USA - Obama: Drugs

[Nature Boy]

Keep an eye on who Obama appoints as his drug czar. That's what makes or breaks him from my point of view. The CIA and the FDA are full of scumbags that need to be washed away. I guess it's a bit over-optimistic to think that they will actually introduce proper harm reduction policies, widespread medicinal marijuana, more leeway involving use of psychedelics for psychiatric purposes and implementing decriminalisation policies for non-violent recreational drug users. I fear the private prison system is too strong and that too much corruption exists however. With every US President since Nixon, incarceration levels have risen. If Tommy fucking Chong did time for having his face on his son's bongs, who knows what they might do in years to come if the tide doesn't turn.

[Expat98]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

Keep an eye on who Obama appoints as his drug czar. That's what makes or breaks him from my point of view.

You are right. Talk means nothing - it's the actual policies that count. Clinton, for example, presented himself as a hip sax player who didn't inhale. And then proceeded to appoint the hardliner Barry McCaffrey as his drug czar, and drug incarcerations shot up dramatically.

FWIW, at this point it definitely looks as if Obama is the best choice of the 3 contenders as far as drug reform issues are concerned. Below is an article last week from Reason magazine.

********************************

Obama on Medical Marijuana: Getting Clearer

Jacob Sullum | May 15, 2008, 6:30pm

Last summer, when Barack Obama repeatedly distanced himself from the Bush administration's policy regarding medical marijuana, he stopped short of explicitly promising to let states go their own way in this area. But two recent interviews seem to have eliminated any wiggle room on that question.

Until now Obama's firmest stand was the one he took on August 21 in Nashua, New Hampshire. Asked if he would continue the Drug Enforcement Administration's raids on medical marijuana users and their caregivers, he replied:

I would not have the Justice Department prosecuting and raiding medical marijuana users. It's not a good use of our resources.

That statement still left open the possibility of prosecuting and raiding the people who supply patients with marijuana and are permitted to do so under state law. In a May 9 interview with Oregon's Willamette Week, however, Obama was specifically asked whether he would "stop the DEA's raids on Oregon medical marijuana growers" (emphasis added), and he said:

I would because I think our federal agents have better things to do, like catching criminals and preventing terrorism. The way I want to approach the issue of medical marijuana is to base it on science, and if there is sound science that supports the use of medical marijuana and if it is controlled and prescribed in a way that other medicine is prescribed, then it's something that I think we should consider.

That last part is rather vague: Who is "we," and what is it they're considering? The Obama campaign's response to questions from the Los Angles Times clarifies things a bit:

"Voters and legislators in the states—from California to Nevada to Maine—have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering," said campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

"Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice— though he believes medical marijuana should be subject to [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] regulation like other drugs," LaBolt said. He said the FDA should consider how marijuana is regulated under federal law, while leaving states free to chart their own course.

It seems to me that Obama now has unequivocally promised to back off and allow states to make their own policy decisions about the medical use of marijuana within their own borders. He also seems to be saying the federal government should consider rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act so that doctors can legally prescribe it. Even if that second part never materializes, on this issue Obama is much better than John McCain, who (as the Times notes) has repeatedly flip-flopped between federalism and drug-war dogmatism, with the latter at this point winning out.

[Nature Boy]

Federally allowing medicinal marijuana should not actually be that difficult. The majority of the population are not against it, even that hard-ass conservative Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona. It's the pharmaceutical interest that would be bothered by this. Medicinal marijuana, fully explored, could eliminate the need for many unsuitable legal prescription drugs on the market today. Valium, prozac, ritalin etc. would all be in trouble. Clinton and McCain both have considerable investments in the pharmaceutical industry. One would only hope that Obama might turn things in a new direction simply because he might be the first US President in a generation not to have a vested interest in that business.

[th3tawav3]

Obama was a recreational drug user back in the day and mentions his use of weed and coke in one of his books. He stands firmly for the decriminalization of marijuana. Yet as of right now he has to be very careful as to how he addresses the public on this issue. He is already very out of touch with older democrats and semi-conservtive blue collar workers etc. These are the people who will criticize his stance on illegal drugs. He should do was he has done and keep it on the down low until he is atleast a surefire candidate in the generals.

Moreover drug use actually went up by a considerably large amount during Clinton's presidency. When Clinton took office in 1992, he slashed the White House Office of Drug Control Policy by 80% and cut the number of drug enforcement - agents and their training. His National Security Council dropped the war on drugs from THIRD priority to last - 29th out of 29. His Attorney General, Janet Reno, criticized minimum mandatory jail sentences for drug crimes. His Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, called for studying the legalization of drugs. His more or less indifferent stance on drugs was ok at the time, since the war on drugs was obviously failing during the 80s.



Ron Paul actually has a far greater stance about decriminalization. Although out of the picture now, it is still important to recognize the realities of the situation. Dr. Paul argues that drug legalization (complete legalization) would elimante several drug problems overnight including drug related crime and organized drug trafficking cartels.



Seriously, research complete legalization of drugs and hope that Obama can have enough courage to initiate change like he says he can.

Although in the US, i doubt drug legalization will ever be a reality. People would be like "Oh my god! LEGAL METH! WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY COMING TO!



*sigh*

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for an informative post.

[RaverHippie]

Methamphetamine is already legal as a prescription. That fact alone is one that stuns the average person I meet on the street. As far as Obama goes it seems like he's the option we're stuck with so we just have to have hope...however far that gets us..

[Expat98]

Originally Posted by th3tawav3

When Clinton took office in 1992, he slashed the White House Office of Drug Control Policy by 80% and cut the number of drug enforcement - agents and their training. His National Security Council dropped the war on drugs from THIRD priority to last - 29th out of 29. His Attorney General, Janet Reno, criticized minimum mandatory jail sentences for drug crimes. His Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders, called for studying the legalization of drugs. His more or less indifferent stance on drugs was ok at the time, since the war on drugs was obviously failing during the 80s.

I believe that you have painted a highly inaccurate picture of Clinton's legacy re: the War on Drugs, but I don't have time to post a full reply right now. Maybe someone else can step in here. For now, I will just point out that Clinton fired his progressive Surgeon General who made those remarks about drug legalization, among other controversial remarks.

You might take a look at these articles:

THE CLINTON DRUG WAR LEGACY

Clinton's War On Drugs: Cruel, Wrong, Unwinnable

[Hyperspaceblastoff]

dood obama is gonna change this nation around
everyday i think about how he is gonna win the election and save us from this horrible draconian country

[Nature Boy]

Non-violent drug incarcerations grew considerably under Clinton and it was marijuana that most of these incarcerations were over. As Expat98 said, Barry McCaffrey did the dirty work while old Bill just smiled and waved selling out a considerable amount of his supporters. I doubt Obama will do the same, actually making things worse, but I fear he may overlook the entire situation due to the major media outlets brushing it under the rug all the time.

[Panthers007]

Then we, The People, need to make it news-worthy. Don't let 'em sweep it under the rugs. Pull up the carpet and shake it.

[bcubed]

I agree that talk at this point is virtually worthless. Pols publicly say what their handlers tell them they need to in order to win a particular segment of the voting public--it's like a (slightly) more cerebral version of studio wrestling pre-match interviews.

Actions will tell.

[Expat98]

Originally Posted by Panthers007

Then we, The People, need to make it news-worthy. Don't let 'em sweep it under the rugs. Pull up the carpet and shake it.

Further along these lines, I was just reading an interview with Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of political science at Boston University and social activist. Asked the question, "Do you go to the polls? Do you vote?", here was his reply:

Originally Posted by Howard Zinn

Sometimes, not always. It depends. But I believe that it is preferable sometimes to have one candidate rather another candidate, while you understand that that is not the solution. Sometimes the lesser evil is not so lesser, so you want to ignore that, and you either do not vote or vote for third party as a protest against the party system. Sometimes the difference between two candidates is an important one in the immediate sense, and then I believe trying to get somebody into office, who is a little better, who is less dangerous, is understandable. But never forgetting that no matter who gets into office, the crucial question is not who is in office, but what kind of social movement do you have. Because we have seen historically that if you have a powerful social movement, it doesn’t matter who is in office. Whoever is in office, they could be Republican or Democrat, if you have a powerful social movement, the person in office will have to yield, will have to in some ways respect the power of social movements.

We saw this in the 1960s. Richard Nixon was not the lesser evil, he was the greater evil, but in his administration the war was finally brought to an end, because he had to deal with the power of the anti-war movement as well as the power of the Vietnamese movement. I will vote, but always with a caution that voting is not crucial, and organizing is the important thing.

When some people ask me about voting, they would say will you support this candidate or that candidate? I say: ‘I will support this candidate for one minute that I am in the voting booth. At that moment I will support A versus B, but before I am going to the voting booth, and after I leave the voting booth, I am going to concentrate on organizing people and not organizing electoral campaign.’

[Panthers007]

Originally Posted by crunchyblack

LMFAO dood I want some of what you have been smoking!

Dude: It is always better to travel hopefully than it is to arrive.

Howard Zinn expressed a common sentiment in the USA. Usually in elections one is faced with holding their nose and casting their ballot for the lesser of two evils. It's a conundrum. Yet those endowed with a moral/social compass do it. Taking into consideration the huge amount of people who have registered to vote this time around - mostly people who are old enough to do so in the past and didn't bother to - I am impressed. There is something afoot in the USA. People who felt disenfranchised previously now are hearing a voice of hope. Where there was none before. If that voice is Obama's - my headband is off to him.

Register. Vote.

[guldenat]

Originally Posted by th3tawav3

Although in the US, i doubt drug legalization will ever be a reality. People would be like "Oh my god! LEGAL METH! WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY COMING TO!



*sigh*

That is why drugs must be made legal in steps. You don't just try and pass a bill that effectively says "OK, the DEA is abolished. Have at it, gentlemen." Start with legalizing medicinal marijuana... move on to recreational marijuana, then perhaps to mushrooms, and eventually finishing up with Lady H. People need to be acclimated slowly as opposed to just shocking the shit out of them.

I think it can happen... it'll just take time.

Reputation Comments on this post:

I particularly enjoyed the sentence "OK, the DEA is abolished. Have at it, gentlemen."