The Pot President

Hendrik Hertzberg on the hypocrisy of the hip.

In a blog post at the New Yorker last week, Hendrik Hertzberg spotlighted a recent joke made by the President of the United States at the White House Correspondents dinner. In reference to the rapidly changing media landscape, Obama said: “You can’t keep up with it. I mean, I remember when BuzzFeed was just something I did in college around two A.M. (Laughter.) It’s true! (Laughter.)”

The days of expressing a cringing contrition for your “youthful experimentation,” or claiming that you didn’t inhale, or clearly over.

But of course, the president’s joke wasn’t really that funny. Hertzberg cites statistics from Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, suggesting that “from fifty to a hundred thousand Americans are behind bars for pot, and only pot, on any given night.” The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) disputes those figures, but the point is not so much whose numbers are closer to the truth, but rather the simple fact that while the president made his joke, too many people are locked up in federal and state prisons for an offense that a growing number of states are backing away from enforcing.

As Hertzberg put it, the subtext of the president’s pot joke was that it “allowed the tuxedoed, evening-gowned, middle-aged audience at the Washington Hilton to feel, for a precious moment, hip. The subtext was that smoking pot, whether a lot or a little, is just a normal part of growing up…. Nor has it done much to blight the lives of the other people in the Hilton ballroom, most of whom, like the rest of the media, political, and Hollywood elites, have smoked pot, too.”

Obama, they say, was a champ stoner in school. He was, writes David Maraniss in his biography of Obama, skilled at “interceptions”—sneaking an extra hit off the joint when it hadn’t gotten all the way around yet.  Obama, writes Hertzberg, really ought to feel “a smidgen of shame that the government he heads treats people who do exactly what he used to do, and now casually jokes about, as criminals.”

We haven’t heard much lately about the Boomer hypocrisy inherent in such roomfuls of high achievers who used to get high. (Some of them still do.) Jobs and reputations and bank loans are not endangered by these sly references and knowing winks. What hurts jobs and reputations is a stretch in federal prison—the unwilling route taken by many less fortunate Americans.

Hertzberg is wrong when he says that “marijuana-associated suffering enters the picture only when prohibition does.” Like most pro-legalization commentators, he does not mention addiction liability, or lasting cognitive effects on younger smokers.  But it is true that a disproportionate amount of suffering is caused by marijuana prohibition laws. The farthest corners of the debate are staked out, but decriminalization—the missing middle ground—still offers society a more balanced starting point than full-tilt legalization. Merriam-Webster says that to decriminalize is “to repeal a strict ban on, while keeping under some form of regulation.” State policy makers, although they don’t use the term very often, are pursuing what amounts to decriminalization. Nobody other than world-peace-through-weed zealots is arguing for a repeat of the track record with cigarettes (a drug in the process of being re-criminalized). And the regulation of alcohol does not offer a compelling model for marijuana’s future as a semi-legal drug. Happily, marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as alcohol or nicotine, so that helps.

It might surprise some readers to know that a majority of the Dutch aren’t interested in legalizing marijuana. They are concerned about keeping it out of the hands of minors. They’re not very happy with the trend towards higher and higher levels of THC. This is expressed in the fact that marijuana is, and likely will remain, illegal in The Netherlands. The narrow coffee shop exception is misleading in this regard. It was not designed to make marijuana more acceptable, but to deal creatively with the problem of street sales. You almost never see a drug deal going down on the streets of Amsterdam. That’s because a) It’s stupid, you can just waltz into a coffee shop if you’re over 21. b) Dealers have a hard time beating coffee shop prices. c) Dutch police come down heavily on street dealers.  Why? See a) above. The Dutch are no freer to wander their canal-lined streets with a joint in hand than Americans are free to wander Capitol Mall Boulevard with an open bottle of Jack.

Now that’s decriminalization. And an unfair comparison, of course, since the Dutch nation is so much smaller and more homogenous than the U.S. But lately, the talk has been about states, not the country at large. And at the state level, some of the Dutch lessons may apply.

What should our president do about all of this? Hertzberg has three proposals:

—Tell the Justice Department to “end the absurd classification of marijuana as a supremely dangerous Schedule I drug, like heroin.” Alcohol, let us recall, does not have a drug classification because it is not a scheduled substance at all. This American ambivalence is reflected by the names of the country’s premier drug research groups, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), and the Monty Pythonesque National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA).

—Promise to “avoid making life unnecessarily difficult” for the states that have made provisions for medical marijuana or legalization.

—Change the name of the Drug Czar’s Office of National Drug Control Policy to something like the “Office of National Harm Reduction Drug Policy.”

Adopting any or all of these changes would be a useful step toward a decriminalized future for marijuana. Here’s the essential point: We have to make a space for marijuana use in American culture. I mean above the ground, and unassociated with jail time. While still murky from a medical point of view, there is just no doubting that millions of Americans prefer pot to alcohol as a recreational drug. Given alcohol’s role in the American death toll, and the lack of any such grim trail of the dead in marijuana’s case, there’s no shame in that decision, from my point of view.

Graphics Credit: http://www.anonymousartofrevolution.com/

Drug Czar Kerlikowske Interviewed in Foreign Policy Magazine

Drug War goes international in a big way.

Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy--a.k.a. the Drug Czar--finds himself in a curious position. Kerlikowske can be forgiven for feeling a little like J. Edgar Hoover, when the FBI director found that domestic security at home seemed to require some rather active investigations into Cubans and other Communists abroad. Kerlikowske is now riding a horse he never had much say in buying. The U.S. is in the midst of launching a new international drug strategy consisting of “interlocking plans” in Central and South America aimed at “transnational criminal groups.”

AFP reporter Jordi Zamora wrote that “the strategy will merge a handful of existing programs, including Plan Colombia, which has received more than $6 billion in U.S. aid since it was launched in 2000, and the Merida Initiative for Mexico, for which Congress has appropriated $1.5 billion since 2008.” Kerlikowske said that the global nature of the drug threat “requires a strategic response that is also global in scope.” With various crackdowns and battles over smuggling routes, the drug trade in the region has led to thousands of deaths, and has created “complex and evolving threats” from crime syndicates,” according to Assistant Secretary of State William Brownfield.  However, “progress in Central America will only push drug traffickers elsewhere if we do not support strong institutions throughout the hemisphere,” he said.  It seems like the Office of National Drug Control Policy continues to be internationalist in scope.

With all that as background, Foreign Policy magazine spoke with Kerlikowske in search of more detail, and got some--including a strange paean to America’s ability to produce and distribute its own illegal drugs, with no help from Mexico, thank you very much. Kerlikowske seems almost to be bragging. And if he’s right, what are all those border killings about, anyway?

FP: What's your big-picture sense of the drug situation in Latin America?

GK: It used to be fairly easy to categorize countries as production countries, transit countries, or consumer countries. I think those lines have been--if not completely obliterated--generally blurred. The amount of drug use in Mexico is significant. It's also clear from my most recent trip to visit drug treatment centers in Colombia that they're concerned as well. 

FP: U.S. Ambassador Carlos Pascual was forced to leave his position in Mexico two weeks ago because of comments he made in WikiLeaks cables about the perception that the drug war in Mexico is failing and about pervasive corruption in Mexican law enforcement. Are those concerns you share?

GK: As a police officer, I can say that cynicism just comes with the territory, and it's pretty easy to adapt that kind of attitude to Mexico. I'm not overly optimistic, but I think there has been some progress and we have an administration that's courageously taking on these criminal organizations, who are now involved in so many other kinds of crimes.

FP: It does seem that there have been a number of recent scandals involving U.S.-Mexico drug partnership: the Pascual resignation, the reports of the ATF allowing cross-border gunrunning, the controversial use of drones over Mexican territory. Has that relationship become more difficult lately?

GK: In my two years of dealing with this on a closer level, I'd say these last two months are more strained than during the rest of the time I've been here, but I don't see it as a significant bump in the road or a glitch that's going to stop things.

FP: What do you say to those in Latin America who say that it’s useless to crack down on the drug trade as long as the demand persists from the United States?

GK: For one thing, we've become much better at producing drugs in the United States: hydroponic marijuana with a very high THC content -- public lands produce a lot of marijuana. And we don't get any prescription drugs smuggled in to any great extent--which, right now, are our No. 1 growing drug problem in the United States, and also methamphetamine. We're getting much better at making our own, albeit in small amounts.

FP: How do you respond to the growing number of former Latin American leaders--former Mexican President Vicente Fox, most recently--who have come out in favor of legalization or at least a radical overhaul of the current policy?

GK: Isn't it funny how people who no longer have responsibility for anyone's safety or security suddenly see the light? I think it's not a lot different from what we've heard in recent years in the United States, which is: We've had a war on drugs for 40 years and we don't see success. If we have a kid in high school, they can still get drugs or there's drugs on the street corner. So legalization must be an answer…. Heaven knows, we're not very successful with alcohol. We don't collect much in tax money to cover the costs. We certainly can't keep it out of the hands of teenagers or people who get behind the wheel. Why in heaven’s name do we think that if we legalize marijuana, we'd have a system where we could collect enough tax revenue to cover the increased health-care costs? I haven't seen that grand plan. “

Photo Credit: www.fs.fed.us

Deputy Drug Czar Goes His Own Way

Doctors are part of the problem, says McLellan.

In a March 15 cover story titled “The American Way,” Drink and Drugs News  of the UK ran an insightful interview with America’s “deputy” Drug Czar, Thomas McLellan. Professor McLellan, deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, is not a cop, like his boss Gil Kerlikowske, or a retired Army general, like former Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey. McLellan is a rare breed, a treatment specialist, and brings an entirely different viewpoint to an office that has traditionally been strongly oriented toward law enforcement.

“In the US we’ve been thinking about addiction as just a lot of drug use,” McLellan told a group of addiction specialists and policy professionals at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. “And as a result we’ve been purchasing [treatment] stupidly. We can’t decide if addiction is a crime or a disease so we’ve compromised and given them treatments that aren’t any good.”

McLellan singled out doctors for special attention: “Most physicians are not trained in how to treat substance abuse. They don’t see it as a disease and don’t see why they should look for it.”

Treating addiction like any other medical condition is still a goal rather than a reality. “You may know that the relapse rates for diabetes, hypertension and asthma are almost identical to the relapse rates for any addictive disorder…. And no one puts their hands on their hips when a diabetic comes back and says, ‘I ate half a bucket of fried chicken and I forgot to take my insulin, and now I’m back here.’ They just treat them.”

If there are doctors who don’t believe in the disease model of addiction, we can’t be surprised if members of the general public—and addicts themselves--often feel the same way.  McLellan said that less than 3 % of all referrals for addiction treatment and specialty care originate with doctors. Moreover, roughly half of 12,000 smaller treatment programs in the U.S. have no doctor, nurse, or psychologist on staff. And counselors, who make up the majority of treatment staff, suffer from a 50 % turnover rate.

In addition, McLellan took on the traditional British aversion to methadone treatment for heroin addicts: “That this has been a battle, that you are either on methadone or you are on the path of truth, beauty and light, is artificial and unfortunate…. I’m now officially wagging my finger and saying not just to Britain, but to the whole damn field; get past this, this is an artificial contrivance. People ought to have the opportunity to get the medications and other services they need.”

McLellan also had choice words for politicians and policy makers who see incarceration as the only acceptable response to drugs and drug-related crime.  He referenced studies that “suggest very clearly that in a prison situation, when you release somebody with a drug problem, they are back and you’re going to do it all over again. It’s a bad business deal.”

Ongoing care—after prison, or after treatment—is essential to success. “I think residential care is important and necessary, but not sufficient,” McLellan maintained. “It is like having a very good junior high school education.”

Photo Credit: http://www.csam-asam.org/