cannabisnews.com: Transcripts: Greenfield at Large - War on Drugs





Transcripts: Greenfield at Large - War on Drugs
Posted by FoM on July 17, 2001 at 22:12:54 PT
Aired: July 17, 2001 - 22:30  ET 
Source: CNN.com
JEFF GREENFIELD, HOST: Arkansas Congressman Asa Hutchinson today began Senate hearings on his nomination to head the Drug Enforcement Administration. If he's confirmed -- as he's widely expected to be -- how should he fight the war on drugs? And should we even think of it as a war in the first place? The war on drugs tonight on GREENFIELD AT LARGE. Every war has a body count, so some numbers first. The official government body count if you will, from the so called war on drugs: 
Roughly one third of all Americans over the age 12 have tried an illegal drug. An estimated 76 million have tried marijuana or hashish. Ten percent have tried cocaine. The U.S. has spent countless billions of dollars in this war funding not just the DEA, but the office of the drug czar, local police, correctional facilities, the military and overseas aid. By one estimate, this country spends $9.4 billion a year alone just in locking up some 458,000 nonviolent drug offenders. Joining us now from Washington is U.S. Congressman Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who is expected to be confirmed as the new head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Thank you very much for joining us Congressman. Appreciate it. This war on drugs goes back at least some 30 years in name. Right now, according to one poll, three-fourths of Americans regard the war as a failure, why? REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R), ARKANSAS: I think that's one of the obstacles we have to overcome is to show how much progress we've made and give the American people hope that we are making a difference. In fact, drug usage is down from 20 years ago. The number of people addicted to drugs is down. The number of teens experimenting with it is down. This is because of our effort of our effort in this nation for education as well as our law enforcement efforts. So I think there's -- the American people have a tendency to judge this problem differently than other social problems. You don't have difficulty with child abuse and say we're not making enough progress so let's throw in the towel. I think in our anti-drug efforts we have to have hope, we have to realize we are making a difference in the lives of people and we are making some great successes in it. GREENFIELD: It may be early I realize, but what's the single biggest difference between how you intend to approach this issue, the Bush Administration, and the Clinton Administration's approach? HUTCHINSON: I think we'll have to wait and see, but the President Bush has certainly made it clear that he wants to look at new approaches. He wants to be open-minded on this. He certainly believes in the community coalitions and in increasing funding for the communities that work together to fight drugs. He wants to involve parents in this. I like to look at it as a great crusade where we show national leadership. We have our communities involved, parents involved in this because it's not simply a law enforcement problem but it's a national problem that we have to deal with and we can make progress. I think the president is showing great leadership on the issue. GREENFIELD: One of the biggest debates you'll be facing is the idea of incarceration and or treatment. Last fall California by a landslide, 61 to 38 percent passed so called proposition 36 which tells the state for first or second drug offenses, no drug treatment. Good idea? HUTCHINSON: We have to wait and see. We have to look at alternatives when it comes to nonviolent drug users. I think that it should not be something that's mandatory. The judges should have discretion on this. I'm a advocate of drug courts, which mandate intensive treatment efforts over a long period of time, close supervision, as an alternative to jail for drug users and -- but I don't know that it should be mandated in every case. I think that the Judges should have some discretion there. But we will have to wait and see how it works in California. There's a debate going on. The Senate hearing today in which I was being questioned by the Senators, a lot of expression about concern for more money on the treatment side. I think that's a very balanced approach. I support the law enforcement side but I think the treatment fits in with that because many people do not seek treatment until they're confronted by the law and are forced to go that direction. GREENFIELD: Well which leads to my last and the most fundamental question: People do all kinds of things that will harm themselves because it feels good. They drink, we got 8 million alcohol dependent Americans, they smoke, they eat rich food. Assuming they do no harm to other people why should a free society tell an adult you could harm yourself voluntarily with this mind altering substance but not that one? HUTCHINSON: Well because Congress and our state legislatures express the moral viewpoint, the health of the citizenry and they've made these determinations. When you look at substance abuse, it's not something that affects an individual, it affects their children. And whether there's child neglect, one of the greatest problems is methamphetamine use and neglect of the children associated with it because rather than thinking of family and community all you think of is yourself or the next opportunity you have to do drugs. It changes the values of society, destroys the community, destroys the family, so it affects a much broader range and that's why our legislature has spoken out against it. GREENFIELD: Congressman Asa Hutchinson, the president's nominee to head the DEA. Thank you for joining us. We hope you will stand by for our next segment. When we come back, some ground level perspectives on drugs in America from best-selling author Jacquelyn Mitchard, Newark Councilman Cory Booker and "PC M.D." author Dr. Sally Satel. And later a thought about the woman who changed the world of journalism as she changed herself -- Kate Graham, coming up.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)GREENFIELD: We are back. We are taking a look at the war on drugs with the help of syndicated columnist Jacquelyn Mitchard, Author of "A Theory of Relativity" and the best-selling "The Deep End of the Ocean." Dr. Sally Satel. She is the author of "PC M.D.: How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine." She is also a staff psychiatrist at the Washington D.C. Oasis drug treatment center. And Newark Councilman Cory Booker, you have seen him here before. He is Newark's youngest councilman ever. I'd like to ask each of you as you listened to Congressman Hutchinson, what cheered you, what might have bothered you what did you want to hear that you didn't hear -- Dr. Satel.DR. SALLY SATEL, AUTHOR, "PC M.D.": I heard the second part of his comments and they were actually very encouraging to me because he did put a focus on treatment. That's what I do. I work with drug addicts in Washington, D.C. In particular he mentioned drug courts. And drug courts are a very important way of diverting nonviolent addict offenders into treatment so they are not incarcerated. They get the opportunity to complete this treatment and then the charges are actually dropped. But the reason why this is different from just plain old diversion, because we used to send -- judges used to send addicts to treatment all the time and they would walk out. But at drug court, the judge is very much involved, there is a great deal of supervision. And there are sanctions which are swift and certain but not sever. So, in other words, if someone does use drugs or commits some sort of infraction while in treatment, it's attended to right away with a minor kind of sanction. The person can learn from it and the treatment proceeds. The idea is to finish treatment, which very few addicts do. But if they are mandated to treatment, they can.GREENFIELD: The president has called this, and other people have called this, I think the phrase is "coercive abstinence," which sounds a little chilling. Is that what you are saying has to happen? SATEL: Yes. Coerced abstinence refers to drug testing with sanctions in the probational parole. Drug courts actually send people to treatment, but both are coerced, coerced in that a choice is forced. The choice is you can you stand trial and be adjudicated in a traditional way, or you can go to treatment. GREENFIELD: The congressman has said, Jacquelyn Mitchard, that we've made progress, that there are a lot fewer drug users. Now, as a parent, as someone who has seen this at ground level, is it your sense that this generations is less intrigued by drugs than past? JACQUELYN MITCHARD, AUTHOR, "A THEORY OF RELATIVITY": I don't think they are less intrigued by drugs, but they are doing better in terms of numbers than, for example, your and my generation who invented, you know, substance abuse. But I mean, since -- in 1979, for example, I think it was the National Institute of Mental Health said that there were -- half of all kids would say they've had a drink or a smoke in the last month, and that's down to about 19 percent. That's huge. That's a great deal of progress. GREENFIELD: As a parent, what is your sense of how your kids react to this? We all have to have this conversation. MITCHARD: I think -- I think that the behavior, while much talked about and much bragged about, is actually far less prevalent than kids would even have their parents believe. I think kids talk about it -- at least in my neighborhood -- more than they may actually do it. What intrigued me about what he said at the end about this being a national crusade -- yes, that's wonderful. It reminds me a little of 1,000 point of light. It sounds like a wonderful thing, but I can from personal experience attest to the fact that coming from a family tree that was floored with alcoholism, that you can be harmed just as readily by parents who drink martinis as you can by parents who smoke dope. GREENFIELD: Cory Booker, you actually spent six month I guess in one of the most drug-infested crossroads in Newark, literally living there. From your perspective, do you see a victory or even victories in the battles on this war of drugs. CORY BOOKER (D), NEWARK, NEW JERSEY CITY COUNCIL: I don't. And it's sort of like the Vietnam rhetoric, where people keep talking about law enforcement, we keep on getting ourselves more entrenched in this war, that is really just costing human life and not making us any -- getting any closer to our goal. And my frustration is, as I have heard a lot of talk about treatment programs, and I have heard a lot of talk about alternatives, like drug court, but the reality is, they don't really exist, at least not in communities like mine. We have a city where we five detox beds for the entire city, for the largest city in the state of New Jersey. GREENFIELD: Wait a minute, I want to try and discern this: five facilities or five beds? BOOKER: Five actual detox beds for a community. And I have an office in a community that is besieged by drugs. I actually have addicts coming into my office begging for treatment, and I call up to a treatment center, and they will tell me there is a month wait, two months wait, sometimes a six months wait for them to get in to have treatment. So, you know, I talk and work with drug dealers and work against drug dealers, and I actually work with police officers on the grassroots, and you hear -- and you talk to them, and they say, we arrest these kids, they go into jail, they come out, and now they have an addiction, they have a conviction, and they often have poor education, and so what happens to them is they just get caught up in this cycle. MITCHARD: So, that's not necessarily true that they have to get arrested in order to ask for treatment? BOOKER: No. I think that the treatment that's out there is good, but there is not enough of it, and it needs to be more aggressive and have more and more availability. And the problem I have is, you have incarceration rates in this country now that are outrageous. You have half a million Americans right now incarcerated for drugs. And what's happening is, you aren't really solving the problem by just throwing people in jail. If you really want to make progress toward a problem, you start looking at those figures and find constructive ways to deal with these people when they're coming out of prison or at a point when they're going into prison and helping alternatives, make available more alternatives to incarceration. GREENFIELD: Congressman, this is an opportunity for you to respond directly to someone who has posed I think a challenge to policy from the most grassroots level imaginable. Councilman Booker says great theory, we don't have the treatment, and meanwhile you're locking up almost half a million nonviolent offenders. I know you're not confirmed yet, but (UNINTELLIGIBLE), it's not bad first immersion in this issue. What do you say to the councilman? HUTCHINSON: Well, I think that his emphasis is on treatment and that right now, there is a treatment gap. There are more people in need of treatment for drugs than there are available beds. I hope that we can close that. The president wants to invest and to accomplish that. But it takes resources.The second part of it -- I think we -- it's a combination of the treatment side, the education side, but also the law enforcement sends the right signals to society, so I don't think you have to say that that's not a part of the equation either. This is all-hands-on-deck type of environment. I do believe when you talk about the incarceration rate, right now in the federal prison, 5 percent of those incarcerated on drug charges are simple possession, only 5 percent. The vast majority are for major trafficking offenses, and I think that's what our focus should be on. In a state prison, the simple possession incarceration rate is up 27 percent, and I think it's fair to ask some questions, what is the reason for that. Again, we can look fairly at some alternatives for the nonviolent offenders, concentrate on rehabilitation. Let's see if that can help to reduce those people who are dependent upon this lifestyle. BOOKER: I'm a little exhausted maybe by responses such as that, because we talk about a lack of resources, but yet we as a nation -- maybe people know this -- are sending billions of dollars into Columbia for crop eradication and other forms of interdiction. So, we have billions of dollars to send into foreign wars, why can't we find out ways -- more ways to invest in our communities, especially when every study I have seen, done by on the right and on the left, shows that things like treatment centers, things like job training programs, things like drug courts cut usage and addiction rates more than crop eradication and interdiction. The money is out there, it just needs to be reinvested into our communities. GREENFIELD: Are you going to take a look at that, congressman? HUTCHINSON: Well, I think we all have to take a look at it. The city councilman is certainly in a position locally to invest more funds in the problems that he just addressed. At the national level, we have to do the same thing. I do believe that it's important -- parents are telling that one of problems is the easy availability of drugs. Easy availability, that tells me that the supply side has to be addressed as well. That's why we are trying to stop the flow of drugs coming in, as well as educating our children to make the right decisions. GREENFIELD: Congressman Hutchinson, the soon-to-be I expect head of the DEA, congratulations. I am not going to say deepest sympathy, you have got a tiger by the tail with this issue. Thank you very much for joining us. Appreciate it.And when we come back, if our guests were the new head of the DEA, rather than the congressman, what would they do to help win the war on drugs? And what about the notion of not fighting this war at all? After this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)GOV. GARY JOHNSON (R), NEW MEXICO: Smoking marijuana in the confines of your own home, doing no harm to anyone other than, arguably, yourself, should that be criminal? I say that no, it should not be criminal. (END VIDEO CLIP) GREENFIELD: Governor Gary Johnson, Republican governor of New Mexico. We are back, with best-selling author Jacquelyn Mitchard -- I was going to get that T in if it killed me -- Newark Councilman Cory Booker and "PC M.D." author doctor Sally Satel. Pick up on what the governor said, and it's what I asked Congressman Hutchinson earlier. He used things like people negligent their children when they're on drugs, they neglect their kids when they too. And they can die early if they smoke. What fundamentally is it about drug use, as opposed to other kinds of harmful behavior, that require coerced abstinence that may even requirement imprisonment? SATEL: Well, I think tobacco -- you mentioned smoking -- that's very different. Smoking is not an intoxicant. It doesn't impair one's participation in a free society. So, I'm all for people being aware of the dangers but certainly having the freedom to smoke. The harder drugs, cocaine, heroin, metamphetamines, these are not victim less crimes. I mean, imagine that people had easy access to them. Obviously, we will have more people addicted. When we think about legalization, we are really talking, in large part, about trading a public health problem, perhaps for a criminal justice problem. People feel that, well, if we legalize there wouldn't be black markets, there wouldn't be the violence associated with that. We wouldn't have the whole edifice of the expense of the criminal justice system. But we would have more addicts and nobody really debates that -- we would. And if we had more addicts, we'd have more social pathology, we'd have more homelessness, because we'd have more addicts. (CROSSTALK) SATEL: Again, it's not limited to the person. Child abuse and negligent is a huge problem with drug and alcohol. Homelessness, unemployment these would all be our social pathologies and I'm just not sure we would gain much in that tradeoff. GREENFIELD: Do you accept, Jacquelyn, that distinction? That there's something about drugs that doesn't apply to say, alcohol, which is an intoxicant, can make people do bad things? MITCHARD: I don't understand why a -- why drugs are singled out. It's always been a question that I have had. I nursed my husband -- my 44-year-old husband through colon cancer until his death. By the time he died, we had more marijuana in the house than Hunter Thompson does, I'm sure, because his friends brought it over to him, and his doctor encouraged him to use it to ease pain and stimulate his appetite. And so, I don't see what harm that did a dying man. So I don't know whether -- why having a glass of red wine along with his prescribed morphine was different from having a puff of marijuana. SATEL: You mentioned medical marijuana. And I think that's a legitimate issue we should take more seriously. I do think that there are a minority of folks who are -- have cancer, have AIDS, and did benefit from the weight gain and from the anti-vomiting effect that smoke marijuana can provide. We have so many other medications now that can help and that are effective with fewer side effects, but there will this small core of folks who just need the medical marijuana. I would like to be able -- I would like to be able to make that available to them. I do think, though, that the people who are behind the buyer's clubs and the legalization, rather the marijuana referenda, really do have a larger agenda. MITCHARD: A profit motive. SATEL: No, I think they do want to see drug policy liberalized. GREENFIELD: Cory, Does this conversation -- I almost hate to put it this way but i don't know any other way -- are we talking about two fundamentally different societies when we talk about drugs? That is, an inner city reality that is fundamentally different from suburban reality? BOOKER: First of all, let's just talk about the drug war and its impact on urban communities. Black in this country make up about 12 percent of the population, 13 percent of the drug users, but they make up 55 percent of the people convicted of drug possession, and 75 percent of those sent to jail for drug possession. There is a definite urban impact on urban populations. But let's get real here: we live in an interconnected society, where black communities and white communities are tied more than you know. And in my community, on drug corners, you see strings of white people coming into our neighborhoods to buy drugs and to buy their wares. And often stay within that neighborhood to shoot-up or to sniff or to smoke and then leave their communities.We had a young man in my city killed recently by a suburban kid coming in to buy drugs. So we are all in this problem, and whether it's a suburbanite using the drug or buying it from an urban person that's selling them the drugs, it is really a community problem. GREENFIELD: This topic is not going to solved or even necessarily perfectly clarified in one session, which is why we will come back to this. For now, our time is up. I want to thank my guests, "A Theory Of Relativity" author Jacquelyn Mitchard, Newark Councilman Cory Booker and "PC M.D." author Doctor Sally Satel. When we come back, a brief note about Katharine Graham, chairman of "The Washington Post," who died today. That's after this. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) GREENFIELD: "And Another Thing": nearly 20 years ago, I went to interview Katharine Graham for a piece marking "Newsweek's" 50th anniversary. To my surprise, I found her almost paralyzed with fear. She was at the time the single most politically powerful woman in America, a head of a huge publishing empire, courted and flattered by would-be presidents. Surely, the prospect of a friendly interview didn't really threaten her. What I did not understand, I now know, is where she had come from: daughter of privilege, wife of a charismatic mover and shaker, shaped by her upbringing and the culture to stay in the background, to defer to the men around her. Then, shockingly, her husband was dead by his own hand, and by necessity, she now had to step forward, to exercise authority in spite of a lifetime's habits. She had to decide, with the Pentagon Papers and "The Post's" Watergate reporting, to risk literally the very future of her newspaper. She had to learn to hire and fire, how to say no, how to stir anger and resentment. In short, to do all the things a man in her position would do without a second thought. She turned out to be pretty damn good at it, and a good enough chronicler of her life and times to win a Pulitzer Prize for her only book. Historians won't be able to write the modern history of journalism without Katharine Graham. They won't be able to write the modern history of women without her either. I'm Jeff Greenfield. Tomorrow, documentarian Ken Burns. "SPORTS TONIGHT" is next. This is a Rush Transcript. This Copy May Not Be In Its Final Form and May Be Updated.Program: Greenfield at Large - CNNAired: July 17, 2001 - 22:30  ET Copyright: 2001 Cable News Network, Inc.Contact: cnn.feedback cnn.comWebsite: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/greenfield/DL: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/17/gal.00.htmlRelated Articles:DEA Nominee Won't Outline Plans for Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10334.shtmlThe War on Drugs Gets a New General -- Then What? http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10332.shtmlDrug Agency Nominee Talks Tough Enforcementhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10323.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #15 posted by testor on July 18, 2001 at 20:50:32 PT
feedback
you guys should be posting this stuff to the feedback on cnn with that link.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by jAHn on July 18, 2001 at 19:54:11 PT
Interesting point by Jose...
..."Here's a thought:If Congress or State Legislatures are determined to keep tobacco legal and Marijuana illegal as a moral decision with the health of the citizenry in mind, perhaps it is not good health that is the desired goal."Reading between the lines, one might ponder if its' Certain "Doctors" and "Scientists" and inevitably Pharmaceutical companies  Who are the REAL winners in this War on Drugs, maybe?I've actually believed this for a long time, only now i know its' gotta be on the point if Someone else has noted the same occurence......which is---That of the Profiting by "Dr.s" "Psycologists" Scientists that engineer these fancy machines that Create the f #cking pills. But just call me paranoid, for this is what i am accustomed to.Being a tiny, unknown, almost extinct, hairless animal who watches the rocks fall from the sky...and keeps Quiet!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Sudaca on July 18, 2001 at 16:48:25 PT
liar
"HUTCHINSON: Well because Congress and our state legislatures express the moral viewpoint, the health of the citizenry and they've made these determinations. When you look at substance abuse, it's not something that affects an individual, it affects their children. And whether there's child neglect, one of the greatest problems is methamphetamine use and neglect of the children associated with it because rather than thinking of family and community all you think of is yourself or the next opportunity you have to do drugs. "no no no.. how about alcoholims, obesity, gambling, chasing after money or sex addiction?all of these fit his objections. and they're legal. he's just blowing smoke.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Kevin Hebert on July 18, 2001 at 11:50:50 PT:
Also
I watched this program last night. I think Greenfield was the only one to speak about the possibility of legalizing. I can't believe Jacquelyn Mitchard would talk about how pot helped her husband deal with cancer, and then let Satel go off on how it keeps you from functioning in society. I also couldn't believe that Cory Booker would talk about how blacks are incarcerated at 5 times the number of whites, and then not rigorously condemn the drug war as a result.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Kevin Hebert on July 18, 2001 at 11:12:22 PT:
Cannabis Crusader et al
You are all right. CC: I emailed Senator Kennedy through his web site to specifically ask him to ask Asa about Mena. Will he? Probably not.Has our government left the people behind? Do the people even care? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Rambler on July 18, 2001 at 10:28:44 PT
myths,,and the facts to back them up
Right on Doug.I'm sure everyone has noticed the "statistics",,and the "facts" are redefined to suit the occassion."REP. ASA HUTCHINSON (R), ARKANSAS: I think that's one of the obstacles we have to overcome is to show how much progress we've made and give the American people hope that we are making a difference. In fact, drug usage is down from 20 years ago. The number of people addicted to drugs is down. The number of teens experimenting with it is down."by far,,,the leading candidate for most bizarre,and spooky comment from the Hutchster,,in this article,is the astonishing;  " I like to look at it as a great crusade where we show national leadership."As if to say it is like some strange hobby that he finds challenging!  A "great crusade",I dont seem to recall "Crusading",to be a responsibility of our government. Now,this Crackpot,integrity challenged,arrogant,smug, good ol' boy,is gonna be at the head of the freekin' dea.Oh,by the way, I just looked up the crusader thing at the government website.It seems that back in 82', this little known bill was passed,and signed into law.It was SR2365."The Drug Crusading and Drug Czar Act For Children"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Pontifex on July 18, 2001 at 10:19:33 PT:
Save some outrage for Dr. Sally Satel
Right on Rambler, Asa is home free to lead the DEA. Politically, nothing can be done about it -- unless Congress starts asking questions about Mena, but what politician would dare rip the lid off that?Folks, please save some of your outrage for the "First, do harm" doctors who shill for drug warriors like Asa. Here are a few of the blatant untruths from the shameless mouth of Dr. Sally Satel:SATEL: Well, I think tobacco -- you mentioned smoking -- that's very different. Smoking is not an intoxicant. It doesn't impair one's participation in a free society. So, I'm all for people being aware of the dangers but certainly having the freedom to smoke. So smoking tobacco should be a free choice, despite its dangers. But marijuana, "impairs one's participation in a free society", whatever the hell that means.  So Asa Hutchinson ought to use any means necessary to stamp it out, according to this wretched stoolie.SATEL: The harder drugs, cocaine, heroin, metamphetamines, these are not victim less crimes. I mean, imagine that people had easy access to them. Obviously, we will have more people addicted. When we think about legalization, we are really talking, in large part, about trading a public health problem, perhaps for a criminal justice problem.Not victimless crimes? Then who is the victim? And shouldn't alcohol be included as a "harder drug"? Satel says nothing to back up her empty assertions.Regarding MMJ, Satel says:We have so many other medications now that can help and that are effective with fewer side effects, but there will this small core of folks who just need the medical marijuana.Effective with fewer side effects?  That's a laugh! If people could get medicine more effective than MMJ legally, from their doctor, on their insurance, then why wouldn't they?? Strictly medical users are usually normal patients at the end of their rope. They take massive risks to obtain the only medicine that helps, and there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, not a "small core of folks".Don't forget Dr. Sally Satel. She's making herself very useful to the drug war establishment and we're bound to hear from her again.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Doug on July 18, 2001 at 09:57:06 PT
The Progress Myth
The antis love to claim we've made progress in the last 20 years fighting the War on Drugs, so with just a little more effort, we can actually declare victory. Then they trot out statistics showing how great the use of (unspecified) drugs were in 1979 -- the highwater mark -- as compared to now. Leaving aside the problem with figures for illeagal actions, which is a big problem, they never mention which drugs are being used. In 1979 just about everybody smoked marijuana; in the 1990's, fewer smoked, but meth, cocaine, heroin, etc., etc. were much more popular. To someone who thinks all illegal drugs are the same, this is progress, but to those in the real world, substituting one heroin user for two marijuana users is the opposite of progress. Yet another example of how you can lie with statistics -- the War on Drugs is filled with examples.And then good ol' Sally Satel tells us that tobacco does not cause intoxication and so it's okay, whereas marijuana does so it's bad. I've never smoked tobacco, but my friends who have tell me it is a very strong intoxicant. But most people use it often (very often!) and so the body quickly develops tolerance to the major effects. But this does not mean it does not effect them.And the third item the bothers me about this interview -- it is difficult to pick three because there are so many -- is the comment, also by Satel, about "victimless crime".  I wish these people would go back to school and take a sociology or criminolgy class and learn about the concept of victimless crimes before they start talking. The concept of victimless crimes is well established; thesse people like to play with the words and destroy the meaning.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Jose Melendez on July 18, 2001 at 07:54:42 PT:
the moral minority
GREENFIELD: "...Assuming they do no harm to other people why should a free society tell an adult you could harm yourself voluntarily with this mind altering substance but not that one?" HUTCHINSON: "Well because Congress and our state legislatures express the moral viewpoint, the health of the citizenry and they've made these determinations."A friend once looked me in the eye and told me that tobacco was morally OK and Marijuana was morally not OK. Then I pointed out that if you take a wad of tobacco leaves and stick them between your cheek and gums, you get a sore there.If you have a cut in your mouth and stick Cannabis leaves there, it heals. He was skeptical, but upon reflection admitted that if what I said were true, it tended to negate his morality argument.Here's a thought:If Congress or State Legislatures are determined to keep tobacco legal and Marijuana illegal as a moral decision with the health of the citizenry in mind, perhaps it is not good health that is the desired goal.
Jose Melendez - owner/founder of narcosoft.com - Buy Sell Quit Drugs Online!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Rambler on July 18, 2001 at 06:55:01 PT
a done deal
Get ready to be really upset CannabisCrusader,because thisis a done deal.Like Ashcrofts' charade hearings,this is the samething.These confimation hearings are little more than a puppetshow for the sheeple.The matter has already been negotiatedand decided. There exsists no one in the senate or house withthe influence,or the balls to try and derail this. The same holds true for the 15 Billion dollar Latin Americansugar daddy takeover buyout scam.   No one makes wave inthe political spectrum anymore,unless they want to end up next to Chandra.It's not a game
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Cannabis Crusader on July 18, 2001 at 05:55:56 PT
Future's not so bright for the US
I watch the Senate conformation hearings today, and it doesn't look good. The prohibitionist ideology prevails throughout the Senate. So, the future doesn't look good.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Cannabis Crusader on July 18, 2001 at 05:46:43 PT
Not Good, nope, not good at all
First of all, what in the hell kind of name is Asa.I want to know how Mr. Hutchinson thinks he will get this position if he isn't even willing to tell the senate how he intends to address issues like medical marijuana. Underwelmed, I agree. The problems is addiction and substance abuse, not substance use. Very few people that use illegal drugs get addicted. But, a huge number of people are seriously addicted to tobacco, which is legal. In my opinion, prohibition is a perpetual downward spiral that feeds itself by making illicit drugs more dangerous to those who choose to use, and the prohibitionist uses this to justify their moral crusade. When in reality, the harm associated with illicit drug use is almost entirely caused by prohibition.I will be furious if Hutchinson makes it through the conformation hearings with out being asked about the Mena incident. Every single US Senator will get a very nasty letter from me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on July 18, 2001 at 05:29:01 PT:
This guy is creepy
I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. But this guy has already caused me to worry. Not just because of his extraordinarily convenient blindness to what went on in his jurisdiction (drug running at Mena, Arkansas) but because of what he's just said.""Well because Congress and our state legislatures express the moral viewpoint, the health of the citizenry and they've made these determinations."Look at this phrase. He can't tie the points of his sentences together; it's disjunct. It's the kind of thing you'd expect from someone who's brains are scrambled. He'll fit right in with Georgie Too ("Is our children learning?").But there's one tiny ray of hope in this gloomy scenario of Hutchinson as Boss DrugFighter; he has practically abdicated the matter to the State legislatures. If more State legislatures begin work on MMJ, then he will have only Congress to turn to. And when Congress gets hit over the head with the State intitiatives for MMJ 2X4 enough times, it will realize what's happeing and turn it's coat.Yep, interesting times, indeed. We may yet witness the Swan Song of the Drugwar...but it will be anyhting but melodious.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by dddd on July 18, 2001 at 03:14:37 PT
I KRINGE!!!
"I like to look at it as a great crusade where we show national leadership. "__________________________________________________________"I do believe when you talk about the incarceration rate, right now in the federal prison, 5 percent of those incarcerated on drug charges are simple possession, only 5 percent. The vast majority are for major trafficking offenses, and I think that's what our focus should be on. In a state prison, the simple possession incarceration rate is up 27 percent, and I think it's fair to ask some questions, what is the reason for that. "" Again, we can look fairly at some alternatives for the nonviolent offenders, concentrate on rehabilitation. Let's see if that can help to reduce those people who are dependent upon this lifestyle. ""I think that's one of the obstacles we have to overcome is to show how much progress we've made and give the American people hope that we are making a difference. In fact, drug usage is down from 20 years ago. The number of people addicted to drugs is down. The number of teens experimenting with it is down. "....I am astonished at what this A$$hole says,,,,It's hard to believe.....It's one of two things,,,and it's not the first one,,that is,,,maybe this guy is actually aninnocent,idiot southern hillbilly type guy,who really believes the stuff he is saying,,,that's about as likely as me donating to the republican party,,,or Mary Friend joining the PFCFC,(Partnership For Crack For Children),,,,......the second thing would be that he is an extremely good politician,whohas honed his lying skills,,and proven his allegance to Republocrat/corporatebottom line.....Lokk at what this guy says,,and try to imagine how it fits inwith our constitution,,, GREENFIELD".......Assuming they do no harm to other people why should a free society tell an adult you could harm  yourself voluntarily with this mind altering substance but not that one? " HUTCHINSON: "Well because Congress and our state legislatures express the moral viewpoint, the health of the citizenry and they've made these determinations.""It changes the values of society, destroys the community, destroys the family, so it affects a much broader range and that's why our legislature has spoken out against it. "...This guy is raw evil........He was the one spouting off large ramblingsof CRAP about the constitution in the Lewinsky hearings,,,all the republicansh*theads were saying things like,,"We must uphold the Constitution,,we dont like having to impeach the president,,,but if we dont,,it will damage theConstitution.."....Things are not looking that good when you consider the Ashcroft,Waters,Hutchinson,triangle of radical rightwing demagogery...........the next few years promise to befraught with eminent turmoil,,and strange events.......get ready.On a brighter note,,,just think how fortunate we are to be a witness tothe extraordinary era in history,,,and how fortunate we are to own thecomputers,that allow us to speak out,,,,it aint gonna last,so enjoy itwhile you can......All in all,,,I think things are better,,,than they are bad when you compareour lives to the rest of the planet............d.....dd.......disorientated,
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by underwelmed on July 17, 2001 at 22:59:03 PT:
get a clue
Yeah maybe drug use is down from 20 years ago. So the prison population is up 400%. And to say you are going to inform the public of the progress you have made after what, a half a trillion dollars. Maybe you don't have any experience with drug abuse. They need a committee of reformed drug addicts, like a Supreme Court to look after the new drug czar. I used to drink but I don't any more. I know how it makes you feel, how it can grab you at times, and how it can lead you to depression by washing the seratonin out of your brain. There needs to be a committee of people that are honest and have experienced drugs.We don't need a dictator trying to indocrinate us into his belief system or to bullshit us.I do not have any experience with any of the hard drugs because a lot of us know what addiction is. I started smoking when I was 27 because I went out to bars to drink and the smoke hooked me. I started drinking when I was 22.That is why I would never think of even trying cocaine. It is because I know damned well I would like it and might possibly get addicted.I have experience with pot. I would say that use is not abuse. It is not addictive in the sense of tobacco although it is enjoyable. Second, marijuana is a sensible alternative to alcohol. If they would legalize it and tell the truth about it compared to alcohol there would be a lot less drunks and the country would be a better place.And do some who want legalized medical marijuana have a further agenda. Not really. They are seperate issues. I make no bones about believing marijuana should be legalized. So how could I not think that medicinal marijuana should not be legalized. I am for both and each has its own merits.Form a committee of people with experience, instead of expecting one person with no experience to know everything. And they should not even call it a war on drugs. It ought to be the war against substance abuse and that means bib tobacco and big alcohol.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment