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.

[MrLeRoy]

In the span of 13 minutes, four bogus claims have been spotted in this piece. Just because it's on a "conservative" site doesn't make it true.

[tacticalogic]

Landmark research by Dr. Robert Heath, a world renowned brain researcher, shows the drastic effect of marijuana on the brain. He proved that marijuana's effect on the brain makes it one of the most dangerous drugs available.

Are you aware that Dr. Heath's methodology in these studies is seriously in question, and that despite repeated attempts, no one has ever been able to reproduce the results he claims to have observed?

[dirtboy]

I posted to express my opinions

Yep, and then failed to adequately support your opinion, nor explain the clear contracdiction between your attitude towards pot and your attitude towards alcohol, other than, perhaps, that you personally use alcohol and don't use pot. And then you turn around and have the nerve to say this:

There is no point to continue attempting to state anything on this thread; the environment is unreasonable and unproductive.

[robertpaulsen]

How does Joe Smith's smoking a joint in his living room "harm society itself,"
post #151

Poor little Joe Smith. All he's doing is smoking in his living room. How is he hurting anyone? Why are the jackbooted thugs picking on this poor man?

So, I lied when I quoted your own post? You're trying to paint a picture that is belied by the statistics. I wish the dopers would stay in their living rooms, but they don't.

[AUgrad]

ingesting pot at home is the same as ingesting booze at home, and they should become criminal only upon additional conduct that endangers others.

Good point.

[MrLeRoy]

nicmarlo, nobody here will think less of you (rather the opposite) if you just admit you've got a lot to learn about the subject.

[dirtboy]

So, I lied when I quoted your own post? You're trying to paint a picture that is belied by the statistics. I wish the dopers would stay in their living rooms, but they don't.

He never said otherwise. No one here has said that it should be legal to drive under the influence of pot, just as it is not legal to drive under the influence of alcohol. And, as I already pointed out, there are hundreds of thousands of people pulled over every year who have a couple of six packs or a bottle of wine in the back that they are taking home. That's legal, and does not count as public intoxication. But if you are driving home with a bag of pot, that's illegal. So equating possession of pot with use outside the home is a logical fallacy, but you've shown quite a propensity for that, so we're hardly surprised, except for the fact that you are so impressed with yourself for engaging in such.

[dirtboy]

nicmarlo, nobody here will think less of you (rather the opposite) if you just admit you've got a lot to learn about the subject.

Frankly, I don't think he wants to learn. He seems to have a preconception based on what happens to his brother. And I have an easier time with that than the deliberate abuse of logic that Kevin Curry engages in.

[MrLeRoy]

I lied when I quoted your own post?

No, you lied when you said, "all [700,000] of them [2001 possession arrestees] were smoking in their living room, according to MrLeRoy." (You never quoted my post until just now.)

You're trying to paint a picture

Wrong; I was responding to nicmarlo's claim that "ingest[ing] substances [including marijuana] WILL and DOES harm others in society."

[AUgrad]

You are all incredible, absolutely incredible. No wonder why people who understand that drugs are unhealthy, addictive, and counter-productive to a society don't engage in discussions with you.

You are absolutely correct. Therefore, you should take your toys and your weak arguments and go home.

[ActionNewsBill]

Do you have anything to offer besides sycophantic falsehoods?

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm on your side here.

[MrLeRoy]

I think you misunderstood my post. I'm on your side here.

D'oh! Please pardon my vitriol.

[robertpaulsen]

I just didn't agree with the impression that pot smokers just sit in their living rooms bothering no one. They're not.

[dirtboy]

I just didn't agree with the impression that pot smokers just sit in their living rooms bothering no one. They're not.

And alcohol drinkers sometimes venture out from their living rooms. They both should be treated accordingly - and in a similar manner. If they stay home, leave 'em alone.

[KDD]

Drug War FACTS

You need to study these facts before you debate this issue.

Everything is sourced.

If you have any questions after you read the facts there are many here to answer them.

Buy know this...the American people are not as stupid as our government perceives them. There will be a backlash against this administrations hard core stance against marijuana. Their ONDCP ads are quickly becoming public material for comedians to mimic. When asked about this issue before the election, George Bush said that he felt that it was an issue that was in the purvey of the several states. This was said by him when being asked about pending State Medical marijuana votes in California and Colorado..Then I saw this interview

Questioner: Did you ever find out if President Bush supports medical marijuana?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, let me -- I have something on that. You remind me of the campaign. The President is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, including for medicinal purposes and he strongly supports the current federal law that's in place.

Questioner: Why?

Questioner: Why not trust the people?

Questioner: Give us a reason as to why.

MR. FLEISCHER: I've not discussed it at length with him about his reasons why, so I can only tell you that is his position.

Questioner: Ari, on medical marijuana, several times during the campaign early on he said he was in favor of letting states decide for themselves about marijuana. Has he changed that position?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President's position is always on state referenda and things like that. That is a process question where the states have the right to follow their own processes. But as the President has said, and as you know -- as discussed by campaign spokespeople with you directly during the campaign -- the President opposes it, he supports federal law. On the personal level, he opposes medical marijuana, but he supports the federal law.

I must say that this press conference put the President in a bad light to this life long Republican who had just voted for him.

Then came the Patrotic Act and Homeland Security. The quibble on stem cells. Signing McCains Bill. Steel subsidies...Islam a religion of peace...Double standard Iraq-Korea.

I supported Nixon to the end(even now) and learned for the first time the bias of the liberal press. That cemented me in the Republican Party and I've never had doubts about my choice untill now. My critisism has been muted here because I want to give him time...Two years is enough. This former YAF member does not believe G.W. Bush is a conservative.

[philman_36]

Trying to "shoot 'em down" with "rationality"
Actually exposes their totality.
Giving government unlimited purview
"Don't smoke weed" they attempt to eschew.

It matters not if they're proven wrong
The argument changes before too long.
One day it's this, another it's that
Change the tune at the drop of a hat.

A vested interest might seem to apply
Maybe not wanting the coffers to run dry.
From treatment centers to profits from seizures
All from someone's "illegal" pleasures.

And it seems that when there is personal loss
All common sense gets the toss.
I have great sympathy and understand their grief
But it musn't be the sole basis for belief.

No-knock raids and warrantless searches
A nightmarish monster towards us lurches.
The weapon I own might raise a dander
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Try to understand, as hard as I might
I don't understand that side of the fight.
What goes for one goes for all
"Society's need" is the call.

[KDD]

And I think John Ashcroft is trying to interject his fundamental religous dogma into Government policy. Government does not "instruct" it's citizens on what is and is not "moral". That is the job of our Churches. Those "moral loophole" ads, coming from our government, are appalling. Can no one see the slippery slope?

[tacticalogic]

Can no one see the slippery slope?

Yesterday someone posited that any use of narcotics is immoral. I considered this last night, while I was out the garage chipping welds. If any use of narcotics is immoral, then how is some corporate bigwig going to the resident state-liscensed "Dr. Feelgood" for his regular Vicodin scripts for his old "football injury" substantially different from the old Catholic church practice of selling indulgences?

[KDD]

Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard - Publisher
Shotgun News
P. O. Box 669, Hastings, NE 68902

Dear Ms. Swickard,

I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 (1996) issue. The support of the "Drug War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society.

Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA) show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in the Congress would not enjoy the power they now possess to attack the Bill of Rights.

To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first Prohibition was. It is a classic example of the attempt to control a vice--drunkenness--by police power. It made all use of alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that it gave a name--The Roaring Twenties--to an entire decade. It lead to the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the land. And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that time.

Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol, liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen; after 1920 they were all violent criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by shootings, and the use of machine guns by criminals.

We now have the same effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons.

It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand that the whole Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the 2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premise of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premise of Drug Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or irresponsibles. All use is abuse.

This is an extremely dangerous idea for a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights, because that is the chief defense in the Constitution against abuses of government power.

Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has been spared from attack. There has been an enormous increase in police power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others?

We understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to all gun owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that Drug Warriors exaggerate the hazards of drug use--"all use is abuse'--in the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on the public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited.

Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.

If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America, the return to drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defense of liberty.

Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user will become an addict?

In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and a minority of drug-users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a drug smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And, without Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why isn't this obvious to all of us?

It is because both guns and drugs have become fetishes to some people in America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractable ills of society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object.

They succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminish the most precious possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint--Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive. They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the price they charge for their promise of our security.

Sincerely,

Amicus Populi

Just more food for thought.

[KDD]

They succeed by inducing the immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the words: Guns! Drugs!

Now we can add "terrorism" to the list.