Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson scored the zinger of the FOX / YouTube GOP debate when he said, “My neighbor’s two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than President Obama.” (It was the one question he didn’t answer first with “balance the budget”.) But one issue important to Gov. Johnson, Rep. Paul, and apparently the debate audience, marijuana, was all but ignored in the debate.

The debate, streamed live on YouTube, was the first to feature both Gov. Johnson and Rep. Paul, two candidates who have strongly denounced the “War on Drugs”. During breaks for the candidates, the coverage featured analysts who presented data from Google on search engine trends. One feature, a “word cloud”, showed the prevalence of terms used in the questions submitted by Americans for the candidates. As the debate entered the segment on “Social Issues”, the word cloud showed three words most prominently: gay, marriage, and marijuana. The analysts pointed out the “social conservative” / “libertarian” divide in the Republican Party.

Despite the popularity of marijuana among the queries no candidates were asked any questions pertaining to the “War on Drugs”. Candidates, especially Texas Gov. Perry, were grilled about border security, but no candidate or moderator mentioned how the “War on Drugs” has created massacre conditions just south of our border. Numerous candidates pledged their support of the 10th Amendment, for the rights of the states to make their own decisions regarding health care (“Obamacare”, they call it), yet no candidate or moderator mentioned how that would apply to sixteen states that have made a decision regarding medical use of cannabis. And the bookending issue of the debate – creating jobs – was discussed endlessly without any recognition of the industry created by medical marijuana and the huge potential of a domestic hemp industry.

But FOX and the Republicans didn’t ignore the “Social Issues” entirely. When a gay soldier serving in Iraq appeared by video to ask the candidates if they would roll back recent gains in recognizing the right of soldiers like him to serve openly, members of the audience openly booed and jeered. Support the troops!… unless they’re gay.

With our umpteenth petition to the White House once again leading the pack among all petitions submitted, it’s nice to remember that dismissing the call of millions of Americans for marijuana legalization is still a bi-partisan practice.

Download Link: Secret Stash - Register to access
Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2011-06-17.mp3)

Hemp Headlines

Brought to you by Cannabis Fantastic

1. New Jersey’s medical marijuana program has yet to enroll a single patient, but has registered 70 doctors
2. Mayor Bloomberg says the 50,000 people arrested in New York City for smoking a joint like he did face only “minimal consequences”
3. Florida Gov. Rick Scott backs off on pledge to drug test all state workers

Daily Toker Tunes

Brought to you by Urb Thrasher from Urb Age Designs

• Rockin’ Friday: Dirty Rig – “Suck It”

NORML SHOW LIVE SPECIAL: 40 Years of the War on Drugs in Nixon’s own words

While condemning drugs, drug users, and popular rock culture, Nixon still found time to make Elvis Presley a special agent of the DEA. Yes, it's true.

Learn all the facts about Nixon’s War on Marijuana – Pre-Order NORML’s Big Book of Marijuana Facts today!

Transcripts by Common Sense for Drug Policy

May 13, 1971, between 10:30am and 12:30pm — Oval Office Conversation 498-5– meeting with Nixon, Haldeman and Ehrlichman

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Left-wingers-push-dope.mp3)

RN: “And let’s look at the strong societies. The Russians. God damn it, they root them out, they don’t let them around at all. You know what I mean? I don’t know what they do with them. Now, we are allowing this in this country when we show [unintelligible]. Dope? Do you think the Russians allow dope? Hell no. Not if they can allow, not if they can catch it, they send them up. You see, homosexuality, dope, immorality in general: These are the enemies of strong societies. That’s why the Communists and the left-wingers are pushing the stuff, they’re trying to destroy us.”

[Later on in this conversation tape, Bob Haldeman left, and George Schultz entered with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. The following is from that segment. The President and Daley are talking about how Chicago approaches drugs.]

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Its-marijuana-speed-LSD-heroin.mp3)

RN: “Well, let me tell you one thing that just happened here because it probably wasn’t, I’m sure it wasn’t in the press here, I had a press conference in California which was not televised, but, I was asked about marijuana because a study is being made by a, group, [unintelligible] the government. Now, my position is flat-out on that. I am against legalizing marijuana. Now I’m against legalizing marijuana because, I know all the arguments about, well, marijuana is no worse than whiskey, or etc. etc. etc. But the point is, once you cross that line, from the straight society to the drug society — marijuana, then speed, then it’s LSD, then it’s heroin, etc. then you’re done. But the main point is — well, well we conduct, well this commission will come up with a number of recommendations perhaps with regard to, [unintelligible] the penalties more, because [unintelligible] too far in this respect. As far as legalizing them is concerned, I think we’ve got to take a strong stand, one way or the other, and, uh.”

RD: “Against, uh.”

RN: “Against legalizing. That’s the position that I take. Because I think if we legalized it, take the, then, then, your high school and elementary kid, well why not? It [unintelligible].”

May 18, 1971, 12:16 pm – 12:35 pm — Oval Office Conversation No. 500-17 — The President met with Arthur G. (Art) Linkletter and DeVan L. Shumway; Oliver F. (“Ollie”) Atkins was present at the beginning of the meeting.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Nations-destroyed-by-drugs.mp3)

AL: “And then of course, uh, um, I bear down mostly on marijuana because that’s the puberty rite today, and I really give them a lecture on marijuana. And you see, the big problem with marijuana–”

RN: “I was asked about marijuana –”

AL: “You should know this –”

RN: “– two weeks ago in, uh, California, the, what do you say about this, I said well, we’re going to have a commission report, I said, [unintelligible] can be very clear, whatever it says, I’m against legalizing.”

AL: “Absolutely.”

RN: “I said, now, as far as penalties are concerned, that’s something else, they should of course be uniform but we, I’m against legalizing, period. I think you’ve got to draw the line on the damn thing because–”

AL: “That’s right. That’s right.”

RN: “– they say, well, it’s the same with booze. Well, maybe booze is bad, but the point is that, uh, you can, uh, uh, maybe booze can lead to marijuana, can lead to, speed, or uh, or LSD, can lead to heroin, so forth. But, basically, I mean, uh, I know, uh, another way to look at it is this, if I may say so, with regard to, if you get to a, a little more sophisticated audience who really care about destiny, and if you uh, [unintelligible] history, has ever been destroyed by alcohol. An awful lot of nations have been destroyed by drugs.”

AL: “That’s right.”

RN: “Now, this doesn’t, this is no advocacy for alcoholics, good God, it’s a horrible problem–”

AL: “Terrible.”

RN: “And, uh, you and I and many mutual friends, and we can have, we um there but for the grace of God go I, all of us, you know. But, believe me, it is true, the thing about the drug, once people cross that line from the, from [unintelligible] straight society to the, the drug society, it’s uh, it’s a very great possibility they’re going to go further, it’s [unintelligible] — ”

AL: “That’s right.

RN: “I don’t know, I, I say don’t give up.”

Download audio file (Art-Linkletter-Drugs-go-much-further-than-booze.mp3)

AL: “There’s a great difference between alcohol and marijuana.”

RN: “What is it?”

AL: “The worst that you can have when you’re in with other alcoholics is more to drink, so you’ll throw up more and get sicker and be drunker.”

RN: “And that also is a great, great incentive, uh–”

AL: “But when you are with druggers, the, you can go from marijuana to say heroin. Big difference.”

RN: “I see.”

AL: “If, if, if you’re with a guy who suggests you have three more drinks than you should have, you’re just going to get sicker. But if you’re with a guy who you’re already high and he suggests you try, this instead of this, you can go much further. Now, let me tell you one thing about marijuana you should know, that all of, the word marijuana should never be used until you say, what kind of marijuana.”

RN: “Oh.”

AL: “There is every grade. Now they say legalize marijuana or it isn’t bad. What marijuana isn’t bad? The mild stuff we grow in Wisconsin, or the stuff from Morocco? The twigs and the leaves, or the rosin? The kind of person who uses it, is he psychotically sound or unsound, is he [unintelligible]? All these things make a difference. So when you say marijuana, you’re saying [from one to twenty ?]. And you can never say marijuana, you’ve got to say: marijuana Acapulco, or marijuana from Mexico, or marijuana from Illinois. Three different things. And, what kind of a person is getting it, what kind of people is he with? I think that marijuana [unintelligible] all people with [unintelligible].”

RN: “[unintelligible]”

Download audio file (Art-Linkletter-Pot-smokers-cant-think-straight.mp3)

AL: Yes. There’s a man, named Dr. Harvey House (?). Dr. House (?) is the chief clinical psychiatrist at the University of California in Berkeley. Five years ago, they asked him for the paper what he thought of marijuana, and he said, it’s a light hallucinogen, probably wouldn’t cause any harm to anybody. And this was played up. And he was worried because it was so played up. He spent five years studying. About two months ago he released his new story, and it can all be put in five words: pot smokers can’t think straight. Pot smokers can’t think straight. If you are a regular head and use it regularly, you are not using your priorities correctly. You are not judging what is most important. You have a kind of a will-less way of thinking. And he described it, [unintelligible], as guys walking along a meadow, and have the same appearance, but some parts were boggy and quicksandy and some were firm, and that’s the kind of thinking that pot smokers have, they, they, and, and when people like that say these things you can’t tell me that this guy Brown, from your NIMH who was quoted this morning as saying that, uh, marijuana is really nothing and perhaps should be, uh, should be given the same penalty as a parking ticket. Good night!”

RN: “Now did you see this statement by Brown, the National Institute of Mental Health this morning? Uh, he should be out. I mean, today, today. If he’s a presidential appointee [unintelligible] do is fire the son of a bitch, and I mean today! Get the son of a bitch out of here. Don’t know whether he’s, probably just a [unintelligible] but he’s going to be out.”

AL: “Good. That’s a terrible thing for a guy in his position to say. A parking ticket would be the equivalent, he was quoted as saying. Because, uh, because, uh, marijuana is insidious. It can be harmless, and nothing, and it can be terrible.”

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-with-Art-Linkletter-smoke-to-get-high-drink-to-have-fun.mp3)

RN: “I know. Well, you know I suppose they could say that, alcoholics don’t think straight too, can’t they?”

AL: “Yes. [unintelligible] Really. But, but another big difference between marijuana and alcohol is that when people s- smoke marijuana, they smoke it to get high. In every case, when most people drink, they drink to be sociable. You don’t see people –”

RN: “That’s right, that’s right.”

AL: “They sit down with a marijuana cigarette to get high –”

RN: “A person does not drink to get drunk.”

AL: “That’s right.”

RN: “A person drinks to have fun.”

AL: “I’d say smoke marijuana, you smoke marijuana to get high.”

RN: “Smoke marijuana, er, uh, you want to get a charge –”

AL: “Right now –”

RN: “– of some sort, you want to get a charge, and float, and this and that and the other thing.”

May 26, 1971, Time: 10:03 am – 11:35 am — Oval Office Conversation: 505-4 — Meeting with Nixon and HR ‘Bob’ Haldeman

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Goddamned-strong-statement-Jews.mp3)

RN: “Now, this is one thing I want. I want a Goddamn strong statement on marijuana. Can I get that out of this sonofabitching, uh, Domestic Council?”

HRH: “Sure.”

RN: “I mean one on marijuana that just tears the ass out of them. I see another thing in the news summary this morning about it. You know it’s a funny thing,  every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana is Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob, what is the matter with them? I suppose it’s because most of them are psychiatrists, you know, there’s so many, all the greatest psychiatrists are Jewish. By God we are going to hit the marijuana thing, and I want to hit it right square in the puss, I want to find a way of putting more on that. More [ unintelligible ] work with somebody else with this.”

HRH: “Mm hmm, yep.”

RN: “I want to hit it, against legalizing and all that sort of thing.”

June 17, 1971 – Nixon declares War on Drugs and calls drugs “Public Enemy Number One” at a press conference

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Public-enemy-number-1-full.mp3)

RN:  ”I am glad that in this administration we have increased the amount of money for handling the problem of dangerous drugs seven-fold; it will be $600 million dollars this year.  More money will be needed in the future.  I want to say, however, that despite our budget problems, to the extent that money can help in meeting the problems of dangerous drugs, it will be available.  This is one area where we cannot have budget cuts.  Because we must wage what I have called total war against Public Enemy Number One in the United States – the problem of dangerous drugs.’

September 9, 1971, 3:03 pm – 3:34 pm — Oval Office Conversation No. 568-4 — The President met with Raymond P. Shafer, Jerome H. Jaffe, and Egil G. (“Bud”) Krogh, Jr.; the White House photographer was present at the beginning of the meeting.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Its-now-becoming-a-white-problem.mp3)

RN: “When will the marijuana one come out?”

RPS: “The marijuana will come out in March ’72. In other words we are coming into the final phases of it now, we’ve had all of our public hearings. We have not, we have nine more informal hearings.”

RN: “You’ve had all your public hearings already?”

RPS: “All of the public hearings, yes, and, uh, we’ve had, had, have had several informal hearings, we have nine more of those including one at, at federal college (?), Monday.”

RN: “Here.”

RPS: “Right here in Washington, [unintelligible].”

RN: “Hard to find anybody who isn’t on the stuff?”

RPS: “Uh, no. [unintelligible] Over 75 percent of the [unintelligible] are white, and, uh, and under 18, almost 85 percent, which I [unintelligible].”

RN: “It’s now becoming a white problem.”

[EDIT]

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Cigarettes-illegal-marijuana-legal.mp3)

RN: “What you have here is a very interesting live situation, where there is a certain [unintelligible] through the country, that, heh, on the one hand want to make smoking illegal, cigarette smoking illegal and marijuana legal. Now, that’s what I mean, that doesn’t make any damned sense now. I mean, probably if we repeat what that didn’t help its best aspects everything shouldn’t do anything shouldn’t need it, but uh, you know if they’re going to [unintelligible]. On the marijuana thing, I have very strong feelings that that’s, uh the, best final, uh, analysis, that once you start down that road, uh, the chances of going further down that road are greater. I’m aware some disagree with that, but uh, the uh, and also we have some people that are, frankly promoting it. They’re not good people. The whole marijuana, uh–”

[EDIT]

Download audio file (Raymond-Shafer-What-does-he-mean-by-legalization.mp3)

RPS: “And insofar as legalization, I think the thing that has caused us the greatest problem was your statement in San Clemente — which is a part of your strong convictions, naturally you expressed them as you felt them. But you used the word legalization, and, the way I answered it was, Look, we’re a national commission, we’re going to take a look at the whole picture, we know that the president is interested in what we’re doing, is concerned about the problem, and, uh, we’ve never had a chance to discuss what he means by legalization. If he means, uh, removing all controls, or if [unintelligible] simple possession, these are things that can be worked out at a later date. We’re going ahead and make our studies, and I know that he is wholeheartedly behind us because of everything that he has done. That does not mean that he’s going to agree with everything which we say, but, that he knows that these are men of, uh, integrity, men and women of integrity who wanted to do something for their country.”

RN: “Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.”

RPS: “Now, what, what happened on this when this statement was made, several members of the commission called up and said, well we may as well, give up. I said No, that isn’t right, the President has his own, uh, convictions on this and he isn’t going to tell the Commission what to say or what not to say.”

RN: “Come out with a different view.”

RPS: “Well certainly, you know we [unintelligible, both RPS and RN talk at once]

RPS: “Well, yes, but sure, the point is, that, I mean, say what they say, what the Commission is doing is, is, is following [unintelligible], and in fact, the, the confidential report that I had prepared to give you to Bud so that you, you’ve maybe even seen it–”

RN: “Yeah.”

RPS: “–gives clearly the direction that we’re going, and I think that that should relieve your mind, uh, uh, insofar as your personal convictions or so. We don’t want you to say, Well I’ve got a great commission, anything they say we’ll follow; well of course not, that’s ridiculous.”

RN: “No, no. [unintelligible], to look at it.”

[EDIT]

Download audio file (Raymond-Shafer-Demythologize-marijuana.mp3)

RPS: “We want to de-mythologize marijuana so that the kids aren’t going out experimenting with it because they think it’s great stuff. And uh, [unintelligible RPS and others talking at once]. I think, I think that we’ve gone into this thing as, uh deeply as, as uh, any commission could. [unintelligible], I’m, I’m having a great time learning, and, uh, we, we have individuals, but what we need from you is your, uh, public support, as a commission, not from the standpoint that you’re going to accept what we say but that here is a commission that is working on a problem that cuts across the cross-section of every, uh, family in, in the nation, next, next to your economy, and incidentally I think that what you’ve done in that regard is excellent.”

RN: “No, we’re –”

RPS: “But what we–”

RN: “Yeah, yeah, this, this, you’re right, it’s terribly important.”

Download audio file (Raymond-Shafer-staying-away-from-legalization-endorsement.mp3)

RPS: “Next to the economy, and also the winding down of the war which I don’t think will be a particular issue next year and I think you agree with me there. I think the problems of drug abuse will be a political issue. And, while our report isn’t going to give you a platform, , but it can be a source of possible embarrassment and that’s why I don’t want to have, give any ammunition to the, those who would like to use it against you.”

EK: “So far you’re staying away from any possible endorsement of legalization of marijuana.”

RPS: “Absolutely, absolutely.”

March 21, 1972, 1:00 pm – 2:15 pm — Oval Office Conversation No. 690-11 — in this segment, the President is meeting with H. R. (“Bob”) Haldeman.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Kick-the-Hell-out-of-it.mp3)

RN: “I saw, for example, [unintelligible] on a pamphlet they’re giving out on drugs. And, uh, presentation, [unintelligible], shows, which of course I would, [unintelligible], but where, uh, [unintelligible], they, they put in as a quote from the President on the front of the pamphlet with a picture, and a good strong picture and the rest, that said that, that the problem of drugs is our number one and must be dealt with in a variety of ways.”

HRH: “Eh.”

RN: “When I saw variety of ways I god damned near puked. And I thought, for pity’s sake, we need, and I use the word all out war, or all fronts, or, uh, uh, despicable, or, this in a variety of ways just pissed off [unintellig ible]. It’s typical, Bob, of what we get out of that shop over there.”

HRH: “Even if you want to make that overall [unintelligible]–”

RN: “You can’t say that–”

HRH: “You’ve got to, you’ve got to attack it, attack from every direction.”

RN: “–have to attack on all fronts.”

HRH: “On all fronts, yeah.”

RN: “Yeah.”

HRH: “You’ve got to attack the problem of the addict, the problem of the pusher, the problem of the, [unintelligible], victim. Yeah, boy you can sure, uh, water it down and then it –”

RN: “Variety of ways. Well now [unintelligible], except that, there are several ways.”

HRH: “Well what that means though is that we can’t really handle it.”

RN: “That’s right.”

HRH: “And that’s a, that’s a brush-off –”

RN: “It’s a cop out.”

HRH: “– it’s not like appointing a commission.”

RN: “A cop-out.”

HRH: “But handle it in a variety of ways really says we don’t know how to handle it. Which may be the truth. But it sure as hell isn’t the thing to say.”

RN: “Well. Here’s the thing to say, there’s ways to handle it, just, just kick the hell out of it. We enforce the law–”

HRH: “The way to talk, the thing to talk about, [unintelligible] all the Jaffe crap is not the stuff to talk about. I mean– ”

RN: “That’s what they hit me with [unintelligible]. Remember what I said.”

HRH: “I know.”

RN: “You got to kick [unintelligible] when I got out there and I didn’t do it. I, but what gets, who cares about the Jaffe stuff, the treating of the addicts.”

HRH: “The mothers don’t, because their kids aren’t addicts. And they’re, eh, you just don’t worry about that, what you worry about is this son of a bitch that’s going to come up –”

RN: “That’s right.”

HRH: “– and try to slip a packet of marijuana to your kid.”

RN: “Or, heroin.”

HRH: “Or heroin.”

RN: “Give them a fix. Or LSD, or something–”

HRH: “Or LSD, or slip something in his Coca-Cola.”

RN: “Yeah. Right.”

HRH: “That’s what you worry about, you’re not worried about addicts. Nobody knows an addict, but everybody knows a kid who’s been smoking marijuana.”

RN: “Bob, the truth’s, people are not concerned about anybody but themselves.”

HRH: “Exactly.”

RN: “They’re not concerned about the other kids whose, uh–”

HRH: “Well kids aren’t addicts anyway, I mean nobody, there aren’t enough addicts, addicted kids, to matter.”

March 24, 1972, 3:02 pm – 3:39 pm — Oval Office Conversation No. 693-1 — press conference

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Comments-on-Shafer-Report.mp3)

Unknown reporter: “Mr. President, uh, do you have a comment sir on the, uh, recommendation of your commission on drugs that the use of marijuana in the home be, uh, no longer, uh, considered a crime?”

RN: “Um, I met with Mr. Shafer, uh, I’ve read the report, uh, eh, it is a report that deserves consideration and will receive it. However, as to one aspect of the report I am in disagreement. I was before I read it and reading it did not change my mind. Uh, I, uh, oppose the legalization of marijuana, and that includes the sale, its possession, and its use. I do not believe you can have effective criminal justice, uh, based on the philosophy, uh that something is half legal and half illegal. That is my position, despite what the commission has recommended.”

Get the facts about Nixon’s War on Marijuana Consumers – Pre-Order your copy of NORML’s Big Book of Marijuana Facts today!

Since 1900, we have spent as much time fighting a war on drugs as we spent fighting wars in countries.

It was forty years ago today,
Richard Nixon taught the world to hate
The people who would smoke a weed
Protesting war and hate and greed.
So may I introduce to you
The war you’ve known for all these years,
Richard Nixon’s Hopeless War on Drugs.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Public-enemy-number-1-full.mp3)
 Nixon speaks to TV reporters and refers to drug users as “Public Enemy Number One”.

This does not look like a government bureaucracy going anywhere anytime soon.

It’s Richard Nixon’s Fascist War on Drugs,
For forty years it’s tried and failed,
It’s Richard Nixon’s Classist War on Drugs,
Where 20 million went to jail.
Richard Nixon’s Racist, Richard Nixon’s Futile,
Richard Nixon’s Hopeless War on Drugs.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Left-wingers-push-dope.mp3)
 Nixon from the White House Tapes speaking to aides about how weak societies support homosexuality and drugs and that’s why the left wing supports them in order to destroy America and turn it Communist.

While condemning drugs, drug users, and popular rock culture, Nixon still found time to make Elvis Presley a special agent of the DEA. Yes, it's true.

It’s terrible to be here,
It’s certainly a shame.
You’re such a fine United States,
We’d like to see you change the stakes,
We’d love to end this war.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Poppy-killing-insects.mp3)
 Nixon discusses with his Secretary of Agriculture how they might breed an insect that would kill poppies in the field.

Good thing we declared War on Drugs, otherwise more than 100 million Americans would have tried it!

We so really need to stop the show,
So I thought that you might like to know,
That we’ve spent a trillion bucks on war,
Against people who are mostly poor.
So let us introduce to you
The case for legalizing herb
End Richard Nixon’s Hopeless War on Drugs.

Download audio file (Richard-Nixon-Turned-the-Corner-on-Drug-Addiction.mp3)
 Nixon explains how after just one year into the War on Drugs, we’ve “turned the corner on drug addiction”.

(with apologies to Lennon and McCartney… but something tells me they’d agree…)

When one of your cities has more Drug War murders than California, it refocuses your attention on ending the Drug War

The marijuana internets are abuzz with the latest headline about world leaders declaring the War on Drugs to be a failure and calling for the legalization of marijuana. Here are a few:

World Leaders: Time to End Marijuana Prohibition

Who’s Who of World Leaders Call Global Drug War a “Failure”

World Leaders Recommend Ending The ‘Failed’ Drug War

These headlines cover the report released by the Global Commission on Drug Policy yesterday.  However, I think the preceding headlines fail to make an important distinction, one that was not lost on the editors at NPR (emphasis mine):

‘Global War On Drugs Has Failed,’ Former World Leaders Say

MEMBERS OF THE GLOBAL COMMISSION ON DRUG POLICY

– Asma Jahangir; human rights activist, former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Arbitrary, Extrajudicial and Summary Executions; Pakistan.
– Carlos Fuentes; writer; Mexico.
– Cesar Gaviria; former president of Colombia.
– Ernesto Zedillo; former president of Mexico.
– Fernando Henrique Cardoso; former president of Brazil.
– George Papandreou; Prime Minister of Greece. [The exception that proves the rule? --"R"R]
– George Shultz; former secretary of state.
– Javier Solana; former European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy; Spain.
– John Whitehead; banker and civil servant, chair of the World Trade Center Memorial; United States.
– Kofi Annan; former secretary general of the United Nations.
– Louise Arbour; former U.N. high commissioner for human rights; Canada.
– Maria Cattaui; member of the board, Petroplus Holdings; former secretary-general of the International Chamber of Commerce; Switzerland.
– Marion Caspers-Merk; former state secretary at the German Federal Ministry of Health, Germany.
– Mario Vargas Llosa; writer; Peru.
– Michel Kazatchkine; executive director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; France.
– Paul Volcker; former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
– Richard Branson; entrepreneur; founder of the Virgin Group; U.K.
– Ruth Dreifuss- former president of Switzerland.
– Thorvald Stoltenberg; former minister of foreign affairs and U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees; Norway.

It’s rarely current world leaders expressing these sentiments.  They seem to only speak out after they are out of office and lacking the power to help end that “failure”.  I’ve been reporting on the “former leaders” who call for an end to the Drug War since 2008:

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox calls for debate on marijuana legalization

Latin American ex-presidents urge US to decriminalize marijuana, rethink drug war

Former UK Drug Warrior: “What harms society is the illegality of drugs…”

Fortunately a few brave leaders speak out while they are still in office:

Argentine president calls for decriminalization of drug use

Jamaica lawmaker calls for legalizing small amounts of marijuana for private use

And when they succeed in decriminalization of drug use, they get amazing results:

United Nations backs drug decriminalization

The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal

The report itself makes many of the same recommendations NORML has been touting for four decades now.  The former world leaders recommend that we stop ”the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others.”  They point out that “models of legal regulation of drugs” should be instituted by governments to reduce the power of organized crime and protect the health of citizens and that this “applies especially to cannabis.”  They explain that a realistic government drug policy would avoid “simplistic ‘just say no’ messages and ‘zero tolerance’ policies in favor of educational efforts”.  It’s nice to finally have world leaders, even former ones, recognizing we were and are right.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Unfortunately, it’s the current ones – the ones who have the power to make these changes – we have to convince… and they’re not budging from their “Schedule I dangerous drug what about the children?!?” rhetoric:

(Los Angeles Times) ”Making drugs more available — as this report suggests — will make it harder to keep our communities healthy and safe,” said Rafael Lemaitre, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

More available?  Almost 1 in 4  high school kids can get a bag of weed within an hour and say it’s easier to buy than beer and prescription drugs.  Twenty-five million American adults are using cannabis annually and fifteen million use monthly.  Marijuana is already quite available, it’s just a question of who controls and profits from the market – regulated businesses or violent criminals.

“Legalizing dangerous drugs would be a profound mistake, leading to more use, and more harmful consequences,” drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said this year.

Administration officials dispute the idea that nothing can be done to reduce the demand for drugs in the United States. A spokesman for the White House drug agency said U.S. consumption peaked in 1979, when surveys showed that 14% of respondents had used illegal drugs in the previous month. Now that figure has dropped to 7%.

Remember that when Gateway Gil says “drugs”, he means “marijuana”.  Among 12th graders, monthly use of marijuana peaked in 1978, but amphetamines peaked in 1981, cocaine use peaked in 1985, ecstasy use peaked in 2000, hallucinogen use peaked in 1975, heroin use peaked in 2000, and sedative use peaked in 1975.  Since marijuana is far more popular (15 million annual users) than all other drugs combined (6 million annual users), any movement of the marijuana numbers moves the “drugs” numbers.

And since he brought it up, I’d remind Gateway Gil that his claim of that monthly drug use dropped in half since 1979 came as sixteen states passed medical marijuana laws and two states decriminalized marijuana possession.  Your predecessors warned us that if we legalized marijuana, even in those very specific and limited ways, it would be a profound mistake, leading to more use, and more harmful consequences.  It’s understandable, since you and your predecessors are bound by law to oppose any move toward legalization, so you can understand when we completely ignore your Chicken Little warnings about legalization.

$15.5 billion this year alone, 2/3rds for ineffective law enforcement.

Hooray!  The War on Drugs is over!  It must be true; it’s in the Irish Examiner!

THE United States has “ended its war on drugs” and is now moving its focus to prevention and treatment, the US drugs chief has told top Irish drug officials.

President Barack Obama’s drugs adviser Gil Kerlikowske held a series of meetings yesterday with Drugs Minister Pat Carey, Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy and Department of Justice secretary general Sean Aylward.

Um… has anybody told the Irish that the drug czar (among others in our government) sometimes lies?

The former police chief said the US had formally ended its much heralded – and hugely expensive – “war on drugs”.

“We’ve talked about a ‘war on drugs’ for 40 years, since President Nixon. I ended the war,” said Mr Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).

The Obama administration is increasing its budget for demand reduction by 6.5%, bringing it to $5.6 billion (€4.5bn). But the US is still spending $15.5bn on supply reduction.

The Irish Examiner can’t even get the numbers straight.  We’re spending $15.5 billion TOTAL on this War on Drugs that we’re not fighting anymore.  $9.9 billion of that goes to law enforcement, eradication, and imprisonment.  This is the same strategy we’ve pursued for forty years and spent one trillion dollars on with no measurable success whatsoever.

All Gil Kerlikowske has ended is the official use of the catchphrase “War on Drugs”.  We still arrest over 850,000 Americans a year for marijuana.  We still send SWAT teams into people’s homes, destroying their property and killing their pets, over marijuana.  We still use federal resources to fight legal medical marijuana in the states that have it and to prevent the states that want to legalize from doing so. This is the same “Drug War Spam” being served up as “Demand Reduction Luncheon Meat”.

Do we have to keep re-learning this lesson?

(The Independent – UK) After 40 years of defeat and failure, America’s “war on drugs” is being buried in the same fashion as it was born – amid bloodshed, confusion, corruption and scandal. US agents are being pulled from South America; Washington is putting its narcotics policy under review, and a newly confident region is no longer prepared to swallow its fatal Prohibition error. Indeed, after the expenditure of billions of dollars and the violent deaths of tens of thousands of people, a suitable epitaph for America’s longest “war” may well be the plan, in Bolivia, for every family to be given the right to grow coca in its own backyard.

Prepare to shed a tear over the loss of revenue that eventual decriminalisation of narcotics could bring to the traffickers, large and small, and to the contractors who have been making good money building and running the new prisons that help to bankrupt governments – in the US in particular, where drug offenders – principally small retailers and seldom the rich and important wholesalers – have helped to push the prison population to 1,600,000; their imprisonment is already straining federal and state budgets. In Mississippi, where drug offenders once had to serve 85 per cent of their sentences, they are now being required to serve less than a quarter. California has been ordered to release 40,000 inmates because its prisons are hugely overcrowded.

For the lives and sanity of millions, the seeing of the light is decidedly late. The conditions of the 1920s, when the US Congress outlawed alcohol and allowed Al Capone and his kin to make massive fortunes, have been re-created up and down Latin America.

Mexico’s President has not been afraid to point out to Washington that official corruption is at the root of drug trafficking in the US just as it is in Mexico. “I say we should investigate on both sides. I’m cleaning my house and I hope that on the other side as well the house is being cleaned,” he said pointedly last April before President Obama came visiting.

Part of the problem in ending this prohibition compared to the last one is that Nixon called it “a war”. Americans don’t like losing a war. Back in the 1920s, nobody called prohibition “War on Alcohol”. It was a just a prohibition on alcohol. So when it came time to end that policy, we were just repealing a prohibition. Prohibition was seen as a bad thing and repealing it as a good thing.

But a “War on Drugs”, in many people’s minds, is a good thing. They see the devastation of drug addiction in street junkies, crackheads, meth freaks and the attendant homelessness, crime, and death. Who wouldn’t want to declare war on that? So when you present to them the idea of ending the “War on Drugs”, it fits into a frame of war and there are only two ways wars end – you win or you surrender. Now you’re asking the average “USA! USA!” American — or mayor or congressman or president! — to surrender, to give up, on trying to cure the ills wrought by drug addiction. You’re asking a proud American to cop to being a loser in a war.

As we move forward I urge all reformers to keep away from the “War on Drugs” metaphor with a ten-foot pole. Saying things like “We need to end this futile War on Drugs!” or “This War on Drugs is a failure!”, while true, put you on the side of calling the USA a loser in a war (ask anyone living around 1972-1979 about “losing” Vietnam and what that did to the American psyche).

Instead, we need to frame our side as proposing the solution to the problems of drug addiction where no solutions have yet been tried. It’s not that the “War on Drugs” failed, per se, it’s that no solutions were ever tried! We frame drug use as something that exists and must be accepted and dealt with, instead of pretending that we can eliminate it. It’s not that America failed to eliminate drug use; it’s that America believed it could eliminate drug use.

In this manner, we frame the “War on Drugs” not as an epic battle that we lost, but that for forty years we’ve been neglecting our responsibility to regulate and control drugs. It’s not that we’re abandoning the “War on Drugs” after forty years, it’s that we’re finally pursuing a “Strategy on Drugs” based in reality. It’s not that we failed at what we’re doing, it’s that what we’re doing has failed.

But there’s one war the president may stop – in fact, his election has motivated developments toward this end at a pace not seen in decades. We’re talking about the War on Drugs, and ending it could change the lives of millions of Americans – as well as Mexicans, Colombians, and others in places that feed America’s illicit drug habits.

While it might sound a little fantastic, consider this: in the last year, the White House has ordered its Justice Department to stop prosecuting medical marijuana growers, users, and dispensaries, as long as they are operating within state law. That has led the 13 states with medical marijuana laws to push forward more assertively in establishing public dispensaries and encouraged legislation in other states to relax marijuana statutes and allow medical marijuana.

Draconian minimum sentencing for drug arrests has finally been reversed in New York, and sentencing reform has pushed ahead in other states, too. Just last week, Congress ended a restriction on a District of Columbia medical marijuana law passed by voters in 1998. Ironically, former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.) helped put that restriction into place, but since then, the former federal prosecutor has reexamined his position on marijuana as a states’ rights issue and has been helping to push back against further federal intrusion.

In February, Obama appointed Gil Kerlikowske as drug czar. Ostensibly, he’s quite the antithesis of drug czars past, since he is no ideologue. In fact, he faithfully implemented decriminalization efforts as Seattle’s police chief despite his own opposition, pragmatically working with community activists to keep nonviolent drug offenders out of jail.

A really sound and concise article from Kelley B. Vlahos. Check out the rest of it here.

(Harm Reduction Journal) Background: As the “war on drugs” enters the latter half of its third decade since being forged into the American lexicon by President Ronald Reagan, the public has grown more skeptical of the current strategy and has proven to be receptive to a broader consideration of alternatives to incarceration. This has been the case most notably with marijuana offenses, where the policy discussion has shifted in some localities to one of decriminalization or de-prioritizing law enforcement resources dedicated to pursuing possession offenses. Despite the increased profile surrounding marijuana policy in recent years, there remains a significant degree of misunderstanding regarding the current strategy, both in terms of how resources are being allocated and to what eventual gain.

Methods: Previous studies have analyzed drug offenses as a general category, but there has yet to be a single study that has focused specifically on marijuana offenders at all stages of the system. This report analyzes multiple sources of data for the period 1990–2002 from each of the critical points in the criminal justice system, from arrest through court processing and into the correctional system, to create an overall portrait of this country’s strategy in dealing with marijuana use.

Results: The study found that since 1990, the primary focus of the war on drugs has shifted to low-level marijuana offenses. During the study period, 82% of the increase in drug arrests nationally (450,000) was for marijuana offenses, and virtually all of that increase was in possession offenses. Of the nearly 700,000 arrests in 2002, 88% were for possession. Only 1 in 18 of these arrests results in a felony conviction, with the rest either being dismissed or adjudicated as a misdemeanor, meaning that a substantial amount of resources, roughly $4 billion per year for marijuana alone, is being dedicated to minor offenses.

Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that law enforcement resources are not being effectively allocated to offenses which are most costly to society. The financial and personnel investment in marijuana offenses, at all points in the criminal justice system, diverts funds away from other crime types, thereby representing a questionable policy choice.

Ah, but those funds are being effectively allocated to offenses that keep cops employed, arrest numbers up, and grant and seizure money flowing.  Law enforcement can point to the increase in “drug abuse” arrests and say how awful the drug problem has become to justify bigger budgets.  If other crime types should increase due to diversion of manpower and money to pot offenses, then law enforcement points at increased crime and tells us how much crime has risen because of the awful drug abuse problem.