The Head Of The DEA (heh) recently criticized the President for saying pot was as safe as alcohol. Now the Deputy Head Of The Drug Czar Office (heh heh) says it is safer. But it had to be dragged out of him.
During a House Oversight Committee hearing Tuesday, Michael Botticelli, deputy director of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, was grilled about the harms of marijuana and mixed signals about the drug coming out of the Obama administration.
Botticelli’s office considers marijuana dangerous and harmful, and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration considers it illegal.
“The administration continues to oppose attempts legalize marijuana and other drugs,” Botticelli said during the hearing.
But Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., challenged the drug czar’s second-in-command.
“How many people die from marijuana overdoses every year?” Connolly asked Botticelli.
“I don’t know that I know,” Botticelli replied. “It is very rare.”
“Very rare. Now just contrast that with prescription drugs, unintentional deaths from prescription drugs; one American dies every 19 minutes,” Connolly said. “Nothing comparable to marijuana. Is that correct?”
Botticelli agreed.
“Hundreds of thousands of people die every year from alcohol related deaths. Automobile, liver disease, esophageal cancer, blood poisoning,” Connolly continued. “Is it not a scientific fact that there is nothing comparable with marijuana? I’m not saying it is good or bad, but when we look at deaths and illnesses, alcohol, other hard drugs are certainly — even prescription drugs — are a threat to public health in a way that just isolated marijuana is not. Isn’t that a scientific fact? Or do you dispute that fact?”
“I don’t dispute that fact,” Botticelli said.
And why did he have to tell the truth? Well people have been educated. Evidently the DEA is no longer entitled to its own facts. And Reefer Madness is no longer considered a documentary.
Now these hearings are set ups. If I was to guess, the hearing was to allow (encourage) marijuana rescheduling before or after the November election. Either by fiat (the regulations provide for that) or by act of Congress.
Update: 6 February 2014 0839z
Commenter Scott thinks legalization is a very bad idea. Evidently he is unaware of this May 2009 JCI paper that shows cannabis cures cancer. He is probably also unaware that biochemist Dennis Hill cured a cancer that had spread through his whole body (that sort of cancer is normally a death sentence) with cannabis oil. Dennis explains how it works. The key is ceramide. Imagine spending $100 or $200 (no Black Market prices – as legal as tomatoes) to cure cancer vs the 10s of thousands we spend today for very uncertain cures which can also cause cancer (radiation and chemotherapy). And the only drawback to the cure? It gets you high and gives you the munchies. Note that the munchies reverses the cachexia caused by cancer. Bbbbut REEFER. Yeah. There is a lot of prejudice still out there on the subject. But with roughly 55% favoring legalization it is on the decline. Ya think there might be some votes in that 55% Scott? The Democrats do. And the numbers are still rising. Me? If I was a politician I’d take advantage of that. What will the stupid party do? With a few exceptions – Rick Perry of TX – be stupid. Well I do admire people who stupidly adhere to their convictions. Not that I care for liberals much. But I do like seeing people getting crushed by reality. Just deserts for backing Prohibition in the first place. 1932 was a very good year for that sort of thing. And the stupid party has an amazing record when it comes to avoiding learning from history. I’d like to be proved wrong. But if I was a betting man I’d have to give the edge to the left on this one. They study the endocannabinoid system of the body. The conservatives don’t.
Comments
4 responses to “They Are Breaking Ranks”
How many bureaucrats have testified before Congress supporting Global Warming, Satanic Ritual Abuse, cell phone radiation, impending Japanese purchase of all US real estate, etc., etc?
How many medical studies indict/exonerate coffee as culprit/cure? Of all the things in the world pot is apparently the only thing Libertarians agree on, focus on, talk about, etc. 99% of Libertarian efforts seem to be about pot. Pot just feeds into the Cloward-Piven strategy of getting as many docile non-productive people to make demands on the govt until it collapses. Funny how the LibTs forgot to reign in the welfare entitlements before making it easier for people to lounge around all day and consume others taxes.
Maybe it will only take the LibTs another 50 years to get the second item on their agenda almost implemented. I wonder whatever they will obsesses over during those 50 years once the only thing they have worked on for the last 50 years is accomplished. I suspect they will be like Baby Boomers endlessly reliving the same damn thing until their dying breath.
Well Scott,
It looks like your medical knowledge is severely out of date. You might want to bone up on the endocannabinoid system of the body. You have more receptors for that than any other kind of receptors in the body.
BTW Prohibition is a lynchpin of Big Government. You pull that and a LOT starts to unravel.
============
Speaking of non-productive have you looked into what Prohibition costs?
Are you aware that for 30 years school kids have reported that pot is easier to get than alcohol?
BTW I assume that without government restraint you will become a pot head. My apologies in advance.
But you might want to look at the record. Since liberalization in Portugal use has declined by 50%. If I wanted to keep use rates up I’d keep it illegal. Black markets seem much more effective than legal ones.
But I get it. Totally. You think “Reefer Madness” is a documentary. My condolences.
The NIH has a paper on the cure of cancer:
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/02/a-cure-for-cancer/
This biochemist used it on himself and explains how it works.
http://classicalvalues.com/2014/01/how-cannabis-cures-cancer/
His cancer was at stage IV which means it had spread through his body. Almost no one survives that.
You aren’t against a cancer cure are you Scott? That would surely give Conservatives a bad name. You wouldn’t want to do that would you? Liberals would claim you are heartless. And that would be bad for your electoral prospects.
Think of the savings from wiping out a LOT of the cancer treatment industry. A LOT of money right there.
And Scott,
The libertarians may actually shrink government (the prison/industrial complex, the medical/industrial complex, lawyers, judges, police) with this maneuver. And all you can offer is complaints?
What should libertarians work on next? Given that it may take them a while but they are EFFECTIVE? Conservatives? Not so much.