Blogs and Stories
Obama's Demented Drug Policy
Gerald Herbert / AP Photo
As he leaves on a trip to Mexico, the president looks poised to continue the same ruinous drug policies and the same failing tactics in the war on drugs.
When Barack Obama visits Mexico today, the drug war, and the violence it has spawned south of the border, is expected to dominate the agenda. Since 2006, more than 10,000 people have been murdered in Mexico as a direct consequence of the drug trade. This bloody outbreak began when, with the blessing of and funding from the U.S. government, Mexican President Felipe Calderon ordered the Mexican military to aggressively crack down on the drug cartels. Such crackdowns often ratchet up the level of violence, as the elimination of one major drug distributor provokes those who remain to war over his territory. That’s a pattern as old and predictable as Prohibition itself, yet politicians never seem to learn.
The best solution to what’s plaguing Mexico right now is the one topic that will almost assuredly be off the table: legalizing marijuana.
Last month, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico, she expressed gave concern over the escalating violence... and then heaped praise on Calderon's crackdown, promising to support it with more funding and more military hardware. Obama appears poised to say much the same thing. According to a recent preview of his trip in The Washington Post, the president is expected to promise swifter delivery of drug-war aid and increased efforts by the U.S. to stop the flow of American weapons to Mexico. But the best solution to what’s plaguing Mexico right now is the one topic that will almost assuredly be off the table: legalizing marijuana. Marijuana makes up 60 to 70 percent of the Mexican drug trade. Lifting prohibitions on it in the United States would eradicate a major source of funds for the cartels.
But Obama has little patience for such talk. We saw this at the now-infamous (at least on the Internet) town-hall meeting last month, where the president was asked whether he would consider legalizing marijuana to help the ailing economy. The question was the top vote-getter on a White House Web site set up in the spirit of making the president accessible to the public. But Obama dismissed it with a one-word answer, then derided the very online community that raised half a billion dollars for his campaign as a bunch of half-baked morons.
The incident offended many former Obama activists, yet other supporters have chided those upset by his answer by pointing out that Obama has never supported marijuana legalization. That’s true. But it also misses the point. The drug-reform community rallied behind Obama’s candidacy because in the past he has taken thoughtful, nuanced positions on the issue. Consider this video, from 2004:
Obama's curt response last month was a striking departure from that video. It didn't take long for him to go from a thoughtful drug-war critic to a typical Beltway drug warrior.
To answer the question Obama batted away, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that legalizing all drugs would produce a net boon of $77 billion per year to government alone, much of it in savings on enforcement and incarceration. That's not accounting for the money from the sale of drugs that, under a legalized system, would go to the above-ground economy instead of to cartels and crime syndicates. Miron estimated in a 2005 study that if we were to only legalize marijuana, the savings to government would be $10 to 14 billion, a figure endorsed by 530 other economists. Obama's callous dismissal of the question—as if serious people didn't even require an explanation—wasn't warranted.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Justice Clinton?
As vice chairman of Public Strategies and president of Maverick Media, Mark McKinnon has helped meet strategic challenges for candidates, corporations and causes, including George W. Bush, John McCain, Governor Ann Richards, Charlie Wilson, Lance Armstrong, and Bono. McKinnon is co-chair of Arts & Labs, a collaboration between technology and creative communities that have embraced today's rich Internet environment to deliver innovative and creative digital products to consumers.
Dogs in a Deadly Crossfire
Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at TheAgitator.com.
Does Wal-Mart Make You Skinny?
Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at TheAgitator.com.
Did Obama Wimp Out on a Rape Case?
Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine, and maintains a blog at TheAgitator.com.
ElLamer
Although the issue of legal marijuana is debatable, I think now is hardly the time to pressure the Obama administration which has enough on its plate as it is.
Anyone who thinks the battles in congress over the legalization of a marijuana are going to be short even if they do succeed is totally naive. The actual implementation would be held up by state battles over taxes, age restrictions and so on as well. Full implementation would come long after any of the argued effects on the economy and current drug war in Mexico would have the claimed effect.
This whole "lets criticize Obama for everything he is not doing immediately" mentality is driving me nuts. He has more on his plate right now than any president in my lifetime has ever had. Why are we insisting on adding stuff that can wait a year or two.
bluehawaii
That's right.
It will just be exploited as another weapon for the right-wing traitors to bludgeon him with.
Once the economy clears up, he'll have the political capital to address such things.
gmalone
Change isn't immediate? Go figure. I don't think its about criticizing him for not handling everything people would like him to, but rather that, given the opportunity to prove himself as an agent of change in a certain area, he instead continued policy that has, as of yet, not ever been successful.
I doubt many right-wingers will throw a fit that Obama has spoken out in support of continuing the, sigh, war on drugs. It would take American, not Mexican, deaths for many of them to do so.
madmatt6773
In response to ElLamer;
1- It didn't take that long when they repealed alchohol prohibition.
2- The states see a new source of revenue and they will waste no time in coming up with a tax schedule.
3- The feds will pressure for 21yo for access just like they do for alchohol.
4- The mexican cartels aren't going anywhere as long as their "product" is illegal and a demand exists. They'll still be here in a hundred years if thats how long it takes for us to wise up.
5- The demand has always and will always exist. It's human nature, law or no law, consequences or not, users will get their drugs.
The "War On Drugs" is an utter and miserable failure costing the United States $77 Billion a year, clogging the judicial system, overcrowding prisons, and fostering a contempt for the law. The time to end this insanity has come and the politicians need to start to discuss real, winnable options no matter how unpopular they may be to certain constituents.
Repeal drug prohibition, tax, regulate.
okcsam
I couldn't have said it any better. I honestly appreciate your views. Thank you.
okcsam
It's not the fact that Obama isn't turning the current condition of the country around on a dime, its the fact that he is blaintly changing his views and opinions on a dime. Yes, the president does have a lot of issues to face that is the very correct, but that does not excuse him from shrugging off issues Americans are truely concerned about.
ElLamer
The drugs in Afghanistan issue is pretty interesting. I would like more info on it. Someone should do a piece on it. The idea that just because it failed in south America it will fail in Afghanistan is kind of a stretch. There are two very different situations.
Regional warlords in Afghanistan have funded themselves with drug money for decades and anti American sentiment is pretty understandable seeing as something like 20 of their population was killed somewhat in conjunction with CIA activities there. It obviously wasn't all our fault but seeing as two thirds of the population can't even read its not surprising that some come to the conclusion CIA give money guns -> lots of people die -> America bad.
So the whole idea there, as far as I can see it from all the tough talk and talking points of the last administration. Is to crack down on the drugs and warlords, teach the people to read and give the pro America parts of the population the examples they need to convince the rest that we are not that bad.
So if cracking down on the drugs is the wrong option what is the right one? Its kinda half assed to say "it didn't work in south America" problem solved.
ElLamer
sorry typo "... something like 20 of their population..." should read "...20% of their population..."
aahpat
There has been plenty written about the Afghan drug situation. And a lot said in the congress. And there are solutions other than escalation of more of the same.
Solutions:
Poppy for Medicine
http://www.poppyformedicine.net/
Swiss heroin model reporting benefits
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Swiss_heroin_model_reporting_ benefits.html?siteSect=105&sid=7032610&cKey=1157366472000
America needs to get control of the opium without disrupting the fragile Afghan agriculture based rural economy. Poppy for medicine
describes a system for doing that.
The other part of the problem is the huge, and growing, population of addicts. The Swiss heroin prescription program has been successfully getting addicts off the streets and out of crime and the drug dealing business to new young potential users for economic sustenance.
Prohibition is "creating chaos and instability"
The Congressional Research Service released a report on the relationship between the war on drugs black market economy and terrorism.
'Illicit Drugs and the Terrorist Threat: Causal Links and Implications for Domestic Drug Control Policy'
"The international traffic in illicit drugs contributes to terrorist risk through at least five mechanisms: supplying cash, creating chaos and instability, supporting corruption, providing "cover" and sustaining common infrastructures for illicit activity, and competing for law enforcement and intelligence attention. Of these, cash and chaos are likely to be the two most important."
alQaida has also been using heroin as an asymmetric weapon against the west. Sen. John Kerry told reporters in 2001, as the World Trade Center and Pentagon still smoldered: "That's part of their revenge on the world," Kerry said. "Get as many people drugged out and screwed up as you can." 21 Sept. 2001
bin Laden has this weapon to use on western children thanks to the drug war prohibition policy prohibits regulated adult supervision and instead keeps heroin in a criminal controlled lawless black market anarchy.
jds8181
Although I could not agree more that Obama needs to spearhead a rational discussion on the benefits of legalization, it is unlikely that he will do so before his second term. Our current drug policies are a disaster. It drives me crazy when I hear ignorant Americans trying to scare the public by claiming that legalization will lead to America's children getting hooked on pot and then other stronger drugs, because pot is a "gateway" drug. The same arguments were pushed by people during Prohibition. Is everyone out getting drunk all day because alcohol is legal? People who want to sit around and get high all day already do so, just like the people who choose to sit around and get drunk all day.
What people don't want to admit is that Americans love their substances, whether it's tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine. We will NEVER eradicate drug use, and anyone who claims we can is either delusional or a liar. It is the most profitable industry in the world, precisely because our government chooses to spend billions of our taxpayer dollars trying to stamp it out. If we legalized, regulated, and taxed marijuana, which is far less harmful to individuals and society than alcohol, we could cut off a very reliable source of funds for Mexican cartels while simultaneously stimulating the economy and providing much needed revenues for local and state governments.
Wake up America. This is a topic that both parties should be able to agree on.
bluehawaii
Both parties can't agree on anything, because one of them is focused entirely on obstruction. If Obama proposed legalizing marijuana, the traitor right would use it as a weapon to bludgeon him with.
veryneatmonster
Obama should not go for legalization. It goes well beyond him just having a lot on his plate.
The Democrats will not push for legalization, nor should they. If they do, all the hardline Right Wingers will whip up a fury in the key of "See! I told you so! These weakling liberals are soft on crime! They want to flood our towns with dope addicts! etc. etc." When the smoke clears, we'll be back to square one.
Legalization will only happen under a Republican president with a solid reputation for both being tough on crime and good with economic legislation. Only someone like that will be able to push for legalization in a way that could convince the most people on the far Right that the Drug War is simply the days of Prohibition all over again.
Legalization must happen, but we're going to have to wait for another day.
ElLamer
I would not say it must happen. I personally do not use any illegal drugs and don't consider them needed in our society. On the other hand I think the horrendous penalties for drug users are totally stupid, putting self inflicted damage above damage to others is one of the stupidest things there is. I would say to lower penalties for use or possession of small amounts to a small fine like in many European countries would also be an acceptable solution.
sonofloud
Corporate welfare, continuing the Iraq War, advocating kidnapping and torture of civilians, continuation of the drug war failure........Obama is Bush Dark.
jaclynde
Yes, Obama understands that legalizing marijuana would solve long term issues i'm sure, but it's probably not something he can have on his plate during his first term. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried doing that his second term, after he's proven that he understands how to appeal to both sides of the issue, and after he's proven that he's really thought it through.
cfowler1850
If the President decides to take this issue one, and it is political game of roulette as the Republicans would make this an incredibly volatile political issue, he should do it in his second term. But he has to win that first....
connie47
There are much bigger fish to fry at this time. Down the road, maybe.
Texican
As much as I agree that pot should be legal--Amsterdam isn't exactly falling apart, is it?--the far more important issue is the opium in Afghanistan. The answer would be simple were it not for the damnable moralism of the American people. As a first step, we could simply buy the opium. Then once we have put the smugglers at a disadvantage, we could encourage the cultivation of other crops through aid and price subsidies. According to the reports I've seen, most of the farmers would rather grow food, it just isn't profitable enough for them to make a living. Yes, this would cost money, but probably less than sustaining a military effort. Unfortunately, the unwillingness of the American people to support "rewarding bad behavior" will prevent this sensible "butter, not guns" approach from being tried. Have you ever seen a bumper sticker that read "Feed them all and let God sort it out!"?
xbainx
I think Obama, a man who has done cocaine, should just admit it doesn't kill you immediately or destroy your character. We've now had a string of presidents that have tried drugs, and yet we can't talk about legalizing them.
I think he is being cautious about it specifically because he is embarrassed about having done cocaine. But if it were legal and taxed and kept away from children, you would have less police and crime, and more tax revenue.
I've never tried cocaine, pills, heroin, etc. But prohibition doesn't work for alcohol and it doesn't work for drugs either.
WorkerBee
I am for Legalization or at least De-criminalization of marijuana. There is no reason why we should be locking up users of any drug. But we cannot expect Obama to attack this issue right now.
scott1607
I don't know, this might be the best time to tackle this issue. The violence and insanity spilling over from Mexico is probably the best illustration even to the hard-core opposition that what we have just isn't working. But then again, we are still the hysteria-prone Puritans... our solution is probably going to be "Bigger wall, bigger prisons."
Hawnzz
"Stop the appetite for drugs in the U.S."
My response to that was... GOOD LUCK! Americans are about as likely to stop going to church, give up their cars, hamburgers, french fries and guns.
Marijuana is less addictive than tobacco. And for that reason, people are less likely to use as much. You don't see anyone getting as worked up about the tobacco lobby and cigarettes on every drugstore shelf.
Politically the poor man doesn't have the time. Give him a break... but this whole issue is so stupid. We are destabilizing a neighboring nation and imprisoning our own people over a drug that is less harmful then alcohol. There are times I will never understand how we ever managed to ever become a super-power when we are so often obtuse.
popozao1234
I am against marijuana personally. It is a lazy man's drug and I find it repulsive. YET, I completely believe legalizing it would be key solution to cartel issue. I am looking at it like a business. No solution will ever be made because it is about popularity vote..
popozao1234
I am against marijuana personally. It is a lazy man's drug and I find it repulsive. YET, I completely believe legalizing it would be key solution to cartel issue. I am looking at it like a business. No solution will ever be made because it is about popularity vote..
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.