Latest

Last week, Scott M. Burns was promoted to the #2 position at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He celebrated the occasion with a candid acknowledgment of the office's blatant political partisanship:

It has been quite a journey from Cedar City to the White House. All I can say is it's a great country that someone like me can have that opportunity," Burns said. "We have one year left and, as the president says, we're going to sprint to the finish." [Salt Lake Tribune]

Sure, the Drug Czar's office is part of the president's cabinet. And it's already been exposed for illegally campaigning on behalf of republicans. But couldn't Burns at least pretend he's here to serve the people and not just the Bush Administration?

Either way, he hits the nail on the head when he acknowledges that the partisan political propagandists at the helm of the ONDCP will not be reinstated by the next administration. They have "one year left," indeed. They've bucked congressional oversight at every turn, forcing ONDCP creator Joe Biden to complain that the drug czar's office is operating "like an ivory tower."

Not even a petty formality like Burns's nomination itself could proceed without the wrath of congress being entered into the record. Here's what Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy had to say:

We will also hear from one nominee for a high-level position in the Executive Office of the President – Scott M. Burns to be Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We consider his nomination on the heels of decisions by the Supreme Court and the U.S. Sentencing Commission that represent moderate but powerful steps to reform the unfair disparity that exists in Federal crack cocaine sentencing laws.

Yet, the Administration continues to be silent on any reform in this area. For more than 20 years, we have tolerated a Federal cocaine sentencing policy that treats crack offenders more harshly than cocaine offenders. This policy has unacceptably had a disparate impact on people of color and the poor – without any empirical justification. The Administration’s failure to support even the slightest modification of crack penalties is both a surprise and a deep disappointment.

Ironically, had there been more than "one year left," one wonders if Congress would have made more of an effort to disrupt ONDCP's power structure than to simply promote a long-time insider who shares responsibility for the perpetual controversy and incompetence that we've all come to expect from President Bush's drug war experts.

ABC and Fox News Channel are narrowing the field of presidential candidates invited to debates this weekend just before the New Hampshire primary, in Fox's case infuriating supporters of Republican Rep. Ron Paul.
…

The network said it had limited space in its studio -- a souped-up bus -- and that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in recent polls. [CNN]

Paul was tied with Thompson for fifth in New Hampshire in the most recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, each with the support of 4 percent of likely voters. Among all New Hampshire voters, Paul led Thompson 6 percent to 4 percent, but that was within the poll's margin of error.

One effect of keeping Ron Paul out of the debate will be to ensure that drug policy is not discussed at all during the event. Paul is surely the only republican candidate that would ever voluntarily mention drug policy during the debate. He wants to end the drug war, while the others want to keep the lights turned off and pretend that everything is going splendidly.

I'm not saying FOX News is trying to stifle the drug policy debate specifically. Paul's views on drug policy aren’t the only reason his candidacy is controversial. But to whatever extent his unique views on this issue contribute to his frequent designation as a "fringe" candidate, that's a shame.

Whether or not Paul's views on drug policy are a primary source of concern among his critics, this is certainly one issue that is attracting supporters to his campaign. All of this stands to demonstrate that opposition to the drug war is energizing voters on the right as well as the left, and that's why it's disturbing to see the appearance of bias against him in the media. If anything, Paul's fundraising success should demonstrate that many republicans want more discussion of drug policy, not less.

Growing support for Paul's campaign may ensure that his views can't be censored as easily as some would prefer. If he bests any of the FOX Five in Iowa or New Hampshire, it will become that much harder to deny him a place at the podium. And the odds of a top five showing aren't looking too bad.

As the comment section of this post will soon reveal, people really like Ron Paul.

Update: It wasn't my intention to start a debate over Ron Paul's candidacy in the comment section. We don’t endorse or oppose candidates. We just report on their drug policy positions and reflect on the implications of presidential politics for our movement. This isn't the best place to debate the rest of Ron Paul's platform.

But it is interesting to note the intensity of sentiments both for and against Paul. He's generated a significant buzz, which will hopefully help to illustrate the viability of drug policy reform as an asset on the campaign trail.

Update: FOX News pundits question their own network's decision to exclude Ron Paul in light of his strong showing in Iowa.

For Greg Davis, Collin County's first assistant district attorney, one of his qualms with the new law is the perception created by ticketing for a drug offense, instead of making an arrest.

"It may... lead some people to believe that drug use is no more serious than double parking," Mr. Davis said. "We don't want to send that message to potential drug users, particularly young people." [Dallas Morning News]

With the high price of gasoline, Mr. Wade said, writing citations also saves money because officers don't have to drive into Austin from the county's outskirts to put a suspect in jail.