In today’s editorial: A federal misstep with medical marijuana?, they make their concerns about the recent Holder memo clear.
That cost is Washington’s tacit approval of state-sanctioned medical marijuana, which the drug’s proponents will take as a green light to push even harder for their ultimate goal: full legalization of marijuana use and distribution.
And that, of course, is the sham argument to fear of the prohibitionist â€” if we allow medical marijuana efforts to continue, people will start to accept marijuana and maybe lead to legalizing it, therefore, because we have no valid moral position to stand on, we should deny sick people something that will help them.
So what is this great fear they have of legalized marijuana. Note as more and more science has debunked the various reefer madness talking points, their arguments sound pathetically weak (even if they don’t realize it).
Generally, marijuana is not nearly as harmless as its proponents make it out to be. While pot cannot directly kill its user the way that alcohol or, say, an overdose of heroin can, heavy use can lead to dependence. About 1 in 10 people who have ever used marijuana become dependent at some time, according to Kevin Sabet, in the 2006 book, “Pot Politics.” Mr. Sabet, a staunch opponent of legalizing marijuana, is now a drug policy adviser to the president.
Heavy use can also lead to serious mental-health problems, especially in young people. Even casual use distorts perception, reduces motor skills, and affects alertness â€“ a hazard in driving and other activities.
These concerns should cause the public to stop and rethink its growing support for legal use of marijuana (44 percent, according to an October Gallup poll, up from 34 percent in 2003).
Other than the “serious mental-health problems” from heavy use by teens (extremely disputable, and even if true, a good argument for regulation), there is nothing there conceivably warranting anything more than a warning label on the packaging at most.
I want to go back to part of that, though…
Mr. Sabet, a staunch opponent of legalizing marijuana, is now a drug policy adviser to the president.
Excuse me? When did this happen? Was I asleep?
I was beginning to think it was an outright lie, until I found this article online.
Sabet, 30, a special advisor for policy and strategic planning at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, joined two other panelists to discuss the â€œState of Addiction Healthcareâ€ in Illinois and the U.S. […]
Sabet, who joined President Barack Obamaâ€™s Administration in August, previously worked on policy and speechwriting at White House drug control office from 2003-2004 and 2000 in both the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton Administrations, making him one of the youngest people to have served in the last three Administrations as a political appointee.
I knew the part about him working with past administrations, but I missed the announcement about his new gig with the Obama administration.
A search of the ONDCP website for Sabet comes up with 0 hits, nor does he show up on the DOJ site.
What is a special advisor for policy and strategic planning at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and if you are one, why wouldn’t you be listed at the ONDCP?
Does anyone know what’s up with this?
Update: I’ve received confirmation that Kevin Sabet is indeed working with the ONDCP â€” just not in a high profile way. Interesting.
I’ve seen Kevin debate. His arguments are those of the prohibitionist, so they’re weak and don’t stand up to rebuttal. However, compared to the outrageous folks that filled the ONDCP in the last administration, Sabet comes off as a somewhat reasonable fellow who is at least willing to listen, even though his mind’s made up.