Cannabis News Media Awareness Project
  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 

DEA 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
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.



[ 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 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
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 an
innocent,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,who
has honed his lying skills,,and proven his allegance to Republocrat/corporate
bottom line.....Lokk at what this guy says,,and try to imagine how it fits in
with 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 ramblings
of CRAP about the constitution in the Lewinsky hearings,,,all the republican
sh*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 the
Constitution.."....

Things are not looking that good when you consider the Ashcroft,Waters,Hutchinson,
triangle of radical rightwing demagogery...........the next few years promise to be
fraught with eminent turmoil,,and strange events.......get ready.

On a brighter note,,,just think how fortunate we are to be a witness to
the extraordinary era in history,,,and how fortunate we are to own the
computers,that allow us to speak out,,,,it aint gonna last,so enjoy it
while you can......

All in all,,,I think things are better,,,than they are bad when you compare
our 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
Name:        Password:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comment:   [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]

Link URL:
Link Title:


Return to Main Menu


So everyone may enjoy this service and to keep it running, here are some guidelines: NO spamming, NO commercial advertising, NO flamming, NO illegal activity, and NO sexually explicit materials. Lastly, we reserve the right to remove any message for any reason!

This web page and related elements are for informative purposes only and thus the use of any of this information is at your risk! We do not own nor are responsible for visitor comments. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 and The Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, Article 10, news clippings on this site are made available without profit for research and educational purposes. Any trademarks, trade names, service marks, or service names used on this site are the property of their respective owners. Page updated on July 17, 2001 at 22:12:54