Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
During the campaign, Barack Obama promised to end the Bush administration's investigation and prosecution of medical marijuana patients following the law in the 13 states that allow them to use that drug to treat their symptoms. But Politico reports that he may name a strident opponent of medical marijuana to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy:
Rep. Jim Ramstad's name is bouncing around as a possible "drug czar" -- the name given the head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. Ramstad, a Minnesota Republican, is in recovery himself and has been a longtime proponent of treatment for drug abuse...Ramstad has consistently voted against medical marijuana in Congress, opposing an effort to prevent the federal government from raiding or arresting medical marijuana clubs in states where it is legal.
If true, this is not a good sign for patients in Michigan who will register to use marijuana to treat the symptoms of their debilitating medical conditions after the passage of Proposal 2 earlier this month. And Balko is right: Fear the ex-addict who enters the public policy debate to "prevent others from making my mistakes."
Politics
Comments
Posted by: WScott | November 21, 2008 10:55 AM
I think Obama's vice presidential pick has told us that he does actually care in the slightest about easing the burden of the war on drugs.
No doubt. I'd say we should fear ex-addicts who enter the public policy debate concerning whatever substance to which they were previously addicted, period.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 21, 2008 11:52 AM
Err, "does" should be "doesn't" there. That makes a bit of a difference.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 21, 2008 1:38 PM
Gretchen -
Not necessarily. There are those who support the notion of legalization as an aspect of harm reduction, including recovering addicts. Though admittedly, recovering addicts who feel this way are the exception, rather than the rule.
I know that part of what has made me such a voracious advocate for legalization, is my own experience with substance abuse. The fact that a great many of the substances I have abused are illicit, did nothing to stop me from using them. What it did do, was make it that much harder for me to find accurate and reasonably information with which to make better choices - it also made me exceedingly reticent to actually get help with the worse of my substance abuse issues (actually the combination of it's illicit nature and American cultural attitudes).
Legalization would have several harm reduction benefits.
First, it would make it very easy for a doctor or other health care professional to work with the patient to ween them off of their drug of choice. Rather than finding them a surragate they could trade addictions, they could start with the drug the patient actually uses and slowly work them off of it.
Second, it would make it much easier for researchers to actually get their hands on drugs they wish to research. Both for learning more about toxicity and to help develop new models for addiction treatment. And tying the first and second points together, it would also make it possible to design and perform studies into working with patients to find methods for utilizing the drug of choice in treatment regimens for addiction.
Finally, it would remove much of the "mystique" that attracts certain people to illicit drugs in the first place.
I should also note that there are addicts and recovering addicts who simply don't believe that their own problems with a substance, make the war on drugs worthwhile. For them, every other argument for ending the drug war and legalization apply as much, if not more than harm reduction theory.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 21, 2008 1:44 PM
I can't speak the specifics of Jim Ramstad's stand on medical marijuana. I live in the Twin Cities and have for most of the past 18 years that Ramstad has been the MN-3rd district representative. I don't live in his district so I never paid too close attention to the specifics of his votes and such. That said he has always struck me as a reasonable man. He is a moderate, one who survived even as the MN Republican party spun to right over the years.
I agree with the idea of a "Nixon to China" situation. Ramstad is a reasonable individual who should at least think through the issues. He also provides some protection from right complaining about a "wimpy liberal" in the post.
Posted by: JackU | November 21, 2008 1:56 PM
DuWayne, the reason I support full de-criminalization is my experience with dealing with drug addicts in my own family -- my younger sister and mother were/are addicted to meth. I wish more people would realize that criminalizing drugs just makes it that much harder for addicts to receive help.
Posted by: marilove | November 21, 2008 2:06 PM
JackU -
Looking up his stance (click my name for the link), I find that he has NORML's absolute lowest rating, which means that he is a hardliner. And it is impossible to get that rating from them, if one doesn't support federal action against against medical marijuana in states where it is legal. This is most assuredly not someone who is taking a reasonable stance on drugs.
And it really bums me out, because I really like his stance on mental illness. But in this position, a stance like his is almost a step backwards from where we are now. If he actually gets the position, we shall have to see, but at the moment, at least there is very little persecution from the feds, regarding medical marijuana. I fear that he would support ramping it up.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 21, 2008 3:01 PM
Ya, this sucks if true. Here in Oregon we have medical marijuana as well and the thought of the Feds harassing sick people pisses me off. But I think we all knew that while Obama is light years ahead of Bush or McCain he is not going to be perfect by any stretch of the imagination. That's why we can't let our guard down and need to be vigilant about these types of issues that often get overlooked.
Posted by: Bruce | November 22, 2008 3:49 PM