White House Czar Calls For End to 'War on Drugs'

Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.

Read the whole story: Wall Street Journal

Comments

[ash711]

Small time drug offenders and small time dealers have not been stopped by the WAR ON DRUGS. The police take all the money these people have and the taxpayer is stuck with the prison bill. If you aren't violent and use drugs, give people a chance at treatment only if they want to, otherwise if people want to destroy themselves why do taxpayers have the burden to pay for it. How many smokers die yearly smoking so what is the difference with drug users. If you bent on self-destruction, why does the government get involved. Ah yes, the justice system wants THEIR CUT of the drug money. Wonder what would happen if all the money the cops confiscated was used to pay for the prison system and not into there slush fund. And how much money disappears into the pockets of corrupt police. What a joke...

[Coinyer101]

this is just 'baby' change. it only changes the focus of the WAR ON DRUGS. changing the term does nothing to lessen the battle, and bring peace.

[groot]

change we can(nabis) believe in, maybe...

[Victorinox]

We have been waging War on Terrorism, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, and War on Christmas. Its about time to stop calling public policies "War." I declare the War on Wars.

[Sean-Hannity]

If Alcohol is so powerful that it kills 100,000 people a year, and Cannabis has never killed anyone on this planet, then why would the government say such stupid things regarding Cannabis?

Well, today’s Cannabis is stronger then it was before - the deaths rates for Cannabis used to be 0.
So, now that Cannabis is stronger - we have now reached a death rate of 0!

Hmm, Sounds Bad…

[research]

Stronger Cannabis is HEALTHIER.

Why?

Because you smoke less of it to get high.

Duh.

[SamKnause]

How much more talk, how many more studies need to be done before the U. S. wakes up and legalizes marijuana and hemp? The studies are in and marijuana is not addictive or harmful. Hemp could revitalize our economy. Stop talking, stop calling for more studies and just do it!!!

[StonyStoner]

Free Tommy Chong!

Huh, what? He is? When? Oh.

Free the Weed!

I'll believes it when I sees it!

[Coinyer101]

they only let me go so they can beat me again next time.

[TRYKER]

When Obama's team went through the budget line by line, looking for programs that work and those that don't, they came upon the War on Drugs and could see that it WASN'T WORKING. Ahah!
That frees up over $40 Billion to steer toward treatment programs.
It does look like there will be changes during this administration, at long last.
The Fed does need to be the change-agent, start right at the top...like where it started. The states have battled with them long enough.

[Earl Brown]

if we have an intelligent fact based (by fact I mean, fact based SCIENCE.) if we have such a conversation the answer will clearly favor legalization of marijuana. Ben Franklin made a list of Pros and Cons for every major decision he made, if we do the same thing...the cons column may have 1 or 2 minor things (I cant think of any, but they should be able to find 1 or 2 reasons) and the Pros list will take several sheets of paper.

It was outlawed by an ignorant rascist man name Harry Anslinger because he believed that it made all the black's and mexicans go crazy and attack white people. It is the most rediculous notion ever.

Marijuana was not officially made illegal, on the books it is called the Marijuana Tax Act which meant that you had to procure some sort of license from the government to posses or grow any...but no licenses were ever given out.

They did this because they knew the the american people would not stand for the federal government outlawing a simple harmless planyt like marijuana. So, does this make sense to anyone? not to me. lets close our bibles, turn off faux new s and talk to some economists and scientists and doctors. Heck, there even an entire organization or police and government officials who want it decriminalized.

[sledmouth]

Regarding legalization: has a group ever attempted a lawsuit against the ban of hemp and/or marijuana based on grounds of inability to profit from them legally? (...as Monsanto or any other corp. does now when their market is impeded by law.) Is there not a large enough body of evidence supporting that the ban is arbitrary and should, thus, be thrown out in the name of commerce ;-)

[TRYKER]

I too have wondered why there hasn't been a class action suit against the govt for criminalizing MJ and hemp.
All those poor smokers who have been imprisoned for MJ related issues were screwed...made felons for life, can't get jobs, families ruined, what an incredible injustice.

[Nicon]

There was, it lead the the the Federal Government starting their own medical marijuana program. This program sends 11OZ cookie tins full of Marijuana to the 4 surviving participants.

Yes we Cannabis!

[sunbeltvoter]

on grounds of inability to profit from them legally?

Uhh, the medical use of marijuana is Patented. Yes the US Government DEA says there is no medical use for MJ. The US Patent office, another division of the US Government, gave patent number 6,630,507 on October 7, 2003, for the medical uses of MJ. Now for the really bizarre part:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,630,507.PN.&OS=PN/6,630,507&RS=PN/6,630,507

Be sitting down: You are not going to believe who holds this patent! : )

[redstrat]

changing the name of these policies doesn't change their effects. we need big change in the way we treat drugs, expecially marijuana. We need to change these polices based on facts and not bs by biased propagandists

[Snuffleupagus]

Yes, but as this White House plans to continue the policies of Reagan Bush Clinton Bush on the drug issue, all they can offer is talk. Their actions are wrong, so we get a few nice statements like this once in a while to give the illusion of change. Here is a pretty good summary of the double talk so far.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner04172009.html

[occasional]

Why is alcohol still legal? Because lawmakers like scotch. Why is tobacco still legal? Because lawmakers like cigars with their scotch. Why is mj still illegal? Because lawmakers like to smoke a joint after the scotch party, but they are afraid to just be honest about it. If they would listen to their constituents and write laws according to the people's wishes, this matter would be resolved in the next congressional session.
And to those who are worried about the responsible people paying for irresponsibility:
1. Marijuana is not an addictive drug, physically or mentally, and has very few side effect which would require medical treatment.
2. Your taxes are currently paying for the medical treatment of your fat, cheeseburger-eating neighbor's heart attack who can't afford health insurance. Should we criminalize obesity?
3. Your taxes currently pay for the imprisonment and/or rehabilitation of millions of non-violent small time marijuana-using convicts. Seems like even the worst-case scenario is an even trade. IMHO.

[TheFobster]

BIG GOVT DOUBLE SPEAK

FED GOVT SHOULD ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT NOW

[Ffranco]

It is not a "war on drugs." It is a war on American citizens and the US Constitution. Too many police departments have a vested interest in continuing the "War." Ending it will be extremely difficult.

[ditsylilg]

MA has decriminalized mj because of the police unions.

[dutchman]

And it's still a wonderful place to live.

[WilliePilgrim]

There's much potential for change in this new stance of drugs. The single biggest thing that the nation could do, baout which I've heard nothing so far, is to remove the penalties for growing one's own. The price drops, the criminal element goes to something that results in more money (like lobbying for the military or something else generally corrosive to our trust in society).
Secondly, apply this reasoning to Afghanistan. Have the UN designate the opium region of Afghanistan as the sole source of legitimate opium, pay the farmers directly more than the warlords (remember them? They're our allies agains the taliban...yeah!), and watch the farmers who would now have a legitimate and profitable business eagerly seek out a stable and just form of representational government.
Finally...get a pardon for Tommy Chong, and all the others that were so unjustly accused, found guilty and made to serve time. I'd stop at the idea of reparations, but only because I'd like this legislation to actually be voted for.