Sessions: Marijuana Is “Only Slightly Less Awful” Than Heroin

vostok

Well-Known Member

Jeff Sessions, the U.S. Attorney General, had some typically harsh words about marijuana today, at a time when legal pot supporters in Massachusetts and elsewhere are on high alert over how the new government will treat the drug.

In prepared remarks for a speech to law enforcement in Richmond today, he outlined his stance on marijuana use, which he has long opposed, saying that “dependency” on it is “only slightly less awful” than heroin.

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.

To that end, he continued, he said he supports a renewed drug awareness campaign on the “terrible truth about drugs”, like the ones rolled out decades ago.

In the ’80s and ’90s, we saw how campaigns stressing prevention brought down drug use and addiction. We can do this again. Educating people and telling them the terrible truth about drugs and addiction will result in better choices. We can reduce the use of drugs, save lives and turn back the surge in crime that inevitably follows in the wake of increased drug abuse.

His full remarks are available here.

This is, needless to say, an extreme take. It’s true that a portion of marijuana users develop a dependency on the drug, and researchers have found evidence of withdrawal symptoms among heavy users who stop. But the rate of addiction is much lower than it is for habitual abusers of alcohol or tobacco, and using marijuana is known to be much less dangerous than either of those legal vices.

Opioid overdoses killed nearly 2,000 people last year in Massachusetts alone. Addiction to painkillers and other opioid products can set in fast, it’s a perplexingly difficult addiction to beat, and use of heroin in the region has become even more dangerous amid the rise of a new, highly concentrated drug called fentanyl. You can’t overdose on marijuana.

Among other medical applications, marijuana can be used to treat chronic pain, as a substitute for addictive painkilling drugs, and areas with greater access to medical marijuana appear to have reduced levels of opioid abuse.
(http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2017/03/15/jeff-sessions-marijuana-slightly-less-awful-heroin/)
 

vostok

Well-Known Member
Part 2. Officers rue the return of US 'war on drugs'


Nearly half a century ago, Richard Nixon called for an "all-out offensive" on drug abuse.

It was the opening salvo in America's longest running war.

Successive presidents took up the call to arms.

Arrest rates soared and mandatory minimum sentences sent young men

- particularly black men - away for long stretches for low-level offences.

Then as violent crime rates fell under George W Bush and prisons became clogged, prosecutions eased.

The war on drugs fell out of fashion. Barack Obama called it "unproductive" and

sent memos guiding prosecutors away from pursuing low-level offenders.

Now a new administration looks set to turn back the clock.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions likes to reminisce about the aggressive law enforcement of the 80s and 90s and

recently labelled cannabis "only slightly less awful" than heroin.

"We will enforce our laws and put bad men behind bars," he said in a recent speech in Richmond, Virginia.

"We will fight the scourge of drug abuse."


"Good people don't smoke marijuana," said Jeff Sessions

Mr Sessions sent out his own memo last month to prosecutors, instructing them to use "every tool we have",

including targeting drug users, in a new crackdown on violent crime.

But many of those who fought and studied the first war on drugs say it was a proven failure.

"The people we put away were low-level drug users, not violent criminals," said Tim Longo,

who served with Baltimore police between 1981 and 2000.

"We were casting a wide net and catching a lot of people, but most of what we got were guppys and minnows.

The people responsible for the homicides, those were the sharks.

And you don't catch a shark with a net, you catch a shark with a spear."


Richard Nixon declared war on drug abuse in 1971

Between 1980 and 2015, the number of people in prison for drug offences increased more than 10-fold,

from 40,900 to 469,545, and the average sentence more than tripled, according to data compiled by the Sentencing Project.

The majority of them were low-level offenders with no criminal record.

The idea was to disrupt street gangs, Mr Longo said, but while the approach

"might have destabilised the market for a minute, it didn't have any long term, sustainable effect".

A 2013 study published in the British Medical Journal found that since 1990 US drug prices nationwide

had fallen while purity increased. And a 2012 study by the University of Florida found that the threat of severe punishment

was "generally weak and insignificant" at deterring drug crime or lowering addiction rates.

Dealing long sentences to low-level users and distributors also damaged community relations and made life tough for frontline police,

said Norm Stamper, who started as a beat cop in San Diego in 1966 and retired in 2000 as police chief of Seattle,

He recalled low-level drug users being "ripped out of their communities, away from their families,

to join the ranks of our mass incarceration problem".

"We were told to hit the streets and make arrests, anything that counted was good," said Mr Stamper,

who now works with Law Enforcement Action Partnership, a drug policy advocacy group.

"And we sent a lot of people from our community to San Quentin," he said. "We sent non-violent drug offenders away

for 20 years to life under mandatory minimum sentences. Millions of them."

Reports that Jeff Sessions intended to revive these policies made Stamper "heartsick", he said.

"We spent $1.5tr (£1.17tr) on this war and drugs are now more available, at higher potency,

than when Nixon stood up and made his proclamation.

"Now we have Jeff Sessions quoting Nancy Reagan, saying we've all gone soft.

It's all so retrograde it's frightening. We weren't going soft, we were just starting to get smart."

Mr Sessions served as a federal prosecutor in Mobile, Alabama in the 80s and early 90s and

credits the war on drugs with a steep decline in violent crime that began in 1991 and continued nearly unabated until 2013.

In 2014 the violent crime rate ticked up 3% - the largest one-year increase since 1991.

That increase was the result of a "retreat from the aggressive prosecution and incarceration of drug traffickers" the Department of Justice told the BBC.

"The Department has no intention of letting those trends continue to destroy communities," spokesman Ian Prior said.

Earlier this month, Mr Sessions appointed Steven Cook to a top justice department role.

A former policeman and prosecutor, Mr Cook is fiercely against the legalisation of marijuana and in favour of maintaining mandatory minimum sentences.

"The federal criminal justice system simply is not broken. In fact, it's working exactly as designed,"

said Mr Cook last year at an event organised by the Washington Post.


According to Leo Baletsky, a public health and drug policy expert from Northwestern University,

the drop in violent crime had "absolutely zero" to do with the war on drugs.

States which declined to lock up thousands of low level drug criminals saw a similar decline, he said.

And a recent study by the Brennan Center, a criminal justice think tank,

contradicts the Department of Justice claim.

The study examined 14 major theories behind the fall in violent crime between 1991 and 2013, and found that mass incarceration had no effect.

Much more significant, according to the study, were an aging population, changes in income, and decreased alcohol consumption.

A return to the old war-on-drugs style, in the midst of a opiate addiction crisis which has swept the country,

would be "a public health disaster", said Mr Baletsky.

Aggressive law enforcement interventions against drug crime had been shown to create economic incentives

for more dangerous, more potent alternatives, Mr Baletsky said

. A string of recent overdoses have been linked to carfentanil, an opiate 10,000 times stronger than morphine.

"We are at an incredibly vulnerable moment right now," he said, "and the tactics they're talking about would just fuel the crisis."

(http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39623671)




 

Huckster79

Well-Known Member
Cannabis should be as legal as booze. Other drugs posession needs to be legal. Now im good with going after king pins and such of the meth type family. but possesion legal. The money saved from incarcerating users can be used to fund free rehab clinics for anyone looking to get off the hard addictive possibly life ending ones...
 

Huckster79

Well-Known Member
I agree.... that was one of my disapointments in him... im not afraid to critique my own... we all need to.

However as disapointed as i was/am Obama didnt that does not make sessions aggression toward the wildwood weed justified.
 

CriticalCheeze

Well-Known Member
How long until the states where it is legal just eventually say fuck you to the federal government over the issue, i mean once some states realize the money they are taking in for tax revenue and what not, let alone the people who can actually really use it for its medicinal value. I really do not know who is worse, Tronald Dump or Fuckhead sessions...
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
How long until the states where it is legal just eventually say fuck you to the federal government over the issue, i mean once some states realize the money they are taking in for tax revenue and what not, let alone the people who can actually really use it for its medicinal value. I really do not know who is worse, Tronald Dump or Fuckhead sessions...
Many states already have; 8 have legalized outright and another 22 have for medical use.
 

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
Obama had every opportunity to legalize marijuana.
No he didn't. Congress makes the laws, not the president. You should read the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, Congressional and Senate Republicans vowed to not cooperate with the Obama administration at all. So that channel was closed to him.

You shouldn't blame somebody for something beyond their power.
 

CriticalCheeze

Well-Known Member
Many states already have; 8 have legalized outright and another 22 have for medical use.
Oh yeah, I am aware of that, But i mean if sessions really wants to be more of lying discriminatory stereotyping piece of dog shit, What are the consequences if states don't follow through with Federal orders ? ( I'm just using my imagination on this one here because i don't see states going that far with it) Especially under numb nuts administration.

Do they get potentially cut off from certain federal grants/loans etc?
Yes, federal law > state law but....
What's it cost to do something like a 'full on crackdown' like the fucking 90s and 2000s
Millions again? Billions?

States may see the money they bring in and say' fuck your 50$ million grant or what be it, if they see 50-100-+ $ million in revenue

Will it just be like Canada was with State legalization but the feds shutting down Cannabis shops just for them to re-open in a week or 2?
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
No he didn't. Congress makes the laws, not the president. You should read the U.S. Constitution.

Moreover, Congressional and Senate Republicans vowed to not cooperate with the Obama administration at all. So that channel was closed to him.

You shouldn't blame somebody for something beyond their power.

lol
 
Top