If only

The Drug Czar: “We should examine our … failures forthrightly, and we should adjust our approach as necessary”

[H/T Transform]
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to If only

  1. divadab says:

    As necessary to continue to fail even more expensively.

    • kant says:

      …and violently.

    • claygooding says:

      True and there must be another bureaucratic agency to help us figure out more ways to spend more money more ineffectively,,we can call it “The Ways too Meaningless Agency” and appoint retired drug warriors to run it and spend their budget.

  2. kaptinemo says:

    Oh, man, where do I begin?

    “Our Strategy highlights that we are in the midst of an historic shift towards an evidence-based approach to break the cycle of drug use, crime and incarceration.”

    Yes, scientifically validated evidence that is repeatedly rejected by you and your minions. And thus, you are maintaining the status quo. Which by your own admission is an abject failure.

    How much longer do you expect to run in place and only plow a deeper rut? You’re already about 20 feet below the surface and your feet are wet from hitting the water table, getting nowhere at lightspeed. More importantly, how much longer do you expect to do so with our tax money?

    I can only tolerate looking at his screed for so long before I feel that my corneas are becoming coated with some vile, brown, methane-reeking stuff normally found in cow pastures. It’s bad enough that we pay him to lie to us; it’s worse when Latin American leaders also know it’s (intellectually insulting) BS.

    • claygooding says:

      I made it all the way to the fourth paragraph before uncontrolled laughter and projectile vomiting commenced,,talk about a crew of speech writers honing lies and superstitions into crap that sounds like facts.

      “”Of course, even if the United States continues to reduce its consumption as we intend, there will still be significant global demand for drugs such as cocaine. “”

      Justification for re-financing the drug funding cut from several SA countries.

      I saw some Itallics and saw Kevin’s influence:

      “We have the obligation to see if we’re doing the best that we can do, or are there other alternatives that can be much more efficient?…One side can be all the consumers go to jail. On the other extreme is legalization.On the middle ground, we may have more practical policies.”

      Total posturing,trying to end the war on drugs by increasing arresting people,,and the well to do get rehab,,and the prisons stay full.

      • Cannabis says:

        I’d bet that Rafael Lemaitre, the ONDCP Communications Director, probably wrote this. You can follow him on Twitter.

        • Duncan20903 says:

          I could also whack myself in the head with a hammer, or drink a 1/2 gallon of vodka in a sitting.

  3. Cannabis says:

    Say one thing, do another. Makes for good quotes, doesn’t it? Good old Gil does not sound as insane as previous czars, so he must be on the right track. Maybe he’ll get it right when he gets to the fourth way. I’d bet that he retires after the election, though.

  4. Francis says:

    Well they can’t exactly examine their successes, now can they?

  5. kaptinemo says:

    OT, but something that’s been talked about for a long time here: the huge demographic arc that represents cannabis users.

    The Marijuana Vote

    I keep saying that we are, as Napoleon described China, ‘the sleeping giant’. As he put it about China (and was later proven right, but two centuries later) that pols wake it at their peril.

    Well, it’s too late for that, now. The ‘giant’ has been kicked too many times, and he’s righteously pissed off. But until that ‘giant’ gets its’ act together and present a political bloc that cannot be ignored save at at that pol’s peril, they’ll keep kicking us until they hit something vital.

    We represent, at best, scores of millions of potential voters. Scores. Of. Millions. And in the past we’ve been splintered for various reasons…but that is changing. The writing is on our wall, too: UNITE OR DIE. Because time is, indeed, running out.

    A few years back, I said that it was our time. And it is; things are actually more favorable for us now than in 2009 when I wrote those words. But the opposition is gearing up for one final smash & grab, part of something much bigger and uglier going on, and that is partly why we’re seeing all this anti-cannabis activity on the part of the Feds. If we don’t push back, in a united front, we will lose the window of opportunity for another generation. Or possibly forever.

    And that means telling the Dems to quit assuming they will have the help of people they have assisted in assaulting for decades.

  6. Nunavut Tripper says:

    Sorry for the off topic comment but it seems Sheriff Joe Arpaio has ruffled a few feathers


    • claygooding says:

      I have always marveled at Joe’s brass nuts and expected he would be the tool of his own demise,,he was the DEA liaison officer too Noriega and I am sure he has a healthy chunk of money put back somewhere,,as one DEA field agent said,”The first thing you learn in the agency is how to hide money.”

  7. Francis says:

    OT: But man, Radley Balko nails it re: Obama’s recently re-discovered* support for gay marriage:

    Obama’s statement doesn’t change a single policy. He has basically adopted a federalist approach to the issue. To my knowledge, gay marriage also happens to be the only issue in which Obama embraces federalism. Obama apparently believes the states should be able to discriminate when it comes to marriage benefits, but if they allow cancer and AIDS patients to smoke pot, he asserts the supremacy of federal law, and sends in the SWAT teams. What a twisted set of priorities.

    Twisted indeed.

    *(“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” Barack Obama told a gay newspaper while seeking his first term as an Illinois state senator in 1996, “and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”)

    • Duncan20903 says:

      I have to vote on gay marriage this November in Maryland. I didn’t even know this State allowed referenda. I suppose I’ll call my sister and find out what she and her wife think about the issue.

      • Yeah, you Marylanders can vote on referenda if your elected leaders deign to put one on the ballot. If you peasants want to initiate one yourself, you’re SOL.

        Better than CT, though 😉

        • Duncan20903 says:


          Actually we can veto legislation that’s been passed by our esteemed lawmakers as well. This particular referendum was sponsored by the enemies of freedom who want to keep Maryland in the 15th century.

          Funny that no one talks about the history of miscegenation legislation vis a vis the subject of legalizing gay marriage. Those unfamiliar with history are doomed to repeat it indeed.

          (Correction: contrary to my assertion in my post above it appears that this referendum has not yet been certified for the ballot. But with a requirement of only 55,736 valid signatures it’s hard to imagine the enemies of freedom dropping that ball.)

Comments are closed.