If you're looking to President Barack Obama for a consistent drug policy, it's unclear if you'll get one. On one hand, the president seemed to tacitly acknowledge the theories of "harm reduction" proponents, who argue that it's better to control negative consequences of illicit drug use through legalization and strict regulatory control, when he ended the government's ban on using federal funds for needle-exchange programs to reduce the spread of HIV and when the Justice Department was ordered to stand down on prosecuting legal medical marijuana patients. Of course, these moves are far from "legalizing" anything, but they are nudges in the direction of regulatory solutions rather than law enforcement ones. And they take the critical first step in acknowledging that people still use drugs despite a massively expensive "war" on them.
But in his newly released federal drug control strategy, Obama underlined that his administration "firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug."
That much could have been guessed by his appointment of Gil Kerlikowske in February as the nation's drug czar. Kerlikowske, the former Seattle police chief, has said "marijuana is a dangerous drug with no medical benefit." He also told a gathering of police chiefs in California that marijuana legalization for any purpose is a "nonstarter" in the Obama administration.
But still, the latter comments were made privately, not at a press conference. Which implies that Obama doesn't want them widely publicized. And yet, the new drug control strategy states its position on weed quite clearly: "Diagnostic, laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological studies clearly indicate that marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects, and legalization would only exacerbate these problems."
It's enough to make you reach for a bong to sort it all out. Worse, while the new drug policy emphasizes treatment and prevention of addiction (and increases spending on drug and alcohol prevention programs by 13 percent and treatment programs by 3.7 percent), the federal government still allots twice as much money on law enforcement than treatment.
It's easy to chalk up the schizophrenia to politics. The president -- who has admitted smoking pot in his younger years -- has bitten off quite a bit to chew in his first years, including health care reform, Wall Street overhauls, immigration policy and other big ticket items. He's taken a beating over them, too. He may well have calculated that being hands off when it comes to allowing the DEA to prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers was as far as he could go without being labeled as soft on drugs in addition to being painted by his opponents as an illegal-alien-loving free-market-hating socialist.
The true test of his bearings will be when and if California voters choose to legalize pot in November. Kerlikowske dodged the question of how the federal government would react if pot became legal there when asked recently by The Hill newspaper. But Arizona's experience with its tough new immigration laws may provide a clue: Among the federal reactions, the Justice Department looked for ways to subvert the state law.
That may well be the case in California too. Kerlikowske allowed the possibility of litigation to iron out the differences between state and federal law.
"You can envision a lot of different things," he said.
You can say that again.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
