Drug Policy

Drug Policy and the Obama Administration: A Reason Debate

Drug Policy Alliance's Ethan Nadelmann and Drug Policy Institute's Kevin Sabet take on drug policy and the 2012 election.


This week, Drug Policy Institute's Kevin Sabet and Drug Policy Alliance's Ethan Nadelmann debate marijuana politics.

Today's question concerns the Obama administration's drug policy record and the choice facing American voters in this year's presidential election. Previously, Sabet and Nadelmann debated state marijuana initiatives and marijuana legalization and the nanny state.

How does the Obama administration's drug policy and enforcement stack up against those of other administrations? What changes should the U.S.A. pursue after the November election?

Kevin Sabet:

Kevin Sabet

First, an important note about the question of drug incarceration is that the share (both percentage and number) of drug offenders in state prisons has fallen over the past 12 years or so. Are there still too many people in prison? Yes. But most importantly, people are not jailed or imprisoned for marijuana use. The Obama Administration has gone after violators of medical marijuana laws—suppliers, growers, and traffickers—with vigor. This should give little ease to those who think the president will look the other way if Washington, Colorado, or Oregon legalizes marijuana outright in November.

The Obama Administration, which I was proud to serve in, sought to turn the idea of drug addiction on its head: rather than a moral choice reflecting bad character, drug use and addiction should be seen as a health and safety issue, best tackled by both the public health and criminal justice system. Drug use is a complex bio-behavioral disorder—a disease of the brain, not the elbow, as Herb Kleber once said. That means that drug addiction is unlike other health conditions. Though diabetes is also chronic disease, it rarely causes crime, tears apart families, or causes a hazard on the road.

If you understand that, you understand why we pursued practical things that combined health and safety objectives: drug courts which refer offenders to treatment instead of incarceration; drug market interventions that reduce the most violent aspects of drug dealing; coerced abstinence that implements swift but modest sanctions for drug use in the community corrections system; drug prevention community coalitions that bring together teachers with police, parents with businesspeople; medical school curricula that teach current and future doctors how to properly prescribe pharmaceutical drugs and watch out for abuse; brief interventions that detect drug use in a hospital setting before it manifests itself as an addiction in the local precinct; smart re-entry policies that don't penalize recovering addicts by using a past criminal record against them when they try to get a job or access education and housing benefits—the list can go on. We showed that you don't have to make a choice between enforcement-centered prohibition and risky legalization—there are plenty of ways to make our policies work much better. I hope whomever is elected in November continues down this path of reform. I'm confident that both candidates will.

Kevin A. Sabet, PhD, is Director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida. He served as a senior advisor in the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2011.

Ethan Nadelman:

Ethan Nadelmann

I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the extent to which President Obama initially made good on the three principal drug policy reform commitments he made during his 2008 campaign: to reform the draconian crack cocaine mandatory minimum penalties; to allow federal funding for needle exchange programs to reduce HIV/AIDS; and to allows states greater latitude in regulating medical marijuana.

Those initiatives were followed, however, by numerous steps backwards. The Obama administration allowed House Republicans to re-institute the ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs, and it has allowed federal prosecutors to go after medical marijuana providers operating entirely legally and transparently under state and local law. The lawsuit filed today by the City Of Oakland against the federal government's assault on medical marijuana would not have been necessary if Obama had continued to make good on his initial campaign commitment.

More broadly, the Obama administration's drug policies have not differed all that much from its predecessors, even if the rhetoric has softened. Law enforcement and interdiction efforts still receive much more funding than non-coercive efforts to reduce drug misuse, notwithstanding substantial evidence that the latter is more effective—and cost-effective—than the former. Drug law violators make up roughly half the federal prison population. Drug war politics still routinely trump science, as evidenced by ongoing efforts to impede research on the medical benefits of marijuana, or to support the sorts of research on heroin maintenance programs and safe injection facilities that have produced such positive results outside the U.S. "Treatment" programs that punish people for using drugs are ideologically preferred to those that reduce drug misuse without threatening or punishing people.

U.S. international drug control policy has also changed little—although credit must be given to a subtle but important shift in rhetoric this past spring. The Obama administration's responses to the 2009 Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy and the 2011 Global Drug Policy Commission—both of which were chaired by distinguished former presidents and called for major reforms in global drug policy—were intellectually shallow and morally shameful. But when Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina, and other Latin American leaders upped the ante by backing the recommendations of the commissions, including its call to "break the taboo" on full consideration of all drug policy options, President Obama and Vice President Biden both publicly acknowledged that legalization was a "legitimate subject of debate." Obama also told Latin American leaders that the United States was willing to consider where U.S. international drug policies might be doing more harm than good. Modest as these rhetorical shifts were, they have provided an opening for a more robust debate on alternatives to failed prohibitionist policies in the Americas.

As for what comes after the election, much depends on who is in the White House and who controls each house of Congress. Romney's statements and rhetoric on drug policy have been dreadful; he can't even bring himself to acknowledge that marijuana might be medically beneficial for a small number of people. And Republicans in Congress have been remarkably lame, apart from an occasional willingness to cut funding for ineffective drug war programs. Even their proclaimed states' rights principles are readily abandoned whenever the subject is medical marijuana. Of course it would be foolish to count on any major transformation even if the Democrats take it all. An improvement, yes. A transformation, no.

What I'm most curious about is the potential for marijuana policy to change. The Obama campaign is clearly treading cautiously in Colorado, a swing state where likely voters appear evenly split on whether or not to support a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana. A similar initiative, in Washington State, has a real chance of winning. A majority of Democrats, independents, and people aged 18-50 nationwide now favor legalizing marijuana. The principal opposition comes primarily from Republicans, conservatives, and Americans over age 65. I don't want to be so confident as to say it's only a matter of time before public support for ending marijuana prohibition overwhelms the entrenched interests and fears that sustain it, but the momentum clearly favors reform. I doubt the leadership will come from Washington, regardless of who's sitting in the Oval Office, but I'd bet on a second-term Obama being less resistant than a first term Romney.

Ethan Nadelmann is Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance.

Kevin Sabet responds:

It is clear to anyone who fairly looks at the Obama record on drugs that he made some major improvements to our nation's drug policy. It may not be the changes that Ethan and the legalization movement may have wanted, but for people in the fields of prevention, treatment, and recovery, things like increasing support for community-based prevention, advocating for smart overdose prevention and medication-assisted treatment, and raising the profile of recovery have been a big deal. The biggest deal, of course, was the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which signaled the most significant step towards closing the treatment gap we have seen in more than 30 years. And legalization groups might not like drug courts or HOPE-style programs, which keep offenders with a drug problem accountable by employing carrots and sticks to achieve successful treatment outcomes, but they certainly work to reduce costs and save lives. Sadly, any reforms to the badly broken criminal justice system short of full-scale legalization are irrelevant for ideologues.

As Ethan well knows, no drug czar can simply take money from enforcement and put it into treatment. That is not how the drug budget works. Rather, you have to work with departments themselves to come up with innovative ways to maximize effectiveness. A case in point is how the Obama Administration leveraged dollars from national law enforcement task forces to increase prevention-enforcement partnerships.

As Ethan might not know, marijuana's individual components—as called for by the Institute of Medicine and American Medical Association—are being widely studied by the National Institutes of Health and private industry. One marijuana-based mouth spray, which delivers a standardized dose of two of active ingredients found in marijuana, is in late stage clinical trials in the U.S. and may likely be approved very soon. Could the process for obtaining marijuana and increasing incentives for research be improved? Most certainly. But, once again, this is very different from allowing smoked, raw, non-standardized marijuana to be sold on the grey market by people with no medical background, as is the case now in many states. Even the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) acknowledges that the medical marijuana system is tantamount to legalization. It is no wonder that every major medical association has come out against raw, smoked marijuana by voter referenda as opposed to the idea of taking marijuana's components and delivering them in a safe way through a pharmacy. Since we don't smoke opium to get the effects of morphine, why should we smoke marijuana to receive its therapeutic effects?

I have to hand it to the legalization groups for their relentless, mega million- dollar campaigns to radically change drug policy. Their extreme policies have been nicely coated in catchphrases like "public health," "common sense," and "human rights." They have indeed convinced many that current policy is so bad it cannot be reformed, and that the only alternative is legalization. Of course, we know that there are plenty of things we can and should do before we institute a policy that will result in greater addiction, crime (legal alcohol is the reason for 1 million more arrests a year than all illegal drugs combined, and the black/grey market for tobacco under today's high cigarette tax regime is thriving), illness, and suffering.

I'm hoping that whomever is elected next month will not be duped into believing that our only choices are enforcement-heavy prohibition or legalization. We can do much better than either.

NEXT: Eight Months in Jail for Anti-Police T-Shirt

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. this is very different from allowing smoked, raw, non-standardized marijuana to be sold on the grey market by people with no medical background, as is the case now in many states.

    This is what progressives actually believe.

  2. Since we don’t smoke opium to get the effects of morphine, why should we smoke marijuana to receive its therapeutic effects?

    Why does Kevin hate 19th Century Chinamen? “We” don’t smoke opium because it is much bulkier than Heroin and not distributed in a highly restrictive manner in limited quantities by state-licensed rent seekers.

    1. Some of us just smoke opium.

    2. Since we don’t smoke opium to get the effects of morphine, why should we smoke marijuana to receive its therapeutic effects?

      Is he suggesting that people inject themselves with marijuana? Or if he means ingested morphine, is he saying that pot should only be available in brownie form? If so, would that mean we’d see ads in Marvel Comics showing Iron Man apprehending criminals by taking advantage of their weakness for delicious Hostess Marijuana Cakes?

  3. Did you guys see the Frontline about Obama’s and Romney’s back stories? They spent at least ten minutes talking about Obama and the Choom Gang. What a fucking hypocrite.

    1. Now we’re back in the fight
      We’re back on the train, hey
      Oh, back on the choom gang

  4. “But most importantly, people are not jailed or imprisoned for marijuana use.”

    This guy just lost ALL credibility.

    1. what IS true is that

      1) marijuana use is (in all jurisdictions i am aware of)… not illegal

      POSSESSION is… use is not. a not unsubtle distinction

      2) you have to work hard to get jail (in most cases prison is impossible, since it only applies to felonies) time for personal possession amounts of mj in most jurisdictions. VERY hard.

      most people in jail for MJ offenses involve either probation violation, mass quantities, sales offenses, grows, etc.

      mere possession – while it is not true to say never – HARDLY ever is going to get you jail time

      1. You’ll still have a criminal record, and all that goes with it. As history has shown, it can wind up being a death sentence, putting people in the company of real criminals.

        1. The difference between “possession” and “use” is academic. You cannot use it unless you possess it.

  5. Drug use is a complex bio-behavioral disorder?a disease of the brain, not the elbow, as Herb Kleber once said.

    Who knew that drinking beer was a disease?

    1. saying drug use is a DISorder is ridiculous.

      it doesn’t even make sense. wtf is this guy talking about ?

  6. Well fuck me, (Dr.?) Kevin Sabet just diagnosed me as having a mental disorder.

    Whoopdy fucking doo.

  7. Fuck this “debate,” neither side has made anything approaching an appeal to freedom. Fuck off statists.

  8. “Though diabetes is also chronic disease, it rarely causes crime, tears apart families, or causes a hazard on the road”

    that would be because it ain’t illegal, dumbass. If it was, and I were diabetic I might have to pop a cap yo ass for dat butterfinger.

  9. I cannot tell which is more infuriating, declaring smoking grass a criminal activity, or a mental disease.

    1. the former is at least technically accurate, if stupid as fuck. iow, the legislature can and does declare (possessing it btw, not smoking ) it a criminal activity. as stupid as that is.

      however, “declaring “it a mental disease doesn’t make it so. they can declare it a fucking ham sandwich. again, doesn’t make it so. i realize psychology is a soft science (to put it mildly), but even the softest version of psychology doesn’t allow for calling the smoking of MJ to be a DISEASE. that’s like saying eating breakfast is a disease. it doesn’t even make sense

      1. allow for calling the smoking of MJ to be a DISEASE

        Count on this if it is legalized, it’s like a crony wet dream. It is working out to the tune of billions for alcohol.

        And I call bullshit, diseases are not self inflicted. It is an insult to someone who actually has a disease that they can only wish they could get rid of if they stopped willingly putting something into their bloodstream.

        Biggest bunch of bullshit ever perpetrated onto mankind until Al Gore was born and discovered snake oil in the climate changing.

  10. What exactly is the purpose of putting a pair of Obama-fluffers on Reason.com to try to outdo each other at making excuses for Obama’s continuation of the drug war? How about getting either of these useless apparatchiki to actually DEBATE the drug war with someone who’s actually trying to end the drug war?


    1. I disagree with you John C.

      These two clearly want to move in a new direction in the drug war. Under their brave leadership I’m quite sure we could get to sane drug policies in about another 50 years.

    2. Look, the great majority of people don’t put as high a value on individual liberty as do radical libertarians. However, they do have differences re drug policies. Since radical libertarians won’t be the people to decide these issues, aren’t you interested in what factors other people consider and how much weight they put on them in determining what drug policies people should live under? If they’re not about to engage you on your terms, wouldn’t you be interested in trying to influence them on theirs?

  11. OMG, I am reading the pre-debate comments at the Fluffhost. Karl Rove!, Koch Brothers! Big Oil! Fox News! BOOOSSSHHH!!!! Haven’t they came up with anything new in the past couple of years? And they are all so stoked that the genius Biden is going to just tear apart Ryan and then the election will be all over. Good grief, all of these people honestly sound like they are 8 years old.

    1. Reading comments on the huffpo withers the brain. Stop doing it.

  12. I’m gonna put the Over/Under on Biden saying “literally” at 16.

    1. Expectations are low for Biden so he’ll probably do fine. They will have him prepped out the wazoo and he will have 5 or 6 sound bites to use that people can cheer or that will cause them to jeer Ryan.

      All he has to do is say Ryan might want to cut a few dollars from any program at all, let alone Medicare or Soc. Sec. and he will have the audience booing.

      I predict Biden will also play the senior statesman card and call Ryan young man.

    2. I dunno, but they are getting all swoony and starry eyed about him over at the Fluff, like he is their true savior now that the big O layed a giant crap egg at the last debate. Honestly, these people really do sound like they are elementary school children, and not very bright ones at that, every one of them.

      Biteme is the great white hope! Great white dope maybe…

  13. Kevin Sabet, you are one filthy evil scum bag.

  14. I really like where that is going. Wow.


  15. Consider INVESTING in the full legalization movement with stock symbol MJNA (Medical Marijuana Inc). With the most recent October polls surging in Washington (24 point lead) and Colorado (10 point lead), ALL with majority support, and with WA GOP US Senate Candidate Michael Baumgartner’s recent announcement of official support for I-502, there’s no telling where this will go in November. Just look at what happened in the lead up to Prop19 in 2010.

  16. We are Americans..we live in a free country…this is what we have been told since birth.

    The prohibition of marijuana is a farce. It is the few telling the many what they may and may not do. We are a free people. It is time to start living the way our forefathers intended.

    Law enforcement needs to re-direct its focus on crime…to those that are REAL crimes.

    I was in Federal Prison for 5 years for a marijuana offense. No, it was not for simple possession. I was arrested aboard a Lockheed PV2 in Marianna, Florida…charged and convicted for conspiracy to import and distribute 12,000 pounds of marijuana.

    At the time, I really had no idea what I had gotten myself into…mine was an offense involving pot…the thought never occurred to me that I may actually spend years in prison for that ‘indiscretion.’

    As my years in prison rolled by, what I did see were armed bank robbers, coming and going…while I still sat there for marijuana. Most of the bank robbers only spent 17 to 24 months. But, I and my fellow ‘drug offenders,’…we stayed for YEARS.

    I wrote about the escapades that led to my incarceration. I admit, I had a great time. No one was injured, no one was killed, firearms were not involved…there were no victims.

    We were Americans…doing what Americans do best…living free.

    Truly, it is time for this lunacy to end…it never should have begun.

    My book: Shoulda Robbed a Bank
    It is about living free.

  17. I think the Obama’s need to be drug tested, Good Ole Berry was a known crack head and drug dealer in his college days. I bet he’ll test positive too. He should be the first arrested.
    The war on drug is a joke, weed(POT) is not a drug, it’s a plant. It is healthy and beneficial to smoke it.Cigarettes wouldn’t cause cancer if the government didn’t put 1,400 chemicals in them that do. Plants do not cause cancer, but the American government does. Why is it that no one ever got cancer until they got a vaccine shot? Check it out, it’s loaded with carcinogenics, the mercury attacked the brain that causes Autism among other disabilities.I’m sick and tired of being the governments lab rat!
    You want a war? Let’s have one on the men who have committed Treason against the constitution and the citizens of this great nation!

  18. enjoyed every bit of your post keep up the amazing work continue the good work

  19. great delivery topic really great this really answered my problem

  20. very neat post much thanks great articles lovely just what i was searching for

  21. i belive your content is high quality this inspiring me i belive your content is high quality

  22. wonderful post you got a nice blog i have some ideas from this thanks

  23. thanks a lot for the blog perfectly quality content respect to post author

  24. Nice discussion here, you are doing a great job. i was looking for this information. i found it on your page it’s really amazing.

  25. Nice discussion here, you are doing a great job. i was looking for this information. i found it on your page it’s really amazing.

  26. Amazing article! I high appreciate this post. It’s hard to find the good from the bad sometimes, but I think you’ve nailed it! Would you mind updating your blog with more information!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.