Slog
News & ArtsSunday, November 16, 2008
Drugs Where Change Isn’t Gonna Come
Posted by Dominic Holden on Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM
The White House's drug-enforcement office.
Rep. Jim Ramstad's name is bouncing around as a possible "drug czar" — the name given the head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Ramstad, a Minnesota Republican, is in recovery himself and has been a longtime proponent of treatment for drug abuse. […]Ramstad has consistently voted against medical marijuana in Congress, opposing an effort to prevent the federal government from raiding or arresting medical marijuana clubs in states where it is legal.
Of course Ramstad supports treatment. Everybody says they support treatment. Bush’s sitting drug czar, John P. Walters, can’t shut up about how much he adores treatment. And at a press conference in Seattle, City Attorney Tom Carr stood next to the drug czar to oppose I-75 at a detox facility that prizes treatment. But Walters, Carr, and the like ruthlessly defend a policy to keep arresting record numbers of people for low-level drug offenses while we only have enough funding to help one in five people who seek treatment.
This is the bait-and-switch rhetoric that emerged under the Bush Administration. If Obama picks Ramstad, expect the same line of bullshit. Keep in mind, this is the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and our country’s drug policy is clear: We lock up people caught with drugs. That’s where the 70 percent of the money goes. Not treatment. Not to needle exchange that saves lives. Not to education programs that actually reduce drug abuse. The remaining 30 percent is divided into some treatment, the counter-productive D.A.R.E. programs and those far-fetched anti-drug ads. But if Ramstad is pushing raids on medical marijuana patients—the most repugnant aspect of federal drug policy—he’s sure not going to prioritize treatment or consider a change to "the failed policies of the last eight years."
Meanwhile, change is already coming on the state level.
1
Can we start an "Obama's shitty appointments/advisors" count? This, practically his entirely economic team, Gates (and you thought Obama would end the war!)... what else?
3
Does the Drug Czar or Czarina get to decide whether treatment gets funding? Seems like Congress makes funding decisions and the bureaucrats have only so much latitude within the funding boundaries set by them. So in a way, this would be one less anti-treatment vote in Congress if this guy got promoted out of the House of Representatives.
Maybe I don't know my civics.
Maybe I don't know my civics.
4
If I were trying to chart a sane course forward and I were the Obama team, I would create the appearance of maintaining a tough-on-crime approach featuring some conservative appointments and the same ol' bullshit scare tactics, while quietly making "painful sacrifices" at the budget end, cutting programs like DARE that have been shown not to work.
That's the best-case scenario. Worst-case: more of the same. Ineffective, punitive drug policy that benefits prison guards, law enforcement budgets and nobody else.
That's the best-case scenario. Worst-case: more of the same. Ineffective, punitive drug policy that benefits prison guards, law enforcement budgets and nobody else.
5
Who would be a good candidate for head of the ONDCP? Are there any "qualified" people that could actually get appointed and would be able foster significant change in the way the federal government treats these issues?
6
Elenchos, the drug czar (or czarina) makes recommendations to the president and Congress for the annual ONDCP budget. Ultimately, it's up to lawmakers to decide. But, of all the people in the country, the czar/ina is in the best position to get more money for more treatment and stop emphasizing, say, busting sick people who smoke a joint.
7
@3 Ramstead did not run for re-election this year. His seat was won by a repub named Eric Paulson.
8
Wait... so this whole "change" mantra was just a brilliant corporate PR strategy created by Axelrod. I'm shocked!!!!!
Your life will not change during Obama's admin. Government will not change during his admin.
Your life will not change during Obama's admin. Government will not change during his admin.
9
Keep giving your input. I believe things will change if we want it. That includes continuing to fight a return of apathy and writing our Representatives in congress about the change we need. Be the sand irritating the oyster until it gives you a pearl.
10
@3
The President is the most powerful political leader in the USA. See: US Const. Art. I I think it is.
He can pick a drug czar that would say this:
"You know it's a damn immoral shame that there are these umpty-hundreds thousand folks in jail who just did a little blow, or a little pot, or a little crack. Turns out, their jail sentnece harms them, and us ($$$$$) more than their drug use did.
"How do I know? well Geroge Bush did a little blow and so did Barack Obama. So we know this whole war on drugs is a failed strategy that is immoral in its core.
"It's immoral because the harm to the individuals we lock up exceeds the harm they do to us, and because it's us -- not them -- who can stop the drug violence and effects on inner city neighborhoods, by decriminalizing drugs and removing the monopoly profits.
"It's also immoral because if you're a white, or if you're an upper class black person, you just don't suffer from doing drugs.
"In fact, as we saw with George Bush and my own president you can end up president of the USA -- if you don't get caught.
"To have some ending up president and others in jail vioaltes every notion of fairness, due process and equality that makes our nation great. This kind of arbitrariness is tyranny. It's unAmerican.
"So we're going to change and do the right thing. I have been instructed by President Obama to convene hearings into wehther there are substnatial numbers of leading US citizens who did some blow or some pot or some crack and ended up being leaders of industry, the arts, education or science.
If we find that they have, then we're going to tell the truths: it's over-use of drugs, not drugs per se that is harmful, and they shouldn't be illegal.
"President Obama will then push for reform of"
blH blaH blaH.
Keeping all the drug posessors in jail while electing other drug possessors to president is a bit immoral, no?
Racist as all hell, too.
Unity --
More...
The President is the most powerful political leader in the USA. See: US Const. Art. I I think it is.
He can pick a drug czar that would say this:
"You know it's a damn immoral shame that there are these umpty-hundreds thousand folks in jail who just did a little blow, or a little pot, or a little crack. Turns out, their jail sentnece harms them, and us ($$$$$) more than their drug use did.
"How do I know? well Geroge Bush did a little blow and so did Barack Obama. So we know this whole war on drugs is a failed strategy that is immoral in its core.
"It's immoral because the harm to the individuals we lock up exceeds the harm they do to us, and because it's us -- not them -- who can stop the drug violence and effects on inner city neighborhoods, by decriminalizing drugs and removing the monopoly profits.
"It's also immoral because if you're a white, or if you're an upper class black person, you just don't suffer from doing drugs.
"In fact, as we saw with George Bush and my own president you can end up president of the USA -- if you don't get caught.
"To have some ending up president and others in jail vioaltes every notion of fairness, due process and equality that makes our nation great. This kind of arbitrariness is tyranny. It's unAmerican.
"So we're going to change and do the right thing. I have been instructed by President Obama to convene hearings into wehther there are substnatial numbers of leading US citizens who did some blow or some pot or some crack and ended up being leaders of industry, the arts, education or science.
If we find that they have, then we're going to tell the truths: it's over-use of drugs, not drugs per se that is harmful, and they shouldn't be illegal.
"President Obama will then push for reform of"
blH blaH blaH.
Keeping all the drug posessors in jail while electing other drug possessors to president is a bit immoral, no?
Racist as all hell, too.
Unity --
11
Obama has been making a lot of center right appointments. Rahm Emanual helped pack congress with pro war blue dog dems in 2006. Henrey Kissenger just loves the talk of appointing pro war Clinton as secretary of State. Not that I am surprised, Obama is a Democrat, and Dems never fail at stabbing progressives in the back. The novelty of a Black president is going to ware off soon.
12
Are you guys starting to feel stupid for voting for Obama yet?
Well, let me know when it happens...
Well, let me know when it happens...
13
@9 for the win. Government only gets better if we keep working to make it better. That holds true even when things aren't going our direction. Given how out-and-out fucked everything's been the last eight years, did you really expect this country to turn into our progressive paradise overnight? This shit takes decades of continued hard work, folks. But history's on our side: women and minorities have the right to vote, we've put an end to legalized racial segregation, and we have a minimum wage and 40-hour work week. Gay marriage and sensible drug policy are up next, even if they don't happen under Obama.
16
@ 10 - It's Article II that defines the Presidency.
The only way this will change is if a MMJ state has the balls to arrest the DEA agents that conduct illegal raids.
The only way this will change is if a MMJ state has the balls to arrest the DEA agents that conduct illegal raids.
18
In order to fight it more effectively, we need to drop the (accurate) rhetoric about prohibition not working, and focus instead on the fact that prohibition is a huge waste of money.
A huge amount of our federal budget goes to the prison industrial complex, law enforcement investigation of nonviolent offenders, and the court system to handle drug prosecutions. In a day and age where we question how much money is going to Iraq, how much money is going to a bank bailout, and how much is in the federal deficit, why aren't we looking at how much we could save if we repeal prohibition? I don't know what the number is, but why is this issue not being considered in terms of something that might help balance the budget? "The war on drugs is killing social security." has a nice ring to it.
A huge amount of our federal budget goes to the prison industrial complex, law enforcement investigation of nonviolent offenders, and the court system to handle drug prosecutions. In a day and age where we question how much money is going to Iraq, how much money is going to a bank bailout, and how much is in the federal deficit, why aren't we looking at how much we could save if we repeal prohibition? I don't know what the number is, but why is this issue not being considered in terms of something that might help balance the budget? "The war on drugs is killing social security." has a nice ring to it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (19) RSS