New Drug Czar Disavows Drug 'War'

New Drug Czar Disavows Drug 'War'
May 14, 2009

News Summary

The Obama administration's new 'drug czar' says he is open to a fundamental rethinking of the nation's approach to preventing illicit-drug use and wants to cast aside the language of war in describing the effort, the Wall Street Journal reported May 14.

"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," said Gil Kerlikowske, recently confirmed as the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). "We're not at war with people in this country."

Kerlikowske said that the Obama administration wants to focus on drug use as a public-health problem, with an increased emphasis on providing addiction treatment as an alternative to incarceration.

"While I don't necessarily disagree with Gil's focus on treatment and demand reduction, I don't want to see it at the expense of law enforcement," said James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. "People need to understand that when they violate the law there are consequences."

The former Seattle police chief has heard from critics who question his commitment to enforcement of drug laws. Sgt. Richard O'Neill, president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, said that a deemphasis of marijuana enforcement resulted in a open-air drug market being established in downtown Seattle. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), the sole member of the Senate to vote against Kerlikowske's nomination, said he was concerned that the new drug czar had a permissive attitude towards marijuana.

Kerlikowske said he doesn't support legalization but is in favor of needle-exchange programs, which he said were "part of a complete public-health model for dealing with addiction."

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Padraigh Mac An Ultaigh on 15 May 09 08:23 AM EDT

We can never win a war on a product. It's fruitless. Rethinking the drug war as a health problem is a start. Funding of treatment will secure the fundamental move from enforcement to treatment.

Posted by Mark D. Jones, BA, LCDCIII on 15 May 09 08:30 AM EDT

Not at war with the people of this country? THis might be a hard sell to the 2,000,000 people incarcerated in the United States today,a very significant portion of these in prison for nonviolent drug related charges. Perhaps the legalization of drugs is not the answer but until it's found why not give it a try? We have been at 'war' on drugs about as long as I can remember and the situation has only gotten worse. Now though, given the gravity of the problem of addiction in the U.S. and the ease of attacking it in order to score political points it may be more beneficial to everyone concerned if we could find a way to 'de-politicize'the issue.

Posted by Allen McQuarrie on 15 May 09 08:36 AM EDT

The emphasis on prosecution, incarceration, interdiction and law enforcement has skewed funding almost entirely. Funding for prevention, treatment and recovery support has declined significantly. The prison population is soaring as the untreated are locked up without treatment, released and return to be untreated again. The recognized failure of the "War On Drugs" demands an alternative to reduce demand and increase recovery. The solution is going to have to be at the expense of law enforcement because it costs too much, offers too little and uses funds needed to shift the emphasis.

Posted by Edie DeVilbiss on 15 May 09 08:36 AM EDT

Supply and demand...dry up supply; help people get clean and sober to reduce demand. Support families so that kids don't have the need to check out from their lives through drug use. Simple... not easy...But enforcement and treatment need to work in conjunction with each other. It is not an either/or situation.

Posted by Margaret Duff on 15 May 09 09:05 AM EDT

How about dropping Czar?

Posted by James Campbell on 15 May 09 09:05 AM EDT

I think a three pronged approach is essential. Prevention to help decrease demand for drugs. Treatment and Recovery are critical for those who are already addicted and/or struggling with their use. Law enforcement is also critical. As anyone who has ever tried to quit anything knows, it is easier to avoid temptation than resist it when it's in front of you. Law enforcement at least make the drugs somewhat less visible and flagrant and gets some of the drugs off the streets. I submit that this assists those trying to quit using by limiting accessibility, making it easier than it might otherwise be to avoid the drug, and by adding to the potential consequences of continued use. Prevention, treatment and enforcement are all vital. Wat is missing, in my estimation, is an approach that coordinates all three of these areas.

Posted by Gary Hall on 15 May 09 09:21 AM EDT

I believe the term "The War on Drugs" requires individuals to draw a conclusion of either "total conquest" or "abismal failure" of the effort. It is like declaring "The war on illiteracy" which will always be waged since babies are born every day not knowing how to read. We need prevention to reduce demand and enforcement to give consequences for encouraging treatment and treatment to place addicts in life-long recovery. All three plus community coalitions are needed to make this effort successful. Unfortunately, Prevention and Treatment have been so underfunded we have not been able to make the potential change needed.

Posted by Mike Boyle on 15 May 09 10:00 AM EDT

YES! And with Tom McLellan becoming the Deputy at ONDCP,there is an opportunity under his leadership to focus on how we can improve the effectiveness of drug treatment.

Posted by Donna Miller on 15 May 09 11:43 AM EDT

Since Nancy Reagan's cavalier 'just say no,'this country has spent more money in laws countering a medical problem in punitive ways, rather than treatment. That is wrong; it's anti social!The result is an underground drug economy. Where is the moral value in punitive action, and no rehabilitation? There is none! We have an epidemic that is ruinous to the country's people. Tobacco is more addictive than heroin and government has not only allowed it, but allowed corporations to carry that substance to other countries for PROFIT. It is time to treat those addicted not punish them.

Posted by CJ on 15 May 09 12:32 PM EDT

Sgt. Richard O'Neill doesn't know what he's talking about. The deemphasis of marijuana enforcement in Seattle was due to City Council action, NOT Police Chief Kerlikowske. The deemphasis is on usage, not selling, and it has not resulted in a open-air drug market in downtown Seattle.

Posted by Kevin M on 15 May 09 01:10 PM EDT

Today marks the 20th year that Drug Courts have been providing an alternative to the revolving door of incarceration of non violent drug offenders. Marking this anniversary Drug Courts across the country are holding graduation ceremonys for participants that have developed a lifestyle of recovery through treatment and accountability. Law enforcement has been and will continue to be a vital ingredient in the success of Drug Courts. For me the issue is not about reducing the numbers arrested, rather what course of action the Judicial system takes after an individual is charged with the crime. If the issue is one of addiction, the structure of Drug Court programs provides treatment and accountability to reduce the number of those incarcerated as well reducing the number of individuals in active addiction. Drug Courts provide the treatment, the accountability and the cost savings in a large number of jurisdictions throughout this country and indeed worldwide. Expansion of these programs rather than legalization or deemphasisng of enforcement seems to me the prudent course of action. Drug Courts Work

Posted by Bob Waldman on 15 May 09 02:21 PM EDT

Everybody knows the very serious trouble drugs cause.They are illegal because they are dangerous and destroy people.Big time drug gangs are violent evil wicked killers that should be put in the electric chair.Any person that buys drugs from them is supporting organized crime.If a person has a drug problem that is their own fault and they must suffer the punishment for their own wrong doing.Law Enforcement must use all the force they can to combat this very very serious dangerous terrible horrible problem of drugs

Posted by Ron Mexico on 15 May 09 02:48 PM EDT

Bob, do you care about effective public policy that will mitigate those harms or do care about perpetuating a $1,000,000,000,000 failure because it sounds like it should work? I'm going to guess the latter but maybe you can convince me otherwise.

Posted by Ben Bass on 15 May 09 03:42 PM EDT

At the El Paso Alliance we serve the casualties of the War on Drugs. Our recovery services are always involved in helping someone to rebuild recovery capital that has been lost due to stigma and actual loss of freedom or social networks. Treatment and recovery support instead of incarceration for many many people is not only good common sense but the right thing to do. I am not my disease and I am not defined by my crime, especially if it was for practicing the symptoms of an illness that can be treated.

Posted by Richard Marino on 16 May 09 09:29 AM EDT

It IS a public health item. It IS spread from person to person. It DOES hurt and kill. It DOES have causative agents. It DOES forever alter the victims. It CANNOT be reversed once the victim is afflicted. ISOLATION does prevent the forward progress of the epidemic. It CAN remain dormant and re-emerge. It KILLS more people than many diseases that are the focus of public health agencies. The analog of addiction is infection!

Posted by Dr. Doyle on 16 May 09 11:59 AM EDT

We call it a "war on cancer" or a "war of AIDS", so the language shift is merely and strictly political -- that's clear. Regarding whether there will be a shift to decriminalization is the real concern. Without the "teeth" of law and drug courts, I don't believe many addicts will ever give treatment and recovery a try.

Posted by MJ on 18 May 09 09:15 AM EDT

It's a sad fact that when/where treatment is available to the prison population, it isn't provide UNTIL just prior to release from prison. Treatment needs to begin immediately. Forging a 12 step group early on can only have a positive impact on an imate. It may even make 12 steppers prior to releasing the inmate.

Posted by Mahlon L on 18 May 09 09:47 AM EDT

Alcoholism and the true disease of addiction (not merely physical/emotional dependency) is not infectious, and the most historically productive recovery program renders origin of the disease meaningless. Yes, it would be helpful to distinguish between the truly afflicted and the non-diseased folk that actually can be affected by prevention and penalties -- the truly afflicted cannot. Since you cannot perform your own heart/soul transplant, and no doctor on the planet can either, it's time this country redefines "disease" as relates to alcoholism/true addiciton and get open-minded to new ideas about recovery.

Posted by Terrance Newton on 18 May 09 09:58 AM EDT

In thirty years of being in the Substance Misuse Profession I have seen the effects of stigma ruin many people's lives. The war on drugs truly has been a war on people. Poverty is the root of many of our social ills and, we continue to believe we can incarcerate our way out of problems. There has been no funding increases, for treatment, in our state, for over a decade. Our Department of Corrections budget has swelled to over 2 billion dollars per year, making it one of our largest expenses in the State. Drug Courts have proven to be very effective but, you have to have money for treatment or, Drug Courts will become a three pronged approach, missing one of the prongs. It's time the failed policies of the past are explored, to see what works and, what doesn't and, to try new options.

Posted by Shattah206 on 18 May 09 11:05 AM EDT

CJ wrote on 15 May 09 12:32 PM EDT "Sgt. Richard O'Neill doesn't know what he's talking about. . . it has not resulted in a open-air drug market in downtown Seattle." CJ, have you been downtown after business hours? Seattle is a whole different city once the sun goes down. Belltown is bad 24/7, which is too bad for the folks who bought high-priced condos there.

Posted by Boogie on 18 May 09 11:13 AM EDT

Here we go again, permissiveness. Any attempt to favor treatment over good law enforcement policies is simply a " get out of jail" PIMP THE SYSTEM" for the abusers who are the real problem not the so called "addict" who are way fewer in numbers. We have got to use what I thoughT I heard President Obama say, "Common Sense Approaches". Prevention is the most common sense approach I know. You make bad choices in your life, then you have bad consequences. Breaking the law should always have a "Jail First Solution" don't do the crime if you can't do the time. We have used these do nothing, step programs, one day at a time excuses long enough. There are "No Excuses" just choices human being make, good or bad. Why do we continue to waste billions of dollars on people's bad choices, especially adults. This money could be better spent on educating kids and parents of the consequences of illegal drug use, right up to goiing to jail. Keep our streets, communities and kids safe. Law enforcements works, good common sense prevention works. Here's a new concept,The "DETOXING AMERICA MOVEMENT" (THE DAM PROGRAM)

Posted by GandolfTheWise on 18 May 09 05:25 PM EDT

Before the drugs were made illegal, they were not near the problem that we have now. Heroin was cheap, but mostly used to stop the bad headaches and toothaches. Cocaine was used as a food additive in many products (Coca Cola) and everyone extolled its beneficial virtues. After the Drug War - marijuana became more potent so it could be smuggled in smaller batches. To stay in front of the law, chemists were producing dangerous and very addictive drugs that were not yet on the illegal list - All because of the drug war. Now we are putting people in jail for marijuana usage, even those that take it as suggested by their doctors for many different reasons. Marijuana was used by many of our country's founders - how could they possibly do what they did if these drugs were so bad? Our government has botched all their attempts at drug eradication from the beginning - and most of the anti-drug and anti-gun laws were originally past for racist reasons. (continued in part 2)

Posted by Boogie on 19 May 09 09:20 PM EDT

Anyone who knows the history of legal and illegal drugs understands or should understand, things change. Now, until an item or subsatnce becomes legal to use or own, it's a crime to do so. Crime means you are a criminal if you break the law. If you break the law you go directly to jail, duh. Don't shoot the messenger, change the law, but if you can't change the law then accept it. Get Real! Do we want to really live in a society which does not govern itself against that which may destroy the nature of who we are as a people. How can we die of a so called natural death whe we don't live a natural life?

Posted by Carol on 24 May 09 09:42 AM EDT

The war on drugs is infact the war on Addicts. Tax payers dollars spent on bogus, dangerous treatment that either kills or incarcerates Addicts is uncontionable. Zero Policy is only for the Public, not for the Elite who has the means of proper treatment. Corrupt doctors in the ASAM does not help any addict. We need "Change"

Drug War Success Claims Challenged

'Plan Mexico' Pricetag: $1-Billion Plus

DEA Says Cocaine Campaign Has Cut Supply, Raised Prices

Obama Says U.S. Committed to Helping Mexico Fight Drug War

National Drug Control Strategy 2008

National Drug Control Strategy 2009