Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
August 2009
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Archives

Authors

More silliness from the Drug Czar

This is really a follow-up to the previous post, and I already added the link as an update there, but I can’t resist commenting on these points, reported quite well from El Paso by Sito Negron at Newspaper Tree.

Talk about pathetic…

When asked whether there was a difference between hard drugs like cocaine and marijuana he said it was a question for the attorney general, and when pressed on the question he said “I’d wait and ask the attorney, I’ve had only one meeting with the attorney general so far and I’m pretty new in my tenure so I think I’d just defer until we go further down the road.”

He doesn’t know what he’s supposed to say. Wow.

Then, about medical marijuana (remember, this is the guy who very recently said “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.” Now:

As for medical marijuana, he said: “I think the medical marijuana, we’re reserving that question for the medical community. The decision on whether marijuana actually has a medicinal benefit within its chemical compound is a question we’re going to let science answer.”

Uh huh.

Finally, and here’s a real kicker, he’s asked about alcohol prohibition.

Finally, he was asked about whether the end of Prohibition reduced violence in Chicago, and whether that was a possible model for legalizing marijuana.

“I’m not sure I’d liken what we’re talking about to Prohibition, but I don’t think anybody thought after Prohibition was lifted crime ended as a result,” Kerlikowske said.

Classic nirvana fallacy. Of course, crime didn’t end. But it was dramatically reduced, and the structures for organized crime related to the black market of alcohol were weakened fatally. That’s the exact same situation that we face with prohibition of drugs.

OK, Kerlikowske is a tool, and he’s making the office look silly. But there’s something else happening. Everywhere he goes, he’s being asked the legalization question. And now he’s being asked the Chicago prohibition question. The press is waking up, or becoming emboldened, or something.

Additionally, note in Negron’s article…

But Kerlikowske, who by the rules governing his office cannot say anything else — “The statute says we have to absolutely resist (legalization” — said that the administration is working on a “different approach” to the Drug War.

More and more, the Drug Czar’s statements are prefaced with the disclaimer that what he has to say does not include all the options. (And by the way, I take full credit for that. It’s taken a couple of years to catch on, but my article is having an effect.)

This is fabulous stuff. People are commenting on what the Drug Czar has to say, but no longer accepting it. Kaptinemo in comments may have it right:

I keep thinking that I’m witnessing the ‘end of days’ when it comes to the ONDCP. And Mr. Kerlikowske has been chosen (and probably knows that he has) to preside over its’ dissolution.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

14 comments to More silliness from the Drug Czar

  • The new site looks great and your efforts to illuminate the requirement to lie clause are fantastic.

    cheers!

  • kaptinemo

    It should also be noted that the facts regarding Mr. K’s peculiar position could rightly be ascribed to a small squad of guerilla drug law reformer posters on renowned ‘libruhl’ Websites who link to Pete’s pages. It’s those who are getting the formerly somnambulist ‘progressive’ bloggers to take notice of what they so assiduously averted their eyes from looking at. Keep up the gadfly bit, guys!

  • Balloon Maker

    Isn’t there some kind of “Handbook for Lying to the Media” that Gil can carry around? Seriously, this is pathetic.

    How about we, like, do some research on the medical benefits of marijuana then?

    Pete, site looks great. Commenting is 100x better.

  • sixtyfps

    Pete, I sincerely hope Google doesn’t forget your “Why Is Marijuana Illegal?” and ‘lie clause’ pages after the old site dies.

  • Sixtyfps — That’s one of my big concerns as well. I have asked the tech person at salon blogs to put a 301 re-direct on those specific pages (as well as Drug War Victims) to the new pages. That appears to be the best way to have Google maintain the search value of the page. I haven’t heard back yet, but I think he’s be open to the idea.

    I’m also prepared to do some Google advertising to get people to find the new page.

    Also, I’d like to find out if there’s a way to have a stumble-upon page address change (I get a lot of traffic to that page via Stumble-upon.)

    Note: To give you an idea of how important that is, the old site is still drawing twice as many page visits as the new site, mostly due to “Why is Marijuana Illegal.”

  • davidstvz

    Nice new place you got here Pete. I wonder if the comments page will not respond in a timely manner. I bet it will. Let’s see…

  • truthtechnician

    Stumble-upon doesn’t have the ability to change URL’s like that. A 301 redirect would be best for both stumble-upon and google.

  • Cannabis

    I submitted the URL for the new “Why Is Marijuana Illegal?” page to Google. The more blogs that have the URL for Why Is Marijuana Illegal? in them the higher the its ranking will be.

  • ezrydn

    If we are to believe all those who paid Gil accolades from his past, to take this job, can you just imagine how much “character” he had to destroy? I’m just wondering “why?” What’s HIS “payoff?”

  • DdC

    Balloon Maker
    August 12th, 2009

    Isn’t there some kind of “Handbook for Lying to the Media”
    that Gil can carry around? Seriously, this is pathetic.

    You think he remembers all that horshit?

    The DEA is unequivocally opposed to the legalization of illicit drugs”
    (including marijuana, hemp and hemp seed oil)
    ~ US DEA booklet, “Speaking Out Against Legalization”[/i]

    DEA Speaks Out Against Legalization

    Handbook of Drug Control in the United States

    [i]How about we, like,
    do some research on the medical benefits of marijuana then?

    Oh paleeeze get a grip… That’s so silly its insulting. Would you walk into a bakery and ask the baker to test the bread to see if it was edible? Of coarse its been tested. Politics of Pot. We’re still waiting for that one piece of DEAth dribble proving Ganja is harmful. Nixon lied, period. Rx Ganja has been studied and proven beneficial more than any other substance on the planet.

    Ganja/Hemp

    “DEA Judge Young (USA), after careful consideration of many testimonials and reports, concluded that cannabis is less dangerous than most of the vegetables that we eat today. Everything can be dangerous – in water one can drown, in air fires can spread rapidly, excessive sunshine burns, excessive food bloats, sporting and leisure activities are often dangerous. THE GREATEST DANGERS OF CANNABIS ARE THE DANGERS OF ARREST, OF LACK OF QUALITY CONTROL, AND OF THE SUPPLY BEING MIXED WITH THAT OF DRUGS.

    “”Not only are we here to protect the public from vicious criminals in the street but also to protect the public from harmful ideas.””
    ~ Robert Ingersoll – Former DEA Director (1972)

    The Official Story: Debunking “Gutter Science”

    “In my era everybody smoked and everybody drank
    and there was no drug use.”

    — DEA Chief Thomas Constantine, July 1, 1998

    Nixon lied to schedule Ganja #1

    Brian Bennett’s Truth – the Anti-Drugwar

  • DdC

    OOOOOOooooooo more than 4 linx allowed.

    I’ll try to behave Pete, no worries…

  • jayrollinhippie

    The time is near and evil lies will not stand the light of day. Today there is the aroma of populace insurection in the land as the far right distorts every move towrds a progressive change in this country.

  • Ben Smokes Pot

    If you want to have a link to a site appear quickly on Google while your new site builds traffic, make a topic in a popular forum. I use http://www.Trance.nu just because I like dance music – if you make any type of posting in the “OFF TOPIC” section, the text of the entire posting, especially the title, will be easily recognized by Google and pushed to the top of the the search results. By 24 hours you should be in the first page and by 72 hours it should be the highest hit. People wont see your site on the search results but they can stumble on the forum page and consequently on your links. Remember to use forums that are popular, and OLD! Trance.nu is an old blog, so use old blogs with thousands of members who are easily crawled by Googs robot. Cheers.