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

U.S. Newswire ^ | July 31,2002

[Wolfie]

Former White House Drug Spokesman Bob Weiner Blasts John Stossel ABC 20-20 Report as 'Distorted, Inaccurate Excuse for Legalization'

Former White House drug policy spokesman Bob Weiner is blasting last night's ABC 20-20 drug piece by John Stossel: "It was a distorted and inaccurate excuse for drug legalization.

It blows off the successes and real reductions in use generated both by government drug policy and efforts by parents, teachers, coaches, businesses, community coalitions, religious leaders, and law enforcement."

Weiner, who was Director of Public Affairs for the White House Office of National Drug Policy May 1995-August 2001 under Drug Czars Lee Brown, Barry McCaffrey, and the Bush transition, pointed to what he calls "radical inconsistencies in Stossel's reporting. He repeatedly ignores or downplays each positive finding about drug policy."

"Stossel throws in the important data point that drug use is down by 50 percent but then says throughout the piece that use is the same and we are losing the war. He never says that crack cocaine -- the primary crime-causing drug in recent years -- is down by two-thirds. He finds one police chief who says it's all fruitless -- understandable in a particular high usage area -- but ignores and does not report the myriad of police who tell experts that crime and drugs are down because criminals and dealers are taken off the streets. He ignores the fact that the governments anti-drug media campaign the last four years has coincided with a 40 percent reduction of youth drug users and 25 percent improvement in parent anti-drug communication with youth -- huge success rates in precisely the intended target audiences.

"Stossel pushes his inaccurate points that the drug war 'creates crime' when it is precisely the opposite: drug use generates murders, domestic violence, and date rapes. He soft pedals marijuana use, with assertions by an archetypical long haired user that 'marijuana hasn't killed anyone,' but has no one pointing out that marijuana is the second leading cause of car crashes as well as the primary drug in teen drug treatment

"He has no understanding of foreign efforts, either," Weiner asserted. He quotes disputed CIA Colombia cocaine increase numbers based on their flawed, cloud-covered data despite Colombia's surveys showing significant drops in cultivation and the success of the spraying of 30 percent of its cocaine acreage. He never mentions that Peru and Bolivia obtained over 60 percent reductions and Colombias five year plan envisions an equally obtainable 50 percent reduction," says Weiner, who has been on two recent Colombia missions with McCaffrey.

"He asserts that Europe is succeeding with a liberalized policy but does not mention that drug seizures in Europe have doubled the last three years and use has gone up, indicating that Europe may face our drug and crime problems of past decades that we have escaped from by the comprehensive education and law enforcement efforts we are now making. Stossel dismisses former Drug Czar McCaffrey's assertions of the 'disaster' of European legalization trends by saying 'not what we heard', hardly a scientific methodology.

"Finally, Stossel barely mentions the concession of his own legalization advocates that 'maybe more would use drugs'. He insists that 'The war on drugs is a war on ourselves.' To dismiss the point that under legalization more would use drugs -- and that hospital emergency rooms would be flooded, crime and dropouts would rise, families would be disrupted, and the toll would be immeasurable -- is like asking Mrs. Lincoln on that fateful day, 'Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?'"

Weiner concluded by asserting, "I have never seen a worse piece of major journalism on drug policy other than perhaps a similar one done by Geraldo Rivera years ago when he refused to use interview points by the Drug Czar which disagreed with Geraldo's thesis."

[WyldKard]

Former White House Drug Spokesman Bob Weiner Blasts John Stossel ABC 20-20 Report as 'Distorted, Inaccurate Excuse for Legalization'

Boy, it must have been a fairly balanced piece then to get this former CLINTONITE (That's right, boys and girls...boy Democrats and Republicans have an unholy alliance on this thing.) to freak out completely.

It's amazing how much the tide has begun to turn within the last 3 to 5 years...

[Wolfie]

Yep, ol' Bob probably had to down a few cocktails to take the edge off after that one.

[billbears]

I have asked this before but haven't ever gotten an answer. While I am against a federal WOD for lack of Constitutional grounds, would it be acceptable for the separate states to pass laws if they so choose as requested by a majority of their citizens? I do believe it is within the states' rights to do this.

[kinghorse]

Last I heard, the dopers who smoked and drank did better than the pure drinkers when put behind the wheel. In this study, weed actually helped to sober up the drunk. Go figure. This guy is nuts if he thinks it's a leading cause of driving accidents. You know what the leading cause is? Inexperienced youthful drivers. You want to make the streets safe. Keep em out from behind the wheel until they turn 20. Or get em behnd the wheel of gocarts, scooters and other stuff sooner so they learn how to drive a small motorized vehicle before being set loose with dad's 2 ton Lincoln Navigator.

This is an example of a flawed set of statistics because it is skewed toward youthful drivers who are a hazard without out anything in their systems but testoterone.

[Wolfie]

The short answer is "No". The Supreme Court, at the behest of those famous States' Rights advocates in the current Republican administration, has already ruled on that.

[WindMinstrel]

I would argue that states would be stupid to implement laws like that, for the same reason we're losing the federal WoD. However, you're correct: it's certainly within a state's right to make substances illegal (depending, of course, on that state's constitution).

[headsonpikes]

"Legalizing drugs has so many other ramifications..."

Such as questioning the pension benefits of the teat-sucking thugs on the gobmint payroll, for instance.

Or pursuing the corrupt politicos/officials who have been receiving financial benefits from the criminal gangs that manage the trade.

Is that what you meant?

[kinghorse]

The "hemp" used in those days was for ropes...not for smoking.

Ugh. It was smoked by some pretty revered people. People with their signatures on the Declaration of Independence. You need to do some serious research.

[EBUCK]

Yah. It would be within a States/peoples power. In the same fashion that some states are defying the fed now, with MJ reformas a matter of fact.

EBUCK

[rintense]

Heh. That and more.

[WyldKard]

Beer,wine and spirits have been a part of this country since colonial days...crack, smack, and PCP are not.

Slavery was also a part of this country since the colonial days. "Historical Significance" is a weak, poor excuse for supporting or prohibiting something. Although I could point out that pot has been used in many difficult cultures for millenia. But I won't ;-)

Alcoholic beverages (used in moderation) are being shown to have some health benefits...what are the benefits of LSD, crack, or meth?

What are the health benefits of McDonalds food, or cigarettes, or Twinkies? Are you saying all things must have intrinsic health benefits in order to be legal? Are you going to post guards at the store so people won't buy rat poison, take it home, and chow down on it?

And how come you can't touch pot? Are you afraid you would have to go into the medical benefits of pot? Pot is no worse than alcohol. (and is probably less harmful).

As for marijuana...the body was not made to have smoke put in its lungs, whether it is tobacco or pot.

Most pot smoke is filtered using water pipes, which cools the smoke, and filters out a significant amount of pollutants from it. Most pot smokers use one, whereas most tobacco smokers don't. Also, you can get yourself a vaporizer, which melts the THC into an inhalable mist, without having to ignite the vegatative matter. I don't believe this is possible with tobacco.

The body wasnt' meant to do a lot of things, but people do them anyhow. Are you next going to tell us mankind wasn't meant to fly, because we don't have wings? Are you going to tell us people shouldn't get piercings, because the body doesn't have the hole's built in? The brain DOES have receptors for canaboids built in. So unless you happen to have the original blueprints and design specs on the human body, it's folly to try and determine what the human body is and isn't "supposed" to do (except for the stupidly obvious. Like Knees obviously aren't supposed to bend BACKWARDS 90 degrees.)

But I do have to commend you for making your arguments without using the world "Evil" or "Liberdopians" :) Thank you.

FWIW I'm not terribly big on legalizing the hard stuff either...

[EBUCK]

No, because the SCOTUS has overstepped it's bounds? Or no, because the constitution actually prohibits it (in it's intent, not in it's current convoluted interpretation)?

EBUCK

[ravingnutter]

as well as the primary drug in teen drug treatment

This also irritated the crap out of me last night...the reason these teens are in drug treatment is because these kids got busted by their parents or the cops who have bought into the whole lie that marijuana is addictive which is perpetrated by the same psychologists that run these treatment centers...follow the money, for heaven's sake.

[WyldKard]

I have asked this before but haven't ever gotten an answer. While I am against a federal WOD for lack of Constitutional grounds, would it be acceptable for the separate states to pass laws if they so choose as requested by a majority of their citizens? I do believe it is within the states' rights to do this.

Yes. This is actually SUPPOSED to be how it is done. This is the proper Constitutional law. But the Federal Government has taken advantage of the sheeple's ignorance.

States have always had the power to be "dry" or "wet". The reason Prohibition needed a Constitutional Amendment was to force ALL States to be dry.

All I truly want in the end is for the FedGov to stop violating the 10th Amendment, and leave this issue up to the States. I want them to stop picking on California, and all the other states that have medical marijuana. I want them to leave Nevada alone if they legalize. They have no Constitutional power to wage a War on Drugs. Hell, most of what the FedGov does is unConstitutional in this day and age. Where does the Constitution give them these powers?

[headsonpikes]

"...follow the money..." BTTT!!!

[Wolfie]

The SC said Federal law trumps State law. I would have assume that means for more strict laws as well as more lenient. (As an aside, the SC has no bounds. The Constitution means what 9 lifetime political appointees say it means, nothing more.)

[EBUCK]

Tobbacco, cocaine, MJ....all found on the bodies of 4000 year old egyptian mummies. Which happens to be around the same period that alchohol is believed to have been discovered.

Think about it. Tobbacco and MJ are natural plants that grow wild. Alchohol production requires a relatively complicated process to produce. Which do you think came first?

EBUCK

[Wolfie]

Well, its nice to be able to use the force of law to place people in treatment programs, and then point to the fact that people are in treatment programs as evidence of harm.

[WyldKard]

The SC said Federal law trumps State law. I would have assume that means for more strict laws as well as more lenient. (As an aside, the SC has no bounds. The Constitution means what 9 lifetime political appointees say it means, nothing more.)

The Supreme Court has turned into nothing more than a corrupt arm of the Socialist Powers-that-Be. None of these people are fit to hold the positions they do! They completely ignored the 10th Amendment....

[Blood of Tyrants]

Too many politicians and cops and judges are on the take either directly from the dealers or indirectly from property seizures.

What else do you expect from a government that absolutely refuese to even talk about the failure of the WOD?