Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Drug Czar Urges Police to Advocate Against Legalization
October 23, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Feature
By Bob Curley

White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske's thinking about drug addiction has moved from disdain to enlightenment over the past decade, but the former police chief views drug legalization as a "non-starter" and is urging law-enforcement officials to speak out against the idea.

A new Justice Department policy directive not to prosecute legitimate medical-marijuana programs in states that allow medical use of the drug has sparked concerns in some precincts that the Obama administration is laying the groundwork for legalizing the drug -- or at least blurring the distinction between legal and illegal drugs.

However, in an Oct. 6 speech (PDF) before the 2009 International Association of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference, Kerlikowske, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), was clear in his opposition to legalization. Scorning a recent opinion published in the Washington Post by two members of the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), Kerlikowske urged the police officials at the conference to advocate against legalizing drugs.

"We owe it to the people we serve to speak out about the unintended consequences legalization would have and the toll it would take on the health and safety of our communities," said Kerlikowske, who announced that ONDCP is creating a new fellowship program in order to give a policy platform to law-enforcement personnel who have firsthand knowledge of drug problems.

"Recycling the same people through the system, the default approach in place now, is not working," Kerlikowske later added. "But let me be clear: A balanced and more effective approach does not mean legalization. It does mean being smarter about drug policy."

Tom Angell, a spokesperson for LEAP, said that the fellowship program announced by Kerlikowske "looks like it could be an attempt to create an anti-LEAP speaker's bureau of anti-legalization cops."

"It's great see that 'legalization' is finally working its way into the drug czar's vocabulary," Angell said. "I guess it's difficult to ignore the growing political clout of the drug-policy reform movement when you've got police officers who fought on the front lines of the war on drugs calling for legalization on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post."

Folowing the release of the medical-marijuana policy directive to federal prosecutors, Kerlikowske issued a lengthy statement (PDF) explicitly repudiating the notion that the guidelines represented either a tacit endorsement of medical marijuana or the first step toward legalization.

"To test the idea of legalizing and taxing marijuana, we only need to look at already legal drugs –- alcohol and tobacco," wrote Kerlikowske. "We know that the taxes collected on these substances pale in comparison to the social and health care costs related to their widespread use."

The Obama administration's drug czar promised to deliver a new National Drug Control Strategy in January that "will strike a balance between public health and public safety, recognizing that reducing demand through a community-wide approach is critical to our success." But Kerlikowske also warned, "Legalization would only thwart our efforts and increase the economic and social costs that result from greater drug acceptance and use."

From 'Rage and Despair' to Listening and Learning

In his speech, Kerlikowske did not tip his hand about specifics in the Obama administration's as-yet-unreleased strategy, but broadly indicated that its focus would largely rest on a revamp of demand-reduction strategies such as addiction treatment and prevention. Like many law-enforcement officials across the political spectrum, the former Seattle police chief has experienced a sea change in his opinion about the solution to the nation's drug problems.

"Over the course of my career, from St. Petersburg to Seattle, I learned a lot about the damage drug abuse does to the fabric of our society -- and about the terrible toll it takes on individuals, families and communities across this country," Kerlikowske told his former peers. "I'll never forget the rage and despair I felt when I worked undercover and I saw a drug dealer take a hit of marijuana -- and then blow the smoke in the face of his toddler.

"But law enforcement didn't teach me everything there was to know about drugs, because 10 years ago, if you'd asked me what was wrong with drug addicts, I'd have told you, 'They need to get a spine,'" he said. "I thought, like a lot of people do, that drug addiction was primarily a moral failing, and that the cure was a simple matter of willpower; of addicts finding the resolve to stop using drugs."

Over the years, Kerlikowske said, he began listening to researchers and learning about the disease of addiction. "It's a process of education that continues to this day -- for all of us," he said. "It's time to rethink our strategy. We must be smarter about our nation's drug problem. It's time to recognize drug abuse and addiction for what it is –- not just a law-enforcement and criminal-justice issue, but also a very complex and dynamic public-health challenge, one that demands a systematic, comprehensive, and evidence-based approach if we are going to be equal to the task."

That's not too different from the words used by Kerlikowske's recent White House predecessors, up to and including Bush administration drug czar John Walters. In fact, Kerlikowske indicated that the Obama administration would continue to use the existing National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and the adult-oriented TheAntiDrug.com website to prevent youth initiation of drug use.

But Kerlikowske also pledged to organize scattershot community-based prevention programs into "continuing prevention systems" that would provide repeated and targeted interventions to youths ages 12-20.

"Uncoordinated prevention efforts are not the fault of those who provide prevention services. The federal prevention funding process itself is uncoordinated, and frankly baffling in its complexity," Kerlikowske said. "One of my priorities will be promoting blended funding streams among federal agencies to encourage communities to prepare for and adopt comprehensive prevention programs [and] ... those funded through our Drug Free Communities Program."

Kerlikowske called drug courts "an absolute must if we are going to have a fairer and more equitable justice system" and indicated that federal treatment resources would be directed at hard-core addicts and those involved in the criminal-justice system.

"Just as we know that a small percentage of criminals are responsible for a much larger percentage of crime, a small group, but one extremely active in their drug consumption, lies at the heart of our country's drug problem, but receives almost no treatment for their addictions," he said. "If we're going to effectively deal with the drug problem, we must find effective ways to reach these people and change their behavior.

"We know that jail is not a solution -- since all of us have made multiple arrests over our careers of the same drug-addicted person for a variety of crimes," Kerlikowske told the audience of police chiefs. "What's needed is a true treatment system, one that makes use of evidence-based clinical practices and is well-integrated with the larger healthcare system."

SHARE   

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Virginia Chapter of AmericanCannabis.org on 24 Oct 09 05:31 PM EDT
1st of all, Drugs are man made substances that are created in Laboratories. A plant who's seeds are found in bird feed everywhere, such as Cannabis, is not physically addictive nor does it cause cancerous life threatening ailments. You can check with UCLA's most recent study, or look into Europe's extensive research on the subject. Cannabis should never be made available to Minors, but the healing properties of hemp seed oil should be where proven beneficial. The only criminal element involved are the Cartel's who supply a vast majority of a crop we grew here domestically since this nation was founded. Our first U.S. flag is made of Industrial Feral Hemp, and again, not a drug. The days of "Refer Madness" style propaganda are over. We the people know what's at stake here, and we have already began to make the changes. These Lies are blatant, and obsolete.

Posted by ZackB on 24 Oct 09 07:51 PM EDT
Funny that Kerlikowske can speak out of both sides of his mouth - at once talking about alcohol and tobacco legalization and how their social and health costs outweigh the taxes collected on them, and yet not presume to prohibit them as well. If drug prohibition works so well, then why not? After all, illegal drugs don't have any widespread costs right now, do they? The hypocrisy...

Posted by Bruce Eggum on 24 Oct 09 08:22 PM EDT
Prohibition did not work for the drug alcohol and obviously does not work for other drugs. Make all drugs legal, available only through a licensed distributor. This is how controlled medications and alcohol is presently distributed.

Posted by jt on 24 Oct 09 11:32 PM EDT
I believe we should legalize marijuana for the good of hard working adult citizens. People like you and me who do not need the government telling us what to do with our own bodies. Think about all the hype against marijuana and it goes hand in hand with drinking as well but, we still do it and it is legal. I have never heard a news article about the stoned driver who killed someone, or the stoned citizen who started a fight and killed someone! I think people need to be more open minded and think for them selves instead of being lead like sheep to pasture on these issues. Make you own mind up don't let someone else tell you how to think. I also think people should educate themselves on the issue don't believe everything you hear. The taxes alone could save some states and the drug cartels and gangs why would they sell marijuana if it was legal? When are we going to get it?

Posted by Brian O'Dea on 25 Oct 09 09:41 AM EDT
Kerlikowske has never let the fact get in the way of his uninformed opinions, so nothing surprising here.

Posted by Lew Bryson on 26 Oct 09 09:12 AM EDT
Kerlikowske's talking about a huge increase in addiction treatment. Don't know about your state, but mine's hurting for revenue and cutting programs. How about we legalize it and tax it, in order to get the money to treat addiction and kill it, instead of continuing failed/flawed interdiction policies? Radical idea, maybe, but nothing else is working.

Posted by John from Oceanside on 26 Oct 09 11:15 AM EDT
The Obama/Holder statement last week was a political statement that the drug legalizers spun to say it was a new day with a new admisistration. The statement is no different that Clinton and Bush administration. DEA never targeted so called patients they shut down marijuana dispensaries that broke States Laws. In California we have not found one that follows State Laws. I met with Director Kerlikowske 3 weeks ago and was on a conference call on Friday and he assured us that Feds will continue to shut down marijuana dispensaries. If you go to the ONDCP web-site you can read it in his own words.

Posted by Jason Blanchette on 26 Oct 09 11:16 AM EDT
Marijuana is so easily accessible to our youth because it's so easily concealable, youth can buy it in their own school hallways. If marijuana use ever becomes as socially accepted as alcohol, then we'll have a teen marijuana problem worse than our teen-drinking problem. With increased use will come increased problems. Pro-recreational marijuana advocates sometimes argue against the possibility of increased problems resulting from legalization by pointing out that not every marijuana user is a lazy jobless loser eating potato chips in his mother’s basement. But I would counter that argument by pointing out that not every alcohol user becomes aggressive, but with increased use, and especially with increased teen use, we will have an increase in problems. The last thing we need in our society is increased substance use. It’s been discouraging, frustrating, and frightening to see so many people ignoring research. But Kerlikowske’s attention to the research and his knowledge of addiction prevention and treatment are giving me hope.

Posted by Eric Sterling on 26 Oct 09 11:17 AM EDT
Before Director Kerlikowske announced his opposition to "legalization," what kind of study did he undertake to attempt to understand what "legalization" means? At the beginning of August, speaking before a committee of the American Bar Association, he suggested that legalization simply meant the repeal of all drug laws. He has said he is committed to listening to various constituencies. I am curious if he will follow through on this and listen seriously to the ideas to control drug distribution and use that "legalization" advocates are proposing. He ought to be able to explain how the proposals from his office would fundamentally change the current situation -- high overdose rates and numbers, extensive violence in the the drug trade, high criminal profits, prevention programs with underwhelming credibility, ready availability to youth, insufficient treatment capacity, recovering users facing stigma, confusion regarding the use and regulation of the medical use of Cannabis, etc. Basically, advocates of "legalization" want control of the out-of-control "controlled substances." On that,there is common ground. The differences, of course, are about who gets to use controlled substances legally and why.

Posted by Shattah206 on 26 Oct 09 11:25 AM EDT
Sad that this forum has ben taken over by legalization proponents. I used to enjoy reading the comments from treatment practioners.

Posted by William Fightmaster on 26 Oct 09 12:31 PM EDT
The failure of prohibition, enabled Al Capone and a plethora of other criminals to prosper from that flawed policy. If legalized, most drugs (especially opiates) will not cause an increase in abuse. As a corrective, the taxation will permit funding for treatment on demand and this factor will curtail needless addict deaths. Additionally, government control will decrease overdoses by guaranteeing the ingredients, quality, and quantity - knowledge that will reduce overdose fatalities. The most salient and ineluctable reason for legalization, is to rid the profit motive that drives gangs, thugs, organized crime, and perhaps most importantly terrorists, from reaping obscene profit off decent Americans. Legalization allows treatment of addicts within the medical system, rather than sustaining the costly and demonstrably ineffective 'war on drugs.' As a former opiate addict with seven years of recovery, I assure you that the only justification for prohibiting opiate use (for the safety of society and the individuals plagued by addiction) is fallacious. Drugs are easily acquired despite their illegal status. Just as alcoholics get treatment for their disease of the brain in spite of the ubiquitous availability of alcohol, so would addicts when drugs are legalized. Legalization should not arouse fears or panic, it should bring sense and rational discourse to the brain disease of addiction

Posted by Bill Godshall on 26 Oct 09 12:57 PM EDT
Kerlikowske's comparison of marijuana prohibition laws to alcohol and tobacco laws is absurd, as cigarette tax hikes, smokefree workplace laws, and lawsuits against legal cigarette companies have reduced US per capita cigarette consumption by 60% in the past 25 years and have reduced smoking among youth by two-thirds among 10th graders and three-quarters among 8th graders in the past decade (with no smokers or cigarette sellers arrested or imprisoned). Besides, tobacco or alchohol prohibition would cause far far greater problems than it would resolve (just as occurred 80-90 years ago). In sharp contrast to failed drug prohibition laws, cigarette control policies have been the most important public health campaign in US history.

Posted by Relaxed on 26 Oct 09 01:00 PM EDT
One thing NOT taken into account, is the fact, that when they say that the health and public safety costs of legalizing will be so much more than the tax generated, that society already is taking the brunt of those cost NOW and they are not taking in ANY TAXES currently to offset those cost. So, even IF what they say is true and the cost will exceed revenue, the cost to society would be reduced with the revenue generated from taxes on the sales, because even if they only generated $100 per year in total tax revenue, it is $100 more in revenue than they had before they taxed it, $100 more to pay the cost of treatment centers that our tax money goes to anyways, $100 more than they have now to run public safety ads like they do now without that revenue, $100 more than they have now to pay an officer to inspect locations to ensure underage minors are not being given access... We all know it will be more than $100 though.

Posted by Pete on 26 Oct 09 01:41 PM EDT
While I wouldn't want to pick a fight with someone whose last name is Fightmaster, I have to disagree. Prohibition did not CREATE Al Capone and other such criminals. I'm tired of the deluded thinking (which I admit I once believed) that legalizing all drugs would put criminals out-of-business. We can't deny the unfortunate fact that there will always be a small percentage of people who prefer to live by preying on the defenceless and forcibly taking away the hard-earned money of others instead of earning it for themselves. If you legalize all drugs and tax them, crimninals will find ways to divert/steal some of the drugs and then sell them as cheaper, tax-free contraband. If you refrain from taxing legalized substances so criminals can't undercut the price, then they will simply resort to extortion, kidnapping, robbery, etc. -- whatever it takes short of taking an honest job.

Posted by Pete on 26 Oct 09 01:59 PM EDT
@ The Virginia Chapter: I have to smile at your assertion that "Drugs" are "man-made" substances, and that truly natural substances - even when burned and inhaled - can't possibly be harmful. So, I suppose poisonous mushrooms, blowfish and other animals with glands full of neurotoxins, radon gas from natural underground uranium deposits, and a whole bunch of natural minerals such as asbestos, arsenic, lead, and mercury are all harmless substances that couldn't possibly cause cancer or harm us in any way until or unless some scientists manipulate them in a laboratory and some evil marketers create an artificial demand for them in our collective minds, eh? And, I'm sure our cave-dwelling ancestors who were killed by sabre-tooth cats, wolves, and other large predator animals were really the victims of of their own hysterically overactive imaginations. Yep, "all natural" is always the same thing as "healthy." Great to know! Now please excuse me while I add some all natural salmonella bacteria to my Man-o-War jellyfish sandwich and sprinkle some parasitic organisms over my salad of mixed poison ivy greens!

Posted by Stephen Geiss on 26 Oct 09 01:59 PM EDT
The point that Kerlikowske finally makes and the one that society needs to recognize and sincerely embrace; drug misuse has always been written into all of the Health & Safety Codes across the country. It remains a serious Health and Safety issue for not only society but especially for those individuals afflicted with this disease. The only difference and key point is how we deal with problem of drug misuse. The Drug Policy reform movement is not the enemy. They advocate for “Smarter Drug Policy” and “Treatment over Incarceration” not the legalization of all drugs. Before we lose this point and begin to link any medical-marijuana legalization with the thought of legalization of the more harmful drugs, It’s time we all (society, Law Enforcement & Health Services) get on the same page and begin to follow the Drug Czar lead and direct more funding into this “Smarter Drug Policy” “Treatment” as opposed to “Incarceration”. Let’s also not forget how ineffective our current policy of locking up (while not offering any health services to deal with drug misuse) and then releasing these non-violent addicted individuals is; the waste of an estimated $35,000/year with a still addicted but now only an unemployable felon ready for their next arrest for drug misuse. It’s time to break this ridiculous cycle & support the Czar’s statement; “balanced and more effective approach does not mean legalization. It does mean being smarter about drug policy." Let’s also Be clear- Mr. Kerlikowske-We’ll be holding you accountable.

Posted by Freddie Preston on 26 Oct 09 02:23 PM EDT
Jason Blanchette has it correct. I have been working in substance abuse/prevention area for the past 13 years. Teens/pre-teens are unable to make sound decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. ATOD adiction is frightening. If more parents actually realized how many of their children are dealing with addictions problems, they would be horified.

Posted by silverbird on 26 Oct 09 02:55 PM EDT
Kerlikowske has finally taken the right position. I hope Obama does, too. With evidence-based prevention and treatment and drug courts we can make rationale decisions about controlling the drug problem in this country. Legaliazation should never be on the table.

Posted by ned Hoey on 26 Oct 09 03:20 PM EDT
Mr. Kerlikowske's assumptions, speculations and conclusions are in almost every case, wrong. Most are rationalizations made up to support his pre-existing beliefs. "We owe it to the people we serve to speak out about the unintended consequences legalization would have and the toll it would take on the health and safety of our communities," What are the unintended consequences of legalization that are worse than the terrible ones we have endured for decades of prohibition? His assertion is unsupportable yet is taken as reasonable by many listeners. The fear and paranoia that underlies all prohibitionists thinking is preventing them from thinking rationally on this subject. The breakdown in thinking between status quoers and reformers boils down to perceptions of what change result in. The prohibs think any increase of use at all isn't worth ending our current model. Reformers feel whatever results from legalization can be handled and will be a far better less destuctive situation than we have now. We've tried tried the prohibition model for decades and we have a terrible mess, providing endless revenue to criminal organizations worldwide. Even if legalization did result in an increase of use, that can dealt with at far less cost than what we do now.

Posted by Sanho Tree on 26 Oct 09 06:50 PM EDT
This "legalization vs. prohibition" debate rests on a false dichotomy. The choices are much broader than the simplistic binary straw man argument cherished by legalizers and drug warriors alike. There rainbow spectrum of regulatory policy options available which fall between these artificial extremes. The poverty of our discourse should not rob our society of the full range of solutions that exist. For more info, see my full commentary at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/03-2

Posted by Barry Schecter on 26 Oct 09 08:01 PM EDT
It is a real shame that we have a "Drug Czar" to begin with. Czar's in general did not have the interest of the people to begin with. Does our Drug Czar understand simple numbers? Since Nixon, another beloved forward thinking leader, we have spent over a trillion dollars on the war on drugs. Has anybody, anywhere noticed a lessening of supply? I think not. I wonder if our beloved Czar understands what goes on in a treatment center, that is understaffed and is finding ways to do more with less resources. I have been there and done that. Has our Czar realized that criminals sell drugs where they want, not where they are under some control. My God, in order to buy Sudafed, I must show my license and ID. It really is not a difficult problem; who decideds what drugs are legal? Cigarette companies? Beer Distributors, Whiskey Companies? We've done such a good with that, have you noticed less people drunk? Of course not. Ask any addict if they intended to be an addict, I guarantee the answer is no. But who controls the sale? How many cottage industries have mushroomed? Lawyers, Probation Officers, Jailers, Judges, Correction Guards, I think the list could go on ad infinitum. I can make a real good case for repealing prohibition; we did it once, we can do it again. Oh, and by the way, just think, with that trillion dollars, maybe we could find the cure for cancer? Or bail out some failing greedy companies, or better yet, pay for another year In Iraq. Why don't we learn from history? Man has been getting high since the beginning of time, can you change that?

Posted by Brinna Nanda on 26 Oct 09 08:07 PM EDT
Law Enforcement is part of the executive branch, and should not be involved in the creation of laws. That task belongs exclusively to the legislative branch.

Posted by Greg Williams on 27 Oct 09 02:10 AM EDT
Legalization/decriminalization of marijuanna is dangerous and wrong. I have worked on the front lines with hundreds of drug addicts who NEVER planned on becoming addicted. This administration is setting a dangerous precident that MUST be stopped! Stop the decriminalization of Cannabis NOW!!!

Posted by Dwayne on 27 Oct 09 06:22 PM EDT
sorry If marijuana stays Illegal then prescription drugs should be ban tobacco and alcohol should also be ban seeing that all 3 of them kill people.Hey cars also kill should we all go back to horse and buggies.I am so tired of hearing of how bad marijuana is prove to me that it kills I can prove the other 3 can you prove just one???

Posted by Rob H. on 28 Oct 09 05:00 PM EDT
"People like you and me who do not need the government telling us what to do with our own bodies." Sure thing, JT, no matter how much crime I have to endure, no matter how much money I have to pay for jails, courts, rehab, funerals, etc. As long as YOU retain the imgined "right" to get high, everything's fine. I don't care that my neighbor's adult daughter likes to smoke weed. I DO care that she broke into my house and stole my camera so she could buy weed. I DO care that her addiction to marijuana has rendered her unemployable, so her only source of income is crime. Plenty of meth addicts in the neighborhood, by the way, but the only crime that has personally impacted me is the one perpetrated by a pothead.

Posted by Mark J on 30 Oct 09 11:19 AM EDT
Law enforcement officials have a vested interest in continuing the status quo. There would be a large decrease if crime if all drugs were legalized and users/ addicts did not have to steal to purchase drugs. Furthermore, there would be many fewer traffickers if drugs were decriminalized. The number of police officers necessary for law enforcement would drop. Seizures of property and money by law enforcement would also be endangered. Drugs were not regulated before 1910, have you heard anything about the war on drugs in the 1890's? We would be able to spend the money saved on law enforcement and use it to fund drug rehab and education. There would be plenty of savings left over. We would be left with the same social problems with regards to drugs that we have now but would be dealing with them in a far more constructive manner

Posted by Brinna Nanda on 31 Oct 09 02:49 AM EDT
All other considerations aside – the las time I looked we had separation of powers in this country. What exactly does Kerlikowske think he is doing? Law Enforcement Officers do not make laws, they enforce them. If they were able to enforce laws they themselves made you could see the horrific potential for abuse. I frankly don't see how he can get away with asking LEOs to lobby for a certain law. It's a constitutional violation.

Posted by Gary Williams on 03 Nov 09 06:39 AM EST
The fact of the matter about why we continue to prohibit soft drugs we know are less harmful than tobacco or alcohol is simply that we continue to pander to the fears of conservatives who see any change from the status quo as one that will surely carry with it all kinds of unforeseen consequences that will burn civilization down before we have time to re-legislate a ban. Of course their fears are as nonsensical as they sound, but that they have them, and they are a primary reason for resistance to common sense reforms. In 2001, Portugal decriminalized ALL drugs. This was done over the strident objections of RW conservative partys who faresaw the very same things I read right here in thewe comments. 7 years on has given us time to evaluate the policy and what they have found is that not only have NONE of the projected surges in drug use and it's accompanying disease, crimes and murders took place, but almost anti-intuitively for myself, no dount having been affected more than I realised by prohibitionpropagana myself, but in some age rages drug use actually went down slightly! But what did go down very sharpkly was deaths from drug use, diseases associated with drug use, and crime associated with drug trafficking. Even the right-wingers have been forced to shut their howling traps in light of the overwhelmingly success of the policy. And yet mysteriously, NO ONE HERE in charge of implementing new strategies or reforms seems to have heard about it! How could this be? Status quo conservatives conspiring to leave things just as they are because to reveal this data publicly would surely force them to change the way things are done here?

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines