http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/us/politics/16czar.html
The New York Times has gone off the deep end. The title of this article is: Some Find Hope for a Shift in Drug Policy
I do not find hope, but instead fear (a theme in my relationship with President Obama since the start). Fear for the city of Seattle who has placed drug use as such a low priority under R. Gil Kerlikowske, and fear for our nation as he becomes the head of drug policy in this country.
As chief of the PD in Seattle Mr. Kerlikowske ignored a festival called "Hempfest". People lit up directly in front of police officers, a violation of the law and decency, but these officers were instructed to be "courteous and respectful". No arrests were made.
The hiring of Mr. Kerlikowske as drug czar gives some liberals hope that drug addicts will no longer be arrested and dogged by the police, but instead offered "treatment and intervention". We have moved from being a lawful society to one which specializes in hand-holding.
This follows the notion that drug addicts are victims of others and of disease. I was enrolled in a BSW (bachelors of social work) at Rutgers a few years ago. In my intro to Social Work class my professor (the director of the BSW program) called drug addicts "drug victims". I raised my hand and asked if these were a special kind of drug addict. If they were perhaps held down and shot up with heroin against their will, or if they were living in a bubble before using and were unaware of the pitfalls of drug use. The professor chided me for my insensitivity to these people we were "suffering" from drug use. Needless to say, I changed my major.
Selecting Mr. Kerlikowske as the enforcer and writer of drug policy in this country creates a liberal's dream of society. A society where no-one is responsible for their own actions, and the government is seen as a parent.
The New York Times, in a pathetic effort to be "fair and balanced" (as if they should even feign impartiality anymore) offers up some criticism of Kerlikowske towards the end. He arrested too many black people in ratio to the general population (so he stopped). Gang violence is up (no, really? drugs and gang violence are somehow related?). He was soft on rioters, and did not allow police to respond to them in a timely or effective manner. His PD was not involved enough in needle exchanges, and he wasn't supportive enough of a ballot imitative which would have placed drug possession at the bottom of the Department's priority list.
If this is our vision of the War on Drugs in the Obama era we might as well quit pretending and start drawing up business models for pot cafes, like in Amsterdam.
In college my school newspaper would put out a joke edition once a semester filled with outrageous stories. For a moment, I thought that perhaps this was something like that. But, alas, the New York Times only specialises in a new kind of journalism now, "Yes We Can journalism". Welcome to the New America - it's something like Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, only not so many trains. Not much else different though. It's a shame, I really liked the trains.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The Drug War has been a fiasco.
A failure.
An argument can well be made that the major problem with drugs is the drug war itself, and its destruction of lives, and freedoms, and its corruption.
It hasn't failed because enough money hasn't been spent on it.
Billions have been spent to incarcerate pot smokers and other drug users.
Countless homes have been invaded by hordes of policemen looking for evidence of drug use.
Americans must prove they are not drug users to gain employment, so much for the presumption of innocence.
Barrack Obama used cocaine.
Bill Clinton smoked Pot.
George Bush said he couldn't remember if he used cocaine or not, which means he used cocaine.
One of the things they have in common is none of them had to surrender thier personal liberties as a result.
None of their lives were ruined as a result of their usage.
William F. Buckley, the founder and editor of the National Review, as well as a prolific writer, smoked pot and called for its legalization.
Bill Buckley was a conservative who believed in individual liberties, and keeping the government out of our private lives.
The drug war is the modern day witch hunt.
Prohibition has always failed.
The only tangible result from prohibition is the enrichment of criminals.
In view of the immeasurable harm caused by the so-called drug war, a new direction is needed.
A direction that calls for more personal responsiblity and less government control.
I do not comprehend how any conservative could say that heavily armed police have the right to kick down my door, invade my home, and drag me off to prison in chains because I may be smoking a marijuana cigarette.
[i]Other than that, I really love your blog and your intelligent comments on Twitter.[/i]
Post a Comment