For anyone who feared that the Obama administration would abandon efforts to control illegal drugs, the presidents first year in office has been on balance reassuring.
The anti-antidrug camp had high hopes that Barack Obama would end drug prohibition. Last year, George Soros, a leading proponent of drug legalization and perhaps the most generous financial backer of the president, seemed in a position to get the change he wanted. In fact, Obama drug czar Gil Kerlikowske made it his first order of business to tell the press he was ending the drug war. More significantly, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal enforcement regarding medical marijuana would be dialed back, which caused the number of storefront marijuana shops in Los Angeles to skyrocket.
Things are looking a little different a year later, however. Kerlikowske turned old school and proclaimed that drug legalization was not in the administrations vocabulary. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continues to enforce marijuana laws in California (although without vocal support from Holder). And the Obama administration just released its first drug control budget requesting a fully funded, well, drug war. At the end of the Bush administration, federal drug control spending in fiscal year 2009 was $15 billion65 percent of it devoted to border security, law enforcement, and other supply control efforts. Obama wants $15.5 billion in 2011, 64 percent for supply controlan increase of $100 million over Bushs final year.
President Obama did not speak of the importance of drug treatment in his first State of the Union address as his predecessor had, but he requested a bit more money for itall to the good. And he even tried to avoid adding these funds to the most unaccountable federal treatment programs.
Last year, Congress and the administration cut prevention funding 17 percent, the only significant change from 2009. This year, the administration is seeking to restore some, but not all, of that cut.
The drug-legalization zealots may be singing meet the new boss, same as the old boss. But with the exception of the Carter administration, when some senior members of the White House staff favored legalization, every president from Richard Nixon through Barack ObamaRepublican and Democrathas sought to attack both supply and demand. It was during the Carter administration that the drug problem exploded, leading to the worst destruction from substance abuse in living memory and the enduring root of the smaller problem still with us today.
It is very important that President Obama has not listened to George Soros on drugs. Should we expect anything more? Are there any signs that the president cares about the drug problem? Will he actually show some leadership on this issue? If he wanted to, he could teach young people something. He could say that illegal drugs make people sick, and his generation did not understand this and paid a horrible price for its ignorance. Now we know better, and we should act like it. If he wanted to show real courage, he could say we know that marijuana makes people sick and that marijuana is the illegal drug causing the greatest dependency and addiction by far. He could even say it is time to stop several decades of lying to ourselves about marijuana and teaching that lie to our children.
President Obama as no other president before him could use his appeal to youth to end, almost overnight, the cultural dogma that drugs are cool. It would be easy for him to become the greatest contributor to drug abuse prevention since Nancy Reaganand he could explain how difficult it is to stop using these substances even when you know better, as he has found with cigarettes.
Of course, none of this is likely to happen. The Obama administration has shown itself willing to spend to support antidrug programs, but it probably will not lead at home and abroad in the areas where truly historic gains are possible.
President Alvaro Uribe in Colombia has all but taken his country back from drug trafficking terrorists. One result of Uribes victories is that dramatically less cocaine reaches American cities. Is that not important to President Obama? The Obama administration could draw attention to this magnificent example of turning the tide against drugs and terror and explain how it happeneda great drug war victory led by Colombias president and supported by both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. If similar efforts are led, adapted, and sustained in Mexico and Afghanistan, the damage caused by cocaine, heroin, and marijuana in the United States and globally can be dramatically reduced. The changes would be profound. Does President Obama see this? Thus far, there is no evidence he thinks about it at all.
The president surely did not need Charles Lane of the Washington Post to tell him medical marijuana is an insult to our intelligence. But the president and all his key officialsEric Holder, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration Margaret Hamburg, and even Gil Kerlikowskeare playing dumb as medical marijuana is brought to Washington, D.C. The agencies of the federal government know what a dangerous fraud this has been in California and particularly in its large citiesLos Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco. It is beyond question that medical marijuana fosters rapid rises in abuse, addiction, and crime. The Post has reported this in detail. Does the capital of the United States need a bigger drug problem? Are all these Obama administration officials really too busy to make the obvious argument that medical marijuana is a stupid and dangerous fraud?
We are fortunate that President Obama has resisted the wrongheaded advice of George Soros. But it is not enough. Today, leadership is needed on curbing use of marijuana, helping Mexico defeat the traffickers, and working to integrate the battle against terror and drugs in Afghanistan. On these issues the new boss is failing, and there are already troubling survey results indicating youth drug use may be about to rise. Attitudes about drugs are a product of teaching, not mere spending. The annual reports of historic rates of substance abuse among aging Baby Boomers should have taught us by now that exposing our children to these substances is not dangerous for them only as teens. All too often, substance abuse lasts a lifetime.