Pubdate: Wed, 1 Jul 2009
Source: Mother Jones (US)
Copyright: 2009 Mother Jones and the Foundation for National Progress
Contact: http://www.motherjones.com/about/contact#contact
Website: http://motherjones.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/277
Authors: Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery

THIS IS YOUR WAR ON DRUGS

Since 1998, the Drug Czar Has Been Mandated to Lie to the American
People. So What Would a Fact-Based Drug Policy Look Like?

AMONG OUR LEADERS in Washington, who's been the biggest liar? There
are all too many contenders, yet one is so floridly surreal that he
deserves special attention. Nope, it's not Dick Cheney or Alberto
Gonzales or John Yoo. It's a trusted authority figure who's lied for
11 years now, no matter which party held sway. (Nope, it's not Alan
Greenspan.) This liar didn't end-run Congress, or bully it, or have
its surreptitious blessing at the time only to face its indignation
later. No, this liar was ordered by Congress to lie--as a prerequisite
for holding the job.

Give up? It's the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP), a.k.a. the drug czar, who in 1998 was mandated by Congress to
oppose legislation that would legalize, decriminalize, or medicalize
marijuana, or redirect anti-trafficking funding into treatment. And
the drug czar has also--here's where the lying comes in--been prohibited
from funding research that might give credence to any of the above.
These provisions were crafted by Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Bob Barr
(R-Ga.) and pushed for by then-czar Barry McCaffrey, best remembered
for being somewhat comically obsessed with the evils of medical
marijuana. A few Dems complained that the bill, which set "hard
targets" of an 80 percent drop in the availability of drugs, a 60
percent decrease in street purity, and a 50 percent reduction in
drug-related crime and ER visits, all by 2004--whoops!--was "simplistic"
and "designed to achieve political advantage." Though the vote count
was not recorded for history, it go! t enough bipartisan support to be
signed into law by Bill "Didn't Inhale" Clinton.

If this tale strikes you as the kind of paranoid fantasy you'd expect
from someone who's taken one too many hits off the joint, consider
that it isn't the most bizarre, hypocritical, counterproductive moment
in our nation's history with drugs. Not by a long shot. Consider that
Prohibition came about when progressives got into bed with the Ku Klux
Klan, but was rolled back once they'd had enough of the Mob. Or that
the precursor to today's drug czar supplied morphine to Sen. Joe
McCarthy because he worried about the national security
consequences--not of the red-baiter's habit, but of its potential
exposure. Or that drug war progenitor Richard Nixon ordered a
comprehensive study on the perils of marijuana, and then ignored the
study once he learned it recommended decriminalization.

But then, the drug war has never been about facts--about, dare we say,
soberly weighing which policies might alleviate suffering, save
taxpayers money, rob the cartels of revenue. Instead, we've been stuck
in a cycle of prohibition, failure, and counterfactual claims of
success. (To wit: Since 1998, the ONDCP has spent $1.4 billion on
youth anti-pot ads. It also spent $43 million to study their
effectiveness. When the study found that kids who've seen the ads are
more likely to smoke pot, the ONDCP buried the evidence, choosing to
spend hundreds of millions more on the counterproductive ads.)

What would a fact-based drug policy look like? It would put
considerably more money into treatment, the method proven to best
reduce use. It would likely leave in place the prohibition on "hard"
drugs, but make enforcement fair (no more traffickers rolling on
hapless girlfriends to cut a deal. No more Tulias). And it would
likely decriminalize but tightly regulate marijuana, which study after
study shows is less dangerous or addictive than cigarettes or alcohol,
has undeniable medicinal properties, and isn't a gateway drug to
anything harder than Doritos. (See "The Patriot's Guide to
Legalization.")

So why don't we have a rational drug policy? Simple. Forget the Social
Security "third rail." The quickest way to get yourself sidelined in
serious policy discussion is to stray from drug war orthodoxy. Even
MoJo has skirted the topic for fear of looking like a bunch of
hot-tubbing stoners. Such is the power of the culture wars, 50 years
on.

There is some hope. We have, at long last, a post-boomer president,
one who confidently admits he partook back in the day. And while
Barack Obama has said he's not interested in overhauling drug policy,
his administration has made moves toward honesty--acknowledging that US
demand fuels overseas production, that federal raids on medical
marijuana dispensaries are a waste of time and money, and that
treatment should be our top priority; the Pentagon has even said that
Mexico rivals Pakistan atop the list of states most likely to fail.
There are other signs of a thaw: Those noted hippies at The Economist
and Foreign Policy have called for ending "prohibition at any cost."
Drug warrior Bob Barr is lobbying for the Marijuana Policy Project.
And Joe Biden--who helped create the 100:1 crack-vs.-coke sentencing
disparity--has finally issued a mea culpa.

Meanwhile, the new drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske--the first since
moralizer-in-chief William Bennett not to hold Cabinet-level
status--has even dared suggest that the phrase "War on Drugs" be
retired. But Kerlikowske still remains bound by the 1998 mandate
prohibiting him from speaking the truth. If we want a sensible drug
policy, ditching the liar's law would be a good start.