cannabisnews.com: Deputy Drug Czar Sees Med Marijuana as Dangerous Deputy Drug Czar Sees Med Marijuana as Dangerous Posted by CN Staff on October 07, 2004 at 08:51:20 PT By Michael Moore of the Missoulian Source: Missoulian Scott Burns sees no gray where marijuana is concerned.If Montana legalizes the drug's use in medical situations, then more children will think marijuana is a legitimate medicine and more children will use it, the deputy director of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy said at a Missoula press conference Wednesday. "This is about our kids," said Burns.Simple as that.Burns is traveling the state this week, talking to law enforcement officers about methamphetamine, marijuana and federal drug policy. He talked to Missoula officers Wednesday morning, appeared briefly before the media, then headed for Helena.Burns, a former county prosecutor in Iron County, Utah, was peppered with questions about medical marijuana, and made his black-and-white feelings clear amid a debate that many see as a complex shade of gray."If you support legal marijuana, you will see an increase in drug use," Burns said.Montanans, of course, will consider an initiative on the November ballot to legalize medical marijuana. Although most established medical societies have not endorsed marijuana's use as a pain reliever - a point Burns repeatedly noted - dozens of studies have found the herb effective in a variety of medical situations.But Burns isn't interested in those studies. He sees a stark and dramatic divide in the fight over medical marijuana, one that cleaves the participants neatly into pro- and anti-drug camps. Burns claims that backers of medical marijuana initiatives in U.S. states aren't really interested in the drug's use as medicine."They're not going to stop with medical marijuana," Burns said. "What they're really interested in is legalizing drugs in the United States."Burns also talked briefly about methamphetamine, which has become Montana's most serious drug problems, according to Burns' office. And Missoula Police Chief Bob Weaver agreed, noting the drug's penchant for spawning other crimes, including rape, robbery, theft and murder.Burns called meth use a "terrible scourge.""It's a serious problem," he said.Complete Title: Deputy Drug Czar Sees Medical Marijuana as Dangerous PrecedentSource: Missoulian (MT) Author: Michael Moore of the MissoulianPublished: Thursday, October 07, 2004Copyright: 2004 Missoulian Contact: newsdesk missoulian.com Website http://www.missoulian.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Montana Careshttp://montanacares.org/Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmDeputy Drug Czar Will Visit Billings http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19597.shtmlMontana To Vote on Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19528.shtmlMedical Marijuana Vote About Legalizing Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19431.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #12 posted by warhater on October 07, 2004 at 13:30:20 PT: Goofy Argument "If Montana legalizes the drug's use in medical situations, then more children will think marijuana is a legitimate medicine and more children will use it,..."Funny, the horrible amphetamines he talks about in the next breath are in fact legal when prescribed by a doctor. Would less children use meth if we made it entirely illegal? By this logic all drugs that children could possibly take for kicks would be illegal. I guess only drugs that have no medical use, like alcohol and nicotine, should be legal. "Burns claims that backers of medical marijuana initiatives in U.S. states aren't really interested in the drug's use as medicine."This is a load of crap. Many of the backers of medical marijuana represent chronically or terminally ill patients who don't want to go to jail for taking their medicine. The issue of legalizing for recreational use means nothing to a patient who has MS or is sick from chemotherapy. They have an urgent medical need for the drug. It is a travesty that the US government stands in their way. Land of the Free? [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on October 07, 2004 at 11:50:10 PT CorvallisEric Thank you! I gotcha! [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by CorvallisEric on October 07, 2004 at 11:48:54 PT FoM The fable of the boy crying "Wolf" falsely so often that when the wolf really appeared no one paid attention anymore. Just like the drug war. Inspired by "Burns also talked briefly about methamphetamine." [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 07, 2004 at 11:32:06 PT CorvallisEric I'm dense but curious what does Wolf mean. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by CorvallisEric on October 07, 2004 at 11:22:12 PT WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF meth(briefly) [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on October 07, 2004 at 11:09:54 PT dongenero I agree with you. About the only illegal hard drug I know anything about is Meth. That was my drug of choice back in the 70s. When Meth dried up I said to myself thank god it's gone. That's how bad that drug was to me. I have never met a serious Meth user that I would trust or want to be a friend. Putting Cannabis even near the same category as Meth is an insult to all that is good. Legalize Cannabis and the connection between the two will be over. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by dr slider on October 07, 2004 at 11:06:05 PT: their effin' luck Never has there been such a massive and concerted effort by both our gov't and their corporate handlers to dredge the bilge of scientific inquiry for every nugget of evidence that cannabis can kill you. Stash the consistant stream of findings that illuminate the gift from the ultimate chemist that cannabis is, and they come up with, "there's a hint of a link to lung cancer" Seems to me the link to lung cancer is that I may be ameliorating the risk I assume by smoking tobacco and literally breaking out the bud-nippers on expectant young tumors.The Pandora's Box they opened with their "pain meds" comment will be the death of them. Consider that about a third of all scripts (worldwide) are for "feel good" drugs (anti-depressants), and a good chunk of what's left are for pain or cancer (don't get me started on their "approved" cancer treatment methods!), we're talking about a WEED that no effort can eradicate, that can replace, FOR FREE, the mojority of medicines, and that's just what we know now. Remember there will never be any surprises with cannabis. We've tested it through their "Prohibition" and with a hundred million living testimonies we found their conclusions as well as their ethics and morality, to be damnable at best.While big pharm is the most profitable industry on the planet it is but one that will be put back in their place come the Becoming. Can't say that I'm really sorry about their bad effin' luck. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by dongenero on October 07, 2004 at 10:58:55 PT blur the lines Yes they continually try to blur the lines between cannabis and methamphetamines.In truth, the only real connection is that both are available only on the black market. That is due to prohibition of cannabis.So, if you want your kids exposed to meth, cocaine, heroin etc. as the go looking for cannabis then by all means maintain the status quo on prohibition. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by observer on October 07, 2004 at 10:51:45 PT Propaganda Analysis If Montana legalizes the drug's use in medical situations, then more children will think marijuana is a legitimate medicine and more children will use it, the deputy director of the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy said at a Missoula press conference Wednesday.re: "children" - Prohibitionists are champions of "the child", "kids", "children", etc. Only continued or increased punishments of all adults caught using "drugs" will send the correct "message" to children. (Children Corrupted (propaganda theme 5) )"This is about our kids," said Burns. ...re: "kids" - Prohibitionists play on parental fears by exaggerating the dangers to children of drugs. Adults must be jailed (reason prohibitionists), because kids might be corrupted with drugs. (Children Corrupted (propaganda theme 5) )"If you support legal marijuana, you will see an increase in drug use," Burns said. ...re: "drug use" - The rhetoric of prohibition will assume that "use" and "abuse" are identical. (Use is Abuse (propaganda theme 4) )And Missoula Police Chief Bob Weaver agreed, noting the drug's penchant for spawning other crimes, including rape, robbery, theft and murder.re: "crimes" - Prohibitionist propaganda claims that horrible dangers are caused by "drugs." (Madness,Crime,Violence,Illness (propaganda theme 2) )Burns called meth use a "terrible scourge."re: "scourge" - Prohibitionists demonize the use of drugs and claim the use of drugs is "epidemic." Images of "war" are used by the prohibition propagandist to help whip up emotions. (Demonize, War (propaganda theme 6) )(list of drug war propaganda themes: http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/propaganda/index.htm#toc ) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on October 07, 2004 at 10:10:15 PT: Such touching concern School time for antis, again:If Mr. Burns is so concerned with the welfare of children, perhaps he can explain the following deaths of children killed, not by drug dealers, but by overzealous police intent upon ‘saving’ them from drugs:On 20 May, 1997, sheepherder Esequiel Hernandez of Redford, Texas , 17, was shot and killed by camouflaged Marine snipers doing anti-drug patrols on the Texas side of the Mexican border. The Marines claim Hernendez was shooting at them, when it was more likely he was shooting at varmints out for his sheep, as he certainly had no idea anyone else was on his family’s land.On September 13, 2000, Alberto Sepulveda of Modesto, California, 11 years old was shotgunned in the back at point blank range by a masked police officer while laying face down on the floor of his family’s home, as police conducted a raid upon his father’s house seeking illicit drugs that were not there. And we, as taxpayers, foot the bill for the equipment, the training and the bullets which ended these innocent young lives.Go to http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/08/17/drugWarVictims.html to see the names of other innocents sacrificed upon the altar of Mr. Burn’s holy Drug War. Too many are children like those mentioned above. Is this what he means when he says his Drug War is out to ‘save’ children? By killing them? Strange way to save someone, don’t you think? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by afterburner on October 07, 2004 at 10:07:14 PT Drugs or Medicine? ' Burns ... sees a stark and dramatic divide in the fight over medical marijuana, one that cleaves the participants neatly into pro- and anti-drug camps.... Burns said. "What they're really interested in is legalizing drugs in the United States." ' Drug: such an inflammatory word, full of superstition, prejudice and propaganda. ' Main Entry: 1drug .... Function: noun Etymology: Middle English drogge 1 a obsolete : ... b : a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication c according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1) : a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2) : a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease ' Main Entry: 2drug Function: verb .... transitive senses 1 : to affect with a drug; especially : to stupefy by a narcotic drug ' --Merriam-Webster OnLine http://www.m-w.com/home.htmIn other words, drug is a negative emotionally-charged word for medicine (medication). Just substitute medicine for drug and the objections do not sound so menacing: "pro- and anti-drug camps" becomes "pro- and anti-[medicine] camps." "Legalizing drugs" becomes "legalizing [medicine]."Medical Freedom Amendment for 2004: let the people decide, not government policy wonks of the FDA/HHS/DEA/ONDCP/NIDA. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on October 07, 2004 at 09:36:28 PT Another TASS press release What's the difference between this guy and some Monsignor or Bishop sent out by the Vatican in 1600 to tune-up the Inquisition in a remote province? Big Government usurped the church. Now the high priests dress in suits and huddle in Washington, not Italy.You can just picture this dutiful and obedient reporter crossing himself and kneeling at the Government altar. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment