Drug Policy

Obama Drug Policy: No Surprises, Lots of Alarms

|

Drug reform, my eye!

Over at Cato-at-Liberty, David Boaz expresses disappointment if not quite surprise that the Obama administration has not heeded his advice in formulating its shiny new drug policy. Excerpt:

It involves more central planning — "the creation of a community-based national prevention system" – more taxpayers' money — "an expanded array of intervention-oriented treatment programs" — and more nannyism — "a push to screen patients early for signs of substance abuse, even during routine appointments, and the expansion of prescription-drug monitoring programs." And don't forget the ever-popular, ever-futile "more international cooperation in disrupting the flow of drugs and money."

As it happens, I had a chance to meet with drug czar Gil Kerlikowske and his top aides last year, as part of a series of outreach meetings as the new team planned its strategy. It doesn't look like my advice was taken. Of course, I probably didn't help my case by noting that our last three presidents have acknowledged using illegal drugs, and it is just incomprehensible to me how they can morally justify arresting other people for doing the same thing they did. Do they think that they would have been better off if they had been arrested and incarcerated for their youthful drug use? Do they think the country would have been better off if they had been arrested and incarcerated? If not, how do they justify punishing others? […]

I must admit, though, that the other think tank analysts at the meeting, both liberal and conservative, offered the sorts of proposals for more social workers and more transition programs and more doctors that seem to have ended up in the "new" proposal. Perhaps I should have come up with a couple of proposals that would have cost more money rather than less.

Whole thing, including Cato's eminently sensible policy recommendations, here. I wrote about Obama's drug hypocrisy a few days back. Boaz's Reason archive here.

NEXT: More on Tonya Craft Acquittal: 'It Wasn't a Victory'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It involves more central planning ? “the creation of a community-based national prevention system” ? more taxpayers’ money ? “an expanded array of intervention-oriented treatment programs” ? and more nannyism ? “a push to screen patients early for signs of substance abuse, even during routine appointments, and the expansion of prescription-drug monitoring programs.” And don’t forget the ever-popular, ever-futile “more international cooperation in disrupting the flow of drugs and money.”

    And it’s all going to be deficit neutral!

    That’s change we can believe in.

    1. Chains we can believe in

      1. Chains we can be sleeved in.

  2. ‘And don’t forget the ever-popular, ever-futile “more international cooperation in disrupting the flow of drugs and money.”‘

    support our troops, buy Northern Alliance Heroin!

  3. “Wow, dude, you just took the most acid I ever seen anybody take in my entire life, man.”

    “LED ZEPPELIN”

  4. “a push to screen patients early for signs of substance abuse, even during routine appointments, and the expansion of prescription-drug monitoring programs.”

    I’ve been telling my liberal friends this was going to happen & they always tell me I’m paranoid. Once society is responsible for paying for everybody’s healthcare. It becomes society’s buisness what one puts in his/her own body. They are going to make health providers into police. It won’t be that long before routine mandatory drug tests will be in place.

    1. “I’ve been telling my liberal friends this was going to happen ..Once society is responsible for paying for everybody’s healthcare. It becomes society’s buisness what one puts in his/her own body.”

      It seems so clear to us that this line of reasoning would be used to destroy freedom. There are various thought models that could have been used to predict this would happen. It so happens that some of the wackiest ex-satanists preachers had no trobule predicting this type of thing.

      Does that mean that the wackiest ex-satanist illuminati preachers actually have better thought models for how the universe works than average democrats and republicans who are actually surprised by these type of current events?

      1. Ex- Satanist Illuminati preachers are paranoid to begin with & always expect the worst case scenario. Sooner or later they have to be right about something.

        Government drug testing should be easily forseeable to anyone who was paying attention to the healthcare debate. If the government is feel brave enough to attack salt & calorie consumption. With the arguement that individuals aren’t smart enough to do it themselves. You would have to be niave to believe the government would not try regulate every part of your life. The people that don’t see this are the people that believe that the government is their friend. They think the government is there to help them, not enslave them.

        1. Thousands of nuclear attacks would be the worst scenario.

          This isn’t the worst scenario.

          Many of the people considered conspiracy nuts thought that the health care bill was a way for the elite to get more little people into the system, so that the government would then have new ways to justify intrusion into the lives of the little people.

          The non-conspiracy theorist folks who were against the health care reform bill think that it will just cost too much money.

  5. “Once society is responsible for paying for everybody’s healthcare. It becomes society’s buisness what one puts in his/her own body. ”

    ^this times infinity.

    That was easily the best reason to argue against the healthcare bill.

    1. “That was easily the best reason to argue against the healthcare bill.”

      but to buy this line of reasoning would make you a conspiracy nut, and conspiracies are the cancer of our society…and Moynihan worries that they are stealing our shared history and they are “anti-science”.

      Not appearing racist is the MOST important thing.

      1. 54 words and not one denunciation of slavery.

        0/54 = racist

      2. True. I’m keeping quiet about the Jews and the niggers who run this country.

  6. a push to screen patients early for signs of substance abuse, even during routine appointments, and the expansion of prescription-drug monitoring programs

    This isn’t nannyism, it’s full on totalitarian police-state. What’s the difference between this and random testing of the population?

    1. Very little. Doctors have really turned into totalitarian fucks. I already tell my doctor to fuck off when she asks me if I drink smoke or own guns. If I have a drinking problem, I will come to her about it. How long before they strip away confidentiality and give doctors a duty to turn you in for drug use?

      They already do that in cases of child abuse. Why would drug use be that big of a step?

      1. Why would you drink smoke, anyway?

  7. It doesn’t look like my advice was taken. Of course, I probably didn’t help my case by noting that our last three presidents have acknowledged using illegal drugs, and it is just incomprehensible to me how they can morally justify arresting other people for doing the same thing they did.

    It’s because Davod Boaz doesn’t understand power… real political power.

    It’s no surprise to me that Obama would use any attempt to “reform drug policy” as a chance to create thousands of new micro federal programs.

    When real drug reform means less government, how did anyone really think this thing was going to turn out?

  8. David Boaz doesn’t understand how politicians can morally justify their actions.

    Politicians realize that attacking a CIA cash cow is not a good way to stay alive…put that in your moral calculation morons.

  9. Political Power and Patronage is the only thing more addictive than heroin

  10. “a push to screen patients early for signs of substance abuse, even during routine appointments, and the expansion of prescription-drug monitoring programs.”

    Dammitsomuch.

    My mom has a legitimate need for chronic pain care. Unfortunately, to this point, she’s getting nothing but what amounts to placebo care. All because of government nannyism. And now Obama’s going to make it worse. I’m going to go bang my head against the wall for a while (out of frustration, not surprise)

  11. “a push to screen patients early for signs of substance abuse, even during routine appointments, and the expansion of prescription-drug monitoring programs.”

    Obama’s National Drug Policy

    “At least we can let doctors know ? and your mom know ? that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.” ”

    Obama at a Town Hall Meeting on Health Care Reform June 2009

    I guess he was lying about that to.

    1. He meant Advil, not real painkillers! Advil can solve anything! And it’s cheap and over the counter!*

      * In order to prevent Ibuprofen overdoses, this will no longer be the case in the long term, I’m sure.

      1. Not for long…

        1. Cigarettes
        2. Trans fats
        3. Psuedoephedrine
        4. Advil/Ibuprofin.

  12. Drug madness permeates federal government policy at all levels. Now that the drug czar wants to focus more on prescription drugs, perhaps he should begin with the National Institutes of Health, which wants to perform experiments on black people in Washington, DC with the highly toxic chemotherapy known as HAART. See my piece in the Washington Times recently:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..e-disease/
    And…..
    Excellent new report on the anomalies from HIV=AIDS theory and the outright lies of those who continue to suppress dissent from the madness…by Liam Scheff, an independent investigative journalist who has done excellent work on The HIV=AIDS Industry for years, just published online today (May 12, 2010):
    “Does AIDS Cause HIV?”
    http://www.omsj.org/blogs/does-aids-cause-hiv
    Written simply enough that maybe even Il Duce Fauci and his corps of tens of thousands of taxpayer-funded HIV-AIDS “researchers” and prescription drug peddlers can understand it. Latest estimate of the total spent on HIV=AIDS over the past 25 years: someplace between $200 and $300 billion. Latest estimate of the annual sales of the toxic chemotherapy labeled with the benign-sounding euphemistic acronymn, “HAART”: over $10 billion. Does that give you a clue why we call it “The HIV=AIDS Industry”?
    I am a strong proponent of legalization of all pyschoactives, and wrote an angry piece at Reason.com last year (March 27, 2009, see my archive in the Reason contributors list) when Obama laughed at legalization advocates; but it’s a shame that marijuana legalization proponents use a claim that “AIDS patients” will suffer with cannabis. AIDS is NOT a disease. Real diseases, including some caused by immune deficiency, can cause pain, and medical marijuana can be helpful. But some of us who have studied the mysterious retrovirus and the amorphous syndrome are appalled when lies about AIDS are used to justify ending lies about marijuana.
    [YES, THIS IS A LITTLE OFF TOPIC. AND TO THE NAZIS AT THE HIV=AIDS INDUSTRY WHO ENGAGE IN CHARACTER ASSASSINATION…SAVE YOUR BREATH. SOME OF US WON’T BE SILENCED BY YOUR TATICS.]

    1. [YES, THIS IS A LITTLE OFF TOPIC. AND TO THE NAZIS AT THE HIV=AIDS INDUSTRY WHO ENGAGE IN CHARACTER ASSASSINATION…SAVE YOUR BREATH. SOME OF US WON’T BE SILENCED BY YOUR TATICS.]

      Is Terry Michael actually Lonewacko?

      1. “John” illustrates the character assassination point perfectly, with “Lonewacko”

    2. typo above, re: “AIDS patients” will suffer with cannabis”. Should, of course, have read “withOUT cannabis.”

    3. Wow. Speaking of medication… you need to take yours. You appear to have a deep need for it. And I’m not talking about painkillers here.

      1. Previous two posts illustrate the character assassination point perfectly. Show me what you have read and written on HIV=AIDS. I have intensely researched it for 3 years. We “denialists” aren’t allowed to have a mainstream media conversation about the subject, so we have to use guerilla tactics to introduce the dissent to clueless people like “john” and “Andrew S”. See the 7,700 words of journalism I committed on the subject:
        http://www.terrymichael.net/Ht…..eport.html

        1. “HIV=AIDS”

          No one has said HIV EQUALS AIDS. That’s just stupid.

        2. http://www.aidstruth.org/
          http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=328

          HIV/AIDS denialism is a pseudoscience like the Vaccines = Autism pseudoscience. Every single argument “in favor” of it is the same, and it’s always ridiculous and unscientific. It relies not on science, but on hyperbole and changing the argument.

          1. “Sciencebasedmedicine” is part of the HIV-AIDS Industry’s well-oiled attack machine. They use terms like “denialism” in an outrageous attempt to associate with Holocaust denialists the thousands of us in the worldwide community of HIV=AIDS dissenters and re-thinkers. Note how “denialism” is now being used to tar anyone with questions about “global warming.” And yes, Enough About Palin, the whole theory of the HIV=AIDS Industry is that immune deficiency syndrome is caused by a single pathogen they have labeled “HIV.”

            1. Another classic tactic is, rather than talking about the actual arguments, to say “they hate us! They’re just trying to marginalize us!” and let that suffice as an argument to draw people to your side.

              Seriously. Is there a playbook that you guys use for this? Do you share that with the anti-vaccine activists?

              1. This will be my last word on this for this posting. If you want to disabuse yourself of the junk, politicized science concocted by the ethically challenged Robert Gallo (he was the subject of three major ethics investigations), then you must do the reading. I’m 62 and never knew there was any dissent until three years ago, when a posting at Hit & Run by Brian Doherty clued me to it. Since then: 16 books, scores of medical and science journal articles, etc. All I can do is recommend extensive reading to anyone who is interested in de-bunking a false religion. The biology and epidemiology are not simple; it takes effort to understand where science went tragically wrong in coming up with a single pathogen theory for a multi-factorial syndrome. I would suggest you read my (long, 7,700 words) attempt, as a journalist, to summarize the dissent….
                http://www.terrymichael.net/Ht…..eport.html
                I am a serious libertarian, with a long career in journalism, politics, education and political commentary. I am not accustomed to accepting the kind of authoritarianism the HIV=AIDS Industry attempts to enforce.
                While you’re at it, ask people like the previous commenter what serious reading they have done on the subject–probably news articles by the chief propagandizers for HIV=AIDS, like Dr. Larry Altman and Donald G. McNeil, Jr. at The New Yorks Times.

                1. 7,700 words of pseudoscience is still pseudoscience.

                  1. Thank you, my eponymous fellow commenter.

  13. “Lonewacko”….”John” illustrates the character assassination point perfectly.

  14. I love that Radiohead song.

  15. push to screen patients early for signs of substance abuse, even during routine appointments,

    Screening, of course, means urine, blood or hair testing.

    A positive result may or may not be protected by patient privacy laws, as it generally has nothing to do with medical treatment.

    Believe it or not, some states already require drug testing of pregnant women, and there has been some controversy over whether positive results have to be reported to child welfare. The foot is already in the door. Expect the jackboot to kick the door down altogether soon.

    1. And they already do it in cases of suspected child abuse. If a doctor suspects that a child he is treating is being abused, he must report it to the police, medical privacy laws be damned.

    2. Do you guys remember in the late 90’s/early 2000’s when the Feds were pushing ‘caregivers’ to determine if firearms were in the home?

      Oh how I had fun with that one when my daughter was born.

      1. If you test positive for illegal/non-prescribed drugs there won’t be firearms in the home for long.”Drug addicts” are prohibited persons under the GCA of 1968 and most state laws.

      2. They still ask about unsecured firearms in the home. My ex-GF is a CPS investigator and they follow up on paitent-parent reports to docs.I should say that she goes on “unsecured firearms in the home” calls all the time and when I asked if the referrers were pediatricians she said: “a lot…. I’m not allowed to talk about it”.

        1. my insurance company asked about the firearms in the home as part of their health screening questionnaire. and this is our POLICE health insurance plan. lol.

  16. Doctors in Arizona test you in a variety of scenarios. If say, you are on valium, they will check to see if valium is in your system. If it isn’t, they will assume that you are selling them and drop you as a patient.

    If you are on painkillers, they will drug test you to see if there are other drugs present.

    1. BTW, that would be Drs. Iqbal, in Kingman, Arizona.

  17. Historic statewide initiative in California to legalize, control, and tax cannabis. Help build national support for the movement. Sign up on the website, join the campaign! taxcannabis.org

  18. Drug test needs to be spent and the politician of struggle against drugs needs to be changed, for now changes are visible only in increase of taxes for struggle against drugs

  19. Drug test needs to be spent and the politician of struggle against drugs needs to be changed, for now changes are visible only in increase of taxes for struggle against drugs

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.