WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE, POLITICALLY?

OK, we have a new President, probably a new direction, lots of new
possibilities (and also the possibility that nothing will change).

Putting aside temporarily my usual mantra that our efforts must be to
motivate the people rather than count on politicians...

What's going to happen? When? How can we have input?

First, here's what's not going to happen:

* Day One: President Obama, with a stroke of his pen, removed
marijuana from the Controlled Substances Scheduling completely,
saying "If the states want to waste their time and money arresting
people over a plant, that's their problem. The federal government has
no interest here."

* Day Two: The Drug Enforcement Administration was gutted today...
Well, you get the idea.

Here's what conceivably might happen relatively early, but if so,
fairly quietly. The DEA might simply stop conducting medical
marijuana raids. Since that's a sporadic activity, it could take
some time before some bright person in the press asked about it. At
that point, some low-level functionary would be tasked to respond
with something like:

"Marijuana is illegal under federal law. There are no exceptions for
so-called medical marijuana, and we will arrest those who break the
law. At this time we have simply had higher priorities for our drug
enforcement agents."

And the message would quietly go to the states that as long as
medical marijuana programs stayed low profile, there would be no
federal presence.

I consider that scenario (or something similar) to actually be quite likely.

So, what about further reform? And what about the drug czar?

A must-read is Eric Sterling's post: Morning-after Question: "Who
will be the Obama Administration's drug policy appointees?" ( see
http://drugsense.org/url/lf7ZNMHj ). Eric knows how things work in
putting together an administration's team, and I think he's right on
the money in two areas in particular -- one, on when policy changes
might occur:

"Selecting appointees is a higher priority than making any policy
decisions. First, it is easier for the media to count up 'unfilled'
positions and blame the new Administration for being 'slow' to fill
vacancies. Second, because few policy changes are without political
costs, most changes will require extensive preparation of the
public. The possible exceptions might be medical marijuana and
sterile syringe exchange which have large public support."

Hence the notion of a quiet move toward relaxing medical
marijuana-fighting efforts.

Second, Eric notes that we shouldn't expect a new Drug Czar very soon.

"I would not be looking for an announcement of a nominee to be the
ONDCP director until the Spring. DEA can operate with an acting
director, likely to be a career DEA manager, for a long time, as can
NIDA. The decision of DEA Administrator won't come before a new
Attorney General has time to orient himself or herself."

In 2001, George W. Bush didn't appoint Walters until May and he
wasn't sworn in until December. Asa Hutchinson wasn't head of the
DEA until August.

So we probably have a little time. Eventually, though, President
Obama is going to have to act on an appointment -- it's probably
unlikely that the ONDCP will be eliminated -- there will be political
pressure to keep it going.

But here's the problem: As most of you know, the Congressional
authorization and mandates for the ONDCP demand that whoever is in
that position lie to the people and work to make federal drug policy
as harmful to our country as possible.

So, to put someone good in there, Obama would have to completely
flout Congressional legislation, which is unlikely. While Bush would
be less likely to have a problem with it if it matched his desires,
Obama seems to be pushing for coalition building, and would be
hesitant to give ammunition to opponents (he's probably also thinking
hard about Clinton's aborted, rushed effort at health care reform
when he had a full Democratic Congress).

So what can be done?

Perhaps we can work on Congress to modify the ONDCP authorization
prior to 2010.

What if we all contact our Senators and Representatives and say:

The office of the Director of the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy has been a disaster for these past 8 years, and we
can't afford more of the same. Our new President needs your help if
he's going to find someone who can really do something good for our country.

* Change the ONDCP authorization so that the Drug Czar is no longer
required or encouraged to lie to American citizens.

* Change the measurement criteria for federal drug policy from
meaningless slight fluctuations in drug use, to the clear reduction
of drug-related harm and drug-war-related harm. Please help President
Obama appoint someone who can do some good for this country, by
changing outdated and wholly inappropriate guidelines for the ONDCP
Director position.

I don't know. Could we do it? If such a movement became known to
President Obama, would it make him more likely to consider a
non-hardline drug warrior?