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: Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
Comment #15 posted by testor on July 18, 2001 at 20:50:32 PT |
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 |
..."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."
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. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #13 posted by Sudaca on July 18, 2001 at 16:48:25 PT |
"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:
|
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:
|
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 |
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! Oh,by the way, I just looked up the crusader thing at the government website. [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #9 posted by Pontifex on July 18, 2001 at 10:19:33 PT:
|
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, SATEL: Well, I think tobacco -- you mentioned So smoking tobacco should be a free choice, despite SATEL: The harder drugs, cocaine, heroin, Not victimless crimes? Then who is the victim? And Regarding MMJ, Satel says: We have so many other medications now that can Effective with fewer side effects? That's a laugh! If Don't forget Dr. Sally Satel. She's making herself very [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #8 posted by Doug on July 18, 2001 at 09:57:06 PT |
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:
|
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?"
Here's a thought: [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #6 posted by Rambler on July 18, 2001 at 06:55:01 PT |
Get ready to be really upset CannabisCrusader,because this is a done deal.Like Ashcrofts' charade hearings,this is the same thing.These confimation hearings are little more than a puppet show for the sheeple.The matter has already been negotiated and decided. There exsists no one in the senate or house with the influence,or the balls to try and derail this. The same holds true for the 15 Billion dollar Latin American sugar daddy takeover buyout scam. No one makes wave in the 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 |
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 |
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:
|
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 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 " 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. "
It's one of two things,,,and it's not the first one,,that is,,,maybe this guy is actually an .the second thing would be that he is an extremely good politician,who 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. "
Things are not looking that good when you consider the Ashcroft,Waters,Hutchinson, On a brighter note,,,just think how fortunate we are to be a witness to All in all,,,I think things are better,,,than they are bad when you compare .....d.....dd.......disorientated [ Post Comment ] |
Comment #1 posted by underwelmed on July 17, 2001 at 22:59:03 PT:
|
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 | |