijuana laws.
.
.
.

It's quite a long piece, for which I do not have the link, sorry. I think googling Dr. Gettman's name will lead to the piece, albeit perhaps in a roundabout internet-y way.