Medical Pot a Political Ploy, Bush Drug Czar Says

The Associated Press ^ | August 15, 2003

[robertpaulsen]

"Seems to me, Bob, that you were using that very same "stupid outdated report" not to long ago yourself in defending your position. Whassup?"

Well, phil, when I used that report I wasn't comparing the data of a 1996 survey contained in a 1999 report to the current conditions articulated by John Walters. I call that "outdated".

Also, I didn't attempt to equate the results of a nationwide survey to the Portland metropolitan area. I call that "stupid".

Ergo, "stupid, outdated report". Capisci?

[bassmaner]

He put himself in jail, not the "pro-WOD politicians".

(sigh)

If it wasn't for marijuana PROHIBITION, he would never have been convicted of a "crime" in the first place, so ultimately they are responsible. Get it right.

[robertpaulsen]

"And a few quotes ... by a few people"

I think when the "few people" are heading up or associated with major pro-legalization marijuana organizations, their words have impact.

Keep in mind we're talking about three former Directors of NORML and the President of Common Sense for Drug Policy and co-founder of the Drug Policy Foundation.

The reason I have nothing later than 1993 is that, apparently, these people have learned to keep their arrogance in check.

[jeremiah]

Pharmaceutical companies products good, natural herbs and drugs bad. I guess whatever has enough money behind it to become dangerous has the blessing of the state, and that which is much more harmless is felonious.

[robertpaulsen]

He violated the conditions of his release. That's why he went to jail.

He could have originally been arrested for anything. It's immaterial that it was marijuana.

If he were arrested for marijuana then thrown in jail and assaulted, different story. Find one of those to make your point.

Even then, if a person is arrested for a crime, say drunk and disorderly, thrown in jail and susequently assaulted, should we legalize drunk and disorderly?

[robertpaulsen]

"According to research cited by the Institute of Medicine, of all those who have ever used alcohol 15% of them became dependent; for marijuana the corresponding figure is a substantially lower 9%."

Even the authors felt a need to explain this:

" Compared to most other drugs listed in this table, dependence among marijuana users is relatively rare. This might be due to differences in specific drug effects, the availability of or penalties associated with the use of the different drugs, or some combination."

Comparing usage and dependence of legal drugs to illegal drugs is disingenuous. I don't argue the numbers, just keep them in context.

If you want to compare the usage and dependence of alcohol to marijuana for example, use alcohol numbers from Prohibition or when both were legal.

[philman_36]

Also, I didn't attempt to equate the results of a nationwide survey to the Portland metropolitan area. I call that "stupid".
Ergo, "stupid, outdated report". Capisci?
Taint what you said. The conversation went thusly...
MrLeRoy..."According to research cited by the Institute of Medicine, of all those who have ever used alcohol 15% of them became dependent; for marijuana the corresponding figure is a substantially lower 9%."
robertpaulsen...What does that have to do with teens in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area? How does a generalized report of "have ever used marijuana" make Walters a liar? Is that stupid outdated report your rebuttal? Lame.

Those adjectives regard the IOM report, not the Portland survey. Try again. You can do better in the excuse department.
Lame! Capisci?
I do recognize your later attempts to further confuse things as well...
And I note with interest that you aren't denying previously using that IOM report yourself.

[philman_36]

I think when the "few people" are heading up or associated with major pro-legalization marijuana organizations, their words have impact.
Thanks for sharing what you "think".
Keep in mind we're talking about three former Directors of NORML and the President of Common Sense for Drug Policy and co-founder of the Drug Policy Foundation.
And? Care to see some of the hairbrained quotes from some pro WOD supporters? Oh what a feast that would be!
The reason I have nothing later than 1993 is that, apparently, these people have learned to keep their arrogance in check.
Their arrogance? My, aren't you the condescending one. Seems there is arrogance aplenty on the other side of the aisle as well and you're just one shining example of it.

[Scenic Sounds]

"The greatest enemy in this area is cynicism," Walters said.

What kind of a confession is that?

[PaxMacian]

Cynic: an adherent of an ancient Greek school of philosophers who held the view that virtue is the only good and that its essence lies in self-control and independence.

I wish it were true that he possessed any virtue.
But, alas, he demonstrates none. He lies, and exerts unjust, merciless, and unwarranted power of control over others liberties. But, I suppose you could have meant he was confessing to being an authoritarian fascist by attacking cynicism and in that case you're right on the money.

[robertpaulsen]

"And I note with interest that you aren't denying previously using that IOM report yourself."

Of course not. When MrLeRoy posts an excerpt from the IOM report, I find that quoting the complete excerpt, or a contrary excerpt from the same report to be the most compelling argument.

I don't recall ever using that report to make an argument unless it's in response to someone else's reference to it. (Note: As in this thread).

[robertpaulsen]

(Sorry, meant to copy you)

"And I note with interest that you aren't denying previously using that IOM report yourself."

Of course not. When MrLeRoy posts an excerpt from the IOM report, I find that quoting the complete excerpt, or a contrary excerpt from the same report to be the most compelling argument.

I don't recall ever using that report to make an argument unless it's in response to someone else's reference to it. (Note: As in this thread).

[philman_36]

I don't recall ever using that report to make an argument unless it's in response to someone else's reference to it.
I do. Something along the lines of "nothing smokable is ever used as medicine".

[MrLeRoy]

" Compared to most other drugs listed in this table, dependence among marijuana users is relatively rare. This might be due to differences in specific drug effects, the availability of or penalties associated with the use of the different drugs, or some combination."

Comparing usage and dependence of legal drugs to illegal drugs is disingenuous.

The only way legal status is relevant is if the illegality of marijuana somehow makes it less likely to addict than the legal drug alcohol. But since marijuana is less heavily penalized than other drugs that are, like alcohol, more addicting, this explanation is suspect at best.