DEA Chief Criticizes Obama For Telling The Truth About Marijuana

[12AX7]

President Choom Gang is obviously the expert on what marijuana does or doesn't do.

Who is "President Choom Gang"?

And, here's a random quack doctor for ya:

Dr. Sanjay Gupta: Why I changed my mind on weed

Whackos, I tell ya. All of 'em.

Good thing the conservatives have the moral fortitude to fight this good fight to save society against the ravages of things like pot, gay marriage and women's rights.

Godspeed, conservatives!

 

[Virus]

Who is "President Choom Gang"?

Barrack "A little blow" Obama.

 

[daenku32]

I'm a fan of the President, but not sure what to tell a teenager that wants to smoke the stuff, other than "it's illegal!".

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Wow, a bunch of Sheriff's who are scared all that War On Drugs money is gonna dry up are angry the President isn't staying on message that all the illegal narcotics are evil?

Shocking!

Took the word outta my mouth. The war on drugs is just as much a business as black market drugs, and don't fool yourself kids.

 

[BenBurch]

I see her being asked to resign in the near term.

 

[Virus]

Took the word outta my mouth. The war on drugs is just as much a business as black market drugs, and don't fool yourself kids.

There is no war on drugs. There's a slap on the wrist for drugs. The pro-drug lobby is itself a racket.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

There is no war on drugs. There's a slap on the wrist for drugs. The pro-drug lobby is itself a racket.

So you've managed to miss the controversy over mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions, then?

Try this.

 

[ravdin]

There is no war on drugs. There's a slap on the wrist for drugs. The pro-drug lobby is itself a racket.

The president is also pretending there is no war on drugs, but unfortunately there is.

 

[Donal]

Absolutely:

Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.

People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose.

The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use.

Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not.

Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not.

Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana.

Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not.

A bias source that uses non-bias sources to back up their claims. Do I agree wholeheartedly with every claim? Nah. They stretch it a little bit, but the overall message is factual and based on the available evidence.

By stretching, you mean outright lie.

I have no problem treating pot like we treat booze or smokes, but you can't lie to get what you want any. We're not going to solve anything if we're all just screaming false cliches around.

 

[12AX7]

By stretching, you mean outright lie.

OK, maybe you can post up evidence of the following:

Show the numbers and sources of the annual deaths from marijuana use.

Show the numbers and sources of fatal marijuana overdoses.

Show the numbers and sources that the health-related costs associated with marijuana use far exceed alcohol use.

Show the medical literature that demonstrates marijuana use damages the brain. Further, compare/contrast that with alcohol use.

Show the medical literature that demonstrates marijuana is linked to cancer. Further, compare/contrast that with alcohol use.

Show the research that proves marijuana is addictive at all (or more/less so than alcohol).

Show the research studies that prove marijuana use increases the risk of injury to the consumer greater than alcohol use does.



I look forward to your responses.

 

[Ziggurat]

A bias source that uses non-bias sources to back up their claims. Do I agree wholeheartedly with every claim? Nah. They stretch it a little bit, but the overall message is factual and based on the available evidence.

They stretch it a lot on some of them:

Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use.

You can die from alcohol poisoning. There is no known LD50 (lethal dose for 50% of the population) for marijuana. So it's true that you can't die from a marijuana overdose, as far as we know. But that's not quite the same thing as saying you can't die from marijuana use. You definitely can, and you can do so the same way you can die from alcohol use without overdosing: drive while intoxicated and get into a fatal accident. I don't know the numbers (and they might not be accurate: it's much easier and cheaper to test for alcohol than marijuana so the former gets more testing), but I seriously doubt it's zero.

Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not.

That is wrong. Marijuana use does damage the brain. In particular, it leads to an earlier onset of psychosis. Although alcohol abuse can lead to other forms of brain damage, it does not appear to lead to earlier onset of psychosis.

Alcohol use is a major factor in violent crimes. Marijuana use is not.

To quote a bit more: "By contrast, the government does not even track violent acts specifically related to marijuana use, as the use of marijuana has not been associated with violence."
The logical flaw is obvious: if you're not tracking it, how can you tell that it's not a factor? Well, you can't. And this gets back to an earlier point I made: testing for marijuana is more difficult, more time-consuming, more costly, and more invasive than testing for alcohol. Police are much less likely to do so for this reason alone. They don't need a warrant to make you take a breathalizer test if they suspect you've been drinking & driving, but there is no breathalizer test for marijuana, that requires a blood sample, and that DOES require a warrant. Now, I don't really want to give the police permission to take blood samples without a warrant, but given that they can't, equivalent tracking of marijuana's relationship to crime like they do with alcohol simply isn't possible. And the absence of evidence (which we don't have because we never collected it) is NOT evidence of absence. We simply don't know how much marijuana is connected to violent crime. I suspect that it's less than alcohol, but you really can't say that it's zero, because we don't know that it is.


Now, none of this means that marijuana is worse than alcohol. In fact, even if it is, legalization may still be the right thing to do. But marijuana is NOT harmless. It does harm. The question is if it does less harm than its prohibition. I suspect so, but it annoys me to no end when people pretend that it does no harm.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Now, none of this means that marijuana is worse than alcohol. In fact, even if it is, legalization may still be the right thing to do. But marijuana is NOT harmless. It does harm. The question is if it does less harm than its prohibition. I suspect so, but it annoys me to no end when people pretend that it does no harm.

I personally think it should be legal but I fully agree with the assessment it is not harmless and find it annoying when people claim it is harmless or a miracle cure for nearly every ailment known to humankind.

 

[ravdin]

Now, none of this means that marijuana is worse than alcohol. In fact, even if it is, legalization may still be the right thing to do. But marijuana is NOT harmless. It does harm. The question is if it does less harm than its prohibition. I suspect so, but it annoys me to no end when people pretend that it does no harm.

I couldn't agree that marijuana is not harmless. I don't like that argument because not only is it factually wrong, it's beside the point. It's not harmless to eat a fatty diet, or smoke cigarettes, or gamble, or have unprotected sex with strangers. But if you're an adult in a supposedly free society, you get to make those choices for yourself. I have no interest in stopping you from any of those things at the point of a gun.

 

[fishbob]

. . . . . . snipped for brevity . . . .
Now, none of this means that marijuana is worse than alcohol. In fact, even if it is, legalization may still be the right thing to do. But marijuana is NOT harmless. It does harm. The question is if it does less harm than its prohibition. I suspect so, but it annoys me to no end when people pretend that it does no harm.

Dead on.
Lying for a cause is the most annoying thing there is.

 

[Puppycow]

I'd say that Leonhart should be fired for insubordination, but an even better decision would be to disband the DEA altogether.

I wish he would fire her, but I don't expect it. Sometimes I think he's too timid.

I think he's afraid to do anything that appears to be "soft on crime". It manifests in many ways, but this is one of them. Another is that he has been rather stingy with presidential pardons and commutations. He's pardoned almost as many thanksgiving turkeys as people (a slight exaggeration, but not too outlandish). He's deported more illegal immigrants than Bush. And he defers to his hawkish national security and intelligence advisers on most things rather than civil-libertarians.

 

[DC]

sad to see those people at the DEA being so extremely ignorant about it.

one would have thought they would be happy to hear they can soon start concentrating on real drugs instead of mj.

 

[Praktik]

In their world "mj" is a *real* drug, its why it's still absurdly in Schedule I.

Its funny to think that our drug laws are essentially founded on the "do we do it, or do OTHER people do it?" tribal principle.

And if other people did it, it was made illegal. For the Drug Warrior True Believer shock troops, smoking marijuana is a sign of "the other", and this is why it is seen as so evil and worth spending so many resources arbitrarily enforcing the law selectively on poor non-whites...

 

[Praktik]

I couldn't agree that marijuana is not harmless. I don't like that argument because not only is it factually wrong, it's beside the point. It's not harmless to eat a fatty diet, or smoke cigarettes, or gamble, or have unprotected sex with strangers. But if you're an adult in a supposedly free society, you get to make those choices for yourself. I have no interest in stopping you from any of those things at the point of a gun.

QFT.

The talk of harms is a bit of a sideshow when seen in this way: in fact, talk of harms should be distinct from talk of freedom.

A drug's relative harm is important to understand - especially for free adults who are making a choice.

but their right to make that choice is itself distinct from the spectrum of harm.

We don't seem to have lobbies trying to ban downhill skiiing, even with the body count and broken limbs every year right?

Where your helmet when you ski!

Vaporize your pot - don't smoke it!

Drink in moderation!

 

[Horatius]

I'm a fan of the President, but not sure what to tell a teenager that wants to smoke the stuff, other than "it's illegal!".

That's exactly what you tell them. The vast majority of negative consequences related to pot use is a result of it being illegal.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

That's exactly what you tell them. The vast majority of negative consequences related to pot use is a result of it being illegal.

As a medical pot smoker, I'd:
Say it's bad for your lungs to suck in any kind of smoke.

It has a smell that makes one reek of it

It slows reaction time so don't drive/operate heavy machinery.

... And from there it's pretty much shooting down the hobgoblins- it doesn't lead to other drugs, it isn't addictive, one sobers from it far more quickly than from alcohol.