New ONDCP chief: “Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit.” Did you know that he is actually required by law to say that? Not kidding. He isn’t allowed to have another opinion, no matter what the evidence says.
Joe Califano, on the other hand, is not required by law to say anything. He’s just full of shit.
Some cool 3D-ish murals on the side of buildings.
Of course, if you were planning to develop an army of flesh-eating robots, you wouldn’t admit it, would you?
The New Yorker has published a new profile of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Believe it or not, there are still people out there willing to defend Mary Beth Buchanan. Buchanan, by the way, is now being investigated by the Justice Department for possible misconduct in the Wecht case. They ought to look into the Rottschaefer case, too.
It’s apparently illegal to play catch in Clearwater, Florida.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, July 25th, 2009 at 1:48 pm by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Criminal Justice, General Drug War, Nanny State.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
According to the Federal Trade Commission, it’s illegal for anyone to make a claim about the medicinal benefits of any product — including plants and herbs — without citing “competent and reliable scientific evidence.” Maybe the FTC needs to look into ONDCP for “false and deceptive” advertising…
Califano, like so many of the people he worked with, is clearly a practitioner of coprophagia. So, yes, he is literally full of shit.
The fact that he still has a platform or that anyone listens to him is amazing.
From the ONDCP link:
And the drug czar has also—here’s where the lying comes in—been prohibited from funding research that might give credence to any of the above. These provisions were crafted by Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Bob Barr (R-Ga.)…
One thing that often happens when former Republicans or Democrats become Libertarians is they tend to want to hold on to some of their former pet beliefs no matter how unlibertarian they are. This doesn’t trouble them in the least because it’s never occurred to them before that political beliefs need to be compatible with one another.
I don’t care if the next Libertarian presidential candidate is short, ugly, stinks, has gum in his (or her) hair, doesn’t have a permanent address, arrives at the convention pushing a shopping cart full of clothes and aluminum cans, drools incessantly, spits when he talks, chews with his mouth open, has chronic flatulence, and hasn’t taken a bath in a year. At the very minimum he should have been a libertarian long enough to know, understand, and enthusiastically support the most basic of core libertarian principles.
Just for the sake of variety, there should be one party where the ability to attract votes is not a factor that should be allowed to trump ideology. I propose that the Libertarian party be that one party.
If we’re going to lose every fucking election anyway, it would be nice to at least be able to say, “yeah, but at least our party has some integrity.”
Once again, Dave, is a man not allowed to change his political principles? A decade and a half ago I was a staunch Conservative Republican. It was only around 1996 that I realized how ridiculous my political positions were, and I moved to my current libertarian party philosophy. Am I somehow unworthy?
I don’t hold any of those old positions. I was a staunch drug warrior. I’m not anymore. I used to defer to authority. I don’t anymore. I can’t think of any of those positions I still hold today.
I don’t hold any of those old positions. I was a staunch drug warrior. I’m not anymore. I used to defer to authority. I don’t anymore. I can’t think of any of those positions I still hold today.
I think the difference between you and Barr is that Barr actually made laws that were based on ignorance, dishonesty, hypocrisy, and bigotry. Those laws affected lots of people in negative ways.
So a citizen, like yourself, can merely say, “I changed my mind,” and that’s worthy of respect (as most folks don’t think enough to do that).
Someone like Barr, for me, needs to say, “I was an ignorant, dishonest, hypocritical bigot and I negatively affected the lives of many people.” Then he can explain how he wants to make up for his mistakes. But until he can take personal responsibility for his reprehensible behavior (which is the first step in believing anyone has sincerely changed), I won’t believe he’s really interested in change.
#4 Andrew S.
Once again, Dave, is a man not allowed to change his political principles?
A man can change his positions all he wants. It’s just my opinion that he should be a bit more thoroughly vested in the libertarian way of thinking before he gets to carry the banner as Libertarian candidate for President. Barr choked on relinquishing his support for the drug war because he simply thought he could pick and choose what libertarian policies he’d support and which he’d oppose just as he had done as a Republican. He was a poor libertarian and gave the impression that he was more opportunistic than sincere.
It’s the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), a.k.a. the drug czar, who in 1998 was mandated by Congress to oppose legislation that would legalize, decriminalize, or medicalize marijuana, or redirect anti-trafficking funding into treatment. And the drug czar has also—here’s where the lying comes in—been prohibited from funding research that might give credence to any of the above.
Shouldn’t such a law be considered unconsitutional interference by the legislature in the functioning of the executive branch?
I’d rather see one party where reality trumps ideology… or one sub-committee… or one fucking person with a position in government…
Politicians CANNOT speak of personal liberty, can they? They have to be in charge of everyone’s lives. The city councilman interviewed in the story says he thinks it is important for children to play catch.
He’d never, ever say the government has no business regulating behavior, would he?
Bad choice of words. I should have said principles. You certainly won’t find an excess of them in government.
Joe Califano is a dickhead. Like Anslinger, he’s gonna go to his grave leaving lives destroyed in the wake of his lies. Fuck that worthless troll.
#1
That would be a darn sight more productive than trying to prosecute General Mills for Cheerios.
Is anyone here familiar with Sam Harris’ criticism of the drug war in “The End of Faith” ? I quite like the case he makes, and was wondering if anyone might comment on it.
Are any of his criticisms new to the argument??
pp 160-164 and 257-261 of the paperback.
Lefty blogger Digby talks about Gatesgate.
Sad that our coke snorting brotherman chief executive won’t help us out on cannabis. Marion Barry would free the weed, although he might put more bitches out in Denver
” It’s apparently illegal to play catch in Clearwater, Florida.”
The spring training locale of your World Series Champion Philadelphia Phillies. More than a little ironic.
Once again, Dave, is a man not allowed to change his political principles?
LOL. I love how your focus is on political principles rather than personal ones. Bob Barr has not been able to explain, even for a second, how drug use is an issue of personal FREEDOM. This is what counts the most. THC levels, effectiveness of imprisonment versus treatment, and other distractions are a waste of time for anyone to talk about.
Either you’re free to control your own body or you aren’t, and my money is on Bob Barr believing the latter.
For some reason, the Clearwater story made me think of a line from “One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest”
“Jesus Christ nurse Wratchett, let ‘em watch the god damn baseball game.”
Fucking Joe Califano–”The more often kids have dinner with their parents the less likely they are to drink and use drugs; it’s as simple as that.” Everything this guy said involved willy nilly assuming causal relationships at his pleasure. Very frustrating.
In Clearwater, only Philly’s and Thetans play catch.
I realize more and more why I listen to punk. It’s because punk rockers are the only ones who seem to get it. I used to think that hippies had it right, except they generally advocate peace. Eff that.
I’m more interested in songs lie Murder the Government and The Idiots are Taking Over.
I couldn’t even get all the way through the Califano interview. But if the title was any indicator, he must’ve brought up the tired old line about “pot is more potent today than it was in the 1970’s.” Can somebody, anybody, look at the data and dis/prove that statement? (Pause) Oh, wait, Dr John Morgan @ CUNY does it ALL THE TIME!!!
Yeesh. Give me a break from these tired old liberal hacks. Please.