LowRider

found this doing a search. pretty good article.

source: Drug Czar Controversy - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com

December 8, 2008, 12:23 pm
Drug Czar Controversy


By John TierneySome researchers in substance-abuse treatment and advocates for the medical use of marijuana marijuana are alarmed at reports that Representative Jim Ramstad, a Republican from Minnesota, is a candidate to become the next drug czar — the director of the office of National Drug Control Policy. In a joint letter to President-elect Barack Obama, coordinated by Andrew Tatarsky, the past president of the division of addictions of the New York State Psychological Association, dozens of academics and other professionals in substance-abuse treatment write:

This country needs a drug czar who supports evidence-based policies and one who will make decisions based on science, not politics or ideology. We strongly believe that Congressman Ramstad is not that person.

Rep. Ramstad voted in 1998 in favor of making permanent the federal funding ban on syringe exchange. In 2000, he voted to prohibit the District of Columbia from spending its own locally-raised funds on syringe exchange programs, and in 2007, he voted against lifting the same DC ban, despite decades of research showing that syringe exchange programs reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, save lives, save money, and do not increase drug use. Representative Ramstad has also consistently opposed congressional efforts to stop the arrest of patients with HIV/AIDS, cancer, and other illnesses who use medical marijuana to ease their pain and suffering in states where it is legal.

Similar concerns have been raised in another joint letter, coordinated by the Drug Policy Alliance endorsed by more than three dozen other public-health, criminal-justice and drug-treatment organizations. They write to Mr. Obama:

You showed strong leadership on the campaign trail by pledging to lift the federal funding ban on syringe exchange programs, end the excessive federal law enforcement raids aimed at medical marijuana patients, and eliminate the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity. . . We urge you to nominate for drug czar someone with a public health background, who is committed to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C and other infectious diseases, open to systematic drug policy reform, and able to show strong leadership on the issues you believe in.

The costs of the war on drugs are summed up by Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed article celebrating the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition. After noting that that the repeal was popular not just among drinkers but also non-drinkers worried about the rise in organized crime and other consequences of Prohibition, Mr. Nadelmann writes:

They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish.

Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.

And look abroad. At Afghanistan, where a third or more of the national economy is both beneficiary and victim of the failed global drug prohibition regime. At Mexico, which makes Chicago under Al Capone look like a day in the park. And elsewhere in Latin America, where prohibition-related crime, violence and corruption undermine civil authority and public safety, and mindless drug eradication campaigns wreak environmental havoc.

The joint letter to Mr. Obama organized by Dr. Tatarsky suggests a different approach: “We need a new bottom line for U.S. drug policy so that treatment is more available and addiction is treated like a health issue, not a criminal issue. To paraphrase former Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, we need a surgeon general, not a military general or police officer.”
What do you think of Mr. Ramstad as drug czar? Do you have any other nominees for the job? Or other advice for Mr. Obama on drug policy?

marcusJay

Sounds like business as usual. I don't see any change coming down the line with him in charge.

TwoGreenOneRed

Wtf happened with this?
On NORML's blog it said that Obama had chosen all but three of his cabinet members, one of the three being his "Drug Czar". That was like two weeks ago.

NORML Blog » Blog Archive » Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock: Who Will Be Obama’s Pick For ‘Drug Czar’?

I assumed we would hear about his choice any day now after that, but its been a while. Does anybody know what the deal is? If he/she hasn't yet been chosen, you should all click this link below and sign the petition. Btw this link is in the NORML article, but I thought I'd make it easier for you all...

Drug Czar of My Dreams | Nadelmann for Drug Czar

LowRider

Hey TwoGreen, I've been wondering the same. i have down searches and nothing pops up but old crap from earlier to mid DEC. Who knows maybe he'll get rid of the position (one can hope right). Time will tell.

Freedom_User

Yeah. I have been wondering why it's taking so long to pick a drug czar.

Breaking news:

Bill Richardson has withdrawn from the Obama administration..... Who will he pick next? Richardson was a strong supporter in medical marijuana.

__________________
The feds continually use and twist this simple clause as an excuse to expand their own power - at the expense of our liberty.

"If you shot a ton of pot to the Sun, will it burn up and get everyone high?"

Ianfagerstrom

The fact that he has yet to pick a drug czar may be a good sign actually. When the Obama administration puts out the budget, I expect the money going to the drug war will be cut enormously. It isn't a high priority for Obama, and cutting funding may be the first step in the right direction.

Mikeebud

I got a reccomendation for the job.

Get rid of it, Gets payed To decieve 300 million people from the truth.


Terrorist organization knowen as Al quae..American Goverment.

__________________
Religion is just a theroy, Like the goverment that's your friend.

TheMeatball

You know, that actually makes sense. He could cite the huge cost of the Drug War, and then describe how the savings are neccessary in a economic crisis.

It wouldn't change any laws, but it would be a good way of de-prioritizing them without taking the big controversial steps of decriminalizing or legalizing anything.