« Scholarly concerns about the CVRA | Main | "The Great Writ Diminished" »

May 15, 2009

Is the Obama Administration starting a (too slow?) withdrawal in the war on drugs?

This article from the Wall Street Journal, headlined "White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs': Kerlikowske Says Analogy Is Counterproductive; Shift Aligns With Administration Preference for Treatment Over Incarceration," provides some encouraging news for those who are eager for an end to the drug war.  Here is how the piece begins:

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.

Valuably, Arianna Huffington has this potent follow-up commentary in which she stresses the need for the Obama Administration to walk as well as talk the talk in this arena. Her piece is titled "Ending the War on Drugs: The Moment is Now," and here are excerpts:

[W]hen it comes to putting its rhetoric into action, the Obama administration has faltered.

Just a week after the Attorney General said there would be no more medical marijuana raids, the DEA raided a licensed medical marijuana dispensary in California. Obama's '09-'10 budget proposes to continue the longstanding ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs.

The current budget is still overwhelmingly skewed in favor of the drug war approach -- indeed, it allocates more to drug enforcement and less to prevention than even George Bush did.

Testifying [Thursday] in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Holder, in his opening statement, called for a working group to examine federal cocaine sentencing policy: "Based on that review, we will determine what sentencing reforms are appropriate, including making recommendations to Congress on changes to crack and powder cocaine sentencing policy." A working group? Why? As a senator, Obama co-sponsored legislation (introduced by Joe Biden) to end the disparity. What further review is needed?...

So the question becomes: is the Obama administration really committed to a fundamental shift in America's approach to drug policy or is this about serving up a kinder, gentler drug war?

And this at a time when the tide is clearly turning. Inspired by the massive budget crises facing many states, and the increase in drug violence both at home and abroad -- leaders on all points across the political spectrum appear more willing to rethink our ruinous drug policies.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for "an open debate" and careful study of proposals to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox has also urged renewing the debate, saying that he isn't convinced taxing and regulating drugs is the answer but "why not discuss it?" Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, pointing to evidence that Mexican drug cartels draw 60 to 80 percent of their revenue from pot, suggested legalization might be an effective tool to combat Mexican drug traffickers and American gangs....

I understand that drugs continue to be a political hot potato, fueled by what the Latin American presidents described as "prejudices and fears that sometimes bear little relation to reality."   And I can easily picture some on the president's team advising him to keep the issue on the backburner lest it turn into his "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

But the cost of the drug war -- both human and financial -- is far too high to allow politics to dictate the administration's actions. Indeed, with all the budget cutting going on, how can anyone justify spending tens of billions of dollars a year on an unwinnable war against our own people?

Change won't be easy.  The prison-industrial complex has a deeply vested interest in maintaining the status quo.  Which is why we need to keep the pressure on the president and his team to follow through on their drug policy promises.

As with the regulation of Wall Street, real reform of our nation's drugs policies won't happen without someone in the administration making it a top priority.

As I have suggested in a number of prior posts, one symbolically important gesture that President Obama could and should make in this regard is to commute the sentences of a few non-violent drug offenders who have already served lots of time in prison.  A particularly sensible group of potential candidates for some clemency relief might be the most sympathetic crack defendants who have not been able to get effective sentence reductions under the US Sentencing Commission's liimited reduction of its crack guidelines.

Some related posts on the drug war and clemency:  

May 15, 2009 at 09:32 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20115708a32f8970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Is the Obama Administration starting a (too slow?) withdrawal in the war on drugs?:

Comments

President Obama's party has owned Congress for about two and a-half years. If they want to REALLY "withdraw" from (translation: surrender in) the drug war, they have the votes to do it by simply repealing the Controlled Substances Act.

Only they haven't, and we all know they're not going to. This is not because they're cowards, although I expect that charge to be made any time now on this forum.

It's because they have some sense.

The public knows that drugs are dangerous even if the druggie defense bar doesn't (or doesn't care). The public also isn't as stupid as the Left takes it to be. People know that the discussion may start with marijuana, but it won't end there. Once the momentum and underlying rationale of legalization are established, cocaine will be next, followed by LSD. heroin, meth and the other healthful goodies that, after all, are none of the government's business.

So let the Democratic Congress repeal the drug laws. Go for it, guys! I was wondering how the Republicans, who look to be floundering a bit at the moment, would get back in power, and I think the legalizers have discovered the answer.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 15, 2009 10:48:04 AM

Part of the Presidents job is to count votes. There are not enough votes in either the House or the Senate to legalize MJ. The may be enough votes for taking more of a public health approach and a token reduction in drug penalties for users.

"Tough on crime" is bipartisan policy for a very good reason. The taxpayers have to be convinced that it is a waste of their money to incarcerate a drug user instead of using community supervision, drug abuse treatment and frequent random testing.

Posted by: John Neff | May 15, 2009 11:40:02 AM

Professor Neff --

I agree that the votes aren't there. But I think the reason legalization never gets anywhere is not crass politics. It reflects the correct belief that drugs are unwholesome at best and lethal at worst, and that their sale and use is more than just a public health problem.

Treatment and counseling all sound good -- and they are good, truth be told -- but they work a lot better if they have the hammer of prison behind them. Take away the hammer, and "treatment and counseling" become code for "do nothing effective."

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 15, 2009 12:01:22 PM

Do you think vocal opposition to medical marijuana is a winner for the Republicans, Bill? How about vocal opposition to cost-effective reductions in prison populations for non-violent drug offenders?

I ask because I think it would be good politics for the Republicans to try to get their mojo back through libertarianism in this arena, but it seems you think it would be good politics for them to ramp up drug prohibition totalitarianism. I share your belief that "the public isn't stupid," but that's why I think they prefer a national drug policy that is comparable to our national alcohol policies. But you seem to have a different sense of what the people really want, and I'd like to get a fuller sense of what you think the public really wants.

Posted by: Doug B. | May 15, 2009 12:14:24 PM

Doug think the public position on drug legalization depends on where they live. I think members of the House of Representatives have a fairly good idea of their constituents views on that subject.

Posted by: John Neff | May 15, 2009 1:10:39 PM


Doug --

"[D]rug prohibition totalitariansim"??? Kind of a loaded term there, Doug. The CSA was passed by one of the most liberal and Democratic Congresses in history. If totalitarianism it be, it's on their doorstep.

Of course it isn't totalitarianism. Over its 35 year life, the CSA has expanded, not shrunk. This has happened under both Republicans and Democrats. That being the case, it's very, very hard to believe that it's a creature of totalitarianism. This is what the public wants. Congress simply does not provide decades of support to prominent policies the public opposes.

That is the gist of my conclusion about public attitudes. And I care less about the politics of it than I do about getting it right. If getting it right puts me in the majority (as it does, for example, in supporting the death penalty), then fine. If not, then also fine. I can live with being in the minority. What I would have trouble living with is adopting a stance, or encouraging others to adopt it, simply because I thought it would help get the mojo back.

Barry Goldwater got creamed. There was all kind of talk then about how the Republican Party was dead. But though he was creamed, he was right about the pre-eminent issue of the day, to wit, defeating the Soviet Union. Sixteen years later, the Republican Party turned out to be very much alive, not by turning its back on Goldwater's anti-Soviet principles but by embracing them full-bore in the person of Ronald Reagan.

Likewise here. There is a segment of the Republican Party that embraces libertarianism, but it's quite small. I am not aware of a single professional political analyst who actually believes that the Republicans would do better by battling to fling open the prison gates or promote the use of marijuana or any of the other illegal drugs the legalization lobby would prefer never to mention, like heroin and meth.

One point is obvious: The public would correctly see that the Republicans had jumped ship on their longstanding positions, not because they thought they were wrong, but because they thought it was politically expedient to do so. In other words, the public would correctly identify such a Party as the Party of crass political expediency. Such a Party would deserve, and would get, not public support, but public repudiation.

One need not be an oracle to figure this out, since it just happened. In the 2008 election, candidate Obama effectively pounded the Republicans for claiming to believe in fiscal responsibility, while in fact spending like the proverbial drunken sailor.

On the merits, the Republicans also would be poorly advised to promote what is called "medical" marijuana. First, it isn't medical. The AMA has said, to the contrary, that marijuana should remain a Schedule I Controlled Substance, at least pending more probing research. This is the same position taken by the American Cancer Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. I will trust these organizations to know more about this than the Republicans (or Democrats) do.

Second, the supposedly medicinal ingredient in marijuana, THC, is ALREADY available in by prescription in the legal drug Marinol. The public qute rightly senses that the debate about "medical" marijuana isn't really about medicine at all. It's about getting high. Some people on the pro-marijuana side are candid enough to say this out loud.

Third, the public can see where this is going. As I noted in an earlier post, once the momentum and rationale of legalization are established, the push won't end there (nor, if one is a strict libertarian, SHOULD it end there). It will go on to cocaine, and then to LSD, heroin, meth and the rest. I mean, "What I put in my own body is nobody's business but mine!".............etc. Why doesn't that libertarian anthem apply to heroin as well as to dope? It is, under libertarian theory, irrelevant that one drug is more dangerous than the other; the whole point of libertarianism is that that question is for the individual and not the government to judge.

Anyway, that -- to answer your question -- is what I believe the public thinks.


Posted by: Bill Otis | May 15, 2009 1:26:20 PM

A recent poll viewed on the drudge report had the people of California favoring the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana should be legalized!!

Posted by: anon | May 15, 2009 6:17:11 PM

anon --

Since the people of California also favor the death penalty, I take it that you will be equally enthusiastic about keeping it legal as well.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 15, 2009 7:13:28 PM

One of the aspects of illegal drug sales in residential neighborhood has to do with values of the real estate the mortgages on the houses and the property taxes on the houses in the neighborhood. I lived for about four months in a neighborhood in Portland Oregon where there were entire city blocks where all of the houses were boarded up because they have been abandoned by their owners or renters to avoid the drug dealers. The original value of the houses probably totaled $3 to $4 million and I suppose the entire block could have been purchased then for about $100,000. The mortgages were worthless and the property tax revenue was essentially negative because of the extra liability and public safety costs. It was effectively a terminal financial cancer.

If that happened a couple of blocks from where you live what would that do to the value of your property? That has already happened to people and that is why I think that peoples attitudes about legalization of drugs depend on where they live.

Posted by: John Neff | May 15, 2009 9:46:25 PM

John: Because the drug dealers have the total protection of the vile criminal lover lawyer, total self-help has good justification. Capture one, torture him to death, and dump him in front of a crack house. They cannot be deterred. They can only be killed.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 15, 2009 10:56:10 PM


A “SINGLE VOICE PROJECT” is the official name of the petition sponsored by: The National Public Service Council To Abolish Private Prisons (NPSCTAPP)

THIS PETITION SEEKS TO ABOLISH ALL PRIVATE PRISONS IN THE UNITED STATES, (or any place subject to its jurisdiction)


The National Public Service Council To Abolish Private Prisons (NPSCTAPP) is a grass roots organization driven by a single objective. We want the United States government to reclaim sole authority for state and federal prisons on US soil.
We want the United States Congress to immediately rescind all state and federal contracts that permit private prisons “for profit” to exist in the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction. We understand that the problems that currently plague our government, its criminal justice system and in particular, the state & federal bureau of prisons (and most correctional and rehabilitation facilities) are massive. However, it is our solemn belief that the solutions for prison reform will remain unattainable and virtually impossible as long as private prisons for profit are permitted to operate in America.

Prior to the past month, and the fiasco of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and now the “Big Three” American Automobile manufacturers, the NPSCTAPP has always felt compelled to highlight the “moral Bottom line” when it comes to corrections and privatization. Although, we remain confounded by the reality that our government has allowed our justice system to be operated by private interests. The NPSCTAPP philosophy has always been “justice” should not be for sale at any price. It is our belief that the inherent and most fundamental responsibility of the criminal justice system should not be shirked, or “jobbed-out.” This is not the same as privatizing the post office or some trash pick up service in the community. There has to be a loss of meaning and purpose when an inmate looks at a guard’s uniform and instead of seeing an emblem that reads State Department of Corrections or Federal Bureau of Prisons, he sees one that says: “Atlas Prison Corporation.”

Let’s assume that the real danger of privatization is not some innate inhumanity on the part of its practitioners but rather the added financial incentives that reward inhumanity. The same logic that motivates companies to operate prisons more efficiently also encourages them to cut corners at the expense of workers, prisoners and the public. Every penny they do not spend on food, medical care or training for guards is a dime they can pocket. What happens when the pennies pocketed are not enough for the shareholders? Who will bailout the private prison industry when they hold the government and the American people hostage with the threat of financial failure…“bankruptcy?” What was unimaginable a month ago merits serious consideration today. State and Federal prison programs originate from government design, and therefore, need to be maintained by the government. It’s time to restore the principles and the vacated promise of our judicial system.

John F. Kennedy said, “The time to repair the roof is while the sun is shinning”. Well the sun may not be shinning but, it’s not a bad time to begin repair on a dangerous roof that is certain to fall…. because, “Incarcerating people for profit is, in a word WRONG”

There is an urgent need for the good people of this country to emerge from the shadows of cynicism, indifference, apathy and those other dark places that we migrate to when we are overwhelmed by frustration and the loss of hope.
It is our hope that you will support the NPSCTAPP with a show of solidarity by signing our petition. We intend to assemble a collection of one million signatures, which will subsequently be attached to a proposition for consideration. This proposition will be presented to both, the Speaker Of The House Of Representatives (Nancy Pelosi) and the United States Congress.


Please Help Us. We Need Your Support. Help Us Spread The Word About This Monumental And Courageous Challenge To Create Positive Change. Place The Link To The Petition On Your Website! Pass It On!

The SINGLE VOICE PETITION and the effort to abolish private “for profit” prisons is the sole intent of NPSCTAPP. Our project does not contain any additional agendas. We have no solutions or suggestions regarding prison reform. However, we are unyielding in our belief that the answers to the many problems which currently plague this nation’s criminal justice system and its penal system in particular, cannot and will not be found within or assisted by the private “for profit” prison business. The private “for profit” prison business has a stranglehold on our criminal justice system. Its vice-like grip continues to choke the possibility of justice, fairness, and responsibility from both state and federal systems.
These new slave plantations are not the answer!

For more information please visit: http://www.npsctapp.blogspot.com or email: [email protected]
To sign the petition please visit: http://www.petitiononline.com/gufree2/petition.html

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

William Thomas
National Community Outreach Facilitator
The National Public Service Council To Abolish Private Prisons
P.O. Box 156423
San Francisco, California 94115

Posted by: William | May 16, 2009 12:47:51 AM

Bill Otis: "we all know they're not going to (end the war). This is not because they're cowards, although I expect that charge to be made any time now on this forum.

Wrong. They won't do it for the same reason they seem incapable of doing anything meaningful to emerge from the conservative dark ages of the past 40 years: they are indeed cowards. No stomach for a fight.

They anticipate blowtorch rhetoric from right-wing demagogues, turn tail and fall into line.

Public education and treatment would be cheaper and more effective. But conservatives seem to care less about effective policy than gaining a political edge.

Posted by: John K | May 16, 2009 10:31:07 AM

John K --

1. If conservatives were the problem, the CSA would never have been on the books. As I pointed out in a passage you don't dispute, the CSA was passed by one of the most liberal and Democratic Congresses we have ever had.

2. I also said that the charge of political cowardice would surface presently on this forum. Your response is, "Wrong," followed 27 words later by this: "[T]hey are indeed cowards. No stomach for a fight."

QED

3. Is the AMA also a bunch of cowards? The AMA takes the position that marijuana should remain a Schedule I legally prohibited substance at least until more probing research is done.

4. I used to be surprised that the liberal/druggie crowd, which ceaselessly congratulates itself for its pristine high-mindedness, is the first to ascribe dissent from its orthodoxy to the character flaws of its opponents (e.g., cowardice) rather than to principled disagreement. But I'm not surprised anymore, having seen these sorts of McCarthyite attacks again and again.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 16, 2009 11:40:05 AM

Bill

You would be correct. I favor legalization of marijuana and I also favor the death penalty. I also tend to agree with a lot of your posts.

Posted by: anon | May 16, 2009 1:49:45 PM

Anon --

OK, thank you. I'm not in favor of the death penalty BECAUSE it enjoys majority support, but I am in favor of it for the same reason most people do, to wit, there are some murders so sadistic and heartless that mere imprisonment, no matter for how long, really fits the crime.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 16, 2009 3:10:26 PM

The history of the medical and non-medical use of cannabis have been recently extended back to 2000 BC by the discovery of cannabis with a relatively high THC content in a tomb in China. However it is not clear if the cannabis was place in the tomb for for medical or for non-medical use.

Prior to the introduction of aspirin in 1901 cannabis was used extensively as a pain killer. However it was not popular with doctors because the plant had a relatively short shelf-life, the dosage was difficult to control and they were concerned about the potential harm caused by smoking the plant material. If you read all of the AMA 2001 policy there is little change in their views since 1901. The link below is to a brief history of the development of the AMA policy on marijuana.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=88

Posted by: John Neff | May 16, 2009 3:15:10 PM

Bill,

The Nixon Administration conceived and pushed the CSA as backlash to the 60's drug culture.

That some liberal lawmakers acquiesced to help pass a reactionary bill doesn't make the CSA their baby...nor does it deflect the charge of cowardice.

My response could have been worded better. I should have said, you were wrong to suggest cowardice isn't the reason for inaction; it is, in my view. How else to characterize failing to deal rationally with awful problems for fear of losing your job to a demagogue?

The AMA might not be a bunch of cowards, but it is a conservative organization. I'd be stunned if it didn't support a Nixonian drug policy.

Posted by: John K | May 17, 2009 3:59:38 PM


John K. --

1. It is true that the CSA was passed under Nixon. (Nixon also supported wage and price controls, not exactly a conservative's dream). But that does not gainsay that it was passed by one of the most liberal and Democratic Congresses we have ever had.

Six years after its passage, Jimmy Carter was elected. During his four years, Carter also had an overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic Congress, both in the House and Senate. But the CSA stayed on the books; if anything it was expanded (although I don't remember well enough to be sure of that). Whose responsibility was that?

Today we have probably the most liberal President ever to have served, with both houses again dominated by the Democratic Party. If there is even any TALK of repealing the CSA, I sure haven't heard it.

So whose baby is it now?

All in all, the CSA has been around for almost 40 years. During that time, the executive branch has been mostly in the hands of the Republicans, and the legislative branch mostly in the hands of the Democrats. With that as the state of play, the idea that it's a long-running Nixonian plot just doesn't wash.

2. "...you were wrong to suggest cowardice isn't the reason for inaction; it is, in my view. How else to characterize failing to deal rationally with awful problems for fear of losing your job to a demagogue?"

The problem is that you assume your conclusion: that only legalization is "rational" and that congressmen and senators who oppose legalization are cowering before demagogues.

Legalization has had four decades (actually more) to make its case. The reason it hasn't succeeded is that, the more that becomes known about illegal drugs, the more evidence there is of their dangerousness -- not the other way around.

I have never heard of a parent who was happy to learn that his 17 year-old was trying dope (or cocaine or LSD or any of the rest of them). This is not because every parent is a coward, a demagogue or a dunce. To the contrary, they know that drugs are nothing but trouble. They can ruin their kid's health; in extreme instances, they can ruin his life.

3. "The AMA might not be a bunch of cowards, but it is a conservative organization. I'd be stunned if it didn't support a Nixonian drug policy."

I am not aware of any evidence, and none is cited, to support the claim that the AMA's support for keeping marijuana a Schedule I prohibited substance is anything other than its honest conclusion, one rooted in science rather than politics. The idea that the AMA is in the thrall of a thoroughly discredited man who left office close to two generations ago is, with all respect, quite far-fetched.


Posted by: Bill Otis | May 17, 2009 5:22:53 PM

Bill writes:

1. “It is true that the CSA was passed under Nixon. …But that does not gainsay that it was passed by one of the most liberal and Democratic Congresses we have ever had. …Carter also had an overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic Congress... But the CSA stayed on the books… Whose responsibility was that? …Today we have probably the most liberal President ever to have served, with both houses again dominated by the Democratic Party. If there is even any TALK of repealing the CSA, I sure haven't heard it. So whose baby is it now?”

JK: Again, legislators have lacked the courage or will to take on the beast spawned by Nixon.

Any who might have been tempted to try were reminded of the attendant risks when former NM Gov. Gary Johnson limped off the political stage after boldly giving voice to the decriminalization movement.

2. “The problem is that you assume your conclusion: that only legalization is "rational" and that congressmen and senators who oppose legalization are cowering before demagogues. Legalization has had four decades (actually more) to make its case. The reason it hasn't succeeded is that, the more that becomes known about illegal drugs, the more evidence there is of their dangerousness -- not the other way around.”

JK: Again, CSA stayed on the books mostly because a blowtorch of cynicism and demagoguery awaited any politician brave enough to point out the drug war wasn’t just burdensomely expensive and needlessly destructive but an abject failure as well.

In fact, only in the months since the severe recession took hold have a handful of legislators been brave enough to point out the lunacy of spending $30K a year per prisoner to keep tens of thousands of non-violent drug offenders locked up for decades.

What exactly have we learned about illegal drugs in the 40-year war that we didn’t know before it began?

And I didn’t suggest legalization was the only rational choice, only that continuing what we’ve been doing unsuccessfully for 40 years is clearly irrational.

3. “I have never heard of a parent who was happy to learn his 17 year-old was trying dope… not because every parent is a coward, a demagogue or a dunce. To the contrary, they know that drugs are nothing but trouble. They can ruin their kid's health; in extreme instances, they can ruin his life.”

JK: I’ve never heard of a parent happy to learn his child was incarcerated and saddled with a felony conviction for a non-violent drug offense...an experience that also ruins lives of children and their parents.

Posted by: John K | May 18, 2009 11:12:14 AM

As for the AMA...

Its position is either a "science-rooted" conclusion marijuana is criminally unhealthy (for individuals and/or society) as you suggest OR it wants more study before concluding it's not (as you've also suggested); can't have it both ways.

If the AMA simply wants mj to remain illegal, then its position appears to be more of a political staance than a medical finding.

Never mind the overarching question: Why should toxic mj be treated differently than toxic beer, liquor or wine?

Nixon's dead, of course, but his spirit lives on.

Posted by: John K | May 18, 2009 2:50:46 PM

Keep in mind that the AMA policy was adopted in 2001 and they called for further research and the development of an inhaler. Since then an inhaler has been developed and there has been further research. Has there been sufficient progress for the AMA to reconsider their 2001 policy?

Recently a Iowa Court ordered the Iowa Pharmacy Board to reconsider the classification of MJ as a schedule I controlled substance.No doubt this will result in a vigorous debate over the findings of the new research on MJ.

Posted by: John Neff | May 18, 2009 3:28:19 PM

John K. --

1. "[The AMA's] position is either a 'science-rooted' conclusion marijuana is criminally unhealthy (for individuals and/or society) as you suggest OR it wants more study before concluding it's not (as you've also suggested); can't have it both ways."

Why don't we let the AMA speak for itself? Its position is, word-for-word (hat-tip to John Neff for finding the site):

"The AMA calls for further adequate and well-controlled studies of marijuana and related cannabinoids in patients who have serious conditions for which preclinical, anecdotal, or controlled evidence suggests possible efficacy and the application of such results to the understanding and treatment of disease."

"The AMA recommends that marijuana be retained in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the outcome of such studies."


2. "Never mind the overarching question: Why should toxic mj be treated differently than toxic beer, liquor or wine?"

Because the partial legalization of some toxic substances is not a reason to be carefree in legalizing yet more. It is, to the contrary, a reason to be more circumspect. Plus, legalizing beer is not going to be the camel's nose for legalizing cocaine, and then heroin and meth, but legalizing marijuana will be. What, after all, is the categorical basis for saying that one recreational drug (marijuana) should be openly available but the next (cocaine) should be able to send you to prison?

3. "Nixon's dead, of course, but his spirit lives on."

In whom does it dwell? Barack Obama? Harry Ried? Nancy Pelosi? They have all the executive and legislative power in Washington. I'll bet they'd be real surprised to know they're just Tricky Dick in drag.

Good grief, John. Trying to make Richard Nixon the boogeyman at this late date is really straining. I would respectfully suggest that it's past time to get over the notion that drug laws are the product of the Vast Right Wing, Albeit Extremely Dead, Nixon Conspiracy. At some point you need to come to grips with the fact that FORTY YEARS of bi-partisan support for the CSA is not due to the fact that your opponents are Satan's spawn, but to the fact that they have won the public debate.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 18, 2009 3:49:44 PM

Professor Neff --

I have no problem with allowing people access to THC in actual medicines, like Marinol, that have FDA approval; where safety and effectiveness have been assured; where doseage and purity can be regulated; where it can help bring about a cure or significant paliation; where it does not have an inebriating effect; and where it is administered under the supervision of a sensible doctor (i.e., not a Cheech-and-Chong activist in a white smock).

But that is not what legalizers want. They want to be able to do their thing with a bong. Marijuana smoke is not medicine, and there is no realistic chance the AMA will recognize it as such. Marijuana smoke is about getting high -- and so, truth be told, is the whole legalization debate.

"Medical" marijuana has just enough plausibility to be a good PR front, but it's still a front.

Posted by: Bill Otis | May 18, 2009 8:10:18 PM

Bill Otis

In medical marijuana research it is difficult if not impossible to design experiments that will give unambiguous results. The sample sizes are very small many variables are uncontrolled and it is difficult to establish a control group. There are many people that on both sides of the issue that will reject any scientific findings that are inconsistent with their ideological viewpoint so the researchers are operating in a hostile environment.

Recall the process that was used to link cancer to tobacco use. It was a long expensive process involving multiple huge data sets and even then then it took a long time before the results were generally accepted.

The development of Marinol and the inhaler indicate that some progress has been made but evidently Marinol has some unpleasant side effects that limit it's use. I don't know that much about the inhaler but I do know that it sometimes takes a long time for a new product or device to be approved and appear on the market. Obviously I don't agree that research on medical marijuana is a waste of time but I am not optimistic that it will make a big difference.

You are not the only person that is suspicious of the effort to legalize medical marijuana. Most of my friends that are or were physicians that knew that marijuana was a medicinal plant (a surprising number did not) consider medical marijuana to be of historical interest.

What I find interesting is that the criminal justice system has been placed in a situation where they have to determine the validity of a scientific finding when the scientists have not reached a consensus. The criminal justice system has a very low batting average in dealing with that class of problems.


Posted by: John Neff | May 18, 2009 10:11:29 PM

There is an urgent need for the good people of this country to emerge from the shadows of cynicism, indifference, apathy and those other dark places that we migrate to when we are overwhelmed by frustration and the loss of hope.
It is our hope that you will support the NPSCTAPP with a show of solidarity by signing our petition. We intend to assemble a collection of one million signatures, which will subsequently be attached to a proposition for consideration. This proposition will be presented to both, the Speaker Of The House Of Representatives (Nancy Pelosi) and the United States Congress.

Posted by: Generic Viagra | Sep 18, 2009 10:06:35 AM

Hello people Just a week after the Attorney General said there would be no more medical marijuana raids, the DEA raided a licensed medical marijuana dispensary in California. Obama's '09-'10 budget proposes to continue the longstanding ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs.
John B. Barnhart

Posted by: Viagra Online | Sep 24, 2009 4:23:23 PM

Hello The current budget is still overwhelmingly skewed in favor of the drug war approach -- indeed, it allocates more to drug enforcement and less to prevention than even George Bush did.
John B. Barnhart

Posted by: Viagra Online | Sep 24, 2009 4:25:47 PM

HI
The reason it hasn't succeeded is that, the more that becomes known about illegal drugs, the more evidence there is of their dangerousness -- not the other way around.

Posted by: Buy Generic Sildenafil | Sep 28, 2009 12:13:54 PM

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

Posted by: Canada Without Prescription | Nov 5, 2009 1:10:42 PM

war on drugs thats no an easy task

Posted by: Viagra Online | Nov 6, 2009 6:00:00 PM

I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!!

Posted by: cheap viagra | Nov 17, 2009 12:51:23 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB