President Obama will never fire Eric Holder over Fast and Furious. Nor will he ever fire Kathleen Sebelius over the Obamacare roll out debacle. However, he may very well fire DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart over her recent remarks criticizing him over his irresponsible comments about marijuana.
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/01/sheriffs_cheer_pot_shot_say_dea_chief_ripped_obama_remarks
What exactly does Obama know about the on-going research into marijuana, which is increasingly finding negative consequences of pot use? Oh, yes. I forgot. Obama himself was a pot smoker-maybe still is for all I know.
And how is a DEA agent supposed to feel when he or she sees a hemp flag flying over the US capitol building courtesy of Colorado?
Colorado is presently violating federal law, but it is obvious that DEA has been told by Holder's corrupt Justice Department to stand down.
As I have said before, I do not advocate putting anyone in jail for the offense of smoking marijuana. Nor is that any part of DEA's mission. However, when it comes to traffickers growing, smuggling, or selling large commercial quantities of marijuana for profit, that is a horse of a different color. Consider this: In 1985, when DEA agent Enrique Camarena, who was stationed in Mexico, was abducted, tortured and murdered, along with his informant/pilot, it was in retaliation for the fact that they had located a huge marijuana plantation, which was subsequently raided and destroyed by Mexican police. This is a wound that DEA has never recovered from due to the brutality of these murders and the fact that Mexican police were actually involved. These are the people behind the marijuana industry. These are the people that you pot smokers are supporting every time you light up your weed.
"Oh, but Fousesquawk, if we legalize it, we get those people out of the picture."
Dream on. If that's what you think, tell me specifically how you will accomplish that. How are you going to keep it out of the hands of minors and children? How are you going to deal with the new black market?
In addition, how are you going to keep those losers who are lining up outside the doors of those pot stores in Colorado from selling it to whomever they want?
I wonder what Mr Obama was doing in 1985 as our agent and his pilot were being tortured to death.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
on-going research into marijuana, which is increasingly finding negative consequences of pot use?
Well actually it is not. Look up Donald Tashkin who was a rabidly prohibitionist scientist for a long time. He changed his mind.
Why? Well his studies showed something different that he expected. I'll let you find out what.
All the negative studies that I have followed eventually get debunked. You could debunk them in advance if you studied the endocannabinoid system. Your body has more cannabinoid receptors than any other receptor type.
Which is why cannabis is non-toxic. Look up "marijuana inoperable brain tumor" and "marijuana stage 4 prostate cancer" for more info. Also go to NIH and look up "endocannabinoid" and also "cannabis".
OTOH I agree with you about Al Gore and his shoddy "science". But when it comes to cannabis you have been misinformed. And as much as I hate to say it, given that communist c*cks*cker in the White House, marijuana is safer than alcohol.
Leonhart's problem is that her gravy train is coming off the tracks. 'bout time.
Uh. The evils you complain about - Enrique Camarena etc. - were CAUSED by prohibition.
You want to put a stop to that? End prohibition. And end the DEA.
Were the "alcohol murders" during the 1920s caused by alcohol or by Prohibition?
Do you know how the DEA got to be where it is today? Former Prohibition agent Harry Anslinger was looking for work. Let us not repeat that error. Ever.
Keep it out of the hands of children?
It has been reported every year for the last 30 years that pot is easier to get than alcohol - for children. See "Monitoring The Future" survey. Can it be perfectly prohibited to children? Dream on. The choice then is better or worse.
And please explain what happened to the alcohol black market. Where is it now? A niche market at best.
About the same way we keep a bit of a lid on alcohol.
After being told by the government for many decades that an important part of your job is to control marijuana, it would of course hurt for any DEA agent or sheriff to hear, oh, we've decided its OK. But how do you suppose those who risked their lives for Prohibition felt when beer was legal again?
One of the benefits of federalism is that the states can serve as laboratories to test out new ideas on a relatively small scale. Usually this is not done in direct defiance of existing federal laws. But, when the population of a state overwhelmingly supports a measure, when the population of most states are sympathetic, its worth a little forbearance to see how it works out.
If you are right Gary, the experiment in Colorado will indeed be a disaster. This will serve as an object lesson to other states. If things go smoothly, then we really don't need to pour more taxpayer's money down the black hole of trying to suppress marijuana.
Its true that the gangs in Mexico and elsewhere are too big and rich now to simply disappear if drugs are legalized. But they would not have gotten so big and rich and well armed if several commodities that people are determined to have had not been subject to criminal penalties -- which makes it very lucrative to supply them.
If we're going to cut the cash flow, we have to start somewhere. I'm sure you've read that many in Latin America chafe that America wants to fight drug wars in their country, but Americans keep buying the drugs that sustain the gangs that fuel the wars.
As usual, when it comes to the current recreational pot issue, Obama has his tongue tied down in the middle and flapping at both ends. He is at once the epitome of both pandering and inconsistency on this one.
Tobacco and alcohol are both legal. Recreational pot is, at least for now, still illegal, both Federally and in almost all states. The fact that one is a potent hallucinogenic and the others are not apparently escapes him. As a former (??) doper, boozer, and tobacco smoker, he of all people should most certainly know the difference.
The problem is that when he essentially equates the three (which he does, along with a LOT of other libs/Dems), it is apparent that intellectual honesty/consistency dictates, or at least should dictate, that he believe all three should be treated similarly under the law.
Accordingly, it then becomes apparent that Obama, Holder, et al, should be clamoring for either the legalization of pot or, alternatively, the criminalization of both booze and tobacco. Instead, they are again, as usual, weaseling.
Further, Obama is actually allowing the recreational use of pot in a couple of states (I believe) so far, the number of which will now grow and grow. Gary can correct me if I am wrong, but while possession of mere personal-use quantities of pot is I believe "only" a Federal misdemeanor, possession with the intent to distribute, or actual distribution, of ANY quantity of pot is a Federal felony, or at least used to be.
Again accordingly, all of the recreational "pot shops" are quite obviously frequently, repeatedly, and feloniously violating Federal law. Obama/Holder have used the crutch that the people of these states voted to legalize pot, making them strong "states' righters" in this particular instance.
Wonder what would happen if the people of one or more states voted to allow law-abiding citizens to, say, possess machineguns without the requisite Federal licensing/registration requirements, or to restrict abortions counter to Roe v. Wade, or to exempt residents from Federal income taxation?? These are all much more similar to than different from what is going on with pot, and in fact are essentially identical in principle.
Think Obama/Holder/libs/Dems would still be states' rightists then?? Not hardly. Distinct lack of honesty, character, and integrity.
Simon,
Sounds to me like you want to legalize everything with no limitations. Am I right?
Simon,
You might want to check into research done on cannabis by the Univerity of Mississippi. They were licensed to grow marijuana for their studies.
If the only distinction elwood can offer between marijuana, on the one hand, and alcohol and tobacco, on the other, is that one is illegal and the other two are legal, the difference is easily rectified.
Actually there is already a trend in both Colorado and Washington of local communities voting to ban marijuana dispensing businesses from their county or city limits. How do I know? I read about it in the New York Times. Look it up, you might enjoy reading it.
I think this is a useful part of the experiment. Some of those advocating such bans affirm, we're not talking about arresting people for possession or use, we don't want it flaunted or made easily accessible to youth. We're looking at the impact on the quality of life in our community.
Those are real and genuine concerns. We may have patterns like some states did after Prohibition: wet and dry counties, or whatever the equivalent would be. (Note: in Mississippi, "dry" counties were receiving enough liquor to float a barge down the Mississippi). But these are things that need to be sorted out, and "pro-marijuana" or "anti-marijuana" are hardly coherent or sane delineations. As with alcohol, we need to control and divert, and some excesses may well still be suitable for criminal measures (as is drunken driving).
Siarlys once again has HIS tongue his tongue tied down in the middle and flapping at both ends. Another specific distinction I made (and there are several others), which he either conveniently ignores for obvious reasons or which also escapes him, was the hallucinogenic/psychotropic qualities of pot contrasted to the effects of booze/tobacco.
This is what happens when you start equating unlikes. The ill effects of tobacco are now well known. They are almost entirely, if not in fact exclusively, physical. While alcohol is an intoxicant (actually a depressant), it can be, and in fact is, used by millions and millions of people without its being abused and without the physical damages from extended overindulgence (excess??). In fact, any number of health professionals actually advocate the responsible use of alcohol on a daily basis for many individuals.
Conversely, the ONLY objective of the recreational use of pot in any of its various forms is to get stoned, which to me is "excessive" by definition. "Medicinal" marijuana is, of course, a whole 'nother can of worms. I will not dwell further on it here, but it is itself quite frequently nothing more than a not so thinly veiled "cover" for recreational use by heads/dopers.
I further note that Siarlys did not address my references to his "laboratories" relative to guns, abortion and taxation. His prior statement of "But, when the population of a state overwhelmingly supports a measure, when the population of most states are sympathetic, its worth a little forbearance to see how it works out." would appear to most to be an exact fit for those states which might see fit to engage in these "experiments" under those same conditions.
The difference elwood, is that while states may experiment with different policies, states are constitutionally restrained from infringing protected liberties of individual citizens. Thus abortion is out, and, interestingly enough given your choice of examples, any gun control measures that cross constitutional lines recently expounded by the Supreme Court, are also out. Taxation? States are quite free to experiment. What do you think is stopping them?
Your opinion of what it means to "get high" as opposed to "recreational depression" is a far cry from detailed scientific analysis. Alcohol can be quite destructive. As for tobacco, I don't want anyone blowing marijuana smoke at me when I'm enjoying a meal any more than I want them blowing smoke from a cigar. It should be restricted in many ways.
Medical uses for marijuana are well documented. That people in California can get a prescription for almost any condition as a cover for recreational use is also obvious. Perhaps there is good cause to enforce stricter limits on "medical" use, just as there is good cause to enforce stricter limits on what constitutes a threat to the life or health of the mother in the third trimester of pregnancy.
Time to think elwood, not to indulge in ideologically satisfying screeds of no logical or factual coherence.
Post a Comment