J
JackTheGrower
Some stories I have googled about the new Drug Tzar.
-------------------------------------
http://www.examiner.com/x-8131-Suns...ook-to-our-Gov-Schwarzenegger-for-drug-policy
The U.S. Senate just got done confirming Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as President Obama’s new drug czar. This confirmation is supposedly going to signal a change in U.S. drug policy:
Kerlikowske, a 36-year law enforcement veteran who has been Seattle's top cop for nine years, has pledged to take a balanced, science-based approach to the job. He also said he will focus on reducing demand for illicit drugs in the United States, a sharp contrast from the Bush administration's focus on intercepting drugs as they cross the border and punishing drug crimes.
Having a “change” in the so-called ‘drug czar’ is not the solution, since it doesn’t address the real issue behind the “drug problem” that exists today in America. The problem lies in the fact that we have a “drug czar” in the first place.
There will always be a drug problem in this country as long as the federal government feels it needs to regulate drugs (or at least the drugs that it deems “illicit” and too dangerous for us everyday citizens to consume). Despite what our new drug czar might believe, “reducing demand” will not make the drug issue go away.
Plus, how would the "drug czar" possibly do this? How pompous and self-righteous do these government officials, with their dictatorial powers, think they are when they actually think they can do something as impossible as “reducing demand” for drugs that millions of Americans consume everyday? I guess it’s the same logic behind our current Regime's economic “stimulus,” which attempts to fix a recession caused by debt, inflation, and government spending with…more debt, more inflation, and more government spending.
Speaking of debt, California’s in a whole heap of it, but I am pleasantly surprised to hear Governor Schwarzenegger publicly talking about the possibility of legalizing marijuana. He is prudently treading softly around the issue, but at least the idea is being discussed, especially since a new poll suggests that 55% of Californians support its legalization.
Tom Ammiano, a Democrat State Assemblyman from San Francisco, is even proposing a brand new bill that would legalize marijuana, tax it like alcohol, and help pay off a lot of our debt:
"I look forward to working with the governor and my colleagues in the effort to be the first state in the nation to enact commonsense policy on marijuana," an elated Ammiano said. “His proposed system of legalizing and taxing marijuana would raise an estimated $1.3bn a year in tax revenue alone, according to state legislative analysts. The savings in law enforcement and incarceration costs could be many billions more.”
It’s the last sentence that he said that is key. I’m no fan of taxes, and regard them as another form of theft and slavery. But I’d rather have marijuana be legalized and taxed then have almost 900,000 people a year put in prison for marijuana violations.
My only fear is that if California does legalize pot, Obama’s DEA thugs will have their machine guns and fatigues ready and raid another California dispensary.
Obama, just say no!
-R.T.
-------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/open-letter-to-the-new-dr_b_199122.html
Dear Gil:
Congratulations on your confirmation as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Bit of an irony, isn't it? Two Seattle police chiefs on opposite sides of the drug war? As "drug czar" (please retire that ill-begotten label), you are responsible for advising the president and vice president on drug control programs, and for coordinating drug policies among all federal agencies. I, on the other hand, as a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, am devoted to ending the drug war, along with the prohibition model on which it's based.
But how far apart are we, really?
During your tenure as police chief you either championed or tolerated sensible policies such as methadone treatment, clean needle exchanges, medical marijuana, and a Seattle voter initiative requiring you and the city attorney to make simple adult marijuana possession your lowest enforcement priority (lower, indeed, than jaywalking). You also continued the practice of assigning police officers to Hempfest, knowing your cops would make no arrests for possession of marijuana, thus ensuring a safe and peaceful event. These modest steps represent progress, and they position our former city as a leader in local reform.
But I'd be less than honest if I didn't point to some genuinely worrisome positions you've taken recently.
In responding to written interrogatories from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee you claimed there is no scientific consensus supporting medicinal marijuana; announced your opposition to legalizing marijuana; and defended the classification of pot, along with heroin, PCP, and GHB, as a "Schedule 1" drug--which means, I guess, that you believe it is highly addictive and possessed of no medical value.
Sadly, these views put you in league with your ONDCP predecessor, John Walters--he of the magnificent obsession with "killer weed"--who during his tenure silenced science, lied habitually, and refused to debate those with opposing views.
How much of your stance on these issues falls into the category of confirmation politics? How much represents your true feelings? Either way, your early public comments are disconcerting, coming from an administration headed by a president who's proclaimed the drug war an "utter failure," and who has advocated more of a public health approach to drug control.
Still, you did stand up to the shriller apostles of the drug war.
You wrote, for example, that needle exchanges are "not a cause of significant public safety problems," that they are part of a "comprehensive approach for drug abuse prevention, treatment, and care, including efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne diseases."
You share Obama and Biden's position that sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder forms of cocaine are "wrong and should be eliminated."
And I loved your reply to Senator Grassley's question of whether marijuana is a gateway drug: "Often, marijuana is the first illicit drug that young people use. I support efforts to educate young people about the dangers of illicit drugs, including marijuana." In other words, Senator: No. Pot is not a "gateway" drug.
Likewise, your answer to the Iowa lawmaker's query about whether the medical marijuana case of Gonzales v. Raich was a proper decision. "...the Supreme Court's decision...is the current law of our land. As a result...I am duty bound to honor it and so I [will] until such time as the supreme law of our land on this subject changes." The "subject," simplified, refers to whether the federal government should trump the states on marijuana enforcement. Sounds like another "no" to me.
You oppose "mandatory minimums" which have resulted in millions of nonviolent drug offenders going to prison for very long stretches. "...I understand and respect the ability of states, under the longstanding principles of federalism," you wrote, "to make state policy decisions within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction." Sounds like you're fully on board with the president and Attorney General Holder in calling off the DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. (Federalism. Smart invocation, Gil. Appeals to many Americans, including thoughtful conservatives of a "dual federalist" stripe.)
So, how open will you be to new ways of looking at old, disastrous drug policies? You claim to support "evidence-based," data-driven solutions. You have, in your own words, "long recognized that to be successful as a police chief you have to rely on and work collaboratively with...other governmental and non-governmental entities." You pledged to "re-establish valid working relationships with non-governmental entities and stakeholders."
Drug policy reformers, mushrooming in strength and number every day, are committed to sensible drug laws, Gil. We will support your every worthy incremental step on the road to rational government policies. Of course, some of us, like LEAP members, will not be content with anything less than an end to the drug war, and the replacement of prohibition with a regulatory model based on sound public health principles. But that shouldn't stop you from making a place for us at the table. We are, after all, stakeholders too.
Finally, as we begin this new era of drug policy debate, is it too much to ask that you vanquish the vocabulary of "war"? We all know that when Richard Nixon labeled drugs "public enemy number one" and vowed all-out war on them he was in truth declaring war on us, the citizenry of the United States--especially the young, the poor, and people of color.
In an April 20, 2009 proposal to end the drug war, the Drug Policy Alliance urged us to recognize that while "DPA's work is all about drugs on the surface, dig down a little deeper and one finds it's not really about drugs at all." It's about "much larger struggles in American and international society--over the extent and limits of individual freedom, what it means to be a free society, and how we deal with both phantom and real threats to health, life, and security."
You have been given what DPA calls a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" to help us reclaim our freedom as Americans, and to live safer, healthier lives.
Please don't blow it, Gil.
Warm regards,
Norm
Norm Stamper was Gil Kerlikowske's immediate predecessor as Seattle's chief of police, having served from 1994-20
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
http://www.examiner.com/x-8131-Suns...ook-to-our-Gov-Schwarzenegger-for-drug-policy
The U.S. Senate just got done confirming Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske as President Obama’s new drug czar. This confirmation is supposedly going to signal a change in U.S. drug policy:
Kerlikowske, a 36-year law enforcement veteran who has been Seattle's top cop for nine years, has pledged to take a balanced, science-based approach to the job. He also said he will focus on reducing demand for illicit drugs in the United States, a sharp contrast from the Bush administration's focus on intercepting drugs as they cross the border and punishing drug crimes.
Having a “change” in the so-called ‘drug czar’ is not the solution, since it doesn’t address the real issue behind the “drug problem” that exists today in America. The problem lies in the fact that we have a “drug czar” in the first place.
There will always be a drug problem in this country as long as the federal government feels it needs to regulate drugs (or at least the drugs that it deems “illicit” and too dangerous for us everyday citizens to consume). Despite what our new drug czar might believe, “reducing demand” will not make the drug issue go away.
Plus, how would the "drug czar" possibly do this? How pompous and self-righteous do these government officials, with their dictatorial powers, think they are when they actually think they can do something as impossible as “reducing demand” for drugs that millions of Americans consume everyday? I guess it’s the same logic behind our current Regime's economic “stimulus,” which attempts to fix a recession caused by debt, inflation, and government spending with…more debt, more inflation, and more government spending.
Speaking of debt, California’s in a whole heap of it, but I am pleasantly surprised to hear Governor Schwarzenegger publicly talking about the possibility of legalizing marijuana. He is prudently treading softly around the issue, but at least the idea is being discussed, especially since a new poll suggests that 55% of Californians support its legalization.
Tom Ammiano, a Democrat State Assemblyman from San Francisco, is even proposing a brand new bill that would legalize marijuana, tax it like alcohol, and help pay off a lot of our debt:
"I look forward to working with the governor and my colleagues in the effort to be the first state in the nation to enact commonsense policy on marijuana," an elated Ammiano said. “His proposed system of legalizing and taxing marijuana would raise an estimated $1.3bn a year in tax revenue alone, according to state legislative analysts. The savings in law enforcement and incarceration costs could be many billions more.”
It’s the last sentence that he said that is key. I’m no fan of taxes, and regard them as another form of theft and slavery. But I’d rather have marijuana be legalized and taxed then have almost 900,000 people a year put in prison for marijuana violations.
My only fear is that if California does legalize pot, Obama’s DEA thugs will have their machine guns and fatigues ready and raid another California dispensary.
Obama, just say no!
-R.T.
-------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/open-letter-to-the-new-dr_b_199122.html
Dear Gil:
Congratulations on your confirmation as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Bit of an irony, isn't it? Two Seattle police chiefs on opposite sides of the drug war? As "drug czar" (please retire that ill-begotten label), you are responsible for advising the president and vice president on drug control programs, and for coordinating drug policies among all federal agencies. I, on the other hand, as a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, am devoted to ending the drug war, along with the prohibition model on which it's based.
But how far apart are we, really?
During your tenure as police chief you either championed or tolerated sensible policies such as methadone treatment, clean needle exchanges, medical marijuana, and a Seattle voter initiative requiring you and the city attorney to make simple adult marijuana possession your lowest enforcement priority (lower, indeed, than jaywalking). You also continued the practice of assigning police officers to Hempfest, knowing your cops would make no arrests for possession of marijuana, thus ensuring a safe and peaceful event. These modest steps represent progress, and they position our former city as a leader in local reform.
But I'd be less than honest if I didn't point to some genuinely worrisome positions you've taken recently.
In responding to written interrogatories from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee you claimed there is no scientific consensus supporting medicinal marijuana; announced your opposition to legalizing marijuana; and defended the classification of pot, along with heroin, PCP, and GHB, as a "Schedule 1" drug--which means, I guess, that you believe it is highly addictive and possessed of no medical value.
Sadly, these views put you in league with your ONDCP predecessor, John Walters--he of the magnificent obsession with "killer weed"--who during his tenure silenced science, lied habitually, and refused to debate those with opposing views.
How much of your stance on these issues falls into the category of confirmation politics? How much represents your true feelings? Either way, your early public comments are disconcerting, coming from an administration headed by a president who's proclaimed the drug war an "utter failure," and who has advocated more of a public health approach to drug control.
Still, you did stand up to the shriller apostles of the drug war.
You wrote, for example, that needle exchanges are "not a cause of significant public safety problems," that they are part of a "comprehensive approach for drug abuse prevention, treatment, and care, including efforts to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS and other blood-borne diseases."
You share Obama and Biden's position that sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder forms of cocaine are "wrong and should be eliminated."
And I loved your reply to Senator Grassley's question of whether marijuana is a gateway drug: "Often, marijuana is the first illicit drug that young people use. I support efforts to educate young people about the dangers of illicit drugs, including marijuana." In other words, Senator: No. Pot is not a "gateway" drug.
Likewise, your answer to the Iowa lawmaker's query about whether the medical marijuana case of Gonzales v. Raich was a proper decision. "...the Supreme Court's decision...is the current law of our land. As a result...I am duty bound to honor it and so I [will] until such time as the supreme law of our land on this subject changes." The "subject," simplified, refers to whether the federal government should trump the states on marijuana enforcement. Sounds like another "no" to me.
You oppose "mandatory minimums" which have resulted in millions of nonviolent drug offenders going to prison for very long stretches. "...I understand and respect the ability of states, under the longstanding principles of federalism," you wrote, "to make state policy decisions within the scope of their authority and jurisdiction." Sounds like you're fully on board with the president and Attorney General Holder in calling off the DEA raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. (Federalism. Smart invocation, Gil. Appeals to many Americans, including thoughtful conservatives of a "dual federalist" stripe.)
So, how open will you be to new ways of looking at old, disastrous drug policies? You claim to support "evidence-based," data-driven solutions. You have, in your own words, "long recognized that to be successful as a police chief you have to rely on and work collaboratively with...other governmental and non-governmental entities." You pledged to "re-establish valid working relationships with non-governmental entities and stakeholders."
Drug policy reformers, mushrooming in strength and number every day, are committed to sensible drug laws, Gil. We will support your every worthy incremental step on the road to rational government policies. Of course, some of us, like LEAP members, will not be content with anything less than an end to the drug war, and the replacement of prohibition with a regulatory model based on sound public health principles. But that shouldn't stop you from making a place for us at the table. We are, after all, stakeholders too.
Finally, as we begin this new era of drug policy debate, is it too much to ask that you vanquish the vocabulary of "war"? We all know that when Richard Nixon labeled drugs "public enemy number one" and vowed all-out war on them he was in truth declaring war on us, the citizenry of the United States--especially the young, the poor, and people of color.
In an April 20, 2009 proposal to end the drug war, the Drug Policy Alliance urged us to recognize that while "DPA's work is all about drugs on the surface, dig down a little deeper and one finds it's not really about drugs at all." It's about "much larger struggles in American and international society--over the extent and limits of individual freedom, what it means to be a free society, and how we deal with both phantom and real threats to health, life, and security."
You have been given what DPA calls a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" to help us reclaim our freedom as Americans, and to live safer, healthier lives.
Please don't blow it, Gil.
Warm regards,
Norm
Norm Stamper was Gil Kerlikowske's immediate predecessor as Seattle's chief of police, having served from 1994-20
-------------------------------------------
