Sessions: Marijuana only slightly less awful than heroin

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I realize this may be an unfashionable belief in a time of growing tolerance of drug use. But too many lives are at stake to worry about being fashionable. I reject the idea that America will be a better place if marijuana is sold in every corner store. And I am astonished to hear people suggest that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana – so people can trade one life-wrecking dependency for another that’s only slightly less awful. Our nation needs to say clearly once again that using drugs will destroy your life.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/...arks-efforts-combat-violent-crime-and-restore
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out

I'd thought him an intelligent, thoughtful guy. Regardless of what one thinks about personal responsibly and freedom, to equate weed and heroin, especially with all the plain, simple facts that we've long ignored or tried to lie to ourselves out of, this is just...dumb.
So, is he a moron or just thinks everyone else is? Or just following orders? Which reflects very poorly on Trump.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I'd thought him an intelligent, thoughtful guy. Regardless of what one thinks about personal responsibly and freedom, to equate weed and heroin, especially with all the plain, simple facts that we've long ignored or tried to lie to ourselves out of, this is just...dumb.
So, is he a moron or just thinks everyone else is? Or just following orders? Which reflects very poorly on Trump.

I think he's following what the law says. Based on the law, he is 100% accurate.

Now, you can assert you find the law inaccurate, and show the details thereof, and see where that gets you in terms of changing the law. But, according to the law, he is 100% correct. As I understand, it was just reevaluated and the classification of marijuana has not changed. Given that, would you expect him, a guy with no medical training, no training in medical research or anything like that, to be expected to overrule the technicians and doctorates that made the determination, and confirmed the determination recently? Is that how you want government to work - "Bob said you're wrong, Doctor Expert, so change your ruling."?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I think he's following what the law says. Based on the law, he is 100% accurate.

Now, you can assert you find the law inaccurate, and show the details thereof, and see where that gets you in terms of changing the law. But, according to the law, he is 100% correct. As I understand, it was just reevaluated and the classification of marijuana has not changed. Given that, would you expect him, a guy with no medical training, no training in medical research or anything like that, to be expected to overrule the technicians and doctorates that made the determination, and confirmed the determination recently? Is that how you want government to work - "Bob said you're wrong, Doctor Expert, so change your ruling."?

Based on his wording, I doubt that he was going with the "law" angle. Based on that, and the fact that marijuana and heroin are classified the same, then why would he use "slightly less awful" instead of "just as awful?

The law does not mention any substance being more "life-wrecking" than another.

And who is "suggest[ing] that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana"?


I think he's following a mindset shared by many in his generation.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
marijuana.jpg marijuana now Im gay.jpg
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
He disagrees with the dope smokers so he is a bad guy.
What a great line in the sand.

As they cry I wanna smoke my dope.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Based on his wording, I doubt that he was going with the "law" angle. Based on that, and the fact that marijuana and heroin are classified the same, then why would he use "slightly less awful" instead of "just as awful?

The law does not mention any substance being more "life-wrecking" than another.

And who is "suggest[ing] that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana"?


I think he's following a mindset shared by many in his generation.

While it may not have been his angle, it's an accurate thought. The law says what he said about marijuana. We can argue this study or that study or this country or that state, but it is what the law says about it.

Many, by the way, have said we can fix our problem with illegal drugs by legalizing them. Not sure why that's even in question - it's kind of the basis of legalizing drugs.

His mindset is set in law. The best way to change the mindset is to change the basis of the law.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
While it may not have been his angle, it's an accurate thought. The law says what he said about marijuana. We can argue this study or that study or this country or that state, but it is what the law says about it.

Many, by the way, have said we can fix our problem with illegal drugs by legalizing them. Not sure why that's even in question - it's kind of the basis of legalizing drugs.

His mindset is set in law. The best way to change the mindset is to change the basis of the law.

Yes, it is against the law and maybe he did mean it in terms of the law (he was speaking to police).

He mentioned the "opioid epidemic" but failed to mention,
Medical cannabis laws are associated with significantly lower state-level opioid overdose mortality rates.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1898878

It's quite easy to stand back form it all and yell "but it's against the law!" while ignoring that this is the guy in charge of enforcing it. If he has this view on it, even after years of medical and recreational marijuana legalization across the country without any of the "sky is falling" predictions coming true, then forgive me if I'm not rushing to believe that he'll be at the forefront of getting the laws changed.
 
Last edited:

This_person

Well-Known Member
Yes, it is against the law and maybe he did mean it in terms of the law (he was speaking to police).

He mentioned the "opioid epidemic" but failed to mention,

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1898878

It's quite easy to stand back form it all and yell "but it's against the law!" while ignoring that this is the guy in charge of enforcing it. If he has this view on it, even after years of medical and recreational marijuana legalization across the country without any of the "sky is falling" predictions coming true, then forgive me if I'm not rushing to believe that he'll be at the forefront of getting the laws changed.

He shouldn't be at the forefront of getting the laws changed. That should be coming from the scientific community that performs, reviews, etc., the research. They make recommendations on what class each drug is, which is where the law actually resides. I'll ask you what Larry wouldn't answer: would you expect him, a guy with no medical training, no training in medical research or anything like that, to be expected to overrule the technicians and doctorates that made the determination, and confirmed the determination recently? Is that how you want government to work - "Bob said you're wrong, Doctor Expert, so change your ruling."?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
He shouldn't be at the forefront of getting the laws changed. That should be coming from the scientific community that performs, reviews, etc., the research. They make recommendations on what class each drug is, which is where the law actually resides. I'll ask you what Larry wouldn't answer: would you expect him, a guy with no medical training, no training in medical research or anything like that, to be expected to overrule the technicians and doctorates that made the determination, and confirmed the determination recently? Is that how you want government to work - "Bob said you're wrong, Doctor Expert, so change your ruling."?

When the government is the body is paying for research, you think they're researching the positive benefits of a drug they've tried their damndest to keep illegal for some 40 years at the expense of taxpayers (among others)? If you wanted to keep something illegal, would you want to tout how helpful it is?

I will say that you are right. The DEA had a chance to reschedule marijuana but don't have enough evidence to support the idea that it has tangible medical benefits. Why is that? Why is there such little research of the benefits of this substance that's literally been around for thousands of years? One thing they did though, was open researching up to more than one government-approved facility and research team. Hopefully we'll see something soon enough, but I'm sure you'd agree that government typically isn't on the forefront of any new or explosive information.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
When the government is the body is paying for research, you think they're researching the positive benefits of a drug they've tried their damndest to keep illegal for some 40 years at the expense of taxpayers (among others)? If you wanted to keep something illegal, would you want to tout how helpful it is?

The assumption here (and I'm not denying the potential it is accurate) is that there is some interest in keeping marijuana illegal on the part of the DEA. In my view of how government should work, that should not be a consideration. It should be "what it is is what it is" and be done.

I will say that you are right. The DEA had a chance to reschedule marijuana but don't have enough evidence to support the idea that it has tangible medical benefits. Why is that? Why is there such little research of the benefits of this substance that's literally been around for thousands of years?

There has been quite a bit of study on pot, and the main thing I saw with respect to actually providing superior benefits to any other available drug was for MS. Why MS? There's been virtually no research into how to help those with MS except for pot, and pot didn't actually help with the medical issue, it helped the patient deal with the medical issue.

One thing they did though, was open researching up to more than one government-approved facility and research team. Hopefully we'll see something soon enough, but I'm sure you'd agree that government typically isn't on the forefront of any new or explosive information.

They are more than you'd think (would we have microwaves, or velcro, or a plethora of other things without them?), but maybe not in the areas everyone wants (that would be pretty much impossible). I would say once a drug is considered "bad", it's next to impossible to get it "good" again. Think DEET, or saccharin, or whatever. It is pretty much incumbent upon those who believe previous research invalid to prove the previous research invalid.
 
Top