Our 'drug czar' says marijuana is 'harmful, addictive, dangerous, with no medicinal benefit'

[Philosoraptor]

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1553061.html



The nation's drug czar, who viewed a foothill marijuana farm on U.S. Forest Service land with state and local officials earlier Wednesday, said the federal government will not support legalizing marijuana.

"Legalization is not in the president's vocabulary, and it's not in mine," he said.

Kerlikowske said he can understand why legislators are talking about taxing marijuana cultivation to help cash-strapped government agencies in California. But the federal government views marijuana as a harmful and addictive drug, he said.

"Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit," Kerlikowske said in downtown Fresno while discussing Operation SOS -- Save Our Sierra -- a multiagency effort to eradicate marijuana in eastern Fresno County.

....bummer man....

[paulsby]

1. kerlikowske is an idiot, a cop-o-crat and a poor leader

he is also wrong. first, marijuana is NOT addictive. it is habit forming, but so is posting here. to say it has no medicinal benefit is also ridiculous. it's also interesting that WA state (and others) have passed medical mj initiatives, so the majority of our voters, as well as california, etc. DO think it has medicinal benefits. dangerous? it has no LD50 value. it doesn't make people psychotic and impervious to pain (a la PCP). i have 20 yrs of law enforcement experience, and unlike kerlikowske, that's primarily street experience. i have dealt with angry violent drunks, methheads, PCP users, etc. but MJ users are rarely a problem. give em a twinkie and their happy :) seriously, he's simply wrong. and fwiw, i am NOT saying MJ is benign. i would smoke it even if it was legal, but kerlikowske's description is reefer madness redux. it's hysterical, anti-scientific, and ridiculous.

[Philosoraptor]

4. Oh man you had to mention Twinkies....

[paulsby]

6. that;s my patented sobriety test for stoned drivers

walk up to the driver's window with a twinkie in your hand. if they reach for it... :)

[bertman]

60. Dood, did you like say "i would smoke it even if it was legal"? Wow, Dood, I"m shocked

but you're way cool.

Or maybe you're just buzzed, eh mon??



:rofl: :rofl:


Sorry, man, I couldn't resist. You wrote it.

B-)

"patented sobriety test for stoned drivers". That's funny.

[kedrys]

2. He forgot "tax-deductible"

Oh wait, I'm in Canada. This is one of the reasons why.

[paulsby]

9. as somebody who often criticizes canadian law

i have to give them props on a much more sane attitude vis a vis mj.

[1]

3. "...bummer man..." no. this is going to be a "states" issue...

clearly, states will decide this.

like gay marriage.

state by state you change the laws. then, like, when most of the states are onboard...

the federal government will not be able to say no.



i know this pisses off the "i want it now" crowd. but that is how these issues will be won.

[Philosoraptor]

7. Arnold used to smoke it, & he grew up to be da guvinator

[paulsby]

12. it IS a states rights issue

and the scotus (and scalia) got it wrong when they ruled it was a commerce clause issue, even when medical MJ users were using their own homegrown mj. how is that POSSIBLY an interstate commerce issue. anyway... MJ remains schedule I federally, but sooner or later, as more states pass medical MJ, and maybe even one legalizes MJ (it was on the ballot in nevada but failed), the feds will finally have to capitulate.

[1]

16. just as a point of order... "the scotus (and scalia) got it wrong" is never true...

the scotus always gets it right.

that is the law of the land, what the scotus decides. not what you think. not what some "talking head" on tv says. or what your favorite professor from school goes on about.

what the scotus decides is the law of the land and therefore is always right. until the scotus decides something else. then THAT is right.

just as a point of order...

[paulsby]

17. you're joking right?

what the scotus decides is the law of the land. it doesn't follow that they always get it right. sorry, but your point of order doesn't fly. this is like the old saw about "does god proclaim it because it is right or is it right because god proclaims it"? anyway, the scotus is empowered to be the final say on matter of constitutional law. bully for them. it doesn't mean they are infallible or the ultimate truth (tm). iow, thye are the de jure reality, but that doesn't mean they are right.

[1]

19. we are a nation of laws. what scotus says is right. all other legal decisions must follow them...

in any moment in time, the decisions of scotus are the supreme law of the land.

i did not say these decisions could not change over time.

but...

in any moment in time, the decisions of scotus are the supreme law of the land.

[paulsby]

21. nobody denies that what the scotus says is the supreme law of the land

it doesn't therfore follow that they are right. you are being incredibly sophomoric. if you can't grok the difference between being right and being the law of the land, then fine. play your sophomoric word games. i am well aware that what the scotus rules is the law of the land. it does NOT follow that their rulings are right. feel free to look up "right" or "correct".

[1]

25. the law of the land is the law of the land. and it is always right in the moment...

legally speaking.

i think this is our disconnect.

the "legally speaking" part. and this concept of "right."

legally speaking.

[paulsby]

26. it doesn't stop any # of law professors

who are pretty cognizant of how things are "legally speaking" to often argue the scotus is/was wrong. see, for example the whole bush/gore election thang. the scotus are judges. by their position, their decision are de JURE . it doesn't follow that they are right. again, i find this argument purely sophomoric because we both have the same basic understandings, it is just a matter of word games, which are boring. so, by your "logic" the scotus was "right" in the bush/gore election thang. wonderful.

[1]

35. bush/gore was right. think. think for a minute. who was our president for those years...

bush.

it doesn't matter what you or i think. or constitutional scholars. or buds at the pub. it matters what was. scotus decided what was.

(i'll stop using the word "right" as that seems to piss you off..)



i go back to my claim. the scotus decides. and what the scotus decides is *****. or more precisely, the way it is...

[paulsby]

38. nobody denies the scotus decisions

are what they are, are the law of the land, and carry the weight of law. or that the executive branch is duty bound to carry out the results of their decisions. what i am saying is that does not mean any of their decisions are right (or wrong). those are wholly different things. and the word "right" doesn't piss me off. i just think it is inaccurate.

[1]

40. i was just speaking "legally", you know...

[yodermon]

57. you're confusing "right" with "legal".

"SCOTUS's decisions are always legally binding" is not synonymous with "SCOTUS's decisions are always right".

[Flaneur]

52. I agree that Supreme Court ruling was ridiculous.

Talk about Big Brother. If I grow a pot plant in my yard to use as medicine for myself, this implicates interstate commerce? Horseshit!

Nearly as bad as the bizarro world ruling that a drug dog search is not a search.

Barney Frank has a federal bill to decriminalize. If he's lucky, it might get a hearing later this year. But I'm not holding my breath.

I notice an awful lot of antipathy toward the police around here. I suspect the drug war is at the root of a lot of it. I know it is for me.

[1]

14. so did most lawmakers. so what?

make your efforts local. abandon this comic notion that "we, as a nation" will enact legalization.

ain't going to happen, bud. (pfffttt... i said bud!)

change your local city laws. then your county laws. then your state laws. then! with with enough states, your federal laws.



you want it now? you think some bullshit poll somewhere is the momentum to make this happen!!!

no.

put down the pipe, bud. start small. and you can make it happen. hopefully in your lifetime...

[paulsby]

18. i never picked it up

i have never smoked MJ, nor would i if it was legalized. also, as a cop i certainly won't smoke it while it's illegal. i support legalizing mj because it's good policy. don't assume that i would want to smoke it. i don't think fat people in spandex should be illegal either. doesn't mean i enjoy seeing them. i have a buddy who is a state rep. love the guy to death but he would never vote to decrim mj. i would sign an initiative to do it. where's tim eyman when you need him ? :)

[1]

22. me either. and i have smoked shit that others assure me "was the shit!"

my buds could all be crawling about on the floor giggling their asses off. or sitting motionless during an entire side of a "firesign theater" lp...

me?

not so much. a little something. but pot just doesn't flip my synapses switchs.

you know how some prescription drugs work for some but are meaningless to others?

i am a pot other...

but party on and legalize on, my pot loving brothers and sisters!



in the end, I KNOW... that i could give a huge jug of whiskey to a bud and they could die from drinking the whole thing. then i could give the world's largest bag of pot to a bud and challenge him/her to smoke it all. in the end, they would just fall asleep.

its not hard to decide where i stand...

[paulsby]

23. we agree there

i fully support the right of people to fuck up their own lives, whether through alcohol abuse or pot abuse. i know most pot users and most alcohol users do just fine. others... not so much. their choice, their responsibility. i know what you mean about drug response. i have a pretty good pain tolerance, but a massive non-response to analgesics. i go to the dentist and she has to give me WAY more than the normal dose to numb me. last time i had to get dilaudid when i had massive gallstone pain, i had to get 3 shots, iow 3 times the normal adult dose before the pain went away. most doctors understand individual variation. but some certainly don't. i think the mj culture, and pot is kind of lame, but thats hardly a reason to criminalize it.

[1]

31. i like you, paulsby. if you were here, i would buy you a beer. or a tofu salad. or whatever...

i think you can live a perfectly acceptable life smoking pot every day, drinking beer everyday, indulging in cigarettes everyday. or fast food.

whatever.

i am not a "holier than thou" du poster. enjoy life. do to your body what you want. i do.

and fuck any poster here that thinks i will cost them a penny in "public health". i won't.

get over yourselves...

[paulsby]

34. thanks man

fwiw, i am a competitive athlete. i'm pretty frigging anal about what i put in my body. but that's MY choice. and i am not averse to an occasional big mac, or bowl of frosted flakes. i enjoy some very fatty foods (i'm a big fan of pork belly) but i'm not going to eat it every day. i think smoking is vile and disgusting, but it's MY choice to choose NOT to smoke, and others to choose to smoke. i do accept that at least 2/3 of chronic health conditions are directly related to diet and smoking. so, i am all for trying to educate people so they are empowered to make better choices. but they are still individuals who should be able to choose badly. there are few things in life we have more control over than what we put inside our bodies. and god knows we generally reap what we sow in that regards. but we all take risks. i just suffered a massive subscapularis tear. i will need surgery. why? because as a competitive athlete, i push the envelope. that means i take risks to be a better performer. that's my choice. god knows if i didn't have insurance, i wouldn't do it, though. way too risky.

[1]

39. if you didn't tear that subscapularis... then you were not trying. bravo you!

i think that is how we as humans triumph. pushing it to the limit. now i promise to buy you TWO tofu salads, or whatever you eat or drink. i ran the boston marathon once. it was the extent of my capacity, but i will always be proud of that.



and others think otherwise. we all live. we all die. i don't judge any person.

peace... and i will never use the word "right" again with you. it is just (how it was in the moment) as a legal tense...

[paulsby]

41. i;m cool with that

not a huge tofu guy, but i;ll catch you later. i never did the boston marathon, but did the maui marathon twice. it hurt. the beer stop at mile 23 helped. until mile 24 lol

[FormerDittoHead]

37. ...and Obama got high too. "That was the point". Fortunately, he wasn't busted and blackballed.

I wish people in high (no pun, really) places would take into account that if they had been caught at those times when they smoked pot, their futures would have looked a lot differently with a criminal record, BUT THEY WERE *LUCKY* ENOUGH NOT TO GET CAUGHT.

[redqueen]

53. Yep. (nt)

[QC]

5. How very, very hopeful and changealicious! n/t

[Philosoraptor]

10. He forgot to mention pot is a gateway drug to crack & cigs are good for you

[QC]

13. Maybe he will commission a remarke of Reefer Madness, with more people

jumping out of windows.

[eShirl]

8. He has to know that his statement is untrue (how could he not?)

i.e. he is lying

[Philosoraptor]

11. This stupidity makes prisoners & criminals of millions of us

[paulsby]

15. he;s a cop-o-crat

he came to WA as a police chief (iow a political appointee who had a history of shilling for the mayor), and now he is just a mouthpiece for the obama administration. im a street cop. most street cops know that pot is not a big deal. many are even for decrim or legalization. i know a hell of a lot of cops who look the other way when they catch somebody witha few buds. because we realize that it's not potheads that are assaulting us, robbing people, etc. it's not potheads that are beating the crap out of their spouses and girlfriends. and for fuck's sake. with the economy as bad as it is, we could get SERIOUS revenue from decrim' ing and taxing MJ.

[Red1]

20. Pharmy Corps

are weaving their tenacles around the obama admin.....

[Freddie Stubbs]

24. Did anyone really expect Obama to appoint Tommy Chong to this position instead of

a law enforcement person?

[paulsby]

28. plent of "law enforcement persons"

don't have the anti-scientific as well as poor policy positions of kerlikowske, an undistinguished cop-o-crat ninnie. trust me, i live near seattle. i have plenty of friends who are SPD. i've been familiar with him a long time. and again, there are LOTS of LEO's who support decrim (myself included). many others may not support decrim, but wouldn't accept such blatantly incorrect statements such as pot is "addictive" (it's habit forming, not addictive), or that it has NO medicinal value. cmon kerlikowske. get real

[Bluenorthwest]

36. No, Sir Snark, but also we did not expect a lying fool speaking

in unscientific GOP style propaganda babble. We expected rational, intelligent people, not ideological power fiends. The stuff this man says is incorrect. Wrong. Lies for the sake of his agenda.
Is it impossible for you to discuss important issues from that kneeling position? Seems so.

[truedelphi]

50. Some people do not know of the "unkneel" function

When Obama moved this country into the the "Pro Stem cell research column," I thought that the decriminalization of marijuana was next. Sad to see I was wrong about that.

[Flaneur]

55. Tell me why a cop should be the federal point man on drug policy.

As opposed to say a doctor or a public health specialist?

Making a cop drug czar says loud and clear that we consider drugs primarily a law enforcement problem. That is a stupid, failed approach.

[Echo In Light]

27. Textbook example of our "Reps" serving their interest$ over the People's will

"Drug Czar?"

Are you fucking kidding me?

[paulsby]

29. yea, what is up with this "czar " crap

i wish obama would have dropped the "czar" titles. they are ridiculous

[Echo In Light]

30. As are this oligarchy's draconian drug laws. Profits Over People

[natrat]

32. change ,audacity, bullshit, modern america, spinning in the crapper

[RedCappedBandit]

33. Worse could be said about alcohol, cookies and cheesecake. nt

[Odin2005]

42. He's only saying that because he would have his head bitten of by the puritan-types...

...if he didn't affirm the ritual assertion of "pot is bad".

[paulsby]

43. no, he;'s saying that because he's an idiot

i've seen kerlikowske make similar comments for years, as a seattle area resident. he's a cop-o-crat, and he was a political hack when he was in seattle, why should anything change?

[FatDave]

44. No medical benefit?

Look, if you want to say that under medical marijuana rules it gets prescribed in some cases where there's no actual benefit, fine, that's probably the case. But as a treatment for glaucoma and chemotherapy related nausea, isn't it fairly well tested and approved?

Not to say that everything else in his statement isn't equally ridiculous, but isn't the "no medical benefit" part a blatant falsehood?

[glitch]

45. Not one of Obama's brightest appointments.

Unfortunately that isn't saying much.

[Wednesdays]

46. K&R

:kick:

[Echo In Light]

47. The un-recers must be pissed that they couldn't get this one below 5

[redqueen]

54. I dunno who you mean by "the un-recers"...

but I rec'd it.

This is an important development. State organizations need to realize this is going to have to be fought on a state-by-state basis if they want progress on this issue. That's the only way to change things, as there is so much corruption in DC, fully invested in keeping the status quo.

[Echo In Light]

58. By that i meant rightward Dems who don't have a problem w/the phony "war on drugs"

...especially based around their disdain for various cultural stereotypes of pot smokers/recreational drug users. I'm guessing that if the unrec feature weren't available, this thread would've racked up a much, ahem, higher Rec tally.

[redqueen]

59. Aha... well it's been unrec'd a good deal since I rec'd it...

grr.

[DefenseLawyer]

48. Know your dope fiend!

[Dogtown]

49. Kerlikowske's a liar n/t

[litlady]

51. Nicotine is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit....

so why the hell is it legal?

[OwnedByFerrets]

56. Harmful and Addictive huh? And the legal cigarette is SOOO

safe. You damned hypocrite.