cannabisnews.com: Change of Tune on Drug Policy? Change of Tune on Drug Policy? Posted by FoM on May 18, 2001 at 08:12:49 PT By Ethan A. Nadelmann Source: Los Angeles Times Is there any chance that President Bush could pull a "Nixon goes to China" on drug policy? Don't laugh. It's possible. On Monday, when the Supreme Court ruled against the medical marijuana buyers' clubs, Justice John Paul Stevens noted that candidate Bush had supported state self-determination on medical marijuana use. And last January, Bush said: "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." Admittedly, for those who think the war on drugs is doing more harm than good, Bush's appointment of John Ashcroft as attorney general was a disaster. "I want to escalate the war on drugs," he said shortly after being appointed. "I want to renew it. I want to refresh it, relaunch it if you will." Ditto for John P. Walters, Bush's choice for drug czar. It's hard to find someone more bellicose when it comes to the war on drugs. Walters is enamored of costly international control efforts, notwithstanding the absence of evidence indicating that they have any impact on drug abuse problems in this country. Forget about science and public health. He prefers to lock people up. Ashcroft and Walters are the temperance warriors of today, intent on punishing people for the "sin" of using drugs. But not everyone with influence in the Bush White House shares that view. GOP governors who once rode the drug war bandwagon are beginning to sing a different song for any number of reasons. Connecticut Gov. John Rowland has started telling fellow Republicans that the best way to bring African Americans into the party is to address the unfairness of the criminal justice system. He's now supporting efforts in his own state to divert drug offenders into treatment. Similarly, New York Gov. George Pataki surprised everyone earlier this year by calling for significant reform of the draconian Rockefeller drug laws (although Pataki's actual proposal fell far short of his rhetoric). Tommy Thompson, the former Wisconsin governor who now heads the Department of Health and Human Services, has also changed his tune. A major prison builder for most of his gubernatorial tenure, Thompson said last year that enough is enough. More recently, Thompson's hand was apparent in the appointment of fellow Wisconsinite Scott H. Evertz, who supports needle exchange, as the new "AIDS czar." And then there's New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a libertarian Republican who's dared say what few other politicians will say but many Republicans believe: that our biggest drug problems have more to do with drug prohibition than drug use per se. Johnson was not the first prominent Republican to utter such sentiments out loud; former Secretary of State George Shultz has been saying much the same since 1989, and Tom Campbell, the former California congressman who ran for U.S. Senate last year, articulated a similar message. Ditto for William F. Buckley Jr., Milton Friedman and other prominent conservative intellectuals. The fact is, there's a libertarian streak that runs deep in the Republican Party that understands the futility of trying to prohibit what are essentially global commodities markets. Many of these libertarians recoil--just as do many Democrats--at the drug war's assault on personal freedoms. Look for some of them to speak their minds. As for other voices close to Bush: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Congress in January that illicit drug use is "overwhelmingly a demand problem." At the Republican National Convention last summer, Colin Powell, now Bush's secretary of State, condemned the wholesale incarceration of "2 million Americans who, while paying for their crimes, are not paying taxes, are not there for their children and are not raising families." Too many, he noted, are young black men--a large percentage of whom are in prison on drug charges. As for all those thirty-, forty-and fiftysomething Republicans now filling top White House slots and senior positions in federal agencies, can anyone doubt that a fair share smoked the occasional marijuana joint or broke a few other drug laws in days past? And then there's John J. DiIulio Jr., Bush's "faith czar." True, in the mid-'90s, he wrote a book (with William Bennett and John Walters) defending the "lock 'em up" approach to drug crimes and just about everything else. But DiIulio changed his tune a few years ago, moved in part by his own empirical studies of who was being incarcerated and in part by his own personal religious transformation. Now DiIulio says that mandatory minimum drug laws need to be repealed, that drug-only offenders should be released and that drug treatment should be available both behind bars and in the community. One would hope that this strikes a chord with Bush. Don't hold your breath, but just maybe Bush will "go to China" on this one. Ethan A. Nadelmann Is Executive Director of the Lindesmith Center-drug Policy Foundation. Web Site: http://www.drugpolicy.orgSource: Los Angeles Times (CA) Author: Ethan A. NadelmannPublished: May 18, 2001Copyright: 2001 Los Angeles Times Contact: letters latimes.com Website: http://www.latimes.com/ Related Articles:Bush's Drug Two-Faced Drug War http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9769.shtmlAn Unwinnable War on Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9505.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on May 18, 2001 at 17:36:02 PT: Don't sweat it Dan I'm just as pissed as anyone here. Like I said, given what's happend in this country vis-a-vis cannabis laws and the treatment of the sick who need it, I'd be amongst the first to happily play Mexican Birthday Party with a Georgie shaped pinata - with one of my toys from my Bad Old Days as a snakeater.But that just won't do.But, if it's made politically costly for him to continue this lopsided war against the sick, then you can bet, political animal that he is, Georgie Too will find a way to drop this hot potato in a bucket of cold water. We just have to coax him a bit. And that will require civility...towards people you'd like to burn.And if they don't reciprocate? All we've lost is a couple minutes of time in a war 87 years long. And what do they lose? Their last chance to settle this amicably. Because some of those patients can only spare a few minutes. And many have nothing left to lose. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Dan B on May 18, 2001 at 12:54:04 PT: Karma Pays A Visit I just received the e-mail from Ethan Nadelmann (c/o TLC-DPF):I thought you'd enjoy the op-ed below, which isintended in part to stir up further debate withinthe Republican Party over drug policy. Please consider forwarding it to others, especially Republicans. As for letters to the editor of The Los Angeles Times, they can be sent to:Letters to the EditorThe New York Times229 West 43rd StreetNew York, NY 10036fax: (212) 556-3622Many thanks,Ethan Nadelmann Followed by this article--the one above--the one to which I just responded negatively. Okay, my bad--I take it all back. Now that I have an explanation as to the intent of the article, I realize I was quite a bit too harsh on Mr. Nadelmann. My humble apologies.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Dan B on May 18, 2001 at 12:39:38 PT: OK, OK . . . Backing Down Now You're right, of course. An olive branch is important, and I agree with the whole honey/vinegar analogy. Heck, I'm usually one of the ones trying to calm other people down around here. I guess I'm just sick and tired of seeing people who agree with my point of view kissing the a$$ of a serial murderer (our president). I wonder how many people thought they'd change Nazi Germany by petitioning the government and appealing to reason. There comes a point when you have to realize that the people you are dealing with are just not reasonable. What then?Anyway, I guess I just got carried away in my frustration. I fear we will never see the kind of change that is necessary. I hope I am wrong.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 18, 2001 at 11:06:50 PT kapt Hi kaptinemo,We were very close to having Cannabis legalized back in the late 70s and then Pow! it all went the other way. I watched our laws in our state go from 20 to 40 years to almost nothing compared to what it was. When I first remember concern was at a concert where The Stones were and a person gets killed and I think Jagger was singing Sympathy for the Devil but I am not sure. It was too long ago for me to accurately recall but you understand where I'm coming from I'm sure.The World Remembers Three Days of Peace & Love!http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread2196.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on May 18, 2001 at 10:51:07 PT: It's nothing more than an olive branch Anyone who wants to know how just how close we were to having cannabis legal in this country - and the combination of events which contributed to its derailment - should read two books:HIGH IN AMERICA (ca 1981; the entire text of the book is available here fro your perusal)http://mir.drugtext.org/psylib/highinamerica.htmand Dan Baum's masterpiece SMOKE AND MIRRORS.I warn you, the first one isn't too kind to NORML; some of the dramatis personae of the legalization movement back then are treated quite scathingly. I leave the reader to determine who deserves opprobrium, if any.IMHO, it all seemed to come down to the wrong people (some were apparently whacked out coke freaks) opening their (unecessarily foul and socially incongruent) mouths at the wrong time and place. At one point, the MJ movement people had actually befriended the the First Lady Mrs. Carter (this was the 1970's remember?) and had almost had the matter sewn up...when a personage in our camp chose to act boorishly stupid and profane. Which understandably angered the very people whose support was desperately needed. In another critically important instant, one notable member of the MJ camp ratted on the last qualified doctor to ever have the DrugCzar position...whereby dooming the movement to twenty more years of Hell.What am I getting at? That it's easier to catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. That one person's actions at a critical moment can adversly affect the outcome for all. That if by following the 'forms of society' by those who live and breathe them, we may gain what so many are literally dying for. That's what I think Mr. Nadelmann was trying to do. It may be just be possible to, as has been noted before, have 'Nixon go to China'. But the b*****d won't board the plane if you smear the handrails with manure, beforehand.Of course, I am not holding my breath; the Bush Klan have a very big stake in maintaining cannabis prohibition, now more than ever. Georgie Too doesn't want to see farmers planting next years' diesel fuel crop. Not with this artificially contrived oil and natural gas crisis driving prices through the roof.But if enough pressure can be brought to bear, he'll swallow and do it, if only to avoid the very obvious (at least, to us) conflict of interest charge that could stick in the right court, with the right evidence and the right lawyers.Klinton was understandably worried about his 'legacy'. Georgie has even more to be worried about. Instead of him boffing interns, he has to worry about an entire nation becoming increasingly pissed off every time they go to the gas pump. The DrugWar is taking a very visible back-burner position because of it. He just might decide to cut his losses. And we can give him the means to save face doing it.Extending an olive branch to this Alfred E. Neumann clone, despite the fact I'd rather spit in his face, only shows we can be gracious to those who don't deserve it. Let them make like the a**holes; as dim as the public often is, even they will tumble to it in time. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Juan Costo on May 18, 2001 at 09:41:00 PT Lindesmith vs. NORML NORML's approach is definitely stoner friendly, but stoner friendly does not further reform. Americans could care less about your "right to smoke pot." Of course Lindesmith is going to tailor their rhetoric towards Washington! That's where the laws are changed. Why would a reform organization waste time preaching to the choir? Tailoring rhetoric towards "us" may be good for fundraising, but making pot smokers feel self-righteous does not further reform, just as hundreds of hippies marching down main street shouting "We smoke pot and we like it a lot" does not further reform. As for Thomas Szaz, libertarian viewpoints, especially as they relate to drugs, scare the hell out of middle America. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on May 18, 2001 at 09:25:22 PT Confusion Runs Wild Hi Dan,I'm also getting very confused. I try not to comment when I'm confused but I am confused. Why aren't we working on getting Cannabis rescheduled? Kids won't be able to get hard drugs as easily if Cannabis is not in with hard drugs. The truth is I know the problems hard drugs can cause so I want the laws changed so people will be able to get help if they want help but Cannabis helps people! More Drug Policy Links [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Dan B on May 18, 2001 at 08:57:58 PT: Suspicious I hate to admit it, but I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of The Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation. This article only adds to my suspicions. Given Bush's recent actions (appointing Walters and Huthcinson, among many other disappointments), how can Nadelmann say with a straight face, "Is there any chance that President Bush could pull a 'Nixon goes to China' on drug policy? Don't laugh. It's possible"?No, Ethan Nadelmann, it is not possible. George Bush has no intention of ending his family's race war; he has made that clear in the past few weeks. To say that he will end the war on drugs smacks of an endorsement, and to endorse this murderous president is a terrible, tragic mistake.Increasingly, I am noticing that The Lindesmith Center really is not in favor of ending the drug war; they just want to soften it a bit to make it more palatable for those of us who disagree with it. They continually assert that they do not want to legalize drugs and that they only want to "decriminalize" marijuana (which means something very different from "legalization"). I sometimes wonder whether their rhetoric is designed for Washington or designed for us.I increasingly agree with Thomas Szasz that medical marijuana is not the route to more sane drug policy, but a diversion from it. Make marijuana legal, and it will be legal for the sick. It's time we stopped this senseless "incremental victory" routine and go for the freaking jugular. I'm not willing to wait another twenty years for sensible drug policies, and I'm not willing to wait another twenty years for legal cannabis. I like NORML's approach of saying exactly what they mean: legalize and regulate cannabis. Period.True legalization is no longer tried anywhere, including the Netherlands (as wonderful as that country's policies are). The last time drugs were truly legal, we didn't have a so-called "drug problem" in this country or in any other. The war on some drugs causes all of America's drug-related problems. All of them. The fact is that for those in power, the drug war is not a failure: it has given them vast sums of money and even more vast power. It has given them the opportunity and means to trample society under their feet while at the same time calling themselves humanitarians. If you haven't already, please consider my comment #1 at the following thread:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9716.shtmlLet me know what you think, please. And feel free to email me your suggestions at DPButterworth aol.comThanks.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Sudaca on May 18, 2001 at 08:46:06 PT If Bush changes plans It will be because it's politically expedient to do so. His nominations for the "drug war comittee" are so preposterous that , might there be a chance that they become lost in the ratification process? Only hope here is that core of libertarian inclined republicans will actually go against the President's nominations and that in negotiating a solution to that impasse someone else is put in charge of the boat. Hopefully the Democrats will push agains the nominees. I don't know , it seems really farfetched, but somehow people want to believe Shrubya won't really drag the country into a prolonged reign of terror.For someone who got in power by a very slim margin, he can't really be serious in alienating even a few of his party. this is weird. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: