A couple of gems from the article (you should really read the whole interview if you have time):
The Arcata Eye: ...How can we reconcile that with the government telling us what we can ingest and what we can’t?
Scott Burns: ...Well, in some instances we just say your, quote, “constitutional rights” and your freedom to do certain things gets trumped by the rest of us who say, “You know that’s just not a good idea.”
The Arcata Eye: Is it realistic to keep marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, in with cocaine and heroin?
Scott Burns: Yes it is, and I’ll tell you why. ...Everyone that is addicted to drugs in this United States, started with either alcohol and/or marijuana, and they started when they were 13, 12 or 11. ...[It] is the same as cocaine and methamphetamine and heroin.
If you read the article, you'll notice that Scott Burns, who is deputy director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (a completely necessary agency, I'm sure!), completely misses the point of the Eye's allusion to the double standard between marijuana and alcohol. No one is saying "Hey y'all! Alcohol ruins lives. That's awesome! Let's legalize pot and make our lives really, really terrible!" The point is, why is it that space cadets like Burns are busting their asses to make sure that America's innocent, cherubic youth remain eternally ignorant of the very existence of cannabis...while there are TV commercials, newspaper ads, and billboards advertising hard liquor (and even a NASCAR car emblazoned with the Budweiser emblem - how's that for irony)?
There is no answer to that question. The only estimate that comes close is that Scott Burns lives in a bubble like Jake Gyllenhaal in that one movie, and that he never goes outside, has never met another human being, has never read a book, and has never stopped to consider rational thought in his entire mind-bendingly vacuous life. I'm glad we have dudes like him trumping our Constitutional rights!
Oh, hey guys, don't mind me...just spinnin' in my grave.
Thanks to Tim.
2 comments:
I want to know where the origins of the cannabis stigma came about, and how something like alcohol is always able to distance itself from the same consequences. A lot of articles I've read/seen about the debate state that since alcohol has always been very prevalent in Western culture, it's seen as more of an indigenous drug.
But if the majority are either apathetic or supportive of a legalization measure, due to personal exposure or just a wave of tolerance, what does it take for that sentiment to transfer into law?
Did you happen to catch the news story of the police who raided the home of a town mayor because they though he was receiving marijuana shipments in the mail? They busted down his door, shot his two dogs dead, went and grabbed the guy out of his room and handcuffed him on the floor in his underwear. They later found out that the marijuana shipments were a part of a mail scam and that they guy was completely unrelated.
Post a Comment