The Drug Czar speaks...

ONDCP Director Gil Kerlikowske was interviewed this morning on KUOW in Seattle.
It's a mixed bag, with lots of pretty offensive stuff (of course) and some odd material where he puts on his tap shoes and dances up a storm.

Here are a couple of the exchanges...

Q: Is the DEA going to stop raiding medical marijuana facilities?
Kerlikowske: The medical marijuana issue was one that Attorney General Eric Holder briefly discussed, and I have not had my first meeting -- 'cause I've only been on the job two weeks -- with the Attorney General
Q: What have you accomplished, sir?
Kerlikowske: I know, I know, and, well I'm ending the phrase "War on Drugs, so I think that was my..."
Q: What's it going to be, police action on drugs? Preemptive strike?
Kerlikowske: I don't have a new term for it, but I can tell you that, that having a different conversation is important -- but I haven't had a chance to talk to the Attorney General, and spend time in depth on the medical marijuana issues and the statements he made, but I certainly plan on doing that.
Q: I notice that there was already, there was another raid in California by the DEA just, I think, in April. I think I saw one in April that happened. Are these -- I know that the DEA is not under your purview, but, what's your opinion?
Kerlikowske: Well, I think that there - the one thing we can say about using law enforcement resources...
Q: March 25th, I should clarify...
Kerlikowski: ... is that the law enforcement resources are finite, there's just this limited number. Law enforcement agencies use their personnel for the most dangerous offenders, for the violent crimes, for the drug traffickers, etc. Medical marijuana doesn't quite rise to that level. That doesn't mean that it isn't illegal, and it doesn't mean that in cases it's not a front for some other type of activity, but I think that when I sit down with the Attorney General, and we actually get a chance to put this together in a more formalized fashion, we'll have answers for you.

Marijuana legalization:

Q: Marijuana. Do you support legalization of marijuana?
Kerlikowske: No.
Q: And why is that?
Kerlikowske: It's a dangerous drug.
Q: Now, why is it a dangerous drug?
Kerlikowske: It is a dangerous drug. There are numbers of calls to hotlines for people requesting help from marijuana. A number of people that have been arrested, and we test people and have data on this, that are arrested throughout the country, come in to the system with marijuana in their system, as arrests.
Q: But that's -- you were talking to me before about causality and correlation.
Kerlikowske: Right
Q: So why is -- I mean, you could probably say that about sugar, caffeine, and, I don't know, bubble gum. Maybe not bubble gum.
Kerlikowske: I would tell you this - that the legalization vocabulary doesn't exist for me, and it certainly was made clear that it does not exist in President Obama's vocabulary.

Wow. Talk about a weak effort to defend not legalizing marijuana! It looks like he's just going to say "it's not an option" and not even try to really justify it.

so just because they arrest people that they think are high that makes marijuana a bad drug? how many people do they arrest on zoloft, xanax, ambien or viagra? are those bad too? (that was rhetorical, we all know that all of those are worse for you!)

man these people and their articulate and precise defenses for their beliefs. and all that "proof" to back it up.

i was reading the other day that cancer drugs, on average go through eight years of clinical trials before being deemed safe for humans. i understand that once it's released to the general population through perscriptions that it's like an ongoing clinical trial, yet we have minimal actual EXPERIENCE with what can happen.

people have been smoking weed for over 5000 years without there ever being an overdose! it's been revered for it's medicinal properties in countless civilizations. it's a know fact that you can't develop a physical dependency to it. it is eco friendly (environment and economy, i like to call it eco² (patented and trademarked and not to be used without the permission of headshake, inc!))!

so continue to dance my good sir, for the fire will only continue to intensify and all the lies will fall like humpty from the wall.

they even did a study with the 7 remaining patients in the FDAs compassionate investigational new drug program.

1. Cannabis smoking, even of a crude, low-grade product, provides
effective symptomatic relief of pain, muscle spasms, and intra-
ocular pressure elevations in selected patients failing other modes
of treatment.
2. These clinical cannabis patients are able to reduce or eliminate
other prescriptionmedicines and their accompanying side effects.
3. Clinical cannabis provides an improved quality of life in these pa-
tients.
4. The side effect profile of NIDA cannabis in chronic usage sug-
gests some mild pulmonary risk.
5. No malignant deterioration has been observed.
6. No consistent or attributable neuropsychological or neurological
deterioration has been observed.
7. No endocrine, hematological or immunological sequelae have
been observed.
8. Improvements in a clinical cannabis program would include a
ready and consistent supply of sterilized, potent, organically grown
unfertilized female flowering top material, thoroughly cleaned of
extraneous inert fibrous matter.
9. It is the authorsâ?? opinion that the Compassionate IND program
should be reopened and extended to other patients in need of clini-
cal cannabis.
10. Failing that, local, state and federal laws might be amended to
provide regulated andmonitored clinical cannabis to suitable can-
didates.

that's the summation of the study. and the bud they gave them was crap. that study is very interesting. check it out!


-shake

Following closely on the heels of the end of the "war on terror," is the end of the "war on drugs" ("White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs,' " U.S. News, May 14). Who would have thought that all of America's wars would end not with a bang but with a delete click on a keyboard?

Apparently, "war on drugs" was too bellicose and was interpreted by people "as a war on them." One presumes that "people" in this context refers mostly to drug users, although drug czar Gil Kerlikowske doesn't really make that distinction. In his defense, he's fresh out of Seattle, so he may not realize that there is a distinction. Seattle's needle-exchange program and, with any luck, the Hempfest celebration of hemp and marijuana will be models for national policy. The latter can be held on the National Mall going forward so that everyone in Congress and the Obama administration can attend; maybe that'll slow down legislation and stimulus spending for a day or two.

Our lexicographer leaders fully grasp the power of words, which is why they are "spreading the wealth" instead of waging another "war on poverty." War is hell; at least many Americans will be too stoned to notice if our enemies respectfully disagree with that notion.

William Brandt
Norwalk, Conn.

Mr. Kerlikowske should go further and propose that marijuana be treated like alcohol and tobacco, which the government regulates, strictly controls and taxes. Advertising should be prohibited, and a significant percentage of tax revenues should be used to fund drug-treatment programs for those who seek help for substance-abuse conditions, including alcoholism.

As a taxpayer, it sickens me to think of the waste of my tax payments and the damage to liberty and lives which result from arresting and imprisoning nonviolent drug offenders. It is not surprising that supporters of the status quo include the prison lobby and some elements of law enforcement. It is only they and narco-criminals who profit from prohibition.

Steve Persky
Los Angeles

Thought for the day - the drug czar is against legalization

I must confess to being confused by the amount of apparent surprise that has greeted Gil Kerlikowske's recent statements that he is opposed to legalization.

Of course he is. He just got a new job - a government job that has Congressional oversight. And the job description for that new job, well, it wasn't a handshake and a promise, it wasn't a typed memo -- no, it was written into law by Congress and specifically includes:

"... and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that ... is listed in schedule 1.... and has not been approved for use ... by the Food and Drug Administration"

So, of course he's going to say he's against legalization. It's his job. I don't know if it's his personal view or not, but it certainly is his job to say it.

And, for the most part so far, Kerlikowske is treating the question like someone who's job it is to answer a particular way. "Legalization isn't in my vocabulary," "Legalization isn't on the plate," "Legalization isn't an option," etc.

If Walters got the question, he'd go on at length with detailed plausible-sounding (but still full of crap) reasons why marijuana should remain illegal. Kerlikowske offers up weak-ass nonsense and then merely retreats into "I'm not going to talk about it." Maybe it's because he doesn't have his repertoire built up yet, but it may also be that he just doesn't care - and as long as he's said legalization isn't an option, he's covered.

Take a look at this exchange again:

Q: Marijuana. Do you support legalization of marijuana?
Kerlikowske: No.
Q: And why is that?
Kerlikowske: It's a dangerous drug.
Q: Now, why is it a dangerous drug?
Kerlikowske: It is a dangerous drug. There are numbers of calls to hotlines for people requesting help from marijuana. A number of people that have been arrested, and we test people and have data on this, that are arrested throughout the country, come in to the system with marijuana in their system, as arrests.
Q: But that's -- you were talking to me before about causality and correlation.
Kerlikowske: Right
Q: So why is -- I mean, you could probably say that about sugar, caffeine, and, I don't know, bubble gum. Maybe not bubble gum.
Kerlikowske: I would tell you this - that the legalization vocabulary doesn't exist for me, and it certainly was made clear that it does not exist in President Obama's vocabulary.

Doesn't sound like a true believer to me.

If we ever want the 'drug czar' to stop opposing legalization, we need to change the language in Congress, and Kerlikowske could be giving us the opening to do that.

Everybody these days is calling for the discussion -- yes, even politicians!

If Kerlikowske was giving compelling reasons against legalization (assuming such existed), then it could be a problem, but by merely saying "I'm not going to talk about it" (or "it's not in my vocabulary"), he makes it obvious (or gives us the opportunity to make it obvious) that the authorizing language is preventing the discussion that everyone wants.

It's then easy to make the case to Congress that the Director can hardly "assist in the establishment of policies, goals, objectives, and priorities for the National Drug Control Program" if he doesn't even have all the vocabulary.

Personally, I love the "not in my vocabulary" line -- it's a great one to ridicule, and, if the one person in this country who has the most direct and specific employment reason to oppose legalization can't get any more enthused than that, then our opposition is pretty weak.

drugwarrant.com