The "War on Drugs," like the "War on Terror," doesn't work.

Here is the perfect issue for soon-to-be President Obama, to shine. Here is the perfect issue to display his "change we can believe in."

I certainly don't have all the answers, but I do know "the war on drugs" has been going on for over a hundred years, and if you show me the person who believes we're "winning," you'll be showing me the stupidest person on earth.

Just like "the war on terror" can't be won with aircarft carriers and "smart rockets," the "war on drugs," can't be won by more arrests and more prisons.

The "war on terror" can be won by cooperative, clandestine, detective, and intelligence efforts. The "war on drugs" can be won by removing it from the criminal justice system, and turning it over to the education, medical, (physical and mental)  and rehabilitation systems.

I know it's more complicated than that, but a more benign, helpful approach would reap much greater benefits to our country than a punative, criminal approach.

NY, the assumption you make would be a valid one, if the basic underpinning of the DrugWar wasn't one of racism to begin with, but rationality. Unfortunately, drug prohibition never, ever was based on anything but viciously applied stereotypes (cocaine made Blacks become unstoppable rapists of the flower White womanhood; Mexicans became machete-wielding dervishes after toking 'mair-ee-wanna'; the 'Yellow Peril' sought to destroy the White race through luring White women into opium dens, etc. that kinda crap.)

And it truly was that simple before drug prohibition, as the individual was expected to exercise some degree of sensibility in using what they could purchase, prescription-free, off-the-shelf, at their local 'drug store'...as anyone could prior to 1914 and the Harrison Narcotics Act.

No drive by shootings, no turf wars, no huge population of incarcerated minorities, no vast sums (some say a trillion dollars over 40 years)  spent in the fiscal, social, and moral equivalent of Sisyphus rolling a boulder up a mountain all day just to see it roll back down and have to start over. No destabilized borders thanks to the illegal drug trade turning Mexican border towns into shooting galleries. No 'terrist' groups being funded courtesy of that same trade.

I could go on, but it should be obvious that since drug prohibition is such a botch, you have to ask just why it's been allowed to continue for so long...and the only answer is that somebody way up the political food chain is benefiting.

as well, it gives politicians of all stripes the opportunity to appear "tough on crime", by supporting draconian statutes, that will only be enforced on those unable to afford individual competent counsel.

having the example of the volstead act's unintended consequences, no rational person would want a repeat. this, of course, is exactly what the "war on drugs" is. it must therefore be concluded that the end result was/is intentional; the funneling of huge sums of taxpayer dollars to public and private entities, all in the name of the public welfare.

I totally the acknowledge the detrimental effects of drug and alcohol abuse on society (again abuse, not simple use, which has little to no detrimental effect imo).  They are real.  But bottom line, those detrimental effects are there whether it is legal or illegal, and when it is illegal we have additional detrimental effects on society....high unsustainable prison populations, broken families, increased police corruption, poisoning of South American coca fields...and not to mention the loss of liberty, which I view as the most important.

Drugs, overloaded jails and a skewed justice system are of lesser priority in a country that is fall apart financial, has the most expensive health care in the world that reaches decreasing numbers of citizens and is involved in two remote and costly wars.

Ramstad has identified himself as a recovering alcoholic, having been sober since 1981; he is Patrick J. Kennedy's AA sponsor. Ramstad's sister, Sheryl Ramstad-Hvass, is currently a Tax Court judge in Minnesota.

On February 25, 2008 it was announced that Ramstad had been elected to the board of directors of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University [11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Ramstad

It looks like he's an "old timer" by AA standards, and he knows about recovery.  I find this to be a really, really good sign.  In fact, I can't emphasize enough how positive I think this is, assuming he's genuine.  But we know that Kennedy has the right ideas about substance abuse and mental health.  This appointment would mean, to me, that Obama understands and is ready to address the root of the problem.

It would seem to me that someone who believes in recovery is not likely to throw people in jail for decades for drug offenses.

1. Food & fiber: Seeds for food and oil and hemp for fiber. Industrial hemp would be a good feed stock for ethanol.
   
2. Medicine:: Prior to 1901 marijuana was a commonly used pain killer until it was replaced by aspirin. Marijuana has several disadvantages as a medicine (short shelf life, difficulty in controlling dosage and it cannot be injected).
   
3. Intoxication: Prior to 500 AD that use was restricted to India and the use spread to other continents over the next several hundred years.

A key issue in the medical marijuana controversy is over the availability of  aspirin substitutes that lack serious side effects and are unlikely to be used as intoxicants.

The most serious problems associated with the use of marijuana as an intoxicant are

1. The increased probability of loss of employment because of cognitive side effects.
   
2. A moderately high probability arrest and the associated stress and expense of dealing with the criminal justice system.

The most permissive state in the industrialized world, the Netherlands, still maitains a de jure illegal status to pot possession, sale and  cultivation, etc.  

That govt is now going to constrict availability further by closing shops with proximity to schools.

This is far more than a US thing; there's a worldwide assumption that controlling intoxicants is a social good, even one so benign as pot.  So, I think quite a bit of the indignation is unfairly heaped on this country for it's drug policies (I'm not going to argue about the efficacy of those policies, more that they're just not so unique as many think.).

Signs Obama Will Disappoint Marijuana Reformers

What a lot of folks just can't seem to wrap their heads around is just how much of a foundation the DrugWar provided with regards to the rights-destroying aspects of abominations such as the (choke, cough) "PATRIOT Act".

The fact of the matter is that our rights have been under continual assault from the inception of the DrugWar, but that process of rights erosion accelerated with Tricky Dick, then was boosted by Ronnie Raygun, and then had rocket sleds strapped on it by Georgie the Lesser.

And Georgie became Prez in small part thanks to all the millions of potential voters who couldn't vote because they'd been disenfranchised by drug offense convictions. Real handy if you want to ensure that those members of the populace that represent the greatest threat to your agenda are conveniently neutralized courtesy of a faux moral crusade...which Repubs just seem to adore.

Drug law reform is vastly more important than most recognize, because it isn't just the stoners who are affected; you pay for drug prohibition with your taxes, every two weeks, and it's used to destroy generally harmless people's lives and careers,  politically emasculate minorities and erode rights and liberties.