cannabisnews.com: Bush's Drug Two-Faced Drug War Bush's Drug Two-Faced Drug War Posted by FoM on May 17, 2001 at 12:32:45 PT By Arianna Huffington Source: Salon.com The president claims treatment is the best way to lower the demand for drugs. So why is his new drug czar so obsessed with punishment and prisons? When George W. Bush introduced John Walters as his new drug czar last week, it was the strangest example of being of two minds since Ray Milland and Rosey Grier shared the same torso in "The Thing With Two Heads." Talk about your mixed messages. There was the president, making a huge shift in national drug policy by pledging to close the nation's massive "treatment gap" while announcing the appointment of a man who is on record deriding the idea that "we need to embrace treatment." Silly me, I always thought presidents were supposed to appoint people to their Cabinet who, at least roughly, agree with them. Instead, reading over Bush's and Walters' statements on the drug war, you can almost picture them manning opposite sides of the desk on a rancorous episode of "Crossfire." "The most effective way," the president said at the Rose Garden ceremony marking Walters' nomination, "to reduce the supply of drugs in America is to reduce the demand for drugs in America. Therefore, this administration will focus unprecedented attention on the demand side of this problem." I half-expected Walters to leap from his seat and begin lashing out, as he has done so often in the past, at this "manifestation of the liberals' commitment to a 'therapeutic state' in which government serves as the agent of personal rehabilitation." To which the president would no doubt have replied: Huh? Despite study after study showing that money spent on treatment is far more effective in cutting drug use than interdiction and eradication, Walters has steadfastly clung to the bellicose, testosterone-fueled policies he championed as a lieutenant serving under drug warriors William Bennett and Bob Martinez in the late '80s and early '90s. A big fan of "punishment and prisons," Walters was instrumental in creating the first Bush administration's Andean Strategy, a disastrous gift that keeps on giving: Without it we would never have seen Roni Bowers and her infant daughter murdered in the skies of Peru or the multibillion-dollar debacle now unfolding in Colombia. And despite the tens of billions of dollars and the lives we've wasted prosecuting our failed drug war, Walters still feels that the answer to the crisis lies in flexing our military and law enforcement muscle just a little more. As he put it during the White House ceremony: "Our efforts rest on the knowledge that when we push back, the drug problem gets smaller." What planet has this guy been on? Surely not the one where drugs are purer, cheaper and more available than they've ever been, even while we've devoted incredible resources to "pushing back." I wonder if this musty, Ramboesque rhetoric was lost on the president, who only minutes before had promised a "human and compassionate response to drug use." Is he showing early signs of political schizophrenia? Or just an advanced case of rampant hypocrisy -- the latest manifestation of the administration's penchant for talking one kind of game while actually playing another? Why else would the president overlook the fact that Walters, whom he called "the right person to lead America's anti-drug efforts," recently mocked the very notion that drug addiction was anything other than a lapse of moral character? "The therapy-only lobby is alive and well and more dogmatic than ever," Walters wrote in an op-ed headlined "Just Say No ... to Treatment Without Law Enforcement," scoffing at bleeding hearts who think that "addiction is a disease, not a pattern of behavior for which people can be held responsible." You know, bleeding hearts like his new boss who, in January, said that "addiction to alcohol or addiction to drugs is an illness," and that "we've got to do a better job of ... helping people cure themselves of an illness." If that's true, how, exactly, is a person who contemptuously ridicules this "the right person"? And treatment is far from the only facet of drug war policy on which the two men have been reading from different talking points. For example, Bush has expressed a willingness to reconsider the effectiveness of mandatory minimums: "I think a lot of people are coming to the realization that maybe long minimum sentences for first time users may not be the best way to occupy jail space and/or heal people from their disease." Walters, on the other hand, has called the idea that "drug and criminal sentences are too long and harsh" one of the "great urban myths of our time." He should tell that to the 460,000 nonviolent drug offenders currently languishing behind bars. Sadly, it's no myth -- just a nightmare -- that the average federal sentence for a drug offense is 78 months, over twice the average sentence for manslaughter. That's manslaughter -- as in killing someone. Walters' appointment is like the clock that strikes 13: Not only is it wrong itself, it throws into question every hopeful, pro-treatment statement Bush has made since assuming office. Heightening these suspicions is the amount of money Bush has allocated for treatment: $320 million a year. With around 3 million addicts who are not getting treatment, that works out to roughly $100 a year -- or 29 cents a day -- for each of them. Hardly indicative of a policy Bush claims is "a high priority." Especially when compared to the $1.8 billion that's been earmarked for Colombia, or the $19 billion budget Walters will be overseeing. The president waited three months to make this regressive Cabinet appointment. Who would he have picked if he'd taken another three months to search for "the right person" -- Attila the Hun?About the writer:Arianna Huffington is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of eight books. Her latest, "How to Overthrow the Government," was published in 2000 by Regan Books (HarperCollins). Source: Salon.com (US Web)Author: Arianna HuffingtonPublished: May 17, 2001Copyright: 2001 Salon.comWebsite: http://www.salon.com/Contact: salon salonmagazine.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Arianna Onlinehttp://www.ariannaonline.com/The Walters Nominationhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9640.shtmlThe Delusional Drug War http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9589.shtmlAn Unwinnable War on Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9505.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #27 posted by Rambler on May 18, 2001 at 23:02:16 PT label I'm a Libservative [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by FoM on May 18, 2001 at 21:39:07 PT My 2 cents Let's see what I am. I am a liberal that thinks like a conservative. No. I'm a conservative that thinks like a liberal. No. I don't know! I'll pass! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by CongressmanSuet on May 18, 2001 at 21:30:05 PT Ray Milland quote... "If it wasnt for Bela's connection, Id be on Methadone. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by CongressmanSuet on May 18, 2001 at 21:10:49 PT Its nice to have alittle fun sometimes... With all the heavey handedness thats put out, its a nice change. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by dddd on May 18, 2001 at 20:49:29 PT Xray Eyes From The Movie Guide: "Memorable, viscerally disturbing sci-fi/horror picture with Ray Milland as Dr. Xavier, a medical scientist who develops a serum that gives him X-ray vision. He's able to see through paper, clothes, and skin (a valuable asset to have around the operating room). As his powers grow stronger, he becomes increasingly demented and loses his job, signing up with a sideshow tout (Don Rickles) as a mind reader. His condition now causes him pain so severe that he needs to wear lead glasses.In agony and desperation, Xavier flees, eventually smashing his car and wandering into a revival meeting. There he hears a preacher quoting the Bible: 'If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out.' At wit's end, Dr. Xavier chooses to interpret the admonition literally. One of Roger Corman's finest directorial efforts, the movie took top honors at the Trieste Science Fiction Film Festival. In his book of casual horror criticism, Danse Macabre, Stephen King claims to have heard of an alternative ending that Corman deemed too horrifying: after tearing out his eyes, Dr. Xavier is supposed to have screamed, 'I can still see!'" [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by FoM on May 18, 2001 at 20:14:09 PT CongressmanSuet Hi CongressmanSuet,It's good to see you even if you're fighting with kapt! I'm only kidding. I thought of you when I watched The Kentucky Derby. [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by CongressmanSuet on May 18, 2001 at 20:03:44 PT: OOps... I might be wrong. Sorry, never mind. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by CongressmanSuet on May 18, 2001 at 20:01:13 PT: This is the only chance... I will ever have of refutting Kap, but you sir are WRONG!!! Ray Milland rips his eyes out, revealing a kind of mercury like substance, and the whole gory, disgusting, segment is there for all to see. Its the climax of the film. So there, you are wrong...but oh so right in every piece you post. Kap, I have learned soo much from you. Your eloquence and critical thinking are indeed powerful...but Ray Milland did rip his eyes out, and Im sure its a matter of public record somewhere...help. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by dddd on May 18, 2001 at 19:51:51 PT The Incredible Two Headed Transplant The year was 1971......dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by kaptinemo on May 18, 2001 at 19:25:59 PT: Being cursed with an eidetic memory can be a real pain, sometimes.I don't believe that Milland's character tore out his eyes. The last image of him in the film has him looking slightly upwards, with a pained expression, and his eyes look like space-black marbles; he'd lost the ability to see in the normal spectrum, or something, and was seeing God-knows-what. Or had gone blind. They left you guessing.So much for memory problems associated with cannabis use; I haven't seen that movie in 20 years. [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by CongressmanSuet on May 18, 2001 at 18:18:26 PT: Hey dddd... I knew you had good taste in film noir! The year, I think it was 65 or 66. There was another classic Milland sellout made right about that time, titled "The Man with X-Ray Eyes" if you havnt seen it, and you probably have, the ending where the people at the "Christian" revival meeting convince Ray to rip his eyes out because "The Lord said "If your eyes offend you, RIP THEM OUT" somehow reminds me of Bob Jones University, and as such is relevant to this topic of discussion....yeah, okay. BAAAAAH! [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by dddd on May 18, 2001 at 09:07:38 PT quite right Good to see you CS.....I noticed the film title mistake too....How could anyone forget about such a classic film like that?..........Milland & Grier,aka,Ray n' Rosie.....They really lit up the silver screen in that complex,enthrallingslapstick epic......it was sort of a silly thriller drama.......I wonder what the person who produced that dud is doing today?...Can you guess the year?...........................dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by CongressmanSuet on May 18, 2001 at 08:32:41 PT Just to set the record straight... The cinematic masterpiece Arriana is refering to in her opening paragraph is not "The Thing with Two Heads" but rather "The Incredible Two Headed Transplant". A must see for all who enjoy watching former great actors[Ray Milland] and talentless sports figures[Rosey Grier] in their waning years scraping the bottom of the Hollywood barrel in an attemp to pay their past due car insurance bills.... [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Morgan on May 18, 2001 at 07:34:51 PT Right! Servant of the ALL,I'm with you. Evolving creation is not accomplished without opposite forces coming together to create friction, heat, turbulance. From this comes change. ONLY from this comes change.Sorry to rub you the wrong way Dankhank. :-)Label me an Objectivist-Humanist Recovering Republican.Hey, I live in Santa Fe... it's allowed.(And I'm thinking of asking for Arianna's hand in marriage) ;-)***************************************************** [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Rambler on May 17, 2001 at 19:12:03 PT Baffling? >"George Bush is an accelerant for the creation of great changes in this world. He is you, he is me. We are all one. He is helping to accelerate the changes. Everyone does.This world is moving into a strong love. It must go through experiences to get it there. "Oblique and abstrucely new age mystical esoteric etherealness. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Charlie on May 17, 2001 at 19:10:11 PT Hang together... It was Ben Franklin... [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by dddd on May 17, 2001 at 19:04:07 PT stereotypypificationalisticisms I'm liberally conservative....these labels have been tossedaround so much that they are meaningless.They are similarto meny other buzzwords,that are nebulous,and ill defined,yet they are used to villify,and label certain groups of people.They are like the words,"drug offender,,,drug user,,,dealer...trafficer.....legalizers......................................................................................dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by servant of the ALL. on May 17, 2001 at 18:55:48 PT awareness George Bush is an accelerant for the creation of great changes in this world. He is you, he is me. We are all one. He is helping to accelerate the changes. Everyone does.This world is moving into a strong love. It must go through experiences to get it there. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by New Mexican on May 17, 2001 at 18:32:15 PT Labels don't describe, they divide! I'm happy to announce the end of an era and the start of a new one: humanitarianism vs humanitarianism...huh? Thats' right, the end of polarization. Period. As castastrophic climate changes are about to take place, we will all be one!Grow hemp now or face the consequences of earth changes.Nuf said.... [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Dankhank on May 17, 2001 at 18:04:13 PT: See ????? That's what I mean ... you start with the meaningless labels and presto, we are distracted from the topic by innacuracies. Morgan says legalization is a "liberal" idea when in fact it is the conservative who should be ending the drug war. Everybody thinks they know the "cant" of the effort.Leave meaningless labels out of this debate and "can't we just fight together?" HEMP n STUFF [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on May 17, 2001 at 17:32:35 PT: The labels, are meaningless, anymore It used to mean that Liberals were supporters of individual liberty. Then somehow, to be 'Liberal' was to try to use the powers of the State to impose your ideas upon another person - thus violating that person's individual liberty.Then the Conservatives came along, decrying what Liberalism had become and proclaimed that it was the Conservatives who would champion individual liberty in the face of the Liberally-inspired encroachment upon those rights.But when the so-called Conservatives got into power, what did they do? They did the very same social engineering bit the Liberals did. They were just as ham-handed and insensitive, just as strident in their pronouncements and blind in their beliefs, as they claimed Liberals as being.A pox on both their houses. My vote is reserved for those who are truly interested in restoring our traditional freedoms. Which leaves the Dempublicans out. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by mayan on May 17, 2001 at 16:20:00 PT United we stand! It is hard to tell liberals from conservatives a lot of times anymore. If the masses ever realize that the two parties don't represent them then the two will become one for their own survival. I think this has already happened to some extent. Regardless of affiliation, we are here for the same reason.....To end this absurd war! What Revolutionary hero said "We must hang together or we will surely hang seperately"!!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on May 17, 2001 at 15:39:59 PT My 2 cents Hi Morgan, I am for the person or persons who want to see the drug laws changed. It doesn't matter to me what party they are in. One goal (reforming our current drug laws) is what keeps me thinking this way. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Morgan on May 17, 2001 at 15:14:44 PT Okay by me I personally like to hear what everyones political affiliation is. It brings to light that this is not just a 'liberal' cause, but one that should be important to everybody, no matter what their beliefs may be.******************************************************* [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dankhank on May 17, 2001 at 14:27:29 PT: DWD????? Mr. Drug War Dissident, a question for you.As with most self-proclaimed conservatives you believe you know the politics of the posters to this site.Up till now we have managed to keep "conservative vs 'liberal'" out of this forum.I would appreciate it if you could do the same. We are united here in one goal. The goal is to eliminate the single most heinous act the government has perpetrated on the American people. The Drug War.Can we leave the Lib vs Cons. crap out of here?thank You HEMP n STUFF [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Drug War Dissident on May 17, 2001 at 14:19:00 PT war on (some) drugs I have always like Huffington. She is one classy lady and a fine and well-spoken conservative. I know most folks here are way to the left of us, but y'all must understand that many of us value The Constitution and Bill of Rights far more than the opinion of the federal government on drug policy. We states' righters deride the destruction of the tenth ammendment and the gradual erosion of the 4th. I personally feel that the most basic human right is to choose what one wants to put in their own body. I wonder what Jefferson, Mason, Adams, Paine, Madison et. al. would think of a country that allows an individual to have an abortion, yet will not allow a terminally sick individual to use a medicine put here by the creator, himself. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on May 17, 2001 at 13:10:59 PT: Arianna, You Go Girl! It is merely a shame that the sheeple know nothing of this and care even less, at least enough to urge their senators to reject this astoundingly unsuitable nominee. So far Dubya has resisted any temptation to try new things, or initiate bold ideas. We only have recycled bureaucrats, dinosaurs and ideologues.If Dubya believes addiction and drug abuse are illnesses, why not appoint someone educated in such matters, as in a physician or scientist? Oh, I forgot-- they are not schooled in the political arts of subterfuge, prevarication, and repression. It should be a long, hot summer: a good time to grow hemp to fight the energy crisis. However, apparently the DEA thinks our law enforcement is too intellectually challenged to tell it apart from clinical cannabis as other countries are able to manage. I know many botanists who would be willing to help.It's a fine country these politicians and their lackeys are ruining. As long as we let them--- [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: