Drug Czar Kerlikowske calls for end to “War on Drugs” analogy

I like the guy already.

(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.

In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation’s drug issues.

“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.”

Mr. Kerlikowske’s comments are a signal that the Obama administration is set to follow a more moderate — and likely more controversial — stance on the nation’s drug problems. Prior administrations talked about pushing treatment and reducing demand while continuing to focus primarily on a tough criminal-justice approach.

The Obama administration is likely to deal with drugs as a matter of public health rather than criminal justice alone, with treatment’s role growing relative to incarceration, Mr. Kerlikowske said.

It’s a step in the right direction, but it still begins with the flawed premise that use of marijuana by Americans is something the government needs to reduce.  It’s still the “all use is abuse” model that says if we catch and adult with pot, there needs to be some sanction.  I’m happy they wish to change that sanction from a prison cell to an unnecessary forced treatment bed, but all that accomplishes is a redirection of the drug war money from the prison/industrial complex to the drug testing/rehab industries.

Sen. Tom Coburn, the lone senator to vote against Mr. Kerlikowske, was concerned about the permissive attitude toward marijuana enforcement, a spokesman for the conservative Oklahoma Republican said.

Mr. Kerlikowske said the issue was one of limited police resources, adding that he doesn’t support efforts to legalize drugs. He also said he supports needle-exchange programs, calling them “part of a complete public-health model for dealing with addiction.”

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest law-enforcement labor organization, said that while he holds Mr. Kerlikowske in high regard, police officers are wary.

“While I don’t necessarily disagree with Gil’s focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don’t want to see it at the expense of law enforcement. People need to understand that when they violate the law there are consequences.”*

They just can’t get past the moral imperative to punish potheads, can they?  The way prohibitionists see it, they said don’t do it, so you just shouldn’t do it.  There is no questioning of why we shouldn’t do it, no examination of the consequences of doing it versus the consequences of getting caught, and no consideration that doing it may actually be beneficial for some.

Imagine if the government came out and said it was taking steps to reduce drinking by adults – not drunk driving or binge drinking by college kids or alcoholism, but just overall alcohol consumption in this country.  Imagine if anyone found to be intoxicated on alcohol outside their home was considered to be an “addict” and was forced into “treatment” by a court at their own expense.  Imagine entire advertising campaigns showing the reality of people drinking – fights, puking, regrettable one-night stands – with an “Alcohol – Just Say No” theme.

But no, despite over 100,000 deaths per year, thousands of drunk driving incidents, and countless rude and disgusting encounters with drunk people, day after day I see commercials of exceptionally healthy attractive non-drunk people reminding me to “drink responsibly”.  It is assumed that most people are adults who can responsibly handle a drink or two and the few who can’t hold their liquor are just the unavoidable cost of living in a free society.

Why does this “responsible use” model not apply to the mildly psychotropic non-toxic herb that never kills and its largely non-violent responsible adult users?  For marijuana, why must we favor “treatment over incarceration” instead of legalization over incarceration?

*Well, unless they order the use of torture, contravening the Geneva Convention, in order to extract false confessions to demonstrate a non-existent link from Iraq to al Qaeda so they could accelerate plans for an illegal invasion of a country that never attacked us to protect us from weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.  Then, apparently, there are no consequences.  Sorry, fallibilist, I just couldn’t resist.