iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
MacKenzie Allen

GET UPDATES FROM MacKenzie Allen
 

Why This Cop Asked the President About Legalizing Drugs

Posted: 02/23/11 04:33 PM ET

You might not think a 65-year-old retired cop would take to the Internet to ask the president of the United States to consider legalizing drugs, but that's just what I did recently. The answer I got from President Obama in YouTube's "Your Interview with the President" contest pleasantly surprised me.



In stark contrast to when the president literally laughed off discussion of marijuana policy in a similar online question-and-answer session in 2009, Obama responded to me by saying that legalizing drugs is "an entirely legitimate topic for debate." Although he noted that he remains personally opposed to legalization for now, he acknowledged that "we have been so focused on arrests, incarceration, interdiction... that we don't spend as much time thinking about how to shrink demand." This welcome statement validated the viewpoint I developed over my 15 years of trying to enforce the drug prohibition laws.

I began my career in law enforcement as a deputy with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department in 1985. Later, I moved to Washington State to work for the King County Sheriff's Office in Seattle, where I worked in our most difficult neighborhoods as a patrol deputy and training officer. I also did a stint as an undercover detective making drug buys, running informants and writing and executing search warrants. I long ago lost count of how many drug arrests I made.

You might think my attitude towards drug users would only have hardened over the years, but the opposite proved to be the case. Understand, I in no way condone or support the use of drugs. And crimes committed by drug users to support their habits must be punished as the crimes they are.

What I came to understand, however, is that this is really a public health and education problem and must be addressed as such. I'm old enough to remember when doctors in white lab coats were on TV hawking cigarettes. It took a long time and a consistent public awareness campaign, but tobacco use in America is down dramatically. Can you imagine the mayhem had we outlawed cigarettes? Can you envision the "cigarette cartels" and the bloodbath that would follow? Yet, thanks to a public awareness campaign we've made a huge dent in tobacco use without arresting a single cigarette smoker.

The "drug" problems our society is plagued with are, for the most part, actually drug prohibition problems, the result of a black market. We will never be able to legislate people away from self-intoxication. It's been going on since the first hominid ate a piece of fermenting fruit and got high on the alcohol content. All we succeed in doing by outlawing these substances is create a gargantuan black market for drug dealers and cartels. The illicit market is estimated to be a half-trillion dollars a year. For that kind of money you can by yourself a sovereign country and in some cases the cartels seemingly have. Mexico is engaged in, basically, open warfare with the cartels. The level of violence and brutality is unprecedented.

If the colloquial definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result, what does that say about our "War on Drugs"? We've been pursuing this strategy for 40 years. It has cost a trillion taxpayer dollars, thousands of lives (both law enforcement and civilian) and destroyed hundreds of thousands more by incarceration. Moreover, it undermines the safety of our communities by overcrowding our jails and prisons, forcing them to give early release to truly violent offenders.

So, in a country where, all too often, the only voices heard (or at least heeded) are those of large corporations or special interest groups with powerful lobbyists in Washington, I thought the president's YouTube forum might be a chance to pose a question directly to the person in charge. Long odds to be sure, but a chance nonetheless. Surprise doesn't begin to describe my reaction upon learning my video question ranked first place in the online voting and would be presented to the president.

It is extremely encouraging to hear President Obama respond to a question about our national drug policy in a reasonable, respectful and serious manner, the first time a sitting president has done so.

This is obviously a complicated, highly-charged issue, with Obama and many elected officials still opposed to legalization. But nothing will ever improve without first acknowledging the need for discussion. In that regard, the president's YouTube comments are a tremendous first step.

We can only hope his words encouraging a serious debate on the topic prove to be more than rhetoric, and that he will take on the admittedly complicated challenge of revisiting and, hopefully, revising our national stance on drugs.

MacKenzie Allen, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, is a retired deputy sheriff who did policing in Los Angles and Seattle.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 267
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
11:35 PM on 02/27/2011
My understanding was that drug-related crime has been decreasing in recent years for a variety of reasons. Politicians often become more reasonable on issues that are lessening in their severity. So while I agree this is good news, I think this change is more of an effect than than a cause. Something is causing the situation to slightly improve (the Freakonomics author had a controversial theory as to what this "something" might be: Roe v Wade?!), and as people become less fearful the laws will become more rational--a beneficial feedback loop, for once!
03:37 PM on 02/25/2011
The same needs that drive capitalism drive our drug addictions. Get people to need something, and fulfill that need for a price. If we trust in this "free market" mentality to fuel our economy and way of life, why don't we trust it has the same power to destroy us. When are we going to learn that we can't "shoot" our way out of every problem. Some problems require reason. Maybe the reality is, if we really conquer the drug problem, more people will have self control in other areas of their lives and people won't be as prone to be easily led to believe they need other wasteful things. If people become content, how will we sell them other distractions?
01:53 PM on 02/25/2011
It was great to get the question out there like that. I am disappointed in His response. I feel we need a letter writing campaign just to show to the Prez that we are NOT in favor of Him either. If he wants to cut down the used of drugs then the Only answer is to Legalize Marijuana which is an HERB not a drug. If you have Never Tried Marijuana then you have NO Idea about it nor if its good or bad and don't confuse Alcohol with Marijuana as they don't effect people the same way.
11:56 PM on 02/24/2011
Everyone from Law Enforcement who can be forthright about the negative effects of our drug laws is either retired or will be involuntarily retired. Drugs are a health issue, and many of the FDA approved ones are less effective, and have far greater side effects than pot.
10:43 PM on 02/24/2011
Firstly, thank you for putting the question and so succinctly. I too was pleasantly surprised by the Presidents reply. I have noticed that it can be difficult for men of power to say what they really want to, so when they do say something it can mean a lot. And I think a lot can be read into Obama's words. When he says he doesn't believe in legalisation he means that he is the the President and the President is powerless to make any changes to this one, it's just too big. But by saying 'it is a legitimate topic for debate' he's saying 'but you can legalise it cause you're the people, so take the ball and run with it, and this time he'll put a hold on Holder and the other officials who would come out and try to intimidate the people'. And so the people will be free to make up their own minds this time. And it is right for it to be this way. The President can not end prohibition without the full support of the people and the people have to convince themselves that it's the right thing to do, then the President can follow. There has never been a more important election than the next one. So go for it in every state, enrol to vote, make those petitions, sign them and vote. Legal in November 2012.
10:39 PM on 02/24/2011
Another dent in the War on Drugs has been made. Kudos Mr Allen for speaking out.
10:23 PM on 02/24/2011
It's refreshing and encouraging to see someone with so much experience speaking intelligently about legalization. Thank you.
photo
Razpooten
Nil homini certum est
10:42 PM on 02/24/2011
Hear, hear!
09:08 PM on 02/24/2011
Lots of money goes to the drug dealers for free. They pay no taxes. But if leagelized and taxed, it would help pay the US debt in two ways.
1. Less spent on law enforcement. (Which by the way has not and will not work.)
2. Increased tax in come. (This can be given a high tax cost to the consumer)
If a pack $4.00 pack of cigs has a 20 cent tax, an ounce of marijuana can be taxed at the same rate as the selling price. Say $10.00 an ounce, then $10.00 tax.
And all public jobs will require testing. The $10.00 tax is more than enough to pay for this and still increase the feds budget.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gerald Serlin
Retired lawyer. Perserverantia Vincit
09:01 PM on 02/24/2011
Eliminating prohibition is a no-brainer. Didn't we learn from the 1920's era? If you make a product scarce and hard to get, you increase its price. Every commodity increases in price under those circumstances. It's called the free market.

If you also make the same commodity illegal, you establish a "black market", ruled and regulated by gangsters instead of government. You then fill court calanders with trials and jails with prisoners, whose "crime" is trying to enjoy or earn a living from the vice. You made an otherwise minimally negative product into a maximally costly problem.

Cut it out!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MSROADKILL612
love auto biographys. any appS to write mine?
07:03 PM on 02/24/2011
part 2

Trouble getting to sleep is nature telling you something, and it aint take a pill. But, big day tomorrow so they do. Pretty soon it becomes a habit and they cant really cope with a big day or even a small day well (generally seedy, bad memory). On the few occasions I took them, I had a very bad vibe about what they were doing to my brain.

My solution was to always do more than the job required. Be early, dont take sickies, minimal if at all lunch hour (couldnt see the logic of dressing up and commuting & then goofing off for an hour in the middle of the day - I was there to work since I had gone to all that trouble - would rather work 4 10 hour days than 5 7 hour days), leave a bit late, embrace change, epathise with the boss. If I had an off day or had to do something private during work hours, the boss was cool. Its a small price to pay for the dignity of being trustworthy vs the stress of being watched like a hawk.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
06:02 PM on 02/24/2011
It's Congress' job to repeal our Draconian Fed drug laws that President Obama must enforce.
08:03 PM on 02/24/2011
True, but Mr. Obama did, only this week, announce that he intended to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.
photo
kennethhdeome
Why can't both sides be wrong?
05:03 PM on 02/24/2011
Yeah, yeah, yeah. so our prisons will be full of people convicted of crimes committed under the influence instead of people dealing those influences.

And while the murder rate may go down concerning territorial wars, murders will still occur as the result of drug use, i.e., driving under the influence.

Unless we're going to designate specific use areas, such as opium dens or even "opium counties," we're going to have mayhem simply because legalization in too many minds means no reason to refrain at all.

If there are so many people out there who desire the unregulated use of mind-altering substances that it should be legalized, then why would I believe for a second these users and abusers would be more concerned for the safety of their neighbors than their own desire to alter reality?

I haven't drank alcohol since 1982 and have never used any other drug, so I don't even want to go to parties filled with people under various influences, let alone live in a society that thinks a 24/7 party attitude is a good idea.

Be real people; if someone risks prison to get high or drunk or whatever now, what are they going to do when the only risk is maybe they hurt someone else while intoxicated?

America is filled with people who want what they need, but designed and run by people who simply want more. And when it comes to drugs of any kind, more is a bad idea.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
05:59 PM on 02/24/2011
define: ''mind altering''

you make it sound like a bad thing why?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thmsnnn
06:06 PM on 02/24/2011
Hey, I'm glad that sobiety has worked out for you. I've been a marijuana smoker for over 40 years, and had a very successful career as a member of the US Army, earned two degrees, and raised two wonderful daughters who are successful in their own lives.

I don't drink and do not do anything harder than weed. What I resent is someone telling me what is good for ME. While I do not support legalizing such drugs as heroin, cocaine or narcotic pain relievers, I think we have wasted far too much money and far too many lives trying to stamp out marijuana use. Oh, and I do not drive. Any intoxicant can be used responsibly.
photo
Razpooten
Nil homini certum est
10:45 PM on 02/24/2011
Hey, that's me.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
fumes
Midnight Toker
04:57 PM on 02/24/2011
Pot Ingredient May Restore Appetite After Chemo

WEDNESDAY, Feb. 23, 2011 (HealthDay News) -- The main active ingredient in marijuana seems to allow chemotherapy patients to regain their ability to taste and enjoy food, according to the results of a small new study.
In the new study, Wendy Wismer, an associate professor at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, and colleagues randomly assigned 21 patients to take THC in pill form (through an anti-nausea drug called Marinol, known generically as dronabinol) or a placebo twice daily for 18 days.

The study results are published in the Feb. 22 online edition of the Annals of Oncology.

The investigators found that those who received the THC were more likely to report that food "tasted better" and ate more protein, although they didn't eat more calories overall than those who took the placebos. The patients who took THC also reported better sleep and relaxation.

The study authors concluded that "THC may well contribute to the overall enjoyment of food in cancer patients."

Commenting on the report, Dr. Donald I. Abrams, a professor of clinical medicine who studies marijuana at the University of California, San Francisco, said that the findings aren't "earth-shattering," but they are good news for cancer patients.

However, he added, the drug probably won't get approved for this use. As an alternative, "people might get similar benefits from smoking cannabis," Abrams said.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=126278&pf=3&page=1
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thmsnnn
06:08 PM on 02/24/2011
There is no MAY about it. I have had more than one friend die from cancer, and during chemo, weed was the ONLY thing that made them a little more comfortable, or as you article suggests--restored their appetites. 16 states have approved marijuana use for medicinal reasons. There has to be some clinical evidence to support their decisions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Darlene1029
04:24 PM on 02/24/2011
Just as disappointing of him laughing it off before, this time he made a comment to the affect of, "what does that say about the people on line. Just as bad IMO : (
04:11 PM on 02/24/2011
Locally Franklin Va. lost 1200 jobs with the closing of a paper mill. I believe HEMP could have saved those jobs. Not only would production been much cleaner for the environment but it would have been a superior product that could be recycled 8 times, as compared to twice with tree based paper. Plus the crop is ready in one season vs 20 yrs. for a tree. Nothing this government does makes any long term sense.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thmsnnn
06:10 PM on 02/24/2011
Hemp and cannabis sativa are from the same family, but totally different plants. The hemp variety does not get you high, but produces durable fibers that can be used for a variety of products. Almost all naval ropes made during WW2 were made from hemp fibers.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MSROADKILL612
love auto biographys. any appS to write mine?
06:22 PM on 02/24/2011
So is it legal to grow? thats the question