Drug Policy Needs More Centrists (NYTimes OP-Ed)

[AFK]

What the thread title says:

Offered without comment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/drug-policy-needs-centrists.html?_r=1

Overdosing on ExtremismBy KEVIN A. SABET
Published: January 1, 2012


ACCORDING to a recent study by the Centers for Disease Control, drug overdoses have increased almost six-fold in the last 30 years. They now represent the leading cause of accidental death in the United States, having overtaken motor vehicle accidents for the first time on record.

One might expect such news to spur politicians to explore new options for drug abuse treatment, prevention and enforcement. Instead, at precisely the wrong time, extremists on both sides have taken over the conversation. Unless we change the tone of the debate to give drug-policy centrists a voice, America's drug problem will only get worse.

Indeed, moderates have historically been key contributors to both the debate and the practice of effective drug policy. In 1914, Representative Francis B. Harrison, a New York Democrat, worked with Republicans and President Woodrow Wilson to pass the first major piece of federal anti-drug legislation, in response to a surge in heroin and cocaine use.

Other moderates, from Theodore Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, made drug policy an important part of their domestic agendas. President Bill Clinton worked closely with Bob Dole, the Republican Senate majority leader, on sensible measures like drug courts and community policing. And Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is the reason there is a drug czar in the first place, having pushed the idea for years before President Ronald Reagan approved it.

So where are the moderates now? Certainly, the current political climate makes it hard to come together on any question. Republicans are too timid to touch any domestic policy issue, like effective drug prevention and treatment, that might appear to cost taxpayers more money. And too many Democrats have yet to recognize that drugs are an issue that they and their constituents should care deeply about: after all, drug abuse and its consequences affect the most vulnerable in society in especially harmful ways.

In their place, a few tough-on-crime conservatives and die-hard libertarians dominate news coverage and make it appear as if legalizing drugs and "enforcement only" strategies were the only options, despite the fact that the public supports neither.

This stalemate comes just as a new range of cost-effective, evidence-based approaches to prevention, treatment and the criminal justice system are within our reach. We know much more about addiction than we did 20 years ago; with enough support, we could pursue promising medications and behavioral therapies, even a possible vaccine against some drug addictions.

Meanwhile, smart, innovative law enforcement strategies that employ carrots and sticks — treatment and drug testing complete with swift but modest consequences for continued drug use, or incentives for abstinence — have produced impressive results, through drug courts or closely supervised probation programs.

And drug prevention has moved from a didactic classroom exercise to a science of teaching life skills and changing environmental norms based on local data and community capacity. We now know that recovery from addiction is possible, and that policies that give former addicts a second chance are in everyone's interest.

Most recently, R. Gil Kerlikowske, President Obama's top drug policy adviser, introduced a sensible four-point plan to curb prescription drug abuse: educate prescribers, parents and young people about the dangers of overdose; shut down illegitimate "clinics" that freely sell these drugs; establish electronic monitoring at pharmacies; and encourage the proper disposal of unused medications. Yet his plan received little attention from the news media or Capitol Hill.

Of course, there is no magic bullet for America's drug problem. The magnitude and complexity of our drug problem require us to constantly refine and improve our policies through thoughtful analysis, innovation and discussion.

Moderates should lead that conversation. To remain silent not only betrays widely shared values of compassion and justice for the most vulnerable. It also leaves policy in the hands of extremists who would relegate a very serious and consequential discussion to frivolous and dangerous quarters.

Kevin A. Sabet, a drug-policy consultant, was a senior adviser in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2009 to 2011.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

What constitutes a moderate and an extremist here though?

For example, I think marijuana should be legalized. Heroin should stay illegal. Does that make me a radical or a centrist?

I think the problem here is that "Drugs" is just a blanket term. It's meaningless. Some drugs should be legal, some should not be.

[AFK]

I think using the terms "radical" or "extremist" is a bit much.  I mostly relate to the basic centrist policy position laid out which is, crudely, between the legalization approach and the "law enforcement" only approach.  Most of the people I work with in this field, in my state anyway, I would characterize as centrists as defined in this op-ed piece.  We don't think legalization is a good idea, BUT, we also think we need to have a better balance between prevention/treatment and law enforcement.  More money needs to be shifted to evidence based prevention and treatment practices.  If we do this effectively and wisely, we will reduce the demand for drugs.  Law enforcement is dealing with the end of the equation where they can't really make that much of a difference.  Not to the root causes and symptoms anyway. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Fair enough. I still think that one of the problems is how "drugs" is defined. And you get it in different places too. Like, in some Arabic countries you can't drink, but you can use khat or smoke weed. Caffeine is a drug. See what I mean?

I think that if drug laws are to be successful they need to be less binary. Someone having a bad acid trip is different than someone fucked up on angel dust. Pothead=/=methhead and all of that stuff.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I agree Areola. It seems to me that drug policy should be based on reality, rather than fantasy. To have marijuana, shrooms, heroin and crack all lumped together as Schedule 1 seems to create a lot of the problems the op-ed is pointing out.

Drug overdose... a serious problem, one that applies to prescription meds, opiates, etc. but doesn't apply to marijuana or shrooms. Yet, they're all seen as equal in the eyes of drug policy. The Drug War spends almost half of its time dealing with marijuana, 82% of the increase in drug arrests between 1990-2002 were for marijuana. 12% of prisoners (in 2004) at both federal and state levels were in for marijuana.*

Even if we won't, as a nation, legalize pot... the Drug war itself (and the scheduling) should be more triage focused I think. If nothing else, the resources should be balanced based on risk and threat.

In the real world we don't equate speeding and jaywalking... even though both are illegal and both could have life threatening consequences.

Personally, if we assume that there will always be recreational drug use among humans, marijuana seems far preferable to any other option, including alcohol, caffeine and tobacco. In my opinion, people should be responsible for their own actions... but I understand that my philosophy and the reality of the US Drug Policy are unlikely to meet.


* ONDCP

[AFK]

Fair enough. I still think that one of the problems is how "drugs" is defined. And you get it in different places too. Like, in some Arabic countries you can't drink, but you can use khat or smoke weed. Caffeine is a drug. See what I mean?

Interesting thing about this is when refugees come to America from some of these Muslim nations, the kids will start forsaking their religious tenents that say alcohol=evil.  Because, of course, it is part of their aculturation process to become more "American".  But, meanwhile, the parents will not hear of their kids drinking because they have an unquestioning faith that because their religions says it is verboten, then their kids aren't doing it.  It causes some real problems and stress within families. 

I think that if drug laws are to be successful they need to be less binary. Someone having a bad acid trip is different than someone fucked up on angel dust. Pothead=/=methhead and all of that stuff.

I definitely agree their needs to be better balance.  The one I always key in on is the sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack.  Obama moved the needle in the right direction but it is still too far out of whack. 

[Telarus]

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/04/how_americans_really_feel_about_drugs/singleton/

If ever a college taught a class in how modern political propaganda works — and how it proceeds without any connection to a shred of fact — this article [The OP] should be required reading because it is such a pure example.

.... he (and the New York Times editors and headline writers who published his piece) wholly ignores the indisputable facts and simply deems the millions of Americans in this pro-legalization majority as "extremists" — that is, he pretends that the position in the actual center of public opinion is on the extreme edge of that public opinion. He then asserts that true "centrists" and "moderates" are those who do not support legalization — even though those voices are empirically the extremists whose positions put them far away from the mainstream center of public opinion. And, just for good measure, he employs a bit of ad hominem, suggesting it's just "a few ...  die-hard libertarians" who support legalization — ignoring not only the American majority, but the scores of top law enforcement officials who are fighting to end the drug war.

Taken together, Sabet's goal in his Op-Ed is obvious: He's a committed drug warrior with a vested (and, based on his Times billing as a "drug policy consultant," possibly financial) interest in marginalizing those trying to end the drug war. To do that, he's employed the most tried and true instruments of marginalization — the newly redefined notions of "centrism" and "moderate" policymaking. And he's employed them even though the actual facts show that, in comparison to the mass public, he's the fringe extremist.

Now sure, it's certainly true that polls showing strong — and growing — support for legalizing marijuana cannot be fully equated to Americans' views of policies for all drugs. However, marijuana-themed polls and election results are also hardly wholly unrelated to that conversation — and at the very least, those polls and election results should mean that the burden of proof is on someone like Sabet when he declares that being for legalization is the definition of "extremism" and the opposite of "centrism."

But that burden of proof is nowhere to be found because in the 21st century, "centrism" and "moderate" still have nothing to do with the center of any political debate, or the moderate middle of any policy discussion. They remain political weapons deployed by attention-seeking fabulists against the real centrists and moderates in the American majority.

[Cain]

I noticed that clumsy propagandizing as well.  I did think it was just my relfexive response to "centrism" and "moderates" at first, but then I remembered I have that response to those words for a reason.  It's an attempt to provilege a position with a number of traits which it may not actually have.

And let us not forget, it also depends on variables of comparison.  Is the "centrist" position between FOX News and, say President Obama on National Security a "moderate" position?  Not according to the opinion polls.  Certainly not by global standards.  I can't be the only one to notice the complete and utter lack of supporting opinion polls for the assertions in the OP.

Could he have made an argument where he treated the reader as a rational adult, to advance the same position?  Maybe.  But for some reason, he felt like treating them like idiots.  There are a number of possible reasons for this, and some are offered in Sirota's comments, but I'm going to put it down to the usually correct answer when it comes to government: he really believes what he is saying, that he is as much a victim of propaganda as a perpetuator of it.

And that places a certain degree of suspicion on his ability to correctly evaluate policy, and indeed the government at large.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Looking back, I realize that the OP doesn't actually address marijuana. He talks about overdoes, addiction, vaccines for addiction etc etc... none of which is related to marijuana. The he talks about the 'extremist' wanting legalization (which mostly applies to marijuana). I hadn't rally picked up on quite how he pulled that off before.

"Drugs kill people, we have to help them!"
"These extremist people want to legalize drugs!"

Both are true statements, but the usage of the word drugs obscures the facts. If we replace 'drugs' with the actual drug names, suddenly the argument seems far more disjointed.

"Opiates, Coke, Crack, Bath Salts and Prescription Meds kill people, we have to help them!"
"These extremist people want to legalize marijuana!"

I hadn't seen the "Above the Influence" ad where the ONDCP claimed that Marijuana was the safest thing in the world. Kinda ironic.

[AFK]

As I said before, I think the usage of terms like "extremism" weren't helpful to the piece.  But that is obscuring the underlying point of the piece which I elucidated earlier.  The position between law enforcement only and full legalization.  That is, by definition, a position that is centrist, or at a minimum, to the left of one and to the right of another.  I would stipulate one might find ways to argue that it is a position closer to law enforcement only or the other end, but I don't think the author in that Salon piece has it correct when they suggest such a position is an extreme position.

Because I can tell you that most people who are on the ground doing this work are in that position.  It isn't that rare at all as the Salon author would have one believe.  It doesn't seem terribly helpful for that author to combat poor usage of terms with poor usage of terms. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

As I said before, I think the usage of terms like "extremism" weren't helpful to the piece.  But that is obscuring the underlying point of the piece which I elucidated earlier.  The position between law enforcement only and full legalization.  That is, by definition, a position that is centrist, or at a minimum, to the left of one and to the right of another.  I would stipulate one might find ways to argue that it is a position closer to law enforcement only or the other end, but I don't think the author in that Salon piece has it correct when they suggest such a position is an extreme position.

Because I can tell you that most people who are on the ground doing this work are in that position.  It isn't that rare at all as the Salon author would have one believe.  It doesn't seem terribly helpful for that author to combat poor usage of terms with poor usage of terms.

Valid points RWHN.

I notice too that 'popular opinion' gets abused quite often in these debates.

The OP says "Most people don't want broad legalization" as though that's an argument against it. Yet, in a number of states, 'most people' have voted for some form of legalization and we often hear "Well, just because people want it, that's not a good reason to make it legal" If public opinion isn't a good argument FOR legalization, it shouldn't be a good argument AGAINST legalization either.

If we remove the 'centrist' argument from the OP, there isn't much left. Hes still advocating law enforcement have carrots and 'sticks', he's still advising that drug users == drug abusers. He's still holding the position that if you use drugs you must need help.

"swift but modest consequences for continued drug use, or incentives for abstinence "

... doesn't seem centrist or moderate to me. It appears like more of the same kind of policies that are failing us now.

[AFK]

I agree that popular opinion is useless for either argument.  Especially if that popular opinion is coming from polls.  Because then you get into the weeds of phrasing of questions, who is doing the research, etc., etc.,

The best measure for popular opinion currently, I think, is looking at the initiatives that have gone on the ballots in different states.  So clearly there are some majorities in certain parts of the country that favor changes in marijuana policies with regards to medicinal use.  I'm not sure to what extent that can be used as a proxy to measure approval of legalizing marijuana for recreational use.  Given that some of the majorities have been fairly slim, the majorities may not be quite there for rec use.  But who knows. 

[Placid Dingo]

I'd like to see a voice saying 'ok, priority is making medical mj happen. Legalisation is not on the table either way for now, and compromises can be made to avoid it. How can we work together to make this happen?'

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Given that some of the majorities have been fairly slim, the majorities may not be quite there for rec use.  But who knows.

The public is divided over whether the use of marijuana should be legal or not; half (50%) oppose legalization while nearly as many (45%) favor legalizing marijuana. Support for legalizing marijuana is up slightly since March, 2010; and over the past 40 years – drawing on trends from Gallup and the General Social Survey – support for legalizing marijuana has never been higher.

Legalization will be on the table soon in spite of the propaganda campaigns emanating from the billion dollar private prison industry.

From Corrections Corporation of America's annual report,

"The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them."

From GEO's (formerly Wackenhut) annual report,

"[A]ny changes with respect to the decriminalization of drugs and controlled substances could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them. Similarly, reductions in crime rates could lead to reductions in arrests, convictions and sentences requiring incarceration at correctional facilities. Immigration reform laws which are currently a focus for legislators and politicians at the federal, state and local level also could materially adversely impact us."

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, I for one think we should definitely keep throwing people in jail if it helps the economy.  Freedom is expensive.