We don’t say it is a “War on Drugs” anymore… we just write it on posters

Scott Morgan at the Drug War Chronicle’s blog wins today’s Nail on the Head Award:

Rolling Stone’s June issue takes an in-depth look at the evolving political climate surrounding drug policy (a portion is available online), including a deliciously embarrassing visit with drug czar Gil Kerlikowske. Remember Kerlikowske’s recent statement about not calling it a “war on drugs” anymore? Well, guess what he’s got in his office:

…despite this sudden outbreak of sanity, rumors of the drug war’s death are greatly exaggerated. Visitors to the drug czar’s office in Washington – formally known as the Office of National Drug Control Policy – are greeted by the visage of Uncle Sam on a poster declaring, WE ARE AT WAR. ARE YOU DOING ALL YOU CAN?

Scott goes on to note in the Rolling Stone story how Gil Kerlikowske, our current drug czar, says unequivocably that legalization is “off the table” concerning our future federal drug policy, but then shows a shocking inability to answer even the most basic questions about our current federal drug policy:

Yet when faced with questions about national drug policy, he can turn as evasive as Sarah Palin without a teleprompter. Does the tripling of marijuana arrests since 1990 represent good policy? He’d like to look at the issue more closely. Would the feds respect the laws of states that vote to legalize marijuana consumption for adults? A great question, he says – but one he won’t venture to answer. Does the U.S. experience with Plan Columbia provide a template for dealing with the violent cartels in Mexico? He just doesn’t know. “After three weeks, I’m still finding my way around the office,” he says with a laugh.

Ha ha, tee hee, still finding his way around the office, I see.  You’re selected and confirmed to be the top policy wonk in our government dealing with drugs and you can’t decide whether tripling marijuana arrests since 1990 is good policy?  Very funny.  Are there any other government jobs I could apply for where demonstrable ignorance in key policy areas will get me confirmed?

Imagine being hired to be a VP of Operations at McDonald’s, being asked whether you think McDonald’s policy since 1990 to not use styrofoam containers for Big Macs is a good policy, and responding “I’d like to look at that issue more closely”.  Imagine you’re that VP for McDonald’s and California passes a law requiring all fast food to be made with zero trans fats and a reporter asks whether McDonald’s would respect that state law – would you venture to answer that question?  Imagine you’ve dealt with the security concerns regarding terrorism in your Israeli McDonald’s restaurants and a reporter asks whether that taught you any lessons in securing McDonald’s restaurants in Iraq – would you have a better answer than “I don’t know”?

I know, it’s a bad analogy.  McDonald’s vice presidents are actually judged by the results of their policies and can be fired for costing the company money.  When drug warriors’ policies are wrong and they cost the country lives and money, they keep their jobs and their budgets rise.