What Does the War on Drugs Mean? Ask the Drug Czar!

Comparing hard core drug use to Prohibition and alcohol is simply ludicrous to begin with, and those that use such arguments seen for the naive individuals they are, or are hard core drug users themselves and suffering from brain dysfunction.

Alcohol is progressively addictive, and other than the hard core drunks which cause most of the auto accidents and deaths, many of which are actually suicides, much different than coke, meth and smack highly addictive from the first use and why those cartels mostly market to kids and youth.

There has never been a drug war in this country at all. Otherwise those southern borders have been secured. The drug addiction problem is another job stimulus, and way that the government can make money off the citizens since most who are arrested are the users, not the sellers, and if the sellers are arrest they are released since their confiscated drug proceeds pay for their legal defense.

And these doctors and such the primary beneficiaries of the drug trafficking and trade, so their views are suspect to begin with.

As is Obamas, since most in Washington are indirect recipients of the drug cartel gravy train in the West and Southwest, and most local law enforcement and all criminal lawyers, behaviorial health experts, and literally thousands of others.

America's insatiable need for drugs, as Ms. Clinton rudely referred in trashing America once again for the liberal agendas, has been created by a negligent federal government doing its primary job. Securing our borders and providing for the common defense.

Most property crimes in the border states are drug related. And the amount have exploded in the last twenty years, and contributed to what is now occuring in the home losses right now in the border states since property insurance and auto insurance rates have skyrocketed as a result.

You might try living in a border state for about five or ten years, border explorer, and then maybe you will have some expertise on this subject. Since it appears you take the propaganda spins a great deal at face value - and the liberal lies.

As far as marijuana and pot, it is the chemical companies alone that don't want it legalized. Since hemp is a cheap replacement for many of their high priced chemicals - the ones such as DuPont and all those MD's also in that field have developed.

And pot can hardly be called addictive. No more addictive than your average sleeping pill, or pain killer.

Ross1776 -

You had me reading along and weighing your words in the first posting, then for some reason you attacked borderexplorer. Her report is a prime example of what used to be called "reporting," that is, telling the public what a particular public official or company executive said in a press conference.

One of the reasons Ron Paul was so appealing to so many people is that he was gentlemanly in his conduct, even if one happened to disagree with him. I have voted Democrat, I have voted Republican and I have voted independent, but I must say that my own observations lead me to the conclusion that in general, the extreme right is usually (not always) the first side to degenerate into attack mode. That's too bad, because it gets in the way of their reasoning and ends up being a liability in the big picture.

As far as your second comment, please tell your congressman to support HR1866. See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.01866:

And the Controlled Substances Act actually is also unconstitutional, and thus would not have the force of law anyway, other than the fact that the people and state governments acknowledge it as valid.

Since, as I said, any and all legislation with respect to drug use or sale actually are state matters - and not federal at all. Thus, this 'Act' was another power grab by the feds to begin with. Controlled substances deal with pharmaceuticals also, not simply street drugs - and while the can make legislation with respect to drugs that cross state lines as interstate commerce if they are drugs for sale, industrial hemp production is controlling the use of an American's actual property and if it is for personal use only then as I said the entire Act is bogus and unlawfully written to begin with.

Banning hemp production on individual sole proprietorary farms was not really within their power to do at all. And it is then state authority that would govern whether laws would then be needed or necessary for recretional or commercial sale primarily that is within their own borders, or sales to minors, or crimes committed while under the influence of any substance as a mitigating factor in any criminal proceeding.

So that entire Act to me was never really within federal authority to do, except addressing interstate commercial sales and distribution of any and all medications or pharmeuceuticals, no matter what 'class' they are.

As far as attacking Border Explorer, with such a handle at all then it would be a misnomer since border explorer appears to be from the East Coast, and has never actually lived in a border state for any length of time at all. So I supposed tourism counts as something that somehow is meant to construe that the border is something that this 'reporter' has any real knowledge of?

As far as 'reporting' reporters actually were meant to be a check on government, not simply reporting facts but also pointing out the errors of government positions. That's why the free press provisions are in our Constitution. In order for the press to expose also the political maneuvering in Washington. And that expecially goes for a 'drug czar' when such a position is an extra-Constitutional one at that, since border protection and security actually is there only job at the federal level, and drug laws and such are actually state matters, not federal at all.

I'm not extreme right in any manner whatsoever. I am a Constitutional Conservative, which is not at all the meaning in this country anymore of what is termed 'far right' since both parties actually have merged. Both are global socialistic in their foreign party beliefs in interventionism, and both are also domestic socialists - giving credence to 'corporate' interests and legislation progressive at the cost of the people, since corporations are not at all parties to it.

So your terminology means absolutely nothing with respect to where we are at this time in history. There are either global socialists that or American conservatives. Or 'liberals' insofar as Constitutional interpretation or 'conservatives' meaning that the Constitution is not a living document at all, but can only be amended by the will and consent of the governed throught the form amendment process.....not by Congress or the state legislatures, or even the Supreme Court - especially not the Supreme Court since they have no inherent amendment powers given them in their interpretative or legal powers.

So your verbage means absolutely nothing. Nor quoting party affiliations.

As far as Dr. Paul, with respect to foreign policies his public postions have been that of the founders in defensive wars only. Insofar as his trade and economic policies, he is more a liberal in construction. Calling for an End to the Fed, but never mentioning that the Fed itself was an unconstitutional transfer of governmental power without sufficient accountability and regulation, and thus really is a branch of government and their policies were and are meant to be strictly regulated by Congress.....or recognized for the unlawful entity it actually is.

He is a liberal in his trade policies somewhat also. As far as gentlemanly and appealing - Dr. Paul's appeal mainly is due to his actually even giving any recognition at all the the Constitution, and not his 'gentlemanly' demeanor at all.

And the founders were anything but gentlemanly or political correct when it came to treason.

Alcohol is progressively addictive, and other than the hard core drunks which cause most of the auto accidents and deaths, many of which are actually suicides, much different than coke, meth and smack highly addictive from the first use and why those cartels mostly market to kids and youth.

By progressively addictive, I left out the word 'to some individuals,' and actually not so in moderation at all. And wine and spirits drunk in moderation go as far back as biblical times, other than the biblical prohibitions on 'getting drunk on wine,' moderation in all things is also part of many religions in this countries teachings.

While hard core drugs are actually pretty much immediately addictive. Ask any ex-coke addict, or meth addict. There are psychological and physical withdrawals after so much as one use. And also brain chemistry changes especially in youth while analytical reasoning and functioning is developing.

And I'd love to see this statute that mandates that the DEA must resist legalizing any drugs.....since the DEA only exists to enforce drug laws that really is quite hillarious in and of itself. If it moved to legalize drugs, they would be out their taxpayer paid jobs so "let's write it into statute so we insure our job security."

These guys are really something else at this point. Really.

And I wonder how much that "drug conference" cost the American people, while the drank a few margaritas?

Sixth Annual Border Security Conference? They will find more and more ways to tax the American people for their travel expenses and jobs...and more and more "conferences."

How about fencing and securing the border. I bet that the tab for that conference would have paid for at least 50 miles of it.

with the endless drug violence in Mexico which has been making the big news for the past two years now, has resulted in more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind.But yet this has not really helped in decreasing or preventing this violence which still exists so are we suppose to not have those protections anymore because they do not stop the violence? similarly thinking that legalizing certain drugs will not stop violence is not the way out in this case, because at least disputes can be settled in other legal means and terms and not push it underground where the violence shoots up from!

I don't care to degenerate into one on one debates with anyone, I do know that all the statements made about "War on Drugs" are tired old statements that have been incessantly used for more that 30 years. I listen to a great program on our public radio station here in Houston called "Cultural Baggage", you can find it by going to
http://www.kpft.org
& look in the archives. In that program, several law enforcement individuals have spoken about the realities of this issue & agree that to legalize marijuana would most assuredly help to stem the violence involved in many aspects of this issue.

As far as medicinal value of marijuana - different cultures have been using marijuana in different medicinal ways for more than 4000 years & honestly I trust that more than I would the AMA & the FDA as they haven't been studying the issue nearly as long as the cultural evidence of marijuana's medicinal use. There are substances that both entities have "approved" that were only on the market a short time before these entities had pull them off of the market due to the damage they were doing. At some point the politicians need to comprehend that evidentiary findings of "scientists" are somewhat slanted towards the directions of their funding.

As for the "fencing" of the border I would like to bring up one wall that can be seen from Space that really only managed to give us a very cool tourist spot, "The Great Wall of China". It never kept intruders out.
I spent many years living in El Paso & also in New Mexico, if all the areas bordering Mexico were to be "fenced off" the sheer distance would be beyond overwhelming & then more ridiculous ways of crossing the border will be implemented. If "The Great Wall of China" did not keep people out in ancient times, how long do you believe that our technological society would take before finding more ways to cross that wall than invaders did in ancient China? As it is, tunnels have been dug under the borders already, if marijuana was legal, the incentive to do things like dig 20 mile long tunnels would be much less inviting. The drug policies of this country are wrong & while many of the drugs in question are bad, the marijuana issue has managed to belittle the issues around some of the other dangerous substances that are in the same categories. Since the inception of the position of "The Drug Czar" each person that was appointed to this position has tried to implement increasingly more militaristic approaches to this issue & it has exploded exponentially compared to where the issue was in Reagan's time when he created this position back during the 80's. The fact is that the system is broken & throwing money & resources at a broken problem, just costs a lot more money & resources.
Thanks Billie for another well reported story, I hope everyone has a brilliant day, yer pal Mel Bell.

Similar to melbell, I don't care to conduct one-on-one debates with other commenters.


Punditty accurately identified my stance in this piece: I am reporting the words of a public official. I found them very revealing (and provocative). I kept my own opinions out of the piece.


I resonated with every single sentence in mona37's comment.


Like Ross1776, I am unimpressed with "Border Security Conferences." I, too, am amazed and even upset that the law requires the DEA to resist any legalization of any drugs. This can only institutionalize the DEA and prevent thinking in new directions.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein, (attributed)


Like melbell I believe legalization of marijuana needs to be on the table. (I will check out that link later.)


Kerlikowske appeared to me to be dodging the medical marijuana question. Since by law he must resist any legalization of marijuana in order to keep his job, I can see why he is tap dancing around the issue.


Thanks to everyone who commented! I see myself as a participant in the discussion here, not as an expert. Other viewpoints are welcome. Kerlikowske-as any public official---works for us. We have a right to know what he is saying and respond.

Thanks BE for sharing the same belief!

This has been an excellent discussion, following a solid piece of reporting on a public event. Opinion writing is one area of journalism and opinion writing is another. Let's try to keep it that way! Good job, BE!

Thanks, homericus6!

Can anybody tell me specifically what law he was talking about? I can’t find it from the little description he gave.

To me, the idea that the Senate now creates departments and then mandates the behavior of the depts. Bosses BY LAW is disturbing, to say the least. I mean, what’s point of putting anyone in the lead spot if their actions are dictated beforehand by some auto-pilot law?

This guy Kerlikowske, in the meantime, is career cop: he joined the Seattle PD in 2000, the Mayor chose him as police chief in July, ‘01.

Kerlikowske oversaw the demonstrations of the WTO conference in Seattle. Even though the event was peaceful throughout the day, 140 people were arrested after cops ordered them to disperse for the evening. Some of the arrestees were prominent labor leaders trying to move the crowd away when the cops pounced. Others who weren’t part of the demo at all, only leaving work when caught up in the arrest zone

Kerlikowske got in trouble over the police's slow response to the 2001 Seattle Mardi Gras Riots that left one man dead and 70 people with injuries. During the incident, he ordered the police at the scene not to intervene, instead maintaining a perimeter around the violence. The City of Seattle acknowledged police strategy presented a public safety threat, and settled with the murder victim's family for just under $2,000,000. The next month, The Seattle Police Officers' Guild voted no confidence in the chief, citing both the Mardi Gras riot and his public reprimand of an officer for being rude to a group of alleged jaywalkers.

In 2003, a ballot measure in Seattle was proposed that would have directed the police department to consider marijuana possession (for personal use) a low priority. Kerlikowske opposed the ballot initiative, but said such arrests were already a low priority.

In March 2007, the NAACP and the Minority Executive Directors Coalition called for his resignation. Seattle had just settled a lawsuit filed by a suspect who alleged that the police had used excessive force in a 2005 arrest. The department’s Office of Professional Accountability(OPA) recommended discipline for the three officers involved but action was not taken by Kerlilowske’s office.

The call for his resignation was also due to criticism of his alleged intervention in the internal investigation of two officers accused of violating the civil rights of a drug dealer during an arrest in January. The suspect claimed the officers roughed him up with video footage of the incident supporting his claim. The OPA Review Board accused him of taking extraordinary (read: almost illegal) measures to protect the officers. The complaint was referred to the FBI, U.S. Attorney's district office, and Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for further investigation. None of these Bush appointed investigations turned up any evidence of corruption.

Despite a resurgence of gang violence, he left Seattle with the city's crime rate at a historical 40-year low.

Kerlikowske is also the outgoing board chair of Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, a policy advocacy organization that supports policies related to crime prevention.

On May 13, 2009, Kerlikowske signaled that the Obama Administration would no longer use the term "War on Drugs", as it is counter-productive and it would demonstrate a favoring of treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce drug use.[15]

In a May 22, 2009 interview on KUOW radio, he said any drug 'legalization' would be "waving the white flag", "legalization is off the charts when it comes to discussion, from my viewpoint" and that "legalization vocabulary doesn't exist for me and it was made clear that it doesn't exist in President Obama's vocabulary." Specifically about marijuana, he said, "It's a dangerous drug" and about the medical use of marijuana, he said, "we will wait for evidence on whether smoked marijuana has any medicinal benefits - those aren't in"

Marijuana was found in a tomb in Turkey a few years ago; it was of a 16 year old girl, the daughter of a rich, Jewish family that existed around the time of Jesus. The marijuana was in an urn near the girl’s body, so she would have it with her in the afterlife, for when she experienced menstrual cramps, according to the experts who translated the tomb’s writings.

One of the biggest (but not the only) medical uses of cannabis in the 19th century was for the treatment of menstrual cramps and reduction of labor pain. Queen Victoria herself was prescribed cannabis for this reason by her physician J.R. Reynolds. (ukcia.org)

And this guy says the evidence is not in yet?

Will another millennium do for him?

Ed, that is the best comment I've ever read. It is so articulate and well-founded. I'm sorry that this story has cycled off the Allvoices rotation, so few will see your message. You need to turn this comment into a post that stands on its own.

The relevant statute is both linked and quoted in this article: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-czar-required/
entitled "the Drug Czar is Required by Law to Lie."

These are the relevant sections, from Wikipedia:

According to the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998"[6] the director of the ONDCP

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that-- 1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and 2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

Application of Anti-Lobbying Laws to the Office of National Drug Control Policy's Open Letter to State Level Prosecutors, B-301022, March 10, 2004[7]

Finally, apart from considerations of whether any particular law has been violated, you have asked whether the Deputy Director's letter disseminated misleading information in connection with statements relating to the debate over legalization of marijuana. Clearly, the Deputy Director's statements reflect one perspective regarding marijuana-a perspective that is disputed by others with different viewpoints. However, ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for "taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use" of certain controlled substances such as marijuana /11/ -a responsibility which logically could include the making of advocacy statements in opposition to legalization efforts. /12/ The Deputy Director's statements about marijuana are thus within the statutory role assigned to ONDCP. Given this role, we do not see a need to examine the accuracy of the Deputy Director's individual statements in detail. /13/

I completely agree with you: "what is the point of putting anyone in the lead spot if their actions are dictated beforehand by some auto-pilot law?" This is just contemptible. Henceforth, I shall look elsewhere for any "leadership" in this arena.

Love your final comments! The guy is protecting his salary. No more. No less.

Thanks a million for writing this. Really: I hope you turn it into a post that stands on its own.