Pro-Pot Group Challenges Bush Marijuana Policy (BARF ALERT)

Focus On The Family | January 9, 2003 | David Brody

[Sparta]

A pot-legalization group is taking on the White House over marijuana.

A group that wants to see marijuana legalized is angry with the Bush administration because they say the government is being too critical of pot.

The issue all started with a letter from Scott Burns, the deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control. In the letter, Burns told district attorneys across the country that they must better educate the public about marijuana use.

Keith Stroup, who heads up the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), claims the administration is going over the top suggesting that marijuana is the biggest drug threat in America.

"We're simply going to call them on this lie," Stroup said. "The Bush administration, for some reason, is in the process of ignoring the real drug problems we face and instead focusing their entire anti-drug apparatus on responsible marijuana smokers."

But Burns said it's time to get serious about the problem.

"It's something that the administration, I believe, has an obligation to talk about," Burns said.

He added that in some parts of the country heroin is the biggest problem. In other parts, it's cocaine. But the common thread is marijuana.

"We can't ignore marijuana," Burns said. "Sixty percent of the folks addicted to drugs in this country are using marijuana. If we don't talk about it and talk about it loudly, we're ignoring two-thirds of the problem."

As for his letter to prosecutors to raise awareness about marijuana, he said the response has been sobering.

"I've received calls from prosecutors all across the country who have said, 'I didn't know,' " Burns said.

That is precisely the reason for the letter: to make sure everyone knows that the problem is getting worse every day.

[headsonpikes]

Well, I'll agree with you.

"There is NO CONCLUSIVE agreement among researchers..."

Nor is there likely to be in our lifetimes; that's the nature of science.

Our dispute here is not over the science, in any event. It's about the reach and scope of Government power. You seem to be of the school of thought that wants the Government to have a freely available trump card,'the good of society', to play whenever their attempts at directing society are frustrated by annoying antique ideas like 'inalienable rights'.

Your college psychology classes did you in, I think.

[tacticalogic]

I also posted the known acute and chronic detrimental effects and possible chronic detrimental effects.

Yes you did. But you did not produce any comparative data on the know detrimental effects of alcohol. You've stated that you believe alcohol should be legal, and marijuana should be illegal. I would simply like to know by what objective criteria you arrive at that conclusion, or if you don't base that on objective criteria, why not.

[robertpaulsen]

"How does Joe Smith's smoking a joint in his living room ..."

I seem to recall that there were about 723,627 Joe Smiths that were caught smoking outside of their living room in 2001. Give or take.

[dirtboy]

I have posted one, wherein it even stated there is NO CONCLUSIVE agreement among researchers as to the detrimental, long-term, effects of drugs because there have been little or no studies performed on longevity

First of all, you keep moving the bar here. You first state that your are opposed to drug use because of its potential impact on you. Then, when confronted with a scenario where someone uses pot at home, a situation which has no impact on your well-being, you then make it an issue about THEIR health. And, once again, that it a liberal, nanny-state concept - that I am unfit to make decisions about my own health and therefore the government, acting as your proxy, will tell me how to best run MY life. And it doesn't stop with pot - the busybodies also want to control my fat intake, my beer intake, whether I smoke, whether I eat meat, what kind of car I drive, and how much water my toilet flushes. You are just one of a long line of well-meaning busybodies who are lined up at my door demanding to scrutinize my life.

But in the end, it still comes back to your own double standard. Alcohol, by ANY reasonable measure, is far more harmful to society than pot. A classic example is driving under the influence. We are bombarded with stats about how many people are killed by drunk drivers each year. Have you ever stopped to contemplate that we never see a similar stat from the drug czar regarding the number of drivers killed by pot smokers? Given the government's propensity to jump on ANY stat detrimental towards pot use, they would be all over any such number. So add the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths, the number of cases of alcohol poisoning, the number of people who die from alcohol-related illnesses each year, and then compare that to the number of pot overdoes each year and the number of verifiable deaths from long-term pot usage each year. And then tell me with a straight face that pot is more harmful than booze. You ask for studies, you ask for numbers - there is your number, right there. Hundreds of thosands of alcohol deaths, possibly a handful of pot deaths.

Oh, and regarding my supposed statements to justify drug use - if I had simply said I like to drink beer but oppose pot use, you'd be on my side. Guess what? I had an aunt and an uncle who never touched weed in their life. And died from alcohol-related illnesses. I've never known anyone to die from weed. Seems that you are in favor of banning the wrong drug - or do you like a beer or a highball yourself?

[vin-one]

I seem to recall that there were about 723,627 Joe Smiths that were caught smoking outside of their living room in 2001. Give or take.

firstly many of these people were arrested in their homes,
No Knock raids sound familar to you,
700k people arrested for if I remember correctly for possesion.

[MrLeRoy]

I seem to recall that there were about 723,627 Joe Smiths that were caught smoking outside of their living room in 2001. Give or take.

What's the figure for public drunkenness, and what's your point?

[Sparta]

Bin Laden doesn't make his money from marijuana, he makes it from opium and heroin which flood Europe. I'm for ending the drug war so the drugs won't be as profitable for the scum of the Earth and they can regulated and sold at a lower price. Your heart is in the right place, but you have the wrong idea. Hang out some more on the pro-freedom (anti-WOD) threads and you will come around.

BTW: Welcome to Free Republic.

[nicmarlo]

First of all, you keep moving the bar here. You first state that your are opposed to drug use because of its potential impact on you.

Uh, no I never said that initially. And, I know, it's probably hard for you to realize and keep up with the fact that I must respond to ALL responses, as best I can, and ALL the different "what if's" and other scenarios posited, therefore, I cannot keep repeating one sentence, because, then it would have no bearing on the different questions/comments posed to me. So, here's what I first posted, which, generally speaking, had everything to do with society, not me:

Dirtboy, you've said quite a mouth full on this thread, but it seems to me you're against laws that are "invasive" against individuals, no matter the good those laws may be for the rest of society as a whole. "Invasive," by the way, is subjective. What's invasive to a drug addict may well not be to a non-addict.

Headsonpike, lots of narcotics lead to violence and violent behavior; how you can think otherwise is unreasonable.

hodar, there are little, if any, similarities between people who become addicted to alcohol vs. people who become addicted to drugs, except for the fact that they may have an addiction or an addictive personality. Those who drink do not, as a rule, rob, steal, lie, or do whatever they can to get more; drug addicts do. Also, the average person does not become dependent upon alcohol by socially drinking; OTOH, taking a narcotic has extremely high risks of the user becoming dependent and addicted.

vin-one, unspun isn't suggesting legislating "morality." That can never be done. But there are reasons why certain behaviors cannot be allowed. If people freely used mind-altering, sense-distorting, and sense-blunting drugs, they are affecting more than just themselves. I, for one, have personal experience with one who used addictive drugs. He stole and he lied. He didn't finish high school. He lived in Hollyweird, with lots of other druggies, selling and using drugs. He was my brother. He didn't make it past 19. [oops, I mentioned myself here, dirtboy.]

Harpseal, our country would be ruined by having no drug laws, so those who are anti-drug laws are extremists. Society exists to protect its citizens, among other things. Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves, when necessary. Anything taken too far is not good. No laws in a society would be as ridiculous as regulating everything a person does everyday, every place and everywhere. And status quo is unacceptable.

All: It is not my intention to pick fights here, but I could not disagree more with most of you. . . . Libertarianism has its flaws. Libertarians' stand on drug laws is a major reason why I would never be one. . . . Funny how some of you want all the "technical" rules enforced in FR but are unwilling to have sensible legislation concerning drugs in our society. BTW, IMHO, drugs are not limited to it being a mere "social" problem. It is also political, mental, emotional, and workplace problems.

Now, would you like to rephrase your comments so that the "bar" has been refocused in your eyes? I'm sure you'll have to reformat some of your questions.

[tacticalogic]

For example, continual bringing up alcohol as compares to weed.

"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." Thomas Jefferson

Enquiry leads to truth - even when the response to that enquiry is silence.

[Sparta]

("Constitutional right to own ricin, C4, smallpox & plutonium." - Libertotalitarianism)

The difference between the three substances and weed is that those three substances have no other purpose but to harm others. Weed smokers only harm themselves.

[MrLeRoy]

Those who drink do not, as a rule, rob, steal, lie, or do whatever they can to get more; drug addicts do.

Largely because the illegality of drugs drives up their price. Your observation is an argument AGAINST anti-drug laws.

Also, the average person does not become dependent upon alcohol by socially drinking; OTOH, taking a narcotic has extremely high risks of the user becoming dependent and addicted.

Alcohol is much more addictive than marijuana.

If people freely used mind-altering, sense-distorting, and sense-blunting drugs, they are affecting more than just themselves.

Alcohol is such a drug.

[dirtboy]

I, for one, have personal experience with one who used addictive drugs. He stole and he lied. He didn't finish high school. He lived in Hollyweird, with lots of other druggies, selling and using drugs. He was my brother. He didn't make it past 19. [oops, I mentioned myself here, dirtboy.]

That's your story. I used pot some in college. It had a significant adverse impact on my grades. And I had many friends who could smoke pot, do their calculus or accounting homework and ace their tests. I don't use pot any more, but I have many friends who use it on a regular basis and have no problems holding down their jobs and being productive members of society. So what does that tell me? That pot is the kind of drug that has a different impact on different people, and it should be up to the people to decide if they can handle it or not. If they consume it and it messes them up to the point where they are a hazard to others in society, then the law should PROPERLY step in at that point. But your approach lumps all users together.

Dirtboy, you've said quite a mouth full on this thread, but it seems to me you're against laws that are "invasive" against individuals, no matter the good those laws may be for the rest of society as a whole.

I have NEVER said that. I have said that the interest of society stops at my front door. Your way is the way of the liberal busybody, as I have already clearly demonstrated. I really don't care to have someone protecting me from myself. If I pose a direct threat to your well being, then you have every right to demand that society step in. But other than that, butt out.

Sometimes people need to be protected from themselves, when necessary. Anything taken too far is not good.

So you would take it the other way - because some people cannot handle pot, then pot should be illegal for all people. Of course, far more people cannot handle booze, for all your claims to the contrary, yet you think it should stay legal. Once again, do YOU drink alcoholic beverages?

You have completely personalized this matter because of your brother, which, quite frankly, is why you have stated your personal opinion regarding pot as unassailable and therefore the rest of us must be deranged on the matter. Then do us a favor - don't bother with the pretense of debating, just simply state your opinion as such, and call it a day. Because otherwise your attempts to disguise your opinion as fact are not just stupid, they are fodder for liberal busybodies everywhere.

[dirtboy]

I seem to recall that there were about 723,627 Joe Smiths that were caught smoking outside of their living room in 2001. Give or take.

Smoking outside their living room, or caught with marijuana on their person? How many people pulled over for routine traffic stops have a couple of six-packs in the back - would you consider that public consumption of alcohol? Of course not - so don't try the same nonsense with weed.

[MrLeRoy]

[to nicmarlo:] you did not produce any comparative data on the know detrimental effects of alcohol.

Here's some info (compiled from multiple sources):

After 4 to 5 units most people feel less inhibited and more relaxed. After 8 or so units, most people slur their speech and become less co-ordinated and clumsy and some people become more emotional. More alcohol could result in staggering, double vision, loss of balance, nausea, vomiting and an impression of 'the room spinning'. With large doses blindness and unconsciousness may occur, the user may also not be able to remember what happened while they were drunk.

[...]

The ethyl alcohol in a beverage can be fatal if consumed in large amounts over a short period of time. But even in small amounts, such as those found in a can of beer, a glass of wine, or a shot of liquor (equal in their alcohol content), alcohol has a harmful effect.

Some of these effects include:

• Motor function and coordination are greatly impaired; resulting in driving accidents, falls, and other injuries;
• Brain function is harmed, leading to confusion, and memory loss;
• Damage can occur in the liver (cirrhosis of the liver is more common among alcohol abusers), pancreas, brain, stomach, and heart;
• Other ailments such as anemia, pancreatitis, gastritis(stomach ailments), and neuritis (nerve damage) can result from alcohol use

[Cultural Jihad]

Weed smokers only harm themselves.

And we all know that ideologues claim that inalienable rights include "an early death, slavery to vice, and the pursuit of unneeded suffering."

[MrLeRoy]

I, for one, have personal experience with one who used addictive drugs.

So do I; my father's younger brother is addicted to alcohol---he's unemployed and has no purpose in life other than getting drunk (on Listerine when he can't afford booze).

But that would not justify my calling for a ban on alcohol for all adults.

[robertpaulsen]

"700k people arrested for if I remember correctly for possesion"

And all of them were smoking in their living room, according to MrLeRoy.

The point is, MrLeRoy, people are not smoking marijuana in just their living rooms, and it is disingenuous for you to say so.

[dirtboy]

And we all know that ideologues claim that inalienable rights include "an early death, slavery to vice, and the pursuit of unneeded suffering."

I don't know about early death or slavery to vice, but having to read your inane, vacuous replies certainly constitutes unneeded suffering...

[MrLeRoy]

ideologues claim that inalienable rights include "an early death, slavery to vice, and the pursuit of unneeded suffering."

So government has the moral authority to restrict our liberties to keep us long-lived and pain-free? (And what is "slavery to vice" other than frequent participation in activities of which Cultural Jihad disapproves?)

[dirtboy]

The point is, MrLeRoy, people are not smoking marijuana in just their living rooms, and it is disingenuous for you to say so.

I already refuted your failed logic here in reply #173. Try some other approach.