R. Gil Kerlikowske, President Obama’s Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, spoke at the Foreign Affairs Symposium (FAS) to a respectful but mostly critical crowd in Mason Hall last night about the Obama Administration’s approach to drug policy.
Kerlikowske sought to portray the administration’s approach to drug control as progressive, noting changes in terminology, policy and funding priorities. He began by distancing himself from the term “War on Drugs,” a phrase that administrations for the past several decades have used to describe their drug policy.
“‘War on drugs’ is great on bumper stickers . . . but it doesn’t really hold up when you look at the complexity of the issue,” Kerlikowske said.
Kerlikowske instead argued that the Obama Administration has a more nuanced approach to fighting the abuse of legal and illegal drugs. He detailed several reforms, saying that the Administration is more dedicated to reducing demand for drugs, instead of merely attempting to cut off supply. He noted an increased focus on addiction treatment and prevention, as well as criminal justice reforms that focus more on rehabilitation than punishment. He also noted attempts to collaborate with other countries to fight international drug trafficking and production.
Reforms that Kerlikowske mentioned that the government is promoting include drug courts — courts that focus less on punishing drug addicts and dealers, and more on helping the defendants find a path to a better life. Many of these reforms are being developed as pilot programs in small cities. If successful, they can be replicated elsewhere. “Addiction is a disease, not some moral failure that people should just get over. It’s treatable and it’s preventable,” said Kerlikowske.
However for many students at the event, Kerlikowske’s modest reforms didn’t go far enough. Senior Ben Greenfield suggested that by giving business to murderous drug lords, US drug poli
scies cost more lives than they save. He also questioned the amount of money spent on drug enforcement.
“How much money are we spending to save how many lives?” he asked. Greenfield, who says he supports the decriminalization of marijuana, said that he wished that Kerlikowske had shown more willingness to question the broader focus of federal drug policy.
“He seemed to either miss the bigger ethical questions people were throwing at him, or was just sick of answering them,” Greenfield said.
“Ethically, people need to be able to make their own decisions regarding personal activities that do not directly harm others. It is not up to the government to decide what I find enjoyable, painful or destructive in my own life,” he added.
Kerlikowske, however, was adamant that “decriminalization is not an answer.” He noted that European countries like the Netherlands, which have tried decriminalization, are currently moving to close some of the hundreds of “drug cafes” that have opened in their country after being unhappy with the social consequences. He also disputed the findings of a study from Portugal showing that decriminalizing saved money and led to few social problems.
Kerlikowske noted that Portugal is a much smaller country, and it’s “all Catholic” and more demographically homogenous.
Sophomore Cary Glynn didn’t buy the distinction. “Isn’t there a contradiction between promoting the results of pilot programs in small American cities, and dismissing what happened in Portugal simply because Portugal is a small country?” he asked.
“[Portugal] doesn’t have one drug problem; we have several drug problems spread out across different regions,“ Kerlikowske responded.
Kerlikowske also noted that despite popular perceptions, the government had been remarkably successful at reducing drug use. In the 1970s, 14 percent of Americans between the ages of 12 and 18 reported regularly using marijuana. Now that figure is down to 7.3 percent. He also noted that Columbia — the world’s largest cocaine exporting country — had drastically cut its cocaine exports over the past 15 years with significant American assistance. Kerlikowske suggested that these gains would be reversed if drugs were legalized.
“When drugs are made legal and more available, they are more widely used and more widely abused,” he said. He also noted that three times as many Americans use tobacco as marijuana, and eight times as many use alcohol.
This prompted sophomore John Doldo to wonder why the government wasn’t seeking to ban those substances.
Kerlikowske noted that while these substances certainly could be abused, they were ingrained in American culture. “We don’t need one more [ban].”
In discussing alternatives to decriminalization, Kerlikowske again returned to programs that provide alternatives to jail and that focus on rehabilitation and economic self-sufficiency.
“We can’t arrest our way out of the drug problem,” he said.
For sophomore Jacob Grunberger, this sounded a lot like decriminalization. Grunberger wished that the government would take the additional step of fully decriminalizing marijuana. “Creating a black market for marijuana is part of the problem,” he said, noting that marijuana criminalization bloats prison populations and fuels money to an international network of drug dealers and smugglers.
Grunberger also said that poverty and lack of education in poor communities exacerbate these problems. “There are too many communities where the only option available is to become a drug dealer,” he added.
Kerlikowske smiled when asked after the event if most groups he speaks to tend to oppose his policies. “Certainly not when I go to a community that’s been affected by drug abuse,” he said. “When I go to places like East Baltimore, there are very few people there advocating drug decriminalization.”
