Former White House Drug Spokesman Bob Weiner Blasts John Stossel ABC 20-20 Report

U.S. Newswire ^ | July 31,2002

[robertpaulsen]

Thanks for the well thought out post. I understand what you're saying, and on some things we agree. But I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on the legalization aspect.

In your p.s. you mentioned decriminalization. Decriminalization is not legalization, and possessing, cultivating, and/or purchasing through a drug dealer is still a crime. What you described would be a law that decriminalized possession of a small amount and cultivation of a small amount (personal use). Ohio has such a law.

While I favor decriminalization (since it makes sense), I do not favor it if it is just a step towards legalization (the camel's nose under the tent, if you will). This is what is happening in Nevada, among the states with the strictest marijuana laws. There they passed medical marijuana laws, then decriminalization, and are now looking at legalization (up to 3ozs.). There's that nose!

However, the way I read the petition is that you must purchase the marijuana from a licensed store. The petition is based on the medical marijuana laws already in place, and modifies them (hence the cross-outs and additions). If this is going to be the procedure used by other states to arrive at legalization, I am going to have to re-think my position on both decriminalization and medical use.

[lowrdrxxx]

what is it that you hate about legalization so much. i would like to know, because for some reason i think you might be misinformed.

i mean, if u dont smoke you dont have to. but if someone wants to smoke every once in a while, do you think the govt can tell them not to. i mean, some ppl will abuse the drug, and do stupid things. if legalization occurs, its obvious laws will go against things like driving high, smoking in public(like no drinking drunkeness), and all sorts of things. it may make ppl think its okay to smoke, i believe its ok to smoke, and that might lead to a nation wide smoking binge, but the levels will drop. in denmarck, the use of marijuana rose for like 5-10 years, but after it dropped to levels lower than the prohibition era. over tiem, ppl will not glamorize weed, and look at it as something normal in society. many, many ppl smoke who dont say, and before 1900's smoking cannabis was very normal for the public, in minority figures, but it was tolerated.

if you say its bad for public health, well, many many studies have shown that the only problem is lung damage due to smoking. nothing should be smoked, but people will anyways. things like short term memory loss occurs in HEAVY users, and will go away after a month of abstinence. Nixon appointed some anti-drug warriors in his staff to study marijuana, and once it was done they pushed for legalization saying there were no risks with it. i read some excerpts of the Nixon tapes(released this yr awhile ago) and he was against with saying something along the lines "never, commi-pinkos and jews use marijuana and homosexuality to destroy our society". obviously the rantings of the misinformed.

i would like to see what you have against it. just remember, the intolerance towards cannabis is a new thing, and for many thousands of yrs has been accepted. also, a little fact is that the old oils used by jews to bless people was a concoction with a lot of cannabis oils, and many others. kinds were blessed with it, and so was jesus. monks had kept the recipes secret, and time has lost them, but were refound i think. www.christiansforcannabis.com should have something about this.

heres an excerpt form the site:
Dangers of Cannabis

The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.:

Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.

[robertpaulsen]

Well, hate's a pretty strong word and I'll save it for other things. Why am I against legalization? Simply because it solves nothing, yet adds another legal drug to what's already out there. Alcohol and tobacco will not go away with marijuana legalization, even though pot may be safer or less addictive. And, when it comes to drug legalization, I don't care what other countries are doing. If you insist, then let's be balanced and also look at the laws in Hong Kong.

Another reason is that I can take your arguments, substitute Ecstasy for marijuana, and make the same case. I can also make the case with some of the Schedule II recreational drugs among Alfentanil (Alfenta), Methamphetamine (Desoxyn),Amobarbital (Amytal), Methylphenidate (Ritalin), Amphetamine (Dexedrine), Mepridine (Demerol), Codeine, Dronabinol, Nabilone, Etorphine Hydrochloride, Fentanyl (Duragesic), Oxycodone (Percocet), Glutethimide, Oxymorphone (Numorphan), Hydromorphodone (Dilaudid), Phendimetrazine (Preludin), Levomethadyl (ORLAAM), Phenobarbital (Nembutal), Levorphanol, Phenylacetone, Marinol (Dronabinol), Secobarbital (Seconal), and Sufentanil (Sufenta).

It's even easier with most of the Schedule III drugs and all of the Schedule IV drugs. And we haven't even mentioned the Benzodiazepines, PCP, NO2, steroids, shrooms, or the designer drugs.

Where do you stop? If you say, "Why stop?", our discussion is over. If you say stop with just marijuana, then you're being hypocritical about the relative harmlessness of the other drugs.

Any "problems" we're having with the existing marijuana laws can be solved with decriminalization. And it's hard to believe that that such a "problem" exists, when so few states have decriminalized the usage.

[lowrdrxxx]

thats a pretty valid argument, i thought it would be some drugs are evil rhetoric. the thing, its kinda stupid to outlaw things like marijuana when alcohol and cigarettes(not normal tobacco, cigs have many additives that would kill you on their own, any smoke is harmful either way) are a lot more harmful. its kinda silly, adn why not add marijuana legally. it wont cause any serious problems(if you know of any, post 'em)if regulations are done correctly. why prohibit something which really isnt much of a problem to begin with(post any problems you know of)?

i look at it like this, any drug with an ld50(overdose level) which is hard to attain, or physically impossible to attain should be legal. marijuana has an unattainable ld50, along with psylocibe mushrooms(other varieties are poisonous, but psylocin is physically harmless), lsd(this is for real, lots of info on lsd danger is BS, www.erowid.com), mescaline, and a couple other psychedlics. what i have noticed through reading many studies is that psychedlics are almost harmless physically(may unleash schitzophrenia if you are unprepared, basically having a traumatic experience because of fear). marijuana would be close to harmless if eaten instead of smoked(if you consider sluggish attitude after high usage harmful). i could go on and on for days about how some drugs are practically safe, while some are just killers(pcp, crack, heroin, amphetamines, barbituates, abused prescription drugs, etc.)any behavioral problems associated with drugs are not because of the drug, but of the user. you see things about how "pot controls my life" on anti-drug sites, and that only proves the guy in example has no willpower especially with a durg that is not physically addictive.there are always limits, its that many of these limits must be looked over because many decisions were made stupidily on the idea that anything producing a high is infinitely dangerous(back to Anslinger drug scare campaign, and other "Reefer madness" adaptations.

also, lets say that pot and a couple other almost safe drugs are legalized, you could probably ween heroin addicts onto pot because of lack of legal repercussions. it may take work, but its better than adapting to alcoholism. i rahter have people on pot & mushrooms than on heroin or crack.

i try to live by a philosphy of freedoms to do what you want if it does not affect others, but real life isnt going to work out correctly. in thie issue of drugs, i think the safest ones should be legal while the dangerous one shouldnt. seeing the limits of safety drawn at alcohol, a couple drugs fit into the standards that haven't. legalizing hard drugs might cause problems that soft drugs wont. no one has tried yet so who knows what will happen, and things about drugs pre-prohibition are shady to the general public.

laws are put into to place to stop problems. what problems will legalizing pot create that decrim wont?

ps: i never claimed alchol or cigs would go away. maybe others have, they were being foolish. also, mant states dont do away with prohibition because they may loose federal fundings, anti-drug organizations make lots of donations to anti-drug efforts, and such changes require a mass public approval. some states have dared and got changes, while others havent tried.