Don’t Look Now, but Obama Just Revolutionized the War on Drugs

[babylonsister]

Rehab
America's drug policies just got a whole lot better.

Harold Pollack


This week, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the "drug czar" office, unveiled its first National Drug Control Strategy. The policy's release has been repeatedly rescheduled, and last week, drug czar Gil Kerlikowske explained the delays to me with disarming candor: "It's just been hard to get it on the president's calendar because of what he has had in front of him."

Now that the strategy is out: What's different—as a matter of both the strategy document and Obama's broader approach to drugs—and what's the same?

The Disappointments

(1) We're still too focused on fighting drug suppliers. America will continue to spend billions on operations against drug suppliers which have little demonstrated value. In the run-up to this week's release, ONDCP tried to shift some of this money to a more balanced portfolio of evidence-based enforcement, prevention, and treatment efforts. But the office lost that internal political fight with the supply-side enforcement community, which favors an excessive emphasis on measures such as crop eradication, border interdiction, and law-enforcement operations against drug dealers, despite the lack of evidence that these actions effectively disrupt drug markets.

snip//

The Improvements

(1) The attitude and orientation of drug policy is changing. Despite these missed opportunities, the new strategy is a major improvement. On the level of principle, I'm heartened that the plan departs from the traditional blunderbuss rhetoric of American drug policy. This change is matched by Kerlikowske's personal inclusiveness and civility, traits that his Republican predecessor John Walters—who is known for alienating liberals and conservatives alike with his ecumenical disregard for opposing views—certainly did not possess.

(2) The definition of success is changing. During the past 20 years, as street prices of drugs have declined (underscoring the failure of enforcement efforts), more than 150,000 injection-drug users have died of AIDS, and the population of incarcerated drug offenders has climbed past 500,000. Yet ONDCP has still pronounced drug policy a success, as long as fewer Americans reported to national surveys that they had recently used some illicit substance. In effect, this yardstick elevated the prevention of casual marijuana use into the cornerstone of drug policy.

Preventing simple use, particularly among young adults, remains a stated policy goal. Yet the new strategy focuses much more explicitly on harmful consequences: deaths, illness, and injuries associated with substance use. For the first time, ONDCP will help public health authorities implement syringe exchange. ONDCP also focuses on the surprisingly widespread problem of drug overdose, which now surpasses firearms as a cause of death in the U.S.

(3) Our health care and financing system is finally focusing on addiction. The best aspects of the new strategy concern addiction services. ONDCP's report acknowledges the uncomfortable reality that addiction treatment needs to improve. Kerlikowske explained, "We have about 12,000 treatment centers. Yet most of those treatment programs don't employ physicians. Some don't have computers. We're not particularly sure that they're using the best-tested or evidence-based treatment."

more...

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/rehab

[slay]

1. Fuck that - legalize weed or I'd hardly call it anything NEAR a revolution

LEGALIZE IT! I mean they HAVE to legalize it for medical - AIDS, cancer, etc patients. But we all know it should really be straight up legal just like alcohol.

[babylonsister]

5. Gimme a break. Not everyone smokes weed, and in the scheme

of things, a broad approach to changing the dialogue and attitudes on a failed drug policy is more important than your right to toke. I think that, too, will come, and hope it does sooner rather than later, but that doesn't mean what is proposed is without merit.

[elocs]

17. Wow! I thought you had to smoke pot to get a star at DU.

Has this changed recently? :shrug:

[babylonsister]

18. Send me some?

I'll pm you my address, thanks!

[elocs]

20. Well, you have a star. So I reckoned you probably had plenty.

You know, the DU god blessing its worshipers, like multiplying the loaves and fishes.

[babylonsister]

22. Is that a cheezy attempt to get a star?

And what's with the DU god stuff? You're here often enough yourself, pal.

[elocs]

35. No, I don't want a star, but as far as pot goes I'm here as an infidel.

I mean there are those here who love to tweak, ridicule, and treat with contempt those who are traditionally religious so turn around should be fair play. To those who are not religious in the traditional way here, marijuana is about as close to a god as you can get.

[Union Yes]

34. Know of anyone incarcerated for a little weed? I do.

[slay]

27. In what reality do you think it is ok for you to deny me my right to smoke pot?

Maybe we're not on the same side then you and I - this is about fairness and freedom. It's about good people being put in jail or at least "in the system" for choosing a substance other than alcohol. I'll be dead by the time these bullshit laws change. The system is beyond corrupt and fundamentally flawed - it's sad to see that some actually consider these so called changes which are more token than true change a good thing. This is still saying the drug war is good! Not something I can admire in any form or fashion. We need serious change in this area, not token policy shifts.

[nashville_brook]

2. how does this square with the new policy "zero tolerance for metabolites" policy?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/obama-drug-policy-calls-f_b_574483.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8330667&mesg_id=8330667

[slay]

3. It doesn't

that policy is WRONG - oh SO wrong - metabolites stay in the body for long periods of time. I see MANY court cases over this stupid shit in the future. LEGALIZE IT ALREADY sheesh! :smoke:

[Captain Hilts]

4. That one really surprised me in this day and age. Pot just isn't much of a social problem. nt

[depakid]

11. I don't think that's an accurate interpetation

While there's extremely poor wording in that section, I seriously doubt that the intent is zero tolerance for metabolites.

My bet (and I'd bet a sizable sum on this) is that what's supported is legislation or regulations that define per ser levels that rationally relate to some degree of impairment.

[nashville_brook]

23. from the White House National Drug Control Strategy study:

Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/ndcs10/ndcs2010.pdf
State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Therefore, few drivers are identified, prosecuted, or convicted for DUID. Law enforcement personnel usually cite individuals with the easier to prove driving while intoxicated (DWI) alcohol charges. Unclear laws provide vague signals both to drivers and to law enforcement, thereby minimizing the possible preventive benefit of DUID statutes. Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver's body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/obama-drug-policy-calls-f_b_574483.html

(from the HuffPo article)

Here are the states President Obama would like the others to emulate:

Arizona: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

Delaware: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites.

Georgia: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 12 months upon conviction.

Illinois: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 12 months upon conviction.

Indiana: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 60 days upon conviction.

Michigan: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 93 days upon conviction, vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days.

Nevada: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites.

Ohio: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 72 hours in jail, up to 6 months upon conviction, 6 month to 3 year license suspension.

Pennsylvania: DUID for cannabis metabolites, amount unclear.

South Dakota: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites for persons under the age of 21.

Utah: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 48 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.


Nine of the fifteen states cited have "zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites". What this means is that if the inactive (read: non-impairing) THC metabolite (THC-COOH) is detected in the urine of a driver, that driver is impaired in the eyes of the law. (There are actually 17 states that have per se DUID laws, but Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin exclude metabolites of cannabis.) Nevada and Ohio have 15 ng/ml levels which are very low; most workplace pre-employment screenings set the initial screening limit at 50 ng/ml. At the confirmation level of 15 ng/ml, the frequent cannabis user will be positive for perhaps as long as 15 weeks.
Of course, faithful NORML readers and most of the public know that cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in the urine for up to 100 days or longer for a regular cannabis consumer and up to fifteen days for the casual consumer, even after quitting cold turkey. Metabolites in urine don't tell you a driver is actually impaired, they tell you someone used cannabis, but not when. Even the US Department of Transportation admits that a positive test for drug metabolites is "solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment during a focal event."

[depakid]

30. Can you show me a case where that has been used to convict a person on DUI charges?

If so, I will stand corrected.

[Oregone]

36. Unless you've been smokin something, it doesn't

[boppers]

39. "Unimpaired Marijuana Users"

:rofl:

"Sure, I'm still a little bit drunk/stoned/hungover/wrecked, but I'm not impaired just because the drug effects are still running around in my system!"

I don't use/abuse marijuana anymore, but I do still use/abuse alcohol, and have had a bit of a history with other substances, but I can attest to (from first hand history and watching others) multi-day, multi-week, effects from *any* powerful chemical substance.

Hair sampling (which can cover years) is absurd, but a few days/weeks after makes sense to me. You can't get dosed with any drug and expect an instant recovery. If it's still in your blood, it's still in your brain.

[Bobbieo]

6. Breaking the backbone of the Mexican drug cartels should be the immediate goal.

I have never smoked pot in my life and do not intend to but legalize the GD stuff, ASAP if that is what it takes to kill off their business.

[lib2DaBone]

7. Strange.. when Gil Kerlikowski first went out to Seattle as Police Chief...

He had said some heartening things about changing the focus and direction of the war on drugs. I honestly thought, "Someone in Law Enforcement gets it."

Then.. all of a sudden.. it's like he got his marching orders... and now we are back at zero tolerance and talking points from Big Tobacco, the Liquor Lobby and for-profit prisons.

When the Volstead Act was repealed... Al Capone was out of business. The drive-by shootings stopped. Americans did not drink any more than they had under prohibition.. (probably less).

The first step is decriminalizing Marijuana... and worry about the rest later. We have to stop SWAT teams from kicking in doors at 3 am and shooting the family dog over $2 worth of a weed that grows up thru the sidewalk in playgrounds and courthouses.

[robinblue]

8. After 40 years, U.S. drug war failing to meet any of its goals 05/14/2010..........

Forum Name Latest Breaking News
Topic subject After 40 years, U.S. drug war failing to meet any of its goals
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4382157#4382157
4382157, After 40 years, U.S. drug war failing to meet any of its goals
Posted by robinblue on Sat May-15-10 12:52 AM

Source: AP



After 40 years, U.S. drug war failing to meet any of its goals

By Martha Mendoza
Associated Press
Updated: 05/14/2010 12:05:10 AM CDT



MEXICO CITY — After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told the Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

This week President Barack Obama promised to "reduce drug use and the great damage it causes" with a new national policy that he said treats drug use more as a public health issue and focuses on prevention and treatment.

Nevertheless, his administration has increased spending on interdiction and law enforcement to record levels both in dollars and in percentage terms; this year, they account for $10 billion of his $15.5 billion drug-control budget.

Kerlikowske, who coordinates U.S. anti-drug policies, says it will take time for the spending to match the rhetoric. ................

Read more: http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-morning/ci_15083334


This comes as no surprise at all.

[babylonsister]

9. AP? Color me surprised. Maybe we need to start with a different

definition, which I think is what this admin is trying to do. This article relates to a new nat'l policy. I guess we'll see how successful it is down the road.

[robinblue]

10. What is your problem? The AP did an investigation. You got a problem

with that? If anything, this report supports a change in national policy!

http://www.twincities.com/newsletter-morning/ci_15083334?nclick_check=1

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, archival records, federal budgets and dozens of interviews with leaders and analysts, the AP tracked where that money went and found that the United States repeatedly increased budgets for programs that did little to stop the flow of drugs. In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

# $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

# $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

# $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

# $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

# $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

A STEADY FLOW

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brickbat]

24. Wow, is that ever a scaremongering column.

As a former newspaper reporter and editor, I am the first one to say you can't spell "crap" without AP. But this column is a huge over-the-top reaction to the fact that the AP runs analysis and opinions columns. They are marked as such on the wire and it is up to newspapers to label them as such in their pages and on their websites. Analysis stories can be the kind of investigative journalism that we need so desperately. Sometimes, in the hands of an inexperienced reporter or one on a short deadline, they can be clumsy attempts to see the bigger picture. Using this column to trash a well researched and important analysis on the drug war is laughable.

[babylonsister]

26. Do you know who Ron Fournier is?

And I'm not trashing a well-researched article, but the folks who think AP is unbiased need to be educated.

I trust you like to read, because this is what inspired me years ago and it's worth a read; this is the AP...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Fournier

[robinblue]

21. .............

spot on!!

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Hardly revolutionary

It is filled with half measures and also horrible things. Not much to shout about, really. To call it revolutionary smacks of marketing, not of honesty. Incomplete, and reads like a press release.
Stupidity needs to stop, the hyperbole needs to stop.

[slay]

28. Hardly revolutionary AT ALL

sorry OP but your title is bullshit - nothing close to revolutionary here - these are token policy shifts - nothing more. the war on drugs is wrong, puts otherwise good people in prison, and is a huge waste of money. right on calling this more like a press release Bluenorthwest - this whole thread stinks of bad propaganda.

[Vattel]

13. Obama is far better than the Republicans

on so many issues, including drug policy. Too bad that there is no sign that he and Congress will alter the fact that we live in an insanely fascist nation that imprisons nonviolent drug offenders, some of them for decades.

[Oregone]

38. Which essentially sets the bar at "moron"

:)



Let's not use their complete and absolute insanity to further justify lesser idiocy.

[depakid]

15. At looks as though this bit at least has been proven mostly wrong:

Obama's Biden Pick Signals 'More of the Same' Stupid Drug Policies
September 6, 2008

Joe Biden authored the laws establishing the White House drug czar and random drug testing of public employees, among others.

Voters who hoped that Barack Obama's call for "change" would include revamping U.S. drug policy are finding themselves with reasons to be skeptical.

First there was Obama's flip-flop-flip-flop on the subject of decriminalizing marijuana. Speaking at Northwestern University in January 2004, Obama called America's so-called "war on drugs" an "utter failure," and recommended, "(W)e need to rethink and decriminalize our (nation's) marijuana laws." (Obama's candid remarks, though out of step politically, echo public sentiment. Nearly 3 out of 4 Americans endorsed the policy in a 2002 CNN/Time Magazine poll, and 12 state legislatures have already enacted versions of pot decriminalization -- replacing criminal penalties with fine-only sanctions.)

Nevertheless, Obama reversed his pro-pot position during a televised November 2007 MSNBC debate, raising his hand to indicate his opposition to the policy. Following the debate, a spokesman for Obama claimed that the candidate had misunderstood the moderator's question and declared that Obama had, in fact, "always" supported decriminalization. Hours later, however, when presented with video footage of Obama's 2004 statements, the campaign reversed course once again, stating to the Washington Times that the Democratic nominee opposed decriminalizing weed.

Since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Obama has voiced almost no criticism regarding America's punitive drug policies (despite his previous "utter failure" evaluation). As senator, Obama has championed popular anti-drug legislation like the "Combat Meth Act" and has lobbied in favor of increased funding for drug courts and U.S. drug interdiction efforts south of the border.

Nevertheless, many progressives believe -- perhaps rightly -- that Obama's prior admissions of illicit drug use (which the candidate now describes, without further elaboration, as a "mistake"), coupled with his apparent nonideological, holistic approach to public policy, indicates a willingness to move American drug policy away from the moralist, "do drugs, do time" attitudes associated with the Bush administration. If so, then the sudden pairing with Democrat drug war hawk Joe Biden becomes that much more distressing.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/97810/obama%27s_biden_pick_signals_%27more_of_the_same%27_stupid_drug_policies/

[hollowdweller]

19. The torture test

Is if legalization passes in CA will the feds crack down?

If the taxes from legal weed is allowed to pull CA out of the budget hole can he stand in the way.

As warlike and purtanical as our country has become we sorely need the whole nation to get high. Or at least a big part of it.

[MadBadger]

25. As long as the White House encourages states to adopt "per se" laws, I strongly disagree.

[depakid]

29. Query: do you believe that .08 BAC should be per se?

[Bullet1987]

31. I'll say it again...

Until Obama acknowledges that the War on Drugs has been a complete failure and stops the government from funneling money into the security state/prison complex VERY LITTLE will actually change! Hell, the only REAL change is to change the actual drug laws! This "revolutionary" drug policy is simply saying they're going to try another approach. It's not really saying they're abandoning the current system. Don't be fooled.

[Bonobo]

32. Bullshit. How do you figure?

And don't try to hand that "it's about more than your right to toke" stuff.

He is still throwing people in jail for using cannabis, ruining the lives and taking away the freedom from millions of people WHO DID THE SAME THING AS HIM.

Smoking cannabis should be legalized. You may not smoke, but tens of millions of Americans do and they do not need to be cast on the rubbish heap for doing so.

So no, I call BULLSHIT on any claims that his position on the drug war is revolutionary.

He is still busting pot clinics, in opposition to his promises. Until he stops that crap, I will call bullshit where calling bullshit is due.

[Union Yes]

33. People are incarcerated for amounts equal to the lint in your pocket.

Changing that fukt system would be revolutionary.

[Oregone]

37. Fuck the "war on drugs". Its a foolish endeavor for fools

[craigmatic]

40. He should be ending the failure that is the war on drugs not so called "revolutionizing" it.

So what if he wants to treat addicts? Sure it's a good thing but let's face facts here the government is involved in the drug problem going and coming. Our tax dollars go to police and imprisoning users and dealers while the CIA helps to import the drugs to curry favor with whoever is in charge of the countries the product comes from. Legalizing most drugs would be more cost effective. Then we could pay for treatment for people who get addicted and want help with the tax revenue it generates.

[Tsiyu]

41. Lots of good posts in this thread

The way I see it is if Obama wants people to stop abusing substances, he must offer them something cheerier than this.

Many people are confused, struggling, hurting. Many have lost everything despite having played by "the rules." Depressed people abuse all sorts of things - from whiskey to credit cards.

But *whoops!* no more Credit!

People with hope, with a job to go to and/or a home to keep, tend to stay too busy to escape through addiction.


It's like pulling drowning babies out of a flooding stream.

At some point, somebody has to leave the people downstream pulling the drowning babies out, and go upstream to find out who or what is throwing them IN.

And as for cannabis: no brainer. legalize it and stop draining our economy ("our" as in belonging to we little people)

[Warren Stupidity]

42. Let me know when we have stopped locking people up for getting high.

Sorry. Not impressed.