U.S. President Barack Obama’s drug czar said this week that the death of pop star Whitney Houston is a “teachable moment” in the War on Drugs – one that the federal government plans to use as an opportunity “to move forward.”
Huh?
“Her death is absolutely tragic and this brings attention to the problem that she had talked about in the past and that certainly is prescription drugs,” Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske told CBS. “It effects a huge number of people in this country and has driven deaths to very very high numbers – well over 15,000.”
Is this guy serious? Is he really pouncing on Houston’s death as a means of justifying the ongoing existence of America’s failed War on Drugs?
“I think it is what we might call a teachable moment when someone passes – particularly as someone as highly thought of and such an incredible performer as Whitney Houston,” Kerlikowske said. “We can use this as a moment to help people understand. There are millions of Americans that are suffering from this problem … so we can use this as a chance to move forward.”
Jesus Christ, man …
Of course we shouldn’t be surprised by any of this … next thing we know, Kerlikowske will be telling us that the federal government didn’t do a good enough job of protecting Houston from herself, and before you know it this heightened “awareness” will be accompanied by some new government regulation (like the one requiring us to fill out forms at the pharmacy every time we’re congested and need a friggin’ dose of Sudafed).
“Taxpayers keep pouring money into a war we’ll never win and shouldn’t be fighting in the first place – a war that only fuels violence, addiction and the unjustified incarceration of hundreds of thousands of people,” we wrote not long ago.
Indeed …
That war is also fueling the unprecedented militarization of law enforcement across the nation, with tragic consequences for life (and liberty) in this county.
That’s the “teachable moment” of Whitney Houston’s death … not that a crackhead (albeit a talented one) kicked the bucket, but that the government would stoop to using her death as a rationalization for its failed policies.
***
By Good Ole Boy February 14, 2012 at 1:07 pm
That’s right. Move forward with what? More incarceration? Longer prison sentences? More taxpayer money sent to our para-military police forces so they can buy more assault rifles and tanks? More rights trampled and lives destroyed?
GTFO Kerlikowske.
By ? February 14, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Good call G.O.B!
Here’s a retired cop’s take on gov’t role in the “drug war”:
youtube.com/watch?v=65-rB2eH9kU&feature=player_embedded
By Mike at the Beach February 15, 2012 at 12:51 am
I take a lot of my sociological / criminological advice from guys who wear slogan t-shirts and cowboy hats, especially when one of their most cogent arguments for the legalization of MJ is “God don’t make no junk.”
PS- Short list of other “non-junk” made by God: arsenic, mercury, lead, opium, etc. All, strangely enough, regulated by the government.
Serious discussions and logical arguments are possible in this debate, but are not generally made by the extremists (on both sides).
By ? February 15, 2012 at 9:30 am
It’s too bad you threw out his whole argument because he wears a cowboy hat(and lives and worked in Texas-which obviously is the norm) and chose to wear a shirt to reflect his strongly held views.
You’ve in essence thrown the baby out with the bath water based on superficial judgements and chosen to ignore everything the retired police officer said over one weak point despite many good ones he made.
I agree, it’s extremists that make the issue more difficult than it should be.
Hopefully I’m never traveling through Surfside Beach with a cowboy hat on or wearing shirts with slogan’s that you might find offensive.
By Crooner February 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm
The “teachable moment” is that no one knows whether or not they will become addicted to a drug they “try.” So the only sure way to avoid becoming an addict is to stay away from potentially addictive drugs.
The cost to society from abuse of prescription drugs is staggering. The irony is that there is no war on that front, and anyone with the means can get those legally.
No one wants to be an addict. The war on drugs needs to be fought with education and treatment, and not incarceration.
By GoTigers712 February 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Great points, lets also point out the irony that tobacco and alcohol are responcible for more deaths that all the other drugs combined,
and that weed has no phyical addictive properties and is the only illegal drug used by most americans, yet its called a gateway drug…a gateway drug that according to the drug scheduling is more dangerous than cocaine, herroine, lsd, meth, or really anything else.
also cocaine, herroine, lsd, and meth are all products of the perscription drug industry in this country…but thats an other story
By barker February 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm
The “teachable moment” appears to have been:
“Crack is whack.” – Whitney Houston while lying to Dianne Sawyer before the cameras of ABC in a nationwide interview.
By Silver Eagle February 14, 2012 at 3:27 pm
The below quote is from Queen Haley’s facebook page(though I have been banned from posting on her facebook page – I can read it). She too is telling us to use the opportunity of Houston’s death to teach our children not to use drugs.
“The tragic death and sad loss of Whitney Houston is an opportunity for all of us to talk to our children about the dangers of drug abuse and what it can do to a person’s body. These real life tragedies allow us to talk to our children about decisions and responsibilities they will have as they grow up.”
By SCBlues February 14, 2012 at 4:44 pm
The autopsy results, including the toxicology reports, have not even been released yet.
Barker – you have proof that Houston was using crack cocaine or that it contributed to her death? You must be very well connected.
Thw War on Drugs is a farce.
Why the huge discrepancy in prison sentences for powder cocaine possession verusus rock cocaine possession?
By barker February 14, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Didn’t say she was using crack when she died. I said she was lying in the Sawyer interview. Any damn fool could see it, unless, of course, you missed it.
She and her ex lived trashy damned lives….by anyone’s measure. Her talent didn’t provide the camaflouge she and her friends thought.
By SCBlues February 14, 2012 at 7:58 pm
barker – where does all of your information come from? Can you prove she was lying? Prove it. You are seeing what you want to see – and I’ve got a pretty good idea why.
Were you on the internet blasting Rush Limbuagh when he got busted for drugs? What did you think about him trying to blame it all on his maid? Was he living a trashy damned life?
By barker February 14, 2012 at 8:20 pm
You may be the only person that frequents this blog that would confuse me with a Rushbo dittohead.
In fact, I did mock Rushbo on the internet when he was busted, and in fact, I think he’s a pompous, self-centered, financially successful, mocker of testosterone filled pinheads like you.
In fact, I mock Rushbo every effing day and laugh when he stirs the emotions of people like you who loath him and at the same time stirs the mushbrains of his dittoheads all across the country.
Let me tell you how I could tell she was lying. I trust my own lying eyes and ears, my wits honed from 60 years of seeing people trip over their own dicks when lying, and quite a number of years of watching her self-destruct.
Her’s is not my first rodeo, peckerhead.
By SCBlues February 15, 2012 at 5:12 pm
barker, barker, barker -
You have no definitive proof that she was using crack cocaine – get over yourself – unless you witnessed her using crack cocaine then you have no proof that she was lying.
Don’t care what your eyes say.
Thanks for all of the personal insults (I especially liked the one about testosterone filled pinheads – if you only knew . . .) – you really do need to get over yourself
By barker February 15, 2012 at 5:48 pm
My bad, sweetheart, “hormonal enragement.”
First, the Diane Sawyer interview from 2002, during the “Crack is Whack” interview when everyone in the world but you could see and hear the lying through her teeth:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/12/whitney-houston-dies-tv-interviews_n_1271664.html#s687798&title=Crack_Is_Whack
Now, in her own words as told to Oprah in 2009: she told Oprah her drug of choice was “marijuana, combined with cocaine, rock cocaine.” aka known as crack for those unfamiliar with the street.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/12/whitney-houston-dies-tv-interviews_n_1271664.html#s688018&title=Drug_Of_Choice
See, my lying eyes and ears are still working just fine. How about yours?
By SCBlues February 15, 2012 at 8:45 pm
barker -
How the hell do you know what “everyone in the world” thinks?
You have not one iota of proof that she was lying to Diane Sawyer – none.
Your links prove absolutley nothing.
Go ahead and call me some more names – that is all you’ve got.
By barker February 15, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Good God, woman, did you even bother to listen to the clip from her Oprah interview? It came from her own mouth, not mine, not Oprahs. It only takes 30 seconds to watch.
Obviously, your eyes and ears are lying to you. I can’t do much about that. “One can lead a stubborn mule to water, but one can’t make him/her drink.
For the record, Bobby Brown talked about it in public interviews too…more than once.
By SCBlues February 16, 2012 at 8:33 am
Okay barker, calm down before you blow a blood vessel or something.
I have no idea whether she was lying or not in the Sawyer interview – neither do you.
Maybe she was using crack – I hate it for her that she was using or abusing any kind of drugs.
The woman has not even been buried yet and all of these attacks on her and all of these internet postings that claim to know exactly what she was doing and exactly what drugs she was abusing and when she was abusing them. I just find it hard to believe that all of these folks on the internet know exactly what was taking place in her life. How could they know? Were they there?
I have a feeling that drugs probably did contribute to her death – but that is not known for certain yet – the autopsy results have not been released.
It is a tragic story.
By BigT February 14, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Every liberal and libertarian that worships pop culture should take pause as yet another of your idols cashes in the wages…
And if Ron Paul or FITS were president, they’d allow for this sad death 20 years ago, in the celebration of their false-god drugs…
By Robert February 15, 2012 at 7:38 am
Houston, like so many Americans, abused prescription drugs, as well as illegal drugs.
If I were to guess, I mixture of Xanax, pot and alcohol make her fall asleep in tub and she drown.
And, imo, the war on drugs is idiotic.
By Fits of logic February 15, 2012 at 9:04 am
Under fits theory traffic laws are idotic because people will violate them anyway. It is absurd to think people are aware of the costs of addiction when they begin consuming narcotics. Making them illegal raises their prices and as some libertarians are versed in econ, this lowers the quantity of the drugs consumed. We don’t live in a world of perfect information where consumers understand the risks and nature of drugs. Idiotic to make them illegal? No, whether it is a good idea or not is a open for debate- but labeling one position as idiotic is myopic and idiotic.
By ? February 15, 2012 at 9:37 am
I think in the context of the money spent to battle the use of illicit drugs(which is probably not the way Whitney died, but we’ll see), the abject failure in doing so and then finally the peacful dismantling of organized crime associated with alcohol after the repeal of prohibition makes the issue of their illegality self evident-so naturally some may call those resisting those facts “idiots”.
By GoTigers712 February 15, 2012 at 9:38 am
The problem with prohibition is it only affects supply, not demand (in any meaningful way), and when supply goes down, demand goes up, and people find new ways to meet that demand case in point alcohol prohibition-perscription whiskeys, moon shine, speak easys, bathtub gin, “communal” wine. you have to reduce the demand if you want to stop drug use, the best way to do that is 1) education and rehabilitation, and 2) removing the “taboo” from it so that is not “cool” to do to young kids.
By Fits of laughter February 15, 2012 at 10:03 am
The precious prohibition argument. The history lesson that must apply here without any economic analysis. Since I didn’t see any analysis, I can’t respond except in kind with name calling- which I decline to do.
But as for demand affecting supply? I see what you are saying and education increases information for consumers which will likely reduce demand for narcotics. However, supply does not affect demand, rather a change in supply (like making it expensive by making it illegal to sell), affects the QUANTITY demanded at a new higher price.
By ? February 15, 2012 at 10:31 am
“The history lesson that must apply here without any economic analysis.”
Seriously, what economic analysis is needed? Are you trying to make a point?
“I can’t respond except in kind with name calling”
Of course you can’t, because there’s no good argument regardless of the path you take.
Whether you chose to ignore history with similar factors or try to argue that the economics suggest a different outcome from previous history by suggesting in a vauge manner that alternate reality…the argument is simply not there.
Btw, read closely, I never called you a name if that’s what you’re implying.
If you want to argue economics, feel free. We’ll see where you gather your “costs to society” information from and compare it to drug war budgets and see what comes of it.
If you want to pretend the results of the ending prohibition aren’t relevant to the current drug war then do so…but at least make your case specifically.
By Fits of laughter February 15, 2012 at 11:11 am
Ice cream creates warm weather. The end of Prohibition ended organized crime. I do commend you though on at least acknowledging the cost to society analysis. Whether the budgets offset the number of people whose lives were better for avoiding addiction because of the deterence of illegality is a question that requires a large amount of data and statistical analysis. I simply find your conclusory decision that the “war on drugs” has failed, humerous.
By GoTigers712 February 15, 2012 at 1:35 pm
you have created a logical falisy. you are using a positive model to argue against a negative one.
for your analogy to work it must read
Warm Weather created a need for ice cream as prohibition created a need for organized crime
the end of warm weather may end the need for ice cream as prohibition may end the need for organized crime.
its called the mode of modus tolens
By GoTigers712 February 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm
or as you would try to argue with your “ice cream created warm weather” cart before the horse argument,
if ice cream created warm weather, than organized crime created prohibition…ending ice cream would end warm weather, and therefore ending organized crime would end prohibition…
see how when i organize your thoughts for you in a fashion that doesnt create a logical falasy it looks like you are eiher anti-prohibition or pro-organized crime
By :) February 15, 2012 at 11:34 am
I didn’t say the end of prohibition ended organized crime, re-read it.
At least we are both amused, as I find your utter lack of argument humorous.
By Fits of laughter February 15, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Fallacy? I am simply demonstrating correlations are not sufficient to prove causation. I love that you worked in symbolic logic terms in the rant.
:) I prefer analysis to anecdotes so I have no interest in re-reading your prior posts.