New drug czar gets lower rank, promise of higher visibility
By Dave Cook | 03.11.09
As Joe Biden introduced the Obama administration’s choice for Drug Czar on Wednesday, he criticized what he said was the position’s lowered profile during the Bush presidency.
Disappointing attention
In a ceremony in the ornate Eisenhower Executive Office Building next door to the White House, Mr. Biden said he had been, “a little disappointed the last eight years it hasn’t gotten the attention that it should have gotten. But that’s about to change.”
One reason the Drug Czar will have a higher profile, in Biden’s view, is the administration’s nomination of Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske to be Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In addition to his duties in Seattle, Kerlikowske is currently serving as president of the Major Cities Police Chiefs Association.
Mixed message on importance
But the administration is sending somewhat mixed signals on the position’s importance. For one thing, in the Obama administration the Drug Czar will not have Cabinet status, as the job did during George W. Bush’s administration. An unnamed official told the Washington Post the new drug czar would have “full access and a direct line to the president and the vice president.”
Only the VP
And with all due deference to the vice president, having him announce a nominee does not carry the same cachet as when the president himself does the unveiling. In a good humored way, Biden alluded to that fact. When he entered the room with Kerlikowske, those in the room stood. Biden quipped, “Please sit down, I’m only the vice president.”
Biden called substance abuse “one of our nation’s most pervasive problems.” One of Kerlikowske’s toughest challenges will be developing a southwest border strategy, Biden said. Since the beginning of last year there have been nearly 7,000 drug related murders in Mexico.
First hand view of the costs
The nominee knows first hand the costs of drug abuse. His stepson, Jeffrey, has an arrest record on drug changes, the Associated Press says. At the ceremony where his nomination was announced Kerlikowske said, “Our nation’s drug problem is one of human suffering, and as a police officer but also in my own family, I have experienced the effects that drugs can have on our youth, our families and our communities.”
<< Lieberman loves Obama - disregard everything he said in 2008 | MainComments
2. Ron Williamson | 03.12.09
As social liberal and a fiscal conservative, I am outraged at the number of people being kept in cages at a cost of $40-$50k per year each to the taxpayers. We break up families, incarcerate marijuana smokers and send billions to the drug lords (untaxed). I read about people arrested for possesion of xanax. I have health insurance and a legal prescription for xanax to combat anxiety. The guy without health insurance gets arrested for using the same drug. His anxiety is then increased by the financial burden pressed on him by our judicial system. Let’s move forward to change this unproductive system we presently have in place.
3. Jim Acosta | 03.12.09
Not only will legalization of marijuana prevent the on-going crime, but by taxing it, it will bring billions in tax revenue. Even though marijuana is illegal, PEOPLE STILL SMOKE IT DAILY! It would be smart to regulate marijuana because of the possiblity of marijuana being laced with dangerous drugs such as cocaine or even anthrax. If it were regulated, all of the marijuana produced would have to pass through the FDA or another source to make sure it is safe to consume. Lets come to our senses and finally realize that the war on drugs has failed and with our economy in trouble we cannot simply ignore the tremendous amount of revenue the legalization of marijuana could bring in.
4. HiloBob | 03.12.09
Maybe it is true what they say about sequential generation dumb-down. It didn’t take our forefathers over 30 years to realize prohibition didn’t work any better than our war on drugs. We’ve just been more stubborn, doing the same thing over and over again, escalating our efforts, expecting different results.
Well, shooting ourselves in the foot with a .22 didn’t work, so why don’t we use the shotgun?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
Jimmy Orr has worked in politics for the majority of his professional career working for two U.S. Senators, two Governors and one President. Most recently, Orr served as White House Spokesman and Internet Director for President George W. Bush and Special Advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger for Internet Communications.
David Cook is Washington bureau chief of The Christian Science Monitor and host of the Monitor's newsmaker breakfasts. He was the Monitor's editor from 1994 to 2001. Cook is a graduate of Principia College, served in the U.S. Army, was a Bagehot Fellow at Columbia University, and is a member of the Gridiron Club, Washington's oldest journalistic organization.
1. Decentralize | 03.11.09
Time for a change in tactics. By far the greatest harm caused by prohibited drugs is in the persecution of their users. Shifting to a regulated distribution of these substances would afford us the opportunity to intervene, reduce harm by controlling for quality issues, improve our access to users, and focus on education and treatment, neither of which should be the purview of the criminal justice system, but of the scientific and medical community.
Not only has our current policy proved extremely ineffective, but it goes against the very ideals of this country, alienating a very significant portion of our population from our local and federal governments and our communities. I realize the prospect of legitimizing and commercializing the sale of detrimental and addictive substances is not without its moral pitfalls, to say the least, but if we look at this from a point of view of getting results and minimizing the harm caused by these substances, it’s difficult to argue for more of the same. It’s a politically sensitive issue, so it’ll be a slow process, but the federal drug czar should at least focus on empowering local and state governments to make progress in this area, where local political sentiment allows.