cannabisnews.com: Crossfire Transcripts: Keith Stroup & Hutchinson Crossfire Transcripts: Keith Stroup & Hutchinson Posted by CN Staff on July 24, 2002 at 20:08:49 PT Crossfire - July 24, 2002 Source: CNN.com CARVILLE: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're coming to you live from the George Washington University in beautiful Foggy Bottom.Since Congress can't seem to get around to providing a drug benefit for Medicare, perhaps folks should just be allowed to grow their own. A lot of people think marijuana can't hurt people with cancer, glaucoma or other painful diseases, and it may even help. So why not let them have it? In the CROSSFIRE is Keith Stroup, executive director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws; and joining us from Oklahoma City is Asa Hutchison, who heads up the United States Drug Enforcement Administration.CARLSON: Keith, thanks for joining us. KEITH STROUP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORML: Thank you. Nice to be here.(APPLAUSE)CARLSON: Here's the problem I have. If you're for legalizing marijuana, I think you have a legitimate argument, probably not a correct one, but a legitimate one on your side. STROUP: Thank you.CARLSON: Why not just make it, rather than rolling out, as you did today at a press conference, people who are ill almost as a form of moral blackmail, support our position or you take a position against these ill people here up on the stage? Why not just make the argument directly rather than this kind of phony roundabout medical way?STROUP: I would actually suggest that it is the other side that's doing that, and let me briefly explain. We do favor, my organization NORML believes, you should not arrest responsible marijuana smokers regardless, whether they're a patient or just smoking it for the fun of it. Nonetheless, that issue is a side issue. The country is largely divided on that issue. I think we have a slight majority of the country on our side. But there's a lot of debate that has to happen. On the issue of whether seriously ill patients should have marijuana as a medicine or if their doctor recommends it, 73 percent of the American public now support that. Nine states have now approved it under state law, eight by voter initiative and one, Hawaii, by legislature.It is inconceivable to me that we would want to deny an effective medication to seriously ill and dying patients. There are tens of thousands of seriously ill patients who get no relief from traditional medication. These are cancer patients, AIDS patients, MS patients, people with chronic pain, especially neuropathic pain. If marijuana helps them, I can't imagine a justification for denying them that medication. CARVILLE: Mr. Hutchinson, let me give you just a chance before I get into it to respond to what Mr. Stroup said. He made a lot of points here. I thought some of them sounded good. So, tell us why he's all washed up and wrong. ASA HUTCHINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION: Well, first of all, on the point that we would not want to deny effective medication to someone who is ill or dying, we would not want to do that. We're a compassionate society. But we have always listened to the scientific and medical community as to what is good medicine. And thus far, they have not said that. I think that we ought to listen to the American Medical Association that believes there is a not a medical benefit for marijuana, for smoking marijuana. And so I think that's the group that we should listen to, and they have not said it is good medicine. We want to be -- we are a compassionate society. We want to provide good medicine. We're authorizing continued studies of any health benefits. Thus far, they're not there and so we have the right policy. CARVILLE: Let me read to you -- let me show you something here, Mr. Hutchinson. I'm going to read to you from Al Hunt's column in the "Wall Street Journal": "John Ashcroft's pre-September 11 agenda was fighting gun control, abortion, state laws permitting assisted suicide or medical marijuana and going after hookers and their clients, not terrorism. There are many more crimes and crime-catchers in America. So, priority is important." my question to you is, why should I really care or you care or the FBI or John Ashcroft care if some guy is taking chemotherapy, wants to take a couple of tokes. I mean, let him have it. What the hell. What's the problem?HUTCHINSON: Well, first of all, Attorney General Ashcroft is certainly concentrating on our fight against terrorism. We have priorities that are out there from heroin and cocaine to terrorism. We also have responsibility, one of them is to enforce our laws in regards to marijuana.Whenever you look at marijuana, 400 -- excuse me -- 225,000 Americans each year are admitted to treatment programs because of marijuana dependence. More teenagers go into treatment for marijuana addiction than any other drug including alcohol. It is a serious problem in our country. It has health consequences. It is more toxic than tobacco, and most people are not out there advocating we ought to increase tobacco use. When it comes to medical use, let's listen to science and medicine, and whatever they say, we should follow. CARLSON: Now, Keith, here is the problem I have with the medical marijuana issue. It is apt, A, to make liars out of people. I think it already has in some places where people pretend to have ailments and they need to smoke dope to relieve those ailments; and, B, I think it implicates the government in the dope trade, essentially. San Francisco considering growing marijuana on city-owned property.STROUP: Well, but they're only considering growing marijuana because the federal government will not allow the state to provide medicine that patients need. For example, the bill that we held a press conference on today, that former President Ronald Reagan's top chief, Lynn Noffsinger (ph) supports for example, and Dana Rohrbacher from California. It's not just a bunch of liberals. What this bill does is simply amend federal law so that states that wish to allow the medical use of marijuana may do so legally and may provide it so that you don't have to have the city of San Francisco growing it. Right now, what happens is there is a conflict between state and federal law. CARLSON: But I am just struck that there's no -- I mean, look, if smoking marijuana, as (UNINTELLIGIBLE) would say, marinol, you know, the pill form, if smoking marijuana was a treatment that was so effective that no other treatment could work for gravely ill patients, you would imagine -- you would have physicians protesting in the street on behalf of it, but you don't have that, do you?STROUP: No, no, you do have many. In fact, the Institute of Medicine report that came out that the drug's czar's office spent $800,000 on two years ago, one of their major points was this: Marijuana is, without question, a therapeutic agent that can help cancer and AIDS patients and MS patients, et cetera. They did say they want to find another way to deliver it other than smoking. So they're working on sublingual sprays and things like that. But they said: If someone is within six months of dying, if they're a terminal patient and no other medication would work, let them smoke marijuana. CARVILLE: I think, Mr. Hutchinson, he makes a point here. I'm sure that you were a strong supporter of state's rights when you were in the United States Congress. Why should you care if the state of California or Alaska or Vermont or any other state wants to make medical marijuana legal? Why should the federal government need to be butting into that decision that that state wants to make?HUTCHINSON: Well, there is a conflict between state and federal law. But if you take, for example, bank robbery, it's a violation of both federal and state law. Just because the state legalizes it does not change the fact that it's a violation of federal law. That's the conflict that we have. Federal law is...STROUP: But should we have it, Asa? Should we have a conflict? Shouldn't the Feds step aside?CARVILLE: You're really not equating bank robbery with a guy taking a couple tokes on a joint?HUTCHINSON: I'm equating the fact that there's a lot of laws that we have out there that are both federal and state in conjunction, and they're separate jurisdictions. Just because the state changes a policy on regards to marijuana does not mean that that changes the federal policy. You have the conflicts there. We're continuing because it's the congressional mandate, because we have enforcement responsibilities to enforce the federal law. I believe the American people still are opposed to legalization movement. I think that they want us to determine medicine based upon our FDA approval process. And that's what we want to be able to follow.We shouldn't have referendum-based medicine. And that's the difficulty we're finding ourselves in. CARLSON: Very quickly, Keith Stroup, that's, I think, an important point. Should we have referendum-based medicine? Why not wait for the FDA to approve it? STROUP: Well, because we've been waiting for over 20 years already, and the government has planted their head in the sand. Canada just legalized the medical use of marijuana. England is just a step away from legalizing it. Most of Western Europe is too.So the fact that we have ideologues in our Congress who refuse to deal with marijuana as a medicine on a rational basis does not mean we should deny it to patients.(CROSSTALK)CARLSON: We're going to have to leave it there. Keith Stroup, thank you so much. STROUP: Thank you.CARLSON: Mr. Hutchinson, thank you.CARVILLE: Thank you so much, as always, both of you. Thanks for coming. Source: CNN (US Web) Show: Crossfire Show Date: July 24, 2002Copyright: 2002 Cable News Network, Inc. Contact: Crossfire CNN.com Website: http://www.cnn.com/ DL: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/24/cf.00.htmlRelated Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Pictures from The Press Conference Today http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5359 Medical Marijuana Takes Center Stage On The Hillhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13529.shtmlBarney Frank Gets Help from Former Reagan Aidehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13525.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #17 posted by Jose Melendez on July 25, 2002 at 19:29:34 PT notice he corrects himself midsentence I guess Asa is not under oath so he does not feel the need to speak the whole truth...I think that we ought to listen to the American Medical Association that believes there is a not a medical benefit for marijuana, for smoking marijuana. And so I think that's the group that we should listen to, and they have not said it is good medicine. from:http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-4299.htmlThe AMA recommends that personal possession of insignificant amounts be considered a misdemeanor (Policy H-95.997) and advocates increased research into the effects of marijuana (Policies H-95.995, H-95.997, and H-95.998). ... the AMA also urged the NIH to consider the institution of policies designed to facilitate well-designed clinical research into the medical utility of marijuana in patients who have serious conditions for which the bulk of anecdotal evidence suggests possible efficacy, such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) wasting. ...Marihuana Tax Act:The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 introduced the first federal restrictions on marijuana. This federal law required industrial or medical users to register and pay a tax of $1/ounce. Individuals using marijuana for recreational or other purposes were required to pay a tax of $100/ounce. The paperwork required of physicians who wished to use the drug in their practice and regulations later imposed by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics designed to prevent diversion dampened enthusiasm for pursuing medical applications.At the time, the AMA was virtually alone in opposing passage of this Act. The AMA believed that objective data were lacking on the harmful effects of marijuana, and that passage of the Act would impede future investigations into its potential medical uses.Furthermore, the AMA's Committee on Legislative Activities recommended that marijuana's status as a medicinal agent be maintained. Nevertheless, marijuana was removed from the US Pharmacopoeia in 1942, thus losing its remaining mantle of therapeutic legitimacy. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by VitaminT on July 25, 2002 at 08:48:24 PT I did the exact same thing Doc! For me, there's such a bla, bla, bla factor when Walters is talking that I sometimes fail to see just how extreme he really is.Your post woke me up to the fact that I hadn't read the article thoroughly at all!It's risky to gloss over what fanatics of his ilk are saying, If they get the chance they'll deprive us of all of our Constitutional rights - LIFE, LIBERTY and HAPPINESS! [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on July 25, 2002 at 08:08:38 PT Vitamin T Thanx for the link. I see that I failed to read the NORML post closely enough, and That I had seen the article here on cannabisnews..even commented on it.I guess, all I can say, is that the issues of questioning "civil and voting rights" is so outlandisn, I failed to really process them. The NORML release focused on just that issue.its just soooo incomprehensible.... [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by VitaminT on July 25, 2002 at 08:04:40 PT Once again pot-tv.net to the rescue! I have a hard time catching many of these programs but thankfully pot-tv.net rescues me again. CNN Crossfire [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Windminstrel on July 25, 2002 at 08:03:50 PT Blatant lies What a scumbag that Hutchinson is, eh? "It is more toxic than tobacco, and most people are not out there advocating we ought to increase tobacco use.".I also like how he dodged around the states' rights arguements. Effin' hypocrite. States have rights only if those rights wouldn't interfere with his budget [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by VitaminT on July 25, 2002 at 07:51:55 PT Doc Zombie, here's the link The idea that we can "solve" our complex drug problem by simply legalizing drugs raises more questions than it answers. For instance, what happens to the citizenship of those legally addicted? Will they have their full civil rights, such as voting? Can they be employed as school bus drivers? Nurses? What of a woman, legally addicted to cocaine, who becomes pregnant? Should she be constrained by the very government that provides for her habit?What is this guy thinking? Don't Legalize Drugs [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by TroutMask on July 25, 2002 at 07:26:14 PT Another Victory This transcript is very encouraging to me. I felt that Stroup came out a real winner, just based on the text. I agree with FoM: It would take at least an hour just for Stroup to go through the positives of legalization. He had to get out the strongest and most irrefutable points as quickly as possible. And Asa just danced around them, looking very bad, imho. We've got 'em on the ropes!-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on July 25, 2002 at 05:53:24 PT: Thr rubber band is really stretched, now If you have ever read the accounts of people living in 'interesting times' (like revolutions) one thing becomes immediately clear. The more headway a reformer or revolutionary group makes, the more strident, narrow-minded and reactionary the government becomes. Up to and including coming up with patently insane nonsense such as Walters has proposed in limiting the sovereign franchise of born citizens who use presently illicit drugs.What this means is that very shortly, something has to give...and this time, it probably won't be us. Because when you get conservative heavy hitters such as Nofziger talking MMJ, and when Nofziger is considered to be a guiding light of the conservative movement, then it's raise or call.The reason for that is quite simple; who do you think makes the actual game plan for the Republicans? The strychnine-drinking, serpent-handling, speaking-in-tongues and rolling on the floor crowd? Or the buttoned-down, Brookes Brother's-suited, portfolio-ed to the nth degree, golf-playing money-men? Not hard to tell, is it? And Nofziger's of the latter.This could get real interesting... [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on July 25, 2002 at 05:00:06 PT John Walters has apparently published an op-ed in the WSJ - currntly a "premium article" 1 must purchase a subscription to see, so I have yet to see it.It is some "she-I-T".In it he suggests limiting the civil and voting rights of drug users should these legalization referenda become successful. I linked NORML's news about it. NORML news release about Wlaers WSJ Op-Ed [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Dan B on July 25, 2002 at 02:14:39 PT: For me, the highlight of the show: CARVILLE: You're really not equating bank robbery with a guy taking a couple tokes on a joint?I've never been a big fan of James Carville, but he kind of grew on me when he made this very salient point. Keith Stroup was doing a great job, but I thought he really missed an opportunity when he did not make this point, so I was especially glad to hear Carville pipe in with this rhetorical question.Hutchinson's response to the question was absurd, and I like how Stroup followed it up. Overall, I'd say that Stroup made the right decision. The states' rights issue is an excellent point to bring up, especially because many of the conservatives in the viewing audience will identify with the importance of maintaining those rights in order to avoid even more complete federal domination over our lives. It speaks to freedom-loving people in all political parties, and that is exactly what we want.So, kudos for both Carville and Stroup from me. Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by culebra on July 25, 2002 at 00:15:36 PT Keith got the last word... and made it count. It seems as though things are coming to a head-this should be a good election season. From the irony file: "asa" means hemp in Japanese. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on July 24, 2002 at 22:51:53 PT Hi CongressmanSuet Keith Stroup is doing a really good job and I'll tell you why I think so. You have a few minutes to make your point. You must stay on the topic at hand and drive home the issue quickly. Asa Hutchinson stays on the same points and doesn't hear a word anyone says. You are not able to say more then the short time spot allows so staying focussed is of the upmost importance. He stayed right on top of the issue and was gracious to his hosts. He looks like he is pleasant to talk to and is witty but really shows true compassionate. That's what the world needs to see.What do you think? [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by CongressmanSuet on July 24, 2002 at 22:28:49 PT: Pd4m, that the South... I just moved back to NY from WV, and in NY a person who is busted with a pound in his/her car gets an average 1000 bail. Maybe 2000 if you are a minority. In WV I knew of people getting busted with a nickel. and because they had an empty baggie in their other pocket, the charges were trafficking and possesion, bail 50,000. Im soooo glad I moved! Hey, FoM see if you agree with me on this...sure, Keith did a good job, made the usual salient points, but shouldnt he try to bring up the people who are still being given Cannibis by the Gov.? Doesnt that kinda moot most of their "its not medicine" points, or at least give the Gov. an enormous black eye? I have never seen that point brought up? Maybe I just dont get on/out enough? [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 24, 2002 at 22:14:30 PT Compassion Definition of compassion. com·pas·sion Pronunciation Key (km-pshn) n. Deep awareness of the suffering of another coupled with the wish to relieve it. See Synonyms at pity. I don't believe Asa Hutchinson fits this definition one little bit! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on July 24, 2002 at 22:03:11 PT Then why do you have to sue doctors to shut up? ASA HUTCHINSON, ADMINISTRATOR, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION: Well, first of all, on the point that we would not want to deny effective medication to someone who is ill or dying, we would not want to do that. We're a compassionate society. But we have always listened to the scientific and medical community as to what is good medicine. And thus far, they have not said that. Then why has the DOJ been spending so much money suing doctors in California to try to get them to stop recommending it to their patients? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on July 24, 2002 at 21:58:36 PT What I wrote them There is a difference between being mean and being conservative. I wish Mr. Carlson would figure it out. Is asking for compassion the same as inflicting moral blackmail? A mean person would say yes, a conservative person would understand that there is a difference. That's why Mr. Nofziger is a true moral conservative and Mr. Carlson is just a mean self-serving little prick in a bow tie. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by p4me on July 24, 2002 at 21:42:07 PT I don't pledge a dam thing There is an article at Statesville.com, a local newspaper website: http://www.statesville.com/business/MGB3ZN5Z14D.htmlIn this article a biology teacher gets busted for MJ and mushrooms and listen to the charges that lead to a $100,000 bond: Lt. Thomas Thompson with the Mooresville Police Department said Oakes has been charged with felony possession of a Schedule I controlled substance; felony possession with intent to sell and deliver a Schedule I controlled substance; felony manufacturing a Schedule I controlled substance; felony possession of marijuana; felony possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana; felony manufacturing marijuana; felony maintaining a dwelling to keep or sell a controlled substance; and possession of drug paraphernalia. The subject of this piece is of course about Hutchinson wearing out the party line. This video is up at pot-tv: http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1436.htmlIs everyone ready for a nice expensive war for viewing on our new HDTV's. Reality tv in all its glory. For Real. A war for all people.Don't you think that someone should talk of all the money we spend storing nonfat dry milk in old mining shafts, and all the sugar that the government has to buy to keep the price of sugar up. We pay huge storage fees. Maybe we really have become the land of milk and honey. Why don't we give it away instead of paying storage on it until it rots. The government also buys huge amounts of butter and that stuff has got to spoil sometime. So why hasn't congress tried to ship some of our taxpayer bought subsidy crops go overseas to starving people instead of paying vultures just to store it and move it around until it rots?1,2 [ Post Comment ] Post Comment