Obama's drug czar

Don't even know why we have a effin drug czar, but this bears watching. A recovering addict weights in.

Comments

Sounds like concern trolling to me. What makes them think that this guy would be up for Drug Czar? Thats besides the fact of the way the author once again tries to make it seem like liberals are all up in arms about Obama's cabinet. I guess people have to do some hand wringing about something.

Posted by sgwhiteinfla | December 3, 2008 4:50 PM

THC,

For a about 3 weeks maybe, when I load your page, or Sullivan's or others at The Atlantic, the banner ad of "The Cost of Being a Nerd" screws up the rendering of the entire page, requiring me to hit the back button and then stopping the page loading before it finishes.

I think the bug is related to Firefox.

Anyone else have this problem?

Posted by matt | December 3, 2008 4:50 PM

Yikes. He would be TERRIBLE. From all kinds of points of view, it is really important for Obama to get out of the drug war box.

Posted by EK Buddenhagen | December 3, 2008 5:08 PM

"Through the grace of God, I was able to kick my habit after I was given tough love... all you need is some tough love and you will be able to kick your habits... and if you don't kick, you just need some even tougher love."

Posted by Jaybird | December 3, 2008 5:09 PM

Oh, and this needs to be pointed out as well.

"Don't even know why we have a effin drug czar"

It involves Biden. Heavily.

Posted by Jaybird | December 3, 2008 5:10 PM

Cops get wasted on Budweiser on their way home from their shifts playing at ‘Law & Order’ with the drug trade.

We need laws limiting when we can be 'impaired' (under age, operating a vehicle, etc.), but otherwise, legalize it.

Posted by Watson | December 3, 2008 5:14 PM

"this bears watching" yeah what T said. The guy has some pros & cons clearly. I lean to the against side right now but as with all of Obama's other "potential appointments" I'll wait & see. This guy isn't even nominated. Obama has come out for some things this guy is against. I believe Obama will be for & do what he said he will do until he shows otherwise.

Posted by Eddy | December 3, 2008 5:22 PM

I've read an equal number of stories suggesting he's not viable. I wouldn't worry.

Posted by John | December 3, 2008 7:17 PM

I'm definitely going to be interested in seeing how the Obama administration handles MA's decriminalization of marijuana. If the Feds didn't like the medical variety, I'm guessing a decent chunk of the DEA hard-liners are frothing at the mouth already.

Posted by Jordan | December 3, 2008 11:34 PM

yeah, let's keep up all those wars.

the war on cancer, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on aids, the war on crime, the war on bugs, the global war on terror, endless wars, all without victory. if wars never have a victory then we can go on fighting forever.

show me a world without poverty, disease, crime, drugs, bugs, and terror and i'll show you our moon. that's where all those enemies have been conquered. nixon, the asshole war criminal who keeps on giving even after the worms finished with him, first coined the phrase 'war on drugs.' it's been 44 years since lbj launched his war on poverty. how we doing?

all these 'wars' have failed because the things we decide to use the term 'war on x' are fueled by a pathological belief
that we can eradicate an amorphous entity whose definition is either so broad [disease, cancer, terror, etc.] or so inherent in our biological makeup [use of drugs, e,g. tobacco, opiates, alcohol, spinning around until we are so dizzy we fall down, etc]. plus, we can use the national sense of 'war' to camouflage much narrower interests.

we ought to snap it on the wars on x, and focus on starvation, thirst, warmth, shelter and sanitation. that would be a start. the global war on terror should be a concerted effort to pound down on criminals who use the murder of innocents to assuage their insane madness as they are at war with no one except themselves.

i have often thought if the palestinians had adopted the use of non-violent civil disobedience instead of violence [war] against the israelis, there would have been a two state peace agreement years ago.

let's see how obama approaches this over the next four years. and to all you who are freeeking because obama is appointing this person or that person, how about waiting to see what he does, AFTER JANUARY 20, 2009, when he is president, fer chrissake.

Posted by adin | December 4, 2008 10:50 AM

Sounds like Eric Holder and the penalities for crack vs powder cocaine. Holder was very much in favor for the harsh penalities.

Posted by Robert M | December 4, 2008 6:07 PM

Her post is not fair. For one thing, the evidence for needle exchange was NOT overwhelming in 1999. She left out that there was a big Montreal study in that era that found an increase in HIV among participants in a needle exchange.

Besides, has the landscape on drug policy not changed dramatically in the last 10 years? She pointed out that Clinton has changed his tune. Were the politics any easier for a member of the Republican caucus? Other than medical marijuana policy, is there any evidence that he wouldn't have some of the same regrets as Clinton?

Reasonable people can disagree on medical marijuana. I voted against it, not because I want to prosecute sick people, but because I think that this is a goofy way to make medical policy. I think that enforcement of marijuana possession laws ought to be very low on the priority list in most communities.

The writer also suggests that, based on evidence, marijuana policy related to both medical and recreational use is a no-brainer. I don't know what that means--seems like a very simplistic characterization of a multi-layered issue. Even if one agrees, is this really the approach we want Obama to take? How much time could an issue like that consume? The public's just not there.

The writer did not offer any of his explanations for his positions, just a few votes. We all know, from Presidential elections, how easy it is to zero in on a vote without considering that their only options are yea, nay or abstain.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be concerned, he should be asked about his positions and his willingness to subordinate himself to Obama's policy directives. Some of his record indicates a a long needed breath of fresh air and some of them indicate he might represent more of the same.

Posted by JFS | December 7, 2008 1:15 PM

Ramstad also supported changing laws that forbid federal student aid to people with drug convictions. Not exactly the position of a knee-jerk drug warrior.

Posted by JFS | December 7, 2008 1:17 PM