The past few days have seen a number of press releases from LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group of current and former LEOs who seek the end of the war on drugs, not because they believe that drug use is a fine thing, but because they believe drug prohibition has been a disastrous failure.
LEAP member and retired deputy sheriff MacKenzie Allen entered YouTube’s “Your Interview with the President” competition, where users submitted and voted on questions to be posed to President Barack Obama. He won, and here’s the asked and answered:
The caption of this video on Youtube is “Obama Says Legalizing Drugs is Worthy of Debate”>Obama Says Legalizing Drugs is Worthy of Debate.” This strikes me as overly optimistic, as I don’t hear President Obama saying that at all. Rather, his response is the same string of words that suggests we consider drug use a public health problem (like smoking, drunk driving and wearing seat belts!?!), but that the war itself go forward unabated.
The president does say that steering first-time, non-violent drug offenders into alternatives to incarceration is “worth exploring.” Worth exploring? Like forming a blue ribbon committee of current and former prosecutors to study for a decade whether putting a hundred thousand people in prison for possessing small quantities of drugs? Is this idea so novel, so wildly radical, that it gets a “worth considering” rather than a “you bet” from our president of hope and audacity?
Many of us, and this includes my old buddies at LEAP, believe that we’re making some headway in restoring rationality and proportionality to the war on drugs. But when a president, the most liberal we’re likely to have for the foreseeable future, refuses to offer any affirmative support to the notion that a half century of the war on drugs has failed to eradicate drugs from our society and solve all the problems attributed to it, then there’s little justification for optimism.
As much as I admire what LEAP is doing, and the LEOs who risk castigation by their “high and tight” brothers in blue, and despite the hope that arguments by police officers might be taken more seriously by those whose re-election depended on their being perceived as tough on crime, the answer to this question was notably unsupportive.
My guess is they can put away their reflective Ray-Bans, as the future doesn’t look too bright at all.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I can’t really fault the president for this non-answer; Obama is fiercely pragmatic, and knows there is no political support for ending the war on drugs (and lord knows he’s got enough other fronts to fight on).
But it’s disappointing that we as a society – and our political leaders – can’t engage this topic, as by any empirical analysis our continued prohibition of drugs is a massive public policy failure.
Obama routinely–and perhaps genuinely–welcomes debate on many topics, and he’s known for listening carefully to people who disagree with him. However, the rap against him, and I’ve come to believe it myself, is that no matter how much he listens, he doesn’t change his mind. For a man with such an intellectual past, he’s quite resistant to the give-and-take that’s necessary to sculpt great ideas. I wouldn’t be surprised if he called for a national debate on legalization, but I it would shock me if that debate changed his mind.
Ah, pragmatism. The means by which a person gets through the day without screwing too much up. At least we need not worry about electing anyone with a view toward accomplish anything that would interfere with pragmatism.
That’s the point about this LEAP approach. That no elected politician, from anarcho-syndicalist to neo-conservative would care what criminal defense lawyers have to say is a given. But when LEOs speak, perhaps they might listen. After all, LEOs are the foundation of all that’s good and right in the world.
You may be misunderstanding the point of debate. Debates are held to win an argument, not to be persuaded to the contrary position. More to the point, our President doesn’t need to heed the debate. He knows the arguments. He’s a very smart man.
When a smart man who knows all the arguments says we should consider discussing something, he’s saying that he’s not putting his political capital on the line to change things, but he’ll be more than happy to let others put theirs at risk and, should it pan out, ride their coattails in the manner of true leadership.
Sir, instead of legalizing drugs wouldn’t it be wiser to re-classify what exactly a drug is?
Example: By placing weed in the drug category, we look stupid due not including all forms of tobacco. Anyone that has ever took a hit of grandpa’s snuff, dipped, bit off a chunk of chaw, or smoked a cigarette, has experienced the worst feeling ever.
Despite blowing chunks and being dizzy for hours, the user only hurts themselves, unless one gets spit on, or inhales secondhand smoke that is.
Smoke a peace-pipe and one simply becomes passive, gets red eyes and the munchies. We are allowing other Taxpayers and Voters to make us all look stupid.
Due to all the money being made off weed from those in the war, you can bet that stupidity will rule and Pres. Obama will continue to be wishy-washy. Thanks.